No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2005.09.19 AVON BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame BURLINGAME Regular Meeting - Monday, September 19, 2005 CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD �6 J5 Page 1 of 3 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 CLOSED SESSION 6:45 p.m. Conf Room A 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 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES - Regular Meeting of September 6, 2005 Approve 5. PRESENTATION a. Government Finance Officers Association Award Presentation 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. a. Appeal of Planning Commission's determination regarding Hearing/Action the status of off-premise advertising at 1400 Burlingame Avenue 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. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve a. Adopt an Ordinance 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 b. Adopt an Ordinance to amend Broadway Commercial Area regulations to allow Real Estate uses on the first and second floor with performance criteria C. Adopt an Ordinance for proposed zoning for the Trousdale West District to implement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road specific plan BURLINGAMEBURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame Regular Meeting - Monday, September 19, 2005 CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD Page 2 of 3 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 d. Adopt an Ordinance 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) 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 f. Adopt Resolution approving the vesting tentative parcel map for a lot combination and map extension at 1783 El Camino Real, for the Mills Peninsula Hospital project g. Approval of out-of-state travel for Finance Director to attend 2005 ICMA Annual Conference in Minneapolis h. Resolution authorizing transfer of funds for FY 2004-05 budget i. Adopt application procedure for vacancies in office of City Council Member or City Clerk j. Warrants & Payroll k. Adopt Resolution awarding website redesign agreement to Vision Internet Providers, Inc. 9. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Consider adopting an Ordinance for the installation of stop Discuss/Introduce signs at Cortez Avenue, at Sherman Avenue b. Introduce an Ordinance amending Chapter 6.16 to clarify Introduce regulations regarding entertainment businesses C. Introduction of an Ordinance to change the zoning Introduce 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 d. Case for Shared Services in San Mateo County Discuss 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame BURLINGAME Regular Meeting - Monday, September 19, 2005 CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD Page 3 of 3 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 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 & Sustainable San Mateo County gratefully acknowledging the City's contribution to their organizations 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.burlineame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—Monday October 3,2005 CITY 0 � A BURUNGAME Y-1 o°- k BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of September 6, 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. CLOSED SESSION: CA Anderson advised that Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following: a. Threatened Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), (3)(C)) claim of GCI Nutrients b. Threatened Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), (3)(C)) - claim of Josephine Hughes C. Decision whether to initiate litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(c)) - two items 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Sarah Brumbaugh 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Galligan,Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. MINUTES Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to approve the minutes of the August 1, 2005 Council meeting; seconded by Councilmember O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. 5. PRESENTATION a. PROCLAMATION FOR BURLINGAME GIRLS' UNDER 14 SOFTBALL TEAM'S GOLD MEDAL AWARD Mayor Galligan presented proclamations to each member of the Burlingame Girls' Under 14 Softball Team. b. OVER THE COUNTER PERMITS PROCESS BY CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL Chief Building Official Joe Cyr gave a presentation outlining the percentage of over the counter permits issued by the City of Burlingame and other cities in the County. Burlingame City Council 1 September 6,2005 Unapproved Minutes 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1761 TO AMEND SECTION 6.54.030 TO PROVIDE A PROCESS TO FILL A VACANCY ON THE BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT BOARD BY APPOINTMENT BY CITY COUNCIL CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council adopt Ordinance No. 1761 amending Section 6.54.030 to provide a procedure for filling vacancies on the Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District Advisory Board. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Laurelle Gutierrez-Lundquist spoke on the behalf of the Advisory Board concerning the need for a full board and a process put in place for replacing board members who resign before the end of their term. There were no further comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1761 amending Section 6.54.030 to provide a procedure for filling vacancies on the Burlingame Avenue Business Improvement District Advisory Board; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved by voice vote 4-0. Mayor Galligan requested DCC Kearney publish a summary of the ordinance at least 15 days after adoption. b. INTRODUCE ORDINANCES FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA AREA AND ANZA POINT SOUTH ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing to consider proposed zoning for the Anza Area and Anza Point South Zoning Districts. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke against extended stay hotels in that area. There were no further comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. Mayor Galligan requested DCC Kearney read the title of the proposed Ordinance amending Title 25 to adopt the Anza Area District and make conforming changes to the Shoreline and Inner Bayshore Districts. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed Ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote 4-0. 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 DCC Kearney read the title of the proposed Ordinance amending Title 25 to adopt the Anza Point South District. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed Ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote 4-0. Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to introduce the proposed Ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote 4-0. Burlingame City Council 2 September 6,2005 Unapproved Minutes Mayor Galligan requested DCC Kearney to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. c. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW REAL ESTATE OFFICES AS A CONDITIONAL USE ON THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing to consider allowing Real Estate offices as a conditional use on the first and second floor in the Broadway Commercial Area. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Ross Bruce addressed the Council and requested a maximum of eight desks rather than five desks as it would mesh better with the square footage. Council approved his request and it would be indicated on the report when brought back for adoption. There were no further comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. Mayor Galligan requested DCC Kearney read the title of the proposed Ordinance amending Title 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. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed Ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote 4-0. 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 DCC Kearney to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. d. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE TROUSDALE WEST DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing to amend the zoning regulations to establish a new zoning district for the Trousdale West area which will replace the C3/R-4 regulations in the area bounded by Murchison to El Camino Real, excluding Plaza Shopping Center, West on Trousdale to Marco Polo (both sides to Clarice Way) and Ogden (east side only) to Murchison Avenue (city line). Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke about exploring the possibility of building an extended stay hotel in this area rather than in the Anza area. She also asked if the issue of an assisted living facility had been put aside and CP Monroe said no that it would be addressed at the Planning Commission meeting on September 12, 2005. Rudy Horak, 1332 Edgehill asked CP Monroe where the businesses in the A-3 area such as a printing plant, personal storage and auto repair shops would relocate. CP Monroe replied and indicated that was not the area that is being addressed in this zoning item but rather in the Rollins Road zoning area and the Planning Commission is still working on the zoning for that area. There were no further comments from the floor and the hearing was closed. Mayor Galligan requested DCC Kearney read the title of the proposed Ordinance amending Title 25 to Adopt a Trousdale West (TW) District and establish a standard condition for communications access to tall structures in the City. Burlingame City Council 3 September 6,2005 Unapproved Minutes Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed Ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote 4-0. 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 DCC Kearney to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa addressed the Council and presented a petition signed by residents in the 1400 block of Balboa requesting that the Planning Commission notify every household on the block at least two weeks in advance of a public meeting concerning any streetscape changes to their block. 8. STAFF REPORTS a. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO CONDITIONALLY REZONE PORTIONS OF THE PENINSULA MEDICAL CENTER SITE AT 1783 EL CAMINO REAL FROM C-1 AND C-3 TO UNCLASSIFIED CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and introduced an Ordinance which would conditionally rezone portions of the Peninsula Medical Center site at 1783 El Camino Real from C-1 and C-3 to unclassified. Mayor Galligan requested DCC Kearney read the title of the proposed Ordinance 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. Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed Ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, 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 DCC Kearney to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. b. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR VACANCIES IN OFFICE OF CITY COUNCIL MEMBER OR CITY CLERK CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council consider adoption of a procedure to be used if the City Council wishes to consider appointment to a vacancy in the office of City Council Member or City Clerk. After discussion and revisions by Council Members, the Council requested the Resolution be revised and returned to the City Council at the next meeting. Burlingame City Council 4 September 6,2005 Unapproved Minutes C. REPLACEMENT OF FIRE BOARD MEMBER FC Reilly reviewed the staff report and recommended that the Mayor/Council appoint a current member of the Council to fill the vacancy on the Central County Fire Board created by the resignation of Councilman Coffey. Mayor Galligan nominated Vice Mayor Baylock to fill the position. Councilwoman O'Mahony moved to close the nominations; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel, approved unanimously by voice vote 4- 0. d. OPEN APPLICATION PERIOD FOR SIX COMMISION SEATS EXPIRING OCT/NOV 2005 CM Nantell recommended that Council call for applications for the Beautification, Parks & Recreation and Traffic, Safety and Parking Commissions. Mayor Galligan appointed Councilwoman Nagel and Mayor Galligan conduct interviews for the Beautification Commission; Vice Mayor Baylock and Councilwoman Nagel conduct interviews for the Parks & Recreation Commission; Councilwoman O'Mahony and Mayor Galligan conduct interviews for the Traffic, Safety& Parking Commission. 9. CONSENT a. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 60-2005 AFFIRMING RISK MANAGEMENT AND SAFETY POLICY OF THE CITY AND APPROVING THE CITY'S INJURY & ILLNESS PREVENTION PROGRAM CA Anderson requested Council adopt Resolution No. 60 affirming the City's Risk Management and Safety Policy and approve the Injury and Illness Program. b. RESOLUTION NO. 61 AWARDING CHULA VISTA MISCELLANEOUS STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO CASEY CONSTRUCTION, INC. DPW Bagdon recommended the Council adopt Resolution No. 61 awarding a contract for the Chula Vista/Miscellaneous Storm Drain Improvements to Casey Construction, Inc. in the amount of$452.549. c. RESOLUTION NO. 62 APPROVING ADDITIONAL CHANGE ORDER AUTHORITY FOR 2004 CAPE SEAL PROJECT DPW Bagdon recommended the Council adopt Resolution No. 62 authorizing the City Manager to execute change orders on behalf of the City in a total amount of up to $40,000 for the Cape Seal Project. d. CLOSURE OF AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR DOLLARWISE/HOBBY UNLIMITED, 1205 BROADWAY CA Anderson recommended the Council close the amusement permit for Dollarwise/Hobby Unlimited at 1205 Broadway as establishment has closed. e. REFUSAL OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF AT&T RIGHT TO USE AREA ALONG CALTRAIN RIGHT-OF-WAY Authorize the City Attorney to file exclusion form for proposed Telecommunication Cable/Railroad Corridor Class Settlement with AT&T Fiber Optic Cable. Burlingame City Council 5 September 6,2005 Unapproved Minutes 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 Item continued until the meeting of September 19, 2005. g. APPROVE AMENDMENT TO AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR ROCKET'S,221 PARK ROAD FOR LIVE MUSIC APPROXIMATELY ONCE A WEEK CA Anderson requested Council approve amendment to the amusement permit for Rocket's for live music approximately once a week. h. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL FinDir Nava requested Council approve payment of Warrants #12775-13792 duly audited, in the amount of $5,614,258.31 (excluding Library checks 13390 - 13413), Payroll checks #162716-163204 in the amount of $3,472,554.30 for the month of July, 2005. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0. 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. 11. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 12. NEW BUSINESS Mayor Galligan set an appeal hearing for 1400 Burlingame Avenue for the September 19, 2005 City Council meeting. Councilwoman O'Mahony had a copy of a resolution in support of AB 438 authorizing that the names of sex offenders be posted on the internet which would benefit people living in apartments. Vice Mayor Baylock requested that the Council discuss ways that the City of Burlingame could show support for the victims of hurricane Katrina. 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety & Parking, July 14, 2005; Library, July 19, 2005; Beautification, August 4, 2005; Planning, August 8 and August 22, 2005; Parks& Recreation, August 18, 2005 b. Department Reports: Department Reports: Building, July, 2005; Finance, July, 2005; Police, July, 2005 Burlingame City Council 6 September 6,2005 Unapproved Minutes c. Letters from CORA, Parca, Mission Hospice, Youth& Family Enrichment Services, and Ombudsman Services acknowledging the City's contribution to their organizations d. Letter from Comcast concerning programming changes. e. Letter from Mr. C.C. Hutchinson expressing his appreciation to the Police and Fire Departments for their outstanding response to his call for assistance. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Mary Ellen Kearney Deputy City Clerk Burlingame City Council 7 September 6,2005 Unapproved Minutes , CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 6a { MTG. OTED DYNE4' DATE 09/19/05 °N TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: _SEPTEMBER 9, 2005 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DETERMINATION REGARDING STATUS OF OFF-PREMISE ADVERTISING AT 1400 BURLINGAME AVENUE RECOMMENDATION: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. The action is a determination whether the off- premise advertising is in violation of the sign ordinance which prohibits off-premise advertising. If the City Council overturns the Planning Commission's determination, reasons for the action should be clearly stated for the record, since the action will constitute City policy on this issue. Action Alternatives: ■ Support the Planning Commission's determination that the off-premise advertising is in violation of the sign ordinance which prohibits off-premise advertising. ■ Support the applicant's request that the off-premise advertising has been in existence since before the adoption of sign code regulations prohibiting off-premise advertising and is therefore nonconforming and can continue. CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301 (a)—consists of minor alterations to existing structures and facilities including such things as new copy on existing on and off-premise signs. Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on August 22, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 4-0-1-2 (C. Auran recused; Crs. Brownrigg and Vistica absent)to uphold the City Planner's determination that the present off-premise advertising is in violation of the sign ordinance which prohibits off-site advertising. In their action, the Commission noted: that they did not see anything in the lease that talks about "grandfathering", this is in fact a continuation of an illegal use, a private contract between two parties does not have bearing on City concerns regarding a code violation,but it is clear from the contract that the applicant has to comply with all laws; there is a sign ordinance for a reason, if this were allowed, we would see these everywhere in the downtown areas, it clearly states that it is not supposed to be advertising for other businesses; the bulletin board can be used for posters for community events, and for something sold in the store; when you look at the definition, it clearly states that it cannot be advertising for other than the occupant, although it appears that it has been going on for some time, have to look at the face of it, it is clear the ordinance is not being followed. BACKGROUND: Ashok and Anila Patel,business owners of the Burlingame Smoke Shop, are appealing the Planning Commission's determination regarding the off-premise sign located on the Primrose frontage of the building at 1400 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1, Subarea A. The request for a determination came about as the Appeal Of Planning Commission's Determination Regarding Status Of Off-Premise Advertising At 1400 Burlingame Avenue SEPTEMBER 19,2005 result of a code enforcement action regarding the off-premise advertising located in the display window on the Primrose Road frontage of the business. The signs in the display window now advertise a Psychic business located at 1410 Burlingame Avenue, and for Dirty Laundry clothing store at 337 Primrose Road. The appellants contend that there has been off-premise advertising displayed in this window since prior to the adoption of the regulation which prohibits off-premise signs within the City of Burlingame, making the sign a non-conforming use. The appellant's grounds for appeal are stated in the attached appeal document from Ashok and Anila Patel date stamped July 18, 2005. The applicant also states that the code enforcement action constitutes discrimination in enforcement. The business owner's requests for determination and staff responses to these requests are outlined in the attached Planning Commission staff report. History: The single-story building at 1400-1406 Burlingame Avenue was built in approximately 1926 and has been in retail use since that time. There is a display window on the Primrose Road side of the Burlingame Smoke Shop tenant space which is located at the corner at 1400 Burlingame Avenue. It is not known when the display window was installed. However, there was a fire in the building in 1985, and extensive reconstruction occurred at that time. On June 2, 2005, a complaint was filed regarding the off-premise advertising in the Smoke Shop display window. The Code Enforcement Officer verified the off-premise advertising and, on July 8, 2005, sent a Notice of Violation to the business owners,with a copy sent to the property owner(see attached). The first sign ordinance was adopted by the City Council on February 20, 1956 (see attached Ordinance No. 618). Section 1855 of that Ordinance outlines the types of signs and structures which are expressly prohibited and states "signs or structures carrying the advertising of a person,product or service other than that of the occupant of the land on which it is placed or the building to which it is attached except signs for the sale or rental of the property" (see copy of Ordinance attached). This ordinance was replaced by the current sign code, Chapter 22 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, adopted by the City Council on January 17, 1977. Regarding off-premise signs, the 1977 code states in Chapter 22.48, Prohibited Signs: "22.48.040 Off-premises advertising Signs or structures carrying the advertising of a person, product or service other than that of the occupant of the land on which it is placed or the building to which it is attached are prohibited; signs are permitted only to the actual occupant of the building or property upon which the sign is displayed during the period of his occupancy." ATTACHMENTS: Letter to Ashok and Anila Patel dated September 7, 2005 setting appeal hearing Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes, August 8, 2005 Code Enforcement Case Report for 1400 Burlingame Avenue dated August 8, 2005 Memorandum Letter Presentation from Ashok&Anila Patel date Stamped August 8, 2005 Notice of Appeal Hearing, mailed September 9, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report, August 8, 2005 with attachments -2- SURILINGAME The City of Burlingame CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650)558-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650)696-3790 September 7, 2005 Ashok&Anila Patel 1652 Coronado Way Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. &Mrs. Patel, At the City Council meeting of September 6,2005,the Council scheduled an appeal hearing regarding your request for determination for property located at 1400 Burlingame Avenue,zoned C-1,Subarea A. �-- A public hearing will be held on September 19, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame, CA. We look forward to seeing you there to represent your request. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, �-y rgaret Monroe City Planner c: City Clerk ::Register online for the City of Burlingame list serve at www.burlingame.org R City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2005 8. 1400 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — DETERMINATION REGARDING STATUS OF OFF-PREMISE ADVERTISING - PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Chair Auran noted that he would have to recuse himself from this item because he manages this property, and he left the chambers. Reference staff report August 8, 2005, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed the request for determination and history of the site. Commissioners noted that earlier use of the display window was as a public bulletin board and not advertising, regardless of when the display window was built, the original use was not for off-site advertising. Vice-Chair Deal opened the public hearing. Ashook Patel, 1400 Burlingame Avenue, business owner, noted that he and his wife are the lessee/owner of the Burlingame Smoke Shop premises, the request for determination comes in response to the notice of violation sent on July 8, 2005 regarding a code violation regarding off-site advertising, noted he is unfamiliar with the ordinance, understood it was adopted in 1977, was not aware of the previous ordinance regarding signs adopted in 1956; noted that he entered into a ten- year lease with Peter Umland in February 2001 , that lease agreement allowed reasonable rental and all rights to the bulletin board, it was his understanding that Mr. Umland had advertising in the bulletin board since 19765 it is clear in the lease that have right to use the bulletin board, if it is in violation, should have been cited before; consider this to be haphazard enforcement, will cause me financial distress, may not be able to continue operation of business. Commissioners asked the applicant when the business was purchased and you started using the bulletin board, what was in it. The applicant noted that there was an advertisement for Michael Horowitz, real estate agent. Commissioners noted that the lease states the right to use the bulletin board, but also states that cannot use for things contrary to zoning regulations. Scott Morris and Francis Morris, 1608 Ralston Avenue, noted that they had resided here for 20 years, the Smoke Shop is part of the charm of Burlingame, would hate to see it close because of a lack of income; remember seeing advertising here years and years before Mr. Patel took over, it is a struggle to keep small businesses alive, lucky that this site is not devoured by a corporate store, owner is an asset to the community, pleasant to customers, part of the ethnic diversity of the community. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: Regarding the complaint of discrimination, staff has provided a list of violations, have only reacted when someone brings a complaint, don't see anything in lease that talks about grandfathering, it is in fact a continuation of an illegal use, a private contract between two parties does not have bearing on City concerns regarding the code violation, but it is clear from the contract that the applicant has to comply with all laws; there is a sign ordinance for a reason, if allowed would see these everywhere in the downtown areas, it clearly states that it is not supposed to be advertising for other businesses; the bulletin board can be used for posters for community events, and for something sold in the store; when you look at the definition, it clearly states that there cannot be advertising for other than the occupant, although it appears has been going on for some time, have to look at the face of it, it is clear the ordinance is not being followed. C. Keighran moved to uphold the City Planner's determination regarding the status of the off- premise advertising. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Vice Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to uphold the City Planner's determination. The motion passed on a 4-0-1 -2 (C. Auran recused; Crs. Brownrigg and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:53 p.m. 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2005 CA Anderson noted that the applicant sells a wide variety of goods that can be advertised in this space,such as the Wall Street Journal, and could meet with the Planning Department to discuss opportunities. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 416 BALBOA AVENU ZONED R-1—APPLIC ION FOR DESIGN VIEW,SPECIAL PERMIT F BUILDING HEIGHT DECLINING HEI T ENVELOPE FOR NEW, TWO-STORY SING FAMILY DWELLIN DETACHED GARAGE(CATHERINE AND SON,APPLICANT AND IGNER; CLEMENT EVA HUNG, PROPER OWNERS) (67 NO CED) PROJECT PLANNER: ATHERINE BARBE Plr Hurin briefly esented the project desc ' tion. There were no que 'ons of staff. Chair Auran opened th ublic comment. Cathe ' e Anderson, designer, 6 Loma Verde Avenue, to Alto, was available to ans r questions. Commissi ers noted that the propos design is charming an h ding in the right direction, ' e the half-timbered loo • special permits for buildi height and declining hei envelope are acceptable ecause this is a slopin of and it allows the des' to be enhanced. Comma ioners made the following omments: • Half-tiro on sides of house is too ch, building looks a bi overdone, reduce the amo t of half- timber boar along the sides of the hou • Have trouble fo owing the plans, floor plan building elevations an oof plan do not agree with ch other,building ele tions do not portray what i hown on the floor plan elements seem to be missin on the plans, it appe s that what is drawn cann be built; go through a of the plans so that they oordinate with eachoth ; • 'fy plate heights (finish d floor to top of plate) on st and second floors,p vide dimensions on buil ' g elevations; and • There a ears to be errors and om' sions on the landscape pl lease carefully review dscape plan and clarify, utomatic irrigation sho d be incorporated. Commission noted t t this project is headed 1 the right direction,but fee is project is a good can idate for a design review con ltant to help with the in nsistencies and specifics o he project. There were no other comments from the or and the public hearin was closed. C.D 1 made a motion to send th' roject to a design revie er with the comments ma This motion was seconde by C. Keighran. Chair Auran c led for a vote on the moti to refer this item to a ign review consultant wit irection and comment pro 'ded. The motion passed a voice vote 5-0-2 ( s. Brownrigg and Vistica a sent). The Planning Comm' sion's action is advisory d not appealable. This i in concluded at 9:05 p.m. -1 9 RECEIVED Honorable N►ayor and City Council: AUG 18 2005 Please schedule an appeal- hearing for 1400 Burlingame Avenue to be heard at .the-September 19, 2005 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE RECEIVED CITY OF BURLINGAME Council meeting. Ashok Patel and Anila Patel AUG 1 9 2005 City Clerk ' The Burlingame Smoke Shop 2 1400 Burlingame Avenue CITY OF BURLINGAME - Burlingame, CA 94010 PLANNING DEPT. 3 Contestants 4 5 IN RE THE MATTER OF NOTICE OF APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OF 6 VIOLATION AND OF ENFORCEMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 22.48.040 TO CITY ORD.NO. 22.48.040 ) OF BURLINGAME PLANNING 7 ) COMMISSION 8 ) C,,�, '�j� , c 9 Contestants,Ashok Patel and Anila Patel,Lessees/Owners of The Burlingame Smoke Shop located 10 at 1400 El Burlingame Avenue,City ofBurlingame,California(sometimes hereafter"the Subject Premises") I 1 hereby respectfull appeal the ayplication of Zoning Regulation 22.40.040(Off-Premises Advertising; to 12 the '-- _ _ of the City of Burlingame: 11 T. NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATION llv� 1. On July 8,2005,the City of Burlingame/Code Enforcement Department issued a Notice of 15 Violation and of Enforcement against the Contestants and The Burlingame Smoke Shop that the advertising 16 signs located on the Primrose Avenue side of the Subject Premises at the address of 1400 Burlingame 17 Avenue within a"bulletin board"were""Off-Premises" advertising. The posted signs which are for"The 18 Psychic"whose business is located at 1410 Burlingame Avenue and the "Dirty Laundry" whose business 19 is located at 337 Primrose Road are considered "Off-Premises" signs and are claimed prohibited by the 20 referenced Ordinance of the City of Burlingame. A copy of this Notice of Violation and of Enforcement 21 dated July 8,2005, is attached hereto,marked Exhibit A and incorporated hereat by this reference. 22 II. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL 23 2. Contestants allege that the Notice of Code Violation and of Enforcement is improper and is 24 in violation of the contractual and constitutional rights of the Contestants for the following reasons: 25 (1) The Notice of Code Violation and of Enforcement constitutes discrimination in 26 enforcement. �- (2) The "Off-Premises" advertising was a non-conforming use at the time of the enactment of the referenced Ordinance on or about January 7, 1977 and remains a CU 191301;Appeal of Enforcement... I e 1 non-conforming use. 2 (3) The City of Burlingame/Code Enforcement Department are estopped to enforce the 3 referenced Ordinance. 4 (4) The Doctrine Of Laches and/or Statute of Limitations preclude enforcement by the 5 City of Burlingame/Code Enforcement Department of the referenced Ordinance. 6 III. ESTABLISHMENT OF CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS 7 3. On or about February 14, 2001, Contestants entered into a lease contract entitled 8 "Commercial Lease and Deposit Receipt" for a period of ten(10)years commencing on March 1,2001 to 9 and including February 28,2011 at a total rental of$603,702.00;and moreover,required Contestants to pay 10 a "Non-Refundable Fee/Key Fee, and not as rent, in the amount of$75,000.00". The Landlord/Owner of 11 the premises commonly known as 1400 Burlingame Avenue was Peter Umland who executed the 12 Commercial Lease and Deposit Receipt with the Contestants on the referenced date. Peter Umland has 13 subsequently died and the Successor In Interest is now Gretchen U.Kingsbury, Conservator for Dolores 14 Umland as Successor In Interest to Peter Umland. A copy of the Commercial Lease and Deposit Receipt 15 is attached hereto, marked Exhibit B and incorporated hereat by this reference. 16 4. During the negotiations for the terms of the referenced lease between Contestants and Peter 17 Umland it was discussed most extensively that in addition to the allowance to sell the typical products; 18 newspapers,magazines,and all tobacco products except other than machine made cigars,was the use of the 19 "bulletin board"which produced rent and at the time ofthe referenced lease execution had an advertisement; 20 that of Michael Horowitz of Prudential Reality'. There was no disclosure in any form whatsoever by Peter 21 Umland that any advertising which produce rentals on the"bulletin board"had been subject to M notice 22 by the City of Burlingame of it being in violation of any ordinance including the"Off-Premises"advertising. 23 Contestants relied on the absence of any knowledge of the "bulletin board" being in possible violation of 24 any ordinance of the City of Burlingame at the time the referenced lease was executed,which advertising 25 then in existence constituting literally under the referenced Code a violation of the "Off-Premises" 26 advertising ordinance; moreover, there was no advice to the contrary by Peter Umland or the Code 'See Para. 38f of Exhibit B. CU 191301;Appeal of Enforcement_.. 2 RECEIVED > Enforcement Department of the City of Burlingame. 2 5. Notwithstanding that Contestants had continuously for all times following February 14,2001 3 had advertisements in the"bulletin board"for products or services other than of the Contestants,there have 4 been no citations of any nature,orally or in writing,until June 13,2005 concerning the alleged prohibition 5 that there can be no such advertising signs in the "bulletin board" for other products or services. 6 6. Peter Umland and the Contestants fully acknowledged and agreed with each other that the 7 rentals which were being charged by Peter Umland and as set forth in the referenced Commercial Lease and 8 Deposit Receipt would be "difficult" to be paid from the net revenues for the sale of tobacco products, 9 newspapers and magazines and the revenues from the Lotto machine;without the rentals being received for 10 the Off-Premise advertising in the"bulletin board". Contestants have reviewed their financial matters during 11 the operation following February 14,2001 and declare that without the revenues being produced by the Off- 12 Premise advertising now to"The Psychic"and"Dirty Laundry"in the approximate amount of$1,200.00 per Z month, they will be unable and incapable of obtaining sufficient revenues to pay the appreciable lease 14 charges. Moreover, it is to be noted that the Contestants paid in cash towards the $75,000.00 obligation 15 above referenced which was founded, in part, by the revenues to be produced by the "Off-Premises" 16 advertising the approximate sum of$30,000.00 and have suffered an adverse judgment for the remaining 17 amount owing in the approximate amount of$70,000.00 including a sum for the purchase of certain personal 18 property. 19 IV. DISCUSSION OF CONTENTIONS 20 (1) Discrimination in Enforcement:Most respectfully submitted,Contestants believe based on 21 statistical facts below stated that the simple uncontroverted fact is that Peter Umland who operated The 22 Burlingame Smoke Shop fornumerous years commencing sometime prior to January 1,1977 and until some 23 date uncertain in 1999,albeit he continued to own the Subject Property until his death was seemingly never 24 cited for the advertisements that he provided in the "bulletin board". Contestants are informed and believe 25 and upon such information and belief allege that sometime in 1999,particular date unknown,PeteT Umland ? leased The Burlingame Smoke Shop to Michael O'Leary but continued to collect the rent for this lease period pertinent to the"bulletin board". Michael O'Leary terminated his leasehold arrangement with Peter Umland sometime preceding February of 2001 and then the Contestants were granted the leasehold interest CLJ 141301;Appeal of Enforcement... 3 f _ I under the referenced lease. As referenced above,Peter Umland at no time disclosed to Contestants that he 2 was aware of any prohibition forthe advertising in the"bulletin board"whether such advertising be for"Off- 3 Premises" advertising or for the services and products of The Burlingame Smoke Shop. Contestants are 4 informed and believe and upon such information and belief allege that even though Peter Umland employed 5 the"bulletin board"for a certain period for"public announcements"he for not less than on or about January 6 1,1977 allowed for"Off-Premises"advertising which would be prohibited under the referenced Ordinance. 7 However,at no time to the knowledge of Contestants had Peter Umland received any advice from the Code 8 Enforcement Department of the City of Burlingame that such advertising was prohibited. It thus appears 9 to the Contestants that there is simply an unequal or unfair enforcement of this referenced zoning regulation 10 as it pertains to the Subject Premises for the inactivity or unreasonable delay to bring any notice ofpossible 11 violation. 12 (2) Estoppel: Contestants respectfully submit that by reason that they reasonably relied when 13 executing the Commercial Lease and Deposit Receipt that they would be entitled to revenues for the"Off- 14 Premise"advertising and there having been then no issuance of any citation for anyprevious violations of 15 the referenced Ordinance by the City of Burlingame have available as a defense to the enforcement the 16 Principle of Equitable Estoppel which may be applied against a governmental entity where justice and 17 fairness require the same. There can be no prejudice to the citizenry of the City of Burlingame for it being 18 estopped to preclude the"Off-Premises"advertising which has now been ongoing possibly for not less than 19 all times following January 1, 1977 and is not in derogation of any public policy adopted for the benefit of 20 the public. As referenced above, Contestants will suffer irreparable financial damage by the belated and 21 discriminatory enforcement of the referenced ordinance.. 22 (3) Non-Conforming Use: Contestants have no information or belief of the exact period under 23 which Peter Umland commenced the advertising in the "bulletin board" but are informed and believe and 24 upon such information and belief allege that for all times following at a date prior to January 1, 1977,there 25 was advertising in the "bulletin board" for during such period Peter Umland owned the Subject Premises 26 and operated The Burlingame Smoke Shop. The Code Enforcement Officer has most respectfully negotiated with the Contestants to resolve the dispute and has advised the Contestants that the records seemingly indicate that Peter Umland secured a permit for the construction of the"bulletin board" at or about the time C1.1.191301;Appeal of Enforcement.-. 4 • 1. I the ordinance was passed. Thus,there maybe admittedly not a non-conforming use for the advertising may 2 not have been in place at the time the ordinance was enacted;however, if this is true,there seemingly is an 3 anomaly . If the permit was granted for the "bulletin board"prior to the enactment of the ordinance,there 4 is clearly a non-conforming use and to the contrary, if the permit for the "bulletin board" was subsequent 5 to the enactment of the referenced ordinance,then there should have been no permit granted and again the 6 City of Burlingame would be estopped for it granted the permit to allow for the belated non-conforming use. 7 (4) Statute ofLimitations/Doctrine ofLaches:As a general observation,a good zoning ordinance 8 becomes little more than a"hollow shell"ifit is not enforced with wisdom and vigor and strict and impartial 9 enforcement of zoning ordinances is absolutely necessary to preserve and protect the zoning program and 10 the interest of the citizenry. With no criticism intended,it is respectfully submitted by the Contestants that 11 the inactivity ofthe Code Enforcement Officials who were charged with zoning enforcement clearly mislead 12 Peter Umland and the Contestants by no known enforcement of the referenced ordinances preceding July 3 8, 2005. The file maintained by the Code Enforcement Officer of the City of Burlingame clearly reflects 'T4 knowledge of minor code violation of the Contestants possibly in the year 2001 and clearly in the year 2002 15 and thereafter for stating numerous violations including encroachment by the Contestants of having their 16 newspaper racks improperly placed on the sidewalk in front ofthe business premises,all of which violations 17 have been corrected. But clearly,the Code Enforcement Department fully knew for all times since February 18 14,2001 following Contestants'occupancy of the Subject Premises of the alleged illegal advertising taking 19 place on the Primrose side of the Subject Premises which had been previously installed by Peter Umland. 20 There is thus clearly inexcusable delay in asserting a violation now which substantially prejudices the 21 Contestants who in good faith relied upon the lack of any enforcement;in other words,no knowledge that 22 the"bulletin board"which was to produce revenue to the Contestants was an illegal activity. The inaction 23 of the Code Enforcement Department of the City of Burlingame clearly should not now be allowed to act 24 in derogation of the contractual rights set forth in the Commercial Lease and Deposit Receipt of the 25 Contestants which will thus cause irreparable harm and damages and in derogation of the Principle set forth ')6 at the beginning of Section(4) above. �— V. RELIEF REQUESTED 7. Contestants respectfully request that the"Off-Premises"advertising now in existence be for CU191301;Appeal of Enforcement._. 5 I all times hereafter allowed for the period of the lease be deemed a non-conforming use and/or the Code 2 Enforcement Department of the City of Burlingame is simply precluded from enforcing the referenced 3 ordinance during the tenure of the Contestants at the Subject Premises by reason of its now prejudicial and 4 discriminatory enforcement and/or by reason of its prior inactivity or inexcusable delay to enforce the 5 referenced Ordinance. 6 Dated: July 18, 2005 7 8 ASHOK PATEL, Contestant 9 10 l �1a 11 ANILA PATEL, Contestant 12 13 VERIFICATION 14 Declarant herein,Ashok Patel and Anila Patel,hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 15 State of California that they have read the foregoing APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 16 22.48.040 TO CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION and the statements therein are true 17 and correct under penalty of perjury except such statements which are stated on information and belief as 18 to those statements, declarants believe them to be true. This Declaration is executed on July 18, 2005 at 19 Burlingame, California. 20 21 22 ASHOK PATEL, Contestant 23 24 ANILA PATEL, Contestant 25 26 CU 191301;Appeal of Enforcement- 6 EXHIBIT A THE CITY OF BURLINGAME CONSTRUCTION PERMIT # 500416 EXPIRATION DATE : 5/26/2005 PARCEL NUMBER : 29- 122 - 190 APPLICATION DATE : 2/24/05 Application Recvd By: MARY MINDERMAN Permit Issue Date : 2/24/05 Permit Issued By: MARY MINDERMAN JOB ADDRESS 1400 BURLINGAME AVENUE PROPERTY OWNER ARCHITECT/DESIGNER UMLAND PETER S & DOLORES T TRS 904 PENINSULA AVE #406 SAN MATEO, CA 94401 ENGINEER CONTRACTOR CALK # TENANT 00000 TENANT BusLic# PATEL, ASHOK WCExpDate Lic Class : ❑ OWNER-BUILDER'S DECLARATION: I hereby affirm that I am exempt from the California Contractor's License Law for the following reason: (Owner to Initial the appropriate one of the three items below, and sign.) * Please note the Workers Compensation Insurance responsibilities. (Business&Professions Cade §7031.5:Any city or county which requires a permit to construct, alter, improve, demolish, or repair any structure,prior to its issuance also requires the applicant for such permit to file a signed statement that he/she is licensed pursuant to the provisions of the state Contractor's License law, Chapter 9, commencing with §7000 of Division 3 of the Business & Profusions mak, or that he/she is exemo therefrem, and the basis for the alleged exemption. Any violation of§703L5 by any applicmu for aperitif subjects this applicant to a civil penalty of not more than Jive hundred doilars ($500)). as OWNER of the property (or my employees, with wages as thew sole compensation) will do the work, and the strtxture is not ded oro eyed for sale. * Owner to provide Workers Compensation Insurance. /easiness & Professions code §7044: me Contractor's uaense law dors nor apply to an r'^'NER of property who builds or improves thereon• and who does such work him/herseljor through his/her own employres, provided that the structure with such improvemenu is not intended or offered for sok. aver, the building or improvement is sold within one year of comyletion, the OWNER-BUILDER wiU have the burden of proving that he/she did no[bd/d or improve jar the purpose of sale.) I, as OWNER of the property, am exclusively contracting with licensed Contractors to construct the project; Each such contractor must obtain a City Business License. * Owner is responsible to verify that Contractors have proper Workers Compensation Insurance. /Business & Professions code §7044: The Contractor's License law does not apply to an OWNER of property who builds or improves thereon, and who contracts for such work with Contractor(s)licensed pursuant to the Contractor's License Law.J ■ I am exempt under Business & Professions Code/§ ir \ for th lowin reason: - ■ Signature: ] LICENSED CONTRACTOR'S DECLARATION: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury that I am licensed under provisions of Chapter 9 [§7000, etc] of Division 3 of the Business & Professions Code, and that my license is in full force and effect. (Enter the following) ■ Contractor Name: 'License# Class: Exp Date -- :1 WORKERS COMPENSATION DECLARATION: I hereby affirm under penalty of perjury the following declaration: ■ I�tfy that in the performance of the work for which this permit is issued, I shall not employ any person in any manner so as to become subject to workers compensation laws of California, and agree that if I should subsequently become subject to the workers compensation provisions of Labor Code §3700, I shall forthwith (immediately) comply with these provisions. * Failure to comply revokes this permit. ■ I have and will maintain Workers Compensation Insurance as required by Labor Code §3700 for the work for which this permit is issued: WC Insurance Carrier: Policy N Exp Date: ■ I have and will maintain a Certificate of Consent to Self-Insure for Workers Compensation as provided for by labor Code §3700 for the work for which this permit is issued. * A copy of my Self-insurance Certificate is provided herewith. WARNING: Failure to secure and maintain Workers Compensation coverage where required u awful and shall-subject the employer to Criminal Penalties and Civi/Fines up to S100,000, in addition to the cost of compensationyda age per abo786, interest,-end attorney's fees. �- rt ■ Signature Date: ❑ Co-n�s.�tructi Lending Agency: Name: Address: 0 None ❑ 'MERSTAND that all work to be performed under this permit shall be completed within the time limit set forth above (Expiration Date). This permit becomes null and void at the end of the Expiration Date unless all work has been completed and Final Inspection approval has been given and recorded by the City on the project Inspection Record card; unless an extension of time has been specifically applied for by the permittee, in writing, prior to the permit Expiration Date, and approved by the 0tv Building Official. An expired permit shall be-replaced with a new permit prior to continuation of work. The new permit will require compliance with applicable cc d laws, and payment of applicable fees, in effect at the time of the new permit application. ❑ I CERTIFY that I have read this application and state that the information given is complete and correct; I agree to comply with all local ordinances and state laws relating to building construction; and I make this statement and agreement under penalty of law. I understand that all wor .performed under this permit must be inspected by the City, and the results of the inspections recorded on the project Inspection Record card, prior to the work being c vere/ or Baled. I hereby authorize representatives of the City to enter upon the subject property for inspection purpose . R ests for inspections shall be made fore F�Myd or o business ys prior to gegd. r .0- ] Contractor z [ ] Contractor [ ] Agent for Contractor [ ] Owner - j Agent for Owner Signature: Date: BRPERMIT 92 CITY OF BURLINGAME 1400 BURLINGAME AVENUE ## PERMIT 500 , Type of Permit: 908 Partial Demolition - as part of an overall project ONS Description of Work: PARATIAL DEMO Type of Construction: III 1HR Type III One Hour Occu ancy Group: B2 Use one: C1-A Flood Zone: N New: No. Bedrooms Added: Add: No. of Stories: 1 Alter: X No. of Units: Repairs• Valuation: $500 Demolish: Historic: N Total New Sq.Ft. : 0 Unreinforced Masonry: Schl Tax New Sq.Ft . : 0 Hillside Prmt Area: N Lot Size-Sq.ft: Bay front Devlopmnt Area: N Handicap Access Required: Prop Line Survey Date: ** F E E S U M M A R Y ** ITEM NAME CODE AMOUNT ITEM NAME CODE AMOUNT Building Permit 85 31.20 Elem School Tax 77 Electrical Permit 85 Energy PC Fee 74 Plumbing Permit 85 Access PC Fee 74 Mechanical Permit 85 Seismic Fee 75 .50 — Plan Check Fee 74 20.28 Sewer Connect 97 . 00 Zonin PC/Sign Fee 84 Arborist PC Fee 59 . 00 Eng Pan Check Fee 91 Miscellaneous .00 Microfilm/Copy Fee 65 5. 00 Miscellaneous 2 .00 Bay Front Dev Fee 93 Meter Fee 80 Deposit Trust Amt 96 . 00 Recycle Dep 66 High School Tax 78 ** GRAND TOTAL: $56.98 AMOUNT PAID: AMOUNT DUE: $56.98 URPAGE2 OFFICE/-FIR'/ ]OB COPY TYPE: 908 DESCRIPTION:PARATIAL DEMO 1TY o Building Department • Call for inspections 24-48 hours 501 Primrose Road in advance of need.Telephones 9URLJNGAME are open Monday-Friday 8-5. Bme CA 94010 • All construction to be inspected ' u,�qw��K•'000 `. (650) 558-7260 prior to being covered. Subcontractor List required. BUILDING INSPECTION RECORD lJOB COPY of this record must be with approved plans on job site for inspections] EN Setbacks Trenches/Forms 7Steel Slab Forms&Steel Drilled Piers/Caissons 77 Anchor Bolts/Hold Downs Ufer Ground Electrical Conduit Water Ing Sewer 177 7 Gas Framing Electrical Plumbing Heat Ducts Insulation Temporary Power Conduit Wiring 777 DWV ITest Water Gas Rev.1W bb • Inspection record continues on reverse side • >>> NOTE:All Inspection items shown may not be applicable on every project <<< PLAN BIN If ADDRESS# 1400 Structural Steel Frame Light Gauge Steel Frame Wood Frame ' Ducts Roof Tear Off Roof Deck Nailing Shear/Nailing T-Bar Wall Ceiling Piping Ducts Fire Proofing Shower Pan Dry Wall _a� Lath:Interior Lath:Exterior Siding Roof Covering Gas Test Smoke Detectors Illuminated Address Electrical Release (tag) Gas Release (tag) Fire Dept.Final CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY When signed off above for BUILDING FINAL" by an authorized City 3uilding Inspector this form becomes the Certificate of Occupancy_ No building or structure shall be used or occupied, and to change in the existing occupancy classification of a building or structure or portion thereof shall be made,until the Building Micial has issued a Certificate of Occupancy. Issuance shall not be construed as approval of violation of the provisions of he building code or of other ordinances of the City of Burlingame or laws of the State of California. r � /0]7� Z } ( Fv.� aE' r l 14'c':I J oil > x: ij Of!` rll r B� rfaaMe r ...t�v Fin,' � l , RECEIVED i I FEB 2 4 2005 BUILDING DEPT. 3tlY15, P(-*,.'RT1 .TGN )eq,&LL, F Rci to 1 CITY 0� City of Burlingame euRUcaME Office of the City Attorney t w � • • w � Code Enforcement Bureau ATW JVNE 6'% 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010 (650) 558-7208, Fax: (650) 342-8386 �N Ashok and Anila Patel July 8, 2005 Burlingame Smoke Shop 1400 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 NOTICE OF VIOLATION SUBJECT: BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATION AT 1400 BURLIN6AXM' F '"AVE Dear Ashok and Anila Patel: On June 13, 2005 this office notified you that the advertising sign for the Psychic located at 1410 Burlingame Ave. is considered an off-premises sign and prohibited by City Code and must be removed by June 17, 2005. Since the sign for psychic services at 1420 Burlingame Ave. has not been removed and a second advertising sign for Dirty Laundry located at 337 Primrose Road has been added to the window area along Primrose Road this letter is being sent to formally notify you that you are in violation of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 22.48.040 — Off-premises advertising prohibited. Signs are permitted only to the actual occupant of the building or property upon which the sign is displayed during the period of the business' occupancy. The City takes these violations seriously and intends to monitor the situation carefully. The City will move forward with enforcement action in the event the signs are not removed by Thursday July 19, 2005. This letter concludes the City's warning letter process. A copy of this letter is being sent to the businesses that are being advertised on the prohibited signs. You have the right to appeal the determinations made regarding the application of zoning regulations as they relate to the use of the property contained in this letter by filing a written appeal to the Planning Commission, together with the required appeal fees. This written appeal must be filed with the Planning Department located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA no later than ten ( 10) days from the date of this letter. Failure to file this appeal may result in your being barred from contesting these determinations in subsequent administrative or judicial proceedings. If you have any questions or wish to discuss the matter I can be reached at (650) 558-7208. Sin . erely, Susan A. Hams �.. Code Enforcement Officer cc: City Attorney Property Owner Dirty Laundry Cathy Adams COMMERCIAL LEASE AND DEPOSIT RECEIPT AGENCY RELATIONSHIP CONFIRMATION. The following agency relationship is hereby confirmed for this transaction and supersedes any prior agency election (If no agency relationship, insert "NONE-): LISTING AGENT: Tim All., Js the agent of (check one): (Print Firm Name) ❑ the Lessor exclusively; or N both the Lessee and the Lessor. LEASING AGENT: (if not the same as the Listing Agent) is the agent of (check one)_ - (Print Firm Nam*) ❑ the Lessee exclusively; or ❑ the Lessor exclusively; or ❑ both the Lessee and the Lessor. Note: This confirmation DOES NOT take the place of the AGENCY DISCLOSURE form which may be required bylaw. RECEIVED FROM Ashok & Anila Patel ---------� hereinafter referred to as LESSEE, the sum of $ 1000 . ( One Thousand ------------ dollars) evidenced by Personal Chec% as a deposit which will belong to Lessor and will be applied as follows: BALANCE DUE PRIOR TOTAL RECEYED TO OCCUPANCY Rent for the period from to . . . . . . . $ - S S Security deposit (not applicable toward last month's rent) . . . S S S Other - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 75 , 000 . S 1000 , S 74 - 000 + TOTAL - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - $ 75 , 000 , S 1000 . S 74 000 i In the event this, Lease is not accepted by the Lessor within 2 days, the total deposit received will be refunded. Lessee offers to lease from Lessor the premises situated in the City of 'n �r> ; nga_ , County of San Mateo , State of Califorzu� described as 1400 Burlingame Avenue a regi l store consisting of approximately 530 square feet, upon the following terms and conditions: 1. TERM. The term will commence on (date) Marcam 2001 and end on (date) Pebraa-v .28 2QI2— . 2. RENT. The total rent will be S 603 702 . payable at S 4000 .4 per month (based on first year's rales) payable on e 1st day of each month. All rents will be paid to Lessor or his or her authorized acent, at the following addressym1aad— P3�r�rtie�, P OBox644 Bu—i inaam� CA , or at such other places as may be designated by Lessor from time to time. Tn the event rent is not received by Lessor within —5 days after due date, Lessee agrees to pay a late charge of S 519 plus interest at 12 % per annum on the delinquent amount. Lessee further agrees to pay 3 25 for each dishonored bank check. The fate charge period is not a grace period, and Lessor is entitled to make written demand for any rent if not paid when due. 3. USE. The premises are to be used for the operation of Bur11r)q_UW smo to Shoo reta; tobacco lottosa_&y 1iquor , newspapPrs , magaaines etc and for no other purpose, without prior written consent of Lessor- Lessee will not commit any waste upon the premises, or any nuisance or act which may disturb the quiet enjoyment of any tenant in the building. 4. USES PROHIBITED. Lessee will not use any portion of the premises for purposes other than those specified. No use will be made or permitted to be made upon the premises, nor acts done, which will increase the existing rate of insurance upon the property, or cause cancellation of insurance policies covering the property. Lessee will not conduct or permit any sale by auction on the premises. 5. ASSIGNMENT. AND SUBLETTING. Lessee will not assign this Lease or sublet any portion of the premises without prior written consent of the Lessor, which will not be unreasonably withheld- Any such assignment or subletting without consent will be void and, at the option of the Lessor, will terminate this Lease. 6. ORDINANCES AND STATUTES. Lessee will comply with all statutes, ordinances, and requirements of all municipal, state and federal au- thorities now in force, or which may later be in force, regarding the use of the premises. The commencement or pendency of any state or federal court abatement proceeding affecting the use of the premises will, at the option of the Lessor, be deemed a breach of this Leese. 7. MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS, ALTERATIONS. Unless otherwise indicated, Lessee acknowledges that the premises are in good order and repair . Lessee will, at his or her own expense, maintain the premises in a good and safe condition, including plate glass, electrical wiring, plumbing and heating and air conditioning installations, and any other system or equipment. The premises will be surrendered, at termi- nation of the Lease, in as good condition as received, normal wear and tear excepted- Lessee will be responsible for all repairs required during the term of the lease, except the following which will be maintained by Lessor: roof, exterior walis, structur.al foundations (intruding any retrofitting required by governmental authorities) and the following: Lessee X will, ❑ will not maintain the property adjacent to the premises, such as sidewalks, driveways, lawns, and shrubbery, which would otherwise be maintained by Lessor - No improvement or alteration of the premises will be made without the prior written consent of the Lessor. Prior to the comrnence- -ent of any subst to repair, improvement , or alteration. Lessee will give Lessor at least two (2) days written notice in order that ;ssOr may st r riate notices to avoid any liability for liens. (b1� ) has read this page. :�AUTION: The coovriaht laws of the United States forbid the unauthorized reproduction of this form by any reans including scanning or computerized formats- ' aqe 1 of 4 Ipt PROLESSIOMAL :0'ropeCty Address ]_400 8. EiJTRY AND INSPECTION. Lessee will permit Lessor or Lessor's agents to enter the premises at reasonable times and upon reasonable notice for the purpose of inspecting the premises, and will permit Lessor, at any time within sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of this Lease, to place upon the premises any usual "For Lease" signs, and permit persons desiring to lease the premises to inspect the premises at reasonable times_ 9. INDEMNIFICATION OF LESSOR_ Lessor will not be liable for any damage or injury to Lessee, or any other person, or to any property, occurring on the premises_ Lessee agrees to hold Lessor harmless from any claims I9r damages arising out of Lessee's use of the premises, and to indemnify Lessor for any expense incurred by Lessor in defending any such claims_ 10. POSSESSION. If Lessor is unable to deliver possession of the premises at the commencement date set forth above. Lessor will not be liable for any damage caused by the delay, nor will this Lease be void or voidable, but Lessee will not be {fable for any rent until posses_ sion is delivered_ Lessee may terminate this Lease if possession is not delivered within 2 days of the commencement term in Item 1. 11. LESSEE'S INSURANCE. Lessee, at his or her expense,will maintain plate glass, public liability, and property damage insurance insuring Lessee and Lessor with minimum coverage as follows: $1 000,000. Public liability Lessee will provide Lessor with a Certificate of Insurance showing Lessor as additional insured. The policy will require ten (10) day's written notice to Lessor prior to cancellation or material change of coverage- 12. LESSOR'S INSURANCE.lessor will maintain hazard insurance covering one hundred percent (100%) actual cash value of the improve- ments throughout the Lease term. Lessor's insurance will not insure Lessee's personal property,leasehold improvements,or trade fixtures. 13. SUBROGATION. To the maximum extent permitted by insurance policies which may be owned by the parties, Lessor and Lessee waive any and all rights of subrogation against each other which might otherwise exist: 14. UTILITIES. Lessee agrees that he or she will be responsible for the payment of all utilities, including water, gas, electricity, heat and other services delivered to the premises, except: n 15. SIGNS. Lessee will not place, maintain, nor permit any sign or awning on any exterior door,wall, or window of the premises without the express written consent of Lessor, which will not be unreasonably withheld, and of appropriate governmental authorities_ does abandon or vacate the premises, or is dispossessed by process of law,or otherwise, any personal property 16. ABANDONMENT OF PREMISES. Lessee will not vacate or abandon the premises at any time during the term of this Lease. If Lessee left on the premises will be deemed to be abandoned, at the option of Lessor_ belonging to Lessee 17_ CONDEMNATION_ If any part of the premises is condemned for public use, and a part remains which is susceptible of oc_-upation by Lessee, this Lease will, as to the part taken, terminate as of the date the condemnor acquires possession. Lessee will be required to pay such proportion of the rent for the remaining term as the value of the premises remaining bears to the total value of the premises at the date of condemnation; provided, however,_that either party may, at his or her option, terminate this Lease as of the date the condemnor acquires possession_ In the event that the premises are condemned in whole, or the remainder is not susceptible for use by the Lessee, this Lease will terminate upon the date which the condemnor acquires possession_ All sums which may be payable on account of any condemnation will belong solely to the Lessor; except that Lessee will be entitled to retain any amount awarded to him or her for his or her trade fixtures and moving expenses. 18. TRADE FIXTURES_ Any and all improvements made to the premises during the term will belong to the Lessor, except trade fixtures of the Lessee_ Lessee may, upon termination, remove all his or her trade fixtures, but will pay for all costs necessary to repair any damage to the premises occasioned by the removal. 19. DESTRUCTION OF PREMISES- In the event of a partial destruction of the premises during the term, from any cause except acts or omission of Lessee. Lessor will promptly repair the premises, provided that such repairs can be reasonably made within sixty (60) days_ Such partial destruction will not terminate this Lease, except that Lessee will be entitled to a proportionate reduction of rent while such repairs are being made, based upon the extent to which the making of such repairs interferes with the business of Lessee on the prem- ises. If the repairs cannot be made within sixty (60) days, this Lease may be terminated at the option of either party by giving written notice to the other party within the sixty (60) day period. 20. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Lessee will not use, store, or dispose of any hazardous substances upon the premises, except the use and storage of such substances that are customarily used in Lessee's business,and are in compliance with all environmental laws_ Hazardous substances means any hazardous waste, substance or toxic materials regulated under any environmental laws or regulations applicable to the property_ Lessee will be responsible for the cost of removal of any toxic contamination caused by lessee's use of the premises. 21. INSOLVENCY. The appointment of a receiver, an assignment for the benefits of creditors, or the filing of a petition in bankruptcy by or against Lessee, will constitute a breach of this Lease by Lessee. 22. DEFAULT. In the event of any breach of this Lease by Lessee, Lessor may, at his or her option, terminate the Lease and recover from Lessee (a) the worth at the time of award of the unpaid rent which had been earned at the time of termination, (b) the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent which would have been earned after termination until the time of the award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the Lessee proves could have been reasonably avoided; (c) the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the Lessee proves could be reasonably avoided; and (d) any other amount necessary to compensate Lessor for all the detriment proximately caused by the Lessee's failure to perform his or her obligations under the Lease or which in the ordinary course of things would be likely to result therefrom. Lessor may, in the alternative, continue this Lease in effect, as long as Lessor does not terminate Lessee's right to possession, and Lessor may enforce all of Lessor's rights and remedies under the Lease,including the right to recover the rent as it becomes due under the Lease. If said breach of Lease continues, Lessor may, at any time thereafter, elect to terminate the Lease- 0 ease. 0I These Wprovisionof limit any other rights or remedies which lessor may have_Lessee—/e read this page_ CAUTION: The copyright laws of the United States forbid the unauthorized reproduction of this form by any means including scanning or computerized formats_ Page 2 of 4 PRor-EssjO AL FORM 107.2 (02-2000) rwFxNT.0,�—'CC By v=crsowLwe �� ;65 FEE WR,,.rrsaw W3I:-)a ,o a soc• a mus.-:,-. `�® PUBLISHING Property Address 1400 StiLlinQa<*rp AyPTIIP B —1ing �. T. 23. SECURITY. The security deposit will secure the performance of the Lessee's obligations. Lessor may, but will not be obligated to, apply )II or portions of the deposit on account of Lessee's obligations. Any balance remaining upon termination will be returned to Les----_._essee will not have the right to apply the security deposit in payment of the last month's rent- 24. DEPOSIT REFUNDS. The balance of all deposits will be refunded within three (3) weeks (or as otherwise required by law), from date possession is delivered to Lessor or his or her authorized agent, together with a statement showing any charges made against the deposits by Lessor. 25. ATTORNEY FEES. In any action or proceeding involving a dispute between lessor and Lessee arising out of this Lease, the prevailing party will be entitled to reasonable attorney fees. 26. WAIVER. No failure of Lessor to enforce any term of this Lease will be deemed to be a waiver. 27. NOTICES. Any notice which either party may or is required to give,will be given by mailing the notice, postage prepaid, to Lessee at the premises, or to Lessor at the address shown in Item 2, or at such other places as may be designated in writing by the parties from time to time; Notice will be effective five (5) days after mailing, or on personal delivery, or when receipt is acknowledged in Writing, 28. HOLDING OVER Any holding over after the expiration of this Lease,with the consent of Cwner, will be a month-to-month tenancy at a monthly rent of S 6514. , payable in advance and otherwise subject to the terms of this lease. as applicable, until either party will terminate the tenancy by giving the other party thirty (30) days written notice. 29. TIME. Time is of the essence of this Lease. 30. HEIRS, ASSIGNS, SUCCESSORS_ This Lease is binding upon and inures to the benefit of the heirs,assigns, and successors of the parties. 31. TAX INCREASE. In the event there is any increase during any year of the term of this Lease in real estate taxes over and above the amount of such taxes assessed for the tax year during which the term of this Lease commences, Lessee will pay to Lessor an amount equal to _255_% of the increase in taxes upon the land and building in which the leased premises are situated. In the event that such taxes are assessed for a tax year extending beyond the term of the Lease, the obligation of Lessee will be prorated. Lessee will not be esponsible for any tax increase occasioned solely by a sale or transfer of the premises by Lessor. / ` ` diusted effec'.ive f" a + month immediately follow- i t ation of 12 months from date of commencement of the to m, and upon the expiration of each 12 months thereafter, in accord- ance with change U.S. Consumer Frice Index for r' rtan Consumers(18E2-84=1C0),or �(other index} ("CPI"). will be increased to an amound equal to the morrthly rent set forth in Item 2, multiplied v a fraction the nu - wnich is the C e second calendar month immediately preceding the adjustment date, and the deno- inator o is the CPI for the second calendar mont -preceding the commencement of the Lease term; provided, however, that the 33. OPTION TO RENEW. Provided that Lessee is not in default in the performance of this Lease, lessee will have the option to renew the Lease for an additional term of 60 months commencing at the expiration of the initial Lease term. All of the terms and conditions of the Lease will apply during the renewal term, except that the monthly rent will be the sum of S see 38b which will be ad- justed after commencement of the renewal term in accordance with the cast of living increase provision set forth in Item 32- The option will be exercised by written notice given to Lessor not less than 12o days prior to the expiration of the initial Lease term. If notice is not given within the time specified, this Option will expire. 34. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. The parties are alerted to the existence of the Americans With Oisabilities Act, which may re- quire costly structural modifications" The parties are advised to consult with a professional familiar with the requirements of the Act. 35. LESSOR'S LIABILITY. In the event of a transfer of Lessor's title or interest to the property during the term of this Lease, Lessee agrees that the grantee of such title or interest wilt be substituted as the Lessor under this Lease, and the original Lessor will be released of all further liability; provided, that all deposits will be transferred to the grantee. 36. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE. (a) On ten (10) days' prior written notice from Lessor, Lessee will execute, acknowledge, and deliver to Lessor a statement in writing: I1) certifying that this Lease is unmodified and in full force and effect (or, if modified, stating the nature of such modification and certifying that this Lease, as so modified, is in full force and effect), the arnount of any security deposit, and the date to which the rent and other charges are paid in advance, if any; and [2) acknowledging that there are not, to Lessee's knowledge, any uncured de- faults the part of Lessor, or specifying such defaults if any are claimed. Any such statement may be conclusively relied upon by any prospective buyer or encumbrancer of the premises_ (b) At Lessor's option, Lessee's failure to deliver such statement within such time will be a material breach of this Lease or will be conclusive upon Lessee: [1) that this Lease is in full force and effect, without modification except as may be represented by Lessor, [2) that there are no uncured defaults in Lessor's performance; and [3)that not more than one month's rent has been paid in advance. (c) If Lessor desires to finance, refinance, or sell the premises, or any part thereof, Lessee agrees to deliver to any lender or buyer designated by Lessor such financial statements of Lessee as may be reasonably required by such lender or buyer. All fnrianci2l e 'teome wi eived by the Lessor or the lender or buyer in confidence and will be used only for the purposes set forth.) has read this page- ;A,%_,ON: The copyright laws of the United States forbid the unauthorized reproduction of this form by any neans including scanning or computerized formats. 'ape 3 of 4 oRrr 107.3 (07-2000) PROFESSIONAL c v. vs�,rv, gym. 81 r=cr= oHu w crv� es eV L4FHRFw 5131f•ser �,r is r.�v :a o.s PUBLISHINC Property Address 1400 Burlingame Avenue, Burlinga**+e, CA 37. ENTIRE_ AGREEMENT. The foregoing constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and may be modified only in writing signed by all parties" The following exhibits are a part of this Lease. Exhibit"A: Note for balance owed. Exhibit B: Lease of Bulletin board Exhibit C: 38. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS- A- Rent Schedule- yr 1-$4000 /mo yr 2-$4200./mo yr 3-$4410-/mo yr 4-4630.50/mo yr 5- $4862./mo, yr 6-$5105 /mo yr 7-$5360./mo yr 8-$5628./mo yr 9-$5909./mo yr 10-$6209 /mo B Rent for the option period will be market rent at that tine, however it will not be less than year 10 rent plus 5% and.will continue to increase by no less than 5% per year- C Paragraph 31 will apply only if prop. 13 tax limits axe changed, modified or repealed. D.The $75,000. paid is a. non-refundable fee and is not rent.The lessee will pay $30,000. by 02/23/01 The remaininq $45,000- will be paid $10,000, per year on the anniversary of this lease. Lessee will pay in addition to rent, monthly interest on this debt at 8-25a. E-Lessee will be responsible for 2,11 necessary repairs to the bathroom and walls and doorway necessary to isolate 303 Primrose as directed by lessor. F-Lessee w±ll have all rights to the use of the bulletin board on the East side of the building subiect to the existing lease by Michael Horowitz. G Cicrar sales are limited to machine made unless Burlingame Tobbacconist acrees otherwise. The undersigned Lessee acknowledges that he or she has thoroughly read and approved each of the provisions contained in this Offer, and agrees to the terms and conditio55 specified. Lessee dze(� to °Z �! °r Lessee Date Ashok Patel Anila Patel Receipt for deposit acknowledged by Date ACCEPTANCE The undersigned Lessor accepts the foregoing Offer and agrees to lease the premises on the terms and conditions set forth above. NOTICE: The amount or rate of real estate commissions is not fixed by law. They are set by each broker indi- vidually and may be negotiable between the owner and broker, The Lessor agrees to pay to ,the Broker in this transaction, the sum of 5 for services rendered and authorizes Broker to deduct said sum from the deposit received from Lessee_ In the event the Lease is extended for a definite period of time or on a month-to-month basis after expiration of the original term, Lessor will pay to Broker an additional commission of % of the total rental for the extended period. This commission wilt be due and payable a com ncement of the extended period if for a fixed term, or if on a month-to-mordh basis, at the termination of Lessee's occupanc r n ar, w " _ r is earlier" n I n for co is "on, a pr ailing party will be tilt d to reasonable attorney fees. Gesso - ate D Lessor Date Pe a Urnland Lessee acknowledges receipt of a copy of the accepted Lease on (date) (Wlia lsr CAUTION: The copyright laws of the United States forbid the unauthorized reproduction of this form by any Pw+"af means including scanning or computerized formats Cie--i Page 4 of a 1 PROFESSIONAL v,w3n. PUBLISHING ORDINANCE NO. 618 AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ARTICLE 29, PART V, OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME; ADOPTING A NEW ARTICLE 49A, PART IX, REGULATING THE CONSTRUCTION, ERECTION, MAINTENANCE AND USE OF SIGNS MTHIN THE CITY; AND REPEALING ALL SECTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE CODE IN CONFLICT THEREWITH The City Council of the City of Burlingame does ordain as follows: Section 1. The Ordinance Code of the City of Burlingame is hereby amended by repealing Article 29, Part V, thereof and adopting a new Article 49.'x, Part IX, which shall read and provide as follows: Article 49A - Signs The intent and purpose of this Article is to provide a com- prehensive system of regulation of all signs which are displayed for any purpose in the city; to provide controls for the structural safety of signs and boards; .to assure that signs do not interfere with the safety of pedestrians and vehicles. It is recognized in this Article that the attractiveness of the community is an important factor of the general welfare of the citizens and that reasonable con.'- trol of signs is in the public interest. Sect. 1850 Definitions Awning. An awning shall include any structure made of cloth - or metal with a metal frame- attached to a building and projecting over a thoroughfare, when the same is so erected as to permit it being raised to a position flat against the building when not in use. Canopy. A canopy shall include any structure, other than an awning, made of cloth or metal with metal frames attached to a building, projecting over a thoroughfare, and carried by a frame supported by.1mmovable braces from the wall. Erect. Erect shall mean to build, construct, attach, hang, place, suspend, affix, and shall also include the. painting of wall signs and the painting of signs upon walls and upon the exterior of any building. Ground sign. A ground sign shall include any sign supported by uprights or braces placed upon the ground and not attached to any building, including all types of billboards. Marquee. A marquee includes eny hood or awning of permanent con- struction projecting from the wall of a building and extend- ing over a thoroughfare. Pole-sign. A pole-sign is one, illuminated or not, permanently supported in or on the ground by a pole or poles without attachment to a building. Projecting sign. Projecting signs include any signs which are attached to the wall of a building or other structure and extend horizontally beyond the building or structure to which they are attached, Roof sign. A roof sign is any sign erected or constructed upon or over the roof of any building with the principal support on the roof structure. - - page 2. Temporary sign. Temporary signs include any sign, banner, Pennants_ valance, or advertising display constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric, cardboard, wall-board, plastic, or other light materials,. with or without frames, intended to be displayed for a short period of time only. Wall sign. Wall signs include all flat signs, either of solid face construction or individual letters, which are placed against the exterior wail of any building or structure. Sign. The term "sign" shall mean and include every sign, billboard, ground sign, wall sign, roof sign, illuminated sign, projecting sign, "A"board,-temporary signp marquee, canopy, awning, and street clock, and any announcement, declaration, display, illustration or insignia used to advertise or promote the interests of any person when the same is placed out-of-doors in the view of the general public. Person, Person shall mean and include any person, firm, part- nership, association, corporation, company or organization of any kind* Incombustible Material. Any. material which will not ignite at or below a temperature of 12000 fahrenheit or will not con- tinue to burn or glow at that temperature will be termed . "incombustible material". Approved Combustible Plastics. Approved combustible plastics mean only those combustible plastics which, when tested it accordance with ASTM Standard Method of Test for Plammabili of Plastics over 0.050" in thickness (D635-44) burn no faster than 2o5" per minute in sheets of 0.060x' in thickness Applications for permits to erect signs in which plastic materials will be employed shall certify that the plastic Is noncombustible or that the material has been tested by a recognized testin§ laboratory and rated as an "approved combustible plastic '. Structural- trim. Structural trim shall mean the molding, bat- tens, cappings, nailing strips, latticing, and platforms which are attached to the sign structure. Sect. 1851 Permits a. Permit Required. It shall be unlawful for any person to ere:;t, relocate or maintain within the City of Burlingame any sign or other advertising structure as defined in this article without first obtaining an erection permit From the Building making pay Inspector and ment of the fee required in Sect. 1852 hereof. .11.11 illuminated signs shall, in addition, be subject to the provisions of the Electrical Code. b. Action by Building Inspector. It shall be the duty of the Building Inspector, upon the filing of an application for an erection permit, to examine the plans and specifications and other data and the premises upon which it is proposed to erect the sign or other advertising structure, and if it shall appear that the proposed structure is in compliance with all the requirements of this Article and all other laws and ordinances. of the City of Burlingame, he shall then issue the erection permit. If the work authorized under an erection permit has not been completed within six (6) montes after date of issuance,. the said permit shall become mull and void. e. Application for Permit. Application for erection permits shall be made upon blanks provided by the Building Inspeetc., and shall contain or have attached thereto the following information:. 1. Name, address end telephone number of the applicant. 2. Location of building, structure or lot to which or upon which the sign or advertising structure is to be attached or erected. page 3, 3. Position of the sign or other advertising structure in relation to nearby buildings or structures. 4. Two blueprints or ink drawings of the plans and spec- ifications and method of construction and attachment to the building or to the ground. 5. For free standing signs, pole signs, ground signs, roof signs and marquees, a copy d stress sheets and cal- culations showing that the structure is designed for dead load and wind pressure in any direction in the amount required by this and other ordinances of the City of Burlingame, when such calculations are re- quired by the Building Inspector. 6. Name of person, firm or corporation erecting the struc- ture. 7. Written consent of the owner of the building, structure or land to which or on which the structure is to be erected. 8. Notice'to ovm er of city requirements regarding tenure of sign for temporary permits. d, Electric Power Lines. No permit for any sign shall be issued and no sign shall be constructed, installed or erected whie:i does not comply with all the provisions of this Article or which has loss horizontal or vertical clearance from enor- gized power lines than prescribed by the California Penal Code, section 385, the regulations of the Public Utilities Commission, and the orders of the Division of Industrial Safety, State of California. Sect. 1852 Fees a. Every applicant, before being granted a permit hereunder, shay. pay to the Building Inspector the ;following permit fees; 1. Aivning or canopy ... . .... ..... ...f .......s 1000 2. Marquee ......o........................... 10.00 3. Temporary sign, eaoh 60 sq.ft. or fraction thereof .............. ...... ............ 1100 4. Pole signs, ground signs, roof signs, projecting signs, per sq.ft. of sign ... .10 5. Wall signs 2.00 6. Painting signs on wall or exterior of any building ..... .. ........ ....... ..... 1.00 b. Those fees shall be in addition to fees for electrical in- spection where such fees are required. c. Fees for those clases of signs listed under 4, above, shall be computed on the area of one face of the sign only, whether sign is single or multiple faced. d. In the event that any sign is erected before a permit for such sign is issued, the Building Inspector shall assess and collect twice the stated fee upon issuance of the permit. o. No sign permit shall be issued for less than a minimum fee of 1.00. Sect, 1853 Safety Requirements a. License by Council. All rights and privileges acquired under the provisions of this Article or any amendment thereto are more licenses revocable at any time by the City Council, and all permits shall carry this provision. b. Unsafe Signs. If the Building Inspector shall find that any sign or advertising structure regulated herein is unsafo or insecure, or is a menace to the public, or has been con- structed or erected or is being maintained in violation of this Article, he shall give written notice to the permittee or responsible person. If such person fails to remove, alter or repair the sign or structure within ten (10) days after such notice, such sign or structure may be removed or altered to comply by the Building Inspector at the ex- - page 4, pense of the permitteo. or owner of the property upon which It is located, The Building Inspector may cause any sign or advertising structure vhich is an immediate peril to persons or property to be removed summarily and without notice. c. Wind Pressure. all signs and advertising structures, except- ing temporary signs, shall be designed and constructed to withstand a wind pressure of not less than the following intensity applied to the projected exposed area; less than 501 in height from ground to top of sign, 25 pounds per ' square foot of area; over 501 in height, 30 pounds per square foot of area. d. Removal of Obsolescent Signs. imy sign now or hereafter ex- isting which no longer advertises a bonafido business con- ductod or products sold' on the premises whore the sign exists, shall be taken down and removed by the owner or tenant of the building, structure or property upon which said sign may be located within thirty (30) days after written notification by the Building Inspector. Upon fail- ure to comply with such.notice, the Building Inspector is hereby authorized to cause removal of such sign and any expense incident thereto shall be paid by the owner of the building, structure or land upon which the sign is located. o. Signs on Fire Escapes. No sign shall be erected, located or maintained so as to prevent free ingress to or ogress from any door, window or fire escape, No sign of any kind shall be attached to a standpipe or fire escape. f. Traffic Hazards. No sign or other advertising structure shall be erected at the intersection of any streets in such a manner as to obstruct free and clear vision; or at any location where, by.roason of the position, shape or color, it may intorfore with,. obstruct the view of or be confused with any authorized traffic sign, signal or device; or which makes use of the words "Stop", "Look", "Dangor", or any other word, phrase, symbol or character in such a mannor as to interfere with, mislead or confuse traffic. g. Pedestrian Hazards. I'Msigns or other advertising structures which are constructed at any point where podostrians might be endangered shall have a smooth surface and no nails, tacks or wires shall be permitted to protrude therefrom. Electrical reflectors and devices may extend over the top and in front of the sign or structure but not loss than eight feet (81) above the sidewalk, h. Glaring Lights.. On those signs where gooseneck reflectors and lights are permitted, such gooseneck reflectors and lights shall be provided with proper lenses and guards concentrat Ing the illumination upon tho area of the sign so as to prevent glare upon the street or adjacent property. . It shall be unlawful to illuminate any sign by floodlights or spot- lights where any portion.of such illumination shall be a menace to traffic or a nuisance to adjacent property. Sect. 1854 Exomptions and Exceptions The provisions and regulations of this :article shall not apply to certain classes of signs which are designated in the following subsections; provided, however that all signs aro subject to the provisicm of Section 1853, ;'Safety Requirements". a. Real Estate signs not exceeding three (3) square feet in area pertaining to the sale or rental of the property on which they aro displayed, but not more than one such sign to the lot. Such signs may be two-faced or be printed on both sides. b. Professional name plates and occupational signs denoting only the name and occupation of an occupant in a com- morcial building, public institutional building or dwelling and not excooding two (2) square foot in area, provided page 5, that such sign is not prohibited or further regulated by the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Burlingame. C. Identification name-plates or signs oncpartment houses, boarding or rooming houses or similar uses, not exceeding three (3) square feet in area. d. Bulletin boards not over fifteen (15) square feet in area for public, charitable and religious institutions when the same are located on the premises of said institutions. e. Signs denoting the architect, engineer or contractor when placed upon work under and during construction, and not exceeding thrity-two (32) square feet in area. f. Signs painted upon, the walls or exterior of a building shall be limited in area to an amount not in excess of 20% of the area of the wall or frontage upon which it is painted. Such signs may advertise only the name, products and occupation of the occupant. Where such signs have raised borders, letters, characters, decorations or lighting fixtures, they shall be subject to the applicable provisions of this Article. g. Memorial signs or tablets, names of buildings, and.histor-- ical monuments when such markers are constructed of bronze or other incombustible materials. h. Traffic or other municipal, signs, legal notices, railroad crossing and danger signs, and such temporary, emergency or non-advertising signs as may be approved by the City Council. Sect. 1855 Prohibited Signs The following types .of signs and structures are expressly prohibit•- ad; a. Real Estate directional signs and arrows. b. Placards, posters, announcements, poli(Otical signs posted or attached to any f enco, pole, tree or any object in a public street or place. e. Signs, "A" boards, structures, or merchandise for sal© placed upon or attached to the ground on any portion of the public street, sidewalk or right of way, excepting newspaper vending devices which may be permitted by action of the City Council. d. Signs or structures carrying the advertising of a person, product or service other than that: of the occupant of the land. on which it is placed or the building to which it is attached except signs for the sale: or rental of the property, e. Signs of any kind in Residential Districts except those expressly permitted by this Article or Article 50 (Zoning) of this Code. f. Any signs expressly prohibited by Article 50 (Zoning) of this Code. g. Any sign which, because of flashing lights, brilliant lighting or reflected light, is a detriment to surroundin-a properties or prevents the peaceful enjoyment of residen- tial uses. For the purpose of enforcing this prohibition, the Build- ing Inspector is hereby authorized to withhold the issuance of an croetion permit and refor such application to the Planning Commission. At its next regular meeting, the Planning Commission shall hear the applicant and thereafter make such investigation and inquiry as it may deem neces- page 9. Sect. 1862 Tem.)orary Signs a. Permits. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized to grant permits for temporarysigns composed of com- bustible materials. Such permits shall be for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days; provided, that the Building Inspector may extend said period for an ad- ditional thirty (30) days upon payment of a fee in the same amount as that required for the original permit. The Building Inspector shall examinate the sign and its support to ascertain its safe attachment and condition before issuing a permit for an extended period. b. Support and Attachment. Temporary signs shall be safely attached to the wall or_ supporting structure by wire or cable. No such signs.shall be so placed as to obstruct windows or fire escapes or be attached to standpipes. c, Advertising Permitted. The advertising presented .on any temporary sign shall pertain only to the business, Industry or pursuit conducted on or within the premises on which the sign is displayed.. This provisions shall not apply to signs of a civic or political nature. d. The City Council may, upon written application to it, issue special permits upon such conditions as it may determine for temporary signs and banners of a civic, political, charitable_, educational, municipal or religious nature and may waive the fee for such permits No such permit shall be issued unless the City Council finds that the City is held harmless for any act or omission of the applicant. Sect. 1863 Marquees a. Construction. All marquees, together with the anchors, . bolts, supports, rods and braces thereof shall be con- structed of incombustible materials, except that letters, facings and decorations may be of approved combustible plastics. Marquees shall be designed by a licensed engineer or architect and must be approved by the Building Inspector. as in compliance with the Building Code of the City of Burlingame. The roofs of all marquees shall be properly guttered and provided with down spouts so that water therefrom will not drip or flow onto the sidewalk. b. Projection Over Public Property.. No portion of a marquee shall be less than ton feet (10 t) above the level of the sidewalk or thoroughfare. No marquee shall extend beyond a point of one foot (11) inside the curb line. c. Anchorage and Supports. Marquees shall be supported sole- ly by,the building to which they are attached and no columns or posts shall be permitted, as support there- for, which rest on any portion of the public way. No marquee shall be erected on any building of frame construction unless attached to masonry, concrete or steal supports of the building. d. Signs Upon Marquees. No sign or advertisement shall be placed upon a marquee beyond a point measured four feet (41 ) horizontally from the property line. Signs hung from a marquee shall be no lower than ton feet (101) above the sidewalk. No advertising material shall be placed upon the roof of a marquee. Sect. 1864 Awnings and Canopies a. Construction. Awnings and canopies may be constructed of cloth, metal or plastic; provided, however, that all frames and supports shall be of metal. page 10. b. Heightand Locations Awnings and canopies shall ,be erected so that no portion shall be less than eight feet (8I) above the sidewalk. No awning or canopy shall be permitted to extend beyond a point two feet (2f ) inside the curb line. c. Supports and AA46hment6 Awnings and canopies shall be securely attached to and supported by the building; The supporting. members of canopies shall be attached to and supported, by the building and no pipes or posts may rest ori-:atilt portion of the sidewalk or public way. d. Advertising,I Advertising on canopies and awnings shall be limited td the name of the occupant of the premises and the t5u5'ness, industry or occupation of tho_bus iness conducted,therein. Such wording shall bo within a space not exceeding eight inchos (8") in height on tho sides gnd front of the awning or esmopy. Sect, 186S, Non-conforming Signs No sign or other advertising structure, awning, canopy or marquee, which is lawfully in existence on the effective date of this Article but which is not in accordance with the requirements of this Article may be altered or moved to other locations unless 1t be made to comply with the provisions of this Article. Sect. 186 6 Variances a. Certain variances by City Council. In the event that compliance with the terms of this Article will work a hardship upon an applicant, the City Council is hereby authorized to grant certain variances. Variances may be `granted only in matters of size and location of signs. b. Method of Application. Persons desiring a variance shall apply by written application to the City Council. Upon receipt of such application, the City Clerk shall place the matter upon the agenda of the Council and notify forthwith the owners or occupants, of properties im- mediately adjoining the property for which the variance is requested. At the meeting to which the..matter is referred, the City Council shall hear the applicant and all others and may grants modify or reject the variance. The decision of the Council shall be final and con- elusive. Section 2; SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence,- clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court or competent juris- diction#, such decision shdl not affect the validity of the remaining. portions of this ordinance4' The City Council of this City hereby declares that it wbuld have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clausAlv -,phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid of unconstitutional. Section 3, This ordinance shall be published as required by law. L. B. MCRG I, Herbert K. White, 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 6th day of February, 1956, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of February, 1956, by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen: Byrd-Johnson-Rooth-Thayer Noes: Councilmen: None Absent Councilmen: Morgan Herbert K. White City Clerk )4.00 '�>L)ejA i)c-ARE -AU N U au C� vert �� zoa� Date Case # Description Case Status 12-7-98. CE1998-80205 Pornographic Materials on Display Complaint confirmed; voluntary compliance. 12-12-00 CE2000-616 Banner on Display w/out Permit Unfounded, real estate sign exempt. 4-2-01 CE2001-652 Health Violation—Dog Inside Business Reported by San Mateo County Health Inspector. Complaint confirmed; voluntary compliance 3-20-02 CE2002-914 Encroachment—Vertical Clearance for Complaint confirmed; voluntary compliance, Pro'ectin Sign sign removed. 4-22-02 CE2002-941 Sign Violation—No Permit for Banner on Complaint confirmed; voluntary compliance, Awning and"A"Frame sign on Sidewalk signs removed. 8-12-02 CE2002-1015 Health Violation—No Trash Service Complaint confirmed; voluntary compliance, Service started. 9-23-02 CE2002-1035 Encroachment—Merchandise on Sidewalk Complaint confirmed; voluntary compliance. 11-18-02 CE2002-1070 Encroachment—Merchandise on Sidewalk Complaint confirmed; voluntary compliance. 11-25-02 CE2002-1072 Encroachment—Merchandise on Sidewalk Complaint confirmed; voluntary compliance. 10-10-03 CE2003-1245 ADA Violation—Restroom Availability Civil matter between owner and occupant. 10-28-03 CE2003-1246 Encroachment—Merchandise on Sidewalk Complaint confirmed; voluntary compliance. 11-24-03 CE2003-1318 Encroachment—Merchandise on Sidewalk Complaint confirmed; voluntary compliance. 3-26-04 CE2004-1324 Encroachment—Merchandise on Sidewalk Complaint confirmed; voluntary compliance. 2-17-05 CE2005-1535 Encroachment—Merchandise on Sidewalk Complaint confirmed; voluntary compliance. 2-24-05 CE2005-1536 Unauthorized Use—Fortune Telling Complaint confirmed; voluntary compliance, psychic decided to occupy space two doors west. 3-28-05 CE2005-1571 Construction Without Permit Complaint confirmed; voluntary compliance, pony wall removed. 6-7-05 1 CE2005-1607 Off Premise Signs on Display. Com laint confirmed; Determination Hearing. Memorandum/Letter Pregentatio� for Matter of Notice of Violation and of Enforcement of Ordinance No. 22.48.040 City of Burlingame Planning Commission RECEIVED 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 AUG 8 2005 August 8, 2005 at 7pm CITY OF BURLINGAME VIII: Regular Action Items - Item 8 PLANNING DEPT. Most respectfully, I have a few comments to this honorable Planning Commission for Item 8 under VIII Regular Action Items for the evening's agenda. As is well set forth in the agenda presented to the Planning Commission, my wife, Anila Patel and I, Ashok Patel, are the lessees/owners of the Burlingame Smoke Shop (not the real property) situated at 1400 Burlingame Avenue which will be referred to in my presentation as the "Subject Premises". The pertinent matter before this Planning Commission pertains to a notice of violation dated July 8, 2005 sent by the Code Enforcement Officer that the off-premise sign (display window) located on the Primrose Avenue frontage of the Subject Premises is in violation of Ordinance 22.48.040. The display now advertises a psychic business located at 1410 Burlingame Avenue and a clothing business located at 337 Primrose Road. I was unfamiliar that seemingly the ordinance in question was not initially adopted on January 17, 1977 as Ordinance No. 22.48.040 (off-premises advertising) as I believed, but was initially adopted on February 20, 1956 as Ordinance No. 618. The pertinency of both of these ordinances is that there is a flat prohibition for any "signs or structures carrying the advertising, product or service other than that of the occupant of the land on which it is placed or the building to which it is attached". 1 The uncontroverted facts are that on or about February 14,2001,my spouse and I entered into a 10 year lease for the Subject Premises with Peter Umland at an appreciable consideration for I was required to pay a"fee" of$75,000 in various installments and a rental which is increased at 5%per year and Presently is ire the amount of$4,8b2. Partieala4y,mylease agreemeat oy&Peter Vr jm7d who had been the owner of the Subject Premises for an unknown period of time but had operated the Burlingame Smoke Shop thereat according to my recollection for a period not later than late 1976 that I would be allowed at reasonable rentals to have all rights for the use of the"bulletin board" on the east side of the building subject to the existing lease by advertising Michael Horowitz, a real estate agent for Prudential Realty. This bulletin board is the same as the "display window" referenced in the agenda items. In other words, it is my understanding that my predecessor in interest;Peter Umland,had advertising in the "bulletin board"for all times following at least 1976 and clearly at the time that I executed the referenced lease contract. For all times thereafter when I entered as the lessee I have had advertising in apparent violation of the subject ordinance for at all times following February 14, 2001 to the current date. My first contention of a legal defense is that there is a non-conforming use. However,I may not be correct for the agenda items indicate that rather than the ordinance of which I was aware being adopted on January 17, 1977, the initial ordinance was adopted on February 20, 1956. I have no knowledge of the existence of the "bulletin board" preceding February 20, 1956;however, I was a lessee of a competing business from on or about January 1979 to June 1984 at 1404 Burlingame Avenue and for all times that I was the lessee of that business,I was aware that the Subject Premises had advertising in the "bulletin board". Thus,I am unable to argue with facts whether or not there exists a non-conforming use principle in this matter. 2 However,clearly at least as between Peter Umland and myself and as you may well be aware, Peter Umland died on or about that I had a contractual right to continue the use of the "bulletin board. In that he clearly employed the"bulletin board"for at least the period known to me from late 1976 to the date I became the lessee in February 2001, if he had been cited for a code violation,there was no advice to me concerning the same. If now it is determined that peter Umland operated in violation of the ordinance, I have lost a contractual right for the clearly delayed enforcement of this ordinance for the approximate four years I have been a tenant without any violation and seemingly for all the period of time Peter Umland has used the bulletin board. Here, I am constrained to comment that as indicated in the agenda notes,there apparently was a fire in the building at 1400 Burlingame Avenue in 1985 and extensive reconstruction occurred at that time. If that is when the bulletin board was installed,it seemingly had to have a permit; and it could not have been installed without a permit for then Peter Umland would have been in violation of related ordinances. Further,what I find most disturbing that there is not seemingly an enforcement policy for the City of Burlingame for violations of the ordinances are enforced by the Code Enforcement Officer only in response to complaints when they are submitted. I assure you and most unfortunate to me that the Subject Premises are well known to the Code Enforcement Officer of this city for I have received and all the violations have been corrected approximately 13 violations of news racks being on the city sidewalk without an encroachment permit. The basic issue is that neither the Code Enforcement Officer nor I know when there was the first use of the bulletin board as to whether it constituted a non-conforming use or not. I respectfully submit that the haphazard enforcement of the referenced ordinance will cause me much financial 3 distress for if I lose the rentals from the"bulletin board"for I may not be able to continue the operation. Moreover,it has been not less than four years since I have operated without any citation for this ordinance and Peter Umland operated at least 25 years without seemingly notice of a violation. Clearly,I submit that the City of Burlingame has by the mere lapse of time without enforcement is barred from now issuing a citation for as I stated in my hearing brief,the best zoning ordinance becomes little more than a hollow shell if it is not enforced with wisdom and vigor. I respectfully submit that the doctrine of laches;which precludes enforcement of a stale claim is present here for the simple inactivity of the appropriate officials charged with zoning enforcement that clearly mislead me if not Peter Umland into violating a zoning ordinance and entering into a lease of the Subject Premises in ignorance of the fact that its current use or structures were illegal. I submit that the equitable defense of laches is applicable when there has been an inexcusable delay in asserting the right that it substantially prejudices my business. Clearly,with my numerous citations,the Code Enforcement Officer clearly had knowledge of my"bulletin board"for all times following my lease of the Subject Premises and clearly must have had full knowledge of Peter Umland's use of the bulletin board. I thus respectfully submit that the enforcement now is discriminatory and is barred by the doctrine of laches if not the defense of non- conforming use. 4 0��, c�Tr 04. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 ,. TEL: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.burlingame_org Site: 1400 BURLINGAME AVENUE - Appeal of the Planning Commission's determination regarding the status of off- PUBLIC HEARING premise advertising located in the display NOTICE window at: 1400 BURLINGAME AVENUE, zoned C-1, Subarea A. (APN: 029-122-190). lk �� The City of Burlingame City Council announces 2 � ��g " the followingx ' public hearing on Monday, September 19, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. in ther w a , �� i City Hall Council Chambers located at <_ Xis • � ,� 501 Primrose Road , 4 14, Burlingame, California. L € . Mailed: September9, 2005- (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME 1 nay rawnrrrnr�rrvwmrr�v—wr. . ' .. . A copy of the applic andQi# Tr9rproject y be reviewed prior, jto the meeting Primrose Road; Burlingame, C 1 If you chane e t u m be limited to raising only blic hearing, descnb'ed in h e ri e e ed to the city at or prior to he pu c ealjn&. F 0 11 x x A 1 Property ow rsrespons ble or informing their tenants bou io al infor -iatid i, please call (650) 558-7 0� .x t Margaret MID City Planner PU CE (Please refer to other side) City of Burlingame Item # Determination Regarding Status of Off-Premise Advertising Action Calendar at 1400 Burlingame Avenue Meeting Date: 08/08/05 Applicant's Request: Find that the off-premise advertising located in the display window on Primrose Road is nonconforming, applicant contends that it was in existence prior to adoption of regulations prohibiting off-premise advertising. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. If the Planning Commission overturns the City Planner's determination, reasons for the action should be clearly stated for the record, since this action will constitute City policy on this issue. Action Alternatives: • Support the City Planner's determination that the off-premise advertising is in violation of the sign ordinance which prohibits off-premise advertising. • Support the applicant's request that the off-premise advertising has been in existence since before the adoption of sign code regulations prohibiting off-premise advertising and is therefore nonconforming and can continue. CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15301(a) — consists of minor alterations to existing structures and facilities including such things as new copy on existing on and off-premise signs. Summary: Ashok and Anila Patel, business owners of the Burlingame Smoke Shop, are appealing the City Planner's determination regarding the off-premise sign located on the Primrose frontage of the building at 1400 Burlingame Avenue, zoned C-1, Subarea A. The request for a determination came about as the result of a code enforcement action regarding the off-premise advertising located in the display window on the Primrose Road frontage of the business. The signs in the display window now advertise a Psychic business located at 1410 Burlingame Avenue, and for Dirty Laundry clothing store at 337 Primrose Road. The appellants contend that there has been off-premise advertising displayed in this window since prior to the adoption of the regulation which prohibits off-premise signs within the City of Burlingame, making the sign a non-conforming use. The appellant's grounds for appeal are stated in the attached appeal document from Ashok and Anila Patel date stamped July 18, 2005. The applicant also states that the code enforcement action constitutes discrimination in enforcement. History: The single-story building at 1400-1406 Burlingame Avenue was built in approximately 1926 and has been in retail use since that time. There is a display window on the Primrose Road side of the Burlingame Smoke Shop tenant space which is located at the corner at 1400 Burlingame Avenue. It is not known when the display window was installed. However, there was a fire in the building in 1985, and extensive reconstruction occurred at that time. On June 2, 2005, a complaint was filed regarding the advertising in the Smoke Shop display window. The Code Enforcement Officer verified the ofd premise advertising and, on July 8, 2005, sent a Notice of Violation to the business owners, with a copy sent to the property owner (see attached). Determination Regarding Off premise Advertising at 1400 Burlingame Avenue August 8,2005 The fust sign ordinance was adopted by the City Council on February 20, 1956 (see attached Ordinance No. 618). Section 1855 of that Ordinance outlines the types of signs and structures which are expressly prohibited and states "signs or structures carrying the advertising of a person, product or service other than that of the occupant of the land on which it is placed or the building to which it is attached except signs for the sale or rental of the property" (see copy of Ordinance attached). This ordinance was replaced by the current sign code, Chapter 22 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, adopted by the City Council on January 17, 1977. Regarding off-premise signs, the 1977 code states in Chapter 22.48, Prohibited Signs: "22.48.040 Off-premises advertising Signs or structures carrying the advertising of a person,product or service other than that of the occupant of the land on which it is placed or the building to which it is attached are prohibited; signs are permitted only to the actual occupant of the building or property upon which the sign is displayed during the period of his occupancy." Request for Determination The request for determination filed by Ashok and Anila Patel contains two requests for determination of the action of the City Planner. These requests and the staff response to the requests are as follows: Business Owner's Request: that the off-premise advertising at this location has been in existence since prior to the adoption of regulations prohibiting off-premise advertising. Staff Response: The first sign code which prohibits off-site advertising throughout Burlingame was adopted in 1956. There is no evidence in building or planning files to suggest that the display window on the Primrose frontage has been in existence since prior to 1956. Further,there is no evidence that there has been a continuous use of the window area for off-site advertising before 1956. Property owner's request. That the City's enforcement action is discriminatory in enforcement of this sign regulation. Staff Response: It is the policy of the City to follow up on complaints regarding violations of the code. The Code Enforcement Officer only responds to complaints when they are submitted. This is the first complaint the Code Enforcement Officer has received regarding the off-premise advertising in this display window. Attachments: Application to the Planning Commission date stamped June 18, 2005 Appeal of Enforcement document submitted by Ashok and Anila Patel date stamped July 18, 2005 Ordinance No. 618 adopted by the City Council on February 20, 1956 S.NAUREENIDeterminations11400 Burlingame Determination.d" -2- City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650)558-7250 F(650)696-3790 www.burlingame.org rcr 4 E APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit_ Variance Special Permit Other ✓ Parcel Number: Project address: LL)qO APPLICANT (� /1 PROPERTY OWNER Name: 1,8L— ��K N32A Name: b0jje�f VYf7K14 �� 9 �4a5 Address: 1!,6�2 CoW\Y-Nbb Address: City/State/Zip4f�,1#' LI NC>� City/State/Zip: Phone(w) 0731B .3 3 Phone(w): (hF ,)G �57 0 (h): ARCHITECTIDESIGNER Name: Address: City/State/Zip: Please indicate with an asterisk Phone(w): the contact person for this project. (h): RECEIVED JUL 1 8 2005 CITY OF 13URLINGAME -�� PLANNING DEPT. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: � yr� a�C�CE AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the be f my edge and belief. Applicant's signature: Dater I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. Property owner's signature: Date: Date submitted: b PCAPP.FRM RECEIVED I Ashok Patel and Anila Patel JUL 1 8 2005 The Burlingame Smoke Shop INGAME 2 1400 Burlingame Avenue CITY AN ING DEPT. Burlingame, CA 94010 PLANNING DEPT. 3 Contestants 4 5 IN RE THE MATTER OF NOTICE OF APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OF 6 VIOLATION AND OF ENFORCEMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 22.48.040 TO CITY ORD. NO. 22.48.040 ) OF BURLINGAME PLANNING 7 ) COMMISSION 8 ) 9 Contestants, Ashok Patel and Anila Patel, Lessees/Owners of The Burlingame Smoke Shop located 10 at 1400 El Burlingame Avenue, City of Burlingame, California (sometimes hereafter "the Subject Premises") 11 hereby respectfully appeal the application of Zoning Regulation 22.40.040 (Off-Premises Advertising) to 12 the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame: 13 I. NOTICE OF CODE VIOLATION 14 1 . On July 8, 2005, the City of Burlingame/Code Enforcement Department issued a Notice of 15 Violation and of Enforcement against the Contestants and The Burlingame Smoke Shop that the advertising 16 signs located on the Primrose Avenue side of the Subject Premises at the address of 1400 Burlingame 17 Avenue within a "bulletin board" were ""Off-Premises" advertising. The posted signs which are for "The 18 Psychic" whose business is located at 1410 Burlingame Avenue and the "Dirty Laundry" whose business 19 is located at 337 Primrose Road are considered "Off-Premises" signs and are claimed prohibited by the 20 referenced Ordinance of the City of Burlingame. A copy of this Notice of Violation and of Enforcement 21 dated July 8, 2005, is attached hereto, marked Exhibit A and incorporated hereat by this reference. 22 II. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL 23 2. Contestants allege that the Notice of Code Violation and of Enforcement is improper and is 24 in violation of the contractual and constitutional rights of the Contestants for the following reasons: 25 (1) The Notice of Code Violation and of Enforcement constitutes discrimination in 26 enforcement. (2) The "Off-Premises" advertising was a non-conforming use at the time of the enactment of the referenced Ordinance on or about January 7, 1977 and remains a CLJ191301 ; Appeal of Enforcement... 1 RECEIVED JUL 1 S 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 1 non-conforming use. 2 (3) The City of Burlingame/Code Enforcement Department are estopped to enforce the 3 referenced Ordinance. 4 (4) The Doctrine Of Laches and/or Statute of Limitations preclude enforcement by the 5 City of Burlingame/Code Enforcement Department of the referenced Ordinance. 6 III. ESTABLISHMENT OF CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS 7 3. On or about February 14, 2001, Contestants entered into a lease contract entitled 8 "Commercial Lease and Deposit Receipt" for a period of ten(10)years commencing on March 1,2001 to 9 and including February 28,2011 at a total rental of$603,702.00;and moreover,required Contestants to pay 10 a "Non-Refundable Fee/Key Fee, and not as rent, in the amount of$75,000.00". The Landlord/Owner of 11 the premises commonly known as 1400 Burlingame Avenue was Peter Umland who executed the 12 Commercial Lease and Deposit Receipt with the Contestants on the referenced date. Peter Umland has 13 subsequently died and the Successor In Interest is now Gretchen U. Kingsbury, Conservator for Dolores --� 14 Umland as Successor In Interest to Peter Umland. A copy of the Commercial Lease and Deposit Receipt 15 is attached hereto, marked Exhibit B and incorporated hereat by this reference. 16 4. During the negotiations for the terms of the referenced lease between Contestants and Peter 17 Umland it was discussed most extensively that in addition to the allowance to sell the typical products; 18 newspapers,magazines,and all tobacco products except other than machine made cigars,was the use of the 19 "bulletin board"which produced rent and at the time of the referenced lease execution had an advertisement; 20 that of Michael Horowitz of Prudential Reality'. There was no disclosure in any form whatsoever by Peter 21 Umland that any advertising which produce rentals on the "bulletin board" had been subject to M notice 22 by the City of Burlingame of it being in violation of any ordinance including the"Off-Premises"advertising. 23 Contestants relied on the absence of any knowledge of the "bulletin board" being in possible violation of 24 any ordinance of the City of Burlingame at the time the referenced lease was executed,which advertising 25 then in existence constituting literally under the referenced Code a violation of the "Off-Premises" 26 advertising ordinance; moreover, there was no advice to the contrary by Peter Umland or the Code 'See Para. 38f of Exhibit B. CL3191301;Appeal of Enforcement... 2 RECEIVED JUL 1 8 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 1 Enforcement Department of the City of Burlingame. 2 5. Notwithstanding that Contestants had continuously for all times following February 14,2001 3 had advertisements in the"bulletin board"for products or services other than of the Contestants,there have 4 been no citations of any nature,orally or in writing,until June 13,2005 concerning the alleged prohibition 5 that there can be no such advertising signs in the "bulletin board" for other products or services. 6 6. Peter Umland and the Contestants fully acknowledged and agreed with each other that the 7 rentals which were being charged by Peter Umland and as set forth in the referenced Commercial Lease and 8 Deposit Receipt would be "difficult" to be paid from the net revenues for the sale of tobacco products, 9 newspapers and magazines and the revenues from the Lotto machine;without the rentals being received for 10 the Off-Premise advertising in the"bulletin board". Contestants have reviewed their financial matters during 11 the operation following February 14,2001 and declare that without the revenues being produced by the Off- 12 Premise advertising now to"The Psychic"and"Dirty Laundry"in the approximate amount of$1,200.00 per 13 month, they will be unable and incapable of obtaining sufficient revenues to pay the appreciable lease 14 charges. Moreover, it is to be noted that the Contestants paid in cash towards the $75,000.00 obligation 15 above referenced which was founded, in part, by the revenues to be produced by the "Off-Premises" 16 advertising the approximate sum of$30,000.00 and have suffered an adverse judgment for the remaining 17 amount owing in the approximate amount of$70,000.00 including a sum for the purchase of certain personal 18 property. 19 IV. DISCUSSION OF CONTENTIONS 20 (1) Discrimination in Enforcement:Most respectfully submitted, Contestants believe based on 21 statistical facts below stated that the simple uncontroverted fact is that Peter Umland who operated The 22 Burlingame Smoke Shop for numerous years commencing sometime prior to January 1, 1977 and until some 23 date uncertain in 1999,albeit he continued to own the Subject Property until his death was seemingly never 24 cited for the advertisements that he provided in the"bulletin board". Contestants are informed and believe 25 and upon such information and belief allege that sometime in 1999,particular date unknown,Peter Umland 26 leased The Burlingame Smoke Shop to Michael O'Leary but continued to collect the rent for this lease �. period pertinent to the"bulletin board". Michael O'Leary terminated his leasehold arrangement with Peter Umland sometime preceding February of 2001 and then the Contestants were granted the leasehold interest CLJ191301;Appeal of Enforcement... 3 RECEIVED JUL 18 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 1 under the referenced lease. As referenced above,Peter Umland at no time disclosed to Contestants that he 2 was aware of any prohibition for the advertising in the"bulletin board"whether such advertising be for"Off- 3 Premises" advertising or for the services and products of The Burlingame Smoke Shop. Contestants are 4 informed and believe and upon such information and belief allege that even though Peter Umland employed 5 the"bulletin board"for a certain period for"public announcements"he for not less than on or about January 6 1, 1977 allowed for"Off-Premises"advertising which would be prohibited under the referenced Ordinance. 7 However,at no time to the knowledge of Contestants had Peter Umland received any advice from the Code 8 Enforcement Department of the City of Burlingame that such advertising was prohibited. It thus appears 9 to the Contestants that there is simply an unequal or unfair enforcement of this referenced zoning regulation 10 as it pertains to the Subject Premises for the inactivity or unreasonable delay to bring any notice of possible 11 violation. 12 (2) Estoppel: Contestants respectfully submit that by reason that they reasonably relied when 13 executing the Commercial Lease and Deposit Receipt that they would be entitled to revenues for the"Off- 14 Premise" advertising and there having been then no issuance of any citation for any previous violations of 15 the referenced Ordinance by the City of Burlingame have available as a defense to the enforcement the 16 Principle of Equitable Estoppel which may be applied against a governmental entity where justice and 17 fairness require the same. There can be no prejudice to the citizenry of the City of Burlingame for it being 18 estopped to preclude the"Off-Premises" advertising which has now been ongoing possibly for not less than 19 all times following January 1, 1977 and is not in derogation of any public policy adopted for the benefit of 20 the public. As referenced above, Contestants will suffer irreparable financial damage by the belated and 21 discriminatory enforcement of the referenced ordinance. 22 (3) Non-Conforming Use: Contestants have no information or belief of the exact period under 23 which Peter Umland commenced the advertising in the "bulletin board" but are informed and believe and 24 upon such information and belief allege that for all times following at a date prior to January 1, 1977,there 25 was advertising in the "bulletin board" for during such period Peter Umland owned the Subject Premises 26 and operated The Burlingame Smoke Shop. The Code Enforcement Officer has most respectfully negotiated with the Contestants to resolve the dispute and has advised the Contestants that the records seemingly indicate that Peter Umland secured a permit for the construction of the"bulletin board"at or about the time CU 191301;Appeal of Enforcement... 4 RECEIVED JUL 1 8 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 1 the ordinance was passed. Thus,there may be admittedly not a non-conforming use for the advertising may 2 not have been in place at the time the ordinance was enacted;however,if this is true,there seemingly is an 3 anomaly . If the permit was granted for the "bulletin board"prior to the enactment of the ordinance,there 4 is clearly a non-conforming use and to the contrary, if the permit for the "bulletin board" was subsequent 5 to the enactment of the referenced ordinance,then there should have been no permit granted and again the 6 City of Burlingame would be estopped for it granted the permit to allow for the belated non-conforming use. 7 (4) Statute of Limitations/Doctrine of Laches:As a general observation,a good zoning ordinance 8 becomes little more than a"hollow shell"if it is not enforced with wisdom and vigor and strict and impartial 9 enforcement of zoning ordinances is absolutely necessary to preserve and protect the zoning program and 10 the interest of the citizenry. With no criticism intended,it is respectfully submitted by the Contestants that 11 the inactivity of the Code Enforcement Officials who were charged with zoning enforcement clearly mislead 12 Peter Umland and the Contestants by no known enforcement of the referenced ordinances preceding July 13 8, 2005. The file maintained by the Code Enforcement Officer of the City of Burlingame clearly reflects 14 knowledge of minor code violation of the Contestants possibly in the year 2001 and clearly in the year 2002 15 and thereafter for stating numerous violations including encroachment by the Contestants of having their 16 newspaper racks improperly placed on the sidewalk in front of the business premises,all of which violations 17 have been corrected. But clearly,the Code Enforcement Department fully knew for all times since February 18 14,2001 following Contestants'occupancy of the Subject Premises of the alleged illegal advertising taking 19 place on the Primrose side of the Subject Premises which had been previously installed by Peter Umland. 20 There is thus clearly inexcusable delay in asserting a violation now which substantially prejudices the 21 Contestants who in good faith relied upon the lack of any enforcement; in other words,no knowledge that 22 the"bulletin board"which was to produce revenue to the Contestants was an illegal activity. The inaction 23 of the Code Enforcement Department of the City of Burlingame clearly should not now be allowed to act 24 in derogation of the contractual rights set forth in the Commercial Lease and Deposit Receipt of the 25 Contestants which will thus cause irreparable harm and damages and in derogation of the Principle set forth 26 at the beginning of Section (4) above. �- V. RELIEF REQUESTED 7. Contestants respectfully request that the"Off-Premises"advertising now in existence be for CU191301;Appeal of Enforcement... 5 I ILe%—IL_I V L-V JUL 1 8 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 1 all times hereafter allowed for the period of the lease be deemed a non-conforming use and/or the Code 2 Enforcement Department of the City of Burlingame is simply precluded from enforcing the referenced 3 ordinance during the tenure of the Contestants at the Subject Premises by reason of its now prejudicial and 4 discriminatory enforcement and/or by reason of its prior inactivity or inexcusable delay to enforce the 5 referenced Ordinance. 6 Dated: July 18, 2005 7 8 ASHOK PATEL, Contestant 9 10 11 ANILA PATEL, Contestant 12 13 VERIFICATION 14 Declarant herein,Ashok Patel and Anila Patel,hereby declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the 15 State of California that they have read the foregoing APPEAL OF ENFORCEMENT OF ORDINANCE NO. 16 22.48.040 TO CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION and the statements therein are true 17 and correct under penalty of perjury except such statements which are stated on information and belief as 18 to those statements, declarants believe them to be true. This Declaration is executed on July 18, 2005 at 19 Burlingame, California. 20 21 22 ASHOK PATEL, Contestant 23 24 ANILA PATEL, Contestant 25 26 CLJ191301;Appeal of Enforcement... 6 ��� CITY o� City of Burlingame BURLINGAME . . Office of the City Attorney lb Code Enforcement Bureau 50-9ATED 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010 (650) 558-7208, Fax: (650) 342-8386 JUNE 6 July 8, 2005 Ashok and Anila Patel Burlingame Smoke Shop RECEIVED 1400 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 �V� 1 8 ZOOS NOTICE OF VIOLATION CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANN� ►►�G SUBJECT: BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE VIOLATION AT 1400 BURLINGAM)� NRY-E. Dear Ashok and Anila Patel: On June 13, 2005 this office notified you that the advertising sign for the Psychic located at 1410 Burlingame Ave. is considered an off-premises sign and prohibited by City Code and must be removed by June 17, 2005. Since the sign for psychic services at 1420 Burlingame Ave. has not been removed and a second advertising sign for Dirty Laundry located at 337 Primrose Road has been added to the window area along Primrose Road this letter is being sent to formally notify you that you are in violation of Burlingame Municipal Code Section 22.48.040 — Off-premises advertising prohibited. Signs are permitted only to the actual occupant of the building or property upon which the sign is displayed during the period of the business' occupancy. The City takes these violations seriously and intends to monitor the situation carefully. The City will move forward with enforcement action in the event the signs are not removed by Thursday July 19, 2005. This letter concludes the City's warning letter process. A copy of this letter is being sent to the businesses that are being advertised on the prohibited signs. You have the right to appeal the determinations made regarding the application of zoning regulations as they relate to the use of the property contained in this letter by filing a written appeal to the Planning Cc=jssion, together with the required appeal fees. This written appeal must be filed with the Planning Department located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA no later than ten ( 10) days from the date of this letter. Failure to file this appeal may result in your being barred from contesting these determinations in subsequent administrative or judicial proceedings. If you have any questions or wish to discuss the matter I can be reached at (650) 558-7208. Sin erely, J 2C Susan A. Hams �-- Code Enforcement Officer cc: City Attorney Property Owner Dirty Laundry Cathy Adams JUL 1 S 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. COMMERCIAL LEASE AND DEPOSIT RECEIPT AGENCY RELATIONSHIP CONFIRMATION. The following agency relationship is hereby confirmed for this transaction and supersedes any prior agency election (If no agency relationship, insert "NONE"): LISTING AGENT: Tim Auzan is the agent of (c;-eck one): (Print Firm Name) ❑the Lessor exclusively, or X both the Lessee and the Lessor. LEASING AGENT: (if not the same as the Listing Agent) is the agent of (check one): (Print Firm Name) ❑ the Lessz-e exclusively; or ❑the Lessor exclusively; or ❑both the Lessee and the Lessor. Note_ This confirmation DOES NOT take the place of the AGENCY DISCLOSURE form which may be required by law. RECEIVED FRGM Ashok b Anila Patel , hereinafter referred to as LESSEE, the sum of S 1000. ( One Thousand ------------------------------ dollars), evidenced by Personal Chec3c as a deposit which will belong to Lessor and will be applied as follows: BALANCE DUE PRJOR TOTAL RECENED TO OCCUPANCY Rent for the period from to . .. ..• • S S 5 Security deposit (not applicable toward last month's rent) Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . .. . ... . ... $ 75,000. S 1000. $ 74,000.* TOTAL.. . . . . . . . . .. . . .. . . .. .. . . .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . $ 75000, S 1000, $ 74,000. In the event this Lease is not accepted by the Lessor within 2 days, the total deposit received will be refunded. Lessee offers to lease from Lessor the premises situated in the City of Burlingame , County of San Mateo , State of California described as 1400 Burlingame Avenue a retail store consisting of approximately 530 square feet, upon the following terms and conditions. 1. TERM. The term will commence on (date) March 1, 2001 and end on(date) Febraaro 28 , 2011 2. RENT. The total rent will be $ 603,702payable at S 4000.-* per month (based on first year's rates)payable on the 1st day of each month. All rents will be paid to Lessor or his or her authorized agent,at the following address Q2_ard_ Prooi Ca , or at such other places as may be designated by Lessor from time to time. _,. r..Q�ti.e�, P O Bx 644, Bu– ingame� In the event rent is not received by Lessor within 5 days after due date,Lessee agrees to pay a late charge of plus interest at —12_% per annum on the delinquent amount. Lessee further agrees to pay S 25 for each dishonored bank check. The late charge period is not a grace period, and Lessor is entitled to make written demand for any rent if not paid when due. 3. USE. The premises are to be used for the operation of Srno)ce Shoo retai? tobacco,lotto,_gaIlcy liquor ne�aspap �s, ma�a--ines etc and for no other purpose, without prior written consent of Lessor. Lessee will not commit any waste upon the premises, or any nuisance or act which may disturb the quiet enjoyment of any tenant in the building. 4. USES PROHIBITED. Lessee will not use any portion of the premises for purposes other than those specified. No use will be made or permitted to be made upon the premises, nor acts done, which will increase the existing rate of insurance upon the property, or cause cancellation of insurance policies covering the property. Lessee will not conduct or permit any sale by auction on the premises. 5. ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLETTING. Lessee will not assign this Lease or sublet any portion of the premises without prior written consent of the Lessor, which will not be unreasonably withheld. Any such assignment or subletting without consent will be void and, at the option of the Lessor, will terminate this Lease. 6. ORDINANCES AND STATUTES. Lessee will comply with all statutes, ordinances, and recuirements of all municipal, state and federal au- thorities now in force, or which may later be in force, regarding the use of the premises. The commencement or pendency of any state or federal court abatement proceeding affecting the use of the premises will, at the option of the Lessor, be deemed a breach of this Lease. 7. MAINTENANCE, REPAIRS, ALTERATIONS. Unless otherwise indicated, Lessee acknowledges that the premises are in good order and repair. Lessee will, at his or her own expense, maintain the premises in a good and safe cor:dition, including plate glass, electrical wiring, plumbing and heating and air conditioning installations, and any other system or equipment. The premises will be surrendered, at termi- nation of the Lease, in as good condition as received, normal wear and tear excepted. Lessee will be responsible for all repairs required during the term of the lease,except the following which will be maintained by Lessor:roof,exterior walls,structural foundations(including any retrofitting required by governmental authorities) and the following: Lessee X will, ❑ will not maintain the property adjacent to the premises,such as sidewalks,driveways,lawns,and shrubbery,which would otherwise be maintained by Lessor. No improvement or alteration of the premises will be made without the prior written consent of the Lessor. Prior to the commence- ment of any subs t is repair, improvement, or alteration, Lessee will give Lessor at least two (2) days written notice in order that TL�ssor may st r riate notices to avoid any liability for liens. ) has read this page. CAUTION: The coovrioht laws of the United States forbid the unauthorized reproduCion of this form by any means including scanning or computerized formats. Page 1 of 4 roij PROFESSIONAL Mt_hC:i v cv JUL 1 8 2005 Property Address_ 1400 Buxlincame Aveni:e B rl;ngame CRITY OF BURLINGAME -PbkNNING DEPI S. ETITRY AND INSPECTION. Lessee will permit Lessor or Lessor's agents to enter the premises at reasonable times and upon reasonal notice for the purpose of inspecting the premises, and will permit Lessor, at any time within sixty (60) days prior to the expiration of this Lease, to place upon the premises any usual "For Lease" signs, and permit persons desiring to lease the premises to inspect the premises at reasonable times. 9. INDEMNIFICATION OF LESSOR. Lessor will not be liable for any damage or injury to Lessee, or any other person, or to any property, occurring on the premises. Lessee agrees to hold Lessor harmless from any claims for damages arising out of Lessee's use of the premises, and to indemnify Lessor for any expense incurred by Lessor in defending any such claims. 10. POSSESSION. If Lessor is unable to deliver possession of the premises at the commencement date set forth above, Lessor will not be liable for any damage caused by the delay, nor will this Lease be void or voidable, but Lessee will not be liable for any rent until posses- sion is delivered. Lessee may terminate this Lease if possession is not delivered within 2 days of the commencement term in Item 1. 11. LESSEE'S INSURANCE. Lessee, at his or her expense, will maintain plate glass, public liability, and property damage insurance insuring Lessee and Lessor with minimum coverage as follows: $1.000.000 Public liabili+y Lessee will provide Lessor with a Certificate of Insurance showing Lessor as additional insured. The policy will require ten (10) day's written notice to Lessor prior to cancellation or material change of coverage. 12. LESSOR'S INSURANCE. Lessor will maintain hazard insurance covering one hundred percent (100%) actual cash value of the improve- ments throughout the Lease term. Lessor's insurance will not insure Lessee's personal property,leasehold improvements,or trade fixtures. 13. SUBROGATION. To the maximum extent permitted by insurance policies which may be owned by the parties, Lessor and Lessee waive any and all rights of subrogation against each other which might otherwise exist: 14. UTILITIES. Lessee agrees that he or she will be responsible for the payment of all utilities, including water, gas, electricity, heat and other services delivered to the premises, except: n/a 13. SIGHS. Lessee will not place, maintain, nor permit any sign or awning on any exterior door, wall, or window of the premises without the express written consent of Lessor, which will not be unreasonably withheld, and of appropriate governmental authorities. 16. ABANDONMENT OF PREMISES. Lessee will not vacate or abandon the premises at any time during the term of this lease. If Lessee does abandon or vacate the premises, or is dispossessed by process of law, or otherwise, any personal property belonging to Lessee left on the premises will be deemed to be abandoned, at the option of Lessor. 17. CONDEMNATION. If any part of the premises is condemned for public use, and a part remains which is susceptible of occupation by Lessee, this Lease will, as to the part taken, terminate as of the date the condemnor acquires possession. Lessee will be required to pay such proportion of the rent for the remaining term as the value of the premises remaining bears to the total value of the premises at the date of condemnation; provided, however, that either party may, at his or her option, terminate this Lease as of the date the condemnor acquires possession. In the event that the premises are condemned in whole, or the remainder is not susceptible for u by the Lessee, this Lease will terminate upon the date which the condemnor acquires possession. All sums which may be payable account of any condemnation will belong solely to the Lessor; except that Lessee will be entitled to retain any amount awarded to him or her for his or her trade fixtures and moving expenses. 18 TRADE FIXTURES. Any and all improvements made to the premises during the term will belong to the Lessor, except trade fixtures of the Lessee. Lessee may, upon termination, remove all his or her trade fixtures, but will pay for all costs necessary to repair any damage to the premises occasioned by the removal. 19. DESTRUCTION OF PREMISES. In the event of a partial destruction of the premises during the term, from any cause except acts or omission of Lessee, Lessor will promptly repair the premises, provided that such repairs can be reasonably made within sixty (60) days. Such partial destruction will not terminate this Lease, except that Lessee will be entitled to a proportionate reduction of rent while such repairs are being made, based upon the extent to which the making of such repairs interferes with the business of Lessee on the prem- ises. If the repairs cannot be made within sixty (60) days, this Lease may be terminated at the option of either party by giving written notice to the other party within the sixty (60) day period. 20. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Lessee will not use, store, or dispose of any hazardous substances upon the premises, except the use and storage of such substances that are customarily used in Lessee's business,and are in compliance with all environmental laws. Hazardous substances means any hazardous waste, substance or toxic materials regulated under any environmental laws or regulations applicable. to the property. Lessee will be responsible for the cost of removal of any toxic contamination caused by lessee's use of the premises. 21. INSOLVENCY. The appointment of a receiver, an assignment for the benefits of creditors, or the filing of a petition in bankruptcy by or against Lessee, will constitute a breach of this Lease by Lessee. 22. DEFAULT. In the event of any breach of this Lease by Lessee, Lessor may, at his or her option, terminate the Lease and recover from Lessee (a) the worth at the time of award of the unpaid rent which had been earned at the time of termination, (b) the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent which would have been earned after termination until the time of the award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the Lessee proves could have been reasonably avoided; (c) the worth at the time of award of the amount by which the unpaid rent for the balance of the term after the time of award exceeds the amount of such rental loss that the Lessee proves could be reasonably avoided; and (d) any other amount necessary to compensate Lessor for all the detriment proximately caused by the Lessee's failure to perform his or her obligations under the Lease or which in the ordinary course of things would be likely to result therefrom. Lessor may, in the alternative, continue this Lease in effect, as long as Lessor does not terminate Lessee's right to possession, and Lessor may enforce all of Lessor's rights and remedies under the Lease,including the right to recover the rent as it becomes due under the Lease. If said breach of Lease continues, Lessor may, at any time thereafter, elect to terminate the Lease. These provision of limit any other rights or remedies which Lessor may have. Lessee as read this page- CAUTION: The copyright laws of the United States forbid the unauthorized reproduction of this form by any means including scanning or computerized formats. Page 2 of 4 FbilPROFiESSIOMAL FORM 107.2 (02-2000) CP'F HTut99320M By PccF�.owiweU7,rvc Xs HL u.RH.EYSQw SLVC:,xt �.M a soe p415JM,.;,-a '5 pU$L753I1ML flL.VI—I v 11.._v JUL 1 8 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME Property Address 1400 Burlingame Avenue. Bu=linaame. CAPLANNING DEPT. SECURITY. The security deposit will secure the performance of the Lessee's obligations. Lessor may, but will not be obligated to, apply all or portions of the deposit on account of Lessee's obligations. Any balance remaining upon termination will be returned to Lessee. Lessee will not have the right to apply the security deposit in payment of the last month's rent. 24. DEPOSIT REFUNDS. The balance of all deposits will be refunded within three (3) weeks (or as otherwise required by law), from date possession is delivered to Lessor or his or her authorized agent, together with a statement showing any charges made against the deposits by Lessor. 25. ATTORNEY FEES_ In any action or proceeding involving a dispute between Lessor and Lessee arising out of this Lease, the prevailing party will he entitled to reasonable attorney fees. 26. WAIVER. No failure of Lessor to enforce any term of this Lease will be deemed to be a waiver. 27. NOTICES. Any notice which either party may or is required to give, will be given by mailing the notice, postage prepaid, to Lessee at the premises, or to Lessor at the address shown in Item 2, or at such other places as may be designated in writing by the parties from time to time. Notice will be effective five (5) days after mailing, or on personal delivery, or when receipt is acknowledged in writing. 28. HOLDING OVER. Any holding over after the expiration of this Lease,with the consent of Owner, will be a month-to-month tenancy at a monthly rent of $ 6514. , payable in advance and otherwise subject to the terms of this Lease. as applicable, until either party will terminate the tenancy by giving the other party thirty (30) days written notice. 29. TIME. Time is of the essence of this Lease. 30. HEIRS, ASSIGNS, SUCCESSORS. This Lease is binding upon and inures to the benefit of the heirs,assigns, and successors of the parties. 31. TAX INCREASE. In the event there is any increase during any year of the term of this Lease in real estate taxes over and above the amount of such taxes assessed for the tax year during which the term of this Lease commences, Lessee will pay to Lessor an amount equal to 25 % of the increase in taxes upon the land and building in which the leased premises are situated. In the event that such taxes are assessed for a tax year extending beyond the term of the Lease,the obligation of Lessee will be prorated. Lessee will not be esponsible for any tax increase occasioned solely by a sale or transfer of the premises by Lessor. effective f d2 1 month immediately follow- i t ation of 12 months from date of commencement of the to m,and upon the expiration of each 12 months thereafter, in accord- once with change U.S. Consumer Price Index for r1 roan Consumers(1982-84 100),or ❑(other index) will be increased to an amount equal to the monthly rent set forth in Item 2, multiplied by a fraction the nu - wnich is the C e second calendar month immediately preceding the adjustment date, and the deno- minator o is the CPI for the second calendar mont preceding the commencement of the Lease term; provided, however, that the a ou or 33. OPTION TO RENEW. Provided that Lessee is not in default in the performance of this Lease, Lessee will have the option to renew the Lease for an additional term of 60 months commencing at the expiration of the initial Lease term. All of the terms and conditions of the Lease will apply during the renewal term, except that the monthly rent will be the sum of $ see 38b which will be ad- justed after commencement of the renewal term in accordance with the cast of living increase provision set forth in Item 32. The option will be exercised by written notice given to Lessor not less than 120 days prior to the expiration of the initial Lease term. If notice is not given within the time specified, this Option will expire. 34. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. The parties are alerted to the existence of the Americans With Disabilities Act, which may re- quire costly structural modifications. The parties are advised to consult with a professional familiar with the requirements of the Act. 35. LESSOR'S LIABILITY. In the event of a transfer of Lessor's title or interest to the property during the term of this Lease, Lessee agrees that the grantee of such title or interest will be substituted as the Lessor under this Lease, and the original Lessor will be released of all further liability; provided, that all deposits will be transferred to the grantee. 36. ESTOPPEL CERTIFICATE. (a) On ten (10) days' prior written notice from Lessor, Lessee will execute, acknowledge, and deliver to Lessor a statement in writing: [1] certifying that this Lease is unmodified and in full force and effect (or, if modified, stating the nature of such modification and certifying that this Lease, as so mcdified, is in full force and effect),the amount of any security deposit, and the date to which the rent and other charges are paid in advance, if any; and [2] acknowledging that there are not, to Lessee's knowledge, any uncured de- faults the part of Lessor, or specifying such defaults if any are claimed. Any such statement may be conclusively relied upon by any prospective buyer or encumbrancer of the premises. (b) At Lessor's option, Lessee's failure to deliver such statement within such time will be a material breach of this Lease or will be conclusive upon Lessee: [1] that this Lease is in full force and effect, without modification except as may be represented by Lessor, [2] that there are no uncured defaults in Lessor's performance', and (3]that not more than one month's rent has been paid in advance. (c) If Lessor desires to finance, refinance, or sell the premises, or any part thereof, Lessee agrees to deliver to any tender or buyer designated by Lessor such financial statements of Lessee as may be reasonably required by such lender or buyer. All financial y,atements wi eived by the Lessor or the lender or buyer in confidence and will be used only for the purposes set forth. _JJ�s/ee ] has read this page. CAUTION: The copyright laws of the United States forbid the unauthorized reproduction of this form by any means including scanning or computerized formats. Pape 3 or 4 PROFESSIONAL FORM 107.3 (02-2000) C'WR",Ta+199220M BY PFGF OMTiAJBLGhI1K 85eF!LlAF1H EY$�W S1fE1J X1T� a iCy9 �115eA+.21� PUBLISHING r dILVL_I V L_Lop JUL 1 S 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME Property Address 1400 Burlingame Avenue. Burlingame. CA PLANNlNGDEPT. 37. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. The foregoing constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and may be modified only in writing sign, by all parties. The following exhibits are a part of this Lease. Exhibit A: Note for balance owed. Exhibit B: Lease of Bulletin board Exhibit C: 38. ADDITIONAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS. A Rent schedule- yr 1 $4000 /mo yr 2-$4200./mo, yr 3-$4410./mo yr 4-4630.50/mo, yr 5- *4862 /mo y= 6-$5105./m0,-y-= 7-$5360./mo, yr 8-$5628./mo, yr 9-$5909./mo, yr 10-$6204./mo. B_ Rent for the option riod will be market rent at that time however it will not be less than year 10 rent plus 5% and will continue to increase by no less than 5% per year. C Paragraph 31 will app1V on1V if prop 13 tax limits are changed modified or repealed. D The $75 000 paid is a non-refundable fee and is not rent.The lessee will pay $30,000. by 02/23/01 The remaining $45,000. will be paid $10,000. per year on the anniversary of this lease. Lessee will pay in addition to rent monthly interest on this debt at 8.251. E Lessee will be responsible for all necessary repairs to the bathroom and_walls and doorway necessary to isolate 303 Primrose as directed by lessor. F.Lessee will have all r:LcThts to the use of the bulletin board on the East side of the build±ncT subject to the existing lease by Michael Horowitz. G Cigar sales are l imi ted to machine made unless Burlingame Tobbacconist_agrees o the=w±se- The undersigned Lessee acknowledges that he or she has thoroughly read and approved each of the provisions contained in this Offer, and agrees to the terms and conditio6s specified. Lessee ate oZ /7 0l Lessee Date --y/� Ashok Patel Anila Patel Receipt for deposit acknowledged by Date ACCEPTANCE The undersigned Lessor accepts the foregoing Offer and agrees to lease the premises on the terms and conditions set forth above. NOTICE: The amount or rate of real estate commissions is not fixed by law. They are set by each broker indi- vidually and may be negotiable between the owner and broker. The Lessor agrees to pay to , the Broker in this transaction, the sum of S r to deduct said sum from the deposit received from Lessee. for services rendered and authorizes Broke In the event the Lease is extended for a definite period of time or on a month-to-month basis after expiration of the original term, Lessor will pay to Broker an additional commission of % of the total rental for the extended period. This commission will be due and payable a com ncement of the extended period if for a fixed term, or if on a month-to-month basis, at the termination of Lessee's occupant r n ar, w r is earlier. I n f n for co is on, a pr ailing party will be till-d to reasonable attorney fees. Lesso ate Lessor Date Pe e U-mland Lessee acknowledges receipt of a copy of the accepted Lease on (date) ( )( ) .(Initials) CAUTION: The copyright laws of the United States forbid the unauthorized reproduction of this form by any Rev.M j means including scanning or computerized formats. Pa e 4 of 4p� PROFESSIONAL ORDINANCE N0, 61EI AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ARTICLE 29, PART V, OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME; ADOPTING A NaAl ARTICLE 49A, PART IX, REGULATING TEE CONSTRUCTION, ERECTION, MAINTENANCE AND USE OF SIGNS WITHIN THE CITY; AND REPEALING ALL SECTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE CODE IN CONFLICT THEREWITH The City Council of the City of Burlingame does ordain as follows: Section 1. The Ordinance Code of the City of Burlingame is hereby amended by repealing Article 29, Part V, thereof and adopting a new Article 49A, Part IXO which shall read and provide as follows: Article 49.A - Signs The intent and purpose of this Lrticle is to provide a com- prehensive system of regulation of all signs which are displayed for any purpose in the city; to provide controls for the structural safety of signs and boards; to assure that signs do not interfere wit.?-!. the safety of pedestrians and vehicles. It is recognized in this Article that the attractiveness of the community is an important factor of the general welfare of the citizens and that reasonable con- trol of signs is in the public interest. Sect. 1850 Definitions Awning. An awning shall include any structure made of cloth or metal with a metal frame attached to a building and projecting over a thoroughfare, when the same is so erected as to permit it being raised to a. position flat against the building when not in use. Canopy. A canopy shall include any structure, other than an awning, made of cloth or metal with metal frames attached to a building, projecting over a thoroughfare, and carried by a frame supported by immovable braces from the wail. Erect. Erect shall mean to build, construct, attach, hang, place, suspend, affix, and shall also include the painting of wall signs and the painting of signs upon walls and upon the exterior of any building. Ground sign. A ground sign shall include any sign supported by uprights or braces placed upon the ground and not attached to any building, including all types of billboards. Marquee. A marquee includes Pny hood or awning of permanent con- struction projecting from the wall of a building and extend- ing over a thoroughfare. Pole-sign. A pole-sign is one, illuminated or not, permanently supported in or on the ground by a pole or poles without attachment to a building. Projecting sign. Projecting signs include any signs which are attached to the wall of a building or other structure and extend horizontally beyond the building or structure to which they are attached. Roof sign, A roof sign is any sign orected or constructed upon or over the roof of any building with the principal support on the roof structure. _ page 2. Temporary sign. Temporary signs include any signs banners pennants valances or advertising display constructed of cloth, canvas, light fabric, cardboard, wallboard, plastic, or other light materials,. with or without frames, intended to be displayed for a short period of time only. Wall sign. Wall signs include all flat signs, either of solid face construction or individual letters, which are placed against the exterior wall of any building or structure. Sign. The term "sign" shall mean and include every signs billboard, ground sign, wall sign' roof sign, illuminated sign, projecting sign, "A"board, temporary sign,, marquee, canopy, awning,, and street clock, and any announcement, declaration, display, illustration or insignia used to advertise or promote the interests of any person when the same is placed out-of-doors in the view of the general public. Person. Person shall mean and include any person, firm, part- nership, associations corporation, company or organization of any kind, Incombustible Material, Any material which will not ignite at or below a temperature of 12000 fahrenheit or will not con- time to burn or glow at that temperature will be termed "incombustible material". Approved Combustible Plastics, Approved combustible plastics mean only those combustible plastics which,, when tested in accordance with ASTM Standard Method of Test for Flammabil.i_t•: of Plastics over 0.050" in thickness (D635-44) burn no faster than 2.5" per minute in sheets of 0,060' in thickness Applications for permits to erect signs in which plastic materials will be employed shall certify that the plastic is noncombustible or that the material has been tested by - a recognized testinlaboratory and rated as an "approved combustible plastic `. Structural trim. Structural trim shall mean the molding, bat- tens, cappings, nailing strips, latticing, and platforms which are attached to the sign structure. Sect. 1851 Permits a. Permit Required. It shall be unlawful for any person to ere•-t, relocate or maintain within the City of Burlingame any sign or other advertising structure as defined in this :irticle without first obtaining an erection permit From the Building Inspector and making payment of the fee required in Sect. 1852 hereof. All illuminated signs shall, in addition, be subject to the provisions of the Electrical Code. b. Action by Building Inspector. It shall be the duty of the Building Inspector, upon the filing of an application for an erection permit, to examine the plans and specifications and other data and the premises upon which it is proposed to erect the sign or other advertising structure, and if it shall appear that the proposed structure is in compliance with all the requirements of this Article and all other laws and ordinances of the City of Burlingame, he shall then issue the eroction permit. If the work authorized under an erection permit has not been completed within six (6) months after date of issuance, the said permit shall become mull and void. c. Application for Permit. .Application for erection permits shall be made upon blanks provided by the Building Inspector. and shall contain or have attached thereto the following inf ormati on:. 1. Name, address and telephone number of the applicant. 2. Location of building, structure or lot to which or upon which the sign or advertising structure is to be attached or erected. page 3. 3. Position of the sign or other advertising structure in relation to nearby buildings or structures, 4. Two blueprints or ink drawings of the plans and spec- ifications and method of construction and attachment to the building or to the ground, 5. For free standing signs, pole signs, ground signs, roof signs and marquees, a copy o1' stress sheets and cal- culations showing that the structure is designed for dead load and wind pressure in any direction in the amount required by this and other ordinances of the City of Burlingame, when such calculations are re- quired by the Building Inspector. 6. Name of person, firm or corporation erecting the struc- ture, 7. Written consent of the owner of the building, structure or land to which or on which the structure is to be erected, 8. Notice-to ov,m er of city requirements regarding tenure of sign for temporary permits. d. Electric Power Lines, No permit for any sign shall be issued and no sign shall be constructed, installed or erected rhic.a does not comply with all the provisions of this Article or which has loss horizontal or vertical clearance from ener- gized power lines than prescribed by the California Penal Code, section 385, the regulations of the Public Utilities Commission, and the orders of the Division of Industrial Safety, State of California. Sect. 1852 Fees a. Every applicant, before being granted a permit hereunder, sha". pay to the Building Inspector the Following permit fees; 1. Awning or canopy ....... . ..... .se. •......e $ 1.00 20 Marquee .......p........ .. ................ 10,00 3. Temporary sign, each 60 sq.ft. or fraction ((��(�� t he re of ..........••.. .. •...... ..4...... 1 O 00 _ 4. Pole signs, ground signs, roof signs, projecting signs, per sq.ft. of sign ... .10 5. Wall signs o.................... . .. ....... 2.00 6. Painting signs on well or exterior of any building ......... ...... .. .0... ... .. 1,00 b. Those fees shall be in addition to fees for electrical in- spection where such fees are required. c. Fees for those clases of signs listed under 4. above, sha]_1 be computed on the area of one face of the sign only, whether sign is single or multiple faced. d. In the event that any sign is erected before a permit for such sign is issued, the Building Inspector shall assess and collect twice the stated fee upon issuance of the permit. o. No sign permit shall be issued for less than a minimum fee of 1.00. Sect, 1853 Safety Requirements co License by Council. All rights and :privileges acquired under the provisions of this article or any amendment thereto are more licenses revocable at any timo by the City Council, and all permits shall carry this provision. b. Unsafe Signs. If the Building Inspector shall find that any sign or advertising structure regulated herein is unsafe or insecure, or is a menace to the public, or has been con- structed or erected or is being maintained in violation of this Article, he shall give written notice to the permittee or responsible person. If such person fails to remove, alter or repair the sign or structure within ten (10) days after such notice, such sign or structure may be removed. or altered to comply by the Building Inspector at the ex- page 4. pense of the permitteo, or owner of the property upon which it is located, The Building Inspector may cause any sign or advertising structure which is an immediate peril to persons or property to be removed summarily and without notice. c. wind Pressure. all signs and advertising structures, except- ing temporary signs, shall be designed and constructed to withstand a wind pressure of not less than the following intensity applied to the projected exposed area; less than 504 in height from ground to top of sign, 25 pounds per square foot of area; over 501 in height, 30 pounds per square foot of area, d. Removal of Obsolescent Signs. .,ny sign now or hereafter ex- isting which no longer advertises a bonafido business con- ductod or products sold, on the premises where the sign exists, shall be taken down and removed by the owner or tenant of the building, structure or property upon which said sign may be located within thirty (30) days after written notification by the Building Inspector, Upon fail., ure to comply with such notice, the Building Inspector is hereby authorized to cause removal of such sign and any expense incident thereto shall be paid by the owner of the building, structure or land upon which the sign is located, o. Signs on Fire Escapes. No sign shall be erected, located or maintained so as to prevent free ingress to or egress from any door, window or fire escape, No sign of any kind shall be attached to a standpipo or fire escape. f. Traffic Hazards. No sign or other advertising structure sha'_i. be orected at the intersection of any streets in such a manner as to obstruct free and clear vision; or at any location where, by roason of the position, shape or color, it may interfere with, obstruct the view of or be confused with any authorized traffic sign, signal or device; or which makes use of the words "Stop", "Look", "Danger": or any other word, phrase, symbol or character in such a manner as to interfere with, mislead or confuse traffic. g. Pedestrian Hazards. all signs or other advertising structures which are constructed at any point where pedestrians might be endangered shall have a smooth surface and no nails, tacks or wires shall be permitted to protrude therefrom. Electrical reflectors and devices may extend over the top and in front of the sign or structure but not loss than eight feet (81 ) above the sidewalk. h. Glaring Lights. On those signs where gooseneck reflectors and lights are permitted, such gooseneck reflectors and lights shall be provided with proper lenses and guards concentrat- ing the illumination upon the area of the sign so as to prevent glare upon the street or adjacent property. . It shall be unlawful to illuminate any sign by floodlights or spot- lights where any portion of such illumination shall be a menace to traffic or a nuisance to adjacent property. Sect. 1854 Exemptions and Exceptions The provisions and regulations of this :article shall not apply to certain classes of signs which are designated in the followir_-. subsections; provided, however that all signs are subject to the provisia)s of Section 1853, ;'Safety Roquiroments". a. Real Estate signs not exceeding three (3) square feet in arca pertaining to the sale or rental of the property on which they are displayed, but not more than one such sign to the lot. Such signs may be two-faced or be printed on both sides. b. Professional name plates and occupational signs denoting only the name and occupation of an occupant in a com- morcial building, public institutional building or dwelling and not exceeding two (2) square foot in area, provided pago 5. that such sign is not prohibited or further regulated by the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Burlingame. C. Identification name-plates or signs on Epartment houses, boarding or rooming houses or similar uses, not exceeding three (3) square feet in area. d. Bulletin boards not over fifteen (15) square foot in area for public, charitable and religious institutions when the same are located on the premises of said institutions e. Signs denoting the architect, engineer or contractor when placed upon work under and during construction, and not exceeding thrity-two (32) square feet in area. f. Signs painted upon the walls or exterior of a building shall be limited in area to an amount not in excess of 200 of the area of the wall or frontage upon which it is painted. Such signs may advertise only the name, products and occupation of the occupant. Where such signs have raised borders, letters, charactors, decorations or lighting fixtures, they shall be subject to the applicable provisions of this Article. g. Memorial signs or tablets, names of buildings, and histor- ical monuments when such markers are constructed of bronze or other incombustible materials. h. Traffic or other municipal signs, legal notices, railroad crossing and danger sins, and such temporary, emergency or non-advertising signs as may be approved by the City Council. Sect. 1655 Prohibited Signs The following types of signs and structures are expressly prohibit•- od; a. Real Estate directional signs and arrows. b. Placards, posters, announcements, poli tical signs posted or attached to any fence, pole, tree or any object in a public street or place. a, Signs, "A" boards, structures, or merchandise for sale placed upon or attached to the ground on any portion of the public street, sidewalk or :right of way, excepting newspaper vending devices which may be permitted by action of the City Council. . d. Signs or structures carrying the advertising of a person; product or service other than t;.liat of the occupant of the land on which it is placed or t;.'Ie building to which it is attached except signs for the sale or rental of the property. e. Signs of any kind in Rosidontia.1 Districts except those expressly permitted by this Article or Article 50 (Zoning) of this Code. f. Any signs expressly prohibited by Article 50 (Zoning) of this Code. g. Any sign which, because of flashing lights, brilliant; lighting or reflected light, is a detriment to surrounding properties or prevents the peaceful enjoyment of residen- tial uses. For the purpose of enforcing this prohibition, the Build- ing Inspector is hereby authorized to withhold the issuance of an erection permit and refer such application to the Planning Commission. At its next regular meeting, the Planning Commission shall hear the applicant and thereafter make such investigation and inquiry as it may deem noces- page 6. sary The Planning Commission may allow the erection as proposed, require modification, or deny the application. Sect, 1856 Ground Signs a. Construction. All ground signs shall have a surface or facing of incombustible material; provided, however, that com- bustible trim may be .used thereon. All letters, figuresi characters or representations in cut-out or irregular form attached to or superimposed upon such signs shall be securely and safely built and attached to the sign structure and shall comply with the requirements of Section 1853 g. b. Height Limitation. It shall be unalwful to erect any ground sign whose total height is greater than twelve feet (121) above the level of the street upon which the sign faces. c. Space Between Ground and Structure. Excepting signs located on lawful fences, all ground signs shall have an open space not less than two feet (21) between the base line of said sign and the ground level. Tho opon space may be filled with a decorative lattice work rhich does not close off more than one-half of any square foot of such open space. No ground sign shall be nearer than two feet (2t ) to any other sign, building or structure. d. Setback Line. No ground sign shall be nearer the street than: the building setback established for the respective property; e. Bracing, Anchorage and Supports. all ground signs shall be securely built, constructed and erocted upon posts and standards sunk at least three feet (3t) below the surface cf the ground, sot in concrete, and shall be supported and braced by timbers or metal rods in the rear thereof, extend- ing from the top of the sign to a point on the ground at least a distance equal to one-half of the height of such sign, measured along the ground, from the posts or standards upon which the same is erected. -Ill portions of tho posts., anchors and bracing of wood which is below the ground level shall be treated by creosoting of any other methods provided in the Uniform Building Code for protection against moisture. f. Wind Pressure Requirements& all ground signs shall be erected to withstand a wind pressure of twenty-five (25) pounds per square foot of area. g. Promises To Be Kept Free of Weeds. 111 ground signs and the promises surrounding the same shall be maintained by the ownor thereof in a clean# sanitary and inoffensive condition, and free and clean of all obnoxious substances, rubbish and woods. Sect. 1857 Signs on Lawful Fences Signs attached to or erected upon lawful fences shall meet the re- quirements of Section 1,856, subsections a. (Construction); b. (Height Limitation); and f. (wind Pressure Requirements). Soot, 1858 Wall Signs a. Construction. Signs having an area of four (4) square foot or loss and not more than one and one-half inches (l2") in thickness may be affixed flatwiso to any part of a building and may be of wood. Signs which do not exceed two foot (21) in height, twenty feet (201) in length, and one and one-half inches (12") in thickness may be of wood. :iny wall sign illuminated by lights, tubes or fixtures or any combination thereof shall be constructed of metal or incombustible materials except that letters, decorations or facings thereof may be made of approirod combustible Plastics. " PFge 7. b. Height Limitation. Excepting thoso of four (4) square fest or less, no wall sign shall have e: clearance of not less than ten feet (10t ) from the sidewalk or ground level. C, Projection Beyond Building Line. No wall sign shall be par- mittod to extend more than nine inches (9") beyond the - building line, d. Supports and ;attachments. :,11 wall signs shall be safely and securely attached to the building wall by means of metal anchors, bolts or expansion screws of not less than 3/8 inch in diameter properly embedded in said wall or shall be supported by or attached to metal brackets or saddles securely attached by similar methods. No wall sign shall be secured with wire, strips of wood, or nails. e. Obstructions to Doors or Windows. No wall signs shall be erected or maintei ned so as to prevent free ingress or ogress from any door,,window or fire escape, nor cover wholly or partially any wall opening. f. Size Limitation. No single wall sign shall exceed five hundred (500) square f oct in area. Sect. 1859 Projecting Signs a. Construction. Every projecting sign, including the frame, braces, and supports thereof, shall be approved by the Building Inspector as in compliance with the Building and Electrical Codes of the City of Burlingame and shall be con- strutted of incombustible materials, except that letters, decorations or .facings of such signs may be made of approved combustible plastics. Where externally illuminated, reflectors shall be provided with proper glass lenses concentrating the illumination upon the area of the sign. Floodlights, spotlights and goose- neck reflectors shall not be permitted. Movable or remov- able parts shall be securely fastened. b. Projection Over Public Property. Every projecting sign shall be placed at least ten feet (10t) above the public sidewalk over which it is erected and shall. not extend more than four feet (41) horizontally beyond the property line. Barber signs or barber poles may be placed at a height :ao less than four feet, sig Inches (41611), above the sidewalk level and may not extend more than one foot (11 ) beyond the property line. c. Supports and Attachment. Every projecting sign attached to masonry walls shall be properly and securely anchored by embedded studs or expansion bolts of not less than 3/8 inch in diameter. Every projecting sign attached to frame buildings shall be supported by bolts which extend completely through the wall with washers on plates on the inside of sufficient area to distribute the wei-ht to more than one stud of the framing. No projecting sign shall be secured with wire, strips of wood, or nails, now shall any projecting sign be hung from or secured to any other sign. d. Safety Requirements. Projecting signs shall meet every re- quirement of Section 1853, "Safety Requirements". Section 1860. Roof Signs a. Construction. Every roof sign, including the frame, braces an(: supports thereof, shall be approved by the Building Inspectci- as in compliance with the Building; and Electrical Codes of the City of Burlingame. and shall be constructed of incom- bustible materials, with the exception that letters, decora- tions and facings may be made of approved combustible plastics. page 8. b. Height and Urea Limitations. No roof sign shall exceed 20 feet (20t) in height$ measured from the roof level to the highest point of the sign. No roof sign shall be longer than sixty percent (60% of the length of tho frontage of --� the building upon which it faces. Roof signs which face on two frontages of a building may not be longer than sixty percent (60%) of the sum of the length of both frontages. Pin-type roof signs, or signs which are an upward extension of the building creating a sign area above the roof line, shall not extend more than twenty feet (201) above the roof line. c. Special Regulations for Fin-typo Signs, Pin-type signs shall be entirely constructed of incombustible materials and the rigid framework shall be completely within the sign itsolf. No external guy wires shall be permitted, Construction sha.'O. be such as to withstand a wind pressure of thirty (30) pounds per squb.re root. Projection over the public property shall not exceed four foot (4t). No clear space between roof and sign shall be required as in other roof signs. d. Location of Roof Signs. No roof sign shall be erected with the face thereof nearer than five foot (51-) to the outside wall to which the sign faces. Such signs shall have a space at least five foot (5t) in height between the base of the sin. and the roof level, and shall have at least five feet (5tf clearance between the vertical supports thereof. No roof sign shall be placed in such a manner as to prevent free passage from one part of the roof to any other part thereof or interfere with openings or fire escapes. e. Supports and Attachment. Every roof sign shall be thoroughly secured to the building by metal anchors, bolts, supports, rods or braces. The load of such signs shall be upon metal bearing plates of sufficient size and area so as to dis- tribute the weight upon walls and intermediate columns of the building. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized to refuse a permit for any roof sign which, in his opinion, will create a hazard because of excessive weight or insufficient support. Seat. 1861 Polo Signs a. Construction. Every pole sign and the supporting members thereof shall be approved by the Building Inspector as in compliance with the Building and Electrical Codes of the City of Burlingame and shall be constructed of incombustible materials, provided that letters, facings and decorations may be of approved combustible plastics. Where reflectors or floodlights are used, they shall be provided with proper lenses concentrating the illumination upon the sign. No gooso-neck reflectors shall project over public property. b. Height Limitation. No pole sign shall exceed twenty feet (20t) in hoight, measured from the sidewalk level upon which the sign fronts to the highest point of the sign structure. c. Projection over Public Property. Pole signs may not project over public property more than .four feet (4 t) and there shall be at least ten feet (10t) between the level of the sidewalk and any portion of the sign so extending. d. Supports. Supporting members shall be entirely of metal and no pole sign shall be carried on wooden posts or structures;, Metal tubes or pipes or metal structures shall be anchored to concrete foundations by studs of not less than one-half inch (2") diameter or embedded in such concrete foundation. -� page 9. Sect. 1862 Tem)orary Signs a. Permits. The Building Inspector is hereby authorized to grant permits for temporarysigns composed of com- bustible materials. Such permits shall be for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days; provided, that the Building Inspector may extend said period for an ad- ditional thirty (30) days upon payment of a fee in the same amount as that required for the original permit. The Building Inspector shall examin#e the sign and its support to ascertain its safe attachment and condition before issuing a permit for an extended period. b. Support and Attachment. Temporary signs shall be safely attached to the wall or supporting structure by wire or cable. No such signs shall be so placed as to obstruct windows or fire escapes or be attached to standpipes. c. Advertising Permitted. The advertising presented on any temporary sign shall pertain only to the business, industry or pursuit conducted on or within the premises on which the sign is displayed. This provisions shall not apply to signs of a civic or political nature. d. The City Council may, upon written application to it, issue special permits upon such conditions as it may determine for temporary signs and banners of a civic, political, charitable, educational, municipal or religious nature and may waive the fee for such permits No such permit shall be issued unless the City Council finds that the City is held harmless for any act or omission of the applicant. Sect. 1863 Marquees a. Construction. All marquees, together with the anchors, bolts, supports, rods and braces thereof shall be con- structed of incombustible materials, except that letters, facings and decorations may be of approved combustible plastics. Marquees shall be designed by a licensed engineer or architect and must be approved by the Building Inspector as in compliance with the Building Code of the City of Burlingame. The roofs of all marquees shall be properly guttered and provided with down spouts so that water therefrom will not drip or flow onto the sidewalk. b. Projection Over Public Property.. No portion of a MELrquee- shall be less than ton feet (10+) above the level of the sidewalk or thoroughfare. No marquee shall extend beyond a point of one foot (11 ) inside the curb line. e. Anchorage and Supports. Marquees shall be supported sole- ly by the building to which they are attached and no columns or posts shall be permitted, as support there- for, which rest on any portion of the public way, No marquee shall be erected on any building of frame construction unless attached to masonry, concrete or steal supports of the building. d. Signs Upon Marquees. No sign or advertisement shall. be placed upon a marquee beyond a point measured four feet (41 ) horizontally from the property line. Signs hung from a marquee shall be no lower than ton feet (101) above the sidewalk. No advertising material shall be placed upon the roof of a marquee. Sect. 1864 Awnings and Canopies a. Construction. Awnings and canopies may be constructed of cloth, metal or plastic; provided, however, that all frames and supports shall be of metal. page 10. b. Height and Location„ Awnings and canopies shall be erected so that no portion shall be less than eight feet (8t) above the sidewalk. No awning or canopy shall be permitted to extend beyond a point two feet (2t ) inside thb curb line. c. Supports and AA ashment• Awnings and canopies shall be securely attached to and supported by the building: The supporting members of canopies shall be attached to and supported, by the building and no pipes or posts may rest an .ay portion of the sidewalk or public way. d. Advertisingt.: Advertising on canopies and awnings shall be limited ,to the name of the occupant of the premises and the business, industry or occupation of the bus`- iness conducted therein. Such wording shall be within a space of exceeding eight inches (8°) in height on the sides grid front of the awning or canopy. Sect, 1863� Non-conforming Signs No sign or other. advertising structure, awning, canopy or marquee, which is lawfully in existence on the effective date of this Article but which is not in accordance with the requirements of this Article may be altered or moved to other locations unless it be made to comply with the provisions of this Article. Sect. 1866 Variances a. Certain variances by City Council. In the event that compliance with the terms of this Article will work a hardship upon an applicant, the City Council is hereby authorized to grant certain variances. Variances may be granted only in matters of size and location of signs. b. Method of Application. Persons desiring a variance shall apply by written application to the City Council. Upon receipt of such application, the City Clerk shall place the matter upon the agenda of the Council and notify forthwith the owners or occupants of properties im- mediately adjoining the property for which the variance is requested. At the meeting to which the matter is referred, the City Council shall hear the applicant and all others and may grant, modify or reject the variance. The decision of the Council shall be final and con- clusive. Section 2 SEVERABILITY If any section, subsection, sentence..- clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court 01 competent juris- dictionr such decision shd1 not affect the validity of the remaining_ portions of this ordinance4 The City Council of this City hereby declares that it vw uld have adopted this ordinance and each section.. subsection,, sentence, clause, ,phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Section 3, This ordinance shall be published as required by law. L. B. MORG Mav nr I, Herbert K. White, 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 6th day of February, 1956, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of February, 1956, by the following vote: Ayes: Councilmen: Byrd-Johnson-Rooth-Thayer Noes: Councilmen: None Absent Councilmen: Morgan Herbert K, White City Clerk Tr0°' � A .. ;Cjl � `1 spy o " f o 06, C1��.� y� X s S �µ AA �� 4 e e, Con I 4te�i ^ � o okec- o il " cp �. r y • _ �X �� ' � «' f� �� y . Y 16 03 bo w q y 05 « 1 t. SIR Ox r� � .A STAFF REPORT BUR UNGAME AGENDA ITEM # MTG. - DATE 9.19.05 �AATED DYNE N TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY (�. DATE: SEPTEMBER 9. 2005 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY D)/Ixj�_ SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANC OR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA AREA AND ANZA POINT SOUTH ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN A. ANZA AREA ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS B. ANZA POINT SOUTH ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS Introduction: City Council should hold a public hearing on the proposal to amend the zoning regulations to establish two new zoning districts for the Anza Area and Anza Point South in the Bayfront planning area. Following the public hearing the City Council should take action. The Council may hold one public hearing to address both proposed zoning district ordinances. Action on the two ordinances should be taken separately. A. For Adoption of the Anza Area Zoning District Ordinance the Council should: 1 . Vote on the proposed Ordinance; and 2. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. B. For Adoption of the Anza Point South Zoning District Ordinance the Council should: 1 . Vote on the proposed Ordinance; and 2. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. If the action on the ordinances is in the affirmative, these ordinances would become effective October 19, 2005. The public hearing was noticed in the San Mateo Times on September 9, 2005 and notice was mailed to the property owners within each district September 9, 2005. General Plan Compliance: The Anza Area and Anza Point South zoning districts are part of the implementation phase of the Bayfront Specific Plan adopted by the City Council and amended to the Burlingame General Plan in April 2004. The provisions in the ordinances are consistent with the plan because they are taken from the land use element and design guidelines in that adopted plan, supplemented with provisions from the existing C-4 district for the Anza Area and the O-M district for Anza Point South which currently regulate development in these areas; these requirements have been fundamental in implementing the 1969 General Plan, the 1981 Bayfront Specific Plan and in establishing the existing land use pattern for this area. The Anza Area (AA) district includes the Anza subarea designated in the Bayfront Specific Plan. The AA district is located west of Bayside Park's Upper deck west to Sanchez Creek, and bounded on the south by US 101/Burlingame Lagoon/Sanchez PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA AREA AND ANZA POINT SOUTH ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN A. ANZA AREA ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS B. ANZA POINT SOUTH ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS September 19,2005 Wetland and on the north by San Francisco Bay. The Anza Point South (APS) district includes the western portion of the Anza Point subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan. The APS district is the area adjacent to (north ) of US 101 where Beach and Lang Roads are located. The proposed provisions of these districts are consistent with the directives of the Specific Plan they are intended to implement. CEQA Compliance: Negative Declaration ND531-P was prepared and adopted for the Bayfront Specific Plan in April 5, 2004. Since this zoning action is an implementation of that adopted plan and is consistent with the provisions of that plan, this zoning action is determined to be covered by ND531-P. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Anza Area, Anza Point North and Anza Point South zoning districts at their meeting on August 22, 2005, and recommended the Anza Area and Anza Point South zoning district regulations to the City Council for approval on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) voice vote. At the request of a member of the public the public hearing on the Anza Point North district was continued to the Planning Commission meeting on September 12, 2005. The Commission took testimony on the Anza Point North district at the August 22, 2005, meeting but took no action. In their discussion about the Anza Area and Anza Point South zoning districts the Commissioners reviewed a number of corrections suggested by staff prepared to increase the consistency in format and wording among all the new zoning districts in the Bayfront planning area, including a few technical changes to the already adopted Inner Bayshore and Shoreline zoning districts. These amendments are included in the ordinance for the Anza Area. At the public hearing a member of the public expressed concern about the possible future conversion of extended stay hotels to apartment units because of the way units in extended stay hotels are designed. After discussion the Commission directed that extended stay hotels be shifted from the permitted uses to the conditional uses section in the Anza Area and Anza Point North zoning districts, so that conditions could be added at the time of approval to discourage the future conversion of these hotels to permanent residential uses. These changes were included in the Commission's action on the Anza Area and Anza Point South zoning districts. City Council Study: At their meeting on September 9, 2005, the City Council reviewed and held a public hearing on the two proposed zoning ordinances and introduced both zoning ordinances for the Anza Area and Anza Point South for public hearing and action with a 4-0 voice vote. The Council members commented on extended stay hotels: City needs to provide full range of stay opportunities; city gets transient occupancy tax from 801Xi of the people who stay in such hotels; noted that they serve a different niche than other hotels, they serve technicians and executives on temporary assignment, need to be convenient to Virgin Air and other businesses on the Bayfront so these employees can walk to work, they complement office uses and they are too expensive for people to stay in for months, longer term transfers move to corporate apartments; noted that if the trend changed and residential uses were appropriate the general plan could be amended; it was acknowledged that long term airport parking lots/commercial parking lots continue to be an interim use requiring a review every five years. During the public hearing there were comments that extended stay hotels should not be allowed in the Bayfront area because they open the door for residential uses e.g. can be easily converted to apartment use in the future, the area should be reserved for really good hotels,particularly since we have so many now. 2 PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA AREA AND ANZA POINT SOUTH ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN A. ANZA AREA ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS B. ANZA POINT SOUTH ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS September 19,2005 BACKGROUND: On April 5, 2005, the City Council adopted the Bayfront Specific Plan for the area of Burlingame which is between US 101 and San Francisco Bay. This plan was an update of the first Bayfront Specific Plan adopted by the City in 1981. The last step in the update process is to adopt new zoning incorporating the directives of the April 2005 plan. For the April 2005 plan the Bayfront area was divided into five subareas. Each subarea had something about it that was distinctive. Because the design objective of the plan was to build on the distinct characteristic of each subarea in the plan, the proposed zoning district boundaries have been drawn along the subarea lines and a separate zoning district has been developed for each subarea. In June and July 2005 the City Council adopted new zoning district regulations for the eastern portion of the Bayfront planning area: Inner Bayshore (IB), Shoreline (SL) and an amendment to the Unclassified zoning regulations which regulate the publicly owned Bayside Park area(Anna Extension). Summary of Anza Area and Anza Point South Zoning Districts The proposed Anza Area and Anza Point South zoning districts incorporate together the land use policies and design guidelines of the Bayfront Specific Plan with the development regulations which now guide development in each of these areas. The discussion in the September 6, 2005, City Council Staff Report prepared for Introduction attached summarizes the new regulations. The staff prepared annotations of each proposed district which are also attached to that staff report to explain the changes to each provision in terms of the specific plan and the existing zoning. (See City Council Staff Report, September 6, 2005 attached). Included at the end of the Anza Area district regulations are a number of"clean up" provisions for the Bayfront zoning districts. Because these districts were worked on and adopted over an 8 month period of time it was necessary at the end of the project to review all of the districts for consistency in numbering, formatting and terminology. These changes can be reviewed at the end of the Ordinance for the Anza Area district attached at the end of the staff report. Staff Comments: With the adoption of these two districts one district, Anza Point North, remains to be adopted before the zoning in all of the subareas in the Bayfront Specific Planning area will have been made consistent with the Bayfront Specific Plan adopted in April 2004. Planning Commission is currently reviewing the Anza Point North district and it should be ready for City Council review in October or November. On July 5, 2005, the Council adopted the zoning district boundary map for the Bayfront area(Ordinance 1759). As each of the zoning districts becomes effective the new boundaries also become effective, so the old zoning regulations and boundaries are replaced simultaneously. Margaret Monroe City Planner ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 to Adopt the Anza Area District and Make Conforming Changes to the Shoreline and Inner Bayshore Districts Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 to Adopt the Anza Point South District Map of the Zoning Districts in the Bayfront Area 3 PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA AREA AND ANZA POINT SOUTH ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN A. ANZA AREA ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS B. ANZA POINT SOUTH ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS September 19,2005 Notice of Public Hearing , published in the San Mateo Times September 9, 2005, and mailed to property owners September 9, 2005. City Council Staff Report, September 6, 2005, Introduce Ordinance for Proposed Zoning for the Anza Area and Anza Point South Zoning Districts to Implement the Bayfront Specific Plan Annotated Anza Area Proposed Zoning, Draft August 25, 2005 Annotated Anza Point South Proposed Zoning, Draft August 25, 2005 Excerpts from the Bayfront Specific Plan: o Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Map - Anza Area Land Use o Anza Area Land Use o Anza Area Design Guidelines o Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Map - Anza Point Land Use o Anza Point Land Use o Anza Point Design Guidelines o Appendix D - Bay Conservation and Development Commission(BCDC) Guidelines U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR 2005\ActionBayftAA and APSdistrict regs 9.19.05.doc 4 I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 TO ADOPT THE ANZA AREA DISTRICT AND MAKE 3 CONFORMING CHANGES TO THE SHORELINE AND INNER BAYSHORE DISTRICTS 4 Section 1. In 2004, the City Council adopted a revised Bayshore Specific Plan to guide 5 development and use of the Bayshore Area of the City. Among the subareas in the Plan is the Anza area, 6 which includes a variety of uses and lot sizes. This ordinance implements the Specific Plan for this 7 subarea. 8 In addition, the ordinance makes conforming changes to the Shoreline and Inner Bayshore 9 Districts regarding standard language, limitations, and use permit requirements. 10 11 Section 2. A new Chapter 25.47 is added as follows: 12 Chapter 25.47 13 Anza Area 14 Sections: 25.47.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 15 25.47.020 Permitted uses. 25.47.025 Conditional uses. 16 25.47.030 Prohibited uses. 25.47.040 Setbacks,minimum lot sizes,height, and development standards. 17 25.47.045 Minimum lot size and street frontage. 25.47.048 No variance for lot size and street frontage. 18 25.47.050 Landscaping and design requirements. 25.47.052 Design review. 19 25.47.060 Public access. 25.47.080 Parking requirements. 20 21 25.47.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 22 It is the purpose and policy of this chapter to establish and maintain land uses and the City and 23 Bay Conservation and Development Commission design standards for the area designated as the Anza 24 subarea in the Bayfront Specific Plan, and to cause development of buildings and structures that will 25 benefit from their proximity to San Francisco Bay to encourage development which the open estuary 26 areas of San Francisco Bay and will support and be beneficial to public access and use of this 27 irreplaceable natural resource. Development of this area should contribute positively to the economic 28 future of the city. In creating this district,the city asserts that economic as well as aesthetic advantages 8/26/2005 1 ANZA AREA I accrue to the land,the occupants and the public from the required controls and regulations. In addition, 2 these regulations insure that new development can be supported by the local roadway system and other 3 public infrastructure. 4 5 25.47.020 Permitted uses. 6 The following uses are permitted in the Anza district: 7 (a)Restaurants with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.15; 8 (b)Motels and hotels with a maximum density of eighty-five(85)rooms to the acre and a floor 9 area ratio of 1.0 or less;facilities provided on site may include such retail sales and personal service uses 10 as meal and beverage services,barber and beauty shops, smoke shops, and shuttle bus service to serve 11 only hotel guests so long as the operation does not use parking required for primary hotel use, 12 convention and meeting facilities, and similar services which are clearly incidental and accessory to 13 provision of lodging accommodations; and no more than one dwelling unit within the motel or hotel 14 structure that is used exclusively by the owner or manager of the motel or hotel; 15 (c) Offices with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.6, including research and development offices 16 with associated laboratory uses,as well as instructional activities associated with an office on the site; 17 however,neither health services nor medical clinics are allowed. 18 (d) Accessory retail sales and personal service uses of no more than one thousand five hundred 19 (1,500) square feet within an office building larger than 20,000 square feet. 20 (e)Publicly owned recreation facilities. 21 (f)Adult oriented businesses that meet all of the requirements of chapters 25.76 and 10.58 of this 22 code. 23 24 25.47.025 Conditional uses. 25 The following are uses requiring a conditional use permit: 26 (a) Offices with a floor area ratio greater than 0.6,including research and development offices 27 with associated laboratories, as well as instructional activities associated with an office on the site; 28 however, neither health services nor medical clinics are allowed. 8/26/2005 2 ANZA AREA I (b) Accessory retail sales and personal service uses of more than one thousand five hundred 2 (1,500) square feet located in office buildings of greater than 20,000 square feet. 3 (c) Motels and hotels with more than eighty-five(85)rooms to the acre or with a floor area ratio 4 more than 1.0; facilities provided on site may include such retail sales and service uses as meal and 5 beverage services, barber and beauty shops, smoke shops, automobile rental desks, and shuttle bus 6 service to serve only hotel guests so long as the operation does not use parking required for primary 7 hotel use, convention and meeting facilities, and similar services which are clearly incidental and 8 accessory to provision of lodging accommodations,and no more than one dwelling unit within the motel 9 or hotel structure that is used exclusively by the owner or manager of the motel or hotel; 10 (d) Extended stay hotels; 11 (e) As part of a hotel or motel use,an automobile rental desk or a park and fly program associate 12 with renting of rooms and that does not affect the availability of on-site parking for or motel guests and 13 the use and parking for any on-site meeting facilities; 14 (f) Commercial recreation facilities; these facilities may include the sale of merchandise and 15 items which are related to the principal use that do not exceed 1,500 square feet of support retail sales 16 area; 17 (g) Trade,professional and art schools located in buildings of more than 20,000 square feet; 18 (h)Buildings and structures that exceed forty(40) feet in height when located 19 within one hundred(100) feet of the San Francisco Bay shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation 20 and Development Commission(BCDC). 21 (i) All buildings, structures, and site plans that do not comply with the adopted measurable 22 Design Guidelines for the Anza subarea as established by resolution of the city council; 23 0) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted and conditional uses; 24 (k) Commercial parking lots,but only as an interim use as described in the Bayfront Specific 25 Plan as adopted by city council and that comply with at least all of the following criteria: 26 (1) The sole purpose of the use is the parking for one day or longer of vehicles of persons using 27 the San Francisco International Airport; and 28 (2) A minimum site size of three(3)acres; and 8/26/2005 3 ANZA AREA 1 (3)Permit term limited to five(5) years or less; and 2 (4) No more peak hour vehicle trips are generated than allowed by the traffic analyzer for the 3 use designated for the site in the general plan; and 4 (5) The Anza subarea design guidelines from the adopted Bayfront Specific Plan and Bay 5 Conservation and Development Commission public access requirements are met; and 6 (6) No parking is within a structure above or below grade. 7 (0 Structures over sixty-five (65) feet in height or five(5) stories; 8 (m) Interim uses which, after a public hearing, are found desirable and compatible with the 9 purposes of the district and that conform to the Bayfront Specific Plan and are compatible with the 10 following criteria: 11 (1) Do not impede or imperil the intent of the Bayfront Specific Plan; and 12 (2) Do not allow development which generates more p.m. peak hour vehicle trips than a 13 permitted use on the site as determined by the Bayfront traffic analyzer; 14 (3) The design conforms to National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)and Bay 15 Conservation and Development Commission requirements; and 16 (4) The permit term is limited to five(5) years or less. 17 (n) Any use similar in nature to one which is permitted or for which a permit is required in this 18 district at a density determined not to exceed the trip generation for the planned use of the site using the 19 adopted Bayfront traffic analyzer. 20 21 25.47.030 Prohibited uses. 22 Uses not listed as permitted or conditional shall be prohibited, including: 23 (a) Automobile wreckers and wrecking yards; 24 (b) Restaurants and food establishments with a floor area ratio that is more than 0.25; 25 (c) Retail sales, personal services, and service businesses that are free standing, including 26 gasoline service stations,and that are not expressly allowed or limited as a permitted or conditional use 27 in this chapter; 28 (d) Automobile rental agencies and car rental storage; 8/26/2005 4 ANZA AREA I (e) Manufacturing and warehousing except as designated and limited in the permitted uses; 2 (f) Medical clinics and health services; 3 (g) Outdoor storage of merchandise,inventory,equipment, and materials,including storage of 4 motorized recreation vehicles; 5 (h) Residential uses, including mobile homes, except for an owner/manager residence within 6 a motel or hotel as expressly permitted above.; 7 (i) Automobile dealers and sales lots, wholesale and retail, and automobile leasing, whether 8 freestanding, in office buildings, or in connection with other uses. 9 10 25.47.040 Setbacks,minimum lot sizes, height, and development standards. 11 (a) The following minimum setbacks shall apply to all buildings and structures or shall apply 12 to any enlargement thereof. 13 (1) Front setback. Any portion of a building that is two(2)stories or less in height shall be set 14 back at least thirty(30)feet from the lot front,and any taller portion of the building shall be set back at 15 least ten(10)feet further from the lower one-or two-story portion. Any portion of any building that is 16 over two (2) stories in height shall be set back at least forty(40) feet from the lot front. 17 (2) Side setback. On one side designated by the lot owner,the closest part of any structure shall 18 be set back at least thirty(30) feet from the side property line;on the other side of the lot as designated 19 by the lot owner,the closest part of any structure shall be set back at least ten(10) feet from the side 20 property line. 21 (3) Rear setback. The minimum rear setback shall be twenty-five(25) feet. 22 (4) Setback from San Francisco Bay and its Estuaries. The following minimum setbacks from 23 San Francisco Bay and its estuaries Anza Lagoon,Sanchez Channel,and Burlingame Lagoon shall apply 24 to any lot that is adjacent to these water features. In case of conflict between these provisions and other 25 setback requirements in this section, the greatest minimum setback shall apply. 26 (A) On San Francisco Bay proper. An average setback of seventy-five(75) feet between any 27 structure and the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission approved 28 Public Access Guidelines for the City of Burlingame. 8/26/2005 5 ANZA AREA I (B) On the estuaries Anza Lagoon, Sanchez Channel, and Burlingame Lagoon. An average 2 setback of sixty-five (65) feet between any structure and the shoreline as defined by the Bay 3 Conservation and Development Commission approved Public Access Guidelines for the City of 4 Burlingame. 5 (C) In addition, for structures taller than forty (40) feet, the minimum setback from the Bay 6 Conservation and Development Commission bayside jurisdiction line shall be equal to the height of the 7 structure, and where there is no structure, the setback from the top of bank shall not be less than the 8 minimum width for the Bay Trail as required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 9 (5) Parking location. No parking spaces shall be provided within the front setback on any 10 property;driveways shall be allowed in the front setback;parking spaces at the rear of a building shall 11 be set back twenty(20) feet from the inner edge of the Bay Trail. 12 (6) View corridor. To provide a view corridor, the width of any structure or combined 13 structures on a lot shall not obstruct more than fifty(50)percent of the street frontages. 14 (7) Height. 15 (A) No structure shall exceed a maximum height of sixty-five(65)feet except on the properties 16 with any frontage on Burlingame Lagoon on which the heights shall range from twenty-five (25) feet 17 to sixty-five(65) feet as described in the Anza Area Features Map in the Bayfront Specific Plan; 18 (B) No building or structure shall exceed forty(40)feet when located within one hundred(100) 19 feet of the San Francisco Bay shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development 20 Commission,except as allowed pursuant to a conditional use permit as provided in section 25.47.025. 21 (8) Lot coverage. There shall be a maximum lot coverage of thirty-five(35)percent; 22 23 25.47.045 Minimum lot size and street frontage. 24 (a) There shall be a minimum lot size of forty thousand(40,000) square feet and a minimum 25 street frontage of one hundred(100)feet. No property in the district shall be divided or subdivided into 26 a lot with less area or less street frontage. 27 (b) A ten (10)percent increase in floor area ratio and in hotel rooms per acre shall be allowed 28 for a single project that combines one or more lots of less than 40,000 square feet to create a single lot 8/26/2005 6 ANZA AREA I of 40,000 square feet or more with a lot front of at least one hundred (100) feet on the west side of 2 Airport Boulevard. 3 4 25.47.048 No variance for lot size and street frontage. 5 No variances for lot size or street frontage shall be granted to any property within the Anza 6 district. 7 8 25.47.050 Landscaping and design requirements. 9 Standards for landscape and design in the Anza subarea are taken from the Bayfront Specific 10 Plan Design Guidelines and shall be supported in their implementation by incorporation of the adopted 11 guidelines: 12 (a) A minimum of fifteen(15)percent of the total area of each property or group of properties 13 to which a land use is applied shall be suitably landscaped and the landscaped portions shall be properly 14 irrigated and maintained. A landscaping plan shall be submitted with any application for an approval 15 under this title for any use on the lot. 16 (b) At least eighty(80)percent of the front setback shall be landscaped;landscaping may include 17 walkways and seating features;driveways shall not be counted as landscaped area;in addition,all areas 18 between the front setback and any building shall be landscaped; 19 (c) A minimum of ten(10)percent of all on-site parking areas shall be landscaped. 20 (d) Each building or group of buildings upon a lot or parcel of land shall provide a fully 21 enclosed, attached or detached structure for refuse and garbage containers. These enclosures may be 22 placed only at the sides of the building or buildings and shall be no closer than seventy five(75) feet 23 to the rear property line. These facilities shall also be no closer than one hundred (100) feet from the 24 shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Details of the enclosure 25 shall be submitted as part of the design review application. 26 (e) Loading docks and truck loading access shall be fully enclosed and placed only at the sides 27 of the building and be no closer than seventy five(75)feet to the rear property line. If placed to the rear 28 of the building, these facilities shall be no closer than one hundred (100) feet from the shoreline as 8/26/2005 7 ANZA AREA I defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Details of the enclosure shall be 2 submitted as part of the design review application. 3 4 25.47.052 Design Review 5 Construction and alterations including substantial construction or change to more than fifty(50) 6 percent of the front facade or change to more than fifty(50) percent of any fagade facing a public or 7 private street or parking lot shall be subject to design review based on the design guidelines for the Anza 8 subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan and shall be processed as provided in section 25.57.030. 9 (a) A design review application in the Anza Area district shall be reviewed by the planning 10 commission for the following considerations: 11 (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles as defined in the design guidelines for 12 the Anza subarea and the role of the shoreline in creating a network of interconnected open spaces;and 13 (2) Respect and promotion of the streetscape by the placement of buildings to maximize the 14 commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does 15 not dominate street frontages, and for properties with any water frontage,that the design is sensitive to 16 the surrounding bodies of water,physical and visual presence of the Bay Trail,and the orientation of the 17 prevailing winds; and 18 (3) On visually prominent sites and sites with shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and 19 Development Commission, the design shall fit the site, support the Bay Trail and its park and 20 recreational uses,provide for maximum user access and support recreational use by those who work in 21 the area as well as those who visit; and the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding 22 development and consistent with the design guidelines for the Anza subarea; and 23 (4) Compatibility of the architecture and landscaping with the design guidelines for the Anza 24 subarea including materials used in existing development, location and use of plant materials, and 25 compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; and 26 (5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the lot that is 27 consistent among primary elements of the structure(s)and with the directives of the design guidelines 28 for the Anza subarea; and 8/26/2005 8 ANZA AREA 1 (6) Provision of site features identified in the design guidelines such as orientation to minimize 2 wind obstruction on San Francisco Bay, protection of the Bay environment, and landscaping and 3 pedestrian circulation which enriches and enhances the existing recreation opportunities of the area, 4 including extension of the Bay Trail as well as the commercial neighborhood. 5 (b) When any part of a commercial structure is subject to design review, any awnings on the 6 commercial structures shall be included in the design review. 7 (c) Exemptions from design review: 8 (1) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for development in the Anza district 9 filed before 10 (2)Any amendment to a project exempt from design review pursuant to subsection(1) above 11 shall be subject to design review if the project involved would have otherwise been subject to design 12 review under subsection (a) above, the project has not been completed, and the amendment would 13 extend any structure involved in the application outside the envelope of the structure for which the 14 approval was granted or sought in the underlying application or would change a facade. Changes to, 15 additions of, or deletions of awnings as an amendment to a project shall not trigger design review under this 16 subsection. 17 18 25.47.060 Public access. 19 Public access shall be maintained and developed based on the city-adopted and Bay Conservation 20 and Development Commission-approved Public Access Guidelines for Burlingame based on the 21 applicable water frontage as follows: 22 (a) On San Francisco Bay proper: An average setback of seventy-five (75) feet of the lot as 23 measured from the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; in no 24 case shall the area as measured from the top of bank be less than the minimum width for the Bay Trail 25 as required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; and 26 (b) On Anza Lagoon, Sanchez Channel, and Burlingame Lagoon: An average setback of 27 sixty-five(65)feet as measured from the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development 28 Commission;in no case shall the area as measured from the top ofbank be less than the minimum width 8/26/2005 9 ANZA AREA I for the Bay Trail as required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 2 (c) All areas improved for public access within the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and 3 Development Commission shall be maintained by the propertyowner and shall be available to the public 4 in perpetuity as determined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; 5 6 25.47.080 Parking requirements. 7 All uses shall provide parking in accordance with the applicable provisions of chapter 25.70 of 8 this code with the following changes or additions: 9 (a) Food establishments. 10 (1)Food establishments that are the primary use of the lot shall provide the following: 11 (A) Customer parking shall be provided on-site at the rate of one car space for each one hundred 12 (100) square feet of gross floor area; and 13 (B) In addition, employee parking shall be provided on-site or within reasonable proximity,in 14 the judgment of the city planner, at the rate of one car space for each one thousand(1,000) square feet 15 of gross floor area; 16 (2) Food establishments that establishments that are located in an office building of 20,000 17 square feet or more or that are not the primary use of the lot shall provide parking on-site at the rate of 18 one car space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area of food establishment. 19 However,food establishments located within a hotel or motel are not required to provide the additional 20 parking required under this subsection unless the food establishment has a public entrance that opens 21 directly to the exterior of the building. 22 (b) Instructional uses. Instructional uses related to a permitted or conditional use shall provide 23 parking on-site at the rate of one space for each three hundred(300) square feet of gross floor area; 24 (c) Bay Trail parking. On sites with frontage on San Francisco Bay and its estuary including 25 Anza Lagoon, Sanchez Channel, and Burlingame Lagoon, the Bay Conservation and Development 26 Commission shall determine the number of on-site parking spaces to be designated for public Bay Trail 27 Access parking;these on-site spaces shall be designated from the required parking for the site, shall be 28 available to the public without charge during the hours that the Bay Trail is open, and shall be posted 812612005 10 ANZA AREA I as public access parking by the property owner as required by the Bay Conservation and Development 2 Commission. 3 (d)Hotels. A hotel shall provide one additional, designated parking space for a shuttle bus. 4 5 Section 3. Chapter 25.41 is renumbered as Chapter 25.45. 6 7 Section 4. Section 25.45.052 is amended to read as follows: 8 25.45.052 Design Review 9 Construction and alterations including substantial construction or change to more than fifty(50) 10 percent of the front fagade or change to more than fifty(50) percent of any fagade facing a public or 11 private street or parking lot shall be subject to design review based on the design guidelines for the 12 Shoreline subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan and shall be processed as provided in section 25.57.030. 13 (a) A design review application in the Shoreline district shall be reviewed by the planning 14 commission for the following considerations: 15 (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles as defined in the design guidelines for 16 the Shoreline subarea and the role of the shoreline in creating a network of interconnected open spaces; 17 (2) Respect and promotion of the streetscape by the placement of buildings to maximize the 18 commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does 19 not dominate street frontages, and for properties fronting on Bayshore Highway, that the design 20 contributes to the interface with the Inner Bayshore subarea as directed in the Bayshore specific plan; 21 (3) On visually prominent and gateway sites,whether the design fits the site and is compatible 22 with the surrounding development and consistent with the design guidelines for the Shoreline subarea; 23 (4) Compatibility of the architecture and landscaping with the design guidelines for the 24 Shoreline subarea including materials used in existing development,location and use ofplant materials, 25 and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; 26 (5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the lot that is 27 consistent among primary elements of the structure(s) and with the directives of the design guidelines 28 for the Shoreline subarea; 8/26/2005 11 ANZA AREA 1 (6) Provision of site features identified in the design guidelines such as landscaping and 2 pedestrian circulation which enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. 3 (b) When any part of a commercial structure is subject to design review, any awnings on the 4 commercial structures shall be included in the design review. 5 (c) Exemptions from design review: 6 (1) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for development in the Shoreline 7 district filed before July 20, 2005, and certain amendments to those applications or permits as 8 specifically provided in Ordinance No. 1756. 9 (2)Any amendment to a project exempt from design review pursuant to subsection(1) above 10 shall be subject to design review if the project involved would have otherwise been subject to design 11 review under subsection (a) above, the project has not been completed, and the amendment would 12 extend any structure involved in the application outside the envelope of the structure for which the 13 approval was granted or sought in the underlying application or would change a facade. Changes to, 14 additions of, or deletions of awnings as an amendment to a project shall not trigger design review under this 15 subsection. 16 17 Section 5. Subsection 25.45.020(b) is amended to read as follows: 18 (b) Freestanding restaurants with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.15; 19 20 Section 6. Subsection 25.45.020(e) is amended to read as follows: 21 (e) Offices with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.9;however,neither health services nor medical 22 clinics are allowed; 23 24 Section 7. Subsection 25.45.025(f)is amended to read as follows: 25 (f) Gasoline service stations with a maximum of five hundred(500) square feet of retail sales 26 area,excluding specialty food shops,limited to minor automobile repair services,and limited to the area 27 identified as retail nodes in the Shoreline Subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan. 28 8/26/2005 12 ANZA AREA I Section 8. Subsection 25.43.020(g) is amended to read as follows: 2 (g) Office uses with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.9, that may include health services and 3 medical clinics not to exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet total in office structures over twenty 4 thousand(20,000) gross square feet,with parking as set forth in section 25.43.080 below; 5 6 Section 9. Subsections 25.43.030(e) and(f) are amended to read as follows: 7 (e) Convention and exhibition facilities; 8 (f)Incidental food establishment uses that are not the primary use of a building and do not meet 9 the other criteria of section 25.43.020; 10 11 Section 10. Subsection 25.43.045(a)(4)is amended to read as follows: 12 (4) Retail sales and personal service businesses with a maximum of five thousand(5,000)gross 13 square feet or less and which singly or in combination shall not to exceed fifty(50%)percent of the 14 floor area of any structure. 15 16 Section 11. Subsections 25.43.045(b)(4), (5), (6),(7), and(8) are amended to read as follows: 17 (4) Hotels and motels that do not meet the criteria of section 25.43.045(a) above; 18 (5) Any light industrial or manufacturing use,such as electronic,furniture,biotechnology,drug, 19 pharmaceutical, and printing, including associated laboratories; 20 (6) A car rental desk on a lot occupied by a hotel that does not affect the availability of on-site 21 parking for hotel guests and the use and parking for any on-site meeting facilities; 22 (7) Provision by a hotel of a park and fly program that involves the long term parking of 23 vehicles at a lot that is not approved as a commercial parking lot and that does not affect the availability 24 of on-site parking for hotel guests and the use and parking for any on-site meeting facilities; 25 (8) Gasoline service stations with a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet of retail sales 26 area, excluding specialty food shops, and limited to minor automobile repair services; 27 28 Section 12. A new subsection 25.43.080(d)is added as follows: 8/26/2005 13 ANZA AREA 1 (d)Health service and medical clinic uses. Health service and medical clinic uses in structures 2 of more than twenty thousand(20,000)gross square feet shall provide parking on-site at the rate of one 3 (1) parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area occupied by the uses; 4 health service and medical clinic uses in structures smaller than twenty thousand(20,000) square feet 5 shall provide parking on site at the rate of one(1)parking space for each two hundred fifty(250)square 6 feet of gross floor area. 7 8 Section 13. This ordinance is to be published according to law. 9 10 Mayor 11 12 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 13 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6`' day of September, 2005, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 14 of , 2005, by the following vote: 15 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEM 3ERS: 16 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 17 City Clerk C:\FILES\Planning\ANZAAREAdraft8-2005.ord.wpd 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8/26/2005 14 ANZA AREA I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 TO ADOPT THE ANZA POINT SOUTH DISTRICT 3 4 Section 1. In 2004, the City Council adopted a revised Bayshore Specific Plan to guide 5 development and use of the Bayshore Area of the City. Among the subareas in the Plan is the Anza 6 Point area,which includes a variety of uses and lot sizes. This ordinance implements the Specific Plan 7 for the southern portion of this subarea. 8 9 Section 2. A new Chapter 25.49 is added as follows: 10 Chapter 25.49 Anza Point South (APS) 11 Sections: 25.49.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 12 25.49.020 Permitted uses. 25.49.025 Conditional uses. 13 25.49.030 Prohibited uses. 25.49.040 Setbacks. 14 25.49.042 Height and bulk of buildings. 25.49.045 Minimum lot size and street frontage. 15 25.49.048 No variance for lot size and street frontage. 25.49.050 Landscaping. 16 25.49.052 Design review. 25.49.060 Public access. 17 25.49.080 Parking requirements. 18 25.49.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 19 It is the purpose and policy of this chapter to establish and maintain land uses for the southern 20 portion of the Anza Point subarea of the Bayshore Specific Area Plan. The Anza Point subarea lies east 21 of Sanchez Channel, is bounded on two sides by San Francisco Bay and by US 101 on the south side. 22 The Anza Point subarea is divided into two sections the southern one served by Beach and Lang Roads 23 is developed with light industrial uses. These provisions address the Anza Point South (Beach Lang 24 Road) area of the Anza Point subarea. The purpose of these regulations is to direct the siting and 25 development of structures,adhering to the development policies and adopted design guidelines of the 26 Bayfront Plan. The intention is to attract development which will benefit from the proximity to the 27 open water areas of San Francisco Bay and its estuaries will support public recreation and access along 28 812312005 1 ANZA POINT SOUTH I San Francisco Bay,will protect this irreplaceable natural and recreation resource. Future development 2 consistent with the Bayfront Specific Plan will create a viable transition from the heavy commercial uses 3 along US 101 to the Bay oriented uses to be developed on the vacant land to the north, establish a 4 bayside gateway to Burlingame on its eastern end, and contribute to the revenue base of the city. In 5 creating this district, the city asserts that economic as well as aesthetic advantages accrue to the land, 6 its occupants and the public from the required controls and regulations. 7 8 25.49.020 Permitted uses. 9 The following uses are permitted: 10 (a) Recreation-related retail sales uses located within a building of ten thousand(10,000)square 11 feet or more with the total retail sales area not to exceed five thousand(5,000) square feet on the lot; 12 (b) Publicly owned recreation facilities; 13 (c) Office uses with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.6, including research and development 14 offices with associated laboratory uses;however,neither manufacturing activity nor health services nor 15 medical clinics are allowed; 16 (d)Any light industrial or manufacturing use,such as electronics,furniture,biotechnology,drug, 17 pharmaceutical and printing conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building, including 18 associated laboratories,which: 19 (1)Has a floor area ratio of not more than 0.5; and 20 (2)Does not use impact presses or over twenty(20)tons rated capacity or machine operated drop 21 hammers; and 22 (3)Encloses compressors and generators so that there is no increase in the twenty-four(24)hour 23 ambient noise level in excess of 3 dBA at any property line; and 24 (4) Does not create an obnoxious or offensive presence or emission of odor, dust, gas, noise, 25 bright lights,smoke,vibration,harmful sewer waste or have a detrimental effect on permissible adjacent 26 uses; 27 (e) Warehouse, storage,and distribution of goods,materials,liquids and equipment conducted 28 wholly within an enclosed building with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5; 8/2312005 2 ANZA POINT SOUTH I (f) Outdoor storage of materials including contractors storage yards,incidental to permitted uses, 2 subject to the following: 3 (1) Covers a maximum of ten(10)percent of the lot area; and 4 (2) Is limited to side and rear yards; and 5 (3) Is paved and drained according to city standards; and 6 (4) Is enclosed by an opaque fence or wall eight(8) feet in height. 7 (g) Service businesses including contractors,but not including personal service uses,so long as 8 the following conditions are met: 9 (1) On-site parking for all company vehicles; and 10 (2) On-site parking for all employees; and 11 (3) Adequate on-site space is provided for loading and unloading goods, equipment and 12 materials; and 13 (4) No taxable retail sales transactions occurring on the site. 14 (h) Air courier, delivery or other trans-shipment services, including freight forwarding, which 15 provide on-site parking for all fleet vehicles and on-site parking for all employees; 16 (i) Accessory uses which are necessary for the permitted uses under this section. 17 18 25.49.025 Conditional uses. 19 The following are uses requiring a conditional use permit: 20 (a) Office uses with a floor area ratio of more than 0.6, including research and development 21 offices with associated laboratory uses;however,neither health services nor medical clinics are allowed; 22 (b) Any light industrial or manufacturing use such as electronic,furniture,biotechnology,drug, 23 pharmaceutical and printing conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building, including 24 associated laboratories, which exceeds any of the performance criteria of section 25.49.020(d) above; 25 however, approval of a variance shall be required to allow any such use to exceed 0.5 FAR; 26 (c) Day care facilities with on-site drop off and parking as required by chapter 25.70; 27 (d) Outdoor storage of materials, including contractors storage yards, incidental to permitted 28 uses for which one or more of the following applies: 8/23/2005 3 ANZA POINT SOUTH 1 (1) Outdoor storage covers more than ten(10)percent of the lot area; or 2 (2) Some or all of the outdoor storage is not located in a side or rear yard; 3 (e) Warehouse, storage and distribution of goods,materials, liquids and equipment conducted 4 wholly within an enclosed building with greater than a 0.5 floor area ratio; 5 (f)All structures that are taller than the maximum height allowed pursuant to section 25.49.042 6 below, if wind studies demonstrate that the additional height is consistent with the community wind 7 standards; but in no event shall any structure be taller than ten(10)feet above those maximum heights 8 allowed pursuant to section 25.49.042; 9 (g) Any use similar in nature to one which is permitted or for which a conditional use permit is 10 required which is: 11 (1) Consistent with planned land uses in the Anza Point subarea; and 12 (2) At a density and intensity determined not to exceed the trip generation for the planned use 13 of the site using the adopted Bayfront traffic analyzer. 14 15 25.49.030 Prohibited uses. 16 Uses not listed as permitted or conditional shall be prohibited, including but not limited to the 17 following: 18 (a) Automobile rental uses; 19 (b) Automobile dealers and sales lots; 20 (c) Automobile wrecking and junkyards, storage or baling of scraps, paper rags, sacks or 21 metals, including recycling facilities for green waste and other materials; 22 (d) Adult oriented businesses as defined in chapter 25.76; 23 (e) Commercial parking lots; 24 (f) Commercial recreation and gymnasiums; 25 (g) Food establishments; 26 (h) Gasoline service stations and major and minor automobile repair including auto body 27 work; 28 (i) Health services and medical clinics; 8/23/2005 4 ANZA POINT SOUTH 1 0) Massage, bathing or similar establishments; 2 (k) Personal services; 3 (0 Residential uses and buildings; 4 (m) Hotels or motels; 5 (n) Any use determined to be obnoxious or offensive. 6 7 25.45.040 Setbacks. 8 The following minimum setbacks shall apply to all parcels, buildings and structures or any 9 enlargement thereof: 10 (a) Front setbacks. All lots shall have a front setback of at least fifteen(15) feet. 11 (b) Side setbacks. There shall be a minimum ten(10) foot side setback. 12 (c) Rear setbacks. Except for lots with a lot front on the north side of Beach Road,there shall 13 be no minimum rear setbacks. For lots with a lot front on the north side of Beach Road,there shall be 14 a minimum rear setback of ten(10) feet. 15 16 25.49.042 Height and bulk of buildings. 17 (a) Maximum height shall be determined by impact on the prevailing wind and shall be 18 staggered with a maximum height of thirty (30) feet along the eastern side of the lot, increasing in a 19 graduated manner to a maximum of fifty(50)feet along the western, or Sanchez Channel/Burlingame 20 Lagoon, side of the lot,as established in the Anza Point subarea design guidelines and consistent with 21 the community wind standards. 22 (b) Maximum bulk and mass shall be determined by the floor area ratio established in the 23 Bayfront Specific Plan for the land uses in the Anza Point subarea. Where no floor area ratio is 24 provided,mass and bulk shall be based on the adopted design guidelines,the development constraints 25 documented in the Bayfront Specific Plan, and the zoning regulations where the property is located. 26 27 25.49.045 Minimum lot size and street frontage. 28 There shall be a minimum lot size of forty thousand (40,000) square feet and a minimum street 8/2312005 5 ANZA POINT SOUTH I frontage of one hundred fifty(150)feet. No property in the district maybe divided or subdivided into 2 a lot with less area or less street frontage. 3 4 25.49.048 No variance for lot size and street frontage. 5 Notwithstanding any other provision of this code,no variance for lot size or street frontage shall 6 be granted to any property within this district. 7 8 25.49.050 Landscaping. 9 The following landscaping requirements shall apply to all lots: 10 (a) The landscape requirements of the design guidelines for the Anza Point South portion of the 11 Anza Point subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan as adopted by the city council shall be met. 12 (b) A minimum of ten (10)percent of the parking area shall be landscaped; 13 (c) A minimum of eighty (80)percent of the front setback shall be landscaped; and 14 (d) A minimum of forty (40) percent of the lot area within the Bay Conservation and 15 Development Commission jurisdiction shall be landscaped. 16 17 25.49.052 Design review. 18 Construction and alterations including substantial construction or change to more than fifty(50) 19 percent of the front facade or change to more than fifty (50) percent of any fagade facing a public or 20 private street, parking lot, or the Bay Trail shall be subject to design review based on the design 21 guidelines for the Anza Point subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan and shall be processed as provided 22 in section 25.57.030. 23 (a) A design review application in the APS district shall be reviewed by the planning 24 commission for the following considerations: 25 (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles as defined in the design guidelines for 26 the Anza Point subarea and the role of the shoreline in creating a network of interconnected open spaces; 27 (2) Respect and promotion of the streetscape by the placement of buildings to maximize the 28 commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces , and by locating parking so that it does 812312005 6 ANZA POINT SOUTH I not dominate street frontages, and for properties fronting on Airport Boulevard, that the design is 2 sensitive to the surrounding bodies of water, orientation of the prevailing winds and to the Coyote Point 3 recreation area. 4 (3) On visually prominent and gateway sites,whether the design fits the site and is compatible 5 with the surrounding development and consistent with the design guidelines for the Anza Point subarea; 6 (4) Compatibility of the architecture and landscaping with the design guidelines for the Anza 7 Point subarea including materials used in existing development,location and use of plant materials,and 8 compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; 9 (5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is 10 consistent among primary elements of the structure(s)and consistent with the directives of the design 11 guidelines for the Anza Point subarea; and 12 (6) Provision of site features identified in the design guidelines such as orientation to minimize 13 wind obstruction on San Francisco Bay, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation which enriches and 14 enhances the existing recreation opportunities of the area, including extension of the Bay Trail. 15 (b) When any part of a commercial structure is subject to design review, any awnings on the 16 commercial structures shall be included in the design review. 17 (c) Exemptions from design review: 18 (1) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for development in the Anza Point 19 district filed before 20 (2) Any amendment to a project exempt from design review pursuant to subsection(1) above 21 shall be subject to design review if the project involved would have otherwise been subject to design 22 review under subsection (a) above, the project has not been completed, and the amendment would 23 extend any structure involved in the application outside the envelope of the structure for which the 24 approval was granted or sought in the underlying application or would change a facade. Changes to, 25 additions of, or deletions of awnings as an amendment to a project shall not trigger design review under this 26 subsection. 27 28 H 812312005 7 ANZA POINT SOUTH 1 25.49.060 Public access. 2 Public access shall be maintained and developed based on the city-adopted and Bay Conservation 3 and Development Commission-approved Public Access Guidelines for Burlingame based on the 4 applicable water frontage as follows: 5 (a) On San Francisco Bay proper: An average setback of seventy-five (75) feet of the lot as 6 measured from the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; in no 7 case shall the area as measured from the top of bank be less than the minimum width for the Bay Trail 8 as required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; and 9 (b) On Sanchez Channel and Burlingame Lagoon : An average setback of sixty-five(65) feet 10 as measured from the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; in 11 no case shall the area as measured from the top of bank be less than the minimum width for the Bay Trail 12 as required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 13 (c) All areas improved for public access within the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and 14 Development Commission shall be maintained by the property owner and shall be available to the public 15 in perpetuity as determined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; 16 17 25.49.080 Parking requirements. 18 All uses shall provide parking in accordance with the applicable provisions of chapter 25.70 of 19 this code with the following changes or additions: 20 (a) Bay Trail parking. On sites with frontage on San Francisco Bay, Sanchez Channel, and 21 Burlingame Channel, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission shall determine the number 22 of on-site parking spaces to be designated for public Bay Trail access parking; these on-site parking 23 spaces shall be designated from the required parking for the site,shall be available to the public without 24 charge during the hours that the Bay Trail is open, and shall be posted as public access parking by the 25 property owner as required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 26 27 28 H 8/23/2005 8 ANZA POINT SOUTH I Section 3. This ordinance is to be published according to law. 2 3 Mayor 4 5 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 6 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6" day of September, 2005, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 7 of , 2005, by the following vote: 8 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 9 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 10 City Clerk 11 C:\FILES\PIanning\AnzOointSouthDraft.ord.wpd 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8/23/2005 9 ANZA POINT SOUTH BURLINGAME BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN Amendment to Zoning District Map Gso Ordinance No. 1759 oreline Adopted by the City Council on July 5, 2005 Legend Inner Bayshore :. •••• O-M to IB a�� ;•;;• ® Shoreline �,.°° •••• C-4 to SL Anza Extension Unclassified Anza ® Anza Area C-4 to AA Point Anza Point North South C-4 to APN Anza Point South "" O-M to APS ��`,CITY oZ CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURL�GA 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 .d TEL:(650)558-7250 • FAX:(650)696-3790 www.burlingame.org NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO REVISE THE ZONING IN THE BAYFRONT AREA The City of Burlingame City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEARING public hearing on Monday, September 19, NOTICE 2005 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California to revise the zoning requirements for the Anza and Anza Point � South subareas, located east of US 101 and �p ' south of Bayside Park, in order to implement the Bayfront Specific Plan. t s e a Mild: September tb9 2005 `. p (Please refer to other side) . i CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applic anh projec y be reviewed prior to the meeting 'v ^,l �t k' Primrose Road, . ., I Burlingame, C If you challe e u m be limited to raising only *Wv blic hearing, described in hE3 e ri ee ed to the city at or prior to he pu c eal ng. F 0 R x I A Property ow rs v spon ble r informing their tenants Lboui info ati , please call j (650) 558-72 0 1 �# ! Margaret Mo {y City Planner • � PU CE j (Please refer to other side) ���CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURLJNGAME AGENDA ITEM# ,," MTG. `WATm.NN[�,' DATE 9.06.05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: AUGUST 26,2005 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA AREA AND ANZA POINT SOUTH ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN Introduction: City Council should review and hold a public hearing on the proposal to amend the zoning regulations to establish two new zoning districts for the Anza Area and Anza Point South in the Bayfront planning area. Staff is suggesting a public hearing at introduction for these ordinances to be sure that the regulation is clearly understood by both the Council and public before the second reading and action. Following the hearing the Council may direct any changes to staff and set the time for the second reading. Introduction requires the following Council actions. A. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. If the proposals are complete, this item should be set for a second reading and public hearing at the Council meeting of September 19, 2005. General Plan Compliance: The Anza Area and Anza Point South zoning districts are part of the implementation phase of the Bayfront Specific Plan adopted by the City Council and amended to the Burlingame General Plan in April 2004. The provisions in the ordinances are consistent with the plan because they are taken from the land use element and design guidelines in that adopted plan supplemented with provisions from the existing C-4 district for the Anza Area and O-M district for the Anza Point South which currently regulate development in these areas; have been fundamental in implementing the 1969 General Plan, the 1981 Bayfront Specific Plan and in establishing the existing land use pattern for this area. The Anza Area (AA) district includes the Anza subarea designated in the Bayfront Specific Plan. The AA district is located west of Bayside Park's Upper deck west to Sanchez Creek, and bounded on the south by US 101/Burlingame Lagoon/Sanchez Wetland and on the north by San Francisco Bay. The Anza Point South (APS) district includes the western portion of the Anza Point subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan. The APS district is the area adjacent to (north) of US 101 where Beach and Lang Roads are located. The proposed provisions of these districts are consistent with the directives of the Specific Plan they are intended to implement. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA AREA AND ANZA POINT SOUTH ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN August 24,2005 CEQA Compliance: Negative Declaration ND531-P was prepared and adopted for the Bayfront Specific Plan in April 5,2004. Since this zoning action is an implementation of that adopted plan and is consistent with the provisions of that plan, this zoning action is determined to be covered by ND531-P. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the Anza Area, Anza Point North and Anza Point South zoning districts at their meeting on August 22,2005, and recommended the Anza Area and Anza Point South zoning district regulations to the City Council for approval on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) voice vote. At the request of a member of the public the public hearing on the Anza Point North district was continued to the Planning Commission meeting on September 12, 2005. The Commission took testimony on the Anza Point North district at the August 22, 2005 meeting but took no action. In their discussion about the Anza Area and Anza Point South zoning districts the Commissioners reviewed a number of corrections suggested by staff prepared to increase the consistency in format and wording among all the new zoning districts in the Bayfront planning area, including a few changes to the already adopted Inner Bayshore and Shoreline zoning districts. These amendments are included in the ordinance for the Anza Area. A member of the public expressed concern about the possible future conversion of extended stay hotels to apartment units because of the way extended stay hotels are designed. After discussion the Commission directed that extended stay hotels be shifted from the permitted uses to the conditional uses section in the Anza Area and Anza Point North zoning districts, so that conditions could be added at the time of approval to discourage the future conversion of these hotels to residential uses. These changes were included in the Commission's action on the Anza Area and Anza Point South zoning districts. BACKGROUND: On April 5, 2005,the City Council adopted the Bayfront Specific Plan for the area of Burlingame which is between US 101 and San Francisco Bay. This plan was an update of the first Bayfront Specific Plan adopted by the City in 1981. The last step in the update process is to adopt new zoning incorporating the directives of the April 2005 plan. For the April 2005 plan the Bayfront area was divided into five subareas. Each subarea had something about it that was distinctive about it. Because the design objective of the plan was to build on the distinct characteristic of each subarea in the plan,the proposed zoning district boundaries have been drawn along the subarea lines and a separate zoning district has been developed for each subarea. In June and July 2005 the City Council adopted new zoning district regulations for the eastern portion of the Bayfront planning area: Inner Bayshore(113), Shoreline(SL) and an amendment to the Unclassified zoning regulations which regulate the publicly owned Bayside Park area(Anna Extension). The zoning districts being considered in this report are two of the three zones in the Bayshore area which lie west of Bayside park. (See Map attached) The first of these two zoning districts is the Anza Area district bounded by Bayside Park, San Francisco Bay, Sanchez Channel and US 101 Burlingame Lagoon/Sanchez Wetland. The second is Anza Point South which is the western end of the Anza Point subarea. The Anza Point South zoning district is bounded by US 101, Burlingame Lagoon at Sanchez Channel,the rear of the properties on the north side of Beach Road and San Francisco Bay. This is a light industrial area previously zoned O-M (Office Manufacturing). A Subcommittee of the Planning Commission worked with staff to develop the draft zoning ordinances for each of these subareas. 2 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA AREA AND ANZA POINT SOUTHZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN August 24,2005 Summary of the Proposed Zoning Regulations for the Anza Area and Anza Point South Anza Area(AA) The Anza Area(AA)is located cast of Bayside Park and extends west to Sanchez Channel,San Francisco Bay and US 101 mark its northern and southem boundaries. Most of the properties in this area have some portion within the Bay Conservation and Development Commission's(BCDC)jurisdiction since all of the adjacent water areas are either the bay or estuaries to San Francisco Bay. The core land uses,hotel,office and destination restaurant remain the same as the current zoning,with the exception that the density of hotel use was increased in the plan from 65 to 85 rooms to the acre for this area. The reason for the increase was that the Anza Area was where many of the hotels were built during the 1980's and the plan wanted to provide for incentive to these older properties to make improvements in the future. The plan also reduced the floor area ratio for office uses in this area. In the 1981 plan the FAR for office uses in the entire Bayfront area was 0.9; in the 2004 plan this was reduced to 0.6 FAR for the Anza Area and the Anza Point subarea to the south. The reduction in office FAR was suggested based on the environmental impacts identified from a major office project proposed in the vicinity in the 1990's. Key changes in the revised Anza Area zoning discussed by the Subcommittee: ➢ Permitted uses: o Motels and hotels except extended stay hotels: hotel rooms per acre was increased from 65 to 85 to match the densities in the plan,the shuttle requirement to the airport instituted to support the lower on-site parking ratio established in the 1981 plan was codified by requiring the shuttle service for hotel guests only,and one on-site parking space for the shuttle to use for loading and unloading. o Office densities were reduced from 0.9 to 0.6 FAR to match the plan,research and development uses with laboratories are included in office uses with associated instructional activities included;retail sales of 1,500 SF are allowed in office buildings of 20,000 SF or more. o Publicly owned recreation facilities are allowed;privately owned require a CUP. ➢ Conditional uses: o Office uses larger than 0.6 FAR with retail sales areas included of more than 1,500 SF may be allowed with a CUP o Hotels and motels with more than 85 rooms to the acre or more than 1.0 FAR,on site car rental desks,and park and fly programs may be allowed with a CUP. o Extended stay hotels the use requires a conditional use permit,but the use is allowed the same provisions as allowed a hotel in the permitted and conditional uses for motels and hotels; o Trade and professional schools. o Buildings more than 40 feet in height within 100 feet of San Francisco Bay (this requirement is a BCDC guideline and is currently a conditional use in the zoning). o The maximum height for the area is 65 feet(or 5 stories),although a height exception can be granted with a CUP. o Commercial parking lots(including long term airport parking)are only an interim use with a 5 year limit. o Criteria are established for judging any proposed interim use,the plan suggested this to provide flexibility for currently unanticipated new interim uses. 3 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA AREA AND ANZA POINT SOUTH ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN August 24,2005 ➢ Prohibited uses. These uses remain basically the same. It should be noted that any use which is not permitted or conditional, is prohibited. The prohibited uses section is included to respond to the most frequent questions asked staff. Other uses not listed on this list are also prohibited. o Restaurants/food establishments over 0.25 FAR. o All residential uses except a hotel manager. o Retail sales,personal services and service businesses not allowed as a CUP. o Car rental agencies (except desk at hotel) and car rental storage. o Medical clinics and health services. ➢ Setbacks, minimum lot sizes, height, development standards. o Front setback is based on height of building: first and second story setback at least 30 feet; third story setback at least 10 feet more; four stories or more entire building set back 40 feet (this quantifies in the code the 1981 design guidelines for the Anza Area). o Side setbacks vary, to protect bay views one side must be at least 30 feet the other side must be at least 10 feet. o Rear setbacks, 25 feet, the same as current. o All setbacks are over ridden for the side of the property which has Bay or estuary frontage, then the code applies the setbacks in the BCDC guidelines (average of 75 feet along San Francisco Bay, 65 foot average along the estuaries); and where a building in BCDC jurisdiction is more than 40 feet, the minimum setback shall be 40 feet. o To protect view corridors the width of any structure or structures (combined) is limited to 50% of the street frontage. o A maximum height of 65 feet is established(CUP if a taller building is proposed) except along Burlingame Lagoon (west side of Airport Blvd) where the plan calls for a range of heights from 25 feet to 65 feet to provide a view corridor from US 101 to the Bay. o Lot coverage remains the same 35%maximum. o Minimum lot size proposed is 20,000 with 100 lineal foot street frontage; however because of the small lots (currently being used as long term airport parking) an incentive is provided for combination of existing lots into to at least a 40,000 SF unit with 100 feet of street frontage; the incentive is 10%FAR(all other development requirements would need to be met). ➢ Landscaping and design requirements. o The landscaping requirements remain the same as required in the 1981 plan including 80% of the front setback, 10%of all parking areas. Refuse and garbage containers are now required by law to be fully enclosed and properly drained, this requirement has been added; along with a requirement that such facilities shall be located on the sides of buildings and no closer than 75 feet to the rear property line, or 100 feet from the shoreline(and subject to design review). o Loading docks also must be fully enclosed, if at the side of a building no closer than 75 feet to the rear property line, if at the rear,no closer than 100 feet to the rear property line (and subject to design review) o Design review criteria were written with emphasis on the relationship of development to the adjacent water body and public trail system. ➢ Public access. This section codifies the requirements of the BCDC guidelines. There is no change to the standards that have been imposed since 1982. Parking requirements. These include special requirements for food establishments (destination), instructional activities when in office buildings over 20,000 SF, amends hotel parking to require one additional on site 4 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA AREA AND ANZA POINT SOUTH ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN August 24, 2005 space for the required shuttle and clarifies that bay trail parking may be designated from the code required parking (not in addition to). Anza Point South(APS) The Anza Point South (APS) district is the southern half of the Anza Point subarea. It is bounded by US 101- Burlingame Lagoon/Sanchez Channel - the rear of the properties on the north side of Beach Road - Airport Blvd/San Francisco Bay. It is the eastern gateway into Burlingame on the Bayfront side. Previously this area was zoned Office-Manufacturing (O-M) and before that Light Industrial (M-1). The existing character reflects these previous zonings, and the pattern of development is well established (e.g. few vacant parcels). The specific plan treats this area in a manner similar to the Inner Bayshore area with the additional recognition of the impact on the future uses in the area of the nearby recreation areas and activities of Coyote Point Park. The key attributes of the proposed zoning for this area include: ➢ Permitted uses. o Recreation related retail sales uses in buildings of 10,000 SF or more with not more than 5,000 SF of retail space. o Publicly owned recreation facilities. o Office uses with an FAR of 0.6 including research and development but not allowing on site medical clinics. o Light industrial and manufacturing uses with an FAR of 0.5; o Warehousing, storage and distribution in an enclosed building with an 0.5 FAR maximum. o Service businesses, except personal service uses. o Air courier, delivery services. ➢ Conditional uses. o Offices with more than 0.6 FAR o Limousine and livery businesses with performance criteria. o Out door storage of criteria - exceptions to lot area covered and beyond the side and rear yards. o Warehousing, etc. with an FAR greater than 0.5 FAR. o Exceptions to the performance criteria for light industrial and manufacturing uses; to exceed 0.5 FAR requires a variance. ➢ Prohibited uses. These are essentially the same uses prohibited in the Inner Bayshore (IB) zone. ➢ Setbacks. o Front setbacks were kept the same, 15 feet. o Side setbacks were also kept the same, 10 feet. o A rear setback of 10 feet is proposed for properties abutting the Anza Point North district, but no rear setback is required for other properties. ➢ Minimum lot size. The lot pattern is established and has worked well for the development of the uses in the APS area, so the minimum lot size was based on the existing lot sizes and average street frontages. (See annotations) The proposed minimum lot size is 40,000 SF with 150 feet of street frontage. ➢ Height and bulk of buildings. The height gradient established for the APN district was also applied to the APS district because the area is vulnerable to causing similar wind impacts on the adjacent 5 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA AREA AND ANZA POINT SOUTH ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN August 24,2005 recreation areas at Coyote Point Park. The height on the eastern side shall be a maximum of 30 feet, rising to 50 feet on the western,Burlingame Lagoon,side. Bulk of buildings will be determined by the FAR in the plan and by the design guidelines. ➢ Landscaping and Design Criteria. The landscaping requirements are the same as used in the Inner Bayshore area as amended by the BCDC guidelines. The design criteria are the same criteria used in the Anza Point North,Anza Area and Shoreline districts. ➢ Public Access. These standards are taken from the BCDC guidelines adopted in 1982. They are the same requirements which have been applied in this area since their adoption by the city in 1982. ➢ Parking requirements. The only special parking requirement in this zone is the Bay Trail requirement which clarifies that Bay Trail parking is designated from the required parking for the use. Other Amendments: 1. At the end of the Anza Area regulations is a provision which corrects the numbering assigned to the recently adopted Shoreline(SL)district. It would change the identification numbers from Chapter 25.41 to Chapter 25.45. 2. At the end of the Anza Area regulations is also an amendment to the Shoreline(SL)district replacing the design review criteria section(CS 25.45.052)with the later revisions to the criteria which incorporate the importance to project design of the Bay Trail and visual and physical access to the bay's edge. The design criteria were refined by the subcommittee for the Anza and Anza Point subarea zoning and as revised are more appropriate to the Shoreline area. In addition it will make the design criteria for all the zoning districts and subareas with water frontage the same. 3. Errata Corrections shown in bold face in the zoning text. These changes were made so that there would be consistency in language throughout all the zoning districts implementing the Bayfront Specific Plan. Margaret Monroe City Planner ATTACHMENTS: General Land Use Map showing Planning Subareas for the Bayfront Specific Planning Area Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2005 Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 to Adopt the Anza Area District and Make Conforming Changes to the Shoreline and Inner Bayshore Districts Bayshore Specific Plan Implementation Anza Area Regulations Annotated,August 25,2005 draft as recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 to Adopt the Anza Point South District Bayshore Specific Plan Implementation Anza Point South Regulations Annotated,August 25,2005 draft as recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005. Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use: Anza Area Land Use Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Design Guidelines: Anza Area Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use: Anza Point Land Use,Anza Point South Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Design Guidelines: Anza Point South 6 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA AREA AND ANZA POINT SOUTH ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN August 24,2005 Notice of Public Hearing published in the San Mateo Times August 26, 2005, and mailed August 26, 2005 U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR 2005UntroBayftAA and APSdistrict regs 9.6.05.doc 7 Bayshore Specific Plan Implementation Anza Area (AA) Annotated Regulations Draft:August 25,2005,PC action revisions to July 18,2005 draft in boldface. Chapter 25.47 Anza Area Regulations Annotation: The zoning regulations which follow will apply only to the Anza Subarea as designated in the adopted 2004 Bayfront Specific Plan. The Anza subarea is defined by the western side of Bayside Park Upper Deck, US 101, Sanchez Channel and San Francisco Bay. Each subarea in the plan will be addressed individually in terms of implementing zoning. Changes shown in bold face are those made by the Planning Commission as a part of their recommendation action on August 22 , 2005 . Sections: 25.47.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 25.47.020 Permitted uses. 25.47.025 Conditional uses. 25.47.030 Prohibited uses. 25.47.040 Setbacks, minimum lot sizes,height, and development standards. 25.47.045 Minimum lot size 25.47.048 No variance to for lot size and street frontage 25.47.050 Landscaping and design requirements. 25.47.052 Design review. 25.47.060 Public access. 25.47.080 Parking requirements. Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 Section 25.47.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. It is the purpose and policy of this chapter to establish and maintain land uses and the City and Bay Conservation and Development Commission design standards for the area designated as the Anza subarea in the Bayfront Specific Plan, and to cause development of buildings and structures that will benefit from their proximity to San Francisco Bay to encourage development which the open estuary areas of San Francisco Bay and will support and be beneficial to public access and use of this irreplaceable natural resource. Development of this area should contribute positively to the economic future of the city. In creating this district, the city asserts that economic as well as aesthetic advantages accrue to the land, the occupants and the public from the required controls and regulations. In addition, these regulations insure that new development can be supported by the local roadway system and other public infrastructure. Annotation: This section establishes the purpose of the zoning regulations to implement the policies, land use designations, land use densities, and design direction of the Bayfront Specific Plan for the Anza subarea which was amended by the City Council to the Burlingame General Plan on April 5, 2004 . The Purpose section is used by the courts to establish the context of the zoning regulations . It is often used to resolve debates about meanings and intentions for imposing standards. For this reason it is very important that the Purpose section state clearly what the city' s intentions are for the future of the area. This is the one section in the zoning which can be written in "prose" style. Section 25.47.020 Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the Anza district: (a)Restaurants with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.15; Annotation: The 1981 Bayfront Plan established the floor area ratio (FAR) for restaurants/food establishments in the C-4 district at 0 . 15 FAR. This FAR was based on the fact that restaurants in this area would be destinations, with limited walk-in traffic, and accessed almost exclusively by car. In the 1981 Bayfront/Anza Specific Area Plan, the FAR was never put into the zoning, but was administered through design guidelines. For consistency of administration it is suggested that the FAR be included in the zoning along with the use. One reason for limiting FAR was to insure that there would be enough area on the site for parking, 2 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 landscaping, and public access. With the destination feature and landscaping objectives of restaurants in this area in mind, the parking requirements were also increased in 1981 from 1 :250 gross square footage to 1:100 GSF (for customers) plus 1 : 1000 GSF (for employees) . (See CS 25.41 . 080 below) Other than walking from your hotel along the Bay Trail or sidewalk there is no way for customers or employees to get to restaurants east of US 101 except by car. Since 1981 a number of restaurants have been built in this area and this FAR has allowed parking and landscaping requirements to be met; so no change is proposed. (b)Motels and hotels and extended stay hotels with a maximum density of eighty-five (85)rooms to the acre and a floor area ratio of 1.0 or less; facilities provided on site may include such retail sales and personal service uses as meal and beverage services,barber and beauty shops, smoke shops, and shuttle bus service to serve only hotel guests so long as the operation does not use parking required for primary hotel use,convention and meeting facilities, and similar services which are clearly incidental and accessory to provision of lodging accommodations; and no more than one dwelling unit within the motel or hotel structure that is used exclusively by the owner or manager of the motel or hotel; Annotation: Because the Planning Commission was concerned that because of their design, extended stay hotels could be easily converted to residential uses, which are prohibited in the Anza Area; they decided to make extended stay hotels a conditional use only. That way conditions could be added at the time of the project to insure that such uses were not converted to residential use. Original Annotation: Same land use description used in the Anza Point subarea. Anza Point and Anza areas are the two subareas in the plan where extended stay hotels are allowed and where hotel development is allowed at a density of 85 rooms to the acre. All other uses allowed are the same for all the subareas in the Bayfront planning area where hotels are allowed. Car rental desks at hotels are allowed as a conditional use in all subareas. Shuttle bus service with one parking space on site is required at all hotels because of their orientation to serve SFO. Original Annotation: The changes to the existing zoning regulations in this section are: • allowing extended stay hotels (defined at the end of this chapter) ; • increasing the density of rooms per acre from 65 to 85 as directed by the adopted plan) ; and Previously the rooms per acre number was taken from the land use approved in 1981 Bayfront Specific Area Plan. Since many 3 Annotated Anza Area Zoning DlVrkt Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,1005 developers look at the zoning first and then the plan, adding the rooms per acre to the zoning provides them with better information earlier in the development process . It should be noted that the 2004 Bayfront Specific Plan increased the density of hotel rooms per acre in the Anza subarea from 65 to 85 inorder to encourage existing hotels to make improvements. Many of the existing hotels are more than 20 years old and allowing more rooms as a matter of right may encourage necessary upgrades in the future. As was the case before the conditional uses section will include hotels of more than 85 rooms to the acre in this area. By doing this, a conditional use permit not a variance will be required for a project with more than 85 rooms/acre. This provides an opportunity for improvements to existing hotels which may be built with close to 85 rooms to the acre now. Findings for a conditional use permit are easier to make, and the administration of the hotel regulations will stay the same. In the past conditional use permits for more rooms were allowed if the cumulative intersection capacity of the affected intersections was adequate to handle the traffic as documented by the Traffic Analyzer. With the adoption of the 2004 Bayfront Plan, it was noted that extended stay hotels should be allowed on the State Lands parcel; for that reason extended stay hotels are include in this zoning provision. It is not clear with the spot zoning issue how we could refuse extended stay hotels on other parcels in the Anza area. On the other hand most of the large parcels suitable for hotel development have already been developed, with the exception of the State Lands site. Finally this section includes a minimum hotel room size and facility requirement. This was included to protect the current hotel developments from the competition of cheaply built, minimum service operations in the future. In the past a number of these "McSleep" type of businesses have expressed an interest in building in Burlingame. We have had no design/standard provisions in our code reinforcing our policy of wanting to maintain full service, enduring quality facilities. (c) Offices with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.6 including research and development offices with associated laboratory uses; and instructional activities associated with an office on the site; however, neither health services nor medical clinics are allowed. Annotation: Adding the wording regarding health services and medical clinics was a clarification for administration. Original Annotation: The Subcommittee felt that in the Anza Area research and development uses which are basically office uses 4 Annotated Anza Area Zoning DistrictReguln&ns as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 with laboratories should be allowed in the Anza Area. However the subcommittee determined that health services should not be allowed in office buildings in the Anza Area. So health services have been added to medical clinics on the prohibited uses list. Finally, the subcommittee felt that R&D uses could include instruction as a part of the activity; so instructional activities which are associated with a business on site were allow as a permitted use. The parking exemption of 1 :300SF have been retained to exempt the instructional activities in a large office building from requiring additional parking. Original Annotation: office uses are presently allowed in the Anza subarea as a permitted use. The 2004 Bayfront Specific Plan reduced the density of the office development allowed in the Anza subarea from 0. 9 FAR to 0 .6 FAR which matches the density of the existing office developments built in the area since 1981. Further it was noted in the plan that circulation impacts of substantial amounts of office development at 0 . 9 FAR would be problematic particularly on the Peninsula Interchange and on Humboldt in San Mateo. A second change is to allow health services in buildings over 20, 000 SF as a permitted use and to exclude research and development offices and laboratories because that is a use being promoted in the Inner Bayshore subarea. Note: In other subareas, Health services are limited to 5, 000 SF in office buildings greater than 20, 000 SF, and are not allowed at all in the Shoreline subarea. (d) Accessory retail sales and personal service uses of no more than one thousand-five hundred (1,500) square feet within an office building larger than 20,000 square feet. Annotation: The Planning Commission adopted an errata which modified this section to make the wording consistent thoughout all the Bayfront zoning districts. The Subcommittee felt that in the Anza Area the conditional use permit would address the amount of retail in commercial recreational facilities. However they felt that some incidental retail sales should be allowed in larger office buildings. This item was adjusted to allow the same amount of incidental retail sales in office buildings over 20, 000 SF in area as in Shoreline and Inner Bayshore subareas. This provision makes it clear that accessory retail uses are allowed, but not free standing retail uses. In the Shoreline subarea, commercial recreation facilities and large office buildings are allowed to have for support a small retail component. Retail here includes sales (candy bars and newspapers and services, barber and dry cleaning agency) . 5 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 (e) Publicly owned recreation facilities. Annotation: The Subcommittee discussed the future of recreation facilities in the Anza Area and decided that because of their potential impacts privately owned recreation facilities should only be a conditional use (see below) . This provision allows publicly owned recreation facilities as a permitted use, similar to facilities like those in Bayside Park owned and operated by a public entity. (f) Adult oriented businesses that meet all of the requirements of chapters 25.76 and 10.58 of this code. Annotation: By law adult entertainment businesses must be allowed some place in the city as a permitted use. The council decided that the C-4 zone would be the appropriate place for such businesses . Among the locational requirements for adult entertainment businesses is the requirement that they be 1, 000 linear feet apart . If this use were only allowed in the Shoreline area on distance alone there would only be about three locations. For this reason the City Attorney has recommended that adult oriented businesses be included in the Anza Area and Anza Point North zoning districts, since these districts compose the old C-4 zone. Section 25.47.025 Conditional uses. The following are uses requiring a conditional use permit: (a) Offices with a floor area ratio greater than 0.6, including research and development offices with associated laboratories, as well as instructional activities associated with an office on the site; however, neither health services or medical clinics are allowed. Annotation: The Commission added this wording to clarify the status of health services and medical clinics in this zone. Original Annotation: The subcommittee had considerable discussion about whether classroom uses should be allowed in the Anza Area. Reflected here is the conclusion that if the instructional activities are associated with an office use on the site they would be appropriate. The example used was the airline offices who wanted to provide a flight training facility on site for pilots to do FAA required in-service 6 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 training. Original Annotation: Since the plan is encouraging research and development land uses in the Inner Bayshore subarea/O-M district on the west side of Bayshore Highway, it seemed appropriate to limit office uses in the Anza subarea to general or corporate office uses which would benefit from bay views and proximity to airport oriented hotels. In the Inner Bayshore zoning district a second office use called out is health services in office buildings over 20, 000 SF. In the current O-M district medical offices are limited to buildings over 20, 000 SF because of the increased parking demand generated by health service uses. Overtime the city has found that there are a sufficient number of on-site parking spaces for larger office buildings so that the higher volume and turnover of parking generated by health service uses can be absorbed in the day to day variation in tenant parking usage. In smaller buildings the law of averages of employee attendance works differently and health service uses really need the greater amount of parking required for health services. Allowing health services in the Anza subarea will require addition of a section to the parking requirement for health services in office buildings greater than 20, 000 GSF. Health services are not currently allowed in the Anza subarea. (b) Accessory retail sales and personal service uses of more than one thousand five hundred(1,500)square feet to serve employees in offices with greater than 20,000 square feet. Annotation: Commission added a clarification to the wording so that the uses would be consistent with the definitions in the zoning code. The Subcommittee felt that, to be consistent with the Shoreline subarea the incidental sales in larger complexes should be increased to 1, 500 SF. This provision allows a CUP if a developer wishes more than 1, 500 SF of incidental sales area in a building larger than 20, 000 SF. Original Annotation: Making retail uses in excess of 1, 000 SF in a 20, 000 SF or larger office building a conditional use, allows owners of such buildings to ask the Planning Commission for more retail square footage if they have a specific employee service need without having to make findings for a variance. The Planning Commission can consider the proposal and place conditions on the property to insure that the retail uses as they are operated are consistent with the land use goals and policies of the adopted plan for the Anza subarea. Oversized retail sales areas in commercial recreation facilities are addressed in the "commercial recreation" conditional use provisions below. 7 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 (c) Motels and hotels with more than 85 rooms to the acre or with a floor area ratio more than 1.0; facilities provided on site may include such retail sales and personal service uses as meal and beverage services,barber and beauty shops, smoke shops, and shuttle bus service to serve only hotel guests so long as the operation does not use parking required for primary hotel use, convention and meeting facilities, and similar services which are clearly incidental and accessory to provision of lodging accommodations including park and fly programs associated with the letting of hotel rooms which does not impact the availability of on site parking for guests and the use and parking for any on site meeting facilities; and no more than one dwelling unit within the motel or hotel structure that is used exclusively by the owner or manager of the motel or hotel; Annotation: The Planning Commission, concerned that the design of extended stay hotels, might lead to their future use as apartment units, determined that extended stay hotels should only be allowed as a conditional use in the Anza Area. With this provision conditions could be crafted for each project making it clear that it future conversion to a residential use is prohibited. Original Annotation 2 : Hotels area included here as a conditional use so that if an applicant wishes to build more than a 1 .0 FAR, to add more meeting rooms for example, he may do so with findings for a conditional use rather than findings for a variance. It should be noted that the conditional use for hotels, motels and extended stay hotels includes park and fly programs which are not in the permitted use. So a park and fly program can only occur on a hotel site as a conditional use. All of the other support uses area allowed as described, but would require a conditional use if they wished to exceed the requirements listed in the definition. For example, if the hotel wanted to add a automobile rental desk they would need a CUP if the cars to be rented were to be parked in any of the on site required parking for the hotel and other uses permitted. Original Annotation 1 : To avoid a variance for hotels wanting to add rooms in excess of 85 rooms acre and/or adding meeting/restaurant space which might cause the total structure to exceed 1 . 0 FAR, hotels with more than 85 rooms to the acre and/or an FAR greater than 1 . 0 are also shown as a conditional use. This would avoid the Commission having to make variance findings based on a hardship on the property if an existing hotel, built close to 85 rooms to the acre, wants to do an upgrade which includes adding some rooms and meeting facilities causing them to exceed the new review lines. Since the plan encourages destination or transient traveler hotels in the Anza subarea and there are a considerable number of hotel properties there now, 8 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 this seems to be an appropriate encouragement for maintenance and future investment by property owners and hotel franchisers in this revenue generating land use. Environmental review of any addition to an existing hotel would require adequate capacity in the circulation system as determined by the Traffic Analyzer. (e) Extended stay hotels; Annotation: The Planning Commission determined that because of their future potential for conversion to rental residential uses, extended stay hotels should be a conditional use. As a conditional use the project could be conditioned with appropriate limitations to prevent the future conversion to residential uses. (f) As a part of a hotel or motel or extended stay hotel, an automobile rental desk or a park and fly program associated with renting of rooms and that does not affect the availability of on-site parking for motel guests and the use and parking for any on-site meeting facilities; Annotation: This provision was divided out from the original (c) above to underscore the need for a conditional use permit for automobile rental desks and on-site park and fly programs. (e) Commercial recreation facility; these facilities may include the sale of merchandise and items which are related to the principal use that do not exceed 1,500 square feet of support retail sales area; Annotation: The Subcommittee agreed with the plan that while commercial recreation facilities could be an appropriate use on the State lands parcel in the Anza Area such facilities take many different shapes and have very different impacts. For these reasons they felt that privately owned commercial recreation facilities should be only a conditional use. Consistent with the CUP no maximum FAR is proposed. It should be noted that, based on the Plan (pageIII-7) commercial recreation uses are allowed only on the State lands parcel in the Anza Area. This provision does not change that . Original Annotation: The way this code requirement is presently framed an applicant who wishes to build a large structure, such as a stadium, would need a use permit . If they wanted to include more support retail space they could also ask for it as a part of a conditional use permit application. These provisions address 9 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 closely two goals in the plan for the Anza subarea. The first is the view corridor protection, by requiring review of larger structures. The second is to keep free standing and destination oriented retail sales under control on the Bayfront. Receiving a conditional use permit does not exempt the operator from other regulatory provisions of the Municipal Code, such as permits for more than three video machines on one premise, shoreline access as required by BCDC, etc. (f) Trade,professional and art schools located in buildings of more than 20,000 square feet; Annotation: Trade, professional and art schools are now allowed in this district. The amendment to these provisions continues to allow them, but limits them to office buildings over 20, 000 SF because of the parking impacts caused by this use. As was determined in the current O-M district, there is, based on average usage, sufficient parking at 1 :300 for an office building over 20, 000 SF to accommodate the varying peak parking demands of trade, professional and art schools when mixed with other tenants. For this reason such uses were allowed as conditional uses in larger office buildings (over 20, 000 SF) without a' parking variance. This provision would require an amendment to the parking requirements for this district. Note: the subcommittee discussed this at length, conclusion was to encourage campus type schools and to do it in the Anza and Anza Point subareas where there was acreage available. Plan doe not address campus schools. So either it is assumed that a campus type school is like an office complex in its impacts or the plan will need to be amended. It should be noted that many campus types schools are non-profit and thus tax exempt; so would not be consistent with the revenue producing objectives of the Bayfront plan and the city' s general plan for the Bayfront area. (g) Buildings and structures that exceed forty(40) feet in height when located within one hundred (100)feet of the San Francisco Bay shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission(BCDC). Annotation: Subcommittee suggested that the base requirement for this item be included in the section of the district regulations addressing height of buildings and structures. See Below. The BCDC adopted guidelines call out 40 feet as the "control" height within their jurisdiction. Staff does not know where the 35 foot number in the existing C-4 zoning requirements came from, except that in most zones in the city there is a height review 10 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 line at 35 feet . Since the newly adopted design guidelines for the Anza subarea and the BCDC guidelines both call out 40 feet at the review line limit within BCDC jurisdiction it is appropriate to make the zoning consistent . (h) All buildings, structures and site plans that do not comply with the adopted measurable Design Guidelines for the Anza subarea as established by resolution of the city council; Annotation: This change updates the code section so that it is based on the newly adopted Anza subarea design guidelines which were adopted as a part of the Bayfront Specific Plan. Based on this provision, the design guidelines will be used in the same way that the 1981 guidelines were : a conditional use permit will be required for each design guideline not met . (i) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted uses; Annotation: This existing provision provides for review of any permitted or conditional land uses which include drive-in/through or take-out services. It is most useful in reviewing impacts from restaurants or ATMs with drive through features. For this reason it should be retained. 0) Commercial parking lots, but only as an interim use as is described in the Bayfront Specific Plan as adopted by City Council, and that comply with at least all of the following criteria: (1) The sole purpose of the use is the parking for one day or longer of vehicles of persons using the San Francisco International Airport; and (2) A minimum site size of three (3) acres; and (3) Permit term limited to five (5) years; and (4) No more peak hour vehicle trips are generated than allowed by the traffic analyzer for the use designated for the site in the general plan; and (5) The Anza subarea design guidelines from the adopted Bayfront Specific Plan and Bay Conservation and Development Commission public access requirements are met; and 11 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 (6) No parking is within a structure above or below grade. Annotation: The Subcommittee determined that commercial parking lots were not the "highest and best" use in terms of the land use policy for the Anza Area. So commercial parking lots area allowed ONLY as an interim use. This means that they can be approved for 5 years, but the use must be re-approved every five years, e.g. the maximum duration of a conditional use permit for this use is 5 years. In the 2004 Bayfront Specific Plan long term airport parking is identified as an interim use in the Anza subarea, e.g. a use which is allowed for only five years at a time. As administered, property owners of interim uses may, near the end of the term of their use permit, ask for another five years by amending their conditional use permit. No change is proposed to the current regulation or to its administration. With this provision car storage for rental cars or storage for new or used cars to be sold will not be allowed in the C-5 zone, except for car rental desks at hotel sites as a secondary hotel support activity with limited on site auto storage for rental cars. Note: The subcommittee extended this concept to include all private parking lots for pay. Added a definition wit criteria to remain the same. Adding the interim concept makes it clear that commercial parking lots including long term airport parking lots are not considered to be the ultimate use of land but only a holding use until the market evolves for the "highest and best use" e.g. one of the uses proposed in the plan. (k) Structures over sixty-five(65)feet in height or five(5)stories; Annotation: Height review lines are used throughout the Burlingame Zoning Code. For example in multiple family residential zones the city has a review line at 35 feet. This means that any structure proposed to be taller than 35 feet in such a zone requires a conditional use permit (Planning Commission review) . Since the findings for a CUP are not as rigorous as those for a variance, the Commission can decide on a case by case basis, taking into account the location and surrounding development, the appropriateness of each project exceeding the height limit. Also the Commission can take into consideration other factors such as design which might affect the compatibility of the proposed structure with the fabric of the development in which it will sit as well as consistency with city policy for the area. In the case of the 65 foot height review line for the Anza subarea, it 12 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,1005 was established in the Anza design guidelines as a maximum with varying heights defined for sites with different water frontages. Therefore, a proposed project with a taller structure should be carefully reviewed for its consistency with the full range of development criteria including impacts on prevailing winds and how they would affect off shore recreation activities. (1) Interim uses which, after a public hearing, are found desirable and compatible with the purposes of the district and that conform to the Bayfront Specific Plan and are compatible with the following criteria: (1) Do not impede or imperil the intent of the Bayfront Specific Plan; and (2) Do not allow development which generates more p.m.peak hour vehicle trips than a permitted use on the site as determined by the Bayfront traffic analyzer; and (3) The design conforms to National Pollution discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Bay Conservation and Development Commission requirements; and (4) The permit term is limited to five(5)years or less. Annotation: The adopted 2004 Bayfront Specific Plan provides for interim land uses in the Anza subarea. Because of the size of the Anza subarea, the Bayfront Plan recognizes that to build the area out as planned it may take more than one development cycle of any preferred use (hotels, office, destination restaurants, etc. For this reason the plan includes the opportunity for land owners to use their sites for some revenue generating use while waiting. The best example is the long term airport parking lot between Burlingame Lagoon and Airport Blvd. Because long term airport parking is an interim use, the owner/operator must come to the Planning Commission every five years for a renewal . This regular review has allowed the city to review the impacts of the interim use on the permanent uses and over time amend the operator's requirements. In this way interim uses do not become liabilities which "drive out" permanent investment in the area. Note: This provision provides criteria for all interim uses. At the time the Bayfront plan was adopted there was concern that there be enough flexibility built into the land uses so that in the future interim uses not conceived of at the time of adoption could be allowed. This provision sets out the criteria to be used to determine if an interim use is consistent with the "character of the area" . 13 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 (m) Any use similar in nature to one which is permitted or for which a permit is required in this district at a density determined not to exceed the trip generation for the planned use of the site using the adopted Bayfront traffic analyzer. Annotation: This is a catch all provision which builds flexibility for future permanent land uses which may be consistent with the intent of the design guidelines, character, and role of the Anza subarea but which are unknown today. This provision is included in the conditional uses section of all of the zones in the Bayfront planning area. 25.47.030 Prohibited uses. Uses not listed as permitted or conditional shall be prohibited, including: (a) Apartment hotels Automobile wreckers and wrecking yards; Annotation: As work proceeded with the zoning revisions for both the North Burlingame/Rollins Road and Bayfront specific plans this terms "apartment hotels" and the definition in the zoning code was removed. Inclusion of this term here was an editing error. The Planning Commission removed the term "apartment hotels" and replaced it with "automobile wreckers and wrecking yards" in their action on August 22 .2005 . (b) Restaurants and food establishments with a floor area ratio that is more than 0.25; Annotation: Subcommittee suggested a correction to the language to make the intention clear e.g. more than 0 .25 FAR is not allowed. This provision sets a maximum size for a restaurant or food establishment in the Anza subarea by prohibiting a restaurant use in excess of 0 . 25 FAR. The maximum size permitted for destination restaurants in the Specific Plan is 0 . 15 FAR. Given the shoreline location, the area for parking alone to support a restaurant over 0 .25 FAR would resemble a "sea" of asphalt, which is not consistent with the shoreline development policy. Finally, such a large restaurant or complex of successful restaurants and bars would generate more trips and have an impact on the character of the area not currently anticipated in the 14 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 plan. In the plan food service, bars, etc. are viewed as secondary uses to support the hotels and office uses in the Anza subarea and are not anticipated to be the predominant use which leads the other uses in the area. (c) Retail sales,personal services, and service businesses that are free standing including gasoline service stations, and that are not expressly allowed or limited as a permitted or conditional use in this chapter; Annotation: The 1981 Bayfront Specific Area Plan prohibited retail sales and service uses in the entire area east of US 101 . In the 2004 plan update, the plan allows retail sales and service uses to varying degrees in the Shoreline and Inner Bayshore subareas, but continues the prohibition of retail sales and service uses in the Anza and Anza Point subareas . The only exception in the Anza area are minor support retail activities which are a dependent part of commercial recreation businesses and to serve employees in large office buildings greater than 20, 000 SF. (d) Car rental agencies and car rental storage; Annotation: Implementation of the Anza subarea land use policies requires that these two uses become prohibited in the area. It should be noted that if these uses are shown as prohibited, they cannot be used as interim uses in this subarea. (e) Manufacturing and warehousing except as designated and limited in the permitted uses; Annotation: This land use is not allowed in the Anza subarea in the adopted 2004 Bayfront Plan. At one time it was thought that manufacturing and warehousing would be the predominant use in this area, so there are one or two warehouse buildings in the area. During the office shortage of the 1990 ' s these buildings were either converted to office buildings or have been demolished and replaced by buildings designed for office use. Note: The City Attorney has suggested that a definition of manufacturing be added to the code so that it is clear exactly what is prohibited. See new definitions section. (a) Medical clinics and health services; Annotation: 15 Annotated Anza Area Zoning Distrlct Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 This is a consistency change. In review it was noted that health services were noted as an exception with regard to office use but not listed in the prohibited uses section. If health services are to be prohibited along with medical clinics they should be listed in the prohibited uses section. Original Annotation: This is important since both health services and medical clinics are allowed in the Inner Bayshore Subarea. Previously health services and medical clinics were prohibited in office buildings in the C-4 zone. However, they were allowed in the O-M zone across Bayshore Highway so long as they were located in office buildings greater than 20, 000 SF to accommodate the parking impacts. In revising the Anza subarea zoning requirements it seemed appropriate to allow health service offices on the same basis as they were allowed in the Shoreline subarea, but not medical clinics. Medical clinics are determined to be an appropriate use in the Inner Bayshore subarea because of the industrial orientation of the area and the need of manufacturing and heavy industrial employees for immediate work related care on a 24 hour basis. (b) Outdoor storage of merchandise, inventory, equipment, and materials, including storage of motorized recreation vehicles; Annotation: The Subcommittee felt that it should be clear that the prohibition on the storage of things outdoors in this district includes the storage of motorized recreation vehicles. They felt that if a marina were suggested as a commercial recreation facility, then the issue of boat storage would be addressed with the application. For that reason the exception for boat storage was removed from the provision. Original Annotation: This provision would prohibit outdoor storage of any material . The only exception would be boats and boat trailers related to a permitted use such as a marina (e.g. commercial recreation facility) . (c) Residential uses, including mobile homes, except for an owner/manager residence within a motel or hotel as expressly permitted above; Annotation: With the adoption of the 2004 Bayfront Specific Plan as in the 1981 Bayfront/Anza Specific Area Plan, residential uses are not allowed by policy in any part of the Bayfront area. The only exception is for hotel managers where the residential use is a 16 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 part of the land use function for its management . General Annotation: Other uses prohibited in the Shoreline subarea but not listed in the Anza area: . Automobile dealers and sales lots, wholesale and retail, including automobile leasing, freestanding and in office buildings; . Automobile wrecking, junkyards, storage or baling of scraps, paper, rags, stacks or metals; . Limousine and livery businesses and associated storage facilities; . Health services . It should be noted that in zoning administration that any use not specifically named or defined within performance criteria is considered to be prohibited. Specific prohibited uses which are frequently requested are included to facilitate administration e .g. reduce argument at the counter with staff . However, it should also be noted that uses that the commission feels strongly should never be considered should be included on this list so future commissions understand the intention at the time the zoning was adopted. The Shoreline subarea is used as a benchmark here because both Shoreline and the Anza subareas currently have the same zoning regulations, C-4 Waterfront Commercial, so the permitted, conditional and prohibited uses in the two areas are the same . (i) Automobile dealers and sales lots,wholesale and retail, and automobile leasing, whether freestanding, in office buildings, or in connection with other uses. Annotation: It is city policy that automobile dealers and sales lots would be located in the designated areas on the west side of US 101 . This policy was further illuminated with the approval of the new auto row in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan adopted in September 2004 . For this reason the Commission felt it was important at their August 22, 2005 meeting to make it clear that this use is prohibited in the Anza Area. 25.47.040 Setbacks,minimum lot sizes, height, and development standards. General Annotation: In the Anza subarea the development standards are more clearly 17 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 based on the 1981 Bayfront design guidelines, than in any of the other subareas of the Bayfront plan. The main reason for this is that the Anza subarea was mostly vacant land in 1981 and the 1981 design guidelines established the current pattern of development in the area. Today there is only one vacant parcel remaining in the subarea (the State lands parcel of about 8 acres) and one substantially under used parcel (the Anza Park and Fly facility interim use about 12 acres) . (a) The following minimum setbacks shall apply to all buildings and structures or shall apply to any enlargement thereof: (1) Front setback. Any portion of a building that is two stories or less in height shall be set back at least thirty(30) feet from the lot front, and any taller portion of the building shall be set back at least ten(10) feet from the lower one-or two story portion. Any portion of any building that is over two stories in height shall be set back at least forty(40) feet from the front of the lot; Annotation: The Anza subarea guidelines indicate that "the front setback of buildings should be equal to the height of the structure" (pg SAP V-21) . The guidelines also direct that "building facades should be articulated with a building base, body and roof or parapet edge" (pg SAP V-24) . The proposed changes to the front setback requirements endeavor to encourage these concepts plus maintain the requirement for a 30 foot front setback established in the 1981 Bayfront Design Guidelines. In the proposed ordinance these issues are addressed as follows: • the minimum front setback of 30 feet is retained so that the pattern of existing development will be respected by future development; and • to encourage articulation on the fagade, the first 30 feet of building can be set back 30 feet but the remainder will need to be set back 40 feet unless the entire building (first, second and floors above) are setback 40 feet . (2)Side setback. On one side designated by the owner, the closest part of any structure shall be set back at least thirty(30) feet from the side property line; on the other side of the lot as designated by the lot owner,the closest part of any structure shall be set back at least ten(10) feet from any structure and the side property line; Annotation: 18 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22, 2005 The design guidelines for the Anza subarea build on the 1981 design guidelines which were intended to protect view corridors between the structures so people driving by would not be enclosed by a wall of buildings and would still have a sense of the presence of San Francisco Bay . There continues to be a concern about development creating a wall between the public street and Bay and estuary waters . In addition it should be noted that if the side of a property is in BCDC jurisdiction, then the BCDC setback requirements supercede as the side setback requirement for that side of the property . (See (4 ) below) . (3) Rear setback. The minimum rear setback shall be twenty-five (25) feet. Annotation : The Subcommittee determined that since a 25 foot rear setback has always been required of properties in this zone , the 25 foot requirement should continue . Because of the BCDC guidelines the 25 foot setback would only affect properties in the Anza Area whose rear setback as not along a body of water . Original Annotation : Since there are a few properties in the Anza subarea which do not have their rear frontages on San Francisco Bay or its estuary, a minimum rear setback requirement is needed . It should be noted that if the side of a property is located within BCDC jurisdiction then the setback requirements of San Francisco Bay apply . (4) Setback from San Francisco Bay and its Estuaries. The following minimum setbacks from San Francisco Bay and its estuaries Anza Lagoon, Sanchez Channel, and Burlingame Lagoon, shall apply to any lot that is adjacent to these water features. In the case of conflict between these provisions and other setback regulations in this section the greatest in setback shall apply. a. On San Francisco Bay proper. An average setback of seventy-five (75) feet between any structure and the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission approved Public Access Guidelines for the City of Burlingame. b. On the estuaries Anza Lagoon, Sanchez Channel, and Burlingame Lagoon. An average setback of sixty-five (65) feet between any structure and the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission approved Public Access Guidelines for the City of Burlingame. 19 Annotated Ansa Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 11,2005 Annotation: In 1982 the city adopted along with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, guidelines for shoreline development in Burlingame. These guideline were critical to expeditious development processing in Burlingame because all development (including bay trails and landscaping) 100 feet inland from the mean highest high tide line requires a permit from BCDC before any development can occur. Moreover, if any portion of any structure is within the 100 foot BCDC jurisdiction the entire structure is subject to BCDC design review/revision. At that time, and today, BCDC defines San Francisco Bay to include all waters which are affected by the tide e.g. estuaries. In Burlingame that includes Anza Lagoon, Sanchez Channel and Burlingame Lagoon, as well as the protected Sanchez Wetland at the north end of Burlingame Lagoon between Bayside Park and US 101. The BCDC design guidelines established one average setback for development along these estuaries (65 feet) with the largest setback, 75 feet, along San Francisco Bay proper. By virtue of the joint adoption in 1982, the BCDC guidelines were mandated development limitations. In updating the Bayfront Specific Plan these agreed to design guidelines were incorporated, thus it is appropriate to reflect them in the zoning requirements. Since these BCDC guidelines have formed the base for almost all the public access trail and landscaping development along the edges of Burlingame's water ways, adding them to the zoning at this time will not subject presently undeveloped properties to any restrictions not already imposed upon their neighbors. What incorporating them will accomplish, is to be sure that the bay access and BCDC requirements are well understood initially by developers since all the regulations are incorporated in one place. c. In addition,for structures taller than forty(40)feet,the minimum setback from the Bay Conservation and Development Commission bayside jurisdiction line shall be equal to the height of the structure,and where there is no structure,the setback from top of bank shall not be less than the minimum width for the Bay Trail as required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Annotation: This is not an additional requirement. In clarifying the code for administration the City Attorney felt that this item should be called out separately. This the current requirement for setback in the BCDC guidelines and the same minimum standard which have been used in the Bayshore area since 1982. 20 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 (5) Parking location. No parking spaces shall be provided within the front setback on any property; driveways shall be allowed in the front setback; parking spaces at the rear of a building shall be set back twenty(20) feet from the inner edge of the Bay Trail. Annotation: The Subcommittee members were concerned that if parking was not allowed at the front of buildings and there was not enough space to meet the on site parking requirement in the area at the sides of a building, much of the parking could be forced to the rear which in most cases in the Anza subarea would be adjacent to the Bay Trail . The Bay Trail is approximately 12 ' -14 ' wide. For this reason the subcommittee suggested that no parking be allowed within 20 feet of the landward (inner) edge of the paved Bay Trail . Since the trail often is not straight, this 20 limit may vary along the rear of a property. This requirement is in addition to the BCDC requirements and should be reflected on plans before they are submitted to the City for environmental review and long before they are seen by the BCDC DRB. Original Annotation: This requirement comes from the design guidelines. The design guidelines require that parking areas be located at the sides of buildings behind the front setback or at the rear of the building(s) . This provision tells the developer to provide in design for locating parking at the side or rear. Other provisions regarding landscaping define what he can include as "green space" . Since landscaping requirements are 60% of the front setback there is plenty of space for driveways to access port cocheres and parking located at the side or rear of a site. Note: For aesthetic reasons, the Subcommittee has encouraged parking at the sides of buildings rather than at the front in the Shoreline subarea. (6) View corridor. To provide a view corridor, the width of any structure or combined structures on a lot shall not obstruct more than fifty(50)percent of the street frontages; Annotation: The provision for view corridor (view from Airport Boulevard to San Francisco Bay or west toward the estuary waters) is included in the design guidelines for the Anza subarea. The idea is to be able to see between the buildings to the water from the public street. In most cases this is the front property line, but in the event that the narrowest portion of a lot is not on Airport 21 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 Blvd. , this provision is written to make it clear that the place of view obstruction concern is the Airport Blvd. frontage. There was a view corridor requirement in the 1981 design guidelines which was variable between 40% and 60%. In the 2004 design guidelines this concept was modified (page V-22) to a fixed percentage (50%) and a guaranteed 30 foot side setback on one side was added to insure that the remaining infill developments provided a view corridor and fit within the pattern of the existing developments. (See setbacks section above for the 30 ' side setback requirement) . To insure that setbacks are met, the design guidelines also set a maximum lot coverage of 35% (see below) , thus encouraging taller buildings with smaller footprints and more surrounding open space in the Anza subarea. (7) Height. a. No structure shall exceed a maximum height of sixty-five(65) feet except on the properties with any frontage on Burlingame Lagoon on which the heights shall range from twenty-five (25) feet to sixty-five(65) feet as described in the Anza Area Features Map in the Bayfront Specific Plan; b. No building or structure shall exceed forty(40) feet when located within one hundred(100) feet of the San Francisco Bay shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, except as allowed pursuant to a conditional use permit as provided in section 25.42.025. Annotation: The Subcommittee noted that this regulation related to height was included in the conditional uses section but not in the height limits section. See CS 25, 41, 025 (e) above, page 9. So the height regulation section was amended to note that there is a maximum height of 40 feet allowed within BCDC jurisdiction (within 100 feet of the highest high tide line) . If a developer wishes a taller building in this area he must request a conditional use permit from the city and have BCDC DRB approval as well . At minimum the developer must have the taller building setback equal to its height from the BCDC jurisdiction line on the water's side. Original Annotation: In the present C-4 zoning there is no maximum height limit. The height limit is derived from the application of the FAR and other design requirements (50 feet to 65 feet based on a line about midway through the Anza area) as well as FAA limitations (generally 150 feet in the Anza subarea) . In the past not having height limitations resulted in confusion, since developers sometimes did not realize that there were 22 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 12,2005 aviation height limits or wind impacts in the area until a project had been designed and a CEQA document was prepared. The proposed height limit here is based on the Environmental Constraints Studies prepared for the environmental document for the Bayfront Specific Plan and the specific application of these studies to the Anza subarea. As well as the desire to maintain views of the Anza subarea and bay from US 101 . The wind studies conclude that for any building 65 feet tall or taller within 400 feet of San Francisco Bay proper there should be a wind analysis to determine the impact of the proposed structure on the recreation resources on the bay. If a property in this area is not affected by the flight pattern from SFIA and does not adversely affect the winds along the shoreline, the property owner can ask the city for a variance to the height limit for their proposal . Finally, in the adopted Bayfront Specific Plan there is a map of the area between US 101 and Airport Blvd. along Burlingame Lagoon on which specific heights are defined (pg V-20, Anza Area Features Map) . Since a parcel central to the area between Airport Blvd. and Burlingame Lagoon and opposite Anza Lagoon is in state ownership, the proposed future development plan is to leave this parcel undeveloped with the development on either side increasing upward gradually in height to frame the view of the bay from US 101 and give travelers on US 101 the sense of their proximity to water. As these regulations are currently written any building over 65 feet in height would require a conditional use permit. (8)Lot coverage. There shall be a maximum lot coverage of thirty-five(35)percent; Annotation: In the past lot coverage was derived from the application of the design guidelines. While this system worked, developers always want to know the limits up front . The 35 percent (taken from the new design guidelines, page V-22) was based on an analysis of what is now existing in the built environment in the Anza subarea. Since the basis of the 1981 Bayfront design guidelines has been retained in the 2004 Anza design guidelines and the city has had a lot of development experience in the Anza subarea over the intervening 20 years, 35% lot coverage figure is reasonable. Developers who wish to have a greater lot coverage because of a hardship on their property may ask for a variance. 25.47.045 Minimum Lot size. 23 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 (a) There shall be a minimum lot size of forty thousand(40,000) square feet and a minimum street frontage of one hundred(100) feet. No property in the district shall be divided or subdivided into a lot with less area or less street frontage. Annotation: Following review of the current lot sizes (see below) and noting the development advantages of larger lots both in terms of design and economic scale based on the permitted uses, the Subcommittee felt that the minimum lot size for this subarea should be 40, 000 SF. Original Annotation: The Subcommittee asked staff to look at the existing lot frontages and sizes to determine if continuation of the current regulation was appropriate. The principle reason for regulating lot size is to insure that the lot sizes allowed promote or support the land use policy adopted; for example, if the purpose of the land use policy is larger buildings rather than single family housing, for example, the regulations should not encourage the division of the land into small parcels that would only support single family housing. A review of the current lot frontages (lot front on a public street) shows the following (May 2005) : • Average lot front for the 39 parcels on Airport Blvd. is 200 feet; however the 26 parcels on the south side (by Burlingame Lagoon) have an average street frontage of 132 feet, while the 13 parcels on the north side (by San Francisco Bay) have an average street frontage of 269 feet. •' Average lot front for the only parcel on Anza Blvd. is 270 feet; • Average lot front for 2 parcels on Bayview Place is 123 feet. • The smallest lots (the 15 or so which make up the Anza Park and Fly lot)are 1001x2451or 24, 500 SF. • Vacant lots in the Anza Area include the State Lands Parcel about 8 acres, 620 Airport Blvd. (long term airport parking next to Sheraton, 3+ acres) ; and underused Anza Park and Fly (about 10 acres in 17 ownerships each lot 100 'x 2451 ) . Based on these numbers it would be appropriate to increase the minimum lot frontage on a public street to 100 feet . This would at least discourage division of land which would create lots which would change the pattern. The minimum lot size of 20, 000 SF may be small . If the purpose of the plan is to provide an incentive to combine lots for development supported by more open 24 Annotated Ansa Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 space and more choice for development, a larger minimum lot size would be appropriate e.g. 1 acre. The current smaller lots could be developed, but could not be divided. Original Annotation: This section establishes the minimum lot size for the Anza subarea. The minimum lot size in the Anza Area has been 20, 000 SF with a minimum 50 foot street frontage since 1969. Since 1970 no lots have been subdivided in this area; moreover, with the stricter parking and landscape requirements in effect today, it is economically desirable for developers to have lots larger than 20, 000 SF for most uses allowed in this subarea. (b) A ten(10)percent increase in floor area ratio and in hotel rooms per acre shall be allowed for a single project that combines one or more lots of less than forty thousand (40,000) square feet to cerate a single lot of forty thousand(40,000) square feet or more with a lot front of at least one hundred(100)feet on the west side of Airport Boulevard. Annotation: When looking at existing lot sizes the Subcommittee became aware that there are a number of small lots on the west side Airport Blvd. in this subarea. These lots are sufficiently small that they cannot be efficiently used for any of the allowed land uses. For this reason the Subcommittee felt that an incentive should be given for combination of these lots. Since the minimum lot size is 40, 000 SF, that seemed a good base size to trigger the incentive, as well as being a size which would accommodate a hotel (small) or restaurant or small office building. No parking incentive is offered, so any development taking advantage of the incentive would still need to provide parking to code on site. Section 25.47.048 No variance for lot size and street frontage. No variances for lot size or street frontage shall be granted to any property within the Shoreline district. Annotation: If the intention of the Bayfront plan for the Anza area is to encourage large lot development then variances should not be given to allow larger parcels to be divided into lots which are smaller than the minimum lot size or have narrower street frontage. This provision addresses that. Section 25.47.050 Landscaping and design requirements. Standards for landscape and design in the Anza subarea are taken from the Bayfront Specific Plan Design Guidelines and shall be supported in their implementation by incorporation of the 25 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22, 2005 adopted guidelines: (a) A minimum of fifteen (15) percent of the total area of each property or group of properties to which a land use is applied shall be suitably landscaped and the landscaped portions shall be properly irrigated and maintained. A landscaping plan shall be submitted with any application for an approval under this title for any use on the lot. Annotation : Except for an addition about requiring irrigation , this section is not changed from the current C- 4 district regulations and is consistent with the 2004 adopted Anza subarea design guidelines (page V- 20 - 25 ) . Irrigation requirements have been added because over the years some developers have balked at installing them and tried to rely on hand watering which always lead to maintenance problems and occasionally weed abatement for fire hazard control . In updating the 1981 Bayfront plan an effort was made to include as many of the current landscape standard as possible to achieve both a continuity of appearance and a sense of equity among property owners . (b) At least eighty (80) percent of the front setback shall be landscaped; landscaping may include walkways and seating features; driveways shall not be counted as landscaped area; in addition, all areas between the front setback and any building shall be landscaped; Annotation : The subcommittee discussed whether the 80 % should apply to the area between the front property line and the building where there was building as well as to the required front setback ( 30 feet in this case) where there was no building . Staff was asked to check a couple of existing hotels to see how they comply with this requirement in order to determine if the expansion of the requirement is reasonable . Original Annotation : These landscape requirements differ substantially from those in the Shoreline subarea (northern city frontage on San Francisco Bay) principally because the area was filled more recently and the parcels are larger . The original 1981 design guidelines were created primarily to guide the undeveloped Anza area and create a development of tall , small footprinted buildings surrounded by lush landscaping which includes the public access trail at the water ' s edge . The 2004 design guidelines for the Anza subarea focus on retaining the considerable , groomed setbacks from the public street and protecting the view corridors between the buildings to preserve the " sense of proximity" to San Francisco Bay . For these reasons 26 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 landscaping and seating areas are important in landscaping, as is the screening of loading docks and large parking areas; but landscaping should not be designed so that it becomes a view obstruction in established view corridors, rather it should guide peoples views toward the bay and to the bay access trail. For these reasons a high percentage of total on-site landscaping has been established and what can be included in the landscaping calculation has been carefully defined. (c) A minimum often(10)percent of all on-site parking areas shall be landscaped. Annotation: This is a current landscape requirement, which was incorporated into the new design guidelines. Again for early warning it is important to include this in the zoning requirements which developers look at first. See 2004 Bayfront Specific Plan Anza subarea design guidelines page V-23. (d) Each building or group of buildings upon a lot or parcel of land shall provide a fully enclosed,attached or detached structure for refuse and garbage containers. these enclosures may be placed only at the sides of the building or buildings,and shall be no closer than seventy five(75)feet to the rear property line.These facilities shall also be no closer than one hundred (100)feet from the shorelines as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Details for the enclosure shall be submitted as a part of the design review application. Annotation: The Subcommittee changed this provision from requiring trash an garbage containers to be enclosed by a fence and landscaping to requiring that these facilities be enclosed in a structure. This change is driven both by aesthetics, particularly view from the Bay Trail, and the new NPDES requirements which require trash and garbage to be stored in areas not open to the rain. Original Annotation: This provision appears in the current zoning requirements. The Anza subarea design guidelines direct that truck loading areas should be located at the sides of buildings and screened to avoid being seen from either the public street or from the public access trail. What is important about this concept is the visibility from the public street and Bay Trail, there may be some lots on which the Bay Trail is on the side and the loading docks would need to be placed on the opposite side or possibly at the rear to meet the screening criteria. However the majority of the lots in the Anza area have the bay water at their rear, so the zoning is written accordingly. This is a requirement that will be easier to meet 27 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22, 2005 in the Anza area than in the Shoreline area where lots are smaller and mostly developed . Note : To simplify administration it has been suggested that a definition of Bay Trail be added to the zoning code . See new definitions . (e) Loading docks and truck loading access shall be fully enclosed and placed only at the sides of the building and be no closer than seventy five (75) feet to the rear property line. If placed to the rear of the building, these facilities shall be no closer than one hundred (100) feet from the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Details of the enclosure shall be submitted as a part of the design review application. Annotation : In the Shoreline subarea the Planning Commission at study increased the distance from the shoreline for locating loading docks and truck loading from 75 feet to 100 feet . Also since trash and garbage facilities are required to be fully enclosed, loading docks and truck loading facilities should be designed to be within the building served by a roll up door . The subcommittee agreed to do this for consistency . Original Annotation : In the present C-4 zoning regulations this provision allows truck loading docks at the sides and rear of buildings . However , the 2004 adopted design guidelines for the Anza subarea limit loading docks to the sides of buildings only (page V- 22 ) with the note that they shall be screened from view from the street . The proposed requirements have been modified so that loading docks in the Anza subarea will be located only on the sides of buildings . It should be noted that in discussing this issue in the Shoreline subarea where the lots are smaller and shallower than in the Anza area , there was considerable discussion about the impacts of loading docks on the side as opposed to at the rear of buildings where they would be very visible to people using the Bay Trail . With view from the Bay Trail in mind , it should be noted there that there is no comment in the regulation about required screening of these loading dock and trash/garbage storage areas from the bay access trail . Section 25.47.052 Design Review Construction and alterations including substantial construction or change to more than fifty (50) percent of the front fagade or change to more than fifty (50) percent of any fagade facing a public or private street or parking lot shall be subject to design review based on the design guidelines for the shoreline subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan and shall be processed as provided in CS 25.57.030 . (a) A design review application in the Anza Area district shall be reviewed by the planning commission for the following considerations: 28 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles as defined in the design guidelines for the Anza subarea and the role of the shoreline in creating a network of interconnected open spaces; (2) Respect and promotion of the streetscape by the placement of buildings to maximize the commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages, and for properties with any water frontage, that the design is sensitive to the surrounding bodies of water,physical and visual presence of the Bay Trail and the orientation of the prevailing winds; (3) On visually prominent sites and sites with shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the design shall fit the site, support the Bay Trail and its park and recreational uses,provide for maximum user access and support recreational use by those who work in the area as well as those who visit; and the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development and consistent with the design guidelines for the Anza subarea; (4) Compatibility of the architecture and landscaping with the design guidelines for the Anza subarea including materials used in existing development, location and use of plant materials, and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; (5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure(s)and with the directives of the design guidelines for the Anza subarea; and (6) Provision of site features identified in the design guidelines such as orientation to minimize wind obstruction on San Francisco Bay,protection of the bay environment, landscaping and pedestrian circulation which enriches and enhances the existing recreation opportunities of the area, including extension of the Bay Trail as well as the commercial neighborhood. Annotation: The set of design guidelines included here are those which the subcommittee crafted for the Anza Point Area. They include an emphasis on the bay environment(wind etc.) and on the recreational importance of the Bay Trail. Noting that these items should be considered, even emphasized in site design. Reliance on the design guidelines for the subarea is also included. Wording shown in bold face reflects the modifications to the guidelines from those used in the zoning for the Inner Bayshore and Shoreline subareas. 29 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 (b) When any part of a commercial structure is subject to design review, any awnings on the commercial structures shall be included in the design review. (c) Exemptions from design review: (1) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for development in the Anza district filed before (2) Any amendment to a project exempt from design review pursuant to subsection(1) above shall be subject to design review if the project involved would have otherwise been subject to design review under subsection(a) above, the project has not been completed, and the amendment would extend any structure involved in the application outside the envelope of the structure for which the approval was granted or sought in the underlying application or would change a fagade. Changes to, addition of, or deletions of awnings as an amendment to a project shall not trigger design review under this subsection. Annotation: It was noted that the exemption provisions did not address projects in process or projects which had been built before the currently proposed design review regulation were adopted. This provision requires that any addition to the structure will require design review. This will insure that the addition will be integrated into the design of the existing structure or will improve the design of the existing structure. Section 25.42.060 Public access. Public access shall be maintained and developed based on the city-adopted and Bay Conservation and Development Commission-approved Public Access Guidelines for Burlingame based on the applicable water frontages as follows: (a) On San Francisco Bay proper: An average setback of seventy-five(75) feet of the lot as measured from the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; in no case shall the area as measured from the top of bank be less than the minimum width for the Bay Trail as required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; and (b) On Anza Lagoon, Sanchez Channel, and Burlingame Lagoon: An average setback of sixty-five(65) feet as measured from the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; in no case shall the area as measured from the top of bank be less than the minimum width for the Bay Trail as required by 30 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Annotation: While the subcommittee felt that the average set back of 75 feet along the shore line had worked well, as had the minimum adjacent to a building being equal to the height of the building if the building was taller than 40 feet; they felt that there should be some minimum setback in those areas where there was no building. The direction was that the minimum in those areas should be no narrower than the required width of the Bay Trail. Since the bay side of the BCDC jurisdiction begins at the 6.5' highest high tide line, which is often on the bayside of the protective berm, the minimum setback for areas where there is no structure is measured from the top of bank. The top of bank is the top of the protective berm or wall on the bayside of the site. In Burlingame these protective structures were originally built to top off at elevation 8' (msl) . However, today because of the global warming concerns about raising levels of the surface of the bay, new structures are required to top off at elevation 101 (msl) . Since new construction includes raising the berms or installing walls, it will not be difficult to determine the "top of bank" in the future. Original Annotation: The Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has jurisdiction over a band which is 100 feet deep from the highest high tide line landward on every property which has frontage on San Francisco Bay or is a tributary to the bay affected by tides. In Burlingame in the Anza subarea this includes Sanchez wetland (where Sanchez Creek daylights on the east side of US 101), Burlingame Lagoon (which lies between the Anza subarea and parallel to US 101), Sanchez Channel (which connects the Burlingame Lagoon to San Francisco Bay proper), and Anza Lagoon (which was dredged out of the original bay fill and has a direct connection to the bay through the fill barrier) as well as San Francisco Bay proper. In 1981 the city negotiated a set of design standards for the Burlingame shorelines within BCDC jurisdiction so that developers would know the public access development expectations of BCDC before they began to design a project. These standards have been honored by BCDC for the ensuing 22 years and are largely responsible for the consistency of design and landscaping enjoyed by the developed Bay Trail system in the city. The BCDC design guidelines were incorporated into the 2004 Bayfront Specific Plan; and now are being incorporated into the zoning requirements for the entire Bayfront area. In their design guidelines BCDC established a hierarchy of trail access with the most important, and largest, being along San Francisco Bay proper. In this area they established a 31 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 standard dedication of support area for the bay tail of an average of 75 feet of the 100 foot jurisdiction area. Along the tributaries like Sanchez Channel, BCDC reduced this expected area to be dedicated to trail to an average of 65 feet of the 100 foot jurisdiction area on any given parcel . The proposed zoning requirements reflect these established standards. It should be noted that projects which comply with the adopted BCDC guideline requirements are fast tracked through the BCDC review process, which has been a boon to developers in Burlingame compared to Bayfront locations in other jurisdictions. (c) All areas improved for public access within the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission shall be maintained by the property owner and shall be available to the public in perpetuity as determined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Section 25.47.080 Parking space requirements. All uses shall provide parking in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 25.70 of this code; with the following changes or additions: a. Food establishments. (1) Food establishments that are the primary use of the lot shall provide the following: (A) Customer parking shall be provided on site at the rate of one car space for each one hundred(100) square feet of gross floor area; and (B) In addition, employee parking shall be provided on-site or within reasonable proximity, in the judgment of the city planner, at the rate of one car space for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area; (2) Food establishments that are located in an office building of 20,000 square feet or more or that are not the primary use of the lot shall provide parking on-site at the rate of one car space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area of food establishment. However, food establishments located within a hotel or motel are not required to provide the additional parking required under this subsection unless the food establishment has a public entrance that opens directly to the exterior of the building. b. Instructional uses. Instructional uses related to a permitted or conditional use shall provide parking on-site at the rate of one space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area; Annotation: While the subcommittee did not think it was appropriate to 32 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 encourage school campuses or training facilities in the Anza Area since they area allowed in the Inner Bayshore subarea, the committee did think that research and development users may want to have training facilities. or employers may have a need to train their employees for licensing or specific skills, such as a flight simulator. For that reason while class room and school uses are not allowed in office buildings in the Anza Area, instructional uses related to a permitted use are allowed. This provision provides that additional parking beyond what is required for an office use would not be required for such specialized instruction in an office building. c. Bay trail parking. On sites with frontage on San Francisco Bay and its estuary including Anza Lagoon, Sanchez Channel, and Burlingame Lagoon, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission shall determine the number of on-site parking spaces to be designated for public Bay Trail Access parking; these on-site spaces shall be designated from the required parking for the site, shall be available to the public without charge during the hours that the Bay Trail is open, and shall be posted as public access parking by the property owner as required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Annotation: The requirement clarifying how public access parking is to be addressed is added because BCDC always requires off-street public access parking to be designated on each property. It has been city policy since 1982 that the public access parking can be designated out of the required parking for the site; so public access parking is not provided in addition to the required parking. For consistency of administration, it is helpful to make this clear in the zoning regulations. d. Hotels. A hotel shall provide one additional, designated parking space for a shuttle bus. Errata to Establish Consistency in terminology Among all the Zoning Districts in the Bayfront Area CS 25.45.020(b) is amended to read as follows: (b) Freestanding restaurants with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.15; CS 25.45.020 (e) is amended to read as follows: 33 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 (e) Offices with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.9; however, neither health services nor medical clinics are allowed; CS 25.45.025 (f) is amended to read as follows: (f) Gasoline service stations with a maximum of five hundred(500) square feet or retail sales area, excluding specialty food shops, limited to minor automobile repair services, and limited to the area identified as retail nodes in the Shoreline Subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan. CS 25.43.020(g) is amended to read as follows: (g) Office uses with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.9, that may include health services and medical clinics not to exceed five thousand(5,000) square feet total in structures over twenty thousand (20,000) gross square feet, with parking as set forth in section 25.43.080 below: CS 25.030 (e) and(f) are amended to read as follows: (e) Convention ''o a and exhibition facilities; (f) Incidental food establishment uses that are not the primary use of a building and do not meet the other criteria of section 25.43.020; CS 25.43.045 (a) (4) is amended to read as follows: (4) Retail sales and retail personal service businesses which a maximum of five thousand(5,00) gross square feet or less and which singly or in combination shall not exceed fifty(50)percent of the floor area of any structure; CS 25.43.045 (b) (4), (5), (6), (7), and(8) are amended to read as follows: (4) Hotels and motels that do not meet the criteria of section 25.34 43.045 (a) above. (5) any light industrial or manufacturing use, such as electronic, furniture,biotechnology, drug,pharmaceutical, and printing, including associated laboratories; (6) A car rental desk on a lot occupied by a hotel that does not affect the availability of on-site parking for hotel guests and the use and parking for any on-site meeting facilities; (7) Provision by a hotel of a park and fly program that involves the long term parking of vehicles at a lot that is not approved as a commercial parking lot and that does not affect the availability of on-site parking for hotel guests and the use and parking for any on-site meeting facilities; (8) Gasoline service stations with a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet of retail 34 Annotated Anza Area Zoning District Regulations as Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 sales area, excluding specialty food shops, and limited to minor automobile repair services; CS 25.43.080 (d) is added as follows: (d) Health service and medical clinic uses: Health service and medical clinic uses in structures of more than twenty thousand (20,000) gross square feet shall provide parking on-site at the rate of one (1) parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area occupied by the uses; health service and medical clinic uses in structures smaller than twenty thousand (20,000) square feet shall provide parking on site at the rate of one (1)parking space for each two hundred fifty (250) square feet of gross floor area. U VoningIssuesTayfront SP zoning�Anza Area\Dft 10 AnnoAnza SC final 7.18.05.doc 35 Chapter 25.44 Anza Point South(APS)Zoning District Regulations As Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 Draft Date: August 25. 2005 (As recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005) Bayfront Specific Plan Implementation Anza Point South District Regulations Annotated Chapter 25.49 Anza Point South (APS) Sections: 25.49.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 25.49.020 Permitted uses 25.49.025 Conditional uses. 25.49.030 Prohibited uses. 25.49.035 Setbacks. 25.49.042 Height and bulk of buildings 25.49.045 Minimum lot size and street frontage. 25.49.048 No variance for lot size and street frontage. 25.49.050 Landscaping. 25.49.055 Design review for proposed and existing structures. 25.40.060 Public access. 25.45.90 Parking requirements. 25.49.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. It is the purpose and policy of this chapter to establish and maintain land uses for the southern portion of the Anza Point subarea of the Bayshore Specific Area Plan. The Anza Point subarea lies east of Sanchez Channel, is bounded on two sides by San Francisco Bay and by US 101 on 1 Chapter 25.44 Anza Point South(APS)Zoning District Regulations As Recommended by the Planning Commission August 21,2005 the south side. The Anza Point subarea is divided into two sections the southern one served by Beach and Lang Roads is developed with light industrial uses. These provisions address the Anza Point South,Beach and Lang Road area, of the Anza Point subarea. The purpose of these regulations is to direct the siting and development of structures, adhering to the development policies and adopted design guidelines of the Bayfront Plan. The intention is to attract development which will benefit from the proximity to the open water areas of San Francisco Bay and its estuaries will support public recreation and access along San Francisco Bay, will protect this irreplaceable natural and recreation resource. Future development consistent with the Bayfront Specific Plan will create a viable transition from the heavy commercial uses along US 101 to the Bay oriented uses to be developed on the vacant land to the north, establish a bayside gateway to Burlingame on its eastern end, and contribute to the revenue base of the city. In creating this district,the city asserts that economic as well as aesthetic advantages accrue to the land, its occupants and the public from the required controls and regulations. Annotation: This section establishes the link between zoning regulations for the Anza Point South (APS)within the Anza Point subarea and the Bayfront Specific Plan adopted as a part of the Burlingame General Plan. It establishes that the purpose of the zoning regulations to implement the policies, land use designations and densities, and design direction of the Bayfront Specific Area Plan which was amended by the City Council to the Burlingame General Plan on April 5, 2004 . This section is the key legal link between the more subjective aesthetic objectives of the plan and verbal policy directions and standards of the zoning regulations. This section also defines the location of the Anza Point South (APS) portion of the Anza Point subarea. 25.49.020 Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted: (a) Recreation-related retail sales uses located within a building of ten thousand(10,000) square feet or more with the total retail sales area not to exceed five thousand(5,000)square feet on the lot; Annotation: Presently retail uses are not allowed in the Beach and Lang Road. However, because of the proximity of the Coyote Point Regional Park an number of recreation support services such as wind surfing gear construction, equipment maintenance and rental business have emerged in this area. In the sessions discussing the plan it was determined that these retail support 2 Chapter 25.44 Anza Point South(APS)Zoning District Regulations As Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 activities for the county park were appropriate uses in the Lang and Beach Road area, if they remained small . For that reason these retail uses are limited to recreation related (not limited to water activities) , located in a existing building not to exceed 10, 000 SF and not to exceed at total of 5, 000 SF of the tenant space. (b) Publicly owned recreation facilities; Annotation: Correction approved by the Planning Commission for consistency among the Bayfront zoning districts. Original Annotation: Public recreation areas owned or controlled by a public agency would include the area at the terminus of the public bridge crossing Sanchez Creek, Fisherman' s Park (a county facility) and the Bay Trail segment atop the containment berm on the east side of the subarea. There are other recreation facilities which will be developed with the area but on private property. They would be open to the public but not public recreation areas which are owned and operated by a public entity. To facilitate administration a definition of "public recreation" is added to the new definitions section. (c) Office uses with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.6 including research and development offices with associated laboratory uses;however,neither manufacturing activity nor health services nor medical clinics are allowed; Annotation: The subcommittee felt that it was appropriate to allow R&D uses with associated laboratory uses in the Beach/Lang Road area but did not feel that this was an appropriate location for medical clinics or outpatient medical research facilities. The office uses allowed reflect these determinations. Original Annotation: Office uses are presently allowed in the Beach/Lang Road area as a permitted use. Office uses in this area presently governed by the O-M district include health services and medical clinics in buildings over 20, 000 SF. The proposed change is to add the floor area ratio and prohibit health services and medical clinics. During the plan development process it was determined that the 0 .9 FAR which was allocated to the Anza Point subarea in the 1981 plan allowed a higher density than the adjacent environment and roadway system could sustain. For 'that reason the FAR in the plan for office was reduced to 0 . 6 FAR which environmental documents for the 3 Chapter 25.44 Anza Point South (APS) Zoning District Regulations As Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22, 2005 area indicated could be sustained within the community ' s environmental standards for this area . The small warehouse office buildings in the Beach/Lang Road area have been attractive for small biotech start up businesses . Since these uses are generally compatible with the proposed permitted uses for the area , laboratory use has been included in the definition . (d) Any light industrial or manufacturing use such as electronic, furniture, biotechnology, drug, pharmaceutical and printing conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building, including associated laboratories, which: (1) Has a floor area ratio of not more than 0.5; and (2) Does not use impact presses or over twenty (20) tons rated capacity or machine operated drop hammers; and (3) Encloses compressors and generators so that there is no increase in the twenty-four (24) hour ambient noise level in excess of 3 dBA at any property line; and (4) Does not create an obnoxious or offensive presence or emission of odor, dust, gas, noise, bright lights, smoke, vibration, harmful sewer waste or have a detrimental effect on permissible adjacent uses; Annotation : The Anza Point South area was previously zoned O-M (office manufacturing) which allowed manufacturing uses . In the Specific Plan for the Anza Point subarea manufacturing uses were allowed at the same density as in the Inner Bayshore subarea which had also been zoned O-M previously . For these reasons the same regulations are used for light industrial and manufacturing uses in the Anza Point South area as in the Inner Bayshore . These are the same standards used for light industrial and manufacturing uses through out the city. The performance standards were added in the 1990 ' s and have worked well . It should be noted that light manufacturing is mentioned in the conditional uses section below as well . This means that if a proposed user exceeds any of the performance criteria they may request a conditional use permit for the performance standard exceeded rather than a variance . This leaves the discretion to the Planning Commission to decide , in the light of the other land uses existing in the area or being promoted in the area in the future , if the standard being exceeded would present a limitation to the present or future development in the area . (e) Warehouse, storage, and distribution of goods, materials, liquids and equipment conducted wholly within an enclosed building with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5; 4 Chapter 25 44 Anza Point South(APS)Zoning District Regulations As Recommended by the Planning Commission August 21,2005 Annotation: Warehouse uses are presently allowed in the Beach/Lang Road area of the Anza Point subarea. The plan proposes that these uses continue, with a limitation on FAR in order to keep the warehouse uses to the current scale existing in the area. Presently light industrial and manufacturing uses are allowed in the Beach/Lang Road area. These uses are not mentioned among the Anza Point land uses; so manufacturing and industrial uses are not included in the permitted uses (see prohibited uses) . In recent years this area has been attractive for biotech start-up businesses. For this reason research and development and laboratory uses are included in the office use section above. (1) Outdoor storage of materials including contractors storage yards,incidental to permitted uses, subject to the following: (1)Covers a maximum often(10)percent of the lot area;and (2)Is limited to side and rear yards;and (3)Is paved and drained according to city standards;and (4)Is enclosed by an opaque fence or wall eight(8)feet in height. Annotation: The subcommittee felt that the two performance criteria related to percentage of lot area that storage can cover and the limitation to side and rear yards could be varied on a site by site basis pending impact on the design objectives for the area. For this reason these two performance criteria are include in the conditional uses section. The other two criteria, paving and fencing must be provided or the applicant must obtain a variance. Original Annotation: Many of the permitted warehouse and heavy commercial uses, including contractors, which are located in warehouse buildings require outdoor storage areas. Without outdoor storage most of these warehouse buildings would be converted to class C office space. The standards included in this provision are the current standards for the Beach/Lang Road area. These standards emerged over the years as the result of a number of code enforcement actions in the area. (g) Service businesses including contractors,except personal service uses, so long as the following conditions are met: (1) On-site parking for all company vehicles;and (2) On-site parking for all employees;and 5 Chapter 25.44 Anza Poiret South(APS)Zoning District Regulations As Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 (3) Adequate on-site space for loading and unloading goods, equipment and materials; and (4) No taxable retail sales transactions occurring on the site. Annotation: In their review the subcommittee did not make any of the performance criteria for service businesses a conditional use. Therefore an applicant must meet all of these criteria or request a variance. The concern was that there was very limited space for these support businesses in the city. Should they not meet these criteria or be allowed to reduce them, they will impact the other businesses in the area negatively and reduce further the opportunities for service businesses in the city. The subcommittee also felt that limousine and livery (bus) services should not be allowed in the Anza Point South area, the access is poor and the available on site parking for buildings in the area is limited and often shared because of the PGandE towers causing problems among tenants and property owners when there is a parking intensive use. Original Annotation: Presently non-retail service businesses are allowed in the Beach/Lang Road area. Generally these consist of contractors yards for the storage of equipment and materials used off the site and boat repair. The criteria for site operation have emerged from experience. However, one criteria has been added with this provision, "no taxable retail sales transactions occur on the site" . The reason for the addition is that with the high visibility to US 101 the Beach/Lang Road area would be attractive for a series of contractors showrooms like occur on Industrial Road in San Carlos/Belmont which are patronized by contractors clients; and have the circulation impact of retail uses. An alternative would be a "big box" use oriented to the construction industry. Neither of these uses was anticipated in the land use planning for the Anza Point area. (h) Air courier, delivery or other trans-shipment services,including freight forwarding, which provide on-site parking for all fleet vehicles and on-site parking for all employees; Annotation: These uses are currently located in the Beach/Lang Road area. Often they use warehouse buildings. The Beach/Lang Road area is attractive for them because of the proximity to US 101 (which will be improved with the planned auxiliary lane project) , because structures cannot be parked in the PGandE E right of way 6 Chapter 25.44 Anza Point South(APS)Zoning District Regulations As Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 which bisects the middle of the Beach/Lang Road area but trucks maneuvered there . This is also a use which supports San Francisco International Airport . The downside of this use is that it generates heavy and frequent truck traffic, can cause on-street parking impacts and conflicts with neighbors sharing the easement area, and is generally hard to regulate after it has been approved. (i) Accessory uses which are necessary for the permitted uses under this section. Annotation: This is a general provision to allow flexibility for a unique situation which may arise. It is appropriate in this subarea because more small biotech businesses are finding their way into the Beach/Lang Road area. Often these businesses have on site storage needs which require enclosed structures . 25.49.025 Conditional uses. The following are uses requiring a conditional use permit: (a) Office uses with a floor area ratio of more than 0.6 including research and development offices, with associated laboratory uses; however, neither manufacturing activity nor health services nor medical clinics are allowed; Annotation: The way the zoning code is written, if all or part of a permitted use is repeated in the conditional uses section, that limit repeated may be exceeded with a conditional use permit rather than a variance. (Use variances are illegal so, in this case, health service and medical uses cannot be allowed with a CUP and are excluded from this CUP provision) . Based on this provision, with a CUP, an applicant could ask for more than 0 . 6 FAR. (b) Any light industrial or manufacturing use such as electronic, furniture, biotechnology, drug, pharmaceutical and printing conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building, including associated laboratories,which exceeds any of the performance criteria of section 25.49.020 (d). Annotation: This provision means that any light industrial or manufacturing use which exceeds the performance criteria is required to obtain a conditional use permit rather than a variance for the 7 Chapter 25.44 Anza Point South(APS)Zoning District Regulations As Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 performance criteria exceeded. It does not mean that the manufacturing use may exceed 0 . 5 FAR with a conditional use permit. If the FAR is to be exceeded by the proposed project a variance shall be required. (c) Limousine and livery businesses with: (1) On site parking for all employees; (2) On-site storage area sufficient for all business vehicles; and (3) Storage area shall be enclosed by a fence. Annotation: The subcommittee felt that limousine and bus yards with associated dispatch services were an appropriate use for the Anza Point South area. Staff included performance criteria based on experience the city has had with such uses over the past years . (d) Day care facilities with on-site drop-off and parking as required by chapter 25.70; Annotation: The Subcommittee felt that this was a use previously discussed as appropriate for this Beach/Lang Road area (301 Airport project) and it remains appropriate, provided the planning commission reviews it for compatibility with adjacent uses . The main problem with the previously proposed use was the management of student drop-off/pick up and parking because of the industrial nature of the uses in the area. (e) Outdoor storage of materials, including contractors storage yards, incidental to permitted uses, for which one or more of the following applies: (1) Outdoor storage covers more than ten (10)percent of the lot area; or (2) Some or all of the outdoor storage is not located in a side or rear yard; Annotation: Only the provisions of the outdoor storage identified are subject to a CUP. For example, the requirement to pave and meet city drainage requirements and enclosing such areas with an opaque fence are not subject to a CUP, although the applicant could ask for a variance to these requirements . (f) Warehouse, storage and distribution of goods,materials, liquids and equipment conducted wholly within an enclosed building with greater than 0.5 floor area ratio; 8 Chapter 15.44 Anza Point South(APS)Zoning District Regulations As Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 Annotation: This would allow a developer who wished to apply for a warehouse structure with an FAR greater than 0 . 5 to apply for a CUP rather than a variance. Since the FAR is established in the plan, there is a question if the developer would also need a general plan amendment for a greater FAR. (g) All structures that are taller than the maximum height allowed pursuant to section 25.49.042 below, if wind studies demonstrate that the additional height is consistent with the community wind standards;but in no event shall any structure be taller than ten(10) feet above those maximum heights allowed pursuant to section 25.49.042; Annotation: The subcommittee felt that because of the various possible orientations for structures relative to open water areas in the Beach/Lang Road area, that additional height should be a conditional use permit based on wind impacts. The wording related to wind standards puts developers on notice that these standards exist and need to be addressed by proposed development as well as reminding future planning commissions about the community value placed in the plan on wind blockage. The subcommittee directed that this language be similar to that in the Anza Point North district; CS 25,44 . 025 (b) 1 was used as an example. This provision also requires that a height section be added to the Anza Point South district (see below CS 25 .49 . 080) Original Annotation: Because of the direction of the wind across the Anza Point area and the close proximity of wind related water activities adjacent in the Coyote Point Regional Recreation Area, the design guidelines limit heights in the Anza Point area. Since the particular location and orientation of a building has a direct relationship on its function as a wind barrier (both for velocity and turbulence) , it is suggested that height exceptions be considered as conditional uses rather than variances, particularly in the Beach and Lang Road area since the wind crossing this area has less impact on open Bay waters. (h) Any use similar in nature to one which is permitted or for which a permit is required in this district which is: (1) Consistent with planned land uses in the Anza Point subarea; and (2) At a density and intensity determined not to exceed the trip generation for the planned use of the site using the adopted Bayfront traffic analyzer. 9 Chapter 25.44 Anza Point South(APS)Zoning District Regulations As Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 Annotation: This provision allows flexibility for land uses not listed but appropriate to the directives of the Specific Plan to be considered for the area with a conditional use permit (at Commission discretion) . This section would also apply to interim uses. Criteria used to determine if such uses are appropriate would include- fitting within the goals and policies of the Specific Plan in general and for the Anza Point subarea and that trip generation is the same or less than the trip generation assigned to the site in the current plan. 25.49.030 Prohibited uses Uses not listed as permitted or conditional shall be prohibited, including but not limited to: (a) Automobile rental uses; (b) Automobile dealers and sales lots; Annotation: Planning Commission recommended change for consistency in text among the Bayfront zoning districts. (c) Automobile wrecking and junkyards, storage or baling of scraps,paper rags, sacks or metals, including recycling facilities for green waste and other materials; (d) Adult oriented businesses as defined in Chapter 25.76; (e) Commercial parking lots; Annotation: After discussion the subcommittee determined that commercial parking lots were not appropriate in this area, even as an interim use. The main problem was their appearance from the freeway, the awkward access at Peninsula, the negative impact of bringing people into the industrial area at night, and the consumption of intersection capacity for a use which would not support the desired uses in the area. (f) Commercial recreation and gymnasiums; Annotation: This use is allowed in the Anza Point North district, so the subcommittee felt that it should be clear whether this use is allowed in the Anza Point South. The Subcommittee did not think that the small lot sizes, difficult access (Beach and Lang Roads dead end) within the area and industrial use objectives 10 Chapter 25.44 Anza Point South(APS)Zoning District Regulations As Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 for the Lang/Beach Road areas were appropriate to commercial recreation uses or gymnasiums . Such facilities would be more appropriately located in the Anza Point North district which is more accessible and where the land uses are more compatible. (g) Food establishments; (h) Gasoline service stations and major and minor automobile repair including auto body work; Annotation: Change for consistency in terminology among the zoning districts on the Bayfront. (i) Health services and medical clinics; 0) Massage, bathing or similar establishments; (k) Personal services; (1) Residential uses and buildings, (m)Hotels or motels; (n)Any use determined to be obnoxious or offensive. Annotation: With a few additions, this list of prohibited uses comes from the current O-M district regulations. For this reason they are not new requirements for the existing property owners . It should be noted that personal services includes uses like barbershops, dry cleaning agencies, psychic services, and tanning parlors. It should be noted that manufacturing and industrial uses will continue to be prohibited in the Beach and Lang Road as they are now with the O-M zoning. This prohibition is consistent with the land use policy of the Specific Plan for the Anza Point subarea. 25.49.040 Setbacks. The following minimum setbacks shall apply to all parcels,buildings and structures or any enlargement thereof: (a)Front setbacks. All lots shall have a front setback of at least fifteen (15) feet. Annotation: Subcommittee suggested that the front setback in the Beach Lang Road area be the same as for the Bayshore Highway Overlay zone in the Inner Bayshore zoning district where the objective is to Il Chapter 25.44 Ante Point South(APS)Zoning District Regulations As Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 use the setback to create an improved entrance to the Bayshore area. The 15 foot front setback in the Beach/Lang Road area achieve a more attractive streetscape, especially for Lang Road which faces US 101 and is the first "view" of Burlingame for north bound traffic. (b)Side setbacks. There shall be a minimum ten(10) foot side setback. Annotation: Ten feet is the current side setback requirement in the Beach/Lang Road area. These provisions will retain the current requirement . Since this area was zoned O-M before, the same side setback occurs in the Inner Bayshore area which was zoned O-M previously. (c) Rear setbacks. Except for lots with a lot front on the north side of Beach Road, there shall be no minimum rear setbacks. For lots with a lot front on the north side of Beach Road,there shall be a minimum rear setback of ten(10) feet. Annotation: The Design Guidelines for the Anza Point subarea state that the setbacks for the Beach and Lang Road area shall be the same as for the interior of the Inner Bayshore subarea. The setbacks above are the same as the Inner Bayshore area except for the north side of Beach Road. Since the rear of these properties will form the interface between the heavy commercial Beach-Lang Road development and the new more visitor oriented development in the north section of the Anza Point subarea, maintenance of the current setback (10 feet) required in the O-M zone seemed appropriate. 25.49.040 Minimum lot size. There shall be a minimum lot size of forty thousand(40,000)square feet and a minimum street frontage of one hundred fifty(150) feet. No property in the district maybe divided or subdivided into a lot with less area or less street frontage. Annotation: The subcommittee discussed this issue at length. Based on the map current lots have a street frontage which is typically greater than 150 feet . The plan encourages uses which work best on larger sites . For that reason it was agreed that subdivision of the few larger existing lots should be discourage unless it would result in a useable lot that could be developed in a 12 Chapter 15.44 Anna Point South(APS)Zoning District Regulations As Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 manner consistent with the land use policy and design guidelines of the Specific Plan for the area. The subcommittee asked staff to develop information on the average size and range of size of the current lots in the Lang/Beach Road area to test the 20, 000 SF minimum lot size proposed. The 4 properties on the east side of Lang Road facing US 101 have an average street frontage of 164 .7 lineal feet and an average size of 31, 387 SF. The street frontages range from 30 ' to 374 ' and the lot sizes range from 16,440 to 50, 761 . One large lot along Burlingame Lagoon is accessed by an easement and it was given a street frontage equal to the easement (30 feet) . On Beach Road there are 9 properties with an average street frontage of 179 feet and an average developed lot size of 35, 969 SF. The range in street frontages is 27 feet to 401 feet and the range in developed lot size 17, 653 SF to 70,460 SF. Based on the proposed 150 lineal feet required for a new lot street frontage only one lot on Lang Road and two lots on Beach Road could be divided. Of the 13 lots in the area 7 have street frontages less than 150 feet . They will remain as nonconforming and the nonconforming status will not affect their future development rights. These lots with smaller street frontage could be combined and redivided into new lots with 150 foot street frontages. To arrive at the appropriate minimum lot size one might look at the current average lot size. Of the 13 lots the average lot size is 35, 969 SF. For the Beach Road lots the average size is 40, 550 SF and for the Lang Road lots the average size is 31,387 SF. Of the currently developed lots (all the lots) 6 are smaller than the overall average of 35, 969 SF. If 36, 000 SF were chosen for the minimum lot size none of the existing lots in the area could be subdivided. Currently the largest lot is about 70,460 SF. The median lot size is substantially larger: for the Lang Road lots, 40,289 SF; for the Beach Road lots, 83, 322 SF; and for all the lots combined, 71, 809 SF. Of the currently developed lots 6 are less than 40, 000 SF and none are less than 72, 000 SF. The conclusion is that whether the minimum lot size is 36, 000 SF or 40, 000 SF the end result is that none of the existing lots will be able to be subdivided. For that reason staff recommends a minimum lot size of 40, 000 SF for the Beach/Lang Road area. Original Annotation: Fifty feet is the same minimum lot size requirement used in the Inner Bayshore and Shoreline subareas. 13 Chapter 25 44 Anza Point South(APS)Zoning District Regulations As Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 As written it would apply to the entire Anza Point subarea. The two vacant parcels in the Anza Point subarea are 15 and 9 acres. They are among the last of the larger parcels in the city. 25.49.042 Height and bulk of buildings. (a) Maximum height shall be determined by impact on the prevailing wind and shall be staggered with a maximum height of thirty(30) feet along the eastern side of the lot, increasing in a graduated manner to a maximum of fifty(50) feet along the western, or Sanchez Channel/Burlingame Lagoon, side of the lot, as established in the Anza Point subarea design guidelines and consistent with the community wind standards. (b) Maximum bulk and mass shall be determined by the floor area ratio established in the Bayfront Specific Plan for the land uses in the Anza Point subarea. Where no floor area ratio is provided,mass and bulk shall be based on the adopted design guidelines, the development constraints documented in the Bayfront Specific Plan, and the zoning regulations where the property is located. Annotation: The subcommittee directed that since there is a strong relationship between the height of buildings and wind obstruction affecting recreational uses on San Francisco Bay in this area, the entire Anza Point subarea should have a height regulation which underscores this relationship. The same height gradient recommended for the Anza Point North area has been applied to the Beach/Lang Road area. The most frequent secondary winds also blow across this area and affect the bay' s edge along Airport Blvd. Because of the close proximity and similarity between the Beach/Lang Road area and the Anza Point North area, the same bulk, mass and height provisions were used. Also the development constraints (environmental) are very similar. The subcommittee decided that since the location of buildings is strongly affected by the 60 foot PGandE tower easement which runs between Lang and Beach Roads and the FAR and parking is set for all uses, lot coverage regulations are not necessary for the Beach/Lang Road area. 14 Chapter 25.44 Ansa Point South(APS)Zoning District Regulations As Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 25.49.045 No variance for lot size and street frontage. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, no variance for lot size or street frontage shall be granted to any property within this district. Annotation: Same requirement as in other subareas . Designed to enforce minimum lot size and provide incentive to combine lots or discourage further subdivision. 25.49.050 Landscaping. The following landscaping requirements shall apply to all lots: (a)The landscape requirements of the design guidelines for the Anza Point South portion of the Anza Point subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan as adopted by the city council shall be met. (b) A minimum of ten (10)percent of the parking area shall be landscaped; (c) A minimum of eighty(80)percent of the front setback shall be landscaped; and (d) A minimum of forty(40)percent of the lot area within the Bay Conservation and Development Commission jurisdiction shall be landscaped. Annotation: The measurable standards are taken from the design guidelines as adopted for the Anza Point subarea. This section is intended to include the design standards which are more subjective as well e.g. the purpose of (a) . 25.49.055 Design review Construction and alterations including substantial construction or change to more than fifty(50)percent of the front fagade or change to more than fifty(50)percent of any fagade facing a public or private street, parking lot, or the Bay Trail shall be subject to design review based on the design guidelines for the Anza Point subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan and shall be processed as provided in section 25.57.030. (a) A design review application in the APS district shall be reviewed by the planning commission for the following considerations: (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles as defined in the design guidelines for the Anza Point subarea and the role of the shoreline in creating a network of interconnected open spaces; (2)Respect and promotion of the streetscape by the placement of buildings to maximize the commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces , and by 15 Chapter 25.44 Anza Point South (APS) Zoning District Regulations As Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22, 2005 locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages, and for properties fronting on Airport Boulevard, that the design is sensitive to the surrounding bodies of water, physical and visual presence of the Bay Trail, orientation of the prevailing winds and to the Coyote Point recreation area. (3) On visually prominent and sites with shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the design shall fit the site, support the Bay Trail and its park and recreational uses, provide for maximum user access and support recreational use by those who work in the area as well as those who visit; and the design is compatible with the surrounding development and consistent with the design guidelines for the Anza Point subarea; (4) Compatibility of the architecture and landscaping with the design guidelines for the Anza Point subarea including materials used in existing development, location and use of plant materials, and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; (5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure(s) and consistent with the directives of the design guidelines for the Anza Point subarea; and (6) Provision of site features identified in the design guidelines such as orientation to minimize wind obstruction on San Francisco Bay, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation which enriches and enhances the existing recreation opportunities of the area, including extension of the Bay Trail. Annotation : The Subcommittee felt that the same design guidelines developed for the North Anza Point area should be used for the South Anza Point area . They have a stronger emphasis on providing optimal bay access and insuring that design addresses wind and other environmental constraints . Original Annotation : Three criteria have been derived from the adopted design guidelines . There are to be used as the basis for findings for design review . (b) When any part of a commercial structure is subject to design review, any awnings on the commercial structures shall be included in the design review. Annotation : Clarifies that awnings are exempt from design review . (c) Exemptions from design review: (1) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for development in the Anza Point district filed before 16 Chapter 25.44 Anza Point South(APS)Zoning District Regulations As Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 (2) Any amendment to a project exempt from design review pursuant to subsection (1) above shall be subject to design review if the project involved would have otherwise been subject to design review under subsection(a) above, the project has not been completed, and the amendment would extend any structure involved in the application outside the envelope of the structure for which the approval was granted or sought in the underlying application or would change a fagade . Changes to, additions of, or deletions of awnings as an amendment to a project shall not trigger design review under this subsection. Annotation: It was noted that in the original residential design review regulations there was a provision which addressed existing structures and established a base line for when they would be subject to design review under the provisions of this current code amendment . It should be noted that if a new structure includes awnings as a design feature they are subject to design review, but if an owner wants to replace or add awnings to an existing structure, the awnings will not trigger design review, as these provisions are proposed above. This provision now reads the same as in the Anza Point North district . Original Annotation: Makes it clear what buildings are exempt from design review and generally includes those built before the design guidelines were adopted. The provisions of this section outline when changes to the existing buildings would trigger design review. 25.49.060 Public access. Public access shall be maintained and developed based on the city-adopted and Bay Conservation and Development Commission-approved Public Access Guidelines for Burlingame based on the applicable water frontage as follows: (a) On San Francisco Bay proper: An average setback of seventy-five(75) feet of the lot as measured from the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; in no case shall the area as measured from the top of bank be less than the minimum width for the Bay Trail as required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; and (b) On Sanchez Channel and Burlingame Lagoon : An average setback of sixty- five(65) feet as measured from the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; in no case shall the area as measured from the top of bank be less than the minimum width for the Bay Trail as required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 17 Chapter 25.44 Anza Point South(APS)Zoning District Regulations As Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22,2005 Annotation: There are two "bay frontages" in the Anza Point subarea, San Francisco Bay on the north and east sides and Sanchez Channel and Burlingame Lagoon on the west side. The access guidelines jointly adopted by the city and BCDC in 1982 set a different standard for the portion of the BCDC 100 foot jurisdiction which must be set aside to support the Bay Trail. All properties with frontage on San Francisco Bay proper are required to leave an average of 75 feet along their water frontage in open space to support the Bay Trail. All properties with frontage on Burlingame Lagoon and Sanchez Channel are required to leave an average of 65 feet along the channel in open space. These areas are measured from the water side from the BCDC jurisdiction line e.g. the highest, high tide line. (c) All areas improved for public access within the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission shall be maintained by the property owner and shall be available to the public in perpetuity as determined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Annotation: This provision is included to inform developers and provide property owners that it is their responsibility to install, maintain and allow the public unlimited use of the Bay Trail and the open space portion of the site which includes the bay trail. 25.49.090 Parking requirements. All uses in the Anza Point South(APS)shall provide parking in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 25.70 of this code with the following changes or additions: (a) Bay Trail parking. On sites with frontage on San Francisco Bay and Sanchez Channel,the Bay Conservation and Development Commission shall determine the number of on-site parking spaces to be designed for public Bay Trail access parking;these on-site parking spaces shall be designated from the required parking for the site,shall be available to the public without charge during the hours that the Bay Trail is open,and shall be posted as public access parking by the property owner as required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 18 Chapter 25.44 Anza Point South (APS) Zoning District Regulations As Recommended by the Planning Commission August 22, 2005 Annotation : Bay Trail parking is required by BCDC and is acknowledged I this section . The requirement is the same for all Bayfront zoning district which abut San Francisco Bay and its estuaries . U:\ZoningIssues\Bayfront SP zoning\Anza Point\Dff AnzaPtSo PCreconQCC 8.22.05.doc 19 Burlingame Bayfront Hotels,Including Extended Stay 85 rooms per acre Specific Plan offices 0.6 FAR Destination Restaurants 0.15 FAR Selected Interim Uses Density Based on Anza Area Trip Generation Land Use Map- Hotels 85 rooms per acre Waterfront Commercial Destination Restaurants Commercial Recreation U.S.101 vz�&wz&W— RP�Tpp Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use: o ful baseball diamonds,a soccer field which can be converted to practice baseball fields and a king. lot. Bayside Park's lower area(deck)is connected to its upper area(deck)by a segment f the Bay ` Trail. The upper deck of Bayside Park at the east end of the area includes a golf drivi range;a . group of putting greens,a soccer field, a tot lot, an open field for informal group a vities and a large parking lot which serves all these uses. Bayside Park also includes a Dog Park with limited parking. The lower deck of Bayside Park and the Dog Run are acces d from.Airport Boulevard. The upper deck of the park is accessed from Anza Boulevard. Also accessed from Airport Boulevard, and situated between the upp and lower decks of Bayside Park, is the city's wastewater treatment plant. On the nort side of Airport Boulevard. is a containment barrier, built to protect the bay waters from infiitrat• n of water which may have percolated through the sanitary landfill on which the upper de of Bayside Park is built. The top of the containment barrier is developed with a segment of the ay Trail and trail access parking. On the south side of the upper and lower decks of Bay 'de Park is the outlet of Sanchez Creek. Sanchez Creek carries water through developed are of Burlingame under US 101 to San Francisco Bay. On the east side of US 101 the creek has cre ed a wetland. Water drains through the wetland into Burlingame Lagoon and then through Sanc ez Channel into the Bay. Sanchez wetland is protected and human intrusion is discourag A segment of the Bay Trail on the upper deck includes wetland observation points and in rmation kiosks for the public. The Bay Trail continues from the Upper Deck,both under and ac ss the Anza-US 101 access bridge to the west side of Burlingame Lagoon where there is a p cket park for picnicking and a wall,built at the turn of the century by Sarah Winchester,now ed for fishing. This public access area next to US 101 is west of the protected wetland,and the sign discourages pedestrians and domestic animals from entering the wetland area. Arterial roadway access is ovided to the Anza Extension by Bayshore Highway,,Airport Boulevard and Anza Bo evard. The entire Anza Extension is in public ownership and fully developed. Bicycle an pedestrian access from the west side of U.S. 101 will be provided with a separated bridge ne roadway when the auxiliary lane project on U.S. 101 is completed. A second bicycle acc s should also be provided linking the west side of the freeway in the vicinity of Morrell Road dir tly to Bayside Park. This will provide residents of this area of Burlingame to have better,sa r access to Bayside Park. The Anza Extension provides a valuable center for community r creation activities. Because the Upper Deck of the park was built on the city's closed sanitary 1 fill,major buildings cannot be built in this area. Also because of the protected wetlands the land area of Bayside Park cannot be expanded in the future. Dev opment projects in this area shall comply with Design Guidelines as outlined in Chapter V, wi the primary goal of enhancing the quality of the community oriented open space facilities and rvices while connecting them to the larger open space network with trails and pedestrian paths. X4. Anza Area Because the physical orientation of Burlingame's shoreline shifts, the Anza Area extends to the east of the Anza Extension. The Anza Area lies between San Francisco Bay to the north and Burlingame Lagoon to the south. Sanchez Channel marks the easterly most boundary of the area and the upper deck of Bayside Park marks the westerly most boundary. The Anza Area was filled in the 1960's;so the development in this area is recent. As a result of legal issues at the time the City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan 111-6 General Plan Burlin ame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use area was filled,the parcels fronting on San Francisco Bay in this area are owned by the State of California and developed as leaseholds. Located at the center of the Anza Area,dredged in the 1960's on State owned property,is the Anza Lagoon which has a narrow opening into San Francisco Bay. The shallow Anza Lagoon creates an important,centrally placed extension of San Francisco Bay into this area. The Anza Lagoon has become a coastal,water-oriented amenity for development, the Bay Trail and passive recreation in the Anza Area. The Anza Area has been developed as a visitor-oriented destination with bay and airport oriented hotels, destination restaurants and offices which support the local and visitor economy. This is the type of development which should continue in this area. There are several vacant parcels suitable for development in the Anza Area, one of which is owned by the State of California and is designated for hotels, destination restaurants and commercial recreation uses. The proposed land uses and densities for the area are: Hotel, including extended stay 85 rooms/acre Offices 0.6 FAR Destination Restaurants 0.15 FAR Selected Interim Uses Based on trip generation impacts Figure III-5 -Anza Area Land Use Map Burlingame Bayfront Hotels lndud"Extended Stay 85 rooms per acre Specific Plan offices O.6 FAR Destlnation Restataants 0.15 FAR Selected Interim Ines DensityBased on Anza Area Trip Generation Land Use Map- Hotels 85roomspera e Waterfront Commercial Dest nation Restaaa us Commeroal Reoeation % i f% % l � i US.101 — City of Burlingame Bayfront Pian III-7 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use Roadway access to the Anza Area is provided by Airport Boulevard, a two to four-.lane arterial street, and Anza Boulevard which provides a north bound on-and-off access to US 101. Two local serving streets, extending from Airport Boulevard,provide access to properties fronting San Francisco Bay. The entire Anza Area is highly visible from US 101. Access from westbound Airport Boulevard narrows as it passes into the Anja Extension Area. Access from the east is affected by the narrowing of the bridge over Sanchez Channel. In the early 1980's building siting and development guidelines were adopted for the Anza Area. These guidelines emphasize taller structures in order to provide surrounding groomed open spaces and to protect open views of San Francisco Bay from the public street. These guidelines worked with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission(BCDC) guidelines to require private developers to provide segments of the Bay Trail as a part of their developments. Over the years. these standards have caused a development pattern which balances open space,public access,Bay Trail access,preservation of view corridors from the public street and has optimized the coastal location. These standards should continue to guide development in the Anza Area. Pedestrian and recreational access is a major land use theme in the Anza Area surrounded by San Francisco Bay and estuaries. Private developers in this area should be required to provide and maintain the Bay Trail along all water frontages in this area. Project design should continue to encourage integration and strategic placement of passive and,where appropriate, active recreation areas accessible to the public. Access should include some designated on-site parking for Bay Trail users. Development projects in this area shall comply with Design Guidelines as outlined in Chapter V, .` with the primary goal of continuing to build on the existing character and design of the area and enhance and visually connect the Anza and Burlingame Lagoons and San Francisco Bay. &.--AM-z—a?-o1ht ay on annmg rea, e Burlingame bayfront. Bounded by Sanchez Channel on the west and San Francisco Bay on north and east,US 101 completes the southern edge. In this area Airport Boulevardn st next to US 101 at the City boundary and enters unincorporated San Mateo County and S ateo County's Coyote Point Park Recreation Area. The portion of San Francisco B immediately outboard of the Anza Point Area is used by sail boarders. This area is als ed for water-oriented recreation facilities.and provides connection to land bound recreatio and educational activities at Coyote Point Park. A portion of the Anza Point Area is developed,and t remainder is vacant. There is one recreation area,Fisherman's Park, a San Mateo County fa - i y, located in the area_ The developed portion of the Anza Point Area facing US 101 was b ' on the first fill laid in the 1960's and is located in the area of Lang and Beach Roads at th uth end of Anza Point Area. The City boundary crosses the Lang Road/Airport Boulevard ' ersection,and creates the potential for a gateway entrance into the Bayfront Planning Area. The properties ng Lang Road face US 101 and are fully developed in one and two story warehouse a buildings. On Beach Road there is one vacant property,but generally the type of deve men t is the same as on Lang Road. The predominant land use is warehouse/office. Because c rave s City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan III-8 General Plan �2nr �slL�s: Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines z M MOM I -W1 AnzaArea - - r Features O NSalrf.bua�y� .-SSvw NF�Nq(,o N N Anza Area Goal: Continue to build on the existing character and design of the area and enhance and visually connect the Anza and Burlingame Lagoons and San Francisco Bay. Building/Street Relationships To create a consistent and attractive streetscape,buildings should be located Tela- ! _ `{ tively close to the street,with attractively } landscape front setbacks. In addition: nk g ka Buildin entries should face the street,and should be ., p�C."pe Vol a .r, ok r,$ easily identifiable. Buildings that are setback from the street should have a attractively landscaped areas or plazas leading to the main building entry. • Curb cuts should be limited to ease pedestrianfvehicular conflict_ Build ngs should relate both to the street and to the Sanchez and Anza Lagoons_ ` City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-20 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines, • Businesses should have a consistent,attractive land- strong face as viewed from U.S.101. soaped front setbacks equal to the height of the build- ings. Businesses fronting on Airport Boulevard should have an attractive landscaped front setback equal to the • Design should acknowledge the importance of the street height of the building and a 8'-10'wide sidewalk which and the Bay. includes uniform street furniture. • Businesses at important intersections should locate their Seating areas should be encouraged within the front set- entrances at the building comer. back., Building/ Shoreline/Lagoon Relationships To create a dynamic,usable open space area, buildings should have a consistent, attractive setbacks. In addition: • Continuous public access improvements should be installed and maintained with a standard consistent with the BCDC Guidelines. • A formal pedestrian trail should be developed along both Sanchez and Anza Lagoons. • Open space should extend an average of 75 feet from the edge of the bay to the building facade. • Open space should extend an average of 65 feet from the edge of the Anza and Sanchez Lagoons to the build- ing facade. • Pocket parks and seating areas should be located along both Sanchez and Anza Lagoons. • The promenade along Burlingame Lagoon shall have a ANZA LAGOON Padwa�w saaP Darn P4ra.+itheonsk:eac YttSzl ` - �r ea..;aa. Water Feanpa 7Y'S4basl lWldlnt Eta..ant e ,xwu- Ca sM..* Pads:.=. _ - - 6S'SetOad:. st.�.�w.p ta/Ws<apeA PLaAw Fxiat Lac- 0 3 c F f S SUMM4GAME LAGOON ss ssm,; &A*ngs should relate to the surrounding lagoons City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-21 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Parking t SAYT6A0L Attractive parking areas should be located to Some Parinng and kc -� the sides of the building to encourage a lpedestrian-friendly street edge. Additionally: Some parking on each site should be reserved for public Bay Trail access. Parking r-t.d Building entries should be located adjacent to parking T.Uda p and sidewalk. or 8uadng • Parking should be screened with landscaping. Attractive parking areas should be located to the sides of the building to Truck loading areas should be located to the side of encourage a pedestrian-friendly street edge. buildings,and screened from view from the street. • Parking entry drives should be shared with adjacent businesses to discourage multiple curb-cuts- View Corridors View Corridors to San Francisco Bay are important and should be maintained and r ' - enhanced. Additionally: _ v•, r== ` View Corridors should be incorporated in the design of pedestrian plazas. • Continuous public access improvements should be _ installed and maintained in accordance with BCDC guidelines. View Corridors should be incorporated in the design of pedestrian plazas. • View Corridors may be framed by buildings. • View Corridors may also terminate with attractive building elements such as tower features and entryways. • Any new development should respect existing View Corridors. • To protect view corridors,buildings shall not obstruct more than 50%of the Airport Boulevard or other street frontages,with a minimum 30'view corridor on at least one side of the building. • Buildings shall cover no more than 35%of the site. Landscaping A consistent, attractive landscaping treatment should be developed throughout the Anza Area. Additionally: City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-22 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area PIan Design Guidelines • Landscaping should protect and enhance view corridors- Buffer • Landscaping can be used as a visual buffer to shield Planting parking and loading areas. Lou• wall • Landscape features should not just be visually appeal- ing,but also should function as open space amenities to be used and enjoyed f • Landscaping should enhance and not obscure building signage and entrance areas. "Green • Building signage should be incorporated into the land- Fingers" scaping_ Street Trees • 10%of the parking area shall be Iandscaped- and Paving Details • 80%of the front setback shall be landscaped. 40%of the 100'wide shoreline setback shall be land- A consistent,formal landscaping treatment should be developed_ • scaped. • Hardscape features such as walkways,seating areas and patios may be included in landscaped areas. -J y. Signage Signage _ RW t. � to Buiidk,g 1 � '3 Architecture Visible, attractive signage should be devel- oped throughout the Anza Area. Additionally: t Sign ® �'Maaimum • Signs should be designed sign g gned as an integral part of the rte;gbt building.and should not cover or obscure architectural elements. • Projecting and wall signs should be attractive and eye- sign a par`of Setback Atdi i tai tract;re catching. l.ndscap;ng Lettering Monument signs should be well integrated into the design of the site_ • Projecting and wall signs should be designed as an inte- gral part of the building.and should not cover or obscure architectural elements. • Projecting signs attached to a building can be used as a secondary sign for use as a pedestrian-scaled sign- Structural ignStructural supports should be hidden or designed to be a decorative element. • Monument and wall signs should feature individually formed lettering as opposed to box signs. • Monument signs should be low-profile,with a maxi- mum height of 4'. • Monument signs should have architectural features con- sistent with the building,and be integrated into the site landscape. • Attractive signage directories are encouraged to help + Projecting signs should be attractive and eye catching, City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-23 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines provide wayfmding in the Anza Area. Street Design To create a consistent and attractive r streetscape, buildings should be located rela- tively close to the street, with attractively landscape front setbacks. In addition: l, 1 -�I F-r r ,F-�r I T� I • a- The sidewalk area should be 8'wide with uniform street furniture. • Streets should be designed for both the automobile,the pedestrian and the bicyclist. Airport Boulevard should receive Priority in any streetscape program. Airport Boulevard should be designed as a"grand boulevard"with the same landscaping,sidewalk and lighting standards that are used on Bayshore Highway. • Lighting features used should accommodate both the driver and pedestrian. aN� FN• Lighting should also help increase visibility of business- sly. es but not flood their facades. iednv;a.. c.' Ciq Sww,.a. llaoxd 8uiidint Vdicvhr E""'"";`"` Building Design U.6—C> LRt , FacaAe :'� Building facades should animate the street, ~ providing visual interest to passers-by. D,16 Additionally: DAYSHOHE HIGHWAY Si&..Ik • Buildings should have entries directly accessible and visible from the street. A wide variety of lighting should be encouraged. • Buildings should relate to San Francisco Bay,lagoons and the street. • Entries should be marked by architectural features such as projecting overhangs,special lighting,awnings and awn signage that emphasize their importance. SAN r-MNCt5C0 DAY �D"Y -- Building facades should be designed to have a rhythm and pattern and should be articulated as an expression r f of the building use. The use of reflective or dark-tinted glass should be dis- t couraged,especially at ground level,because it creates 4 - an effect which lacks the visual interest of clear window ` openings- .. - `'#� Building facades should be articulated with a building base,body and roof or parapet edge. All street,bay and lagoon frontages of a building should OaJ be designed with the same level of care and integrity. r Hotel Complex Prototype Buildings on the state lands parcel shall be clustered to - City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-24 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines present a lower level complex with courtyards_ • Buildings on parcels with lagoon frontages shall have varied building heights as shown on the Anza Area Features map on page SAP V-20(two stories,30 feet; three stories,35 feet;four stories,50 feet;five stories, 65 feet.) • Buildings on all parcels should be no more than five stories,65 feet in height. i City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-25 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Anza Point Area Land Use Plan - �P�o Waterfront Commercial ® Offices 0.6 FAR Hotels, QOM Including Extended Stay 85 rms/acre PQ' Commercial Recreation 0.5 FAR v C Offices 0.6 FAR M o Manufacturing 0.5 FAR V v Recreation-related Retail 5,000 SF or less 0 m 0 Fisherman's Park a San Francisco Bay N U.S. 101 Burlineame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use Roadwa a Area is provided by Airport Boulevaz ,a oto our- ane ai street, and Anza Boulevard which provides a north bound on-and-off access to US 101 wo local a` serving streets,extending from Airport Boulevard,provide access to properties fro ng San Francisco Bay. The entire Anza Area is highly visible from US 101. Access westbound Airport Boulevard narrows as it passes into the Anza Extension Area. Acc s from the east is affected by the narrowing of the bridge over Sanchez Channel. In the early 1980's building siting and development guidelines ere adopted for the Anza Area. These guidelines emphasize taller structures in order to pro i e surrounding groomed open spaces and to protect open views of San Francisco Bay from t public street. These guidelines worked with the Bay Conservation and Development Com ' ion(BCDC)guidelines to require private developers to provide segments of the Bay Trail a part of their developments. Over the years these standards have caused a development ern which balances open space,public access,Bay Trail access,preservation of view corrido from the public street and has optimized the coastal location. These standards should cont' ue to guide development in the Anza Area. Pedestrian and recreational acc s is a major land use theme in the Anza Area surrounded by San Francisco Bay and estuaries rivate developers in this area should be required to provide and maintain the Bay Trail a g all water frontages in this area. Project design should continue to encourage integratio d strategic placement of passive and,where appropriate, active recreation areas accessible t e public. Access should include some designated on-site parking for Bay Trail users. Devel ment projects in this area shall comply with Design Guidelines as outlined in Chapter V, wi e primary goal of continuing to build on the existing character and design of the area and visuatty-c-o-n—n-e-c—tiFe Anza and Burlingame Lagoons and San Francisco Bay. 5. Anza Point ` Located at the easterly most end of the Bayfront Planning Area,Anza Point is the gateway to the Burlingame bayfront. Bounded by Sanchez Channel on the west and San Francisco Bay on the north and east,US 101 completes the southern edge. In this area Airport Boulevard turns east next to US 101 at the City boundary and enters unincorporated San Mateo County and San Mateo County's Coyote Point Park Recreation Area. The portion of San Francisco Bay immediately outboard of the Anza Point Area is used by sail boarders. This area is also used for water-oriented recreation facilities and provides connection to land bound recreational and educational activities at Coyote Point Park. A portion of the Anza Point Area is developed,and the remainder is vacant. There is one recreation area,Fisherman's Park, a San Mateo County facility, located in the area. The developed portion of the Anza Point Area facing US 101 was built on the first fill laid in the 1960's and is located in the area of Lang and Beach Roads at the south end of Anza Point Area. The City boundary crosses the Lang Road/Airport Boulevard intersection, and creates the potential for a gateway entrance into the Bayfront Planning Area. The properties along Lang Road face US 101 and are fully developed in one and two story warehouse type buildings. On Beach Road there is one vacant property,but generally the type of development is the same as on Lang Road. The predominant land use is warehouse/office. Because of the power tower structures which traverse the center of the block between Lang and Beach Roads City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan 111-8 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use on a PG and E easement,much of the area cannot be built on;however,in some circumstances the area under the power lines can be used for parking. The appropriate land uses and densities for this portion of the Anza Point Area are: Recreation-related Retail 5,000 SF or less Warehouse/Office 0.5 FAR Office 0.6 FAR The remainder of the Anza Point Area is not developed. This area offers a unique opportunity for Burlingame given its location adjacent to the Bay and Sanchez Channel,with the unusual development opportunity provided by the size of the two prominent underused sites in the area. The appropriate uses for this part of the Anza Point Area includes visitor-oriented and employee attracting land uses at densities such as: Hotel, including extended stay 85 rooms/acre Office 0.6 FAR Restaurants, destination 0.15 FAR Commercial Recreation 0.5 FAR Figure III-6 -Anza Point Land Use Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Anza Point Area I i!'• ? 'i 4 I , t,'' '? '; Land Use Plan- 1 , t i l l•" t l � Waterfront Commercial Offices 0.6 FAR Hotels. Including Extended Stay 85"ns/acre Commercial Recreation 0 FAR Offices 0.6 FAR Manufacwring OS FAR lLJ ! t? i 1 l+? J?f i i `.}? I > Recreation-related Retail 5.000 SF or less a, o 0 Go o` Fisherman s Park a a San Francisco Bay N U.S.101 1 City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan 111-9 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use Airport Boulevard,a two-lane arterial,provides the major access to and through the Anza Point Area. Built as a haul road when the area was filled,Airport Boulevard makes two 90 degree turns, one at the entrance to the City and one between the two vacant parcels to connect to the three lane bridge over Sanchez Creek. Future development of the area requires that Airport Boulevard be realigned at these two "corners"to improve the safety and operation of the roadway. In addition, a new local street system may be created to serve new development. In designing the new street alignments, emphasis should be given to a design which keeps the roadways away from the Bay edges. This is less important for Sanchez Channel. Because it is the major arterial for more than half the development in the Bayfront Planning Area and the easterly connection to US 101 (at Peninsula Avenue in San Mateo County),Airport Boulevard in the Anza Point Area should be improved to four lanes in the places where it is now two or three lanes. When the auxiliary lanes are added to US 101 between Third Avenue in San Mateo and the Anza Boulevard north bound on-off ramp, the Peninsula Avenue north bound off-on ramps will be relocated on to Airport Boulevard south of the City boundary. This off ramp should be properly sized to handle the projected volume of traffic from the Bayfront Planning Area. Water is a dominant feature of the Anza Point Area. For this reason the Bay Trail is important to pedestrian circulation as well as to local recreation. Presently the Bay Trail crosses Sanchez Creek over a pedestrian/bicycle bridge at the junction of Burlingame Lagoon and the south end of Sanchez Channel; from this point the trail should follow the east side of Sanchez Channel across Airport Boulevard to the San Francisco Bay edge at the north end of the Anza Area and along the north edge to Fisherman's Park. At the south end of Fisherman's Park the Bay Trail should connect to the _ existing trail built by the City along the top of the seawall which extends south to the City line. At the City line the Bay Trail should connect to the trail system in Coyote Point Park. With new development, sidewalks should be provided along all street frontages; and bicycle lanes should be included in the future design of Airport Boulevard. Because of its exposed and windy location and the wind dependent recreation use of the adjacent bay waters at Coyote PointPark, future development in the Anza Point Area should be designed in lower buildings, clustered around interior,protected open spaces available to the public and suitable for passive uses. These interior open spaces should be arranged to provide visual access and physical connection to the Bay Trail system and its varied recreational opportunities. Less concern should be placed on protecting view corridors from the street to the bay in this area than in the adjacent Anza Area. Development projects in this area shall comply with Design Guidelines as outlined in Chapter V, with the primary goal of creating a structure of streets,walks and open space to organize a mixed- use district of development that takes advantage of its proximity to Sanchez Channel and San Francisco Bay frontage. Refer to the Design Guidelines for the height restrictions for different portions of the Anza Point Area. City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan III-10 General Plan ") Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan t Design Guidelines .: WO r g Anz:a point r 3 f f K Features c r t Anza Point Goal:To create a structure of streets,walks and open space to organize a mixed-use district of development that takes advantage of its proximity to Sanchez Channel and San Francisco Bay frontage. Areas adjacent to Beach Road and Lang Road exhibit an industrial park character sim- ilar to the Inner Bayshore Area, and should follow the guidelines set forth in section III. Inner Bayshore Area. The physical environment of this subarea is unique because it is surrounded by water on three sides and its orientation to the prevail- ing winds and to the Coyote Point Recreation Area. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-26 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specifi�Area Plan Design Guidelines 0 1 V SAN FRANCISCO BAY Extended Stay Hotel BAYTRAIL -- FISHERMANS PARK 3 stones - `stories* Newommma Public ) r Space r 4siones to « AIRPORT BO LEVAR View Corridor 1 ` 4 stones, d yl6ries 3sto ens ) max maz tnaz 1 r one Parking r1YaX Behind i ,' Buildings Bay Trail Spur ` X w 4 stories Formal ) maX �stones. } u Landscaping Along Channel New S y Road Mixed Use 4 Buildings stories 4 s es t ) 3 ie5.i 4 stones: 3 stones .: _ max V K _ Landscaped ° z Buffer between StMc re �a Adjacent A Industrial Uses � 3 �0 1 PEDESTRIAN v ° BRIDGE BEACH ROAD 1 City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-27 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Building/Street Relationships To create a consistent and attractive l• '� streetscape, buildings should be located rela- tively close to the street, with attractively t landscape front setbacks. In addition: Building entries should face the street,and should be easily identifiable and driveways should be consolidat- ed. Taller Building should be located at the entry comers >r� adjacent to the channel. • Buildings that are setback from the street should have zldings should relate both to the street and to San Francisco Boy attractively landscaped plazas leading to the main build- ing entry. Curb cuts should be limited to ease pedestrian/vehicular conflict- . Businesses should have a consistent,attractive 15'aver- age landscaped front setback. • Seating areas should be encouraged in central sheltered areas ....�.mom` .... _ Design should acknowledge the importance of both the raa a9 street and the Bay_ lraD�H Ud Building/Shoreline Relationships f k� The shoreline should be designed as a net- work of interconnected open spaces. In addi- The shoreline should be attractive and user-friendly tion: Pedestrian QPM SPA« PI—s SAN FRANCt5C9 BAY m Extended Stay Hotel Ne"10A n co-*c# FisTs mr &Pak i ptd >t! 8n ngs Parki"Arra - Rtutr to Bt7 Front KAYTWL - - FiSHE.RMANS _ PARK �l public m� T_ l (?uxingcrmans Pvi Spacc �T �i to The shoreline should be designed as a network of interconnected open spaces. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-28 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines • Continuous public access improvements should be Parking ' installed and maintained in accordance with BCDC Minimal - Attractively guidelines- Curb-Cuts Landscaped Open space should extend an average of 75 feet from the line of highest tidal action on the bay and an aver- }`+ age of 65 feet from the Channel to the building facade l F� Pocket parks and seating areas should be located along the shoreline,a larger park area should be provided j where Sanchez Channel meets the Bay to balance Fisherman's Park. A = Parking Parking Located on Interior of Site Attractive parking areas should be located to Parking should be located to the interior of sites- the interior of the site whenever possible to encourage a pedestrian-friendly street edge. Additionally: • Some parking should be reserved for public Bay Trail access. _ . orntal t Secondary building entrances should be located adja- � a� cent to parking. Larxf�caped Pedestrians. • Parking areas should be screened with landscaping Path (10%of parking area) Plaza • Parking entry drives should be shared with adjacent Area t buildings to discourage multiple curb-cuts- [ Lanxaped i` • Truck loading areas shall be screened from view from — Buffer w the street- Between �accnT U;ez Landscaping An attractive and consistent landscape treatment should be incorporated throughout the Anza Point Area- A consistent, attractive landscaping treatment should be developed throughout the Anza Point Area. Additionally: Pi—with Pay" L Sc iog BuOd;at Lea 2rTi� Landscaping should protect and enhance view corridors and not create wind shadows on Bay waters u • A landscaped pedestrian path should be developed �s along the east side of Sanchez Channel and terminate at the Bay Trail. ia•-�s- • Landscaping should be used as a visual buffer to shield parking and loading areas. �:/ `✓ s"b'� t s-.e•w•a. • Landscaping should be used as a visual buffer to shield adjacent uses. • Landscape features should not just be visually appeal- '�' sox Bwia K r•w� ing,but also should function as open space amenities to be used and enjoyed- Buildings should be located relatively dose to the street;with attractively landscape front setbacks. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-29 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines • Landscaping should enhance and not obscure building signage and entrance areas_ • Building signage should be incorporated into the land- scaping. • Landscaping choices should be sensitive to wind impacts. v V 10%of the parking area shall be landscaped. > • 80%of the front setback shall be landscaped. 40%of the100'wide shoreline setback shall be land- scaped. v • Hardscape features such as walkways,seating areas and Signage should be attractive and eye-catching. patios may be included in landscaped areas. Signage ;qM µ ``` s � S Visible, attractive signage should be devel- oped throughout the Anza Point Area. Additionally: Signs should be designed as an integral part of the building.and should not cover or obscure architectural elements. z • Projecting signs should be attractive and eye-catching. Projecting and wall signs should be designed as an inte- gral part of the building.and should not cover or obscure architectural elements. Gateways can act as community gathering places Projecting signs attached to a building can be used as a secondary sign for use as a pedestrian-scaled sign. Structural supports should be hidden or designed to be a decorative element. epY`RO� • Monument and wall signs should feature individually formed lettering as opposed to box signs. • Monument signs should be low-profile,with a maxi- mum height of 4'. • Monument signs should have architectural features con- sistent with the building,and he integrated into the site landscape. • Attractive signage directories are encouraged to help provide wayfinding within the Anza Point district. Signage directories should be develop to improve waypdmg in the area. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-30 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Gateways Gateway features should be located on pri- vate land at prominent locations along the edges of the Anza Point. Additionally: • Gateways should maintain a consistent design motif 11 throughout the Anza Point Area. • The entry to the City on Airport.Boulevard at Lang Road should incorporate landscaping,identify the Bay Trail access and incorporate a seating wall or other sig- - ---- -- nage announcement. View Corridors View Corridors should be incorporated in the design of pedestrian plazas. View corridors to San Francisco Bay are important and should be maintained and enhanced. Additionally: • View corridors to the Bay or Bay Trail should be incor- porated in the design of pedestrian plazas,interior to wind sheltered groupings of buildings. • Continuous public access improvements should be installed and maintained in accordance with BCDCr r C'"; guidelines. • View corridors may be framed by buildings but should sIF extend to open water or Bay Trail. t•�..•I l 1 mI a r,I-»I r I s- i. Any new development should respect existing view cor- ridors. • Because much of the Anza Point area is now vacant, view corridors of the Bay and Bay Trail should be coor- Airport Boulevard should be designed as a"Grand Boulevard." dinated across properties and respected as the entire area develops. • The minimum width of the open space between build- ings should equal the height of the building on at least one side. wae:K rn Street Design LT &-- The streetscape in the Anza Point Area a.e—c, W,u should be consistent, attractive and well- defined- Additionally: x • Streets should be designed for both the automobile and the pedestrian/bicyclist. Sidewalk aAYSHoae HIGHWAY • A variety of lighting features should be used to accom- modate both the driver and pedestrian. Lighting should Airport Boulevard should have auto and pedestrian scaled lighting_ also help increase visibility of businesses,but not flood City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-31 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines their facades; lighting should be focused on site. -- The design of the sidewalk setback should create an urban character and should feature amenities such as street trees with tree grates,planters,benches and removable cafe furniture. Airport Boulevard should be designed as a"Grand Boulevard"with the same landscaping,sidewalk and lighting standards that are used on Bayshore Highway_ • The sidewalk area should be S'wide with uniform street furniture. ` Building Design Buildings�hould should animate the street providing visuol interest to y. Building facades should animate the street, providing visual interest to passers-by. Additionally: • Buildings should have entries directly accessible and visible from the street with auto access to the rear. • Buildings along shore should orient toward the Bay as well as the street. • Entries should be marked by architectural features such as projecting overhangs,special lighting,awnings and '`- signage that emphasize their importance. Building facades should be designed to have a rhythm and pattern and should be articulated as an expression of the building use. • The use of reflective or dark-tinted glass should be dis- couraged,especially at ground level,because it creates an effect which lacks the visual interest of clear window openings. • Building facades should be articulated with a building base,body and roof or parapet edge. • All street and Bay frontages of a building should be designed with the same level of care and integrity. • Exterior building materials and finishes should convey a sense of integrity,permanence and durability,rather than applique_ • Buildings should be lower rise and designed to be sensi- tive to the wind environment both in nearby San Francisco Bay and adjacent to the structure. • Buildings should be clustered around protected open spaces which connect visually to the Bay Trail and nearby parking. • Vacant land should be developed with a unified charac- ter to establish both a sense of entry to the City and the City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-32 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Bayfront Area and a unique sense of place at Anza Point. Buildings should be designed with parking internalized and should have interior courts with open space to pro- vide protection from the wind. Building heights should be staggered as shown on the Anza Point Features map on Page SAP V-26,with two story,30'high buildings along the Bay edge facing Coyote Point Recreation Area and taller buildings(three story,35'and four story,50'.)behind. • Building heights along the channel should be no more than four stories in height. • All buildings heights shall be evaluated based on wind impacts on the Bay and Coyote Point Recreation Area. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-33 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Appendix D—Bay Conservation and Development Commission Guidelines APPENDIX D - BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (BCDC) GUIDELINES Adopted by BCDC January 21, 1982 as amended SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION 50 California Street, Suite 2600 San Francisco,CA 94111 (415) 352-3600 TO: All Commissioners and Alternates FROM: Michael B.Wilmar, Executive Director SUBJECT: REVISED PUBLIC ACCESS GUIDELINES FOR THE ANZA AREA, , BURLINGAME(For Commission consideration on January 7,1982) Summary The staff recommends that the Commission adopt the attached public access guidelines. They have been revised slightly in response to Design Review Board and Commission comments as presented by the staff at the public hearing on December 17, 1981: (1) the first two sentences of Section "A" were revised so they are not so ponderous; (2) landscaping is required to be compatible with the Bay edge environment; (3) a note was added to Section"B-7" stating that virtually all fill for public access will be pile-supported; and (4) a note was added to Exhibit 'B" stating that no part of the restaurant is to be on fill and the building must be designed,so it is not perceived as an obstacle to public access. The staff has not recommended changing the language in the guidelines concerning the possible bridge across Sanchez Creek Lagoon connecting Highway 101 and Airport Boulevard as was suggested by several Commissioners. The City of Burlingame believes that the guidelines must be adopted in their entirety(although the City is willing to consider changes in language). As the staff believes that effective implementation of the guidelines requires the cooperation of the City, and that the guidelines represent a reasonable compromise,the staff has not proposed any changes to this section. The guidelines allow the construction of a two-lane,pile-supported bridge if the City can demonstrate such things as: 1. there is no upland alternatives to handling the traffic; 2. public access is maximized by such measures as retaining and improving the eucalyptus grove next to Highway 101 for public access; and 3. environmental impacts are minimized including demonstrating that the on and off ramps will be safe and mitigation is provided for unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP Appendix D-1 General Plan Burlineame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Appendix D—Bay Conservation and Development Commission Guidelines Under these limitations,the staff believes that the impacts of the bridge will be minimized and the public access benefits of the guidelines can be realized with the cooperation of the City. The staff believes these benefits outweigh any detriment to the Bay caused by the fill. Furthermore,the staff does not believe this sets a precedent that requires the Commission to approve fill for bridges whenever someone wants to develop an area that has limited accessibility without such fill. Those decisions would be made on the basis of, among other things,whether the public benefits of the project outweigh the detriments. Such a determination would involve so many different factors that the staff believes they could be easily distinguished from the situation in the Anza area. Procedure Formally,these guidelines could be adopted by a majority of those Commissioners present at the Commission meeting. However,because the guidelines are intended to serve as a basis for making permit decisions,the staff recommends that the Commission require a majority of the Commissioners to adopt them. Staff Recommendation The staff recommends the Commission adopt the following resolution: The Commission hereby adopts the attached guidelines to use in evaluating maximum feasible public access consistent with the project in making permit decisions in the Anza area. To achieve the implementation of these guidelines, the Commission directs the staff to continue working cooperatively with the City of Burlingame. In adopting these guidelines,the Commission finds that Section "G" should not be construed to establish a precedent for authorizing fill for traffic improvements desired because of traffic congestion or limited accessibility created or allowed by poor planning. Each such case will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis to determine its consistency with the McAteer-Petris Act and the Bay Plan. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP Appendix D-2 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Appendix D—Bay Conservation and Development Commission Guidelines BAY CONSERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT COMIVIISSION PUBLIC ACCESS GUIDELINES FOR ANZA AREA, BURLINGAME A. Use of the Guidelines These guidelines are intended to be general in nature and,therefore,it is expected that individual developments.will vary somewhat from the specific numbers included in these guidelines. However, any reduction in the amount or widths of public access or other amenities should not be accepted unless there is a corresponding and offsetting improvement in public access to the Bay through some other aspect of the design not contemplated by these guidelines because of their general nature. Moreover, as these guidelines only establish the relationship of public access among the various parcels,they should not be considered as the maximum requirement. Individual permit applications must still be evaluated on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the public access proposed is the maximum feasible for that specific site and use. B. General 1. Public access should be continuous along the shoreline and paths and other improvements should be coordinated between developments. 2. Buildings and improvements should be designed to encourage use of the adjacent public access areas by the public. 3. Parking and service facilities should be integrated with any development they serve, located so as not to interfere with or detract from public access to and along the shoreline, and landscaped to minimize visual impacts. 4. Landscaping around buildings and in public access areas should be compatible with the Bay edge environment and similar to or compatible with the existing landscaping in the area. 5. The usable portion of the public access area, as measured from the top of bank, should be a minimum of 40 feet wide. Where buildings taller than 40 feet are proposed,the minimum width of the usable public access area between the building itself and the top of the bank should be increased to the height of the most prominent part of the building as viewed from the shoreline. 6. As used in these guidelines, "public access area" means available exclusively for public access to and along the shoreline, and landscaping consistent with such use. 7. With the possible exception of the pile-supported direct connection between Highway 101 and Airport Boulevard over Sanchez Creek Lagoon(see Section G),no other traffic improvements to serve the Anza area involving Bay fill should be authorized. Minor fill to improve shoreline appearance or public access,however, may be authorized. Virtually all such fill will be pile-supported. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP Appendix D-3 General Plan Burlingame Bavfront Specific Area Plan Appendix D—Bay Conservation and Development Commission Guidelines C. Bay Proper 1. Development within each of the three blocks of the presently undeveloped lots along the shoreline of the Bay proper should be coordinated in terms of design,public access to and along the shoreline,view corridors,uses,and traffic circulation in a manner similar to that shown on Exhibits B and C. The height of development in the block of lots immediately west of Bayfront Channel should be only one and two or two and one-half stories to provide variety from the taller development along the rest of the shoreline and to conform to the height of existing development in that area. 2. Major public access areas should be provided next to Fisherman's Park,on both comers of the entrance to the Bayfront Channel,and on the peninsula between the Bay proper and Anza Lagoon as shown on Exhibit A. 3. Along the shoreline of the Bay proper,the public access area should average a minimum of 75 feet in width as measured from the line of highest tidal action. 4. Any exceptions to the minimum widths ofpublic access areas shall be allowed only if the design of the building and adjacent public access is such that the public is encouraged to make greater use of the shoreline and other substantial public access areas are provided to offset the reduction in the minimum width,such as is shown on Exhibit B. D. Bayfront Channel 1. Major public access areas should be located at the comers of Bayfront Channel and the Bay proper and at the comer of Bayfront Channel and Sanchez Creek Lagoon,as shown on Exhibit A. 2. Public access along both sides of the Channel should average a minimum of 65 feet in width. Where lots are narrow,the average can be calculated over more than one parcel if the public access on the other parcel has been guaranteed. 3. A pedestrian/bicycle bridge should be provided across Bayfront Channel where it meets the Bay. The existing bridge across Bayfront Channel at its intersection with Sanchez Creek Lagoon should be retained for public access. E. Sanchez Creek Lagoon Area 1. A major public access area should be located at the comer of Sanchez Creek Lagoon and Bayfront Channel as shown on Exhibit A. 2. A major public access area and view corridor should be provided on State Parcel One and include approximately 50 feet of each of the adjacent parcels between Sanchez Creek Lagoon and Airport Boulevard as shown on Exhibit A. Within the 50-foot wide setback adjacent to State Parcel One,parking may be authorized on the City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP Appendix DA General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Appendix D —Bay Conservation and Development Commission Guidelines 20 feet farthest from State Parcel One provided it is adequately screened by landscaping. 3. Public access should average 65 feet in width along the remainder of the entire shoreline of Sanchez Creek Lagoon as measured from the line of highest tidal action. 4. Building heights along Sanchez Creek Lagoon should progress from a maximum of five stories above the elevation of existing curb grade at each end of the Lagoon to a maximum of two stories adjacent to State Parcel One at the center of the Lagoon. Taller buildings far from the shoreline at the eastern end of Sanchez Creek Lagoon are appropriate. 5. Development along the shoreline of the Sanchez Creek Lagoon should be coordinated in terms of design, public access to and along the shoreline, view corridors, uses and traffic circulation. 6. Public access connections from Airport Boulevard to the Sanchez Creek Lagoon should be provided every 200 to 400 feet to encourage public use and awareness of the access along the Lagoon. These areas should provide a direct physical and visual connection to the public access along the Lagoon, be landscaped, and be free of service or parking uses that can detract from the purpose of the connections. Adjacent buildings should be designed to complement the connection. 7. Development along Sanchez Creek Lagoon should be designed and located to avoid long expanses of building mass. Building masses should be varied, and separations between buildings should be coordinated with separations in existing buildings in the area, to reduce the visual impact of the development from Highway 101. F. Anza Lagoon The last vacant parcel with shoreline frontage only on Anza Lagoon may be developed with high density uses provided most of the shoreline band is devoted to public access and any tall buildings are sited away from the southern-most portion of the Lagoon as shown on Exhibit A. G. Bridge Connection from Highway 101 Any direct connection between Highway 101 and Airport Boulevard over Sanchez Creek Lagoon should not be authorized unless it has all of the following characteristics supported by complete traffic studies of the transportation system: 1 . There is no feasible upland alternative, including operational improvements. 2. Fill is minimized by use of a pile-supported bridge structure in a location that minimizes the amount of fill with no more than two lanes and a pedestrian and bicycle pathway. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP Appendix D-5 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Appendix D—Bay Conservation and Development Commission Guidelines 3. Maximum feasible public access is provided by such measures as: a. Retention and improvement of the eucalyptus grove along Highway 101 for public access,provided that improvements at the grove, such as parking, must be safe and should minimize impacts to the grove and maximize public use of the grove and shoreline(these improvements need not be extensive as most use will likely be by fishermen and highway travelers); b. Linking the eucalyptus grove along Highway 101 with public access around the rest of the Anza area and integrating such access with consistent development of the City's proposed park on the landfill site north of Sanchez Creek Lagoon,provided that public access connections to the marsh at the western end of Sanchez Creek Lagoon should not take place unless they are coordinated with the City's development of the park and only in a manner that protects the marsh from intrusion; and C. Provision of inland public parking connected to public access around the rest of the Anza area. 4. The environmental impacts of the overcrossing should be minimized by: a. Locating any on or off traffic' lanes near Highway 101 to preserve the trees in the eucalyptus grove and retain a large portion of the grove between the traffic lanes and Sanchez Creek Lagoon for public access; b. Designing the on and off traffic lanes to be safe; C. Elevating the crossing sufficiently from the Lagoon surface to allow light to reach the water's surface; and d. Mitigating any unavoidable adverse impacts from the fill. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP Appendix D-6 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Appendix D—BCDC Guidelines EXHIBIT A—PUBLIC ACCESS DIAGRAM cr..a (•- 1 , - -------------------- cc r—� 1�MtM 1MOY1A�� c i N 0 W V` n . vvv t7 o ` m D �} r O •� o � grIV2 r-s 0 Source: BCDC Public Access Guidelines for the Anza Area,Burlingame,adopted January 21, 1982 City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP Appendix D-7 General Plan Burlin ame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Appendix D-BCDC Guidelines EXHIBIT B—PUBLIC ACCESS DIAGRAM DETAIL AREA • 1'i� CO 0 hF ' �U 10 Er c h IL'- re E- !11111: + C�gz ll-11;,11.;:1 { tk E- `r 1 > � SI p __ � ZE ►3a K. f t,. '�` I � ~ � ��` '{111• ,+ ����. �� I•�t! c MMY y �j ,J E • �� lei;. TOW tf `� Source: BCDC Public Access Guidelines for the Anza Area,Burlingame,Adopted January 21, 1982 City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP Appendix D-8 General Plan Burlineame Bayfront Specific Area Plan - Appendix D BCDC Guidelines EXHIBIT C—PUBLIC ACCESS DIAGRAM FOR STATE LANDS PARCEL ri jr ' � L l a l�Oj '"'t a:) ,t :i• +�t � �N;���rki �) ��1•:=' tip f l 01 : � I rk� !; Source: BCDC Public Access Guidelines for the Anza Area,Burlingame,Adopted January 21, 1982 City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP Appendix D-9 General Plan Burlin ame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Appendix D-BCDC Guidelines EXHIBIT D-VICINITY MAP ANZA AREA os zz a Tz ui u3 0 0 a -lei li - N� � s� Y%c:�;�j •Kap lop -�' 79�ZR `�ikbd�hiSian Source: BCDC Public Access Guidelines for the Anza Area,Burlingame adopted January 21, 1982 City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP Appendix D-10 General Plan STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# oq 00 MTG. NATE.DYNE. DATE 9.19.05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 2005 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY / 'Grp SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINAN E TO AMEND BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA REGULATIONS TO ALLOW REAL ESTATE USES ON THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR WITH PERFORMANCE CRITERIA. Recommendation: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on an ordinance to allow real estate businesses on the first and second floor with specific performance criteria in the Broadway Commercial Area and to remove the time limitation on financial institutions as a conditional use.. To adopt the ordinance to allow real estate uses as a conditional use in the Broadway commercial area the Council should: 1. Vote on the proposed ordinance; and 2. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. If adopted this ordinance would become effective in 30 days, October 19, 2005. The public hearing for action was noticed by mail to all property owners and merchants in the Broadway Commercial Area, mailed September 9, 2005. Notice was also published in the San Mateo Times on September 9, 2005. In the case of this ordinance, City Council held a public hearing at Introduction on September 6, 2005, as well. The public hearing for Introduction was noticed in the same manner at the notice for the action meeting. General Plan Compliance: The proposed change to the zoning regulations for the Broadway Commercial Area (Broadway Center) is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan if real estate uses are determined to be included as neighborhood serving retail and service uses which the General Plan promotes in the Broadway Commercial Area. Regarding land use in the Broadway Center, the General Plan states: "This center includes outlets providing a wide range of consumer goods and services for Burlingame residents and residents of adjoining communities. It also includes business service establishments, business and professional offices, civic buildings and some residential uses." (GP, Land Use Element, Page L-5). The adopted Land Use Map shows the Broadway Center/Commercial Area as Shopping and Service Commercial ( the same land use designation applied to the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area). CEQA Compliance: The amendment to the zoning designation to allow real estate offices within the adopted retail sales and service land use is categorically exempt under CEQA because it is a ministerial action and represents no PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA REGULATIONS TO ALLOW REAL ESTATE USES ON THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR WITHPERFORMANCE CRITERIA. September 19,2005 change to the type of use (retail sales and service) or intensity of use (no expansion in potential sales and service square footage) approved with current land use policy for the area. Any project submitted as the result of the change in zoning would be required to be reviewed to determine if it was subject to CEQA. Planning Commission Action: At the Planning Commission meeting on August 15, 2005, the Commission held a public hearing and voted 6- 0-1 (C. Vistica absent)to recommend approval of the ordinance to the City Council. The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended making real estate uses a conditional use on the first and second floors in the Broadway commercial area. Real estate uses on Broadway would be required to meet performance criteria to insure that they remain small and have a manageable impact on the pedestrian character of Broadway. In addition the Commission approved making financial institutions a permanent conditional use in the Broadway commercial area. The Commission also approved removing the time limitation(sunset clause) on financial institutions. In their discussion the Commissioners noted a concern that if they were to be compatible with retail uses the windows of real estate offices should be required to be visually open, e.g. not covered with curtains, so pedestrians could look in; and that the businesses should be required to provide well designed and attractive window displays of properties for sale and rent to attract pedestrians. The Commission agreed that because "real estate" use has a broad definition; the window treatment and display requirements could be included as conditions of approval for first floor or highly visible locations. City Council Study: At the City Council meeting on September 6, 2005, the Council introduced and held a public hearing on the Planning Commission's recommendation that real estate uses with performance criteria be allowed as a conditional use in the Broadway commercial area. Following the public hearing the Council directed staff to increase the number of desks allowed in the performance criteria from 5 to 8 so that it better matched the performance criteria setting out the maximum number of people (10) allowed on site at one time. Council also supported removing the time limitation for financial institutions being a conditional use, and allowed them permanently as a conditional use in the Broadway commercial area. With the directed change to the number of desks the City Council on a 4-0 vote to set this item for a second reading, public hearing and action. During the public hearing the changes to the performance criteria from 5 to 8 desks was supported form the floor because this would allow future real estate offices to be more like the remaining first floor real estate office currently in the Broadway commercial area. BACKGROUND: At a recent public hearing before the City Council regarding changing the number of food establishments on Broadway, the Broadway Business Improvement District president, representing his membership, requested that the city consider allowing real estate offices as a conditional use permit on the first floor in Broadway commercial area. (Broadway BID, letter June 15, 2005) The BID feels that real estate uses would add day time foot traffic for the retail and service businesses on Broadway and the use fits the "vision" they are formulating for the area. The City Council referred this matter to the Planning Commission for further study and recommendation to the City Council. At their meeting on August 15, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended to City Council that real estate uses be allowed as a conditional use in the Broadway commercial area with performance criteria which include: -business occupies no more than 1,500 SF; 2 PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA REGULATIONS TO ALLOW REAL ESTATE USES ON THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR WITHPERFORMANCE CRITERIA. September 19,2005 -business has no more than 10 people on site at one time; -business has a maximum of 5 desks or workstations and one conference room; and -business can be located on the first and/or second floor. The purpose of the performance criteria was to insure that the type of real estate businesses which would locate on Broadway, particularly on the first floor would be small, property management as well as real estate sales offices. Commission felt that the combination of the conditional use permit (requiring Commission review) and the performance criteria would be effective in controlling the future size of real estate businesses on Broadway. (See attached City Council Staff Report for Introduction, September 9, 2005, for supporting documents) Also included in the proposed ordinance for action is the removal of the expiration (sunset) clause for financial institutions in the Broadway commercial area. In 2004 the Planning Commission and City Council held a series of public hearings on allowing health services, office uses, real estate businesses, and financial institutions on the first floor in the Broadway commercial area. The result of this discussion was to allow financial institutions on the first floor, as a conditional use, for 18 months (to expire in March 2006). The proposed ordinance to allow real estate uses also includes a provision which would allow financial institutions permanently as a conditional use in the Broadway commercial area. Changes Recommended by City Council In their review, following the public hearing at Introduction, the Council noted that the intention of real estate uses being a conditional use on Broadway and the performance criteria's ability to indicate that smaller real estate businesses should come to Broadway was clear. However, Council felt that the criteria setting the number of desks was not consistent with the criteria of the maximum number of people on site. Council directed staff to change the maximum number of desks on site from 5 to 8. The ordinance attached for introduction includes this change in number of desks. Margaret Monroe City Planner Attachments: Ordinance of the City of Burlingame 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. Map of the Broadway Commercial Area Notice of Public Hearing,published San Mateo Times, September 9, 2005, mailed to property owners and merchants, September 9, 2005. City Council Staff Report, September 6, 2005, Introduce Ordinance to Allow Real Estate Offices as a Conditional Use on the First and Second Floor in the Broadway Commercial Area,with attachments o Draft Ordinance o Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes, August 22, 2005 o Planning Commission Staff Report, Action Zoning Code Revision: Amend Broadway Regulations to Allow Real Estate Uses on the First and Second Floor, August 22, 2005 o Draft Ordinance o Amendment to the Broadway Commercial Area to Allow Real Estate Uses as a Conditional Use (with Annotations) o Planning Commission Minutes, July 11, 2005 o History of Zoning Regulation on Broadway, July 29, 2005 3 PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA REGULATIONS TO ALLOW REAL ESTATE USES ON THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR WITHPERFORMANCE CRITERIA. September 19,2005 o Planning Commission Staff Report, Study Amend Zoning for the Broadway Commercial Area to Allow Real Estate uses on the First Floor, July 11, 2005 with attachments: - BID President and Board of Directors, letter June 15, 2005, to City Council - Ordinance 1730, Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Section 25.36.041 to Allow Financial Institutions as Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area - Planning Commission Minutes, July 28, 2003 - Planning Commission Minutes, January 12, 2004 - City Council Minutes, March 1, 2004 - Ross Bruce, BID President and Board, letter September 19, 2003, to Margaret Monroe - Planning Department Memo, December 2, 2003, Results of a Use Survey of Broadway Merchants and Property Owners,November 2003, with attachments - Planning Commission Staff Report, January 12, 2004, Action on Request to Add Financial Institutions, Real Estate Offices, Health Services and General Office Uses on the First Floor as Permitted or Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area - Planning Commission Staff Report, July 28, 2003, Study on Request Adding Financial Institutions, real Estate Offices, Health Services and General Office Uses on the First Floor to Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. - City Council Staff Report, February 17, 2004, Introduction Ordinance to Add Uses to the Broadway Commercial Area, Zoned C-1 Broadway Commercial Area. - City Council Staff Report, March 1, 2004, Adoption of Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Code Requirements in the Broadway Commercial Area to Allow Financial Institutions on the First Floor for 24 Months. U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR 2005\ActionAddRealEstate CUP Bdwy 9.19.05.doc 4 I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 25.36 TO ALLOW REAL ESTATE OFFICES IN THE 3 BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA AS A CONDITIONAL USE AND TO REMOVE THE SUNSET CLAUSE ON ALLOWING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AS A 4 CONDITIONAL USE IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA 5 6 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 7 8 Section 1. Merchants and property owners in the Broadway Commercial Area have 9 requested the City to allow real estate offices in the Broadway Commercial Area as a conditional 10 use in order to increase the business-retail environment in the area. Consistent with this change, 11 there does not appear to be any reason to discontinue the provision making financial institutions 12 in the Broadway Commercial Area a conditional use. 13 14 Section 2. Section 25.36.041 is amended to read as follows: 15 25.36.041 Broadway commercial area. 16 (a) Permitted uses. Except as otherwise provided in this section,uses permitted in the C-1 17 district are permitted uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. 18 (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses allowed in the C-1 district, the 19 following uses are only allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area pursuant to a conditional use 20 permit: 21 (1)Food establishments; 22 (2) Graphics arts and design retail businesses on the first floor only; 23 (3)Personal trainer and assessment businesses on the first floor or above; and 24 (4)Health services above the first floor only; and 25 (5) Real estate uses that comply with the following standards in addition to any conditions 26 that may imposed pursuant to chapter 25.52: 27 (A) Occupy no more than 1,500 square feet; and 28 (B)Have no more than ten(10)persons on-site at any one time; and 8/23/2005 1 I (C) Have a maximum of eight(8)desks or work stations and one(1)conference room on- 2 site; and 3 (D) Are located on the first or second floor; 4 (c) Prohibited uses. Uses not listed as permitted or conditional shall be prohibited and in 5 particular, but not limited to the uses prohibited in the C-1 district and the following: 6 (1) All offices on the first floor, other than real estate and financial institutions. 7 8 Section 3. Section 3 of Ordinance No. 1730, which provided that financial institutions 9 would no longer be allowed as a conditional use after March 31, 2006, is repealed. 10 11 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 12 13 Mayor 14 15 I,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 16 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6`h day of 17 September,2005,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18 day of , 2005, by the following vote: 19 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 20 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 21 22 City Clerk 23 C:\FILES\PlanningVealestatebroadway2005.ord.wpd 24 25 26 27 28 8/23/2005 2 0114 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL will hold a public hearing to consider amending the zoning regulations for the Broadway Commercial Area to allow real estate uses on the first and second floor as a conditional use with performance criteria. The hearing will be held on Monday,September 19,2005 at 7:00 p.m.in the City Hall Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame,California. The staff report for this item may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame,California. For additional information,please call(650)558-7250. to be published Friday,September 9,2005 940� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 TEL: (650) 558-7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 www.buriingame.org BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA ZONING REGULATIONS AMENDMENT The City of Burlingame City Council will hold a PUBLIC HEARING public hearing and take action on Monday, NOTICE September 19, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, to consider h=*� amending the zoning regulations for the l BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA to allow real ;w �f estate office uses on the first and second `' s � xxx floor, providing they comply with performance y.ur . p }T_'4�4 'IP� f .e•`:`�.eZS' �.wR(jY ZaJa��} XGI ' . Tye_#5•`}"r Y' y criteria. .>�w '� P-j a Mailed: September 9, 2005 = -� (Please refer to other side) I CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the app lic , " n and, pro�ec ay be reviewed prior to the meeting �, ," Burlingame, C ! Primrose Road, If you challe e th ,�subj' raising only in be limited to described in h e Iblic hearing, I at or prior to `he pu c ea }n eled to the city F a R x I A Property ow rs e j respon ble : r informing their tenants bou io al info ati4 , please call (650) 558-7 0 Margaret Mo City Planner PU 0 � CE (Please refer to other side) i`"T" U STAFF REPORT BURL.INGAME AGENDA ITEM# MTG. DATE 9.06.05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL suBmTrTEn BY DATE: AUGUST 24,2005 APPROVED - FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT:INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW REAL ESTATE OFFICES AS A CONDITIONAL USE ON THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. Introduction: City Council should review and hold a public hearing on the proposal to amend the zoning regulations for the Broadway commercial area to allow real estate uses as a conditional use on the first and second floor. Staff is suggesting a public hearing at introduction for this ordinance to be sure that the regulation is clearly understood by both the Council and public. Following the hearing the Council may direct any changes to staff and set the second reading. Introduction requires the following Council actions. A. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. This item should be set for the Council meeting of September 19,2005. General Plan Compliance: The proposed change to the zoning regulations for the Broadway Commercial Area(Broadway Center) is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan if real estate uses are determined to be included as neighborhood serving retail and service uses which the General Plan promotes in the Broadway Commercial Area. Regarding land use in the Broadway Center,the General Plan states: "This center includes outlets providing a wide range of consumer goods and services for Burlingame residents and residents of adjoining communities. It also includes business service establishments, business and professional offices, civic buildings and some residential uses."(GP,Land Use Element,Page L-5). The adopted Land Use Map shows the Broadway Center/Commercial Area as Shopping and Service Commercial(the same land use designation applied to the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area). CEQA Compliance: The amendment to the zoning designation to allow real estate offices within the adopted retail sales and service land use is categorically exempt under CEQA because it is a ministerial action and represents no change to the type of use(retail sales and service)or intensity of use(no expansion in potential sales and service square footage)approved with current land use policy for the area. Any project submitted as the result of the change in zoning would be required to be reviewed to determine if it was subject to CEQA. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW REAL ESTATE OFFICES ASA CONDITIONAL USE ON THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. August 24,2005 Planning Commission Action: At the Planning Commission meeting on August 15,2005,the Commission held a public hearing and voted 6- 0-1 (C. Vistica absent)to recommend approval of the ordinance to the City Council. The Planning Commission reviewed and recommended making real estate uses a conditional use on the first and second floors in the Broadway commercial area and removing the time limitation(sunset clause)on financial institutions. Real estate uses on Broadway would be required to meet performance criteria to insure that they remain small and have a manageable impact on the pedestrian character of Broadway. In addition the Commission approved making financial institutions a permanent conditional use in the Broadway commercial area. In their discussion the Commissioners noted a concern that if they were to be compatible with retail uses the windows of real estate offices should be required to be visually open, e.g. not covered with curtains, so pedestrians could look in; and that the businesses should be required to provide well designed and attractive window displays of properties for sale and rent to attract pedestrians. The Commission agreed that because "real estate"use has a broad definition; the window treatment and display requirements could be included as conditions of approval for first floor or highly visible locations. BACKGROUND: History of this Request: At a recent public hearing before the City Council regarding changing the number of food establishments on Broadway, the Broadway Business Improvement District president, representing his membership, requested that the city consider allowing real estate offices as a conditional use permit on the first floor in Broadway commercial area. (Broadway BID, letter June 15, 2005) The BID feels that real estate uses would add day time foot traffic for the retail and service businesses on Broadway and the use fits the "vision" they are formulating for the area. The City Council referred this matter to the Planning Commission for further study and recommendation to the City Council. The Planning Commission studied the issues of allowing real estate offices on the first and second floors in the Broadway commercial area at their meeting on July 11,2005. At that meeting they directed staff to prepare an ordinance which would allow real estate uses on the first and second floors as a conditional use with specific performance criteria to keep the real estate uses small and so that they would have a lesser impact on the parking and pedestrian and vehicular circulation in the Broadway area. To guide staff in identifying performance criteria, Commission asked a number of questions about the recent and current real estate businesses on Broadway. (See Planning Commission staff report of August 22, 2005). From these questions and answers came the identification of performance criteria addressing maximum size of real estate office, number of people on site at one time, number of desks and conference rooms, and location on the first or second floor. Planning Commissioners had expressed a desire to limit the number of real estate offices in the Broadway commercial area. Staff noted that the city had not had a good experience with regulating the number of food establishments when they could move within the Burlingame and Broadway commercial areas. In addition, we do not have a good base number for regulating the total real estate businesses on Broadway because the use is currently on the decline and the objective is to encourage this business in the area. For these reasons the Commission decided not to limit th6 number of real estate businesses on Broadway. Because of the location in a retail area, the Commission did expressed concern about the first floor windows of real estate businesses and wanted them to be required to include displays which would attract pedestrian interest. This, the Commission 2 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW REAL ESTATE OFFICES ASA CONDITIONAL USE ON THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. August 24,2005 determined, could be done as a part of the conditional use permit for those real estate businesses with first floor or highly visible windows. Also included in this action was eliminating the sunset clause allowing financial institutions in the Broadway commercial area. About a year ago the Broadway commercial area zoning regulations were amended to take financial institutions from a prohibited use to a conditional use for 18 months. Based on this action after 18 months financial institutions would become a prohibited use again. Commission agreed to permanently retain financial institutions as a conditional use. Proposed Regulation of Real Estate Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. Real estate use is defined fairly broadly in the zoning code as: "Real estate"means the occupation of real estate broker or agent,title insurance, real estate investment, real estate management, real estate developer or similar business. (CS 25.08.552) Based on this definition the code amendment to allow real estate uses in the retail area as a conditional use proposes the following: To allow as a conditional use real estate uses which comply with the following standards: - Occupy no more than 1, 500 square feet; and - Have no more than ten(10)people on site at any one time; and - Have a maximum of five(5)desks or work stations and one(1)conference room on site; and - Are located on the first and second floor. Any exceptions to these performance criteria would require a variance. Parking would be calculated using the office 1:300 SF ratio. Retail uses have a 1:400 SF parking requirement. Since many buildings in the Broadway commercial area have no on-site parking, parking variances would be required for most new real estate offices on the first floor in the area Real Estate Uses in Present Zoning for the Broadway Commercial Area: Currently real estate uses are prohibited in the Broadway commercial area. (CS 25.36.041) Generally the C-1 (retail commercial) zoning requirements apply in the Broadway commercial area. However, an 'overlay" of additional regulations has been created for the Broadway commercial area The overlay (CS 25.36.041) allows all the uses permitted and conditional in the C-1 district except for those called out for special regulation in the Broadway area Those uses presently called out for a conditional use in the Broadway area are as follows: Food establishments Graphics arts and design retail businesses on the first floor only Health and beauty spas on the first floor or above Health services above the first floor only Financial institutions(until March 31,2006 when financial institutions again will be prohibited) The following uses are currently prohibited in the Broadway overlay zone: Real estate All other offices on the first floor 3 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW REAL ESTATE OFFICES ASA CONDITIONAL USE ON THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. August 24,2005 Future Land Use Policy for the Broadway Commercial Area Some of the Planning Commissioners expressed c6neem about the "incremental' nature of the land use policy being made for the Broadway commercial area. They noted that less than 18 months ago the Commission had reviewed a request for real estate office,all other office use including health services, and financial institutions to be moved from prohibited uses to permitted uses in the Broadway commercial area. At that time the Commission determined that any office use on the first floor, including real estate,would be detrimental to the pedestrian character of the Broadway commercial area and recommended that these uses continue to be prohibited. However financial institutions were allowed for 18 months. During that time a cash checking business(financial institution)expressed an interest in locating on Broadway and the merchants vocally opposed the application as being inappropriate. As some Commissioners have pointed out, in the last few months, as demonstrated by the agreement among the great majority of the merchants regarding the expansion of food establishment uses, there appears to be a "vision" emerging for the Broadway commercial area at least among the merchants. This is a 'vision" for the Broadway commercial area different from Burlingame Avenue, therefore the more recent requests (for food establishments and real estate offices)appear to be more focused and thought through. The Commission acknowledged this change but pointed out that "incremental'policy making is inefficient and may also be ineffective. Some Commissioners suggested an alternative option to remove all special limitations for the Broadway commercial area and allow the C-1 district regulations to apply, letting the market determine the viable mix of uses on Broadway. When asked, this idea was not endorsed by the President of the Broadway BID who preferred to retain special regulation. But the idea of taking away the Broadway overlay and returning to C-1 regulations does express the concern of at least some of the Planning Commissioners about taking a piecemeal approach to land use regulation in the Broadway commercial area. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance of the City of Burlingame 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. Planning Commission Minutes August 22,2005 Planning Commission Action Staff Report August 22,2005,with attachments Notice of Public Hearing,published in the San Mateo Times August 26,2005 and mailed to all property owners and merchants in the Broadway commercial area,August 26, 2005 U:\CCStaf1Repts\CCSR 2005UntroBroadwyRealEstate 9.6.05.doc 4 I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 25.36 TO ALLOW REAL ESTATE OFFICES IN THE 3 BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA AS A CONDITIONAL USE AND TO REMOVE THE SUNSET CLAUSE ON ALLOWING FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AS A 4 CONDITIONAL USE IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA 5 6 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 7 8 Section 1 . Merchants and property owners in the Broadway Commercial Area have 9 requested the City to allow real estate offices in the Broadway Commercial Area as a conditional 10 use in order to increase the business - retail environment in the area. Consistent with this change, I I there does not appear to be any reason to discontinue the provision making financial institutions 12 in the Broadway Commercial Area a conditional use. 13 14 Section 2. Section 25.36.041 is amended to read as follows: 15 25.36.041 Broadway commercial area. 16 (a) Permitted uses in the Bf oudway Coininei rial Ai ru. Except as otherwise provided in 17 this section, uses permitted in the C-1 district are permitted uses in the Broadway Commercial 18 Area. 19 (b) Conditional use . In addition to the conditional 20 uses allowed in the C-1 district, the following uses are only allowed in the Broadway Commercial 21 Area pursuant to a conditional use permit: 22 (1) Food establishments; 23 (2) Graphics arts and design retail businesses on the first floor only; 24 (3) Personal trainer and assessment businesses on the first floor or above; and 25 (4) Health services above the first floor only; and 26 27 a 28 8/23/2005 1 air 2 P ! 3 4 5 (c) Prohibited uses in the Bf uadrvay C-bnzine?r-in!A,en. e 6 c the uses prohibited 7 in the C-1 district M the following 8 Real_ t 9 — )-All other offices on the first floor,y ;and 10 (3) Psychic s- 11 12 Section 3. Section 3 of Ordinance No. 1730, which provided that financial institutions 13 would no longer be allowed as a conditional use after March 31, 2006, is repealed. 14 15 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 16 17 Mayor 18 19 I,DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the 20 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 21 of ,2005,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held 22 on the day of , 2005, by the following vote: 23 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 24 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 25 26 City Clerk 27 C:\FiLES\Planning\-ealestatebroadway2005.ord.wpd 28 8/23/2005 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes 6. AMEND ZONING FOR THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW REAL ESTATE USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND SECOND FLOOR, ZONED C-1 WITH BROADWAY OVERLAY REGULATIONS—CITY PLANNER:MARGARET MONROE(150 NOTICED) Reference staff report August 22,2005,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed the proposed change to the regulations adding real estate uses on the first and second floor with performance criteria. Commissioners asked if real estate uses would be a conditional use. CP noted that as proposed real estate uses would be a conditional use in the Broadway commercial area. Commission had discussed limiting the number of real estate uses,why is that not included in this draft?CP noted that in the case of food establishments we had begun by limiting the number in an area and allowing them to move around,it did not work.CA noted that in limiting food establishments to a fixed number we had a base number we could defend,in the case of real estate uses,the definition is broad,and we do not have a fixed number we can justify;the conditional use permit process can be used to determine if the impact of a given real estate use is appropriate. CP noted that the performance criteria use will have the effect of limiting the size and thus the impacts caused by various real estate offices,and with a conditional use permit the Commission can place additional appropriate restrictions on a given real estate business to insure that their operation is consistent with the character of the Broadway area. How were the performance criteria determined? CP noted that the criteria are based on the questions that the Commission asked at the study meeting and on current experience with this use on Broadway. The responses to the study questions are in the staff report. The action includes removing the sunset clause for financial institutions and allowing them as a conditional use permanently. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Ross Bruce,President of the Broadway merchants association; Amin Assadi,1202 Broadway; Rudy Horak,1332 Edgehill Drive;Eric Wrinkler,1345 Howard Avenue; Tom Coros, 2225 Summit Drive; Barbara Zukowski, 1108 Capuchin Avenue; Valerie Teil, 1235 Broadway and 1448 Alvarado Drive;John Benson,1401 Paloma Avenue;Garbis Bezdjian,1199 Broadway; David Hinckel,1616 Sanchez Avenue. In the last 18 months Broadway lost 50%of its real estate uses,some real estate is good for the mix of businesses on Broadway. Commissioner asked which was the real estate use on the first floor which was not nonconforming. Ross Bruce commented that this real estate use is no longer operating on Broadway. Am a merchant on Broadway and feel that allowing real estate uses is a good idea,support this ordinance. Know how important real estate is to everyday life,should be as accessible as possible,first floor is good for access,support. Support this,may cause real estate uses to move away from Howard and Primrose area. Support because more likely to have owner occupancy on Broadway,this kind of business is good for Burlingame because owners care about the street and city,need that to bring Broadway back to the"village". Support bringing real estate uses back because it will support the diversity of Broadway,John Kervanian from Nuts for Candy also wanted it noted that he supports this ordinance. Need the diversity in function to get a pedestrian friendly street,real estate businesses work on Ocean Avenue in Carmel. Daughter lives in Danville,there good mix of real estate and businesses on the main street. Few months ago stood here and asked the Planning Commission to vote for 5 more restaurants on Broadway;now ask for real estate offices,the Broadway BID and merchants support a total of four,now there is only one;ask Commission to support,it is only fair,only ask 1,500 SF for a family business in his building on Broadway.Have been a renter and a property owner on Broadway,the street lost a good real estate establishment,it was not replaced,would like to have at least two. Commission asked Ross Bruce: Eighteen months ago Commission spent along time looking at new uses on Broadway,including real estate,felt then that some uses including real estate would limit the pedestrian orientation of the street,and the vision expressed at that time was the merchants wanted people to walk, given this request would we be better off without any limitations on uses on Broadway? Not asking to 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes remove all limits,would like adjustments and an evolution,tweaking to improve the mix,think the limits established by zoning are good but may need adjusting every 15 years or so. Seems more like "policy by increment", ask for change when a property owner wants something, ask Commission action in response, would it be better to take all limits off so the property owner is not hand-cuffed,the incremental approach is time consuming for the Commission and city. This is a small adjustment;appreciate the time given by the city and commission. There were no finther comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comment: CA noted that on April 6, 2006, the provision allowing financial institutions on Broadway would expire, he noted that this ordinance includes removing the sunset clause and allowing financial institutions as an allowed use permanently; Commission should address this in their action. C.Keighran noted that she support real estate use in the Broadway area,understand issue but do not want to take all regulation off Broadway,feel it would open Pandora's Box; the restaurant change,adding 5,was an incremental change which was good especially since all the merchants worked together to figure out a 'vision'for Broadway which is a local service street different from Burlingame Avenue where the properties and businesses are bigger,on Broadway a lot of sites are owner occupied which makes a close connection with the community,it is good to support benefits to the community;for these reasons move to recommend the changes to the Broadway commercial area zoning to add real estate uses as a conditional use with performance criteria to the City Council for approval. . The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: When the commission approved the Walgreen's application required that the design include interesting windows forpedestrian interest,in Carmel there are a lot of real estate offices but they have a lot of photographs in the windows, they care about the pedestrian; can we require that in this ordinance? In the past in discussing Broadway the Commission has talked about not allowing curtains on the windows on Broadway so people can see into the businesses. CP noted that such requirements about window displays and window covering,where appropriate,could be a part of the action on each conditional use permit for a real estate business. Further comment on the motion: An individual applicant asked that he get his real estate office,want to be clear that vote is on generally expanding the real estate use opportunities on Broadway not approval of an individual site,need to watch the change and see if it works. CA noted that a commissioner who lives near Broadway may vote on a change to the regulations for the entire area, however, he may not vote on an individual application within those regulations if he lives within 500 feet of the applicant's site. Note also that would like to amend the motion to remove the'sunset'for financial institutions on Broadway. Maker and second to the motion agreed to add removal of the time limitation for financial institutions on Broadway. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to the City Council that they approve the ordinance amendments to allow real estate uses as a conditional use with performance criteria in the Broadway commercial area and that the time limit on financial institutions be removed. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). This item is not appealable and will be referred to the City Council for public hearing and action. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 7 City of Burlingame Item # Zoning Code Revision: Amend Broadway Regulations to Allow Real Action Calendar Estate Uses on the First Floor and Second Floor Meeting Date: August 22, 2005 Planning Commission Action: Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. The action is a recommendation to City Council. The public hearing should include the Ordinance which amends the zoning code (Chapter 25.36) to allow real estate offices as a permitted use on the first and second floor on Broadway so long as they comply with listed performance criteria. This item has been noticed for public hearing in a newspaper of general circulation (San Mateo Times) 10 days in advance of this public hearing. Notice was also mailed to all property owners and merchants in the Broadway Commercial Area. General Plan Compliance: The proposed change to the zoning regulations for the Broadway Commercial Area (Broadway Center) is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan if real estate uses are determined to be included as neighborhood serving retail and service uses which the General Plan promotes in the Broadway Commercial Area. Regarding land use in the Broadway Center, the General Plan states: "This center includes outlets providing a wide range of consumer goods and services for Burlingame residents and residents of adjoining communities. It also includes business service establishments, business and professional offices, civic buildings and some residential uses." (GP, Land Use Element, Page L-5). The adopted Land Use Map shows the Broadway Center/Commercial Area as Shopping and Service Commercial ( the same land use designation applied to the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area). CEQA Compliance: The amendment to the zoning designation to allow real estate offices within the adopted retail sales and service land use is categorically exempt under CEQA because it is a ministerial action and represents no change to the type of use (retail sales and service) or intensity of use (no expansion in potential sales and service square footage) approved with current land use policy for the area. Any project submitted as the result of the change in zoning would be required to be reviewed to determine if it was subject to CEQA. Background: In June 2005, the Broadway Business Improvement District Board sent a letter to the City Council requesting that the city amend the zoning in the Broadway commercial area to allow real estate offices in the Broadway commercial area. The matter was referred to the Planning Commission which studied the request at their July 11, 2005, meeting (PC Minutes July 11, 2005). The commission asked staff a number of questions regarding the real estate use in the Broadway commercial area and directed staff to draft an amendment to the Broadway commercial area regulations allowing real estate uses as a conditional use with certain performance criteria. To the extent they were applicable the criteria were based on the information gathered in response to the questions the commission asked. Commission Questions and Responses: 0 Is it possible to limit real estate use by block within the Broadway commercial area? Zoning Code Revisions: Amend Broadway Regulations to Allow Real Estate Offices on the First and Second Floor August 22,2005 Our experience with food establishment regulation indicates that it is difficult to regulate a use by location which can move within a given area e.g.one block. Based on our experience it is more effective to limit by total number;however,arriving at an appropriate number which we can defend legally would be a problem with real estate offices. Food establishments were limited to the number existing at the time the regulatory ordinance was adopted. ■ How many real estate offices remain on Broadway? According to Ross Bruce,AVR Realty there are two nonconforming real estate offices in the Broadway commercial area,AVR on the first floor and Walter Renner Realty on the second floor. In addition, there is one real estate office which is presently located on the first floor,does not conform with current regulations and is not nonconforming. This business was not included in the analysis. • Would all new real estate offices require a parking variance? It would depend upon whether there was on-site parking for the building. Some of the buildings on Broadway have a few parking spaces at the rear. Whether these spaces would be adequate to provide all the required parking on site for a new real estate office would depend upon the size of all the uses on the site and their parking requirements. When uses change and the new use has a greater parking requirement than the previous use which was nonconforming in parking,a parking variance is required for the difference. For example,1500 SF of retail without parking at 1:400 SF needs 3.75 parking spaces;a real estate use(office)at 1500 SF at 1:300 SF needs 5 parking spaces. The applicant would be required to get a parking variance for 2 parking spaces(1.25 rounds up). ■ Ifreal estate uses were allowed as a conditional use with performance criteria could it be structured so that the use would not be allowed unless all the performance criteria were met? If the real estate use with performance criteria were listed as a conditional use,then any exceptions to numerical criteria would require a variance. To grant a variance the commission would need to find a hardship with the property,which would be difficult to do since,as a new use,it should be able to be modified to meet the criteria. ■ Would like the BID to propose the maximum number. A representative of the Broadway BID indicated that there were at one time four first floor real estate offices on Broadway. ■ Are there any real estate offices in downtown Millbrae,San Carlos and San Mateo? There are real estate offices on Laurel and San Carlos Avenue in San Carlos;on El Camino, Broadway and Magnolia in Millbrae;and on West 25th,El Camino Real,and Baldwin in San Mateo. • Will rents paid by real estate offices increase the rental rates for other uses in the area? The Commission will have to ask the BID representatives this question.However,if there are few vacancies,the lack of supply will affect the rental rates upwards. • Can we calculate what impact the loss of retail space will have on the city's revenue base? The city receives 0.9%of the sales tax paid on each item sold in the commercial area. Each retail 2 Zoning Code Revisions. Amend Broadway Regulations to Allow Real Estate Offices on the First and Second Floor August 22,2005 business generates a different volume of sales, but to stay in business a business must generate some sales. Real estate offices do not generate retail sales tax. ■ What was the square footage in AVR and Town and Country Realty? How was each business divided between property management and property sales? Ross Bruce of AVR Realty provided the following information. AVR Realty uses two stories, connected by an interior stair,the total floor area is about 2,150 SF;Town and Country had about 1,200 SF. AVR Realty has 4 full time people(a secretary,broker and 2 property mangers),2 part time people (book keepers), and 10 property sales people (contractors). They hold no regular weekly meeting for sales agents. Town and Country employed about 6 people,2 full time(broker and secretary) and 4 sales agents. ■ What has changed since the commission reviewed this request and determined that real estate uses were not appropriate in the Broadway commercial area? Several new businesses have located in the Broadway commercial area. As a result,there are also new members on the BID Board. The BABES of Broadway, a merchant's association to promote Broadway and attract new businesses to the area, has been formed and they have been active in promotional activities for Broadway, such as the Pet Parade. Summary of Proposed Regulation Changes: Based on the direction given by the Planning Commission at the July study meeting and on the information gathered in response to the questions raised by the Planning Commission the following amendment to the Broadway commercial area overlay zone is suggested for consideration: Amend the conditional uses section (CS 25.36.041 (b)(5)to add real estate uses which comply with all of the following performance criteria: a. Occupy no more than 1.500 square feet; b. Have no more than 10 persons on site at one time; c. Have a maximum of 5 desks or work stations and 1 conference room on site; d. Are located on the first or second floor. Failure to comply with any of the performance criteria will require a variance. Staff Comments: A summary History of Zoning Regulation on Broadway is included in the attachments. This document reviews the history and timing of the changes including uses, from the original C-1 to the Broadway Commercial Area overlay limitations to the most recent requests for changes and city responses. Also attached to this staff report is a copy of the July 11, 2005,Planning Commission study staff report which includes a number of background documents which may be useful to the Commission in preparing for the public hearing on the real estate use issue. Margaret Monroe City Planner 3 Zoning Code Revisions: Amend Broadway Regulations to Allow Real Estate OJJices on the First and Second Floor August 22,2005 Attachments: Draft Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Chapter 25.36 to Allow Real Estate Offices in the Broadway Commercial Area as a Conditional Use. Amendment to the Broadway Commercial Area to Allow Real Estate Uses as a Conditional Use (Annotated) Planning Commission Minutes, July 11, 2005 History of Zoning Regulation on Broadway,July 29, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report, Study,July 11,2004 with attachments Public Notice, San Mateo Times,published August 12, 2005 Public Notice,mailed to property owners and merchants in the Broadway Commercial Area,August 12, 2005 4 I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 25.36 TO ALLOW REAL ESTATE OFFICES IN THE 3 BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA AS A CONDITIONAL USE 4 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 5 Section 1. Merchants and property owners in the Broadway Commercial Area have 6 requested the City to allow real estate offices in the Broadway Commercial Area as a conditional 7 use in order to increase the business - retail environment in the area. 8 9 Section 2. Section 25.36.041 is amended to read as follows: 10 25.36.041 Broadway commercial area. 11 (a) Permitted uses i . Except as otherwise provided in 12 this section, uses permitted in the C-1 district are permitted uses in the Broadway Commercial 13 Area. 14 (b) Conditional use . In addition to the conditional 15 uses allowed in the C-1 district, the following uses are only allowed in the Broadway Commercial 16 Area pursuant to a conditional use permit: 17 (1) Food establishments; 18 (2) Graphics arts and design retail businesses on the first floor only; 19 (3) Personal trainer and assessment businesses on the first floor or above; and 20 (4) Health services above the first floor only; and 21 � _zro."+v3.+h.�. _ - _ham xx� ...o-,53-sem• rc fi.+:.v.• w4 Wa,M 22 �,; 23 �ij 24 a 25 fey n 26 .,.. NRdw ti'4 r . rzfmr' 28 (c) Prohibited uses ' MONOMER �� rt^4,. vHx._l .N 7/28/2005 1 I c Xw, the uses prohibited 2 in the C-1 district the followin uses are prohibited in the Broadway eotmnercial 2ve 3 (1)Real estate;- 4 {2j-A11 mer offices on the first floor, and 5 (3) Psychic 6 7 Section 3. Pursuant to Ordinance No. 1730, financial institutions shall be allowed as a 8 conditional use until March 31,2006,unless earlier changed. On April 1,2006,Section 25.36.041 9 shall read as follows,unless otherwise amended before that date: 10 25.36.041 Broadway commercial area. 11 (a) Permitted uses. Except as otherwise provided in this section,uses permitted in the C-1 12 district are permitted uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. 13 (b) Conditional uses. In addition to the conditional uses allowed in the C-1 district, the 14 following uses are only allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area pursuant to a conditional use 15 permit: 16 (1)Food establishments; 17 (2) Graphics arts and design retail businesses on the first floor only; 18 (3)Personal trainer and assessment businesses on the first floor or above; and 19 (4)Health services above the first floor only; and 20 (5) Real estate uses that comply with the following in addition to any other conditions that 21 may imposed pursuant to chapter 25.52: 22 (A) Occupy no more than 1,500 square feet; and 23 (B) Have no more than ten (10)persons on-site at any one time; and 24 (C) Have a maximum of five(5)desks or work stations and one(1)conference room on- 25 site; and 26 (D) Are located on the first or second floor; 27 (c) Prohibited uses. Uses not listed as permitted or conditional shall be prohibited and in 28 particular,but not limited to the uses prohibited in the C-1 district and the following: 7/28/2005 2 1 (1) All offices on the first floor other than real estate; and 2 (2)Financial institutions. 3 4 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 5 6 Mayor 7 8 I,DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the 9 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 10 of '2005,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held 11 on the day of , 2005, by the following vote: 12 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 13 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 14 15 City Clerk 16 C:LFII_.ES\Planning\realestatebroadway2005.ord.wpd 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7/28/2005 3 Draft. July 29,2005 Amendment to the Broadway Commercial Area to Allow Real Estate Uses as a Conditional Use (with Annotations) Annotation: On March 1, 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1730 which separated the regulations for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area from the regulations for the Broadway commercial area and created code section 25.36.041 for the Broadway commercial area. At this same time the council allowed financial institutions on the first floor in the Broadway commercial area for a two year period (March 31, 2006) . The request by the Broadway BID Board to allow real estate uses on the first and second floor in the Broadway commercial area, requires an amendment to CS 25.36.041, Broadway commercial area. Below is the entire code section. The suggested provisions are shown in bold face with annotation following. 25.36.041 Broadway commercial area. (a) Permitted uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. Except as otherwise provided in this section,uses permitted in the C-1 district are permitted uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. (b)Conditional uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. In addition to the conditional uses allowed in the C-1 district,the following uses are only allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area pursuant to a conditional use permit: (1)Food establishments; (2)Graphics arts and design retail businesses on the first floor only; (3)Personal trainer and assessment businesses on the first floor or above;and (4)Health services above the first floor only. (5)Real estate uses that comply with the following standards in additon to any conditions that may be imposed pursuant to chapter 25.52: (A) Occupy no more than one-thousand five hundred(1,500)square feet; (B) Have no more than ten(10)persons on-site at any one time;and (C) Have a maximum of five(5)desks or work stations and one(1)conference room on-site;and (D) Are located on the first or second floor. Annotation: The zoning code defines real estate as "the occupation of real 1 Annotated Amendment to the Broadway Commercial Area Zoning Regulations to Allow Real Estate Uses as a Conditional Use Draft 1:July 27,2005 estate broker or agent, title insurance, real estate investment, real estate management, real estate developer or similar business. " This provision would apply to all of these activities. In their study of this request to add real estate uses in the Broadway commercial area, the Planning Commission identified a number of issues or impacts created by real estate uses which should be carefully regulated if real estate uses are to be added in the Broadway commercial area. Based on the city' s experience in other areas, such as Subarea B, one on the major effects of real estate uses is overcrowding of leased space and resulting inordinate parking demands. This is a particularly concern on Broadway since very few of the sites have any on site parking. The parking impact will be felt on the city parking lots, put there to support the retail uses. The Commission identified the following ways to consider regulating real estate uses: limit square footage, limit number of desks, limit number of people employed at each business, require the business to include both property management and real estate sales because it would serve a more neighborhood interest, and require commission review so that conditions could be placed to insure that the size of the business is consistent with the area. To address the stated concerns the following provisions were put in the regulation: 1. Real estate uses were made a conditional use, which requires a public hearing and action by the commission including conditions which address parameters of operation. 2 . Performance criteria were added for the use. Since real estate offices in the past have been just on the first floor, just on the second floor and have occupied both first and second floors, the performance criteria allow real estate use on the first and/or second floor (AVR uses two stories, Town and County used only the first floor, and Walter Remer has only a small second floor office. The criteria include a maximum square footage of 1, 500 SF (AVR has about 2, 150 SF, Town and Country had about 1, 200 SF. The criteria limit the number of desks or work stations to five (a number based on the office parking requirement of 1 :300SF, for the maximum of 1, 500 SF) ; and the number of people on site at one time to 10. Since the city enforces based on complaint, the number of people will be a flag to 2 indicate whether over crowding is taking place. The performance criteria do not address a maximum number of employees on the site since many of the people associated with real estate businesses are contractors, some of whom may work at home and the number is constantly shifting. For example AVR realty has 4 full time employees (the broker, the secretary, and two property managers) , 2 part time employees (book keepers) and 10 sales people. Technically that means that 16 people work out of that 2, 100 SF office (e.g. a density of 1 person:131 SF) AVR holds no regular weekly meeting. Town and Country which recently closed on Broadway occupied 1, 250 SF and employed 7 people, two full time (broker and secretary) and 4 agents (e.g. a density of 1 person:179SF) . Walter Renner had a first floor office of about 1, 400-1, 500 SF, did no property management and had 8 sales people on site (e.g. density of 1 person: 175-185SF) ; however this office was closed on Broadway in the mid-1980 ' s and moved to San Francisco. Mr. Renner moved his personal office to a second floor where he is now. In short, for enforcement it is most useful to base the limitations on things which can be measured before occupancy or counted after, such as the number of desks or workstations. However, it should be noted that the number of full time, part time and contract employees as well as the hours of operation can be controlled through a conditional use permit; so the commission' s site specific concerns relating to the specific location and adjacent uses can be addressed on a case by case basis . Finally, this provision as written provides no exception to the performance criteria except a variance which must be based on a hardship on the property. (b) Prohibited uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. In addition to the uses prohibited in the C-1 district, the following uses are prohibited in the Broadway Commercial Area: (1) Financial institutions; Annotation: As of March 2006 financial institutions will be prohibited once again on Broadway, unless an ordinance is adopted removing the sunset clause. Currently financial institutions are permitted uses in the Broadway commercial area. (2) Real estate. 3 Annotated Amendment to the Broadway Commercial Area Zoning Regulations to Allow Real Estate Uses as a Conditional Use July 29,2005 Annotation: If real estate uses are made a conditional use then they can no longer be a prohibited use. (3) All other offices on the first floor; and (4) Psychic services. U:\Zoninglssues\Broadway Reguation\RealEstate\Dftlannot real estate cup 7.27.05.doc 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July ll, 2005 houses built and 7 major remodels on this block alone,constant construction and a change to the streetscape, request that the entire block be given an opportunity to weigh in on every project which might affect this block,entire block should be noticed 2 weeks before any action,notice should specify time when resident may review a project at the Planning Department,opposed to speculators reshaping our neighborhood without regard for the existing residents. Commissioner noted might look into the idea of placing a plaque with an image of the proposed house and the date of the Planning Commission on the front lawn. Diana Mason, 1451 Balboa, completed Giomi's comments,noting that renters damage the block,since houses rented while waiting to go through the planning review process. There were no further comments from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. AMEND ZONING FOR THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW REAL ESTATE USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR,ZONED C-1 WITH BROADWAY OVERLAY REGULATIONS— CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE CP Monroe presented a summary of the 7.11.05 staff report. She reviewed the options for regulation ofreal estate uses in the Broadway commercial area,the history of recent zoning changes requested in the area,and the direction of the General Plan regarding this neighborhood shopping area. Commissioners asked: Is it possible to limit this use by block? Staff noted that it was,but it was difficult of enforce. Current real estate offices do both property management(rental)as well as sales,this combination is more commercial area friendly; current offices are small in terms of square footage and number of employees(4-5 at one location). How many real estate offices remain in the Broadway area?Two,AVR on the first floor and Walter Reiner on the second floor. Real estate use would require on-site parking, since there is only one building which has on-site parking,would all real estate offices require a parking variance? Staff noted that it would depend upon the previous use of the site. Concerned with a real estate use which has a lot of agents, think 20 on the site too many for the Broadway area, might work if could limit the number of agents/employees and the square footage, with a conditional use permit the commission could review each business for fit. Do not favor changing the code for a specific individual. Would prefer strict performance criteria, allow no exceptions and have real estate uses a permitted use to moderate Planning Department's work load. Parking matters and this will have an impact. Would like the BID to propose the maximum number, do San Carlos,San Mateo and Millbrae allow real estate offices in their downtown areas? Will the rents paid by real estate offices increase the rental rates for other uses in the area? Real estate uses do not contribute to the city s sales tax revenue,can we calculate what the lose of the retail square footage would mean? Would like to know the square footage in the two real estate offices on Broadway AVR and Town and Country(before it recently left). These two offices are small,independents, and good models to determine the number of desks,conference room, and number of agents. When a property sells the city's property taxes increase,so some revenue is gained. Would like to know how the business ofAVR and Town and Country was divided among property management and property sales. Two years ago the Planning Commission debated this issue and decided not to allow real estate offices in the Broadway commercial area. What has changed? 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 11, 2005 There seemed to be consensus that, if allow real estate uses on Broadway they should be: • Limited in terms of square footage; • Limited number of desks; • Limited in terms of number of people employed at the site; • Should require property management as well as real estate sales activities on the site; and • Should be a conditional use. Staff noted that they would work on collecting the information requested as well as drafting proposed regulation for the Commission to review. Given the work requested there is not time to get this back to the next meeting. Depending on the choices from the research, this may come back for study one more time before it is ready for public hearing. This item concluded at 7:45 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. Chair Auran noted that there was a request during From the Floor to move the one item on the consent calendar, item 2, 1309 Balboa Avenue, be moved to the regular action calendar. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 1309 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE (SCOTT JONES, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; UNA KINSELLA, ARCHITECT) (47 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report 7.11.05, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Una Kinsella , 1484 Guerrero Street, San Francisco, architect represented the project; and Mary Hunt, 725 Vernon Way, represented neighbor Donald Lee. Architect noted that she would answer questions. Mr. Lee lives next door, concerned that the addition lines up with his house and is within 8 feet of his bedroom, concerned that it will lower the value of his house and of the neighborhood; will damage the visual character of the neighborhood, not opposed to the increase in size but opposed to the attached garage with the second story over it at the location chosen. The architect responded that there was one issue at the design review study, realized that the house was adjacent, but did not realize that the area over the garage was next to the bedroom, are installing strip windows to maximize the neighbors privacy, the wall of the second floor is low, 14'-2" above grade and the windows are placed as high in the wall as can be, worked to avoid having the windows line up. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that felt that addition was not integrated into the structure before, agree that the windows are not large, unobtrusive and the head height is low, it is not good to have a big wall with no windows,problem is that the lot is 50 feet wide like many in the city and that has a big impact on the neighbors, but the design in this case has a minimal impact, so moved approval by resolution with the conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped 3 July 29,2005 History of Zoning Regulation on Broadway Originally Broadway was zoned C-1,retail sales and service commercial. The original C-1 base zoning (CS 25.36)allows as a permitted use: a. offices,except real estate,financial institutions and health services; As a conditional use allows: a. real estate offices. The following is the history of changes to base zoning in the Broadway area: 1. On April 16,1984,Ordinance 1272 was adopted which created the Broadway Commercial area, including a map of the area(attached). In this action financial institutions and first floor offices (including real estate)were prohibited in the Broadway commercial area. The Broadway commercial area uses the C-1 zoning base with the following exception: a. Conditional use permit for the following: food establishments; Graphics arts Personal trainer and assessment Health services above the first floor. b. Prohibited uses; -real estate -All offices on the first floor psychic services financial institutions(after March 31,2006) 2. On April 15,1985,Ordinance 1302 was adopted establishing the first regulation on food establishments in the Broadway commercial area. The number was fixed at the number in existence in 1985. (This ordinance also established the same regulation on food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area.) 3. hi June 2003,Mr.Bezdjian,1199 Broadway applied to amend the permitted uses in the Broadway commercial area to allow health services,financial institutions,real estate offices on the first floor. The Council allowed financial institutions on the first floor with a two year sunset clause. 4. July 9,2003 the Broadway Business Improvement District(BID)sent a letter reporting that the merchants voted not to review the land use change until January of 2004. 5.September 19,2003 the Broadway BID Board sent a letter supporting adding health services,real estate,financial institutions and other office uses on the first floor in the Broadway commercial area. 6. October 14,2003 Planning Commission Minutes,Commission noted at environmental scoping for permitting first floor health services,real estate,financial institutions and other office uses,that History of Zoning Regulation on Broadway July 29,2005 Broadway needed a vision statement and a evaluation of the impacts of the change in uses on parking, traffic,pedestrian circulation and on the retail economy of these proposed changes. 7. January 12,2004 Planning Commission Minutes recommend denial of health services, other office and real estate on the first floor, allow financial institutions with a two year sunset. 8. Council adopted Ordinance 1730 allowing financial institutions as a permitted use in the Broadway commercial area, to expire March 31, 2006. 9. July 2005, amended the food establishment regulations to allow five additional food establishments at new locations in the Broadway commercial area. These establishments are limited to full service, specialty food shop or limited food service. UABroadwayCommercialAreakeal estate reguation\History of Zoning Regulation on Broadway.7.29.05.doc 4 l City of Burlingame - Item,# ► Amend Zoning for the Broadway Commercial Area to Allow Real Estate Study Calendar Uses on the First Floor Meeting Date: 07.11.05 Request: Study the request to change the zoning regulations to allow real estate office uses on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area, zoned G1 with the Broadway overlay regulations. General Plan: Allowing real estate uses in the Broadway commercial area is consistent with the General Plan development policies for the Broadway area because these uses were permitted at the time the General Plan Land Use Element for the Broadway commercial area was adopted. CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15305 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations, Class 5, minor alterations in land use limitations with an average slope of less than 20%which do not result in any changes to land use or density. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should review the options for changing regulations for real estate uses in the Broadway commercial area, discuss and identify the appropriate action, and direct staff to prepare an appropriate regulation for public hearing. The study meeting is not a public hearing, although members of the public may address this item during Comments from the Floor. Before the end of the item, however, staff should be directed regarding how to address the regulations for real estate uses in the Broadway commercial area. The Commission should set this matter for a public hearing on July 25, 2005. Following the July 25, 2005, public hearing the commission will make a recommendation for action to the City Council. Referral to the Planning Commission: At a recent public hearing before the City Council regarding changing the number of food establishments on Broadway, the Broadway Business Improvement District president, representing his membership, requested that they would like the city to consider allowing real estate offices as a conditional use permit on the first floor in Broadway commercial area. (Broadway BID, letter June 15, 2005) The BID feels that real estate uses would add day time foot traffic for the retail and service business on Broadway and the use fits the "vision" they are formulating for the area. City Council referred this request to the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Real Estate Uses in Present Zoning for the Broadway Commercial Area: Currently real estate uses are prohibited in the Broadway commercial area. (CS 25.36.041) Generally the C-1 (retail commercial) zoning requirements apply in the Broadway commercial area. However, an "overlay" of additional regulations has been created for the Broadway commercial area. The overlay(CS 25.36.04 1) allows all the uses permitted and conditional in the C-I district except for those called out for special regulation in the Broadway area. Those uses called out for a conditional use in the Broadway area are as follows: Food establishments Graphics arts and design retail businesses on the first floor only Amend Zoning for the Broadway Commercial Area to Allow Real Estate Uses on the First Floor July 11,2005 Health and beauty spas on the first floor or above Health services above the first floor only Financial institutions(until March 31,2006 when financial institutions will be prohibited) The following uses are currently prohibited in the Broadway overlay zone: Real estate All other offices on the first floor Psychic services Compliance with the General Plan: The Land Use and Circulation Elements of the Burlingame General Plan were adopted in 1969. Since that time the Plan has been amended with other elements,particularly Conservation(1973). The General Plan elements set out the city's policy toward development for the city as a whole and in its various areas. At the time the General Plan was adopted and amended the Broadway commercial areawas an important point of identity to its surrounding residential neighborhoods and served as a center for convenience shopping and congregation. The Plan set out certain expectations for the Broadway commercial area. In reviewing this request for a change in zoning the Commission must determine if adding real estate offices on the first floor through out the Broadway commercial area is consistent with the following policies and objectives: The role of Broadway in the city's economy; With the functional efficiency,character and quality of Broadway; Provides an effective transition between retail commercial and residential so that it works to strengthen the residential character of the city; Continues to provide convenience goods and customer service; Enhances Broadway including separation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation and reduction of through traffic;and Stabilizes the current transition where changes are occurring accompanied by signs of decline or increased intensity of use(conservation element),key is compatibly between commercial enterprises and residential uses. If the Planning Commission feels that the requested change to add real estate uses on the first floor and above to the land uses within the Broadway commercial area are appropriate,but that they are not consistent with the development policies and objectives set out in the General Plan,then this action will also require a General Plan amendment. Broadway, a Neighborhood Serving Shopping Area: Recently there has been a move by the merchants and property owners in the Broadway commercial area to change the longtime connection in the zoning code between Broadway and the Burlingame Avenue Commercial areas. Dating from the 1970's the merchants and property owners on Broadway 2 Amend Zoning jar the Broadway Commercial Area to Allow Real Estate Uses on the First Floor July 11,2005 have sought the benefits and protections offered to Burlingame Avenue Subarea A. Recently, however,the Broadway merchants and property owners supported an action to allow health services above the first floor which are prohibited in the Burlingame Avenue Cgmmercial Area. Staff saw this request to allow health services as a movement away from the Broadway merchants and property owners vision of becoming a second Burlingame central business district and an acceptance of the area's functional role as a neighborhood commercial center. The reason that the acceptance of medical office uses was so indicative of change was the impact of medical office uses on the commercial environment. Medical offices have a high employee to office space ratio, employees generate a long term parking impact and medical offices also generate a lot of destination oriented, patients,who consume the high demand, short term, close in retail parking spaces without generating retail foot traffic. These impacts may be counter to the central business district function described as: "One generally applicable principle is that(the central business district) shopping district should be kept as compact as possible to encourage pedestrian traffic among stores,thus facilitating comparison shopping and impulse buying...for similar reasons store frontage should be continuous,with minimum interruptions by parking lots, office buildings or hotels without ground floor stores, or by banks, airline ticket offices and other non-retail uses." (New Illustrated Book of Development Definitions,page 250). The current request for real estate offices on the first floor and above would take Broadway steps further away from the old vision of this area becoming a second Burlingame central business district; and could bring it closer to its current functional role as a neighborhood commercial center, assuming that the demand for the real estate uses in the Broadway area does not take over the majority of the ground floor retail space. Too many of these office type uses located on Broadway will create a lot of "dead" space, separating and isolating, the active retail uses and could kill the convenience and personal service retail businesses in the area. The increase in the day time employee population in the area may benefit lunch time trade at restaurants and generate regular customers for convenience shopping services in the area; however, this change could be to the detriment of personal services such as beauty parlors which rely on the availability of two to four hour parking spaces. This decision to modify the zoning to allow real estate office uses will be a watershed action in defining the future of the Broadway commercial area. Once the regulation is established and the pattern is set, it will be hard to change in the future. Reversing the decision in the future will make all the uses permitted as a result of implementation of this present request non-conforming. Nonconforming uses tend to continue until there is no market demand for them. hi fact, such uses thrive by becoming nonconforming, since the competition in the area is reduced. Since Broadway is not the city's central business district; its function is that of a neighborhood commercial/shopping area. In the literature a neighborhood commercial area is defined as: "A commercial area of approximately fifty thousand square feet, often located on an arterial or collector street,providing convenience goods and services for residents or the surrounding area." 3 Amend Zoning for the Broadway Commercial Area to Allow Real Estate Uses on the First Floor July IT,2005 Characteristics of a neighborhood shopping area include: - Neighborhood business area usually serves residents within five minutes driving time; - Stores include food, drugs,hardware,clothing and sundries; - Services include barber and beauty parlors, cleaners, and so on. - The major characteristic of such an area is its scale, it usually does not contain any large stores designed to serve several neighborhoods. - Unless they have a high volume of walk-in trade,neighborhood commercial areas need a higher ratio of parking lot area to store spaces. - Pedestrians may be limited to nothing more than paved walks in front of stores. Source:Moskowitz and Lindbloom,New Illustrated Book of Development Definitions. History: In the past several years,there has been considerable discussion about appropriate uses in the Broadway commercial area. In May and June of 2005 the Planning Commission and City Council discussed revision to the Food Establishment regulations,ultimately allowing five additional food establishment locations on Broadway(City Council decision, July 5, 2005). In March of 2004, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1730 which allowed financial institutions as a permitted use in the Broadway commercial area. This regulation will expire in March 2006. The shift of financial institutions from prohibited to permitted use grew out of a request by a local merchant to amend the zoning to allow: all office uses,real estate uses,financial institutions, and health services on the first floor as permitted uses. Planning Commission studied this issue in July 2003 (PC Minutes July28,2003) and October 2003 (PC Minutes October 14,2003). At the July meeting Commission continued the item until the city could complete a poll of the merchants and property owners in the area. The city undertook a use survey of the merchants in November 2003. (Planning Department Memo, December 2,2003) The conclusion from the responses (43%)was that all four uses requested should be allowed. The four uses were financial institutions, real estate, health services and general office use, all on the first floor. The responses for allowing these 4 uses without a public hearing,e.g. as a permitted use, ranged from 67%to 75 %. Following the July 2003 Planning Commission study meeting and the November 2003 study meeting,the city received a letter from the Broadway Business Improvement District Board supporting health services, other office uses,real estate and financial institutions on the fust floor.They noted that the earlier objection from the BID had been rooted on the division among their members over whether the food establishment regulation should be changed. Since food establishments were not a part of the 2003/2004 action, the membership could support it. At the Planning Commission meeting on January 12,2004,the commission held a public hearing and voted to recommend to the City Council that they not change the regulations regarding real estate,general office and health service uses on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial area. However,the commission did recommend that financial institutions be allowed as a permitted use for 24 months. (PC Minutes January 12,2005) 4 Amend Zoning jar the Broadway Commercial Area to Allow Ileal Estate Uses on the First Floor July ll,2005 - The City Council supported the Planning Commission's recommendation in their adoption of Ordinance 1730 on March 1,2004. Financial institutions became a permitted use with an expiration of March 31, 2006. Real estate,all other office uses,and health services continued as prohibited uses on the first floor in the Broadway commercial area. Approaches to Regulating Real Estate Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area: There are a number of approaches the Planning Commission could consider for regulating real estate uses in the Broadway commercial area: 1. Real estate uses could be made a permitted use. In this case no further review would be required. Real estate uses could locate on the first and second,floors of any building . There would be an on-site parking requirement of 1:300 SF; failure to provide parking on site would require a parking variance. A limitation on maximum floor area, such as 5,000 SF could be imposed as well. 2. Real estate uses could be made a conditional use, which is what the Broadway BID recommends. A conditional use would be required for each business location. The permit would control the number of employees, hours of operation, time of the weekly meeting and any other activities expected on site. Parking to code would be required; a variance would be required if there were no on-site parking. 3. The number of real estate uses could be limited to 5 (for example)at fixed locations,with performance criteria addressing impacts such as maximum square footage,employees per square foot,timing ofweekly agent meetings, etc. The use and performance requirements would be regulated by a conditional use permit, in the same manner that food establishments are regulated. On-site parking would be required. 4. The overlay zone for the Broadway commercial area could be eliminated for all uses except food establishments, and the C-1 zoning regulations would prevail. This would make real estate uses a conditional use, but would also treat all the other uses in the same way they are treated in the Plaza Shopping Center. (See C-I District regulations) 5. Real Estate uses could continue to be prohibited uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. This would allow the present real estate offices to continue as nonconforming uses. The existing real estate businesses could be replaced by other real estate businesses on the same site,but the current real estates businesses could not expand and real estate businesses could not open at new locations within the Broadway commercial area. If a presently nonconforming real estate site changes to another use, then real estate businesses would not be allowed at that location in the future. Staff Comment: The purpose of the study meeting is for the commission to provide staffwith direction for preparing a draft ordinance/regulation for public hearing and recommendation to the City Council on July 25, 2005. Attached to the staff report are the staff reports prepared in 2003 for the Planning Commission action (January 12, 2003) and the City Council Introduction (February 17, 2004) and Action (March 1, 2004) which discussed the request to allow real estate uses as well as financial institutions,any other office and health service uses on the first floor in the Broadway commercial area. Relevant excerpts from these staff 5 Amend Zoning for the Broadway Commercial Area to Allow Real Estate Uses on the First Floor July 11, 2005 reports are also included above. Attachments: BID President and Board of Directors, letter June 15, 2005, to City Council Ordinance 1730, Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Section: 25.36.041 to Allow Financial Institutions as Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area Planning Commission Minutes, July 28,. 2003 Planning Commission Minutes, January 12, 2004 City Council Minutes, March 1, 2004 Ross Bruce, BID President and Board, letter September 19, 2003, to Margaret Monroe Planning Department Memo, December 2, 2003, Results of a Use Survey of Broadway Merchants and Property Owners, November 2003, with attachments Planning Commission Staff Report, January 12, 2004, Action on Request to Add Financial Institutions, Real Estate Offices, health Services and General Office Uses on the First Floor as Permitted or Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area Planning Commission Staff Report, July 28, 2003, Study on Request Adding Financial Institutions, real Estate Offices, Health Services and General Office Uses on the First Floor to Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. City Council Staff Report, February 17, 2004, Introduction Ordinance to Add Uses to the Broadway Commercial Area, Zoned C-1 Broadway Commercial Area. City Council Staff Report, March 1, 2004, Adoption of Ordinance to Amend the Zoning Code Requirements in the Broadway Commercial Area to Allow Financial Institutions on the First Floor for 24 Months. 6 RECEIVED • : , JUN 2 0 2005 - URUNGAME - DEPT. Business Improvement District RECEIVED ® A v June 15,2005 JUN 17 2005 ® S CITY CLERK'S OfFIC Honorable Mayor,City Council,City Manager&Meg Monroe CITY Of BURLIN6AM 3-- C/o gC/o City Hall 501 Primrose H Burlingame,CA 94010 i q eaa oZ; ® RE: Losing and gaining one Real Estate office on Broadway ®�� ��ecr M- Honorable Mayor,City Council,Meg Monroe,&City Manager, a The Broadway BID Board of Directors notes that we have lost a Real Estate office on Broadway(Town&Country Realty). Mr.Garbis Bezdjian would like to open a family Real Estate and Travel Business at his property at 1199 Broadway. The Board understands that this small shift will not do much to change the character of our street, but it would mean a lot to one of our number. As Mr.Bezdjian has been associated with K the street for over 36 years and has lately contributed a great deal of his time and energy EU o LL ®® assisting BID assist Broadway,BID requests that you adgendize this matter so that we may find a way to make it happen- no appenGd Sincerely, -rmv tSCeu� �t� bo � � �n EW ® ��d�{�K-c.�cf� Ea,rtHbertwt, DS N Vafer�e leca � �y/ v e Ates i ar Des;A-� :ADYU Wc. cah d ht?CA cuhy PWiT�nl/r NoUrigan Yevron%pf\ , 1�1u`Ts��� Can y ® The BIDPresident and Board of Directors. EDIBEB MOB I ORDINANCE NO. 1730 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 25.36.041 TO ALLOW FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS AS CONDITIONAL_ USES 3 IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA 4 5 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 6 7 Section 1. The economic and social health of the Broadway Commercial Area is a vital part of 8 the Burlingame community. Broadway merchants and property owners have requested the City to loosen 9 some of the controls that were put in place to sustain the retail character of the area, so there is more 10 flexibility in tenants and business opportunities. This ordinance will allow financial institutions as a 11 conditional use so that the size, frontage, traffic impacts of locating such a use at a specific property in 12 the area can be evaluated, while at the same time providing an opportunity for such a business. The 13 ordinance change will only last for two years, so that it can be reevaluated for its effect on the area. 14 15 Section 2. Section 25.36.041 is amended to read as follows: 16 25.36.041 Broadway commercial area. 17 (a) Permitted uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. Except as otherwise provided in this 18 section, uses permitted in the C-1 district are permitted uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. 19 (b) Conditional uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. In addition to the conditional uses 20 allowed in the C-1 district, the following uses are only allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area - 21 pursuant to a conditional use permit: 22 (1) Food establishments; 23 (2) Graphics arts and design retail businesses on the first floor only; 24 (3) Personal trainer and assessment businesses on the first floor or above; and 25 (4) Health services above the first floor only. 26 (c) Prohibited uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. In addition to the uses prohibited in the 27 C-1 district, the following uses are prohibited in the Broadway Commercial Area: 28 (1) Real estate; 1 (2)- All other offices on the first floor; and 2 (3) Psychic services. 3 4 Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective until.March 31,2006,unless earlier repealed,and 5 shall have no'further force and effect beyond that date. If the ordinance ceases to be effective, the 6 provisions of Section 25.36.041 in effect when this ordinance was adopted shall be reinstated unless 7 otherwise provided by an ordinance subsequent to this one. 8 9 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 10 11 Mayor 12 13 I,ANN T.MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing 14 ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17'' day of February, 15 2004,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1'day of March,2004, 16 by the following vote: 17 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: BAYLOCK,COFFEY,GALLIGAN,NAGEL,O'MAHONY 18 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE 19 20 City Clerk 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes July 28,2003 2. ZONING CHANGE TO BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA—APPLICATION FOR A ZONING CHANGE TO ADD FINANCIAL INSTITUTION,REAL ESTATE OFFICES,HEALTH SERVICE AND GENERAL OFFICE USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA(GARBIS S.MAIDA M.BEZDJIAN APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER:MARGARET MONROE C.Vistica arrived at 7:25 p.m. CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report indicating that the Planning Commission needed to give direction on the consistency of the request with the current General Plan policy so that staff could make a determination on what CEQA review would be required,as well as any additional information on the zoning request.CP noted that Commission had received a letter from the Broadway BID noting that they had decided to table any action on zoning in the Broadway area until January so that they could see the status ofthe economy and vacancy rates;they also noted that they had agreed that in the future they would poll their membership before taking any positions on use changes in the area. Commissioners asked:how is the optometrist use on Broadway now classified;are the two real estate offices on Broadway non-conforming;would like to know the opinion of the merchants about this request and what their vision is for Broadway;can we add a review of the number ofrestaurants on Broadway to this discussion;do we need to be concerned about ADA compliance for health services on the second floor;we are presently doing two major land use studies,the Bayfront and North End/Rollins Road,and have developed a processinvolving committees and public input for these kinds of changes,this change would be as broad and am concerned about doing this on the basis of one applicant's request,merchants want to delay this action and am hesitant to go forward on anything at this time. Would like to know the effect of office on the first floor experienced by other cities,know San Mateo recently prohibited offices on the first floor in their retail area,why? Would like staff to contact other communities such as Millbrae,San Mateo and others with similar commercial areas to see what their issues are,what they have done,and would like feedback from merchants in the area. C.Osterling noted in the graphic on the BID letterhead there are real estate and banks shown,should that give us some direction;survey should include merchants and building owners,so moved to continue this item until after we have received input from the merchants and property owners on Broadway. Motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item. The motion passed on a 5-0-2(Cers. Brownrigg and Keele absent)voice vote. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar-1tems on the consent calendar are consideredto be routine.They are actedon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant,a member ofthepublic or a commissionerpriorto the time the commission Yotes on the motion to adopt. There were no items set for the consent calendar VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 1534 MEADOW LANE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A SINGLE STORY ADDITION(STEVE AND LISA ALMS,PROPERTY OWNERS AND APPLICANTS;MICHAEL STANTON ARCHITECTURE,ARCHITECT)(64 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report 07.28.03,with attachments. Plr Lewit presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004 C. Auran moved to recommend the changes to the second unit amnesty program and implementing zoning changes to the City Council for approval action The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: staff should be complimented on the amount of time they put into preparing this revision and for the quality of the work done. CP Monroe noted that she appreciated the extra time and effort, over a number of months, the Planning Commission Subcommittee put in as well. Chair Bojues called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the second unit amnesty program and the implementing zoning changes to the City Council for approval action. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 voice vote (C. Keele absent). This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 8. APPLICATION FOR A ZONING AMENDMENT TO ADD FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, REAL y ESTATE OFFICES, HEALTH SERVICES AND GENERAL OFFICE USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR AS CONDITIONAL USES IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (349 RADIUS NOTICE/95 MERCHANTS NOTICED/STREET POSTED/NEWSPAPER NOTICE) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report January 12, 2004, with attachments. CP Monroe reviewed the application to add four uses on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area, noting that if these uses were found to be consistent with the General Plan designation for the Broadway Center, CEQA issues would be addressed. Commissioners asked: if one of these uses were allowed for a trial period, say 24 months, by condition could the commission limit the lease to 24 months. CA responded it would be a problem for enforcement, leases are not city business, if the use were conditional the city could make it "temporary" and limit the use permit to 5 years for example, as we do on the Bayfront and the conditional use permit would be subject to review and could be revoked at that time; however, in general it should be expected that if uses are allowed and spaces filled that they will remain as the currently non-conforming uses in the Broadway Area have. In 1969 when the General Plan was approved any use was allowed them in 1984 the uses were limited, why? In the early 1980's the city was looking at Burlingame Avenue to create a high pedestrian traffic retail center (subarea A), Broadway merchants and property owners asked to be treated the same; so the Broadway Commercial Area was created with the same regulations as Subarea A of the Burlingame Commercial Area. How many store fronts are vacant at this time? CP did not know exact number at this time. Can the same kind of limitation of number and type used for food establishments be created for financial institutions and real estate offices. CA responded we do not have enough information to be able to determine the correct number; with food establishments we started with the number in the area at the time we established the regulation, that would not work here since the issue is creating opportunity for more of each of these four uses. Regulating the number and mix of uses needs to be based on a plan for Broadway. There is no plan or vision for Broadway which addresses the appropriate number of each of these four uses. Commissioner asked if any limit on the maximum square footage of each of these uses is proposed. CP noted no, in general the lots are small on Broadway and that limits the size of the individual commercial areas. Commissioner asked if two of each use could be allowed and the city could develop a lottery system to decide how to fill the opportunities. CP noted that the city had some experience with a lottery system as the food establishment regulations evolved and it was unhappy. Would not like to repeat. Do these uses address issues like Pilates? CP noted the City has other regulations in effect now which address physical fitness and training in the Broadway area. There were no further questions or comments from the commission. 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12,2004 Chair Boju6s opened the public hearing.David Hinkle, 1616 Sanchez;John Root, 1407 Montero;Virginia Vince, 1301 Paloma; Maida Bezdjian, applicant, 1199 Broadway, Garbis Bezdjian, applicant, 1199 Broadway; Ross Bruce, President Broadway BID; Saco Bezdjian, 1199 Broadway all spoke. As a BID advisory board member support the merchants opinion as expressed in the 80%support for the four uses in survey;position of BID board is to support members recommendation and to recommend if adopt the four uses, you should include a two year trial period; as a citizen, merchant and property owner on Broadway opposed to any change to the retail structure in the Broadway Commercial Area,like to keep the pedestrian orientation and protect retail. Afraid of unintended consequences,fear that allowing these uses will result in "shuttered windows and store fronts",doctors do not open windows for people passing by to look into;San Mateo has had a lot of experience with this,the Judd Green store for example which.went dot.com with a Very bad result on the retail area,in the end they did the same thing—limited these uses. Would like to see the retail neighborhood "feel"with small businesses of Broadway preserved, lots of change new families; feel that Broadway has turned the corner on the vacancies;contacted Paul Ferrari CEO of the Italian Market Place, he expressed desire to explore Broadway because he is looking for neighborhood locations e.g. location with quality,small businesses not corporate;see Broadway as an opportunity to support small local businesses which is different from Burlingame Avenue. Commissioner asked why start business on Broadway?Demographics in area have changed,lot of new young families can walk or bike to Broadway, rents have skyrocketed on Burlingame Avenue, Broadway rents much more reasonable. Commissioner asked do you think banks and real estate offices would be detrimental to Broadway? Had banks before,so OK,object to health services and other business offices;real estate seems more appropriate on El Camino Real where there is more space;Broadway is for small businesses,a destination for shopping,bakery,deli's, where people will continue to return. .Public comment continued: applicant stated heard pros and cons,the property at 1199 Broadway has been vacant for more than two years, now 4 to 5 vacancies besides 1199; current restrictions on uses hurt her financially, few people go to the stores,have had several prospective tenants, dentists, asset to Broadway, would raise revenue for the city and would generate foot traffic;there is a lot of available parking;also get a lot of calls for restaurants and delis,4 to 5 today,referred them to the city;took a petition to 91 merchants and property owners who signed it,available to the city,supports removal of all C-1 zoning regulations in the Broadway area; BID wrote a letter to the Planning Department requesting that the city allow dental office on first floor at 1199,there was no response;have spent a lot of time and effort to rent,nothing has happened;need to remove restrictions it would benefit the merchants and the city revenue. Commissioner asked there are a few new businesses on Broadway,why has your site been empty two years? Don't know,the interested people are dentists and delis. Lot of vacancy on Broadway,people come and go, tenants change during the time this request for uses has been processed; time to change uses allowed,have had inquiries from mortgage company, real estate, insurance company, health service; problem really is discrimination,there are already eye doctors and physical therapists on Broadway,have been told I cannot have a real estate.office in my own building;no use in allowing health services on the second floor when the building does not have ADA accessibility,over 90 people signed the petition we took around,met with city staff,they noted that the wording was for the removal of all C-1 restrictions,city staff wanted to do it their own way,OK; asked BID to write a letter.Commission asked to see the petition;it was not provided. CA noted that staff did not tell the applicant not to submit the petition. Submitted September 19,2003, letter requested from BID supporting allowing the four uses requested and noting that the petition was not intending to eliminate the entire C-1 zoning restrictions but was to allow the four requested uses (health services, other office uses, real estate and financial institutions). The letter noted that "The petition was merely loosely worded". Applicant noted that City planner did do "ballot"on Broadway. The record is 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12,2004 clear, there is discrimination,his family is suffering,want these four uses to get rid of the vacancy in his building, need to lease it soon.- Commissioners asked it is surprising to be two years without tenants.Now asking city to change zoning; want to determine if this is a result of market restrictions or market pricing,therefore it is fair to ask which will have an impact on other residents,based on the fact that you have vacancies what rent are you asking? Asking $2.29 to $2.49 per square foot, way below Burlingame Avenue; have made improvements to building including a new roof and awning,think that his rate is below market. Commissioner noted that if truly below market the space would be full. Applicant noted that uses most interested are not allowed, restaurants and delis. Comments from public indicated actual average rents on Broadway. Commissioner asked over the years Broadway has gone through agenesis,are there other types of businesses which might do well there now?Don't know,would like to loosen regulations and let the free market make the decisions because we are having difficulty now. Commissioner asked based on your real estate experience what is the current range of rental rates in the Broadway area? Depends upon the size of the space and the condition of the building,but generally range from$1.50 to $2.00 per square foot; $2.29 per square foot is not below market rate; 1199 is the newest building on the street, it has some dedicated parking on-site and a good corner location, can get better rents than older, run down building. Public comment continued: For the record there.are 8 first floor vacancies on Broadway, 3 have leases .pending, of the 5 remaining vacancies ,three are in Mr.Bezdjian's building at 1199;there are a couple of offices on the second floor also vacant. Would like all four uses to be conditional uses for a two year trial period, this would give the city control and flexibility as well as giving the ability to see if there were unintended consequences. Been a tenant at 1199 for two years,issue has been blurred,these four uses would not result in"closed shutters",they would be neighborhood businesses and would regenerate Broadway;his four employees generate business for Broadway,without service businesses retail would not survive because there is not enough foot traffic;look into allowing for 24 months,stop after that,Broadway needs something. There was no more comment from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: did own research of residents west of Broadway and people who work on Airport Blvd.;consensus was do not want dental offices,financial institutions on Broadway,want more retail;need to hear from residents. In the past uses rolled in and out of Broadway, may have dried up because of competition from Big Boxes and Burlingame Plaza—sucked away by the larger full service businesses; community loyalty drifted away;need to infuse quality merchants to draw people,agree not want windows curtained to block view into stores.Question the value of health service,visits take an hour or more,dentist sees 8– 10 people a day much less foot traffic than retail and uses a lot of street frontage space;what we need to do is rejuvenate quality merchants; financial institutions and real estate uses generate pedestrian activity,real question is how does the use add foot traffic. At last meeting asked for more data to understand existing conditions and understand what effects change in use might have;information like existing FAR by use;no information provided so cannot make a educated decision. Mentioned before that could do a trial, but without information unwilling because don't know if open to office might result in 40%of Broadway becoming office use;talked to merchants,lot of residents and received mixed responses;merchant survey helpful; people live here,the vision of Broadway is more local Business,Burlingame Avenue is the primary source of business revenue;need data about what is there,the percentage of different types of businesses, exact vacancies and where they are located. Concerned about comments about shutters being closed affecting the street,all closed could have the same effect as 10 vacancies;a lot of people talk about wanting a bakery on Broadway. CA noted could do now if there was no seating. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes January 12,2004 Commission discussion continued: If rezone for one landowner,do we need to consider the input of others; sympathetic toward financial institutions and real estate uses,should be permitted,an 18 month trial period should be considered. General office and health service uses should not be allowed at all. Big impact is unlikely in 18 months since it will take anyone several months to put a business together and find a location; banks and real estate offices can be a part of a neighborhood service area. Agree an 18 24 month trial period may be the answer;concerned that may join existing spaces to create offices and get 4,000 SF which would have a big impact;hear testimony that employees create foot traffic,want commercial area that draws people in, lived here 30 years seen Broadway change; all agree on what we would like to see,but cannot compel it to happen; if restrict real estate cannot be certain the vacant space will cause a bakery to locate there. As real estate professional would like to see rent survey,when a space remains vacant it can take years to recoup loss. Believe in free enterprise but more comfortable keeping area as is because not enough information to evaluate impact, article in Independent about Fourth Street area in Berkeley,developer successful because he knew what it took to bring quality tenants to area, that is the approach to take; Broadway has the advantage of having residents nearby, lot of people and merchants concerned about change,and resulting increase in rents which would squeeze out small businesses. There are 5 vacancies in the Broadway area now,3 are in the applicant's building,this means that there are really 2 vacancies and this is not enough to justify a change in uses; applicant reduced his rent he could fill his space from the current use list; should leave zoning uses are is and seek out small businesses. Chair Bojues moved to recommend to the City Council that they deny the request for four additional uses in Broadway Commercial Area. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: Would be willing to consider financial institutions in keeping with the neighborhood"main street"; the current number of vacancies is not enough to justify this kind of change; several commissioners noted they could support financial institutions as apermitted use;given definition, if allow financial institutions should be a conditional use because they are a conditional use in the C-1 district; is there a way to allow the applicant to operate a real estate business from his building without changing the code. CA responded no,would need to identify real estate use as either a permitted or conditional use. C. Osterling made a motion to amended his original motion to recommend to City Council that financial institutions be allowed as a conditional use in the Broadway Commercial Area with a 24 month sunset. C. Auran, second to the original motion, agreed to the amendment. Chair Bojues called for a roll call vote on the motion to recommend to the City Council that they deny the request change from prohibited to permitted real estate, general office and health service uses on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area and that they change from prohibited to a conditional use financial institutions on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area for a period of 24 months. Following the 24 months financial institutions would become,once again,a prohibited use in the Broadway Commercial Area. The motion passed on a roll call vote 5-1-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting, C.Keele absent). It was noted that this action now goes forward to the City Council as a recommendation for their action. This item concluded at 10:15 p.m. 9. CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 25.76 OF THE ZONING CODE REGULATING ADULT-ORIENTED (ENTERTAINMENT)BUSINESS IN THE C4 ZONE— CITY ATTORNEY: LARRY ANDERSON I1 ..,. ,.,,67u ...,.,,.,,., —s..,..— rage c or �W-C44 I� P&RD Schwartz will present the proclamation to Parks Superintendent Tim Richmond on Arbor Day, March 8, 2004, at Bayside Park . b. PRESENTATION TO VEOLIA WASTEWATER AMERICA OPERATING SERVICES (FORMERLY U.S FILTER) FOR SPONSORING-MUSIC IN THE PARK" P&RD Schwartz presented the California Parks&Recreation Society Sponsor Award to Bill Toci representing Veolia Wastewater America Operating Services for their sponsorship of Music in the Park every Sunday in July in Washington Park . 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DENIAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AT 1029 BALBOA AVENUE CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and recommended Council hold a public hearing and take action. , Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing.The following citizens spoke regarding this issue: Mark Hudak, property owner's attorney, 216 Park Road and Charles Schembri, property.owner, Gregory Thomas, 1033 Balboa Avenue, Bill Roberts, 1020 Cortez Avenue,Andrew Stypa, 1024 Cortez Avenue, Greg Hughes, 1608 Balboa Avenue, Bill Gilmartin, 330 Primrose Road.There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. After some discussion, Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission and deny the project because there was too much structure for the buildable area of this lot;the two-foot clearance from the tree canopy is insufficient since the tree will grow; the houses on the two lots should have been designed together so that they were compatible; now have a wall blocking light and air to house next door; and for the reasons the Planning Commission denied this project twice; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, motion failed by roll call vote, 2-3 (Coffey, Galligan and O'Mahony dissented). After further discussion, Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve the project and Resolution No. 17-2004 appealing the Planning Commission's denial finding it to be consistent with the design guidelines based on the recommendations of the design reviewer; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved by roll call vote 3-2 (Baylock and Nagel dissented). b. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1730 r//cityofburlingame.org/council/?action=detail 6/29/200 AMENDING THE ZONING CODE REQUIRED IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ON THE FIRST FLOOR FOR 24 MONTHS CP Monroe requested Council hold a public hearing on the amendment to the Zoning Code required in the Broadway Commercial Area to allow financial institutions on the first floor for 24 months. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. The following citizens spoke regarding this issue: Michael Liberty, attorney representing Garbis and Maida Bezdjlan, 1290 Howard Avenue, Suite 303 ; Tony Ponterio, 1544 Vancouver Avenue . There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilman Coffey made a motion to adopt Ordinance #1730 amending the Zoning code required in the Broadway Commercial Area to allow financial institutions on the first floor for 24 months for the reasons given by the Planning Commission in their recommendation; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor O'Mahony requested DepCC Mortensen to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least 15 days after adoption. C. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1731 TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE REQUIRED FOR THE SECOND UNIT AMNESTY PROGRAM CP Monroe requested Council hold a public hearing on the amendment to the Zoning Code required to amend the Second Unit Amnesty Program. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. The following citizens spoke regarding this issue: Yat Cheong Au, 270 Chapin Lane ; Leigh Tanton, 845 Linden Avenue . There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. After discussion regarding on-site parking issues, Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to support the Planning Commission's recommendation for the reasons they stated and adopt Ordinance No. 1731 to amend the Zoning Code required for the Second Unit Amnesty Program; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. CA Anderson will ask the Planning Commission to consider recommending to Council waiver of the on-site parking requirement if low income housing provided. Mayor O'Mahony requested DepCC Mortensen to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least 15 days after pJ/cityofburlingame.org/counciV?action--detail 6/29/200 BROADWAY BUSINESS EVIPROVEMENT DISTRICT • 1399 Broadway, Burlingame, CA 94010 CP ccQ � r °` September 19, 2003 Margaret Monroe, City Planner RECEIVED M City Hall ' .501 Primrose Road OCT - -12003 Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY Of BURLINGAME je� RE: Change in land use on Broadway. PLANNING DEPT. A _ Dear Meg, dU, In response to your letter of September 12; 2003, The B.I.D. would like to advocate Mr. Bezdjians's proposal to add health services, other office uses, real estate D and financial institutions as permitted or conditional uses on the first floor of Broadway. f When we last discussed this matter the merchants were adamant about not deciding this > ,_p>,o issue until January, chiefly because of the restaurant limitation aspect. Since the o oI i restaurant limitation issue has been separated out from Mr. Bezdjian's proposal, the membership now backs his proposal as evidenced by his petition, as an alternative to a o _ ® 100% ballot of the merchants and/or owners. The membership still wishes to have a - W — 100% ballot in January on the restaurant issue. "' u Zoo I have polled the board of directors on Mr. Bezdjian's proposal and five were pro, one was con (Pro-votes: David Hinkle, Earth beam Foods; Sidney Wu, Broadway Pharmacy; �m v Ross Bruce, AVR Realty, Inc.; Danna Stephens, U-S. Bank;. Dr. Soss, The Broadway eye center). I have also spoke to several merchants on the petition to confirm their Point of M view. The consensus is that these proposed businesses would feed and improve existing businesses on Broadway. M . ® One last note; Mr. Bezdjian's petition states that he would like to eliminate all C-1 zoning !tom restrictions. In fact, the petition's intent was to allow the four, above-mentioned uses, not an elimination of the entire C-I zoning restrictions. The petition was merely loosely word o co inn ntiments expressed in this letter I have acquired some addi "o si atur R ss Bruce, r ent B.I.D. Ao6h s Bezdjiai ro�erty Owned W ® a u � David Hi le, Board of irectors eyr , Merchant ' r C1TY PLANNING DEPARTMENT.MEMO DATE: December 2,2003 RE: Results of a Use Survey of Broadway Merchants and Property Owners, November 2003 In response to an application for an amendment to the uses allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area, all the merchants and property owners in the area were surveyed in November 2003. The request in the application was to allow the following four new uses on the first floor(street level)in the Broadway Commercial Area. The tally of the results of the survey follows. The City mailed a total of 133 questionnaires. All responses were anonymous. These were divided among 37(28%) property owners,94(71%) merchants and 2(11%)requests by phone. Of the 133 mailed, 57 or 43%were returned: The typical return for a mailed questionnaire is 25%. The 57 respondents broke out compared to total responses as follows: Property owners 13 (23%) Merchants 36 (63%) Owner/Merchant 5 (90/0) Not Reported 3 (5%) _Respondents were given three choices for each of the four first floor (street level) uses proposed(financial institutions,real estate,health services and general office uses). These choices were to allow the use without a public hearing,to allow the use but require a public hearing,and to not allow the use. The raw data is shown in the table below: Yes,without Uses hearing Yes,with hearing No Not marked TOTAL financial hLsfitubons 43 75% 8 14% 5 9'/° 1 57 eal Estate 42 740% 6 11% 9 15% 0 57 ealth Services 38 67% 11 19% 8 14% 0 57 eneral Office Uses. 41 (72%) 8 (14%) 8 (14%) 0 57 Results of a Use Survey of Broad►6ay Merchants and Property Owners,November 2003 December 2,.2003 In the case of each use the majority of the respondents felt that the use should be allowed without a public hearing. The affirmative responses without a hearing ranged from a low of 67%for health services to a high of 75%for financial institutions. The most"no"votes were cast for real estate uses on the first floor,9 or 15%. Health service use was the use that drew the highest number of responses for requiring a public hearing, 11 or 19%. Comments from the Survey Cards: Space was left on the survey card for respondents to make open-ended comments. Attached is the list of the comments divided by those from property owners, from merchants and from those who both own a property and are a merchant in the area. You may wish to review these. In brief summary. ➢ The property owners who commented seemed to favor the addition of more use options for Broadway. It was noted that only one of the properties on Broadway at California is in the designated Broadway Commercial' Area, suggesting that the city might consider adding the other comer property to the Commercial Area designation. ➢ The merchants observations were more varied: no restrictions try free enterprise; Broadway is a retail district preserve it, keep- the local flavor; too many food businesses, not enough of the needed.food businesses; lack of parking; enough real estate and financial institutions. The property owners who are also merchantsresponded that Broadway will not change its character as a combination restaurant service area; any legal business should be allowed to operate;a conditional use permit(public hearing)for the four uses is a good idea. -Thanks to all those who took the time to fill out their questionnaires and return them. Your input in the form of these surveyresults will be forwarded to the Planning Commission along with the staffreport when they consider the applicant's request for a change to the uses allowed on the first floor(at the street level)in the Broadway Commercial Area. All merchants and property owners who received a survey card will also receive a public notice of the Planning Commissions hearing on this matter. 2 COMMENTS FROM PROPERTY OWN>RS 1) "Fill up the spaces" 2) "A healthy mix of retail,service,restaurant,and office merchants leads to a.successful downtown. I believe we should restrict street level to 25°x.=30%for office/5nancWheal estate or healthcare uses." 3) "Store fronts—the majority—are small. It has little impact as who goes in. Notice the Chevron gas station at the corner of Broadway and California is not in the Broadway District: It does not look right for a property facing Broadway not to be included in the Broadway Commercial Area." 4) "No restriction,no conditional use" COMMENTS FROM MERCHANTS 1) "No restrictions,no conditional use"(6 surveys has this comment from merchants) 2) `Broadway has too many restrictions" 3) `Broadway is a retail business district. Please preserye it as such. Turning into an office park is a sad way to go.You can't take retail.businesses and expect them to survive on the P floor of an office building for example. Retail space is arare commodity. Please preserve it on Broadway" . 4). "Don't let what happened to Burlingame Avenue happen on Broadway. The local flavor is lost. 5) 'More retail—not real estate and financial institutions" 6) "Let's try free enterprise and see what happens" 1) "We need all kinds of business on Broadway besides food business!!!There are too many food businesses!! We need something else!! 8) "We need more like bakery type,healthy juice store instead of coffee and too many beauty salons" 9) `Broadway is hurting badly!!Anything that can potentially promote foot traffic is welcomed and encouraged!!" 10) "Parking or lack thereof is the issue" l 1) "Of the ones checked`no'-we have enough already"(checked no to real estate and financial institutions) COMMEMM FROM OWNER/MERCHANTS' 1) "Please,please this street has not been the same since restrictions" (checked yes to all uses without a hearing) 2) `Broadway is and always will be a combination restaurant service use area" 3) "Commercial area should allow operation of any legal business" 4) "I think a conditional use permit for these uses is a good.idea" • - .rd:0177;p� _:�_; :.. -, _ ���_<:'i: : _ .. - t-.. ;a,P a;:. . ,... - . .. .. GAIL .-. .. _ `T•.:-. . .. .. . ... .. . ^•3,T .. ._S. , - •,fa :_ _, ..' �'n, yj i:j,f-{T f1: ..3c s . -T afBur lgan'ie CrrY HAtI,sol PRRv1ROSE Roan TEL(650)553-7150 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLDOG96K CALIFORNIA 99010-3997 FAX: (650)696-379D November 6, 2003 Dear Broadway Merchant and/or:.Property MIMI*� TheCity has received a request t¢.change the-land use-;regulations.n0heBroadway Comfnercial'Area. (Map on t '.the reverse side). The request is to modify tl , oning regulations to'allow rW estate offices,_financial institutions, health services and general-©ffimbse's on thefirsk floor throughoufithe Broadway Commercial Area. The City Council has askedPlarning Stai€to do a survey of the merchants a6d_property owners in the area to determine your opinion about whether these additional u should b allowed�the Broadway Comnierciai Area. Please note your thoughts on the enclosed card and drop rC n the*mA by 14bvember Z0 2003 The zoning code defines what types of businemes.ard allowed in each ofthe.categories requested to be added: ■ Real Estate uses include: real estate broker or agent;:title insurance,real estate investment,real . estate management,real estate developer or similar business. ■ Financial Institution uses include: a statelicensed.-hank,-national.:bank, savings and loan association,savings bank,Federal.credit union,state-heensed credit'='09,industrial loan company or finance company and nioiteyes associat$d with them.. Health Service uses include .o# ,cliniq laboratory or any other facility engaged in furnishing medical, surgical or other services ificlude a physician, dentist,`dental tccitnician, chiropractor, acupressurist, acupuncturist,rapist,counselor or-other similar occupation General Office uses include--z.*,a room or group oils rooms used:for conducting the affairs of a business,: profes on , sen+ _, industry:or government, woutd`include among other businesses accountants,e-commerce businesses, dministraftve end centers for other businesses, accountants,tax preparers,attorneys;etc. -With the provisionsofthe zoning code,some uses are simply allowed without the need for a.public hearing or any other planning permit. These uses are called"permitted uses" Other uses are s Aod to'a public hearing before the Planning Commission in order to.determine.ifthe proposed use,given its size and intensity, appropriate s for the specific location. After a public hearing so,isuch a use thePla Ting-Commission is able to impose conditions on the use to ensure that it is conducted in an appropriate way. These uses are called"conditional uses." Finally, some uses are simply-.not alloyed in a particular zoning district :These uses are called.`�rolnbited uses". The added first floor uses proposed in the present request(financial institutions,Treat estaitey health services on the first floor,and general office uses)would shift fourof the uses which are currently"prohibited",e.g.not allowed, in the Broadway Commercial Area to either"pernitte(r uses(no public hearing)or"conditional"uses(public hearing and Planning Commission action required): As a businessperson and/or property owner in the Broady o Commercial Area the Planning Commission and Cary Council need your input on this change_ Please fill-`6d-the attached postcard and maid.it to the.Planning Department atyour earliest convenience but no later`thai November-23,2003. You will receive a public notice about the public hearing date on this matter. If you hmhtaxq questions regarding this survey please call Meg Monroe, 558-7250, at the Planning Department_ Thank you for your participation in this important survey_ We look forward to your continued-participation`as the future of the Broadway Commercial Area is dis6ussed`at the public Bearing You can make a difference in the future of the Broadway Commercial Area! - .. s.J s,•s Yli� `a�f�r„E. -_: -'• . . Ali AV 3 - a. .. . ... '-,- •_�_ � �' t� 0 � �- .;fir � ..,__ _ -- . em 26 i - _• O fl Me 3 _Q AWwc_ BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA ORDINANCE 127-2 Item# g Action Calendar City of Burlingame Action on Request to Add Financial Institutidns, Real Estate Offices, Health Services and General Office Uses on the Erst Floor as Permitted Or Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area Meeting Date: January 12, 2004 Planning Commission Action: The proposed request to add four land uses on the first floor to the Broadway Commercial Area is a change to zoning, therefore the Planning Commission's action is a,recommendation to City Council- The Commission is being asked to make two decisions as a part of its recommendation to the City Council: 1. Are the requested changes in land use consistent with the General Plan; and 2. Does the Planning Commission approve the changes to the land uses requested in the Broadway Commercial Area? In the Commission's recommendation to the City Council you have the opportunity to determine ifall four uses should be permitted or some should be conditional or some continue to be prohibited;the Commission may also determine if whatever change in uses is recommended should"sunset"i.e. should be allowed for a stated period of time then revert to the current regulation(prohibition). CEQA Compliance: Ifthe present request to add financial institutions,real estate offices,health services and general office uses on the first floor is found to be consistent with the Burlingame General Plan then it appears that'the addition ofthe four requested uses are consistent with CEQA and no additional environmental action seems required. Request: Garbis and Maida Bezdjian,the owners of the property at 1199 Broadway,have requested that four land uses, currently prohibited in the Broadway Commercial Area (shown on the attached map), should be allowed on the first/ground floor either as permitted of conditional uses. The four uses are: financial institutions,real estate offices,health services and general office uses. History: In 1969 the City of Burlingame adopted its General Plan,including the Land Use Element. At the time the General Plan was adopted financial institutions,real estate offices,health services and general office uses were all allowed on the first floor on Broadway. In the General Plan,the Broadway area was described: "Broadway Center: Outlets in this center now provide convenience goods and consumer services for residents in the general vicinity. Although many of the businesses here are well established and apparently successful enterprises, better circulation,more parking, and better urban design would enhance this center. Separation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation and reduction of through-traffic on Broadway is needed. Adiion on Request to Add FwanciallnsdW&ns,Real Estate Offices,Health Services and General Offce Uses on the First Floor as Permil ed or Conditional Uses in the Broadway CommercialArea January12,2004 Recommendations for improving the traffic circulation pattern are presented in the Circulation Element. These include a grade separation for the railroad tracks and improvement of the Broadway-Bayshore Freeway interchange to relieve traffic congestion at that point. Consideration should be given to creating a pedestrian precinct on Broadway in the section between Laguna Avenue and Capuchin Avenue. Additional off-street parking access to such lots from the new streets indicated on the plan diagram. An urban design plan should be developed for this center to provide more detailed guidance for future changes." (Land Use Element, page L-5) And the Goals and Policies established.for the Broadway Center were as follows: VI Goal: To encourage mixed commercial uses to provide a transition between districts fully commercial or residential and to provide housing opportunities for those dependent on transit and desiring a pedestrian-oriented living environment. Policy L(G): The City should retain three general categories of commercial uses: Shopping and Service, service and Special Sales, and Office Use; as well as Waterfront Commercial along the waterfront area. Policy L(14): Broadway Center: outlets provide convenience goods and consumer services for residents in the general vicinity: 1) Better circulation, more parking and better urban design would enhance this center including separation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation and reduction of through- traffic on Broadway. 2) Consider creating a pedestrian precinct on Broadway in the section between Laguna Avenue and Capuchin Avenue. 3) Provide off street parking to the rear of present business outlets fronting on Broadway with access to such lots from new streets. 4) Develop an urban design plan to provide more detailed guidance for future changes. The Land Use Element adopted in 1969 was broadly implemented by the C-1 zoning district and all the uses, permitted and conditional in the C-1 district were allowed in the`Broadway Center". In 1984 the Broadway Commercial Area was created to facilitate implementation of the General Plan and the map of the area adopted. Asa part of adopting the Broadway Commercial Area the city also limited the uses in the area by prohibiting banks,building and loan associations,financial institutions and offices on the first floor (this would include medical offices). Later the prohibited uses on Broadway were expanded to include real estate and psychic services;:m addition food establishments were limited in number and by type. However, it should be noted that all of these uses were originally allowed in the General Plan. The changes to the permitted uses over time occurred at the request of the local business operators and property owners with the intention of promoting retail sales of convenience goods and customer services for those living in the area and supporting a separation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation_The General Plan was not amended as uses were restricted because it was thought that the changes to the land uses were 2 - Action on Request to Add Fwancial Ins&;u&ns,Real Estate Offices,Hed&Services and General Office Uses on the Frst Floor as Permitted or Coniional Uses in the Broadway CommerelalArea January 12,2004 consistent with the planned goals, policies,role and function of the Broadway Center. Zoning Changes Presently the four uses requested to be allowed on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area are prohibited. Since California law does not permit "use variances", there is no way these uses can be approved in the Broadway Commercial Area except to amend the zoning code and establish them as either permitted or conditional uses_ As it now stands the zoning for the Broadway Commercial Area builds on the C-1 zoning district regulations. This means that all uses permitted or conditional in the C-1 zone are allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area except as limited by the provisions of the Broadway Commercial Area, CS 25.36.041. The current Broadway Commercial Area zoning provisions make some currently permitted uses in the C-1 district conditional uses and prohibit some uses which are permitted or conditional uses in the C-1. In a figurative sense the Broadway Commercial Area regulations"overlay"the C-1 district and provide for additional land use limitations. The requested changes in land uses would take four uses in the Broadway Commercial Area from the prohibited uses and make them permitted. The commission can determine if each of these uses should be permitted as a matter of right (e.g. without public hearing or Commission review) or if each should be allowed as a conditional use only. A conditional use is one that is reviewed by the Planning Commission and upon review can be "conditioned" or limited so that the proposed use .can best addresses the circumstances of the particular location,e.g. parking availability,pedestrian accessibility,common business hours, layout to be consistent with existing street frontages, etc. . Presently two of the four uses requested are conditional uses in the C-1 district: financial institutions and real estate. Health service uses on the first floor or above are prohibited in the C-1 district.However,health service uses are currently allowed above the first floor in Broadway Commercial Area as a conditional use. General office uses are prohibited on the first floor and above in the C-1 district except in the area bounded by El Camino Real-Murchison-California Drive-Dufferin where they are permitted.It would be consistent_ administratively to have uses which are conditional in the C-1 district also be conditional in the Broadway Commercial Area;however,there is no requirement that this be the case. The Commission may determine the designation of each of the four uses. The choices are: permitted, conditional use, prohibited. The attached memo Annotation of Requested Changes to Uses Allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area, December 30,2003,reviews the zoning options. Survey of Merchants and.Property Owners In October 2003,the City Council directed staff to do a survey of the property owners and merchants in the Broadway Commercial Area. The purpose of the survey was to obtain a reading of how they felt about the requested change in uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. Staff mailed 133 questionnaires and 43% were returned. Almost two-thirds (63%) of those responding were merchants_ The questionnaire addressed each of the four land uses asking if the use should be allowed to occur(yes or no)_ For the `des" option there were two independent choices, "yes without a public hearing" and`yes with a public hearing". The question was asked in this manner to measure which of these uses the respondents might feel 3 Action on Request to AddFetancidInstbi ons,Real Estate Offices,HeaM Services and General Offwe Uses on the Fust Floor as Permi"or Conditional Uses in the Broadway Conunercaial Area January 12,2004 Should be conditional rather than permitted uses. The results in summary were: 75%of the respondents felt that financial institutions should be allowed on the first floor ; 141/o of the respondents felt that financial institutions should be a conditional use. Total supporting adding financial institutions on the first floor was 89%. For real estate uses 74%felt that this use should be allowed, 11% of those responding felt that real estate uses should be conditional. Total supporting adding real estate uses on the first floor was 85%. For health services on the first floor 67%of the respondents felt they should be allowed; 19'/o of the respondents felt they should be conditional uses. Total supporting adding health service uses on the first floor was 86%. Finally,for General office uses on the first floor 72%responded that they should be allowed,but 14%of those responding felt that they should be a conditional use. Total supporting adding general office uses on the first floor was 86%. The majority of those responding to the survey felt that all four uses should be allowed as permitted uses. Two-thirds to three quarters felt that the four uses should be allowed as a matter of right(no public hearing required). Of the four uses health services was the one that the most respondents wanted to be a conditional use,29%. The tabulation ofthe survey results and the letter which accompanied the survey are included in the packet for your reference. Also included with the survey is a compilation of all the comments made on the survey form. These comments indicate that the property owners are most interested in the change in uses to reduce vacant store fronts. The merchant's responses are less consistent: On the one hand they want fewer land use restrictions; on the other hand they want the local serving retail business district preserved Stab'Comments: At the study meeting the Planning Commission raised two issues: (1)the need for additional data from the applicant to address issues such;as changes in traffic circulation and volume as well as parking demand;and (2)could this change be"tried" for a period of time. The applicant has not responded to the planning commission's request for additional studies of the impacts which might be caused by the requested change in land uses.He did submit a letter dated October.15,2003, indicating that he would support a 24 month trial period for the four uses on the first floor. If the Commission determines that the requested land use changes are consistent with the present General Plan for the Broadway Center, such studies are not necessary to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act. In fact if the action were found to be consistent with the General Plan, no CEQA document seems necessary since allowing some or all of the uses requested would be allowing uses which were permitted or conditional uses in this area at the time the General Plan was adopted e.g.no intensification of land use_ If the Commission feels that the additional studies and data is necessary to make your determination on whether these uses should be allowed on the first floor on Broadway as it exists today, then the lack of the information may affect the direction of your vote on the request to add the four uses on the first floor. On the second issue of whether these four uses could be"tried"for a period of time,the answer is yes. On several occasions the city has enacted zoning regulations which"sunset"e.g- expire on a given date. The time period for the expiration can be recommended by the Planning Commission. Since it often takes property owners time for different types of uses to become aware of new opportunities resulting from 4 Arlon on Request to Add Fnnnancial institution;Real Estate Offices,Health Services and General Offree Uses on the Fust Floor as Permitted or Conditional Uses in the Broadway CommercialArea January l2,2004 zoning use changes, sunset clauses usually go for at least 18 months to 2 years. However,the Commission may choose whatever time frame they wish. Staff would point out that when using a sunset option, those uses which to come into the area during the period of permission will become nonconforming after the sunset of the regulation. If the use is permitted at a given site one business after another of the same type can continue indefinitely at that location;but it cannot expand or intensify. The nonconformity is only lost if the nonconforming use is replaced by permitted use. If the use at a given site is a conditional use,then it may be replaced by another business of the same type which is willing to operate under the conditions established for that use on that property.-A business which is a nonconforming conditional use may not ask for amendments to its conditional use permit that increase or intensify the use after the permitted status is lost. These factors should be considered when the Commission determines whether various uses should be tried as permitted or conditional. Margaret Monroe City Planner Attachments Map of the Broadway Commercial Area Annotation of Requested Changes to Uses Allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area, December 30, 2003 Application for C-1 zoning Change, Garbis and Maida Bezdjian with attachments Garbis Bezdjian letter October 15, 2003, amending application Monroe letter to Mr. and Mrs. Garbis Bezdjian, October 31, 2003, requesting additional studies wth attachments Planning Commission Minutes, September 8, 2003 Monroe letter to Broadway Business Improvement District Board Members, September 12, 2003 Monroe letter to Garbis and Maida Bezdjian, August 25, 2003, explaining Commission direction with Planning Commission minutes of July 28,2003 attached Ross Bruce letter to Planning Department, July 9, 2003 Results of Use Survey of the Broadway Merchants and Property Owners,November 2003,Planning Department Memo,December 2,2003, with survey letter attached Mrs. Manal Arikat, Golden West Diamond Corporation,December 10,2003,regarding parking in the Broadway Commercial Area Notice of Public Hearing, published January 2, 2004; notices mailed to all property owners and merchants were mailed December 31, 2003; notices posted in Commercial Area December 31, 2003. 5 �'�•Q Q °O '� ©. � �. �' © .g. Y � r n Thy,. is lO. r t i4r g ca 14 0 .(YMOYt7Y0 TA 'head E r �(a� r a 'tirr rr K/r or ri ' r/ alt ai ri m, m ec w '+rr t ■,' 3 o ter r rr, ^ '. �r; w a - ,a-t'• t b/ /i ' t! ri rr e r Y 'my 911.iNlNd 1. O l �Q Qr Or p ii ��, Q, � , 0 ©' �i•Or ' Q ,t.0 ft i 1 � r Q, r w u u u , a/ r/ n 3 V60 ` S60 060 ! t , , © .Q. ® © 0 !l ► or December 30, 2003 Annotation of Requested Changes to Uses Allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area Text additions are shown in "italics". Text removals are shown as sinkethoughss. These revisions make some assumptions which the Commission can adjusted as shown in the annotations. 25.36.041 Broadway commercial area. (a) Permitted uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. Except as otherwise provided in this section,uses permitted in the C-1 district are permitted uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. (b)Conditional uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. In addition to the conditional uses allowed in the C-1 district,the following uses are only allowed in the Broadway Commercial,Area pursuant to a conditional use permit: (1)Food establishments; (2)Graphics arts and design retail businesses on the first floor only; (3)Personal trainer and assessment businesses on the first floor or above;and (4)Health services on the first floor or above the first floor only; (5)Finwsdal institutions on the first floor or above; (6)Real estate on the first floor or above;and (7)All other offices on the first floor or above. Annotation: its suggested ttwt all four uses be added as conditional uses for the following reasons. Health services are currently a conditional use on the second floor, therefore, it is consistent to make them conditional uses on the first floor. Financial institutions are a conditional use in the C-1 zoning district which is the base district for the area. It is consistent to make these uses conditional in the Broadway Commercial area. If they were to be made permitted uses section a above would need to be amended to read 'Permitted uses in the Broadway Commercial Area includng financial institutions on the first floor". Real estate uses are also conditional uses in the C-1 zone,so again for consistency it make sense,if they are to be allowed, to mdse them conditional uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. If real estate uses were to be added as permitted uses the phrase above including financial institutions would be amended to add real estate uses. Finally all other office uses or general office uses are permitted uses in the C4 zone only in the area bounded by C Camino Real-Murchison Drive- California Drive and Dufferin Avenue, in all other cases they are prohibited in the C-1 zone. For consistency the general office uses could be added to the permitted list along with financial institutions and real estate uses or they could be a conditional use. in the case of general office uses a conditional use seems more appropriate,since the reason such uses were prohibited in the C-1 zoning district was because of the varying impacts they have on parking and traffic The city has discovered over the yeas that an attorneys office,for example, may have 2 people in 1,000 SF or as many as 5 people in the same amount of space. The impacts of the same use can be substantially different. The same rational applies to real estate offices. In the Burlingame Avenue area a number of Annotation of Requested Cbanges to Uses Allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area December 309 2003 years ago, staff discovered a real estate office with one person per 90 SF and others with 2 people per 1000 SF. Real Estate offices often have many agents who have desks at the office but spend much of their time in the field; however, weekly meetings bring all the agents into the office at one time for a block of time and this has a significant impact on parking. This was a serious problem in the City Hall area in the late 1980's. The impacts of health services on parking and circulation depend upon the type of service being offered and the tum over of people being seen e.g. the number of people the provider sees in an hour. Financial institutions such as banks or savings and loans have similar impacts, but also need available, high tumover parking on site or near by. Taken as a whole, and given the recent complaint about lack of parking in the Broadway area (see Mrs. Manal Ankat, Golden West Diamond Corporation, letter December 10, 4003), it seems it would be advisable to evaluate each application for its localized impacts before the business becomes established Conditions can also insure that subsequent tenants conform to the same limitations if they tum out to be effective. (bc) Prohibited uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. In addition to the uses prohibited in the C-1 district, the following uses are prohibited in the Broadway Commercial Area: floor;(1) Financial institutions; (3) All other- effiees on the first and (4) Psychic services. Add CS 25.36.041 (d) (d) The following uses shall become prohibited uses in the Broadway Commercial Area on October 1, 2005:financial institutions on the first floor, real estate on the first floor or above, health services an the first floor, and all other office uses on the firstfloor. Annotation: This section, if adopted would cause the additional uses requested to be allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area to return to prohibited status 18 months after the charge becomes effective. This would allow a trial period for these four uses on the first floor, during which the city could evaluate the effect of them on the functioning of the Broadway Commercial Area. The sunset clause can be over. ridden by the City Council amending the code to remove it Generally this occurs prior to the expkation date. This action can be initiated by the merchants and/or property owners in the Broadway Commercial Area It should be noted that any of these uses which are opened in the Broadway Commercial Area as a result of changing the code would be allowed to continue as nonconforming uses should the permission for the use "sunset'. Also it should be noted that an existing nonconforming use can be replaced by the same nonconforming use at the same site. The nonconformity does not go away,until the use on the site is changed. Any subsequent nonconforming use would have to abide by the conditions set out in the conditional use permit issued while tine use was allowed. Changes to conditions of approval for uses which become prohibited are not allowed. Drafted: 2 City of Burlingame Item# Request Adding Financial Institutions,Real Estate Offices,Health Study Calendar Services and General Office Uses on the First Floor to Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area Meeting Date: July28,2003 Planning Commission Action: Review the proposed changes requested by the applicant to Chapter 25.36.041 Broadway commercial area overlay zone and direct staff regarding: ➢ Is the requested change consistent with the General Plan; and ➢ Are the requested changes to the zoning clear;what clarifications and/or changes might Commission suggest. Request: Garbis and Maida Bezdjian,property owners at 1199 Broadway,have requested that the zoning regulations for the Broadway commercial area overlay zone be amended to allow the following uses: health services on the first floor; financial institutions on the first floor and above;real estate offices on the first floor and above; and all other offices on the first floor. These uses are currently prohibited in the Broadway commercial area at the locations requested. (Garbis and Maida Bezdjian letter, June 2, 2003) To grant this request the Commission must find that with the requested use changes,the function of the Broadway commercial area will still be consistent with the General Plan; the zoning regulations for the Broadway commercial area must be amended to allow these uses as conditional uses in the Broadway overlay zone; and the action must include appropriate CEQA review. Environmental Review,CEQA Typically the zoning changes which the Planning Commission sees are minimal in terms of CEQA because they will not drive a lot of new construction or physical change; they are consistent with the General Plan designation for the area affected; and because they,apply to already developed areas and generally allow less use or re-configure existing or similar uses. In the case of this application,the request will expand the first floor use opportunities in the entire Broadway commercial area. The change will probably not encourage much demolition and new construction because the area is fully developed now and the lots are small,making lot combination for much larger, substantial office buildings very expensive. However,the precise CEQA requirement will be determined after Commission study and the Commission has indicated their concerns and issues identified with this request, including compliance with the General Plan. Zoning Changes Required Presently,the four uses(financial institution,real estate,health services and other office uses) requested to be amendod to the conditional uses in the Broadway commercial area overlay zone are prohibited in the overlay zone. In addition,health services,real estate and financial institutional uses are prohibited in the more general C-I zone which underlies the Broadway commercial area overlay. An overlay zone is created to further amend allowed uses in order to support or create a unique area Planning Commission Study Staff Report: Request Adding Financial Institutions,Real Estate Offices,Health Service an and General Office Uses on the First Floor to Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area July 28,2003 within a broader zoning district. As a result,the decision to modify the zoning should be based on city policy for the future of the Broadway commercial area; and whether these changes will facilitate the achievement of that future. Recently there has been amove by the merchants and property owners in the Broadway commercial area to break the longtime connection in the zoning code between-Broadway and the Burlingame Avenue Commercial areas. Dating from the 1970's the merchants and property owners on Broadway have wanted all the benefits and protections offered to Burlingame Avenue Subarea A. Recently, however,they supported an action to allow health services above the first floor in the Broadway commercial area. Health service use above the first floor is a use that was prohibited in the Burlingame commercial area in the 1970's. It was felt at that time that offices, and medical offices in particular, had a negative impact on the pedestrian shopper flow and on the retail function of the business areas, as well as on the availability of parking. Staff saw the request this Spring to allow health services as a movement away from Broadway becoming a central business district and an acceptance of the area's functional role as a neighborhood commercial center. The reason that the acceptance of medical office uses was so indicative of change was that medical office uses have a high employee to office space ratio with a long term parking impact and generate a lot of destination oriented, one and two hour parking patients,who consume the high demand, close in retail parking spaces without generating retail foot traffic. These are impacts counter to the central business district function described as: "One generally applicable principle is that(the central business district) shopping district should be kept as compact as possible to encourage pedestrian traffic among stores, thus facilitating comparison shopping and impulse buying...for similar reasons store frontage should be continuous,with minimum interruptions by parking lots,office buildings or hotels without ground floor stores, or by banks, airline ticket offices and other non-retail uses." (New Illustrated Book of Development Definitions,page 250). The current request would take Broadway steps further away from its vision to be a second pedestrian oriented central business district and could bring it closer to its current functional role as a neighborhood commercial center. Based on tie assumption that the demand for the financial institution,real estate,health service and other office uses in the Broadway area does not take over the majority of the ground floor retail space. Too many of these office type uses located on Broadway will create a lot of"dead"space separating and isolating the active retail uses and could kill the convenience and personal service retail businesses in the area. The change in day time employee population with long term parking in the area may benefit lunch time trade at restaurants to the detriment of personal services such as beauty parlors which need two to four hour parking spaces, and generate regular customers for convenience shopping services in the area. This decision to modify the zoning to allow financial institutions,real estate offices,health services on the first floor and all other office uses bn the first floor will be a watershed action in defining the future of the Broadway commercial area. Once the regulation is established and the pattern is set, it will be hard to change in the future. Reversing the decision in the future will make all the uses permitted as a result of implementation of this present request non-conforming. Uses tend to continue 2 Planning Commission Study StaJfReport: Request Adding Financial Institutions,Beat Estate Offices,Health Service an and General Office Uses on the First Floor to Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area July 28,2003 until there is no market demand for them. In fact,such uses thrive by becoming nonconforming,since the competition is reduced. Since Broadway is not the city's central business district;its function is that of a neighborhood commercial/shopping area. In the literature a neighborhood commercial area is defined as: "A commercial area of approximately fifty thousand square feet,often located on an arterial or collector street,providing convenience goods and services for residents or the surrounding area.,, Characteristics of a neighborhood shopping area include: - Neighborhood business area usually serves residents within five minutes driving time; - Stores include food,drugs,hardware,clothing and sundries; - Services include barber and beauty parlors,cleaners,and so on. - The major characteristic of such an area is its scale,it usually does not contain any large stores designed to serve several neighborhoods. - Unless they have a high volume of walk-in trade,neighborhood commercial areas need a higher ratio of parking lot area to store spaces. - Pedestrians may be limited to nothing more than paved walks in front of stores. Source:Moskowitz and Lindbloom,New Illustrated Book of Development Definitions. Compliance with the General Plan The Land Use and Circulation Elements of the Burlingame General Plan were adopted in 1969. Since that time the Plan has been amended with other elements,particularly Conservation(1973). The elements set out the city's policy toward development for the city as a whole and in its various areas. At the time the General Plan was adopted and amended the Broadway commercial area was an important point of identity to its surrounding residential neighborhoods and served as a center for convenience shopping and congregation. The Plan set out certain expectations for the Broadway commercial area. hi reviewing this request for a change in zoning the Commission must determine if adding financial services,real estate offices, health services, and other general office uses on the first floor through out the Broadway commercial area is consistent with the following policies and objectives: - The role of Broadway in the city's economy; - With the functional efficiency,character and quality of Broadway; - Provides an effective transition between retail commercial and residential so that it works to strengthen the residential character of the city; - Continues to provide convenience goods and customer service; - Enhances Broadway including separation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation and reduction of through traffic;and - Stabilizes the current transition where changes are occurring accompanied by signs 3 Planning Commission Study Staff Report: Request Adding Financial Institutions, Real Estate Offices, Health Service an and General Office Uses on the First Floor to Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area July 28, 2003 of decline or increased intensity of use (conservation element), key is compatibly between commercial enterprises and residential uses. For more detail on the precise wording of the applicable Goal and Policies in the General Plan regarding the Broadway commercial area see the attached Memo on Staff Notes on Requested Changes to the Broadway Overlay Regulations, July 9, 2003. If Planning Commission feels that the requested changes to land uses within the Broadway commercial area are appropriate, but that they are not consistent with the development policies and objectives set out in the General Plan, then this action will also require a General Plan amendment. Attachments: Staff Notes On: Requested Changes to the Broadway Overlay Regulations, Staff annotations and notes, July 9, 2003, with references. Garbis and Maida Bezdjian, letter June 2, 2003, to Mayor and City Council U:\pcstaffrept\PC SR 2003\StudyAddOfficeUseBrodwyPCSR 7.7.03.doc 4 ter`"TY STAFF REPORT BUiAME AGENDA ITEM# � •, MTG. DATE 2.17.04 To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBmrrrED BY DATE: FEBRUARY 4,2004 APPROVED FRoM: CITY PLANNER BY sunjEcr:INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO ADD USES TO THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA, ZONED C-1 BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. CITY COUNCIL ACTION: City Council should consider first the applicant's request to allow on the first floor four uses presently prohibited in the Broadway Commercial area. These uses are:financial institutions,real estate,medical offices and general office uses. Action alternatives are: ➢ If Council should determine that any or all of these four uses should be considered as permitted or conditional uses in the Broadway Commercial Area,Council should direct staff accordingly and introduce an ordinance to amend the zoning requirements for the Broadway Commercial Area. ➢ If Council should decide that no change to the existing zoning in the Broadway Commercial Area is appropriate at this time;and the four uses should remain prohibited,Council should direct staff. No public hearing is required and the matter is closed. If Council should direct any change to the current zoning requirements for the Broadway Commercial area, Council should set a public hearing and second reading of an ordinance. Staff would recommend that this item be set for public hearing at your meeting on March 1,2004. Introduction requires the following council actions. A. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. Request: Garbis and Maida Bezdjian,the owners of the property at 1199 Broadway,have requested that four land uses, currently prohibited in the Broadway Commercial Area(shown on the attached map),should be allowed on the first/ground floor either as permitted or conditional uses. The four uses are: financial institutions,real estate offices,health services and general office uses. The applicant stated no preference for whether the uses would be allowed as permitted or conditional uses. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO ADD USES TO THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA, ZONED C-I BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. FEBRUARYI7,2004 The request was reviewed by the Planning Commission at study on December 8, 2003. The public hearing and action was taken by the Commission on January 12, 2004. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council consider allowing only one of the uses, financial institutions and that they be allowed only as a conditional uses. In addition they felt that financial institutions should only be allowed for a trial period of 24 months. Commissioners felt that the remaining three uses requested should continue to be prohibited on the first floor. These uses to be prohibited are: real estate, health services and general offices. It should be noted that health services and general office uses currently are allowed above the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area. The Commission proposed that these uses continue to be allowed above the first floor. In their action the Commission found that the portion of the request they could recommend, financial uses for 24 months, was consistent with the existing General Plan as it describes the character of the Broadway Commercial Area and for that reason their recommendation was not subject to CEQA review. (see below) General Plan Compliance The General Plan Land Use Element, adopted in 1969, allowed on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area the uses presently requested to be allowed on the first floor: financial institutions,real estate(offices), health services, and general office uses. Since 1969 the zoning has been changed in the Broadway Commercial Area to prohibit these four uses on the first floor, however,the land use description in the General Plan was not amended for the Broadway Commercial Area, as a result these uses may be allowed once again as either a permitted or conditional use without amending the General Plan Land Use Element. Environmental Review/CEQA Compliance If the present request to add financial institutions,real estate offices,health services and general office uses on the first floor is found to be consistent with the Burlingame General Plan, then it appears that the addition of the four requested uses in the Broadway Commercial Area is consistent with CEQA and no additional environmental action seems required. Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on January 12, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 5-1-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting, C. Keele absent) to recommend to the City Council that the zoning code be amended for the Broadway Commercial area to allow financial institutions as a conditional use for 24 months and that real estate,health service and general office uses remain prohibited on the first floor. In their discussion about their recommendation the commissioners noted: it is surprising that a space would go two years without a tenant and wondered if this was the result of market restrictions or market pricing,because believe if a space were truly below market price it would be occupied; did own research of residents west of Broadway and employees in the Airport Blvd. area, do not want dental offices, financial institutions on Broadway,they want more retail; Broadway impacted by genesis of larger full service businesses, community loyalty has drifted away,now need to infuse quality merchants to draw people,not want windows curtained with no view into stores; feel health services would impact negatively, don't generate much foot traffic,patients occupy parking for longer than retail user, and these uses would occupy a lot of street frontage on the first floor, questions is how would each of these uses generate pedestrian activity?Asked for more information from applicant so could understand the difference in pedestrian activity generated by each use but.the applicant did not provide. Commission continued: Could do a trial but unwilling to do that without knowing how fast the impact might occur,would it result in 40%of the first floor areas being occupied by office during the trial period,which then become nonconforming thus potentially permanent; input of residents and merchants is mixed, survey was helpful,but people who live here's vision of Broadway is more of a local serving business area, 2 IN.—ROD UCE ORDINANCE TO ADD USES TO THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA, ZONED GI BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. FEBRUARY17,2004 Burlingame Avenue is the primary downtown; concerned about uses with "closed shutters"on the first floor, could have the same impact as10 vacancies; feel that financial institutions and real estate uses should be allowed for 18 months because they are apart of a neighborhood service area,health services and general offices should not be allowed on the first floor at all,want a commercial area which draws people in; concerned that existing tenant spaces or properties will be merged and larger, first floor office spaces(greater than 4,000 SF) created which would have a negative impact on the character of the retail commercial area; developers are successful because they know what they need to do to bring quality tenants into an area,that is the approach needed on Broadway; Broadway has an advantage as a retail area,people live nearby; in addition lots of merchants and people are concerned about this change and that it will increase rents which will squeeze out small businesses. Of the 5 vacancies in the Broadway area now, three are in the applicant's building, that means there are only 2 vacancies and that is not enough to justify a change in the uses in the commercial area; zoning should be left as it is and small business tenants should be sought out. BACKGROUND: History: In 1969 the City of Burlingame adopted its General Plan, including the Land Use Element. At the time the General Plan was adopted financial institutions,real estate offices,health services and general office uses were all allowed on the first floor on Broadway. In the General Plan,the Broadway area was described: "Broadway Center: Outlets in this center now provide convenience goods and consumer services for residents in the general vicinity. Although many of the businesses here are well established and apparently successful enterprises, better circulation, more parking, and better urban design would enhance this center. Separation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation and reduction of through-traffic on Broadway is needed. Recommendations for improving the traffic circulation pattern are presented in the Circulation Element. These include a grade separation for the railroad tracks and improvement of the Broadway-Bayshore Freeway interchange to relieve traffic congestion at that point. Consideration should be given to creating a pedestrian precinct on Broadway in the section between Laguna Avenue and Capuchin Avenue. Additional off-street parking access to such lots from the new streets indicated on the plan diagram. An urban design plan should be developed for this center to provide more detailed guidance for future changes." (Land Use Element, page L-5) And the Goals and Policies established for the Broadway Center were as follows: VI Goal: To encourage mixed commercial uses to provide a transition between districts fully commercial or residential and to provide housing opportunities for those dependent on transit and desiring a pedestrian-oriented living environment. Policy L(G): The City should retain three general categories of commercial uses: Shopping and Service, service and Special Sales, and Office Use; as well as Waterfront Commercial along the waterfront area. Policy 414): Broadway Center: outlets provide convenience goods and consumer services for residents in the general vicinity: 1)Better circulation, more parking and better urban design would enhance this center including separation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation and reduction of through-traffic on Broadway. 3 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO ADD USES TO THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA, ZONED GI BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. FEBRUARY-17,2004 2)Consider creating a pedestrian precinct on Broadway in the section between Laguna Avenue and Capuchino Avenue. 3)Provide off street parking to the rear of present business outlets fronting on Broadway with access to such lots from new streets. 4) Develop an urban design plan to provide more detailed guidance for future changes. The Land Use Element adopted in 1969 was broadly implemented by the C-1 zoning district and all the uses, permitted and conditional in the C-1 district were allowed in the "Broadway Center". In 1984 the Broadway Commercial Area was created to facilitate implementation of the General Plan and the map defining the area adopted. As a part of adopting the Broadway Commercial Area the city also limited the uses in the area by prohibiting banks, building and loan associations, financial institutions and offices on the first floor (this would include medical offices). Later the prohibited uses on Broadway were expanded to include real estate and psychic services; in addition food establishments were limited in number and by type. However, it should be noted that all of these uses were originally allowed in the 1969 General Plan. The changes to the permitted uses over time occurred at the request of the local business operators and property owners with the intention of promoting retail sales of convenience goods and customer services for those living in the area and supporting a separation of vehicular and pedestrian circulation. The General Plan was not amended as uses were restricted because it was thought that the changes to the land uses were consistent with the planned goals,policies,role and function of the Broadway Center. Zoning Changes Presently the four uses requested to be allowed on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area are prohibited. Since California law does not permit "use variances", there is no way these uses can be approved in the Broadway Commercial Area except to amend the zoning code and establish them as either permitted or conditional uses. As it now stands the zoning for the Broadway Commercial Area builds on the C-1 zoning district regulations. This means that all uses permitted or conditional in the C-1 zone are allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area except as limited by the provisions of the Broadway Commercial Area, CS 25.36.041. The current Broadway Commercial Area zoning provisions make some currently permitted uses in the C-1 district conditional uses and prohibit some uses which are permitted or conditional uses in the C-1 district. In a figurative sense the Broadway Commercial Area regulations "overlay" the C-1 district and provide for additional land use limitations. The requested changes in land uses would take four uses in the Broadway Commercial Area from the prohibited uses and make them permitted. The commission can determine if each of these uses should be permitted as a matter of right (e.g. without public hearing or Commission review) or if each should be allowed as a conditional use only. A conditional use is one that is reviewed by the Planning Commission and upon review can be "conditioned" or limited so that the proposed use can best addresses the circumstances of the particular location, e.g. parking availability, pedestrian accessibility, common business hours, layout to be consistent with existing street frontages, etc. Presently two of the four uses requested are conditional uses in the underlying C-1 district: financial institutions and real estate. Health service uses on the first floor or above are prohibited in the C-ldistrict. However, health service uses are currently allowed above the first floor in Broadway Commercial Area as a conditional use. General office uses are prohibited on the first floor and above in the C-ldistrict except in the area bounded by El Camino Real-Murchison-California Drive-Dufferin where they are permitted. It would be more consistent administratively to have uses which are conditional in the C-1 district also be conditional in 4 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO ADD USES TO THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA, ZONED GI BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. FEBRUARYI7,2004 the Broadway Commercial Area; however, there is no requirement that this be the case. The Commission may determine the designation of each of the four uses. The choices are: permitted, conditional use, prohibited. The attached memo Annotation of Requested Changes to Uses Allowed in the. Broadway Commercial Area,December 30, 2003,reviews the zoning options. Survey of Merchants and Property.Owners hi October 2003, the City Council directed staff to do a survey of the property owners and merchants in the Broadway Commercial Area. The purpose of the survey was to obtain a reading of how the property owners and merchants felt about the requested change in uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. Staff mailed 133 questionnaires and 43% were returned. Almost two-thirds (63%) of those responding were merchants. The questionnaire addressed each of the four land uses asking if the use should be allowed to occur (yes or no). For the "yes" option there were two independent choices, "yes without a public hearing" and `yes with a public hearing". The question was asked in this manner to measure which of these uses proposed to be allowed the respondents might feel should be conditional rather than permitted uses. The results in summary Were: 75% of the respondents felt that financial institutions should be allowed on the first floor ; 14% of the respondents felt that financial institutions should be a conditional use. Total supporting adding financial institutions on the first floor was 89%. For real estate uses 74% felt that this use should be allowed, 11%of those responding felt that real estate uses should be conditional. Total supporting adding real estate uses on the first floor was 85%. For health services on the first floor 67% of the respondents felt they should be allowed; 19% of the respondents felt they should be conditional uses. Total supporting adding health service uses on the first floor was 86%. Finally, for General office uses on the first floor 72% responded that they should be allowed, but 14% of those responding felt that they should be a conditional use. Total supporting adding general office uses on the first floor was 86%. The majority of those responding to the survey felt that all four uses should be allowed as permitted uses. Two-thirds to three quarters felt that the four uses should be allowed as a matter of right (no public hearing required). Of the four uses health services was the one that the most respondents wanted to be a conditional use, 29%. The tabulation of the survey results and the letter which accompanied the survey are included in the packet for your reference. Also included with the survey is a compilation of all the comments made on the survey form. These comments indicate that the property owners are most interested in the change in uses to reduce vacant store fronts. The merchant's responses are less consistent. On the one hand they want fewer land use restrictions; on the other hand they want the local serving retail business district preserved Staff Comments: The Broadway Commercial Area is a regulation placed over the base C-I (retail sales and services) zoning district which further limits uses in the Broadway Commercial Area to achieve certain planning benefits e.g. contiguous retail development to encourage pedestrian circulation. As noted above over the years the uses permitted in the Broadway Commercial Area have changed. The four uses presently requested were at one time allowed in the area either as permitted or conditional uses. Since consistency in zoning administration and"a level playing field" for property owners and prospective tenants is important, staff would suggest that should any or all of these four uses be allowed,they follow the pattern of the C-1 zone. If they are conditional uses in the C-1 zone they be conditional uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. On this basis health services should be a conditional use on the first floor since they are allowed as a conditional use on the second floor in the Broadway Commercial Area now. Financial and real estate uses should be conditional uses on the first floor because they are conditional uses in the base C-1 zone at this time. In the case of General Office uses they are permitted in a limited area along El Camino Real zoned C-1,but otherwise are prohibited in the 5 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO ADD USES TO THE BROADWAYCOMMERCIAL AREA, ZONED C-1 BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA. FEBRUARY 17, 2004 C-1 zone, indicating the serious impact this use could have on a predominantly retail area. For that reason General Office uses if allowed also should be conditional uses. The Planning Commission felt that, in the absence of studies to show the impacts these new uses could have on the rent structure or circulation/parking activities in the Broadway Commercial Area, if any of these uses or all of them were allowed it should be on an experimental or trial basis. In zoning such a trail is achieved by a "sunset clause", e.g. the opportunity for the use expires on a given date. The Planning Commission suggested that for financial institutions, the only use of the four which they recommended, that the opportunity "sunset' in 24 months. The annotations document dated December 30, 2003, included in the Planning Commission Staff Report, January 12, 2004, discusses these issues. ATTACHMENTS: Revisions to Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes January 12, 2004, Item 8 Planning Commission Staff Report, January 12, 2004, with attachments Frankie Meyer letter January 26, 2004, to Meg Monroe, City Planner, Re: Shopping Districts in Burlingame Draft Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amendment Section 25.36.041 to Allow Financial Institutions as Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR2004\lntroNewUsesBroadway 2.17.04.doc 6 STAFF REPORT BU MGAME AGENDA ITEM# +� •,. MTG. ..m �-�• DATE 3.1.04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL sUBNnrrED BY DATE: FEBRUARY 20,2004 APPROVED FRoM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ON THE FIRST FLOOR FOR 24 MONTHS. RECOMMENDATION: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on the proposed change. Affirmative action should be to adopt the proposed ordinance. If the ordinance is adopted it becomes effective in thirty days, April 1, 2004. However, if after a public hearing the Council should decide to add others of the four uses proposed for the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area, it is necessary to re-introduce the ordinance with those amendments. Introduction requires the following council actions. A. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. The second reading and public hearing should then be set for March 15,2004. BACKGROUND: Garbis and Maida Bezdjian,the owners of the property at 1199 Broadway,have requested that four land uses presently prohibited on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area be allowed. The four uses requested are financial institution,real estate,health services(medical offices) and general office uses. In their request the applicant did not state a preference for whether the uses should be allowed as permitted or conditional. The Planning Commission studied(December 8, 2003) and held a public hearing(January 12,2004)on the request and recommended to the Council that the zoning code for the Broadway Commercial Area be amended to allow financial institutions on the first floor for a period of 24 months. City Council Study At their meeting on February 17,2003, the City Council reviewed the applicant's request to allow four,now prohibited uses, in the Broadway Commercial Area. After discussion the Council directed staff to prepare an 1 ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ON THE FIRST FLOOR FOR 24 MONTHS. March 1,2004 ordinance which would allow financial institutions on the first floor for a period of 24 months in the Broadway Commercial Area. In the zoning code financial institutions are defined as (CS 25.08.264): "Financial institution"means: 1. A state-licensed bank,national bank, savings and loan association, savings bank, federal credit union, state-licensed credit union, industrial loan company or finance company and money machines associated with them; and 2. A financial institution installed in another business,whether financially independent or not, shall be considered a financial institution, and required to meet all requirements of Title 25 for financial institutions. 3. Free standing automatic teller machines (ATMs)or similar machines dispensing currency and other items for cash or debit shall not be considered financial institutions. Investment advisors or brokers are not financial institutions(CS 25.08.388) but are an office use. The proposed revision would allow financial institutions only for a period of 24 months. At the end of 24 months the financial institution use would become, again,prohibited. If the property owners/merchants or Council wished to continue financial institutions as a permanent use in the Broadway Commercial area, the zoning code would need to be changed,within the 24 months,to remove the"sunset"clause for the use. The reasons given by the Council for supporting the Planning Commission's recommendation to allow financial institutions for a trial 24 month period were: the number of vacancies in the Broadway Commercial Area seem to be on the decline; some of the vacancy appears to be related to the price of the space;if financial institutions will help its OK,but do not believe in additional space for services without foot traffic,need to keep the goal(maximize pedestrian oriented retail activity) of the street in mind,the comments of the merchants and residents are to keep it the way it is. If doctors are allowed they will pay more rent and am concerned that the result will be to increase the rent for the retailers. Feel that it is good to prohibit real estate because they create too much traffic and can't control to density of the use;medical uses are a destination, people don't combine trips to the doctor and shopping;_offices are allowed on the second floor and there is no values added by having them on the first floor as well; customers of financial institutions have pretty quick tum over like a dry cleaners so will have a neutral effect and are OK; feel that based on the number of responses and the distribution of the responses the survey was not directive;not clear why we need to change one use,but financial institutions are OK. Council voted 4-0-1 (Councilwoman Baylock absent)to introduce the ordinance to allow financial institutions on the first floor as a conditional use for 24 months in the Broadway Commercial Area. The second reading and public hearing were set for March 1,2004. The Staff Report for the Council Study meeting of February 17, 2004, along with the annotations for the requested changes to the uses on the first floor in the Broadway Commercial Area are attached at the end of this Staff Report. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Section 25.36.041 to Allow Financial Institutions as Conditional Uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. City Council Staff Report,February 17,2004, Introduce Ordinance to Add Uses to the Broadway Commercial Area,Zoned C-1 Broadway Commercial Area,with attachments including Annotation of Requested Changes to Uses Allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area. Notice of Public Hearing, City Council,published February 21,2004. 2 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION will hold a public hearing to consider amending the zoning regulations for the Broadway Commercial Area to allow real estate office uses on the first and second floor,providing the comply with performance criteria. The hearing will be held on Monday,August 22,2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame, California. The staff report for this item may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame California. For additional information please call (650) 558-7250. to be published Friday August 12 2005 U:\PCstaffrent\PC SR 2005\Notices\PubNotBdM Real Estate 8 22 05 doc CRv o� CITY OF BURLINGAME _ ' PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD i BURLINGAME,CA 94010 TEL {650}558-7250 - FAX:(650)696-3790 �,.,m .s• s www.burlingame.org NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING x ALLOW REAL ESTATE USES IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL.AREA PUBLIC NEARING NOTICE 1 The City of Burlingame Planning Commission r will hold a public hearing on Monday,August 22,at 7:00 P.M. in the City HaII:.-ouncil N O { Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, � - : Burlingame,to revise the zoning requirements - for the Broadway Commercial Area to allow _ _ , mni real estate uses. z. gust 12; 2005 � t (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applic an cth pro�ec y be reviewed prior to the meeting Primrose Road, Burlingame,t✓ I i.. If you challe e u m be limited to raising only blic hearing, f e 've ed to the city . � described in h e ri . { at.or prior to a pu c �: F o A X. a 1 Property ow rs e respon ble r informing F ' thea tenants boa io al info ati , please call " (650)558-7 0� t # I Margaret Mo 0 t City Planner ? PU CE - " • - is 's (Please refer to other side).. .__.".........._.._-.. alb CITY 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BW7& G E 501 PRIMROSE ROAD . BURLINGAME,CA 94010 TEL:(650)558-7250 FAX:(650)696-3790 m www.burlinganie.org BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA 14 ZONING REGULATIONS AMENDMENT The City of ty Burlingame City Council will - introduce and hold a public hearing on Tuesday, PUBLIC HEARING September 6, 200.5 at 7:00 P.M. in the City.Hall NOTICE s Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame,to consider amending the - zoning regulations for the BROADWAY i F, COMMERCIAL AREA to allow real estate office uses on the first and second floor, providing A '' they comply performance criteria. Mailed.;August 26 2005 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF B URLINGAME A.copy of the app li and ctprojec be reviewed prior j to the meeting > 5 Primrose Road, Burlingame, C ► If•you challe e t u in be limited to raising pnly blic hearing, described in e e _cdto the city: at or prior`to he pu c eF O It. x I A Property ow rs _ respon ole r informing their tenants oul infor ati , please call (650) 558 7 0 .::.. . i Margaret Mo Q40.0 . City Planner IF PU CE _ (Please refer to other side) , STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# MTG. / OA AATEo 1JVNE 6'9O DATE 9.19.05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 2005 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON ORDINANCE R PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE TROUSDALE WEST DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN. Recommendation: City Council should hold a public hearing on the proposal to amend the zoning regulations to establish a new zoning district for the Trousdale West area which will replace the C-3/R-4 regulations in the area bounded by Murchison to El Camino Real excluding the Plaza Shopping Center, west on Trousdale to Marco Polo (both sides to Clarice Way) and Ogden (east side only) to Murchison Avenue (city line). Following the public hearing the City Council should act on the ordinance. To adopt the proposed ordinance for the Trousdale West(TW) zoning district the Council should: 1. Vote on the ordinance; and 2. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. If approved these zoning regulations would become effective on October 19, 2005. Notice for the City Council's public hearing and action on the Trousdale West(TW) zoning district was published in the San Mateo Times on September 9, 2005, and property owners in the proposed district and within 500 feet were noticed by mail, September 9, 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 Burlingame General Plan in September 2004. The provisions in the ordinance are consistent with the plan because they are taken from the land use element and design guidelines in that adopted plan supplemented with provisions from the existing C-3 and R- 4 zoning districts which currently regulate this area and have been fundamental in implementing the 1969 General Plan and in establishing the existing land use pattern for this area. The TW district includes the North of Trousdale (B-4) and privately owned property in the Mills Peninsula Hospital Block (B-3) subareas of the El Camino North Corridor portion of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. In addition for consistency with the intent of the General Plan as amended by the Specific Plan for this area, the west side of Marco Polo Drive to Clarice Way has been included in this zoning district. The specific plan is not being expanded to include this area since the existing development under the General Plan is consistent with the policies and objectives of the residential land uses set out for Marco Polo Drive in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE TROUSDALE WEST DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN. September 19,2005 CEQA Compliance: Negative Declaration ND533-P was prepared and adopted for the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan in September 2004. Since this zoning action is an implementation of that adopted plan and is consistent with the provisions of that plan, this zoning action is determined to be covered by ND533-P. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission studied the Trousdale West zoning district at their meeting on July 25, 2005, and held a public hearing and recommended the zoning district regulations to the City Council for approval on August 22, 2005,with a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent) voice vote. In their discussion the Commissioners noted that there was a need to review the density requirements for Group Residential Facilities for the Elderly which seemed to have been combined with convalescent facilities which have a very different impact. Commission suggested that in the interest of time, the provision for convalescent facilities and for Group Residential Facilities be removed and the ordinance sent on with out it. Commission would follow up in the future with clarified requirements. The Commission also suggested the addition to the permitted uses of parish houses and convents in this zone outside of the Marco Polo overlay zone since as a use these are very similar to multiple family dwellings. Finally the Planning Commissioners noted that these regulations represent a departure from the traditional zoning approach used in the city. The new approach places an emphasis on requiring development to meet stated minimums for setbacks and height, as well as defining maximums. City Council Study: At their meeting on September 6, 2005, the City Council introduced and held a public hearing on the proposed zoning regulations for the Trousdale West (TW) district. Following a public hearing and brief discussion the Council directed introduction of the ordinance without change and set the item for action. Staff noted that the Planning Commission had removed for additional study convalescent hospitals and group residential facilities for the elderly from the ordinance when they acted on it. These items would be coming forward separately. At the public hearing commenters noted: this zone is the appropriate place for extended stay hotels because of its residential character; and when the city addresses the Rollins Road area consideration should be given to what will happen to the nonconforming auto repair shops in the southern gateway area. Staff noted that the subcommittee working on the Rollins Road zoning revisions is also concerned about the auto repair shops in the gateway area; she will pass this comment on. BACKGROUND: In September 2004 the City Council adopted the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. The planning area was divided into two distinct sections one on the west side of the railroad tracks, El Camino Real North and one on the east side, Rollins Road. The proposed Trousdale West zoning district is located on the west side of the CalTrain tracks in the area on the west side of El Camino Real adjacent to Mills-Peninsula Hospital. The Trousdale West (TW) district encompasses two subareas identified in the Specific Plan, B4-North of Trousdale Drive, and the privately owned properties on Marco Polo in B3-Mills Peninsula Hospital Block. The land uses proposed in the plan for the B4 area are residential with mixed use office/financial institution/health services allowed only on the first two floors. The land uses proposed for the privately owned B3 area along Marco Polo are multiple family residential. Because of the residential only focus of the Marco Polo area it is addressed in an overlay zone within the larger mixed use Trousdale West district. The Specific Plan for the Trousdale West area proposes a dramatically different approach to development regulation. The excerpts from the design guidelines for the subareas are attached. The four maps on pages 54- 2 PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE TROUSDALE WEST DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN. September 19,2005 57 of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan encapsulate the fundaments of this new approach to development. Figure 6-2 establishes "build to" lines, e.g. front setbacks which must be met for different street frontages. Figure 6-2 establishes "minimum building heights" for different street frontages. Compliance requires that any structure built must be no shorter than the minimum height assigned. Figure 6-4 establishes "maximum building heights" which established the tallest height allowed, with the modification that the FAA must approve; again by street frontage. Finally, figure 6-5 establishes a new concept of"minimum parcel frontage"which means that a set percentage of the front fagade of the structure on the lot must be placed at the build-to-line. The percentage of the structure required to be at the build-to-line varies by street frontage. These new siting parameters have been incorporated into the TW district regulations in terms of setbacks and heights. (see attached excerpts from the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, City Council Study Staff Report, September 6, 2005) All of the other measurable design guidelines which apply to the B4 and B3 subareas also have been included in the Trousdale West district regulations. However, the plan remained silent, in terms of direction regarding side and rear setbacks or lot coverage issues and on the subject of support or compatible uses in the mixed use and residential only areas. For these issues not addressed in the Specific Plan design guidelines, the proposed regulations for the TW district were taken from the existing zoning(C-3 and R-4 regulations) or interpreted by the subcommittee based on the diagrams provided for the design guidelines. For your reference, a non-technical summary of the proposed zoning regulations along with the annotated draft of the proposed zoning regulations which documents the reasons for the items included are attached in the City Council's Study Staff report, September 6, 2005. Staff Comment: In the process of working with the subcommittee and Planning Commission on the regulations for the Trousdale West(TW) district it has been recommended that the TW district boundaries be extended along Marco Polo beyond the limits of the B4 and B3 subareas in the Specific Plan. The extension was to include both the east and west sides of Marco Polo Way to Clarice Way. The plan included only the west side of this portion of Marco Polo Way. The reason for including both sides of the street for this section of Marco Polo was to encourage development on both sides of Marco Polo which would have a unifying design and common streetscape design and improvements. Because some of the existing development on the west side of Marco Polo in this area is older, and may be stimulated to replacement with the new residential uses being encouraged on the west side where there are vacant or non-residential uses currently, the Commission wanted to offer an incentive for a better overall character in the future. For these reasons the extended the TW Marco Polo overlay regulations. This does not require a General Plan amendment or amendment to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan because the area is currently zoned R-4 (high density multiple family residential)which is the same use as the Marco Polo residential overlay in the proposed TW district. The reclassification action, creating the boundaries of the new Trousdale West zoning district will be introduced at the Council's September 19, 2005, meeting and a public hearing and action on the new district boundaries will occur at the Council's October 3, 2005, meeting. Margaret Monroe City Planner ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 to Adopt a Trousdale West (TW) district and Establish a Standard Condition for Communications Access to Tall Structures in the City 3 PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE TROUSDALE WEST DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAMEMOLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN. September 19,2005 Map of the Trousdale West Zoning District Notice of Public Hearing, published in the San Mateo Times, September 9, 2005, and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet, August 26, 2005. City Council Staff Report, Introduction, September 6, 2005 with attachments as follows: o Map of the Subareas in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, Figure 3-2 o Map of the Trousdale West (TW)Zoning District o Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 to Adopt a Trousdale West (TW) District and Establish a Standard Condition for Communications Access to Tall Structures in the City. o Annotated Version of the Trousdale West(TW) District Regulations and Condition for Communications Access to Tall Structures in the City. o Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 o Notice of Public Hearing, published in the San Mateo Times August 26, 2005 and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet, August 26, 2005 o Excerpts from the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, adopted September 2004. o Land use designations for the Trousdale West zoning district o Design Guidelines and Development Standards for the Trousdale West zoning district U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR 2005\ActionTWdistrict regs 9.19.05.doc 4 t I ORDINANCE No. �. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 TO ADOPT A TROUSDALE WEST (TW) DISTRICT AND 3 ESTABLISH A STANDARD CONDITION FOR COMMUNICATIONS ACCESS TO TALL STRUCTURES IN THE CITY 4 5 Section 1. In 2004,the City Council adopted the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan 6 to guide development and use of the northern portion of the City. Among the subareas in the Plan is the 7 Trousdale West area, which includes a variety of uses and lot sizes. This ordinance implements the 8 Specific Plan for this subarea. In addition, the construction of tall buildings around the City's key 9 communications points may lead to a significant degradation in the public safety communications system 10 in both the City and the County. Therefore,this ordinance requires a condition of approval for structures 11 taller than thirty-five feet to allow the City to locate equipment and access points on a location on the 12 structure agreed to between the owner and the City. 13 14 Section 2. Chapter 25.40 is amended to read as follows: 15 Chapter 25.40 16 Trousdale West of El Camino Real (TW)District Regulations 25.40.010 Scope of regulations. 17 25.40.020 Permitted uses. 25.40.025 Conditional uses. 18 25.40.030 Prohibited uses. 25.40.035 Uses on properties with lot fronts on Marco Polo Way. 19 25.40.038 Residential requirements in mixed use buildings. 25.40.045 Design review. 20 25.40.050 Building regulations, floor area ratio, and density. 25.40.060 Height limitations. 21 25.40.070 Setbacks. 25.40.080 Minimum lot size and street frontage. 22 25.40.085 No variance for lot size and street frontage. 23 25.40.090 Landscaping. 24 25.40.010 Scope of regulations. 25 It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage and sustain the quality of development in the 26 subarea designated as the North of Trousdale area and the properties with lot fronts on Marco Polo Way 27 south of Clarice Lane as an integral part of implementing the policies,objectives and design guidelines �. 28 set out in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan for the Gateway Corridor area.The two key 8/23/2005 1 TROUSDALE WEST 1 I policies of the Plan for this subarea are to intensify commercial and residential uses and opportunities 2 close to an existing mass transit hub with regional transit and transportation access, and to provide 3 supporting medical office and health service opportunities to Mills Peninsula Hospital; and to encourage 4 a variety of residential units with densities designed to meet the objectives of the City's Housing 5 Element and California housing needs objectives, suitably affordable for hospital employees, local 6 residents,and the local labor force. The North of Trousdale subarea,including properties with lot fronts 7 on Marco Polo Way, plays a specific role in the El Camino Gateway Corridor area in providing this mix 8 of uses. The portion of the area bordering Mills Peninsula Hospital to the north across Trousdale Drive 9 bounded by Marco Polo Way, Ogden Road,Murchison Road, and Magnolia Road is focused on a mix 10 of health service and medical office uses to support the hospital,to provide transition housing for those 11 needing the services of the hospital, and high density residential uses sufficient to provide more 12 affordable housing close to regional mass transit to support the local labor force and major employers 13 in the planning area and the community. 14 15 25.40.020 Permitted uses. 16 The following uses are permitted in the TW district: 17 (a) Multifamily dwellings in one or more buildings; 18 (b) Office uses, including health services, but not including financial institutions; 19 (c) Group residential facilities for the elderly, including convalescent facilities; 20 (d) Multifamily dwellings and office uses as permitted under subsection(b)above in mixed use 21 buildings, if the office uses are located on the first and second floors only; 22 (e) Accessory structures or uses supportive of residential uses, including greenhouses, lath 23 houses,trellises,sheds,swimming pools,an accessory buildings to serve such swimming pools,but not 24 including group pools of swimming pool clubs; these accessory structures or uses shall be located on 25 the same lot as the residential use being supported; 26 (f) Convents and parish houses. 27 28 25.40.025 Conditional uses. 8/23/2005 2 TROUSDALE WEST I The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit: 2 (a) Financial institutions with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5; 3 (b) Public utility and public service structures or installations when found by the commission 4 to be necessary for the public health, safety, convenience and welfare including transformer boxes; 5 (c) Extended stay hotels; 6 (d) Any structure that is more than thirty-five (35) feet in height; 7 (e) Lot coverage over fifty (50) percent, but only if additional, usable common open space 8 generally equivalent to the square footage of excess lot coverage is provided on-site in such areas as roof 9 gardens and courtyards. 10 11 25.40.030 Prohibited uses. 12 Uses not listed as permitted or conditional shall be prohibited and in particular, but not limited 13 to the following: 14 (a) Adult oriented businesses as defined in chapter 25.76; �-- 15 (b) Auto body and auto repair shops; 16 (c) Animal daycare, breeding,pens or kennels; 17 (d) Clubs, associations, and churches; 18 (e) Retail sales,personal services, and service business uses; 19 (f) Dry cleaning processing plants; 20 (g) Hospitals; 21 (h) Massage, bathing, or similar establishments; 22 (i) Mortuaries; 23 0) Outdoor storage of materials or goods or equipment; 24 (k) Pet stores; 25 (0 Uses of any industrial nature, including, but not limited to ,junk yards and automobile 26 wrecking yards; 27 (m) Veterinarian hospitals and veterinarian clinics or facilities; and �► 28 (n) Warehouses for the storage of furniture, household, personal, or other similar articles or 8/23/2005 3 TROUSDALE WEST J 1 outdoor commercial storage. 2 3 25.40.035 Uses on properties with frontage on Marco Polo Way. 4 Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter,the following specific provisions shall apply 5 to lots with any frontage on Marco Polo Way north of Clarice Lane: 6 (a) Permitted uses. Only multifamily residential uses,including group residential facilities for 7 the elderly and convalescent facilities, shall be a permitted use. 8 (b) Conditional uses. 9 (1) All uses allowed in section 25.40.025 above except extended stay hotels and financial 10 institutions shall be allowed with a conditional use permit; and 11 (2)In addition,day care facilities to support employees and residents in the area shall be allowed 12 with a conditional use permit; and 13 (3) In addition, schools that serve the needs of health-challenged or disabled persons shall be 14 allowed with a conditional use permit. 15 (c) Prohibited uses. Uses not listed as permitted or conditional in this section shall be 16 prohibited, including but not limited to the uses listed in section 25.40.030 above. 17 18 25.40.038 Residential requirements in mixed use buildings 19 In mixed use buildings that include multifamily dwellings, group residential facilities for the 20 elderly,or convalescent centers,at least one half('/2)of the floor area shall be in residential use,and all 21 such facilities shall include an off-street location for loading and unloading to serve both residents and 22 deliveries. 23 24 25.40.045 Design Review 25 Construction and alterations including substantial construction or change to more than fifty(50) 26 percent of the front fagade or change to more than fifty (50) percent of any fagade facing a public or 27 private street or parking lot shall be subject to design review based on the design guidelines for the E. 28 Camino Real Design District in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and shall be processes. 8/23/2005 4 TROUSDALE WEST I as provided in chapter 25.57. 2 (a) A design review application in the TW district shall be reviewed by the planning commission 3 for the following considerations: 4 (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles as defined in the design guidelines for 5 the El Camino Real Design District; and 6 (2) Respect for and promotion of the streetscape and pedestrian accessibility by the placement 7 of buildings to maximize the commercial and safe residential use of the street frontage, location of 8 off-street public open spaces,and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and 9 (3) The design should fit the site, support the building rhythm, the sense of pedestrian scale 10 along the street frontage, is compatible with the surrounding development and is consistent with the 11 design guidelines and development standards for the El Camino Real Design District; and 12 (4) Compatibility of the architecture and landscaping with the design guidelines for the El 13 Camino Real Design District including building materials,articulation of the facades,differentiation of 14 architectural elements,building mass, and use of decorative elements, including awnings and signage; �-- 15 and 16 (5) Architectural design consistency: by using a single architectural style with appropriate 17 articulation on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure(s) and with the 18 directives of the design guidelines and development standards for the El Camino Real Design District; 19 and 20 (6) Provision of site features identified in the design guidelines and development standards for 21 the El Camino Real Design District such as landscaping and pedestrian circulation which enriches the 22 existing opportunities of the mixed use commercial and residential neighborhood, as well as those 23 structures with only residential uses. 24 (b) When any part of a structure is subject to design review,any awnings on the structure shall 25 be included in the design review. 26 (c) The following are exempt from the provisions of this section: 27 (1) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for development in the TW district •�. 28 filed before 8/23/2005 5 TROUSDALE WEST 1 (2) Any amendment to a project exempt from design review pursuant to subsection(1) above 2 shall be subject to design review if the project involved would have otherwise been subject to design 3 review under subsection (a) above, the project has not been completed, and the amendment would 4 extend any structure involved in the application outside the envelope of the structure for which the 5 approval was granted or sought in the underlying application or would change a fagade . Changes to, 6 additions of,or deletions of awnings as an amendment to a project shall not trigger design review under 7 this subsection. 8 9 25.40.050 Building regulations, floor area ratio, and density 10 (a) Multifamily dwellings,mixed use,or office uses may be located and erected in one or more 11 buildings on any one lot. 12 (b) No accessory building shall occupy the portion of any lot in front of any building,nor shall 13 any accessory building or structure be closer than four(4)feet to any other building or structure on the 14 same lot. 15 (c) Floor area ratio and density. The maximum floor area ratio and maximum density or 16 development shall be determined by the type of use as follows: 17 (1) Mixed use of commercial and multifamily: Any ground floor office use on the lot shall have 18 a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5, and the maximum residential density shall be thirty(30) dwelling 19 units to the acre for that lot. 20 (2) Multifamily dwelling use only on the lot: The residential use shall have no maximum floor 21 area ratio and shall have a maximum residential density of forty (40) dwelling units to the acre. 22 (3) Office use: office use including health services shall have a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5. 23 24 25.40.060 Height Limitations 25 (a) Minimum required heights. 26 (1) Trousdale Drive, Murchison Drive and Magnolia Drive: Any structure containing a 27 dwelling or commercial use with a lot front on Trousdale Drive, Murchison Drive, or Magnolia Drive—, 28 shall be at least three (3) stories or thirty-five (35) feet in height,whichever is greater; 812312005 6 TROUSDALE WEST 1 (2) Ogden Drive and Marco Polo Way: Any structure containing a dwelling or commercial use 2 with a lot front on Ogden Drive or Marco Polo Way shall be at least two(2)stories or twenty-four(24) 3 feet in height, whichever is greater. 4 (b) Maximum allowed height. 5 (1) Trousdale Drive. No structure with a lot front on Trousdale Drive shall exceed seventy-five 6 (75) feet in height. 7 (2) Marco Polo Way, Ogden Drive, Murchison Drive, and Magnolia Drive. No structure with 8 a lot front on Marco Polo Way, Ogden Drive, Murchison Drive, or Magnolia Drive shall exceed sixty 9 (60) feet in height. 10 (c) Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter,maximum heights are also subject to further 11 limitation by the Federal Aviation Administration. 12 (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title,no variance shall be granted or approved 13 to exceed the maximum heights established in subsections (b) and (c) above. 14 (e) Maximum lot coverage. The maximum lot coverage is fifty(50)percent,except as expressly �- 15 provided in section 25.40.025. 16 17 25.40.070 Setbacks. 18 (a) Maximum front setback and build-to-line. Any structure containing a dwelling or office use 19 shall meet the following maximum front setback requirements: 20 (1) Trousdale Drive, Marco Polo Way, Ogden Drive, and Murchison Drive. The front wall of 21 the first story of any structure containing a dwelling or office use with a lot front on Trousdale Drive, 22 Marco Polo Way, Ogden Drive,or Murchison Drive shall be set back at least ten(10)feet from the front 23 property line; and at least sixty (60)percent of the structure shall be located at the front setback line. 24 (2) Magnolia Drive. The front wall of the first story of any structure containing a dwelling or 25 office use with a lot front on Magnolia Drive shall have no minimum front setback from the front 26 property line except that a minimum of sixty(60) percent of the structure shall be located at the front 27 property line. �.. 28 (3) On corner lots,the front setback shall conform to the requirements for the street where the 8/23/2005 7 TROUSDALE WEST I lot front is located. 2 (b) Side setback. 3 (1) The minimum side setback line shall be as follows: 4 Side setback line (in feet) 5 Lots 42'wide or less 3 6 Lots over 42' but less than 51' 4 7 Lots 51'or more but less than 54' 5 8 Lots 54' or more but less than 61' 6 9 Lots 61'wide or more 7 10 (2)The side setback for structures containing multifamily dwellings shall be at least five(5)feet; 11 (3) The exterior side setback for all corner lots shall be at least equal to the minimum front 12 setback for the adjoining street; 13 (4)In case of conflict between any provision of subsections b(1), (2), or(3)above,the greatest 14 minimum side setback shall be applicable; 15 (5) Following the calculation of the applicable minimum side setback pursuant to subsection 16 (b)(4) above, the minimum side setback for a structure shall be increased by one foot for each story 17 above the first story; 18 (6) Notwithstanding subsections (b)(1) through (5) above, where a greater side setback is 19 required by other provisions of this section, up to thirty-five (35) percent of the wall of a structure 20 containing multifamily dwellings may encroach to the minimum side setback of five (5) feet in order 21 to achieve articulation along the sides of the structure. 22 (b) Rear setback. All structures located,erected, or rebuilt in the TW district shall be set back 23 from the rear property line by at least fifteen (15) feet. However, the rear setback for any structure 24 located on a lot with a rear property line that is adjacent to a lot zoned R-2 shall be at least twenty(20) 25 feet. 26 27 25.40.080 Minimum lot size and street frontage. 28 There shall be a minimum lot size of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, and a minimum 8/23/2005 8 TROUSDALE WEST I street frontage of one hundred fifty(150)feet. No property in the district shall be divided or subdivided 2 into a lot with less area or less street frontage. 3 4 25.40.085 No variance for lot size and street frontage. 5 Notwithstanding any other provision of this title,no variances for lot size or street frontage shall 6 be granted to any property within the TW district. 7 8 25.40.090 Landscaping 9 (a) At least sixty (60) percent of the area of the front setback, if any, shall be landscaped to 10 provide a transition to the sidewalk. 11 (b) Access points to off-street parking. A landscaped buffer at least ten (10) feet deep 12 perpendicular to the sidewalk with a width of at least fifteen (15) feet shall be provided at all access 13 points to off-street parking. 14 (c) Landscape buffer for off-street parking garage. A landscaped area at least five(5)foot deep `- 15 and in no case, less than five (5) feet long, shall be provided along the street frontages of all off-street 16 parking garages, except when there is a zero (0) setback for the entire frontage. 17 (d) To provide and maintain approved landscaping at the entrance of the parking access as 18 required by the design guidelines for the subarea and by the zoning if development on two(2)or more 19 lots shares access to on-site parking,the owner of each lot shall maintain the portion of landscaping on 20 its property and shall have irrevocable cross-access easements for the access. 21 22 Section 3. A new section 25.58.040 is added to read as follows: 23 25.58.040 Required public safety communications equipment and wireless access point agreement. 24 As a condition of approval of any structure over thirty-five (35) feet in height, the planning 25 commission shall require a location to be agreed upon by the city and the property owner to locate public 26 safety communications equipment and a wireless access point for city communications on the structure 27 proposed. The property owner shall permit this equipment to be installed if the city determines that the �.- 28 structure interferes with city communications in the city. The applicant shall provide an electrical supply 8/23/2005 9 TROUSDALE WEST 1 source for use by the equipment. The applicant shall permit authorized representatives of the city to gain 2 access to the equipment location for purposes of installation,maintenance,adjustment,and repair upon 3 reasonable notice to the property owner or owner's successor in interest. This access and location 4 agreement shall be recorded in terms that convey the intent and meaning of this condition. 5 6 Section 4. Subsection 25.63.030(b)(1) is amended to read as follows: 7 (1)A height for structures of forty-six(46)feet or less in height without a conditional use permit 8 pursuant to section 25.32.030 or as applied to chapter 25.34, or pursuant to section 25.40.025. 9 10 Section 5. The development fees adopted in Ordinance No. 1751 are affirmed. 11 12 Section 6. This ordinance shall be published according to law. 13 14 Mayor 15 16 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 17 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6t1i day of 18 September, 2005, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 19 of , 2005, by the following vote: 20 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 21 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 22 City Clerk C:\FILES\ORDINANC\trousdalewest2005.ord.wpd 23 24 25 26 27 28 8/23/2005 10 TROUSDALE WEST Trousdale Zoning District • iiiiiiiii • <� � � o Y, ,9t//o\\O. , ��?bilk:\\�\. ��0����mom�NELSONmonk • • ABEAM nomposonsi�im In Ago as monsoon 00, %■E.taat■SEES■....a11me. ■ \■. I ■Sr USENOR SSS■.o■■.■....■.�►\■E I./It■S■0■■■■.■mina■mommom S►\Bi. ■■I..S.aor a.S■■■■Sa.t.t.a■V/.11m.L\maA al i 1.tr.a■o. S■.■.SBB■■■■.S■■..r.■■■a■a.�■.i BEERloomI.S'I■■.`.■■So.■mommom./a■..Faso ■■E■■mai■i..•\■B �♦ .: ■■.118/4`■■■■a.■■Ba SES■■►/■..E■■■■ENaB■�\t\. • SSSS me a', MISS■■aa.a\\■..aaE■...an/.'SSSS .•°■■It■■■t.■•■..0m■■.SS■■mom.\\ mom s■■.taiaS■/'A Sam I.VIS■■..■m:oE■a■i■.aata0■.\a■a■■tE■a/IE1.7■11. l��r\a■■.■Btt.o.a■■■Baa..la..\S.maatl■■t/■r1E.70. I.\E■■■■St■S.�■S■tau■E■■.SS.■.\\amus■St.//a►/S■■0mSi. `7 0■Int.\■./118■■■.`.■t■/aaBaa.■StL\■.■t■SII■r/.B■■■.`■... ASK,u a..cu.■uuaiauuumano� OEM Erg■..auuara..'•uuuaDmcvaauuoaauuu.uauv.u.uauuucta �•\ IE■L■a11a■aUML SEEau■.Waaa u.a..iu■■r1 O.BDS.a.a■m Y■i. a/./■aS.....�\O■naao no manaESBaV/SOa■.■11.o■■a.hVa. Eur,■u.u■u.0--MEM DaD■■.■■■uuvn0 01 a.■.luucla. �-,,u�auu■aura►vanau.aSt11...aau.•aauaa..uaaaruD. r ..............1111..\\.■■B.■■..�■Bi■S.■11t.. ■■m11.■nB■inorlesonson ■.,/■oS■. • Ver 0 ,.•....■■SEr1.t■Sa■S■Bnews\■01111.1111\nmm/0`.■mi .......`............I,.MEN 51101111 ' ......11...........................•...-......■o.aa.iMe 11.111a■i.m■■./i■11\1111. 11"HE .000 Boom ONESomom'nomme BE,, monk ..\......m...■•.0■moi■'.\E0 R0S4S.S■■■.11.Ronan .amsSi11 Ko■BSt`...m..B.SSOma■SBr.■■.0■r1 • !►.■..■..aN0..■....■...a.■..■./.SEEM BtmBmm8r.11■.`gasses..........■......:. !SSSS.8. ...■....a.a.■..........B...B..E■......`........i..............■. ...i.a■vmuacmaao.■■aa�.11au:.•aBmauno na■Ea.r !..�J■■■■■►.utami.•aaaumm■v, 0 Maa4■EDariaSO.t.BI ! \auru■o.uuara■^aauNorA`auunmoa a0auu..a D■uD !r•vr�u►uaaaa.■amr.•.icauucaca.aa■uvacaD11ar.11■um.ur �!..•�\rAammamoaa V.■OCo.aLam■.7ammm11maOGaaaLO■Baan l��V ■S■m..n..Stmo.r...mtl..`BBriBo..im.`B.B.B■ttr11at..■►/t■.tE■■/• \ ' �'�Ov%.•':m.ra\r:ar■11rmma•a11uSano■um■u.ra11aum.c.Po..u■r■==I.■■.^Etas/ ■■a.`B■SEr/■mot■mor r,mmDamom soB...E■ 0a0r00. .■aaI . 11E. a aum■ mon a.S.. vDnvoommo■auamomDm.B n1■ . 0 r ' t//mamio/BS■nO'n.aari.0amu► ,\ 711C\t■//iao/aammBCBLa. \tBDOno �i:►iwspA INNER 2,'.d a now .oWdEsiiiiiiiiiiiir ��� . •• \.►o.aa amnion a r v.•aa0 smoaaa/v \■.]Duma.//Ao' \a�uu uuunaua •.Do. v.� ra.u. v.�muuv 0 v.auaraaur.■► . .L.,.area...11r/.... v.aaa/or/tuau. ,MEMO.ABE . AM0 a boomSSC\/" , SUMMERS" iiv :►iiiiii • • • , • iuruu►\uE. i■r aE..mV. , 1■VANS../Bti�I:L nauuaaanor /SHE 5:nB.& 0 oroaa. ' .iiD�u.nvau►nuuu SEED''./,\■■B.\a■Er...mmaB.E: .imaaam' 0 I'S ■■uunui Sia■.::a.' .......■■...i v_.fiai■■mannas aacoaunuuui lunuuuuu►a.`aucovaa.■E■■■i .Duauuu■ ruunau000 ua , \�uauun uuu.nu.ca.uuau■.no , .ll....aB•.t■E■11.1..,■BSi.`BtaB■■S.mn■..115► Baaa.a■■SEL o.a0102 ago mViaaa�/h \masa■Sa■.. Sam�rn\L:�I.`m'�.■.:....aBS4 Baur/■■V ma■►.\l■►"\la.-ESC.t .a vnD.u■un�.vsovnnrnuua. , �, .v.c urrrri au.pOn\.uugovesa.■.■uSOL iMonson east, It \nauurn..o' UNIM auu. uouuciL � .l.uv.a BE, a..•.L•Duauorui. \BBS■'It■BS.,`SN.►\/'i....a.■11a. . ��.I.a.Ba. 11.R`■t■■\'..a.aa./B 011. • uaunu-aaE:v�uuauuy , , \�u auu..an ua.-----.r► �!llr�uun.r■r w', .. a NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL will hold a public hearing to consider rezoning to create a new zoning district in the portion of the North Burlingame area bounded by Trousdale Drive, Magnolia Avenue, Murchison Avenue, Ogden Drive and Marco Polo Drive. The purpose of this new zoning district is to implement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan by the City Council and amended to the General Plan September 20, 2004. The zoning district being considered is Trousdale West(TW) and will address the south side of Trousdale Drive to Marco Polo Drive, both sides of Marco Polo Drive south to Clarice Way, and the block bounded by Ogden Drive, Murchison Drive,Magnolia Drive and Trousdale Drive. The zoning changes will implement the land use policies and design guidelines of the adopted specific plan. The hearing will be held on Monday, September 19, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. The staff report for this item may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame, California. For additional information, please call(650) 558-7250. to be published Friday. September 9, 2005 CITY o� STAFF REPORT eVItLJNGAME IAGENDA ITEM # MTG. OAATID�ME 6`90 DATE 9.06.05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: AUGUST 25, 2005 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE TROUSDALE WEST DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN. Introduction: City Council should review and hold a public hearing on the proposal to amend the zoning regulations to establish a new zoning district for the Trousdale West area which will replace the C-3/R-4 regulations in the area bounded by Murchison to El Camino Real excluding the Plaza Shopping Center, west on Trousdale to Marco Polo (both sides to Clarice Way) and Ogden (east side only) to Murchison Avenue (city line). Staff is suggesting a public hearing at introduction for this ordinance to be sure that the regulation is clearly understood by both the Council and public before the second reading and action. Following the hearing the r'ouncil may direct any changes to staff and set the second reading. Introduction requires the following uncil actions. A. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. This item should be set for a second reading and public hearing at the Council meeting of September 19, 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 Burlingame General Plan in September 2004. The provisions in the ordinance are consistent with the plan because they are taken from the land use element and design guidelines in that adopted plan supplemented with provisions from the existing C-3 and R- 4 zoning districts which currently regulate this area and have been fundamental in implementing the 1969 General Plan and in establishing the existing land use pattern for this area. The TW district includes the North of Trousdale (B-4) and privately owned property in the Mills Peninsula Hospital Block (B-3) subareas of the El Camino North Corridor portion of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. In addition for consistency with the intent of the General Plan as amended by the Specific Plan for this area, the west side of Marco Polo Drive to Clarice Way has been included in this zoning district. The specific plan is not being expanded to include this area since the existing development under the General Plan is consistent with the icies and objectives of the residential land uses set out for Marco Polo Drive in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE TROUSDALE(PEST DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN. August 24,2005 CEQA Compliance: Negative Declaration ND533-P was prepared and adopted for the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan in September 2004. Since this zoning action is an implementation of that adopted plan and is consistent with the provisions of that plan,this zoning action is determined to be covered by ND533-P. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission studied the Trousdale West zoning district at their meeting on July 25,2005,and held a public hearing and recommended the zoning district regulations to the City Council for approval on August 22,2005,with a 6-0-1(C.Vistica absent)voice vote. In their discussion the Commissioners noted that there was a need to review the density requirements for Group Residential Facilities for the Elderly which seemed to have been combined with convalescent facilities which have a very different impact. Commission suggested that in the interest of time,the provision for convalescent facilities and for Group Residential Facilities be removed and the ordinance sent on with out it. Commission would follow up in the future with clarified requirements.The Commission also suggested the addition to the permitted uses of parish houses and convents in this zone outside of the Marco Polo overlay zone,since as a use they are very similar to multiple family dwellings. Finally the Planning Commissioners noted that these regulations represent a departure from the traditional zoning approach used in the city. The new approach places an emphasis on requiring development to meet stated minimums for setbacks and height,as well as defining maximums. BACKGROUND: In September 2004 the City Council adopted the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. The planning area was divided into two distinct sections. One addressing the El Camino Real North Corridor the area along El Camino Real between Dufferin Avenue and the City boundary with Millbrae and along Trousdale between California and Marco Polo/Ogden;and one addressing the Rollins Road industrial area(see map). The development and planning issues for each of these areas vary greatly. The Trousdale West(TW)is the first of the implementing zoning districts for the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan to come to the City Council In the El Camino North Corridor,the approach to planning and development take a substantial departure from the"traditional"regulatory approach applied to the remainder of the City. The focus for land use and subsequent regulation as outlined in the specific plan in this area is to respond to the exceptional regional transportation access and proximity to the city's largest single employer,the hospital. The Trousdale West(TW)district encompasses two subareas identified in the Specific Plan,B4-North of Trousdale Drive,and the privately owned properties on Marco Polo in B3-Mills Peninsula Hospital Block. The land uses in the B4 area are residential with mixed use office/financial institution/health services allowed only on the first two floors. The B3 area is addressed by an overlay zone in the TW district because the land uses designated in this area are only residential(including both sides of Marco Polo to Clarice Way) The Specific Plan for the Trousdale West area proposes a dramatically different approach to development regulation.The excerpts from the design guidelines are attached. The four maps on pages 54-57 of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan encapsulate the fundaments of this new approach. Figure 6-2 establishes"build to"lines,e.g.front setbacks which must be met for different street frontages. Figure 6-2 establishes"minimum building heights"for different street frontages. Compliance requires that any structure built must be no shorter than the minimum height assigned. Figure 6-4 establishes"maximum building heights"which established the tallest height allowed,with the modification that the FAA must approve;again by street frontage.Finally,figure 6-5 establishes a new concept of"minimum parcel frontage"which means that a set percentage of the front fagade of the structure on the lot must be placed at the build-to-line. The 2 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE TROUSDALE WEST DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN. August 24,2005 percentage of the structure required to be at the build-to-line vanes by street frontage. These new siting parameters have been incorporated into the TW district regulations in terms of setbacks and heights. -�l of the other measurable design guidelines which apply to the B4 and B3 subareas also have been included in the TW district regulations. However, the plan remained silent,in terms of direction regarding side and rear setbacks or lot coverage issues. For the issues not addressed in the Specific Plan design guidelines the regulations for the TW district were taken from the existing zoning(C-3 and R-4)or interpreted by the subcommittee based on the diagrams provided for the design guidelines. Summary of the Proposed Zoning Regulations for the Trousdale West(TW)Zoning District The proposed regulations as summarized below are based on the direction of the Specific Plan for land use, densities or use, and the design guidelines as set out for the North of Trousdale and the Mills Peninsula Hospital Block subareas. In addition where the direction of the plan is quiet, the commission relied on the existing zoning standards (C-3 and R-4) for the two subareas. The summary of the Trousdale West(TW) district follows: ➢ Permitted uses. o Multifamily dwellings in one or more buildings on a site. o Office uses including health services with an FAR maximum of 0.5,no financial institutions. o Group residential facilities for the elderly including convalescent facilities. o Mixed use buildings with office or medical uses on the first two floors (maximum) and residential uses above. o Convents and parish houses. ➢ Conditional uses. o Financial institutions with a maximum FAR of 0.5. o Public utility and public service structures including transformer boxes. o Extended stay hotels. o A structure over 35 feet(the minimum required height). o Lot coverage over 50%. ➢ Prohibited uses. In general uses which are not permitted or conditional are prohibited. Certain uses are called out in the zoning because they are frequent requests and it is better to list them inorder to facilitate administration. New uses called out as prohibited are: o Auto body and repair shops. o Clubs, associations and Churches. o Retail sales,personal services and service businesses. o Hospitals. o Mortuaries. o Outdoor storage of materials or goods or equipment. o Veterinarian hospital or clinic. o Warehouses. ➢ Properties with frontage on Marco Polo Way, overlay, uses are limited to the following: o Permitted uses. ■ multiple family residential uses. • group residential facilities for the elderly. 3 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE TROUSDALE WEST DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAMFIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN. August 24,2005 Conditional uses. ■ All uses allowed as conditional uses in the TW district except extended stay hotels and financial institutions. ■ Schools that serve the needs of health challenged or disabled persons. ■ Day care facilities. Prohibited uses. ■ All uses not listed as permitted or conditional in this section. ➢ Residential requirements in mixed use buildings. o In mixed use buildings one-half the floor area must be in residential use. ➢ Design Review. o Design review shall be required if 50%of the front or any fagade facing a public or private street is affected by construction or remodeling. o Establishes 6 criteria for design review based on the Specific Plan. o If any part of a structure is used for commercial purposes, any awnings shall be included in design review. o Provision is made for buildings built before design review was required, establishing when such buildings would be subject to design review. ➢ Building regulations, floor area ratio and density o Multiple family dwellings may be in one or more buildings on a lot. o Accessory structures shall not be in the front yard, or closer than 4 feet to any other structure. o Mixed use,FAR: ground floor office maximum 0.5 FAR with a maximum of 30 DU per acre for the lot. o Multiple family dwelling use only: maximum residential density of 40 dwelling units to the acre,with 35%increase in DU with inclusionary units. o Group residential facilities for the elderly at 60 beds to the acre based on the number of persons the rooms are designed to accommodate. ➢ Height limitations and lot coverage. o Minimum required heights for properties with lot fronts on: Trousdale,Murchison,Magnolia, 35 feet(three stories); Ogden and Marco Polo,24 feet(two stories). o Maximum allowed heights for properties with lot fronts on: Trousdale, 75 feet;Marco Polo, Ogden,Murchison,Magnolia, 60 feet. o Notwithstanding any of the above,maximum heights are subject to further limitation by the FAA. o Height variances will not be grated for the maximum allowed height on any street frontage or to the FAA limitations. o Maximum lot coverage is 50%, can be more with a CUP. ➢ Setbacks. o Front setback and build-to-line for properties with lot fronts on: Trousdale,Marco Polo, Ogden,Murchison, 10 feet and at least 60%of the structure shall be at 10 feet;Magnolia, zero feet and at least 60%of the building shall have a zero setback. o On corner lots the setback shall conform to the street where the front of the lot is located. o Side setbacks. The minimum shall vary based on the width of the lot, except multiple family residential development shall have a side setback of a minimum of 5 feet and where a greater setback is required 35% of the structure may encroach to 5 feet to encourage articulation. 4 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE TROUSDALE WEST DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN. August 24,2005 o Exterior side setbacks. For comer lots the exterior side setback shall equal the minimum front setback for the adjoining street. o From the minimum side setback the setback shall be increased one foot for each story above the first story. o Rear setbacks. For all structures there shall be a minimum of 15 feet except when the rear of a property is adjacent to a property zoned R-2, then the rear setback shall be 20 feet. ➢ Minimum lot size and street frontage of 20,000 SF and 150 feet of street frontage shall be required for any new lot. No variances shall be granted to the minimum lot size. ➢ Landscaping. o Front setback. At least 60% shall be landscaped. o Access points off the street. An area at least 10 feet deep and 15 feet wide shall be provided at all access points to off-street parking. o Buffer for off-street parking garage. An area at least 5 feet deep and no less than 5 feet long, shall be provided along all off-street parking garages except where a there is a 0 setback for the entire frontage. o Provide cross access easements for maintenance with the required landscaping for a driveway is on two different properties (shared driveway or side by side). The attached Annotated Trousdale West (TW)Zoning District regulations provide a commentary on why and how the proposed provisions are to be implemented. The draft ordinance immediately following the staff report provides the entire text of the district regulations without the interruption of explanation. This draft can be used with the annotated draft if you wish to pursue the reasons for specific provisions. �,,pporting Regulations The result of implementing the Specific Plan for the North El Camino Real Corridor will be a substantial increase in the height of the structures since the current 35 foot review line,which is seen by many as a maximum height in the city, will become the new minimum height. Since the city's Police Station is located in this area,there is concern about the functioning of public safety communications equipment as the new,taller buildings are constructed. For that reason CS 25.58, General Use Provisions, is being amended to require that for any building over 35 feet in height, the property owner will be required to allow public safety communications equipment on the roof of the building, and to allow for access for maintenance of this equipment. This right will not be exercised for all buildings but can be for selected ones. The Planning Commission acknowledged at their action meeting that the height of any public communications structures placed on roof tops will not be included in the height measurement for the building. Planning Commission Concerns at July 12,2005 Study Meeting At the Planning Commission study meeting several issues were raised, and staff was directed to address: ■ How will the side setback requirements work for multiple family residential uses? In the R-4 district side setbacks are based on a sliding scale determined by the width of the lot,e.g. 43 foot wide lot, 3 foot setback; 61 foot wide lot, 7 foot setback, with one additional foot of setback required for each floor above the fust floor. However, under the residential condominium requirements a minimum 5 foot side setback is required with one additional foot for each story no matter how wide the lot. The TW side setback requirements for a structure with multiple family units will follow the residential condominium requirements of 5 feet plus one foot per floor over the first. The only exception is for comer lots where the minimum side setback required is the same as the 5 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE TROUSDALE WEST DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN. August 24,2005 required front setback for that side of the street. This requirement was added because of the importance in the plan's design guidelines of establishing a consistent "street wall" along each street. ■ Why are telecom locations limited to buildings 48 feet tall or taller since these facilities operate on a line-of-sight basis?A follow up with the city s emergency services people revealed that the 48 foot limit was based on a current ordinance which gives the city the right of access for public safety and operations related communications equipment on existing buildings. For existing buildings the focus is on taller structures which rise over other buildings and existing vegetation, in order to obtain line of sight. The provisions being added,which apply to all zoning districts in the city,will apply to new buildings. The height limit for new buildings has been revised to 35 feet because in the TW district, for example, there is considerable variation in the topography in the area and the single story police station sits at a low point in the area. To provide for line-of-sight for the future it may be necessary to use shorter buildings. Moreover,telecom and communications technology is changing rapidly which is another reason that the emergency services people recommended that the provision be revised to require city access to all new buildings thirty five(35) feet tall or taller to provide them with the most flexibility. Finally,the standard conditions of approval will be amended to insure that all properties which require Planning Commission review in all districts will be informed of the obligation to allow the city access for public safety and operations communications equipment if it is needed. ■ The inclusionary zoning provisions of the code(Chapter 25.63)presently allow the height exception incentive (structures of 46 feet without a conditional use permit) only in the R-3 and R-4 zones. An amendment has been added to the inclusionary zoning requirements to allow the height exemption in the TW district as well. This is a consistency change, since the R-4 overlay put on this area after the plan was adopted allowed the height exception incentive in the area now to be zoned TW. Moreover, the design guidelines encourage taller buildings in the TW district area by establishing a minimum building height of 35 feet in the area. These issues identified by the Planning Commission at study on July 12, 2005, were all addressed in the revised ordinance submitted to and acted on by the Planning Commission on August 22, 2005. Margaret Monroe City Planner ATTACHMENTS: Map of the Subareas in the North BurlingamelRollins Road Specific Plan,Figure 3-2 Map of the Trousdale West(TW)Zoning District Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 to Adopt a Trousdale West(TW)District and Establish a Standard Condition for Communications Access to Tall Structures in the City. Annotated Version of the Trousdale West(TW)District Regulations and Condition for Communications Access to Tall Structures in the City. Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 Notice of Public Hearing,published in the San Mateo Times August 26,2005 and mailed to all property owners within 500 feet, August 26, 2005 6 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE TROUSDALE WEST DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN. August 24,2005 U:\CCStaftRepts\CCSR 2005\lntroTWdistrict regs 9.6.05.doc 7 B � `ill � �' i! -::p - " �� ���• ', , , rrr'*4r: tajO _,gq ,= j 'ter►` ja.-mitts -�'�:- aw3[ A lowM HOME■ Nil ►!!1111! 1l1111111►1- a� -ga o- 'a p jiiN I \g111 sa as =a � Nva {11111!11 r a ataais � Kali ���� ��� ��� sa a a� is •aa p{[1111� '_ E- ��■ !lU81U1 A2 OWNS gam ZXX Man MIN —Ron 01111 UZ - Irtuq �//V ■� �;: � —= -C illiy �4� -a -- man �� iiiie — !Ilt ■ Sam ::_ /: ._ • —� -- -- -- — -- — s �— -- -- a 4 UIl 11{{{ Illlt ..1� �— -- ..� �— p .•— . own _u �— �� ■ �� � =i f11H 1Ui11 Ii1� - �r= — e� ac - - Z t -_ - j ,rte 1111• . - � �� . Al. Northern Gateway A2. Central • rnll-- A3 - i Ilil1 1111 ■= ��. 9 ' Rollinsr • - A3. Southern Gateway A4. Adrian Road Auto Row District B2. El - Bf. Burlingame Plaza . - ilial- . y► �� =; tlttltG CaminoReal GatewayCorridor 5 B3. Mills Penninsula Hospital Block 84. North of Trousdale Drive van —M ' - si!l1111 ;s— ■� �— — — is � - f• v� • ILA'ii�iiiiiiiiii►�ii. • ivunouu2.►v1. � --;nuuuu6uou61 , nauouuo66uvi. i'a also aiii. NVAImmiiiimom alii�iii. i6J11r■r■1 u■rtro66 62.6.. dons iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiioLlmi. I ■ "a n 1l.■r1r6■ru u■1 III■►:... I i1/an uu o.uu 5 261uu ■■LU O1■11.6■6.16.611/O.0■■t, • i6 J116■.uouunuu / I.6I. ■■L1411\66.rO. r■tI66■161.■.■►J.1116C•■t. . iu:•.16.rr■.66u■rRon 6Jrl uo uc•u. / ■n■O6 ou■..1r.0 1■uvnuuuu ucu r. It■1.1016.■.6sang 111t■.IJ6I. am man ■, �� film . An u.nuuuu.nu►V1r6■I 611.a 1.61. ' urmun.•um11lr1ruunvlru6uu1161uur. i.■'116■.II.P6I16t■as212■■t\•Noun 11t■6 or 711. ;t v■■'AL aO06I■I■t■I....1.♦■It66■■tr'/■II■7t\ Juu► a... Ineuuouu11611c%woo a /vnli.ui. / .1,11 " a. Me u►•t■r 61/'/51.1111.w In i-L null.vo.■.nrnuuu.unnnuuulrui - ■■r.ou•uunnl.•o.....1uuu.►66nr.ouou.•ui ' ,'iiuuouu.vuouuouuuu.uul2.v/■r/ruuuuu.•ui. .■tlJuu■u►tnuu■nJt a■1t■O■t■■a1L/■r/t.■r1■2112u67.. •� LL66616.6I1.66.1■11•■6.11\t1/IrJI61I1.I■■)16h`U\ ur/u1■u.u►vuuNoels 1uu6unlu►.■uuouuuolcoi O■1.2■11I.•1t/■6.rJ16II1/6■■616121126\1u 1111■6:.■i ! ' 6 r.1t.1■.6.I1■.6■I■t1■O.V 1.I 2.621110666u2I■6.■■O■■IJ 6■ / • I■1'126.■I.■IJ■■■.•IIt■r.■t\V6■1I■661l•12.r.■■1rt2.■■I■S.■.`1ti. /1r..ouou►u■.2c•■u6 a a:no1111.doom s2.61r6uLuu.•m V■.■■■■■■■■■rJ■1■162►12■1211■2I..6.V,2■1■.•■■■1211■■■■■■V.I1.■1■.•■ri 1.•1111611//111■/1121..■11■■t■■/••1ItI1.61■a t1116.11V.1r■■■■11.11\ 1II/11111.■■r■1.•■■■■■■.'.2.•11.!1■.■1222.•1111■.■■■■r,I111//rt)ic11i. ! �.'.■■■r/11■■...■2t/11\'•111■1■/■I.r'.It�.■•■■t1.•I■..11211.2■It.■■■.I■1.■I\ \�\•r/II6r■■...I■.51�.■■.■■■■\' ■■\t6■■■■■:■■■■■.56■212■■■■.■2211\ ►•5111■2■6.■.1■1I'i1■\■■)t1.■.11■L\)11I211I22.`2■21iI1111■I■■t■I111.2I/■L \66■11)11211■'�■112:\112\..1111►.■■■1■■■■11.`111./1616616■■/.111211. ..\111■■■11121'.112■■1':\16 1114■.t■11111■■■t1■■:1.11111111■■■■/■►J■■■1■II VI.\I16111.1•�6u61.1\•■261111■■■■1221111■/1n•.■11162■66rJI11I.rJ1iL . ►\■■.../..1I6■rr.■rr:III61■■I■.22■626ISI■.`6t■■■■■■■■r/2■■■■r/1111\ \L\■■I1t1.I■■■111.IIII1.7■■I/IIIIt■■■II■■11.1.■1.`..11..■1I1I■■■■Ir11I■■IIL \.1■■/I1t1111.I■t■■■■:11111..■■.661111■1116.•1■I11.151.111■/511■t6II1I 1\]■!0.016 so Ross OOL■■.a 6.1■I6151I2t.■■L■21■■O V ..•.•..6./.O.■■■/t■..7.^11111■■P..7 r■6■I12Or1■19a1651I■■11■6 m6e.■6/■.u.2..'.i.•.ou■Suruonut.u'.uut■1.6uuur '•Lv�w1u■uuuu6u■U.71L6I647.O■■IIJ.■6/6..61' 'CiA 1■■IOO■■11r46UI,6.•1i■.■■1110■...I.■■■16J.■116■/' \. :V6■..1125■t\■IIdo ...6671O1/146■■1/6.2■■t' .. -•O:Y.a1■OV..HI P, ■■ 1061■■.6.7I/1111 OI%Ot■1wasnamn ■■ • .I:1n.■■ Ed 4 ■1I■IOOI■t►/1t2C..■62/11 ■OOI9 so an { 1..I...Pr/1tI1r/1.1.11.`I6I2'A 11��■ ■f111I11► 14 •/."I■■■ /■121►/..1111111.•1111.1■ 1,�.■■.■t 1r '• \1\•I■r/6■21/11\.■11612! ..211 61.In/ as a Nor now, •t."\.6111 066owed" 2\111 ■I .�u• . v.6unuu612u6r/v 1 .• •1.♦1961t.I.1 0116/1/ vv.■1112I.tl0 ur/2r v.v■r■■..1.6511. a ...■u . 8 v\•n■onr■uu. .6■ i.6r. ■ . uuIivan1►u. ..N u.■■ruewsh or . nuuuoon ► \ v66u:.uunlr 51.651..2..1 � as. m•.nuu o , . 1.15....1.. 1n'..vuuu• �n'.u.vunl . �■IS.1tI...I1r • I1 • , / .1u.1nuo..1\.6/hi6iu 2L, one /u'a ■i■■u\51u6u►nuo. YI6 N6221r11II021 .142 .vuruwuui. 2 \26\•■1...6116■1. O.r■lr •1tIL5.■.11.1..1. a1\P_ri.66woo.i..II.\■...■.611 imoms . .1t■■161.I1211..716C1O661a6max r\ ' .•1100■6mid 6■4.■II\ iCr6sun 1148"oI61 OI66\ ■■14.6.4..■)111\.■O■..`.■.160.46. ' uu6laounuu•n1 l:nnn . �•auuunnvum ' • � ul►.c1..;�no6zuuu. ' . ■..26.6...■'.I .r■\■.5668 1:o , •.11.116 t/■I:. 19113a 111■..J■I., 116.161 i.■I.U•I'I.►-714\".'.1■1. •■IIIc■1'1■.■I1■...1■151."■.I'.II■■.. S ,, \1011111\I1t■■.\:'■r 51162.:■■111t\. 51•/51/\.�•■-�'■.\\I•',.\■■■/:r.6I.■■I.\ ` �, I16r�...r"......1►..\■/'�■■III■ I\ , \1■111'Y/'II■■■..\III/.511■■■■11111I1\ \S.LI51r.III6 •r/I►♦161661261. , , .1111.■.I/I..:►••.t■■6666..\ , ' •/■1611■r1..•t I'.\.■■6111611■■•. , \1126■■'..t.•.Ir...6.■■6ISIL , �1.■■■1,x.6■■.'•■'"t..■■r■■1651.■. 1t.II■■661.'••./ .I22I111511smolum soon )I1 ' .1111 ■■■■..`■�.■:.51.u66.1i. . In■uunruu2:y�uIu6.2. �olouu:vtno■iiGi■. , , © � 6uu66.-.utuv �� t\21.616.111 1 1 ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 TO ADOPT A TROUSDALE WEST (TW) DISTRICT AND 3 ESTABLISH A STANDARD CONDITION FOR COMMUNICATIONS ACCESS TO TALL STRUCTURES IN THE CITY 4 5 Section 1 . In 2004, the City Council adopted the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan 6 to guide development and use of the northern portion of the City. Among the subareas in the Plan is the 7 Trousdale West area, which includes a variety of uses and lot sizes. This ordinance implements the 8 Specific Plan for this subarea. In addition, the construction of tall buildings around the City's key 9 communications points may lead to a significant degradation in the public safety communications system 10 in both the City and the County. Therefore, this ordinance requires a condition of approval for structures 11 taller than thirty-five feet to allow the City to locate equipment and access points on a location on the 12 structure agreed to between the owner and the City. 13 14 Section 2. Chapter 25.40 is amended to read as follows: 15 Chapter 25.40 16 Trousdale West of El Camino Real (TW) District Regulations 25.40.010 Scope of regulations. 17 25.40.020 Permitted uses. 25.40.025 Conditional uses. 18 25.40.030 Prohibited uses. 25.40.035 Uses on properties with lot fronts on Marco Polo Way. 19 25.40.038 Residential requirements in mixed use buildings. 25.40.045 Design review. 20 25.40.050 Building regulations, floor area ratio, and density. 25.40.060 Height limitations. 21 25.40.070 Setbacks. 25.40.080 Minimum lot size and street frontage. 22 25.40.085 No variance for lot size and street frontage. 23 25.40.090 Landscaping. 24 25.40.010 Scope of regulations. 25 It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage and sustain the quality of development in the 26 subarea designated as the North of Trousdale area and the properties with lot fronts on Marco Polo Way 27 south of Clarice Lane as an integral part of implementing the policies, objectives and design guidelines 28 set out in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan for the Gateway Corridor area. The two key 8/23/2005 1 TROUSDALE WEST I policies of the Plan for this subarea are to intensify commercial and residential uses and opportunities 2 close to an existing mass transit hub with regional transit and transportation access, and to provide 3 supporting medical office and health service opportunities to Mills Peninsula Hospital; and to encourage 4 a variety of residential units with densities designed to meet the objectives of the City's Housing 5 Element and California housing needs objectives, suitably affordable for hospital employees, local 6 residents,and the local labor force. The North of Trousdale subarea,including properties with lot fronts 7 on Marco Polo Way, plays a specific role in the El Camino Gateway Corridor area in providing this mix 8 of uses. The portion of the area bordering Mills Peninsula Hospital to the north across Trousdale Drive 9 bounded by Marco Polo Way, Ogden Road,Murchison Road,and Magnolia Road is focused on a mix 10 of health service and medical office uses to support the hospital,to provide transition housing for those 11 needing the services of the hospital, and high density residential uses sufficient to provide more 12 affordable housing close to regional mass transit to support the local labor force and major employers 13 in the planning area and the community. 14 15 25.40.020 Permitted uses. 16 The following uses are permitted in the TW district: 17 (a) Multifamily dwellings in one or more buildings; 18 (b) Office uses,including health services,but not including financial institutions; 19 (c) Group residential facilities for the elderly,including convalescent facilities; 20 (d) Multifamily dwellings and office uses as permitted under subsection(b)above in mixed use 21 buildings, if the office uses are located on the first and second floors only; 22 (e) Accessory structures or uses supportive of residential uses, including greenhouses, lath 23 houses,trellises,sheds,swimming pools,an accessory buildings to serve such swimming pools,but not 24 including group pools of swimming pool clubs;these accessory structures or uses shall be located on 25 the same lot as the residential use being supported; 26 (f) Convents and parish houses. 27 28 25.40.025 Conditional uses. 8/23/2005 2 TROUSDALE WEST 1 The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit: 2 (a) Financial institutions with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5; 3 (b) Public utility and public service structures or installations when found by the commission 4 to be necessary for the public health, safety, convenience and welfare including transformer boxes; 5 (c) Extended stay hotels; 6 (d) Any structure that is more than thirty-five(35) feet in height; 7 (e) Lot coverage over fifty (50) percent, but only if additional, usable common open space 8 generally equivalent to the square footage of excess lot coverage is provided on-site in such areas as roof 9 gardens and courtyards. 10 11 25.40.030 Prohibited uses. 12 Uses not listed as permitted or conditional shall be prohibited and in particular,but not limited 13 to the following: 14 (a) Adult oriented businesses as defined in chapter 25.76; 15 (b) Auto body and auto repair shops; 16 (c) Animal daycare, breeding,pens or kennels; 17 (d) Clubs, associations, and churches; 18 (e)Retail sales,personal services, and service business uses; 19 (f) Dry cleaning processing plants; 20 (g) Hospitals; 21 (h) Massage,bathing,or similar establishments; 22 (i) Mortuaries; 23 0) Outdoor storage of materials or goods or equipment; 24 (k) Pet stores; 25 (1) Uses of any industrial nature, including, but not limited to ,junk yards and automobile 26 wrecking yards; 27 (m) Veterinarian hospitals and veterinarian clinics or facilities;and 28 (n) Warehouses for the storage of furniture, household, personal, or other similar articles or 8/23/2005 3 TROUSDALE WEST I outdoor commercial storage. 2 3 25.40.035 Uses on properties with frontage on Marco Polo Way. 4 Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter,the following specific provisions shall apply 5 to lots with any frontage on Marco Polo Way north of Clarice Lane: 6 (a) Permitted uses. Only multifamily residential uses,including group residential facilities for 7 the elderly and convalescent facilities, shall be a permitted use. 8 (b) Conditional uses. 9 (1) All uses allowed in section 25.40.025 above except extended stay hotels and financial 10 institutions shall be allowed with a conditional use permit; and 11 (2)In addition,day care facilities to support employees and residents in the area shall be allowed 12 with a conditional use permit; and 13 (3) In addition, schools that serve the needs of health-challenged or disabled persons shall be 14 allowed with a conditional use permit. 15 (c) Prohibited uses. Uses not listed as permitted or conditional in this section shall be 16 prohibited, including but not limited to the uses listed in section 25.40.030 above. 17 18 25.40.038 Residential requirements in mixed use buildings 19 In mixed use buildings that include multifamily dwellings, group residential facilities for the 20 elderly,or convalescent centers,at least one half('/2)of the floor area shall be in residential use,and all 21 such facilities shall include an off-street location for loading and unloading to serve both residents and 22 deliveries. 23 24 25.40.045 Design Review 25 Construction and alterations including substantial construction or change to more than fifty(50) 26 percent of the front facade or change to more than fifty (50) percent of any fagade facing a public or 27 private street or parking lot shall be subject to design review based on the design guidelines for the El 28 Camino Real Design District in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and shall be processed 8/23/2005 4 TROUSDALE WEST I as provided in chapter 25.57. 2 (a) A design review application in the TW district shall be reviewed by the planning commission 3 for the following considerations: 4 (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles as defined in the design guidelines for 5 the El Camino Real Design District; and 6 (2) Respect for and promotion of the streetscape and pedestrian accessibility by the placement 7 of buildings to maximize the commercial and safe residential use of the street frontage, location of 8 off-street public open spaces,and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages;and 9 (3) The design should fit the site, support the building rhythm, the sense of pedestrian scale 10 along the street frontage, is compatible with the surrounding development and is consistent with the 11 design guidelines and development standards for the El Camino Real Design District; and 12 (4) Compatibility of the architecture and landscaping with the design guidelines for the El 13 Camino Real Design District including building materials,articulation of the facades,differentiation of 14 architectural elements,building mass,and use of decorative elements, including awnings and signage; 15 and 16 (5) Architectural design consistency: by using a single architectural style with appropriate 17 articulation on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure(s) and with the 18 directives of the design guidelines and development standards for the El Camino Real Design District; 19 and 20 (6) Provision of site features identified in the design guidelines and development standards for 21 the El Camino Real Design District such as landscaping and pedestrian circulation which enriches the 22 existing opportunities of the mixed use commercial and residential neighborhood, as well as those 23 structures with only residential uses. 24 (b) When any part of a structure is subject to design review,any awnings on the structure shall 25 be included in the design review. 26 (c)The following are exempt from the provisions of this section: 27 (1) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for development in the TW district 28 filed before 8/23/2005 5 TROUSDALE WEST 1 (2) Any amendment to a project exempt from design review pursuant to subsection(1)above 2 shall be subject to design review if the project involved would have otherwise been subject to design 3 review under subsection (a) above, the project has not been completed, and the amendment would 4 extend any structure involved in the application outside the envelope of the structure for which the 5 approval was granted or sought in the underlying application or would change a fagade . Changes to, 6 additions of,or deletions of awnings as an amendment to a project shall not trigger design review under 7 this subsection. 8 9 25.40.050 Building regulations,floor area ratio, and density 10 (a) Multifamily dwellings,mixed use,or office uses may be located and erected in one or more 11 buildings on any one lot. 12 (b) No accessory building shall occupy the portion of any lot in front of any building,nor shall 13 any accessory building or structure be closer than four(4)feet to any other building or structure on the 14 same lot. 15 (c) Floor area ratio and density. The maximum floor area ratio and maximum density of 16 development shall be determined by the type of use as follows: 17 (1) Mixed use of commercial and multifamily: Any ground floor office use on the lot shall have 18 a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5, and the maximum residential density shall be thirty(30)dwelling 19 units to the acre for that lot. 20 (2) Multifamily dwelling use only on the lot:The residential use shall have no maximum floor 21 area ratio and shall have a maximum residential density of forty(40)dwelling units to the acre. 22 (3) Office use: office use including health services shall have a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5. 23 24 25.40.060 Height Limitations 25 (a) Minimum required heights. 26 (1) Trousdale Drive, Murchison Drive and Magnolia Drive: Any structure containing a 27 dwelling or commercial use with a lot front on Trousdale Drive,Murchison Drive,or Magnolia Drive 28 shall be at least three(3) stories or thirty-five (35)feet in height,whichever is greater; 8/23/2005 6 TROUSDALE WEST 1 (2) Ogden Drive and Marco Polo Way: Any structure containing a dwelling or commercial use 2 with a lot front on Ogden Drive or Marco Polo Way shall be at least two(2)stories or twenty-four(24) 3 feet in height, whichever is greater. 4 (b) Maximum allowed height. 5 (1) Trousdale Drive. No structure with a lot front on Trousdale Drive shall exceed seventy-five 6 (75)feet in height. 7 (2) Marco Polo Way, Ogden Drive, Murchison Drive, and Magnolia Drive. No structure with 8 a lot front on Marco Polo Way, Ogden Drive,Murchison Drive, or Magnolia Drive shall exceed sixty 9 (60) feet in height. 10 (c) Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter,maximum heights are also subject to further 11 limitation by the Federal Aviation Administration. 12 (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title, no variance shall be granted or approved 13 to exceed the maximum heights established in subsections (b) and(c)above. 14 (e) Maximum lot coverage. The maximum lot coverage is fifty(50)percent,except as expressly 15 provided in section 25.40.025. 16 17 25.40.070 Setbacks. 18 (a) Maximum front setback and build-to-line. Any structure containing a dwelling or office use 19 shall meet the following maximum front setback requirements: 20 (1) Trousdale Drive, Marco Polo Way, Ogden Drive, and Murchison Drive. The front wall of 21 the first story of any structure containing a dwelling or office use with a lot front on Trousdale Drive, 22 Marco Polo Way, Ogden Drive,or Murchison Drive shall be set back at least ten(10)feet from the front. 23 property line; and at least sixty(60)percent of the structure shall be located at the front setback line. 24 (2) Magnolia Drive. The front wall of the first story of any structure containing a dwelling or 25 office use with a lot front on Magnolia Drive shall have no minimum front setback from the front 26 property line except that a minimum of sixty(60)percent of the structure shall be located at the front 27 property line. 28 (3) On corner lots,the front setback shall conform to the requirements for the street where the 8/23/2005 7 TROUSDALE WEST I lot front is located. 2 (b) Side setback. 3 (1) The minimum side setback line shall be as follows: 4 Side setback line (in feet) 5 Lots 42'wide or less 3 6 Lots over 42'but less than 51' 4 7 Lots 51' or more but less than 54' 5 8 Lots 54'or more but less than 61' 6 9 Lots 61'wide or more 7 10 (2)The side setback for structures containing multifamily dwellings shall be at least five(5)feet; 11 (3) The exterior side setback for all corner lots shall be at least equal to the minimum front 12 setback for the adjoining street; 13 (4)In case of conflict between any provision of subsections b(l),(2),or(3)above,the greatest 14 minimum side setback shall be applicable; 15 (5) Following the calculation of the applicable minimum side setback pursuant to subsection 16 (b)(4) above, the minimum side setback for a structure shall be increased by one foot for each story 17 above the first story; 18 (6) Notwithstanding subsections (b)(1) through (5) above, where a greater side setback is 19 required by other provisions of this section, up to thirty-five (35) percent of the wall of a structure 20 containing multifamily dwellings may encroach to the minimum side setback of five(5) feet in order 21 to achieve articulation along the sides of the structure. 22 (b) Rear setback. All structures located,erected,or rebuilt in the TW district shall be set back 23 from the rear property line by at least fifteen (15) feet. However, the rear setback for any structure 24 located on a lot with a rear property line that is adjacent to a lot zoned R-2 shall be at least twenty(20) 25 feet. 26 27 25.40.080 Minimum lot size and street frontage. 28 There shall be a minimum lot size of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet, and a minimum 8/23/2005 8 TROUSDALE WEST I street frontage of one hundred fifty(150)feet. No property in the district shall be divided or subdivided �.- 2 into a lot with less area or less street frontage. 3 4 25.40.085 No variance for lot size and street frontage. 5 Notwithstanding any other provision of this title,no variances for lot size or street frontage shall 6 be granted to any property within the TW district. 7 8 25.40.090 Landscaping 9 (a) At least sixty (60) percent of the area of the front setback, if any, shall be landscaped to 10 provide a transition to the sidewalk. 11 (b) Access points to off-street parking. A landscaped buffer at least ten (10) feet deep 12 perpendicular to the sidewalk with a width of at least fifteen (15) feet shall be provided at all access 13 points to off-street parking. 14 (c) Landscape buffer for off-street parking garage. A landscaped area at least five(5)foot deep `,. 15 and in no case, less than five(5)feet long, shall be provided along the street frontages of all off-street 16 parking garages, except when there is a zero (0) setback for the entire frontage. 17 (d) To provide and maintain approved landscaping at the entrance of the parking access as 18 required by the design guidelines for the subarea and by the zoning if development on two(2)or more 19 lots shares access to on-site parking,the owner of each lot shall maintain the portion of landscaping on 20 its property and shall have irrevocable cross-access easements for the access. 21 22 Section 3. A new section 25.58.040 is added to read as follows: 23 25.58.040 Required public safety communications equipment and wireless access point agreement. 24 As a condition of approval of any structure over thirty-five (35) feet in height, the planning 25 commission shall require a location to be agreed upon by the city and the property owner to locate public 26 safety communications equipment and a wireless access point for city communications on the structure 27 proposed. The property owner shall permit this equipment to be installed if the city determines that the 28 structure interferes with city communications in the city. The applicant shall provide an electrical supply 812312005 9 TROUSDALE WEST I source for use by the equipment. The applicant shall permit authorized representatives of the city to gain 2 access to the equipment location for purposes of installation,maintenance,adjustment,and repair upon 3 reasonable notice to the property owner or owner's successor in interest. This access and location 4 agreement shall be recorded in terms that convey the intent and meaning of this condition. 5 6 Section 4. Subsection 25.63.030(b)(1) is amended to read as follows: 7 (1)A height for structures of forty-six(46)feet or less in height without a conditional use permit 8 pursuant to section 25.32.030 or as applied to chapter 25.34, or pursuant to section 25.40.025. 9 10 Section 5. The development fees adopted in Ordinance No. 1751 are affirmed. 11 12 Section 6. This ordinance shall be published according to law. 13 14 Mayor 15 16 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 17 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_day of 18 , 2005, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19 —day of ,2005, by the following vote: 20 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 21 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 22 City Clerk C:\FILES\ORDINANC\trousdalewest2005.ord.wpd 23 24 25 26 27 28 8/23/2005 10 TROUSDALE WEST Draft 12: For City Council action includes PC revisions at study 7.25.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 Chapter 25.40 Trousdale West of El Camino Real(TW)District Regulations 25.40.010 Scope of Regulations 25.40.020 Permitted Uses 25.40.025 Conditional Uses 25.40.030 Prohibited Uses 25.40.035 Uses on properties with lot fronts on Marco Polo Way 25.40.045 Design review 25.40.040Building regulations 25.40.050 Height limitations 25.40.060 Minimum lot size and street frontage 25.40.065 No Variance for lot size and street frontage 25.40.070 Landscaping 25.40.010 Scope of Regulations It is the purpose of this chapter to encourage and sustain the quality of development in the subarea designated as the North of Trousdale and the properties with lot fronts on Marco Polo Way south of Clarice Lane as a integral part of implementing policies,objectives and design guidelines set out in the North BurlingainvRollins Road Specific Plan for the Gateway Corridor area. The two key policies of the plan for this subarea are to intensify commercial and residential uses and opportunities close to an existing mass transit hub with regional transit and transportation access,and to provide supporting medial office and health service opportunities to Mills Peninsula Hospital; and to encourage a variety of residential units with densities designed to meet the objectives of the City's Housing Element and California housing needs objectives, suitably affordable for the hospital employees,local residents and the local labor force. The North of Trousdale subarea, including properties with lot fronts on Marco Polo Way, plays a specific role in the El Camino Gateway Corridor area in providing this mix of uses. The portion I Draft 11: For City Council action includes PC revisions at study Z25.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 of the area bordering Mills Peninsula Hospital to the south across Trousdale Drive bounded by Marco Polo Way, Ogden Road, Murchison Road, and Magnolia Road is focused on a mix of health service and medical office uses to support the hospital, to provide transition housing for those needing the services of the hospital, and high density residential uses sufficient to provide more affordable housing close to regional mass transit to support the local labor force and major employers in the planning area and the community. Annotation: The Subcommittee suggested refinement of the purpose section to include two themes : meeting the city' s housing need objectives given by the State; and providing a large stock of affordable housing in the city. The added wording in boldface italic addresses these changes . Original Annotation: The "scope of regulations" section is intended as the link between the goals, policies and urban design objectives of the Specific Plan and the zoning. This section provides the "setting" for the regulations which follow. When one of the regulations needs interpretation this section is used to understand the "intent" of the code. It is important to have strong links to the Specific Plan in this section, so that document becomes appended to the zoning regulations for this subarea. This section also defines the area to which this district applies. In this case it is a combination of the North of Trousdale subarea and the portion of the Mills Peninsula Hospital Block which is not in public ownership e.g. lots fronting on Marco Polo Way. Excluded from this zoning district is the Mills Peninsula Hospital property owned by the Peninsula Hospital District because it is in public ownership and zoned Unclassified. 25.40.020 Permitted Uses Annotation: The following permitted, conditional and prohibited uses apply to all the properties in the North of Trousdale subarea. An overlay zone has been added following the uses section to address the permitted Conditional and prohibited uses on the properties located on the south side of Marco Polo Way. An overlay zone was necessary because only one use was allowed on the Marco Polo properties, multiple family residential . The following uses are permitted in the TW district: 2 Draft 12. For City Council action includes PC revisions at study 7.25.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 (a) Multifamily dwellings in one or more buildings; Annotation: The specific plan allows for free standing multiple family residential uses in this subarea. Originally no residential uses were not allowed in this area (C-3) . However, shortly after the North Burlingame specific plan was adopted the City Council adopted an ordinance which overlaid the R-4 (multiple family) district regulations on all the properties in this subarea on an interim basis so that the zoning would have some consistency in the specific plan while new zoning was being prepared, reviewed and approved. NB/RR specific plan page 33 . (b) Office uses including health services with a floor area ratio of no more than 0.5,but not including financial institutions; Annotation: The plan allows in this subarea structures which are office only buildings if they have an FAR of O . S . NB/RR specific plan page 33 . (c) Group residential facilities for the elderly including convalescent facilities; Annotation: The current zoning was amended a number of years ago to allow group residential facilities in this subarea. The plan continues this use and adds convalescent facilities because of the close proximity of the new hospital and the residential- office/commercial transition of the character of the area. A group residential facility differs from a convalescent facility because the residents are more mobile and are provided three meals a day in a group dining room. Often units in a group residential facility include a small "Pullman" type kitchen. Convalescent homes are designed more like hospitals with single and double patient rooms and with no in room kitchen facilities. (d) Multiple family dwellings and office uses as permitted under subsection(b) above in mixed use buildings if the office uses are locate on the first or second floor only; Annotation: This provision would allow banks and real estate office on lots 3 Draft 12: For City Council action includes PC revisions at study 7.25.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 with frontage on Magnolia (behind the Plaza shopping center) and Murchison (the CTA headquarters is located on the corner of Murchison and Magnolia) . This is intended to state that one cannot have banks and real estate offices on either the first or second floor on Ogden and Trousdale. Banks and real estate offices may be located on either the first or second floor in mixed use buildings on Murchison and Magnolia. This same provision is applied to the zoning along the east side of Trousdale. In that case real estate offices and banks are limited to the E1 Camino Real frontage. (e) Accessory structures or uses supportive of residential uses, including greenhouses, lath houses,trellises, sheds, swimming pools, an accessory buildings to,serve such swimming pools,but not including group pools of swimming pool clubs;these accessory structures or uses shall be located on the same lot as the residential use being supported. Annotation: Provision taken from the uses section from the North E1 Camino Real Corridor zoning. The subcommittee felt that large multiple family complex may want to have small structures in the open space area required in the condominium requirements. Further, a swimming pool is an accessory structure, and larger complexes may wish to provide their residents with that amenity. (f)convents and parish houses Annotation: The Planning Commission added this use as a permitted use in their August 22, 2005, action on the TW zone because convents and parish houses are similar in use to multiple family dwellings which are allowed in this zone. In the past the city had revised the zoning in this district to allow a religious institution to build a religiously based group residential facility for the elderly but the project was never built. 25.40.025 Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit: (a) Financial institutions with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5; Annotation: On review of this provision the Subcommittee determined that smaller financial institutions which are generally office uses, 4 Draft 12: For City Council action includes PC revisions at study 225.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 such as a mortgage broker, were the most likely to locate in this area to support nearby residents and businesses . In addition the trend for banks is to smaller facilities. With these factors in mind the subcommittee decided to treat financial institutions the same as office uses for FAR. Originally in the C-3 zone financial institutions were one of a very few permitted uses in the Trousdale West Subarea. The Subcommittee suggested that since there are few financial uses remaining in this area, and the focus of the plan is to move this area away from service uses, financial institutions should be made conditional uses in the new zoning regulations. The FAR proposed for banks is the same as for offices . Since banks are getting smaller and a bank which uses two stories of a multi- story mixed use building would attract a large number of employees which would certainly impact the area's parking etc. , maybe the FAR allowed for banks should be regulated? Original Annotation: The Plan allows financial institutions with the same FAR as office uses. Financial institutions are presently allowed in the current zoning for this area. There is no FAR limitation in the present zoning. There is at least one major financial institution presently in the area, the California Teachers Association. (b) Public utility and public service structures or installations when found by the commission to be necessary for the public health, safety,convenience and welfare including transformer boxes. Annotation: The lack of review of the location of public utility and service structures is a serious problem. These installations are often large and bulky and placed at the edge of the sidewalk or in the pedestrian pathway after a building is virtually completed because no one worked with the utility to determine the best service access to the building before construction was well under way. This condition would address this issue by flagging it for developers at the outset. This provision is included in the North E1 Camino Corridor zoning, in part because of the zero lot line development encouraged along the Trousdale frontage, as well as for the reasons stated here. (c) Extended stay hotels; �,. 5 Draft 12: For City Council action includes PC revisions at study 225.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 Annotation: Subcommittee members felt that while extended stay hotels should be allowed in this area to support patient families using the hospital, motels and hotels should not be allowed. Extended stay hotels are generally considered to be a commercial use with a leaning toward residential . Because of that characteristic and the proximity to the hospital across the street where patients families may need temporary housing, this might be an appropriate use to consider for this subarea which ' contains some larger lots. The plan may have to be amended to allow this use in this subarea. (d) Any structure that is more than thirty-five(35) feet in height; Annotation: The Specific Plan calls out a height review line for this subarea of 35 feet . A review line means that any structure whose height is between the review line and the maximum height allowed requires discretionary action by the Planning Commission ( a conditional use permit) . The review line concept -. is used in zoning districts throughout the city. The only change in the specific plan is that there is also a required minimum height . In this subarea the minimum height, e.g. no building shorter without a variance, required is two stories or 24 feet on the Ogden and Marco Polo frontage, and three stories or 35 feet on Murchison, Magnolia and Trousdale frontages. (e) Lot coverage over fifty(50)percent, generally equivalent to the portion of the lot coverage exceeded by structure. Annotation: The subcommittee felt that in more urban areas developers should be encouraged to be creative in providing useable, common open spaces to the people who live in the multiple family development or work in the mixed use building. So in establishing the maximum lot coverage standard (50%) , the subcommittee felt that an exception should be a conditional use permit, rather than a variance; and the CUP should be based on an open space trade off . (see above) They determined that the criteria for determining the appropriate increase in lot coverage should be the size of the increase in lot coverage. 6 Draft 12. For City Council action includes PC revisions at study 7.25.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 25.40.030 Prohibited Uses Uses not listed as permitted or conditional shall be prohibited and in particular the following: (a) Adult oriented businesses as defined in chapter 25.76; (b) Auto body and auto repair shops; (c) Animal daycare, breeding,pens or kennels; (d) Clubs, associations and churches; Annotation: In previous drafts convents and parish houses were included with the prohibited uses. In their action on the TW district the Planning Commission decided to allow convents and parish houses as a permitted use since they were similar in use to allowed multiple family development in the area. However the commission also determined that clubs, associations and churches were not an appropriate use in the TW zone because of the parcel size, high densities being promoted in the plan, potential access problems, and the emphasis on promoting mixed commercial and residential uses in this small area of the city. (e) Retail sales,personal services and service business uses; �— (f) Dry cleaning processing plants; (g) Hospitals; (h) Massage,bathing or similar establishments; (i) Mortuaries; 0) Outdoor storage of materials or goods or equipment; (k) Pet stores; (1) Uses of any industrial nature, including,but not limited to ,junk yards and automobile wrecking yards; (m) Veterinarian hospital and veterinarian clinics or facilities; and (n) Warehouses for the storage of furniture,household,personal or other similar articles or outdoor commercial storage. Annotation: In reviewing the list of prohibited uses in the El Camino Real corridor, the Subcommittee thought that auto body and repair shops and outdoor storage of equipment should be added to the Trousdale West area. It should be noted that any use that is not permitted or conditional is prohibited so the prohibited list does not need to include them all . However, the prohibited list should include those items which are most likely to be disputed. This facilitates the administration of the code at the counter. 7 Draft 12: For City Council action includes PC revisions at study 7.25.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 All uses not permitted or conditional are prohibited in the zoning code. However, if some uses are clearly unwanted they may be called out as prohibited. This list is the same list included as prohibited for .the mixed uses along the E1 Camino frontage. In the current zoning which has been applied to this area for 30 years only three uses were called out as prohibited: uses of a commercial nature including retail sales and services; advertising structures (now covered by the sign code and inappropriate in the zoning code) and psychic services. The newly adopted plan allows retail uses on the first floor in mixed use buildings on E1 Camino Real but not in the west of Trousdale area. The Plaza Shopping Center continues to provide for the retail needs of this area. To address any confusion regarding the meaning of "mixed use" and that it does not include retail in the west of Trousdale area, retail uses (sales, personal service and service) are all called out as prohibited. 25.40.035 Properties with lot frontage on Marco Polo Way. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this chapter, the following specific provisions shall apply to the properties with any lot frontage on Marco Polo Way north of Clarice Lane: Annotation: The addition of the work any makes both sides of Marco Polo subject to the provisions of this section. Presently the east side of Marco Polo is zoned C-3 (no residential) and the west side zoned R-3 (multiple family residential) . The specific plan includes the east side of Marco Polo in the Hospital Block and recommends multiple family residential development . The Subcommittee felt that since the west side of Marco Polo was already zoned multiple family residential the two sides of the street should be subject to the same regulations. So the Subcommittee recommended the Trousdale West zoning be applied to both sides. For the east side the density for new development will be increases slightly and new development will be subject to the same design guidelines as development on the west side of Marco Polo. The subcommittee felt in the long term this would provide a better streetscape and sense of neighborhood for the future development on this portion of Marco Polo. Since the east side of Marco Polo is already zoned multiple family, with the same uses allowed, the zoning does not mandate an amendment to the specific plan to make this zoning change. Original Annotation: This provision creates an overlay zone for 8 Draft 12: For City Council action includes PC revisions at study 7.25.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 the properties on the west side of Marco Polo Way. These properties are include in the Mills Peninsula Hospital Block and much more limited land uses are allowed than in the rest of the area addressed by this zoning code section. The intention of this section is to set out different land use regulations for this area on the west of Marco Polo. The development regulations are the same. So the Marco Polo street frontage is cited along with the other streets when referring to development standards e.g. height, front setback etc. (a) Permitted uses. Only multiple family residential uses including group residential facilities for the elderly and convalescent facilities, shall be allowed on properties with lot frontage on Marco Polo Way. Annotation: The Community Gateway organization which provides services to disabled children and adults owns a building on Marco Polo. They would like to continue this use as either an educational facilities for disabled adults or as a daycare facility for preschool aged disabled children. This use would not fit in this criteria as a permitted use. The plan does not address support health services on Marco Polo Way. The subcommittee determined to allow education for disable children in the TW zone because of the proximity of the hospital and other related support services. (b) Conditional uses. (1) All uses allowed in CS 25.40.025 above except extended stay hotels and financial institutions shall be allowed with a conditional use permit; and Annotation: In their August 22, 2005, action on the TW district the Planning Commission amended this section to insure that no office use would be allowed in the Marco Polo Overlay area which is clearly defined in the plan as being residential only. The Commission has included typical residential support uses such as schools and day care facilities in the definition of residential only. (2) hi addition, schools that serve the needs of health challenged or disabled persons, shall be allowed with a conditional use permit; Annotation: The Marco Polo area behind the hospital seemed to the 9 Draft 72: For City Council action includes PC repisions at study 7.25.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 subcommittee to be a good location for community based classroom oriented uses serving populations which would benefit from both proximity to various health and health related services and . exceptional regional mass transit . For this reason it was suggested that school uses for these special populations be included as a conditional use on the properties on the east side of Marco Polo Way. (c) Prohibited uses. Uses not listed as permitted or conditional in this section shall be prohibited, including but not limited to the uses listed in CS 25.40.030 Annotation: This provision makes it clear that all the other provisions of the WT district apply to lots with fronts on Marco Polo Way. 25.40.038 Residential requirements in mixed use buildings In mixed use buildings that include multifamily or group residential facilities for the elderly, or convalescent centers, one half(1/2) of the floor area shall be in residential use, and all such facilities shall include an off-street location for loading and unloading to serve both residents and deliveries; Annotation: The Subcommittee felt that as proposed in the design guidelines the density of use in this subarea would be intense enough that some provision needs to made for safe egress for residents with limited mobility. Also this would allow deliveries to be made to the facility off street . This is a provision suggested by the Subcommittee for inclusion for the mixed use buildings along E1 Camino Real . The reason for requiring at least half the floor area to be in residential use is to maintain sufficient mass of dwelling units to insure that the building retains its residential character and provides a suitable residential experience for those living there. 25.40.045 Design Review Construction and alterations including substantial construction or change to more than fifty(50)percent of the front fagade or change to more than fifty(50)percent of any fagade facing a public or private street or parking lot shall be subject to design review based on the design guidelines for the El Camino Real Design District in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and shall be processed as provided in chapter 25.57. 10 Draft 12: For City Council action includes PC revisions at study 7.25.05 and action 8.2205 August 25,2005 `- Annotation: The Subcommittee discussed the "trigger" for design review. They concluded that a change of 50% to a facade was appropriate since because of the change in land use being promoted there is a much greater likelihood that construction in this area will new construction, not remodeling of older buildings . (a) A design review application in the TW district shall be reviewed by the planning commission for the following considerations: (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles as defined in the design guidelines for the El Camino Real Design District; and (2) Respect for and promotion of the streetscape and pedestrian accessibility by the placement of buildings to maximize the commercial and safe residential use of the street frontage, location of off-street public open spaces, and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages; and (3) The design should fit the site, support the building rhythm, the sense of pedestrian scale along the street frontage, is compatible with the surrounding development and is consistent with the design guidelines and development standards for the El Camino Real Design District; and (4) Compatibility of the architecture and landscaping with the design guidelines for the El Camino Real Design District including building materials, articulation of the facades, differentiation of architectural elements,building mass and use of decorative elements, including awnings and signage; and (5) Architectural design consistency: by using a single architectural style with appropriate articulation on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure(s) and with the directives of the design guidelines and development standards for the El Camino Real Design District; and (6) Provision of site features identified in the design guidelines and development standards for the El Camino Real Design District such as landscaping and pedestrian circulation which enriches the existing opportunities of the mixed use commercial and residential neighborhood, as well as those structures with only residential uses. Annotation: The Subcommittee felt that articulation of the facades of each structure was an essential and necessary design feature, and should be called out and emphasized in the design review criteria. Articulation for the fagade has been added to design 11 Draft 12: For City Council action includes PC revisions of study 7.25.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 guidelines which addresses compatibility of architecture and architectural design consistency. (b) When any part of a commercial or mixed use structure is subject to design review, any awnings on commercial or mixed use structures shall be included in the design review. Annotation: The subcommittee discussed whether this regulation should require design review of awnings on multiple family only buildings. They decided not . The reason was that for multiple family buildings the architectural articulation should be built in, not based on awnings. This provision puts the developer on notice that in this area awnings are a part of the design review for buildings whose use is entirely commercial or mixed uses of residential and commercial . The design review will be required when any change to the fagade requires design review. (c) The following are exempt from the provisions of this section: (1) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for development in the TW district filed before (2) Any amendment to a project exempt from design review pursuant to subsection(1) above shall be subject to design review if the project involved would have otherwise been subject to design review under subsection(a)above, the project has not been completed, and the amendment would extend any structure involved in the application outside the envelope of the structure for which the approval was granted or sought in the underlying application or would change a fagade . Changes to,additions of, or deletions of awnings as an amendment to a project shall not trigger design review under this subsection. Annotation: This provision is standard. It is particularly important in a situation like this where the city is processing projects under the plan before the zoning is in place. This provision has been used in other places in the code over the years and has worked well . 25.40.050 Building regulations, floor area ratio and density (a) Multifamily dwellings,mixed use, or office uses may be located and erected in one or more buildings on any one lot. 12 Draft 12: For City Council action includes PC revisions at study 7.25 05 and action 8.2205 August 25,2005 Annotation: The Subcommittee felt that development of a lot, particularly in this subarea where some lots are bigger and oddly shaped, should not be limited to one structure on a lot . This section requires that each lot be developed with only one structure. This would not include permitted accessory structures. (b) No accessory building shall occupy the portion of any lot in front of the main building,nor shall any accessory building or structure be closer than four(4) feet distant from any other building or structure on the same lot. Annotation: This is a provision in all of the city's residential zones. It insures that accessory structures will not be built at the front of the lot along the street (which is consistent with the design guidelines for this subarea) and that there will be a minimum special separation between structures on a single lot . (c) Floor area ratio and density. The maximum floor area ratio and maximum density of development shall be determined by the type of use as follows: (1) Mixed use of commercial and multifamily: Any ground floor office use on the lot shall have a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5, and the maximum residential density shall be thirty(30)dwelling units to the acre for that lot. (2) Multifamily dwelling use only on the lot: The residential use shall have no maximum floor area ratio and shall have a maximum residential density of forty(40)dwelling units to the acre. Annotation: January 1, 2005 a new state law became effective requiring cities to grant up to a 35* increase in density per acre if the city requires inclusion of affordable units. Burlingame does require inclusion of affordable units for all new multiple family development over three units. The Specific Plan allows for a very high residential density in the North Burlingame area, 50 units to the acre. Staff would suggest that the allowed residential density in the zoning be reduced to 40 units to the acre. The General Plan still states 50 units to the acre. Because of the state required density bonus, any developer who provides affordable housing and would like to build 50 units to the acre will be able to anyway without a variance, and the development will be consistent with the plan. 13 Draft 12: For City Council action includes PC revisions at study 7.25.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 (3) Office use: office use including health services shall have a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5. (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,but shall have a maximum density of sixty(60)beds to the acre based on the number of persons the rooms are designed to accommodate. Annotation: These are the floor area ratios and development densities for each permitted use set out in the specific plan for the North of Trousdale subarea (see page 33) . The standards are taken from the plan. FAR is clear. However, density of 60 beds to the acre for group residential homes is not so clear. It appears that rooms in these facilities are designed for one or two people. So the size seemed to be the most equitable way to determine this density. 25.40.060 Height Limitations and lot coverage. Annotation: The North Burlingame/Rollins Road specific plan introduces a new approach to height regulation. The plan establishes a minimum height for buildings e.g. if the building is lower it must get a variance. Then the plan establishes a height review line e.g. if the building is over 35 feet it must get a conditional use permit . Finally the plan establishes a maximum height e.g. if the building is over 60 feet it must get a variance. The plan further refines height regulation by establishing different minimum and maximum heights based on the street on which the lot fronts . (see maps pages 55 and 56) In the North of Trousdale subarea there is considerable variability among the heights based on street frontage. This is reflected in the regulations below. We might consider using a table to present this information. In addition the specific plan is moot on the issue of lot coverage. A building lot coverage limitation has been added here as an encouragement for taller buildings with more open space around them which can be used as private common open space (like a park) for residents. Lot coverage has been added as a conditional use providing additional open space (beyond that required in the condominium requirements) is provided on roof tops or elsewhere on the site. 14 Draft 12: For City Council action includes PC revisions at study 7.25.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 (a) Minimum required heights. (1) Trousdale Drive, Murchison Drive and Magnolia Drive. Any structure containing a dwelling or commercial use with a lot front on Trousdale Drive,Murchison Drive or Magnolia Drive shall be at least three (3) stories or thirty-five(35) feet in height, whichever is greater; (2) Ogden Drive and Marco Polo Way. Any structure containing a dwelling or commercial use with a lot front on Ogden Drive and Marco Polo Way shall be at least two (2) stories or twenty four(24)feet in height,whichever is greater; Annotation: The change to the minimum heights section regarding measurable height or number of actual stories should be discussed. For example a building could have a 15 foot floor to floor plate and put three stories in 45 feet . The design guidelines want to force buildings in this area to be at least 35 feet, so this may not matter. Original Annotation: The development standards are written in stories. In the sign code we have established that a story is 12 feet . Based on that definition measurable heights have been added to this code section. Otherwise a two story building �.. could be 40 feet tall . It should be noted that since the 1950 ' s or so we have had a 35 foot review line in Burlingame and it has been clear that, without dropping the first floor below top of curb it is impossible to get four stories within 35 feet . (b) Maximum allowed heights. (1) Trousdale Drive. No structure with a lot front on Trousdale Drive shall exceed seventy-five(75)feet in height. (2) Marco Polo Way, Ogden Drive, Murchison Drive, Magnolia Drive. No structure with a lot front on Marco Polo Way, Ogden Drive, Murchison Drive, or Magnolia Drive shall exceed sixty(60) feet in height. Annotation: These are the maximum heights set out in the specific plan for the North of Trousdale subarea. (see map on page 56) . If allowed to exceed these heights the development would require a variance (see section (d) below) . (c) Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter,maximum heights are also subject to 15 Draft ll: For City Council action includes PC revisions at study 7.25.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 further limitation by the Federal Aviation Administration, Annotation: The properties within this subarea are within the foul weather landing path of San Francisco International Airport (about 3% of the time a year) . For airplane safety the regulations establish FAA's authority to review and determine the height of buildings in the area. The city does not want to be in the position of approving a hazard to the airport which could result in a safety problem. This provision puts the developer on notice to get clearance from FAA before he begins to design. (d) Notwithstanding any other provision of this title,no variance shall be granted or approved to exceed the maximum heights established in subsection(b) and(c) above. Annotation: This provision forbids any and all height variances over the maximum height allowed in the plan, even if FAA says the air safety ceiling is higher. (e) Maximum lot coverage. The maximum lot coverage is fifty(50)percent, except as expressly provided in section 25.40.025. Annotation: Lot coverage has been added as a requirement to act as an incentive to encourage developers to provide additional open space for residents on site. Subcommittee suggested that exceptions be a conditional use permit with the provision that the exception is base on the fact that additional open space is provided on the site can be a court yard or roof garden, etc. 25.40.070 Setbacks. (a) Maximum front setback and build-to-line. Any structure containing a dwelling or office use shall meet the following maximum front setback requirements: (1) Trousdale Drive, Marco Polo Way, Ogden Drive and Murchison Drive. The front wall of the first story of any structure containing a dwelling or office use with a lot front on Trousdale Drive,Marco Polo Way, Ogden Drive, or Murchison Drive shall be setback at least ten(10) feet from the front property line; and at least sixty(60)percent of the structure shall be located at the front setback line. 16 Draft Il: For City Council action includes PC revisions at study 7.25.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 �— (2) Magnolia Drive. The front wall of the first story of any structure containing a dwelling or office use with a lot front on Magnolia Drive shall have no minimum front setback from the front property line except that a minimum of sixty(60)percent of the structure shall be located at the front property line. (3) On comer lots, the front setback shall conform to the requirements for the street where the lot front is located. Annotation: These front setback lines were established to force the developer to articulate the building along the front property line (on Magnolia) or front setback (101 ) on Trousdale, Ogden, Marco Polo and Murchison. (see page 54) . While they are effective regarding the minimum setback, they do not limit how far back the remaining portion of the building can be set. In the Bayfront the city established a maximum setback at the front to address this. Otherwise, the remaining 40% of the building may be set back only one foot, not accomplishing much articulation. (b) Side setback. (1) The minimum side setback line shall be as follows: Side setback line(in feet) Lots 42'wide or under 3 Lots over 42' and less than 51' 4 Lots over 51'and less than 54' 5 Lots over 54'and less than 61' 6 Lots over 61'wide and over 7 (2) The side setback for structures containing multifamily dwellings shall be a minimum of five(5) feet , and where a greater side setback is required,thirty-five(35)percent of the structure may encroach to the minimum side setback in order to achieve articulation along the sides of the structure. Annotation: The subcommittee wanted to encourage future developers to put interesting features along the sides of their structures as well as on the front and back. The side setback regulations are cumulative so 5 feet applies to the first floor but a two story structure must have a 6 foot setback and so forth for each 17 Draft 12: For City Council action includes PC revisions at study 7.25.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 story. This provision would maintain a minimum 5 foot setback for a structure but would allow features such as bay windows or balconies to extend between the setback for the face of the building based on the number of stories and the minimum 5 foot line. Original Annotation: In the past the zoning code has distinguished between multiple family residential developments built as rental (apartment) units and those build for owner occupancy (condominiums) . Because of the lending market, currently there are very few rental units built in a building which has a single ownership, however, the question remains in developing areas should the two types of housing be treated differently in terms of side setbacks. The subcommittee determined that there should be one minimum side setback for all multiple family development whether built as rental or owner occupied units . The figure chosen was 5 feet, which is the minimum side setback established in the residential condominium development standards. The great majority of all multiple family development in Burlingame since 1980 has been condominium in ownership, so this additional side setback standard represents no major change from the existing build environment . (3) The exterior side setback for all corner lots shall be at least equal to the minimum front setback for the adjoining street. (4) In case of conflict between any provision of subsections b (1), (2)Or(3)above, the greatest minimum side setback shall be applicable; (5) Following the calculation of the applicable minimum side setback pursuant to subsection(b)(4) above, the minimum side setback for a structure shall be increased by one for each story above the first story. Annotation: These are the current side setback requirements set out in the zoning regulations which apply to most of the Trousdale West area. Since these standards have established the pattern of development in the area it is not suggested in the plan that they be changed. The only change is for corner lots, where the new development must meet the minimum front setback for each street frontage. It should also be noted that there are a mix of office and residential uses in this area now. one reason there has been as little conflict between uses in this area is that the residential uses are supported by the same separation 18 Draft 12: For City Council action includes PC revisions at study 7.25.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 between the buildings that is applied in the multiple family areas . (b) Rear setbacks. All structures located, erected or rebuilt in the TW district shall be setback from the rear property line by at least fifteen(15) feet, except for properties with a rear property line adjacent to any property zoned R-2,where the rear setback shall be no less than twenty(20) feet. Annotation: The Subcommittee determined that within the TW district or where the TW district abuts R-3 (multiple family residential) a 15 foot rear setback on each property (30 foot total) is sufficient . However, where the new TW which is a high density residential use abuts R-2 zoned property along the west side of Marco Polo, the setback of the new taller buildings should be greater, 20 feet is recommended. In the current R-3 and R-4 zones the rear setback is 15 feet for the first floor and 20 feet for the second floor and above. Original Annotation: Fifteen feet is the current rear setback requirement in the C-3 district. The C-3 zone was unique because it required commercial development to meet the residential setbacks established in the late 1970 ' x . So the new requirements which allow multiple family residential development will not represent a major change to the pattern of development in the area. 25.40.080 Minimum lot size and street frontage. There shall be a minimum lot size of twenty thousand(20,000) square feet and a minimum street frontage of one hundred fifty(150) feet. No property in the district shall be divided or subdivided into a lot with less area or less street frontage. Annotation: The Subcommittee asked what the basis was for arriving at 150 feet for the street frontage. Staff looked at the existing street frontages on each street. On Trousdale the existing range of lot fronts is 112 to 230 with the average of 171 lineal feet; on Magnolia the range of lot fronts is 32 to 363, with the average 201; on Ogden the range of street frontages is 60 to 180, with the average of 118; on Murchison the range is 127 to 393 with the average of 248 . What is important about the minimum lot frontage is that in order to divide one lot into two 19 Draft 12: For City Council action includes PC revisions at study 7.25.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 or more lots, each lot must have the minimum lot size. If this size is out of character with the existing lots in the area a new land use pattern can emerge, one that is not intended in implementing the policies of the plan. This same is true of minimum lot size. If the lot size is too small, the kind of streetscape (higher density, taller buildings) may not occur. Like lot fronts, the size of lots in the area varies dramatically. On Trousdale (both sides) for example the lots range in size from 12 , 720SF to 37, 320SF while on Murchison there are only two lots and they range from about 2 acres to 5 acres. On Marco Polo (east side only) the lots vary from 12, 000SF to 50, 040SF, however there is a 60 foot wide water easement across the rear of all lots which cannot be used except for surface parking. On Ogden the range of lot size is 17, 780 SF to 39, 204SF. Using 20, 000SF as the minimum lot size would allow only the largest lots (acreages) to be divided, in those cases only one has sufficient street frontage to be divided into more than one lot. Original Annotation: Average lot frontage varies within the area. On Trousdale the average is 171 feet; on Ogden the average is 118 feet, on Murchison the average is 248 feet, and on Magnolia the average is 201 feet . The reason for these regulations is to prevent current lots from being divided into such small lots that the objectives of the design guidelines in the plan cannot be accomplished. In the current zoning regulations for this area the minimum lot size is 5, 000 SF with 50feet of street frontage required. 25.40.085 No variance for lot size and street frontage. Notwithstanding any other provision of this title,no variances for lot size or street frontage shall be granted to any property within the TW district. Annotation: This provision makes it clear that the minimum lot size and street frontage requirements must be met . There are no exceptions. 25.40.090 Landscaping Annotation: Because the C-3 zone was a transition area between the multiple family development on Marco Polo and Ogden and the office uses across the street, development in the C-3 zone was 20 Draft 12. For City Councit action includes PC revisions at study Z25.05 and action&2205 August 25,2005 required to have residential setbacks. Although the C-3 district regulations have no direction regarding landscaping, the required front and side yard areas of the office buildings subsequently built were landscaped as they would have been were they multiple-family residential uses. While the residential setback approach has been modified, but retained, in the newly adopted design guidelines, the guidelines are more direct in stating what landscaping is required. As a result landscape requirements have been added to this zoning district. These requirements are taken directly from the Design Guidelines and are basically the same for all development in the North E1 Camino Corridor area. (a) At least sixty(60)percent of the area of the front setback, if any, shall be landscaped to provide a transition to the sidewalk. Annotation: This section addresses the required front setback. The distance between the front property line (shortest side of the lot on a street) and the minimum setback. However, in the new regulations there is a minimum build-to-line which requires that a certain percentage of the front of each lot be developed to the minimum setback, however, the rest of the building may be placed further back. In the current code, only 40% of the landscaped area can be paved. (b) Access points to off-street parking. A landscaped buffer at least ten (10) foot deep landscaped buffer perpendicular to the sidewalk with a width of at least fifteen(15) feet shall be provided at all access points to off-street parking. Annotation: The design guidelines specifically call for landscaped areas at the entrances to driveways, in part to announce their location to both drivers and pedestrians. However the guidelines don't provide much information on dimensions. The 10 by 15 foot dimensions suggested in this provision are based on being sure that there is enough landscaping to 1) identify the driveway to both pedestrians and passing motorists, 2) support plants and an irrigation system (necessary if they are to survive) , and 3) provide some ease of maintenance. (c) Landscape buffer for off-street parking garage. A landscaped area at least five(5) foot deep and in no case, less than five(5) feet long, shall be provided along the street frontages 21 Draft 12: For City Council action includes PC revisions at study 225.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 for all off-street parking garages, except when there is a zero (0) setback for the entire frontage. Annotation: This provision will be the same throughout the E1 Camino Real North Corridor area. In the area west of Trousdale only Magnolia has a build to line which is the same as the front property line. Properties on all the other streets, Trousdale, Ogden, Marco Polo and Murchison, require a 10 foot setback. With this provision all properties would be required to have at least 5 feet of landscaping in front of any garage structure which rises above grade a the front property line. (d) To provide and maintain approved landscaping at the entrance of the parking access as required by the design guidelines for the subarea and by the zoning if development on two or more lots sharing access to on-site parking, the owner of each lot shall maintain the portion of landscaping on its property and shall have irrevocable cross- access easements for the access. Annotation: While this may not be as common a practice in the West Trousdale area where the lots are larger than in the El Camino area, the design guidelines encourage shared driveways . First, to reduce the number of points of access on the street. Second, to encourage access from the side or rear of a site to achieve more continuous development (e.g. no breaks for driveways and cars) along important street frontages . If accesses are to be shared it is important for developers to know some basic assumptions about them before they make that decision. The Fire Department and other city departments will also review such proposals early on to make sure that safety needs are met. Staff would be less concerned about including this provision if the design guidelines did not actively promote this access alternative. 25.40.100 Special Parking Requirements Annotation: In their discussions the Subcommittee has not added any provisions which would be implemented by adjusting on-site parking requirements. Therefore, the standard requirements of Chapter 25 . 70 will apply. Mixed office-residential uses will provide parking on site for both uses, this includes medical office/health service uses. In the West Trousdale area only 22 Draft 12: For City Council action includes PC repisions at study 7.15.05 and action 8.22.05 August 15,2005 office, including health services, are allowed in mixed use buildings . Office uses require 1 :300 SF and health services 1 :250 SF. This will result in the need to build substantial below grade parking. Having said that one of the city' s major problems with the medical office/office buildings on E1 Camino in this area is insufficient parking. The city receives complaints even from those with 1 :300 SF. Finally if the office area is parked based on part of the office space provided being general office and part being medical office it becomes a real enforcement problem for the Planning Department. As the these regulations are now written a mixed use would have to provide on site parking to code based on the proposed square footage of the office or health service uses and for the residential uses based on the number of bedrooms. Supporting Regulations Add to Chapter 25.58 General Use Provisions CS 25.58.040 Required public safety communications equipment and wireless access point agreement. As a condition of approval of any structure thirty-five(35) feet or over in height, the commission shall require a location to be agreed upon by the city and the property owner to located public safety communications equipment and a wireless access point for city communications on the structure proposed. The property owner shall permit this equipment to be installed if the structure interferes with city communications in the city. The applicant shall permit authorized representatives of the city to gain access to the equipment location for the purposes of installation,maintenance, adjustment and repair upon reasonable notice t the property owner or owner's successor in interest. This access and location agreement shall be recorded in terms that convey the intent and meaning of this condition. Annotation: At their study the Planning Commission questioned the 48 foot height minimum for a building to be eligible for the city to place equipment on the roof. Because of the minimum height requirement in the area around the police station and the change in topography going up Trousdale, shorter buildings could be essential in maintaining line of sight for communications facilities. At their meeting on August -22, 2005, the Planning Commission revised the height limit to 35 feet. The Commission also acknowledged that any public communications facilities 23 Draft 12: For City Council action includes PC revisions at study 7.25.05 and action 8.22.05 August 25,2005 placed on roof tops would not be counted in the maximum height measurement for the structure . Original Annotation: This provision is proposed to compliment CS 17 . 04 . 055 which requires property owners to allow roof top space and access for installation and maintenance of repeater/receiver antenna and supporting equipment to serve the city safety services (police and fire) and operations . CS 17. 04 . 055 requires that owners of existing high rise buildings allow the city access for such equipment when they replace, modify or upgrade any of the building' s basic infrastructure utilities. The proposed CS 25.58 . 040 is an addition to the general provisions section of the zoning code and requires property owners to provide access to the city for installation and maintenance of repeater/receiver antenna and supporting equipment on any new structure thirty-five (35) feet or taller. The city and county emergency services people felt that the 35 foot height limit, particularly when combined with the terrain and tall vegetation in some areas of the city, would allow them the flexibility they would need to insure continued, unobstructed line of site access in the northern area of the city around the Police station and its connection with the Rollins Road fire station. This provision would not mean that communications equipment would be placed on every new structure, but that the city' s options would remain open on all new structures in the future. Inclusionary Housing Requirements. Add to Chapter 25.63.030 (b)(1) (1) A height for structures of forty-six (46) feet or less in height without a conditional use permit pursuant to section 25.32.030 or as applied to chapter 25.34, or pursuant to section 25.40.025. Annotation: The TW zoning district requires a conditional use permit for structures over 35 feet in height . However one of the incentives for inclusionary zoning is raising this limit to 46 feet if an affordable dwelling unit is included in the development. Without this amendment, the height incentive will not apply to the TW zoning district. 24 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 22,2005 7. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE TROUSDALE WEST DISTRICT-CITY PLANNER:MARGARET MONROE (NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND 215 NOTICED) Reference staff report August 22,2005,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report and discussed how the proposed zoning for the Trousdale West district implements the adopted North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan for the Trousdale North and Hospital Block subareas, noting that the zoning for this district was expanded to include both sides of Marco Polo between Trousdale Drive and Clarice Way. She also noted that this zoning represents a significant change in the way development is regulated in the city, creating both minimum as well as maximum height limits,and requiring certain portions ofbuilding facades to be built at the minimum front setback line. Commissioners commented that the revision of the telecommunications provision to include all buildings of 35 feet or more was good,noting that line of sight for communications is key; the fact that the plan does not allow any office use in the Marco Polo overlay area suggests that financial institutions also should not be allowed,wondered why clubs,associations,religious institutions are not allowed outside ofthe Marco Polo area where a religious institution owns a large parcel in this area. How was the requirement that 60%of the building is built at the front property line determined? This was taken from the design criteria shown on the maps in the adopted plan;the objective was to establish"street walls"to add character to the various streets and areas within the planning area. Like extended stay hotels being included to support the hospital. Important to note that this zoning is a departure, a different way of zoning,which requires the buildings to come up to the street, the density will be increased in an attractive way which will establish streetscape. There were no further questions from the Commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. John Hickey, 1840 Ogden Drive;Dan Zemanek, Sunrisde Senior �. Living. Appreciate that the inclusionary zoning incentives were included with this district; like to clarify a couple of points: if public safety equipment is required to be placed on the roof of a building will it be included in the height measurement for that building. Staff noted it would not. Do the minimum lot size requirements apply only to dividing an existing lot? Staff noted yes. Pleased to see that the city is encouraging interesting design elements and is open to creative attempts to make the sides of buildings interesting even if it would require a variance. Am comfortable with the regulations as proposed. Refer to page 13 which refers to Group Residential Facilities for the Elderly,there is no maximum floor area ratio set out but there is a maximum density of 60 beds to the acre.Have an assisted living project on the agenda later this evening which will accommodate 95 beds to the acre. There is a big difference between the density and intensity of use of a convalescent home and an assisted living facility. CA noted that since the maximum density for multiple family residential uses in this area is 40 to 50 dwellings to the acre,60 beds sounded reasonable for the plan. Commissioner noted that this was not etched in stone now,but could be, would consider increasing the density for assisted living projects or shifting to an FAR. Applicant noted that the traffic impacts of an assisted living facility are less than a convalescent or skilled nursing facility. Can convalescent facilities and group residential facilities be separated out? CP noted that they could.CA noted that regulation should not be based on state licensing because the state regulations were changing too fast. CP noted that elsewhere in the code parking is used to determine the number of beds(density)in a Group Residential Care Facility for the Elderly, so this item could be separated out and parking could be used to determine the density as it is in the rest of the city. Have been looking at such facilities and noted that the better ones are bigger because they provide more interaction among the residents;agree that the number for group residential facilities should be more than 60. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 22,2005 Commissioners discussion: It is a good point that this zoning should be kept moving however,would like to look at this as a complete district,so should consider continuing until the Group Residential facility issues can be resolved;not see a problem to carve out that piece and move the rest on;what about the other issues think parish houses and convents OK but no financial institutions in the Marco Polo overlay area;CA noted that a parish house or convent was like an apartment house. C.Osterling made a motion to continue this item for two weeks so that staff could bring back the issue of the separation of convalescent facilities and group residential facilities for the elderly. The motion died for want of a second. Comment on the motion: endorse sending this forward, think solution is simple, assisted living provides different kinds of services with a different impact on parking. C.Brownrigg made a motion to move the TW district regulations forward without CS 25.40.050(4)group residential facilities and convalescent facilities and with the recommendation that financial institutions be deleted from the Marco Polo overlay and that parish houses and convents be allowed in the district. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the ordinance to the City Council for adoption with the amendments proposed. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.Vistica absent)voice vote. This item will be taken forward to the City Council. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 8. BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA AREA, ANZA POINT NORTH AND ANZA POINT SOUTH DISTRICTS — CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE (NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND 40 NOTICED) (REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE ANZA POINT NORTH ZONING DISTRICT) Reference staff report August 22,2005,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting that this public hearing was noticed for three zoning districts Anza Area,Anza Point North and Anza Point South. Attached to the packet is a request to continue the hearing on Anza Point North district. The Commission may decide to continue the hearing on the Anza Point North district, any testimony on that district this evening will be carried over to the continued hearing. CP noted that an Errata for the Bayfront zones was placed at the Commissioner's desks tonight. The errata includes minor edits to make language in the six new zoning districts in the Bayfront consistent. These edits should be considered at the public hearing on the zoning districts tonight. There were no questions of staff, Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue;Nikki Zito, 615 Airport Blvd; spoke. Last April when the plan was approved it was determined that there would be no residential uses in the Bayfront area,do not recall extended stay hotels being allowed,concerned that given their design,if one of these hotels should close it could easily be converted to some kind of residential use;the plan states on pages 4-5 that hotel density was increased for extended stay hotels;in TW district extended stay hotels are allowed because they are compatible with the residential district, should consider dropping the idea of extended stay hotels in these proposed zoning districts. What is an "apartment hotel"? CP noted that this term has been dropped from the code;she referred to the errata sheet of corrections. CA noted that extended stay and time share condominiums were discussed during the planning process. Council determined that extended stay hotels were appropriate in part because they are a hotel product meeting a special customer 9 CITY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BU GAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURL.INGAME,CA 94010 +� TEL: (650) 55&7250 • FAX: (650) 696-3790 a wwwburGngame-org i NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING FOR RECLASSIFICATION AND TO REVISE ZONING REQUIREMENTS The City of Burlingame City Council will introduce PUBLIC< HEARIN and hold a public hearing on Tuesday, September 61, NOTICE 2005 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, to - r RECLASSIFY AND REVISE ZONING REQUIREMENTS #' for the properties fronting on Marco Polo Way, and i . in the area bounded by Ogden Murchison, Magnolia i and Trousdale, to implement.the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan adopted September 2004. Mailed: August 26, 200577 77 (Please refer to other side) t CITY OF B URLINGAME - f l A copy of the plic an th projec be reviewed prior :. V p p - : to the meeting Primrose Road, Burlingame, CM► If you challe e t u m be limited to raising only br, I Wit iblic hearing, described in h ri e e ed to the city at or prior to he pu c eat}n&. F O R x 1. A r: . Property ow -Irs a respon ble r informing - i their tenants bou T io al info ati , please call l (650) 558-7 o� n, r. Margaret Mo04 i+ City Planner - � PU CE (Please refer to other side) 3 �/■ 'moi` M rE �i 1,. �� t �• ►�.e� • E% i� I�eee►e.,e , ee,. i � �� a a anrinnrr• � •' .�.�'■ ���\111111 111lIII,It't w�trr-l-ml-trf- � IIItt1111� -_ � �; � .� r. now .r - 1111111/I/ ► 111111 rr . . .. .r ♦� �� �� �� �r r. .. .� � � 1111111�� � � ���` ' �� N� ��I� ♦ � �. . .� .. � . /1/11111 � ���`£ s,,,,� = , ���Ii���♦� C A2Sub Areas: Al Northern Gateway ■A2 Central Rollins Road '' ` .v t■..t ■ A3 Southern Gateway ��� Rv ny,Cej 3 't A4 Adrian Road Auto District B I Burlingame Plaza B2 El IIIIIIIC �� IIIIIIII► ��.— CaminoReal Gateway CorridorB4 North of Trousdale Drive 11111111/ � �` �� •` r B3 Mills Peninsula Block IIIIIIIu ' Lan • Use Designations: . �_� r� moi.: ' ..� ►e0i -UseOffice/Retailr • III 111111 u1= k � �. „tea ( Office/Residential 1111- / 1 Commercial Shopping/Service � rig(!'. SiyA � y 11111111 fu11_ Commercial - Service and Special Uses Auto Row Overlay District 7. C. 1111111_ �I � ��' ■ 1!1lllli /.rte Residential Density �n �i�l 111/11� • i IndustrialI Office Spacei� moi• �� j Institutional - Institutional/Other • C_0o ws'E—, CUs r. A__T-_ CHAPTER 4: LAND USE DESIGNATIONS Since the City desires to see coordinated proj- ects that combine several of the parcels in this Convalescent Home 60 beds/ac area, an additional residential unit density OR bonus of 10 percent will be granted over the Residential Maximum levels shown above for any project that is 50 du/ac proposed to be constructed on three or more OR legal parcels existing in this area at the time of Office 0.5 FAR the adoption of this Specific Plan; all other OR development requirements must be met on Ground Floor Office 0.5 FAR and the site. with Residential Maximum 30 du/ac 1 ` B3. Mills Peninsula Hospital Block This block consists primarily of the Mills Peninsula Hospital. Allowed uses on this block are as follows: Hospital Site Public Facility Hospital and supporting offices and No maximum facilities density OR Parcels facing Multi-Family Maximum Marco Polo Residential 50 du/ac Way xB4. North of Trousdale Drive This subarea may be developed with a mix- ture of uses, including multi-family resi- dences and offices includinghealth th services, financial institutions and care facilities, as fol- lows: NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 33 ����r ���►:�cC��� f ems.-�,�,�S�� 6 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS This chapter contains design guidelines and development standards that define the character o new development in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan area. f .� The design guide- lines will be implemented to achieve the vision and goals of the Specific Plan as presented in other chapters. The design guidelines and standards contain A. Design Standards for All Areas language that reflects the following prmci- pies: Streets that are successful for multiple users, such as vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians, can ♦ "Shall" or "Must" means that the state- often be thought of as outdoor rooms. The ment is a standard and conformance to sides of these outdoor rooms are the build- the guideline is intended to be mandato- ings that enfront the streets. This section ry, once implemented through ordi- defines the parameters of development that nance. forms and shapes the pedestrian and public ♦ "Should or "Highly Encouraged" realm of the principal streets in the Specific means that conformance will be strongly Plan area. It includes specifications for the encouraged by the City through the following: review process and that the guideline is ♦ Build-to Lines, or the specific distance intended to be a recommendation to a that new development should maintain - developer about how to implement the between the sidewalk and the front goals of the Specific Plan. fagade. ♦ Minimum Building Heights, so that The guidelines and standards have been devel- new develops ient will create appropriate- oped for the Specific Plan area based on three ly-scaled building frontages specific to the particular districts. The districts, the bound- scale and use of particular streets and fos- aries for which are shown in Figure 6-1,were ter greater pedestrian activity. drawn based on the character of the streets and the nature of the development in each of ♦ Maximum Building Heights, which are the districts, as envisioned by this Specific in conformance with zoning require- Plan. ments and airport-related height con- straints. NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 51 CHAPTER G: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Figure 6-1. Design d District cr�.o S 1� fd _ xj cr�,N n-9 �? 1-•r e! i i 1 1 I. I 1 / i- I SAN i FRANCISCO , BAY ® EI Camino Real Design District , ® Rollins Road Design District i Inn ' A, BROADWAYCAL I ® Auto Row Design District STTA ITIOONN.Q 0 300 600 2 _ 52 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ♦ Minimum Percentage Frontage, which parcels fronting onto streets where two stan- gives direction for the minimum amount dards meet may have the higher maximum of a new building's facade that must be building height wrap around the corner onto placed at the Build-to Line. the street where the lower maximum build- ing height is otherwise required for a distance 1. Build-to Lines of 30 feet. Where no specific guidance is rec- New buildings in the Specific Plan area shall ommended for maximum building heights, - conform to the Build-to Lines as mapped and new construction should conform to zoning specified in Figure 6-2. The Build-to Line regulations and airport-related height con- prescribes a very specific setback that, togeth- straints. er with specifications contained in Section A.4, Minimum Percentage Frontage, will define the space between the sidewalk and the 4. Minimum Percent Frontage front facade of a building. Comer parcels- New buildings in the Specific Plan area shall fronting onto streets with differing build-to have a minimum percentage of their standards shall be built so that each fagade frontages built to the Build-to Line as conforms to the standard for the street that it mapped and specified in Figure 6-5. The faces. range of specifications in this standard reflect the nature of development that is expected and the character of the street on which the 2. Minimum Building Heights development will occur. The Minimum New buildings in the Specific Plan area shall Percentage Frontage standards, together with conform to the minimum height standards those standards specified in Section A.1 of mapped and specified in Figure 6-3. Corner this chapter, Build-to Lines, will form the parcels fronting onto streets where two Stan- public realm and pedestrian experience on dards meet may have the higher allowed streets in the Specific Plan area. Corner building height wrap around the corner onto parcels fronting onto streets with differing the street where the lower building height is standards shall be built so that each facade otherwise required for a distance of 30 feet. conforms to the standard for the street that it faces. 3. Maximum Building Heights New buildings in the Specific Plan area shall conform to the maximum height standards mapped and specified in Figure 64. Comer NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 53 CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Figure 6-2. a STATION Build-to Lines 4 -■ O'O�Q'aah v ■ ■ Too- pill z ■ a • D S S Z O 9 LEGEND Property Line • 0'Build-to Lin I l 10'Build-to Lin ®ISAN FRANCISCO ISAY ® BAY IBROADWA CALTRAIN • • • 20' STATIN Q I20'Build-to Lin 54 NORTH BURLINGAMElROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER G: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS e STATION Figure 6-3. Minimum 4 Building Heights CrT yoFMi D J 3 A n 4 i =� p z LEGEND a t • • Two Storie c- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Three Storie SAN FRANasco BAY . BI Rpgpyyp a CALTRAM a STAMN O� ■■■■■ Four Stories NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 55 j ' j �tl,I III CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS i !I Figure 6-4. F STATION Maximum Building 4 Heights j - D I� j I P I , = Dort li I I O I I I r • > ! I 2 • Z Z O m • m • • I • I I • I I i Ili LEGEND III ` ■■■■■ 60 Feet Review Line 75 Feet Maximum ® SAN FRANCISCO 3S Feet Review Line env E 7S Feet Maximum i I • • • 3S Feet Review Line e��ROADWAr CAL o 60 Feet Maximum STTAT�wNN oa NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN j 56 iI Iv r CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS MR STATION Figure 6-5. Minimum a Parcel Frontage pry . ..,.... 3 i N 2 = A o LEGEND a I—Build-to Line C3, o_ la C. ■■■■■ 100% 1 –Build-to Line 3E o o �O 0 1111111 60% SAN FRANCISCO "ov —Build-to Line ear A,kae a _ ADWA CALTRAIN Q . STATION NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 57 �.yq: CHAPTER G: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS B. El Camino Real Design District related structures may be built to a maximum This section includes guidelines and stan- height of 140 feet, measured from the. El dards for specific design and development Camino Real curb line, subject to approval conditions for buildings in the El Camino by the FAA for aviation clearance. Real Design District, the boundaries for c. Building Rhythm,Facade and Entrance which are shown in Figure 6-1. Since the hospital and related office building will be set back from the street, the rhythm of the facade may incorporate larger-scale 1. Mills Peninsula Hospital Site components in keeping with the building's The Mills Peninsula Hospital site has unique size and height. The ground floor height physical characteristics and is a transition par- should be consistent with the floor heights cel between the single-family residential for the rest of the building and should be pro- neighborhood to the west and the rest of the portioned to the building's size and height. El Camino Real Design District. Therefore, Entries to the hospital and office building a special set of design guidelines apply to this should be oriented toward the street to the site. extent feasible;where buildings do not have a a. Setbacks direct entry from the street, there should be clearly marked pedestrian and vehicular Because of the importance of the open space along the El Camino Real frontage and the access points to the entrance. visual connection to the northern gateway into Burlingame, the reconstruction of the 2• Front Setback Areas hospital shall not be subject to the same set- back and build-to provisions applied to the Except for driveways, all areas between the rest of El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive. sidewalk and the front facades of buildings There should be an average setback of 75 feet shall be adequately designed and maintained, along El Camino Real with a minimum of 20 including installation of an irrigation system feet for any structure, and an average setback for planted areas. of 65 feet along Trousdale Drive with a min- imum of 20 feet for any structure, providing a minimum of 3 acres of open space along El 3. Residential Use on EI Camino Real Camino Real, including the area along the Projects built on El Camino Real that are southerly property line adjacent to residences purely residential developments may be set along Davis Drive. back up to 15 feet from the Build-to Line. b. Building Heights However, careful design consideration As a gateway statement and to allow for should be given to the treatment at the back more landscaped open space,the hospital and edge of the El Camino Real sidewalk so that 58 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN i I CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS a consistent street wall is maintained along a. The setback area shall be designed as a the sidewalk. Illustrations on the following semi-private plaza or landscaped building three pages give examples for how residential forecourt that is an integral component of projects can be implemented if the following the residential building. conditions are met: C :d' } r 0' build-to line C Low planter box at back of sidewalk Entry forecourt/plaza i ••o Less than half the building is i set back from build-to line e _ k NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 59 E CHAPTER G: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS i b. The setback area shall be designed to clear- ly define the back of the sidewalk in order to reinforce a consistent frontage on El Camino Real. i i I I I I I ! 4 � ) J - ��-fir i Low wall a F 0' Build-to line Setback allows for ground floor above sidewalk Low wall with slope to building • i sOO j Entire build- Ing is set back from Build-to line 60 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN I CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS c. All setback and plaza areas shall be main- tained and landscaped. � � I 10 l II 0' Build-to line Plazas and landscaping in setback areas ,ptl o I Entire build- ing is set back I ► from proper- ty line NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 61 CHAPTER G: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4. Building Rhythm Buildings shall be articulated to reflect a FM [][]C1 []C1Q small-scale street frontage rhythm of fagade LLJ �� �� components that are approximately 25 to 50 000 feet in length. 25'-50' S. Ground Floor Height For retail and office uses,the ground floors of buildings should be a minimum of 12 feet. R. 4 y min 12' 62 NORTH BURL INGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN f CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS I i. 6. Building Fa;ades a. Articulation Buildings shall have architecturally-articulat- ed storefronts. Window treatments2 awmn gs and public entries should be designed to pro- mote active use of ground floor businesses. a � II I II i l b. Scale of Detailing Building fagades should have elements that j relate to the scale of a person. All fagades shall emphasize three dimensional detailing, Cornice such as cornices, window moldings and I� reveals, to cast shadows and create visual interest on the facade. Architectural ele- Reveal ments used to provide relief can include awnings and projections, trellises, detailed parapets and arcades. - Window Molding NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 63 Ii '. CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS Roof Lines All buildings shall provide strong roof termi- r 1 ' nation features. A variety of distinctive roofline profiles is encouraged. Cornices and horizontal bands of foam molds with stucco { finish are discouraged. 04 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN- I I II `~ CHAPTER6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS j d. Entries to Ground Floor Buildings is Retail Entries to ground floor retail areas shall occur ` from streets, and shall be accented with fea- tures eatures such as moldings,lighting,overhangs,or awnings. Building entries should be recessed ' into entry bays, to create transitional spaces between the street and buildings. x NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 65 CHAPTER G: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ii. Office Office buildings in this Design District shall provide an entrance from the street. The entrance should be articulated architecturally into the fagade of the building. Parking shall not be allowed in the area between the side- walk and the front fagade. iii: Residential Residential uses shall employ landscaping to provide a transition between the sidewalk Y ®� and the residences. In situations where resi- dential units have direct access to garage or parking areas, a street entrance shall also be provided. Apartment buildings that provide ji entries to residential units via an interior or rear circulation system shall also provide one or more building entries directly to a public / ✓'� street. Parking shall not be allowed in the area between the sidewalk and the front fagade. 66 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN iI i v CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS e. Materials Palette The ground floor fagade should provide a variety, of architectural elements and should use a diverse set of materials. 1 ' � i Ii II ii I 4 i i I I i' �1 I 1 f. Entries to Upper Levels Street level entries to upper level commercial or residential uses should be emphasized on 0 the building facade. o 67 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS g. Windows i. Pattern Window patterns should architecturally dis- tinguish a building's first floor retail charac- ter, with a higher percentage of windows ; clt� than on upper floors. ii. Display S Commercial storefronts should include street-oriented display windows. These win- dows should provide visual access to the inside of the building,while also serving as an 1 area for merchandise display. A minimum of I 50 percent of linear store frontage should be used for the display windows. 68 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN _ CHAPTER G: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 7. Building Materials - a. Variety stucco s_qK f A variety of durable materials and textures is encouraged. Such materials may include both traditional materials, such as wood and wood stucco, and materials such as concrete, struc- tural steel, corten steel, and other high-quali- metal awning ty durable metals which have not been tradi- tionally used in "Main Street" architecture. Stucco is not encouraged and should not be I overly used,particularly at the building base, ` because it is more susceptible to damage than more durable materials. tile ornamentsA b. Differentiation of Architectural Elements brick A wide variety of other materials is encour- aged to articulate building elements, such as the base, the first floor and the upper floors. brick piers These basic components of a building should with tile inset be articulated by means other than the exteri- or finish. Such means can include horizontal break bands above the ground floor,pier and column bases, roof terminations, sills and awnings. steel panels smooth 1 stucco finish dash stucco finish wood detail - 69 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN "1 CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS key c. Decorative Elements Tile artwork, plaques, decorative glassand lighting fixtures are encouraged to provide E visual relief to facades. Where extensive stuc- co exteriors are proposed,facades shall M=-mite the above features. S. Signs .� a. Location Building signs should be located within an area of the fagade which enhances and com- plements the architectural design. Building signs.should not obscure architectural details `. such as recesses, ornaments. or structural r' bays. Building signs shall not extend above the roof line of the building. i 1 s 70 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC'PLAN w CHAPTER GI DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS b. Projecting Signs Projecting signs should be located near the r' front entry of a store. A minimum separa- tion of six inches shall be provided between the building face and the sign. A maximum protrusion of 4 feet shall be allowed from the face of the building. Projecting signs shall maintain a minimum clearance of 8 feet where they project into the public right-of- way. M- NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 71 CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 9. Awnings a. Relationships to Bays ® ® ® 13 Individual awnings should be provided over each storefront of buildings with multiple j 1 storefronts. These awnings should be located within the individual structural bays and should not hide architectural detailing. Awnings on multi-tenant buildings should be the same color and style. b. Awning Materials i u The use of fabric awnings is encouraged. The use of vinyl awnings is discouraged. t QUs W _ c. Awning Signage Any signing on awnings shall be painted directly onto the awning material. Awning signs shall be restricted to the lower one-third of the awning and the awning valence, and shall be subject to the size requirements of the sign code. d. Illuminated Awnings Backlighting of transparent or translucent awnings shall not be allowed. 72 NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN r i i t k CHAPTER 6: DESIGN-GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS e. Awning Lighting y If used, lighting for awnings should be from above the awning,from fixtures designed and =� placed to enhance the appearance of the building. f. Awning Colors Awning color(s) should be compatible with i the overall building color scheme. I 10.Lighting Adequate lighting shall be provided for build- ing signage, storefront display, pedestrian entry access and travel in parking lots, in compliance with the City's illumination ordinance. CX=71 ko,\11 i NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN 73 i CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 11.Parking \� a. Access Parking lots, whether in parking structures or surface lots,shall be located behind or next J. to buildings, in accordance with the mini- mum frontage requirements specified in Section A.4 of this chapter. b. Landscape Buffer At access points to off-street parking lots, a landscape buffer shall be provided and shall %= be a minimum of ten feet deep. Most plants in the buffer should be no higher than three- and-one-half feet in order to maintain maxi- mum sight distances, although occasional trees are allowed. _ c. Shared Access Entries �V ► Building siting and parking design should 1 — maximize opportunities, such as joint access Ii easements and common driveways,for pedes- trian and vehicular circulation between adja- cent sites. 1 74 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN i I i CHAPTER 6: DESIGN GUIDELINES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS i 12. Parking Structures �® a. Ground'Floor Use �® p Ground floor retail uses should be integrated { `1 into parking structures wherever possible. . ( d rY b.` Landscape Buffer The space between a parking structure and a public street should be screened with land- scaping to mitigate for the lack of pedestrian scale and activity that is inherent in the design of a parking structure. All landscaping shall be adequately designed and maintained, including installation of an irrigation system .`. for planted areas. C. Articulation of Fagade Facades of parking structures should be designed in a manner that is comparable to other multi-story buildings on the street. 75 NORTH BURLINGAMEIROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN A� CITY 0 STAFF REPORT LJNGAME AGENDA BUR ° • ITEM # ly� m MTG. DATE 09.19.05 i�o4 o FATED DYNE 6 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: SEPTEMBER 7. 2005 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY - SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINAN 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) RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on the proposed ordinance which would conditionally rezone portions of the Peninsula Medical Center site from C- 1 and C-3 to Unclassified. Affirmative action should be to adopt the proposed ordinance. To adopt the ordinance the Council should: A. Adopt the proposed ordinance; and B. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. If the ordinance is adopted it will not become effective until all three properties are transferred to fee simple ownership by the Peninsula Health Care District, a public agency as defined by the Government Code. The public hearing for action was noticed by mail on September 9, 2005 to all property owners within 500 feet of the properties to be rezoned. A notice was also published in a newspaper of general circulation on September 9, 2005. CEQA Status: This action is one of the steps in implementing the conditions of approval of the Peninsula Medical Center Replacement project and is covered by the Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project and Certified by the City Council on November 15, 2004. Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on August 22, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 6-0- 1 (C. Vistica absent) to approve the request for conditional rezoning of the hospital site. The zoning change would not occur until all the parcels are in public ownership. This item was on the Commission's consent calendar, so there was no discussion of this request at the meeting. BACKGROUND: The applicant, Mills Peninsula Health Services, is requesting conditional rezoning of 1791 El Camino Real and 1515 Trousdale Drive from C-1 to Unclassified (APNs 025- 123- 100 & 025- 123- 140) and 1811 Trousdale Drive from C-3 to Unclassified (APN 025- 123-120). The condition is that the change in zoning shall not occur until the transfer of ownership (title) of each parcel to Peninsula Health Care District is completed. History: This request is a follow up action required by the conditions of approval for the Peninsula Medical Center Replacement project. On November 15, 2004, the City Council approved the project to replace the existing Peninsula Medical Center hospital building and nearby office buildings with a new hospital, medical office building and parking structure. The project is to be built in phases which were outlined in the conditions of Adoption of an Ordinance for Conditional Rezoning of Parcels at Peninsula Medical Center Site September 19,2005 1783 & 1791 El Camino Real, 1515& 1811 Trousdale Drive approval for the project. The applicant is in the process of implementing Phase One, the demolition of the existing office buildings along Trousdale Drive and the construction of a temporary hospital entrance/permanent emergency entrance on Trousdale Drive across from Ogden Drive. The upcoming phases of the project are described in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated August 22, 2005. Parcelization and Zoning: At the present time there are four parcels which make up the Peninsula Medical Center site. Three of these parcels are owned by Mills Peninsula Health Services, and one, the parcel on which the current hospital is located, is owned by Peninsula Health Care District, a public agency. Based on the approved project, before the new hospital is built all four of these parcels will be merged into a single lot in a single ownership. Providing the ownership is a public agency, with this action, the new single lot will be zoned Unclassified without further action. As a separate action, the applicant has filed a Vesting Tentative Parcel Map which outlines the timing for merging these lots. Unclassified Lands: Most properties in Burlingame are classified into a zoning district which specifies the uses allowed and the development standards for those properties. There are a number of properties in Burlingame which are in public ownership and are zoned "Unclassified" lands. The zoning code states that the "Unclassified" designation shall only apply to land in public ownership, and that any use on Unclassified land requires a conditional use permit. Because portions of the existing hospital site are presently not in public ownership (three parcels are owned by Mills Peninsula Health Services) the "Unclassified" zoning cannot be applied to all the land which will become the hospital site at this time. Therefore, as a part of the November 15, 2004 action on the Peninsula Hospital Replacement project, the three properties not in public ownership were zoned C-1 (district). Purpose of the Proposed Rezoning: The applicant, Mills Peninsula Health Services, is asking the City Council to conditionally rezone the three parcels in their ownership to "Unclassified". The condition to be met before the zoning becomes effective is outlined in the attached ordinance and is: 1. that the ownership of the three parcels be transferred to the Peninsula Health Care District, a public entity. The condition of the rezoning does not require that the parcels be merged, but requires that the ownership of the parcel is a public entity. The Conditions of Approval for the Peninsula Medical Center replacement project require that the zoning on the site be changed to Unclassified and the parcels merged prior to issuance of a building permit for the medical office building. The medical office building will be built as a part of Phase Three of the project. ATTACHMENTS: Planning Commission Minutes, August 22, 2005 Planning Commission Staff Report and attachments Notice of Public Hearing, published and mailed September 9, 2005 Ordinance Amending the Zoning Maps incorporated in the Zoning Code by Reclassifying the properties at 1515 and 1811 Trousdale and 1791 El Camino Real as Unclassified Upon Transfer to the Peninsula Health Care District, a Local Government Agency Exhibit "A", Map Depicting Proposed Changes to Zoning -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 22, 2005 VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar-It son thIte are c nsidered to be routine. They are ac don simultaneously unless separate discussion and/ action is rh ant, a member of the public or a co missioner pXK commission votes on t e motion to ad 2A. 1320 C LITA AVENU —APPLICATION FO FRONT AND SVARIAN S FOR A FIRSOND STORY AD TION (RICHARDAPPLI ANT, ARCHITECTTY OWNER) ( NOTICED) PROJEC CAT ERINE BARBER 2B. 1440 CHAPIN AV UE, SUITE 210, ZON C-1, SUBAREA ZCATION FOR CONDITIONAL U PERMIT FOR REAL ES TE USE(TITLE INSPANY)(FIRST AMERICAN T LE INSURANCE, APPLI T' CORTINA INVE MENTS LTD., PROPERT OWNER 9 OTICED PROJECT PL R: RUBEN HURIN 2C. 140 BROADWAY, ZONED , BROADWAY COM ERCIAL ARE/FCE ION FOR NDITIONAL USE PE AND PARKING V CE FOR A FOOD STABLISHMENT(CO MORRIS,BROADW GRILL,INC.,APPLOLM,CSS ARCHITECTURE, AR ITECT; NICK KORO STN PARTNERSHIP, NER) (74 NOTICED PROJEC LANNER: RUBEN 2D. 1783 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1, C-3 AND UNCLASSIFIED (PENINSULA HOSPITAL PROPERTY), MILLS PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (327 NOTICED). a. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF 8.60 ACRE PARCEL ALONG EL CAMINO REAL 98.68 FEET SOUTH OF TROUSDALE DRIVE(APN 025-123-100) AND 1.328 ACRE PARCEL AT THE CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND TROUSDALE DRIVE(APN 025-123-040) (PROJECT ENGINEER DOUG BELL) b. CONDITIONAL REZONING OF 1791 EL CAMINO AND 1515 TROUSDALE DRIVE FROM C- 1 TO UNCLASSIFIED (APNS 025-123-100 & 025-123-140) AND 1811 TROUSDALE DRIVE FROM C-3 TO UNCLASSIFIED(APN 025-123-120)NOT TO OCCUR UNTIL FINAL MERGER OF ALL FOUR PARCELS AND TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF ENTIRE SITE TO PENINSULA HEALTH CARE DISTRICT. (PROJECT PLANNER MAUREEN BROOKS) C. Keighran noted that she'd received campaign contributions from the applicants at both 1320 Carmelita Avenue and 1400 Broadway so she would recuse herself from those votes. C.Deal noted that he lives within 500 feet of 1400 Broadway so he would recuse himself from that vote. 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. 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 22, 2005 Chair Auran called for a motion to approve the consent calendar. C.Osterling moved to approve the consent calendar. C. Brownrigg seconded the motion. Chair Auran moved for a voice vote on the consent calendar,noting that each project is approved based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The project at 1320 Carmelita Avenue passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Keighran abstaining; C. Vistica absent) voice vote. The project at 1440 Chapin Avenue passed on a 6-0-1 (C.Vistica absent)voice vote. The project at 1400 Broadway passed on a 4-0-2-1 (C. Keighran and C. Deal abstaining; C. Vistica absent)voice vote. The project at 1783 El Camino Real passed on a 6-0-1 (C.Vistica absent)voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 2707 MARTINE/DRIVE ONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR D ,SIGN REVIEW,HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTIOND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HE HT FOR A FIRST REM DEL AND SECOND STORN (GILL AND JANE YEE, RS, APPLICANTS AND ROPERTY OWNERSJD & S DESIGNER 37 NOTIC PROJECT PLANNER: L HURIN /cee eal noted that he has a business relay nship with the applicant ar}d that he must abstain this project; he recused himself fro consideration of the proje and left the chambers. f report dated August 22, 20 , with attachments. ZT ohmeier presented the r ort, a and staff comments. Ele n conditions were suggest for consideration. There ere no of staff. Chair Auran opened the public h ng. Gill Yee,2707 Mart' ez Drive,represented the o*ect;Abraham Zavala,represented David Va ,2715 Martinez;Henry�p er,2709 Arguello Driv ,Karlyn Schneider, 2705 Arguello Drive; Lin ong,representing pare nyts at 2716 Martinez Drive; dy Whitney, JD and Associates; Leo Redm , 2711 Martinez Drive; P Glorm, 1445 Balboa Av e. On August 16, 2005, letters were submitte discussing the view block e and support for the proje and he submitted additional information disc ing a comparison to 2711 artinez Drive. Commissi asked if the owner had seen the photos taken f in David Valle's house at 15 Martinez. Property ow er replied yes. Feel viewfrom 15 Martinez D ve will be blocked becau of the overall height of th uilding. Opposes project; y s ago neighbo id addition that blocked I' t onto his property; feels at addition has affected the q ity of life on th' neighborhood. Commiss' n asked is this a general poi t about expanding a house? s,expansion o omes affects the neighbo Had two commissioner isit house to look at view; f s addition is at xpense of her view;wou e ok with a 12"-18"incre e in height,but not a second ory;issue is that the view should not be obs cted at all,not that applica should do what others have ne. Parents do not have problems with rem eling or upgrading home,b do have problems with view ockage;if applicant can do addition with ou dding height they would h e no problem. Submitted a er signed by Leo Redman that states where a addition would go in rela ' n to his own home- Did agr to support project if view woul not be blo ed; feels story poles are 2 imensional and do not giv full representation of the addi ' n; wants support the project,but c tell if design meets criteria agreed to. People are now rec izing tha oof lines and views are ch ing in Burlingame;wants mmission to keep roof lines w e they are pposed to be without vari es; people are unaware of e effect of buildings until it's ilt. Property owner noted everyone of acent properties have add on since he moved in 21 years o; feels only fair that permit be allowed him to add on just as it w allowed for his neighbor; feels s addition blocks less 3 City of Burlingame Item No. Conditional Rezoning of Portions of the Consent Calendar Peninsula Medical Center Site from C-1 and C-3 to Unclassified Address: 1783 and 1791 El Camino Real; 1515 and 1811 Trousdale Drive Meeting Date: 08/22/05 Request: Conditional Rezoning of 1791 El Camino and 1515 Trousdale Drive from C-1 to Unclassified(APNs 025-123-100&025-123-140)and 1811 Trousdale Drive from C-3 to Unclassified(APN 025-123-120)not to occur until final merger of all four parcels composing the Peninsula Medical Center site and transfer of ownership of the entire site to Peninsula Health Care District. Applicant: Mills Peninsula Health Services APNs, Property Owners, Zoning Districts and General Plan Designations: Assessor's Property Owner Lot Area Zoning District General Plan Designation Parcel Number (acres) 025-123-040 Mills Peninsula Hospitals 1.24 C-3 Commercial--Office Use 025-123-100 Mills Peninsula Hospitals 8.6 Unclassified Institutions--Other 025-123-120 Mills Peninsula Hospitals 0.51 C-3 Commercial--Office Use 025-123-130 Peninsula Hospital District 14.67 Unclassified Institutions--Other Nearby Development: Office, Multiple Family Residential,Retail Commercial, Single Family Residential CEQA Status: This action is one of the steps in implementing the conditions of approval of the Peninsula Medical Center Replacement project and is covered by the Environmental Impact Report prepared for this project and Certified by the City Council on November 15, 2004. listory: On November 15, 2004, the City Council approved a project submitted by the applicant, Mills Peninsula Health Services,to replace the existing Peninsula Medical Center hospital building and nearby office buildings with a new hospital and medical office building. The project is to be constructed in phases, which were outlined in the conditions of approval for the project. The applicant is in the process of implementing Phase One,the demolition of the existing office buildings along Trousdale Drive and the construction of a temporary hospital entrance/permanent emergency entrance on Trousdale Drive across from Ogden Drive. Phase Two of the project consists of two increments. Increment 2A consists of the rerouting of the San Francisco Water District water main, which now bisects the project. In order to build the project, the water line is being rerouted along the perimeter of the site, starting at the southerly property line,along the El Camino Real frontage and then along the Trousdale Drive frontage to tie into the water main's current alignment along Magnolia Drive. Increment 2B consists of construction of the new main entrance on Trousdale Drive across from Magnolia Drive, and construction of the new parking garage. Since there are now two separate parcels, one where the driveway entrance will be and one on which the garage structure will be built,these two parcels must be merged for this phase of the development to go forward. The use and the access to the use must be on the same parcel. The tentative parcel map being considered by the Planning Commission would merge these two parcels. Parcelization and Zoning: At the present time the are four parcels which make up the Peninsula Medical Center site. Three of these parcels are owned by Mills Peninsula Health Services,and the one,the parcel on which the current hospital is located,is owned y Peninsula Health Care District. When the project is completed,ownership of all four of these properties will be Transferred to the Peninsula Health Care District and the parcels will be merged into a single lot. Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Rezoning of Parcels at 1783 El Camino Real August 22,2005 Unclassified Lands: Most properties in Burlingame are classified into a zoning district which specifies the uses allowed and the development standards for those properties. There are a number of properties in Burlingame which are in public ownership which are "Unclassified" lands. The zoning code states that the "Unclassified" designation shall only apply to land in public ownership,and that any use on Unclassified land requires a conditional use permit. Because portions of the existing hospital site are not in public ownership(three parcels are owned by Mills Peninsula Health Services)the"Unclassified"zoning cannot be applied to that land at this time. Therefore,as a part of the November 15,2004 action on the Peninsula Hospital Replacement project,these three properties were rezoned to the C-1 zone district. Purpose of the Proposed Rezoning: The applicant,Mills Peninsula Health Services,is asking that the Planning Commission make a recommendation to the City Council to conditionally rezone the three parcels in their ownership to"Unclassified". The condition to be met before the zoning becomes effective is outlined in the attached ordinance and is: 1. that the ownership on the three parcels be transferred to the Peninsula Health Care District, a public entity. The Conditions of Approval for the Peninsula Hospital project require that the zoning on the site be changed to Unclassified and the parcels merged prior to issuance of a building permit for the medical office building. The medical office building will be built as a part of Phase Three of the project. Findings for a Rezoning: In acting on the request to rezone these three properties from C-1 and C-3 to Unclassified once they pass into public ownership (Parcels 025-123-040, 025-123-100 and 025-123-120) the Plannin€ Commission should state the reasons why they feel such action is appropriate and consistent with the intent of the zoning ordinance below: Code Section 25.04.010 states that the zoning ordinance is established for the following purposes: "to promote public health, safety and welfare;preserve a wholesome serviceable and attractive community which increases the safety and security of home life;promote harmonious character and economy among property,building construction and civic services; establish regulations to limit the location, uses, height, bulk, lot coverage, street setback, yard sizes and occupancy of building structures and land; encourage remodeling of existing residential structures; preserve residential neighborhood character of single family structures and accessory structures and provide for the best general civic use to protect the common rights and interests of all." Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing and recommend to the Council adoption of the attached ordinance. Affirmative action should include findings for the rezoning. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. The Planning Commission's action on this ordinance is a recommendation to the City Council. Maureen Brooks Senior Planner c: Oren Reinbolt,Mills Peninsula Health Services Maureen Dutil, Peninsula Health Care District -2- Planning Commission Staff Report Conditional Rezoning of Parcels at 1783 El Camino Real August 22,2005 `-Attachments:Application to the Planning Commission Letter from Mills Peninsula Health Services requesting Conditional Zoning dated 1/27/05 Letter from Peninsula Health Care District consenting to request dated 1/20/05 Public Notice Ordinance for Conditional Rezoning Map depicting proposed changes to zoning -3- Mills-Peninsula Health Services , 2005 1783 EI Camino Real January 27 A Sutter Health Affiliate Burlingame, CA 94010 650.696.5400 Ms. Meg Monroe City Planner City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Peninsula Medical Center Replacement Project Conditional Rezoning Application 1791 EI Camino Real, APN 025-123-100 1515 Trousdale Drive, APN 025-123-140 1811 Trousdale Drive, APN 025-123-120 (collectively, the "MPHS Parcels") Dear Ms. Monroe: Enclosed is the Mills-Peninsula Health Service's ("MPHS") application for conditional rezoning of MPHS Parcels and a check in the amount of $1 ,120.00 for the - fees associated with the application. The application is made in connection with the Peninsula Medical Center Replacement Project in order to rezone 1791 EI Camino Real (APN 025-123-100) and 1515 Trousdale Drive (APN 025-123-140) from C-1 to Unclassified and 1811 Trousdale Drive (APN 025-123-120) from C-3 to Unclassified. The MPHS requests that the City of Burlingame grant the rezoning of the MPHS Parcels with the condition that the rezoning shall not be effective until the Peninsula Health Care District (the "District") has acquired the MPHS Parcels. Upon the District's acquisition of the MPHS Parcels no further action would be required to effectuate the change in zoning referred to herein. The MPHS Parcels are currently owned by MPHS. MPHS intends, pursuant to the proposed restructured relationship between the District and MPHS, and as described in the letter of intent and term sheet dated December 15, 2004 entered into by the District and MPHS and the Restructured Relationship Pre-Closing Agreement, to transfer ownership of the MPHS Parcels to the District in connection with the construction of the Replacement Project. A letter consenting to the submittal of this application on behalf of the District has been or will be provided. The requested conditional rezoning is based on and is consistent with the Mills Peninsula Replacement Project Final Environmental Impact Report, which was certified by the City Council pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 105-2004, and the k4W%i9LV_�. Hospitals Award Winner www.mills-peninsula.org 14 1101 Mills-Peninsula Health Services 1783 EI Camino Real A Sutter Health Affiliate Burlingame, CA 94010 650.696.5400 conditional use approvals granted pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 105- 2004 which recognized that portions of the project site, i.e. 1515 Trousdale Drive and 1791 EI Camino Real, would be rezoned from C-3 and Unclassified to C-1 (completed pursuant to City Ordinance No. 105-2004) on an interim basis while under the ownership of MPHS and that the MPHS Parcels would be rezoned to Unclassified when title to the MPHS Parcels is vested in the District (see Resolution 105-2204 at Section D). The rezoning will be applicable to 1515 Trousdale Drive (APN 025-123-140) and 1811 Trousdale Drive (APN 025-123-120), as such parcels will be modified after completion of the lot line adjustment referenced in City Ordinance No. 105-2004. Please contact me if you have any questions or need further information in connection with this application. Thank you for your consideration. Ve Trul s, Oren Reinbolt cc: Joshua Steinhauer, Esq. Larry Anderson, City Attorney Ed Schaffer, Esq., counsel to the Peninsula Healthcare District Donald E. Newman, M.D., Peninsula Healthcare District PJ8lAaT9tYEbHospitals Award Winner www.mills-peninsula.org CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANT ll11G DEPARTMENT 501 PRIMROSE ROAD P(650) 558-7250 F(650)696-3790 `- CITY c A ME APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION e. Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other X Parcel Number: 025-123-100, 140 E 120 Project address: 1791 EI Camino Real, 1515 Trousdale Drive 1811 Trousdale Drive APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: Mills-Peninsula Health Service* Name: Mills-Peninsula Health Service Address: 1783 El Camino Real Address: 1783 El Camino Real City/State,/Zip: Burlingame, CA 94010 City/State/Zip: Burlingame, CA 94010 Phone (w): 650-696-5424 Phone (w): 650-696-5424 (h): (h): (fl; 650-696-5279 650-696-5279 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: Anshen & Allen 901 Market Street Address: Please indicate with an asterisk City/State/Zip: San Francisco, CA 94103 the contact person for this project. Phone (w): 415-882-9500 (h): (fl; 415-882-9523 PROJECT DESCRIPTION• Rezoning of above referenced parcels from C-1 and C-3 to Unclassified consistent with City Council Resolution 105-204. AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: t hereby certi under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to a es I d e an belief. Applicant's signature: Date: f Z s O 5 I know about the proposed applicati nd here ri- t above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Co sion. Property owner's signature:-� -- — Date: Z d �� PCAPP.FRM Peninsula Health Care District RECEIVED JAN 3 12005 January 20, 2005 CrryOF8URLty ANNING,pEPME P Ms. Meg Monroe, City Planner City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Peninsula Medical Center Replacement Project Conditional Rezoning Application 1791 EI Camino Real (APN 025-123-100) 1515 Trousdale Drive (APN 025-123-040) 1811 Trousdale Drive (APN 025-123-120) Dear Ms Monroe: By this letter the Peninsula Health Care District ("District") consents to Mills- Peninsula Health Service ("MPHS") submitting an application for conditional rezoning of certain parcels constituting a portion of the Peninsula Medical Center Replacement Project site. The application will request rezoning 1791 EI Camino Real (APN 025-123- 100) and 1515 Trousdale Drive (APN 025-123-140) from "C-1" to "Unclassified" and 1811 Trousdale Drive (APN 025-123-120) from "C-3" to "Unclassified" (collectively, the "MPHS Parcels"). The District asks the City to consider and approve the rezoning when the application is submitted, but with the condition that it shall not become effective unless and until the District has acquired title to the MPHS Parcels. Upon the District's acquisition of title, no further action should be required (other than giving the City notice) and the rezoning should take effect automatically. The MPHS Parcels currently are owned by MPHS. MPHS and the District anticipate that MPHS will transfer ownership of the MPHS Parcels to the District in connection with MPHS' construction of the Replacement Project, assuming the District ultimately approves the Project and approves the related transactions with MPHS. The requested conditional rezoning is based on and consistent with the Mills Peninsula Replacement Project Final Environmental Impact Report, which was certified by the City Council pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 105-2004, and the 1783 EI Camino Real , Burlingame, California 94010 Phone (650) 696-5450 / Facsimile (650) 696-5336 08043.005.0196.a DISTRICT OFFICE San Mateo, Burlingame, Foster City, HillsborougFh, Millbrae, San Bruno and Certain Unincorporated Areas January 20, 2005 Page 2 conditional use approvals granted pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 105-2004. The City previously rezoned portions of the Project site (i.e., 1515 Trousdale Drive and 1791 EI Camino Real) from "C-3" and "Unclassified" to "C-1 " (by City Council Ordinance No. 105-2004). The conditional use permit approval recognized that this rezoning was intended to be temporary, only for so long as the MPHS Parcels were owned by MPHS rather than the District, and would be rezoned to "Unclassified" when the District took title (see Resolution 105-2204 at Section D). The City indicated that its zoning regulations did not permit the MPHS Parcels to be zoned "Unclassified" while in private ownership. The District, MPHS and the City have acknowledged that the most appropriate zoning designation for the Replacement Project once the MPHS Parcels are held by the District is "Unclassified." This consent does not constitute approval of the Project by the District. It is understood that the Project will be subject to review and action by the City and the District in accordance with applicable laws, regulations and agreements, which may or may not authorize development of the Project in the form proposed by the Application or in any form. Very Truly Yours, L la Thompson ecretary, Board of Directors Peninsula Health Care District cc: Oren Reinbolt, MPHS Joshua R. Steinhauer, MPHS Legal Counsel Colin Coffey, District Legal Counsel P0120001/396310-1 08043.005.0051.a CITY 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BUW119PME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 aFL TEL:(650)558-7250 • FAX:(650)696-3790 www.budingame.org Site: 1783 EL CAMINO REAL zoned C-1,C-3&Unclassified Application for (1) vesting tentative parcel map for lot combination and map extension (APNs 025-123-040, - PUBLIC HEARING 100, -120 & -140); and (2) Conditional Rezoning of NOTICE 1791 EI Camino and 1515 Trousdale Drive from C-1 to Unclassified (APNs 025-123-100 & 025-123-140) and 1811 Trousdale Drive from C-3 to Unclassified (APN 025-123-120) not to occur until transfer of ownership of the site to a public entity(Peninsula Health Care 53 W District). The City of Burlingame City Council announces the , following public hearing on Monday,September 19,2005 at 7:00 P.M.in the City Hall Council Chambers located at '{� 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame,California. s Mailed:September 9,2005 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME - i A copy of the applici�an ar th project� y be reviewed prior to the meeting tf3Primrose Road, Burlingame, C yfi If you challe e t ufije =.W t, Au ma' be limited to raising only tblic hearing, described in h a �e rite NO es ca dei eliveed to the city at or prior to� hepul � n "� 1 j J. Property ow rs 6 fir` o re responsible, r informing their tenants bou s d io al inforibatio , please call i (650) 558-7 0 �` I f Margaret M - � City Planner r PUBL� 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 PROPERTIES AT 1515 AND 1811 TROUSDALE DRIVE AND 1791 EL CAMINO REAL AS UNCLASSIFIED UPON TRANSFER TO 4 THE PENINSULA HEALTH CARE DISTRICT, A LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY 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 real property commonly known as 1791 El Camino Real is reclassified from C-1 11 District to Unclassified. 12 2. The real property commonly known as 1515 Trousdale Drive is reclassified from C-1 13 District to Unclassified. 14 3. The real property commonly known as 1811 Trousdale Drive is reclassified from C-3 15 District to Unclassified. 16 These reclassifications are generally shown on the Exhibit to this ordinance. 17 18 Section 2. This ordinance shall be effective if and when, but only when, all three 19 properties are transferred to fee simple ownership by the Peninsula Health Care District, a local 20 agency under the Government Code. 21 22 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 23 24 25 Mayor 26 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that 27 the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6`h I day of September, 2005, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held 2 on the day of , 2005, by the following vote: 3 4 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 5 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 6 7 8 City Clerk 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 - 2 - � .. EXHIBIT „A„ s r op as�All a , i' o�^✓ ' OP o c-j J c _:, v.* � s �♦ '-�:', �: ,� a,tt +a-i r � �''`7% - -iw `��' ams PENINSULA MEDICAL CENTER Properties to be Rezoned AllFSq 1791 EI Camino Real&1515 Trousdale Drive y .etc � P•g per^, ,?� �- � From C-1 to Unclassified 1811 Trousdale Drive From C-3 to Unclassified { tLt�1 AGENDA BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT _ _ ITEM # _8/e G MTG. _ I9/05 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: AUGUST 29, 2005 BY ;r APPROVE FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY5 � SUBJECT: TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMt ATION OF 8.60 ACRE PARCEL ALONG EL CAMINO REAL 98.68 FEET SOUTH OF TROUSDALE DRIVE (APN 025-123-100 AND 1 .328 ACRE PARCEL AT THE CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND TROUSDALE DRIVE, ACREAGE SUBDIVISION, 1783 EL CAMINO REAL RECOMMENDATION : It is recommended that Council concur with the Planning Commission and approve the subject lot merger as a tentative and final parcel map with the following conditions: • A final parcel map for a lot merger shall be filed by the applicant within the time period allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's subdivision ordinance. Action of this map should be considered as both the tentative and final map to facilitate processing . • All property corners shall be set and shown on the final parcel map. • The final map shall show the width of the right-of-way for EI Camino Real and Trousdale Drive, including the centerline of the right-of-way, bearings and distance of the centerline and any existing monuments in the roadway. • All existing easements shall be retained except as noted . • All damaged sidewalk, curb and gutter shall be replaced with new. BACKGROUND : At their meeting August 22, 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed the attached parcel map and recommended Council approval with the conditions listed above. The parcel map should be considered as the final parcel map to facilitate processing . EXHIBITS: Parcel Map, Staff Memorandum, August 22, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes, Public Hearing Notice Douglas Bel4_B: . Senior Civil Engineer c: S. Murtuza , Asst. Director of P.W. V. Voong , PWE Engineer M . Brooks, City Planning Dept. C. Burda, Turner Construction L. Kollerer, MPH M . Ron Associates C. Kavanagh, Kavanagh Engineering Co. S:W Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\1783ecr.staff.wpd BURLINGAME MEMORANDUM 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PUBLIC WORKS-ENGINEERING DATE: AUGUST 16, 2005 RE: TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF 8.60 ACRE PARCEL ALONG EL CAMINO REAL 98.68 FEET SOUTH OF TROUSDALE DRIVE (APN 025-123-100) AND 1.328 ACRE PARCEL AT THE CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND TROUSDALE DRIVE, ACREAGE SUBDIVISION, 1783 EL CAMINO REAL This application is to combine two (2) existing lots into one (1) lot at 1783 El Camino Real Drive. The applicant is proposing on-site improvements which will require a lot combination in order to meet the zoning code. There are no comments from the Building Department and Planning Department. There will be no new easements created by this map; all easements shown on the map are existing. The map application is complete and therefore may be recommended to the City Council for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A final parcel map for lot merger must be filed by the applicant within the time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Action on this map should be considered as both the tentative and final map to facilitate processing. 2. All property corners shall be set and shown on the final parcel map. 3. The final map shall show the widths of the right-of-way for El Camino Real, and Trousdale Drive, including the centerline of right-of-way, bearing and distance of centerline and any existing monuments in the roadway. 4. All existing easements shall be retained except as noted. 5. All damaged sidewalk, curb and gutters shall be replaced with new. Exhibit: Parcel Map Douglas Bell Senior Engineer cc: S Murtuza, Assistant Public Works Director V Voong, PWE Engineer M Brooks, City Planning Dept. C Burda, Turner Construction L Kollerer, MPH M Ron Associates C Kavanagh, Kavanagh Engineering Co. U:UNPHR.ParcMapTrnstoPlanComm.Aug 16.05.wpd CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA August 22,2005 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the August 22, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Keighran and Osterling Absent: Commissioners: Vistica Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician, Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell III. MINUTES The minutes of the August 8, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1205 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT(GEORGE R. COREY, APPLICANT;ARNIE GAPESIN, A&T DESIGN GROUP, DESIGNER, LENCI FARKAS,PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Deal noted that he lives within 500 feet of the subject property; he recused himself from consideration of the project and left the chambers. CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: can emergency fire exit be provided only up and down stairs;not separate exit over rail? What is regulation in Burlingame concerning required restrooms? Can applicant create open air seating by pulling wall back along street? This was a missed opportunity to include open air seating in design review as part of the CUP process for all store fronts and architecture along Broadway. Will the restaurant be open during lunch hours? Findings for variance include that there is adequate parking on site and in all of the public lots during the evening hours,that the existing building was constructed without additional parking spaces and those people who would be negatively affected by the lack of parking in the area were in favor and supported expanding the number of food establishments along Broadway. This item was set for the consent calendar when all questions have been answered. This item concluded at 7:07 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant,a member of the public or a commissionerprior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 2A. 1320 CARMELITA AVENUE, ZONED R-2 —APPLICATION FOR FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (RICHARD TERRONES, APPLICANT, ARCHITECT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 2B. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITE 210, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR REAL ESTATE USE(TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY)(FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE, APPLICANT; CORTINA INVESTMENTS LTD., PROPERTY OWNER) (90 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 2C. 1400 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT(CONNIE MORRIS,BROADWAY GRILL,INC.,APPLICANT;ERIC HOLM,CSS ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT; NICK KOROS, TSTN PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (74 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 2D. 1783 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1, C-3 AND UNCLASSIFIED (PENINSULA HOSPITAL PROPERTY), MILLS PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (327 NOTICED). a. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF 8.60 ACRE PARCEL ALONG EL CAMINO REAL 98.68 FEET SOUTH OF TROUSDALE DRIVE(APN 025-123-100) AND 1.328 ACRE PARCEL AT THE CORNER OF EL CAMINO REAL AND TROUSDALE DRIVE (APN 025-123-040) (PROJECT ENGINEER,DOUG BELL) b. CONDITIONAL REZONING OF 1791 EL CAMINO AND 1515 TROUSDALE DRIVE FROM C- 1 TO UNCLASSIFIED (APNS 025-123-100 & 025-123-140) AND 1811 TROUSDALE DRIVE FROM C-3 TO UNCLASSIFIED(APN 025-123-120)NOT TO OCCUR UNTIL FINAL MERGER OF ALL FOUR PARCELS AND TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP OF ENTIRE SITE TO PENINSULA HEALTH CARE DISTRICT. (PROJECT PLANNER MAUREEN BROOKS) C. Keighran noted that she'd received campaign contributions from the applicants at both 1320 Carmelita Avenue and 1400 Broadway so she would recuse herself from those votes. C.Deal noted that he lives within 500 feet of 1400 Broadway so he would recuse himself from that vote. 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. Chair Auran called for a motion to approve the consent calendar. C.Osterling moved to approve the consent calendar. C. Brownrigg seconded the motion. 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes Chair Auran moved for a voice vote on the consent calendar,noting that each project is approved based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The project at 1320 Carmelita Avenue passed on a 5-0-1-1(C.Keighran abstaining;C.Vistica absent)voice vote. The project at 1440 Chapin Avenue passed on a 6-0-1(C.Vistica absent)voice vote. The project at 1400 Broadway passed on a 4-0-2-1 (C.Keighran and C.Deal abstaining;C.Vistica absent)voice vote. The project at 1783 El Camino Real passed on a 6-0-1(C.Vistica absent)voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:12 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 2707 MARTINEZ DRIVE,ZONED R-1-APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GILL AND JANE YEE, TRS, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS:JD&ASSOCIATES.DESIGNER)(37 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER:RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Deal noted that he has a business relationship with the applicant and that he must abstain from voting on this project;he recused himself from consideration of the project and left the chambers. Reference staff report dated August 22,2005,with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions asked of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Gill Yee,2707 Martinez Drive,represented the project;Abraham Zavala,represented David Valle,2715 Martinez;Henry Sommer,2709 Arguello Drive;Karlyn Schneider, 2705 Arguello Drive;Linda Wong,representing parents at 2716 Martinez Drive;Randy Whitney,JD and Associates;Leo Redman,2711 Martinez Drive;Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue.On August 16,2005, letters were submitted discussing the view blockage and support for the project and he submitted additional information discussing a comparison to 2711 Martinez Drive. Commission asked if the owner had seen the photos taken from David Valle's house at 2715 Martinez. Property owner replied yes.Feel view from 2715 Martinez Drive will be blocked because of the overall height of the building. Opposes project;years ago neighbor did addition that blocked light onto his property;feels that addition has affected the quality of life on this neighborhood. Commission asked is this a general point about expanding a house? Yes,expansion of homes affects the neighbors. Had two commissioners visit house to look at view;feels addition is at expense of her view;would be ok with a 12"-18"increase in height,but not a second story,issue is that the view should not be obstructed at all,not that applicant should do what others have done.Parents do not have problems with remodeling or upgrading home,but do have problems with view blockage;if applicant can do addition with out adding height they would have no problem. Submitted a paper signed by Leo Redman that states where the addition would go in relation to his own home. Did agree to support project ifview would not be blocked;feels story poles are 2-dimensional and do not give a full representation of the addition; wants to support the project,but can't tell if design meets criteria he agreed to. People are now recognizing that roof lines and views are changing in Burlingame;wants Commission to keep roof lines where they are supposed to be without variances;people are unaware of the effect of buildings until it's built. Property owner noted everyone of adjacent properties have added on since he moved in 21 years ago;feels only fair that permit be allowed for him to add on just as it was allowed for his neighbor;feels his addition blocks less view then his neighbors did when they were constructed in 2000. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes Commission commented: visited adjacent residences, spoke to applicant, spoke to adjacent neighbors, visited subject property, looked at story poles and walked perimeter of the site. Applicant is on the down slope; how can an addition work in this area? There is clear view blockage from 2715 and 2716 Martinez; people buy in this area because of the views; because of view blockage, cannot approve project as proposed, even with the slope on the property. Is it a correct interpretation to say that the airport is a distance view? CP responded that yes, the airport would be considered a distant view in the hillside area. This is a cut and dry case of view blockage and can not be supported; would be in favor of a variance for lot coverage or setbacks for a single story addition in replacement of a second story addition; view blockage is substantial and a second story addition does not work in this area. C. Brownrigg moved to deny the application. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (C. Deal abstaining; C. Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. 4. 2509 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (DANIEL BIERMANN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOSHUA AND KIMBERLY GRATCH, PROPERTY OWNERS) (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report dated August 22, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Daniel Biermann, applicant and designer, spoke in favor of the project. Commission asked if any thought was given to pulling the second story back in from the first floor on the sides instead of fitting it right on top of the first floor? Applicant responded that no consideration was given to set the addition inward because of the large setbacks on both sides of the house. Commission asked why are there two different finishes on the chimney? Applicant responded that they are now and decided not to change. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 4, 2005 sheets Al through A8, site plan, floor plans, building elevations, and landscape plan (on site plan); 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Chief Building Official, NPDES Coordinator and Fire Marshal's memos dated February 28, 2005 shall be met; 4) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide to the Building Department certification of that height documenting that it is the same or less than the maximum height shown on the plans; 5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes 'compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 7)that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 8)that all air ducts,plumbing vents,and flues shall be combined,where possible,to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street;and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;and 9)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,2001 edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C.Cauchi. Comment on motion:the design review process helped to accomplish what was asked for of this project;this design is a definite improvement and is now consistent with the residential design guidelines. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1(C.Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 5. 116 BLOOMFIELD ROAD,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE(BOB KOTMEL,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER,JESSE GEURSE,DESIGNER)(64 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated August 22,2005,with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Bob Kotmel,applicant and property owner,represented the project. There were no finther comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission commented:This is a benign project;it would be unreasonable to ask the applicant to move the garage to the rear 30%of this unusual 160'deep lot. C.Deal,because of the depth of the lot,moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following conditions: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped July 18,2005,sheets G.0 thru G.3,and that the detached garage shall not exceed 399 SF in area,shall not exceed an overall height of 12'-8"measured from adjacent grade to the roof ridge,and a maximum plate height of 8'-1"measure from adjacent grade;2)that there shall be no water or sewer service extended to the accessory structure without an amendment to this permit; 3)that the detached garage shall only be used for parking and shall never be used for accessory living or sleeping purposes and shall never include a kitchen; 4)that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 18,2005 memo,and the City Engineer's,Recycling Specialist's and NPDES Coordinator's July 25,2005,memos shall be met; 5)that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of a structure,interior or exterior,shall require a demolition permit;and 6)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,2001 Edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1(C.Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes 6. AMEND ZONING FOR THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW REAL ESTATE USES ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND SECOND FLOOR, ZONED C-1 WITH BROADWAY OVERLAY REGULATIONS—CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE(150 NOTICED) Reference staff report August 22,2005,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed the proposed change to the regulations adding real estate uses on the first and second floor with performance criteria. Commissioners asked if real estate uses would be a conditional use. CP noted that as proposed real estate uses would be a conditional use in the Broadway commercial area. Commission had discussed limiting the number of real estate uses,why is that not included in this draft? CP noted that in the case of food establishments we had begun by limiting the number in an area and allowing them to move around,it did not work. CA noted that in limiting food establishments to a fixed number we had a base number we could defend,in the case of real estate uses,the definition is broad, and we do not have a fixed number we can justify;the conditional use permit process can be used to determine if the impact of a given real estate use is appropriate. CP noted that the performance criteria use will have the effect of limiting the size and thus the impacts caused by various real estate offices,and with a conditional use permit the Commission can place additional appropriate restrictions on a given real estate business to insure that their operation is consistent with the character of the Broadway area. How were the performance criteria deterniined? CP noted that the criteria are based on the questions that the Commission asked at the study meeting and on current experience with this use on Broadway. The responses to the study questions are in the staff report. The action includes removing the sunset clause for financial institutions and allowing them as a conditional use permanently. There were no further questions of staff: Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Ross Bruce, President of the Broadway merchants association; Amin Assadi, 1202 Broadway; Rudy Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive;Eric Wrinkler, 1345 Howard Avenue; Tom Coros, 2225 Summit Drive; Barbara Zukowski, 1108 Capuchino Avenue; Valerie Teil, 1235 Broadway and 1448 Alvarado Drive;John Benson, 1401 Paloma Avenue;Garbis Bezdjian, 1199Broadway; David Hinckel, 1616 Sanchez Avenue. In the last 18 months Broadway lost 50%ofits real estate uses,some real estate is good for the mix of businesses on Broadway. Commissioner asked which was the real estate use on the first floor which was not nonconforming. Ross Bruce commented that this real estate use is no longer operating on Broadway. Am a merchant on Broadway and feel that allowing real estate uses is a good idea,support this ordinance. Know how important real estate is to everyday life,should be as accessible as possible,first floor is good for access,support. Support this,may cause real estate uses to move away from Howard and Primrose area. Support because more likely to have owner occupancy on Broadway,this kind of business is good for Burlingame because owners care about the street and city, need that to bring Broadway back to the"village". Support bringing real estate uses back because it will support the diversity of Broadway, John Kervanian from Nuts for Candy also wanted it noted that he supports this ordinance. Need the diversity in function to get a pedestrian friendly street, real estate businesses work on Ocean Avenue in Carmel. Daughter lives in Danville,there good mix of real estate and businesses on the main street. Few months ago stood here and asked the Planning Commission to vote for 5 more restaurants on Broadway, now ask for real estate offices, the Broadway BID and merchants support a total of four,now there is only one; ask Commission to support,it is only fair,only ask 1,500 SF for a family business in his building on Broadway. Have been a renter and a property owner on Broadway, the street lost a good real estate establishment, it was not replaced,would like to have at least two. Commission asked Ross Bruce: Eighteen months ago Commission spent a long time looking at new uses on Broadway, including real estate, felt then that some uses including real estate would limit the pedestrian orientation of the street, and the vision expressed at that time was the merchants wanted people to walk, given this request would we be better off without any limitations on uses on Broadway? Not asking to 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes remove all limits,would like adjustments and an evolution,tweaking to improve the mix,think the limits established by zoning are good but may need adjusting every 15 years or so. Seems more like "policy by increment", ask for change when a property owner wants something, ask Commission action in response, would it be better to take all limits off so the property owner is not hand-cuffed,the incremental approach is time consuming for the Commission and city. This is a small adjustment; appreciate the time given by the city and commission. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comment: CA noted that on April 6, 2006, the provision allowing financial institutions on Broadway would expire, he noted that this ordinance includes removing the sunset clause and allowing financial institutions as an allowed use permanently, Commission should address this in their action. C.Keighran noted that she support real estate use in the Broadway area,understand issue but do not want to take all regulation off Broadway,feel it would open Pandora's Box; the restaurant change,adding 5,was an incremental change which was good especially since all the merchants worked together to figure out a 'vision'for Broadway which is a local service street different from Burlingame Avenue where the properties and businesses are bigger; on Broadway a lot of sites are owner occupied which makes a close connection with the community,it is good to support benefits to the community;for these reasons move to recommend the changes to the Broadway commercial area zoning to add real estate uses as a conditional use with performance criteria to the City Council for approval. . The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: When the commission approved the Walgreen's application required that the design include interesting windows for pedestrian interest,in Carmel there are a lot of real estate offices but they have a lot of photographs in the windows, they care about the pedestrian; can we require that in this ordinance? In the past in discussing Broadway the Commission has talked about not allowing curtains on the windows on Broadway so people can see into the businesses. CP noted that such requirements about window displays and window covering,where appropriate,could be a part of the action on each conditional use permit for a real estate business. Further comment on the motion: An individual applicant asked that he get his real estate office,want to be clear that vote is on generally expanding the real estate use opportunities on Broadway not approval of an individual site,need to watch the change and see if it works. CA noted that a commissioner who lives near Broadway may vote on a change to the regulations for the entire area, however, he may not vote on an individual application within those regulations if he lives within 500 feet of the applicant's site. Note also that would like to amend the motion to remove the'sunsef for financial institutions on Broadway. Maker and second to the motion agreed to add removal of the time limitation for financial institutions on Broadway. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to the City Council that they approve the ordinance amendments to allow real estate uses as a conditional use with performance criteria in the Broadway commercial area and that the time limit on financial institutions be removed. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). This item is not appealable and will be referred to the City Council for public hearing and action. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes 7. 'NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE TROUSDALE WEST DISTRICT - CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE (NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND 215 NOTICED) Reference staff report August 22, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report and discussed how the proposed zoning for the Trousdale West district implements the adopted North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan for the Trousdale North and Hospital Block subareas, noting that the zoning for this district was expanded to include both sides of Marco Polo between Trousdale Drive and Clarice Way. She also noted that this zoning represents a significant change in the way development is regulated in the city, creating both minimum as well as maximum height limits, and requiring certain portions of building facades to be built at the minimum front setback line. Commissioners commented that the revision of the telecommunications provision to include all buildings of 35 feet or more was good, noting that line of sight for communications is key; the fact that the plan does not allow any office use in the Marco Polo overlay area suggests that financial institutions also should not be allowed, wondered why clubs, associations, religious institutions are not allowed outside of the Marco Polo area where a religious institution owns a large parcel in this area. How was the requirement that 60% of the building is built at the front property line determined? This was taken from the design criteria shown on the maps in the adopted plan; the objective was to establish "street walls" to add character to the various streets and areas within the planning area. Like extended stay hotels being included to support the hospital. Important to note that this zoning is a departure, a different way of zoning, which requires the buildings to come up to the street, the density will be increased in an attractive way which will establish streetscape. There were no further questions from the Commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. John Hickey, 1840 Ogden Drive; Dan Zemanek, Sunrisde Senior Living. Appreciate that the inclusionary zoning incentives were included with this district; like to clarify a couple of points: if public safety equipment is required to be placed on the roof of a building will it be included in the height measurement for that building. Staff noted it would not. Do the minimum lot size requirements apply only to dividing an existing lot? Staff noted yes. Pleased to see that the city is encouraging interesting design elements and is open to creative attempts to make the sides of buildings interesting even if it would require a variance. Am comfortable with the regulations as proposed. Refer to page 13 which refers to Group Residential Facilities for the Elderly, there is no maximum floor area ratio set out but there is a maximum density of 60 beds to the acre. Have an assisted living project on the agenda later this evening which will accommodate 95 beds to the acre. There is a big difference between the density and intensity of use of a convalescent home and an assisted living facility. CA noted that since the maximum density for multiple family residential uses in this area is 40 to 50 dwellings to the acre, 60 beds sounded reasonable for the plan. Commissioner noted that this was not etched in stone now, but could be, would consider increasing the density for assisted living projects or shifting to an FAR. Applicant noted that the traffic impacts of an assisted living facility are less than a convalescent or skilled nursing facility. Can convalescent facilities and group residential facilities be separated out? CP noted that they could. CA noted that regulation should not be based on state licensing because the state regulations were changing too fast. CP noted that elsewhere in the code parking is used to determine the number of beds (density) in a Group Residential Care Facility for the Elderly, so this item could be separated out and parking could be used to determine the density as it is in the rest of the city. Have been looking at such facilities and noted that the better ones are bigger because they provide more interaction among the residents; agree that the number for group residential facilities should be more than 60. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes Commissioners discussion: It is a good point that this zoning should be kept moving however,would like to look at this as a complete district,so should consider continuing until the Group Residential facility issues can be resolved;not see a problem to carve out that piece and move the rest on;what about the other issues think parish houses and convents OK but no financial institutions in the Marco Polo overlay area;CA noted that a parish house or convent was like an apartment house. C. Osterling made a motion to continue this item for two weeks so that staff could bring back the issue of the separation of convalescent facilities and group residential facilities for the elderly. The motion died for want of a second. Comment on the motion: endorse sending this forward, think solution is simple, assisted living provides different kinds of services with a different impact on parking. C. Brownrigg made a motion to move the TW district regulations forward without CS 25.40.050(4)group residential facilities and convalescent facilities and with the recommendation that financial institutions be deleted from the Marco Polo overlay and that parish houses and convents be allowed in the district. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the ordinance to the City Council for adoption with the amendments proposed. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.Vistica absent)voice vote. This item will be taken forward to the City Council. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 8. BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA AREA, ANZA POINT NORTH AND ANZA POINT SOUTH DISTRICTS — CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE (NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND 40 NOTICED) (REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE ANZA POINT NORTH ZONING DISTRICT) Reference staff report August 22,2005,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting that this public hearing was noticed for three zoning districts Anza Area,Anza Point North and Anza Point South. Attached to the packet is a request to continue the hearing on Anza Point North district. The Commission may decide to continue the hearing on the Anza Point North district, any testimony on that district this evening will be carried over to the continued hearing. CP noted that an Errata for the Bayfront zones was placed at the Commissioner's desks tonight. The errata includes minor edits to make language in the six new zoning districts in the Bayfront consistent. These edits should be considered at the public hearing on the zoning districts tonight. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue;Nikki Zito, 615 Airport Blvd; spoke. Last April when the plan was approved it was determined that there would be no residential uses in the Bayfront area,do not recall extended stay hotels being allowed,concerned that given their design,if one of these hotels should close it could easily be converted to some kind of residential use; the plan states on pages 4-5 that hotel density was increased for extended stay hotels;in TW district extended stay hotels are allowed because they are compatible with the residential district, should consider dropping the idea of extended stay hotels in these proposed zoning districts. What is an "apartment hotel"? CP noted that this term has been dropped from the code;she referred to the errata sheet of corrections. CA noted that extended stay and time share condominiums were discussed during the planning process. Council determined that extended stay hotels were appropriate in part because they are a hotel product meeting a special customer 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes 'need not currently provided in the city's hotel market. Time share condominiums,even if built as hotels, were determined at that time by City Council to be residential uses and excluded from the Bayfront area. Commissioners discussed the 29 day limitation on occupancy caused by the Transient Occupancy Tax,and how that would be affected by extended stay hotels.CP noted that at the time the plan was being approved the hotel industry provided information which documented that not many of the hotel stays in an extended stay hotel exceeded 29 days. Would like to know how the revised zoning will affect the future uses of properties in the Anza Area. CP suggested that she sit down with Mrs.Zito and review the provisions of the new zoning district along with her particular property interests. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: how would a limitation on rooms affect an extended stay hotel? CA noted probably not much since the characteristic of an extended stay hotel is the configuration of the room;how is an extended stay hotel differentiated from an apartment building?CA noted given the density of the hotel, the cost of land would prohibit the hotel from becoming an apartment complex.Could extended stay hotels be made a conditional use so that appropriate limitations could be placed on them to keep them from becoming residential uses?Suggest that extended stay hotels be shifted to only a conditional use in the Anza Area and Anza Point North districts. C.Keighran moved to recommend the Anza Area and Anza Point South zoning districts to the City Council for approval with the amendment of the errata sheet corrections and that extended stay hotels be made a conditional use only in the Anza Area and Anza Point North zoning districts. The motion was seconded by Ralph Osterling. Chair Auran noted that the public hearing on the Anza Point North district is continued to the Commission meeting of September 12,2005,including the direction that extended stay hotels be made a conditional use in the Anza Point North district. Tonight's action will not include the Anza Point North district. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the Anza Area and Anza Point South zoning districts to the City Council for approval with the errata sheet corrections and making extended stay hotels a conditional use in the Anza Area district. The motion passed on a 6-0-1(C.Vistica absent)voice vote. There is no appeal this item will be set for City Council action. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 379 LEXINGTON WAY,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION(CHRISTOPHER MAFFEI,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;HERMANN DIEDERICH.ARCHITECT)(63 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER:ERICA STROHMEIER ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Hermann Diederich,architect and Christopher Maffei,property owner and applicant,represented the project. They stated they wanted to stay within the lines of the existing roof;wanted to stay within design of existing neighborhood;set back front addition;changed siding to shingle cedar siding so that house has uniformityto it. Commission stated:front porch post is small in scale, trellis in rear has small scale posts,and living room lacks window area. Applicant responded that post in front could be made larger and more decorative,trellis posts also could be made larger and more decorative and that windows could be added to the living room area. Commission asked what will the second floor 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes -plate height be? The applicant responded that it will be a standard 8'-0"plate height. Gary Haslam, 373 Lexington Way,moved from 213 Bayswater Avenue;wanted to make sure that privacy issue on the side is addressed; wants to see if addition on top will affect their property;wants to be accommodated; wants to hear what Commission thinks about addition; discussed project with applicant and felt he made changes to accommodate them. Commission responded that this addition is not going to be a towering second floor;is not different from other projects in the city;will not make much of an impact; maintaining backyard area. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Commission identified the following revisions: • Enlarge post in front • Enlarge rear trellis posts • Add windows to the living room area • Provide a landscape plan that shows additional screening C.Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on motion: the architect has done a nice job with the project; do not see an impact on the neighbors. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed,plan checked and there is space on the Commission's agenda. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. 10. 317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (GARY PARTEE, PROPERTY OWNER, AND JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER) (50 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. James Chu,designer,and Gary Partee,applicant,represented the project. They stated that they had the opportunity to provide copies of the plans to all the neighbors prior to the meeting; going back to craftsman style with the project; large covered porch area of 232 SF takes considerable amount of FAR. There were no other comments from the floor. Commission made no suggested changes. The public hearing was closed. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at the next available meeting. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar at the next available meeting. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C.Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes 11. 1818 TROUSDALE DRIVE, ZONED C-3 W/R-4 OVERLAY—ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, VARIANCES FOR FRONT SETBACK AND BUILDING HEIGHT, AND EXCEPTIONS TO THE DESIGN GUIDELINES OF THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN FOR A FOUR-STORY, 79-UNIT ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY (BILL LINDSTROM, SUNRISE DEVELOPMENT, INC. APPLICANT, TROUSDALE PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNER, AND MICHAEL KUTSIN, MUTHIN PARTNERS, ARCHITECT) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission commented: this is a good project; the Commission should look at the number of dwelling units/beds allowed per acre; meets design guidelines well; does project need to go to a consultant to look at design? Staff responded not unless directed by the Commission, will go to consultant to look at traffic impacts because of concern with pick up and drop off from the site and consistency with visual fit, these issues are identified in general in the staff report. Commission expressed concern with hospital emergency entrance and not wanting congestion in this area; if employees are dispersed in shifts, what is the parking demand at the peak hour? Want to look at the facility in San Mateo and the parking situation there during shift changes; where will employees park? Minor concern with low garden walls with stucco columns and rot iron railings that are 3' high, some places wall, some places railing; feel railing does not provide enough privacy for people using the patio area. Commission is looking at lead project for style and quality in the area and feels this project sets a good pace; is there a parking issue with regard to number of visits that take place on a daily basis. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Dan Zemanek and Bill Lindstrom, Sunrise Development, Inc., Michael Kutsin and Jerry McDevit, Muthin Partners; David Gates, landscape architect, and Steve Nakeshimi represented the project. Dan Zemanek gave PowerPoint presentation of proposed facility and its relationship to the general area which discussed: this assisted living facility provides a phased assistance program, first phase (first and second floors) are for assisted living with 37 units and 43 potential residents, phase two (third floor) is for seniors with beginning Alzheimer's with 22 units and 30 potential residents, phase three (fourth floor) is for seniors with early cognitive impairment with 20 units and 22 potential residents. The project covers approximately 40% of the site; cars will come in and out on Ogden Dr; 70% of residents will come out of immediate area; average age of residents is typically 83-84 years old. Commission commented: this is a good design; was the example shown in studio city 60' high? Applicant responded yes. Approximately how many visitors will there be per day? Applicant responded approx. 15 visitors that will stay for an average of 10-30 minutes at a time. Will physical therapists and therapists be coming to the site? Applicant responded that they have in-house therapy and other programs. Why is project not close to the build-to-lines on both street frontages, does pulling the building off the street provide additional security for the residents? Jerry McDevit, architect, responded project is set back 22'-25' from the streets and trellis's and columns were set to build-to lines; series of small patios built off units along Ogden Dr; trying to bridge the two codes, develop a residential sense and bring buildings up to build to lines while maintaining a fair setback from the street of landscaping and private space for the residents; provides screening for residents; constructing a residential building to the build to lines vs. a commercial building is completely different; allows residents to be close to the street, but set back enough so they are not right on top of it. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Comment on project: not many issues; ask that staff include some of the rational behind build-to-lines in the future packet to the Commissioners. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes X. PLANNER REPORTS FYI: REVISIONS TO AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT AT 147 LOMA VISTA DRIVE. Commission approved these changes as proposed. FYI: REVIEW OF REQUESTED CHANGES OF AN APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT 1624 CORONADO WAY Commission approved these revisions with the additional provisions that all Italian Cyprus be removed and replaced with Dezera or some other tree from the city's street tree list;and that the stucco mold as shown on all the other windows be put on the windows in the dormers. CA discussed briefly when commissioners are disqualified from voting on an item because they live within 500 feet. This provision does not apply to changes in existing zoning regulations. However,it does apply if the zoning regulation change could be harmful to the properties within 500' and to any specific projects within the rezoned area. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\uapproved.08.22.05.doc 13 CITY c� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 TEL:(650)558-7250 • FAX:(650)696-3790 www.burlingame.org Site: 1783 EL CAMINO REAL PENINSULA HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT PROJECT: Application for tentative and final parcel map for PUBLIC HEARIN lot combination of 8.60 acre parcel along EI Camino Real 98.68 feet South of Trousdale Drive NOTICE (APN:025-123-100)and 1.328 acre parcel at the corner of EI Camino Real and Trousdale Drive (APN: 025-123-040). The City of Burlingame City Council announces the following public hearing on Tuesday,September 6, 2005 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, II` Burlingame, California. f Mailed: August 26,2005 - (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applica n and"'Oris dor thfsrtproject may be reviewed prior to the meetingal. P � t 5bl.Primrose Road, Burlingame, Cavi` t�a .�_ m > > If you challei e thub e= q��4tzt, you ma}t be limited to raising only th e rs `� rte r d'a the public hearing, described in Ili e ritefloAtres�Q�de �e delivered to the city at or prior to�the pu c lea ng s ` Property owh rs ztr I e responsible or informing their tenants bouti5 _' 1io al infor` ahc , please call Nit (650) 558-7 0. + Margaret Mo � ��. City Planner PUB 1 ` CE (Please refer to other side) Agenda Item # 8f Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: September 19 2005 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY l TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: SEPTEMBER 13, 2005 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR A LOT COMBINATION AND MAP EXTENSION AT 1783 EL CAMINO REAL, FOR THE MILLS PENINSULA HOSPITAL PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council concur with the Planning Commission and adopt the resolution approving the subject Vesting Tentative Parcel Map subject to the conditions described below. BACKGROUND: The attached Vesting Tentative Parcel Map is a planning document which indicates the proposed design and improvements, as well as existing conditions for the Peninsula Hospital Project. The Council has already approved a lot line adjustment that has allowed construction of new driveway access from Trousdale Drive. Council also approved merging two parcels at the front of the property to allow construction of a parking garage. The Council will approve a future second lot merger to allow construction of the medical office building, and a third lot merger to allow the entire site to become the campus of the new hospital. All of these lot mergers are included within the Vesting Tentative Parcel Map. It should be pointed out that the final maps within the vesting tentative parcel map are entitled to automatic extensions under the Subdivision Map Act, which are a key element of the Mills Peninsula Health Services application. The State Subdivision Map Act provides that if a subdivider is required as part of a subdivision project to expend more than $178,000 (as adjusted) in public improvements outside the property boundaries of the tentative map, each filing of a final map under the tentative map approval extends the expiration of the tentative map by 36 months. However, the maximum time limit of extensions is a total of ten years from the approval of the tentative map per Government Code § 66452.6. In the current approval, the subdivider will be constructing a number of adjacent public improvements that do not qualify for the extension trigger, but will be contributing more than $314,000 to public improvements in the Gateway area, which do qualify. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\MPH Parcel MapVesting-Draft2a.doc DISCUSSION: At their meeting on September 12,2005,the Planning Commission reviewed the attached Vesting Tentative Map and recommended Council approval subject to the following: 1. A preliminary title report shall be provided to the City prior to recording the final map for Phase 1 that indicates that the exception for the ten foot wide utility easement area(2649 official record 162)has been removed. 2. Easements for access and utilities for parcel MP-4 over parcel MP-3 shall be shown on the final parcel map with a"Notice of Intent'for them to be granted upon sale of parcel MP-4. The"Notice of Intent'shall be recorded concurrently with the Phase 3 final parcel map. EXHIBITS: Resolution Vesting Tentative Parcel Map Planning Commission Minutes of September 12,2005 c: S.Murtuza,Asst.Director of Public Works L.Anderson,City Attorney M.Brooks,City Planning Department C.Burda,Turner Construction L.Kollerer,Mid Peninsula Hospital M.Ron Associates C.Kavanagh,Kavanagh Engineering Co. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\MPH Parcel MapVesting-Draft2a.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPROVING VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION AT 1783 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1, C-3, AND UNCLASSIFIED (PENINSULA HOSPITAL PROPERTY) (APN 025-123-130) (SHEETS TM 1 THROUGH TM 6) MILLS PENINSULA HOSPITAL PROJECT. A MERGER AND RESUBDIVISION OF THE LANDS DESCRIBED IN 1742 O.R.409 O.R. 94-122754, O.R. 2005- AND O.R. 2005- . ALSO BEING A MERGER AND RESUBDIVISION OF ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NOS. 025-123-100, 130, , AND _, BURLINGAME, SAN MATEO COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, AND CONFIRMING ENTITLEMENT TO MAP EXTENSIONS RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, application was made to the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame for a vesting tentative parcel map for the properties known as 1783 El Camino, consisting of various parcels as shown on the vesting tentative parcel map; and WHEREAS, the application was heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on September 12, 2005, that hearing being properly noticed as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended approval of that application, and a public hearing regarding the application was scheduled and held by the City Council on September 19, 2005, at which time all interested persons were heard and all testimony and submittals considered; and WHEREAS, the applicant will be required to contribute over $300,000 to the City for off- site improvements in the Gateway area of the City as part of the overall project involving the parcel map; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 66452.6 provides that this entitles the applicant to extensions of 36 months of the tentative parcel map upon the filing of each final map encompassed within the tentative map, but not to exceed ten years from the date of this resolution, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED AND DETERMINED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: 1. The Council has previously approved a Final Environmental Impact Report in Resolution No. 105-2004 that encompassed the project for which the vesting tentative parcel map is being sought; the Council has considered that adopted Final Environmental Impact Report in approving this vesting tentative parcel maps; the Council affirms that the vesting tentative parcel map is consistent with and advances the project for which the Final Environmental Impact Report was 1 certified; and there has been no substantial change in the project or surrounding circumstances nor has any new information been received that would require preparation of any additional environmental document. 2. The vesting tentative parcel map for lot combinations of the real properties commonly known as 1783 El Camino Real as shown on the tentative parcel map is approved subject to the following conditions: a. Conditions as previously established by City Departments of Planning, Building, and Public Works Engineering shall apply. b.A preliminary title report shall be provided to the City prior to recording the final map for Phase 1 that indicates that the exception for the 10 foot utility easement area(2649 OR 162)has been removed. c. In Phase 3, creation of separate west portion: C.l Easements for access and utilities for parcel MP-4 over parcel MP-3 shall be shown on the final parcel map with a "Notice of Intent" for them to be granted upon sale of parcel MP-4. The "Notice of Intent" shall be recorded concurrently with the final parcel map. 3. This Council finds that the pattern and size of the proposed lots is compatible with the pattern of existing lots in the neighborhood and that the proposed development is consistent with and advances the goals of the City's General Plan. 4. In addition,the vesting parcel map is consistent with and in furtherance of the project for the reconstruction of Peninsula Hospital earlier approved by this Council in Resolution No. 105- 2004. 5. The Council affirms that the applicant is required to contribute over$300,000 to the City for Gateway improvements under the project approval and is therefore entitled to the 36-month extensions of the tentative parcel map upon filing of final maps under this approval as provided in Government Code section 66452.6, but not to exceed ten years from the date of this resolution. Mayor I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 2 of ,2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 1. 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; MAAK & SULLIVAN ARCHITECT)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Commissioner Brownrigg recused himself from consideration of the project,due to his involvement,and left the chambers. CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: plan shows drainage on roof being taken to a dry well,could Public Works please address? Concerned with three skylights proposed;at night light could flood onto neighbors property; number of skylights should be reduced and all skylights should be tinted; three skylights are drawn,two are shown,please clarify. This item was set for the consent calendar,with all appropriate changes suggested,when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:32 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. 2D. 1205 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (GEORGE R. COREY, APPLICANT; ARNIE GAPESIN, A&T DESIGN GROUP, DESIGNER; LENCI FARKAS,PROPERTY OWNER)(56 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 2E. 1783 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1, C-3 AND UNCLASSIFIED (PENINSULA HOSPITAL PROPERTY) — VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION AND MAP EXTENSION(MILLS PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (104 RADIUS &97COMMUNITY NOTICES MAILED) (PROJECT ENGINEER,DOUG BELL) Commission asked staff on the hospital issue map included,if dividing off the back property on Marco Polo was separate from this action? Yes. Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue,asked that Item 2a,379 Lexington Way,Item 2b,317 Occidental Avenue and Item 2c, 1213 Cabrillo Avenue be moved to the regular action calendar. C. Deal noted that he lives within 500 feet of 1205 Broadway so he would recuse himself from that vote. Chair Auran moved for a voice vote on Items 2d and 2e on the consent calendar noting that each project is based on the facts in the staff reports,findings in the staff reports,commissioner's comments,recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The project at 1205 Broadway passed on a 4-0-1-2(C.Deal abstaining;Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent)voice vote. The project at 1783 El Camino Real passed on a 5-0-2(Cers.Cauchi&Keighran absent)voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. CITY STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 8 ITEM# g 1bo9 900 MTG. DATE September 19,2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT E r BY DATE: September 19,2005 APP OVED B FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director 558-7222 SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL—2005 ICMA ANNUAL CONFERENCE RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Finance Director's travel to Minneapolis, Minnesota to attend the 91St Annual Conference of the International City-County Management Association (ICMA), September 24 - 28, 2005. Approval of this item will not have an impact on the City budget. Jesus will use his Professional Development Account to cover expenses associated with this trip. BACKGROUND: Jesus has been an active member of the ICMA since 1983. He currently serves on the following ICMA Boards and Committees,which are scheduled to meet at the conference. • ICMA Representative to the Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Council (GASAC) • 2005 Conference Planning Committee • International Hispanic Network of Public Administrators Board of Directors Jesus will serve as moderator for the conference Session entitled: "Succession Planning and Uncommon Paths to the Profession." He will also be a panelist for the conference session entitled: "The Personal Side of Leadership." A CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM # 8h MTG. 'MCO��AATEO JVNE 6,900 DATE September 19, 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT BY DATE: September 19, 2005 APPR FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director BY 650-558-7222 G SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Transfer of Funds for 2004-05 Budget RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution adjusting selected appropriations as described below. BACKGROUND: General Fund expenditures were within 99% of the adopted FY04-05 budget. Budget savings were $240,978. However, several individual programs exceeded budget due to unanticipated circumstances. Overages occurred due to overtime and workers compensation costs for Police and Fire; an increase in the City Clerk position to 1 .0 FTE from .6 FTE and various administrative leave and retirement payouts allowed under the City's pay and benefits plan. BUDGET APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS DEPARTMENT FUNDING SOURCE AMOUNT EXPLANATION City Clerk Finance $23,900 Position increased to Full-time (1 .0 FTE) City Manager Finance/City $10,500 Administrative Leave Payout Attorney Human Resources City Attorney $ 14,500 Administrative and retirement payout and salary increase for Director Communications City Attorney $ 14,500 Overtime and part time salaries (Police Dispatch) Police Emp Benefits/Non- $22800 Workers compensation costs and dept/Building/ associated overtime Streets & Storm Drains/Library/ Recreation Fire Engineering/Parks $291 ,000 Workers compensation costs and associated overtime ATTACHMENTS : Resolution City of Burlingame Exhibit Detailing Year End Appropriation Transfers Fiscal Year 2004-05 Transfer From jAmount I I Transfer To jAmount Program Account I Program jAccount Finance 101 -64250-010 $ 10,500 City Manager 101 -64150-010 $ 10,500 Finance 101 -64250-110 13,000 City Clerk 101 -64200-010 23,900 101 -64250-120 4,000 City Attorney 101 -64350-210 6,900 City Attorney 101 -64350-210 14,500 Human Resources 101 -64420-010 14,500 City Attorney 101 -64350-210 14,500 Communications 101 -65150-011 14,500 Other Emp Benefits 101 -64550-040 9,600 Police 101 -65100-012 228,000 Non-Dept Programs 101 -64560-210 17,800 " 101 -64560-290 11 ,000 Building 101 -65300-220 9,000 " 101 -65300-260 2,500 Streets & Storm Dr 101 -66210-010 40,000 " 101 -66210-031 12,000 " 101 -66210-120 11 ,500 it 101 -66210-170 8, 100 " 101 -66210-219 20,900 101 -66210-221 10,000 " 101 -66210-230 19,000 " 101 -66210-223 4,900 " 101 -66210-400 4,000 " 101 -66210-800 15,500 " 101 -66210-250 1 ,600 101 -66210-260 2,300 Library 101 -67500-010 5,300 Recreation 101 -68010-010 23,000 Engineering 101 -66100-010 72,000 Fire 101 -65200-012 291 ,000 101 -66100-011 3,000 101 -66100-030 76,000 101 -66100-031 58,000 to 101 -66100-033 8,500 to 101 -66100-036 9,500 " 101 -66100-038 7,600 it 101 -66100-047 6,000 It 101 -66100-200 11 ,000 " 101 -66100-220 14,000 Parks 101 -68020-011 20,000 " 101 -68020-031 5,400 General Fund $ 582,400 $ 582,400 CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROPRIATION TRANSFER REQUEST DEPARTMENT Various DATE: September 9, 2003 1. REQUEST TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS AS LISTED BELOW: FUND DEPT OBJT PROJ AMT DESCRIPTION 582,400 See Attached FROM: TO: 582,400 See Attached Justification (Attach Memo if Necessary) DEPARTMENT HEAD [BY. DATE: 2.® COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED ❑COUNCIL ACTION NOT REQUIRED Remarks: FINANCE DIRECTOR [BY, DATE 3. ®APPROVE AS REQUESTED ❑APPROVE AS REVISED ❑DISAPPROVE Remarks: CITY MANAGER BY: DATE: RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-05 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame,that WHEREAS, the Department hereinabove named in the Request for Appropriation,Allotment or Transfer of Funds has requested the transfer of certain funds as described in said Request: and WHEREAS, the Finance Director has approved said Request as to accounting and available balances, and the City Manager has recommended the transfer of funds as set forth hereinabove: NOW,THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DETERMINED that the recommendations of the City Manager be approved and that the transfer of funds as set forth in said Request be effected. MAYOR I, Doris Mortensen, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS CITY CLERK L:\Forms&Templates\Transfer Request.doc CITYAGENDA 8i 0 ITEM# RIJNGAME A STAFF REPORT MTG. DATE 9/19/2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED BY DATE: September 7, 2005 APPROVED BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: ADOPT APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR VACANCIES IN OFFICE OF CITY COUNCILMEMBER OR CITY CLERK RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a procedure to be used if the City Council wishes to consider appointment to a vacancy in the office of City Councilmember or City Clerk. DISCUSSION: The City does not have an established procedure to use to consider a possible appointment to a City Councilmember or City Clerk vacancy. At the Council's August 1 and September 6 meetings, the Council discussed a draft procedure and asked that a number of changes be made regarding voting. These included a separate voting procedure in which each Councilmember would be asked in turn to name the candidate the Councilmember is voting to appoint; if not majority vote was reached, the order of call would be changed, and the cycle repeated. In addition, the policy allows a special meeting to be called at the request of two Councilmembers. Finally, the policy states that interviews of candidates for a vacant Council office would not be held until after the vacancy actually occurs, so the departing Councilmember would only participate in those interviews as a member of the public. Attached is a revised draft procedure. This is similar to the application process used for the City's boards and commissions. With such a procedure adopted, the Council would be in a position to quickly move forward on determining whether to call a special election or to make an appointment for the balance of the officeholder's term. The procedure does not require the Council to make an appointment; the decision whether to call a special election or to proceed to make an appointment remains a case-by-case decision. Attachment Resolution and Application Procedure RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENT TO VACANCIES IN THE OFFICE OF CITY COUNCILMEMBER OR CITY CLERK RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,the Government Code provides that in case of a vacancy in the office of City Councilmember or City Clerk, the Council may call a special election or appoint a person to fill the vacancy for the balance of the term of the office; and WHEREAS,the time limits imposed on the City Council to make such a decision are very short; and WHEREAS, the City should have an adopted procedure in place to use in case an appointment is to be considered, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The Procedures for Appointments to Vacancies in the Office of City Councilmember or City Clerk contained in Exhibit A hereto are approved. MAYOR I,DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of ,2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK PROCEDURES FOR APPOINTMENTS TO VACANCIES IN THE OFFICE OF CITY COUNCILMEMBER OR CITY CLERK 1. Application Determination and Dates. a. Upon receipt of a resignation letter or document from a City Councilmember or a City Clerk or other notice of a vacancy in the office,the City Manager will report the resignation or vacancy to the City Council and schedule discussion of the vacancy or pending resignation at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting or with the approval of the Mayor or the ioili st of iwa (2) Councils e b,ers, at a special Council meeting. b. At the Council meeting, the City Council will determine whether to call a special election or make an appointment to the vacant office, or take other action. C. If the City Council determines to make or consi�leran appointment to the vacant office, the City Council will then determine what deadlines for applications will apply for the vacancy. Generally, deadlines will be ten(10) days following the Council's determination because of the short period of time allowed to make an appointment under the Government Code. The City Council may extend the deadlines as the Council may deem appropriate. 2. Advertisement. The City Clerk will post notice of the vacancies and deadlines at City Hall, the Main Library, and such additional places as the City Clerk determines may be helpful. The City Clerk will also post notices as required by Government Code section 54974. The City Clerk shall also publish a notice of the vacancies and deadlines in at least one newspaper of general circulation in the City. 3. Applications. a. A standard application form together with supplemental questions as determri by the # ij,'will be provided by the City Manager to persons interested in appointment to a vacant office. b. Any person seeking appointment to the vacant office of Councilmember will complete the application forms and return them to the City Clerk by the designated deadline in order to be considered for appointment. Any person seeking appointment to the vacant office of City Clerk will complete the application forms and return them to the City Manager by the designated deadline in order to be considered for appointment. C. Applications will only be accepted for the specific vacancy involved. Previous applications will not be considered for the pending vacancy. 1 9/7/2005 4. Interviews. a. The Council will schedule interviews of the applicants to be held at a public meeting. hi the.case of the r�� a ,,',,,,,,,,' C,poriqlmemher;the.Trite v ew shaii peg the Victualc� , ffie b. The Council will interview all applicants who have submitted application forms by the designated deadline. If an applicant is unable to interview with the Council at the public meeting,the applicant will be dropped from consideration. C. Following the interviews, the Council will receive public comment on the applicants. 5. Appointments. a. Appointments are made at regular or special meetings of the City Council by open motion and voting. Ballots will not be used. b. The City Clerk will d .. ad ond � t€tto site that? { F.MA, , e slid te:that e Ciiuncili ri and each Councilmember shall have one vote to cast. If the Council is unable to reach a majority vote to fill the office on a voting cycle, the following process will be used: (1) The City Clerk will then again can echnclieme ur n order to state Warne cif Mie daridida.e the Co nezlzr ember s ya ng ffl The voting cIe will be repeated until an appointment is made by a majority, affirmative vote of the Council; (3 � w cycles, ttry � r1rtcsutepimeilaan C. If the Council is unable to reach a majority vote on the appointment,the Council may then proceed to seek additional applicants, continue the appointment process, or take such other action as the Council may deem appropriate. However, if at the end of the period of time allowed by the Government Code to make an appointment, the Council has been unable to reach a majority vote on the appointment, the Council shall proceed to call a special election as provided in the Government Code. 2 9/7/2005 • l l � $1,716,662.23 Ck. No. 13793- 14021 *Only 2 weeks of A/P checks due to changes in council meetings RECOMMENDED FOR PAYMENT APPROVED FOR PAYMENT Payroll for August 2005 $2,570,183.81 Ck. No. 163205- 163514 INCLUDES ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS PERS HEALTH PERS RETIREMENT FEDERAL 941 TAX STATE DISABILITY TAX STATE INCOME TAX PERS&ICMA DEFERRED COMP SECTION 125 DEDUCTION CD OQ m m ML t M G GQ o m CD 3 m S:\FINEXCEL\MISCELLANEOUS\COUNCILCKS.XLS CITY OF BURLINGAME 09-09-2005 WARRANT REGI ST ER PAGE 9 FUND RECAP - 05-06 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 39,256.50 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 320.60 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 7,335.02 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 130,893.75 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 6,135.24 WATER FUND 526 262,345.95 SEWER FUND 527 22,149.67 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 1,839.55 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 22,798.00 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 12,157.84 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 2,351.91 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 645.41 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 906.22 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 1,360.77 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 8,210.38 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL 8518,706.81 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM i THROUGH 9 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 13918 THROUGH 14021 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF 8518,706.81, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .../.../... • •• FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT ......................... .. .. ....... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 09/09/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 14014 KIM KYONG 25802 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 14015 JERRY GUERIGAY 25803 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 14016 SAM BACA 25804 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 14017 SPRINT 25805 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 14018 BRIDGET DILLENDER 25806 250.00 MISCELLANEOUS 250.00 101 22593 14019 KAL FENTON 25807 150.00 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00 101 22593 14020 REBECCA O'DRISCOLL 25808 300.00 MISCELLANEOUS 300.00 101 22593 14021 LINDA FITZPATRICK 25809 35.00 MISCELLANEOUS 35.00 101 36330 000 1212 1 TOTAL 8518,706.8 p yet l J`' O CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 09/09/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 13998 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 5.94 OFFICE EXPENSE 5.94 201 65500 110 13999 OFFICE DEPOT 25244 413.71 OFFICE EXPENSE 413.71 101 65100 110 14000 TES 25256 267.22 VEHICLE MAINT. 267.22 620 66700 202 14001 BARBARA MOORE 25462 56.00 MISCELLANEOUS 56.00 101 36330 000 1331 14002 OFFICE DEPOT 25488 6.81 OFFICE EXPENSE 6.81 101 64200 110 14003 TOSETTI ELECTRIC CO 25668 350.54 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 350.54 326 73171 210 14004 CINGULAR WIRELESS ATLYS 25792 59.49 COMMUNICATIONS 59.49 201 65200 160 14005 ASHRAE 25793 203.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 203.00 619 64460 240 14006 HEIDI NIELSEN 25794 40.00 MISCELLANEOUS 40.00 101 36330 000 1331 14007 JUDY CHAO 25795 112.00 MISCELLANEOUS 112.00 101 36330 000 1331 14008 MR PATKAR 25796 56.00 MISCELLANEOUS 56.00 101 36330 000 1331 14009 WILLIAM FUNKHOUSER 25797 132.00 MISCELLANEOUS 132.00 101 36330 000 1331 14010 CRISANTA DEGUZMAN 25798 132.00 MISCELLANEOUS 132.00 101 36330 000 1331 14011 MR LEE 25799 66.00 MISCELLANEOUS 66.00 101 36330 000 1331 14012 UNITEC 25800 110.97 SUPPLIES 110.97 620 15000 14013 HOLLY CHILDS 25801 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 09/09/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 13986 TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 856 24528 320.60 MISCELLANEOUS 312.32 130 21092 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 8.28 130 21015 13987 HONEYWELL 24546 3,017.62 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,199.80 619 64460 210 5240 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 817.82 619 64460 210 5180 13988 SAN MATEO COUNTY FORENSIC LAB 24700 1,750.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,750.00 101 65100 220 13989 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK 24714 582.80 MISCELLANEOUS 582.80 101 64420 030 13990 I .M.P.A.C. GOVERNMENT SERVICES 24752 2,355.02 OFFICE EXPENSE 414.70 201 65200 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 49.17 201 65200 111 MISC. SUPPLIES 259.21 201 65200 120 COMMUNICATIONS 36.78 201 65200 160 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 4.08 201 65200 203 RADIO MAINT. 460.31 201 65200 205 MISCELLANEOUS 1,130.77 731 22554 13991 AD CLUB 24809 150.00 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 150.00 101 64420 150 13992 DON'S MOBILE GLASS, INC. 24956 472.10 MISCELLANEOUS 472.10 618 64520 604 13993 ARBORWEAR LLC 24999 730.00 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 730.00 101 68020 140 2300 13994 DE LAGE LANDEN 25057 821 .99 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 172.63 101 65100 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 15.71 101 65150 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 438.02 101 65100 220 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 15.71 101 65100 292 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 179.92 201 65200 220 13995 WILLIAMS USA, LLC 25114 1,282,76 RADIO MAINT. 1,282.76 201 65200 205 13996 ADVANCED MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 25198 959.92 RADIO MAINT. 959.92 201 65200 205 13997 ANGELA DOBSON 25205 285.00 MISCELLANEOUS 285.00 101 36330 000 1330 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 09/09/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 13973 FARRELLE COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY 23398 927,81 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 927.81 201 65200 203 13974 AT&T 23661 24.18 COMMUNICATIONS 24.18 621 64450 160 13975 THE MARLIN COMPANY 23712 13.54 COMMUNICATIONS 13.54 526 69020 160 13976 SBC/MCI 23728 8,260.71 COMMUNICATIONS 36.12 101 67500 160 COMMUNICATIONS 14.21 526 69020 160 UTILITY EXPENSE 8,210.38 896 20281 13977 INDUSTRIAL PLUMBING SUPPLY 23857 273.01 MISC. SUPPLIES 251.61 619 64460 120 5120 MISC. SUPPLIES 21.40 619 64460 120 5130 13978 MLS CAMPS 23875 10,825.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,825.00 101 68010 220 1372 13979 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 563.61 MISC. SUPPLIES 39.31 101 68010 120 1114 MISC. SUPPLIES 55.41 101 68010 120 1111 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.41 619 64460 220 5130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 413.48 619 64460 220 5110 13980 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 346.46 COMMUNICATIONS 159.48 101 68020 160 2200 COMMUNICATIONS 186.98 619 64460 160 13981 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TIRE SERVICE 23950 664.81 SUPPLIES 664.81 620 15000 13982 QUILL 24090 193.98 OFFICE EXPENSE 193.98 621 64450 110 13983 CINGULAR WIRELESS TITAN 24299 224.97 COMMUNICATIONS 224.97 201 65200 160 13984 A&G SERVICES 24400 19,448.35 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19,448.35 527 66520 220 13985 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 24466 234.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 122.64 619 64460 120 5130 MISC. SUPPLIES 111.36 619 64460 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 09/09/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 13959 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR-042 21240 2,365.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,365.00 619 64460 210 5230 13960 ADI 21362 516.27 MISC. SUPPLIES 288.97 619 64460 120 5270 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 227.30 619 64460 210 5270 13961 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 184.97 OFFICE EXPENSE 19.90 101 64350 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 19.89 101 64150 110 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 145.18 619 64460 210 5140 13962 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY 21741 4,837.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,837.00 101 68010 220 1372 13963 CIRCLEPOINT 21986 8,983.47 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,223.77 320 81350 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,759.70 326 80770 210 13964 TOWNE FORD SALES, INC. 22146 76.07 SUPPLIES 76.07 620 15000 13965 ANDERSON PACIFIC ENGINEERING CON 22387 127,343.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 127,343.00 320 80520 220 13966 QUENVOLDS SAFETY SHOEMOBILES 22479 162.38 TRAINING EXPENSE 162.38 527 66520 260 13967 COUNTY CLERK SAN MATED COUNTY 22558 25.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 25.00 326 80770 120 13968 BILL REILLY 23046 2,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,500.00 101 65200 031 13969 OFFICE DEPOT 23153 54.76 OFFICE EXPENSE 54.76 101 68010 110 1101 13970 OFFICE TEAM 23256 1,918.55 OFFICE EXPENSE 1,918.55 526 69020 110 13971 OFFICE MAX 23306 143.13 OFFICE EXPENSE 86.59 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 28.03 101 64150 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 19.34 101 64200 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 9.17 621 64450 110 13972 WILCO SUPPLY 23333 1,096.96 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,096.96 526 69020 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 09/09/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 13945 HI-TECH EMERGENCY VEHICLE 17546 428.01 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 428.01 625 65213 203 13946 CENTRAL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT 18011 1,029.51 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 686.34 101 65100 220 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 343.17 530 65400 200 13947 MILLS-PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES 18546 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 13948 LEHIGH SAFETY SHOE CO 18755 848.60 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 639.70 101 68020 140 2300 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 208.90 527 66520 140 13949 BAY ALARM 18854 447.82 COMMUNICATIONS 126.00 101 68020 160 2200 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 185.32 619 64460 220 5230 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 136.50 619 64460 220 5240 13950 WESTERN RIGGING PRODUCTS INC 18976 700.26 SUPPLIES 700.26 620 15000 13951 CANTERBURY INTERNATIONAL 19721 1 ,419.05 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,419.05 101 66210 120 13952 CREATIVE INTERCONNECT 19768 228.36 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 228.36 201 65200 220 13953 GE CAPITAL 20216 514.37 OFFICE EXPENSE 128.59 101 68020 110 2100 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 385.78 101 68010 220 1101 13954 VICENTE QUINTANA 20437 300.00 MISCELLANEOUS 300.00 101 22593 13955 DAPPER TIRE CO., INC. 20464 483.55 SUPPLIES 483.55 620 15000 13956 EMERGENCY VEHICLE SYSTEMS 21011 478.21 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 478.21 625 65213 203 13957 CES 21210 108.79 MISC. SUPPLIES 108.79 101 64350 120 13958 CIR 21211 2,170.26 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,170.26 527 66520 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 09/09/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 13932 RD OFFICE SOLUTIONS 09213 33.42 OFFICE EXPENSE 33.42 527 66520 110 13933 POM INC. 09248 391 .42 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 391 .42 530 65400 200 13934 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 22,325.90 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 22,325.90 618 64520 210 13935 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC 09790 60.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 60.00 101 66210 120 13936 CHIEF BILL REILLY 11568 2,190.15 MISCELLANEOUS 270.00 201 35221 000 7150 MISC. SUPPLIES 392.43 201 65200 111 MISC. SUPPLIES 136.53 201 65200 120 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 187.77 201 65200 140 COMMUNICATIONS 17.98 201 65200 160 VEHICLE MAINT. 5.44 201 65200 202 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 55.00 201 65200 240 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 25.00 201 65200 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 870.00 201 65200 260 MISCELLANEOUS 230.00 731 22554 13937 WECO INDUSTRIES, INC. 11640 126.36 MISC. SUPPLIES 126.36 527 66520 120 13938 GWENN JONES 13824 86.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 86.00 101 68010 120 1661 13939 AMERON 13880 2,092.41 MISCELLANEOUS 2,092.41 619 64460 400 13940 SAN MATEO LOCK WORKS 14643 110.42 MISC. SUPPLIES 110.42 101 68020 120 2200 13941 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 14855 181 .32 MISC. SUPPLIES 181 .32 619 64460 120 5130 13942 COMPUTER AND BUSINESS PRINTING 15109 1,579.34 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 474.38 101 65100 200 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 1,104.96 530 65400 200 13943 COLORPRINT 17497 251.68 MISC. SUPPLIES 251.68 526 69020 120 13944 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGING 17534 326.98 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 326.98 320 80570 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 09/09/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 13918 GRAY'S PAINT, BURLINGAME 01025 434.25 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 84.20 101 66210 222 MISC. SUPPLIES 268.42 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 67.58 619 64460 120 5120 MISC. SUPPLIES 14.05 619 64460 120 13919 BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 01637 2,301 .63 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,301.63 101 64560 220 13920 CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTS, INC., 01992 418.08 OFFICE EXPENSE 418.08 621 64450 110 13921 L. N. CURTIS & SONS 02027 281 .45 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 281.45 201 65200 203 13922 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 56.51 MISCELLANEOUS 56.51 101 68020 192 2200 13923 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 49.03 SUPPLIES 49.03 620 15000 13924 K &- W DISCOUNT LIGHTING & SUPP 02645 2,050.01 MISC. SUPPLIES 855.98 619 64460 120 5120 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,194.03 619 64460 120 5250 13925 PUMP REPAIR SERVICE CO. 03197 10,306.95 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 10,306.95 526 69020 230 13926 ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT 03271 824.10 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 824.10 101 68020 190 2200 13927 SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPT. 03353 248,475.64 WATER PURCHASES 248,475.64 526 69020 171 13928 INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT. 03378 1,913.42 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,913.42 101 65150 220 13929 SAN MATEO UNION HIGH 03471 3,937.70 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,155.80 101 68010 120 1422 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,781.90 101 68010 120 1423 13930 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 668.67 MISC. SUPPLIES 668.67 101 64350 120 13931 B.E.I. ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 09072 20.70 MISC. SUPPLIES 20.70 619 64460 120 5110 CITY OF BURLINGAME 09-01-2005 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 FUND RECAP - 05-06 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 165,096.08 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 19,851.47 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 2,407.84 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 427,546.18 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 96,156.79 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 54,291.10 WATER FUND 526 6,519..61 SEWER FUND 527 187,627.08 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 4,011.28 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 5,147.34 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 1,615.41 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 28,236.62 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 575.93 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 142,234.86 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 56,637.83 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL 81,197,955.42 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 13793 THROUGH 13917 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF 81,197,955.42, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, . . . ............ . . . .......FINANCEDIRRL7OR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT . . ./.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 09/01/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 13906 JESSE GEURSE 25780 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 13907 DIANE LABRADOR 25781 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 13908 MRS. CHEUNG 25782 1,015.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,015.00 101 22525 13909 ELIZABETH TUN-ZAN 25783 152.00 MISCELLANEOUS 152.00 101 36330 000 1372 13910 NINA ORLANDO 25784 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 13911 RIVA RUFINO 25785 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 13912 KATHRYN MAUGG 25786 304.00 MISCELLANEOUS 304.00 101 36330 000 1372 13913 ALMUTH STANN 25787 128.00 MISCELLANEOUS 128.00 101 36330 000 1372 13914 MR SANKOWICH 25788 256.00 MISCELLANEOUS 256.00 101 36330 000 1762 13915 KATHLEEN CARSON 25789 128.00 MISCELLANEOUS 128.00 101 36330 000 1372 79.00 13916 JOHN BAKER 25790 79.00 101 36330 000 1782 MISCELLANEOUS 15.77 13917 JENNY LAU 25791 15.77 526 22502 MISCELLANEOUS 81,197,955.42„ TOTAL "N IIL CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 09/01/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 13890 CATHY FOXHOVEN 25088 322.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 322.50 101 68010 220 1646 13891 POLLARDWATER.COM-EAST 25115 792.35 MISCELLANEOUS -61 .73 526 23611 SMALL TOOLS 854.08 526 69020 130 13892 ANGIE HULLFISH 25132 1,763.22 MISCELLANEOUS 1,763.22 101 22546 13893 J.F. PACIFIC LINERS 25144 13,300.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 13,300.00 327 81490 220 13894 SSFFD CTC 25376 240.00 MISCELLANEOUS 240.00 731 22554 13895 NETVERSANT SILICON VALLEY 25422 365.34 MISC. SUPPLIES 365.34 619 64460 120 5270 13896 WENDY MCCANN 25550 128.00 MISCELLANEOUS 128.00 101 36330 000 1372 13897 LOUISE AUSTIN 25600 94.00 MISCELLANEOUS 94.00 101 36330 000 1782 13898 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRAVEL 25607 500.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 500.00 101 68010 120 1423 13899 SCOTT JONES 25657 1,015.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,015.00 101 22525 640.48 13900 CINGULAR WIRELESS 25731 UTILITY EXPENSE 640.48 896 20281 322.76 13901 CINGULAR WIRELESS 25775 COMMUNICATIONS 322,76 101 65100 160 2.58 13902 CINGULAR WIRELESS ATLYS 25776 2.58 201 65200 160 COMMUNICATIONS 272.67 13903 CINGULAR WIRELESS ATLYS 25777 P72.67 201 65200 160 COMMUNICATIONS 279.88 13904 CINGULAR WIRELESS ATLYS 25778 279.88 101 66100 160 COMMUNICATIONS 25779 1,015.00 13905 STEVE LOVE 1,015.00 101 22525 MISCELLANEOUS CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 09/01/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 13876 TEAMSTERS 8856 24526 408.00 UNION DUES 408.00 130 21091 13877 IMEDD INCORPORATED 24550 1,919.00 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 1,851.00 101 64420 121 MISCELLANEOUS 68.00 618 64520 234 13878 KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS 24570 44,450.17 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,190.50 326 81180 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 34,841.88 326 80950 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 7,417.79 326 81180 210 13879 CINGULAR WIRELESS 24607 194.23 UTILITY EXPENSE 194.23 896 20281 13880 DATA 911 24689 2,280.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,280.00 101 65150 220 13881 AETNA 24760 2,916.71 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 2,645.41 130 20022 MISCELLANEOUS 271.30 130 20028 13882 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CALIFORNIA 24793 5,740.30 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 5,740.30 130 20014 13883 THE HARTFORD PRIORITY ACCOUNTS 24796 5,079.46 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4,101 .21 130 20021 MISCELLANEOUS 978.25 130 20025 13884 LEO REDMOND 24884 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 138.96 13885 S AND S SUPPLIES 8 SOLUTIONS 24963 138.96 526 69020 120 MI SC. SUPPLIES 7 5,384.71 MISCELLANEOUS 13886 WESGRAPHICS INC 2500 5,384,71 101 68010 115 1101 MI 3,045.00 13887 PLAY WELL TEKNOLOGIES 25013 3,045.00 101 68010 220 1349 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,064.95 13888 A2Z BUSINESS SYSTEMS 25020 1,064.95 526 69020 180 RENTS & LEASES. 50.00 13889 RAYMOND JOHNSON 25025 50.00 101 22593 MISCELLANEOUS CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 09/01/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 13861 MLS CAMPS 23875 6,410.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,410.00 101 68010 220 1372 13862 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 1,679.87 MISC. SUPPLIES 404.66 101 68010 120 1114 MISC. SUPPLIES 810.42 101 68010 120 1111 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 78.61 619 64460 220 5130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 386.18 619 64460 220 5240 13863 WINZLER & KELLY CONSULTING ENGIN 23992 31,785.39 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9,342.50 320 80520 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 22,442.89 326 80770 220 13864 C.F. ARCHIBALD 24094 417.212.21 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 417,212.21 320 81350 220 13865 FLORA ROBELET 24167 50.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 50.00 101 68010 220 1521 13866 ERIC GATTMAN 24169 169.60 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 169.60 101 68010 220 1521 7 2,253.44 13867 CHRISTINE CI 2419 2,253.44 101 64420 210 PROFESSIONAL ZONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 399.99 13868 LINGULAR WIRELESS TITAN 24299 COMMUNICATIONS 399.99 526 69020 160 24404 100.00 13869 NICK CONTRACTUAPAPPAGEORGEL 100.00 701 68010 220 1780 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,557.09 13870 OLIVIA CHEN CONSULTANTS 24445 1,557.09 326 80910 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,200.00 13871 CENTRAL COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24518 4,200 00 130 20016 MISCELLANEOUS 64.00 13872 CENTRAL COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24519 64.00 130 21080 UNION DUES 180.00 13873 BURLINGAME POLICE ADMINISTRATION 24520 180.00 130 20024 MISCELLANEOUS 600.00 13874 BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSN 24521 600.00 130 20024 MISCELLANEOUS 663.00 13875 C.L.E.A. 24523 663.00 130 20026 MISCELLANEOUS CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 09/01/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT ... Denotes Hand Written Checks 13850 OFFICE DEPOT 23153 65.27 OFFICE EXPENSE 65.27 101 68010 110 1101 13851 PROOUEST INFORMATION AND LEARNIN 23222 1,120.03 LIBRARY--BOOK BINDING 1,120.03 101 67500 123 13852 CYBERNET CONSULTING, INC. 23234 2,936.25 PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 822.15 320 79400 210 PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 1,145.14 326 79400 210 PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 968.96 327 79400 210 13853 OFFICE TEAM 23256 2,194.80 PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 1,240.00 101 64420 210 OFFICE EXPENSE 954.80 526 69020 110 13854 OFFICE MAX 23306 893.77 OFFICE EXPENSE 95.62 101 66100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 59.92 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 299.51 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 310.36 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 65.55 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 2.29 101 66100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 32.59 201 65200 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 27.93 621 64450 110 13855 WILCO SUPPLY 23333 502.54 MISC. SUPPLIES 502.54 526 69020 120 13856 DATASAFE 23410 978.28 OFFICE EXPENSE 99.03 101 64200 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 48.84 101 64420 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 275.28 101 66100 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 260.98 101 64350 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 42.18 101 64400 120 BANKING SERVICE FEES 251.97 101 64250 120 13857 TAMMY MAK 23445 518.00 PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 518.00 101 64420 210 13858 CULVER GROUP 23448 26,456.08 PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 26,456.08 326 80770 210 499.20 13859 ICE CENTER OF SAN MATEO 23512 499.20 101 68010 220 1762 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,900.00 13860 SCS FIELD SERVICES 23727 2,900.00 528 66600 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 09/01/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 13835 JEFF DOWD 20779 89.05 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 89.05 101 68010 220 1785 13836 CATHERINE J.M. NILMEYER 20801 750.00 MISCELLANEOUS 750.00 731 22525 13837 PACIFIC COAST TRANE SERVICE 20818 781.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 781 .00 619 64460 210 5180 13838 GAMETIME, INC. 20991 362.95 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 362.95 101 68020 190 2200 13839 ESA ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC 21160 2,600.00 DEPOSIT REFUND 2,600.00 731 22590 13840 CIR 21211 869.93 MISC. SUPPLIES 869.93 527 66520 120 13841 BILL LINOSELL 21548 1,015.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,015.00 101 22525 13842 MISSION VALLEY FORD 21675 48.69 SUPPLIES 48.69 620 15000 13843 CINGULAR WIRELESS 21747 103.26 COMMUNICATIONS 103.26 101 65300 160 13844 MICHAEL GINN 21983 1,015.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,015.00 101 22525 13845 HELENE RENE 22366 112.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 112.50 101 68010 220 1660 13846 LEADERSHIP 22496 1,400.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,400.00 201 65200 260 13847 JONES AND MAYER 22818 2,194.28 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,194.28 101 64350 210 13848 PENINSULA UNIFORM & EQUIPMENT 22899 1,806.18 MISC. SUPPLIES 755.88 101 65100 120 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 287.19 101 65100 200 TRAINING EXPENSE 763.11 101 65100 260 13849 PITNEY BOWES 23128 548.00 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 548.00. 621 64450 200 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 09/01/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 13821 ANG NEWSPAPERS 19083 590.33 MISC. SUPPLIES 248.21 101 64400 120 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 67.38 101 64200 150 MISC. SUPPLIES 169.32 320 80570 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 105.42 326 81190 120 13822 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 19095 52.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 52.00 101 64420 262 13823 IMAGEMAX, INC. 19145 1,107.25 MISCELLANEOUS 1,107.25 101 22518 13824 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 38.67 MISC. SUPPLIES 38.67 620 66700 120 13825 WINCES ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING 19471 375.00 MISCELLANEOUS 375.00 731 22525 13826 SPRINT 19514 5,000.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 5,000.00 101 22520 13827 POWER WASHING SERVICE 19564 1.111 .28 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,111.28 528 66600 210 13828 BAY AREA BUSINESS CARDS INC 19588 27.06 OFFICE EXPENSE 27.06 101 66100 110 13829 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 3.914.00 RENTS & LEASES 1,957.00 526 69020 180 RENTS & LEASES 1,957.00 527 66520 180 13830 DANIEL STRAMBI 20134 3,550.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 3,550.00 101 22520 13831 RACQUET SMITH 20339 5,299.20 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,299.20 101 68010 220 1782 13832 NOLTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. 20376 8,548.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 8,548.00 327 81360 210 13833 EIP ASSOCIATES 20526 863.75 DEPOSIT REFUND 863.75 101 22590 13834 SPRINT PCS 20724 71.90 COMMUNICATIONS 33.41 101 64420 160 COMMUNICATIONS 38.49 101 65150 160 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 09/01/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '*' Denotes Hand Written Checks 13808 ELECTRO-MOTION INCORPORATED 14007 520.00 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 260.00 101 66210 230 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 260.00 526 69020 230 13809 STANDARD BUSINESS MACHINES 14252 157.20 OFFICE EXPENSE 157.20 101 68010 110 1101 13810 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 14855 42.16 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 42.16 527 66520 230 13811 MILLBRAE LOCK SHOP 15739 4.28 MISC. SUPPLIES 4.28 619 64460 120 13812 SYDNEY MALK00 16347 232.73 SMALL TOOLS 232.73 620 66700 130 13813 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE 16629 240.34 MISC. SUPPLIES 240.34 527 66520 120 13814 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 17402 155.15 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 155.15 101 65100 200 13815 COLORPRINT 17497 97.97 OFFICE EXPENSE 97.97 101 64100 110 13816 STATE FIRE TRAINING 17498 1,050.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 700.00 201 65200 260 MISCELLANEOUS 350.00 731 22554 13817 MARK GRANDCOLAS 18136 1,050.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,050.00 101 22546 13818 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH 18419 167,357.00 MISCELLANEOUS 167,357.00 527 20000 13819 RICH SCIUTTO 18572 512.20 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 512.20 101 68010 220 1372 13820 ACCESS UNIFORMS 8 EMBROIDERY 18990 1,081.83 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 433.25 526 69020 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 648.58 620 66700 140 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 09/01/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 13793 VEOLIA WATER 02110 48,372.60 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 31,474.14 327 79480 210 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 5,591 .23 527 66530 190 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 11,307.23 527 66530 800 13794 WATER/FINANCE PETTY CASH 02184 2,042.43 MISCELLANEOUS 2,042.43 896 20282 13795 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 277.99 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 277.99 101 66210 226 13796 P. G. & E. 03054 70,748.91 GAS & ELECTRIC 16,988.22 101 66100 170 UTILITY EXPENSE . 53,760.69 896 20280 13797 PUTNAM BUICK PONTIAC GMC 03206 27,175.95 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 27,175.95 620 66700 800 13798 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONVENTION & 03431 137,919.86 MISCELLANEOUS 137,919.86 731 22587 13799 SAN MATEO UNION HIGH 03471 71,912.20 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 71,912.20 101 68010 190 1114 13800 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. 03760 12,592.16 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 12,592.16 101 68020 220 2300 13801 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 461 .80 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 461.80 101 64350 210 13802 MUFFIE CALBREATH 09125 731.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 731.00 101 68010 220 1891 13803 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 1,439.34- 579.34 618 64520 210 PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S CLAIMS PAYMENTS 860.00 618 64520 601 3,640.00 13804 IDEAL RESTORATIVE DRYING, INC. 11352 3,640.00 618 64520 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 11640 262.19 13805 WECO INDUSTRIES, INC. 262.19 527 66520 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 92.00 13806 NORTH VALLEY OIL 13815 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 92.00 620 66700 200 13924 300.00 13807 PARCA/PROJECT REACH 300.00 101 22520 DEPOSIT REFUNDS CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM # k ati MTG. .TSD .JU1L b• DATE 9/19/05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: September 14, 2005 APPROVED FROM: Jim Nantell 558-7205 BY G SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution Awarding Website Redesign Agreemen/ Vision Internet Providers, Inc. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter a contract with Vision Internet Providers, Inc to redesign the City's web site for $45,000 and authorize the transfer of up to $10,000 from operating budget reserve for project administration costs. BACKGROUND: As the Council may recall from our March 2005 memo to the Council, with strong support from community volunteers working on our Web Site Focus Group we issued a request for proposals (RFP) to redesign the City' s web site. We received 14 responses to our RFP and the review committee, made up of four members of the community and four staff members, narrowed the proposals down to five vendors. Those five vendors were invited to make a presentation to the review committee. From those interviews the committee identified two finalists that they could recommend we consider awarding the contract to. Those to vendors were then asked to set up an opportunity for a team of staff members from a variety of departments to conduct a hands-on test of the content management software. At the conclusion of that process the staff team recommended the selection of Vision Internet as the preferred vendor. Factors contributing to the selection of Vision Internet: 1 . A clear priority for the selection team was a vendor that had the graphic capability to design a web site that would be unique to Burlingame and provide a sense of the qualities that make our community special. A number of the vendors, particularly the lower cost vendors have a standard template and look and feel for their web sites. The committee was concerned that they resulted in a sense of "any city USA". Vision Internet has agreed to secure the graphic services of a former employee because the selection committee felt his previous work reflected the talents that we were looking for. 2. A content management software (CMS) that was user friendly and robust in terms of assisting our department staff with keeping our web content fresh. Vision Internet provides a very complete and robust CMS that staff found relative easy to use so that our non-technical staff in each department could help manage our content. 3. Experience and expertise in Web sites for government such they have additional modules that are being developed and improved based on a number of other client cities. As shown in Attachment C Vision Internet has a very extensive list of additional modules that could be added to our web site as funds may become available in the future. It is our hope to pick up the customer relations management software, e-commerce and online permitting as funds become available in 2006-07 budget. The exact terms of the contract are still being finalized, so the proposed resolution authorizes the manager to finalize those terms. BUDGET IMPACT: There is currently $45,000 budgeted for this project. The contract with Vision Internet, which is being recommended, is for$45,000. Currently there are adequate funds available for the contract award, however there are no additional funds for any staff management of the contract or change orders. Therefore we are requesting that the Council authorize use of contingency reserves of up to $10,000 should that be found to be necessary during the course of the work. This request would essentially allow us to cash flow the cost for the web site now. If it becomes necessary to use contingency reserve funds in 2005- 06 budgets we would reduce the 2006-07 budget request for the web site by that same amount. ATTACHMENTS: A. March 11, 2005 Memo to the City Council Re: RFP for Web Site Redesign B. Summary of Proposals for the Top Vendors C. Additional Modules Available from Vision Internet D. Highlights of what is included in the new web site as proposed by Vision Internet. E. Draft Contract F. Proposed Resolution Attachment A CITY OF BURLINGAME TO: Mayor Galligan and City Council DATE: March 11, 2005 FROM: Jim Nantell, City Manager SUBJECT: RFP for Web Site Redesign As the Council may recall the adopted budget includes funds to manage and improve the current city web site. And before considering any modifications to the current site we decided to solicit some feedback from members of the community. After out reaching to our users through our list of 3000 residents who have registered their e-mail addresses with our City Clerk we held a Web Site Focus group meeting on November 20ffi. We had 14 members of the community attend the focus group meeting. We have had two follow up meetings with the focus group and as a result of their feedback and after consulting with Joe Marvin,the Web Master for the City of Redwood City who also attended two of the meetings, we have reached the conclusion that spending additional money to improve the current site is not the best use of our funds. The current site is five years old and not very user friendly in terms of staff's ability to add and up date information. At the goal setting session the council received some input from one of the residents involved in the web site focus group. The direction was to defer any decision to add additional funding for web site reconstruction to the Council's June Budget Study Session. In preparation for the Council June Study Session we will proceed with the preparation of a Request For Proposals (RFP) from web site designer consultants. Although we will proba7Budget not be able to fully complete the review of responses to our RFP in time for your June Study Session I would hope to have a much better sense of whether a total reconstruction of the web site will exceed the amount funds normally available in the operating budget by your June 8t'meeting. Analysis of Top Five Web Site Redesign Consultants Attachment B Vision Civic Plus Civica Digital Gear CRG Onetime Annual Onetime Annual Onetime Annual Onetime Annual Onetime Annual Base Bid 1.a. $34,230 $6700 $35,400 $7,500 $42,500 CMc3 Included Included $4800 ??? $15,950 $1,140 $2,500 $500 Site search $3,315 Included in Included $2,150 $300 $5,500 annual Archiving Included Included in Included Included $5,250 $540 Included annual in 4800 Events $3,660 Included in Included Included $1,950 $240 included Calendar annual in 4800 E Commerce $3,500 $800 $600+ Depends?? $3,250 $300 $5,000 transacti on fees CRM $6,000 $3700 $900 15,000 $4,750 $420 $3,500- $17,500 3,500- $1i',500 E Notify/List $4,800 $300 $600 Included $2,550 Included serve Training $7,200 (3 Included 2 As required Included days on hours for 24 cost?? site Site 3720 Maintenance Subtotal $45,000 $6,000 $18,700 $6,900+ $50,400??? $3720 $43,350 $2,940 $55-73,000 $500 Effective Cost $82,998 $56,073 + $70,549 $59,274 $58,208- ove•5 years $75,708 Additional O tions that We Requested to be Included at our O tion Mig,ating all $5,000 $7200 $4,260 $3,550 With staff content (500- help 600_p Cost of $2,400 Included in $2200/year $1,260 ??? $10,400 hosting the annual site Online $6,000 $3700 $1200 $7,500 $660 $5,000 permitting Intranet $500 $900 $11,650 $2,550 $180 $3,500- $15,000 Total $54,505 $14400 $30.100 $9000 $56,860 $56,950 $5,040 $59,000 bd Analysis of Top Five Web Site Redesign Consultants Attachment Other Options that Were Offered by Some,of the Vendors Vision Vision Civic Plus Civic Civica Civica Digital Digital CRG CRG Plus Gear Gear Bid Posting $300 $600 $3,500— $15,000 Job Application $7,500 $1,200 $3,500— system 3,500— s stem $15,000 Job posting $300 $600 FAQ $2,760 Included $1,250 $120 News and $3,660 Included announcements Streaming i St year $2,500 $300 $10,000 video of free meetings Agenda& $3,050 Minutes Staff Directory $4,020 Interactive Mai) $5,000- Cap 5,000- Ca abilities $15,000 v r� D < k FM tz Attachment C Optional Interactive Components Vision Internet creates custom solutions;therefore,we are able to offer you virtually any type of function you can conceive.On the following page is a sampling of other components available to you.Because our content management tool is so flexible,you may add these at any time in the future for an additional budget. Advanced Online Forms Business Directory Calendar Crime Statistics Document PDF Converter Donation Acceptance Tool Dynamic Banner Ads Dynamic Homepage e-Postcards e-Procurement Tool e-Notification Link Library Member Only Section Message Board Most Popular Pages Multilingual Support News and Newsletters Officials'Corner Photo Gallery Real Estate Listings Resource Center Resource Finder Event Registration Facilities Database Forward to a Friend Frequently Asked Questions Intranet/Extranet Itinerary Builder Job Applicant Manager Job Posting Rotating Photos Rotating Quotes RFP Posting Online Payments Staff Directory Survey Tool Team Collaboration Virtual Tours Weather Update Attachment C Based upon items specified in your RFP, our extensive knowledge of government needs, plus reviewing your existing website, we believe the following additional components may be of benefit to you. You did not specifically request them so we list them as optional. We can implement them now or at any time in the future. We list them to demonstrate that we have the ability to be your long-term partner. Recommended components are: Advanced Online Forms Calendar Dynamic Homepage E-Notification Frequently Asked Questions Online Payments Meeting Agenda and Minutes News and Newsletters Site Search Staff Directory Streaming Video of Meetings Please keep in mind that with our advanced content management tool, you can manage content in your website without interactive components. These advanced components, however, provide a much higher level of usability, and make managing content easier for your staff. When choosing whether to implement a specialized interactive component, the variables to consider are budget, frequency of content changes, and volume of a specific type of content. We believe the components included here provide you the best value for your needs. Customization of the Vision Content Management Tool includes the front-end graphic design and layout, as well as adding, or subtracting, fields for your specific needs. Our clients appreciate the flexibility that this level of customization provides over the cookie-cutter offerings of our competitors. Attachment D The bid contract includes the following: Content Management Solution Content management tools allow non-technical staff to add, edit, and delete content, and control who has access to managing different areas of the website. This means that staff can update announcements, press releases, news, documents, and other pages (even update or add Meta Tags) without knowing how to program. This is done through simple, easy to use administration screens. This project will include the implementation of Contractor's Microsoft ASP and SQL Server based content management tool ("Vision Content Management Tool"). The content management tool includes several functions that make it easy for non-technical staff. The most important include: ❑ Browser-Based Administration allows for easy management of content by anyone versed at surfing the Internet and using basic word processing programs. There is no need for staff to know programming when updating content. This allows authorized staff members to update, delete, and create new pages based on a predefined template, and insert them within the website's navigation. ❑ WYSIWYG Text Editor based upon standard document creation tools make it easy for non-technical staff to edit and format text. With the WYSIWYG (What You See Is What You Get) editor, they can change font styles, colors, sizes, and formatting such as bold, italics, and underlining. ❑ Spell Check to help make sure content is free of spelling errors. ❑ Form Authoring tool enables the City to create basic form-to-email forms where the results are automatically emailed to a specific staff member. ❑ Stvles give web pages a consistent look because styles can be applied to such elements as text, headers, and lists. ❑ Design Templates to enable staff to apply different colors and styles to pages by selecting the design template to apply to the page. ❑ Search and Replace tool to enable replacing a word or phrase within the page. ❑ Secure Administration offering password protection to content management functions. The City can grant management rights to specific users or groups of users. Administration rights can be granted to the entire site or restricted to specific areas or types of content (i.e. by department). ❑ Single-Source Web Publishing permits administrators to update a single web page yet changes will be reflected on multiple pages throughout the site. ❑ Navigation Control allows adding new pages or moving pages anywhere within the website. ❑ Page Linking enables creating links to any page in the website or to other websites. ❑ Email Address Masking to prevent spammers from getting the email addresses of employees when crawling the site. ❑ Document Central so the City store a single version of each document in a central place and link to them from virtually any page in the website. ❑ Image Library so the City can store a single version of each image in a central place and subsequently add them to virtually any page in the website. ❑ Image Library so the City can store a single version of each image in a central place and subsequently add them to virtually any page in the website. ❑ Content Scheduling saves time and money because all standard pages and specific predefined component content can be set up to publish ahead of time and be automatically removed or archived when it will no longer be relevant. ❑ Printable Pages enables website visitors to print out virtually any page on the website for reading off line. ❑ Content Approval Cycle allowing staff persons to create content that goes through multiple levels of review and approval before going "live." Calendar The Calendar can improve attendance at events and meetings by making it easier for users to find the types of events most important to them. The Calendar can be implemented in a user-friendly monthly, or yearly, format. To further assist users, the Calendar has filtering tools that allow users to find information by month, category, or even departments. This makes it quite easy to locate specific information. To make Calendar management simple for staff, all events are stored in a central database. Additionally, it provides the same formatting tools available for authoring pages, thus allowing users to add images, create links to other content in the website, and attach documents (such as flyers, agendas, staff reports or any other type of document) from the Document Central. Staff can easily add, delete, or modify events through a simple browser interface. What a wonderful time savings! To further help save time, the Contractor's Recurring Event Tool allows the City to create recurring events where the same event (such as monthly commission meetings), can be setup in one easy step. It allows weekly, monthly, and yearly recurring events. Once the individual events are defined, the City can edit them independently. This enables each event to have its own unique description, agenda, and so on. e-Notification The Contractor's e-Notification tool provides a sign-up box allowing users to add their email addresses to receive important notices, and set their preferences for the e- notifications they would like to receive. Each registration is verified via a confirmation email that the user must respond to in order to complete the registration process. This same mechanism allows each user to change preferences including opting out from subscription lists. To better manage the e-notification process, City staff can see how many subscribers there are for each category, plus edit subscriber information and export the subscriber database for use in other systems. The e-Notification tool also integrates with the optional News and Newsletters components, providing the ability to broadcast news and newsletter content from the City's website to the City's subscribers. There is no need to recreate the content. This integrated approach enables users to sign up for different types and categories of content on a single subscription page in order to have it delivered directly into their email box. As an option, the e-Notification System can include an emergency homepage notice. The notice would prominently cover the main area of the homepage so users would not miss it. The following screen shot shows the implementation of this in the City of Arcadia website. Site Search Site users can find the specific content they need through the powerful search engine dtSearch. The tool will search both HTML pages and documents like Adobe PDF files and Microsoft Word documents. It will return results in order of relevance based upon frequency of search words in the page content or metadata. In an optional, advanced mode implementation, dtSearch supports full Boolean key word searches. This is third party software that needs to be installed on the web server. The licensing cost is included within the budget and is paid for by Contractor. Streaming Video of Meetings Through Contractor's partner, Granicus, Contractor is able to offer free, live streaming of the City's cable access channel 24 hours per day, seven days per week for up to twelve months. This is a special offer available exclusively through Vision Internet. Granicus is a full-service streaming media provider with services and software specially designed for local government like the City of Burlingame. Available for an additional fee, the City can get video archiving, content indexing (by agenda item), and search. By utilizing the Granicus solution, streaming video will enter into the public record archive and legislative process. EDRAFT AGREEMENT FOR WEBSITE DEVELOPMENT, HOSTING AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES BETWEEN VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS, INC. AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME This Agreement is entered to this day of , 2005, between Vision Internet Providers Inc. ("Contractor"), a California corporation, and City of Burlingame ("City"), a municipal corporation. City and Contractor are sometimes individually referred to as "Party" and collectively as "Parties." RECITALS A. The City wished to re-do its official website and to engage a contractor to provide website development, hosting, and maintenance services, because of contractor's experience and qualifications to perform the desired work. B. The City conducted an extensive search, request for proposal, and interview process and has selected Contractor to provide these services pursuant to this Agreement. C. Contractor represents and affirms that it is qualified and willing to perform the desired work pursuant to this Agreement. AGREEMENTS 1. Summary of Services to be Provided. Contractor will provide the following services to City: a. The website development services described in Attachment A to this Agreement; b. The website hosting services described below; c. The website maintenance services described below; and d. Extra Work as may be requested in writing by City as described below. 2. Website Hosting Services. Contractor shall provide for one unique domain at no charge, monthly website hosting and database hosting on a shared server ("Hosting") for a period of three (3) months commencing on the date of the Website Launch. Hosting after the first three months will be billed to City at the rate of$200 per month for a period of nine (9) months ("Initial Term"). With respect to the Initial Term, unless one party has given written notice to the other party of its intent not to renew this agreement at least thirty (30) days prior to expiration of the Initial Term, this Agreement will continue in effect on a year-to-year basis thereafter until one party gives written notice to the other of its intent not to renew this Agreement at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of any renewal term. 9/13/2005 1 4. Website Maintenance Services. Contractor shall provide at no charge, monthly website maintenance and updates ("Maintenance") for up to five (5) hours each month for a period of three months commencing on the date of the Website Launch. Maintenance beyond five (5) hours per month in the first three (3) months is Extra Work. Optional services and maintenance after the first three (3) months are considered Extra Work as described in Paragraph 7. 5. Payment. In consideration of the services to be provided by the Contractor pursuant to this Agreement, City agrees to pay $ Payment by the City shall be made as follows: a. Within thirty (30) days of execution of this Agreement, an initial payment equal to 20% of the total amount due under this Agreement ; b. A payment equal to 20% of the total amount due upon City approval of the site map; c. A payment equal to 20% of the total amount due upon City approval of homepage design completion; d. A payment equal to 20% of the total amount due upon implementation of the Vision Content Management Tool on Contractor's server; e. A payment equal to 20% of the total amount due upon completion of the website and City approval. 6. Additional Services. Additional services not covered in this Agreement and extra hours will be presented to City for approval in writing prior to commencement of work ("Extra Work"). Extra Work will be billed at Contractor's then-current hourly rates, which are currently as follows: a. HTML Programming, Data Input — $75/hour; b. Graphic Production $85/hour; c. Quality Assurance, Testing, Debugging, Webmaster Services — $95/hour; d. Consulting, Project Management, Database Design, Dynamic Programming — $125/hour; e. Graphic Design, Training — $100/hour; £ Straight flatbed scanning — $10 per scan; 9/13/2005 2 g. Touch-up work to images at the Graphic Design hourly rate. City shall be responsible for any or all additional fees including, without limitation: photography, stock images, illustration, scanning, software, applications, online promotion, marketing, copy writing, redesign, change orders, mailings, and fees to any third party vendors if applicable. 7. Documents &Data;Licensing of Intellectual Property. This Agreement creates a non exclusive and perpetual license for City to copy, use, or modify for its own use, any and all copyrights, designs, and other intellectual property embodied in the website that are prepared or caused to be prepared by Contractor under this Agreement("Documents & Data"). However, Contractor retains ownership of all intellectual property rights. 8. Provision of Information. City shall supply all information to Contractor in digital format including without limitation, copy, text, audio files, video files, .pdf files, photographs, artwork, and preexisting graphics. 9. Compatibility. City understands that Contractor will develop website frontend to be compatible with Netscape 6.1 and above and Internet Explorer 5.5 and above. Website backend will be compatible with Internet Explorer 5.5 and above. Website may not be compatible with previous versions. Website will be optimized for 800 x 600 pixels resolution or above. City understands that the website will be developed with Hypertext Markup Language("HTML"), JavaScript, and Microsoft Active Server Pages 3.0 or Microsoft ASP.NET ("MS-ASP") interfaced with a database created in Microsoft SQL Server 2000 ("MS-SQL"). City understands that the website is developed to run on a Microsoft Windows 2000 Server or Microsoft Windows 2003 Server("MS-Server"). City is responsible for the costs of all software licensing. 10. Compliant Standards. City understands that the website frontend will be designed to be compliant with Section 508 guidelines on accessibility. Content migrated into the website by Contractor will also be compliant. Compliance standards will be verified via Watchfire's BobbyTM software prior to Completion. City understands that website backend and third party tools may not be Section 508 compliant. 11. Limited Warranty. a. Contractor does warrant that all of the deliverables included in this Agreement will be conveyed to City. All programming code developed by Contractor within the project is warranted for a period of twelve (12)months from the date of the completion of the website ("Completion"). Contractor will create a back-up of the website on the date of Completion. If any warranted problem arises while City or its designee is maintaining the website, Contractor will restore the website back to its condition as it existed at Completion. If Contractor is maintaining and hosting the website, Contractor shall restore the website back to its condition as it existed at the day of the most recent backup. Contractor shall only be responsible for any costs associated with correcting any unmodified programming code during this twelve (12) month period following the Completion. 9/13/2005 3 b. Except as expressly set forth in the immediately preceding paragraph, CONTRACTOR MAKES NO WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS OF THIS SERVICE FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE WHATSOEVER. In no event, at any time, shall the aggregate liability of Contractor exceed the amount of fees paid by City to Contractor and Contractor shall not be responsible for any lost profits or other damages, including direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential or any other damages, however caused. 12. No Warranty for Results. Contractor does not warrant any results from the use of any web pages created under this Agreement, including but not limited to, the number of page or site visitations, download speed, database performance, or the number of hits or impressions. Although Contractor may offer an opinion about possible results regarding the subject matter of this Agreement, Contractor cannot guarantee any particular result. City acknowledges that Contractor has made no promises about the outcome and that any opinion offered by Contractor in the future will not constitute a guarantee. 13. Promotional Use. Contractor may use any web pages developed for the City in any of its own promotional materials as examples of its work. City agrees that Contractor may place in the website footer an unobtrusive text link reading "Developed by Vision Internet" or the equivalent. Contractor's footer text credit shall always be linked to a Contractor web page. 14. Warranty of Rights. Each Party warrants that it holds all rights necessary to display all the images, data, information or other items being displayed at the City's web pages during the effective period of this Agreement. City expressly authorizes Contractor to display and/or modify any City supplied images, data, information and other items in connection with the services provided herein. 15. Compliance with Law. City agrees to use the website in strict accordance with,but not limited to, all local, state, and federal laws. City hereby agrees that any text, data, graphics, or any other material published by City on its website is free from violation of or infringement upon copyright, trademark, service mark,patent, trade secret, statutory, common law or proprietary or intellectual property rights of others, and is free from obscenity or libel. 16. Website Hosting Limitations. With regard to website hosting, the Parties agree to the following: a. Contractor shall not be responsible for limitations including but not limited to service interruptions, server down time, loss of data, or access speed. The reliability, availability, and performance of resources accessed through the Internet are beyond Contractor's control and are not in any way warranted or supported by Contractor. Except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, it is City's responsibility to maintain the website and make back-ups of all hosted files. 9/13/2005 4 b. City agrees not to use any process,program, or tool via Contractor for gaining unauthorized access to the accounts of other Contractor clients, customers or account holders or other Contractor systems. City agrees not to use Contractor services to make unauthorized attempts to access the systems and networks of others. Any attempt to do so will result in immediate termination of Contractor services at Contractor's discretion. 17. Indemnity by Contractor. Contractor will defend, hold harmless and indemnify City from and against all liability, loss, cost, damage, or expense, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting from any claim of injury to person, damages to property, or monetary damages arising solely out of Contractor's negligence or intentional misconduct or failure to perform obligations under this Agreement. 18. Indemnity by City. City will defend, hold harmless, and indemnify Contractor, its officers, directors, shareholders, employees, and agents from and against all liability, loss, cost, expense, including reasonable attorney's fees, resulting from any claim of injury to person, damages to property, or monetary damages arising solely out of City's negligence or intentional misconduct or failure to perform obligations under this Agreement. 19. Timeliness. Estimated times are included for convenience. Actual times will vary depending on City interaction and participation. However, the Parties agree to reasonably cooperate with one another in the construction and design of the website in a timely manner. 20. Business License. Before beginning work under this Agreement, Contractor shall obtain a business license from the City. 21. Interpretation and Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the United States of America, and the State of California. Any cause of action of City with respect to the services provided hereunder must be instituted within one year after the claim or cause of action has arisen or be forever barred. Except as required to be arbitrated under Paragraph 29,jurisdiction and venue for any cause of action or claim with respect to the services provided hereunder shall be exclusively in the State of California, and venue for any action filed with respect to this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of San Mateo or Santa Clara County. 22. Waiver. The waiver by one Party of any term or condition of this Agreement, or any breach thereof, shall not be construed to be a general waiver by said Party or as a waiver of any other term or breach. 23. Course of Conduct. Neither the course of conduct between the Parties nor any trade practice shall act to modify the provisions of this Agreement except as expressly stated herein. 24. Authority. With the intent to be legally bound, each of the undersigned hereby covenants and acknowledges that he, she or it (a) has read each of the terms set forth herein, (b) has the authority to execute this Agreement for such person or entity, and (c) expressly consents 9/13/2005 5 and agrees that the person or entity upon behalf of which the undersigned is acting shall be bound by all terms and conditions contained herein. 25. Legal Counsel. The Parties have each been advised to seek independent legal counsel in entering into this Agreement and the transactions described herein. In the event a Party chooses not to seek independent legal counsel, that Party does so freely and knowingly and waives any such rights to counsel. As a result, the Parties do not believe that the presumptions of California Civil Code section 1654 relating to the interpretation of contracts against the drafter of any particular clause should be applied in this case and therefore the Parties knowingly and freely waive its effects. 26. Reasonable Attorneys'Fees. Should a dispute, including but not limited to any litigation or arbitration be commenced (including any proceedings in a bankruptcy court) between the Parties hereto or their representatives concerning any provision of this Agreement, or the rights and duties of any person or entity hereunder, the Party or Parties prevailing shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and court costs incurred by reason of such action in a total amount not to exceed $7,500. 27. Project Managers. a. The project manager for this Agreement for the City is Netie Shinday. b. The project manager for this Agreement for the Contractor is 28. Assignability and Subcontracting. The services to be performed under this Agreement are unique and personal to the Contractor. No portion of these services shall be assigned or subcontracted without the written consent of the City. 29. Independent Contractor. It is understood that the Contractor, in the performance of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. As an independent contractor, neither the Contractor nor any of Contractor's employees, officers, or agents shall obtain any rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City employee(s). With prior written consent, the Contractor may perform some obligations under this Agreement by subcontracting,but may not delegate ultimate responsibility for performance or assign or transfer interests under this Agreement. 30. Conflict of Interest. Contractor understands that its professional responsibilities is solely to the City. The Contractor has not and shall not obtain any holding or interest within the City of Burlingame. Contractor has no business holdings or agreements with any individual member of the Staff or management of the City or its representatives nor shall it enter into any such holdings or agreements. In addition, Contractor warrants that it does not presently and shall not acquire any direct or indirect interest adverse to those of the City in the subject of this Agreement, and it shall immediately disassociate itself from such an interest should it discover it has done so and shall, at the City's sole discretion, divest itself of such interest. Contractor shall 9/13/2005 6 not knowingly and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that it does not employ a person having such an interest in this performance of this Agreement. If after employment of a person, Contractor discovers it has employed a person with a direct or indirect interest that would conflict with its performance of this Agreement, Contractor shall promptly notify City of this employment relationship, and shall, at the City's sole discretion, sever any such employment relationship. 31. Equal Employment Opportunity. Contractor warrants that it is an equal opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither Contractor nor its subcontractors do and neither shall discriminate against persons employed or seeking employment with them on the basis of age, sex, color, race, marital status, sexual orientation, ancestry,physical or mental disability, national origin, religion, or medical condition, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment &Housing Act. 32. Nondiscrimination Clause. Contractor shall not discriminate in the provision of services under this Agreement because of color, race, creed, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age or physical or mental handicap in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. Section2000d), American with Disabilities Act(42. U.S.C. Section 12131 et seq.), and all other applicable laws and regulations requiring "no discrimination". 33. Access to and Retention of Records. Contractor shall maintain the records supporting the billings for this Agreement for not less than three (3) years following completion of the work provided. Contractor shall make these records available to authorized personnel of the City at the Contractor's offices during business hours upon written request of the City. 34. Notice of Claims and Suit. a. Requirement for Notification. City and Contractor shall each give the other prompt and timely written notice of any claim for an amount in excess of ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1,000.00) and of any lawsuit coming to its knowledge, which in any way directly or indirectly, contingently or otherwise, might reasonably affect the parties' relationship under this Agreement. b. Timeliness of Notification. Such notice shall be deemed prompt and timely if given within fifteen (15) calendar days following the date of receipt of such claim by an officer, official, agent, or employee of either party, and, if given within five (5) calendar days following the date of service of process upon either party with respect to any such lawsuit. 35. Insurance. a. Minimum Scope of Insurance: i. Contractor agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, 9/13/2005 7 General Liability insurance policies insuring him/her and his/her firm to an amount not less than: one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury,personal injury and property damage in a form at least as broad as ISO "Occurrence" Form CG 0001. ii. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. b. General Liability Policy: i. The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products and completed operations of Consultant, premises owned or used by the Consultant. The endorsement providing this additional insured coverage shall be equal to or broader than ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 and must cover joint negligence, completed operations, and the acts of subcontractors. This requirement does not apply to the professional liability insurance required for professional errors and omissions. ii. The Contractor's insurance coverage shall be endorsed to be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurances maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute with it. iii. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. iv. The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. c. In addition to these policies, Contractor shall have and maintain Workers' Compensation insurance as required by California law. Further, Contractor shall ensure that all subcontractors employed by Contractor provide the required Workers' Compensation insurance for their respective employees. c. All Coverages: Each insurance policy required in this item shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty(30) days'prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Current certification of such insurance shall be kept on file at all times during the term of this agreement with the City Clerk. 9/13/2005 8 e. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less than A-:VII and authorized to do business in the State of California. f. Verification of Coverage. Upon execution of this Agreement, Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and endorsements are to be on forms approved by the City. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before any work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 36. Arbitration. Except for any injunctive relief or similar remedy, which may be sought in any court of competent jurisdiction subject to Paragraph 22 above, any controversy, dispute, claim or counterclaim,whether it involves a disagreement about this Agreement or its meaning, interpretation, or application; the performance of the Agreement; questions of arbitrability as to subject matter of the dispute; whether an agreement to arbitrate exists and, if so, whether it covers the dispute[s] in question; or any other question of arbitrability or form of disagreement or conflict among the Parties to the Agreement, shall be submitted to final and binding arbitration at the request of either Party, in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. The arbitrators shall apply California substantive law and the California Evidence Code to the proceeding. The arbitrators shall have the power to grant all legal and equitable remedies and award compensatory damages provided by California law. The arbitrators shall prepare in writing and provide to the Parties an award including factual findings and the reasons on which the decision is based. The arbitrators shall not have the power to commit errors of law or legal reasoning, and the award may be vacated or corrected pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure sections 1286.2 or 1286.6 for any such error. In the event the Parties are unable to agree as to the arbitrator, each shall select an arbitrator who shall, in turn, select the third and sole arbitrator. Each Party shall be responsible for one-half of the costs for the arbitrator(s) and arbitration. 37. Force Majeure. Any delay in the performance by either Party hereto of its obligations hereunder shall be excused when such delay in performance is due to any cause or event of any nature whatsoever beyond the reasonable control of such Party, including, without limitation, any act of God; any fire, flood, or weather condition; any computer virus, worm, denial of service attack; any earthquake; any act of a public enemy,war, insurrection, riot, explosion or strike; provided, that written notice thereof must be given by such Party to the other Party within ten (10) days after occurrence of such cause or event. 38. Construction of Documents. In the case of any conflict between this Agreement, the Contractor's Proposal, and Attachment A, the following order of priority shall be utilized: Attachment A, this Agreement, and Proposal. 39. Severability. If any portion of this Agreement is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect. 9/13/2005 9 40. Headings. The titles and headings of the paragraphs of this Agreement have been inserted for convenience of reference only and are not intended to summarize or otherwise describe the subject matter of such paragraphs and shall not be given any consideration in the construction of this agreement. 41. Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be in writing and effective on the date of delivery if actually delivered by personal service or Federal Express, or effective three (3) days after deposit in first class U.S. mail,postage prepaid,to each Party as follows: a. City:City Manager City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 b. Contractor: Vision Internet Providers, Inc. 2530 Wilshire Boulevard, 2nd Floor Santa Monica, California 90403 Attn: Steven Chapin 42. Entire Agreement and Amendment. This Agreement, together with Attachment A and Contractor's Proposal, constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Contractor have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated on page one (1). CITY OF BURLINGAME VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS, INC. By: By: STEVEN CHAPIN, President Attest: City Clerk 9/13/2005 10 Approved as to form: City Attorney 9/13/2005 11 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS, INC. FOR THE REDESIGN OF THE CITY'S WEBSITE AND APPROVING A TRANSFER OF UP TO $10,000 FROM THE OPERATING BUDGET RESERVE FOR PROJECT ADMINISTRATION COSTS RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,the City has sought proposals to redesign the City's website, and fourteen proposals were submitted; and WHEREAS, after extensive reviews of the proposals, interviews of five of the proposing companies, and reviews of the work accomplished and experience of the two finalists, the City Manager recommends selection of Vision Internet Providers, Inc.; and WHEREAS, while a conceptual agreement has been reached, the final details have not yet been drafted, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The City Manager is authorized to negotiate with and enter into an agreement with Vision Internet Providers, Inc. for website development services in an amount not to exceed $45,000 and subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. 2. Should the City Manager not be able to reach an agreement with Vision Internet Providers, Inc. that is satisfactory to him, he is authorized to negotiate with and reach agreement with any of the other companies that submitted proposals and return to the City Council for approval or to take such other steps to reopen the process as the City Manager deems appropriate. 3. A transfer of$10,000 from the operating budget contingency reserve to website development in order to pay for staff management and change order costs is approved. MAYOR 1,DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2005,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: 1 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 2 2 Agenda Item # 9a Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: September 19, 2005 i SUBMITTED BY :!1,-.Axd V W-0- W W APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: SEPTEMBER 9, 2005 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: CONSIDER ADOPTING AN ORDINANCE FOR THE INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS AT CORTEZ AVENUE, AT SHERMAN AVENUE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider adopting an ordinance to install stop signs on Cortez Avenue, at Sherman Avenue. Due to the interest from the public on this matter, the Traffic Engineer will make a presentation at the Council meeting. BACKGROUND: At their February 12, 2004 and March 11, 2004 meetings, the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission reviewed a request for stop signs at the intersection of Cortez and Sherman Avenues. Currently, there are stops at Sherman Avenue. This request would result in making the intersection into a 4-way stop. Staff conducted a stop sign warrant study to evaluate accident history as well as vehicular and pedestrian volume counts. Based on the data collected and reviewed, the intersection did not meet the minimum requirements to warrant stop signs and the request was denied. Through discussions, staff and the Commission established that vehicle speeds were the primary concern. As a response, Police enforcement was increased on Cortez Avenue, near Sherman Avenue for a period of two months. On November 10, 2004, a second request was made of the Commission to reconsider the installation of stop signs. The Commission reviewed the request again, and determined that there was no change in the current conditions to warrant stop signs. The Commission did recommend that the neighborhood investigate the use of traffic calming techniques to address their main concern of speeding vehicles. A petition to reverse the Commission decision was presented to Council at their April 4, 2005 meeting. Council determined that staff and neighborhood representatives should meet to discuss possible alternatives. As a result, a neighborhood meeting was held on July 26, 2005. At that meeting, various traffic calming techniques were presented which had been previously identified by the Commission. The following techniques will be elaborated on by the Traffic Engineer in his presentation: • City/neighborhood funded roadway obstruction installations such as bulb- outs. • Neighborhood traffic watch program. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Repo rts\Cortez-S herm an Stop SignsRev.doc • Radar speed signage. • Portable pedestrian warning signs. The six neighborhood representatives of Cortez Avenue listened to a presentation by the Traffic Engineer and felt that the speeding issue could only be addressed by stop signs. DISCUSSION: Staff has carefully evaluated the technical criteria for warranting stop signs, as set forth in the City Municipal Code and State Traffic Manual. Two criteria are used to evaluate whether stop signs are appropriate. First, the average of the highest 8-hour traffic volume counts for a typical day (24- hours)was calculated for all four intersection approaches. An average of 117 vehicles was calculated as opposed to the 300-vehicle average minimum warrant requirement. Second,the number of traffic accidents over a 12-month period was found to be zero, as opposed to the 3-accident minimum warrant requirement. Stop signs are used when there is confusion on the roadway over right-of-way assignment for drivers. Staff believes that the primary concern of the residents is speeding vehicles, for which stop sign installation is not appropriate. Staff further believes that speeding can be more appropriately addressed by the traffic calming techniques indicated above. As the warrants for stop signs have not been met, staff cannot support the approval of their installation on Cortez Avenue, at Sherman Avenue. In the event that Council wishes to proceed with stop sign installation, the following steps should be taken: A. Requesting City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waiving further reading of the ordinance. C. Introducing the proposed ordinance. D. Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. BUDGET IMPACT: The fiscal impact to the City would be the cost of labor and material to install stop signs and STOP roadway legends on Cortez Avenue. There is sufficient funds in the Public Works streets operating budget to cover these costs. EXHIBITS: Ordinance-Stops signs at Cortez Avenue and Sherman Avenue Excerpts of TSPC Minutes- February 12,2004 March 11,2004 November 10,2004 Map of Cortez Avenue ustine Chou Traffic Engineer c: City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Cortez-Sherman Stop SignsRev.doc I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 13.20.010 FOR 3 INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF CORTEZ AVENUE AND SHERMAN AVENUE 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 Section 1. The neighborhood near the intersection of Cortez and Sherman Avenues has 7 requested the City to install stop signs at this intersection, although under traffic warrants, stop 8 signs are not indicated. In order to provide the desired amenity, this ordinance is adopted. 9 10 Section 2. Subsection 13.20.010(c) is amended to read as follows: 11 (c) Carmelita Avenue approaching Cortez Avenue; 12 Carmelita Avenue approaching Vancouver Avenue; 13 Canyon Road approaching Easton Drive; 14 Carolan Avenue approaching North Lane; 15 Castenada Drive approaching Trousdale Drive and Martinez Drive; 16 Chula Vista Avenue approaching Majilla Avenue; 17 Clarice Lane approaching Quesada Way; 18 Columbus Avenue approaching Easton Drive. 19 Coronado Drive approaching Davis Drive; 20 Cortez Avenue approaching Carmelita Avenue; 21 Cortez Avenue, approaching Sherman Avenue; 22 Cypress Avenue approaching Barriolhet Avenue. 23 24 Section 3. Section 13.20.010(s) is amended to read as follows: 25 (s) Sanchez Avenue approaching Cortez Avenue; 26 Sebastian Drive approaching Arguello Drive; 27 Sebastian Drive approaching Frontera Way; 28 Sebastian Drive approaching Mariposa Drive; I Sebastian Drive approaching Trousdale Drive; 2 Sequoia Avenue approaching Murchison Drive; 3 Sequoia Avenue approaching Trousdale Drive; 4 Sherman Avenue approaching Cortez Avenue; 5 Skyline Boulevard approaching Trousdale Drive; 6 Skyview Drive approaching Skyline Boulevard; 7 Stanton Road approaching Gilbreth Road; 8 Summit Drive approaching El Prado Road; 9 Summit Drive approaching Hillside Circle. 10 11 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 12 13 Mayor 14 15 I,DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the 16 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 held on 17 the day of , 2005, by the following vote: 18 19 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 20 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 21 22 City Clerk 23 C:\FILES\ORDINANC\stopsign20051.pwd.wpd 24 25 26 27 28 sur GA.mE The City of Burlingame CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - EXCERPTS Minutes Excerpts (Thursday, February 12, 200&.- 6. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS. 6.1 Request for 4-way Stop sign at the intersection of Sherman Avenue and Cortez Avenue From the floor, Mr. Lipscomb stated that there are a lot of speeders through this area. He stated that there are two blocks between the stop signs; and since Cortez is a connector to Hillside Drive, speeding occurs most in the mornings and afternoons. Mr. Lipscomb said that there are 16 children on his block. He also said that the radar trailer was set up during the summer, but that it was not as effective now. Vice Chair Warden stated that staff will look at the warrants for this intersection. Officer Witt will provide limited enforcement at school times. This will be a Discussion item next month. Minutes Excerpts (Thursday. March 11, 20044 4. CURRENT BUSINESS. 4.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS. 4.2.3 Request for 4-way Stop sign at the intersection of Sherman Avenue and Cortez Avenue Mr. Chou reported that there were no accidents at this site in the past two years, and that based on the City's approved Stop Sign Warrant study, recommended to deny the request for a 4-way stop at Sherman and Cortez. From the floor, Mr. Lipscomb stated that the volume is not the issue; but that speed is the issue. He said that drivers go for two blocks before they have to stop. Sgt. Cutler stated that enforcement could be increased on the street on a rotational basis since the officers also have other enforcement locations to focus on. It was moved and seconded (Comms. Condon/Warden) to make this an Action item; it was then moved and seconded (Comms. The City of Burlingame Page 1 of 1 Warden/Condon)to deny this request. Unanimously approved by the Commission. Minutes Excerpts (Thursday, November 11, 2004): 5. CURRENT BUSINESS 5.1 ACTION ITEMS 5.1.2 Request for review of stop signs at Cortez Avenue and Sherman Avenue. Mr. Chou stated that a 4-Way stop warrant study was performed a few months ago for the original request; and that, this intersection did not meet the warrant conditions at that time. He added that the Cortez Avenue residents have come back to the City because they are concerned that additional enforcement actions from the Police Department have been ineffective. Mr. Chou explained that the residents have requested that the Commission re-consider their past decision to deny the original request. Chair Cohen requested audience feedback, but since there was none he closed public hearing and brought the discussion back to the Commission. Commissioner Condon stated that based on his numerous investigations,that peak traffic times in this area is between 7:45 to 8:30 AM and 3:00 to 3:30 PM, which coincides with the school commute traffic. To him, all other hours of the day are relatively calm. Commissioner Condon concluded that he didn't feel this location warranted a 4-way stop. Chair Cohen agreed, but did support the idea of the neighborhood considering a traffic calming device; and, that the neighborhood should be added to the waiting list for future funding of the program. Motion: To deny the request to reconsider a 4-way stop signs at Cortez Avenue and Sherman Avenue. M/S/C: Warden, Condon, 4/0/1 (Commissioner Conway abstained.) The City of Burlingame Page 2 of 1 50.01' 150.01' 50.01: 50.01' 50.01' 50.01' 50.01' 150.01' 60' 1258 111246 1244.._ .1238 1236' 1234 1230 1226' 1224 1220 712^ 1204 60.02' 55.01' 45.01' 50.01' 50.01' 50.01' 50.01' 50.01' 50.01' 50.01' 50.01' 50.01' 50.01' 50.01' 50.01' °of, EL CAMINO REAL 150.17' 103.75' \ 0' a, 50' 50' 50 \ y t 1 1283 1277 1273 1565 1285 150 0 50' 50 50' 50' 50 50' S0' 50' o 153.78--_ 100.14' v:r . o I I 11245 1231 I 50' S0' \ 130 oc, - a n 0 Loa,^ o,n 1227 1223 11219 11213 I I v> `� o N rl _M , N n Q 9. ^ ,I of NI °�a n �� I- I \1500 I ;Al _ 156.33, u� In ^ J. N N N N I N N I. I h N q \ ` Jf O 97.38''a7.3a' 50' 6 ^196 Q� ,�I I _I N IN I^ I^ N I P 3��. °z a o e o � © 150' I ti I 5 I h ^5 ^6 �'l 159.84' n � 2 1�, I --- 143.71' 25`' 53.50' 46.50 6 0 0 82.21' 61.50' 1a �1 16 1h NN I 1 \ -�4-33_-- -- o o I C, N 1284(j 1280^ 1276 1272 1268 `� b. 168.82' 11 1262 1 1258 N 73.17' 61.50' 50' 50' 75 50' 0' 1216 1212 1208 1204 11200 \ 11 - - 4T SS0' 50' S0' 50' 50' S0' 60' 123.31" - 130' loo BALBOA AVE 1 \N ne �e 1277 1273 1265 I I 11261 00' 500 50 50' 50 50' S0 50 50 50 50' 76' 0 1249 1237 1233 1229 1225 1221 1217 1213 1209 I I o p ` 128.92' ° _ o 'J O n I M 124.40' rl N I I N p o Lo O ,pn $ N N 118.80' u' S0, / _ I I CD, � o 6 134.53' o ., a, 168.80' 1 // g ,O 1 l 5 6 o � to� � ci `O 5 � g 10 I / I I �ti 140.13' 162.21' 50 1 a n M 124.46 88.75' 1 1 c8 co Q G 1 1 L 145.75' n n 118.85' --- N I I o N O I I N ' c 1� uo o 151.36' IN � 12808 202' 1274 112G8 1266 1 6 1250 1244 N m 113.25' 88.75' i0 50, 1 0 1234 1230 1228 1224 1220 1216 1212 1208 1204 1200^ - _..._ 50' 0' S0' S 50' S0' 50' S0' 50' 50' 50' S0' S0' S0' o _ In _ORTEZ AVE - _ CORTEZ AVE 50 11�0 58.560 1285 194.29' t 50 - ..._..-... - h S0 5 50 I 50' 66.33r "'C5 0 126� 1265 126 0 (� 1245 541 1237 50' S0' 50' S0' S0 50' S0' 50 50' S0' 50' o b-- 11 1233 1227 1225 1221 1211 NI o �6 N -m Lo 186.56 N o '^ 0 1209 1207 1205 0 A N _/ N / 1� I o �, 'n So' 7x.09' a o 178.85' N 0 \1 124.090 c m a 121.88' 56.97' I I 1 g 5 6 1 In Lo reAN b 1$132.13' a ,n 117.42' 50' J I I�� 1I 11 1� ^�� N Q g / � nI 7' L 1 1 11 I 16 142.20" I / In 1g °r° / 1 1272 11264 1258 1256 n 1244 1240 50' 152.26' 80' `93.07' v' 100' S0' 50' S0' S0' 1236 1232 1228 1224 1220 1216 212 12 50' 50' 50' S0' S0' S0' 50' 50' 4 '/ 55' ,r 1' CABRILLO AVE / 15 1309 1285 187.44' 75.67 94.33' 80' 0 80' 50' 50 50 50 50 0r 50' b c, 1 i 1261 i 1257 i i 1249 1245 1243 1237 1235 1229 1313 1221 174 RA41 L Introduction to the Situation • Cortez Avenue runs from Adeline Avenue to Sanchez Avenue. • There are stop signs at all intersections along Cortez Avenue, except at Sherman Avenue. (6 of 7 intersections) • Parallel streets such as Balboa Avenue and Cabrillo Avenue also have stop signs at all intersections, except at Sherman Avenue. (5 of 6 intersections) • Drake Avenue, Bernal Avenue, and Vancouver Avenue also run parallel to Cortez Avenue. Vicinity Map - Cortez and Sherman Residents' View of the Situation • Cortez Avenue is a more appealing alternative to EI Camino Real because there are no traffic signals or left-turning queue delays. • Cortez Avenue is a more convenient route for Hillsborough-bound traffic. • As a result, these conditions lead to more traffic and speeding on Cortez Avenue. Events Timeline • Initial request made to Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC)—February 12, 2004. • Request denied by TSPC based on lack of minimum warrant conditions. • Residents made a second request to TSPC to reconsider. Based on the fact that there was no change in conditions,the request was again denied—November 10,2004. • A petition was submitted to Council for further consideration despite TSPC denial. Council reviewed and referred staff to meet with residents—April 4,2005. • Staff met with 6 neighborhood representatives to discuss usage of stop signs and alternate methods of mitigating residential speeding on Cortez—July 26,2005. Stop Sign Warrant Study Three warrant conditions must be met to warrant a stop sign. • Is a traffic signal actually needed rather than a stop sign? • Have there been specific accidents over the past 12 months that could have been prevented with stop signs? • Is there a large amount of traffic passing through the intersection from all approaches that would benefit from stop signs? • NO • NO (0 accidents vs. 3 required) • NO(117 vs.300 required) Speeding Conditions • Vehicle speeds average 25.7 mph for northbound traffic and 24.7 mph for southbound traffic. • Speed limit for residential streets is 25 mph. • Vehicle speeds were surveyed within 200 feet of the intersection of Cortez and Sherman. • Speeds were recorded during a typical weekday,at 2:30 p.m.-3:30 p.m.and 5:00 p.m.-6:00 p.m. Actions • Speed enforcement was increased for two months immediately after the original request(with periodic follow-up thereafter)through the Police Department's Selective Enforcement program. • Enforcement accomplished through officer citations. • Radar speed trailer was also used more as an educational/warning tool to drivers. • Additional Selective Enforcement was conducted in April and May 2005. Three citations were issued,and over nine warnings were given over those two months. Staff Concerns • Stop signs are not warranted for Cortez Avenue. (There is no quantitative evidence to support stop sign installation.) • Stop signs are not used as solutions to controlling speeds. • Stop signs placed on Cortez Avenue may result in shifting traffic onto parallel streets where there are fewer stop signs. • As a result,residents on the parallel streets may request additional stops which may also be unwarranted. Main Discussion at the July 26, 2005 Neighborhood Meeting . Speeding vehicles are the main concern for the residents. • Traffic Calming techniques were identified as the more appropriate solutions to speeding. Traffic Calming Technique Portable Pedestrian Warning Signs • Most effective when used specifically in the presence of children playing in front of the neighborhood homes. • Must be removed and stored when children are not present. • Signs should be placed conspicuously on front lawns or planter strips. • Proven to be most effective when used in conjunction with other safety programs such as a Neighborhood Traffic Watch. • Adult presence or parental supervision of children while they play in front of homes also enhances effectiveness of signs. • Cost:Between$10-$35 per sign. Traffic Calming Technique Neighborhood Traffic Watch Program This program is designed to get residents involved and empowers them. • Inform and alert drivers that they are entering an area where residents take an active role in solving speeding problems in their neighborhood. • This may involve warning signs placed next to sidewalks or on front lawns stating that a"Neighborhood Speed Watch Program"is in effect. • Or, placement of signs similar to"Slow Down In Our Neighborhood"on front lawns during specific problem times to alert speeding drivers that the neighborhood is actively monitoring the speed conditions. Traffic Calming Technique Radar Speed Signage • Use of radar speed detection units to inform drivers of their speeds. • Available both as permanent and temporary installations. • Potential use of radar units for citation purposes pending State legislative approval. • Cost: Between$2,000 and$25,000,depending on sign type and power source. Traffic Calming Technique City/Neighborhood Funded Roadway Obstruction Installations • Residential Traffic Circle • Purpose: Designed to create visual illusion of roadway obstruction in the center of the intersection. • Result:Traffic slows down to negotiate around the circle. • Application:At intersections where speed control is desired. • Cost:$15,000-$25,000(Depending on the extent of landscaping.) Traffic Calming Technique City/Neighborhood Funded Roadway Obstruction Installations • Bulb-outs, Neckdowns,and Chokers • Purpose: Designed to create visual illusion of narrowing street. • Result:Traffic slows down,especially when 2-way traffic is present. • Application:At intersections or mid-block locations where speed control is desired. • Cost:$40,000-$80,000(Depending on the extent of landscaping and/or ornate signs.) CITY AGENDA 9b °n ITEM# BURNGAME LISTAFF REPORT MAG. DATE 9/19/2005 AnTEo TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED f BY DATE: September 14, 2005 APPROV BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6.16 TO CLARIFY REGULATIONS REGARDING ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESSES RECOMMENDATION: Introduce ordinance that would clarify and strengthen the City's regulations regarding entertainment businesses by: A. Requesting the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waiving further reading of the ordinance. C. Introducing the proposed ordinance and directing publication of a summary at least 5 days before its proposed 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. Mayor and Council Re: Revised Entertainment Ordinance, Introduction September 14, 2005 Page 2 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. 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. Staff is bringing the ordinance forward so that both the Council and the public can comment. A copy of the ordinance was mailed to each of the 22 entertainment permitholders in the City requesting their comments. Staff expects that the ordinance will be changed over the coming month in response to comments, and depending on the comments received at or before the meeting, it may be useful to continue the matter to a future meeting before actual introduction of the ordinance. Finally, it should be noted 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 1 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 8,2005 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 8,2005 2 I 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 (f)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 ofpolice. "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 8,2005 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 8,2005 4 1 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 (0 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 8,2005 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 13 6.16.050 Application requirements. 14 (a)Any person who proposes to maintain,operate or conduct an entertainment business in 15 the city shall file an application with the chief of police upon a form provided by the city and shall 16 pay a filing fee, as established by resolution adopted by the city council from time to time,which 17 shall not be refundable. 18 (b) All applications shall include the following information: 19 (1) If the applicant is an individual, the individual shall state his or her legal name, 20 including any aliases, address, and submit satisfactory written proof that he or she is at least 21 eighteen (18)years of age. 22 (2)If the applicant is a partnership,the partners shall state the partnership's complete name, 23 address, and the names of all partners, whether the partnership is general or limited. 24 (3) If the applicant is a corporation, the corporation shall provide its complete name, the 25 date of its incorporation, evidence that the corporation is in good standing under the laws of 26 California,the names and capacity of all officers and directors,the name of the registered corporate 27 agent and the address of the officer for service of process. 28 (c) If the applicant is an individual,he or she shall sign the application. If the applicant is September 8,2005 6 1 other than an individual,an authorized officer of the business entity or an individual with a ten(10) 2 percent or greater interest in the business entity shall sign the application. 3 (d) If the applicant intends to operate the entertainment business under a name other than 4 that of the applicant,the applicant shall provide the fictitious name of the entertainment business. 5 (e) The application shall contain a description of the type of entertainment business for 6 which the permit is requested and the proposed address where the entertainment business will 7 operate,plus the names and addresses of the owners and lessors of the entertainment business site. 8 (f)The application shall include the address to which notice of action on the application is 9 to be mailed; this address will also be used for contact and notices during the life of the permit 10 unless the permittee provides written notice to the police department that the address has been 11 changed. 12 (g)The application shall include a sketch or diagram showing the interior configuration of 13 the premises,including a statement of the total floor area occupied by the entertainment business. 14 The sketch or diagram need not be professionally prepared,but must be drawn to a designated scale 15 or drawn with marked dimensions of the interior of the premises to an accuracy of plus or minus 16 one foot. 17 (h) The application shall include a description of the lighting to be provided inside the 18 entertainment business; a sketch or site plan depicting the lighting and security measures to be 19 provided at all entrances and exits to the business; and a sketch of the site plan of any private 20 parking areas that will serve the entertainment business and the lighting and security measures to 21 be provided at those areas. 22 (i) A brief description of the entertainment to be offered and the hours during which the 23 entertainment may be offered. 24 0)The application shall describe the type of security and crowd management to be provided 25 for the entertainment business. This description shall specifically describe procedures for admitting 26 and re-admitting patrons, checking identification, enforcing dress codes, and removal of unruly 27 patrons from the premises. 28 September 8,2005 7 1 6.16.060 Investigation and action on application. 2 (a)Upon receipt of a completed application and payment of the application and permit fees, 3 the chief of police shall promptly investigate the information contained in the application to 4 determine whether the applicant shall be issued an entertainment permit. 5 (b) The applicant is responsible for making an appointment with the chief of police to 6 discuss the security program for the entertainment business,and no application shall be approved 7 until such a meeting has been held. 8 (b) Within fifteen(15)business days of receipt of the completed application, the chief of 9 police shall complete the investigation, grant or deny the application in accordance with the 10 provisions of this section, and so notify the applicant as follows: 11 (1)The chief of police shall write or stamp "Granted" or"Denied" on the application and 12 date and sign such notation. 13 (2)If the application is denied,the chief of police shall attach to the application a statement 14 of the reasons for denial. 15 (3) If the application is granted, the chief of police shall attach to the application an 16 entertainment permit together with the standard conditions of operation and any special conditions 17 developed in consultation with the applicant to address specific site concerns. 18 (4) The decision of the chief of police shall be placed in the United States mail, first class 19 postage prepaid, addressed to the applicant at the address stated in the application. 20 (c)The chief of police shall grant the application and issue the entertainment permit upon 21 findings that the applicant has met all of the development and performance standards and 22 requirements of this chapter and the application is not subj ect to denial pursuant to section 6.16.070 23 below. 24 (d) If the chief of police neither grants nor denies the application within fifteen (15) 25 business days after it is stamped as received,the applicant may begin operating the entertainment 26 business for which the permit was sought, subject to strict compliance with the development and 27 performance standards and requirements of this chapter. If the applicant begins operating the 28 entertainment business because the chief of police has not granted or denied the application within September 8,2005 8 I fifteen(15)business days,the chief of police may issue the permit after the fifteen(15)day period 2 has elapsed, and the permit shall be subject to suspension or revocation under the provisions of 3 section 6.16.120. 4 5 6.16.070 Permit denial. 6 The chief of police shall deny the application for any of the following reasons: 7 (a) The building, structure, equipment, or location to used by the entertainment business 8 does not comply with the requirements and standards of the health,zoning,fire and safety laws of 9 the city, County of San Mateo, and the state,or with the development and performance standards 10 and requirements of this chapter. However, approval of the permit by the chief of police shall not 11 be deemed to be a waiver by the city, the county, or the state of any such laws or a determination 12 that the building, structure, equipment, or location complies with such laws. 13 (b)The applicant,or an employee,agent,partner,director,officer,shareholder,or manager 14 of the applicant has knowingly made any false,misleading or fraudulent statement of material fact 15 in the application for an entertainment permit or the application process. 16 (c) An applicant is under eighteen(18)years of age. 17 (d) The required application fee has not been paid. 18 (e) Within the last five (5) years immediately preceding the date of the filling of the 19 application,the applicant,or an employee,agent,partner,director,officer,shareholder,or manager 20 of the applicant has either had an entertainment permit issued by the city or any other jurisdiction 21 revoked, or has engaged in conduct that would provide grounds for revocation of such a permit 22 under section 6.16.120 of this chapter. 23 (f) The applicant has failed to provide a complete application. If an application is denied 24 on this basis, the chief of police shall state the information that is needed to make the application 25 complete. 26 (g)The applicant has failed to make an appointment to meet with the chief of police within 27 five (5) business days of filing the application. 28 September 8,2005 9 1 6.16.080 Permits non-transferable. 2 (a) A permittee shall not operate an entertainment business under the authority of an 3 entertainment permit at any place other than the address of the entertainment business stated in the 4 application for the permit. 5 (b) A permittee shall not transfer ownership or control of an entertainment business or 6 transfer an entertainment permit to another person. 7 (c)Any attempt to transfer a permit either directly or indirectly in violation of this section 8 is hereby declared void, and the permit shall be deemed revoked. 9 10 6.16.090 Single event entertainment permit applications. 11 (a)Every person who owns,leases,or is otherwise in lawful possession of property and who 12 proposes to permit or allow another person to arrange for and provide entertainment on such 13 property in the city shall file an application for an entertainment permit under the provisions of 14 6.16.050(unless such person has already obtained an entertainment permit)and in addition, shall 15 file an application with the chief of police for a single event entertainment permit. The applicant 16 for a single event entertainment permit shall pay a filing fee, as established by resolution adopted 17 by the city council from time to time,which shall not be refundable. 18 (b) The single event entertainment permit application shall include the following 19 information: 20 (1)If the person who will arrange and provide entertainment is an individual,the applicant 21 shall state their legal name, including any aliases, address, and submit satisfactory written proof 22 that he or she is at least eighteen(18) years of age. 23 (2)If the person who will arrange and provide entertainment is a partnership,the applicant 24 shall state the partnership's complete name, address, the names of all partners, whether the 25 partnership is general or limited, and attach a copy of the partnership agreement, if any. 26 (3)If the person who will arrange and provide entertainment is a corporation,the applicant 27 shall provide its complete name, the date of its incorporation, evidence that the corporation is in 28 good standing under the laws of California,the names and capacity of all officers and directors,the September 8,2005 10 I name of the registered corporate agent and the address of the registered office for service of 2 process. 3 (4) The application shall contain a description of the type of entertainment for which the 4 permit is requested,the proposed address where the entertainment will be provided,including the 5 names and addresses of the owners and lessors of the property, and the date and the hours during 6 which the entertainment will be conducted. 7 (5) The application shall include a description of the lighting to be provided inside the 8 entertainment venue; a sketch or site plan depicting the lighting and security measures to be 9 provided at all entrances and exits to the venue;and a sketch of the site plan of any private parking 10 areas that will serve the entertainment venue and the lighting and security measures to be provided 11 at those areas. 12 (6) The application shall describe the type of security and crowd management to be 13 provided for the entertainment venue. This description shall specifically describe procedures for 14 admitting and re-admitting patrons,checking identification,enforcing dress codes,and removal of 15 unruly patrons from the premises. 16 (7) The application shall include the address to which notice of action on the application 17 is to be mailed; this address will also be used for contact and notices during the life of the permit 18 unless the permittee provides written notice to the police department that the address has been 19 changed. 20 (8) The application shall disclose whether the person who will arrange and provide 21 entertainment has in the past been issued an entertainment permit by the city, or by any other 22 jurisdiction, and if so, shall disclose the issuing agency, the dates during which the permit was 23 valid. In addition, the applicant shall disclose whether the person who will arrange and provide 24 entertainment has ever had an entertainment permit,or similar authorization revoked or voluntarily 25 surrendered because of the violation of permit conditions. 26 (c)The applicant is responsible for scheduling a meeting with the chief ofpolice within five 27 (5) business days of filing the application to discuss security arrangements. No permit shall be 28 issued unless such a meeting has occurred. September 8,2005 11 I (d)The entertainment authorized by a single event entertainment permit shall be limited to 2 the type and location of entertainment specified in the permit application. The permittee shall not 3 permit or allow entertainment not described in the permit application to be provided. 4 5 6.16.100 Investigation and action on single event permit applications. 6 (a)Upon receipt of a completed application and payment of the application and permit fees, 7 the chief of police shall promptly investigate the information contained in the application to 8 determine whether the applicant shall be issued a single event entertainment permit. 9 (b) Within fifteen(15)business days of receipt of the completed application, the chief of 10 police shall complete the investigation, grant or deny the application in accordance with the 11 provisions of this section, and so notify the applicant as follows: 12 (1) The chief of police shall write or stamp "Granted" or "Denied" on the application and 13 date and sign such notation. 14 (2)If the application is denied,the chief of police shall attach to the application a statement 15 of the reasons for denial. 16 (3) If the application is granted, the chief of police shall attach to the application an 17 entertainment permit together with the standard conditions of operation and any special conditions 18 developed in consultation with the applicant to address specific site concerns.. 19 (4)If the application is granted or denied,the decision and the permit,if any,shall be placed 20 in the Unites States mail,first class postage prepaid,addressed to the applicant at the address stated 21 in the application. 22 (c)The chief of police shall grant the application and issue the single event entertainment 23 permit upon findings that the applicant has obtained an entertainment permit and met all of the 24 development and performance standards and requirements of this chapter,unless the application 25 is denied for one or more of the reasons set forth in Section 6.16.110 below. The permittee shall 26 post the permit conspicuously in the entertainment business premises on the date of the single 27 event. 28 (d) If the chief of police grants the application or if the chief of police neither grants nor September 8,2005 12 I denies the application within fifteen(15)business days after it is stamped as received,the applicant 2 may conduct the single event for which the permit was sought, subject to strict compliance with 3 the development and performance standards and requirements of this chapter. 4 5 6.16.110 Single event entertainment permit denial. 6 The chief of police shall deny the application for any of the following reasons: 7 (a) The applicant has not obtained an entertainment permit. 8 (b) The building, structure, equipment, or location proposed for the single event does not 9 comply with the requirements and standards of the health,zoning, fire and safety laws of the city, 10 the County of San Mateo, and the state, or with the development and performance standards and 11 requirements of this chapter. 12 (c)The applicant,or the person arranging and providing the entertainment,or an employee, 13 agent, partner, director, officer, shareholder, or manager of the applicant or the person arranging 14 and providing the entertainment have knowingly made any false, misleading or fraudulent 15 statement of material fact in the application for a single event entertainment permit. 16 (d)An applicant,or the person arranging and providing the entertainment,is under eighteen 17 (18) years of age. 18 (e) The required application fee has not been paid. 19 (f) Within the last five (5) years immediately preceding the date of the filing of the 20 application,the applicant,or the person arranging and providing the entertainment,or an employee, 21 agent, partner, director, officer, shareholder, or manager of the applicant or the person arranging 22 and providing the entertainment have either had an entertainment permit issued by the city or any 23 other jurisdiction revoked,or have engaged in conduct that would provide grounds for revocation 24 of such a permit under section 6.16.120. 25 (g) The applicant has failed to provide a complete application. If an application is denied 26 on this basis, the chief of police shall state the information that is needed to make the application 27 complete. 28 September 8,2005 13 1 6.16.115 Reviews. 2 (a) Upon initial issuance of an entertainment business permit, the permit shall be subject 3 to review by the chief of police after six (6)months from date of issuance. 4 (b)Each entertainment permit shall be subject to annual review in June or July by the chief 5 of police. 6 (c) During a review, the chief of police may request a permittee to meet with the chief to 7 discuss any problems or concerns. A permittee shall attend such a meeting as directed,and failure 8 to attend shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of the permit. 9 6.16.120 Suspension or revocation of entertainment permits and single event entertainment 10 permits. 11 An entertainment permit or a single event entertainment permit may be suspended or 12 revoked in accordance with the procedures and standards of this section. 13 (a) On determining that grounds for permit revocation may exist and that a suspension or 14 revocation should be considered at that time,the chief of police shall furnish written notice of the 15 proposed suspension or revocation to the permittee. Such notice shall set forth the time and place 16 of a hearing and the ground or grounds upon which the hearing is based, the pertinent code 17 sections, and a brief statement of the factual matters in support of the consideration. The notice 18 shall be mailed,postage prepaid, addressed to the address of the permittee as last provided by the 19 permittee in connection with the entertainment permit, or shall be delivered to the permittee 20 personally, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing date. Hearings shall be conducted in 21 accordance with following procedures, as may be supplemented by procedures established by the 22 chief of police: 23 (1) All parties involved shall have a right to offer testimonial, documentary, and tangible 24 evidence bearing on the issues;may be represented by counsel;and shall have the right to confront 25 and cross-examine witnesses. Any relevant evidence may be admitted that is the sort of evidence 26 upon which reasonable persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs. Any 27 hearing under this section may be continued for a reasonable time for the convenience of a party 28 or a witness. The chief of police's decision may be appealed in accordance with section 6.16.140. September 8,2005 14 I (b) A permittee may be subject to suspension or revocation of its permit, or be subject to 2 other appropriate disciplinary action, for any of the following causes arising from the acts or 3 omissions of the permittee,or an employee,agent,partner,director,stockholder,or manager of an 4 entertainment business: 5 (1) The permittee has knowingly made any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of 6 material facts in the application for a permit,or in any report or record required to be filed with the 7 city. 8 (2) The permittee, employee, agent, partner, director, stockholder, or manager of an 9 entertainment business has knowingly allowed or permitted, and has failed to make a reasonable 10 effort to prevent the occurrence of any of the following on the premises of the entertainment 11 business, or in the case of a single event entertainment permit, the permittee, employee, agent, 12 partner, director, stockholder, or manager has knowingly allowed or permitted and has failed to 13 make a reasonable effort to prevent the occurrence of any of the following at the single 14 entertainment event any conduct prohibited by this chapter. 15 (3) Failure to abide by a disciplinary action previously imposed by an appropriate city 16 official. 17 (4) Failure to comply with all applicable state and local law in the operation of the 18 entertainment business. 19 (c)After holding the hearing in accordance with the provisions of this section,if the chief 20 of police finds and determines that there are grounds for disciplinary action, based upon the 21 severity of the violations, the chief of police shall impose one of the following: 22 (1) A warning; 23 (2) Imposition of conditions to correct the violations that occurred; 24 (3)Suspension of the permit for a specified period not to exceed six(6)months,which may 25 include imposition of additional conditions upon re-opening to correct the violations that occurred; 26 or 27 (4) Revocation of the permit. 28 September 8,2005 15 1 6.16.130 Emergency suspension of permit. 2 The chief of police may suspend an entertainment permit pending a hearing on the 3 suspension or revocation of the permit if the chief of police finds that there is an impending and 4 significant threat to the public health or safety arising out of the use of the entertainment permit. 5 No emergency suspension shall remain in effect for more than fifteen (15) days, unless the 6 permittee agrees to a longer term. 7 8 6.16.140 Appeals and judicial review. 9 An applicant who wishes to appeal the decision of the chief of police regarding an 10 application or an action to suspend or revoke a permit may do so under the following hearing 11 procedures: 12 (a)An appeal of the chief of police's decision on a permit application or from the chief of 13 police's decision after a permit revocation or suspension hearing,may be made by filing a written 14 request for appeal with the city clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision was mailed. If 15 no appeal is filed within this time period,then the decision of the chief of police shall become final, 16 and the applicant shall be deemed to have waived all rights to appeal or other review. All requests 17 for appeal shall include a statement of the basis for the appeal and the errors claimed to have 18 occurred. 19 (b)The city manager or the manager's designee shall schedule a hearing on the appeal for 20 not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty(20) days from the date of mailing notice to the 21 applicant of the time and place of the appeal hearing. The notice of hearing shall be sent by first 22 class mail to the applicant within five (5) days of filing a timely notice of appeal. 23 (c) The city manager or the manager's designee shall review the written record and allow 24 testimony to be given.The city manager or designee shall also allow oral argument.After all verbal 25 testimony has been reviewed, the city manager or designee shall render a written decision within 26 ten (10) working days from the date the matter is submitted for decision. The action of the city 27 manager or designee shall be final and conclusive, subject only to applicable court review. 28 (d) If the chief of police's decision is affirmed on appeal, the applicant or permittee may September 8,2005 16 I seek prompt judicial review of such administrative action pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure 2 section 1094.5 or 1094.8 (if that section is applicable). The city shall make all reasonable efforts 3 to expedite judicial review, if sought by the permittee. 4 5 6.16.150 Performance standards for entertainment businesses. 6 The following performance standards shall apply to all entertainment businesses except 7 amusement arcades, and shall be deemed conditions of all entertainment permits. Failure to 8 comply with each such requirement, unless expressly provided otherwise in the specific 9 entertainment permit,shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of a permit issued pursuant to 10 this chapter: 11 (a) Maximum occupancy load, fire exits, aisles and fire equipment shall be regulated, 12 designed, and provided in accordance with the fire and building regulations and standards of the 13 city. A manager shall be on the premises at all times during which entertainment is being offered. 14 (b)The premises within which the entertainment business is located shall provide sufficient 15 sound-absorbing insulation so that noise generated inside the premises shall not be audible 16 anywhere on any adjacent property or public right-of-way or within any other building or other 17 separate unit within the same building and comply with all applicable city noise regulations. The 18 establishment shall measure the current 24-hour ambient noise levels (L10) at the exterior of the 19 property along the public right-of-way using a methodology approved by the city planner before 20 opening for business. Upon request by the city, the establishment shall conduct noise 21 measurements to determine whether the noise from the establishment is exceeding the 5 dBA 22 standard for increases in noise from the baseline as provided in the Burlingame General Plan, and 23 shall report the measurements to the city, and the establishment shall ensure that the 5 dBA 24 standard is not exceeded. 25 (c)No entertainment shall be permitted between the hours of 1:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. 26 (d) The business premises offering entertainment shall be suitably lighted with minimum 27 lighting of six-candle power at floor level, except during performances on stages. This light 28 intensity shall be measured at no more than thirty(30) inches from the floor. September 8,2005 17 I (e)All patrons shall be out of the building by 2:00 a.m. Specific times for last call for any 2 alcohol service may be determined by the chief of police based on the number of entertainment 3 businesses within 1,000 feet,with the objective of staggering the closing times to reduce potential 4 traffic problems and conflicts and make police patrol and security more efficient. 5 (f)Security personnel shall be visible at the primary entrance beginning no later than thirty 6 (30) minutes before closing of the entertainment business and shall remain until patrons are 7 dispersed. Security shall not permit crowds or patrons to loiter in the front of or in the immediate 8 vicinity of the entertainment business after closing. If a cover charge is charged to enter the 9 establishment,the establishment shall ensure that patrons in line to enter do not obstruct either the 10 public sidewalk or the public street. 11 (g)The permittee shall remove all litter from the front of the entertainment site and public 12 sidewalks adjacent to and within fifty(50) feet of the front of the entertainment site immediately 13 upon every closing. 14 (h) Private Rooms. No entertainment shall be offered,permitted,or allowed to take place 15 within a private room the interior of which is not fully visible by a person standing in at least one 16 place within ten (10) feet of the primary entrance to the premise in which the entertainment is 17 offered, unless all of the following conditions are met: 18 (1)Visibility into the private room is provided through the installation in the wall separating 19 the room from a corridor accessible to patrons or the main room of the premises of a twelve(12) 20 square foot window measuring four(4) feet in width by three(3) feet in height,the lower edge of 21 which shall be installed at a point four(4) feet above the floor. 22 (2) The window required by subsection (h)(1) above shall remain completely clear and 23 unobstructed at all times. 24 (3)The dimensions of the windows required by subsection(h)(1) above are the minimum 25 required, but may be larger. 26 (4) The private room shall be lit to at least the illumination that allows a person on the 27 outside of the room to observe the activity of those in the room at all times the room is occupied. 28 (5)Doors providing access to private rooms shall not be equipped with locks of any kind. September 8,2005 18 1 (6)No private room shall be configured so that the installation of the windows required by 2 subsection(h)(1)above will not provide substantially complete visibility into the private room to 3 a person standing outside the room. 4 (i) Security. 5 (1)Primary Entertainment Use. 6 (A)For occupancy levels below one hundred(100)persons,the permittee shall provide at 7 least three (3) security guards at all times that any entertainment is being offered. At least one 8 security guard will be a front door person responsible for monitoring occupancy and admittance 9 and maintaining a count of persons admitted. At least one other security guard will monitor 10 exterior areas and will float throughout the interior area to provide a safe environment. When 11 occupancy exceeds one hundred (100) persons, the permittee shall provide additional guards to 12 adequately control the environment at a ratio of at least one guard per additional fifty(50)people 13 (or any fraction thereof). The permittee is responsible for providing a safe environment. These 14 security requirements are minimum mandatory requirements.The permittee should provide security 15 based on all the circumstances surrounding the entertainment provided and patrons expected. 16 (B)Permittee shall designate a front door security presence when open for entertainment. 17 Front door security shall check identification to verify age requirements. Permittee shall educate 18 these persons in admission policy and maximum occupancy limit.Further,permittee shall provide 19 these persons with a means to monitor occupancy, screen for weapons, bottles, drugs, and 20 intoxication, and direct security to prohibit further entry when maximum occupancy is reached. 21 When maximum occupancy exists, permittee shall advise the remaining people in line that the 22 establishment has reached its maximum number of occupants and that there will not be any further 23 admittance. 24 (C) Permittee is responsible for maintaining an outdoor security presence when a crowd 25 is waiting to gain access to the building.Permittee shall post at least one dedicated security guard, 26 in addition one security guard or management employee checking identifications at the door,who 27 will be responsible for providing an organized method of maintaining a line that will not block 28 public sidewalks, driveways, or surrounding business doorways. Permittee shall have the September 8,2005 19 I designated outside line security maintain an orderly single file line. Stanchions, ending just prior 2 to the neighboring business,maybe used to control the line with the approval of the chief of police. 3 Once the line reaches maximum occupancy, the designated security shall advise all remaining 4 patrons that the line is full. He or she must advise remaining patrons that they are to exit the area 5 in an orderly fashion. 6 (D) Security guards shall wear distinctive uniforms and be readily identifiable as private 7 security personnel to customers and law enforcement. 8 (2) Secondary Entertainment Use. 9 (A)The permittee shall provide a minimum of three(3)persons to monitor occupancy and 10 admittance and exterior,interior and parking areas associated with the use.An additional licensed 11 security guard shall be required when occupancy exceeds 100. 12 (B) Security personnel shall be readily identifiable to customers and law enforcement as 13 either private security or management personnel through use of distinctive clothing or uniforms and 14 identification. 15 0) Any violations of the law or threatened violations shall be immediately reported to the 16 police department and full cooperation shall be given by employees and management of the 17 business. 18 (k) No variance from the permitted entertainment shall occur without obtaining an 19 amendment to the permit. 20 (0 No part of the business shall be subleased without notification to the police department. 21 (m) Any fight, ejection of customer, thefts from customers, or any other criminal act 22 occurring at the establishment shall be reported to the police department as soon as any 23 establishment employee or security guard is aware of such an incident. 24 (n) Any request by anyone in the establishment for an employee to contact the police 25 department shall be honored immediately, without question. 26 (o) Labor Code section 6404.5 regulating smoking shall be enforced at all times. 27 (p) Advertising for the entertainment shall conform to the requirements of this code. 28 (r) No patrons will be admitted to the establishment after 1:00 a.m. September 8,2005 20 I (s) For establishments located in either the Burlingame Avenue or the Broadway 2 Commercial District as defined in title 25 of this code,beverages will only be served in plasticware 3 after 10 p.m.on Thursday,Friday,and Saturday nights and New Year's Eve,the Wednesday night 4 before Thanksgiving Day,Saint Patrick's Day,Halloween,and the Fourth of July. In addition,the 5 establishment shall be responsible for applying this condition to other times and events during the 6 year such as grand opening celebrations, anniversaries, and other nights or days in which the 7 establishment has attracted extraordinarily large numbers of or unusually rowdy persons or other 8 special considerations indicate that application of this condition makes good business and practice 9 sense. The exceptions to this are closed, private parties and beverages served in stemware. 10 (t) Permittee shall ensure that all business employees fully cooperate with the police 11 department when asked to provide witness statements,contact information,and requests to return 12 telephone calls as soon as possible. 13 (u)Permittee shall not permit any person in an intoxicated condition to enter or remain in 14 the establishment. 15 (v) The permittee shall meet with the chief of police to discuss the conduct of the 16 establishment upon reasonable request. 17 18 19 6.16.160 Performance standards for entertainment businesses where alcoholic beverages are served. 20 21 The following additional requirements shall apply to any entertainment business where 22 alcoholic beverages are served anywhere on site,and failure to comply with every such requirement 23 shall be grounds for revocation or suspension of a permit issued pursuant to this chapter: 24 (a) All alcohol beverage laws shall be strictly enforced. The permittee shall comply with 25 all conditions and restrictions imposed upon the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control(ABC) 26 license and all applicable ABC regulations. 27 (b) No minors are to be allowed on the premises during hours when there is no food 28 service, unless they are there on lawful business, and no minors shall be allowed in the business September 8,2005 21 I after 10 p.m.when entertainment is being offered. If an ABC type 47 on-sale general eating place 2 permit has been issued to the permittee,persons under the age of 21 years shall not be allowed in 3 areas where meals are not served. 4 (c) A sign indicating there is an age restriction of twenty-one(2 1)years and older shall be 5 posted at all entrances to bar areas. This sign shall be readily visible to patrons. 6 (d)The permittee shall participate with ABC programs for refresher bartender and waitress 7 training on no less than an annual basis. 8 9 6.16.170 Performance standards for amusement arcades. 10 The following requirements shall apply to entertainment businesses providing amusement 11 arcade entertainment; and shall be deemed conditions of the entertainment permit, and failure to 12 comply with every such requirement shall be grounds for revocation of the permit issued pursuant 13 to this chapter. 14 (a) All amusement devices within the premises shall be visible to and supervised by an 15 identifiable adult attendant who shall be present at all times when any amusement device is being 16 operated. Such attendant shall be provided with a jacket, vest, or other clothing that clearly 17 identifies such person as an employee of said arcade. 18 (b)The supervision of the patrons on the premises shall be adequate to insure that there is 19 no conduct that unreasonably interferes with the use of surrounding properties. 20 (c)No one under eighteen(18)years of age shall be allowed to play the amusement devices 21 between the hours of 7:00 a.m.and 3:00 p.m.during the academic year of any public school district 22 with a school in the city; holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays are excluded. No one under eighteen 23 (18) years of age may loiter inside or outside the premises or play amusement devices between 24 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. 25 (d) Each arcade maintaining sixteen (16) amusement devices or more shall provide a 26 minimum of one uniformed private security person in addition to the adult attendant from 3:00 p.m. 27 until after closing time during weekdays and at all times during the hours of operation on weekends 28 and holidays. The identity of the security person or persons shall be provided to the chief of police September 8,2005 22 1 on forms provided by the police department. If there are an unusual amount of police service calls 2 to an amusement arcade with sixteen (16) or more amusement devices, the chief of police may 3 require that the security person required by this subsection be replaced by a security guard. 4 (e) Outside security lighting shall be provided under the direction of and subject to the 5 approval of the police department. 6 (f) Public restroom facilities shall be provided. 7 (g)A minimum of ten-foot candle illumination generally distributed must be contained in 8 all parts of the premises at all times when the arcade is open and when the public is permitted to 9 enter or remain therein. 10 (h) No amusement device shall be situated in such a way that its use will violate any 11 applicable fire regulation or hinder the reasonable egress from and ingress to the premises of the 12 public.A fully dimensioned floor plan indicating the location of each machine and the aisle width 13 for ingress shall be clearly labeled. 14 (i)The business entrance shall be unlocked during all times that the premise is open for use 15 of arcade games. 16 0) Video surveillance cameras shall be installed in the arcade areas to continually record 17 patron activities to tape or disk during the establishment's hours of operation. Recorded tapes and 18 disks shall be maintained for a period of at least ninety-six(96)hours after recording. The recorded 19 tapes and disks shall be made available to police personnel upon written request. 20 (k)No alcoholic beverages are allowed in areas operated as amusement arcades. 21 (0 If a token change machine or coin change machine is installed, it shall be protected by 22 an alarm system. 23 (m)The applicant shall restrict access into and out of the facility through the front door(s) 24 only. The rear door shall be equipped with an audible alarm that will sound whenever the door is 25 opened. The door shall be sign posted to indicate the alarm condition. 26 (n) Any pay telephone installed inside the premises or any pay telephone immediately 27 adjacent to the front of the business shall be restricted from receiving incoming calls. 28 (o)No gambling shall be permitted in areas operated as amusement arcades. September 8,2005 23 I (p)The permittee shall maintain and keep its amusement devices in good working order and 2 condition. 3 4 6.16.190 Display of permit. 5 Every entertainment business shall display at all times during business hours the permit 6 issued pursuant to the provisions of this chapter for such entertainment business in a conspicuous 7 place so that the permit may be readily seen by all persons entering the entertainment business. 8 9 6.16.200 Inspections. 10 An applicant or permittee shall permit representatives of the police department, health 11 department,fire department,planning department,or other city departments to inspect the premises 12 of an entertainment business for the purpose of insuring compliance with the law and the 13 development and performance standards applicable to entertainment businesses, at any time it is 14 occupied or opened for business. A person who operates an entertainment business or his or her 15 agent or employee is in violation of the provisions of this section if he or she refuses to permit such 16 lawful inspection of the premises at any time it is occupied or open for business. 17 18 6.16.210 Compliance with other laws. 19 The provisions of this chapter are not intended to be exclusive and compliance therewith 20 shall not excuse noncompliance with any other provisions of this code or county or state laws 21 applicable to the entertainment activity or the business within which the activity is conducted. 22 23 6.16.220 Interpretation of chapter. 24 If ambiguity arises concerning the content or application of this chapter,it shall be the duty 25 of the chief of police to establish all pertinent facts and to interpret its provisions. 26 27 6.16.230 Public nuisance. 28 Any entertainment business operated, conducted, or maintained in violation of the September 8,2005 24 I requirements of this chapter is declared to be a public nuisance,and in addition to any other remedy 2 provided by this law may be abated through the initiation of a civil enforcement action brought by 3 the city attorney. 4 5 6.16.240 Severability. 6 If any section,subsection,subdivision,paragraph,sentence,clause,or phrase in this chapter 7 or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective by any 8 court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the 9 remaining portions of this chapter or any part thereof. The city council hereby declares that it 10 would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase 11 thereof irrespective of the fact that any one (1) or more subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, 12 sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, or invalid, or ineffective. 13 14 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 15 16 Mayor 17 18 I,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 19 of ,2005,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _day of , 2005, by the following vote: 20 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 21 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 22 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 23 24 City Clerk 25 26 C:\FILES\ORDINANC\entertainment.bpd.wpd 27 28 September 8,2005 25 CITY AGENDA Q L ITEM# BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MTG. DATE 9/19/2005 $NwTco �[600 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED BY DATE: September 19, 2005 APPROVED BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6.16 TO CLARIFY REGULATIONS REGARDING ENTERTAINMENT BUSINESSES—ADDENDUM Staff has received comments from some of the entertainment venues and has also made a preliminary evaluation of the establishments that would be affected by the performance standards. The attached revised ordinance makes two changes to the proposal: 1. An exception is added at page 6 so that remote broadcasts of radio and television shows from locations in Burlingame would not require an amusement permit. This would accommodate talk shows and fund raising broadcasts that occur during the year. 2. Security requirements on pages 19 and 20 are reduced, so that establishments with an occupancy of less than 100 would not have to routinely employ uniformed security guards. Instead, security could be met for those smaller establishments with management personnel or security guards. This would also eliminate the need for distinction between an establishment that is an entertainment draw as opposed to one in which the entertainment is simply a background. Attachment Proposed ordinance—revised 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 19,2005 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 19,2005 2 I 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 (f)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 chief s 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 19,2005 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 maybe admitted as a guest,unless such September 19,2005 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 19,2005 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 19,2005 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 19,2005 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 19,2005 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 ofpolice 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 I 1 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 19,2005 9 I (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 19,2005 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 19,2005 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 19,2005 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 (f) 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 19,2005 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 6.16.120 Suspension or revocation of entertainment permits and single event entertainment 13 permits. 14 An entertainment permit or a single event entertainment permit may be suspended or 15 revoked in accordance with the procedures and standards of this section. 16 (a) On determining that grounds for permit revocation may exist and that a suspension or 17 revocation should be considered at that time,the chief of police shall furnish written notice of the 18 proposed suspension or revocation to the permittee. Such notice shall set forth the time and place 19 of a hearing and the ground or grounds upon which the hearing is based, the pertinent code 20 sections, and a brief statement of the factual matters in support of the consideration. The notice 21 shall be mailed,postage prepaid, addressed to the address of the permittee as last provided by the 22 permittee in connection with the entertainment permit, or shall be delivered to the permittee 23 personally, at least ten (10) days prior to the hearing date. Hearings shall be conducted in 24 accordance with following procedures, as may be supplemented by procedures established by the 25 chief of police: 26 (1) All parties involved shall have a right to offer testimonial, documentary, and tangible 27 evidence bearing on the issues;may be represented by counsel;and shall have the right to confront 28 and cross-examine witnesses. Any relevant evidence may be admitted that is the sort of evidence September 19,2005 14 I upon which reasonable persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs. Any 2 hearing under this section may be continued for a reasonable time for the convenience of a party 3 or a witness. The chief of police's decision may be appealed in accordance with section 6.16.140. 4 (b) A permittee may be subject to suspension or revocation of its permit, or be subject to 5 other appropriate disciplinary action, for any of the following causes arising from the acts or 6 omissions of the permittee,or an employee,agent,partner,director,stockholder,or manager of an 7 entertainment business: 8 (1) The permittee has knowingly made any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of 9 material facts in the application for a permit,or in any report or record required to be filed with the 10 city. 11 (2) The permittee, employee, agent, partner, director, stockholder, or manager of an 12 entertainment business has knowingly allowed or permitted, and has failed to make a reasonable 13 effort to prevent the occurrence of any of the following on the premises of the entertainment 14 business, or in the case of a single event entertainment permit, the permittee, employee, agent, 15 partner, director, stockholder, or manager has knowingly allowed or permitted and has failed to 16 make a reasonable effort to prevent the occurrence of any of the following at the single 17 entertainment event any conduct prohibited by this chapter. 18 (3) Failure to abide by a disciplinary action previously imposed by an appropriate city 19 official. 20 (4) Failure to comply with all applicable state and local law in the operation of the 21 entertainment business. 22 (c)After holding the hearing in accordance with the provisions of this section,if the chief 23 of police finds and determines that there are grounds for disciplinary action, based upon the 24 severity of the violations, the chief of police shall impose one of the following: 25 (1) A warning; 26 (2) Imposition of conditions to correct the violations that occurred; 27 (3)Suspension of the permit for a specified period not to exceed six(6)months,which may 28 include imposition of additional conditions upon re-opening to correct the violations that occurred; September 19,2005 15 I or 2 (4) Revocation of the permit. 3 4 6.16.130 Emergency suspension of permit. 5 The chief of police may suspend an entertainment permit pending a hearing on the 6 suspension or revocation of the permit if the chief of police finds that there is an impending and 7 significant threat to the public health or safety arising out of the use of the entertainment permit. 8 No emergency suspension shall remain in effect for more than fifteen (15) days, unless the 9 permittee agrees to a longer term. 10 11 6.16.140 Appeals and judicial review. 12 An applicant who wishes to appeal the decision of the chief of police regarding an 13 application or an action to suspend or revoke a permit may do so under the following hearing 14 procedures: 15 (a)An appeal of the chief of police's decision on a permit application or from the chief of 16 police's decision after a permit revocation or suspension hearing,may be made by filing a written 17 request for appeal with the city clerk within ten (10) days of the date the decision was mailed. If 18 no appeal is filed within this time period,then the decision of the chief ofpolice shall become final, 19 and the applicant shall be deemed to have waived all rights to appeal or other review. All requests 20 for appeal shall include a statement of the basis for the appeal and the errors claimed to have 21 occurred. 22 (b)The city manager or the manager's designee shall schedule a hearing on the appeal for 23 not less than ten (10) days nor more than twenty(20) days from the date of mailing notice to the 24 applicant of the time and place of the appeal hearing. The notice of hearing shall be sent by first 25 class mail to the applicant within five (5) days of filing a timely notice of appeal. 26 (c) The city manager or the manager's designee shall review the written record and allow 27 testimony to be given.The city manager or designee shall also allow oral argument.After all verbal 28 testimony has been reviewed,the city manager or designee shall render a written decision within September 19,2005 16 I ten (10) working days from the date the matter is submitted for decision. The action of the city 2 manager or designee shall be final and conclusive, subject only to applicable court review. 3 (d) If the chief of police's decision is affirmed on appeal, the applicant or permittee may 4 seek prompt judicial review of such administrative action pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure 5 section 1094.5 or 1094.8 (if that section is applicable). The city shall make all reasonable efforts 6 to expedite judicial review, if sought by the permittee. 7 8 6.16.150 Performance standards for entertainment businesses. 9 The following performance standards shall apply to all entertainment businesses except 10 amusement arcades, and shall be deemed conditions of all entertainment permits. Failure to 11 comply with each such requirement, unless expressly provided otherwise in the specific 12 entertainment permit, shall be grounds for suspension or revocation of a permit issued pursuant to 13 this chapter: 14 (a) Maximum occupancy load, fire exits, aisles and fire equipment shall be regulated, 15 designed, and provided in accordance with the fire and building regulations and standards of the 16 city. A manager shall be on the premises at all times during which entertainment is being offered. 17 (b)The premises within which the entertainment business is located shall provide sufficient 18 sound-absorbing insulation so that noise generated inside the premises shall not be audible 19 anywhere on any adjacent property or public right-of-way or within any other building or other 20 separate unit within the same building and comply with all applicable city noise regulations. The 21 establishment shall measure the current 24-hour ambient noise levels (L10) at the exterior of the 22 property along the public right-of-way using a methodology approved by the city planner before 23 opening for business. Upon request by the city, the establishment shall conduct noise 24 measurements to determine whether the noise from the establishment is exceeding the 5 dBA 25 standard for increases in noise from the baseline as provided in the Burlingame General Plan, and 26 shall report the measurements to the city, and the establishment shall ensure that the 5 dBA 27 standard is not exceeded. 28 (c)No entertainment shall be permitted between the hours of 1:30 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. September 19,2005 17 1 (4) The private room shall be lit to at least the illumination that allows a person on the 2 outside of the room to observe the activity of those in the room at all times the room is occupied. 3 (5)Doors providing access to private rooms shall not be equipped with locks of any kind. 4 (6)No private room shall be configured so that the installation of the windows required by 5 subsection(h)(1)above will not provide substantially complete visibility into the private room to 6 a person standing outside the room. 7 (i) Security. 8 (1) . 9 --( 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. 12 At least one security guard person will be a front door person responsible for monitoring occupancy 13 and admittance and maintaining a count of persons admitted. At least one other person seeuritq 14 guard-will monitor exterior areas and will float throughout the interior area to provide a safe 15 environment. When occupancy exceeds one hundred (100) persons, the permittee shall provide 16 additional security guards to adequately control the environment at a ratio of at least one guard per 17 additional fifty(50)people(or any fraction thereof). The permittee is responsible for providing a 18 safe environment. These security requirements are minimum mandatory requirements. The 19 permittee should shall provide security based on all the circumstances surrounding the 20 entertainment provided and patrons expected. 21 (B-) (2) Permittee shall designate a front door security presence when open for 22 entertainment.Front door security shall check identification to verify age requirements.Permittee 23 shall educate these persons in admission policy and maximum occupancy limit.Further,permittee 24 shall provide these persons with a means to monitor occupancy,screen for weapons,bottles,drugs, 25 and intoxication,and direct security to prohibit further entry when maximum occupancy is reached. 26 When maximum occupancy exists, permittee shall advise the remaining people in line that the 27 establishment has reached its maximum number of occupants and that there will not be any further 28 admittance. September 19,2005 19 1 (C�(3)Permittee is responsible for maintaining an outdoor security presence when a crowd 2 is waiting to gain access to the building. Permittee shall post at least one dedicated security guard, 3 in addition one security guard or management employee checking identifications at the door,who 4 will be responsible for providing an organized method of maintaining a line that will not block 5 public sidewalks, driveways, or surrounding business doorways. Permittee shall have the 6 designated outside line security maintain an orderly single file line. Stanchions, ending just prior 7 to the neighboring business,may be used to control the line with the approval of the chief of police. 8 Once the line reaches maximum occupancy, the designated security shall advise all remaining 9 patrons that the line is full. He or she must advise remaining patrons that they are to exit the area 10 in an orderly fashion. 11 (D) Security personnel shah be readily iler�tifiable to customers acid lave enforeriit a 12 either private security car management personnel through use of distinctive clothing or uniforms and 13 identification. Security guards shall wear distinctive uniforms and be readily identifiable as private 14 security personnel to customers and law enforcement. 15 16 (A)The pennittee shall provide a minitntmi of ffiree(3)persons to monitor occupancy an 17 admittance and exterior,interior and parking areas associated with the use.An additionaf ficensed 18 seettrity guard shall be required when occupaticy exceeds 1 - 19 (B) See=ity persorme! shall be readily identifiable to customers and law enf6rcement as 20 21 identification. - 22 0) Any violations of the law or threatened violations shall be immediately reported to the 23 police department and full cooperation shall be given by employees and management of the 24 business. 25 (k) No variance from the permitted entertainment shall occur without obtaining an 26 amendment to the permit. 27 (0 No part of the business shall be subleased without notification to the police department. 28 (m) Any fight, ejection of customer, thefts from customers, or any other criminal act September 19,2005 20 I occurring at the establishment shall be reported to the police department as soon as any 2 establishment employee or security guard is aware of such an incident. 3 (n) Any request by anyone in the establishment for an employee to contact the police 4 department shall be honored immediately, without question. 5 (o) Labor Code section 6404.5 regulating smoking shall be enforced at all times. 6 (p) Advertising for the entertainment shall conform to the requirements of this code. 7 (r) No patrons will be admitted to the establishment after 1:00 a.m. 8 (s) For establishments located in either the Burlingame Avenue or the Broadway 9 Commercial District as defined in title 25 of this code,beverages will only be served in plasticware 10 after 10 p.m. on Thursday,Friday,and Saturday nights and New Year's Eve,the Wednesday night 11 before Thanksgiving Day, Saint Patrick's Day,Halloween,and the Fourth of July. In addition,the 12 establishment shall be responsible for applying this condition to other times and events during the 13 year such as grand opening celebrations, anniversaries, and other nights or days in which the 14 establishment has attracted extraordinarily large numbers of or unusually rowdy persons or other 15 special considerations indicate that application of this condition makes good business and practice 16 sense. The exceptions to this are closed,private parties and beverages served in stemware. 17 (t) Permittee shall ensure that all business employees fully cooperate with the police 18 department when asked to provide witness statements,contact information,and requests to return 19 telephone calls as soon as possible. 20 (u)Permittee shall not permit any person in an intoxicated condition to enter or remain in 21 the establishment. 22 (v) The permittee shall meet with the chief of police to discuss the conduct of the 23 establishment upon reasonable request. 24 25 26 6.16.160 Performance standards for entertainment businesses where alcoholic beverages are served. 27 28 The following additional requirements shall apply to any entertainment business where September 19,2005 21 I alcoholic beverages are served anywhere on site,and failure to comply with every such requirement 2 shall be grounds for revocation or suspension of a permit issued pursuant to this chapter: 3 (a) All alcohol beverage laws shall be strictly enforced. The permittee shall comply with 4 all conditions and restrictions imposed upon the Department ofAlcoholic Beverage Control(ABC) 5 license and all applicable ABC regulations. 6 (b) No minors are to be allowed on the premises during hours when there is no food 7 service, unless they are there on lawful business, and no minors shall be allowed in the business 8 after 10 p.m.when entertainment is being offered. If an ABC type 47 on-sale general eating place 9 permit has been issued to the permittee,persons under the age of 21 years shall not be allowed in 10 areas where meals are not served. 11 (c) A sign indicating there is an age restriction of twenty-one(2 1)years and older shall be 12 posted at all entrances to bar areas. This sign shall be readily visible to patrons. 13 (d)The permittee shall participate with ABC programs for refresher bartender and waitress 14 training on no less than an annual basis. 15 16 6.16.170 Performance standards for amusement arcades. 17 The following requirements shall apply to entertainment businesses providing amusement 18 arcade entertainment; and shall be deemed conditions of the entertainment permit, and failure to 19 comply with every such requirement shall be grounds for revocation of the permit issued pursuant 20 to this chapter. 21 (a) All amusement devices within the premises shall be visible to and supervised by an 22 identifiable adult attendant who shall be present at all times when any amusement device is being 23 operated. Such attendant shall be provided with a jacket, vest, or other clothing that clearly 24 identifies such person as an employee of said arcade. 25 (b) The supervision of the patrons on the premises shall be adequate to insure that there is 26 no conduct that unreasonably interferes with the use of surrounding properties. 27 (c)No one under eighteen(18)years of age shall be allowed to play the amusement devices 28 between the hours of 7:00 a.m.and 3:00 p.m.during the academic year of any public school district September 19,2005 22 I with a school in the city; holidays, Saturdays, and Sundays are excluded. No one under eighteen 2 (18) years of age may loiter inside or outside the premises or play amusement devices between 3 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. 4 (d) Each arcade maintaining sixteen (16) amusement devices or more shall provide a 5 minimum of one uniformed private security person in addition to the adult attendant from 3:00 p.m. 6 until after closing time during weekdays and at all times during the hours of operation on weekends 7 and holidays.The identity of the security person or persons shall be provided to the chief of police 8 on forms provided by the police department. If there are an unusual amount of police service calls 9 to an amusement arcade with sixteen (16) or more amusement devices, the chief of police may 10 require that the security person required by this subsection be replaced by a security guard. 11 (e) Outside security lighting shall be provided under the direction of and subject to the 12 approval of the police department. 13 (f) Public restroom facilities shall be provided. 14 (g)A minimum of ten-foot candle illumination generally distributed must be contained in 15 all parts of the premises at all times when the arcade is open and when the public is permitted to 16 enter or remain therein. 17 (h) No amusement device shall be situated in such a way that its use will violate any 18 applicable fire regulation or hinder the reasonable egress from and ingress to the premises of the 19 public.A fully dimensioned floor plan indicating the location of each machine and the aisle width 20 for ingress shall be clearly labeled. 21 (i)The business entrance shall be unlocked during all times that the premise is open for use 22 of arcade games. 23 0) Video surveillance cameras shall be installed in the arcade areas to continually record 24 patron activities to tape or disk during the establishment's hours of operation. Recorded tapes and 25 disks shall be maintained for a period of at least ninety-six(96)hours after recording. The recorded 26 tapes and disks shall be made available to police personnel upon written request. 27 (k) No alcoholic beverages are allowed in areas operated as amusement arcades. 28 (1) If a token change machine or coin change machine is installed, it shall be protected by September 19,2005 23 I an alarm system. 2 (m)The applicant shall restrict access into and out of the facility through the front door(s) 3 only. The rear door shall be equipped with an audible alarm that will sound whenever the door is 4 opened. The door shall be sign posted to indicate the alarm condition. 5 (n) Any pay telephone installed inside the premises or any pay telephone immediately 6 adjacent to the front of the business shall be restricted from receiving incoming calls. 7 (o)No gambling shall be permitted in areas operated as amusement arcades. 8 (p)The permittee shall maintain and keep its amusement devices in good working order and 9 condition. 10 11 6.16.190 Display of permit. 12 Every entertainment business shall display at all times during business hours the permit 13 issued pursuant to the provisions of this chapter for such entertainment business in a conspicuous 14 place so that the permit may be readily seen by all persons entering the entertainment business. 15 16 6.16.200 Inspections. 17 An applicant or permittee shall permit representatives of the police department, health 18 department,fire department,planning department,or other city departments to inspect the premises 19 of an entertainment business for the purpose of insuring compliance with the law and the 20 development and performance standards applicable to entertainment businesses, at any time it is 21 occupied or opened for business. A person who operates an entertainment business or his or her 22 agent or employee is in violation of the provisions of this section if he or she refuses to permit such 23 lawful inspection of the premises at any time it is occupied or open for business. 24 25 6.16.210 Compliance with other laws. 26 The provisions of this chapter are not intended to be exclusive and compliance therewith 27 shall not excuse noncompliance with any other provisions of this code or county or state laws 28 applicable to the entertainment activity or the business within which the activity is conducted. September 19,2005 24 1 6.16.220 Interpretation of chapter. 2 If ambiguity arises concerning the content or application of this chapter,it shall be the duty 3 of the chief of police to establish all pertinent facts and to interpret its provisions. 4 5 6.16.230 Public nuisance. 6 Any entertainment business operated, conducted, or maintained in violation of the 7 requirements of this chapter is declared to be a public nuisance,and in addition to any other remedy 8 provided by this law may be abated through the initiation of a civil enforcement action brought by 9 the city attorney. 10 11 6.16.240 Severability. 12 If any section,subsection,subdivision,paragraph,sentence,clause,or phrase in this chapter 13 or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid or ineffective by any 14 court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the 15 remaining portions of this chapter or any part thereof. The city council hereby declares that it 16 would have passed each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, or phrase 17 thereof irrespective of the fact that any one (1) or more subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, 18 sentences, clauses, or phrases be declared unconstitutional, or invalid, or ineffective. 19 20 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 21 22 23 Mayor 24 I,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 25 of ,2005,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2005, by the following vote: 26 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 27 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 28 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: September 19,2005 25 1 2 City Clerk 3 4 C:\FILES\ORDINANC\entertainment-2.bpd.wpd 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 September 19,2005 26 411 �WTYIOO STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 9c ITEM# Y- MTG.� �o *����E°' DATE 9.19.05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 2005 APPROVE FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION AND PUBLIC HEARING ON AN bRDINANCE 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. Introduction: City Council should review the proposed ordinance to reclassify the zoning on the properties in the Trousdale/Murchison neighborhood and on Marco Polo Way between Trousdale Drive and Clarice Way from C-3 and R-3 to TW. The public hearing on this matter will be held at second reading. Council may direct staff to make revisions. If the ordinance is ready for action this ordinance should be set for second reading and public hearing on Monday, October 3, 2005, and the City Council should do the following: A. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. 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 Burlingame General Plan in September 2004. The zoning district boundaries in the ordinance are consistent with the plan because they are taken from the subarea designations North of Trousdale (B-4) and privately owned property in the Mills Peninsula Hospital Block (B-3) in land use element of the adopted North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. In addition, for consistency with the intent of the General Plan as amended by the Specific Plan for this area, the west side of Marco Polo Drive to Clarice Way has been included in this zoning district. The specific plan is not being expanded to include this area since the existing development under the current General Plan is consistent with the policies and objectives of the residential land uses set out for Marco Polo Drive in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. CEQA Compliance: Negative Declaration ND533-P was prepared and adopted for the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan in September 2004. Since this reclassification action to create the TW district boundaries is an implementation of that adopted plan and is consistent with the provisions of that plan, the reclassification action is determined to be covered by ND533-P. INTRODUCTION AND PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE TO CHANGE THE ZONING DESIGNATION FOR AREAS CURRENTLY ZONED C-3 IN THE TROUSDALEIMURCHISON NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE PROPERTIES WITH LOT FRONTS ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF MARCO POLO WAY BETWEEN CLARICE LANE AND TRO USDALE DRIVE FROM R-3 TO TW. September 19,2005 BACKGROUND: Zoning depends upon two actions: (1), defining the area where the regulations are to be applied; and(2), establishing the regulations. The Council's action to adopt the Trousdale West(TW) district regulations establishes the rules to guide development within the TW district. The reclassification action establishes the boundaries of the area in which the rules are to be applied. Both of these actions must be taken by adopting an ordinance. The reclassification ordinance establishes the new boundaries for the Trousdale West (TW) zoning district. The new district encompasses all the properties in the City zoned C-3 on which the City added R-4 zoning as a stop gap measure immediately after adopting the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. Since the Specific Plan allowed multiple family development in the area zoned C-3, the R-4 overlay zoning was installed until the new zoning (TW) for the area could be developed and adopted. The properties zoned C- 3/R-4 are on Trousdale(south side)between El Camino Real and Ogden/Marco Polo; properties bounded by Magnolia Ave. (west side), Murchison Drive, Ogden(east side) and Trousdale; and properties on Marco Polo Way(east side) to Clarice Way. Also included in this reclassification are the properties fronting on the west side of Marco Polo Way between Trousdale Drive and Clarice Way. This area, presently zoned R-3 (multiple family residential), was included by the Planning Commission so that the same design guidelines would be applied to future development on both sides of Marco Polo to create a consistent character and positive streetscape along Marco Polo Way in this area. Attached for reference is the map delineating the boundaries of the new Trousdale West (TW) district. Margaret Monroe City Planner Attachments: Ordinance of the City of Burlingame 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. Trousdale West(TW) Zoning District Map 2 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 5 CLARICE LANE AND TROUSDALE DRIVE FROM R-3 TO TW 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 1 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 C 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. 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 7 day of ,2005,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council 8 held on the day of , 2005,by the following vote: 9 10 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 11 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 12 13 --� City Clerk 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 --. 27 - 2 - Trousdale Zoning District Map 's, 3 . jig!• ELS ' iviGc�n. o► ilonv► ME 014 iou■■m■■cvi. .uuu■tmem►\o■. ' .ol ■t■ttONto\\ O � ■■r.o■■■u■■■■■o■►vt t■rA■■■on■onnen■\OO. mnmunneuennn►vt eooeenennnunnucni .:ie.nnnnnnuntnnnn►vll. .t■peune■nentetueutreet. � mommumm mraxonsomosonsommono EMOMMOiiii► Mon 1 IN in'Jtnnuunnunntvtt=.nntc\mo ,�i�iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii►iiiiiimom eMii, ,mom,, iii, Ot tot Ottttttttttttttt�.ttttttttttttttt.\t fua,unuuntnufc\nnfnunnntc\ii ' ur uumvuunmm■ucv■utnntuuac■fi. �,.. ieaunnuonnennntnt►vun■no■rp"A , , tot\tttttttttotttttttttttttttt►\tttttttttt■.t�.■.eot. ntrnvunuu,uuuennttn►wnnnen►.nfaf■. / n/O■C\nn■oOn.VO■tonotttOe \\nOn■.I■/.nttt\`tt- �Ooi/tO\►\O■nnnf.�ttnfnttfnn■t\\tt■ft/t/.tn■■nit■. nt.nu►\nuutn.■tttnttttttttn\\n.It►.tfnfffu�tfit ' • ����������\\BOO■��\��■ ■�����\������\I1►�.....■........ � IOt/Ant■ono►\tOnOOntVOnOOO■OOOOOff►/ntnttttttnn.` i / • '• t��tt■oe■r�lrc,on.nnOnnnt■trtnnttnr..ttn\\e0t0tnnless ■nfnr OEMnvnu�n■tou�OOr n■nO■nnnn■n■na■■1enns■.On■n■nnr..O■urC.OneinunstCototuOnu■Ocen■■MEN On■nootun■tnt■■ncOu■cntn om O■tuk Ao'IOn■tont■► no\ no/■, Me so Oo ,New,nett■■n►..■tf M, mom ■, ■ 7tanentOVAtOoo■ ntnnnflnOOOf►ttf■,n vt\ tnttnttsonnntt/AotntofO■otn ■we-tt■ , nI .■runucnuunnnuutueut.tutteettcuofetr.rs rer . it i •• �cv■in■uuunuticenn utn�r�nf 7nOnnCUn■■G■tnnn■■■ot■■e► � \CrAUOenffntAneUOMO`■I�nawvnt=ne.7■■o.■net■O■oOO■OGnon►\OOOtooOOOotOtitO■O�JIOOt■rrtOt rrOtOO tooOO.`t .t■otttt■totOffl,.OtOO6 \\\JIt■t■ntnf�itttttf'_Ontntntt■nt■nf■tn.`�ttttOnnOnttl.Atttt/A ZY►\nnOOntn ►OnOOontnnOOn ■■ uootn■.mommnonnnnOn■■off..nme Ams n► ► • \►\n■tO Ooo■OotloetO\`\OnntneOeOOP.ont.VutnttJVl■■■■■■'I■■■■■■► t►\fOfMtOOnfI,OOnn4ntOent000Oe�.00f■O.�tOMEMOeA 0 ommoO■O■■► �i�nonurotungoose nntnntn nuuttonunoonnonn■uv �t..•uuu.■nunnurot^nennorunnntoun�.me o..nnosorr �r.��uni.tuunnutc.o■cnnnotntuutnt..n..tunvu■MO W ■ o■ounnun.etcnurautco■ono¢■nntconn■Or f`�S itmmutfuntnt►.00rn...... ti■mn►utnm� \iq'M\omu0m%t■■ti0,11 turas wiitiiii 'r:rluau=t�intr�.ouu:u=untion�.uuvrmmnte� �s..a■uutruuiuntc.tcnetntr■innonunon YI':\nOetr:eOtr'Ae■/AttCt■enn�ANNE nt7nt■■n■r ' 'Yf.:♦\fOI..OOVr■o■ttlttttt.`OtOne'iOft\nrinf■OOV ete.ntt/.fftntnt 7Op,■ inotnttl � memo •� 1t►Vinn\nOfnte101 \IMLI tnnt■ne/O' vi�nnnn%ret i ncunnE. vtunfttcn... . v an ► . \�■auceuu►un►. vt.MOe■e.■tOto►. otmoss iommt. mmommor .Memo tntauMon ,1111 soon a 4► Jieanv■tore • • • Jiuonn►\ntr ieattttnWn: , BEEN SON" tin riluunutr.etk IL rinn \nnun.nuf. me .iter.■:\nu\ot►.mm�tti. rit�n:eo:vu►vcnnmm�t rite- rGntuut:uncvoonuun■. .if�r■- fiftttttttttt.•Ottt►\tttttttttttttt • 6iuentntncr.vtncotnnennti. ' `itttttttttttttti.f�`ftff►ttfftttttttttfr .�nunnnoRon■n ve■.onee■■et.► , .e■■11■■t/a■■■t■■t►\tOttAtttfttttttfl■t► , \ttttt�itttttttttt►\tt�,/ ttttOttttl.■Ott\ , •=n%u■t■ununnc.���tnnn�.nuff►� ■_otnn■■ttMommommtten� ve euet \■■■■■n■luno tOt. moomoolomoo ° eeutto-.Got a\► vtr.tc-■nazi, vnue'un.tarn►utiutintno. me\t rurrnmt.vGr IN. IN MEMEMMEMESEL •.nnnunm , I vnonntnc\ ■i►vnnnnun ' \nnl.■■■ret'\r i.►'\■ne■■■■�in6 �tl�tnOo�■ u II`\rete AOOOOO�. MMM.,u 1n■it■■noot6 0 MEN '\■1111■■tt \out■'�\neO■o V' ,� , \ 1 ' \nOOOnO \etnMM\i ��OO\nfUr.\�OUNI�1�%■r \nenOt■�_\t�■n■I \ttttttt/ttrw�\Ota , �, .� N , r Date: September 14, 2005 Agenda Item To: Mayor Galligan Meeting Date From: Jim Nantell, City Manager ?AIX Subject: Case for Shared Services PURPOSE: The purpose of this report is to share the thinking behind the idea of shared services. This is to set the context for the discussion about joint management of a shared Recreation Operation between Burlingame and Millbrae at the Council's October 3 meeting. CASE FOR SHARED SERVICES IN SAN MATEO COUNTY The current twenty-city model, where we invest considerable public funds in duplicative management and other resources, reinforces what some people see as a long outdated view that we are twenty cities that are still geographically isolated. Reinforcing that model undermines our ability to work seamless together to better meet the needs of our citizens who live in a world where their everyday needs do not end at the invisible city limits of the particular city they live in. By way of illustration, the lack of coordinated traffic signals along El Camino Real because one city does not have the resources or the public will to make it a priority, does not serve the needs of all the motorists that traverse that portion of El Camino Real. The failure to provide adequate police resources in community A where the drug pushers live does not meet the needs of neighboring communities B, C, D. . . .. whose children are being solicited daily to buy illegal drugs. Canceling adult athletic leagues because city A & B don't have enough sign ups individually to merit a league, does not serve the communities well when together, they can meet the needs of those residents. From a strategic perspective, shared services can be of value in addressing a number of strategic issues facing Burlingame, Millbrae, and most San Mateo County cities: 1 . Inadequate investment in an aging infrastructure. With a few possible exceptions for newer cities like Foster City, most of the peninsula cities are approaching their centennial and the demands for reinvestment in our infrastructure significantly exceeds our financial resources. At the same time that cities are considering public approval for additional taxes for infrastructure, we could also be considering shared service which could reduce the significant expenses associated with the duplication in governance, human resources, and management systems in twenty different cities. 2. The Continued growth of specialization of the workforce. As has been the case for many years, the work force required to provide services and meet the mandated certification requirements continues to become increasingly more specialized. That makes it very difficult and expensive for smaller cities to efficiently secure the necessary skills and resource. (Note: San Mateo County has 16 of 20 cities with populations below 50,000 and 13, or 65% below 30,000.) An obvious example is that website managers were almost unheard of 10 years ago and today, regardless of city size, many residents expect access to a very robust city website. Other examples include labor relations experts, certified pesticide applicators, irrigation specialists, arborists, and workers compensation managers, to name just a few. Although cities closer to 100,000 residents can usually afford these specialists it is much harder for smaller cities to efficiently access those special skills or required certified resources. 3. Attraction and Retention of appropriately skilled employees—Given that San Mateo arguably has the most expensive housing in the bay area, the ability for public sector employers to attract and retain a qualified work force is an increasingly difficult challenge. As evidenced by a recent department head loss here in Burlingame, it is even more difficult for smaller cities because we often don't have the right magnitude of scale to allow employees the variety of challenges and opportunities that they can get in larger organizations. For many years, the depth of the number of candidates with the desired experience and qualifications has been decreasing. This is definitely the case when it comes to management and department head positions. Many smaller cities increasingly call on"general management" employees to manage and oversee specialty areas like human resources,public works, and finance because of the inability to afford and/or attract experienced experts in those fields. Rather than continuing to have all twenty cities compete with each other, shared services could allow smaller cities to achieve that desired magnitude of scale thus allow them to better attract and retain employees with higher levels of expertise and specific skill sets. What Does Shared Services Mean Shared services is a term used to encompass all of the ways that cities can work together to jointly operate more efficiently and hopefully, in most cases, more effectively to provide our public services. This is not a new idea. For many years the civic leadership in this county has been creatively coming together to jointly operate services. Options Around Shared Services As discussed below, shared services can be implemented in a number of different forms. In November 2003, a daylong retreat was held with San Mateo County City Managers to discuss the future direction of shared services in San Mateo County. The group identified the following variations of shared services. 1. Functional Consolidation /Shared Operations ➢ Fire service in San Mateo County is a good example of"functional shared services". Though we still have mostly independent fire departments, we share efforts on automatic aide/boundary drops and the creation of special countywide teams for services like hazmat response. ➢ The Peninsula Library System (PLS) is another excellent example of a formal partnership that functionally brought together all of the different libraries in San Mateo County so as to make the entire joint collections seamlessly available to all card holders throughout the county. ➢ The creation of a jointly staffed Countywide Drug Narcotics Task Force is another good example. 2. Single Service JPA/District ➢ There is a joint powers agreement to jointly operate afire department serving Hillsborough and Burlingame. 3. Contract for service ➢ This is where one or more cities contract with another city or a private company for the provision of services. For example, the City Burlingame contracts with a private provider to operate our water quality control plant and in turn, Hillsborough contracts with Burlingame and San Mateo for sewer treatment. 4. Multi-city municipal services partnerships ➢ Here 2 to 6 cities jointly operate all or most public services. One clear exception is the planning/land use function which would remain separate under this approach. 5. County wide ➢ In this case, the cities enter an agreement with the county to provide the service countywide. For example, all cities contract with the county to provide tax collection services, thus eliminating each city maintaining their own staff and computer systems. Also, SamTrans replaced a number of small intra-city bus companies that were going out of business. Exhibit A provides an overview of the pros and cons of these different basic approaches to shared services. Exhibit B identifies the various interests that come into play when discussing shared services. Exhibit C gives other examples of opportunities for shared services. Factors pushing for and against shared services? Like most difficult issues, there are factors that push for and push against shared services. There are ramifications that policy makers must weigh when deciding what direction to take. Pushing for shared services: I. Reduces redundancy of administrative and management costs of government or saves money to invest in our under-funded capital needs or other services. 2. Extends the magnitude of scale advantages for smaller cities,which allows development of higher levels of expertise not otherwise available, i.e. hazardous materials response and irrigation experts. 3. Provides a higher level of service than would otherwise have been available, i.e. small cities often can't afford their own specialists staff such as aquatic or preschool specialists, cyber investigations experts, children's librarians, engineer plan checkers and website managers. Partnering with neighbors achieves the magnitude of scale to allow for attracting and retaining more specialized positions. 4. Makes higher level of resources more affordable. Things like technology are more affordable and achievable because the cost can be spread out over a large base. 5. Can improve attraction and retention of staff/employees because of more varied or specialized job opportunities. 6. Builds relationships that allows for additional improved cooperation between partnering entities. (i.e. Burlingame now provides HR services for Hillsborough as a result of the merger of the fire departments.) 7. In urban areas with many smaller cities it builds the relationships for more effective regional and sub-regional decision-making. Pushing Against Shared Services 1. Resistance to change - The single greatest element working against shared services is the element of change. From the council down to the line employees, change is usually very difficult. So, all up and down the line, resistance will typically be strong about "how change will be bad for me,"but is usually expressed as "bad for the community". As is so often the case, the resistance is based on fear of the unknown. 2. Employee Impacts -The second reason why shared services can be hard to move forward is the propensity to allow ourselves as decision makers to be unduly influenced by the short term impacts, thus preventing us from achieving the long term benefits. As human beings when an employee, who has done a good job for a number of years says "this change will mean I may never get the promotion I worked so hard to be competitive for"or"this change may mean I won't be able to get the assignment, the shift, or the vacation slot that I so desperately want,"it tends to get more importance than it should if we keep our eye on driving the decision based on the long term perspective. 3. Department Head Impact - Makes the department heads job more difficult trying to balance between two or more City Managers, department head teams, city councils etc. 4. Organizational Culture Conflicts - Can result in management philosophy or organizational culture conflicts, which come from a lack of one clear vision or decision maker(City Manager). 5. Personality Conflicts - Can be seriously undermined or impacted by personalities of city managers and/or Council members. (For example, what is happening in South County Fire) 6. Prior Allegiances -The governing bodies and the top management staff might have their allegiances predetermined. This can set up a built in competition to make sure "my" city gets the better deal. Fundamental Question A fundamental question around shared services in San Mateo County for policy makers is whether the trade offs required for running twenty different cities/towns is worth the inefficiencies of duplicating the overhead and"systems" associated with that structure. In San Mateo County there are twenty different cities/towns all of which have their own governing bodies, management staff, computer systems, staff development programs, labor relations etc. It is estimated that we spend between $25,000,000 to $30,000,000 on City Managers and Department Heads to run the public services for the 650,000 residents of San Mateo County. Reducing the number of cities to 10 would save between $10,000,000 and $15,000,000 annually just in the cost of duplication at the top levels of city management. Those figures become much greater when your consider the savings associated with elimination of duplication at the service delivery level, i.e. the elimination of just one Engine Company saves about $1.4 million annually. On the other hand, if bigger is more efficient than why not just have one city like San Francisco,which has a population of about 700,000. A recent study under taken at the request of the San Mateo County City Managers Association indicated that one usually sees significant savings when you jointly operate services for communities with a combined population of 100,000 population but once you start moving much beyond a population of 300,000, there may well be an inverse relationship between size and costs. A major element in the discussion of joint operation of public services is the ability to have "control/influence" over those services. Neighborhoods in large cities with populations the size of our smaller San Mateo County towns feel it is difficult to have much influence when it comes to decisions at City Hall. Therefore one needs to be sensitive to the right balance between efficiencies associated with jointly operated services and the ability to provide enough comfort for the residents to feel that they have control/influence over the provision of those services. Long Term vs. Near Term One may advocate for the Multi-city municipal services partnership approach as the option that provides more local control while still achieving many of the advantages of shared services because: a. It allows the financial, public policy, and strategic benefits of shared services without the need to give up our individual City identities, b. Although you have other partners with whom you share control, you still have significant control because you are one of 3 or 4 partners vs. 10 to 20. c. It provides jointly managed operational functions but continues land use and planning decisions fully under the control of each city. However, as per the outcome of the City Managers retreat (indented below), one has to first lay the groundwork by implementing shared services on a smaller scale. "After extensive discussion and consideration the managers group has agreed that a fruitful way to move forward on shared services is to look for opportunities to jointly operate services below the department level. Examples of that could include a police investigations or traffic enforcement units, dispatch centers, street and stop light maintenance, and accounts payable, receivable." Our recommendation to move forward on a jointly operated Recreation Division is very consistent with the conclusion and recommendation of our County City Managers Association. Obviously the financial benefits are not huge and on that basis alone, many would conclude shared recreation services do not save enough. However, when you start to extrapolate those savings out, as envisioned under the Multi-city municipal services partnership approach, it is not hard to see that even from just the financial perspective alone we could expect savings in the two million dollar range. When you add in the benefits relative to the strategic issues discussed above, it is an operational model that merits serious consideration. Closing Thought: Whatever approach we take to providing public services in San Mateo County, there will be some trade-offs. The issue for public leaders is to make a conscious choice about the most appropriate approach based on its associated ramifications. In doing so, it may be helpful to ask ourselves where would transportation, library services, or fire services be if elected and appointed leadership didn't have the foresight to create SamTrans or PLS, and agree to fire boundary drops. EXHIBITS: 1. Exhibit A- An overview of the pros and cons of the different basic approaches to shared services. 2. Exhibit B - identifies the various interests that come into play when discussing shared services. 3. Exhibit C - Examples of other opportunities for shared services Overview of Pros and Cons of Shared Services O tions Exhibit A Options Pros Cons Other Observations/" Possible Unintended Consequences Functional o Eliminates some duplication of o Starts to reduce ability to o Increases amount of time spent Consolidation/ Management and Supervisory determine service level and by managers in coordinating staff costs /oversight for services shared Shared Operations o Allow for some economy of o Loss of an identity and with other cities (initially only) (Jointly operate a service scale savings relationship to city wide o Reduces clarity of being part of or sub-service without o Reduces some redundancy of team "one organization" (employees formally merging or administrative analysis and o Reduces ability to create a see themselves as working for combining. I.E. agree to effort(i.e. Weapons of mass uniform organizational different subsets of what is now joint police investigations destruction, Report writing, culture one dept.) unit or sharing Bat. Chiefs purchasing) o Savings are not large o Develops relationships that were for fire incidents.) o Allows for;some better sub o Uncertain administration not present before regional redeployment of o Reduces Council's influence o Get better ideas by mixing resources based on varying in individual cities people from other organizations demand o Allows for,specialized expertise o Less stressful on employees and labor as it a"Lego building block"approach o Problems/solutions not restricted to city borders o Promotes regional approaches o Incrementally enhances collaboration o Less political heat o Uniformity o Professional development— enhances variety of assignments Overview of Pros and Cons of Shared Services Options Single Service o Eliminates duplication of o Reduced ability to determine o Creates a single service .JPA/District Management and Supervisory service level and costs governance structure that staff o Loss of an identity and competes with broader focused o Allow economy of scale savings. relationship to city wide cities for money o Reduces redundancy of team o Could cross the size threshold in administrative analysis and o Creates a dynamic that terms of manageability. effort(i.e. Weapons of mass pushes a higher average of o Interrelationships governed by destruction,Report writing, countywide employee salary majority rule purchasing) and benefits. o Service level disagreements o Better regional redeployment of o Single focused district o Public information management resources based on varying governance structure and o Services less accountable to demand CEO citizens o Allows for specialized expertise o Less varied work o Hard to disassemble and change opportunities/assignments. o Even/uneven governance- o Greatly reduces city's ability collaboration/compromise? to set spending priorities o Creates additional government unit o Organizational politics influences success o bleed to clearly delineate service level o Loss of p2litical control Overview of Pros and Cons of Shared Services Options Contract for o Could reduce cost associated o Requires staff and expertise o Could potentially make decision with higher benefited public to over see contract with"low ball"contract amount service employees. compliance. and cost could significantly grow o Could allow economy of scale o Reduces ability to respond to over time. savings. unanticipated needs or o Lose expertise, o Could allow for spreading changes in priorities. (An equipment/infrastructure to administrative costs over a larger alternative perspective is recommence service in the future base. more accountability/ability to o May be unable to get out of direct resources may exist.) contract if extends over a long o Would have strong labor period of time. resistance. o Legislation may restrict(State o Need to manage complexity limit opportunities for of multiple MOU's contracting out services). o May have political o Need to ensure everyone on the opposition/perception that it same page as to common goal wouldn't work for why proceeding with shared services County wide o Eliminates some duplication of o Reduced ability to determine o Could cross the size threshold in Management and Supervisory service level and costs terms of manageability. staff o Loss of an identity and o Overly burdens county elected o Allow for some economy of relationship to city wide leaders with sub regional issues scale savings. team o Decreases access to elected o Reduces some redundancy of o Creates a dynamic that officials. administrative analysis and pushes a higher average of o May need to compromise local effort(i.e. Weapons of mass countywide employee salary standards (e.g., what calls to destruction,Report writing, and benefits. respond to, frequency of service) purchasing) o Less varied work o May have different perceptions o Allows for some better sub opportunities/assignments. of quality needed of regional redeployment of o Greatly reduces city's ability services/technology (e.g., state resources based on varying to set spending priorities. of the art technology, minimum demand. needed to provide service, etc.) o Allows for specialized expertise Overview of Pros and Cons of Shared Services Options Multi-City o Eliminates duplication of o Some reduction in individual o Reduction of political diversity municipal services Management and Supervisory city's ability to determine o Diminish political power(one staff service level and costs vote vs. various meetings) partnerships o Allow economy of scale savings. o Less varied work (Where 2 to E cities jointly o Reduces redundancy of opportunities/assignments. operate all or most public administrative analysis and o Some reduction in individual services.) effort(i.e. Weapons of mass city's ability to set spending destruction,Report writing, priorities. purchasing) o How do you handle different o Better regional redeployment of policy positions(e.g. speed resources based on varying bumps). demand. o Politically complexity o Allows for specialized expertise. o Spread management talent o Allows for identity and too thin. relationship to multi citywide team. o Allows for continued broadly focused governance structure and CEO o Still allows for labor market that is below the mega city level . Stand Alone City o Sole discretion to determine o Requires duplication of o Tends to re-enforce parochialism service level and costs Management and and undermines regionally o Clear identity and relationship to Supervisory staff responsiveness. city wide team o Does not allow economy of o Provides an array of cities to use scale savings. as market to compare employee o Redundancy of salary and benefits and reduces Administrative analysis and potential demand to be compared effort(i.e. Weapons of mass to large Metro cities. destruction, Report writing, o One broadly focused governance purchasing) structure and CEO o Less regional redeployment o More varied work opportunities of resources based on assignments due to "jack of all varying demand. trades"environment. o Smaller cities often are unable to justify/afford specialized expertise Exhibit B Critical Interests Around Shared Services Service consolidation efforts will be successful in direct proportion to the degree to which they address interests of critical concerns of community leaders. Service consolidation efforts need to be scoped and shaped with these interests in mind. From the point of view of professional city managers, the major interests to be considered in consideration of service sharing opportunities are: 1. Maintaining the appropriate degree of control. While this does not require direct exercise of service delivery, having responsibility for management requires appropriate management authority. 2. Delivering real cost savings or documented productivity gains. None of the cities can afford to spend the very limited resources that are available for process reengineering on efforts that will not significantly improve the bottom line. 3. Is it politically achievable? As with the issue of cost savings, cities cannot afford to initiate service-sharing efforts that will not be politically viable. On the other hand all political risk cannot be avoided. Managers have a duty to educate elected officials and the public that service integration may be a way to preserve our ability to deliver quality public services, and maintain the existing quality of life. 4. The system must be manageable. Systems must be designed to be scalable and flexible. Likewise care must be taken to avoid the creation of service delivery monopolies. There must always be credible service delivery options or efficiencies tend to disappear. Level of Responsiveness of Most Fruitful Options to Top Five Interests Top Five Incremental/ JPA Multi-City Private Corp. Interests Functional Partner Determine Service Levels Mid Varies Mid-High Mid-High and Priorities The more cities involved the lower the ability Cost Efficiency Low Varies High Very High Access to Skills/Tech High High High High Political Achievability Very High Med. Low Low—Very Low Manageability High Low High Low (ST) High(LT) - ST= Short Term LT= Long Term Exhibit C OTHER OPPORTUNITIES FOR SHARED SERVICES • IT and Software (expertise hard to afford and keep) ■ Every city is spending time researching, designing and implementing systems. o Why do we need all 20 cities in the County designing training programs for a new software system that they are implementing? • Human Resources (expertise hard to afford and keep) • Streets and sidewalk • Sewer calls on evenings and weekends (rather than pay time and half have a crew working the swing shift.) • Parks and Recreation—do all cities need to have aquatic, arts, and athletics managers. • Public Works ■ Project managers ■ Traffic engineers (traffic doesn't stop at the city borders) ■ Traffic light electricians. • Police ■ Traffic Sergeants. ■ Different Investigation units. When there is a significant crime occurs we tap each other resources, why just then. Because of the 4-10 work schedules many cities have their least experienced officers in the detective bureau. Why not allow those most interested in detective work be assigned to an ongoing unit that can justify specialized training in things like cyber crimes. TRAFFIC,SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes-Unapproved Thursday,August 11,2005 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 5 of 5 Commissioners present. 4. CURRENT BUSINESS 4.1 ACTION ITEMS 4.1.1 Minutes for July 14,2005. Approved. Motion:To accept the minutes. M/S/C:Cohen,Conway;5/0/0 4.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS 4.2.1 City Hall Lane-Objection to the installation of one loading zone and one metered parking on the west end of City Hall Lane. Commissioner Conway excused himself from this discussion due to potential conflict of interest. Traffic Engineer Chou provided an overhead transparency displaying the location in question. He explained that this item was an appeal of the installation of two parking spaces behind Cosby Commons, on City Hall Lane. He further explained that the proposed installation of two new designated spaces was one method for the City to be more consistent regarding parking regulations on City Hall Lane. Mr. Chou went on to say that one of the concerns the Mr. Salma has is over the use of an easement area which was agreed upon long ago The City o/Budingame Page 2 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, August 11, 2005 between the City and property owners. He pointed out that the current overhead display showed City Hall Lane at approximately 20' wide. This was from the face of the curb on the south side almost to the building face. He said that the easement was a 3-foot section extending south directly behind the building at the west end, and increased to 5.39 feet at the eastern end of the property as City Hall Lane curved. So, the 17-foot middle section of City Hall Lane (which was actually the City's right-of-way) plus the 3-foot easement made up the entire 20-foot roadway of City Hall Lane. Mr. Chou explained that an old agreement between the City and property owners along City Hall Lane allowed the City to use of that 3- to 5- foot section as part of City Hall Lane. Mr. Chou then displayed a second exhibit showing the placement of the proposed two new parking spaces. He said that these new spaces would be fairly consistent with what was now along the rest of the lane. Mr. Riyad Salma spoke to the Commission and indicated that he appreciated the suggestion of the loading zone for his tenants, but was concerned that it did not address his problem in large part because (1) there was still a question of enforcement of the loading zone since not all his tenants used commercial vehicles, (2) a commercial loading zone would be available to all businesses in the area, making the accessibility of the space to his tenants less guaranteed. Mr. Salma said that he would like to find a compromise with the City. For clarification purposes, Mr. Chou informed the Commission that a parking lane was typically from 6-8 feet and a travel lane was 10-14 feet. Commissioner Conway stated that he concurred with the City Attorney's interpretation of the agreements. He said that there were many businesses in Burlingame that used loading zones farther away, and that Crosby Commons would have a loading zone right behind the building. He added that this seemed to be a fair and equitable solution not just to Crosby Commons, but also to some of the businesses down City Hall Lane and Primrose Road. Mr. Salma reiterated that the distinction about this situation was that the area was a combination of both private and public property. He also felt that a public loading zone of 6-8 feet was not a functional space for loading. Commissioner Cohen was concerned that the current parking situation was unique in terms of enforcement, and presented an unfair situation to the The City o/Burlingame 3 Page TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION _ Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, August 11, 2005 other businesses in Burlingame. He said that there might be other areas in the City where businesses would expect the same treatment. Commissioner Cohen stated that he was comfortable with the proposed compromise of two new parking spaces, and believed the loading zone would be efficient and convenient in accommodating the tenants' loading needs. He added that regarding the agreement and legal issue, he concurred with the City Attorney's determination. Commissioner James stated that he supported the staff recommendation if the parking, health and safety issues regarding this matter were addressed. Mr. Salma stated that he believed the City's action to install one loading zone and one 10-hour parking space would create an unenforceable loading zone problem, and that the public parking space would quickly become unavailable. He offered the idea of making one public space and one private space. He said that the proposed loading zone could be marked as a private parking space instead. Mr. Chou stated that the City would have to enter into an whole new agreement regarding land-swaps in order to make this happen. He did not recommend such action. Motion: To make this an action item. M/S/C: Conway, Cohen; 4/0/1 (Commissioner Condon abstained) Motion: To concur with staff and deny the requested appeal; and, to proceed with the installation of one parking space and one loading zone on City Hall Lane, behind Crosby Commons. M/S/C: Conway, Cohen; 4/0/1 (Commissioner Condon abstained) 4.2.2 Cowan Road/Mahler Road/Gilbreth Road - Height, overnight parking, and limited-time parking restrictions. Traffic Engineer Chou informed the Commission that at this time, staff was not making a recommendation regarding this matter. He explained that due to the impending consolidation of the Adrian Road Sky Chefs office to the offices at Cowan Road, there would be an additional demand for parking around the Cowan area. He added that the Adrian Road facility The City of Budingame Page 4 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, August 11, 2005 was anticipated to close by the beginning of September; and, that all those employees would be moving over to the Cowan Road facility. Mr. Chou also stated that this would mean an additional 150 employees over a three- work shift period. He suggested that the sub-committee, established at the last Commission meeting, work to look at the parking impacts of the entire area as opposed to dealing with the individual streets such as Mahler Road, Gilbreth, and Cowan on a separate basis. Mr Chou also explained that Gilbreth Road currently had a 4-hour parking limit and overnight parking restrictions. He said that the issue before the Commission now was what to do with the other side streets in conjunction with Mr. Al Lovatti's past problems on Mahler, and consolidation of the Sky Chefs facility at Cowan. Vice-chair Condon and Commissioner James suggested considering the extension of the 4-hour parking limit on Gilbreth to Mahler and Cowan to prevent overnight parking. Mr. Chou expressed a concern that the City not penalize those businesses with large trucks for legally parking since the area was a commercial/industrial zone. But, he also cautioned that the City should not create a situation to encourage abuse by removing or changing certain existing restrictions. The sub-committee (Condon and James) felt that keeping customers in mind was a first priority. Also, there is a concern that people are dropping off their cars and leaving it there for days on end. If a four hour time limit is installed, the reality is that there will be 5-6 hour soft time. The height restriction, the sub-committee felt was OK in a commercial area on the East/West streets, keeping everything at four hours unless this raises a problem at which time they could raise the height limit on the East/West streets so the trucks can go there. Mary Donnelly, of Sky Chefs spoke and informed the Commission that with a bad economy, the company had decided to combine both of their operations to the larger Cowan Road facility. She commented that the existing parking restrictions on Gilbreth could push vehicles to Mitten and Cowan to park for more than four hours. She added that large trucks took up 3-4 spaces on Cowan, and that there were no marked-off parking spaces so that people were not parking properly and the excess space was wasted. Ms. Donnelly also said that Gilbreth Road had very few cars parking there now; and, that their employees (who punch a time clock for lunch) need their 30 minutes of rest, sit and eat their lunch before they go back to work. She said that it was not feasible for them to take their short lunches, then move their cars another 100 feet down the road. Ms. The City o/Burlingame 5 Page TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, August 11, 2005 Donnelly stated that Sky Chefs has looked into renting parking spaces from a neighboring business, but that they were asking for $200 a space, per month. She said that this was not feasible for the company, so she was asking the Commission consider make Gilbreth Road at least 8-hour parking. Chair Warden asked Ms. Donnelly if Dollar Rent-a-Car was willing to provide space to Sky Chefs. She said they were not. Chair Warden then said that he believed it was possible to do something on Gilbreth for the long term, with restrictions of overnight commercial parking. Commissioner Cohen asked for clarification of the problem. Mr. Chou explained that there were two issues to this matter. One was to try to create a uniform, comprehensive parking plan in the area, and the other was to figure out how to deal with increased parking needs for customers or employees of future businesses on the side streets. Vice-chair Condon suggested notifying the entire neighborhood about a public meeting to discuss a plan and scope out a thought process. He said that the Commission should deal with this issue over the next two meetings and not call a special meeting. Commissioner Cohen suggested taking notes of the different kinds of business in the area. Commissioner James indicated that he did take an inventory of the business, but suggested that the City give all parties involved notice of upcoming meetings. Vice-chair Condon stated that over the last year, the Commission had dealt with several issues pertaining to this area, and that the Commission should notify the area of what it wanted to implement at this point. Commissioner Cohen was concerned of the varying needs of the businesses. Chair Warden suggested contacting a few businesses on Cowan to schedule a meeting during the day with the hope of getting a better response than if a meeting was scheduled in the evening. Ms. Donnelly offered the use of Sky Chefs's conference room for this meeting. Commissioner Conway asked for clarification of Sky Chefs's relocation schedule. Ms. Donnelly stated that September 1 would be the completion date of Sky Chefs's move. She also stated that their employees had already experienced parking problems, especially between 2 PM and 5 PM on Mitten and Cowan. She added that some of their employees worked two jobs in order to maintain their livelihood; and, that they barely had enough time to leave one job to get to another. In essence, if they had to The City of Burlingame Page 6 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, August 11, 2005 park three streets over and walk, it would really put stress on them. Ms. Donnelly stated that she was passionate about her employee's parking situation and would come to any meetings regarding this subject. Chair Warden requested Ms. Donnelly's business contact information so the sub-committee members and staff could contact her and coordinate a mailing in reference to setting up a meeting in September, prior to bringing this item back to the Commission next month. 4.2.3 California Drive and Howard Avenue - 24-Minute parking and No Parking zone. Traffic Engineer Chou explained that the City received a request from Mr. Rino Betti, at 297 California for a 24-minute green zone on Howard, in front of his business. Mr. Chou said that there was a concern about turning vehicles at the corner of Howard and California Drive. He also stated that there already were three 24-minute metered parking spaces around the corner on Highland Avenue. He concluded by saying that staff did not recommend considering a new 24-minute zone around the corner from three existing spaces until the business had more time to establish itself. Commissioner Conway stated that he agreed with staffs recommendation and also stated that this business was not far from Lot M, or the on-street parking on Highland and Howard Avenues. Commissioner Cohen said that based on his observations of the area, he believed that there was usually parking available on California Drive. However, he also stated that he was concerned about the California side of Sam's Sandwiches and that there was no red, green, yellow, or white zones along that curb. He said that he has seen people park there next to the curb, which appeared to be a dangerous situation. Chair Warden informed the Commission that he and Traffic Engineer Chou visited the site around 1:15 PM, and there was indeed three green zones on Highland. He added that two were available, with adequate parking across the street on California Drive and several spaces on Highland that were also available. He stated that he did not support any changes, but would like to agendize for next month the curb situation on the California Drive side. Mr. Chou explained that staff was already proceeding with the installation of red curbing there since the street width, if parking were officially allowed, would be substandard. The City of Burlingame 7 Page TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, August 11, 2005 Motion: To accept staff recommendation. M/S/C: James, Conway; 5/0/0 4.2.4 Cadillac Way - One-way street designation and/or parking space realignment Traffic Engineer Chou presented a overhead of the area in question. He also informed the Commission that staff recommended referring this item back to Public Works - Engineering. He added that based on calculations and drawings, there would actually be a loss of between five and thirteen spaces if diagonal parking was implemented on Cadillac Way. This was because in order to accommodate diagonal parking and maintain two-way traffic, parking could only be installed on one side of the street. Chair Warden stated that he talked to Mr. Jim Hanney, of Rector Motors, and that Mr. Hanney agreed that losing those spaces would not be in his best interest. Mr. Chou explained that this is a courtesy item on the Commission agenda because Mr. Hanney's original request to Public Works was also copied to the Commission and the Council. No action was required by the Commission since it was being handled by staff on a staff level. 4.2.5 Edgehill Road and Chula Vista Avenue - Stop sign request. Traffic Engineer Chou explained that a full warrant study was not yet completed, but that no accidents were recorded for the past 12 months. He explained that the actual problem could be due to speeding vehicles. He said that this would be continued for next month when a full warrant study would be ready. 4.2.6 Broadway - Double-yellow centerline installation Chair Warden said that he felt this method worked well on Burlingame Avenue, and thought it might also work well on Broadway. Traffic Sergeant Shepley stated that the double-yellow line actually did not prohibit U-turns, but just prohibited driving on the left side of the roadway. He cautioned that for Broadway, this might add to the existing backup situation there. Sgt. Shepley also explained that there were currently two City ordinances prohibiting U-turns on Broadway. One was the prohibition The City o/Budingame Page 8 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, August 11, 2005 of U-turns in either of the City's two downtown districts, and the other was the prohibition of reversing directions in order to access a parking space in the downtown districts. Motion: To move this to a action item. M/S/C: Warden, Conway; 5/0/0 Motion: To deny double-yellow center line on Broadway, between California Drive and El Camino Real M/S/C: Warden, Conway; 5/0/0 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS 5.1 None. 6. FROM THE FLOOR 6.1 None. 7. INFORMATION ITEMS 7.1 Bicycle Safety Issues in Burlingame None. 7.2 From Council to Commission/Staff 7.2.1 Burlingame Downtown Parking Study Review Traffic Engineer Chou reviewed with the Commission a list of specific actions and recommendations developed by the Downtown Parking Study sub-committee. He explained that the list of recommendations came out of the approval of general actions by Council at their June 8, 2005, Study Session meeting. The City o/Burlingame Page 9 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, August 11, 2005 Vice-chair Condon added that the DBID had a program to install parking banners throughout the Burlingame Downtown district from Chapin Avenue to Howard Avenue, and from EI Camino Real to California Drive. Motion: To make this an action item. M/S/C: Condon, Conway; 5/0/0 Motion: To accept the specific actions and recommendations, and to forward the Commission's recommendations to Council. M/S/C: James, Condon; 5/0/0 7.2.2 Joint Council/Commission Meeting: October 13, 2005 at 6 PM Traffic Engineer Chou announced that there would be a joint Council/Commission meeting on October 13, 2005. He encouraged the Commissioners to individually draft up some topics for discussion by the next Commission meeting so that they could have them on the agenda for the Joint meeting. He also encourage all the Commissioners to attend that meeting because it was an opportunity to review with Council what the Commission has done, what the Commission has planned, and what the Commission would like to see for the future. 7.3 From Staff to Commission 7.3.1 Traffic Engineer's Report Traffic Engineer Chou reported that the annual street resurfacing/paving program was completed. He also reported that staff was going ahead with the three TDA grant projects (bikeways signs, countdown pedestrian signals, and lighted crosswalk). He concluded that late fall might be about the completion date for two of these projects. 7.3.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report Traffic Sergeant Shepley reported that the parking enforcement staff had been reduced; and, that the projected citation revenue goals might not be met this year. He added that general traffic complaints have picked up. The City o/Burlingame Page 10 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, August 11, 2005 Sgt. Shepley also reported that two DUI checkpoints would be conducted in August - of which, one was being administered by the Daly City Police Department under an OTS grant. The second checkpoint operation would be run by Sgt. Downs and Sgt. Shepley for Burlingame. He also said that grants for a pedestrian crosswalk sting operation have been submitted for California and Bellevue crosswalk. A sting operation for street racing operation was also planned, but would be delayed pending the adoption of the proposed street racing ordinance. 7.4 From Commission to Staff 7.4.1 Reports of citizen complaints or requests. None. 7.5 Comments and communications None. 7.6 Next meeting: September 8, 2005 There were no anticipated absences from either staff or the Commissioners. 8. INACTIVE ITEMS 8.1 Easton Drive - Eucalyptus tree at Easton and Cabrillo Traffic Engineer Chou reported that he was expecting to conduct traffic counts in September and have this item ready for discussion in October. 8.2 Occidental Avenue - 6-month temporary re-installation of 2-hr parking restrictions Traffic Engineer Chou reported that this item would be placed on the agenda for discussion in September since the 6-month period would be over by then. Commissioner Cohen stated that the first block of Occidental Avenue near the church by Bellevue did not appear to have the 2-hour parking signs, and that this was created a long term parking problem. The City of Burlingame Page 11 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, August 11, 2005 Mr. Chou also reported that Mr. Joe McVeigh had relayed concerns about not having the 2-hour signs on this block (300 block, west side of Occidental). 8.3 Trousdale Drive and Quesada Way (Franklin School) - Crosswalk enhancements Traffic Engineer Chou reported that he was expecting to conduct traffic counts in September after school was in session, and he would have this item ready for discussion in October. 8.4 Howard Avenue and Crescent Avenue -4-way stop signs Traffic Engineer Chou reported that Pershing Park was still under construction and that he was expecting to conduct pedestrian counts after the park re-opened. He added that he was anticipating to have this item ready for discussion in October if the park was ready by then. 8.5 Gilbreth Road - Vehicle racing activity Chair Warden reported that a draft ordinance written, but changes were expected. 9. AGENDIZED ITEMS FOR NEXT MEETING • Joint Council/Commission Meeting Items (Discussion Item) 9.1 Items Requiring Staff Reports • Cowan/Gilbreth/Mahler Road - Parking restrictions (Discussion Item) • Edgehill Road/Chula Vista Avenue - Stop signs (Discussion Item) 10. ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 9:55 PM. The City o/Burlingame Page 12 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION September 1, 2005 Chairperson McQuaide called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission to order at 5 :32 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson McQuaide, Commissioners Carney, Grandcolas, and Lauder Absent: Commissioners O'Connor and Webb Staff: Parks Superintendent Richmond and Secretary Harvey MINUTES The minutes of the August 4, 2005 Beautification Commission meeting were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE • City of Belmont Recommended Guidelines for Resolution of View Disputes. • Existing Ordinance Feature to be Considered . . . regarding consideration of a Bay View Policy. • Commission email list. • Eight points of consideration regarding the Commission's decision to recommend a view policy, rather than an ordinance. • First draft of Recommended Guidelines for Resolution of Bay View Disputes. FROM THE FLOOR - There were no comments from the floor. OLD BUSINESS - Tree View Policy - Commissioner Grandcolas stated he had used the Belmont View Policy as a guideline in developing the draft for the Burlingame Bay View policy. Commissioner Grandcolas stated that he included language appropriate to the City of Burlingame with regard to existing tree ordinances, and changed language that referred to "views" in general, to speak only to "bay" views. He also tried to capture all the elements of the "8 key points" that the Commission had discussed at previous meetings. Electronic copies of the draft policy will be made available for the Commission's review and revisions. The Commission will discuss the Commission's progress on the view policy with the Council at the joint meeting, and will then proceed pending further guidance and direction from the City Council. Long Range Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive — Committee Status Report — Commissioner Lauder reported that the committee had met, and had researched several different species that might be appropriate for replacement of the Eucalyptus trees on Easton Drive. The Committee focused their attention on two plans: One plan that would include the replanting with Eucalyptus species, such as the Silver Dollar, Nicolii, and Meladora Eucalyptus varieties. And, one plan that would include the replanting of Evergreen Species such as Camphor, Magnolia ' Soulangeana', Scarlet Oak, Brisbane Box, Fir and Pine. Chairperson McQuaide added that the Committee chose species that were wind hearty and had substantial canopies. Commissioner Lauder stated that the Committee also suggested that a public forum be conducted to give the Easton Drive residents an opportunity to make comments and suggestions. Commissioner Grandcolas suggested that as the Committee further develops their recommendation that they also consider replanting with several different species in order avoid loosing a stand of the same species of trees to disease or pestilence. 1 NEW BUSINESS– Joint City Council and Beautification Commission Meeting– September 6, 2005– The Commission discussed the upcoming Joint meeting with the City Council. Chairperson McQuaide and Commissioner Webb will be unable to attend. Among other items, the Commission will discuss the "view" policy and the long-range reforestation plan with the Council, seeking further direction before proceeding. REPORTS - Superintendent's Report 1. Timberline Tree Service began contract work for the fiscal year. They are working on the eastside of Skyline Blvd north of Rivera. They are also grinding stumps for fall tree planting. The schedule this year calls for work on Skyline from Margarita to Trousdale and work on Easton Drive. The Easton work will be coordinated with the current Sewer Main Replacement Project there. 2. City Tree Crew completed work on this year's designated grid section. The crew is currently working on Service Requests and tree removals at various locations. 3. Tree planting will occur in September. 4. Coastal Cleanup day is Saturday, September 17. 5. Black Oak planted west of WP horseshoe pits in honor of donor's new baby. 6. Invasive Spartina control project this month and next in creek mouths on the Bayfront. This is a non-native estuary/tidal plant that is in the process of choking out native Spartina. It can't be controlled by mechanical removal, so a chemical control will be used. It was used successfully in Washington State in a similar situation—in very low volumes. Lauder – Reported that she attended the Commissioner's Training Workshop and found the information to be very helpful and stated that the workshop was excellent. Carney– Stated that the repaving on Rollins Road has been a great improvement. There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 6:35 pm. Respectfully submitted, aAwvr C�t" Karlene Harvey Recording Secretary 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA September 12, 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the September 12,2005,regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:10 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi, Keighran Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell. III. MINUTES The minutes of the August 22, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. In recognition of 300 Burlingame elementary school children singing the national anthem accompanied by the Burlingame Intermediate School band at Burlingame Night at the Giants,the commission paused to salute the flag and listen to the National anthem on the radio as broadcast from SBC Park in San Francisco. V. FROM THE FLOOR Kathy Smith, 1811 Davis Drive reported on a meeting neighbors held with representatives of the Mills Peninsula Hospital reconstruction team, Carole Groom and Oren Reinbolt, six families at the western end of the block adjacent to the hospital site,participated. Neighbors concerns were that this is going to be a long noisy and dusty construction process,neighbors would like their homes power washed during construction to control dust, feel that there is not enough funding in the mitigation fund to cover impacts on them caused by demolition of the existing hospital 9 years from now;would like to reopen mitigation to increase the money over time. Project representatives have said they would talk with neighbors only one on one by family,would like to know more about the construction phasing;they identified a number of attractive nuisances: relocate the dumpster away from the shared property line, use of the alley, and cover all trucks loaded with dirt whether required by law or not. Conclusion of meeting was to ask to: expand the funding, update the noise study,provide better property protection,keep truck routes away from the houses,and provide more exits onto Marco Polo from the site. Chris Foley, 1504 Davis Drive, also updating on the hospital reconstruction from the neighbors east of the alley. Conversations have been limited to landscaping discussion, no provision has been made for noise in the mitigation plan,would like to reopen to address noise issues;clear for her site EIR clear that new building will eliminate open sky view, this cannot be mitigated, but could mitigate impacts of construction noise and noise of City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 cooling towers after construction, also noise from use of oxygen tank area, concerned that noise is an on going problem and asking for mitigation early —� on, would like to open up later as well. Ask the Commission to put the mitigation plan on the agenda and discuss again. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Drive, 1400 block of Balboa impacted from new development/remodels; recent project did not include true divided light windows because they were not specified on the plans, no one asked the developer to include "dual pane vinyl clad" is not true divided; would like true divided light windows to be a condition on each plan so not slip by. Have a project on 1400 block which has a sump pump which runs regularly during the dry season, concerned about it drawing water away from established trees and vegetation, each project should be required to have a soils analysis to determine the height of the water table and impact of sump pumping. Each project should have an arborist report which evaluates and sets out protection measures for existing street trees. In addition to requiring that the developer replace the curb, gutter and sidewalk,they should replace the apron of the street and fill any pot holes on the street. All the new roof lines are going to the maximum height and then the commission grants exceptions for taller buildings where the height is a part of the architecture, ceiling heights should be reduced in steep pitched roof designs or the first floor lowered below grade, so no building exceeds the height limit. Concerned about the number of bathrooms and the increase in sewage this represents, and the capacity of the sewer system, and the increase in run off from the big roofs. Carole Groom,representing Mills-Peninsula Health Services,also reporting update,understand the concerns of the neighbors,met with them to look for solutions. Had two neighborhood meetings: on August 3, noticed 300 households, 15 people attended; on August 31 (people on the west end of Davis Drive),4 people attended. Unable to give a definitive time line at this time, will mail when have and are setting up a new web site for neighbors which we will keep current; for condition 118 the mitigation panel, have 2 neighbors willing to serve and a representative of the shopping center, will submit names to city and hope that city will appoint Burlingame representative; for condition 119 mitigation plan, of 20 neighbors on Davis Drive have met with 3, have talked on the phone with 3, 2 have asked for appointments, 1 has asked for reimbursement;on landscaping have met with one neighbor, have also met individually and collectively. Commissioner noted don't know if the fund is enough,how do you address with neighbors? Trying to explain how limitations are built into the project, hours of construction limited,no pile driving was allowed,cooling towers limited in mitigation not to exceed current noise level based on testing and measurement need to mitigate if do exceed current. So standards built into project will address many of these issues. There were no further comments form the floor. 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 VI. STUDY ITEMS i. 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; MAAK & SULLIVAN, ARCHITECT)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Commissioner Brownrigg recused himself from consideration of the project,due to his involvement,and left the chambers. CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: plan shows drainage on roof being taken to a dry well,could Public Works please address? Concerned with three skylights proposed;at night light could flood onto neighbors property; number of skylights should be reduced and all skylights should be tinted;three skylights are drawn,two are shown,please clarify. This item was set for the consent calendar,with all appropriate changes suggested,when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:32 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. 2D. 1205 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (GEORGE R. COREY, APPLICANT; ARNIE GAPESIN, A&T DESIGN GROUP, DESIGNER; LENCI FARKAS,PROPERTY OWNER)(56 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 2E. 1783 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-1, C-3 AND UNCLASSIFIED (PENINSULA HOSPITAL PROPERTY) — VESTING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION AND MAP EXTENSION(MILLS PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) (104 RADIUS &97 COMMUNITY NOTICES MAILED) (PROJECT ENGINEER DOUG BELL) Commission asked staff on the hospital issue map included,if dividing off the back property on Marco Polo was separate from this action? Yes. Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue,asked that Item 2a,379 Lexington Way,Item 2b,317 Occidental Avenue and Item 2c, 1213 Cabrillo Avenue be moved to the regular action calendar. C. Deal noted that he lives within 500 feet of 1205 Broadway so he would recuse himself from that vote. Chair Auran moved for a voice vote on Items 2d and 2e on the consent calendar noting that each project is based on the facts in the staff reports,findings in the staff reports,commissioner's comments,recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The project at 1205 Broadway passed on a 4-0-1-2(C.Deal abstaining;Cers.Cauchi and Keighran absent)voice vote. The project at 1783 El Camino Real passed on a 5-0-2(Cers.Cauchi&Keighran absent)voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2A. 379 LEXINGTON WAY, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION(CHRISTOPHER MAFFEI,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;HERMANN DIEDERICH, ARCHITECT) (63 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated September 12, 2005, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff from the Commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Hermann Diederich, architect and Chris Maffei, applicant and property owner represented the project and had no comments. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue;project has five bathrooms; wants condition 7 to include a sewer and sanitary analysis; wants an arborist report for protection measures for the street tree and for any neighboring landscaping so that it can be protected. Commission brought to attention of speaker that comments made were concerning 317 Occidental Avenue, not 379 Lexington Way;speaker recognized confusion and had no further comments. There were no further comments, the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 31, 2005, sheets Al through A4 and Landscape Plan sheet Ll, date stamped August 31, 2005 and survey date stamped July 14, 2005 and; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit;2)that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors,which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3)that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in the project,the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;4)that prior to final inspection,Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined,where possible,to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 6, 2005 memo, the NPDES Coordinator's July 7, 2005 memo, the City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's July 11, 2005 memos, and the Recycling Specialist's July 13, 2005 memo shall be met; 8)that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;and 10)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2(Cmrs. Cauchi &Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 2B. 317 OCCIDENTAL AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (GARY PARTEE, PROPERTY OWNER, AND JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER) (50 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report September 12,2005,with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff: if the sewer lateral is designed to city standards and if it would accommodate the number of bathrooms proposed? Yes. Does condition to repair construction damages to curb, gutter and sidewalk areas include repairs to the street, such as pot holes? Not generally,but it could include street repairs if they are directly related to that particular construction activity. Does all storm water drain to the street? Yes,it is a standard requirement for all storm water to be drained to the street. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Gary Partee, property owner, represented the project but had no comments. Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue, request that an arborist report be provided that protects the existing street tree with specific mitigation measures. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission commented: are there NPDES conditions that include tree protection measures?Do not want to see Burlingame lose any street trees. Staff suggested having the City Arborist note when he does his plan check if the tree is in danger and then he could create a condition to require orange netting to protect the tree. Commission suggests City Arborist take a look at the tree at this location and place a condition of approval that orange netting be installed around the tree if needed. C.Osterling moved,with direction to the City Arborist to investigate and require protection of the street tree if necessary,to approve the application,by resolution,with the following conditions: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 7,2005,sheets A.1 through A.6,and sheet L1.0, site plan, floor plans,building elevations,landscape plan and site survey; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;and that the City Arborist shall review the existing street tree in front of the property and have the property owner install proper tree protection measures as needed; 2)that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subject to design review;3)that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect,engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; 5)that all air ducts,plumbing vents,and flues shall be combined,where possible,to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;7)that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 8)that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2005 surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 9) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence,the applicant shall use all applicable"best management --� practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 10) that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 11) that the conditions of the City Engineer,Recycling Specialist,Chief Building Official, and Fire Marshal's July 8, 2005 memos shall be met; 12)that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 13) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;and 14)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the direction to the City Arborist to check the street tree and require protection if necessary. The motion passed on a 5-0-2(Cmrs.Cauchi&Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 2C. 1213 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE(CHU DESIGN&ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JAN BALDWIN, PROPERTY OWNER) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report September 12,2005,with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. James Chu,Applicant and designer,represented the project but had no comments. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue,would like to see an arborist report to protect the street tree; wants to refer to neighbor's letter concerning speck houses,this house will be short-changing the neighbors because no changes were made to the original plans. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission commented: follow same advice on arborist report as last project, add same condition concerning tree protection measures;just because more bathrooms does not indicate a greater usage;Census shows families in single family homes are smaller in size now. C. Deal moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following conditions: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 23,2005, sheets A.1 through A.6, and sheet L1.0, site plan, floor plans,building elevations, landscape plan and site survey;and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that the City Arborist shall review the existing street tree in front of the property and have the property owner install proper tree protection measures as needed 2) that protection measures shall be incorporated to protect the existing rhododendron along the left side property line,and shall be inspected by the City Arborist, prior to commencing demolition or construction on the subject property; 3) that an}- changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch,shall 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 be subject to design review;4)that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect,engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; 6)that all air ducts,plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined,where possible,to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;7)that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 8)that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 9) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 10) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 11) that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 12)that the conditions of the City Engineer,Recycling Specialist, Chief Building Official, and Fire Marshal's July 8, 2005 memos shall be met; 13) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 14) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 15)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code,2001 edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Commissioners noted that although they welcome input at public hearing and comment portions of meetings, there is a difference in the consent calendar where projects are in good shape and already have been reviewed in detail and discussed by the Commission in a public meeting verses the action calendar. The study calendar is the best time to provide input on a single-family project. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2(Cers.Cauchi and Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 3. 1141 BERNAL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION AND A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (REMY SUBRANT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; YOUNG AND BORLIK,ARCHITECT) (58 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report September 12,2005,with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Remy Sijbrant, applicant and property owner, represented the project but had no comments. Commission commented:changes have done a lot to improve the design;only �. a four bedroom house,do not need to have a 2 car garage,could have a larger backyard;sheet A3.1 shows a structure on the ground? Applicant responded there is a wall there on the left side. Wall not shown on landscape plan; plans are greatly improved. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following conditions: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 1, 2005 sheets A0.1 through A5.1 and ME2.1,ME2.2,site plan,floor plans,building elevations,landscape plan (on site plan) and mechanical and electrical plan; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement,first or second floors,or garage,which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Chief Building Official,NPDES Coordinator and Fire Marshal's memos dated June 23,2005 shall be met; 4)that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide to the Building Department certification of that height documenting that it is the same or less than the maximum height shown on the plans; 5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect,engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and --� Building plans; 7) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 8)that all air ducts,plumbing vents,and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street;and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued;and 9)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: the staff report should confirm that the location of the wall is to be shown on all appropriate elevations of the plans. It's nice to have bigger back yards,but it's also nice to have two-car garages,however often garages are used for storage. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2(Cers.Cauchi and Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:08 p.m. 4. 21 BANCROFT ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION(MICHAEL AND RACHEL ZYGAREWICZ, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS; DAVID G. POLLARD, DESIGNER) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report September 12,2005,with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Michael Zygarewicz, applicant and property, and David Pollard, designer,represented the project but had no comments. Commission commented: improvement since last time;worried with some of the detail;will be matching traditional stucco mold window trim details? Yes. Will the windows be wood? Yes. All such details should be called out on the drawings as a condition of approval; would add another tree towards the steps on the left side of the yard to give some height and screening,recommend using any tree off the City Street Tree List;is there thickness to the wood on the true divided light windows you are using? Applicant responded yes,the mullions are three dimensional on both sides of the windows. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 15, 2005, 12 sheets total, site plan, floor plan, building elevations, landscape plan (on site plan) and window detail sheets, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that all windows shall be wooden simulated true divided light windows with three dimensional wood mullions; and that a new landscape tree from the city approved tree list shall be added in the front yard towards the left side to mitigate the height and bulk of the structure;2)that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement,first or second floors,or garage,which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect,engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5)that all air ducts,plumbing vents,and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6)that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7)that the conditions of the Chief Building Official,Recycling Specialist,City Engineer,Fire Marshall and NPDES Coordinator's memos dated May 5,2005,memos shall be met; 8)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,2001 Edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame;and 9)that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,shall require a demolition permit;and 10)that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance.The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the added conditions. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cmrs. Cauchi &Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 5. 1512-1516 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE,ZONED R-3-APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,CONDOMINIUM PERMIT,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT,SPECIAL -� PERMIT FOR FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING, TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NEW, FOUR-STORY, 9-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM(DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;THORENFELDT CONSTRUCTION, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (142 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN(RESUBMITTAL OFA PROJECT WHICH WAS DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE) A. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,CONDOMINIUM PERMIT,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT B. TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT MERGER AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP Reference staff report September 12, 2005,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. She focused on the revisions made since the Commission's last review and denial without prejudice. Forty conditions including the mitigations from the mitigated negative declaration were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff from the commissioners. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, Dale Mayer Associates, 851 Burlway Road and Micheal Callin, landscape architect, presented the project noting that they increased the size of the affordable unit,provided data comparing this project with the project on Primrose,reduced the deck area on the forth floor and added low pitched roofs with tile between the third and forth floors and pushed back the front fagade of the forth floor back 6 to7 feet,added wood fagade at the third floor to articulate the front of "1 the building,redesigned the open space providing an interior access from the building and added benches,a BBQ and sink, and added fences between the private patios and the common open space. Commissioners asked: will the building be a flat white?Color client wanted is consistent with architectural style. Open space even with what added does not seem to be a place one wants to go, access to the open space at the rear is through the patio of one of the first floor units? Added fencing between private units which face open space, seating provided in the most sheltered area, least visible to other units. There is a fundamental flaw in the location and access to the open space,it is off the master bedrooms of the adjacent units, access is through a fire stair/exit,would be better if it had a more gracious access,there is a problem with the landscaping? The open space area provided is larger than required, more available than in other projects recently approved,it is handled almost exactly as it is in the Primrose project not recall Commission having a problem with bedrooms off the open space in that project,put BBQ and sink to the left since there will be less impact on the units at that location,if commission wants could have use hours for the open space in the CC and R's, can add pots and plantings if commission wants. People's habits vary so use times probably not effective, this open space seems to be left over after the foot print of the building was established and other site needs met. Does the treatment of the stair to the garage at the corner,meet full height and is it water tight? The stair at the rear has a half wall with a gate by it for safety. Where will the utility connections be? To the left of the driveway into the garage on the front of the building. Commission summarized issues: • building color,this is a large building and there are a lot of colors beside white which fit the -� architectural style; • access to the open space at the rear, used the fire exit, opening through the private open space of unit 5, with a bench facing unit 5, could break up space and offer a meandering 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 experience moving from one area to another,may provide more open space than required but not quality open space,move BBQ and use area to more central location closer to access, make it less rectal-linear, increase interest; • Landscaping to reduce scale is an issue,can you plant vines on the stucco walls,if separate with stucco walls use solid wooden gates on the patios,lot of Italian Cyprus in time begin to look shaggy,use vines instead,could grow up building and soften,deciduous vines OK too, add pattern and fall color; • The open space should get some direct sun,the landscape pretty shady,can increase number of shade loving plants; • could make open space more useable by reducing the size of one unit at the northwest corner (opposite BBQ),relocate garage access stair to other corner and create a place for common use rather than use leftover space; • The aesthetics were very nice,the change to the front works well,the wooden balconies are too deep, could reduce weight by reducing to 5 feet deep,on the rear elevation the vertical piece at the exit stair could be coordinated with the columns; and • open space and impact on adjacent units needs to be addressed, need to improve common area. There were no further comments at the public hearing. The public hearing was closed. C. Osterling noted that the architect has come a long way; Planning Commission's direction is clear from hearing, able to make changes, so move to continue the item to the meeting of October 10, 2005, for the architect to make changes and resubmit. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. �.. Comment on the motion: don't know what direction the applicant got, lot of experience living in tall buildings in cities, common open space which is narrow and shady is not used, need sun; he meets the technical open space requirement but the area is not useable, if it were moved to the corner it would feel more friendly and be more functional. Assume that we are not trying to make the building appreciably smaller,not using open space to make it smaller. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the meeting of October 10,2005. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent) voice vote. A continuance is not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 6. 1101 BURLINGAME AVENUE,ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A-APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO THE EXTERIOR COLOR OF THE BUILDING(RIYAD SALMA,APPLICANT; SFL PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (29 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Vistica noted that he had a previous business relationship with the applicant; he recused himself from consideration of the project and left the chambers. Commissioner Deal clarified that he can vote on the application because this is an amendment to a previously approved project and is a separate application. Reference staff report September 12, 2004,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments.Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission questioned why condition number 13 is so definitive;shouldn't applicant have other options after use is changed? Staff 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 responded that there is a city ordinance that states once a restaurant along Burlingame Avenue has given up its right as a restaurant and is converted to another use, it cannot go back to a food establishment. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Riyad Salma, applicant, represented the project. He stated that previously there was not a lot of thought given to the color of the building but that he's now met with color consultants and feels that the new proposal is a major improvement to the aesthetics of the building. Commission asked: plans say there's no change to the tile, however colors are indicated? When will restaurant open? Applicant responded that the colors indicated on the plans are for the doors and the window frames;they are maintaining the existing tile. The restaurant will open as soon as possible. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built with an operable steel sash window system and tile base, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 2, 2005, sheets Al.1, A2.2, A2.2 and A3.2, and shall adhere to the color sample of the exterior materials of the building date stamped August 9, 2005; any changes to the colors including the awnings shall require review by the Planning Commission; 2)that the existing tile base along the bottom edge of the building, including on the concrete wall on the California Drive facade, shall be retained, repaired and restored as much as possible; new tile shall be chosen to match the existing tile; 3)that this conditional use permit amendment for a full service food establishment shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission six months after the opening date of the business to review any traffic and parking issues which may emerge from this use; 4)that the applicant shall submit to the Planning Department a baseline parking study within six months of the effective date of the conditional use permit; within six months of the opening date of the food establishment business on the site, the applicant shall submit a second parking study for review by the Planning Commission. The permit shall be reviewed and the applicant required to proposed mitigations if there is a substantial degradation in the availability and use of parking in the area attributable to a food establishment business at this site or at any time upon complaint; 5)that any changes to the size or envelope of building,which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 6)that this business location occupied by a full service food establishment,with 1,187 SF of on-site seating may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of a conditional use permit for the establishment change; the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 7) that the 1,187 SF area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; ,8)that this full service food establishment may be open Sunday through Thursday, from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m., and on Friday and Saturday from 6 a.m. to 2 a.m., with a maximum of 12 full-time employees and 3 part-time employees on site at any one time, including the business owner and manager; 9)that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 10)that the applicant shall provide daily litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty(50) feet of all frontages of the business, including the parking lot to the rear of the site; and that the business shall provide on site a trash room designed and sized to accommodate all garbage,trash and recycling from the business as required by the City and BFI; all trash/garbage shall be removed on a schedule established with the Health Department; 11)that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 12)that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10'of the property line; 13)that if this site is changed from any food establishment use 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2005 to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 14) that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's June 28, 2004,memos shall be met; and 15)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-2-1 (Cers.Cauchi and Keighran absent,Vistica abstained). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. C. Vistica took his seat on the dias. 7. BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: ANZA POINT NORTH ZONING DISTRICT —CITY PLANNER:MARGARET MONROE(40 NOTICED)(CONTINUED FROMA UGUST22,2005 MEETING) Reference staff report September 12,2005,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report noting that this item was continued from the previous meeting at the request of the representative of the property at 301/309 Airport,because of the wish to discuss issues relating to height,minimum lot size,minimum street frontage and land use(allowing medical clinics/health service uses) Only one change was proposed from the previous meeting and that was to shift extended stay hotels from a permitted to a conditional use. Commissioners asked that there has been a lot of concern about wind,observe fewer wind surfers in this area today than two years ago, there are other locations in the county to serve wind surfers,might it be wise to increase the limit for height covered by a conditional use permit. CP noted that the wind standards which are driving the height regulations as proposed for this area are established in the adopted plan,community wind standard section;if they are substantially exceeded the specific plan will need to be amended and that could trigger a new environmental document on the specific plan. Wasn't the part of the 16 acre site on Beach Road subdivided off in the past?CP noted that was her understanding,however all the acreage is still in one ownership. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, and Jim Madden and Tom Gilman DES Architecture represented the property at 301/309 Airport Blvd.;Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue;John Ward,representing the property owners at 350 Airport Blvd.;Tom Baluchi, 114 Stanley Road;all spoke on the zoning proposal. Owner at 309 Airport wants a development of signature buildings on this site that will cause people in airplanes and on 101 to want to come and see what's there, need good mix of buildings, biotech and hotel,market is competitive for these uses in this area today, regulations should say"come to Burlingame to invest",not much city can do now but maximize flexibility for development,50 feet too short, barely 4 stories for Class A office building, minimum 4 acre lot size too big, never seen so large a requirement in this area-sending a message that cannot optimally divide. Did studies of various lot sizes and arrangements within 309 Airport parcel,need to sell off buildings individually so need smaller parcels,need enough flexibility for economic success;biotech buildings have 17'floor to floor,Class A office tight with 12.5' floor to floor; biotech also requires 15 foot penthouse for equipment which can cover 30%to 85%of the roof area and at grade service areas for gases and other storage of 2,500 to 3,000 SF for each building, there are covered loading areas and enclosures for trash recycling needed. So want building height and lot size kept flexible--only way to meet master plan goals. Other communities have minimum lots sizes of 20,000 SF with 100 foot frontages, in order to finance developers have to be able to sell buildings independently,the market in this area is not for 100,000 SF buildings but for 30,000 SF, so need to be able to do for economics. Commissioner asked how FAR's worked, Architect noted that smaller the site the harder to maximize FAR allowed because of other requirements such as parking and open space. Generally 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 2 to 3 story buildings have FAR of 0.4 with parking at grade. What is the ideal footprint for biotech? Generally 25,000 SF to 30,000 SF per floor,labs need more space,research and development fits in 25,000 SF. How tall is Gilliard, is it typical? One and two stories, and yes its typical, although Genintech is 5 stories of mixed use. Developer is proposing 3 and 4 stories in order to keep people in the same building; west coast has taken longer to get people into taller buildings. Commissioner noted that 16 acres provides a campus opportunity with many small users. Owner wants option to subdivide later for multiple users. Additional public comment:remember at workshop Buddhist group want to buy 301 Airport and put a hotel on it, seems like someone tore down the drive-in too soon; wind surfing is a seasonal sport and dependent upon winds strongest in the Spring and in October,three places to do sport in San Mateo county,County put in Seal Point Park for wind surfers but behind a hill and no wind,this site attracts development,benefit from open water,support recreation activities on the bay;not sure want a deadly virus in Burlingame;do not want taller buildings,am a bicyclist, affected by wind as well;remember that the runway extension closer to our shores will happen one day as well, this could affect building height; like 4 acre parcels, keep from subdividing so it will not look like the Beach and Lang Road area,part of taller buildings could be put under ground, medical uses are not allowed in this area now, does biotech open the door to medical uses? Represent the 9 acre parcel at 350 Airport,may remember during public hearing on plan owner asked City Council to consider"time share" ownership; innovative approach to continue strong growth in hospitality industry,something like extended stay hotel,does not give rise to residential uses average stay is 1-2 weeks; no plan presently for development on this site,would like to include time share with CUP for extended stay. Resident recalled public hearing in 1960's and 1970's which called out a vision for the area similar to South San Francisco, was concerned that the commission did not realize what opportunity the city has on the Bayfront,there are plenty of places for the wind surfers to go, eventually the runways are going to be built, have a gold mine at this location, allow developers to do what they want.There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: compelling issues,need to think more about minimum size and time share; CA noted that City Council directed staff to look at time share,were waiting for input property owner said was going to provide, there is no definition or status of ownership known at this time, Council specifically deferred action at the time of adopting the plan. Height issue is that the specific plan has been adopted, standard was based on specific site studies and on careful technical analysis by most qualified wind people in area,from this came the community wind standard,if change is needed,will need to amend the specific plan (and general plan)and open the current plan document to further environmental analysis. Would like to give the property owners some leeway over the 50 foot maximum.CA like a maximum number,without have to do an EIR because of cumulative impact(e.g. effect of wind on water and at grade on adjacent properties), these wind studies are very expensive,the purpose of the plan standard is to avoid these costly studies and define what will work. Can revise height over 50 feet that requires a conditional use permit? CA noted could go to 20 feet maximum and stay within range. Height is based on community standards where did stories come from? CP noted that the number of stores was put in the design guidelines to illustrate how the gradient in height caused by the wind standard was to work for development on the site. If wanted to illustrate height gradient in another way in the plan beside stories that would require a general plan amendment. Commission noted taking out the stories restriction might be one less restriction. Also need to look at minimum lot size,4 acres seems to reduce flexibility,could a Planned Unit Development concept be used?CA noted that the city does not have a Planned Unit Development ordinance,CP noted that have done similar in the past(301 Airport office project example)with a phased development plan at approval,actually -� gives a longer time frame than a PUD. With PUD the city would have no control over how or what size parcels would be sold off,but could have more uniform development. Subcommittee focused on a narrower line of thinking,options within the height,work with the developer,focus on the issues raised. Difficult to 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2005 ask developer because he will always want a bigger building,more FAR. Should refer back to subcommittee for one review;need to appoint third member of subcommittee. Subcommittee might also consider PUD and its use; need to refer to subcommittee. C. Vistica moved to continue this item and to refer it back to the subcommittee for further review of the items raised at this hearing. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent). voice vote. Chair Auran appointed C.Vistica to the Bayfront Subcommittee. This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:30 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 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 110 STANLEY ROAD, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE(CESAR LOZADA,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RUDOLFO PADA, DESIGNER) (75 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Cesar Lozada, applicant and property owner; Rudolfo Pada, designer;Tom Bellucci, 114 Stanley Road;Phil Saglimbeni, 109 Stanley Road. The applicant and designer had no comments. Existing house has been rented for twenty years, any change would be a significant improvement;would like to see something that fits in well with the other houses in the neighborhood;would like adequate screening to be provided in front of the house;would like a roof treatment other then asphalt shingle. Commission commented:because this is a new house,a condition should be added that requires all windows to be simulated true divided light windows;tree shown at right front of the property is more shrub-like then an actual tree, should refer to City Street Tree List to find larger tree that will provide more height and screening;what style is this house?Designer followed style of house directly across the street to match the neighborhood. Poor example to follow in the neighborhood because no overhangs,no exposed rafters,porch does not integrate well into the front fagade,project should include these details;design is ok,not exciting, but not bad;front entry piece could use some detail;more detail needed on window types,wood trim,stucco mold and double glaze; should update asphalt shingle to a different shingle with more shadow lines and a -� heavier texture such as the Presidential 50 Year Residential Series. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission commented:the City Arborist should take a look at protection of the street tree out in front and should look at a new, better defined landscape plan. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked: • All windows shall be wooden true divided light; • Tree T-1 shall be replaced with larger trees selected from the City Approved Tree List; • Add exposed eaves and rafter tails; • Incorporate the front porch into the front of the building better; • Provide more defined asphalt shingles with more shadow lines and a heavier texture; and • Provide a better defined landscape plan including addressing protection of the street tree during construction. Comment on motion: project is ok; not fitting in but not that far out. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. 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 (Cmrs. Cauchi & Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded atl 1:05 p.m. 16 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 10. 1718 ESCALANTE WAY, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(DAVID LUNG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; PAUL NII,PAUL NII ARCHITECTS,ARCHITECT) (37NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. David Lung, applicant and property owner, and Paul Nii, Architect, represented the project stating that copies of the plans were delivered to all the neighbors. Commission commented: the massing is good; appropriate job of placing things; detail on window over garage and eaves makes it not fit in with the neighborhood and do not match; stone veneer is not integrated into the fagade at all;front porch looks like two big stone monuments with front door in between;concern at entry door crowding new first floor addition at front;could entry door be centered in that space? Windows on second story could be coordinated and balanced with relocated entry door;shutter on one side on second story needs to be coordinated. The architect responded that the two-dimensional elevations are misleading with regards to the front door entry. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission noted the following items to be addressed: • project is almost there,just needs eave detail and window on second floor above garage to be consistent; • front entry situation should be re-worked and be made wider with door centered to avoid a cave situation; ~" • stone work needs to be re-thought; • remove the half circle windows; • could gable one of two windows to the right on second story; and • story poles are important in the hillside area and should be installed, they are not a big undertaking because of a potential view blockage for neighbors across the street. C.Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:20 p.m. 11. 1427 CHAPIN AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA B—ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING AND DESIGN REVIEW STUDY FOR AN APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY OFFICE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING(FRED BERTETTA, OLYMPIAN JV, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; FARRO ESSALAT, ARCHITECT) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS CP Monroe presented the project noting that because the scope of the environmental document includes the envelop of the project,staff has brought this item forward for commercial design review and environmental scoping. Procedurally,if the design requires adjustment after study the commission can identify the design issues and determine the process for resolution so that the changes can be included in the environmental evaluation to avoid having to do the environmental study twice. Commission asked if this building is 17 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2005 eligible for the state historical registry, and if it is are there additional design criteria which must be addressed? CP noted that part of the historical evaluation for the environmental document would be to —� determine if the building was eligible for the state registry,if it was determined to be eligible,then there are criteria,including physical design criteria,which will need to be met as a part of the environmental review. The best approach seems to be to come back to the Planning Commission when we know the status of the building and discuss what needs to be done; hopefully whatever changes might be required can be incorporated into the project before the environmental document is completed. Chair Auran opened the public comment for design review and environmental scoping. Mark Hudak,216 Park Road;Farro Essalat,architect;Bonnie Bertetta,property owner,spoke for the project. Objective of the project is to preserve the brick building, all other buildings on the site will be removed including the more recent addition at the rear of the brick building; project presents some challenges: brick building needs seismic retrofit and ADA accessibility;need to determine the best relationship between the old and the new placement on the site; how to get the parking on the site without it becoming a detriment. Before could do any project needed to get clearance from Council about access through public parking lot B-1 adjacent, Council directed in order to increase city's flexibility in future options for lot B-1,that the project include a 12 foot setback on the west side for a driveway if needed in the future. If the driveway were on site it would reduce the parking at the rear from 15 to 14 parking spaces, still within code requirements. The applicant will landscape the 12 foot side setback area. Environmental review issues: don't know how city arrived at current parking demand numbers and impact of qualifying as a 150645 historic building on project design. Architect noted that reviewed 6 or 7 options and this is the optimal solution in terms of scale, use of materials, land , relationship to old brick buildings, situation relative to the sidewalk; intention of new to create a back drop to the existing brick building,a"quiet"building not vie for attention;materials influenced by those in brick building,but more contemporary which'mimic'historic not diminish value. Front setback --� is new,designed to provide visual access on three sides of old building; ADA access provided by shallow ramp in courtyard,combined entrance at center of site. Property owner noted want to build a nice building will be happy to post renderings on the site. Commission commented about the project noting the following issues should be addressed in the design: • at front see tie to original building,but at back the connection to the original is lost completely,need to find a way to connect, hip roof element or some other component to bring together; • thank you for keeping this building,basic concept of seeing three sides is good; • lot of hard surface on the east side at the parking lot, is there a way to add landscaping or trees to help the experience of someone going to the building; • space at the front of the building (lawn area) is not consistent with the development pattern in the area,is there a better way to do this,to hold the street better?;the elm tree should be kept,maybe the brick wall as well; • concerned about the height, could the parapet be lower, the two story glass broken up, the trellis relates well to the horizontal line on the brick building; • concerned about the lighting at the rear;like to see a landscaping plan including trees planted along the parking, there is one Redwood there, could add three there; • parking spaces at the rear could be landscaped,extend landscaping in fingers into the parking,also add landscaping to parking lot B-1; • selection of the actual brick for the new building is very important should be full brick,not veneer, and should be presented to the planning commission; • if keep front lawn should be creative with taller shrubs, training vines on the side of the new building to soften the right side; 18 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 • make awning overhang deeper at rear to create more shadow pattern, take awning to right side on upper floor to break up the side elevation; on west side landscape 12 foot area; • concerned about the rear of the building, see a glimpse of the garden center structure, the rear is lacking need columns like the front,add dentals, add concrete features,horizontal stripes of clinker bricks; • landscaping should be part of visual analysis; and • at the rear stairwell/window and lighting under bench at front should be part of lighting impact analysis for the environmental study. C. Brownrigg noted that staff report includes the right issues,there is a significant aesthetic issue with this project including those identified in tonight's discussion,suggest that the renderings be posted on the site at the front for passers by to see in the near term; don't know about historic status at this time, need to have analysis and determine what criteria will apply;not need to refer to a design reviewer at this time,will come back when have more information from the environmental study about any historical criteria which will need to be met and then will determine what more needs to be done to the design in addition to what has been identified tonight. Motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to include the appropriate comments made tonight in the scoping for the project and to defer referral or additional comment on the design until more information is available on the historic status of the existing building and any additional criteria from that which must be met and might affect the design. The motion was passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent) voice vote. This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 12:15 a.m. �. X. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of September 6, 2005. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of September 6,2005. She noted that the zoning ordinances for the Anza Area,Anza Point South, and Trousdale West have been set by the Council for second reading and public hearing on September 19,2005. The amendment to allow real estate uses on Broadway was also set for second reading and public hearing on September 19,2005. FYI—Review of requested changes to an approved design review project at 270 Chapin Lane. C. Deal abstained from action on this application and left the chambers. Planning Commission approved the proposed change to this project. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 12:30 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary SA IINUTESUNinutes Template.doc 19 CITY OF BURLINGAME BUILDING INSPECTION MONTHLY PERMIT ACTIVITY AUGUST, 2005 F.Y. 2005 F.Y. 2004 SAME MONTH THIS YEAR LAST YEAH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF TO DATE TO DATE DIFF Permit type # Valuation # Valuation % # Valuation # Valuation % New Single Family 4 $1, 517 , 000 3 $1, 028 , 688 47 . 5 6 $2 , 427, 000 5 $1, 798 , 688 34 . 9 New Multi-Family 0 $0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 0 $0 . 0 New Commercial 0 $0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 0 $0 . 0 Alterations-Res 37 $2 , 069, 977 32 $1, 929, 050 7 . 3 76 $3 , 767 , 495 57 $3 , 193 , 100 18 . 0 Alterations-NonRes 10 $966 , 200 8 $245, 625 293 .4 14 $1, 107, 200 16 $2 , 920 , 732 62 . 1- Demolition 0 $0 4 $1, 500 100 . 0- 4 $20, 000 6 $1 , 500 233 . 3 Swimming Pool 0 $0 0 $0 . 0 1 $33 , 000 0 $0 . 0 Sign Permits 3 $15, 537 5 $7, 082 119 .4 8 $25 , 037 9 $13 , 432 86 .4 Fences 0 $0 0 $0 . 0 0 $0 0 $0 . 0 Reroofing 25 $316 , 001 34 $390 , 659 19 . 1- 46 $609, 258 74 $1, 029, 403 40 . 8- Repairs 2 $19, 500 3 $24 , 800 21 . 4- 7 $41, 550 6 $79, 800 47 . 9- Window Repl 1 $1, 627 9 $79, 056 97 . 9- 6 $82 , 171 19 $180, 691 54 . 5- Miscellaneous 3 $36, 900 2 $3 , 660 908 .2 7 $201 , 317 5 $31 , 430 540 . 5 TOTALS . . . . . . 85 $4, 942, 742 100 $3 , 710, 120 33 . 2 175 $8 , 314 , 028 197 $9 , 248 , 776 10 . 1- a Ini /ns 7 . 04 . OR CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary August 31 , 2005 Par Market Book % of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. LAIF & County Pool 20,380,702.93 20,380,702.93 20,380,702.93 69.37 1 1 3.108 3.151 Federal Agency issues- Coupon 9,000,000.00 8,910,830.00 9,000,000.00 30.63 933 457 2.914 2.954 29,380,702.93 29,291,532.93 29,380,702.93 100.00% 287 141 3.048 3.091 Investments Total Earnings August 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 77,329.75 158,015.50 Average Daily Balance 29,654,896.48 30,481,458.08 Effective Rate of Return 3.07% 3.05% Pursuant to State law, there are sufficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure requirements for the coming 6 months. Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types, and avail ity of some of these fu s is restricted by law (e.g. Gas Tax, Trust & Agency funds, Capital Projects, and Enterprise funds). os SUS NAV FINANCE DIR./TREASURER Reporting period 08/01/2005-08/31/2005 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date: 09/13/2005 -09:36 PM (PRF_PM1) SymRept 6.41.202a Report Ver. 5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments August 31, 2005 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Date LAIF&County Pool SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD, 5,697,632.19 5,697,632.19 5,697,632.19 3.179 3.179 1 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 14,683,070.74 14,683,070.74 14,683,070.74 3.140 Aaa 3.140 1 Subtotal and Average 20,654,896.48 20,380,702.93 20,380,702.93 20,380,702.93 3.151 1 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 3133X9QV5 517 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/22/2004 1,000,000.00 990,630.00 1,000,000.00 3.500 Aaa 3.500 659 06/22/2007 3133XARN9 518 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/08/2005 1,000,000.00 994,380.00 1,000,000.00 3.390 Aaa 3.390 372 09/08/2006 3128X7605 513 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 11/17/2003 2,000,000.00 1,993,120.00 2,000,000.00 2.300 Aaa 2.300 77 11/17/2005 3128X2NA9 514 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 01/30/2004 3,000,000.00 2,952,690.00 3,000,000.00 3.000 Aaa 3.000 516 01/30/2007 3136F5TJ0 515 FANNIE MAE 04/27/2004 1,000,000.00 985,630.00 1,000,000.00 3.100 Aaa 3.100 603 04/27/2007 3136F6FZ7 516 FANNIE MAE 10/18/2004 1,000,000.00 994,380.00 1,000,000.00 3.000 Aaa 3.000 777 10/18/2007 Subtotal and Average 9,000,000.00 9,000,000.00 8,910,830.00 9,000,000.00 2.954 457 Total and Average 29,654,896.48 29,380,702.93 29,291,532.93 29,380,702.93 3.091 141 Portfolio CITY Run Date:09/13/2005-09:36 CP PM(PRF_PM2)SynnRept 6.41.202a )ort Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 3 Activity By Type August 1, 2005 through August 31, 2005 Beginning Stated Transaction Purchases Redemptions Ending CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Rate Date or Deposits or Withdrawals Balance LAIF&County Pool (Monthly Summary) SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 3.179 0.00 1,500,000.00 Subtotal 21,880,702.93 0.00 1,500,000.00 20,380,702.93 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon Subtotal 9,000,000.00 9,000,000.00 Total 30,880,702.93 0.00 1,500,000.00 29,380,702.93 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:09/13/2005•09:36 PM(PRF PM3)SymRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 4 Activity Summary August 2004 through August 2005 Yield to Maturity Managed Number Number Month Number of Total 360 365 Pool of Investments of Investments Average Average End Year Securities Invested Equivalent Equivalent Rate Purchased Redeemed Term Days to Maturity August 2004 5 31,242,288.45 2.603 2.639 2.605 0 0 188 145 September 2004 5 25,250,564.07 2.625 2.662 2.624 0 0 232 172 October 2004 6 28,964,592.72 2.629 2.666 2.618 1 0 240 181 November 2004 6 25,300,063.99 2.661 2.698 2.653 0 0 275 198 December 2004 7 30,433,082.99 2.695 2.732 2.673 1 0 259 188 January 2005 7 30,025,165.46 2.659 2.696 2.622 0 0 262 182 February 2005 7 30,076,952.25 2.728 2.766 2.717 0 0 262 174 March 2005 8 27,632,224.41 2.824 2.863 2.819 1 0 305 199 April 2005 8 28,872,808.56 2.864 2.903 2.880 0 0 292 181 May 2005 8 31,478,082.19 2.976 3.018 3.043 0 0 268 158 June 2005 8 31,826,904.29 3.006 3.048 3.085 0 0 265 147 July 2005 8 30,880,702.93 3.045 3.087 3.141 0 0 273 143 August 2005 8 29,380,702.93 3.048 3.091 3.151 0 0 287 141 Average 7 29,335,702.71 2.797% 2.836% 2.818 0 0 262 170 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:09/13/2005-09:36 PM(PRF PM4)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 1 ) � CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 5 Distribution of Investments By Type August 2004 through August 2005 August September October November December January February March April May June July August Average Security Type 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 by Period LAIF&County Pool 80.8 76.2 75.8 72.3 73.7 73.4 73.4 67.4 68.8 71.4 71.7 70.9 69.4 72.7% Certificates of Deposit-Bank Certificates of Deposit-S&L Certificates of Deposit-Thrift&Ln Negotiable CD's-Bank CORP NOTES Bankers Acceptances Commercial Paper-Interest Bearing Commercial Paper-Discount Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 19.2 23.8 24.2 27.7 26.3 26.6 26.6 32.6 31.2 28.6 28.3 29.1 30.6 27.3% Federal Agency Issues-Discount Treasury Securities-Coupon Treasury Securities-Discount Miscellaneous Securities-Coupon Miscellaneous Securities-Discount Non Interest Bearing Investments Mortgage Backed Securities Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 2 Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 3 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:09/13/2005-09:36 PM(PRF_PM5)SymRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 6 Interest Earnings Summary August 31, 2005 August 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date CD/Coupon/Discount Investments: Interest Collected 0.00 45,000.00 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 65,799.16 65,799.16 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 43,640.83) ( 66,482.49) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 22,158.33 44,316.67 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Periods 22,158.33 44,316.67 Pass Through Securities: Interest Collected 0.00 0.00 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 0.00 0.00 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 0.00 0.00 Adjusted by Premiums and Discounts 0.00 0.00 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Periods 0.00 0.00 Cash/Checking Accounts: Interest Collected 0.00 161,555.89 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 376,786.18 376,786.18 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 321,614.76) ( 424,643.24) Interest Earned during Period 55,171.42 113,698.83 Total Interest Earned during Period 77,329.75 158,015.50 Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Total Earnings during Period 77,329.75 158,015.50 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:09/13/2005-09:36 PM(PRF_PM6)SyrnRept 6.41.202aa Report Ver.5.00 04BD Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary August 31, 2005 Par Market Book %of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Managed Pool Accounts 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 100.00 1 1 3.135 3.179 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 100.00% 1 1 3.135 3.179 Investments Total Earnings August 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 289.33 13,711.57 Average Daily Balance 110,386.11 2,718,352.46 Effective Rate of Return 3.09% 2.97% L,;i* Jes Nava, Fi ance Dir./Treasurer Reporting period 08/01/2005-08/31/2005 Portfolio 04BD CP Run Date:09/13/2005-09:37 PM(PRF_PM1)SyrnRepl 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 04BD Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments August 31, 2005 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts SYS85 85 Local Agency Investment Fund 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 3.179 3.179 1 Subtotal and Average 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 3.179 1 Total and Average 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 110,386.11 3.179 1 Portfolio 04BD Run Date:09/13/2005-09:37 CP PM(PRF_PM2)SymRept 6.41.202a Ort Ver.5.00 J J City of Burlingame Water and Waste Revenue Bonds,Series 2004 Portfolio Summary--August 2005 €.,.€, `Y € c€ zl. .,� "a` v °i,,: „,•>°S 9 333.. .t �f, ,K'. ...m' a" ' n 105, s*a lJuraottr IfsUtortld Commercial Paper 2,000,000,00 1,978,435.56 1,977,780.10 15.625% 3.676% 3.765% 0.284 Federal Agy Bond/Note 3,800,000.00 3,783,734.79 3,785,125.00 29.903% 3.987% 3.931% 0.866 Federal Agy Discount Note 7,000,000.00 6,898,243.07 6,895,095.49 54.472% 3.656% 3.761% 0.384 Total Securities 12,800,000.00 12,660,413.42 12,658,000.59 100.000% 3.758% 3.812% 0.513 CAMP Pool 1,508,463.53 1,508,463.53 1,508,463.53 Total Investments 14,308,463.53 14,168,876.95 14,166,464.12 100.000% Accrued Interest 17,376.39 17,376.39 Total Portfolio 14,308,463.53 14,186,253.34 14,183,840.51 Disclosure Statement: PFM's monthly statement is intended to detail our investment advisory activity. The custodian bank maintains the control of assets and executes(i.e.settles)all investment transactions. The custodian statement is the official record of security and cash holdings and transactions. Only the client has the authority to withdraw funds from or deposit funds to the custodian and to direct the movement of securities. Clients retain responsibility for their internal accounting policies,implementing and enforcing internal controls and generating ledger entries or otherwise recording transactions. PFM recognizes that our clients may use these reports to facilitate record keeping,therefore the custodian bank statement and the PFM statement should be reconciled and differences resolved. PFM's market prices are derived from closing bid prices as of the last business day of the month as supplied by F.T.Interactive Data,Bloomberg or Telerate. Prices that fall between data points are interpolated. Non-negotiable FDIC insured bank certificates of deposit are priced at par. Page I PFM Asset Management,LLC City of Burlingame Water and Waste Revenue Bonds, Series 2004 Portfolio Transactions--August 2005 d 1�,: R r r' : a� .�' i i�:.�,,. = ..,r.._ ,,... ^ I m� ,;,^f2 .�.P`•::,r . .m . �.�. .�'.",+Yh d+'viMd3,1,� 1.$,�iV�M 1 �'kv �'� x�� �I:•� �a 8/15/2005 Interest Payment-FHLB Global Notes(mat. 8/15/06) 25,875.00 505,542.83 13,661,985.64 8/15/2005 Maturity-FHLB Discount Note,yield 3.19% 1,000,000.00 1,505,542.83 12,661,985.64 8/31/2005 CAMP Pool Dividend 2,920.70 1,508,463.53 8/31/2005 Individual Portfolio Amortization and Accrual Value Adjustment 15,804.17 12,677,789.81 Ending Balance-August 31,2005 CAMP Pool 1,508,463.53 Individual Portfolio 12,677,789.81 Total 14,1861253.34 Page 2 PFM Asset Management,LLC l Chair Niall McCarthy Cotchett,Pitre,Simon& McCarthy Vice Chair COMMUNITY Barry Parker GATE PATH® Carr McClellan,Ingersoll, OF NORTHERN CALIFORNU Thompson&Horn "Taming Disabilities Into Possibilities" Treasurer Joe Galligan Ga[ligan,Thompson RECEIVED &Flocas,LLP August 30, 2005 Secretary Ler Doubblea ForceForte The Honorable Cathy Baylock SFP ` 2005 City of Burlingame CITY CLERK'S OFFICE 501 Primrose Road CITY OF BURLINGAME Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Board of Directors Dear Vice Mayor Baylock, Sonny Da Marto Burlingame School District On behalf of the staff, Board of Directors and Participants at Community Joel Friedman Accenture Gatepath, I would like to thank you for your generous grant of $4,172.00. sso Your support makes a profound impact on both the spirit and futures of the Ctildwell Banker Patricia anker children and adults who are served by Community Gatepath. These funds Norm Jacobi will be used to purchase equipment for our Children's Services' on-site Marsh classrooms and therapists working in the field. MaryJanney Sterling Court The power of the human spirit makes all things possible. That spirit can be Larry Leisure found everyday in the people who come to Community Gatepath, with the Kaiser Permanente hope of fulfilling their dreams and goals. It is our goal to be the place where H.G.(roby)Mumford,Jr. hope, possibilities, and dreams become reality for people with disabilities; Franklin:Templeton Resources and this goal would not be attainable without your support. Bryan Neider ElectmnicArts Again, on behalf of the entire Community Gatepath family, thank you for Mary Rutgers your commitment to "Turning Disabilities into Possibilities!" Hillsborough Auxiliary to Community Gatepath Sinerely, c Adrienne Tissier County Board of Supervisors J Sheryl Young Sheryl Youn Chief Executive Officer Chief Execu ' Officer Note:Please retain this letter as proof of your donation. In order to claim a charitable contribution of $250 or more,the Internal Revenue Service requires a receipt. No goods or services were received in exchange for your contribution. 875 Stanton Road Burlingame,CA 94010 Tel:650-259-8500 Fax:650-6697-5010 www.communitygatepath.com CALL ACTIONCHRISTIAN September 7, 2005 LIFE LINE 139 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 Attn: City of Burlingame 650-342-2255 c/o Jesus Nava, Finance Director FAX 501 Primrose Road 650-342-5005 Burlingame CA 94010 Dear Friends, Coordinating Council We at the CALL Primrose Center would like to extend our profuse thanks to Board Members the City of Burlingame for the community group funding award of$4,589.00 Polly Baugh received from the City on July 14, 2005. Marie Bernardo This very generous amount will certainly go a long way in helping us help Suzanne Boutin others. It is extremely gratifying to know that our efforts are recognized as Katrina Bowman being important to the community and that this type of funding is needed in order for us to continue to do what we do. Tom Caldecott Tony DiCenzo Again, thank you for your on-going support. We receive thanks from our clients every day, so may I take this time to extend their thanks to you as well. Tyce Fields I am sure that their life is a little brighter knowing that others truly care about Nancy Fineman them and their families. Carol Knowles Sincerely, Rev. Laurie McHugh Joan Mersman Rachel Rothe Mary Watt Cora Sargent Executive Director Katie Tolve CALL Primrose Rev. Dr. Paul Watermulder Linda Weaver Larry Wright,Jr. Naomi Youngdoff Executive Director Mary Watt To faithfully assist those in need on a path to self-sufficiency by providing direct aid and referral services Sustainable San Mateo County (650)638-2323 177 Bovet Road, Sixth Floor Fax:(650)341-1395 San Mateo, CA 94402 E-mail:advocate@sustainablesanmateo.org Web:www.sustainablesanmateo.org Dedicated to the long-term health and vitality of our region Founder August 26,2005 RECEIVED MARCIA PAGELS BOARD OF DIRECTORS Joe Galligan,Mayor Chair City of Burlingame SEP 14 2005 RUTH PETERSON 501 Primrose Road CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Vice Chair, Burlingame,CA 94010-3997 Management g CITY OF BURLINGAME RICKI MCGLASHAN Secretary Dear Mayor Gal1_igan: CAROL TANZI Treasurer Thank you for the opportunity to present the findings of our 2004 indicators report, RAY MILLER CAROL KITTERMASTER Indicators for a Sustainable San Mateo County:2004 Report Card on our County's Quality of CLEM MOLONY Life, to the Burlingame City Council on February 7,2005. We have been giving MARCIA PAGELS presentations to city councils,planning commissions and community groups throughout the STEPHANI SCOTT county with great success.It is gratifying to realize the impact the report has throughout the SAPNA SINGH community. ADVISORY COUNCIL CARLA BAGNESCHI While Sustainable San Mateo County(SSMC)was fortunate to receive a grant from the San BETH BHATNAGAR Francisco Foundation to make these presentations,we still rely on support from the cities, JILL BOONE County and community groups to produce the indicators report each year. JULIA BoTT TOM CRONIN Sustainable San Mateo County appreciates your support this year of$1,215 that we received EVANGELINE BURGESS August 9,2005. RICHARD GORDON JERRY HILL ANNE HINCKLE We realize that many organizations are facing tight budgets;but in tough fiscal years,the DAVID HINCKLE need for city and county leaders to have good information to make critical policy and ROSALYN Koo budgetary decisions is essential.Without the financial support of organizations like yours, ARTHUR LLOYD SSMC would not be able to publish this valuable resource. KAY MCCANN DOUG MCGLASHAN Regards, JANICE ROSSI , Executive Administrator JUDY WILLIAMS � v Director of Education Ruth Peterson Shelley Kil y SHELLEY KILDAV Board Chair Director of Education Indicators Project Coordinator&Editor LINDA BAGNESCHI DORRANCE The annual Indicators Report aims to raise awareness of our county's sustainability,and to improve our ability to make sound decisions for the benefit of future generations.It is the major countywide report that tracks all significant economic,social and environmental issues in one document. SUSTAINABLE SAN MATEO COUNTY IS a nonprofit public benefit corporation exempt from federal income tax under IRS Code Section 501(c)(3)