Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2005.07.05
City of Burlingame HURUNGAME CITYHALL-SOI PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 (65o)55&7200 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA - REVISED Regular Meeting - Tuesday, July 5, 2005 Page 1 of 2 CLOSED SESSION 6:45 p.m. Conf Room A a. Conference with Labor Negotiators pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6: City Negotiators: Bob Bell and Jim Nantell Labor Organizations: AFSCME, Locals 2190 and 829 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 June 20, 2005 Approve 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. a. Action and Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend Hearing/Action Broadway food establishment regulations to allow up to five additional food establishments b. Action on an Ordinance to amend City's zoning map to Hearing/Action establish boundaries for five zoning districts in the Bayshore Planning Area: Inner Bayshore, Shoreline, Anza Area, Anza Point North and Anza Point South C. Public Hearing and action on an Ordinance to establish zoning Hearing/Action consistent with the 2004 Bayfront Specific Plan for the Inner Bayshore Subarea 6. 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 arc 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. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Appointment of committee to participate in the scoping of the Approve economic study for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve a. Approval for Broadway Merchants Association Pet Parade, September 25, 2005 City of Burlingame (�UlIU AME CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010 (65o)558-7200 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA-REVISED Regular Meeting-Tuesday, July 5, 2005 Page 1 of 2 b. Cancellation of the regular Council meeting on August 15 C. Adopt Resolution approving updated Memorandum of Understanding to continue San Francisco Airport/Community Roundtable d. Resolution rejecting all bids and authorizing staff to re-advertise the Chula Vista/Miscellaneous Storm Drain Improvements e. Resolution accepting the Burlinghome/Easton Subdivision Main Replacement Project f. Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the agreement between the City of Burlingame and the City of Millbrae for Parks & Recreation Director Services g. Approval of AFSCME Memorandum of Understanding 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS a. Acknowledge Resignation of Councilmember Mike Coffey Adoption and adopt Resolution calling a Special Election for Councilmember Coffey's unexpired term for November 8, 2005 12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Parks & Recreation, June 16, 2005; Planning, June 27, 2005 13. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE:Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities,please contact the City Clerk at(650) 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office,City Hall,501 Primrose Road,from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at the meeting.Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—Monday,August 1, 2005 JOINT STUDY SESSION a. Presentation by Dan Ionescu on smart growth concepts as NEXT MEETING—Monday, August 1, 2005 JOINT STUDY SESSION applied to Donnelly parking area CITY O� BURLINGAME sw,m urc°' BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of June 20, 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 7:07 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 Judith D'Augusta 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Maritsa Chew. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Coffey, Galligan, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Nagel 4. MINUTES A correction was made to the minutes: Item 8.d., change Griffiths to Griffith. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the amended minutes of the June 6, 2005 regular Council meeting; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to approve the minutes of the June 13, 2005 Joint City Council and Planning Commission meeting; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). PRESENTATION a. CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PRESENTATION BY JOE LAMARIANA Burlingame Chamber of Commerce Chairman Joe LaMariana made a PowerPoint presentation on the services and programs that the Chamber offers. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1 Burlingame City Council June 20,2005 Unapproved Minutes a. FY 2005-06 BUDGET ADOPTION AND GANN LIMIT RESOLUTIONS FinDir Nava reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing and approve Resolution No. 41-2005, adopting Operating and Capital Improvement budgets for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2006, and Resolution No. 42-2005, establishing 2005-06 Appropriation Limit. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Rosa Guerra, 1450 Chapin Avenue, spoke about Shelter Network. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Council discussed moving the Burlingame Historical Society from Community Funding to the Facilities Maintenance Budget and amending the budget to commit $32,000 from the estimated year-end overage for half of the Crossing Guard costs. Council calendared these items for a meeting in August. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 41-2005, adopting Operating and Capital Improvement budgets for Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2006; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 42-2005, establishing 2005-06 Appropriation Limit pursuant to Article XIII(B) of the California Constitution; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). b. ANNUAL REVIEW AND RENEWAL OF AMUSEMENT PERMITS CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing and (1) approve renewal of the following amusement permits for a 12-month period: Alibi Hola Mexican Restaurant American Bull Bar Hyatt Hotel Behan's Irish Pub Il Piccolo Burlingame Station Brewery Matsusono Restaurant Caribbean Gardens Max's Opera Cafe Crowne Plaza Hotel Rocket's Dollarwise/Hobby Unlimited Roti Indian Bistro El Torito (with one revised condition) Sheraton Gateway Hotel Four Green Fields Straits Burlingame Grandview Towles Cafe; and (2) approve renewal of the following permit for a six-month period: Blush(261 California Drive). Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve the issuance of amusement permits as recommended for the above referenced establishments; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). 2 Burlingame City Council June 20,2005 Unapproved Minutes C. APPLICATION FOR AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR NEW OWNER, ANTHONY KOZAK, OF CALIFORNIA BAR AND GRILL, 241 CALIFORNIA DRIVE CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing and approve the amusement permit for Anthony Kozak as the new owner of the California Bar and Grill at 241 California Drive subject to the City's standard conditions for six months. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve issuance of an amusement permit for Anthony Kozak as the new owner of the California Bar and Grill at 241 California Drive subject to the City's standard conditions for six months; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). d. APPLICATION FOR AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR NEW OWNER, IRINA LITVAK, OF FANDORIN RESTAURANT, 1492 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing and approve the amusement permit for six months for Irina Litvak as the new owner of Fandorin Restaurant at 1492 Bayshore Highway for dancing, live band and recorded music from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve issuance of an amusement permit for Irina Litvak as the new owner of Fandorin Restaurant at 1492 Bayshore Highway for six months; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). e. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO MASSAGE ORDINANCE REGARDING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MASSAGE PERMITS CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing and adopt Ordinance No. 1755 amending Chapter 6.40 to allow lower thresholds of training for Massage Practitioner permits. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to approve adoption of Ordinance No. 1755 amending Chapter 6.40 to allow lower thresholds of training for Massage Practitioner permits; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance at least 15 days after adoption. 3 Burlingame City Council June 20,2005 Unapproved Minutes L ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES TO ESTABLISH ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE 2004 BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE INNER BAYSHORE, SHORELINE AND ANZA EXTENSION AREAS CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing and adopt two ordinances to establish zoning consistent with the 2004 Bayfront Specific Plan for the Inner Bayshore, Shoreline and Anza Extension areas. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Ron Rosberg, 1669 Bayshore Highway, spoke against the proposed requirements for the proposed Bayshore Highway overlay in the Inner Bayshore area. He requested a wider variety of uses because of difficulty in selling or renting his property. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve adoption of Ordinance No. 1756 amending Title 25 to adopt a Shoreline District and to clarify unclassified lands conformance to General and Specific Plans; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance at least 15 days after adoption. After Council discussion, the proposed ordinance amending Title 25 to adopt an Inner Bayshore District and clarifying definitions was re-introduced with a suggested change to add light industrial uses as a conditional use in the Inner Bayshore overlay area along Bayshore Highway. Councilwoman O'Mahony waived further reading of the amended proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. g. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1757 AMENDING SECTION 10.58.030 TO CLARIFY APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ADULT-ORIENTED BUSINESS PERMITS CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing and adopt Ordinance No. 1757 amending Section 10.58.030 to clarify application requirements for adult-oriented business permits. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve adoption of Ordinance No. 1757 amending Section 10.58.030 to clarify application requirements for adult-oriented business permits; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance at least 15 days after adoption. 4 Burlingame City Council June 20,2005 Unapproved Minutes h. INTRODUCTION AND PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND BROADWAY FOOD ESTABLISHMENT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing on an ordinance amending Broadway food establishment regulations to allow up to five additional food establishments as new locations, full service, specialty food shop or limited food service. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Broadway merchant Michael King, spoke about parking concerns on Broadway. The following Broadway merchants and property owners spoke in favor of the proposed ordinance: Maritsa Chew, Ross Bruce (BID President), Nick Koros, and Garbis Bezdjian. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen to read the title of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 25.36 to allow up to five additional food establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area. Councilwoman O'Mahony waived further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). Councilman Coffey made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. L PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION APPROVING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AWARDING EASTON CREEK SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT TO J. HOWARD ENGINEERING DPW Bagdon reviewed the staff report and requested Council to hold a public hearing and approve Resolution No. 47-2005 approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration with findings and awarding the Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation Project to J. Howard Engineering. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Resolution No. 47-2005, approving Mitigated Negative Declaration for Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation and adopting Mitigation Monitoring Plan; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to award the contract for Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation to J. Howard Engineering; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS John Root, 728 Crossway Road, spoke on the economic study of Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. There were no further comments from the floor. 7. STAFF REPORTS 5 Burlingame City Council June 20,2005 Unapproved Minutes a. PROPOSAL FOR PREPARING A SCOPE OF WORK AND SELECTING A CONSULTANT FOR AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council to approve the proposal for preparing a scope of work for an economic study of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and to provide direction on the selection of the scoping advisory committee members. After Council discussion, Mayor Galligan recommended that he and Vice Mayor Baylock serve as committee members representing Council, as well as two Planning Commissioners: Michael Brownrigg and Stan Vistica, and two citizens who represented opposing views on the proposed Safeway project. The citizens suggested were Dan Andersen and Marianne Saucedo. Council asked staff to determine the interest and the availability of these people in the next six weeks. This matter was deferred to the next regular Council meeting. b. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY'S ZONING MAP TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES FOR FIVE ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE BAYSHORE PLANNING AREA, INNER BAYSHORE, SHORELINE ANZA AREA,ANZA POINT NORTH AND ANZA POINT SOUTH CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council to introduce an ordinance amending the City's zoning map to establish boundaries for five zoning districts in the Bayshore Planning Area, Inner Bayshore, Shoreline Anza Area, Anza Point North and Anza Point South. Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance. Councilwoman O'Mahony waived further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR From the floor, John Root, 728 Crossway Road, requested to speak on Item 8.a. b. RESOLUTION NO. 44-2005 APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT WITH THE CULVER GROUP FOR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND PLUMBING INSPECTION SERVICES DPW Bagdon requested Council adopt Resolution No. 44-2005 approving a professional services agreement amendment with the Culver Group for additional construction management and plumbing inspection services. 6 Burlingame City Council June 20,2005 Unapproved Minutes C. APPROVAL OF PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER MEDIATION SERVICES CONTRACT FOR FY 2005-06 FinDir Nava requested Council adopt Resolution No. 45-2005 approving an agreement with the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center to provide conciliation and mediation services in 2005-06. d. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 46-2005 AMENDING JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE SAN MATEO PRE-HOSPITAL EMERGENCY SERVICES GROUP FC Reilly requested Council adopt Resolution No. 46-2005 to amend the Joint Powers Agreement establishing the San Mateo Pre-Hospital Emergency Services Group. e. APPROVE OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL FOR FINANCE DIRECTOR FinDir Nava requested Council approve the Finance Director's travel to Baltimore, Maryland to attend the Summer Meeting of the Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Council July 17-19, 2005. f. WARRANTS & PAYROLL FinDir Nava requested Council approve payment of Warrants #11564-12050 duly audited, in the amount of $1,893,920.01 (excluding library checks 11685-11709), Payroll checks#162185-162448 in the amount of $2,417,232.37 for the month of May 2005. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Items b. through f. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). a. RESOLUTION NO. 43-2005 APPROVING CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PROMOTIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR FY 2005-06 FinDir Nava requested Council adopt Resolution No. 43-2005 approving the promotional services contract with the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce for Fiscal Year 2005-06. From the floor, John Root made various recommendations regarding the Chamber of Commerce. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Item a. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent). 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. 10. OLD BUSINESS a. FEEDBACK ON BROADCAST OF COUNCIL MEETING CM Nantell reiterated that Comcast customers would be able to view regular Council meetings on Channel 27 starting with this meeting's broadcast. RCN customers will still find the Council broadcast on Channel 26. Mr. Nantell requested feedback from viewers on the sound and broadcast qualities. 7 Burlingame City Council June 20,2005 Unapproved Minutes 11. NEW BUSINESS a. UPDATE ON POTENTIAL MERGER BETWEEN BURLINGAME AND MILLBRAE RECREATION DIVISIONS P&RD Schwartz provided an update on the potential merger between Burlingame and Millbrae Recreation Divisions. Staff recommended a Study Session with Council to discuss options in sharing Recreation services. 12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Library, April 19, 2005; Traffic, Safety&Parking, April 14 &May 12, 2005; Beautification, June 2, 2005; Planning, June 13, 2005 b. Department Reports: Building, May 2005; Finance, May 2005; Police, May 2005 13. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 9:34 p.m. in memory of Tricia Pinney's father who recently passed away. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 8 Burlingame City Council June 20,2005 Unapproved Minutes CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA - ITEM# 5a MTG. "caq �0 HATED JUNE6 DATE /7 .05.05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: JUNE 22, 2005 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY " e, SUBJECT: ACTION AND PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND BROADWAY FOOD ESTABLISHMENT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS Action: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on an ordinance to allow the addition of five food establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area. If approved this ordinance would become effective in 30 days, August 4, 2005. The public hearing for action was noticed by mail to all property owners and merchants in the Broadway Commercial Area. It was also published in a newspaper of general circulation. In the case of this ordinance, City Council held a public hearing at Introduction 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 since food establishment uses are included as neighborhood serving retail uses which the General Plan promotes in the Broadway Commercial Area. Regarding land use in the Broadway Center the 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 designation applied to the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area). CEQA Compliance: The amendment to the zoning designation to increase the number of food establishments 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. Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on July 13, 2005, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 7-0 by a voice vote to recommend to the City Council that the city council approve the proposed ordinance to expand the ACTION ONAN ORDINANCE TO AMEND BROADWAYFOOD ESTABLISHMENT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS July 5,2005 number of food establishments in the Broadway commercial area by 5. The recommendation included that these 5 new locations and establishments be full service, specialty food shop or limited food sales establishments as defined the current zoning code. (See Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes, June 13, 2005, attached) In their action the Commissioners commended the Broadway merchants for working together to develop a vision for the Broadway commercial area which will benefit both the merchants and residents of the city; feel that this will benefit the commercial area because people who eat in the area will also shop there, the retailers need foot traffic to bring in more retail; supported because Broadway is my living room, concerned that the opportunities be spread among the various property owners in the commercial area; choice of type of food establishment should be open to be as flexible as possible to encourage restaurants to located in the area, success will be based on what people want; CA noted that a sports bar could occur within the three types of food establishment identified so long as the business had significant food service; expressed a strong preference for outdoor seating will help the image of Broadway. Staff noted that this item would be on the City Council agenda for introduction and public hearing on June 20, 2005. City Council Introduction: At their meeting on June 20, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing and voted to Introduced the ordinance to allow five more food establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area. The action was set for the July 5, 2005, meeting. The ordinance states that the five food establishments at new locations could be full service, specialty food shops or limited food service food establishments. In addition the current ordinance was reorganized to separate the Broadway Commercial area food establishment regulations into a separate section from the Burlingame Avenue commercial area food establishment regulations. At the hearing it was noted that this ordinance would increase the number of possible food establishments in the Broadway commercial area from the 24 existing to 29. Concern was expressed about the lack of an automatic reopener number, e.g. a number below which the regulation is automatically returned to the Planning Commission for action. Staff noted that effectively this increase request is like a reopener, and it makes clear that merchants and property owners in the affected area will come forward with a request when the number of food establishments falls below where it should be for a proper mix of businesses in the area. Based on the current experience, a reopener does not appear to be necessary any more. At the public hearing, business people in the area expressed concern about the impact on parking caused by additional food establishments and that more food establishments would have a negative effect on the current food businesses on Broadway, a 20% increase seems like a big increase in number, Council noted that there is always space in the Laguna parking lot, commented that customers do not always know where the parking is; like the Planning Commission's recommendation of five more food establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area and of having them include outdoor seating, it is more dog friendly, there is no problem parking and a lot of the customers on Broadway walk, the Broadway BID is making this request to make their vision for Broadway a reality, the Broadway BID leadership is solidly behind this; the landowners are excited about the unity and vision being expressed, working hard to make the street better, businesses can let customers know where the parking is; from survey it is clear that the people want 5 more food establishments on Broadway, if different kinds will not hurt the existing food establishments. In the City Council action to introduce the ordinance to add five more food establishments and locations in the Broadway Commercial Area limited to full service, specialty food shop or limited food service, the Council Commented that there is parking behind some of the buildings and there is always parking in the Chula Vista lot; there are also a lot of people who walk, Cal Trains noted that Broadway is the most walked to station on the line; city spent one million to make the Laguna lot useable parking; there has been progress on Broadway in over the past 10 to 12 years with parking and streetscape, the BID has worked hard, now new merchants are building on that, this is a good move. In response to a letter submitted requesting the Council to allow real estate businesses on Broadway, Council referred the matter to the Planning Commission. 2 ACTION ONAN ORDINANCE TO AMEND BROADWAY FOOD ESTABLISHMENT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS July 5,2005 BACKGROUND: Issue: At the City Council meeting on May 16, 2005, the Directors of the Broadway Business Improvement District (BID) requested that the City Council increase the number of food establishments allowed in the Broadway area to 28; and that the Council "fast track" the review of this code amendment. The reason the BID gave for the request was "because we have some interested restaurateurs/bakery who are unwilling to commit to Broadway unless they know they will be welcome". The BID asked that the additional food establishments be limited to three of the four types: Full service, specialty food shops and limited food establishments. (Ross Bruce, BID President, letter May 13, 2005) Council directed staff to prepare an amendment to the code for Planning Commission and Council consideration; and to undertake the process as soon as possible. History of Food Establishment (Restaurant) Regulation in the Broadway Area: In 1985 as the result of City Council concern about the impact that the rapidly expanding number of restaurants and bars was having on the pedestrian quality of the Burlingame Avenue commercial area, Council adopted regulations limiting the number of food establishments in Subarea A. The number of food establishments was limited to those in existence at the time the regulation was adopted. Food establishments, as bars and restaurants came to be called, were allowed to relocate within Subarea A; and businesses which sold only take out food and had no seating were exempt from being called food establishments and were not regulated. Merchants and property owners in the Broadway commercial area observed what was being done for Subarea A and expressed concern about the same problem of food establishments running other retail sales establishments out of the Broadway commercial area, impacting the pedestrian oriented character of the neighborhood shopping area. In response the City Council enacted legislation limiting food establishment on Broadway in the same way as was being proposed for Burlingame Avenue. The only difference was the base number, with Broadway having fewer existing restaurants. In 1999 City Council expressed a concern about the fact that food establishment rights were being sold; increasing the cost of doing restaurant business in Subarea A. Since food establishment rights went with the use, a property owner whose site was used by a restaurant but his new tenant was a dress store, found himself with an "opportunity" that was in demand and had market value. So the food establishment right began to be "sold". In addition, staff was having increasing problems with code enforcing the no seating requirement on "take out service only" businesses which served food. The food establishment ordinance amendment adopted in 1999 which included both Subarea A and the Broadway Commercial Area addressed these two issues: regulating take out food services and marketability of food establishment "rights". First, take out only food services were prohibited. Instead food establishments were classified into four types: full service, specialty food shop, limited food service (where most of the take out food service uses fell) and bars. Then all the establishments selling food, including the take out only businesses, were identified, visited and classified. Food establishments became conditional uses in Subarea A and on Broadway. Finally, the City processed, at our expense, a conditional use permit for each identified food establishment, setting a definition and operational base line for each establishment. Second, to eliminate the sale of food establishment rights, the location of each food establishment and its type was fixed (this was certified by the conditional use permit issued). (See CS 25.08 Definitions of various food establishments attached) As a part of fixing the locations of food establishment, the number of food establishments for each area was tabulated and acknowledged by City Council in resolution 111-1999. There were 46 food establishments in Subarea A of the Burlingame Commercial Area in 1999. There were 25 food establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area in 1999. (See Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, 3 ACTION ONAN ORDINANCE TO AMEND BROADWAY FOOD ESTABLISHMENT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS July 5,2005 Subarea A, Food Establishments by Type Table; and Broadway Commercial Area, Food Establishments by Type Table attached). The 1999 revisions to the food establishment regulations also included a "reopener" clause. If the number of food establishments in Subarea A fell below 40 for twelve consecutive months, it would be reported to City Council, and the Council could decide what to do. The reopener number for the Broadway commercial area was 23. As of the most recent staff survey (March 21, 2005) there were 41 food establishments in Subarea A and 24 on Broadway. Uses in both commercial areas are continually changing, no food establishment currently closed in either area has been closed for 12 consecutive months. So the March 21, 2005 survey is an accurate representation of the food establishment locations in Subarea A and on Broadway. Summary of Proposed July 2005 Changes to Food Establishment Regulations for the Broadway Commercial Area: The proposed zoning amendment includes the following: ➢ Reorganizes the code section 25.36.042 Food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway commercial areas, into two code sections. CS 25.36.042 Food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area; and CS 25.36.043 Food establishments in the Broadway commercial area. The only revision to the text of the new section for the Burlingame Avenue commercial area is to remove all references to the Broadway commercial area. ➢ The regulations for new code section 25.36.043 for Broadway are the same as for Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue commercial area with two exceptions. First, subsection (2). Subsection(2) allows the increase of five food establishments at new locations e.g. locations different from those noted in the Council approved table adopted in 1999. This section also limits the five new food establishments to be one of the following types of food establishment businesses: full service, specialty food shop or limited food service. This change would increase the number of food establishments by opening up 5 new locations for food establishments in the Broadway commercial area. The issuance of a conditional use permit would determine the new locations. Once each food establishment receives a conditional use permit and the food establishment is installed, the location would become fixed. This would avoid the "selling" of food establishment rights in the future. Second, the proposed ordinance does not include a reopener when the number of food establishments falls below a certain number for a twelve month period. It should be noted that there will be some attrition of food establishment caused by current and new food establishment sites being used for other kinds of retail uses. Under the code provisions once a site is used by another retail use, the food establishment right is forfeit. However, in the future if the number of food establishments becomes too low as the result of attrition, local merchants and/or property owners can always ask Council to consider amending the ordinance. Status and Process for Filling Open Food Establishment Opportunities This ordinance would increase the number of food establishments in the Broadway commercial area by 5. In 1999 there were 25 food establishments in the Broadway commercial area. In March 2005 there were 24 food establishments. In the current ordinance the "reopener" number is 23. The provisions of this ordinance simply allow five new locations for food establishments. Once each location is approved by issuance of conditional 4 ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND BROADWAY FOOD ESTABLISHMENT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS July 5,2005 use permit, the location will become fixed and when the location is used for a non-food establishment use the right to a food establishment use at the site will become void, in the same way the current food establishment sites are treated. The five new food establishment opportunities will be filled on a first come first served basis. When a completed application for a conditional use permit for a food establishment for one of the three types is submitted it will be date stamped and the time of receipt will be placed on the documents. Staff will process the completed application requests in the order in which they are received. If an early application withdraws or fails to be approved, the next in the queue will be added to the active permit requests. When all five additional food establishment opportunities have been filled there will be no additional food establishment opportunities in the Broadway commercial area except to replace an existing food establishment. Staff Comments: The members of the Broadway Business Improvement District Board made a request to the City Council at the Council's May 16, 2005, meeting that the city consider amending the regulations to add openings for five more food establishment locations in the Broadway Commercial Area. Council directed staff to "fast track" consideration of this zoning amendment. For that reason this item was brought directly to action before the Planning Commission. Following Commission's public hearing and recommendation to City Council, the item was taken to the Council's June 20, 2005, meeting for public hearing and introduction. Margaret Monroe City Planner Attachments: Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Chapter 25.36 to Allow Up To Five Additional Food Establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area. Map of the Broadway Commercial Area, Ordinance 1272 Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Map, Ordinance 1214 Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes, June 13, 2005 Ross Bruce, BID President, letter May 13, 2005, to Mayor and City Council Municipal Code Section 25.36.042 Food establishments in the Burlingame and Broadway commercial areas, current regulations. Chapter 25.08 Definitions, food establishment definitions Burlingame General Plan, Land Use Element, Commercial uses, Broadway Center, Page L-5 Resolution 111-1999 Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Adopting Type Tables for Food Establishments in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Commercial Areas to Implement Ordinance No. 1619 (1999) with type tables based on October 18, 1999 survey for Burlingame Avenue (Subarea A) and Broadway commercial areas. Revised Food Establishments by Type Tables for Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A, and the Broadway Commercial Area, March 21, 2005. Show current status of food establishment occupancy based on field survey done in March 2005. Ordinance No. 1619, Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 Regarding Food Establishments in the Broadway and Burlingame Avenue Commercial Areas, adopted October 18, 1999. Ronal Santero, Village Host, May 15, 2005, letter to City Council, in opposition to change in number of food establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area. Notice of Public Hearing for Planning Commission , mailed June 13, 2005. Notice of Public Hearing, published San Mateo Times, June 10, 2005, also mailed notices to property owners and merchants in the Broadway Commercial Area. 5 ACTION ONAN ORDINANCE TO AMEND BROADWAY FOOD ESTABLISHMENT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS July 5,2005 Notice of Public Hearing, published San Mateo Times, June 25, 2005, and mailed to property owners and merchants June 24, 2005. U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR 2005\ActionAdd5HEst on Brdwy 7.05.05.doc 6 I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 25.36 TO ALLOW UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD 3 ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA 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 an increase in the number of food establishments in the Broadway 7 Commercial Area in order to enhance the area as an attraction to the community. 8 9 Section 2. Section 25.36.042 is amended to read as follows: 10 25.36.042 Food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area. 11 (a) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall only apply to food establishments 12 in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A. 13 (b) In Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, the number of food 14 establishments shall be limited to those existing and in business on November 1, 1998, and at the 15 locations as shown on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishments 16 by Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999. A food establishment is a 17 business as defined in Section 25.08.268 and shall be deemed in business if it was legally open for 18 business as a food establishment to the public on November 1, 1998. 19 (c) Seating Area. The seating area of the food establishments described in subsection(b) 20 above as shown on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishments by 21 Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, above may be enlarged only by 22 amendment to the applicable conditional use permit for the establishment. 23 (d) Changes in classification and replacement. 24 (1) A food establishment use classified as a full service restaurant by the Burlingame 25 Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City 26 Council on October 18, 1999, may change its food establishment classification only to a limited 27 food service or bar upon approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit to the �- 28 establishment. 1 1 (2)A food establishment use classified as a limited food service by the Burlingame Avenue 2 Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City Council 3 on October 18, 1999, may change its food establishment classification only to a full service 4 restaurant or bar with approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the 5 establishment. 6 (3) A food establishment use classified as a bar by the Burlingame Avenue Commercial 7 Area Subarea A Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 8 1999,may change its food establishment classification only to a full service restaurant or a limited 9 food service with approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the establishment. 10 (4) A food establishment use classified as a specialty shop by the Burlingame Avenue 11 Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishments by Type Table approved by the City Council 12 on October 18, 1999, shall be allowed to change to a different type of food establishment. A 13 specialty shop may be replaced by another specialty shop at the same location within the same or 14 less square footage. If a specialty shop is changed to any other classification the site shall not 15 return to specialty shop use. 16 (5) A food establishment may be replaced by another food establishment of the same 17 classification so long as the replacement business is of the same classification as that shown for the 18 site on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishments by Type Tables 19 approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, subject to the conditions of the existing 20 conditional use permit,and it complies with the same conditions as in the existing conditional use 21 permit. 22 (e) Change in location. 23 (1) No food establishment shall occupy a location not shown on the Burlingame Avenue 24 Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishments by Type Tables as approved by the City Council 25 on October 18, 1999. 26 (2) Specialty shops shall not relocate to any other location on the Burlingame Avenue 27 Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishment by Type Tables list as approved by the City 28 Council on October 18, 1999. 2 I (f) Review of number offood establishment. When the total number of food establishments 2 in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area drops below forty (40) for a period of more than 3 twelve(12)consecutive months,the city planner shall report this to the planning commission and 4 city council. 5 (g)Expansion. An existing food establishment,including specialty shops,maybe expanded 6 at its existing location so long as the expansion does not increase the size of the seating area. 7 (h)Loss of use. A food establishment shall be deemed out of business when the premises 8 is occupied by another business which is not a food establishment. 9 (i) Performance standards. All food establishments shall comply with the following: 10 (1)Provide trash receptacle(s) at location(s) and of a design selected by the city; 11 (2)Provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty(50)feet of all 12 frontages of the business; 13 (3)Apply for a conditional use permit for delivery of prepared food from the premise;and 14 (4)Food sales from a window or any opening within ten(10)feet of property line shall be 15 prohibited. 16 17 Section 3. A new Section 25.36.043 is added to read as follows: 18 25.36.043 Food establishments in the Broadway commercial area. 19 (a) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall only apply to food establishments 20 in the Broadway Commercial Area. 21 (b) In the Broadway Commercial Area,the number of food establishments shall be limited 22 as follows: 23 (1)To those existing and in business on November 1, 1998, and at the locations as shown 24 on the Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City 25 Council on October 18, 1999. A food establishment is a business as defined in Section 25.08.268 26 and shall be deemed in business if it was legally open for business as a food establishment to the 27 public on November 1, 1998; and 28 (2)Up to five(5)more food establishments at any location in the Broadway commercial 3 I area, so long as any such food establishment is limited to only a full service food establishment, 2 limited food service food establishment,or a specialty shop food establishment upon approval of 3 a conditional use permit. 4 (c) SeatingArea. The seating area of the food establishments described in subsections(b) 5 (1)and(2)above may be enlarged only by amendment to the applicable conditional use permit for 6 the establishment. 7 (d) Changes in classification and replacement. 8 (1) A food establishment use classified as a full service food establishment under 9 subsection(a)(1) or(2) above may change its food establishment classification only to a limited 10 food service upon approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit to the establishment. 11 (2)A food establishment use classified as a limited food service food establishment under 12 subsection(a)(1)or(2)above may change its food establishment classification only to a full service 13 restaurant with approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the establishment. 14 (3)A food establishment use classified as a bar under subsection(a)(1) or(2) above may 15 change its food establishment classification only to a full service restaurant or a limited food 16 service with approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the establishment. 17 (4)A food establishment use classified as a specialty shop under subsection (a)(1) or(2) 18 above shall be allowed to change to a different type of food establishment, except a bar. A 19 specialty shop may be replaced by another specialty shop at the same location within the same or 20 less square footage. If a specialty shop is changed to any other classification, the site shall not 21 return to specialty shop use. 22 (5) A food establishment may be replaced by another food establishment of the same 23 classification so long as the replacement business is of the same classification as that shown for the 24 site pursuant to subsection(a)(1)or(2)above,subject to the conditions of the existing conditional 25 use permit, and it complies with the same conditions as in the existing conditional use permit. 26 (e) Change in location. 27 (1) No food establishment shall occupy a location not shown on the Broadway Commercial 28 Area Food Establishments by Type Tables as approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, 4 1 or a conditional use permit approved pursuant to subsection(a)(2) above. 2 (2) Specialty shops shall not relocate to any other location on the Broadway Commercial 3 Area Food Establishment by Type Tables list as approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999. 4 (f) Expansion. An existing food establishment, including specialty shops, may be 5 expanded at its existing location so long as the expansion does not increase the size of the seating 6 area. 7 (g) Loss of use. A food establishment shall be deemed out of business when the premises 8 is occupied by another business which is not a food establishment. 9 (h) Performance standards. All food establishments shall comply with the following: 10 (1)Provide trash receptacle(s) at location(s) and of a design selected by the city; 11 (2)Provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty(50)feet of all 12 frontages of the business; 13 (3)Apply for a conditional use permit for delivery of prepared food from the premise; and 14 (4)Food sales from a window or any opening within ten(10)feet of property line shall be 15 prohibited. 16 17 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 18 19 Mayor 20 21 I,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the 22 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20`''day 23 of June,2005, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 24 of ,20 , by the following vote: 25 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 26 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 27 28 City Clerk C:\FILES\ORDINANC\f'oodestab2005.pin.wpd 5 1100 • �Ne 1120-. ' 11,26 ,j 1101 1 T28- h4' 1136 1160 11.45 . 1.1 io. ' 1174. 115 1178 f 1163- 1390. 3-1J90. . 1169 A'9 p 1199 ♦ ^a 1 zoo= �/ A 1204" ♦ ` 1210 • 121 ' 12.22-• 1201 226 1205 1236 . • 1215- 0 1233- 223' (1 �� 241239 •1300- .12 •131-0 • 1251 . 1316- • 1320 �F 1322- . ' 19305 o� D. •1326 1321 : 4t x~1352• . • ' 1327 . 1360 355, �4 13 1400' 1399 0 1408- b 410 ^ h 945 1454• �V 1405- . .1480' 1 X180' . 1433 city � Parking (� Lot R .1461' N Broadway Commercial Area F� C Established by Ordinance No. 1272 adopted by the City Council on April 16, 1984 �F-9 xp �yir?�`/ J � • _33 ♦ � dor, ,, � Rte+ d�uo..�+�ht 1���� ��. c°+: . ` • dr�,ar 1rc r,w,� ti !IJAR, AIR ` Jvl i��)) a51�,1 trv.rE 1�.1t 1p, 3 �^.. � • �� `��'yvp,,• r ,�i ,l .. � �� 7r �1 1r.,ilaC � �u.J� `�kr'�r.+1x �k#fn.�• � � � � li T a I ye�1�: IL � s ?�:.�,�*dl.�� �WJti NV IIurA.1d4• , , , , '�� G�k�q� � i� 4'iF lh a` Ii Irt)F i`��s�j��:dg_ P�'^ C ..�� -i' cx ],s, • . �. FA � rmal li J� la llr�r✓'� 1 � �� �� E 1- w'irl v • . � � � 4 r i c- � Iw • r. r �®ra11N �k Q E D pp IIC �d art mw a'4y.yg4�1 h'.iC e' 1• w O {{[ rl r ry 1 ( i i , a M�IrA' 2� 1 >i1 r. '�: k�e'� ,• ril Iik ac < 1 J � I 1 � ��.� •� � A� � � Sg q\ '"�>� ' lR' 1 1 It r � drab i, h hal! F I J 3 �� d1 . e i Jc `5E x, �r�� p�p-. ..,;16.I '10 / G � � p ,gyp. •4'R dl r ids x �l R, f. ��^ %° �6� !.-�, ,PjAd wPX,&Ak ONE '� ♦► � �� ka � moi. ♦♦ III � MEW PAV IMPI City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 13, 2005 4. AMENDMENT TO FOOD ESTABLISHMENT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA (42 PROPERTY OWNERS AND 108 MERCHANTS NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET �- MONROE Reference staff report June 16, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting that the Broadway BID had requested the City Council consider increasing the number of food establishments in the Broadway commercial area, that the new food establishments be limited to full service, specialty food shop or Limited food service, and that the review of such an ordinance be "fast tracked". Because the request was clear and in the interest of prompt review, this action has been brought forward directly to Commission action. Commissioners asked how would the new food establishments work with the present limit/existing of 24? CP noted that the ordinance proposes five more food establishments at five new locations, when these are approved these five locations would be fixed for food establishments so the food establishment use would remain until the use at the specific location changes to a non-food related use. Commissioner put in the record the results of a recent survey of the community for the Broadway Commercial Area. She noted that about 3,000 questionnaires were distributed, and she presently had 183 responses. Of these responses the overwhelming theme was that respondents wanted quality on Broadway, they wanted to create a "village" atmosphere, they wanted to walk to a healthy meal, food establishments should provide outdoor seating/open space for those eating and people should be able to walk from dinner to desert to coffee on Broadway. When asked what was missing among the retail uses on Broadway: 45% said a healthy restaurant geared toward families, 12% noted a sports bar, and third was a quality bakery. 82%of the respondents use Broadway, the majority live within walking distance. Commissioner asked for clarification about how food establishment sites came to be fixed. CP noted that originally food establishment sites were �— not fixed. The change came with the 1999 regulations because food establishment "rights" had become a saleable commodity, with each successive opportunity going for a higher dollar value. Council determined it was not the intention of the regulation to provide property owners with a saleable commodity. So in the 1999 amended regulations the location of the food establishments was fixed; and a reopener created so that when the total number of food establishments fell below a threshold for 12 consecutive months, the city would reopen the issue of the appropriate number of food establishments. Commissioner asked how will the demand be addressed with the five new food establishments? CA noted that the hope is that the 5 proposed exceed the demand for the food establishment land use and it will not be an issue. CP noted that the order of processing will be based on the time and date of receipt of completed applications. If one is not approved the next in order will be taken until the five opportunities are used. Commissioner noted that food establishments are one of the most likely businesses to fail today, would like to put as few restrictions on them as possible, so would not like to see any limitation on who or where the five new opportunities could be located within the Broadway commercial area. There were no further questions from the Commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Marisa Chu, 1224 Broadway, John Kervanian, 1241 Broadway, Denise Grover, Gateways to the World; Garbis Bejdian, 1199 Broadway, Nick Coros, 1230-46 and 1400 Broadway; Ross Bruce, President Broadway Business Improvement District; Cheryl Enright, President Downtown Business Improvement District spoke. Founding member of BABES of Broadway passionate to see Broadway change, close to residents, hotels and the airport, have opportunities to grow, Broadway currently does not represent the needs of savvy families, need to increase family style businesses and face lift the buildings, Broadway BID board unanimously voted to increase the restaurants by five. Have been on Broadway for 12 years in that time have only added Walgreens and Starbucks, not all of the present restaurants are full service, area can support five more; help Broadway grow, if restaurants attract other 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 13,2005 business they will be good for us. Without change all the businesses will be hurt,merchants and BID are unanimous that need more restaurants, support, residents want family oriented businesses on Broadway, should increase revenue to the city. Have spoke to landlords regarding the Broadway vision,excited,like to see change, good to see BID and Broadway unite, the right mix of restaurants will help. The DBID supports an increase in restaurants on Broadway,may see Burlingame Avenue make a similar request in the future. There were no more comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comment: commend the Broadway merchants for working as a group to develop a vision for Broadway, will benefit the merchants on the street and the residents who use the area; the incremental increase in food establishments will be a positive,people who eat go to retail,need foot traffic to bring in retail. Clarification of ordinance, should we be looking at designation among the 5 of the number of full service,specialty food shops and limited food service. CA noted that a bakery for example could be anyone of the three depending upon how it is operated,so a set number may be an additional constraint. Support the increase of food establishments, Broadway is my living room but would not like to see 2 or 3 of these opportunities go to one property owner. CA noted that the city cannot regulate who owns the land where a restaurant is located. Support, if provided by type of establishment it does not matter who owns the property; choice of type should be open, have statistics on failure,natural attrition,what survives will be what people want; asked what number of respondents on survey listed restaurant as a need. Commissioner responded almost everyone noted the need for food establishments. CA noted that a sports bar could occur if it had significant food service, as many do. Have a strong preference for outdoor seating,will help the image of Broadway. Chair Auran made a motion to recommend to the City Council for approval the ordinance amending the food establishment regulations for the Broadway commercial area to add five food establishments. The motion -� was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a roll call vote on the motion to recommend to the City Council adoption of the ordinance to reorganize the food establishment section of the zoning code and to amend the Broadway commercial area regulations to allow five additional food establishments which could be full service, specialty food shop, or limited food service food establishments. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. CP noted that this item would appear on the City Council agenda on June 20,2005,for introduction and a public hearing. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 6 RECEIVED MAY 3 1 2005 ♦ • 4 TY OF BURLINGAME • NING DEPT. Business Improvement District RECEIVED RAY 16 2005 May 13, 2005 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF BURLINGAME F Honorable Mayor, City Council, City manager, &Meg Monroe N > c/oCity Hall 501 Primrose •®o Em Burlingame, CA 94010 OM Re: Change on Broadway, Burlingame restaurant limitation. 4NO N e Honorable Mayor, City Council,Meg Monroe, & City Manager, The BID Board of Directors has voted to ask the fld city of Burlingame to change the ❑ Broadway Burlingame restaurant limitation from a maximum of 23 restaurants to a maximum of 28 restaurants. Additionally we ask that the City Council "Fast Track" this , <j MM matter. a BID's reason for requesting a fast track of this matter is because we have some interested - restauranteurs/bakery who are unwilling to commit to Broadway unless they know they Z will be welcome and legal. J 2 The types of restaurant categories we would like approved are: — '"o 1. Full service food establishments �m 2. Limited food establishments and 3. Specialty food establishments-no bars. ® Preliminary findings of Broadway's community survey indicate that residents favor this Q ® kind of change on Broadway. So, both the merchants and residents of the Broadway area �" 4 2 would like to enlist your help in making this happen on Broadway as quickly as possible. Sincere , / vla i nTD/Z, T■vn: 6� �,ty Council 1f_4 lb please respond �.ity Manager ity Attorney ❑ No Response Required V r.Finance W S] City Planner %v ® Ross Bruce, President, BID ❑ Dir-Public Works Sm ❑ Human Resources 0-4 ®® ❑ Police Chief ]C ❑ Fire Chief ❑ On Next Agenda ❑ Parks&Rec ❑ Librarian 0� 1B®® PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR RESPONSE TO THE CITY CLERK {� TITCTD TRT iTT/1N- Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.36.042 Food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway commercial areas. (a) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall only apply to food establishments in the Burlingame `— Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A, and the Broadway Commercial Area. (b) Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. In Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, the number of food establishments shall be limited to those existing and in business on November 1, 1998, and at the locations as shown on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999. A food establishment is a business as defined in Section 25.08.268 and shall be deemed in business if it was legally open for business as a food establishment to the public on November 1, 1998. (c) Broadway Commercial Area. In the Broadway Commercial Area, the number of food establishments shall be limited to those existing and in business on November 1, 1998, and at the locations as shown on the Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999. A food establishment is a business as defined in Section 25.08.268 and shall be deemed in business if it was legally open for business as a food establishment to the public on November 1, 1998. (d) Seating Area. The seating area of the food establishments described in subsections (1) and (2) above as shown on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, above may be enlarged only by amendment to the applicable conditional use permit for the establishment. (e) Changes in classification and replacement. (1) A food establishment use classified as a full service restaurant by the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit to the establishment. (2) A food establishment use classified as a limited food service by the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, may change its food establishment classification only to a full service restaurant or bar with approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the establishment. (3) A food establishment use classified as a bar by the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, may change its food establishment classification only to a full service restaurant or a limited food service with approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the establishment. (4) A food establishment use classified as a specialty shop by the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Food Establishments by Type Table approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, shall be allowed to change to a different type of food establishment. A specialty shop may be replaced by another specialty shop at the same location within the same or less square footage. If a specialty shop is changed to any other classification the site shall not return to specialty shop use. (5) A food establishment may be replaced by another food establishment of the same classification so long as the replacement business is of the same classification as that shown for the site on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, subject to the conditions of the existing conditional use permit, and it complies with the same conditions as in the existing conditional use permit. (f) Change in location. (1) No food establishment shall occupy a location not shown on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Tables as approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999. (2) Specialty shops shall not relocate to any other location on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishment by Type Tables list as approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999. (g) Review ofnumber offood establishment. (1) When the total number of food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area drops below forty (40) for a period of more than twelve (12) consecutive months, the city planner shall report this to the planning commission and city council. (2) When the total number of food establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area drops below twenty-three (23) for a period of more than twelve (12) consecutive months, the city planner shall report this to the planning commission and city council. Pagel of 2 Burlingame Municipal Code (h) Expansion. An existing food establishment,including specialty shops,may be expanded at its existing -� location so long as the expansion does not increase the size of the seating area. (i) Loss of use. A food establishment shall be deemed out of business when the premises is occupied by another business which is not a food establishment. 0) Performance standards. All food establishments shall comply with the following: (1)Provide trash receptacle(s)at location(s)and of a design selected by the city; (2)Provide litter control=along all frontages of the business and within fifty(50)feet of all frontages of the business; (3)Apply for a conditional use permit for delivery of prepared food from the premise;and (4)Food sales from a window or any opening within ten(10)feet of property line shall be prohibited. (1691 §7,Added,07/01/2002) Page 2 of 2 City of Burlingame floor or basement extends more than two (2) feet 25.08265 Floor ares ratio(FAR). above existing grade. (a) "Floor area Ratio'orFAR".means the ra- (Ord. 1025§ 1;December 10,1974,Ord. 1482-§2; - tio of the gross square footage of the-.floor arra of a May 3, 1993,Ord. 1521 § 13;April 17,1995,Ord_ building or buildings to the lot on which the build- 1.552§2;September 3, 1996;1649§4,Amended, ing or buildings are located FAR for any lot in- 02/20/2001; 1586§5,Amended,01/20/1998) chrdes new structures to be built and those remain- ing. X 25.08.268 Food establishment. (b) Single family residential. "Food establishment" means a business which (1) In calculating FAR on lot;the meas- sells any bind of food or drink at retail and which urement shall include the gross floor areas of the contains any interior or on-site customer seating primary dwelling,attached garages,and all acces- (seating in the - public right-0f-way is not on-site); sory structures on foundations,and shall include all -mini-marts or similar kiosk-type sales are as.At ser basements with a ceiling height of sia(6)feet or vice stations or other similar free standing retail Beater. Open spaces within the structure that are businesses and incidental food sales are not food ` higher than twelve(12)feet shall be counted as two establishments. (Ord 1302 § 1; April lS; 1985; (2)floors. 1619§2,Amended, 10/18/1999)-- (2)Up to six hundred(600).square feet of basement with a ceiling height of six(6)feet or 25.08.268-1 Food establishment—free greater shall be deducted from the floor area meas- standing. urement for FAR under subsection(bxl)above if Tree standing food establishment`'means a food it meets both of the following standards: establishment'is the sole use of a structure. (Ord (A)The top of the finished floor 1495§3;January 3, 1994): above the basement is less than two(2)feet above l existing grade;and X 25.08.268-2 Food establishment—Bar. (B)No part of the basement is in- "Bar" means a business in which the primary tended or used for parking. business is-serving alcoholic drinks at retail for" (3) Deducted from the floor area computa- consumption on the premises; has a liquor license, tion for single family residences are: and does not serve minors. Operating criteria-to - (A)`Covered porches or decks on define a bar include some or all of the following:a the first floor totaling one hundred(100)square commercialglass washer or dish washer,a limited feet or less. An area under a balcony shall be con- food menu and no service to the public between 2 sidered a covered porch if the balcony is over an a.m. and 6 a.m. (Ord. 1495 §3;January 3,.1994; exterior exit from the building;and 1619§3,Amended, 10/18/1999)- (B)-Uncovered balconies and decks on the second floor;and 25.08.268-3 Food establishment—Full service.- .:. (C) Existing attic areas that are re- "Full service restaurant"or`Yell.service food twined or reduced, but not extended in new con- establishment" -means a business which sells-food struction_ In all other cases, habitable attic areas prepared indoors on the premise with a full'menu shall be counted asfloor area in calculating FAR; and provides an indoor seating area of at least two and hundred tifty(250)-sq ufeet 'Such bus; (D) Accessible space between IW may provide for the sale of alcoholic beverages as- surface of the ground and the bottom of the first an accessory and secondary use_ Operating criteria floor joists that measures less than six(6)feet in to define a full service food establishment include height shalt not be counted as floor area in calculat- most or all of the following:served by waiters to ing FAR;"and seated customers and where payment is made at the (E) Lower floor'or basement of one hun- end'of the-meal;presence of a full commercial dred (100) square feet or less even.if the lower:. kitchen and cornmercialdishwasher;and food is (25.08)7 March 2004 City of Burlingame served on ceramic-plates with metal flatware and cloth napkins_ 25.08.269 . . -Footprint. (1619.§4,Added, 10/18/1999) "Footprint"is the gross floor area to.the outside of the-exterior-walls plus joof-ovethangs, eaves,- 25:08268 4 Food establishment_Limited balconies and decks.and trellises over outdoor ar- food service. eas. Footprint applies to fust floor area and floor "Limited food service"means a business whichareas of the floors above the fust which extend be- sells food which is ready to eat such as sandwiches, gond fust floors(Added-by Ord. 1460 §.2 (part); frozen deserts.or beverages served in edible,plastic. May 18,1992) or disposable containers; Operating criteria to de- - fine a limited foodservice include some or all of the following no commercial kitchen;no commer= _ 25:0&270 Frontage_ tial dish washer,take out food service only;and an 'Frontage" means all property abutting,on one. indoor seating:area of less than two,hundred=fifiy.... side of a street, between two.intersecting-streets, (250)square feet.. measured:along the street line._(1941-Code § 1903 " (1619§4,Added, 10/i8/1999) _ -(part), added by Ord. 539; January 4, 1954, amended by Ord.747;December 18,196.1). 25.08.268-5 _ Food establishment- pecialty. shop. 25.08.280 Ga rage,,private.. "Specialty shop"means a business which sells "Private garage" means a detached.-accessory food and has a posted menu. Operating criteria to building or portion,of amain building forthepark- defu e a specialty shop generally include two or mg or storage of an torrmbiles of the occupants of more of all of.the following: food is ordered the preinises. 0941 Code§ 1903 (part),.added by. and/or served at a counter and paid for before cow Ord 539;January 4, 1954,amended by Ord.747; } sumption;provides take-out counter space and December 18,1961). space for customer queue;items are ordered from posted menus and prepared for immediate con-- 25X$.290 Garage,public._ stubpoon;food is-served in edible or disposable "Public garage" means.a building, or portion containers with disposable flatware; the facilities. thereof except a private .garage,used or designed to provided for consumption of food on the premise be used for the storage or care ofselfpropelled ve- are insufficient for the volume of food sold in the. hides,or where any such vehicles are equipped for place;and more than two hundred-fifty(250) operation.repaired or.kept for remuneration_hire square feet of seating. = or sale. (1941 Code § 1903 (part), added by Ord, (1619§4,Added, 10/18/1999) 539; January 4,-1954,-amended by Ord. 747; De- cember 18,1961). 25.0$.268-6 Food sales--Incidental. "Incidental food sales"meansabusiness.-in... which the sale of foods prepared on the site is a :-_ 25.08300 Gasoline serviee.station- rmnor portion of the non-food sales retail business' "Gasoline service station" means the premises on the site or is an infrequent occurrence as a part- and the use thereof for the retail distribution of. of sonic other on-site business activity,suc]i as a.. gasoline directly to motor vehicles,. oils, greases, special sale.or.seasonal promotion.and there is no tires and batteries, greasing and washing,.the sale, interior or sale. for:customers to rise for . of minor accessories and. services...incidental food or drink consumption- Seating on the pql lie thereto. (1941 Code f 1903..(part) added by Ord right-of--way is not on-site. Snack shops(such as 539; January 4, 1954, amended by Ord 747; De candy stores,nut and popcornspecialityshops), - cember 18, 1961). groecry stores,and produce markets ire businesses _ _ _ - = =included m this defuution- .'(1619 n.'(1619§4,Added, 10/18/1999) � s March 2004 (25.08)8 CVS LAND USE ELEMENT closings would increase traffic safety in addition to providing very much needed park space. COMMERCIAL USES Three complexes of commercial uses are included in this plan:the Burlingame Plaza Area,the Broadway center,and the Burlingame Avenue-Park Road center.In these centers of commercial activity three general categories of commercial uses are shown on the plan diagram:Shopping and Service,Service and Special Sales,and Office Use.In addition to the commercial uses in these three centers of activity an additional category of commercial use,Waterfront/Commercial, is indicated along most of the waterfront area. Burlingame Plaza Area.This area includes outlets providing convenience goods and consumer services to local residents and workers;the Peninsula Hospital and medical offices;and other professional-administrative offices.No changes are recommended in the pattern of uses presently established.The visual quality of the shopping center should be improved and the parking area serving the shopping center needs redesign and tree planting to improve functional efficiency and appearance. 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 should be provided to the rear of present business outlets fronting on Broadway with 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. Burlingame Avenue-Park Road Center.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.The following organization of uses within the center is recommended:shopping goods outlets should,in the main,be located along Burlingame Avenue and Park Road in a pedestrian precinct;convenience goods stores,restaurants,and consumer service outlets should not occupy ground level street frontage space in the heart of the center but should be in more peripheral locations;the frontage of the west side of Chapin Avenue should be limited to office uses;the Service and Special Sales area indicated along California Drive and Highland Avenue recognizes the existing auto sales and service activities and provides space for expansion of"auto ) row"businesses or other similar kinds of activity;an area between Highland Avenue and City of Burlingame L-5 General Plan RESOLUTION NO. 1 11 - 1999 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING TYPE TABLES FOR FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AND BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREAS TO IMPLEMENT ORDINANCE NO. 1619 (1999) WHEREAS, on October 18, L999, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1619, making changes to the Zoning Code to specify the number and type of food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Commercial Areas of the City; and WHEREAS, as part of implementing that ordinance, existing food establishment locations must be identified, the type of food establishment specified, and the seating area provided so that the scope of use for regulatory purposes and issuance of conditional use permits can occur; and WHEREAS, the Type Tables establishing this information has been developed by City Staff, including a number of site visits, and with a number of mailed notices providing both the reasons and j proposed specification to each property owner and food establishment affected; and WHEREAS, City Staff has discussed this information with any interested person who has contacted them regarding the Type Tables; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on these Type Tables on September 13, 1999, and received testimony from all interested persons, both written and oral, and made changes in the specification of certain food establishments in the Type Tables; and WHEREAS, public notice was duly given of the City Council's hearing these Type Tables as well as the underlying ordinance; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received and considered the Planning Commission's recommendations, all written and oral testimony submitted to the Council, and the staff report regarding the Type Tables, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1 . The Type Tables attached hereto as Exhibit A are approved as the implementing tables for Ordinance No. 1619 to establish the location, type, and seating area of food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Commercial Areas. 1 2. The City Planner and the Planning Commission shall utilize these tables pursuant to Ordinance No. 1619. J Mayor I,Judith A.Malfatti,City Clerk ofthe City ofBurlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 18th day of October 1999, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEM BERS: GALL 1 GAN, JANNEY, KNIGHT, O R MAHONY, S P I NELL 1 DOES: COUNCELMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT. COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE . City Clerk G\WP311i U2S\RES0lfoodest.tbl.wpd _ r 2 Exhibit A -'Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A, Food Establishments by Type Table October 18, 1999 Address Name of Business Category Seating Area 1100 Left at Albuquerque Full Service 1,811 SF Burlingame Ave: 1108 Vacant(6/99) Full Service 935 SF Burlingame + 1,685 patio area Ave. Total Seating:2620 SF 1121 Sweet Treats Limited Food Service 180 SF Burlingame Ave. 1123 Nelson's Coffee Shop Full Service 492 SF Burlingame Ave. 1125 La Salsa Specialty Food Shop 385 SF Burlingame Ave. 1152 Noah's Bagels Limited Food Service none Burlingame Ave. 1160 Starbucks Limited Food Service 331 SF Burlingame Ave. 1205 La Pinata Full Service - 895 SF Burlingame Ave. 1207 Round Table Pizza Specialty Food Shop 785 SF Burlingame Ave. 1213 King Yuan Restaurant Full Service 500 SF Burlingame Ave. 1216 Copenhagen Bakery Full Service 980 SF Burlingame Ave. 1219 Cafe La Scala Full Service 960 SF Burlingame Ave. 1308 The Cakery Limited Food Service none Burlingame Ave. 1309 Peet's Coffee and Tea Limited Food Service 187 SF Burlingame Ave. 1310 Nathan's on the Avenue Full Service 1,269 SF Burlingame Ave. As approved by City Council Resolution No. 111-1999,October 18, 1999. (continued) -- 1 Exhibit A 'Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A, Food Establishments by Type Table October 18, 1999 Address Name of Business Cit-egoCii—egory Seatin Area 1318 World Wraps Specialty Food Shop 434 SF Burlingame Ave. 1401 Towles'Cafd Full Service 572 SF Burlingame Ave. 1407 House of Coffee Limited Food Service 125 SF Burlingame Ave. 1408 Alan's Full Service 266 SF Burlingame. Ave: 1409 Baskin-Robbins Limited Food Service 128 SF Burlingame Ave. 1419 Mediterranean Gardens Full Service 275 SF Burlingame 500 SF patio Ave. Total Seating:775 SF 1425 Gan Poang Chinese Restaurant Full Service 936 SF Burlingame Ave. 1420A Vacant Limited Food Service 160 SF Burlingame Ave. 1420C Vacant Limited Food Service 160 SF Burlingame Ave. 1447 Garden Cafd Full Service 540 SF Burlingame Ave. 1448 Paragon Restaurant&Bar Full Service 1,880 SF Burlingame Ave. 1451 Isobune Sushi of Burlingame Full Service 934 SF Burlingame 1Ave. 1453 Burger King Specialty Food Shop 1,119 SF Burlingame Ave. 297 California Sam's Italian Sandwiches Limited Food Service none Drive 299 California Cheese Please Catering Limited Food Service none Drive 1215 Donnelly St. Claim Limited Food Service 323 SF Ave. As approved by City Council Resolution No. 111-1999,October 18,1999. (continued) t 2 Exhibit A Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A, Food Establishments by Type Table October 18, 1999 Address Name of Business, Category Seating Area 220 Lorton Alibi Bar 475 SF Ave. 246 Lorton Paddy Flynn's Bar 475 SF Ave. 250 Lorton Mandarin Cuisine Full Service 625 SF Ave. 260 Lorton House of Bagels Limited Food Service none Ave. 266 Lorton North China Inn Full Service 376 SF Ave. 322 Lorton Ecco Full Service 1,500 SF Ave. 221 Park Dicey Riley's Irish Bar Bar 611 SF Rd. 231 Park Narin Thai Cuisine Full Service 338 SF Rd. 240 Park Sakae Sushi Full Service 250 SF Rd. 224 Primrose Yainni's Full Service 551 SF Rd. 234 Primrose Chicken! Chicken! Specialty Food Shop. 560 SF(indoor) Rd 90 SF(outdoor porch) -- Total Seating:652 SF 269 Primrose Moon Mcshane's Pub Bar 619 SF Rd. 290 Primrose Ben&Jerry's Limited Food Service. 25 SF(indoor) Rd. 329 SF(roof deck) Total Seating:354 SF 321 Primrose Piazza Italia Cafe Full Service 288 SF Rd. 347 Primrose Vacant(6/99) Full Service 921 SF Rd. As approved by City Council Resolution No. 111-1999,October 18, 1999. TOTAL FOOD ESTA.BLISBMENTS BY TYPE Full Service 23 Specialty Food Shop 5 Limited Food Service : 14 Bar : 4 Total Food Establishments : 46 :%uiub10.18 3 Exhibit A Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Table October 18, 1999 Address Name of Business Category Seating Area 1130 incredible Edible Specialty Food Shop 465 SF (indoor) Broadway 75 SF (outdoor) Total Seating: 540 SF 1136 La Reserve Full Service 750 SF Broadway 1151 Le Croissant Specialty Food Shop 270 SF Broadwa 1160 Stanaway's Market and Deli Limited Food Service none Broadway 1165 Royal Donut Shop Specialty Food Shop 525 SF Broadway 1170 Preston's Ice Cream Limited Food Service none Broadway 1184 Tower Delicatessen Specialty Food Shop 287 SF Broadway 1190 Shgemasu Restaurant Full Service 975 SF Broadway 1200 Grace Garden Restaurant Full Service 735 SF Broadway 1201 Village Host Pizza Specialty Food Shop 1,500 SF Broadway 1204 Juban Full Service 550 SF Broadway 1219 Il Piccolo Caffe Limited Food Service 675 SF Broadway 1230 Golden China Restaurant Full Service 990 SF Broadway 1232 Pizza Etc. Full Service 450 SF Broadway 1236 Burrito Broadway/ Broadway Limited Food Service none Broadway Food Center 1251 Lobos Taqueria Specialty Food Shop 530 SF Broadway 1308 Subway Sandwiches Specialty Food Shop 300 SF Broadway 1316 Taste Full Service 1,140 SF Broadway 1318 Cafe Figaro Full Service 700 SF Broadway 1320 Bua Thong Kitchen Full Service 750 SF Broadway 1327 Behan's Irish Pub Bar 525 SF Broadway 1355 Jun Restaurant and Sushi bar Full Service 450 SF Broadway 1431 Broadway Deli Specialty Food Shop 450 SF Broadway As approved by City Council Resolution No. 111-1999, October 18, 1999. (contintied) i Exhibit A Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Table October 18, 1999 _ Address Name of Business Category Seating Area 1158 Cafe Capuchin Limited Food Service 20 SF Capuchino Ave. 1150 Paloma Matsusano Full Service 1,950 SF Ave. As approved by City Council Resolution No. 111-1999,October 18, 1999. TOTAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS BY TYPE Full Service : 11 Specialty Food Shop : 8 Limited Food Service : 5 Bar : 1 Total Food Establishments : 25 Abrotab10.18 i 2 Exhibit A Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area,Subarea A, Food Establishments by Type Table Revised March 21, 2005 Address Name of Business Category Seating Area / 1100 Burlingame Ave. Straits CafeFull Service 1,811 SF 2 1101 Burlingame Ave. Sumac I Full Service 1,187 SF (combined former food establishments at 297&299 j California Drive 3 1108 Burlingame Ave/ Fanny&Alexander Full Service 1200 SF 303-305 California Dr. + 1,685 patio area at 1108 Burlingame Ave.and 735 SF at 303-305 California Dr. ' Total Seating:3620 SF 4 1121 Burlingame Ave. Limited Food Service 249 SF vacant) 5 1123 Burlingame Ave. Nelson's Ce e Suc- Full Service 492 SF r vacant 6 1125 Burlingame Ave. La Salsa Sp-ecialty Food Shop 385 SF 7 1152 Burlingame Ave. I Limited Food Service none vacant 8 1160 Burlingame Ave. Starbucks Limited Food Service 331 SF 9 1207 Burlingame Ave. Round Table Pizza Specialty Food Shop 785 SF 10 1213 Burlingame Ave. King Yuan Restaurant Full Service 500 SF 11 1216 Burlingame Ave. ( Copenhagen Bakery Full Service 980 SF .12 .1219 Burlingame Ave. Cafe La Scala Full Service 960 SF 13 1308 Burlingame Ave. The Cakery ? Limited Food Service 138 SF 14 1309 Burlingame Ave. Peet's Coffee and Tea Limited Food Service 187 SF 15 1310 Burlingame Ave. Cre evine I Full Service 1,269 SF 16 1318 Burlingame Ave. World Wraps ! S ecial Food Sho 434 SF 17 1401 Burlingame Ave. Towles'Cafe Full Service 572 SF 18 1407 Burlingame Ave. House of Coffee Limited Food Service 125 SF 19 1408 Burlingame Ave. Alana's Full Service 266 SF 20 1409 Burlingame Ave. Baskin-Robbins Limited Food Service 128 SF yr _ ti -------------- 21 1425 Burlingame Ave. Gan Poang Chinese Restaurant Full Service y 936 SF SAFOODREGS\Updated Tables\burlingame Idoe I Exhibit A Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A, Food Establishments by Type Table Revised March 21, 2005 Address : Name of Business Category ? Seating Area 22 1447 Burlingame Ave. j Sapore Italiano Ristorante ; Full Service 628 SF(1s`floor) 216 SF(mezzanine) t Total Seating: 844 SF 23 1448 Burlingame Ave. Hola!Mexican Restaurant& Full Service ; 1,880 SF Cantina i 24 1451 Burlingame Ave. ' Isobune Sushi Full Service 934 SF 25 1453 Burlingame Ave. I Panda Express Specialty Food Shop 1,119 SF 26 1215 Donnell Ave. St.Clair's Limited Food Service 323 SF 27 220 Lorton Ave. Alibi Bar 475 SF 28 246 Lorton Ave. Paddy Flynn's Bar 475 SF 29 250 Lorton Ave. Zeyno Full Service 625 SF 30 260 Lorton Ave. House of Bagels Limited Food Service j none 31 266 Lorton Ave. Trapeze Restaurant Full Service 376 SF 32 283 Lorton Ave. L&T Sandwiches Limited Food Service 50 SF (replaced food establishment formerly at 1205 Burlingame) 33 322 Lorton Ave. Ecco Full Service 1,500 SF 34 221 Park Rd. Rocket's Night Club Bar 611 SF 35 231 Park Rd. Narin Thai Cuisine Full Service 338 SF 36 240 Park Rd. _ Sakae Sushi Full Service 250 SF 37 224 Primrose Rd. Yainni's Full Service 551 SF vacant 38 234 Primrose Rd. Chicken! Chicken! ! Specialty Food Shop 562 SF(indoor) 90 SF(outdoor porch) x Total Seatin :652 SF 39 290 Primrose Rd. CTs Sandwich Shop Limited Food Service 66 SF(indoor) 329 SF(roof deck) Total Seating:395 SF 40 321 Primrose Rd. Piazza Italia Cafe . Full Service 288 SF 41 347 Primrose Rd. Barracuda ! Full Service 921 SF October 18,1999 (March 21,2005) Full Service 23 22 Specialty Food Shop 5 5 Limited Food Service 14 1.1 Bar 4 3 Total Food Establishments 46 41 ' When the total number of food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area drops below forty (40) for a period of twelve consecutive months, the City Planner shall report this to the Planning Commission and City Council. SAFOODREGS1Updated Tables\burtingame 3.doc 2 Exhibit A Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Table Revised March 21, 2005 Address Name of Business ---FCategory---CategorySeating Area 1 1130 Broadway t Incredible Edible Specialty Food Shop 465 SF(indoor) 75 SF(outdoor) Total Seating: 540 SF 2 1136 Broadway Chez Alexander I Full Service 750 SF 3 1151 Broadway Le CroissantS ecial Food Shop1 270 SF , jpwap- v, 4 1165 Broadway Royal Donut Shop Specialty Food Shop 525 SF 5 1170 Broadway Preston's Ice Cream Limited Food Service i none 6 1184 Broadway bonne sante Specialty Food Shop 249 SF indoor 1 I 38 SF outdoor is Total Seating:287 SF 7 1190 Broadway Aji Yoshi Ya Japanese Full Service 975 SF Restaurant 8 1200 Broadwa Grace Garden Restaurant Full Service 735 SF 9 1201 Broadway Village Host Pizza S ecial Food Shop 1,500 SF 10 1204 Broadway Juban Full Service 550 SF 11 1219 Broadway Il Piccolo Caffe Limited Food Service 675 SF 12 1230 Broadway Starbucles Full Service 990 SF 1 i 13 1232 Broadway Mediterranean Cuisine . Full Service 450 SF 14 1236 Broadway Burrito Broadway Limited Food Service none (inside Broadway Food 1 ' Center 15 1251 Broadway Lobos Ta ueriaS ecial Food Sho 530 SF 16 1308 Broadway Subwa Sandwiches I Specialty Food Shop 1 300 SF 17 1316 Broadway ; Broadway Prime Full Service 1,450 SF(151 floor) 506 SF(mezzanine) Total Seating: 1,956 SF 18 1318 Broadway Cafe Figaro 1 Full Service 1 700 SF 19 1320 Broadway Bua Thon Kitchen Full Service 750 SF 20 1327 Broadway Behan's Irish Pub Bar 525 SF 21 1355 Broadway Jun Restaurant&Sushi bar Full Service 450 SF 22 1431 Broadway Broadway Deli Specialty.Food Shop 450 SF 23 1158 Ca uchino Ave. Cafe Ca uchino Limited Food Service 52 SF 24 1150 Paloma Ave. I Matsusano j Full Service { 1,950 SF October 18,1999 (March 21,2005) Full Service I 1 11 Specialty Food Shop 8 g Limited Food Service 5 4 Bar 1 1 Total Food Establishments' : 25 24 ' When the total number of food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area drops below twenty-three (23) for a period of twelve consecutive months, the City Planner shall report this to the Planning Commission and City Council. SAFOODREGS\Updated Tables\broadway 3.doc I I ORDINANCE No. 1619 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 REGARDING FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE 3 BROADWAY AND BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREAS 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 7 Section I The growth in the number and diversity of food establishments in the Broadway 8 and Burlingame Avenue Commercial Areas has threatened the retail space available in the two areas 9 and endangered the attractiveness of the areas to pedestrians. The current mix of various types of 10 operation of food establishments is healthy and should be sustained. This ordinance will enhance 1 I that diversity, regulate the location of food establishments within the two areas, limit specialty food 12 shops in the two areas, and encourage reduction in the number of specialty food shops in the two 13 central areas. 14 15 Section 2. Section 25.08.268 is amended to read as follows: 16 25.08.268 Food establishment. 17 "Food establishment" means a business which sells any kind of food or drink at.retail and 18 which contains any interior or on-site customer seating (seating in the public right-of-way is not 19 on-site); mini-marts or similar kiosk type sales areas at service stations or other similar free standing 20 retail businesses and incidental food sales are not food establishments. 21 22 Section 3 . Section 25.08.268-2 is amended to read as follows: 23 25.08.268-2 Food establishment - Bar. 24 `Bar" means a business in which the primary business is serving alcoholic drinks at retail for 25 consumption on the premises, has a liquor license, and does not serve minors. Operating criteria 26 to define a bar include some or all of the following: a commercial glass washer or dish washer, a 27 limited food menu and no service to the public between 2 a.m. and 6 a.m. 28 1 I Section 4. New sections 25.08268-3, 25.08.268-4, 25.08.268-5, and 25.08.268-6 are 2 added as follows- 3 25.08.268-3 Food Establishment- Full Service. 4 "Full service restaurant" or "full service food establishment" means a business which sells 5 food prepared indoors on the premise with a full menu and provides an indoor seating area of 6 at least two hundred fifty (250) square feet. Such businesses may provide for the sale of 7 alcoholic beverages as an accessory and secondary use. Operating criteria to define a full service 8 food establishment include most or all of the following: served by waiters to seated customers 9 and where payment is made at the end of the meal; presence of a full commercial kitchen and 10 commercial dishwasher; and food is served on ceramic plates with metal flatware and cloth 11 napkins. 12 13 25.08.268-4 Food Establishment - Limited Food Service. 14 "Limited food service" means a business which sells food which is ready to eat such as 15 sandwiches, frozen deserts or beverages served in edible, plastic or disposable containers. 16 Operating criteria to define a limited food service include some or all of the following: no 17 commercial kitchen; no commercial dish washer; take out food service only; and an indoor 18 seating area of less than two hundred- fifty (250) square feet. 19 20 25.08.268-5 Food Establishment- Specialty Shop. 21 "Specialty shop" means a business which sells food and has a posted menu. Operating 22 criteria to define a specialty shop generally include two or more of all of the following: food 23 is ordered and/or served at a counter and paid for before consumption; provides take-out counter 24 space and space for customer queue; items are ordered from posted menus and prepared for 25 immediate consumption; food is served in edible or disposable containers with disposable 26 flatware; the facilities provided for consumption of food on the premise are insufficient for the 27 volume of food sold in the place; and more than two hundred-fifty (250) square feet of seating. 28 2 1 25.08.268-6 Food Sales, Incidental. 2 "Incidental food sales" means a business in which the sale of foods prepared on the site 3 is a minor portion of the non-food sales retail business on the site or is an infrequent occurrence 4 as a part of some other on-site business activity, such as a special sale or seasonal promotion, 5 and there is no interior or on-site seating for customers to use for food or drink consumption- 6 Seating on the public right-of-way is not on-site. Snack shops (such as candy stores, nut and 7 popcorn speciality shops), grocery stores, and produce markets are businesses included in this 8 definition. 9 10 Section 5. A new section 25.08.324 is added to read as follows: 11 25.08.324 Grocery Store. 12 "Grocery store" means a business which sells staple food stuffs (as coffee, sugar, flour) 13 and usually meats and other foods (such as fruits, vegetables, dairy products) and household 14 supplies (such as soap, matches, paper napkins); a minor portion of the food sold may be �•.- 15 processed on site (such as in deli or bakery services). A grocery store shall have no interior 16 or on-site customer seating to be used for food or drink consumption. A grocery store is not 17 a food establishment. Food stores specializing in a single type of these items (such as candy 18 stores, produce only shops, coffee and tea shops) are not classified as grocery stores. 19 20 Section 6. Subsection 25.36.040(a)(1)(A) is amended to read as follows: 21 (A)Retail uses which achieve contiguous, pedestrian-oriented,retail frontage such as drug, 22 liquor, variety stores, paint and hardware, apparel, accessory, stationery, florists, household 23 furnishings, and furniture. 24 25 Section 7. Subsection 25.36.040(b)(1)(I) is added to read as follows: 26 (1) Food establishments. 27 28 Section 8. Section 25.36.030 is amended to read as follows: 3 1 25.36.030 Conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit. 2 The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit- 3 1. All permitted uses and all uses allowed with a conditional use permit in the R-1, R-2, R-3, 4 and R-4 districts, and subject to the same regulations and restrictions applying to those uses in their 5 respective districts, and subject to the building restrictions prescribed in sections 25.36.060 and 6 25.04.080; 7 2. Public garages; 8 3. Gasoline service stations, subject to regulations prescribed in chapter 25.74; 9 4. Transportation terminal, depot, station ticket offices and any building or structure used 10 for the accommodation of passengers; 11 5. Parking lots, subject to the regulations prescribed herein; 12 6. Mortuaries; 13 7. Financial institutions; 14 8. Dry cleaning processing plants, 15 9. Other uses similar in character to those enumerated in this section which will not be 16 obnoxious or detrimental to the neighborhood in which they are located; 17 10. Any structure that is more than thirty-five feet in height; 18 11. C-2 uses in the block described in section 25.36.035; 19 12. Certain grocery, drug and department stores as described in section 25.36.036; 20 13. Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted uses; 21 14. Real estate; 22 15. In association with a church or other religious or nonprofit institution, provision of 23 temporary shelter for homeless individuals or families, provided that the facility is located within a 24 transportation corridor and the use does not occur continuously at any one location for more than 25 six months of any twelve month period. 26 16. Tanning facilities; 27 17. Classes. 28 18. Food establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area. . 4 1 19. Other uses similar in character to those enurnerated in this section or section 25.36.020 2 which will not be obnoxious or detrimental to the neighborhood in which they are located- 3 4 Section 9. A new Subsection 25.36.040(b)(2)(G) is added as follows: 5 (G) Food establishments. 6 7 Section 10. Subsection 25.36.040(f) is amended to read as follows: 8 f. Food Establishments in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area, Subarea A and 9 Broadway commercial area. The provisions of this subsection shall only apply to food 10 establishments in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area, Subarea A, and the Broadway 11 commercial area. 12 (1) In Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue commercial area, the number of food 13 establishments shall be limited to those existing and in business on November 1, 1998, and at the 14 locations as shown on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishments 15 by Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999. A food establishment is a 16 business as defined in Section 25.08.268 and shall be deemed in business if it was legally open for 17 business as a food establishment to the public on November 1, 1998. 18 (2) In the Broadway commercial area, the number of food establishments shall be limited 19 to those existing and in business on November 1, 1998, and at the locations as shown on the 20 Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City Council on 21 October 18, 1999. A food establishment is a business as defined in Section 25.08.268 and shall be 22 deemed in business if it was legally open for business as a food establishment to the public on 23 November 1, 1998. 24 (3) The seating area of the food establishments described in subsections (1) and (2) above 25 as shown on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area 26 Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, above 27 may be enlarged only by amendment to the applicable conditional use permit for the establishment_ 28 (4)A food establishment use classified as a full service restaurant by the Burlingame Avenue 5 I Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Tables 2 approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, may change its food establishment classification 3 only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit 4 to the establishment- 5 (5) A food establishment use classified as a limited food service by the Burlingame Avenue 6 Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Tables 7 approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999,may change its food establishment classification 8 only to a full service restaurant or bar with approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit 9 for the establishment. 10 (6)A food establishment use classified as a bar by the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area 11 Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the 12 City Council on October 18, 1999, may change its food establishment classification only to a full 13 service restaurant or a limited food service with approval of an amendment to the conditional use 14 permit for the establishment. 15 (7) A food establishment use classified as a specialty shop by the Burlingame Avenue 16 Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Food Establishments by Type Table 17 approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, shall be allowed to change to a different type 18 of food establishment. A specialty shop may be replaced by another specialty shop at the same 19 location within the same or less square footage. If a specialty shop is changed to any other 20 classification the site shall not return to specialty shop use. 21 (8) A food establishment may be replaced by another food establishment of the same 22 classification so long as the replacement business is of the same classification as that shown for the 23 site on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food 24 Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, subject to the 25 conditions of the existing conditional use permit, and it complies with the same conditions as in the 26 existing conditional use permit. 27 (9) No food establishment shall occupy a location not shown on the Burlingame Avenue 28 Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Tables 6 I as approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999. 2 (A) Specialty shops shall not relocate to any other location on the Burlingame Avenue 3 Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishment by Type Tables 4 list as approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999. 5 (B) When the total number of food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial 6 Area drops below forty (40) for a period of more than twelve (12) consecutive months, the City 7 Planner shall report this to the Planning Commission and City Council. 8 (C) When the total number of food establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area drops 9 below twenty-three(23)for period of more than twelve consecutive months,the City Planner shall 10 report this to the Planning Commission and City Council. 11 (10)An existing food establishment, including specialty shops, may be expanded at its 12 existing location so long as the expansion does not increase the size of the seating area. 13 (11) A food establishment shall be deemed out of business when the premises is occupied 14 by another business which is not a food establishment. �— 15 (12) All food establishments shall comply with the following: 16 (A) provide trash receptacle(s) at location(s) and of a design selected by the city; 17 (B) provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty(50) feet of all 18 frontages of the business; 19 (C) apply for a conditional use permit for delivery of prepared food from the premise; and 20 (D)food sales from a window or any opening within ten (10) feet of property line shall be 21 prohibited. 22 23 Section 11. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 24 25 - �M r —� Nfayor 26 27 1,JUDITH A. MALFATTI, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify �.. 28 that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 7 I 4th day of October, 1999, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on 2 the 18th day of October , 1999, by the following vote: 3 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GALL i GAN, JANNEY, KNIGHT, 0'MAHONY, SP I NELL I 4 NOES: COUNCILMENIBERS: NONE 5 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE , T 6 - City Clerk 7 8 CAWP51\FILES\ORDINANC\foodestab.ptn.wpd 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 VILLAGE HOST RECEIVED P.O.BOX 1907 • BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94011 MAY 16 1005 May 15, 2004 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF BURLINGAME Dear City Council, I would like to take the opportunity to express my feelings about the current restaurant ordinance on Broadway, and the discussion of possibly having it lifted to allow more restaurants on the street. I understand that there was a meeting on Thursday night, in which merchants discussed the idea and have decided to try to have the ordinance lifted. I was not present at the meeting, so I am not completely informed of the situation; but as a restaurant owner on the street for over twenty years, I have a lot of concerns and problems with the upcoming proposal. I believe that the overall objective of both the merchants association,as well as the City of Burlingame is to increase the level of economic activity on Broadway. However, I strongly believe that just allowing more restaurants on the street is not the answer. The answer is never that simple. Parking used to be a huge problem in the area. Now there are more parking lots, and the situation has greatly improved. Broadway can handle the parking for an additional food establishment, one which is already permitted. By allowing additional restaurants beyond the current ordinance,parking will be an issue once again. Broadway needs additional retail shops. Little boutiques and specialty shops are the"type of businesses that will attract new consumers to the area. A bakery would help increase business because people buy baked goods in the morning and during the day, `-- when shops are open. I remember when Broadway Prime went in on Broadway. Did the merchants experience an increase in business then? I want to be sure that the intentions of the merchants pushing to have the ordinance lifted are working toward the same objective,and not just trying to rent their vacant spaces. It is an unfortunate situation when there is difficulty renting commercial spaces probably due to their minimal square footage. However, it should not compromise the current operating businesses or the potential future benefit new retail stores or specialty shops could bring to the area. If rent per square foot needs to be lowered to fill vacancies, I think that would be the first step in the right direction toward bringing in the types of business that will benefit Broadway in the long run. In effect, it will become a more desirable area and rents can increase again when things have stabilized. It is my understanding that the current ordinance allows 25 food establishments on Broadway,and that there are 24 in operation at the present time. If there is a problem filling the already empty space,what will allowing even more restaurants accomplish? I am asking that you think about what is best for Broadway and the community, and not compromise these objectives for an immediate solution to a long term problem. "10 11\1"V 11"1\. Sincerely, ity Council please respond //,tity Manager City Attorney ❑ No Response Required 17 ir.Finance V _ity Planner ❑ Dir.Public Works Ronal Santero ❑ Human Resources ❑ Police Chief �"' 1 �Z� �`•L_ jt z C� ❑ Fire Chief R(On Next Agenda ❑ Parks&Rec ❑ Librarian PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR RESPONSE TO THE CITY CLERK TIMIrl?fill TTil1N CITY 0� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 Twww.burlingame.org FAX: (650) 696-3790 ww The City of Burlingame Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to consider AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE REGULATIONS FOR FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA TO PUBLIC HEARING ALLOW FIVE (5) ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS at new locations which may NOTICE be only full service, specialty food shop or limited food service. - The hearing will be held on Monday, JUNE 131 2005 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council , ,3 r- < Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame. A copy of the proposed ordinance may be reviewedN. prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at Orr 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA or contact the City Planner, Meg Monroe at 650-558-7250. y . ,. � •�, � � 'S;f` _ •ter . (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applic anded y be reviewed prior to the meetings Primrose Road, Burlingame, C If you challe e t u m be limited to raising only blic hearing, described in a ri e e ed to the city at or prior to a pu C eaf}ng. F © R x I n Property ow -.rs v spon ble or informing their tenants aboul infor -iatio I, please call (650) 558-7 0�� Margaret Mob ` City Planners PU F4 CE f I (Please refer to other side) S,110 Mateo County TIMOS Legal No. 0000520585 Jo ANG Newspapers t6 p 1, �r 1080 South Amphlett Blvd. R NUMBER OP t San Mateo, CA 94402 Mt:Nrs.Toet:ALP`vWED -egal Advertising IWO* G*tt�t,, 800)595-9595 opt.4 trlYg HEfrnit ttu Cougci°bF �d�ur<tt>� Mtif 1{olq:� P►#tbcr on thy,31ti)B� at CITY OF BURLINGAME a IN, 1e0�n�st7�tt1}�m 1rt the�ett counot LXAM xss t:5t)f f'pknmse 501 PRIMROSE RD, wKetHr�Ftb ntaUuc$aa twgrJkf BURLINGAME CA 94010 � i tea e f�nrn�aat Aaee:� t ttr4�- Ttte PFann&� an ts` f�aes�t�aW istm,� cItime�p}rtt�>Wtes .PB®AF OF P®BLATIONrte nu ib ar mtxiF, mgt t=remcpie an Jitn(f db oh tNe nim% FILE NO. bet"Itis ikdtreanc rttit aigp t $tYE?B AI rsurar�t tn�t�tsx; tte altoiert under ilia increa3e;such �ariryt t�"sewtos rood e In the matter of dude'- te�its. Trre wd+gatee; atso-n- c#ide eNr;k�nay head-ies- tauisd"' th tAe bra 'wr,Are ,arntitenciai NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING et- quer atm p-4,a l;st,cn as re�bvitt 3.r gne,into arbtv-6" tal wa knit' one mt$pes�eSt Itt the.Broadway C{�mmeirI�al Area shiarikt constler attgndin Itut pu6pc r3e dng Itte cny ca,rndr wit/::teosive test+ m txt:thisS�s 4t;trirnent--peg; u � 1R ti,� Broactnrer �wnrru�tat Ries. The undersigned deposes that he/she is the Public Notice at t +�►�a: at tt ffounci meefrr�tj; Advertising Clerk of the SAN MATEO COUNTY T IVIES,a newspaper of general circulation as defined by Government Code Section 6000,adjudicated as such by the Superior Court of the State of California,County of San Mateo(Order Nos. 55795 on September 21, 1951),which is published and circulated in said county and state daily(Sunday excepted). The PUBLIC NOTICE was published in every issue of the SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES on the following date(s): 6/10/05 RECEIVED JUN 16 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME I ce rr declare nalt of perjury that o oing is tr Public Notice A v rtising Clerk CITY OF BURLINGAME NOTICE OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Burlingame will consider a proposed ordinance at a public hearing on Tuesday, July 5, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame, California,that would increase the number of food establishments allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area of the City by up to five, subject to approval of conditional use permits. New establishments under the increase would be limited to full service food establishment, limited food service food establishment, or a specialty shop food establishment. Anyone interested in the Broadway Commercial Area should consider attending the public hearing. The Council will receive testimony from anyone wishing to testify at the public hearing. To receive additional information about the proposed ordinance and a complete copy of the proposed ordinance, or to provide written comments, interested persons may contact the City Clerk, located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010,phone (650) 558-7203. A complete copy of the proposed ordinance is available for review at the City Library at 480 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. C:\FILES\ORDINANC\foodestablishment2OO5.pin.wpd CITY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT - BURLHrGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 TEL:(650)558-7250 FAX:(650)696-3790 ,. . .�.•� www.burlingame.org The City of Burlingame City Council will hold a public hearing and act on an ordinance to amend the zoning code regulations for food establishments in the BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA to allow five PUBLIC HEARING s (5)additional food establishments at new locations i which maybe only full service, specialty food shop or NOTICE limited food service. The hearing will be held on Tuesday,July 5,2005 j at 7:00 P.M.in the City Hall Council Chambers at I f 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame,CA: A copy of the proposed ordinance may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame,CA or contact the City Planner Meg Monroe at 650-558-7250. Mailed: June 24,2005 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applic andwqwprojec y be reviewed prior j to the meeting Primrose Road, - Burlingame, C 3mbe limited to If you u challe e t u raising only blic hearing, described in h e ri e ed to the city at orrior to he u c a n p P � gt• F 0 R x a A Property ow rs a respon ble r informing their tenants bou io al info ati , please call (650) 558-7 0 Margaret Mo City Planner PU CE (Please refer to other side) CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 5b m MTG. <IFoq o �R.TEo JUNEb DATE 7.05.05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY yvL� DATE: JUNE 22, 2005 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY'S ZONING MAP TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES FOR FIVE ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE BAYSHORE PLANNING AREA: INNER BAYSHORE, SHORELINE, ANZA AREA, ANZA POINT NORTH AND ANZA POINT SOUTH. Action: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on the ordinance to amend the zoning boundary map for the Bayshore Planning Area including extending the current zoning until the new zoning is adopted.. City Council introduced this ordinance at the meeting of June 20,2005, and set the public hearing and action for July 5, 2005. If approved this ordinance would become effective in 30 days, August 4, 2005, for the boundaries of the Shoreline and Anza Extension districts. For the remaining four new zoning districts, Inner Bayshore, Anza Area, Anza Point North and Anza Point South, the map would become effective upon the adoption of the text for each of the remaining underlying zoning districts. General Plan Compliance The proposed changes to the zoning boundary map which apply to the Inner Bayshore, Shoreline, Anza Area, Anza Point North and Anza Point South areas, are consistent with the Bayfront Specific Plan implementation program (adopted zoning regulations) and with the policies and objectives, land use, design guidelines and intentions of the Bayfront Specific Plan adopted by the City Council and amended to the Burlingame General Plan in April 5, 2004. CEQA Compliance: The amendments to the zoning boundary map necessary for the implementation of Bayfront Specific Plan are covered by Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-531P for the Update of the Bayfront Specific Plan accepted as adequate by the City Council on April 5, 2004. The proposed zoning boundary changes and zoning that they implement are a part of the adopted implementation program of the Bayfront Specific Plan and are consistent with the land use and design parameters of the adopted Bayfront Specific Plan which included approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-531P. Planning Commission Action: Staff worked with a subcommittee of Planning Commissioners (Keighran, Bojues replaced by Deal, and Keele, not replaced) to prepare the initial draft of the zoning revisions for these three subareas. This initial draft was studied by the Planning Commission at their March 28, 2005, meeting. Revisions were made and on ACTION ONAN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY'S ZONING MAP TO ESTABLISH BOUNDARIES FOR FIVE ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE BAYSHORE PLANNING AREA: INNER BAYSHORE,SHORELINE, ANZA AREA, ANZA POINT NORTH AND ANZA POINT SOUTH. July 5,2005 May 9, 2005, the Commission held a public hearing and voted 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent) on a voice vote to recommend the new zoning requirements for the Inner Bayshore, Shoreline and Anza Extension (amendment to the Unclassified zone) and implementing zoning definitions to the City Council for action. Implicit in the Planning Commission's action on the plan and on the implementing zoning regulations was creation of new zoning district boundaries for the portion of the city on the east side of US 101. BACKGROUND: As the Subcommittee of the Planning Commission reviewed the Bayfront Specific Plan for implementation they were struck by the unique characteristics of each of the five subareas in the Bayfront Specific Plan area. The characteristics are unique for each subarea in terms of land uses and densities allowed and also in terms of the development design guidelines including setbacks, height, landscaping and other site development standards. As a result of the unique characteristics, the zoning regulations implementing the plan was based on the boundaries of each of the subareas as adopted in the specific plan. (see Map attached) The Inner Bayshore area was formerly the O-M (Office-Manufacturing) zone. The current area zoned C-4 (Waterfront Commercial) will be divided into three new zoning districts: Shoreline (SL); Anza Area (AA); and Anza Point North (APN). The Beach/Lang Road area which is currently zoned O-M (Office Manufacturing) will be assigned a new zoning district designation, Anza Point South (APS). The provisions of the proposed ordinance would provide for the current zoning districts regulations to continue until the new zoning is adopted and effective. All the new zoning districts will carry letters for identification rather than the previous letter/number combination. This change in identification will remind staff, elected and appointed officials, and developers that the zoning district changes have grown out of the 2004 Bayfront Plan reflecting the goals and policies of the plan. The attached Map titled Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Amendment to Zoning District Map documents the new zoning district boundaries. The Inner Bayshore (IB) is bounded by US 101 (on the west), the Millbrae City Line (north), Bayshore Highway (east) and Broadway Interchange (south). The Shoreline (SS) area is bounded by Bayshore Highway (on the west), the Millbrae City Line (north), San Francisco Bay (east) and Sanchez Creek and Wetland (south). The Anza Extension area is zoned Unclassified. It does not change. The Anza Extension extends from US 101 (on the west), Bayside Park(north), San Francisco Bay(east) to Bayside Park Upper Deck (south). The Anza Area (AA) is bounded by US 101 (on the west), Bayside Park Upper Deck(north), San Francisco Bay (east) and Sanchez Channel (south). The Anza Point area is divided into two zoning districts. The Anza Point North(APN) is bounded by Sanchez Channel (on the west), San Francisco Bay(north and east)the rear of the properties with frontage on Beach Road (south). The Anza Point South area is bounded by Sanchez Channel (on the west), the rear of the properties fronting on the north side of Beach Road (north), San Francisco Bay (east) and US 101 (south). Attachments: Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Amendment to Zoning District Map. Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending the Zoning Maps Incorporated in the Burlingame Zoning Code by Establishing New Zoning Districts in the City's Bayfront Area Notice of Public Hearing, published in the San Mateo Times, June 25, 2005. 2 I ORDINANCE NO. 1621 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE THE ZONING MAPS INCORPORATED IN THE BURLINGAME ZONING CODE 3 BY ESTABLISHING NEW ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE CITY'S BAYFRONT AREA 4 5 6 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 7 8 Section 1. The zoning maps attached to Ordinance No. 539 as amended and referenced 9 in Section 25.12.010 of the Municipal Code are amended as follows: 10 1. The area between the Millbrae City limits and Easton Creek, and between the 11 Bayshore Freeway and Bayshore Highway is reclassified from O-M District to Inner Bayshore 12 (I-B) District. 13 2. The area between the Millbrae City limits and Bayside Park/Sanchez Wetlands,and 14 between the Bayshore Highway and San Francisco Bay, including the area between Bayside 15 Park and Airport Boulevard, is reclassified from C-4 District to Shoreline (S-L)District. 16 These reclassifications are generally shown on the Exhibit to this ordinance and shall be 17 effective upon the effective date of this ordinance. 18 19 Section 2. The zoning maps attached to Ordinance No. 539 as amended and referenced 20 in Section 25.12.010 of the Municipal Code are amended as follows: 21 1. The area between the Bayshore Freeway and San Francisco Bay, and between the 22 Anza Extension Area and Sanchez Channel,is reclassified from C-4 District to Anza Area(A- 23 A) District. 24 2. The area encompassed between the southern property line of the real property 25 formerly known as 301 Airport Boulevard and San Francisco Bay, and between Sanchez 26 Channel and San Francisco Bay,is reclassified from C-4 District to Anza Point North(A-P-N) 27 District. 1 3. The area encompassed between the southern property line of the real property 2 formerly known as 301 Airport Boulevard and the Bayshore Freeway, and between Sanchez 3 Channel and San Francisco Bay,is reclassified from O-M District to Anza Point South(A-P-S) 4 District. 5 These reclassifications are generally shown on the Exhibit to this ordinance and shall be 6 effective upon the effective date of the City ordinances establishing the zoning regulations for 7 the Anza Area, Anza Point North, and Anza Point South Districts. 8 9 Section 3. For the procedural transition,the C-4 Zoning District regulations applicable 10 to the area to be reclassified from C-4 to either Anza Area or Anza Point North as those 11 regulations existed on June 19,2005,shall continue to apply to the two areas until such time as 12 the zoning regulations for each area become effective. The properties in these two areas shall 13 also be subject to the Bayfront Specific Plan. 14 15 Section 3. For the procedural transition,the O-M Zoning District regulations applicable 16 to the area to be reclassified from O-M to Anza Point South as those regulations existed on June 17 19,2005, shall continue to appy to the two areas until such time as the zoning regulations for 18 the area becomes effective. The properties in this area shall also be subject to the Bayfront 19 Specific Plan. 20 21 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 22 23 Mayor 24 25 I,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that 26 the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the --� 27 -2 - 1 20`'day of rune,2005,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on 2 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 - 3 - M 1 � BURLINGAME BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN Amendment to Zoning District Map Gs Ordinance No. oreline Adopted by the City Council on , 2005 Legend �• Point Inner Bayshore O-M to I-B :• •. ® Shoreline m`°�a • C-4 to S-L Anza Extension ® ® � Unclassified ® Anza Area Anza C-4 to A-A Point Anza Point North South C-4 to A-P-N Anza Point South " " O-M to A-P-S CITY OF BURLINGAME SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO RECLASSIFY ALL OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE BAYFRONT AREA OF THE CITY (BETWEEN THE CITY LIMITS OF MILLBRAE AND THE CITY LIMITS OF SAN MATEO AND BETWEEN THE BAYSHORE FREEWAY AND SAN FRANCISCO BAY) IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE CITY NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on July 5, 2005, the City Council of the City of Burlingame will consider adoption of a proposed ordinance that would amend the Zoning Map of the City to reclassify the properties on the Bayfront as follows: 1) The area between the Millbrae City limits and Easton Creek, and between the Bayshore Freeway and Bayshore Highway is reclassified from O-M District to Inner Bayshore (I-B) District. 2) The area between the Millbrae City limits and Bayside Park/Sanchez Wetlands, and between the Bayshore Highway and San Francisco Bay, including the area between Bayside Park and Airport Boulevard, is reclassified from C-4 District to Shoreline (S-L) District. 3) The area between the Bayshore Freeway and San Francisco Bay, and between the Anza Extension Area and Sanchez Channel, is reclassified from C-4 District to Anza Area (A-A) District. 4) The area encompassed between the southern property line of the real property formerly known as 301 Airport Boulevard and San Francisco Bay, and between Sanchez Channel and San Francisco Bay, is reclassified from C-4 District to Anza Point North (A-P-N) District. 5) The area encompassed between the southern property line of the real property formerly known as 301 Airport Boulevard and the Bayshore Freeway, and between Sanchez Channel and San Francisco Bay, is reclassified from O-M District to Anza Point South (A-P-S) District. This reclassification is intended to bring the zoning into conformance with the Bayfront Specific Plan adopted in 2004. Any persons interested in the Bayfront Area of the City of Burlingame should read both the proposed ordinance and the Bayfront Plan, as well as the proposed regulations for the Inner Bayshore and Shoreline Districts. The regulations for the Anza Area, Anza Point North, and Anza Point South Districts are currently being prepared and will come forward for public hearing in the next few months. To receive additional information about the proposed ordinance and a complete copy of the proposed ordinance, or to provide written comments, interested persons may contact the City Clerk, located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010, phone (650) 558-7203. A complete copy of the proposed ordinance and the Bayfront Specific Plan is available for review at the City Library at 480 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. �4� CITY o� STAFF REPORT 11WRLINGAME AGENDA ITEM # 5C MTG. ' 9-TEO J-k-. �O DATE 7.05.05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY -V�n(r.04-a�yc' DATE: JUNE 23, 2005 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY fL' SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANC TO ESTABLISH ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE 2004 BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE INNER BAYSHORE SUBAREA. Action: The City Council should hold a public hearing and act on the proposed zoning regulations for the Inner Bayshore area which will implement the Bayfront Specific Plan Adopted in April 2004. In their action the City Council has two choices: a. Alternative A: Ordinance Amending Title 25 to Adopt an Inner Bayshore District which does not allow light industrial uses in the Bayshore Highway overlay zone; or b. Alternative B: Ordinance Amending Title 25 to Adopt an Inner Bayshore District which allows light industrial uses in the Bayshore Highway overlay zone. If either ordinance Alternative A or B is approved, the zoning requirements will become effective in 30 days, August 4, 2005. In the iterim, the current O-M zoning will apply to the area. General Plan Compliance The proposed changes to the zoning regulations which apply to the Inner Bayshore, Shoreline and Anza Extension subareas of the Bayfront Specific Plan are consistent with the policies and objectives, land use, design guidelines and intentions of the Bayfront Specific Plan adopted by the City Council and amended to the Burlingame General Plan in April 2004. CEQA Compliance: The amendments to the zoning in the Inner Bayshore, Shoreline and Anza Extension subareas of the Bayshore planning area are covered by Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-531P for the Update of the Bayfront Specific Plan accepted as adequate by the City Council on April 5, 2004. The proposed zoning changes are a part of the adopted implementation program of the Bayfront Specific Plan and are consistent with the land use and design parameters of the adopted Bayfront Specific Plan which included approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-531P. Planning Commission Action (May 9, 2005): Staff worked with a subcommittee of three Planning Commissioners (Keighran, Bojues replaced by Deal, and Keele, not replaced) to prepare the initial draft of the zoning revisions for these three subareas. This initial PUBLIC HEARING AAD ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE 2004 BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE INNER BAYSHORE SUBAREA. July 5,2005 draft was studied by the Planning Commission at their March 28, 2005, meeting. Revisions were made and on May 9, 2005, the Commission held a public hearing and voted 6-0-1 (C. Brownrigg absent) on a voice vote to recommend the new zoning requirements for the Inner Bayshore, Shoreline and Anza Extension(amendment to the Unclassified zone) and implementing zoning definitions to the City Council for action. In their action the Planning Commissioners noted that all the comments from the study meeting had been addressed noting: ■ Biotech(light industrial) uses are allowed in the interior area of the Inner Bayshore subarea where light industrial uses are also allowed, but not along Bayshore Highway (west side) where the objective is to promote hotel and tourist uses to reinforce the dominant uses in the Shoreline subarea (east side of Bayshore Highway) and in response to the design objective of the plan to make Bayshore Highway a better entry and more supportive of the city's hotel and tourist industry; ■ Revision of the front setback requirements in the Shoreline subarea to insure that at least 55% of the fagade of each new building is designed to create a stronger street edge; ■ In the Shoreline area parking would not be allowed in the 10 foot front setback inorder to continue a green edge along the sidewalk; however, Porte Coherer's and access driveways to them would be allowed for customer convenience; ■ Parking would not be allowed in the front setback on the west side of Bayshore Highway in the Inner Bayshore subarea in order to insure the consistency of a green edge on both sides of Bayshore Highway which is directed in the design objectives to improve the appearance of the Bayshore Highway entrance to the hotel row. (See Planning Commission Staff Report, May 9, 2005) This hearing was noticed in a newspaper of general circulation. There were no comments from the public at the public hearing before the Planning Commission. City Council Action at Introduction (June 20, 2005): At the meeting on June 20, 2005, the City Council discussed the zoning provisions proposed for the new Inner Bayshore district. A question was raised by a property owner, about whether a biotech(light industrial) use would be allowed on his property located with lot frontage on Bayshore Highway. Council asked if light industrial uses could be considered as a conditional use in the Bayshore Highway overlay zone. The adopted Bayfront Specific Plan states regarding land use along the west side of Bayshore Highway in the overlay zone: "Along Bayshore Highway, hotels, offcies and destination restaurants shold be encouraged to support the visitor attrcting and serving uses across the street on properties which front on San Francisco Bay. These properties shoud be subject to development and siting standards similar to those in the Shoreline Area in order to create a uniform "tree city" sense along Balyshore Highway." Light Industrial uses are defined in the Inner Bayshore as follows: "Any light industrial or manufcturing use such as electronic, furniture, biotechnology, drug, pharmaceutical and printing conducted wholly within a completely encloased building, including associated laboratories, which: (1) Has a floor area ratio of no more than 0.5; and (2) Does not use impact presses of 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 thwenty-four(24) hour ambient noise level in excess of 3 dBA at any property line; and 2 PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE 2004 BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE INNER BAYSHORE SUBAREA. July 5,2005 (4) Does not create an obnoxious or offensive presence or emision of odor, dust, gas, noise, bright lights, smoke, vibration, harmful sewer waste or have a detrimental effect on permissible adjacent uses." The Planning Commission chose to limit light industrial uses to the interior of the Inner Bayshore subarea and prohibit them in the Bayshore/hotel interface overlay area, because the objective of the interface is to promote hotel and tourist uses to reinforce the dominant uses in the Shoreline subarea(east side of Bayshore Highway) and, in response to the design objective of the plan, to make Bayshore Highway a better entry and more supportive of the city's hotel and tourist industry. However, the adopted plan has a double focus on land use and on design. A light industrial use which is designed to look like an office building and keeps all of its production activity inside the structure and meets other code requirements such as on site parking, and off site noise and light impacts should be compatibile with the intentions of the zoning code. A conditional use permit would put the Planning Commission and City Council in the position of determining for each development if it was consistent with the objective of encouraging support of the visitor attracting and serving uses across the street on properties which front on San Francisco Bay. ■ Should the City Council be able to find that a conditional use permit for light industrial uses would enable them to implement this objective, then the plan requirement has been met. ■ If the City Council feels that a conditional use permit is not sufficient authority or that there would be so many limitations on a light industrial use inorder to insure compatibilty with adjacent hotels, restaurants and tourist promoting activites, that allowing light industrial uses in the Bayshore overlay zone would only mislead developers, then the conditional uses section of the Inner Bayshore district regulations should not be amended. As a final note, the Planning Commission recommended as part of their action on the Inner Bayshore zoning that the Bayfront Specific Plan's land use direction for the Inner Bayshore subarea be amended to prohibit hotels in the interior(behind the Bayshore Highway frontage) of the planning subarea, because hotel uses are not complatible with the activities and security of more traditional light manufacturing and industrial uses. Should the Council determine that light industrial uses should be allowed as a conditional use along the Bayshore street frontage, then the plan text could also be amended to clarify any design and land use interface requirement which the Council might want to add. The General Plan amendment for the Bayfront Specific Plan will be brought to the City Council for one action after the zoning districts have been adopted. BACKGROUND: Purpose of Zoning Changes On April 5, 2004, the City Council adopted the Bayfront Specific Plan for the area of Burlingame which is located 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 2004, plan. For the April 2004, plan the Bayfront planning area was divided into five subareas. Because the design objective of the plan was to build on the distinct characteristics of each subarea the proposed zoning district boundaries have been drawn along the subarea lines and a separate zoning district has been developed for each subarea. It should be noted that the base zoning used for the revisions was the current zoning which is now used to regulate development in the area; the Inner Bayshore area is currently zoned O-M (Office 3 PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE 2004 BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE INNER BAYSHORE SUBAREA. July 5,2005 Manufacturing). The importance of the current zoning designation is the that it has had a major role in giving each subarea its distinctive qualities. In addition, property owners and tenants in each area have expectations of the future uses of each area based on the existing zoning. In most cases the adopted plan does not depart significantly from the existing land use (permitted and conditional uses) baseline expressed in the current zoning. The greatest regulatory change was the inclusion of the new design standards e.g. setbacks, building height, landscaping, etc. The annotated text for each zoning district addresses the nature and kind of change proposed. (See attached annotated Inner Bayshore regulations) Summary of Proposed Zoning Changes Inner Bayshore Subarea The Inner Bayshore Subarea is located on the east side of US 101 between the freeway (Gilbreth Road) and Bayshore Highway including all the properties on the west side of Bayshore Highway. This area has been designated the Inner Bayshore zoning district. The focus of specific planning in the Inner Bayshore subarea is to create a matching interface of land uses and character along both sides of Bayshore Highway to support the visitor oriented nature of the Shoreline subarea and to continue the office and light industrial opportunities which make up the base of the land use in the interior portion of the Inner Bayshore subarea(area between Galbraith Avenue and the rear of the properties fronting on Bayshore Highway). For this reason the zoning regulations for the Inner Bayshore subarea are structured: (1), to provide a base set of regulations for the larger interior area, and (2), to establish an overlay zone which limits both land uses and development standards to those matching the facing shoreline subarea for properties with street frontage on Bayshore Highway. The specific issue for the Inner Bayshore subarea zoning discussed by the City Council (June 20, 2005 meeting) was: ■ whether land use options on the properties fronting on Bayshore Highway should be expanded on the west side to include industrial and manufacturing uses which comply with the design guidelines for the area. It was noted that allowing industrial and manufacturing uses as a conditional use would allow the city to review any industrial and manufacturing use in terms of impact and compliance with the design intention of integration with the visitor and tourist land use emphasis on the facing, east side (bay side) of Bayshore Highway. Ordinance Alternative B includes this change to the zoning requirements. There were no other changes to the regulations for the Inner Bayshore district as recommended by the Planning Commission. Specific issues for the Inner Bayshore subarea zoning addressed by the Subcommittee and Planning Commission were: ➢ Location of hotels and motels. The Bayfront Specific Plan allowed hotels/motels, except extended stay hotels in the interior of the Inner Bayshore subarea. The Planning Commission determined that hotel uses would conflict wihtthe light industrial uses, including biotech which were being promoted in this area as a part of the city's economic base. The Commission recommended that the Bayfront Specific Plan be amended to exclude hotels from the interior area of the Inner Bayshore subarea. The proposed zoning reflects this by prohibiting hotels/motels in the interior of the Inner Bayshore. (CS25.43.040 0) ) ➢ Health services in existing buildings larger than 20,000 SF. Currently health services including medical clinics are allowed in buildings larger than 20,000 SF in this area with no limitation on the 4 PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE 2004 BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE INNER BAYSHORE SUBAREA. July 5,2005 size of the medical use and, if in an office building, with no additional parking required. Historically small medical clinics have wanted to locate in the industrial areas in order to be close to the employees they serve. There is currently one in the Rollins Road area which is about 5, 000 SF. The subcommittee's concern was that a large health clinic with regional service, located in an existing office building could easily overpower the on-site parking and, if a destination location, create a large amount of none industrial traffic in the Inner Bayshore area. The subcommittee suggested and Planning Commission endorsed, that the type of building, the size of the building eligible for health services, and the amount of square footage in the building to be used by health services should be limited. The current proposal is: that health services be limited to locating in office buildings; that the office building must be larger than 20,000 SF; and that the total square footage within the building to be used by health services shall be limited to 5, 000 SF. Health services are not included in the conditional use section so a variance would be required if an applicant wished to vary from any of these performance standards. Proposed CS 25.43.020 (g). ➢ The appropriateness of school and classroom uses in the interior of the Inner Bayshore were much discussed by the subcommittee. Presently class or school uses are allowed in any building with more than 20,000 SF with no additional parking e.g. using the office ratio of 1:300 SF. In the proposed regulations class and school uses are allowed only in office buildings over 20,000 SF but limited to 20% of the square footage in the building with parking of 1:300 SF. Larger percentages of the square footage in school or class use could be allowed with a conditional use permit. In the overlay zone (properties with frontage on the west side of Bayshore Highway) the requirements for schools and class uses are the same except that more than 20% classroom use is prohibited e.g. no conditional use permit can be requested. The types of schools which have been in the past or are presently located in the interior of the Inner Bayshore area are nationally oriented, technical training schools which people fly into SFO to attend, schools teaching trades which occur in the immediate area, or schools/training for the disabled. ➢ Gas stations, because they are considered to be a retail use, have always been an issue in the Bayshore area. In the original plan virtually all retail uses, except food establishments, were prohibited on the east side of US 101. The existing gas stations were those which were established before 1981 and nonconforming. In the update of the Bayfront specific plan, retail uses are allowed east of US 101. In the case of the Inner Bayshore subarea retail uses are allowed "less than 5,000 SF located in existing buildings". The proposed regulations would prohibit gas stations in the interior of the Inner Bayshore area which include the following: gas pumps, major and minor automobile repair including body work, e.g. auto repair shops would be prohibited as well. In the overlay area along Bayshore Highway, gas stations would be allowed which include the following: gas pumps, minor automobile repair (see new definitions), and 500 SF of retail sales area with 2 on site parking spaces to support the retail sales. The Subcommittee felt and the Planning Commission endorsed that this recommendation would discourage heavy auto repair in the Inner Bayshore subarea and continue to encourage the use in the Rollins Road area; and still provide a visitor (and local employees) access to gasoline and minor emergency services along Bayshore Highway in the overlay area. Gas stations would also be allowed in the retail nodes in the Shoreline subarea so the two sides of Bayshore Highway would be treated the same. ➢ Minimum lot size and lot frontage. The specific plan does not address minimum lot size or street frontage; however the zoning ordinance sets the city's minimum lot size for this area at 5,000 SF and the minimum street frontage at 50 feet. In an office, light industrial and commercial area, 5,000 5 PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE 2004 BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE INNER BAYSHORE SUBAREA. July 5,2005 SF is small to meet all the intentions of the design guidelines and still be economic to develop. The great majority of the lots in the current O-M district are larger than 5,000 SF. The Subcommittee is suggested and the Planning Commission concurred that in the new zoning requirements a 10,000SF minimum lot size be established and all lots be required to have at least 50 feet of street frontage. Further these requirements will not be subject to granting an exception. This would mean that current lots could not be divided into parcels smaller than 10,000 SF. Existing lots smaller than 10,000 SF and/or lots with less than 50 feet of street frontage can still be developed; all the requirements of the current code would apply scaled to the size of the lot. It is hoped that the economics of this area will encourage lot merger not division of lots into smaller increments. ➢ Incidental food uses which typically in the Inner Bayshore area are small delis in leftover spaces of warehouse buildings or interior to larger office buildings intended to serve the employees in the immediate vicinity, have always been a regulatory issue. In the proposed code, in the Inner Bayshore subarea, one incidental food establishment, not to exceed 1,500 SF, is allowed in a mixed use building e.g. office or warehouse structure. (CS 25.43.020 — e) A conditional use permit may be requested if an applicant wishes to ask for an exception to the performance criteria. In the overlay zone incidental food uses may occur with the same performance criteria, but must apply for a conditional use permit. (CS 25.43.045 (8) ) Because these uses are a small part of a larger, mixed use building, and intended to serve employees in the immediate area additional parking is not required for the food service use. New Definitions The new definitions required to implement the zoning for the Bayfront Specific Plan have been included with the ordinance for the Inner Bayshoredistrict. The new definitions added to assist in the application of these new zoning districts are: automobile dealers and dealerships; automobile repair, minor; gasoline service station (current definition amended); apartment hotel; extended stay hotel; hotel room; limousine and livery business; commercial recreation facility; commercial parking lots. These are included in the new definitions section attached for your review. ATTACHMENTS: Alternative A: Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 to Adopt an Inner Bayshore District and Add Clarifying Defintions (no light industrial/manufactring use in the Bayshore Overlay zone) Alternative B: Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 to Adopt an Inner Bayshore District and Add Clarifying Defintions (including light industrial and manufacturing use in the Bayshore overlay zone) Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2005. Action Recommendation to City Council. Planning Commission Minutes, March 28, 2005. Study of proposed zoning changes for Inner Bayshore, Shoreline and Anza Extension Subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan. Map Inner Bayshore Subarea, land use Annotated: Bayfront Specific Plan Implementation Inner Bayshore Subarea Zoning, April 22, 2005 for draft used for Planning Commission Action Land Use description for Inner Bayshore subarea, Bayfront Specific Plan, April 2004 Design Guidelines for Inner Bayshore subarea, Bayfront Specific Plan, April 2004 Table: Permitted, Conditional and Prohibited Uses for Inner Bayshore, Bayshore Highway Overlay and Shoreline Subareas, for comparison. 6 PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE 2004 BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE INNER BAYSHORE SUBAREA. July 5,2005 Annotated: Definitions to Implement the Proposed Zoning Regulations for the Bayshore Specific Plan Inner Bayshore, Shoreline and Anza Extension Subareas. Notice of Public Hearing, published in the San Mateo Times, June 25, 2005. U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR 2005\ActionBayshoreZngIB 7.5.05.doc 7 I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 TO ADOPT AN INNER BAYSHORE DISTRICT AND 3 ADD CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS 4 5 Section 1. In 2004, the City Council adopted a revised Bayshore Specific Plan to guide 6 development and use of the Bayshore Area of the City. Among the subareas in the Plan is the Inner 7 Bayshore,which includes a variety of uses and lot sizes. This ordinance implements the Specific Plan 8 for this subarea. 9 10 Section 2. A new Chapter 25.43 is adopted to read as follows: 11 Chapter 25.43 Inner Bayshore District(IB) 12 Sections: 13 25.43.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 14 25.43.020 Permitted uses. 15 25.43.030 Conditional uses. 16 25.43.040 Prohibited uses. 17 25.43.045 Uses on properties with frontage on Bayshore Highway. 18 25.43.050 Ambiguity of use. 19 25.43.052 Design Review 20 25.43.055 Setbacks. 21 25.43.060 Minimum lot sizes and frontages. 22 25.43.065 No variances for lot size or frontage. 23 25.43.070 Landscaping and design requirements. 24 25.43.080 Parking requirements. 25 26 25.43.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 27 It is the purpose and policy of this chapter to designate for the Inner Bayshore(IB)an office/light 28 industrial park area which will serve as a transition between the Shoreline Commercial District (C-4) ALTERNATIVE A (6/20) 1 I and the Light Industrial District(M-1)zones. In its uses,this District shall be consistent with the intent 2 of the General Plan and the Bayfront Specific Plan,Inner Bayshore Subarea, to provide professional and 3 administrative offices, distribution, service, light industrial and other uses supported by access to San 4 Francisco International Airport. An additional purpose of this district is to create a supportive interface 5 between the adjacent hotel, restaurant and other Shoreline commercial activities and Bay Trail 6 recreation area nearby which front on San Francisco Bay. These proposed uses shall further enhance 7 the economic and aesthetic advantages of the adjacent Shoreline subarea and the economic base of the 8 city. 9 10 25.43.020 Permitted uses. 11 The following uses are permitted in the IB district: 12 (a) Air courier, delivery or other trans shipment services, including freight forwarding,which: 13 (1) Provide on-site parking for all fleet vehicles; and 14 (2) Provide on-site parking for all employees. 15 (b) Any light industrial or manufacturing use such as electronic,furniture,biotechnology,drug, 16 pharmaceutical and printing conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building, including 17 associated laboratories,which: 18 (1) Has a floor area ratio of no more than 0.5; and 19 (2) Does not use impact presses of over twenty (20) tons rated capacity or machine-operated 20 drop hammers; and 21 (3)Encloses compressors and generators so that there is no increase in the twenty-four(24)hour 22 ambient noise level in excess of 3 dBA at any property line; and 23 (4) Does not create an obnoxious or offensive presence or emission of odor, dust, gas, noise, 24 bright lights,smoke,vibration,harmful sewer waste or have a detrimental effect on permissible adjacent 25 uses; 26 (c) Non-retail service businesses, including contractors,which: 27 (1) Provide on-site parking for all company vehicles; and 28 (2) On-site parking for all employees: and ALTERNATIVE A(6/20) 2 1 (3) Adequate on-site, designated space for loading and unloading goods, equipment and 2 materials; 3 (d) Class or school uses in office structures over twenty thousand(20,000) gross square feet, 4 where the total class or school use does not exceed twenty(20)percent of the gross floor area on the lot, 5 and with parking as set forth in Section 25.43.080 below; 6 (e) Incidental food establishments within a multi-use building which meet all of the following 7 criteria: 8 (1) Is not the primary use of the building or structure; and 9 (2) Is open no earlier than six(6:00)a.m.and no later than five(5:00)p.m.,and closed Saturdays 10 and Sundays; and 11 (3)Has a maximum size of one thousand five hundred(1,500) square feet; and 12 (4) Is at least fifteen(15) feet in length and fifteen(15) feet in width; and 13 (5) Has no sale of alcoholic beverages; and 14 (6)Provides parking as set forth in section 25.43.080 below; 15 (f) Laboratory and clean room facilities for research,testing or creating products and goods; 16 (g) Office uses, including health services and medical clinics not to exceed 5,000 square feet 17 total in office structures over 20,000 gross square feet,with parking as set forth in section 25.43.080; 18 (h) Warehouse uses and warehouse storage and distribution of goods, materials, liquids and 19 equipment conducted wholly within an enclosed building with a floor area ratio of not more than 0.5; 20 (i) Outdoor storage of materials incidental to permitted uses with a maximum storage area of 21 ten(10)percent of the gross lot area; all contractor's storage or outdoor storage areas shall be: 22 (1) Limited to side and rear yards; and 23 (2) Shall be paved; and 24 (3) Shall be enclosed by an opaque fence or wall eight(8) feet in height; and 25 0) Accessory uses which are necessary for the permitted uses under this section and section 26 25.43.030; and all uses shall be required to provide trash enclosures adequate in size to accommodate 27 storage for all trash generated on-site and an area adequate for recycling items as required by the city. 28 ALTERNATIVE A(6/20) 3 1 25.43.030 Conditional uses. 2 The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit: 3 (a) Any use with a structure that: 4 (1)Exceeds the maximum floor area ratio set forth in section 25.43.020; or 5 (2) Exceeds the development density standards for that use established in the Inner Bayshore 6 subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan, unless otherwise prohibited by this chapter; or 7 (3)Does not comply with a measurable standard of the design guidelines for that use established 8 in the Inner Bayshore subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan,unless otherwise prohibited by this chapter; 9 (b) Any light industrial or manufacturing use such as electronic,furniture,biotechnology,drug, 10 pharmaceutical and printing conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building, including 11 associated laboratories,which exceeds any of the performance criteria of section 25.43.020(b). 12 (c) Automobile rental businesses which meet the following minimum standards: 13 (1) The use is the sole tenant and only occupant of the lot; and 14 (2) The lot is at least seven-tenths (0.7) of an acre; and 15 (3) Parking is provided on-site for storage of at least twenty-five(25)percent of the cars rented 16 monthly,based on an annual average for the site; and 17 (4) Parking is provided on-site for all employees and customers; and 18 (5)The use meets all the other requirements of development in the district,including peak hour 19 trip generation at critical intersections as defined in the Traffic Analyzer and Specific Area Plan for the 20 Bayfront/Anza Areas; 21 (d)Technical schools with training directly related to permitted or conditional uses in the Inner 22 Bayshore area,with parking as required by chapter 25.70; 23 (e) Conference and exhibition facilities; 24 (f) Incidental food establishment uses that are not the primary use of a building and do not meet 25 the criteria of section 25.43.020; 26 (g) Outdoor storage of materials incidental to permitted uses which storage exceeds ten (10) 27 percent of the gross lot area and contractors storage yards;any such use shall be limited to side and rear 28 yards, shall be paved,and shall be enclosed by an opaque fence or wall eight (8) feet in height; ALTERNATIVE A(6/20) 4 1 (h) Structures over thirty-five(35) feet in height; 2 (i) Any use similar in nature to one which is permitted or for which a permit is required in this 3 district at a density determined not to exceed the trip generation for the planned use of the lot using the 4 adopted Bayfront traffic analyzer. 5 0) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted and conditional uses. 6 7 25.43.040 Prohibited uses. 8 Uses not listed as permitted or conditional are prohibited in the IB district,specifically including 9 the following: 10 (a) Automobile rental uses that do not comply with the criteria of section 25.43.030; 11 (b) Automobile dealers and sales lots, wholesale and retail, and automobile leasing,whether 12 freestanding, in office buildings, or in connection with other uses; 13 (c) Automobile wrecking,junkyards, storage or baling of scraps,paper,rags, sacks or metals; 14 (d) Freestanding food establishments on any properties without frontage on Bayshore Highway: 15 (e) Gasoline service stations on an properties without frontage on Bayshore Highway; 16 (f) Residential uses and buildings,except as part of a hotel as permitted under section 25.43.045 17 below; 18 (g) Limousine and livery businesses and associated storage facilities; 19 (h) Adult oriented businesses as defined in chapter 25.76; 20 (i) Any use determined to be obnoxious or offensive; 21 6) Hotels,motels, and extended stay hotels without lot frontage on Bayshore Highway; 22 (k) Long term airport parking facilities; and 23 (1) Massage,bathing, tanning or similar establishments. 24 25 25.43.045 Properties with frontage on Bayshore Highway 26 (a) In addition to the permitted uses in the Inner Bayshore district, the following uses are 27 permitted uses on properties located in the Inner Bayshore Zone that have street frontage on Bayshore 28 Highway: ALTERNATIVE A(6/20) 5 1 (1) Free standing food establishments with a floor area ratio of no more than 0.15 and with 2 parking as set forth in section 25.43.080; 3 (2) Motels and hotels with a maximum density of sixty-five(65)rooms to the acre and a floor 4 area ratio of 1.0 or less; facilities provided on-site may include such retail sales and personal service 5 uses as meal and beverage services,barber and beauty shops, smoke shops, and shuttle bus service to 6 serve only hotel guests so long as the operations do not use parking required for primary hotel use, 7 conventions and meeting facilities or services which are clearly incidental and accessory to provision 8 of lodging accommodations;and no more than one dwelling unit within the motel or hotel structure that 9 is used exclusively by the owner or manager of the motel or hotel; 10 (3) Offices; and 11 (4) Retail sales and retail service businesses with a maximum of five thousand(5,000) gross 12 square feet or less and which singly or in combination shall not to exceed fifty(50%)percent of the 13 floor area of any structure.. 14 (b) In addition to the conditional uses allowed in the Inner Bayshore Zone, the following uses 15 are allowed with a conditional use permit on properties with street frontage on Bayshore Highway 16 located in the Inner Bayshore Subarea: 17 (1) Structures over thirty-five(35) feet in height; 18 (2) Convention and exhibition facilities; 19 (3) Commercial recreation; 20 (4) Hotels and motels that do not meet the criteria of section 25.34.045 above; 21 22JIM fil job 23 (6) A car rental desk on a lot occupied by a hotel; 24 (7) Provision by a hotel of a park and fly program that involves the long term parking of 25 vehicles at a lot that is not approved as a commercial parking lot; 26 (8) Gas stations with a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet of retail sales area and 27 limited to minor automobile repair services, excluding specialty shop food establishments; 28 (9) Incidental food sales and services in office buildings of twenty thousand(20,000)square feet ALTERNATIVE A(6/20) 6 I or more,not to exceed a maximum of one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet; 2 (10)Drive-in and take-out services associated with permitted or conditional uses; and 3 (11) Any use similar in nature to one which is permitted or for which a permit is required in this 4 district at a density determined not to exceed the trip generation for the planned use of the lot using the 5 adopted Bayfront traffic analyzer; 6 (c)In addition to the uses prohibited in section 25.43.040 as expressly modified in subsections 7 (a) and(b) above, the following additional uses are prohibited: 8 (1) Outdoor storage,including outdoor storage ofmaterials or goods associated with a permitted 9 or conditional use, Wd 10 (2) Extended stay hotels. 11 12 25.43.050 Ambiguity of use. 13 If ambiguity arises concerning the approximate classification of a particular use within the 14 meaning and intent of this chapter, it shall be the duty of the planning commission to ascertain all 15 pertinent facts concerning such use and determine into which classification such use shall be classified. 16 Such decisions are appealable to the city council pursuant to section 25.16.070. 17 18 25.43.052 Design Review 19 Construction and alterations including substantial construction or change to more than fifty(50) 20 percent of the front fagade or change to more than fifty(50)percent of any fagade facing a public or 21 private street or parking lot shall be subject to design review based on the design guidelines for the Inner 22 Bayshore subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan and shall be processed as provided in section 25.57.030. 23 (a) A design review application in the IB district shall be reviewed by the planning commission 24 for the following considerations: 25 (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles as defined in the design guidelines for 26 the Inner Bayshore subarea; 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 ALTERNATIVE A(6/20) 7 I not dominate street frontages, and for properties fronting on Bayshore Highway, that the design 2 contributes to the interface with the Shoreline subarea as directed in the Bayshore specific plan; 3 (3) On visually prominent and gateway sites,whether the design fits the site and is compatible 4 with the surrounding development and consistent with the design guidelines for the Inner Bayshore 5 subarea; 6 (4) Compatibility of the architecture and landscaping with the design guidelines for the Inner 7 Bayshore subarea including materials used in existing development,location and use ofplant materials, 8 and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; 9 (5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the lot that is 10 consistent among primary elements of the structure(s) and with the directives of the design guidelines 11 for the Inner Bayshore subarea; 12 (6) Provision of site features identified in the design guidelines such as landscaping and 13 pedestrian circulation which enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. 14 (b) When any part of a commercial structure is subject to design review, any awnings on the 15 commercial structures shall be included in the design review. 16 (c) Exemptions from design review: 17 (1) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for development in the IB district 18 filed before and certain amendments to those applications or permits as specifically 19 provided in Ordinance No. 20 (2) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for developments in the IB district 21 filed before 5:00 p.m.on and certain amendments to those applications as specifically 22 provided in Ordinance No. 23 24 25.43.055 Setbacks. 25 The following minimum setbacks shall apply to all parcels located in the Inner Bayshore district: 26 (a) Front setbacks: 27 (1) All properties shall have a front setback of at least ten (10) feet except for front setbacks 28 from Bayshore Highway; ALTERNATIVE A(6/20) 8 1 (2) On lots with any street frontage on Bayshore Highway, there shall be an average front 2 setback of fifteen(15)feet from Bayshore Highway;with at least forty(40)percent of the structure at 3 the maximum setback of fifteen(15) feet. 4 (b) There shall be a minimum ten(10) foot side setback. 5 (c)Except for rear setbacks from Bayshore Highway, there is no minimum rear setback in the 6 IB district. 7 (d) In addition to the setbacks set forth above, there shall be a fifteen (15) foot setback from 8 Bayshore Highway for all below grade construction. 9 10 25.43.060 Minimum Lot Size 11 There shall be a minimum lot size of ten thousand(10,000) square feet and a minimum street 12 frontage of fifty(50)feet. No property in this district shall be divided or subdivided into a lot with less 13 area or less street frontage. 14 15 25.44.065 No variance for lot size and street frontage 16 Notwithstanding any other provision of this code,no variance for lot size or street frontage shall 17 be granted to any property within this district. 18 19 25.43.070 Landscaping and design requirements. 20 The following landscaping requirements shall apply to all parcels: 21 (a) The landscape requirements of the design guidelines for the Inner Bayshore subarea of the 22 Bayfront Specific Plan as adopted by the city council shall be met,including the requirement that sixty 23 (60)percent of the front setback shall be landscaped. 24 (b) On properties with any lot front on Bayshore Highway, the following additional landscape 25 requirements shall apply: 26 (1)A minimum of fifteen(15)percent of the total area of each lot shall be suitably landscaped 27 and the landscaping shall be properly maintained. A landscape plan shall be submitted with any 28 application for an approval under this title for any use on the lot. ALTERNATIVE A (6/20) 9 1 (2)At least sixty(60)percent of the area between the front property line and the front of any 2 building on a lot shall be landscaped. Where no building exists along a lot front,at least sixty(60) 3 percent of the front setback area shall be landscaped;landscaping may include walkways and seating 4 features. 5 (3)At least ten(10)percent of all parking areas shall be landscaped. 6 (4)A properly fenced and screened area for refuse,garbage,and recycling containers shall be 7 provided for each building or group of buildings on a lot. Any such area shall be located at the side or 8 rear of a building and shall not be located within one hundred(100)feet of the rear property line. 9 (5)Loading docks and truck loading access shall be fully enclosed and shall be located at the side 10 or rear of a building. 11 (6)No parking areas shall be located within fifteen(15)feet of any lot front on Bayshore 12 Highway,or within the side setback of any lot with a property line on Bayshore Highway. Driveways 13 are allowed in any such side setback,but the driveways shall not be considered as landscaped area. No 14 parking areas shall be located between any structure and the lot front,except for loading zones. 15 16 25.43.080 Parking requirements. 17 (a)Except as otherwise set forth in this section,all uses shall provide parking in accordance with 18 chapter 25.70. 19 (b)Free-standing food establishments.Free standing food establishments shall provide customer 20 parking on-site at the rate of one space for each one hundred(100)square feet of gross floor area;and 21 employee parking on-site at the rate of one space for each one thousand(1000)square feet of gross floor 22 area. 23 (c)Incidental food establishments.Food establishments that are not the primary use of a building 24 shall provide parking on-site at the rate of one parking space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area 25 of food establishment use. 26 27 Section 3. Section 25.70.040(Requirements for commercial and industrial uses)provision 28 regarding"Gymnasium and health clubs"is amended to read as follows: ALTERNATIVE A(6/20) 10 1 "Commercial parking lot" means a parking lot where the commercial parking lot use is the 2 predominant use for temporary parking of motor vehicles and is not associated with any other use on the 3 site and for which a fee for parking is charged; "commercial parking lot' includes long term airport 4 parking lots and free standing parking lots where parking is the predominant use on the lot. 5 6 Section 13. Section 25.08.555 (Real estate) is renumbered as 25.08.552. 7 8 Section 14. A new Section 25.08.554 is added to read as follows: 9 25.08.554 Recreation facility, commercial 10 "Commercial recreation facility" means a recreation facilities operated as a business and open 11 to the public for a fee. Such uses may include theaters for live performances, movie theaters, bowling 12 alleys, gymnasiums and outdoor recreation uses such as golf driving ranges, water slides, soccer centers 13 and enclosed sports facilities. 14 15 Section 15. A new Section 25.08.557-1 is added to read as follows: 16 25.08.557-1 Restaurant, Destination 17 'Destination restaurant' means a full service food establishment in a location where the majority 18 of the customers arrive by automobile; such restaurants are required to have a site size sufficient to 19 accommodate all parking for customers and employees on the same site as well accommodating 20 landscaping and such amenities as the location may require, e.g. the Bay Trail, as set out in any 21 applicable design guidelines adopted by the City. 22 23 Section 16. This ordinance is to be published according to law. 24 25 26 Mayor 27 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 28 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2CP day of June, ALTERNATIVE A (6/20) 13 1 2005, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2 , 2005, by the following vote: 3 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 4 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 5 City Clerk 6 C:\FILES\ORDINANC\innerbayshore2005-AlternateA.ord.wpd 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ALTERNATIVE A (6/20) 14 1 Section 7. Section 25.08.370 (Hotel, apartment) is deleted 2 3 Section 8. A new Section 25.08.300 is amended to read as follows: 4 25.08.383 Hotel,Extended Stay 5 "Extended Stay Hotel'means an establishment consisting of a building or group of attached or 6 detached buildings containing lodging accommodations of one or more rooms typically let for periods 7 of a week or more and that contain standard kitchens and appliances and other facilities to support such 8 extended occupancy. "Extended stay hotels"includes residential hotels. 9 10 Section 9. Section 25.08.370(Hotel, apartment)is deleted. 11 12 Section 10. A new Section 25.08.386 is added to read as follows: 13 25.08.386 Hotel Room 14 "Hotel room"means a room rented or used by a transient guest or customer that has four walls, 15 a door, a bathroom, a closet with doors and a window, and that is a minimum of 300 gross square feet 16 or the minimum square footage required by the California Building Code current edition as amended by 17 the City of Burlingame,whichever is greater. 18 19 Section 11. A new Section 25.08.395 is added to read as follows: 20 25.08.395 Limousine and Livery businesses 21 "Limousine and livery businesses" means a business that operates one or more automobiles, 22 limousines,buses and/or shuttle buses for the commercial purpose of carrying passengers for a fee;the 23 term limousine applies to the use of any building, land area or other premise for the storage, 24 maintenance, and repair of vehicles used in the operation of the business or by the employees of the 25 business. 26 27 Section 12. A new Section 25.08.386 is added to read as follows: 28 25.08.511 Parking lot, commercial. ALTERNATIVE A(6/20) 12 I Commercial recreation, 1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area 2 gymnasiums and health clubs 3 4 Section 4. A new Section 25.08.092 is added to read as follows: 5 25.08.092 Automobile dealers and dealerships. 6 "Automobile dealers and dealerships"means an authorized automobile or vehicles sales agency 7 or any business that acquires,leases,divides,distributes,or delivers at retail or wholesale,new or used 8 automobiles and vehicles,including light trucks or vans,trailers, or recreation vehicles, and including 9 any vehicle preparation or repair work considered as an accessory use;"automobile dealership"applies 10 to the use of any building, land area, or other premise for the display and sale of new or used vehicles. 11 12 Section 5. A new Section 25.08.098 is added to read as follows: 13 25.08.098 Automobile repair, Minor 14 "Minor automobile repair" means minor repairs, including sale and service of spark plugs, 15 batteries and distributors and distributor parts,replacement of mufflers,tail pipes,water hose,fan belts, 16 brake fluid,light bulb fuses,windshield wipers and wiper blades wheel bearings,radiator maintenance, 17 adjusting and repairing breaks,and other incidental replacement of parts to passenger automobiles and 18 trucks not to exceed one and one-half tons capacity. 19 20 Section 6. A new Section 25.08.300 is amended to read as follows: 21 25.08.300 Gasoline service station. 22 "Gasoline service station" means the buildings and premises and use thereof for the retail 23 distribution of gasoline directly to motor vehicles except semi-trailer trucks, and minor automobile 24 repairs, and including the sale of associated sundry items and pre-prepared foods for consumption off 25 the premises in conjunction with the sales of gasoline provided that the gross floor area devoted to the 26 sale of such sundry items and prepared foods does not exceed a maximum area of five hundred (500) 27 gross square feet. 28 ALTERNATIVE A (6/20) 11 I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 TO ADOPT AN INNER BAYSHORE DISTRICT AND 3 ADD CLARIFYING DEFINITIONS 4 5 Section 1. In 2004, the City Council adopted a revised Bayshore Specific Plan to guide 6 development and use of the Bayshore Area of the City. Among the subareas in the Plan is the Inner 7 Bayshore,which includes a variety of uses and lot sizes. This ordinance implements the Specific Plan 8 for this subarea. 9 10 Section 2. A new Chapter 25.43 is adopted to read as follows: 11 Chapter 25.43 12 Sections: Inner Bayshore District(IB) 13 25.43.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 14 25.43.020 Permitted uses. 15 25.43.030 Conditional uses. 16 25.43.040 Prohibited uses. 17 25.43.045 Uses on properties with frontage on Bayshore Highway. 18 25.43.050 Ambiguity of use. 19 25.43.052 Design Review 20 25.43.055 Setbacks. 21 25.43.060 Minimum lot sizes and frontages. 22 25.43.065 No variances for lot size or frontage. 23 25.43.070 Landscaping and design requirements. 24 25.43.080 Parking requirements. 25 26 25.43.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 27 It is the purpose and policy of this chapter to designate for the Inner Bayshore(IB)an office/light 28 industrial park area which will serve as a transition between the Shoreline Commercial District (C-4) ALTERNATIVE B (6/6) 1 I and the Light Industrial District(M-1)zones. In its uses,this District shall be consistent with the intent 2 of the General Plan and the Bayfront Specific Plan,Inner Bayshore Subarea, to provide professional and 3 administrative offices, distribution, service, light industrial and other uses supported by access to San 4 Francisco International Airport. An additional purpose of this district is to create a supportive interface 5 between the adjacent hotel, restaurant and other Shoreline commercial activities and Bay Trail 6 recreation area nearby which front on San Francisco Bay. These proposed uses shall further enhance 7 the economic and aesthetic advantages of the adjacent Shoreline subarea and the economic base of the 8 city. 9 10 25.43.020 Permitted uses. 11 The following uses are permitted in the IB district: 12 (a) Air courier, delivery or other trans shipment services, including freight forwarding,which: 13 (1) Provide on-site parking for all fleet vehicles; and 14 (2) Provide on-site parking for all employees. 15 (b) Any light industrial or manufacturing use such as electronic,furniture,biotechnology,drug, 16 pharmaceutical and printing conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building, including 17 associated laboratories, which: 18 (1) Has a floor area ratio of no more than 0.5; and 19 (2) Does not use impact presses of over twenty (20) tons rated capacity or machine-operated 20 drop hammers; and 21 (3)Encloses compressors and generators so that there is no increase in the twenty-four(24)hour 22 ambient noise level in excess of 3 dBA at any property line; and 23 (4) Does not create an obnoxious or offensive presence or emission of odor, dust, gas, noise, 24 bright lights,smoke,vibration,harmful sewer waste or have a detrimental effect on permissible adjacent 25 uses; 26 (c) Non-retail service businesses, including contractors, which: 27 (1) Provide on-site parking for all company vehicles; and 28 (2) On-site parking for all employees: and ALTERNATIVE B (6/6) 2 1 (3) Adequate on-site, designated space for loading and unloading goods, equipment and 2 materials; 3 (d) Class or school uses in office structures over twenty thousand (20,000) gross square feet, 4 where the total class or school use does not exceed twenty(20)percent of the gross floor area on the lot, 5 and with parking as set forth in Section 25.43.080 below; 6 (e) Incidental food establishments within a multi-use building which meet all of the following 7 criteria: 8 (1)Is not the primary use of the building or structure; and 9 (2) Is open no earlier than six(6:00)a.m.and no later than five(5:00)p.m.,and closed Saturdays 10 and Sundays; and 11 (3) Has a maximum size of one thousand five hundred(1,500) square feet; and 12 (4)Is at least fifteen(15) feet in length and fifteen(15) feet in width; and 13 (5) Has no sale of alcoholic beverages; and 14 (6) Provides parking as set forth in section 25.43.080 below; 15 (f) Laboratory and clean room facilities for research, testing or creating products and goods; 16 (g) Office uses, including health services and medical clinics not to exceed 5,000 square feet 17 total in office structures over 20,000 gross square feet, with parking as set forth in section 25.43.080; 18 (h) Warehouse uses and warehouse storage and distribution of goods, materials, liquids and 19 equipment conducted wholly within an enclosed building with a floor area ratio of not more than 0.5; 20 (i) Outdoor storage of materials incidental to permitted uses with a maximum storage area of 21 ten(10)percent of the gross lot area; all contractor's storage or outdoor storage areas shall be: 22 (1) Limited to side and rear yards; and 23 (2) Shall be paved; and 24 (3) Shall be enclosed by an opaque fence or wall eight(8) feet in height; and 25 0) Accessory uses which are necessary for the permitted uses under this section and section 26 25.43.030; and all uses shall be required to provide trash enclosures adequate in size to accommodate 27 storage for all trash generated on-site and an area adequate for recycling items as required by the city. 28 ALTERNATIVE B (6/6) 3 1 25.43.030 Conditional uses. 2 The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit: 3 (a) Any use with a structure that: 4 (1) Exceeds the maximum floor area ratio set forth in section 25.43.020; or 5 (2) Exceeds the development density standards for that use established in the Inner Bayshore 6 subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan, unless otherwise prohibited by this chapter; or 7 (3)Does not comply with a measurable standard of the design guidelines for that use established 8 in the Inner Bayshore subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan,unless otherwise prohibited by this chapter; 9 (b) Any light industrial or manufacturing use such as electronic,furniture,biotechnology,drug, 10 pharmaceutical and printing conducted wholly within a completely enclosed building, including 11 associated laboratories, which exceeds any of the performance criteria of section 25.43.020(b). 12 (c) Automobile rental businesses which meet the following minimum standards: 13 (1) The use is the sole tenant and only occupant of the lot; and 14 (2) The lot is at least seven-tenths (0.7) of an acre; and 15 (3) Parking is provided on-site for storage of at least twenty-five(25)percent of the cars rented 16 monthly, based on an annual average for the site; and 17 (4) Parking is provided on-site for all employees and customers; and 18 (5)The use meets all the other requirements of development in the district,including peak hour 19 trip generation at critical intersections as defined in the Traffic Analyzer and Specific Area Plan for the 20 Bayfront/Anza Areas; 21 (d)Technical schools with training directly related to permitted or conditional uses in the Inner 22 Bayshore area, with parking as required by chapter 25.70; 23 (e) Conference and exhibition facilities; 24 (f) Incidental food establishment uses that are not the primary use of a building and do not meet 25 the criteria of section 25.43.020; 26 (g) Outdoor storage of materials incidental to permitted uses which storage exceeds ten (10) 27 percent of the gross lot area and contractors storage yards;any such use shall be limited to side and rear 28 yards, shall be paved, and shall be enclosed by an opaque fence or wall eight(8) feet in height; ALTERNATIVE B (6/6) 4 I (h) Structures over thirty-five(35)feet in height; 2 (i) Any use similar in nature to one which is permitted or for which a permit is required in this 3 district at a density determined not to exceed the trip generation for the planned use of the lot using the 4 adopted Bayfront traffic analyzer. 5 (j) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted and conditional uses. 6 7 25.43.040 Prohibited uses. 8 Uses not listed as permitted or conditional are prohibited in the IB district,specifically including 9 the following: 10 (a) Automobile rental uses that do not comply with the criteria of section 25.43.030; 11 (b) Automobile dealers and sales lots, wholesale and retail, and automobile leasing, whether 12 freestanding, in office buildings, or in connection with other uses; 13 (c) Automobile wrecking,junkyards, storage or baling of scraps,paper, rags, sacks or metals; 14 (d) Freestanding food establishments on any properties without frontage on Bayshore Highway: 15 (e) Gasoline service stations on an properties without frontage on Bayshore Highway; 16 (f) Residential uses and buildings,except as part of a hotel as permitted under section 25.43.045 17 below; 18 (g) Limousine and livery businesses and associated storage facilities; 19 (h) Adult oriented businesses as defined in chapter 25.76; 20 (i) Any use determined to be obnoxious or offensive; 21 0) Hotels, motels, and extended stay hotels without lot frontage on Bayshore Highway; 22 (k) Long term airport parking facilities; and 23 (0 Massage, bathing,tanning or similar establishments. 24 25 25.43.045 Properties with frontage on Bayshore Highway 26 (a) In addition to the permitted uses in the Inner Bayshore district, the following uses are 27 permitted uses on properties located in the Inner Bayshore Zone that have street frontage on Bayshore 28 Highway: ALTERNATIVE B (6/6) 5 1 (1) Free standing food establishments with a floor area ratio of no more than 0.15 and with 2 parking as set forth in section 25.43.080; 3 (2) Motels and hotels with a maximum density of sixty-five(65)rooms to the acre and a floor 4 area ratio of 1.0 or less; facilities provided on-site may include such retail sales and personal service 5 uses as meal and beverage services,barber and beauty shops, smoke shops, and shuttle bus service to 6 serve only hotel guests so long as the operations do not use parking required for primary hotel use, 7 conventions and meeting facilities or services which are clearly incidental and accessory to provision 8 of lodging accommodations;and no more than one dwelling unit within the motel or hotel structure that 9 is used exclusively by the owner or manager of the motel or hotel; 10 (3) Offices; and 11 (4) Retail sales and.retail service businesses with a maximum of five thousand (5,000) gross 12 square feet or less and which singly or in combination shall not to exceed fifty (50%)percent of the 13 floor area of any structure.. 14 (b) In addition to the conditional uses allowed in the Inner Bayshore Zone,the following uses 15 are allowed with a conditional use permit on properties with street frontage on Bayshore Highway 16 located in the Inner Bayshore Subarea: 17 (1) Structures over thirty-five (35)feet in height; 18 (2) Convention and exhibition facilities; 19 (3) Commercial recreation; 20 (4) Hotels and motels that do not meet the criteria of section 25.34.045 above; 21 (5) A car rental desk on a lot occupied by a hotel; 22 (6) 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; 24 (7) Gas stations with a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet of retail sales area and 25 limited to minor automobile repair services, excluding specialty shop food establishments; 26 (8) Incidental food sales and services in office buildings of twenty thousand(20,000)square feet 27 or more, not to exceed a maximum of one thousand five hundred(1,500) square feet; 28 (9)Drive-in and take-out services associated with permitted or conditional uses; and ALTERNATIVE B (6/6) 6 I (10) Any use similar in nature to one which is permitted or for which a permit is required in this 2 district at a density determined not to exceed the trip generation for the planned use of the lot using the 3 adopted Bayfront traffic analyzer; 4 (c)In addition to the uses prohibited in section 25.43.040 as expressly modified in subsections 5 (a)and(b) above, the following additional uses are prohibited: 6 (1) Outdoor storage,including outdoor storage of materials or goods associated with a permitted 7 or conditional use; 8 (2) Extended stay hotels; and 9 (3)Any light industrial or manufacturing use,such as electronic,furniture,biotechnology,drug, 10 pharmaceutical, and printing, including associated laboratories. 11 12 25.43.050 Ambiguity of use. 13 If ambiguity arises concerning the approximate classification of a particular use within the 14 meaning and intent of this chapter, it shall be the duty of the planning commission to ascertain all 15 pertinent facts concerning such use and determine into which classification such use shall be classified. 16 Such decisions are appealable to the city council pursuant to section 25.16.070. 17 18 25.43.052 Design Review 19 Construction and alterations including substantial construction or change to more than fifty(50) 20 percent of the front fagade or change to more than fifty (50) percent of any fagade facing a public or 21 private street or parking lot shall be subject to design review based on the design guidelines for the Inner 22 Bayshore subarea ofthe Bayfront Specific Plan and shall be processed as provided in section 25.57.030. 23 (a) A design review application in the IB district shall be reviewed by the planning commission 24 for the following considerations: 25 (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles as defined in the design guidelines for 26 the Inner Bayshore subarea; 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 ALTERNATIVE B (6/6) 7 I not dominate street frontages, and for properties fronting on Bayshore Highway, that the design 2 contributes to the interface with the Shoreline subarea as directed in the Bayshore specific plan; 3 (3) On visually prominent and gateway sites,whether the design fits the site and is compatible 4 with the surrounding development and consistent with the design guidelines for the Inner Bayshore 5 subarea; 6 (4) Compatibility of the architecture and landscaping with the design guidelines for the Inner 7 Bayshore subarea including materials used in existing development,location and use of plant materials, 8 and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; 9 (5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the lot that is 10 consistent among primary elements of the structure(s) and with the directives of the design guidelines 11 for the Inner Bayshore subarea; 12 (6) Provision of site features identified in the design guidelines such as landscaping and 13 pedestrian circulation which enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. 14 (b) When any part of a commercial structure is subject to design review, any awnings on the 15 commercial structures shall be included in the design review. 16 (c) Exemptions from design review: 17 (1) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for development in the IB district 18 filed before and certain amendments to those applications or permits as specifically 19 provided in Ordinance No. . 20 (2) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for developments in the IB district 21 filed before 5:00 p.m.on and certain amendments to those applications as specifically 22 provided in Ordinance No. 23 24 25.43.055 Setbacks. 25 The following minimum setbacks shall apply to all parcels located in the Inner Bayshore district: 26 (a) Front setbacks: 27 (1) All properties shall have a front setback of at least ten (10) feet except for front setbacks 28 from Bayshore Highway; ALTERNATIVE B (6/6) 8 1 (2) On lots with any street frontage on Bayshore Highway, there shall be an average front 2 setback of fifteen(15)feet from Bayshore Highway; with at least forty(40)percent of the structure at 3 the maximum setback of fifteen(15)feet. 4 (b) There shall be a minimum ten (10)foot side setback. 5 (c)Except for rear setbacks from Bayshore Highway, there is no minimum rear setback in the 6 IB district. 7 (d) In addition to the setbacks set forth above, there shall be a fifteen (15) foot setback from 8 Bayshore Highway for all below grade construction. 9 10 25.43.060 Minimum Lot Size 11 There shall be a minimum lot size of ten thousand(10,000) square feet and a minimum street 12 frontage of fifty(50)feet. No property in this district shall be divided or subdivided into a lot with less 13 area or less street frontage. 14 15 25.44.065 No variance for lot size and street frontage 16 Notwithstanding any other provision of this code,no variance for lot size or street frontage shall 17 be granted to any property within this district. 18 19 25.43.070 Landscaping and design requirements. 20 The following landscaping requirements shall apply to all parcels: 21 (a) The landscape requirements of the design guidelines for the Inner Bayshore subarea of the 22 Bayfront Specific Plan as adopted by the city council shall be met,including the requirement that sixty 23 (60)percent of the front setback shall be landscaped. 24 (b) On properties with any lot front on Bayshore Highway, the following additional landscape 25 requirements shall apply: 26 (1)A minimum of fifteen(15)percent of the total area of each lot shall be suitably landscaped 27 and the landscaping shall be properly maintained. A landscape plan shall be submitted with any 28 application for an approval under this title for any use on the lot. ALTERNATIVE B (6/6) 9 1 (2) At least sixty (60) percent of the area between the front property line and the front of any 2 building on a lot shall be landscaped. Where no building exists along a lot front, at least sixty (60) 3 percent of the front setback area shall be landscaped; landscaping may include walkways and seating 4 features. 5 (3)At least ten(10)percent of all parking areas shall be landscaped. 6 (4) A properly fenced and screened area for refuse, garbage, and recycling containers shall be 7 provided for each building or group of buildings on a lot. Any such area shall be located at the side or 8 rear of a building and shall not be located within one hundred(100) feet of the rear property line. 9 (5)Loading docks and truck loading access shall be fully enclosed and shall be located at the side 10 or rear of a building. 11 (6) No parking areas shall be located within fifteen (15) feet of any lot front on Bayshore 12 Highway, or within the side setback of any lot with a property line on Bayshore Highway. Driveways 13 are allowed in any such side setback,but the driveways shall not be considered as landscaped area. No 14 parking areas shall be located between any structure and the lot front, except for loading zones. 15 16 25.43.080 Parking requirements. 17 (a) Except as otherwise set forth in this section,all uses shall provide parking in accordance with 18 chapter 25.70. 19 (b)Free-standing food establishments. Free standing food establishments shall provide customer 20 parking on-site at the rate of one space for each one hundred(100) square feet of gross floor area; and 21 employee parking on-site at the rate of one space for each one thousand(1000)square feet of gross floor 22 area. 23 (c)Incidental food establishments. Food establishments that are not the primary use of a building 24 shall provide parking on-site at the rate of one parking space for each 300 square feet of gross floor area 25 of food establishment use. 26 27 Section 3. Section 25.70.040 (Requirements for commercial and industrial uses) provision 28 regarding"Gymnasium and health clubs"is amended to read as follows: ALTERNATIVE B (6/6) 10 I Commercial recreation, 1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area 2 gymnasiums and health clubs 3 4 Section 4. A new Section 25.08.092 is added to read as follows: 5 25.08.092 Automobile dealers and dealerships. 6 "Automobile dealers and dealerships"means an authorized automobile or vehicles sales agency 7 or any business that acquires,leases,divides,distributes,or delivers at retail or wholesale,new or used 8 automobiles and vehicles,including light trucks or vans,trailers, or recreation vehicles, and including 9 any vehicle preparation or repair work considered as an accessory use;"automobile dealership"applies 10 to the use of any building, land area, or other premise for the display and sale of new or used vehicles. 11 12 Section 5. A new Section 25.08.098 is added to read as follows: 13 25.08.098 Automobile repair, Minor 14 "Minor automobile repair" means minor repairs, including sale and service of spark plugs, 15 batteries and distributors and distributor parts,replacement of mufflers,tail pipes,water hose,fan belts, 16 brake fluid,light bulb fuses,windshield wipers and wiper blades wheel bearings,radiator maintenance, 17 adjusting and repairing breaks,and other incidental replacement of parts to passenger automobiles and 18 trucks not to exceed one and one-half tons capacity. 19 20 Section 6. A new Section 25.08.300 is amended to read as follows: 21 25.08.300 Gasoline service station. 22 "Gasoline service station" means the buildings and premises and use thereof for the retail 23 distribution of gasoline directly to motor vehicles except semi-trailer trucks, and minor automobile 24 repairs, and including the sale of associated sundry items and pre-prepared foods for consumption off 25 the premises in conjunction with the sales of gasoline provided that the gross floor area devoted to the 26 sale of such sundry items and prepared foods does not exceed a maximum area of five hundred (500) 27 gross square feet. 28 ALTERNATIVE B (6/6) 11 I Section 7. Section 25.08.370 (Hotel, apartment) is deleted 2 3 Section 8. A new Section 25.08.300 is amended to read as follows: 4 25.08.383 Hotel, Extended Stay 5 "Extended Stay Hotel"means an establishment consisting of a building or group of attached or 6 detached buildings containing lodging accommodations of one or more rooms typically let for periods 7 of a week or more and that contain standard kitchens and appliances and other facilities to support such 8 extended occupancy. "Extended stay hotels"includes residential hotels. 9 10 Section 9. Section 25.08.370 (Hotel, apartment) is deleted. 11 12 Section 10. A new Section 25.08.386 is added to read as follows: 13 25.08.386 Hotel Room 14 "Hotel room" means a room rented or used by a transient guest or customer that has four walls, 15 a door, a bathroom, a closet with doors and a window, and that is a minimum of 300 gross square feet 16 or the minimum square footage required by the California Building Code current edition as amended by 17 the City of Burlingame, whichever is greater. 18 19 Section 11. A new Section 25.08.395 is added to read as follows: 20 25.08.395 Limousine and Livery businesses 21 "Limousine and livery businesses" means a business that operates one or more automobiles, 22 limousines,buses and/or shuttle buses for the commercial purpose of carrying passengers for a fee;the 23 term limousine applies to the use of any building, land area or other premise for the storage, 24 maintenance, and repair of vehicles used in the operation of the business or by the employees of the 25 business. 26 27 Section 12. A new Section 25.08.386 is added to read as follows: 28 25.08.511 Parking lot, commercial. ALTERNATIVE B (6/6) 12 I "Commercial parking lot" means a parking lot where the commercial parking lot use is the 2 predominant use for temporary parking of motor vehicles and is not associated with any other use on the 3 site and for which a fee for parking is charged; "commercial parking lot" includes long term airport 4 parking lots and free standing parking lots where parking is the predominant use on the lot. 5 6 Section 13. Section 25.08.555 (Real estate) is renumbered as 25.08.552. 7 8 Section 14. A new Section 25.08.554 is added to read as follows: 9 25.08.554 Recreation facility, commercial 10 "Commercial recreation facility" means a recreation facilities operated as a business and open 11 to the public for a fee. Such uses may include theaters for live performances,movie theaters, bowling 12 alleys,gymnasiums and outdoor recreation uses such as golf driving ranges,water slides,soccer centers 13 and enclosed sports facilities. 14 15 Section 15. A new Section 25.08.557-1 is added to read as follows: 16 25.08.557-1 Restaurant, Destination 17 "Destination restaurant"means a full service food establishment in a location where the majority 18 of the customers arrive by automobile; such restaurants are required to have a site size sufficient to 19 accommodate all parking for customers and employees on the same site as well accommodating 20 landscaping and such amenities as the location may require, e.g. the Bay Trail, as set out in any 21 applicable design guidelines adopted by the City. 22 23 Section 16. This ordinance is to be published according to law. 24 25 26 Mayor 27 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 28 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6`'day of June, ALTERNATIVE B (6/6) 13 1 2005, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2 , 2005, by the following vote: 3 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 4 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 5 City Clerk 6 C:\FILES\ORDINANC\innerbayshore2005.ord.wpd 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ALTERNATIVE B (6/6) 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2005 X 9. ZONING CODE REVISIONS: INNER BAYSHORE, SHORELINE AND ANZA EXTENSION SUBAREAS OF THE BAYFRONT PLANNING AREA AND DEFINITION SECTION—PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report May 9, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe summarized the staff report calling attention to the changes which were suggested at the study meeting and had been made and were documented in the annotations for each of the zoning districts being considered:Inner Bayshore;Shoreline; and Unclassified(Anza Extension). Commissioners asked staff to review where biotech uses were allowed, staff noted in the interior of the Inner Bayshore subarea where the light industrial uses are now allowed,but not along Bayshore Highway (east and west sides) to promote hotel and tourist support uses. In the Shoreline area is the street wall 55%of the width of the lot?Yes,a maximum of 40%of a building must be at the 10'setback 15%more must be back no more than 15',the remainder may have a greater setback,but the 55%sets the edge. Would parking be allowed in the front setback in the Shoreline area? No,the front setback is 10'which is a minimum needed to establish a green edge between the sidewalk and the paved parking area on the side of the building,however, a Porte cochere or paved driveway for loading and drop off would be allowed in the front setback should the developer wish to do so. On the west side of Bayshore Highway parking in the front setback is also discouraged, this reflects the intent in the plan to establish a green edge along the west side for a better appearance for visitors and guests. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Osterling moved to recommend the zoning requirements for the Inner Bayshore,Shoreline and changes to the Unclassified zone, as well as the new definitions, to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the new zoning requirements for the Inner Bayshore and Shoreline subareas,changes to the Unclassified zoning district,and new definitions to the City Council for action. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.Brownrigg absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m. w of City Council regular meeting of May 2, 2005. CP Monro ewed the actions of the Council meeting of May 2,2005. Commission alsodi Dan Ionescu's request,slaflkQted that he had also made a request to the City Councce a"Smart Growth" presentation similar to one h a at the Progress Seminar. ouncil suggested that how to go forward on this be discussed at the jom CounciU P ng Commission meeting on June 13,2005 at 6:00 p.m.before the regular Commission meed aff also asked the Commissioners how useful the story boards were. The consensus was that. u d be more us have applicants prepare a pictorial display which included the project si the two houses on either side o ' . is could be reproduced on paper which could be inclu in the attachments for the staff report, so would be a permanent part of the file. If the c issioners felt they needed more information on height, elevatio , etbacks between house c., based on their review of the initial submittal they could ask for it at the design 'ew study a is s or a ac ion meeting. XI4,---ADJOU4OR4Ei 'JF 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28,2005 2. PROPOSED ZONING FOR INNER BAYSHORE, SHORELINE AND ANZA EXTENSION SUBAREAS OF THE BAYFRONT PLANNING AREA PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report, noting that the Bayfront Specific Planning area is divided into five subareas. As proposed each subarea will have its own zoning district. Tonight the Commission is studying new zoning requirements for three of the five areas: the Inner Bayshore,Shoreline, and Anza Extension subareas. The subcommittee and staff is continuing their efforts to prepare new regulations for the remaining two subareas. CP noted that the Anza Extension subarea is in public ownership and is fully developed with public recreation facilities and the wastewater treatment plant. No change is proposed to the unclassified zoning now assigned to this area,except to add a requirement that any future improvements be consistent with the design guidelines adopted for the subarea. The commissioners then discussed the zoning proposals for the two subarea. Commissioners noted for the Inner Bayshore subarea zoning: it is appropriate to have biotech uses including production of product as a permitted use in the Inner Bayshore area, except for the Bayshore Highway overlay zone;hotels and free standing retail uses should be concentrated in the Bayshore overlay zone,and not encouraged in the interior of the subarea;from a design point of view,on-site parking should be discouraged in front of structures along Bayshore Highway in the same manner it is discouraged across the street in the Shoreline subarea; it seems too restrictive to limit incidental food sales to 500 SF to serve local employees in office buildings and warehouse buildings, should be allowed 1,500 to 2,000 SF;health services and educational uses particularly technical training should be allowed in the Inner Bayshore area,as a conditional use with the criteria that the school be a technical school related to activities allowed in the industrial area; like the 10,000 SF minimum lot size; class room or technical school uses are all right but should not give a parking break if they are located in office buildings,should use city standard for classroom uses; have a general statement about"obnoxious uses" is it possible to add visually obnoxious to that. CA responded that all future development in this area would be subject to design review and have regulations for outdoor storage,etc.;so commission can regulate negative visual impacts as each project is presented or as enforcement eg. outdoor storage. Commissioners noted for the Shoreline subarea zoning: have the minimum front setback 40% at 10 feet, should have not less than 55% at a maximum of 15 feet to create a "street wall"; need to insure view corridor to Bay between buildings. CP noted that to protect view corridors, the maximum width of a building is established in the design guidelines between 40%and 60%of lot width and a minimum 10 foot side setback has been included which would insure a minimum of 20 feet between buildings in the worst case; asked why the office FAR is at 0.9. CP noted that it was at 0.9 in the 1981 plan and this was not changed in the plan update, she noted that given current design guidelines, the FAR will result in taller buildings. Concerned about encouraging trash enclosures at the rear adjacent, in most cases, to the Bay Trail,would like to see required on the sides of buildings away from the trail;not see Bayshore Highway as a Grand Boulevard, more like a commuter road; but the Bay Trail is an asset to the local residents and a recreation amenity which would attract the biotech industry to the area,need to find a way to keep the trash and loading off the rear,would like more parking at the front to preserve the trail experience;it is important for users of Bayshore Highway to be aware that San Francisco Bay is nearby;loading docks and trash areas wherever located should be wholly enclosed;if they must be on the rear of structures,moving the enclosed trash/load dock areas back 100 feet from the bay outside of BCDC jurisdiction is good. Commissioner noted for the Anza Extension Sub Area:no further comments on the proposed change to the Unclassified zoning for the Anza Extension subarea,amendment to include design guidelines from the plan for this area is appropriate. 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 28, 2005 Staff noted that with these corrections,the zoning regulation proposals for the Inner Bayshore,Shoreline and Anza Extension subareas,would be placed on the agenda for public hearing at a future meeting. The public hearing for these zoning regulations will be noticed in a newspaper of general circulation ten days before the public hearing. Commission's action on zoning is a recommendation to the City Council. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. V . EltS nsent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. Th are acted on simul ess sepa a discussion and/or action is requestedy the applicant,a member o t epublic or a commissionerprior to t time the commiss votes on the motion to adopt. 3A. 1340 SANC Z AVENUE,ZONED R-2—APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT F DECLINING HEIGHT ENV OPE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND COND STORY ADDITION TO XISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ANEW DE CHED GARAGE IN AN R-2 ZONE (JO MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT A ARCHITECT; KEVIN CHRISTIAN PROPER OWNER) (69 NOTICED PROJECT PLANNE . RUBEN HURIN 3B. 1149 BERNAL AVENUE,Z ED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESI REVIEW FORA NEW,TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY LLING AND DETACHED ARAGE (POKO KLEIN, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT A ARCHITECT; BRIAN C SIDY, PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED PROJECT PLANNER: R BEN HURIN 3C. 1920 CARMELITA AVENUE,ZONED R -APPLICA N FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BASEMENT FOR NEW, WO-ST Y SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TRG ARCHITECTS, P CANT AND ARCHITECT; KEITH RUZICKA, PROPERTY OWNER 65 NOTICED PROJECT ANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audie a or on th Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. C.Brownrigg noted that wished to call o item 3E,835 Airport Blvd.;C.Auran noted that he would like to call off item 3D,23 Hillside Drive. Ther ere no requests from the floor to remove items from the consent calendar. C. Boju6s noted that hewould r use himself from the vote on item 3C, 20 Carmelita Avenue, since he lives within 500 feet of the ject. C. Deal noted that he would abstain fr voting on items 3C and 3D since they were reviewed the Commission prior to his appointment. Chair Osterling call for a motion on the projects remaining on the consent Galen r, 3A, 1340 Sanchez Avenue; 3B 114 ernal Avenue; 3C 1920 Carmelita Avenue. C. Auran moved app val of the consent calendar base on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners' comments and the fin 'ngs in the staff reports wit recommended conditions in each staff report and by resolution. The motion w seconded by C.Brow 'gg. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve 3A 1340 Sanc z Avenue, and 1149 Bernal Avenue and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent). The voice vote on 1920 Ca elita Avenue passed on a 5-0-2-1 (Cers. Boju6s, Deal abstaining, C. Keighran absent). A eal procadures were advi sad This item rnnabuic"t 8:10 p.m. 3 Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Inner Bayshore Area Land Use Map - Office and Warehouse Hetes 65-rrfaee• Offices 0.9 FAR (i Retail <5000 SF Warehouse 0.5 FAR Light Industrial 0.5 FAR Restau;awt Overlay-Q4-5-1 A�R Properties with Bayshore Highway Frontage — cam.tS RSR. • CX�-ciA • ��.1 l,Q,c.}tt.�t w w a r Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action Bayfront Specific Plan Implementation Inner Bayshore Subarea Zoning (with annotations) Draft:PC study revisions(March 28,2005) Changes in boldface italics Chapter 25.43 Inner Bayshore District(IB) Sections: 25.43.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 25.43.020 Permitted uses. 25.43.030 Conditional uses. 25.43.040Prohibited uses. 25.43.045 Uses on properties with frontage on Bayshore Highway 25.43.50 Ambiguity of use. 25.43.052 Design Review 25.43.055 Setbacks 25.43.060Minimum lot sizes and frontages. 25.43.065 No variances for lot size and frontage. 25.43.070 Landscaping and design requirements. 25.43.080 Parking space requirements. Section 25.43.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. It is the purpose and policy of this chapter to designate for the Inner Bayshore (IB) an office/light industrial park area which will serve as a transition between the Shoreline Commercial District(C-4)and the Light Industrial District(M-1). In its uses this District shall be 1 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action consistent with the intent of the General Plan and the Bayfront Specific Plan, Inner Bayshore Subarea, to provide professional and administrative offices, distribution, service, light industrial and other uses supported by access to San Francisco International Airport. An additional purpose of this district is to create a supportive interface between the adjacent hotel,restaurant and other Shoreline commercial activities and Bay Trail recreation area nearby which front on San Francisco Bay. These proposed uses shall further enhance the economic and aesthetic advantages of the adjacent Shoreline subarea and the economic base of the city. Annotation. The revisions to the scope and purpose section for the new Bayshore subarea link to the zoning the intentions of the Bayfront Specific Plan and the role of the Inner Bayshore subarea in that plan. The existing O-M district will be replaced with the Inner Bayshore District and this designation will apply only to the Inner Bayshore subarea ( Millbrae city line on north, Bayshore Highway on the east, 101 off ramp at Airport Blvd. on the south, and US 101 on the west) . The Beach/Lang Road area currently zoned O-M will be assigned a new zoning designation. Section 25.43.020 Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the IB district: (a) Air courier, delivery or other trans-shipment services, including freight forwarding, which: (1) provide on-site parking for all fleet vehicles; and (2) on-site parking for all employees. Annotation: Air courier uses are present allowed in the Inner Bayshore area with these performance criteria. No change is proposed. (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: (1) Has a floor area ratio of 0.5 SF of building to land area; and (2) Does not use impact presses of over 20 tons rated capacity and 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 2 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action Annotation: The noise element of the city' s general plan sets impact criteria at the increase in decibels (dB) at property line. The standard used in commercial areas of the city is an increase of 5 dB over the ambient at any time of day. The. General Plan criteria is included in the zoning requirements here. It should be noted that the ambient noise level in the Inner Bayshore subarea is already very high. Therefore, a 5 dBA increase at property line may allow a fairly high increase. For that reason the subcommittee recommended the lower standard of 3 dBA (over the ambient) for the Inner Bayshore area, particularly along Bayshore Highway, because of the emphasis on outdoor recreation in the Planning Area embodied in the Bay Trail and the predominance of hotels and visitors in this immediate area. In terms of noise it is important to note that 3 dBA is the threshold for the human ear to hear a difference. At increase of 5 dBA at property line would be a noticeable change. (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: Biotechnology is added to the manufacturing uses to make it clear what the use classification is for this laboratory based use. When the O-M district was rewritten a number of years ago, regulation of manufacturing processing uses was shifted to performance standards in order to make the code more flexible. Performance standards are intended to identify and address the specific impacts of a use which cause the community concern and base review, not on the specific type of business but on the effects of that use. The design guidelines for the Inner Bayshore subarea establish a floor area ratio of 0 .5 for manufacturing uses which is added here as a performance criteria. (c)Non-retail service businesses, including contractors, which: (1) Provide on-site parking for all company vehicles; and (2) On-site parking for all employees: and 3 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action (3) Adequate on-site, designated space for loading and unloading goods, equipment and materials; (d) Class or school use in office structures over twenty thousand (20,000) gross square feet, where the total class or school use does not exceed twenty(20)percent of the gross floor area on the site, and with parking as set forth in Section 25.43.080; Annotation: The Bayfront plan does not address this use. Since class or school use is currently allowed in larger office buildings and this use currently is located in several of them, it seems appropriate to allow it to continue rather than make the existing uses nonconforming. In the past, at least one of the school use was granted in this area on the basis that it was airport related ( e.g. people flew in to attend-often staying at local hotels) . The reason that this use is allowed only in office buildings larger than 20, 000 GSF is because of the "law of averages" regarding parking use and the number of parking spaces required on site for a large office building. Generally in a large multi-tenant building all the employees are not on site at the same time. This variability in parking usage ( "the law of averages" ) provides sufficient on site parking to accommodate the increased demand created by class or school uses . While endorsing the concept of class and school uses being appropriate in the Inner Bayshore area and the idea that such uses would not cause parking problems in larger buildings, the Subcommittee did suggest that the maximum school or class room use be limited to 20% of the gross floor area. The primary reason for the additional restriction was, if an entire building over 20, 000 SF were to be converted to school or class room use there clearly would be periods of time where there would not be enough parking on-site. (e) Incidental food establishment within a multi-use building which meets the following criteria: (1) Is not the primary use of the building or structure; and (2) Is open no earlier than 6:00 a.m. and no later than 5:00 p.m., and closed Saturday and Sunday; and (3) Has a maximum size of one thousand five hundred(1,500) square feet; and (4) Is at least fifteen (15) feet in length and fifteen (15) feet in width; and 4 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action (5)Has no sale of alcoholic beverages;and (6)Provides parking as set forth in section 25.43.080. Annotation: This provision was added to the code to address the small deli's that sprang up mostly in leftover spaces in warehouse buildings to serve employees in the area because retail sales and service were not allowed. The subcommittee suggested three changes to the current regulations for this deli use: (1) that the maximum size be limited to 500 SF; (2), that the minimum length required be changed from 20 feet to 15 feet; and (3) that no alcoholic beverages be allowed to be sold from these deli's. The primary concern was that these "retail fool" outlets would shift from serving employees to being sales outlets for alcoholic beverages, bars, or entertainment venues after hours, detracting from the basic office industrial use focus of the area. The intent of the original limitations was that these food service uses will not compete with free standing destination restaurants which are allowed in the district only on the properties with Bayshore Highway frontage. At study the Planning Commission directed that the minimum size of these incidental food establishments be increased from 500 SF to 1,500 SF, in order to encourage this support service to local employees. (f) Laboratory and clean room facilities for research,testing or creating products and goods; Annotation: This provision is intended to allow research and development laboratories and clean room facilities associated with R and D uses, not major production laboratories associated with a manufacturing activity or heavy production. Heavy manufacturing uses are not allowed in the IB zone. (g)Office uses,including health services and medical clinics not to exceed five thousand 5,000 square feet total in office structures over twenty thousand(20,000)gross square feet,with parking as set forth in section 25.43.080; Annotation: Health services and medical clinics were allowed as a permitted use in larger office buildings in the O-M district because the variability in the daily use of on-site parking by the multiple tenants in a large building is sufficient absorb the higher 5 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action parking demand generated by medical/health service uses . To be sure that large office building does not become a medical office building without other office tenants to make the parking work, the square footage of health services and medical clinics in a single office building is limited to 8, 000 SF. Should a developer wish to build a medical office building, he could do so with a variance to the 8, 000 SF limit and parking on site to health services requirements e.g. 1 :250 GSF instead of 1:300 GSF for office uses. After some discussion the Subcommittee concluded that 8, 000 SF was too large an area and would encourage clinics in office buildings which would have a much bigger impact on parking than a number of different doctors offices. Since the one medical clinic in the city which serves an industrial area is 7, 000 SF, the subcommittee determined that the total square footage should be smaller than 8, 000 SF. Five thousand was selected based on the fact that it was enough space to allow for more than one doctor to locate in a large office building, but small enough for there to be no parking impact, as well as preventing existing office buildings from becoming medical clinics. The Bayfront Plan does not provide guidance regarding health services. Since health services have been allowed in the O-M area in the past in larger office buildings and caused no problem (including parking) , it seems appropriate to let them continue as previously regulated. (h) Warehouse uses and warehouse storage and distribution of goods,materials, liquids and equipment conducted wholly within an enclosed building with a floor area ratio of 0.5 SF of building to site area; Annotation: Warehouse uses have been allowed in this subarea since the land was filled. Warehouses were at one time the predominant use. Overtime many have been replaced or converted to office buildings, a trend which studies show is likely to continue as the location becomes more central/accessible and the property values increase. However, because of the proximity of the airport, a continuation of warehouse uses in this area is important to support the future growth of the airport. Previously the size of warehouse development was driven by the setbacks and parking. The Specific Plan added the FAR limitation. The 0 .5 FAR was based on existing development, which takes into consideration setback, parking and landscape requirements. No change is proposed to current parking and 6 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action landscape requirements . Front setbacks are reduced slightly over current requirements and side and rear setbacks eliminated in the adopted Bayfront plan. The FAR maximum will, therefore, become important in establishing the density of future development . (i) Outdoor storage of materials incidental to permitted uses with a maximum storage area of 10% of the gross site area, all contractor's storage or outdoor storage areas shall be: (1) limited to side and rear yards; and (2) shall be paved; and (3) shall be enclosed by an opaque fence or wall eight(8) feet in height; Annotation: Outdoor storage will continue to be regulated in the same way it is now in the Inner Bayshore subarea. 0) Accessory uses which are necessary for the permitted uses under this section and section 25.43.030; and all uses shall be required to provide trash enclosures adequate in size to accommodate storage for all trash generated on site and an area adequate for recycling items as required by the city. Annotation: This item allows all accessory uses which are necessary to maintain a permitted use. For example, space for rental cars if a car rental desk is allowed in a hotel . Further the section addresses a current problem for development in the Bayfront area in general, the inadequacy of on-site storage for trash and required recycling of items to reduce the waste stream. This provision is added here to 1) make clear that there is a requirement for providing enclosures adequately sized for trash and recycling bins and 2) see that a variance is required if a proposed development fails to provide an adequately sized enclosure. The item is combined with accessory uses since trash management is an accessory use. Section 25.43.030 Conditional uses. The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit: 7 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22, 2005 Draft Planning Commission Action (a) Any use with a structure that: (1) Exceeds the floor area ratio setforth in section 25.43.020; or (2) Exceeds development density standards for that use established in Inner Bayshore subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan, unless otherwise prohibited by this chapter; or (3) Does not comply with a measurable standard of the design guidelines for the use established in the Inner Bayshore subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan, unless otherwise prohibited by this chapter. Annotation : Exceeding any of the land use density and design guidelines (which were measurable) required in the 1981 Bayfront plan required Planning Commission review as a conditional use permit . Although rewritten this provision continues that requirement . Most of the new requirements for land use density are based on the requirements in the 1981 plan so there should not be a large change for property owners in this subarea . However the design guidelines are substantially different and are much better tailored for the existing conditions and anticipated land uses in the Inner Bayshore . One of the reasons for updating the Bayfront Plan was to develop a realistic set of design guidelines for development in this subarea . This provision will require the Planning Commission to review projects which are not consistent with these new guidelines . (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 in CS 25.43.020 (b): Annotation : In reviewing the permitted uses the subcommittee felt that because of the existence of noise sensitive uses near by, e . g . hotels and bay trail , and the stated planning objectives to encourage noise sensitive uses in parts of the Inner Bayshore area , new permitted uses should be encourage to meet a higher noise -at -property- line standard than the community standard . However , since there are locations within the Inner Bayshore area which would not be attractive for noise sensitive uses e . g . next to US 101 , uses which cannot meet the lesser noise standard may be appropriate . Through the conditional use permit process it is possible for one of these uses to locate in an appropriate 8 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action location within the Inner Bayshore subarea with Commission review. (c) Automobile rental businesses which meet the following minimum standards: (1) The use is the sole tenant and only occupant of any building or area on the site; (2) The site has a minimum size of seven-tenths (0.7) of an acre; (3) Parking is provided on site for storage of at least twenty-five (25)percent of the cars rented monthly, based on an annual average for the site; (4) Parking is provided on site for all employees and customers; (5) The use meets all the other requirements of development in the district, including peak hour trip generation at critical intersections as defined in the Traffic Analyzer and Specific Area Plan for the Bayfront/Anza Areas; Annotation: Before SFIA built their on-site car rental facility and required all rental businesses to locate in it, car rental was a major land use in the Shoreline/Inner Bayshore subareas of Burlingame. Today the car rental sites are used primarily for off-airport car storage because it is cheaper than storing the cars at the airport . However, all the rental tickets are written at the airport and sales tax revenue no longer comes to the City to off set the traffic and other impacts of the car storage use. The city now requires all car rental uses to provide for car rentals not just storage. However, the number of rentals to the various local hotel guests and residents is small . A number of prime sites on Bayshore Highway, highly visible to visitors and tourists are occupied by car rental businesses. The car rental use which is extensive (requires a large site) has always been viewed as a transition use . Perhaps now is the time to eliminate car rental use from the important gateway interface along both sides of Bayshore Highway. (d) Technical schools with training related to the permitted or conditional uses in the Inner Bayshore area, with parking as set out in CS 25.70. Class or sebeel use in er�;�o stfuetur-es ever-20,000 gross square feet, iMere the teial elas-s er seheel use does net e*ee_O_d Awnty(20)pereent of Me gres-sfleer area on the ske, and with par-king as set fe Seel o 25.43.080(1*, 9 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action Annotation: After much discussion the Subcommittee felt uncertain whether "campus" oriented schools should be encouraged in the Inner Bayshore area. The regulation as presently framed would not allow schools in a campus setting (a group of buildings with a common use) but would allow individual businesses such as "traffic schools". The subcommittee specifically asked for Planning Commission input on this issue. After discussion at the Planning commission study meeting March 28, 2005, the Commission determined that schools which offer technical training, particularly for the trades, should be allowed in the inner Bayshore subarea. The commissioners felt that this was an appropriate conditional use to support and encourage the emerging biotech industry in this area as well as trades located within the area. The commission put no size limitation on such schools as had been suggested by the subcommittee but felt that they should no get a break in parking by locating in a large office building. So the code section is revised to require that school and classroom uses provide parking as required in the city in general e.g. 1:50 SF of instructional area. Topical annotation for PC study: Subcommittee felt that this use should be further limited to a maximum of 20% of the gross floor area of the building, because of potential parking impacts. However, they also suggested that in some circumstances, given the operation of a particular school, an exception may be appropriate, so the subcommittee felt that this use should be included in the conditional uses. Inclusion as a conditional use means that a use which exceeds any of the performance criteria may ask for an conditional use permit to exceed any one or all of them. (e) Conference and exhibition facilities; (f) Incidental food establishment uses that are not the primary use of a building and do not meet the criteria of section 25.43.020; Annotation: This is provision creates a review line which will allow a conditional use permit if the office building owner wishes and justify having more than 1,500 SF of food sales space to support the office users on site. Note: At study the Planning Commission suggested that the size of incidental food sales that are not a primary use in a building be increased from 500 SF to 10 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action 1,500 SF. This provision allows for a conditional use if a tenant wishes to have more than 1, 500 SF of incidental food sales. Annotation: The subcommittee is recommending that the Specific Plan for the Inner Bayshore area be amended to make hotels a prohibited use except in the Bayshore overlay area along Bayshore Highway. As noted below hotels were identified as a conditional use outside of the Bayshore overlay zone to so that hotel projects can be reviewed to determine their impact on the primary use of the area which is office/industrial/manufacturing. The Subcommittee determined that allowing additional space for hotels, on potentially less expensive industrial land, would encourage hotels away from the Bayshore Highway frontage where they are needed to create a positive, supportive interface with the Shoreline subarea; and would bring activity into the interior of the Inner Bayshore area with a built-in negative impact on the preferred uses identified in the plan for in the interior of the Inner Bayshore area. See prohibited uses. (g) Outdoor storage of materials incidental to permitted uses which storage exceeds ten (10)percent of the gross lot area and contractors storage yards; any such use shall be limited to side and rear yards, shall be paved, and shall be enclosed by an opaque fence or wall eight(8) feet in height; Annotation: Controlling outdoor storage related to permitted uses in the O-M district has been difficult for years. The best example is the aerial bucket wholesaler/renter on Gilbreth next to US 101. When the regulations were redone the amount of site which could be used was limited and opaque fencing was required. These additional standards have been some help. But from an appearance point of view, outdoor storage continues to be a negative and a code enforcement problem. (h) Structures over thirty-five(35) feet in height; Annotation: The design guidelines for the Inner Bayshore area establish a height review line at 35 feet . Because this is a conditional use permit, the 35 foot height limit would act as a review line. A similar provision applies to many zoning district in the city. 11 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22, 2005 Draft Planning Commission Action The 35 foot limit is well under the FAA maximum height limit for the area and would set the maximum height for each site . (i) 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 : The Subcommittee asked that the language in this section be the same as the language used for the same provision in the zoning for the Shoreline subarea . All of the land use densities in the Bayfront Specific Plan are based on the traffic trips generated at p . m . peak hour and the capacity of the intersections in the area at that time . For this reason it is critical a permit not be granted to a use or activity, even if it is determined to be similar to a permitted or conditional use , unless there is intersection capacity available . Otherwise , the capacity set aside in the plan for other uses would be consumed and those uses would have to be developed at a lower density . This provision would require applicants to get a conditional use permit if the project they propose consumes more than the share of the intersection capacity assigned to the site . This would replace a Traffic Allocation Procedure used earlier which caused an extra review by Council prior to processing a project . (j) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted and conditional uses. Annotation : A number of years ago a conditional use permit provision for drive- in and take-out services were added to most of the zoning districts in the city because of the impacts these uses have on the adjacent roadways and property uses . This extends this same review to the uses in the Inner Bayshore C- 5 district . Section 25.43.040 Prohibited uses. Uses not listed as permitted or conditional are prohibited in the IB district, specifically including the following: (a) Automobile rental uses that do not comply with the criteria CS 25.43.030 — 3; 12 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action Annotation: Car rental uses are presently prohibited in office, mixed office/warehouse and in warehouse structures in the O-M zone. (b) Automobile dealers and sales lots,wholesale and retail,and automobile leasing, whether freestanding,in office buildings,or in connection with other uses; Annotation: Presently automobile sales lots are prohibited, but the code is mute on dealerships and auto leasing. The DMV requires that retail sellers of cars have outdoor display for merchandise. The zoning has not allowed retail sales in the O-M zone in the past. Now we are recommending that outdoor storage not be allowed as well. There continues to be confusion among those leasing and selling cars, generally as brokers, who want inexpensive office space, that they cannot run their operations from warehouses or small office spaces in the O-M zone. This provision would clarify that this use is not allowed in the zone including properties with street frontage on Bayshore Highway. It should be noted that there are areas of the city zoned C-2 and M-1 which will be designated or have been designated to promote this use. Allowing these uses outside of the areas where the city wants these uses to concentrate for greater efficiency for the customer, will slow down the development of the other areas designated for this use. (c) Automobile wrecking,junkyards,storage or baling of scraps,paper,rags,sacks or metals; (d)Free standing food establishments on any properties without frontage on Bayshore Highway; Annotation: Since this zoning designation will no longer include the Beach and Lang Road area, it has been deleted from this provision. The land use element of the Bayfront Specific Plan recommends no free standing food establishments in the Inner Bayshore area, except on properties fronting Bayshore Highway to create an better visitor-oriented interface with the Shoreline area. As revised this provision is now consistent with the adopted specific plan. (e) Gasoline service stations on properties without frontage on Bayshore Highway; 13 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action Annotation: In February the Subcommittee revised this section to prohibit both gasoline service stations (see definitions) and major and minor auto repair including auto body work from the Inner Bayshore area. However, gasoline service stations (as defined in new definitions) are to be allowed on the properties with frontage on Bayshore Highway so that exception is noted here. Original annotation: In the present O-M district regulations, gas stations were considered to be a retail use. Retail uses were prohibited in the Bayfront area except in hotels and small delis to serve employees in the immediate area. Auto repair and body work was prohibited because there was an area in the M-1 zone where this use was encouraged to locate and concentrate. In the current Bayfront plan there is new emphasis on developing the frontage on both side of Bayshore Highway in a way that encourages visitors, this includes providing services to support visitors to the area such as destination restaurants and retail facilities . In this spirit gas stations will be allowed as a conditional use on properties with street frontage on Bayshore Highway. (See Uses on properties with frontage on Bayshore Highway below) (f) Residential uses and buildings, except as permitted under section 25.43.045 below; Annotation: Based on the adoption action on the 2004 Bayfront Specific Plan, residential uses including single and multiple family land uses, apartment hotels, and all other residential uses, except one unit for site security personnel and one unit in a hotel for the on-site manager, are prohibited in the Bayshore planning area. (k) Limousine and livery businesses and associated storage facilities; Annotation: Limousine and livery businesses (typically bus yards) create serious problems in an area of mixed warehouse and office use. Most often these businesses rent locations which are inexpensive (and too small) for their dispatchers and have inadequate on- site parking for their fleet and for their employees who must drive to work to get to the Inner Bayshore area. The result in an almost immediate impact on on-street parking, both during the 14 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action day and over night . In an industrial area with much truck traffic, and the frequent use of the public street for maneuvering, this is a bad mix. Other uses which have more customers come to their sites complain that there is no longer short term parking available on street . Finally, in office buildings, leases do not allow over night parking of vehicles on site for enforcement purposes (e.g. to prevent those who are not tenants using the office on-site parking while they travel) . There are specific provisions in the M-1 zone for both limousine and livery business uses; so there is a location in the city for them. Finally, prohibiting this use will mean that the definition of hotel use will have to include allowing shuttle buses to serve the hotels airport oriented customers to be stored on and dispatched from the hotel site. The conditions of approval on all hotels require them to provide shuttle service to SFO because the city' s on-site parking requirements for hotels are so low. The Subcommittee added the "associated" modifier to storage facilities in order to insure that it was clear that the only storage facilities affected by this section were those needed to support the limousine business. (h) Adult-oriented businesses as defined in chapter 25.76 or massage,bathing or similar establishments; Annotation: The city is obliged by law to allow this use in one zoning district . It is allowed in the Shoreline Commercial area so can be prohibited in O-M. This is a use that is particularly difficult to monitor in an office building, and often brings people into an area after business hours which warehouse and manufacturing businesses don't like for security reasons. (i) Any use determined to be obnoxious or offensive; 0) Hotels,motels and extended stay hotels without lot frontage on Bayshore Highway; Annotation: At study, the Planning Commission supported the Subcommittees decision that hotel uses on properties without frontage on Bayshore Highway should be discouraged. The Commission acknowledged that this change regarding hotel use would require an amendment to the land uses section of the Inner Baysbore subarea and to the Bayfront Specific Plan. This means that the city's General Plan, of which the Bayfront Specific Plan is a 15 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action part, must be amended. Staff would note that when the zoning text changes have all been completed, we will request the General Plan amendments required. Original Annotation: The Bayfront Specific Plan appears to leave the opportunity for hotels and motels to locate in the Inner Bayshore subarea outside of the properties fronting on Bayshore Highway. The Subcommittee felt that this direction should be reconsidered and the plan amended to limit hotels to the portion of the Inner Bayshore subarea fronting on Bayshore Highway. The reasons were: (1), hotel and similar visitor- serving uses are not compatible with, in fact will conflict directly with, warehouse and manufacturing uses, particularly those with 24 hour operations; and (2)the intent of the specific plan is to create matching uses and street frontage along Bayshore Highway, if hotels can locate anywhere within the Inner Bayshore subarea they will gravitate to the larger warehouse/manufacturing parcels which because of their awkward location may be less expensive. For these reasons it is proposed that hotels and motels, along with free standing restaurants, be prohibited except along Bayshore Highway. This action may require an amendment to the Bayfront Specific plan. With the adoption of the Bayfront Specific Plan city policy dictates that extended stay hotels can be located only in the Anza Point subarea of the Bayfront planning area. For this reason extended stay hotels are prohibited throughout this zone which applies to the Inner Bayshore subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan. Extended stay hotels will be defined in the definitions section of Chapter 25. (See added definitions below) (k) Long term airport parking facilities; Annotation: In the Bayfront Specific Plan long term airport parking facilities are considered to be an "interim use". Interim uses are generally involve limited development expenses and often require acreage. while some interim land uses are appropriate in the Inner Bayshore area, long term airport parking facilities generate volumes of traffic and inappropriate times for an industrial area. Because of the outdoor storage quality of this land use, similar to car rental agencies with on site storage, the long term airport parking use would not support the interface objective to tie the east and west sides of Bayshore 16 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action Highway together to form a visitor oriented entrance to the Shoreline area. For these reasons long term airport parking lots are added as a prohibited use in the Inner Bayshore area, including the overlay on the properties with street frontage on Bayshore Highway. (1) Massage,bathing,tanning or similar establishments; Annotation: This use is prohibited in all zoning districts except C-4 (Shoreline Commercial) . The law requires that there be at least one place in every jurisdiction for each land use. The C-4 Shoreline zone is the one chosen in Burlingame for this use. The narrower the area in which this use is allowed the easier it will be to provide police services for safety and enforcement, if necessary. The references to other sections of the Municipal Code are not necessary so have been eliminated. Section 25.43.045 Properties with frontage on Bayshore Highway (a) In addition to the permitted uses in the Inner Bayshore district, the following uses are permitted uses on properties located in the Inner Bayshore Zone that have street frontage on Bayshore Highway: (1) Free standing food establishments with a floor area ratio of no more than 0.15 and with parking as set forth in section 25.43.080); Annotation: As now placed in the Bayshore overlay area it is clear that in the Inner Bayshore subarea free standing food establishments can only be located on properties fronting on Bayshore Highway. This is consistent with the adopted Bayfront Specific Plan. The over lay zone approach emphasizes the importance of the interface of the Shoreline and Inner Bayshore areas along Bayshore Highway. The Subcommittee added the term "or less" to make it clear that a developer could proposed a free standing restaurant which was less than 0 .15 FAR. The proposed "overlay" area for those properties with frontage on Bayshore Highway, also improves consistency of ordinance administration by collecting together all the land use regulations that apply only to the properties with Bayshore Highway street frontage. 17 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22, 2005 Draft Planning Commission Action (2) Motels and hotels with a maximum density of 65 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, automobile rental des and shuttle bus service to serve only hotel guests so long as the operations do not use parking required for primary hotel use, conventions and meeting facilities or 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 : The Subcommittee requested that the description of motel and hotel in the Bayshore overlay area be the same as the description used in the Shoreline subarea regulations . ( CS 25 . 41 . 020 (c ) ) To accomplish that , auto rental desks needed to be shifted to a conditional use . It should be noted that a new hotel on the drawing board may include a car rental desk with some minor storage on site , and get a conditional use permit at the time of original approval . Original annotation regarding the motel and hotel use : Hotels and motels are proposed to be a permitted use on the properties which have street frontage on Bayshore Highway . The density of rooms per acre is same as the density set out in the original Bayfront Plan . The maximum FAR was added to establish a limit (height and mass ) for the size of structure within which the rooms are placed . This is important since many hotels also include meeting/convention areas , restaurants , and small , customer serving retail sales and service areas . It was determined in the Bayfront Specific Plan that extended stay hotels would only be allowed in the Anza Point subarea , so they are prohibited in the Inner Bayshore subarea . Apartment hotels , which are a kind of long term residential use are also prohibited, because all types of residential uses are prohibited in the Bayshore planning area . (3) Office buildings ; Annotation : As written this proposal would allow health services to locate as an office use in this zone, but parking to code would need to be provided on site (health service 1 : 250 , office 1 : 300 ) . This is consistent with the requirement that trade schools and other instructional uses similar to uses allowed in the interior area, 18 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action provide parking to code on site which was approved for the interior of the Inner Bayshore area. Three primary land uses are proposed for the Shoreline subarea across Bayshore Highway from the Inner Bayshore subarea: offices, free standing restaurants (food establishments) and hotels/motels . Since it is the objective of the Bayfront Plan to have a consistent interface between the two sides of Bayshore Highway which would be achieved by having many of the same land uses on the east and west side of Bayshore Highway. The overlay zone needs to create the opportunity through the permitted uses for these three uses . In the Shoreline Subarea office buildings over 20, 000 GSF are allowed to have health service uses without requiring additional parking. When the O-M district was rewritten a few years ago, it was determined that if an office building was big enough there would be sufficient on site parking to accommodate the high turnover parking caused by health services without requiring additional on-site parking. Overtime this assumption has been observed to work. However, based on , the city' s experience on E1 Camino Real, should the health service uses take over a building as a single tenant or multiple health service tenants, the on site parking based on general office use would be inadequate. For that reason the maximum square footage of health services in a building over 20, 000 SF is limited to 8 , 000 GSF. Research done for the Subcommittee indicates that a medical clinics typically require about 7, 000 GSF. There was some debate if a single clinic took over 8, 000 SF in a large office building would the impact on the parking exceed the amount provided on site. The term health services includes the following types of uses : medical, surgical and other services offered by a physician, dental , dental technician, chiropractor, acupressurist, acupuncturist, therapist, counselor or other similar occupation. Earlier versions of this provision included a limit on the percentage of a building which could be used for office, that was removed by the Subcommittee as being unnecessary and possibly misleading since the percentage maybe greater than the 8, 000 SF. So the Subcommittee recommended the more restrictive option. (4) Retail sales and retail service businesses with a maximum of five thousand (5,000) gross square feet or less and which singly or in combination shall not to exceed fifty (50)percent of the floor area of any structure; and 19 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action Annotation: In the 1981 Bayfront Plan no retail uses were allowed in the area on the east side of US 101 . The prohibition was based on concerns about competition expressed by the merchants on the west side of US 101 . Because there was a lot of vacant land east of US 101, the merchants located in the city' s commercial districts were concerned that a new retail commercial "center" would emerge which would drain destination customers from the city' s established commercial areas (Broadway and Burlingame Avenue) . Today in the Inner Bayshore area there are only a few undeveloped parcels . The existing merchants are less concerned about new, retail centers; so the Bayfront Plan included creation of retail nodes to serve the visitors to the Bayfront (out of town visitors and local residents) and employees in the Bayshore area. The Shoreline Subarea includes identified retail nodes . As a part of creating a "mirror image" on the other side of Bayshore Highway along the edge of the Inner Bayshore Subarea, the option of small, supportive retail operations, including service stations, was allowed. However, the issue is how big a retail use should be allowed and what kind of "service" limits should be imposed. The plan establishes a maximum square footage and percentage of the floor area of a structure is established (for multiple retail tenants) to insure that the type of retail which develops is the kind which supports employees and visitors in the area but does not bring in destination shoppers . Food establishments are regulated independently in the Burlingame Zoning Code and would not be included in this retail sales and service regulation. The subcommittee felt that a 5, 000 SF maximum and the maximum of 50% of any structure were adequate to encourage visitor supporting retail and to discourage "destination" retail . (b) In addition to the conditional uses allowed in the Inner Bayshore Zone, the following uses are allowed with a conditional use permit on properties with street frontage on Bayshore Highway located in the Inner Bayshore Subarea: (1) Any structures over thirty-five(35) feet in height; (2) Convention and exhibition facilities; (3) Commercial recreation; (4) Hotels and motels which do not meet the criteria of CS 25.34.045 -5 20 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action (5)A car rental desk on a lot occupied by a hotel; Annotation: on site car rental desks have been added in the conditional uses section for hotels because how they operate on the site, particularly the amount of required parking they use to store cars, can have a significant impact on a hotel's operation and its impact on the surrounding on street parking. This means that the property owner or hotel operator may request a conditional use permit but car rental is not a permitted use. (6)Provision by a hotel of a park and fly program that involves the long term parking of vehicles at a site that is not approved as a commercial parking lot; Annotation: Park and fly programs were added as a conditional use because so many hotels have expanded into offering this service. If not managed property park and fly programs can have a significant impact on the availability of parking for overnight customers and day visitors, particularly for hotels with larger amounts of meeting space. (7) Gas stations with a maximum of five hundred(500)square feet of retail sales area and limited to minor automobile repair services,excluding specialty shop food establishments; Annotation: The Subcommittee felt that gas stations were an important visitor serving use so added them as a conditional use in the Bayshore Highway overlay area. Today a small retail area is common in more isolated gas stations. However, the subcommittee did not wish to open the door to heavy auto repair and service (pulling engines and auto body work including painting) in the Bayshore Highway area. For that reason the intention in this provision is to limit auto service at these gas stations to fixing flat tires, fan belts etc. (see new definitions) . While it was recognized that most gas stations include a small retail sales area (see amended gas station definition), the subcommittee did not think that chain food establishments should be included with this use in the Bayshore area. 21 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action (8) Incidental food sales and services in office buildings of twenty thousand (20,000) square feet or more,not to exceed a maximum of one thousand-five hundred(1,500) square feet; Annotation: At study the Planning Commission thought that 500 SF was too small an area for a viable incidental food sales use. They suggested that the number be increased to 1, 500 SF. With the 500 SF a larger space would require a conditional use permit. On that same premise a space larger than 1,500 SF is suggested to require a conditional use permit. The alternative is not to include incidental food sales in the conditional uses section and require a variance if a landlord or tenant wishes to have more than 1,500 SF of incidental or support retail in a large office building. PC Question: Should incidental food sales be included as a conditional use or not? original annotation: Since incidental food sales would be allowed in larger (over 20 , 000) office buildings in the Inner Bayshore area and in the Shoreline area, it appeared consistent to the Subcommittee to allow such food sales in the interfacing overlay zone . The purpose of these food service areas is to support the employees in the building. The minimum building size and the square footage allowed is the same. (9) Drive-in and take-out services associated with permitted or conditional uses; (10) 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: Like the permitted uses, in the Inner Bayshore overlay area (properties with frontage on Bayshore Highway) only some of the conditional uses allowed in the larger Inner Bayshore area, are appropriate within the overlay area. This section lists those conditional uses which are appropriate in the over lay area. All other uses which are not identified in the overlay area as being either permitted or conditional uses are prohibited in the overlay area. In addition those uses listed as prohibited in the overlay area are prohibited. (see below) 22 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22, 2005 Draft Planning Commission Action (c) In addition to the uses prohibited in section 25.43.040 as expressly modified in subsections (a) and (b) above, the following additional uses are prohibited: (1) Outdoor storage, including outdoor storage of materials or goods associated with a permitted or conditional use; (2) Extended stay hotels; (3) Any light industrial or manufacturing use such as electronic,furniture, biotechnology, drug, pharmaceutical and printing enclosed building including associated laboratories; Annotation: This section was added at planning commission study since they noted that obnoxious uses including manufacturing/industrial uses were not appropriate on the properties fronting on Bayshore Highway where the objective for development was to reflect the visitor oriented uses across the street which back on to San Francisco Bay. Section 25.43.050 Ambiguity of use. If ambiguity arises concerning the approximate classification of a particular use within the meaning and intent of this chapter, it shall be the duty of the Planning Commission to ascertain all pertinent facts concerning such use and determine into which classification such use shall be classified. Such decisions are appealable to the City Council pursuant to section 25.16.070. Annotation : No change is proposed to this section . The purpose of this section is to provide procedural direction should a determination be needed for a use which is not listed in the permitted or conditional uses . This section is less used today than in the past because more uses are defined in terms of performance criteria than by name . However , this section provides needed flexibility for uses created by new technology such as biotechnology or electronics which sometimes do not clearly fit our current performance criteria or definitions . Section 25.43.052 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 Inner Bayshore subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan and shall be processed as provided in CS 25.57.030 (a) — (d), (g) and (h). 23 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action (a) A design review application in the IB 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 Inner Bayshore subarea; (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 fronting on Bayshore Highway, that the design contributes to the interface with the Shoreline subarea as directed in the Bayshore specific plan; (3) On visually prominent and gateway sites; whether the design fits the site and is compatible with the surrounding development and consistent with the design guidelines for the Inner Bayshore subarea; (4) Compatibility of the architecture and landscaping with the design guidelines for the Inner Bayshore 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 Inner Bayshore subarea; (6) Provision of site features identified in the design guidelines such as landscaping and pedestrian circulation which enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. (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 IB district filed before and certain amendments to those applications or permits as specifically provided in Ordinance No. (2) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for developments in the IB district filed before 5:00 p.m. on and certain amendments to those applications as specifically provided in Ordinance No. 24 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action Annotation: Since the design guidelines for the Inner Bayshore subarea are subject to interpretation given the location, use and "environment" of the proposed project and the guidelines have been adopted as policy as a part of the specific plan, employing our present design review process appeared to be the most efficient way to insure that each project was properly evaluated in a timely manner for the developer. This section: (1) establishes design review for the Inner Bayshore area using the current process, (2)sets out new criteria for the design review based on the criteria for the C-1 and C-2 zones by incorporating the adopted design policies from the specific plan for the Inner Bayshore subarea, and (3)the landscape design guidelines for the Inner Bayshore subarea are included as well. Section 25.43.055 Setbacks. The setbacks shall apply to all parcels located in the Inner Bayshore district: (a) Front setbacks: (1) All properties shall have a front setback of at least ten(10)feet except for front setbacks from Bayshore Highway; (2)On lots with any street frontage on Bayshore Highway,there shall be an average front setback of fifteen(15)feet from Bayshore Highway;with at least forty(40) percent of the structure at the maximum setback of fifteen(15)feet. Annotation: In the current O-M district the required front setback for all properties is 15 feet. In the Inner Bayshore design guidelines a 15 foot setback is recommended only for the properties with frontage on Bayshore Highway, and a 10 foot setback is recommended for all other properties. The subcommittee has suggested that an average of 15 feet might be used along Bayshore Highway as a vehicle to match the variable setbacks recommended by the design guidelines in the facing Shoreline subarea. As stated along Bayshore Highway 40% of the front setback would have to be at the 15 foot mark, which would provide a sense of continuity in landscaping with the existing 15 foot setbacks. In the past below grade garages have not been proposed in the O-M district. However, the subcommittee expressed concern that as uses in the area shift more to hotels and offices, below grade garages may be proposed. If below 25 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22, 2005 Draft Planning Commission Action grade garages are allowed to be built to property line along Bayshore Highway as they are in other areas of the city , it would have a significant impact on the type of landscaping which could be planted at grade in the front setback . For this reason the subcommittee felt that no structure , including below grade garages should be built within the 15 feet of the front property line on Bayshore Highway . (b)There shall be a minimum ten (10) foot side setback . Annotation : The design guidelines for the Inner Bayshore subarea give no direction regarding side setbacks . After some discussion the subcommittee determined that the existing pattern of side setbacks should be retained . They noted that in most cases there would be required driveways to parking at the rear (a key design recommendation) in excess of 10 feet in width on one or both sides of a building . If there were no driveway, the setback area could be used for additional landscaping or utility service . This requirement as written would apply to all properties in the Inner Bayshore area . (c) Except for rear setbacks from Bayshore Highway, there is no minimum rear setback in the IB district. (d) Except for rear setbacks set forth above, there shall be a fifteen (15) foot setback from Bayshore Highway for all below grade construction. Section 25.43.060 Minimum Lot Size There shall be a minimum lot size of ten thousand (10,000) square feet and a minimum street frontage of fifty (50) feet. No property in this district shall be divided or subdivided into a lot with less area or less street frontage. Annotation : Based on the current zoning code the minimum lot size for the Bayshore area is 5000 SF with a minimum lot frontage on the street of 50 feet . For an area whose land use policy is to encourage development of office buildings and light manufacturing uses which are economically viable and meet the design guidelines for the area , a 5000 SF lot is too small . The Subcommittee working with staff suggest a minimum lot size of 10 , 000 SF . This provision would apply to the division of existing larger lots . Any existing lot which is less than 26 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action 10,000 SF could still be developed according to the regulations for the district, but it could not be further divided into smaller lots. Section 25.44.065 No Variance for Lot Size and Street Frontage No variances for lot size and street frontage shall be granted to any property within this district. Annotation: Experience has documented that better development more able to incorporate the elements of design guidelines occurs on larger lots. For this reason the Subcommittee was interested in encouraging lot mergers or at a minimum keeping the current lots from being divided into smaller units which could commence to have a "strip" development appearance which, besides being less economically efficient, would fracture the view along the public street affect the safety of traffic circulation and availability of on-street parking. For this reason the subcommittee is recommending that variances to lot size and street frontage not be allowed. Section 25.43.070 Landscaping and design requirements. The following landscaping requirements shall apply to all parcels: (a) The landscape requirements of the design guidelines for the Inner Bayshore subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan as adopted by the city council shall be met, including the requirement that sixty(60)percent of the front setback shall be landscaped. Annotation: At the study meeting the Planning Commission expressed an interest in having the measurable standards included in the regulations. in particular that the requirements for the Shoreline area be included for the properties in the Inner Bayshore area which front on Bayshore Highway. See (b) below. The intention remains the same as in the current regulations, the code section is updated to reference the recently approved planning documents. It should be noted that as placed here, a variance would be required for failure to meet the landscape requirements of the design guidelines. This may result in 27 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action determinations by the Planning Commission since all of the landscape design guidelines are not measurable. (b) On properties with any frontage on Bayshore Highway the following additional landscape requirements shall apply: (1) A minimum of fifteen (15)percent of the total area of each lot shall be suitable landscaped and the landscaping shall be properly maintained. A landscaping plan shall be submitted with any application for approval under this title for any use on the lot. Annotation: This landscaping provision does not mean that a landscape plan would be required for any construction that requires only a building permit . one of the key issues is letting developers know early on that landscape plans, not plant location maps, are necessary in order to determine if the design guidelines are met . (2) At least sixty (60)percent of the area between the front property line and the front of any building on the lot shall be landscaped Where no building exists along the lot front at least sixty(60)percent of the front setback area shall be landscaped,landscaping may include walkways and seating features. (3) At least ten (10)percent of all public and employee on-site parking areas shall be landscaped (4) A properly fenced and screened area for refuse,garbage, and recycling containers shall be provided for each building or group of buildings on a lot. Any such area shall be located at the side or rear of the building and not within one hundred(100)feet of the rear property line. (5) Loading docks and truck loading access shall be fully enclosed and shall be located at the side or rear of a building; Annotation: in the Shoreline area this provision requires loading docks and access to be setback 100 feet from rear property line because for most properties in the Shoreline subarea the rear of the property faces the Bay Trail and San Francisco Bay. In the case of the west side of Bayshore Highway (the Inner Bayshore subarea) there is no bay frontage, so the 100 foot setback is not needed and was not included in this provision. 28 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action (6) No parking areas shall be located within the fifteen (15)feet of any lot front on Bayshore Highway, or within the side setback of any lot with a property line on Bayshore Highway, driveways are allowed in any such side setback, but the driveways shall not be considered as landscaped are. No parking areas shall be located between any structure and the lot front, except for loading areas. Annotation: At study the Planning Commission suggested that to insure the same appearance, the same restrictions on the location of parking used in the Shoreline area should be applied to the properties in the Inner Bayshore fronting on the west side of Bayshore Highway. This provision addresses this compatibility concern. Section 25.43.080 Parking space requirements. (a) Except as otherwise set forth in this section, all uses shall provide parking space in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 25.70. (b) Free standing food establishments. Free standing food establishments shall provide customer parking on site at the rate of one (1) space for each one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area; and employee parking on site at the rate of one (1) space for each one thousand (1000) square feet of gross floor area; (c) Incidental food establishments. Incidental food establishments that are not the primary use of a building shall provide parking on site at the rate of one car space for each three hundred(300) square feet of gross floor area; Annotation: At study the Planning Commission determined that if allowed school uses should provide parking to the code requirements, e.g. not receive special treatment if located in an office building over 20, 000 SF. They made the same determination for health services. For this reason the two provisions which allowed reduced on-site parking for these uses in the current O- M zoning have been removed. In addition to the parking requirements of Chapter 25 . 70, these parking requirements address specific uses in the Inner Bayshore area. In this case the specific use is "destination restaurants" . The requirement was added when the O-M district was updated in 1994 , because of the destination restaurants located on Bayshore Highway and the interest expressed in 29 Annotated Inner Bayshore District April 22, 2005 Draft Planning Commission Action locating bars and nightclubs in the O-M zone . These requirements have been working well . No change is proposed . Amend CS 25.70.040 (table) Now reads: Gymnasiums and health clubs 1 space for each 200 sq. ft. of gross floor area Proposed wording: Commercial recreation, 1 space for each 200 sq. ft. gymnasiums and health clubs of gross floor area Annotation : Commercial recreation was a designated land use in the 1981 Bayfront Specific Area Plan ; however the term was not defined . The 2004 Bayfront Specific Plan refines the concept of commercial recreation and defines its scope more clearly . (See new definition section for proposed definition for " commercial recreation " to be added . ) Given the characteristics of the commercial recreation use as now defined, the traffic pattern and trip generation is similar to gymnasiums and health clubs . For this reason is it important to add this use to the parking requirements table in Chapter 25 . 70 . This way staff will not have to argue with commercial recreation developers " if it walks like a duck , quacks like a duck , its like a gymnasium" for parking purposes , particularly when they would like to provide parking to retail requirements . If in fact , given the particular commercial recreation use proposed, the parking requirement should be greater than that required for commercial recreation on the parking table , there is a provision in the code that would all the City Planner to require a greater number of on- site parking spaces . April 22, 2005 Draft City of Burlingame Planning Department U:\ZoningIssues\Bayfront SP zoning\C-5 Inner Bayshore\PCaction IB C5 rev from3.28 for PC act 4.22.05.doc 30 0SE, Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use Despite its common location on the east side of US 101 adjacent to San Francis yfront Area has developed as a number distinctive enclaves or Su is t e purpose of the Specific Plan to build on the individual strengths o u areas and to unite them.to form the Bayfront Area with a shared sense of a part of the Burlingame community,connecting our community to San Francisc and to the open space and recreational opportunity that the bayfront location prow' ee Land Use Map,Figure III-1) 1. Inner Bayshore Area The Inner Bayshore Area lies between US 101 and Bayshore Highway and extends from El Portal Creek and the Millbrae City Line to the intersection of Bayshore Highway and Airport Blvd. Land uses in this area should focus on light industrial,office, and smaller, scattered employee serving, retail uses. Along Bayshore Highway,hotels, offices and destination restaurants should be encouraged to support the visitor attracting and serving uses across the street on properties which front on San Francisco Bay. These properties should be subject to development and siting standards similar to those in the Shoreline Area in order to create a uniform"tree city"sense along Bayshore Highway. Appropriate land uses and densities for the Inner Bayshore Area are: Hotels 65 rooms per acre Offices 0.9 FAR Restaurants 0.15 FAR- free standing on Bayshore Highway Retail less than 5,000 SF located in existing buildings Warehouse 0.5 FAR Light Industrial 0.5 FAR Figure III-2 -Inner Bayshore Area ,Y Land Use Ma Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Inner Bayshore Area Land Use Map- Office and Warehouse Hotels 65 rmstacre Offices 0.9 FAR (i Retail. 5FSF 0 _so Warehouse OS FAR Light Industrial OS FAR 7 Restaurant Overlay-0.15 FAR Properties with Bayshore Highway Frontage r _ a _\ City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan I11-2 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use Pedestrian access through the Inner Bayshore Area and to the Shoreline Area is important and should be provided by well:maintained public sidewalks with streetscape oriented landscaping. Development should be oriented to the sidewalk. Local serving streets should act as view corridors across Bayshore Highway to San Francisco Bay. Pedestrians should be encouraged to cross Bayshore Highway at the established view corridors. Landscaping along US 101 should screen pedestrians from the presence of the freeway but provide openings so signage and businesses in the Inner Bayfront Area retain some visibility from the freeway. With regional access at each end, arterial access to the Inner Bayshore Area is provided by Bayshore Highway. This arterial provides the seam between the visitor-oriented Shoreline Area and the Inner Bayshore Area- Seven local streets provide access from Bayshore Highway to the properties within the area. Six of the seven local serving streets in this area are connected by a collector roadway parallel to US 101 which allows convenient internal circulation for large trucks. The freeway access to this area is at the-Broadway/US 101 Interchange near Airport Blvd. and the .Millbrae Avenue/US 101 Interchange north of the Burlingame City Limits. Development along the Bayshore Highway frontage should reinforce the interface between visitor oriented and support uses in the Shoreline Area. This should be accomplished by encoura�in� visitor serving and office uses on the properties in the Inner Bayshore Area which front on Bayshore Highway. Along with the similarity in land uses should be a consistency of building siting and streetscape character for the Inner Bayshore side of Bayshore Highway that fronts the Shoreline Area. Together these street frontages should support Burlingame's "Tree City"image. A number of local serving streets intersect Bayshore Highway. Where possible at these intersections, view corridors toward San Francisco Bay should be preserved so that people using the Inner Bayfront Area have a stronger sense of the presence of San Francisco Bay. Because there is no direct water frontage,no part of the Bay Trail extends into the Inner Bay Area. Pedestrian and bicycle access linking to the Bay Trail should be provided throughout the Inner Bayfront Area. A bicycle-pedestrian interconnect should be included on or adjacent to the Broadway Interchange to provide employees and visitors access to the shopping and commercial opportunities on the west side of US 101, as well as to the regional transportation available on the west side of US 101. Clear, safe access across Bayshore Highway should also be provided at focal points in the Shoreline Area to give employees in the Inner Bayfront Area access to the Bay Trail, ,both to encourage pedestrian access to employee services provided in the Shoreline Area as well as access to active and passive recreational opportunities throughout the Bayfront Planning Area. Any new development and additions within this area shall comply with Design Guidelines as outlined in Chapter V,with the primary goal of creating a mixed district of industry and business with pedestrian-oriented buildings and streetscape and focused nodes of activity. 2. Shoreline Area The Shoreline Subarea is long and narrow lying between Bayshore Highway and San Francisco Bay. The southerly tip of this area includes the developed parcel across the intersection of Bayshore Highway and Airport Boulevard located at the edge of the Anza Extension. The land in the entire area consists of old bay fill_ City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan 111-3 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Qut,^er -- Design Guidelines 41M- ! : Inner Rayshore Area Features C �. Inner Bayshore Area Building/Street Relationships Goal: To create a mixed district of industry and business with pedestrian-oriented To create a consistent and attractive buildings and streetscape and focused streetscape,buildings should be located rela nodes of activity. tively close to the street, with attractively landscape front setbacks_ In addition: • Building entries should face the street,and should be easily identifiable Businesses at important intersections should locate their entrances at the building corner. Curb cuts should be limited to ease pedestrian/vehicular °'....•'".•' ooconflict. • n t +a. Do Qp Businesses fronting on Bayshore Highway should have •-.— t an attractive 15'landscaped front setback and a 8'-10' wide sidewalk Businesses fronting on all other streets should have an attractive.10'landscaped front setback and at.least a 6' �..k... + sidewalk. �. Seating areas should be encouraged within the front set- back. Front sedxxks should be consistent and ourocove. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-6 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Bayshore Highway Interface To create a consistent design concept on both sides of Bayshore Highway,building, land- r i 1 scaping,signage and streetscape standards t should be the same for properties in both the t t Shoreline and Inner Bayshore areas that front on Bayshore Highway.. Additionally: op tr ' o a no oa • An average of 15'landscaped front setback is appropri- ate • Lighting should emphasize pedestrian users,not build- ing facades. • 8'40'Sidewalk width is appropriate. Attractive parking areas should be k sated to the rear and sides of the buildiing to encourage a pedestrion-jrier*street edge • There should be a consistent pattern of street trees and street lights. • Bayshore Highway should receive priority in and ti ^ n"' s•,a" •._s,,,—n.T.0 streetscape program. Parking Attractive, landscaped parking areas should I be located to the rear and sides of the build- ing to encourage a pedestrian-friendly street 00 _ edge. Additionally: i , • Parking is not allowed in front setback_ x Lca+t 59X M"ld..�F.oxaR • Parking should be screened with landscaping and/or low screen walls BuWngs should be located rekro"dose to the street with attroctivelr Truck loading areas should be located to the rear of landscape frau setbacks. buildings,and screened from view. Parking entry drives should be encouraged to be shared with adjacent businesses to minimize multiple curb- Buffer cuts. Pbndng tow • Parking areas should be broken up with landscape fm- WA gers with no more than 6-7 spaces between the fingers_ Encourage pervious surfaces in all site paving,particu- larly pedestrian traffic areas such as entry courtyards etc_ /"Green. Landscaping ins" stmt Tints Aconsistent, formal landscaping treatment aMPring DeWs Low should be developed throughout the Inner 1. Baa Bayshore Area. Additionally: A ca sistent format ra,dscoping treotr -,o„Id he&-loped City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-7 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines • Landscaping should protect and enhance view corridors: • Landscaping can be used as a visual buffer to shield parking and loading areas. \ 4-� - Landscape features should not just be visually appeal- _4 � � ing,but also should function as open space amenities to _ �� be used and enjoyed. r iL j ' rd f - Landscaping should enhance the site,but not obscure • _ �� building signage and entrance areas. r • Building signage should be incorporated into the land- scaping. • 15%of the site area shall be landscaped,with 5%of the parking area and 60%of the front setback devoted to View Corridors can be framed by buildings,and may terminate with o landscaping. londmork building. • Front setback landscaping may include hardscape fea- tures such as walkways and seating areas. • Parking isn't allowed in front setbacks,only driveways and accent paving_ View Corridors �.� View Corridors are defined as important views from,between or towards buildings and natural features_ View Corridors should be maintained and enhanced. Additionally: • Views may be framed by buildings. Vic . View corridors may terminate with a_landmark building. '48noge should be attractive and eye-catching. Pedestrian plazas should be incorporated in the design of view corridors. • Any new development should respect existing view cor- er,Yrrao� _ ridors. • View corridors at the ends of streets shall tie into visual openings to the bay across Baysbore Highway. Signage Visible, attractive signage should be devel- oped throughout the Inner Bayshore Area. Additionally: • Signs should be designed as an integral part of the building and should not cover or obscure architectural Anrocum signage&cct arks are encouraged to help provide%%g(ntfin elements. in the District g Projecting signs should be attractive and eye-catching. i City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-8 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines • 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. BURLINGAME l 4 "- t • 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 % landscaping_ // nniBrtAe • Attractive signage directories should be encouraged to help provide wayfinding within the Inner Baysbore District. A gatewuy feature on Boyshore ffighway at the Burlmgane I Ma brae border should be a landscope treatment with a monumental bridge design- Gateways Gateway features should be located on pri- vate land at prominent locations along the rT.U edges of the Inner Bayshore Area. Additionally: `ao u °o 0oa0v ' - pD • Any gateway feature on Bayshore Highway at the Burlingame/Millbrae border should be a landscape GS k treatment or pocket park with a monumental bridge /01 vII design. Coordination with the City of Millbrae would r� '` `. t o oil Lt be required. �,,.m.,a,K \.^_'.+•sem. � • Gateways should maintain a consistent design motif as 101 E throughout the Inner Bayshore Area. .NK,_ aw Consistent landscoping should be encouraged,but shouldn't conceal busi U.S. 101 Frontage nesses that rely on being seen by U.S 101 traffic. U.S. 101 Frontage treatment'shouid be attrac- tive and consistent. Additionally: • A consistent pattern of landscaping should be encour- aged,which provides visibility for business facing U_S_ 101. • Trees and shrubs should have gaps between them in order to allow for businesses visibility. • Trees should be located at the end of streets with lower bushes in between to allow building signage visibility- • Buildings should have attractive facades facing towards U-S-101_ • Tree types and landscape patterns along U.S_ 101 should be consistent with the North Burlingame/ Rollins Road Specific Plan_ Cm of BURLINGAME Bayfront SAP V-9 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines • Signage located along U.S. 101 should be designed to encourage better wayfinding in the district_ Street Design r � The streetscape in the Inner Bayshore area 'Y s should be consistent, attractive and well- jl2�l_�-%1�� [U�r-iz lie-�rl m�r-�z l�1 gas m-�s .a. r ma— e,..,a,, ;;m�� defined. Additionally: �K • Streets should be designed for both the automobile and the pedestrian/bicyclist. A variety of lighting features should be used to accom- Ba Zre Highway is emisloned as a mojor street or-Grand Boulevard' modate both the driver and pedestrian. Lighting should also help increase visibility of businesses,but not flood their facades. • The design of the sidewalk and setback area should cre- ate an urban character and should feature amenities such as street trees with tree grates,planters,benches and removable cafe furniture. Sf�LINK _ Bayshore Highway should receive priority in any ck,s.-..e.a., streetscape program. The street should be designed as a a-wuz "Grand Boulevard"with landscaping,lighting and sidewalks standards the same on both sides_ tr,r...c.. L;&t Fiade Landscaped medians and left turn lanes should be developed along Bayshore Highway. Exact locations ' \ should be determined by the Department of Public Works. r-t P sA75F10gE/NGilMIAY s{dQwalk Building Design A wide variety of Oghting should be encouraged Building facades should animate the street, providing visual interest to passers-by. S' .� Jl ; Additionally: tt, . 1 , Rex r Buildings should haveentries directly accessible and. I Tawe visible from the street. Element `,QJ!,*--- -� t Entries should be marked by architectural features such s �r_*- as projecting overhangs,special lighting,awnings and f oFF signage that emphasize their importance_ Building facades should be designed to have a rhythm Q and pattern and should be articulated as an expression eke of the building use_ orerl.ant Vr do..F,t The use of reflective or dark-tinted glass should be dis- v Street Lend couraged,especially at ground level,because it creates att.xtc.e an effect which lacks the visual interest of clear window Entry openings Building design should animate die street providing visual intense to Building facades should be articulated with a building pass" base,body and roof or parapet edge_ City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-10 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines } All visible sides of buildings should be designed with The same level of detail_ • Exterior building materials and finishes should convey a sense of integrity,permanence and durability,rather than applique. ✓ Building should be no more than two stories,30 feet in height. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-I 1 General Plan Permitted,Conditional and Prohibited Uses for Inner Bayshore,Bayshore Highway Overlay and Shoreline Subareas .......... ........... ................ i t)...... . .... ... ..... ............... 06.0. .. .. Shoreline ........... .............. . .. . Accessory Uses Necessary for Permitted Uses Air Courier,Delivery Freight Forwarding Class/School<20%of GFA in Buildings>20,000 SF Health Services&Medical Clinics< Health Services<8000 SF ......... 5000 SF in Structures>20,000 SF in Structures>20,000 SF Incidental Food Establishment in Wilt- Restaurants<0.15 FAR Use Bldg ........ .... ......... ..... ........ ......... Lab/Clean Room Light Industrial/Manufacturing�S 0.5 FAR .......... ............ Non-retail Service Business .......... Office office Office<0.9 FAR Outdoor Storage Incidental to Permitted Use<10%of Site Retail Sales/Service<5000 SF Retail Sales/Service<5000 SF and:E 50%of floor area of structure Trash Enclosures Required Warehouse&Storage/Distribution <0.5 FAR Free Standing Food Establishments Commercial Recreation wr'Related <0.15FAR Retails Sales<15W SF ....... .. ..... lvlotel/Holell<65 Rooms/Acre MoteVHotel<65 Rooms/Acre &il.0 FAR &<1.0 FAR ..... .......... Psychic Services Psychic Services Adult Oriented Business ..... ......... ..... ......... .... ......... .... ........ Publicly Owned Recreation Facilities Auto Rental .......... Class/School>20%of GFA in Buildings>20,000 SF Conference&Exhibition Facilities Convention&Exhibition Facilities .......... Drive—In[Take Out Services Associated Drive In/Take Out Services Associated Drive In/Take Out Services Associated with Permitted or Conditional Use with Permitted or Conditional Use with Permitted or Conditional Use Incidental Food Establishments Which .......... 7....... ......... Are Not Primary Use of Building .......... Light IndustriattlVianufacturing Which ........ ......... Exceeds Criteria Outdoor Storage>10%of Site to Projects Exceeding FAR or Land Use M� Projects That Do Not Comply Density or Design Guidefines, .......... w/Design Guidelines 40 Structures>41Y in height .......... ......... Structures .. S u >35'in Height Structures>35'in Height Looted w/in 100'of Shoreline ......... ......... ... ... ......... .......... ......... .. ........ ......... Use Similar To Permitted Which Does Use Similar To Permitted Which Does ......... Use Similar To Permitted Which Does .......... .......... 0 ........... Not Exceed Traffic Analyzer -d Traffic Analyzer ......... ....... Not Exceed . ...... Not Exceed Traffic Analyzer ......... ...... Meet Hotels;Wtels Which Do Not ......... .:.::- - HoteUWel with>66 rooms/acre ......... ......... Criteria andlor with>1.0 FAR 0 Commercial Recreation Commercial Recreation wl Related Retails Sales>1500 SF .......... Gas Stations with Limited Repair Gas Stations in Retail Node with Minor Services&<500 SF Retail Sales Auto Repair Services&<500 SF Retail Sales .......... FM Incidental Food Sales&Services<1000 ...... ..... Incidental Food Sales&Services< SF in Office Buildings>20,0DO SF SF w/o exclusive access to outside in office Buildings>20,000 SF Massage/Bathing/Tanning Retail Sales&Personal Service<0.5 ........ FAR in Designated Retail Node Structures>65'in Height or 5 Stories ......... Struchires,Wider Than 50%of Lot Front or Exceed Side Setback Requirements Adult Oriented Business Adult Oriented Business !4Auto Dealers&Sales Lots Auto Dealers&Sales Lots/Auto Leasing Auto Delers a &Sales Lots in Freestanding&Office BIdg .......... Auto Rental Exceeding Performance Auto,Truck&Other Vehicle Rental& Auto,Truck&Other Vehicle Rental& Criteria Swrage Storage Auto Wrecking/Junkyard Auto WreddngfJunkyardAuto WrecknWJunkyard ......... Restaurants&Food Establishments to Freestanding Food Establishment >0.25 FAR Gas Stabons/Auto Repair,Body Shop HotelflMotellExtencled Stay Hotel Extended Stay Hold Extended Stay Hotel ...................... (outside overlay) 4) Limosirreltivery Business&Storage LimosinellAwy Business&Storage LimosWm0my Business&Storage Long-Term Airport Parking Long-Term Airport Parking . ......... OMassagwBathingfTanning MassageMathirigrranning 0 16- ....... Obnoxious Use Obnoxious Use 0. Psychic Services Residential Uses Residential Uses Residential Uses Outdoor storage Outdoor Storage Commercial Par"Lots Litanubdunng&Ward"ming K&K"Clinics&Health Services ..................... ......... . . ................ ............ Draft 03/17M Definitions to Implement the Proposed Zoning Regulations for the Bayshore Specific Plan Inner Bayshore,Shoreline and Anza Extension Subareas April 29, 2005 Draft Definitions to Implement the Proposed Zoning Regulations for the Bayshore Specific Plan Inner Bayshore, Shoreline and Anza Extension Subareas (with Annotations) Add Definitions to CS 25.08 Automobile Dealers and Dealerships CS 25.08.092 Automobile dealers and dealerships "Automobile dealers and dealerships"means an authorized automobile or vehicles sales agency or any business which acquires, leases, divides, distributes or delivers at retail or wholesale, new or used automobiles and vehicles, including light trucks or vans, trailers and recreation vehicles, and including any vehicle preparation or repair work considered as an accessory use; the term automobile dealership applies to the use of any building, land area or other premise for the display and sale of new or used vehicles intended to operate on the public street. Annotation: Automobile dealers were prohibited in the Inner Bayshore subarea in part because the city is trying to promote a new auto row on Adrian Road. They were also prohibited because of the many problems which we have had over the years of on line auto dealers and brokers renting inexpensive office space in a multi-tenant office building and using up significant amounts of the onsite parking for the building storing auto sock. The DMV requires city sign off on their auto dealer permits and almost all the permit we see require a minimum of one or two on site parking spaces for display of cars. If the parking meant for the tenants of the office space is used for "display" there is not going to be enough on site parking for the other tenants . Automobile Repair, Minor CS 25.08.098 Automobile repair, Minor "Minor automobile repair"means minor repairs, including sale and service of spark plugs, batteries and distributors and distributor parts, replacement of mufflers, tailpipes, water hose,fan belts, brake fluid, light bulb fuses, windshield wipers and wiper blades wheel bearings, radiator maintenance, adjusting and repairing breaks, and other incidental replacement of parts, and motor service to passenger automobiles and trucks not to exceed one and one-half tons capacity. 1 Definitions to Implement the Proposed Zoning Regulations for the Bayshore Specific Plan Inner Bayshore, Shoreline and Anza Extension Subareas April 29,2005 Draft Annotation: The subcommittee was trying to find a way to distinguish between an auto repair facility which fixes flats and replaces broken fan belts and one which pulls engines and does body repair and painting. The concern was that they did not want gas stations to "morph" into broad based auto repair shops because auto repair is not an allowed use in many of the subareas of the Bayfront Specific Plan and because gas stations are only allowed in the Bayfront planning area primarily to be a retail support service to the visitors . Gasoline Service Station(amended definition) Current Definition CS 25.08.030 Gasoline service station. "Gasoline service station" means the premises and use thereof for the retail distribution of gasoline directly to motor vehicles, oils, greases,tires and batteries, greasing and washing,the sale of minor accessories and services incidental thereto. Amended definition: CS 25.08.030 Gasoline service station. "Gasoline service station" means the buildings and premises and use thereof for the retail distribution of gasoline and minor automobile repairs directly to motor vehicles except semi-trailer trucks, and including the sale of associated sundry items and pre prepared foods for consumption off the premises in conjunction with the sales of gasoline provided that the gross floor area devoted to the sale of such sundry items and prepared foods does not exceed a maximum area offive hundred(500) gross square feet. Annotation: The amendment to the definition refines and modernizes the definition of service station. The modernization is the recognition that today all service stations include a retail sales area which includes sundries, prepared food (including drinks) and auto related items . This section also sets the maximum size for such retail sales areas to 500 SF. Previously such sales areas were forbidden or required a conditional use permit amendment. The refinement comes in the limiting of service to "minor automobile repairs" which are defined in the code. This will prohibit a gas station from becoming an auto body shop without review. Hotel, Apartment. CS 25.08.370 Hotel, apartment delete this definition. 2 Definitions to Implement the Proposed Zoning Regulations for the Bayshore Specific Plan Inner Bayshore,Shoreline and Anza Extension Subareas April 29,2005 Draft Annotation: This type of hotel is now encompassed in the definition for "extended stay" hotel. Therefore, the retention of this definition confuses the administration of the code. Hotel.Extended Stay CS 25.08.384 Hotel,Extended Stay "Extended Stay Hotel"means an establishment consisting of a building or group of attached or detached buildings containing lodging accommodations of one or more rooms typically let for periods of a week or more and which contain standard kitchens and appliances and other faculties to support such extended occupancy. The term extended stay hotels includes residential hotels. Delete definition 25.08.385 Hotel,residential. Annotation: The terms "residential" is a misnomer when referring to the type of hotel intended for location in the Bayfront area. The proper term, based on design and intended occupancy is "extended stay". Extended stay hotels are not designed nor intended for permanent, year long housing. However, they are intended to serve business people who need housing for a week or month's duration. These hotel developments are not properly appointed with the services required for permanent residence; nor are there appropriate community services in the area to support year round housing. Hotel Room CS 25.08.386 Hotel Room "Hotel room"means a room rented or used by transient guest or customer which has four walls, a door,a bathroom,a closet with doors and a window,and which is a minimum of 300 gross square feet or the minimum square footage required by the California Building Code current edition as amended by the City of Burlingame,whichever is greater. Annotation: To insure a quality hotel product it is important to have a minimum hotel room size. In the past regulation of hotel room size has been based on policy and was not included in the zoning code. Staff felt that there would be more consistent application of the standard if it was stated in the regulations. The minimum gross square footage number was arrived at by combining the requirements of the California Building Code 2000 edition, input from the local hotel industry, and the experience the city has had with the hotels now present totaling about 2,500 rooms. If for some reason an applicant does not want to design rooms to the minimum size or with the stated appointments, and the Public Health, building and fire codes allow 3 Definitions to Implement the Proposed Zoning Regulations for the Bayshore Specific Plan Inner Bayshore, Shoreline and Anza Extension Subareas April 29, 2005 Draft the proposed size and design , they may appeal the room size to the Planning Commission and City Council . However, with this information at initial contact with the city, the hotel developer will know up front our requirements and the review process should be smooth . Limousine and Livery Businesses CS 25.08.395 Limousine and Livery businesses "Limousine and livery businesses" means a business which operates one or more automobiles, limousines, buses and/or shuttle buses for the commercial purpose of carrying passengers for a fee; the term limousine applies to the use of any building, land area or other premise for the storage, maintenance, and repair of vehicles used in the operation of the business or by the employees of the business. Annotation : Limousine and livery businesses are identified as being prohibited in the Inner Bayshore subarea . This is a use which has been the subject of code enforcement over the years , primarily because they are attracted to inexpensive office space in multiple tenant office or office/warehouse buildings where there in inadequate on site parking to accommodate both the limousines and the employees cars as well as the parking for employees working from the office space (manager and dispatcher) . Some property owners in the Inner Bayshore subarea , because of overnight abuse of office on site parking , prohibit tenants from parking over night . This results on the vehicles for the limousine business being parked on the street , often for more than overnight . This impacts the movement of large trucks in this area as well as the availability of on- street parking for other businesses in the area . We have recently had two such complaints from the Traffic , Safety and Parking Commission . Staff felt that , to simplify enforcement , if the limousine use were not to be allowed in the Inner Bayshore subarea it should be clearly defined and listed as prohibited . Since hotels are allowed in the Bayshore Highway overlay area and are required to provide shuttle service to the airport , the definition of hotel has been amended to allow the storage of shuttle buses on their sites as approved by the city . Parking Lot, Commercial CS 25.08.511 Parking lot, commercial. "Commercial parking lot" means a parking lot where the commercial parking lot use is the predominant use for temporary parking of motor vehicles and is not associated with any other use on the site and for which a fee for parking is charged, such use shall include long term airport parking lots 4 Definitions to Implement the Proposed Zoning Regulations for the Bayshore Specific Plan Inner Bayshore.Shoreline and Anza Extension Subareas April 29,2005 Draft and free standing parking lots where parking is the predominant use on the lot;no part of the public right-of-way shall be used for such parking. Annotation: In the Inner Bayshore and Shoreline subareas of the Bayfront the zoning prohibits long term airport parking lots. However, from a visual, design and development stand point, any type of public parking lot would have the same impact e.g. an off site BART lot. Therefore, it is better to define clearly the use that is being regulated. In the case of the definition of "commercial parking lots" it is noted that long term airport parking lots are identified as being a member of this class. Recreation Facility,Commercial CS 25.08.555a Recreation facility,commercial "Commercial recreation facility"means a recreation facilities operated as a business and open to the public for a fee. Such uses may include theaters for live performances,movie theaters,bowling alleys,gymnasiums and outdoor recreation uses such as golf driving ranges,water slides,soccer centers and enclosed sports facilities. Annotation: This term is added to enable consistent interpretation of the term and the clarify the concept of commercial recreation facility. The commercial recreation concept is particularly important in the Bayshore Planning Area because of the role of this area in the Burlingame community life, since this area has become in recent years an important center for serving community recreation needs. The specific plan recognizes the opportunity for expanding both community based and visitor attracting commercial recreation opportunities to this area. CS 25.08.557a Restaurant,Destination "Destination restaurant"means only a full service food establishment in a location where the majority of the customers arrive by automobile;such restaurants are required to have a site size sufficient to accommodate all parking for customers and employees on the same site as well accommodating landscaping and such amenities as the location may require,e.g.the Bay Trail,as set out in any applicable design guidelines adopted by the City. Annotation: The only restaurant allowed in the Bayfront area in the 1981 plan was a "destination restaurant". During the following years the city regulated restaurants downtown and established a number of definitions for types of restaurant. In the 2004 updated Bayfront Plan restaurants of the kind allowed in the downtown area were 5 Definitions to Implement the Proposed Zoning Regulations for the Bayshore Specific Plan Inner Bayshore,Shoreline and Anza Extension Subareas April 29,2005 Draft allowed in the Shoreline subarea retail nodes and along the west side of Bayshore Highway in the inner Bayshore subarea. This evolution in the use of the term in the code and in the land use in the Bayfront area now requires that "destination restaurant" be distinguished by more than the FAR and parking requirement as was done previously in the C-4 district. The proposed definition establishes that a "destination restaurant has the following characteristics: is full service (defined in the code as a place with table clothes, waiters, menu, pay at end of meal, etc) ; is in a location where the majority of the customers will arrive by car; has a larger site to accommodate the auto parking (1 : 100 SF plus 1:1000 SF not 1:250 SF) and the destination location which demands more landscaping and outdoor amenity (such as Bay Trail development) than would be required for other types of restaurants . This definition, by referring to full service restaurants, precludes the other types of food establishments defined in the code such as specialty food establishments, from being located on sites designated in the plan for destination restaurants. 6 Definitions to Implement the Proposed Zoning Regulations for the Bayshore Specific Plan Inner Bayshore,Shoreline and Anza Extension Subareas April 29,2005 Draft Plan restaurants of the kind allowed in the downtown area were allowed in the Shoreline subarea retail nodes and along the west side of Bayshore Highway in the Inner Bayshore subarea. This evolution in the use of the term in the code and in the land use in the Bayfront area now requires that "destination restaurant" be distinguished by more than the FAR and parking requirement as was done previously in the C-4 district. The proposed definition establishes that a "destination restaurant has the following characteristics: is full service (defined in the code as a place with table clothes, waiters, menu, pay at end of meal, etc) ; is in a location where the majority of the customers will arrive by car; has a larger site to accommodate the auto parking (1: 100 SF plus 1 :1000 SF not 1 :250 SF) and the destination location which demands more landscaping and outdoor amenity (such as Bay Trail development) than would be required for other types of restaurants. This definition, by referring to full service restaurants, precludes the other types of food establishments defined in the code such as specialty food establishments, from being located on sites designated in the plan for destination restaurants. April 29, 2005 6 CITY OF BURLINGAME SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO AMEND TITLE 25 (ZONING CODE) TO ESTABLISH THE INNER BAYSHORE ZONING DISTRICT AND ACCOMPANYING REGULATIONS FOR THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Burlingame will consider adoption of proposed ordinances on Tuesday, July 5, 2005, at a public meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, that would amend Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to establish the Inner Bayshore Zoning District and accompanying regulations for the area between the Bayshore Freeway and Bayshore Highway, and the Millbrae City limits and Airport Boulevard. Of the two proposed ordinances, one would allow light industrial and manufacturing uses along Bayshore Highway on the west side, while the other alternative ordinance would only allow such uses behind the properties fronting on Bayshore Highway. Whichever ordinance is adopted would also make conforming changes to definitions and unclassified regulations. The proposed changes are consistent with the Bayfront Specific Plan adopted in 2004. Anyone interested in the Bayfront area and Zoning Code definitions should read the entire ordinances. The City Council will receive testimony on the proposed ordinances from all interested persons who appear at the Council meeting. To receive additional information about the proposed ordinances and a complete copy of the proposed ordinances or to provide written comments, interested persons may contact the City Clerk, located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010, phone (650) 558-7203. A complete copy of the ordinances is available for review at the City Library at 480 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. C:\FILES\ORDINANC\Summary\innerbayshore-shoreline2005-ver2.pin.wpd STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 7a ITEM# WW'R.. MTG. DATE 7.05.05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY 6 � DATE: JUNE 24, 2005 APPROVED (` s FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SCOPING OF THE ECONOMIC STUDY FOR THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA Council Action: City Council should discuss and determine how they wish to proceed with the designation of members of a committee to assist the City Planning in preparing a scope of work for the economic study for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. BACKGROUND: At the meeting on June 20, 2005, the City Council discussed the process for developing a scope of work for the economic study for the downtown area, and who might represent the various points of view about the downtown area. Six names were suggested and staff was directed to contact each and see if they were (1) interested and (2) available in the month of July to meet several times with staff. Council directed staff to contact the six people named. Concluding that this item should be returned to the July 5, 2005 meeting so Council could finalize who would serve and how they were to be appointed. The six people were named as possibles for the committee: Joe Galligan, Cathy Baylock, Michael Brownrigg, Stan Vistica, Dan Anderson, and Mary Ann Saucedo. Staff checked their interest. All were interested in serving on the committee. Three could have commitments which might affect their availability in July (Saucedo, Baylock, Brownrigg) individually affecting the second, third and fourth weeks. Also it was suggested that mornings might be the most convenient time for this committee to meet. Choices for Selection Council also discussed the selection procedure, noting that under the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act if the Council members voted to appoint each of the members of the scoping committee then all meetings would be required to be noticed 72 hours in advance at the location of the meeting, it would be required that an opportunity be provided for the public to speak at each meeting, and the interviews of the competing firms would be open to the public, including the other firms interviewing. If the members of the scoping committee were appointed by the Mayor, the formal requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act would not be in play. The public could still attend the meetings and be given an opportunity to comment on the proceedings; but the interviews would be closed to the public. APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE SCOPING OF THE ECONOMIC STUDY FOR THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA July 5,2005 Steps in Preparing a Scope of Work and Initiating an Economic Study The staff report for the June 20,2005, Council meeting included the following steps for preparing a scope of work to be included in the request for proposals for an economic firm to prepare an economic study of Burlingame's downtown area. These steps are included here for Council's reference: 1. City Council should appoint a committee of to work with staff. In April Council suggested that the committee be composed of the following: representatives of City Council, the Planning Commission, a community member who can articulate the perspective of those who favored the Safeway project and a community member who can articulate the perspective of those who opposed the Safeway project. This committee could include 5 to 7 people. 2. Staff will meet with the appointed committee and do the following: a. Review a "strawman" scope of work prepared by staff and revise it so that it identifies the appropriate economic issues to evaluate in the economic study and integrate an appropriate public participation/education program. The scope of work should include criteria for selecting a consultant and a time line for the project. b. Select from the advisory committee members, 3 people to sit on the interview panel for the presentations of the firms selected for the short list; the interview team will also include the City Manager, City Planner, and Public Works Director. c. Following the interviews, the panel will rank the applicants. Staff will follow up with reference checks and confirm qualifications. A firm which is ranked among the top three, who has the best qualifications and references, will be selected. d. Staff will negotiate the agreement with the selected consultant and the Council will approve the agreement and take the appropriate budget action. The Scoping Committee's function will conclude with the selection of the firm to prepare the economic study. Planning staff will be responsible for the oversight of the economic consultant and will be responsible to see that the work program as scoped in the consultant's proposal is completed in a timely manner. Attachments: None U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR 2005\EconStudy BACA ComAptmt 5.5.05.doc CITYAGENDA °o ITEM# 8a BURIJNGAME STAFF REPORT MTG. �o^ DATE July 5,2005 $ w[6 4 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITT BY DATE: June 29, 2005 APPROVED `, FROM: Netie Shinday (558-7204) BY (/ SUBJECT: Approval for Broadway Merchants Association Pet Parade, September 25, 2005 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval for Broadway Merchants Association 2" Annual Pet Parade BACKGROUND: The Broadway Merchants Association is requesting permission to hold the event on Broadway on Sunday, September 25, 2005 from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m_ The event includes the following elements: • Closure of Broadway from Capuchino to Chula Vista from 10:30 a.m. to 2.30PM on Sunday September 25th. • Use of parking lot Q and partical use of parking lot Y for the duration of the event. These will be used as staging areas. 0 The parade will begin at 11:30AM on Broadway and will be followed by a street festival, including a barbeque lunch sponsored by the Burlingame Lions Club. • Groups are welcomed to rent a booth and pass out information about their activities, sell craft items, do face painting, make balloon animals or do instant pet portraits. • Nursery schools, school groups, Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts and other community groups are invited to march in the parade, along with musical ensembles. • Music will be provided by the Burlingame High School Band and the Los Trancos Woods Community Marching Band. The Broadway Merchants Association has met with the Police Department to work out the street 9 closure and will continue to meet with them to minimize the impact of closing Broadway for the parade. They are also coordinating with the Public Works and Fire departments. The event is co-sponsored by the Burlingame Lions Club and the San Mateo Daily Journal. CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8b aoq MTG. J C C RNTED JYNE6 DATE //J/OJ TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY f DATE: June 27, 2005 APPROVE FROM: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk By 650-558-7203 j SUBJECT: Request direction on whether to cancel the Regular Council Meeting scheduled for August 15, 2005 RECOMMENDATION: Request that Council direct staff on whether to cancel the August 15, 2005 Council meeting. In the past, due to summer vacations, this meeting has been cancelled. EXHIBITS: None CITY G AGENDA 8c �r ITEM# BURIJNGAME STAFF REPORT MTG. DATE 7/5/2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED BY DATE: June 24, 2005 APPROVE . BY 4/G FROM: LgM E. Anderson Ci1y Attorney SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING UPDATE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING TO CONTINUE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution approving the updated Airport/Community Roundtable MOU. DISCUSSION: The San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable "was established in 1981 as a voluntary committee to address community noise impacts from aircraft operations at San Francisco International Airport. The Roundtable monitors a performance-based noise mitigation program implemented by airport staff, interprets community concerns and attempts to achieve noise mitigation through a cooperative sharing of authority among the aviation industry, the Federal Aviation Administration, SFO management and local government." Roundtable Web Site. There are eighteen County city members, plus members from the Airport, San Francisco, County of San Mateo and the Airport Land Use Committee of C/CAG (23 members in all). Staff members from SFO also attend. Meetings are held on a monthly basis. Councilmember Nagel is the City's representative to the Roundtable. The proposed revised MOU consolidates the original agreement, plus the two follow-on amendments, into a single, streamlined documents and seems to do a fine job of making the organization understandable. Ratification of the revised MOU requires the affirmative vote of 2/3's (or 16) of the members. Attachment Proposed Revised MOU Distribution Director of Public Works City Planner RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING UPDATED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUING OPERATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BY AND ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City joined the Airport/Community Roundtable so that San Mateo County communities could have a meaningful voice in the operation of San Francisco International Airport; and WHEREAS, the Roundtable has worked for almost 25 years to provide a forum for issues surrounding the Airport and a means to reach consensus and solutions to problems and concerns; and WHEREAS, the Roundtable has proposed a revised memorandum of understanding to clarify the Roundtable's role and procedures, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1 . The Revised Memorandum of Understanding Providing for the Continuing Operation of the San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable is approved. 2. The Mayor is authorized and requested to execute the Revised Memorandum on behalf of the City of Burlingame, and the Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the Mayor. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUING OPERATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE APPROVED BY THE ROUNDTABLE: APRIL 6, 2005 EFFECTIVE DATE: San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable Administration Office - 1828 EI Camino Real,Suite 705 Burlingame,CA 94010 Ph:650/692-6597 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUING OPERATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE Approved by the Roundtable on April 6, 2005 Effective Date: CONTENTS Preamble Article I Statement of Purpose and Objectives Article 11 Agreement Article 111 Roundtable Membership Article IV Roundtable Operations and Support Article V Amending This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Article VI Status of Prior Memorandums of Understanding(MOUs)and Related Amendments Article VII Memorandum of Understanding(MOU)Adoption and Effective Date Attachment: Signature Page for Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Signatory Agency MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUING OPERATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE Preamble San Francisco International Airport is owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco but is located entirely within neighboring San Mateo County. Because of the shared impacts that result from airport operations, the two counties entered into a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) in 1978 to quantify the impacts and to identify possible mitigation actions. The implementation of the mitigations noted by the Joint Powers Board, in its Joint Action Plan, called for the formation of a formal structure and process to oversee the implementation of the numerous-mitigation actions outlined in the Plan. In May 1981, the County of San Mateo, the County Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC), and the governing bodies of 11 cities/towns located in San Mateo County near the Airport' entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the City and County of San Francisco to create a public body known as the San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable (Roundtable). Under this agreement, the Roundtable became a committee formed to work cooperatively to oversee the implementation of the recommendations contained in the Joint Action Plan adopted by the Joint Powers Board in 1980. Those recommendations addressed various community impacts from the operation of San Francisco International Airport, including aircraft noise, vehicular ground access, and air quality. Since its first meeting on June 3, 1981, the Roundtable has focused its efforts on reducing aircraft noise impacts in affected neighborhoods and communities. Vehicular airport ground access and airport-related air quality issues have been and continue to be addressed by other Bay Area public agencies. In October 1992, the original MOU was amended for the first time, in response to the Airport Commission's adoption and implementation of a San Francisco International Airport Master Plan. The Master Plan provided for the expansion, consolidation, and remodeling of airport landside facilities, through the year 2006. MOU Amendment No.1 also provided for the development of a Roundtable Joint Work Plan, for which the Airport Commission agreed to provide funding to the Roundtable, in the amount of$100,000 per year, from 1993 through 2000. Under that amendment, the Airport Commission also agreed to spend up to $120 million to fund aircraft noise insulation projects in eligible cities. + The original 1981 Roundtable MOU signatory cities/towns within San Mateo County included the following: City of Brisbane, City of Burlingame, Town of Colma, City of Daly City, City of Foster City, Towgof Hillsborough, City of Millbrae, City of Pacifica, City of San Bruno, City of San Mateo, an the City of South San Francisco. The Town of Colma and the City of San Mateo withdrew their membership shortly after the Roundtable began meeting in 1981. Nine cities in San Mateo County remained members until additional cities joined in 1997. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUING OPERATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE Page 2 of 7 Preamble - continued In June 1997, the 1981 MOU, as amended, was amended a second time, to allow non- member cities and towns in San Mateo County to join the Roundtable. MOU Amendment No. 2 specified the procedures for joining the Roundtable and established an annual financial contribution requirement for new member jurisdictions. As a result of that amendment, the Roundtable membership increased from 13 to 23 members. In 2004, the Roundtable Chairperson appointed a Roundtable subcommittee to review the 1981 MOU, as amended, and update the document to provide for improved operation and efficiency of the Roundtable as a public body. The following language is a consolidation of the previous MOU and Amendments Nos.1 and 2, in a more organized and comprehensive format. Also included is additional language to reflect the continuing status of the Roundtable and to provide for more efficient operation of the organization, as a whole. ARTICLE 1: Statement of Purpose and Objectives 1. Purpose As a,result of more than twenty-four years of cooperation between the San Francisco Airport Commission, noise-impacted communities, the federal government, and the airlines operating at San Francisco International Airport, the Roundtable has facilitated numerous aircraft noise mitigation achievements to improve the quality of life in communities near the Airport. The overall purpose of the Roundtable is to continue to foster and enhance this cooperative relationship to develop, evaluate, and implement reasonable and feasible policies, procedures, and mitigation actions that will further reduce the impacts of aircraft noise in neighborhoods and communities in San Francisco and San Mateo Counties. 2. Objectives Objective 1: Continue to organize, administer, and operate the San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable as a public forum for discussion, study, analysis, and evaluation of policies, procedures and mitigation actions that will minimize aircraft noise impacts to help improve the quality of life of residents in San Mateo and San Francisco Counties. Objective 2: Provide a framework of understanding as to the history and operation of the San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable. Objective 3: Maintain the San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable as a focal point of information and discussion between local, state, and federal legislators and policy makers, as it applies to noise impacts from airport/aircraft operations in local communities. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUING OPERATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE Page 3 of 7 Objectives — continued Objective 4: Develop and implement an annual Roundtable Work Program to analyze and evaluate the impacts of aircraft noise in affected communities and to make recommendations to appropriate agencies, regarding implementation of effective noise mitigation actions. Objective 5: Maintain communication and cooperation between Airport management and local governments, regarding: (1) local agency land use and zoning decisions within noise-sensitive and/or overflight areas, while recognizing local government autonomy to make those decisions and (2) decisions/actions that affect current and future on-airport development, while recognizing the Airport Commission's autonomy to make those decisions. ARTICLE II: Agreement Signatory agencies/bodies to this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) agree as follows: 1. Accept in concept and spirit the continuing operation of the San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable as described in the "Statement of Purpose and Objectives," as stated in Article t. 2. Work cooperatively to reduce the impacts of noise, from aircraft operations at San Francisco International Airport, in affected neighborhoods and communities. 3. Provide the necessary means (i.e., funding, staff support, supplies, etc.) to enable the Roundtable to achieve a reduction and mitigation of aircraft noise impacts, as addressed in this agreement. 4. Represent and inform the respective constituencies of the San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable members of the Roundtable's activities and actions to reduce aircraft noise impacts. , 5. Support and abide by Roundtable Resolution No. 93-01, which states, in part, that the Roundtable members, as a group, will not take any action(s) that would result in the "shifting" of noise from one community to another, related to aircraft operations at San Francisco International Airport. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUING OPERATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTICOMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE Page 4 of 7 ARTICLE III: Roundtable Membership 1. Existing voting membership — The existing Roundtable voting membership (March 2005) consists of one designated Representative and one designated Alternate from the following agencies/bodies: City and County of San Francisco Board of Supervisors City and County of San Francisco Mayor's Office City and County of San Francisco Airport Commission County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors City/County Association of Governments of San Mateo County (CCAG) Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) Town of Atherton City of Belmont City of Brisbane City of Burlingame City of Daly City City of Foster City City of Half Moon Bay Town of Hillsborough City of Menlo Park City of Millbrae City of Pacifica Town of Portola Valley City of Redwood City City of San Bruno City of San Carlos City of San Mateo City of South San Francisco Town of Woodside 2. Elected/Appointed Membership - All Representatives and Alternates who serve'` on the Roundtable shall be elected officials (i.e., Council Members, Supervisors, etc.) from the agencies/bodies they represent and serve at the pleasure of their appointing agency/body, except Representatives and Alternates from the following, who shall be appointed by and serve at the pleasure of their appointing entity: City and County of San Francisco Mayor's Office City and County of San Francisco Airport-Commission C/CAG Airport Land Use Committee (ALUC) MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING(MOU)PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUING OPERATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE Page 5 of 7 ARTICLE III: Roundtable Membership-continued 3. Non-Voting Membership-Roundtable non-voting membership shall consist of Advisory Members who represent the following: a. Chief Pilots from airlines operating at San Francisco International Airport b. Federal Aviation Administration(FAA)staff 4. Additional Voting Membership-Other incorporated towns and/or cities located within San Mateo County may request voting membership on the San Francisco International Airport/Community Roundtable by adopting a resolution: a. Authorizing two members of the city/town council(a Representative and Alternate)to represent the city/town on the Roundtable. b. Agreeing to comply with this Memorandum of Understanding(MOU)and all related amendments and any bylaws approved in accordance with this MOU. C. Agreeing to contribute annual funding to the Roundtable in the same amount as current city/town members contribute,at the time of the membership request, or such annual funding as approved by the Roundtable for new members. 5. Withdrawal of a Voting Member-Any voting member may withdraw from the Roundtable by filing a written Notice of Intent to Withdraw from the Roundtable, with the Roundtable Chairperson,at least thirty(30)days in advance of the effective date of the withdrawal. ARTICLE IV: Roundtable Operations and Support 1. Roundtable operations shall be guided by a set of comprehensive bylaws that govern the operation,administration,funding,and management of the Roundtable andlits activities. 2. Roundtable staff support shall be provided by the San Francisco Airport Commission and the County of San Mateo.Additional technical staff support may be provided by consultant(s), as needed, in accordance with the relevant provisions in the adopted Roundtable Bylaws. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUING OPERATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE Page 6 of 7 ARTICLE V: Amending This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) 1. This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) may be amended as follows: Step 1: Roundtable consideration of a proposed MOU amendment Any voting member of the Roundtable may propose an amendment to this MOU. The proposal shall be made at a Roundtable Regular Meeting. Once proposed and seconded by another voting member, at least two-thirds of the voting membership must approve the proposed amendment. If the proposed amendment receives at least the necessary two-thirds votes for approval, the amendment shall then be forwarded to the respective councils/boards of the Roundtable membership agencies/bodies for consideration/action. Step 2: Roundtable member agency/body consideration of a proposed MOU amendment The proposed MOU amendment must be approved by at least two-thirds of the respective councils/boards of the Roundtable member agencies/bodies by a majority vote of each of those bodies_ If at least two-thirds of the member agencies/bodies approve the proposed amendment, the amendment becomes effective. If less than two-thirds of the member agencies/bodies approve the proposed MOU amendment, the proposal fails. 2. This MOU may not be amended more than once in a calendar year. ARTICLE VI: Status of Prior Memorandums of Understanding (MOU) and Related Amendments Adoption of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) shall supercede and replace all prior MOU agreements and related amendments. ARTICLE VII: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Adoption and Effective Date 1. This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) shall be deemed adopted and effective upon adoption by at least two thirds of the jurisdictions listed in Article III. 2. The effective date of this Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) shall be the date of approval by at least two-thirds of the member agencies/bodies. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUING OPERATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE Page 7 of 7 ARTICLE VII: Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Adoption and Effective Date - continued 3. This MOU shall remain in effect so long as all of the voting following membership conditions are met: (1) at least five of the following cities — Brisbane, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, Hillsborough, Millbrae, Pacifica, San Bruno, and South San Francisco — remain members of the Roundtable, (2) the City and County of San Francisco remains a member of the Roundtable, and (3) the County of San Mateo remains a member of the Roundtable. 4. This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and any subsequent amendments to this document shall remain in effect indefinitely, (1) as long as the membership conditions of Item No. 3 of this Article are met, (2) until it is replaced or superceded by another Memorandum of Understanding (MOU), or (3) until the Roundtable is disbanded. Connie/MOU Folder/Approved MOU 04 06_05.doc , MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) PROVIDING FOR THE CONTINUING OPERATION OF THE SAN FRANCISCO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE April 2005 ROUNDTABLE MEMBER AGENCY SIGNATURE PAGE Roundtable Member Agency: Roundtable Representative: City of Burlingame Honorable Terry Nagel AGENCY SIGNATOR: Honorable Joe Galligan, Mayor Date Connie FoldedMOU/Signature Pages.doc 4/13/2005 AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE San Francisco International Airport and i Local Governments in San Mateo County MEMORANDUM May 2,2005 TO: Roundtable Members FROM: Dave Carbone,Roundtable Coordinator SUBJECT: Distribution and Review/Approval of the Final Version of the Proposed Updated Roundtable Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)Document As you know,the Roundtable approved a final version of the proposed updated MOU document,at its meeting on April 6,2005. The Roundtable also directed staff to distribute that document and a copy of the existing 1981 Roundtable MOU,as amended,to the mayors of the eighteen(18)Roundtable member cities in San Mateo County and to the heads of the governing bodies of the other Roundtable member jurisdictions,so they could agendize the document for review and action. That task was recently completed. Both of the documents were in the April 6,2005 Roundtable meeting packet(albeit not the final approved version of the proposed MOU). It has been brought to my attention that it would be helpful to all Roundtable Representatives to receive the same MOU packet that was sent to the mayors and others.Therefore,I have enclosed a copy of the final version of the proposed Roundtable MOU,as approved on April 6,2005 and a copy of the 1981 MOU document,as amended,to assist you and your agency in processing the MOU. If you need further information or assistance regarding the proposed MOU,please contact Connie Shields at the Roundtable Office at 650/692-6597. Her office hours are generally Monday and Tuesday 1 —5 p.m.and Wednesday 8 a.m.—5 p.m. You can also contact me at my County Office at 650/363-4417 Monday—Friday during regular business hours. Enclosures: 1. Updated Memorandum of Understanding(MOU)approved by the Roundtable on April 6,2005 2. 1981 Roundtable Memorandum of Understanding(MOU),as amended 3. MOU Signature page AIRPORTICOMMUNITY.ROUNDTABLE AIRCRAFT NOISE ABATEMENT OFFICE Administration Office San Francisco International Airport 1828 EI Camino Real,Suite 705 P.O.Box 8097 Burlingame,CA 94010 San Francisco,CA 94128 Ph:(650)692-6597;Fax:(650)692-6152 Ph:(650)821-5100;Fax:(650)875-8596 1981 AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) AS AMENDED AMENDMENT NO. 1 EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 3, 1992 AMENDMENT NO. 2 EFFECTIVE JULY 309 1997 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OF THE JOINT ACTION PLAN AND ESTABLISHING AN AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE Statement of Purpose The purpose of this agreement is to -red and mitigate impacts that users of San Francisco International Airport create on surrounding communities . Because the Joint Action Plan was the product of three years of cooperative effort between the Counties of San Mateo and San Francisoco with interaction- by many community and industry interests , it shall form the basis for this agreement. The six objectives of that study further define the purpose of the agreement: Objective 1 . Achieve compatibility between the Airport and its Environs in the shortest amount of time and with the least possible cost or disruption to the Airport and affected jurisdictions. Objective 2. Attain a consensus between the Airports Commission and local governing bodies on the individual Plan Elements and achieve a balance between the costs and benefits of the proposed actions and their economic, environmental , social and institutional impacts. Objective 3. Provide a mechanism that provides for cooperation between the Airport and local communities in reaching decisions on planning , zoning, and building matters in local communities , while recog- nizing local governments ' autonomy over those decisions. Objective 4. Protect and enhance existing residential neighborhoods in the vicinity of the Airport. Objective 5. Provide affected Environs jurisdictions with specific assistance to effectively deal with Airport/Environs compatibility problems . Objective 6. Provide a mechanism that insures cooperation between the Airport and local communities in reaching decisions on Airport land use and management, while recognizing the Airport's authority over those decisions. Aq reem en t Signators to this Memorandum of Understanding agree as follows : 1 . To accept in concept and spirit the Joint Action Plan as recommended by the Joint Powers Board at their meeting of March 27 , 108O. 2 . To work cooperatively toward achievement of Joint Land Use Study objectives . 3 . To provide a means of achieving the reduction and the mitigation of impacts intended by this agreement there is hereby created a committee identified as the AIRPORT-/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE. 4. The functions of the AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE shall be as follows : Authority/Responsibility The Roundtable shall meet and confer on important issues involving Airport/Community impacts. Each member shall be responsible for informing and advising their parent group of the actions necessary to implement the Joint Action Plan. Functions The functions of the Roundtable shall be to : - monitor and evaluate the progress of Joint Action Plan implementation. - provide a forum for discussion by_interested parties. - identify continuing or new problems. - discuss alternative actions. - promote cooperative actions by the exercise of authority vested in the individual members . Structure The Roundtable shall be organized on a two-tier basis. The first tier shall be known as the Coordinating Committee and shall be composed of representatives of organizations with the. authority to .act upon matters involving implementation. The Coordinating Committee shall meet regularly at a time and place of its choosing, and shall establish procedures for operation of the Roundtable. The *second tier shall be composed of the Coordinating Committee plus interested parties and shall be known as the Integrative Group. The interested parties shall represent a broad base of community and industry concerns. The Integrative Group shall meet at a time and place designated by the Coordinating Committee. Membership The Coordinating Committee shall determine its own membership as well as that of the Integrative Group. The initial membership of the Coordinating Committee shall be composed of a member and a designated alternate from among the following organizations which shall be invited to become members and whose membership shall be confirmed by signing this Memorandum of Understanding : City and County of San Francisco Airports Commission County of San Mateo Airport Land Use Committee City of Brisbane City of Burlingame City of Colma City of Daly City City of Foster City Town of Hillsborough City of Millbrae City of Pacifica City of San Bruno City of San Mateo City of South San Francisco The following organizations shall be invited to be ex—officio members : Airline Pilots ' Association Air Transport Association Federal Aviation Administration Staff and Material Support The Airport's Office of Community Affairs shall provide staff support for the Roundtable. Any direct funding of Roundtable activities may be requested from and approved by the Airports Commission. 1992 AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOU) AMENDMENT NO. 1 EFFECTIVE NOVEMBER 3, 1992 OCTOBER 23, 1992 EXHIBIT 4 AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OF THE JOINT ACTION PLAN AND ESTABLM"NG .AN AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE THIS IS AN AMENDMENT TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING erecting the Airport/Community Roundtable (`Roundtable") entered into by.the County of San Mho, 9 Participating cities located near San Francisco Airport ("Cities the the City and County of San Francisco, and its Airport Commission ("Commission"). RECITALS 1• On or about May 11, 1981, local governing bodies and the Commission entered a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Acceptance of the Joint Action Pian and Establishing an Airport/Commuaity Roundtable ("MOU"). The Roundtable is a committee formed by the MOU to develop joint action plans and to work cooperatively in resolving issues concerning the San Francisco International Airport and its environs. The members of the Roundtable and the Commission reaffirm in concept and spirit the Joint Action Plan which was attached to the original MOU and agree to work cooperatively toward achievement of the Joint Land Use Study Objectives stated in that Plan. 2• In addition to the Joint Action Plan created by the original MOU; the Roundtable has in the past given on-going consideration and study to the concern over aircraft noise impacts resulting from aircraft operations at the Airport. 3- Commission is presently considering the adoption of a San Francisco International Airport Final Draft Master Plan ("Master Plan") and an Environmental Impact Report (-EER-) for the project. The Master Plan provides for the expansion,-consolidation, remodeling, and implementation of significant changes in Airport facilities over the period 1986 through 2006. 4. The PIR identifies a number of environmental impacts and proposes certain measures. The local government members of the Roundtable contend that the measures for aircraft noise impacts should be enhanced. Commission disputes this contention, but is willing to cooperate with the Roundtable to address these contemns. TEMREFORR, in order to resolve these differences, ' the members of the Airport/Community Roundtable agree to amend the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Acceptance of the Joint Action Plan and Establishing an Airport/Community Roundtable to add the following _additional Joint Work Plan and Implementation concerting the aircraft noise' impacts that are identified in the EIR to the Airport Master Plan; 1. DEVELOPMENT OF TOINT WORK PLAN To mitigate the noise-related impacts of the Airport, Commission shall develop with the Roundtable a Joint Work Plan each year on the noise-related issues. These issues include but are not limited to those topics listed in Attachment 1. Commission shall also provide funding to the Roundtable in the amount of$100,000 per year, for the years 1993 through 2000, to support the Roundtable's efforts in addressing the noise related measures identified in the annual Joint Work Plan. 2. IMPLEMENTATION OF OPERATING PROCEDURES Based on analysis and _discussion resulting from the Joint Work Plan, the Commission and the Roundtable shall jointly identify Airport/aircraft operating procedures which Commission shall implement, as soon as practical, to reduce aircraft noise. If identified actions or procedures are beyond the scope and authority of the Commission to implement, the or procedures are beyond the scope and authority of the Commission to implement, the Commission shall request and support the appropriate agencies to implement such actions as soon as practical. 3. FUNDING FOR NOISE INSULATION The Airports Director shall recommend that the Commission include a section in the Final Mitigation Program related to noise insulation to provide that the Airports Commission shall guarantee to spend up to $120 million for noise insulation in the cities surrounding the Airport per the terms shown in Exhibit 1. 4. INCLUSION IN MASTER PLAN This terms of this Memorandum of Understanding and its attachments shall be included as a condition of approval of the Master Plan by Commission. 5. EFFECTIVE DATE OF AMENDMENT This Amendment shall be effective upon execution by all parties who are official members of the Roundtable. The Amendment shall terminate upon mutual agreement of the parties: 6. OTHER PROVISIONS This Amendment is hereby incorporated and made a part of the origiri4 agreement and is subject to all provisions therein. All other provisions of the original MOU remain unchanged and fully effective. 7. ATTACHMENTS The following document is attached to and are part of this Amendment: Attachment 1 - Joint Wort; Plan IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Commission and other.members of Roundtable have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the dates shown below. This Amendment may be signed in counterparts, _ Date CURT HOLZINGER CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS'.REPRESENTATIVE Date TOM HAYES CITY AND COUN'T'Y OF SAN FRANCISCO MAYOR'S OFFICE Date LOUIS TURPEN CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORTS COWvFISSION Date 1GSAR7 GRIFFIN, SUPERVISOR COUNTY OF SAN MATEO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Date HERBERT FOREMAN C/CAG AIRPORT LAND USE CON2arTEE (ALUC) OCTOBER 23, 1992 EXHIBIT 4 — ATTACHMENT 1 JOINT WORK PLAN PURPOSE The purpose of the Joint Work Plan between the Ai Airport/Community Roundtable is to identify and implementortsoactionsnandd the procedures to mitigate aircraft noise impacts resulting from aircraft operations at San Francisco International Airport. GOAL/OBJECTIVES The goal of the Joint Work Plan is to implement appropriate actions to reduce aircraft noise impacts in the Airport environs communities resulting from the San Francisco International Airport. The objectives of the Joint Work Plan are as follows: 1 . Develop and implement additional air traffic procedures to reduce aircraft noise and overflight in communities near the Airport. 2. Revise existing Airport noise abatement regulations to improve enforcement of noise mitigations. - 3. Expand the existing. Airport Noise Management Plan to improve noise management capability. 4. Implement and evaluate a test program to reduce low frequency, backblast noise in affected communities. 5. Monitor the progress and implementation of the Joint Work Plan actions to evaluate the performance of noise mitigation efforts and to assure achievement' of the stated goal . TOPICSIISSUES The Airports Commission and the Airport/Community Roundtable will discuss and analyze the items listed below to ascertain the need for action on action is appropriate; to determine implementation by the appropriate agency(ies and, if Such list may be amended at any time by mutual agreement. Airport/Aircraft Operation Procedures sures A. Air Duality - 1 Air quality impacts in the Airport environs area of existing and future airport operations. EXHIBIT 4 - ATTACHMENT 1 JOINT WORK PLAN Page 2 Airport/Aircraft Operating Procedures - continued B_ Navigational Aids 1. Installation and capabilities of a Localizer-type Directional Aid/Distance Measuring Equipment (LDA/DME) to reduce or eliminate overflights of communities in all weather conditions and time periods. 2. Installation and capabilities of a Microwave Landing System (MLS) to revise flight patterns and procedures to lessen noise impacts on Airport environs cities., C. Noise Measurement Noise Management 1'. Development of a local single-event noise metric and a reporting system. 2. Expansion of the Airport's increased use of the Airpoproactive noise management program; through proactive PASSUR System. 3= Reduction of backblast noise from Runways-01 departures to mitigate the impacts- of recent increases in 'the use of Runways 01 and the anticipated impacts' of the growth in air traffic as forecast. in the Master Plan. Specifically: (a) Increase the use of correctly flown Runways 28 Shoreline departures and the nighttime use of Runways 10 for departures. (b) Evaluate the results of the May 1992 Runways 01 test program and implement effective- options. _ (c) Implementation of the effective results of the backblast noise test program (see page 3) .- 4. Reduction of nighttime and early morning arrivals and departures.Y 5. Reduction of the Airports Commission's maximum sideline noise limit of 103 EPNdB to a lower limit by December 31, 1993. 6. Revisions to the existing San Francisco International Airport Noise Abatement Regulation to enforce noise mitigations. D. Runway Operations 1 . Deactivation- of Runways 01 at night, between the hours of 11 :00 p.m. and 7:00 a-m. 2. Prohibition of Stage 2 aircraft operations at night . XHIBIT 4 - ATTACHMENT I JOINT WORK PLAN Page 3 Airport/Aircraft Operating Procedures - continued D. Runway Operations - continued 3. Enforcement of the Roundtable and Airports Commission policy of not shifting noise from one community to another. 4. Elimination of shortcutting from Woodside to the Outer Marker and designation of thehigh span approach as a noise abatement procedure " to reduce the Tipp.Toe approach procedure for single-stream arrivals. 5. On implementation of the LDA/DME, utilize the high span with the LDA/DME for side-by-side procedures. 6. Education of domestic and international flight crews and air carriers of noise mitigation programs and procedures. E. Other Items Suggested by the Public and Supported by the Roundtable 1. Use of sound enclosures for all runups; prohibition of runups at boarding gates. 2. Compliance with the State Noise Standards to eliminate the need for a variance. Backblast Noise Test Program The Commission and the Roundtable will implement a pilot program to test the effectiveness of sound insulation measures to reduce low frequency, backblast noise in affected communities. Commission will provide the total funding for the pilot program. - Eligibility and acoustic criteria for the program will be joint developed. The Roundtable will evaluate the results of the pilot program. If the pilot program is successful , the Commission will continue to provide funding for the program to participating cities. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE JOINT WORK PLAN This Joint Work Plan will be implemented over a mutually agreed time period. DFC:kcd - DFCC2463.AKA 1997 AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING (MOP AMENDMENT NO. 2 EFFECTIVE JULY 309 1997 ' F,WR72E-1997 10:.50 COUNTY C( L St C,. 415 363 4e34 p AMENDMENT No. 2 TO THE MEMORANDUM OF REGARDING ACCEPTANCE UNDERSTANDING THE JOINT ACTION PLAN AND ESTABLISHING AN AIRPORT/COMMUNITY ROUNDTABLE THIS IS AMENDMENT No.2 TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING creating the Airport/Community Roundtable ("Roundtable ') entered into by the County of Sar Mateo, ] 1 participating cities located near San Francisco Airport ("Cities'), the City and Cotit�ty of San Francisco, and its Airport Commission("Comtnfssion'� 1• Onorabout May 11, 1981, 1ocal governing bodies and the Commission entered a Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Acceptance of the Joint Action Plan Establishing an Airport/Coninunity Roundtable ("MOU'D. Tand he Roundtable is a committee formed by the MOU to developjoint actioh plans and to work cooperatively in resolving issues concerning the San Francisco International Airport and its environs. 2- In addition to the Joint Action Plan created by the original MOU, the Roundtable gives on-going consideration and study to the concern over aircraft noise im pacts resulting from airci-a.$ operations at the Airport 3. Certain cities in South San Mateo County have expressed interest in joining the Roundtable is order to participate in developing and implementing air traffic cool procedtir�s and in addressing aircraft and Airport operation procedures to reduce aircraft noise. 4. The Roundtable has determined that itsu p rpose of providing a forum to address noise issues would be served by allowing all cities in San Mateo County, regardless of noise levels or treatment under Title 21, Chapter Six, of the California Code of Regulations, the opportunity to fully participate in the Roundtable. i iR-2ti-1511 16:50 COUNTY COUNSEL SMCo. 415 363 4034 p 003i0p6 5. The Roundtable adopted Resolution 93-01 on December 9. 1993 to memoralize its longstanding policy of not shifting noise from one community to another when related to aircraft operations at San Francisco International Airport. The Roundtable will continue to adhere to the policy's set forth in Resolution 93-OI. THEREFORE, the current members of the Airport/Community Roundtable agree to amend the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Acceptance of the Joint Action Plan and Establishing an Airport/Community Roundtable,as previously amended, as follows: 1• RERRESENUTEYE OF CMES IN SAN MATEO nnrr r. NOT Cr1RRFNTi Y VOTING Ml+ BEES Any city in San Mateo County that is not currently a voting member of the Roundtable may elect to become a voting member of the Roundtable at any by adopting a resolution_ (1) authorizing a member of the city council to represent the city on the Roundtable; (2) agreeing to cumply with the original MOU and Amendment No. 1 to the MOIL; and(3) agreeing to contribute annual funding to the Roundtable in the same amount as a current City member contributes (currently S1,00o per year), or such additional annual funding as may be recommended by the Roundtable. The city may designate an alternate member, to represent the city on the Roundtable, who must also be a member of the city council. Any city or other voting member of the Roundtable, whether currently a member or electing to become a member under this section, may elect not to contribute annual funding to the Roundtable and, by such election shall lose its voting membership on the Roundtable. .PPR-?8-1997 10:50 axiNTY COUNSEL SmCo. 415 363 4e34 P. 2. _F.FFFCtIV E PATE OF AMFNDMFNT This Amendment shall be effective upon execution by a majority of the parties who arc current voting members of the Roundtable. 3. OTHER PROVI4IONS This Amendment is hereby incorporated and made a part of the original agreement and is subject to all provisions therein. All other provisions of the original MOU and Amendment No. I remain unchanged and fully effective. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the members of the Roundtable have caused this Amendment to be executed by their duly authorized representatives on the dates shown below: This Amendment may be signed in counterparts. Date CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO Date CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORTS COMMISSION Date COUNTY OF SAN MATEO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Datcd: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMITTEE Aeenda Item # 8d _ Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date July 5, 2005 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DATE: JUNE 22, 2005 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL BIDS AND AUTHORIZING STAFF TO RE-ADVERTISE THE CHULA VISTA/MISCELLANEOUS STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, CITY PROJECT NO. 80570 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council reject all bids and authorize staff to re-advertise the Chula Vista/Miscellaneous Storm Drain Improvements Project for new bids. _DISCUSSION: Three bids were received and opened on June 16, 2005. Bids ranged from $549,530 to $714,424. The City's engineer's estimate was $420,029. The project includes construction of storm water drain pipelines, manholes, and drain inlets that collect storm water runoff from adjacent commercial and residential areas, and discharges to Terrace and Sanchez Creeks. Additionally, Chula Vista Avenue from Broadway to Sanchez Avenue will be resurfaced after completion of the storm water drain improvement project. During the review of the contract proposals, staff determined that the bid specifications required the installation of a cement slurry backfill and reinforced concrete pipe which would significantly reduce the contractor's productivity, and result in higher bid prices. Staff proposes to revise the contract documents and specifications to identify an alternate trench backfill method, and a pipe which would be cheaper and still meet City requirements. EXHIBITS: Resolution Bid Summary c: Doug Bell, Senior Engineer Doris Mortensen, City Clerk Larry Anderson, City Attorney SAA Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\80570 - Chula Vista Storm Drain\Chula Vista - Bidding\Staff Report (re-bid).doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME REJECTING ALL BIDS FOR CHULA VISTA/MISCELLANEOUS STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS CITY PROJECT NO. 80570 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame is undertaking improvements to the storm drain system serving the Chula Vista Avenue neighborhood and the area along Sanchez and Terrace Creeks; and WHEREAS, the City issued an invitation for bids in conformance with the State Public Contracts Code and City procedures; and WHEREAS, sealed bids were due for submittal on June 16, 2005; and WHEREAS, the three bids received were$120,000 to $300,000 more than the engineer's estimate and would consume a disproportionate amount of the capital improvement funding for storm drainage; and WHEREAS, reviews of the specifications required an cement slurry backfill and reinforced concrete pipe that significantly reduces any contractor's productivity; and WHEREAS, the specifications should be revised to identify an alternate backfill method and pipe that would result in costs savings to the City, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine, and find as follows: 1. All bids received for the Chula Vista/Miscellaneous Storm Drain Improvements, City Project No. 80570 are hereby rejected. 2. All bonds and security received in connection with the bids shall be returned to the bidders. No bidders are disqualified by this action from participating in the readvertised bidding. 3. The project will be readvertised as directed by the Director of Public Works. MAYOR 1 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2005,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK C:\FIL.ES\RESO\rejectbid4.pwd.wpd 2 Project No.80570 BID SUMMARY BID OPENING DATE:June 16,2005 CHULA VISTA/MISCELLANEOUS STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS PAGE 1 OF 2 SCHEDULE A-CHULA VISTA AVENUE STORM DRAIN PIPELINE AND PAVING ITEM ESTIMATED ENG.ESTIMATE City of BID#1 BID#2 BID#3 NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT Burlingame TRINET CON JMB CON MCGUIRE&HESTER UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL 1 MOBILIZATION 1 LS $ 16,000.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25 000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 93,400.00 $ 93,400.00 2 CONSTRUCTION AREA STAKING 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 20,000.00 3 POTHOLING 10 EA $ 750.00 $ 7,500.00 $ 500.00 $ 61000.00 $ 300.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 650.00 $ 6,500.00 4 TRENCH IN PLACE 24"DIA,STORM DRAIN PIPE 277 LF $ 100.00 $ 27,700.00 $ 210.00 $ 58,170.00 $ 270.00 $ 74,790.00 $ 210.00 $ 58,170.00 5 TRENCH IN PLACE 27"DIA,STORM DRAIN PIPE 318 1 LF $ 125.00 $ 39,750.00 $ 235.00 $ 74,730.00 $ 280.00 $ 89,040.00 $ 240.00 $ 76,320.00 6 TRENCH IN PLACE 30"DIA.STORM DRAIN PIPE 477 LF $ 140.00 $ 66,780.00 $ 260.00 $ 124,020.00 $ 320.00 $ 152,640.00 $ 255.00 $ 121,635.00 TRENCH IN PLACE 15"DIA.LATERAL STORM 7 DRAIN PIPE 90 EA $ 65.00 $ 5,850.00 $ 200.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 150.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 345.00 $ 31,050.00 8 DRAIN INLETS(Caltrans Type GO) 6 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 18,000.00 $ 3,100.00 $ 18,600.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 30,000.00 9 STORM DRAIN MANHOLE 4 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 14,000.00 $ 5,400.00 $ 21,600.00 10 MANHOLE CONNECTION TO EX.BOX CULVERT 1 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 2,850.00 $ 2,850.00 11 CONNECTION TO EXISTING CATCH BASIN 1 EA $ 31000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 1,100.00 $ 2,850.00 $ 2,850.00 DRAIN INLET(TYPE GO)W1 GRATE ON BOX 12 CULVERT TOP 2 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 3,700.00 $ 7,400.00 $ 3,800.00 $ 7,600.00 13 WATER,STORM DRAIN,and SEWER CONFLICTS 8 EA $ 2,000.00 $ 16,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 900.00 $ 7,200.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 16,000.00 14 REMOVE AND REPLACE CURB AND GUTTER 240 LF $ 35.00 $ 8,400.00 $ 30.00 $ 7,200.00 $ 60.00 $ 14,400.00 $ 75.00 $ 18,000.00 15 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONC.VALLEY GUTTER 60 SF $ 10.00 $ 600.00 $ 20.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 30.00 $ 1,800.00 $ 160.00 $ 9,600.00 16 ASPHALT CONCRETE"OIG OUT"REPAIRS 1000 SF $ 10.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 10.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 8.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 19.00 $ 19,000.00 17 MANHOLE,VALVES AND OTHER ADJUSTMENTS 10 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 200.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 350.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 500.00 $ 5,000.00 18 AGGREGATE BASE ONLY FOR DIG OUT REPAIRS 40 TONS $ 35.00 $ 1,400.00 $ 50.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 50.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 80.00 $ 3,200.00 19 COLD PLANE AC 225 CY $ 35.00 $ 7,875.00 $ 20.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 60.00 $ 13,500.00 $ 50.00 $ 11,250.00 20 AC PAVING 650 TONS $ 65.00 $ 42,250.00 $ 100.00 $ 65,000.00 $ 95.00 $ 61,750.00 $ 100.00 $ 65,000.00 21 ENGINEERED PAVING MAT 4100 Sy $ 2.50 $ 10,250.00 $ 3.00 $ 12,300.00 $ 3.00 $ 12,300.00 $ 3.00 $ 12,300.00 22 STRIPING- 12"WHITE OR CURB STRIPING 130 LF $ 3.00 $ 390.00 $ 6.00 $ 780.00 $ 5.00 $ 650.00 $ 6.00 $ 780.00 23 LEGENDS AND MARKINGS 108 SF $ 3.00 $ 324.00 $ 10.00 $ 1,080.00 $ 12.00 $ 1,296.00 $ 10.00 $ 1,080.00 24 1 PARKING"TEES"OR MARKERS 19 EA $ 40.00 I $ 760.00 $ 20.00 1 $ 380.00 $ 150.00 $ 2,850.00 $ 11.00 $ 209.00 SUBTOTAL(SCHEDULE A): $ 324,829.00 $ 487,360.00 $ 524,916.00 1 $ 633,394.00 Chula Vista Storm Drain-810 SUMMARY 6-16-05.xis 6/20/2005BID SUM3:24 PM Project No.80570 BID SUMMARY BID OPENING DATE:June 16,2005 CHULA VISTA/MISCELLANEOUS STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS PAGE20F2 SCHEDULE B-MISCELLANEOUS STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS—Paloma,Ed ehill and Chula Vista Avenues ITEM ESTIMATED ENG.ESTIMATE City of BID#1 BID#2 BID#3 NO. ITEM DESCRIPTION QUANTITY UNIT Burlingame TRINET CON JMB CON MCGUIRE &HESTER UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL UNIT PRICE TOTAL REMOVE DRAIN INLETS AND INSTALL NEW TYPE 25 GO CURB INLET TO BOX CULVERT(Chula Vista) 2 EA $ 5,000.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 4,200.00 $ 8,400.00 REMOVE DRAIN INLETS AND REPLACE WITH 26 TYPE GO CURB INLETS(Paloma) 2 EA $ 6,000.00 $ 12,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 4,850.00 $ 9,700.00 NEW TYPE GO CURB DRAIN INLET with 11 LF OF 15"PVC C900 STORM DRAIN PIPE IN STREET 27 (Paloma) 1 EA 1 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 6,000.00 $ 7,200.00 $ 7,200.00 NEW 12"DIA,AREA DRAIN INLET W/GRATE,AND FLAP GATE BELOW GRATE IN BOX(easement 28 between Chula Vista and Laguna) 1 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 3,500.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 2,800.00 $ 2,150.00 $ 2,150.00 REMOVE AND REPLACE DRAIN INLET,ADD NEW 6"CURB OPENING W/DOUBLE GO GRATE IN TOP 29 OF BOX CULVERT (Edgehill near Paloma) 1 EA $ 8,000.00 $ 8,000.00 $ 5,300.00 $ 5,300.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 2,400.00 $ 5,600.00 $ 5,600.00 30 ISTEEL FRAME FOR DOUBLE GO GRATE 1 EA $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 2,200.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000,00 $ 650.00 $ 650.00 REMOVE AND REPLACE EXISTING CASTIRON GRATE IN DRIVEWAY W/WELDED STEEL GRATE 31 (912 PALOMA) 1 EA $ 3,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,825.00 $ 1,825.00 REMOVE EXISTING 8"AND INSTALL NEW 12"C900 32 STORM DRAIN PIPE IN STREET(Paloma 34 LF $ 200.00 $ 6,800.00 $ 300.00 $ 10,200.00 $ 160.00 $ 5,440.00 $ 145.00 $ 4,930.00 AC PAVING REPAIR—MIN.TWO LIFTS—ABOUT 6" 33 DEPTH(Not including Chula Vista paving) 700 SF $ 15.00 $ 10,500.00 $ 10.00 $ 7,000.00 $ 8.00 $ 5,600.00 $ 20.00 $ 14,000.00 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE CURB AND 34 GUTTER 150 LF $ 35.00 $ 5,250.00 $ 30.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 60.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 60.00 $ 9,000,00 35 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY 300 SF $ 9.00 $ 2,700.00 $ 15.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 18.00 $ 5,400.00 $ 20.00 $ 6,000.00 36 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE SIDEWALK 60 SF $ 20.00 $ 1,200,00 $ 12.00 $ 720.00 $ 20.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 45.00 $ 2,700.00 AREA RESTORATION-LANDSCAPING AND REPAIR 37 WORK 1 LS $ 4,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 6,500.00 $ 4,500.00 $ 4,500.00 38 POST TELEVISION INSPECTION 1250 LF $ 15.00 $ 18,750.00 $ 1.00 $ 1,250.00 $ 5.00 $ 6,250.00 $ 3.50 $ 4,375.00 39 SHEETING,BRACING,AND SHORING-Pricing to be included in items above SUBTOTAL(SCHEDULE 13: $ 95,200.00 $ 62,170.00 $ 66,590.00 $ 81,030.00 TOTAL: $ 420,029.00 1 $ 649,530.00 $ 591,506.00 $ 714,424.00 Chula Vista Storm Drain-BID SUMMARY 6-16-05.x1s 6/20/2005BID SUM3:24 PM BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM# 8e MTG. DATE 7/5/05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: June 28, 2005 BY APPROVED FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY 171 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BURLINGAME/EASTO SUBDIVISION MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 80770- PHASE II RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution accepting the Burlinghome/Easton Subdivision Main Replacement Project, City Project No. 80770 - Phase II, in the amount of$2,076,596. BACKGROUND: City Council approved an annual water system capital improvements program budget of $4,500,000 to replace aging water system infrastructure within the City of Burlingame. The Phase I and Phase II projects involved the replacement of undersized, inaccessible water mains at the end of their service life located within the Burlinghome Subdivision and Easton Subdivisions Number 5 and Number 7. New water mains and meters were relocated to the front of the homes to improve access and maintainability. DISCUSSION: On June 7, 2004 the project was awarded to JMB Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,987,192. During construction, a net $89,404 of water pipe replacement was added to the project to correct problem plumbing discovered on Adeline Drive and Trousdale Drive. This resulted in a final contract amount of $2,076,596. All construction was completed in compliance with the plans and specifications. EXHIBITS: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: Staff Administration $ 57,627 Engineering Design(completed in FY 2003-2004) $ 304,000 Constrittion Management $ 418,260 Construction $2,076,596 Public Outreach $ 49,000 Project Total $2,905,483 There are sufficient funds available in the CIP budget from water bond revenues to cover this work. cc: City Clerk, Erler&Kalinowski, Inc., JMB Construction, The Culver Group S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\80770acceptphaseII.wpd RESOLUTION NO. - ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS - BURLINGAME/EASTON SUBDIVISION PHASE II MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT BY JMB CONSTRUCTION, INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 80770 - PHASE II RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council does hereby find, order and determine as follows: 1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by JMB CONSTRUCTION, INC. under the terms of its contract with the City dated JUNE 7, 2004 has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 80770- PHASE II. 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. 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: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk SAA Public Works DirectoryWuthor,By NameTeggy Adam Letters\RESOLUTN,ACC.wpd STAFF REPORT BUR LINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8f MTG. DATE 7/5/05 To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL sus TED BY Q DATE: June 28, 2005 APPRO FROM: Parks& Recreation Director (558-7307) BY 1��2 SUBJECT: APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEM>INT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE CITY OF MILLBRAE FOR PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR SERVICES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement between the City of Burlingame and the City of Millbrae for shared Parks and Recreation Director services. BACKGROUND: The cities of Burlingame and Millbrae entered into an Agreement effective February 1, 2003 to share the services of the Parks and Recreation Director. This Amendment will continue the Agreement until terminated by either party and obligates Burlingame to only provide Recreation Director services. The City of Millbrae will pay Burlingame $5,220 per month for these services. This Amendment is anticipated to continue until the cities finalize a decision whether or not to combine their Recreation Divisions. BUDGET IMPACT: The City of Millbrae will pay Burlingame $5,220 per month under this Amendment. No revenues from Shared Services were included in the Parks and Recreation Department's budget for the 2005-06 fiscal year. ATTACHMENTS: Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement between the City of Burlingame and the City of Millbrae for Parks and Recreation Director Services RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE CITY OF MILLBRAE FOR SHARED PARK& RECREATION DIRECTOR SERVICES RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,the City of Millbrae continues to have a need of an interim Parks & Recreation Director; and WHEREAS, the City of Millbrae and the City of Burlingame are evaluating whether there are ways that the two cities can share services that are provided by each other's recreation departments; and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame is willing to provide the City's Parks &Recreation Director on a shared basis with the City of Millbrae as a way to bridge Millbrae's needs and to continue to assist in the evaluation of sharing arrangements that might be possible for the present time; and WHEREAS, the two cities entered into an agreement in February 2003 to share a parks and recreation director, and wish to continue that arrangement for the time being, but only with regard to recreation services, NOW, THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The City Manager is authorized and directed execute Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A by and on behalf of the City. 2. The Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the Manager. MAYOR I,DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_day of 2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE CITY OF MILLBRAE FOR PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR SERVICES THIS AMENDMENT NO. 1, made and entered into this day of , 2005, by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation [hereinafter "Burlingame"], and CITY OF MILLBRAE [hereinafter"Millbrae"], amends the Agreement between the parties dated February 3, 2003 [hereinafter"Agreement"]. RECITALS WHEREAS, Burlingame and Millbrae desire to amend the Agreement until either party terminates the Agreement in writing with at least 30 days notice, on the terms and conditions provided in this AMENDMENT NO. 1; and WHEREAS, Burlingame and Millbrae desire to amend the scope of the Agreement for Burlingame to only provide the services of a shared Recreation Director; and WHEREAS, Burlingame and Millbrae desire to amend the payment from Millbrae to Burlingame to reflect the change in scope; NOW, THEREFORE,IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Term of Agreement. This Amendment shall be effective upon execution by both parties until the Agreement is terminated by either party to this Agreement on thirty (30) days written notice to the other or until such time as the City Councils of Millbrae and Burlingame make a decision on merged recreation services, whichever occurs first. 2. Obligations of Burlingame. Burlingame agrees to provide the services of Randy Schwartz, an employee of Burlingame, to perform Recreation Director/Department Head services for the City of Millbrae. 3. Obligations of Millbrae. Millbrae agrees to pay Burlingame $5,220 per month for services actually rendered by Randy Schwartz to Millbrae pursuant to the Agreement. 4. Except as expressly amended in this Amendment No. 1, all other terms and conditions contained in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 1 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Burlingame and Millbrae have executed this Amendment to become effective as of July 1, 2005. CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY OF MILLBRAE By James Nantell, City Manager By Ralph Jaeck, City Manager City of Burlingame City of Millbrae Approved as to Form: Approved as to Form: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney Joan Cassman, City Attorney City of Burlingame City of Millbrae ATTEST: ATTEST: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk Deborah Konkol, City Clerk City of Burlingame City of Millbrae 2 ciTY AGENDA o� ITEM# BURLINGAMMTG. E STAFF REPORT a^I DATE 7/5/2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMIT BY L DATE: July 1, 2005 APPR VED BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: ACKNOWLEDGE RESIGNATION OF COUNCILMEMBER MIKE COFFEY AND ADOPT RESOLUTION CALLING A SPECIAL ELECTION FOR COUNCILMEMBER COFFEY'S UNEXPIRED TERM FOR NOVEMBER 8,2005 RECOMMENDATION: Acknowledge Councilmember Coffey's resignation from the Council and adopt the proposed resolution calling a special election for November 8, 2005,to serve the unexpired term. DISCUSSION: Councilmember Coffey has submitted his resignation from the Council after 6 years of service to the City on the Council. His resignation is effective at the beginning of this item on the agenda of the July 5, 2005,meeting. Under Government Code section 36512,the Council has 30 days from the effective date of the vacancy to decide whether to call a special election or to appoint a person to the Council to fill the unexpired term of Councilmember Coffey. In addition, the section requires the special election to be held no earlier than 114 days from the Council's decision. Therefore, staff is recommending that the Council call a special election to fill the unexpired term; if the election is called this week,the special election can be held at the same time as the general municipal election on November 8, 2005. This will give time for the required notice to the County Clerk and the publication of notice. If a decision is postponed beyond July 13,the special election could not be held until April, 2006, because it has be held in conjunction with a regularly scheduled election date under State law. Attachment Letter of Resignation of Councilmember Mike Coffey Proposed resolution calling special election Distribution City Clerk r RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE BURLINGAME ORDERING AND CALLING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ON NOVEMBER 8, 2005, TO FILL AN UNEXPIRED COUNCILMEMBER TERM DUE TO VACANCY; REQUESTING THE SERVICES OF THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS, REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION OF ELECTIONS, AND SPECIFYING CERTAIN PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSOLIDATED ELECTION; REQUIRING PAYMENT OF PRORATED COSTS OF CANDIDATES' STATEMENTS; AND PROVIDING FOR GIVING NOTICE OF ELECTION RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, Burlingame Ordinance No. 1219 provides that the general municipal election for the City of Burlingame shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each odd-numbered year; and WHEREAS, Councilmember Mike Coffey resigned from the City Council on July 5, 2005;and WHEREAS, a general municipal election is to be held on November 8, 2005; and WHEREAS, holding a special election pursuant to Government Code section 36512 to fill the Council vacancy on November 8, 2005, will allow a full and fair process to fill the vacancy without significant additional expense, NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. A special municipal election is hereby called to be held in and for the City of Burlingame on Tuesday,November 8, 2005,to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Councilmember Mike Coffey, for the unexpired term of two (2) years. Y, 2. Pursuant to Elections Code Section 10002 and as provided in Resolution No. 21-2005, the City Council hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo to make available the services of the County Clerk as County Elections Official for the purpose of performing the usual services necessary in the conduct of the consolidated special municipal election, including the provision of election supplies and voters' pamphlets. 3. Pursuant to the Elections Code commencing with Section 10400, the City Council 1 hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo to order the consolidation of the special municipal election to be conducted within the boundaries of the City of Burlingame on November 8, 2005, with respect to which the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo has the power to order a consolidation. The City Council further consents to and orders the consolidation of the special municipal election hereby called with the elections in public districts and the general municipal election to be held the same day. Upon consolidation , the consolidated election shall be held and conducted, election officers appointed, voting precincts designated, ballots printed, polls opened at 7:00 a.m. and closed at 8:00 p.m., ballots counted and returned, returns canvassed, and all other proceedings in connection with the election shall be regulated and done by the County Clerk of the County of San Mateo in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the elections so consolidated. 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of the special municipal election within the time and in the manner specified in Elections Code Section 12101. The City Clerk is further authorized and directed to do all other things required by law to hold the special municipal election above provided. 5. Pursuant to Section 13307 of the Elections Code, the City Council hereby determines to levy against each candidate availing himself or herself of the service of including a candidate's statement not to exceed two hundred (200)words in length in the voters' pamphlets,the actual prorated costs of printing, handling, and translating the candidates statement incurred by the City of Burlingame. The City Clerk shall provide written notice to such effect with each set of nomination papers issued and shall require payment of the estimated pro rated share at the time the candidate statement is filed. 6. Pursuant to Section 10228 of the Elections Code and Burlingame Municipal Code section 2.20.020, the filing fee for theprocessing of the nomination papers by the City is $25.00. y, 7. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify to the adoption of this resolution and to transmit a certified copy to the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo and to the County Clerk of the County of San Mateo. MAYOR 2 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 C:\FU,ES\Elections\ELECTCALL2005-special.RES.wpd v, 3 MICHAEL J. COFFEY July 1, 2005 Dear Mayor Galligan: It is with deep regret that I hereby tender my letter of resignation from the City of Burlingame City Council effective July 5, 2005. The date of my resignation is predicated upon California election requirements and my desire to save the City the cost of holding a special election and my belief that an election for my remaining two-year term is in the best interests of the City of Burlingame. My reasons for resigning are strictly personal and those of you that are close to my family are aware of the situations that Chris and I have faced during the past twelve months. We are extremely thankful to all of you who have understood and respected our privacy during this very difficult period. My special thanks to you, Mayor Galligan, and four- time mayor Rosalie O'Mahony for handling many of my duties and responsibilities. My resignation is with great sadness because of the requiring personal reasons and the feeling of letting down all of those that have supported me. I can only ask for your continued understanding and prayers. There is no way that I can adequately thank our City Staff for all of their help and support during the twelve years that I have served our City. Our residents are extremely fortunate to have the high caliber of dedicated employees that make our City the envy of the Peninsula. These individuals truly direct the City and I am pleased to leave knowing that they will be continuing their efforts. It has been an honor and a privilege to be elected by and serve the wonderful citizens of Burlingame. For this my wife Chris and I will be forever grateful. Sincerely yours, 114�4 P. ** Michael J. Coffey 1129 Killarney Lane Burlingame, CA 94010 MIKE COFFEY RESIGNS BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL SEAT In a letter dated July 1,2005 Burlingame City Councilman Mike Coffey regretfully submitted his resignation to Mayor Joe Galligan effective July 5,2005.The timing of his resignation was determined by California election code to save the City the cost of holding a special election believing that an election for his remaining two year term on November 8u would best serve the interests of the City. Mike has served on the City Council for the past six years following four years on the Planning Commission and two years on a Planning Subcommittee. His reasons for resigning were entirely personal. He thanked those close to his family who were aware of the situations that he and his wife have faced during the past twelve months and who understood and respected their privacy during this very difficult period. He especially thanked Mayor Joe Galligan and four-time Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony for the help they gave him over the past year handling many of his duties and responsibilities. He also wrote that there is no way that he can adequately thank the City Staff members for all of their help and support during the twelve years he served Burlingame. He went on to write that Burlingame's residents are extremely fortunate to have the high caliber of dedicated employees that make Burlingame the envy of the Peninsula. These individuals truly direct the City and he is pleased in knowing that they will be continuing their efforts. He concluded by stating that it has been an honor and a privilege to be elected by and to serve the wonderful citizens of Burlingame. For this he and his wife Chris will be forever grateful. MEETING MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission Thursday, June 16, 2005 The regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Larios at 7:11 pm at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Dittman, Larios, Lawson, Muller, Schreurs Commissioners Absent: Erickson, Heathcote Staff Present: Parks & Recreation Director Schwartz Others Present: Constance Cohen, 605 Lexington Way, Burlingame MINUTES Because a majority of the Commission was not present that attended the April 21, 2005 Regular Commission meeting and May 17, 2005 joint meeting with the Millbrae Parks & Recreation Commission, Director Schwartz suggested tabling this item until the next meeting. PUBLIC COMMENTS — Constance Cohen spoke to the Commission about the problems associated with dogs off leash in Washington Park and about an incident she had with one of the owners. Mrs. Cohen suggested improved signage, increased patrols and better information to the public. The Commissioners briefly discussed the topic and noted the past efforts to curb off- leash dogs in all of the parks, including creating parks use rules, increasing police patrols and issuing citations. Staff will place this item on the Commission's next meeting agenda. OLD BUSINESS A. Pershing Park Playground Rehabilitation — Director Schwartz reported that the work was delayed due to the changes in elevations from the original playground plans. The corrections have been made and the work is now on schedule for a mid-July completion. Commissioners asked about the reaction of the Park's neighbors and the type of swings to be used in the project. The Commissioners recommend the use of strap swings, rather than bucket swings, due to the types of swings found in other playgrounds in the area. B. Update on Shared Recreation Services with Millbrae — Schwartz reported that the Council Committee met on June 7t' and recommended that each City Council hold a study session in July. The study session in Millbrae is planned for July 121h; no date has yet been set for a study session in Burlingame. NEW BUSINESS Discussion of Summer Vacation Schedules — After a brief discussion, Commissioner Muller made a motion that the July 2005 Commission meeting be cancelled due to upcoming vacation schedules. Commissioner Dittman seconded the motion, which passed 5-0. Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes June 16, 2005—Page 2 REPORTS A. Staff Reports 1. April 2005 Collection Report—attached 2. April 2005 Monthly Report dated May 15, 2005 —attached 3. May 2005 Monthly Report dated June 12,2005—attached 4. Director Schwartz also reported that the Commission has never had a formal policy on the election of its officers. With the creation of the committee of commission chairs, hosted by the Mayor and Vice-Mayor, the commission may want to address this issue at an upcoming meeting. Chairman Larios asked staff to put this item on the agenda for the next meeting. B. Commissioners 1. Commissioner Dittman asked if the Youth Advisory Committee was funding the building rental fees for Friends of Mills Canyon meetings at the Recreation Center. Schwartz stated that the YAC agreed to fund the meetings, but was unsure as to the frequency of those meetings. (The Friends of Mills Canyon are still conducting their meetings at the Recreation Center. Youth Advisory Committee Funds will be used to pay for these meetings.) 2. Commissioner Lawson asked if the southern fence of the Dog Park can be removed to allow the dogs to run free up the hillside. Schwartz stated that the fence can not be relocated due to the landfill cap issues and having the dogs run next to the Golf Center nets creates too many liability issues. 3. Commissioner Schreurs opined that PG&E's trimming of elm trees in Burlingame made the trees more susceptible to Dutch Elm Disease. Schwartz will discuss this theory with the City arborists and report back. (While trimming does make a tree more susceptible to D.E.D., the majority of trees are infested with the disease through the root system rather than by the beetles. It would be nearly impossible at this point to identify the source of the disease in the removed trees. Staff will contact PG&E and seek a more cooperative approach to the trimmings, including the time of year the trimmings are performed.) 4. Chairman Larios asked staff to invite the Burlingame Golf Center operators to the next Commission meeting to discuss the Center's programs and operation. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission is scheduled to be held on Thursday, August 18, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at Burlingame City Hall. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:55pm. Respectfully submitted, a Randy Schwartz Director of Parks&Recreation CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame, CA June 27, 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the June 27, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell. 11I. MINUTES The minutes of the June 13, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with recommended edits and the June 13,2005 Joint Meeting 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 There were no study items for review. 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. 1A. 1353 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(ERNIE SELANDER, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; FRANK SCHAFFER, PROPERTY OWNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER 1B. 1316 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A LOWER FLOOR, FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JEFFREY AND KAREN FLOOD, PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 1C. 1480 VANCOUVER AVENUE, LOTS 39 AND 40, ZONED R-1 (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ROBERT AND CYNTHIA GILSON, PROPERTY OWNERS) (75 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN a) application for a conditional use permit for re-emerging lot line. b) 1480 Vancouver Avenue, Lot 39—design review and special permit for declining height envelope for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. C) 1480 Vancouver Avenue, Lot 40—design review for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 27, 2005 ID. 1229 PALOMA AVENUE,ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW ONE- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; NICK CAIRNS, PROPERTY OWNER) (78 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 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. CP Monroe commented that she did not wish to call item lc off the consent calendar•,however,in implementing Commission's study direction on 1480 Vancouver Avenue,Lot 39,Condition No.4 should be replaced with the following: "that since a tree removal permit for the forty-six inch Cedar(Deodar)tree at the rear of Lot 39 has been denied,the applicant shall have an arborist's report prepared detailing tree protection measures to be implemented before, during and after construction to be approved by the City Arborist; the tree protection measures shall be installed prior to issuance of a demolition permit; and that the landscape plan shall be revised to relocate the concrete patio away from the root zone of the tree to a location approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit". C.Keighran noted that she lives within 500 feet of 1480 Vancouver so would recuse herself from that vote. C.Deal noted that he would abstain from 1229 Paloma because he lives within 500 feet.C.Auran noted that he would recuse himself from 1353 Vancouver because he lives within 500 feet and from 1480 Vancouver because of a business relationship. C.Brownrigg noted that he had received information from a neighbor at 1316 Paloma and that he would abstain from the action on 1480 Vancouver. Chair Auran called for a motion to approve the consent calendar.C.Osterling moved to approve the consent --� calendar. C. Cauchi seconded the motion. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the consent calendar,noting that each project is approved based on the facts in the staff report,commissioners comments and findings in the staff reports with the recommended conditions as amended by the City Planner. The project at 1353 Vancouver Avenue passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Auran abstaining)voice vote.The project at 1316 Paloma Avenue passed on a 7-0 voice vote.The project at 1480 Vancouver passed with amended Condition No.4 on a 4-0-1-2(C.Brownrigg abstaining;Cers.Auran and Keighran recused) voice vote. The project at 1229 Paloma Avenue passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining)voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2a. 1123 BURLINGAME AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR ONE SPACE ONSITE AND TO BACK INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY, TO COMBINE TWO TENANT SPACES FOR A NEW FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT (JOEL CAMPOS, APPLICANT; MARK CRONANDER, ARCHITECT; SALMA FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (34 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Vistica noted that he would recuse himself from this item because of a business relationship with the property owner. He left the dais and Council Chambers. Reference staff report June 27, 2005,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments.She noted that this item was moved from the consent to the action calendar because the revisions following the design review study added a variance not considered at the study meeting. Eleven 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 27, 2005 conditions were suggested for consideration.Commissioners asked:the Chief Building Official refers to the new area being built as a second floor,the staff report calls it a mezzanine, is there a difference? CP noted that they are the same. Is there a legal definition of"de minimus" when it comes to parking spaces? CA commented "de minimus" in reference to parking can be defined in the code, in our case it is not, so a finding of hardship on the property must be made if the commission is to determine that there is no impact. Where is the second exit and why did the original two restaurants not have second exits.CP noted that each of the two original restaurants was too small to require a second exit.The proposed restaurant is bigger,and the second exit requirement is met by putting two separated accesses on to Burlingame Avenue. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Cronander, architect, represented the project. For exiting, based on size,an occupancy of fewer than 50 people does not need two exits(15 SF per person in the seating area); most buildings have an alley or street behind and second exit goes to that, since there is no public right-of-way at the rear had to build a fire resistant corridor within the first floor which took a lot of space; need storage area so relocated the mezzanine area; did best to get the mezzanine under the requirement for two parking spaces,computer calculates differently than staff scaling by hand,can reduce it further to make the parking requirement under one(0.97),but would like to have the space proposed.Commission asked if the 4'x12' area shown for storage was really usable. CP asked how much space was removed from the mezzanine proposed at study?Architect noted about 30 SF.Commissioner noted that if removed the 48 SF (4'x 12' area) could reduce the parking impact to one space, eliminating the second parking space and the required variance for the second space.Commissioner asked who would use the parking space at the rear and how frequently.Architect noted the restaurant owner would use it once a day and when it was not occupied, it would be used for deliveries. There were no other comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. �-- Commission discussion: Okay to back on to Hatch Lane,in this case it is an alley with little traffic, so it is reasonably safe without much impact on pedestrians or the use of the public right-of-way;feel that the 48 SF storage area should be removed which would eliminate the need for the second parking space on-site and reduced the required variances. C. Brownrigg moved by resolution that with the removal of the 48 SF(4'x 12' storage area)the additional on-site parking requirement is met by the one space provided, and there is a clear hardship on the site for backing on to the Hatch Lane alley which provides the only access to the rear of the buildings,which is not heavily traveled so it is relatively safe and the Lane is sparsely used by pedestrians,so it will not affect their safety;like the patio area and aesthetics of the proposed design and it will contribute to Burlingame Avenue's pedestrian orientation;with the following conditions: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 15,2005,site plan,floor plan and elevations with 208 SF of outdoor patio seating;and shall adhere to the color and material sample of the exterior materials of the building as shown on the materials board date stamped March 25, 2005; any changes to the colors or materials shall require review by the Planning Commission;2)that the full service food establishment,with 623 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; 3)that the 623 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; 4) 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 approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department;5)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; 6)that an amendment to this conditional use permit 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 27, 2005 shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise;7)that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 8) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 9) that this full service food establishment may be open from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., seven days a week, with a maximum of 9 employees on site at any one time; 10) 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; 11) 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; 12)that deliveries to businesses located on this site shall be limited to the hours of 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. to 9:30 a.m. daily, except Sundays and holidays; deliveries to the site shall be limited to the rear of the building on Hatch Lane,except BFI; 13)that the trash enclosure and recycling bins shall be covered and shall have a drain connecting to the sanitary sewer system as required by the City Engineer in the memo dated March 28,2005,and shall be located on the parcel as shown on the plans date stamped June 15, 2005; 14)that one on-site parking space 10 feet wide by 20 feet deep shall be located in the paved area on the south east corner of the property, and shall be maintained for use exclusively by the food establishment at 1123 Burlingame Avenue;the parking space shall remain free and clear of any trash cans, recycling bins or other storage materials or debris; 15) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official,City Engineer,Recycling Specialist and Fire Marshal's May 26,2005,memos shall be met;and 16) 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. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project,including all the comments made by the commissioners in support of the action. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 2. 9 MILLS CANYON COURT, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(MARK STOKLOSA, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CAROLINE LEE,PROPERTY OWNER)(25 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report June 27,2005,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner complemented the applicant for asking for these changes before they had been added in the field.There were no other questions from the Commission. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Stoklosa, architect, 480 St. Johns Street, Pleasanton, represented the project. He noted that there was an inconsistency on the main floor where two windows shown on the elevation were not included on the floor plan,they were on the sides of the "pop out" in the dinning room. Commissioner asked about the large,dramatic window over the entrance,feels like there is an opportunity to do more with this glass area in the design by changing its shape. Architect noted this was conceived as a modern house, trying to maintain that style, owner wanted a more spacious entry, the two windows on either side of the door do not allow in enough light. There were no further questions from the floor. The public hearing was closed. 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 27, 2005 C. Keighran noted that she appreciated the applicant coming forward with these changes before they were built,agree with commissioner that the front elevation could be improved with a more interesting design for the window but the proposed window is consistent with the whole house,move approval by resolution with the changes shown and the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 23,2005 sheets A-302 through A-501, site plan, floor plans,building elevations and landscape plan;2)that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure,replacing or relocating a window(s),adding a dormer(s)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 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, and Fire Marshal's and memos dated November 3, 2003 shall be met; 8) that during construction 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;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. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the conditions in the staff report. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. 3. 1546 NEWLANDS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE,PARKING VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND MODIFICATIONS TO AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; EDWARD SUPPLEE, PROPERTY OWNER) (57 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report June 27, 2005,with attachments. SP Brooks 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. Edward Supplee, 301 22nd Avenue, San Mateo,represented the project. Applicant noted that the larger dormer was currently framed. Commission asked if all the skylights were tinted? Applicant noted yes. There were no further questions from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Osterling made motion by resolution to approve the project as proposed, noting that the changes done supported the design,with the following conditions of approval: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 9,2005,sheets A-1 through A-8,and 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 27, 2005 that any changes to building materials,exterior finishes,footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the 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 a tree(minimum 24-inch box size)which will grow to a substantial enough size to screen the second story addition shall be chosen from the City's tree list and shall be planted in the front yard between the front door and the driveway near the stepping stones;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;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 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; 8) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and Recycling Specialist's June 10,2005,memos,and the Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's June 13, 2005, memos, shall be met; 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 applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. --� Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the proposed changes to the design for this project. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 1548 NEWLANDS AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (WILLIAM AND SANDRA LINDSELL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. She noted that this project was approved by the Commission in 1999, but that approval has expired. These are the same plans with revisions for current submittal requirements. Commissioners asked CA in this case the drawings were prepared by another designer and now submitted by someone not tied to the original project. CA commented should have the applicant submit a sign off by the original designer and civil engineer. Concerned about the engineer sign off because of his insurance and liability. There were no further questions from the commission. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Mark Robertson,designer,918 Grant Place,San Mateo,noted that his involvement was just to process the application,the owner's relationship with the original designer did not work out, he drew items now required including the existing elevations; might be hard to get a letter -� from the former designer but the applicants have a contract which they believe entitles them to ownership of the plans;the engineer's stamp on the plans has expired,so once the project is approved will go back to the 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 27, 2005 engineer before applying for a building permit. There were no questions of the applicant and no additional comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. Commissioner discussion: would like to see a landscape plan which includes large trees and large shrubs, both are lacking on this site. Does Commission need a document assigning these plans to the current architect. CA noted the city's main concern is the engineer,the copyright issue on the plans is between the owner and the previous designer, if the commission wishes, they could ask to see the excerpt from the contract regarding assignment. Feel that the names of the previous designer and the engineer's stamp should be removed from these plans before they are submitted for action; tried to call designer but do not know where he is currently. CA noted that if previous designer's names are on the plans then copies should not be given over without his permission. These plans are designer's property,uncertain about removing his name. Also concerned about the 9'-4" height of the second story plate line. C. Deal moved to put this item on the consent calendar with the conditions in the staff report and the addition of a landscape plan showing the addition of substantial vegetation, trees and shrubs, as well as consent to use the previous designer's plans. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: CA noted should make a submittal which satisfies requirements. Commissioner noted that the issues of ownership of the plans and engineering approval needs to be addressed before this is returned to the commission. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when use of the plans has been clarified by the designer and engineer and a landscape plan has been prepared and reviewed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This �-- item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 5. 150 LOMA VISTA DRIVE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION(RICHARD BOYD,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; BAY AREA DESIGN, DESIGNER) (24 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked if this property is in the hillside area. Staff noted that the area across Skyline Drive is excluded from the boundaries of the area in which Hillside Area Construction Permits are required. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Richard Boyd,applicant and property owner, 148 and 150 Loma Vista Drive,was available to answer questions. Commissioners noted that the addition over the center of the house feels tall,please explain. The applicant noted that the ceiling height in the existing first floor living room is 10'tall, so the second floor appears taller, the proposed plate height for the second floor is 8 feet. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project: • There are inconsistencies in the drawings that need to be corrected: the bay window which appears on the front elevation should also be shown on the side elevation; • the architectural details on the ground floor should be carried through to the second floor addition, should be consistent returns at the bottom of the gable on the roof; rafter tails should be shown throughout; and 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 27, 2005 • although the second floor addition looks tall, understand that you are working with an existing 10 foot ceiling height on the first floor;wonder if there are any architectural details that could be added to soften the height and mass. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. 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 7-0 The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m. 6. 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 SP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.Chair Auran opened the public comment. Una Kinsella,project architect, 1484 Guerrero Street,San Francisco,was available to respond to comments. Commissioners made the following comments: The first floor has a nice feel,but there are a lot of details missing on the drawings,need to show the rafter tie and knee brace details;continuing the long sloping roof over the addition is out of character with the house,also needs something to pick up the detailing from the original front fagade; concern with prominence of the second story wall at the back, it almost makes the existing situation worse,like to see a break in the plane between the existing and proposed second story wall, maybe something to create difference in the wall plane;notice that the design options are constrained by the existing staircase as well,looking to lessen the solid wall across the property;think it is a great project,nice design, believe in large back yards, the addition is set back substantially; suggest that a window could be added to the stairwell to break up the long expanse. Commissioner comment continued: The existing second floor is difficult,appreciate that the garage is being moved up and integrated into the existing house,addition is fine;think need something other than continuing the "ski slope" roof line on the side, should look at perpendicular gable, even if it penetrated the declining height envelope,if it improved the architectural character it could be supported;this addition is 63 feet back from the street, don't think it will be nearly as visible as it appears in the drawings, architect has done an excellent job, copying the elements of the existing house;while from the rear you can see the issue of the long sloping roof, for the neighbor,this option does minimize the height,while it is not ideal,it is better for the neighbor,gabling it out perpendicular to the existing roof would not be as good a solution.There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission comments in conclusion note that the plans should be revised to include: • Add details of existing rafter ties and knee braces, follow through detail on addition; and • Add window to stairwell to break up the mass of the wall. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 27, 2005 Chair Auran called for a roll call vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a roll call vote 5-2(Cers.Deal and Vistica dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 7. 2517 POPPY DRIVE,ZONED R-1-APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(KERRY BITNER,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;JD&ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (71 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Deal noted that he has a business relationship with the owner and recused himself from consideration of the project and left the chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Jim Taschetta, applicant was available to respond to questions. Commissioners asked about the deck on the second floor, generally second floor decks are discouraged because of the impact on adjacent neighbors, explain why this is there, is there a way it can that it can be relocated or screened. The applicant noted that the proposed deck is narrow,don't intend to use it as a place to congregate,just want the opportunity to open the doors for air. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: noted that this is a modest and good addition, the variance is modest, the extension of the first floor wall will not impact neighbors and the hardship on the property is the pie-shaped �- lot; would like to see the width of the balcony decreased by two feet to respect neighbor's privacy. C.Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revision has been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. • The width of the second floor deck should be reduced from six feet by at least two feet. Chair Auran called for a voice 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 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. C. Deal returned to his seat. 8. 132 BLOOMFIELD ROAD,ZONED R-1-APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (GEHL DESIGNBUILD, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ELOISE MADSEN, PROPERTY OWNER) (60 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Mahmood Pourzand, project designer, GEHL Design, 127 Arlington, Kensington, and Eloise Madsen, property owner, were available to answer questions. Commissioners expressed concern with the second floor deck and asked if they had considered screening options so that the deck would not impact the neighbor. The applicant noted that she had spoken to the 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 27, 2005 neighbor,and that they agreed to add a lattice screen to lessen the impact. Commissioners had the following comments on the project: • Would like to see a landscape screen to lessen the impact of the second floor windows; • Concerned about the coordination of the new roof slope with the existing,the new roof slopes are trying to replicate the existing gable, however the slope on the new roof is flatter than the existing,would look better if the new roof was the same slope as the main first floor gable at the front; • Concern with the exposed piece between the two roof elements at the front,need to integrate that attic access into the roof; • On the north elevation,not happy with the dormer, should try to match the existing gable end; and • Need to see a landscape plan with emphasis on taller elements in the rear area where the deck will be located, looking for taller landscape elements at the front of the house as well. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C.Osterling made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Commissioners noted that this is a great start,the design review process will streamline and resolve issues with the design. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item -� concluded at 8:53 p.m. 9. 216 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOELLE AND NEAL KAUFMAN,APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS;JESSE GEURSE,DESIGNER)(67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Jesse Geurse,designer,405 Bayswater,represented the project. Commissioners asked: is the side setback exception on the left side a continuation of an existing condition? Yes, moved the garage forward 6'-9" in order to add a laundry room at the rear. There were no further comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. The commissioners commented on the design of the project: • the dormers on the north elevation are proportionately small, would be better if they were made larger; • second floor plate at rear is 9'6", will make roof tall so will see from front also adds more mass to front and rear than is needed,lower plate to 8'-1";height and mass are an issue,the second floor that tall results in mass, should lower the plate on the second floor to 8'-1". • the front roof should be the primary roof and the rear a secondary, lower less prominent roof. • problem with the shutters, on A-5 rear elevation have window with one shutter and door with one shutter, remove shutters or put shutters on both sides, same with master bedroom windows; 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 27, 2005 • style of shutters varies, some have two bolts through others three bolts, bolts visually dominant, provide an enlarged detail of the shutter and make them consistent,and more proportional to window they are covering; do not need shutters at all windows. • provide an arborist's report for the protection of the fig tree in the neighbor's side yard next to where the garage is being moved forward, install required protection measures during construction; • revise landscape plan,have sizeable changes in elevation of the house, add tall trees and shrubs to screen and provide a visual setback for the neighbors. C. Osterling moved to place this project on the consent calendar with the changes noted including the landscaping including the tree protection plan,address the shutters,lower the second floor plate at the rear to 8'-1". The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to put this project on the consent calendar after all the issues have been addressed and checked by staff. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of June 20, 2005. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of June 20,2005,noting that the Council approved the new zoning district regulations for the Shoreline district and amendments to the Unclassified zoning district, reintroduced the regulations for the Inner Bayshore area to consider adding light industrial and manufacturing uses to the Bayshore overlay area and introduced amendments to the zoning district map for the Bayshore area.The two introduced items will be acted on at the July 5,2005 meeting. Also introduced the amendment to the Broadway food establishment regulations, set for action July 5, 2005. Directed staff to bring the issue of real estate uses in the Broadway area back to commission for discussion. - FYI: Processing—Consent Calendar Items. CP noted that because of the on going volume of applications and the problems for architects and staff providing quality plans and responses in a 24 hour period following design review,staff will no longer be placing consent items on the next action calendar. This will increase the review time by two weeks,but should result in better quality submittals and more accurate noticing and decisions. - FYI: Changes to R-1 Zoning Requirements. Chair Auran asked that the commissioners identify items where the R-1 zoning regulations and design guidelines overlap,and call them to staffs attention with the goal of simplifying requirements. Toward the end of the year, commission will begin review and update of the R-1 zoning district regulations. - Parking Study Update. CP noted that she included in the packet a copy for each commissioner of the most recent update of the downtown parking study. This study documents the effect of the pricing gradient being used to move the merchants and employees out of the highest demand parking downtown;and identifies the current parking shortages by"quadrant"within the downtown area. 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 27, 2005 - Upcoming League of California Cities meeting in San Francisco (October). The materials for the League of California state wide meeting to be held in San Francisco in October was included in the packet. This meeting is interesting because it has both a planners track and includes all the other department tracks, so provides opportunity for a broader education. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\nbunapproved.06.27.05.doc 12