Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2005.06.20 BURLBURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame Regular Meeting - Monday, June 20, 2005 CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD Page 1 of 3 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 CLOSED SESSION 5:45 p.m. Conf Room A a. Threatened Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9((b)(1),(3)(C)) Claim of Judith D'Augusta STUDY SESSION: a. Downtown Burlingame Parking Study- Updated Report 6:00 p.m. Conf Room A (Microphone check) 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 6, 2005; Joint Meeting of Approve City Council & Planning Commission of June 13, 2005 PRESENTATION a. Chamber of Commerce presentation by Joe La Mariana Presentation 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. a. FY 2005-06 Budget Adoption and Gann Limit Resolutions Hearing/Action b. Annual review and renewal of amusement permits Hearing/Action C. Application for amusement permit for new owner, Hearing/Action Anthony Kozak, of California Bar and Grill, 241 California Drive d. Application for amusement permit for new owner, Irina Hearing/Action Litvak, of Fandorin Restaurant, 1492 Bayshore Highway e. Adoption of Amendment to Massage Ordinance regarding Hearing/Action education requirements for massage permits f. Action on Ordinance to establish zoning consistent with Hearing/Action the 2004 Bayfront Specific Plan for the inner Bayshore, Shoreline and Anza Extension Areas g. Adopt Ordinance amending Section 10.58.030 to clarify Hearing/Action application requirements for adult-oriented business permits h. Introduction and Public Hearing on an Ordinance to amend Hearing/Introduction Broadway food establishment regulations to allow up to five additional food establishments BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame CRLINGAME WRegular Meeting - Monday, June 20, 2005 CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD =Z 0 Page 2 of 3 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 i. Public Hearing and Resolution approving mitigated Hearing/Action negative declaration and awarding Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation Project to J. Howard Engineering 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 are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Proposal for preparing a scope of work and selecting a Discuss consultant for an economic study of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area b. Introduce Ordinance to amend the City's zoning map to Introduce establish boundaries for five zoning districts in the Bayshore Planning Area, Inner Bayshore, Shoreline Anza Area, Anza Point North and Anza Point South 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve a. Resolution Approving Chamber of Commerce Promotional Services Contract for FY 05-06 b. Resolution approving a professional services agreement amendment with the Culver Group for additional construction management and plumbing inspection services C. Approval of Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center mediation services contract for FY 2005-06 d. Adopt Resolution amending Joint Powers Agreement establishing the San Mateo Pre-Hospital Emergency Services Group e. Approve out-of-state travel for Finance Director f. Warrants & Payroll 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS a. Update on potential merger between Burlingame and Millbrae Recreation Divisions BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame BURL®E Regular Meeting - Monday, June 20, 2005 CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD Page 3 of 3 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 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 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—Tuesday,June 21, 2005 BURL®E AGENDA Study STAFF REPORT ITEM# Session MTG. 06/20/05 D TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: JUNE 8, 2005 BY 74 APPROVE FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY Downtown Burlingame Parkin Stud U SUBJECT. g g Y - dated Report p RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council provide direction to staff on the updated Burlingame Downtown Parking Study. DISCUSSION: On April 28, 2005 the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission held the first of two public meetings to receive comments regarding the Downtown Parking Study. Approximately 35 people attended this meeting including Burlingame civic leaders,business owners,residents and interested individuals. Attached is a list of comments and concerns that were received at the meeting. Based on the input received,a revised parking study was presented to the Commission at a public meeting on May 26, 2005. The Commission reviewed and discussed the findings of the report and made recommendations as indicated in the attachment. The recommendations by the Commission are incorporated into the attached draft parking study which will be presented to the Council by Bill Hurrell of Wilbur Smith Associates. EXHIBITS: Public Comment-April 28, 2005 TSPC Special Meeting Potential Actions -May 26, 2005 TSPC Special Meeting Burlingame Downtown Parking Study-Updated Report 4g;iine Chou Traffic Engineer c: City Clerk Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission Burlingame Avenue Business District Parking Study Update April 28, 2005 Public Comments • Add two hour parking on Burlingame Avenue • Charge for parking weekends and evenings. (Residential use? No other cities do) • Employee permit—good idea • Business owner parking in front of store • Lot J—too aggressive on enforcement • Start meters at 9:00 a.m. • Relax enforcement • Change of attitude—free holiday parking • Fear of ticket • Officer training • Don't raise meter rates • Use Lot O and residential area for employee parking • Businesses need in/out parking • Caltrain riders using City lots • More employee parking (not free parking but permit parking option) • Educate consumers • Residents using free lots • Flexible meters • Shuttle for parking access • Add more parking • Promotions/advertising on meters • Remove planters/add parking • Hi-tech meters • No time frame—Europe model • Proactive approach S:\A Public Works Directory\TSP Commission\Special Meet ing\Burlingame Avenue Parking Study\Public Comments.doc RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Following is the staff recommendation to the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission based on feedback from the April 28, 2005 public meeting. Items in bold type are additions and items in strikeout type are deletions made by the TSPC. PUBLIC EDUCATION Short term actions • Install parking information signage • Provide parking information with tickets • Provide brochures to Chamber and business owners • Provide project funding information on brochures, tickets and signs etc fi Rderd by mater revenues on meter pel ��v u��u�,u �✓Y ��ia�a� ENFORCEMENT/METERS Short term actions •—fie flexabte rnr-is:ATR" tickets • Provide a more friendly interaction with the public • Consider beginning street parking enforcement one hour later in the morning • Continue to monitor for possible Caltrain parker abuse (study indicates none now) • Provide stronger enforcement of free lot usage by residents •—EnGG ra • Explore pilot proieGt to. install one change machine Longer term actions •- GORS4iahnm,= eehines um • Provide flexible meter payment methods such as credit/debit cards or paper bills • Study the use of smart meters No action • Do not extend meter times to evenings or weekends due to impact on residents, possible business loss to other cities and increased enforcement costs PARKING Short term actions • Increase time limits for underutilized lots B-1 and V as well as along Howard Avenue • Make lot G free • Have merchants investigate employee permit system potentially using lots G, H, F or 0 • Have merchants investigate business valet service using lot 0 • Have merchants explore shuttle service between lots Longer term actions • Determine amount,timing and location of new parking in conjunction with the Specific Area Plan (SAP) • Determine need for any parking rate increase in conjunction with the SAP • Evaluate elomanatieR ef planters te provide mere parking No Action • Do not consider extending Burlingame Avenue time limits due to decreased turnover effects • Take no specific action to accommodate short term parking for business needs but rely on other actions to create turnover Burlingame Avenue District Phase 2 Parking Program Review , 4 i� i z � n r �1p t1,k d�4'• ay`pjty+w Y �y kn4'� R' R, M.� •yJ a ;w ARA �•4 Ly F �y; x � 3, �J }' �Vn�� KIM•NR`!. � }S;F "aa Prepared f " F, CITY OF BU { 'F- ,KM. ENGINEERS June 9, 2005 AFAFMMUlk PLANNERS SUNE/AF ECONOMIST N&IR/// Wilbur Smith Associates BURLINGAME AVENUE DISTRICT PHASE 2 PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW OVERVIEW This report describes the findings of the Burlingame Avenue District Parking Program Phase 2 Review, undertaken by Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA). The purpose of this report is to evaluate the changes in parking utilization that have occurred since the implementation of the Phase 2 parking program recommendations which were implemented in early 2004. As part of the improvements, the one-hour meter rates along Burlingame Avenue were increased from $0.50 to $.75 per hour. The two-hour meter rates in the area were increased from $ 0.375 to $0.75 per hour, and the 10 hour meters were increased from$0.20 to $0.25 per hour. Lots K and W were converted from 2 hour to 10 hour parking creating 117 new 10 hour spaces for employee parking. The City also implemented a parking information program which included the development and distribution of a Burlingame Avenue District parking information brochure, and the posting of parking information on the City's website. SURVEYS As part of this study WSA undertook the following data collection and survey efforts: • Parking Occupancy-Parking occupancy(the total number of cars parked at a given time) studies of all metered curb faces and all public off-street parking facilities in the Burlingame Avenue study area on Wednesday and Thursday, October 13 and 14,2004 between the hours of 10:00 AM and 3:00 PM,and on Saturday,October 24,2004 between 11:00 AM and 2:00 PM. An analysis of the hourly survey data indicated that the peak weekday hour for parking was between 1:00 and 2:00 PM on Thursday. This data was then summarized by block face and off-street facility and compared with the results of a similar survey taken in October of 2002 prior to the recent increases in parking fees. • Parking Turnover& Duration—At the same time as the occupancy study,surveys of parking turnover(the number of cars using each space throughout the day)and parking duration(the length of stay for each car)were also conducted. • Parking Intercept Survey—In November of 2004 interviews were conducted with individuals on the streets of the Burlingame Avenue District at four locations. This survey mirrored a similar previous survey done as part of the 2002 study effort. A second more in-depth intercept survey was done in January 2005. • Business Survey-A telephone survey of business owners and managers was conducted in January and February of 2005. A similar survey was conducted as part of the 2002 review of the Phase I improvements. 521730 BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 1 PHASE 11 PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW For the purposes of long term historical comparisons there was also a full set of parking surveys done in early November of 2001 which was prior to the initial rate increases and parking lot changes that occurred in early 2002. This report focuses on the more recent changes since 2002, but the tables in the appendix do also provide historical comparisons with the 2001 data. 2004 VERSUS 2002 PEAK PARKING OCCUPANCY Table 1 presents a summary comparison of the peak midday parking occupancy for the year 2004 versus 2002. As can be seen, parking activity at on-street (curb) facilities was marginally higher (by 5 cars) and slightly lower (by 6 cars) at off-street facilities in the core area. Overall, there was no significant change in the parking occupancy of the Core Area. For all practical purposes, parking activity in the core area can be said to be unchanged from 2002 to 2004. It is worth noting, though, that for curb parking on Burlingame Avenue itself, the number of parked cars in the peak hour increased from 107 to 116, an increase of 8 percent. There was construction activity in Lot E, which may have resulted in a reduced occupancy there, although the totals were adjusted to reflect the 24 spaces that were closed at the time of the survey. The current peak occupancy of the core area remains at 86% of all spaces. It is important to note that this is a very high level of occupancy and that many on-street areas and off-street facilities are at 95-100 percent occupied. Typically when an area reaches 85 to 90 percent of capacity it is approaching the practical limits of its capacity. Table 1 Summary Comparison of 2002 and 2004 Midday Parking Occupancy Percent Occupany 2002 2004 Core Area On-Street 87% R% Core Area Off-Street 80% 82% Core Area Total 86% 86% Peripheral Area On-Street 86% 66% Peripheral Area Off-Street 80% 74% Peripheral Area Total 82% 74% All Spaces 84% 82% In the peripheral areas there was a drop in parking occupancy from 2002 to 2004, with 42 fewer cars parked on-street and 35 fewer cars parked off-street, representing a reduction in occupancy from 82 percent to 74 percent. At off-street facilities in the peripheral area, a net loss of 35 cars was noted in the peak hour in 2004 compared with 2002, though a drop in two facilities (Lots O and G) account for more than this net loss; if these two facilities are excluded from the equation, there would actually be a net gain. 521730 BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 2 PHASE II PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW The more likely cause of the decrease in the occupancy of the peripheral area was the closure of a major restaurant near Lot O and a car dealership on California Drive near Lots N, F, and G. The restaurant was known to direct its customers to Lot O, and the car dealership was known for using much of the on-street parking west of California Drive. Using the parking demand model that was developed for the area as part of the original parking study, the peak midday demand generated by the restaurant would have been 54 cars and the peak midday demand for the auto dealership would have been 91 cars. The closure of these two uses more than explain the reduction in occupancy that was observed from 2002 to 2004. Figure 1 graphically illustrates shifts in peak occupancy from 2002 to 2004 in the core area. Lots colored green experienced an increase in usage,while facilities coded red experienced a decrease in peak parking activity. (Facilities where the degree of parking activity was unchanged are coded in yellow.) In general, other facilities at the east and west ends of the study area tended to increase in utilization than the mid-corridor ones, and long-term facilities more than short term facilities. It is interesting and important to note that despite the overall high level of occupancy, a number of off-street facilities have space available. Lots B-1, K-1, K, L, G, O and V all have peak occupancies below 60 percent. Also the data shows (see appendix Table A-1) that occupancies for the curb parking along Howard Avenue and Chapin Avenue are relatively low(70 percent or less). It may be possible to fmd ways to encourage better use of these facilities. Appendix Tables A-1 and A-2 present detailed parking occupancy rates in 2004 and 2002 (with 2001 included for comparison) for the individual curb faces and off-street facilities in the commercial core and peripheral areas,respectively. In conclusion, in the core area there was literally no change in the number of spaces occupied during the weekday midday peak between the 2002 and 2004 surveys. This area is at 86 percent occupancy, which is within the 85 to 90 percent range that the parking industry considers as the practical capacity of the parking system. There was a slight decline of parking demand in the peripheral area. However, this decline is more than explained by the fact that two major businesses on California Drive closed just before the surveys. Given this consideration it is possible that overall demand for the use of the parking in the peripheral area actually increased slightly, suggesting that the higher parking fees in the core area did encourage some parkers to move to the peripheral area. A further consideration is that the old Wells Fargo Bank parking lot on Primrose Avenue that is adjacent to Lot L was used by the public for some time after the bank closed. This lot provided about 30 spaces, but it was fenced off by the property owners during the last year to prevent this type of use. This closure represents 30 more vehicles that were forced to park elsewhere. The total of number of vehicles which shifted out of the core area is probably about 100 cars at the mid-day peak. PARKING TURNOVER AND DURATION SURVEYS Parking duration and turnover surveys were undertaken at all curb faces in the core area, and at a sample of spaces in off-street facilities. Duration and turnover surveys are undertaken by periodically recording partial(for privacy reasons) license numbers of parked cars on a space-by- space basis and later tallying the number of consecutive observations of the same car in the same 521730 BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 3 BURLINGAME PARKING IMPLEMENTATION REVIEW /' Ll� AVE• � � •'y \� � • • .• • • __._ 89% 92% •• CHAPIN AVE -- ---' • NORTH • NOT TO SCALE • 29% A 54% •• 52% 95% 93% / •• 100% ---._ : ORTH LN O • • 32% • BURLINGAME AVE • • • Lot Time Limit • _�_._ • \ A 2&9Hr. • • a --- • A-3 2&9 Hr. •• A ---- • rH B* 10 Hr.** • A '0 96% B-1 2 Hr. g --- C 2&10 Hr. o '• 59% -91% 93/o 31t, ___._. : D 2&4 Hr. --- 100% •• 35°/O ° • E 2&4 Hr. _. • ---- — F* Free Parkin •• 95%— --- _ - • G* 10 Hr.** .0N AVQ •• _— -� - , H* Free Parkin •• • r• • • • • • • • • • • • • HOWARD AVE • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • i K* 10 Hr.** 82% Peak Hour Occupancy K-1 2 Hr. z �_� J._ c+ L 2 Hr. • • • • Commercial Core _ ____- M 2 Hr. 0 N* 10 Hr.** Number of Peak Parkers Increased __---- _� i O* 10 Hr.** 0 _ V 2 Hr. No Significant Change in Parking — —! _- - - ---- v W* 10 Hr.** ----- ----— _._.. . ° W..- r- _ Number of Peak Parkers Decreased 98%-------- ----84%-------- L.-.. *Long-Term Parking 39% -� **Pay-and Display Machines /••►.� errcR•,EERs I PLANNERS P (SESAUFIMIMRAUFJINrb gCplppgl aOS BAYSWATER AV,W11 w5i'll" E Figure 1 Wilbur Smith Associates SHIFT IN WEEKDAY PEAK PARKING OCCUPANCY, 2002-2004 521730\FIGURE 1 -1/11/05 PHASE II PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW space. This was done at half-hourly intervals on Burlingame Avenue, and at hourly intervals on all other streets and off-street parking facilities in the core area. These surveys were undertaken. between 9:00 AM and 5:00 PM on Thursday, October 28, 2004 and Saturday, November 6, 2004 and compared with previous surveys on Thursday, May 15, and Saturday, May 17, 2003. The surveys in 2003 were part of the overall phase I review that initiated in November 2002. To avoid confusion we will refer to these surveys as the 2002 surveys in the following tables. Table 2 summarizes the observed turnover and average duration of parkers for on-street parking based on the meter time limits. Appendix Table A-4 provides more detail. Table 2 Comparison of On-Street Turnover and Duration-2002'and 2004 (Ten Hour Day-8:00 AM to 6:00 PM) Weekday Turnover Weekday Duration Number of Spaces 2002' 2004 2002` 1 2004 Cars/ Cars/ Hours/ Hours/ Space Cars/Day Space Cars/Day Car Car Hours Car Car Hour One Hour Meters-Burlingame Avenue 107 8.9 953 8.0 853 0.8 729 0.9 737 Two Hour Meters 313 4.4 1362 4.4 1366 1.4 1918 1.4 1901 en Hour Meters 68 2.7 186 2.0 137 1 2.0 379 2.9 397 Total-All Spaces T 488 1 5.1 1 2501 1 4.8 1 2356 1 1.2 1 3027 1 1.3 1 3035 Saturday Turnover Saturday Duration Number of Spaces 2002` 2004 2002` 2004 Cars/ Cars/ Hours/ Hours/ Space Cars/Day Space Cars/Day Car Car Hours Car Car Hour One Hour Meters-Burlingame Avenue 107 7.9 843 7.4 793 0.9 785 0.9 742 Two Hour Meters 313 4.3 1342 4.4 1381 1.4 1844 1.4 1891 Ten Hour Meters 68 1.6 106 1.7 113 2.4 259 2.2 252 otal-All Spaces 488 4.7 1 2291 1 4.7 1 2287 1 1.3 1 2888 1.3 1 2685 The actual surveys were conducted in May of 2003 but are part of the overall Phase 1 review referred to as the 2002 surveys, During a ten hour period, turnover rates in excess of 6.0 to 7.0 cars per day per space indicate a very healthy level of parking activity. Turnover at the one-hour parking meters which are along Burlingame Avenue is very high, averaging 8.0 cars per space in 2004. Given that activity is typically low in the morning hours before retail businesses open, this rate suggests that the spaces on Burlingame Avenue are occupied almost all the time. The 107 metered one-hour spaces served 853 cars during the ten hours of observations in 2004. There was a slight decline in turnover from the 8.9 cars per space noted in the 2002 survey. Turnover at the two-hour meters also is very high. There was a slight increase in turnover in these spaces from 2002 to 2004. The Saturday survey showed a very small decline in turnover between 2002 and 2004, less than one percent. There was a decline in turnover along Burlingame Avenue and an offsetting increase in turnover in the two-hour and 10 hours spaces. The average weekday durations in the two-hour spaces stayed the same between the 2002 and 2004 surveys at 1.4 hours, and the duration in the ten-hour spaces increase significantly from 2.0 to 2.9 hours. The increased duration in the ten-hour meters suggests that the increased parking 521730 BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 4 PHASE II PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW fees in the one and two-hour spaces encouraged more long term parkers to use the 10 hour spaces. Durations on Saturday showed almost no change between the 2002 and 2004 surveys. The metered spaces along Burlingame Avenue and in much of the core area operate at very high turnover rates. These rates approach the practical capacity of the parking system. For example on Burlingame Avenue,a turnover of 8.0 spaces per day suggests that during the hours that retail businesses are open(10:00 AM to 6:00 PM)that there is one car per hour per space. With a one- hour parking time limit,this suggests the spaces are full virtually all the time. Table 3 provides a further indication of how intensely the existing off-street spaces are utilized. It indicates what percent of the time between 8:00 AM and 6:00 PM each parking space is occupied.The highest utilization levels are observed along Burlingame Avenue where the 107 one-hour meters spaces were occupied 69 percent of the time on both the weekday and Saturday surveys in 2004. The utilization index, which accounts for both turnover and duration, and therefore is a very useful indicator,suggests that there has been very little change in overall utilization between 2002 and 2004. The levels of use are very high,with the exception of the 10 hour meters which are not intensely used on Saturdays, probably because there are fewer employees downtown on weekend than weekday as many office oriented businesses are closed. Table 3 On-Street Parking Space Utilization Index Number Car Hours Per Available Space Hours' of Spaces Weekdav Weekend _2002** 2 2004 One Hour Meters-Burlingame Avenue 107 68% 69°k 73% 69% Two Hour Meters 1 313 61% 61% 59% 60% Ten Hour Meters 68 55% 58% 38% 37% Total-All Spaces 488 1 62% 62% 59% 59% 'Based on a assumed space availability of 10 hours per day. "The actual surveys were conducted in May of 2003 but are part of the overall Phase I review referred to as the 2002 surveys. Table 4 provides a summary of the distribution of the durations of packers using the one-hour meters along Burlingame Avenue. 521730 BURUNGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 5 PHASE II PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW Table 4 Duration of Parkers on Burlingame Avenue one-hour time limit) PARKING CARS OBSERVED PERCENT OF TOTAL DURATION WEEKDAY SATURDAY WEEKDAY SATURDAY 0-30 Min. 465 418 54.8% 50.4% 30 Min.-1 Hr. 240 223 28.3% 26.9% b I C ` 1 W y, Sys " ys•'� e'a yam#' F 'f�rlN� �� �, �Y �41 K �x a� r � p Total 849 829 100.0% 100.0% During the weekday survey, 83 percent of the parkers stayed for one hour or less in the metered spaces. The remaining 17 percent stayed more than one-hour as indicated by the shaded area in Table 4, potentially risking receiving a parking citation, although over half of this group stayed between one hour and 1.5 hours. This suggests that the current pattern of use of the parking on Burlingame Avenue conforms well to the one-hour time limit. Table 5 provides turnover, duration, and utilization for the off-street parking spaces. The turnover and utilization for the off-street spaces is generally less than that experienced for the on- street spaces. It is important to note, however, that the utilization of the 9 and 10 hour spaces is very high on weekdays, as apparently many employees uses these spaces. Appendix Tables A-5 and A-6 provide more detail. Table 5 Average Off-Street Parking Turnover and Duration by Off-Street Facility, Fall 2004 (Ten Hour Day-8:00 AM to 6:00 PM) Meter Average Parking Turnover Activity Activity Utilization Index' Off-Street Facility Type ' Spaces Duration Hours Cars per Space Cars per Dav Car Hours per Day Car Hrs/S ace Hrs Sampled Sampled Weekday ISaturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Total 2 Hour Spaces 128 1.51 1.4 3.1 4.0 397 512 581 724 457 57% Total 4 Hour Spaces 9 2.1 1.4 2.3 4.7 21 42 43 59 48% 667/6 Total 9 Hour Spaces 50 4.8 3.6 1.6 1.8 80 90 384 324 77% 65% Total 10 Hour Spaces 54 5.1 3.4 1.3 1.2 69 66 351 223 65% 41% Total All Spaces 187 2.0 1.7 2.7 3.4 497 644 1,009 1,107 54% 59% The Utilization Index is the total percentage of the time during the 10 hour period that the average space was occupied. Key conclusions from the turnover and duration surveys are: • Turnover levels at the one-hour meters along Burlingame Avenue are very high, approaching the practical limit of parking capacity for these spaces. • Turnover levels at the two-hour meters increased slightly between 2002 and 2004, an indicator that the parking fee increase had some positive impact on turnover, although the turnover rate for these spaces also is near practical capacity. 521730 BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 6 PHASE II PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW • Average parking durations at the one-hour meters are 0.9 hours and 83 percent of all cars stay for less than one-hour indicating that the one hour limit is suitable for a high percentage of the parkers. • Average parking durations at the two-hour meters are 1.4 hours. This suggests that two hours is more than a comfortable time limit for most parkers. • Parking durations in the 10-hour meters went up significantly from 2.0 hours in 2002 to 2.9 hours in 2004. This indicates that the rate increases had the desired effect of encouraging more employees to use the long-term parking meters and lots. PARKER INTERCEPT SURVEYS Parkers headed for the Burlingame Avenue area were interviewed at the same four locations as in 2002 and 2004, with a survey plan designed to capture the same sample size as the earlier surveys. The interviews were done on Saturday, November 13 and Wednesday November 17,2004, between the hours of 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM. Additional surveys were performed in January of 2005. The detailed results of these surveys, and comparisons with 1999 and 2002 surveys, are presented in Appendix Tables A-7, A-8 and A-9. This discussion focuses on the key results of the more recent surveys conducted in 2004 and 2005 as compared with the 2002 surveys. 2004 Parker Intercept Survey As can be seen from Table 6, the 2004 surveys exceeded the previous survey in terms of sample size(285 versus 236 in 2002)and matched the approximate distribution by location. Overall,the survey found that a higher percentage of persons intercepted had come by car in 2004 (93 percent), compared to the two earlier years. In terms of parking location, a higher percentage of interviewees in 2004 parked at off-street facilities. Geographic distribution of interviewees in 2004 was quite similar to 2002, with 27 percent of interviewees coming from Burlingame in 2004 compared with 26 percent in 2002. When parkers were asked about the convenience of parking Downtown, interviewees in the 2004 surveys were more positive about their experience than in 2002, with 54 percent saying parking was either Very Convenient or Somewhat Convenient in 2004 compared to 42 percent in 2002. The biggest shifts were in the extreme attitudes, with "Very Inconvenient" dropping from 25 percent to 13 percent, while "Very Convenient"went up from 11 percent to 21 percent. There was also a decrease in the number of people who were willing to walk more than four blocks, with only 16 percent compared with 33 percent in 2002. 521730 BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 7 PHASE II PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW Table 6 Burlingame Avenue District Parker Intercept Survey Comparison of 2002&2004 Surveys 2002 2004 2002 2004 Total Survey Respondents 23fi 285 Origin of Trip Percent Respondents by Location Burlingame26% 27% Other Peninsula 641/6 65% Burlingame Avenue/Lorton Avenue 43% 42% San Francisco 6% 3% Lot D 29% 36% Other 4% 5% Lot E/Post Office 21% 14% Lot A3 7% 8% Convenience of Parking Downtown N/A Very Convenient 11% 21% Fairly Convenient 31% 33% Percent by Parking Location Somewhat Inconvenient 33% 33% Very Inconvenient 25% 13% City Lot/Garage 42% 57 On-Street in Front of a Business 46% 28% Blocks Parkers are Willing to Walk On-Steet in Front of a Residence 5% 3% In a Private Parking Facility 5% 7% 0-1 8% 9% Other 1% 3% 1-2 26% 31% N/A 1% 2% 2-3 16% 28% 3-4 18% 16% 4-5 17% 7% More than 5 16% 9% 5]1730 BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 8 PHASE 11 PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW Table 7 summarizes suggestions for improvements to the parking experience by generalized categories. The greatest number of comments was expression of need for more spaces, especially from Saturday parkers (40 percent of all comments, and 64 percent of Saturday comments). The second most frequent category of comments (21 percent) was that parking was two expensive. Overly aggressive time limit enforcement and too steep fines was the third most common category of responses (8 percent of all responses), followed by the need for longer meter time limits, a permit program for residents and/or downtown employees, a need for meters with more flexible payment options. Table 7 Suggestions for Improving Parking in Burlingame Avenue Area October 2004 Parker Intercept Survey WEEKDAY RESPONDENTS WEEKEND RESPONDENTS1 ALL COMMENTERS No. Pct. No. Pct. No. Pct. Need More Spaces 16 24% 29 64% 45 40% 0o Expensive/Should be free 16 24% 8 18% 24 21% Enforcement too aggressive/tickets too steep 7 10% 2 4% 9 8% Longer meter time limits for shoppers 7 10% 0 0% 7 6% Monthly permits for residents/employees 5 7% 1 2% 6 5% Meters that accept more coins/bills/prepaid cards 4 6% 0 0% 4 4% Other 12 18% 5 11% 17 15% otal 67 100% 45 100% 112 100% The results of the 2004 intercept survey suggest the following conclusions: • The percentage of parkers that find parking "very convenient" or "fairly convenient" increased from 42 percent in the 2002 survey to 54 percent in 2004. • Forty percent of the parkers said they were willing to walk only 1-2 blocks as compared with 34% in 2002. Typically the expressed willingness to walk is based on the parkers' actual experience. It someone is used to being able to park within 1-2 blocks of their destination, they are likely to say that they are willing to walk this distance. This implies that customers are finding that parking close is their destination in more available now than in 2002. • The top four suggestions for improving parking were: 1. Provide more spaces — 24% 2. Don't make parking too expensive — 24% 3. Don't make enforcement too aggressive/tickets too expensive — 10% 4. Provide longer time limits for shoppers — 10% 2005 Parker Intercept Survey A special intercept survey was conducted in January of 2005 to provide further opportunity for input by downtown employees and visitors. A total of 310 surveys were conducted. This survey involved several new questions as summarized in Table 8. Respondents were asked how long they parked. A total of 27 percent indicated they parked for one hour or less, while the largest group, 40 percent, said they parked from one to two hours. Twenty percent parked for two hours 521730 BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 9 PHASE 11 PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW or more. When asked if they either moved their car or feed the parking meter to avoid parking tickets, 14 percent of those responding said they moved their car and 37 percent said that they feed the parking meter. Several questions focused on the costumer's reaction to the recent changes in the parking system. In response to the question: Have the higher parking rates affected your length of stay?—43 percent responded"yes"and 43 percent responded"no." The final new questions dealt with measuring how people have reacted to the increased cost of parking and other factors. When asked if the cost of parking made parking less pleasant—36 percent said"very much"and 22 percent said"somewhat." A larger group,42 percent said that the ease of getting a parking ticket made parking"very much"less pleasant. The greatest area of concern,however,was the"difficulty finding a space"which was cited by 49 percent of those interviewed as an issue. Thirty-nine percent indicated that not having enough change for the parking meter was very much an issue for them. Table 8 Burlingame Avenue District Parker Intercept Survey Results of 2005 Survey Length of Parking 1 Hour or less 27% 1-2 Hours 40% 2-4 Hours 11% More than 4 Hours 8% N/A 14% Frequency of moving car or feeding meter Move car 14% Feed meter 37% Neither 34% N/A 15 Customer Satisfaction with New Parking Measures Have higher rates affected length of parking? Yes 43% No43% N/A 14% How have these factors made parking less pleasant? Very Much Somewhat Not at all N/A Difficulty in finding a space 49% 22% 1 % 19 Possibility of getting parking ticket 42% 20% 16% 22% Need to carry so much change 39% 20% 14% 27°k Cost of parking36% 22% 1 21% 1 21% 521]]° BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 10 PHASE II PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW The results of the 2005 intercept survey can be summarized as follows: ■ The reported duration of parking matches well with the actual amount of parking that is available. For example: • 27 percent of the parkers indicated they stay less than an hour while 10 percent of the spaces in the core area are restricted to one-hour parking. The one-hour spaces on Burlingame Avenue are well-suited to a large group of parkers. ■ 40 percent of the parkers stay from 1 to 2 hours as compared with the supply which consists of 54 percent two-hour spaces. Thus there is more than enough two-hour parking for this group. ■ 19 percent of the parkers stay for more than 2 hours and 36 percent of the supply is for 2 to 10 hour parking. ■ 51 percent of the respondents said they either move their car or feed the meters to avoid parking tickets. This suggests that there are still many employees parking in the short-term parking areas. ■ 43 percent of the respondents said the higher parking fees have affected how long they park. While this could be viewed as negative,the intent of the higher fee was to encourage longer terns parkers to park in the off-street lots and in the long-term meter zones. ■ The respondents found the following factors most displeasing about parking in the District: ■ Difficulty in finding a space—49% Potential of getting a ticket—42% The need to have change for the meters—39% ■ The cost of the parking—36% 521710 BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 11 PHASE II PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW BUSINESS SURVEY The business survey involve telephone interviews with 51 downtown Burlingame businesses to gather information regarding parking conditions in downtown. Interviewees were asked to describe both the parking concerns of their customers and of their employees. This led to some open-ended comments that are summarized generally in Table 9 and described in more detail below. Table 9 Additional Comments Collected in the Business Survey Comment # of respondents Provide more parking (in general, in a 16 parking structure or as long-term -parking) Parking enforcement officers are 10 ruthless I make change for customers/Why 10 only quarters?/Can we get change- making machines? Customers complain about tickets/1 6 pay my customers' tickets How are parking enforcement funds 4 spent bthe City? Build a parking structure 3 Meter times are too short 3 Provide employee permit parking 3 Free lots are full with 2 commuters/residents/downtown employees when I arrive in the City for work I don't feel comfortable using the free 2 lots b/c I leave after dark People are abusing meters 2 Other comments See below Source: Wilbur Smith Associates, February 2005. The most common response was an expression of support for more parking, either on behalf of customers or employees, including reserving parking spaces for employees. Specific comments break down as follows: • Four respondents supported more parking in general, • Three respondents supported an employee permit system and two respondents supported more long term parking (which would likely benefit downtown employees), • Three respondents suggested building a parking structure, • Three respondents reported that their customers want more parking, and • One respondent said that all downtown parking should be free. 521730 BURUNGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 12 PHASE II PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW The next most frequent response is that parking enforcement is too stringent. Ten respondents made this comment, some noting that parking enforcement staff does the City a disservice due to their unfriendly attitudes. Conversely, one respondent felt that parking enforcement is too lax in front of his business and that one-hour meters need to be enforced. In addition, two respondents are frustrated because meters are too often broken. One respondent added that she thought that parking meters should include information about how customers can telephone in a report of a broken meter to the City, rather than waiting for parking enforcement staff to reach the parking space and reporting it at that time. Six respondents reported that they provide change for customers. Two asked why the meters only accept quarters and two requested the City provide change-making machines on the street. Three respondents reported that customers are most concerned about getting parking tickets, as compared to their concern about the cost of parking, availability, and the inconvenience of carrying change for parking. Three respondents reported that they pay their customer's parking tickets for them. Four respondents had concerns about how much money was generated by parking fees and tickets and where this funding would be used. One respondent linked this concern with a comment about the upkeep at the City parking lots — she felt that the City lot was not well maintained (it is dirty and difficult to read the numbers on the stalls) and that the extra money generated by the parking program certainly was not being spent on lot upkeep. Three respondents reported that meter times are too short. Two respondents reported that they do not use free city lots because it is dark out when they leave their business location and it is too far to walk. Two respondents report that residents, commuters or employees are abusing meters or lots, noting that: • Certain free lots are full very early in the morning,and the respondent thinks that Caltrain commuters or residents are parking in these spaces(and in the case of residents, illegally parking overnight),and • Employees are parking in two-hour meter spaces and adding coins throughout the day (rather than vacating the space). 521730 BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 13 PHASE II PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW CONCLUSIONS The following findings resulted from this review of the Phase 2 parking program implementation for the Burlingame Avenue area: Parking Occupancy , • Overall there was very little change in parking occupancy between 2002 and 2004. Peak parking occupancy was virtually unchanged; with 86 percent of all the spaces in the core area being utilized in the midday period. The fact that one major restaurant and an auto dealership on California Drive has closed during this period,but that demands are still high, suggests that the demand for parking in the Burlingame Avenue area continues to be very strong. • After taking into account the fact that two major businesses have closed and Lot J was partially under construction,it appears that the increases in parking rates had the impact of encouraging approximately 70 long-term parkers to relocate from the core area to the peripheral area. This had the positive effect of opening up 70 spaces for short term parking in the core area during the mid-day peak period,by changing the behavior of the long-term parkers. • Parking occupancy has remained virtually unchanged,as short-tem parkers have taken the spaces in the core area that were vacated by the long-term parkers. It is important to note that much of the parking supply is operating at 85 to 100 percent of capacity,and at such there can not really be much of an increase over current conditions. • While much of the parking in the area is virtually full,Lots B-1, K-1,K,L G and V all have peak occupancies below 60 percent. Also the data shows that occupancies for the curb parking along Howard Avenue and Chapin Avenue are relatively low(70 percent or less). Parking Turnover and Duration • The turnover of parking at the one-hour meters on Burlingame Avenue continues at a very high level—approaching the practical capacity of the system with 8.0 cars per space during a ten hour period. Given that the first two hours of the day, 8:00— 10:00 PM have a low level of activity as most businesses have yet to open,this is a very high level of use. • Turnover in the two-hour metered spaces increased from 2002 to 2004, suggesting that the rate increases had the desired effect of increasing turnover and reducing abuse of the time limits. • Observed parking durations match well with the actual parking time limits on the streets and in the lots. Parking Intercept Surveys • Overall parkers are more satisfied with the parking situation than in 2002 521730 BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 14 PHASE it PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW • Customers are able to find parking closer to their destination than in the past as indicated by where they park and how far they are willing to walk. • Customers and employees have concerns about: ■ Finding a parking space. ■ Avoiding getting a parking ticket. • Paying the parking fee or finding the change to pay it. • While there is interest in having more parking, there is very little expressed support for building a parking structure. • The amount of time that costumers desire to stay matches up well with the time limit allocations of the available supply • The top four suggestions for improving parking were: 1. Provide more spaces—24% 2. Don't make parking too expensive—24% 3. Don't make enforcement too aggressive/tickets too expensive— 10% 4. Provide longer time limits for shoppers— 10% Business Survey Business owners and managers are most concerned about(in order of importance): 1. Availability of parking 2. Over aggressive enforcement 3. Customers finding change for the parking meters 4. Customers complaints about receiving parking tickets It was interesting that the business survey respondents did not note the cost of parking as a key issue. POTENTIAL FURTHER ACTIONS Overall the most recent set of parking improvements have accomplished the goal of maintaining high levels of utilization in the core area and encouraging employees and other long term parkers to park in the peripheral area. These actions have resulted in an estimated shift of 100 peak period long-term parkers from the core to the periphery, freeing up these spaces for customers. This has the same benefit as if the City had built a new 100 space parking lot in the core area, without all the impact or the cost. The findings also suggest several possible further actions or solutions: • Parking Lots- Several of the off-street lots still have available parking. Converting Lots K and W to 10 hour parking from 2 hour parking proved effective in increasing the use of these lots. Lots B-1, L, and V should be considered for conversion to ten hour parking. Parking lot G should be considered for conversion to free parking. These actions should 521730 BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 15 PHASE II PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW move another 50-70 long-term parkers into these lots, freeing other spaces for short term packers. • On-Street Parking—Parking meters on Howard Street,which are underutilized,could be converted from two hours to four hours to provide more long-term parking close to Burlingame Avenue. As many as 25 spaces are typically vacant today. • Employee Parking Permits—If the above actions do not improve the use of these facilities by employees the Police Department should consider implementing an employee parking program similar to the residential parking permit program that currently exists. Lots H,G,and F would then be designated for employee permit parking. • Public Information-Methods to better inform both employees and customers about their parking options in downtown,such as the parking map and brochure,appear to be well accepted. These informational programs should be continued and perhaps expanded. One example would be to use the existing parking map at a template to create parking information displays at strategic locations in the district. Another example would be to provide parking information along with each parking violation ticket. • Change Machines—There have been several suggestions that the City install change making machines to give customers a convenient option for using the parking meters. The City could also consider installing new meters or replacing the meters with"pay-by- space"machines that would accept paper currency or even credit cards. Change making machines and the newer types of parking revenue collection equipment are costly to purchase and to maintain. They do provide a high level of costumer convenience. The City should thoroughly investigate the suitability of these devices for application before making a decision. • Enforcement-There have been both parking fee increases and parking citation fine increases in the last year. This has antagonized employees and customers, as well as business owners. At the same time the 2005 survey suggests that there are many employees who still either feed the meters or move their vehicles during the day to avoid tickets. There could be an effort to modify enforcement techniques to focus more on repeat offenders, and to give the customers more latitude. This may require new city ordinances and enforcement practices,as well as educational programs. For example, first time offenders(based on license plate records)could be given an additional grace period before a ticket is issued,and a note would be left on their car advising them that they had been given this special treatment. 521730 BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 16 PHASE II PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW • Coordination with other projects-There are several projects underway or soon to start that will impact parking in the area. These projects may represent an opportunity to improve current parking facilities or even add some small amounts of additional parking. Thus the parking elements of these plans should be coordinated with this effort to monitor and improve parking. The planning efforts include: ■ Improvements to the Caltrain Station platforms ■ Efforts to redevelop the Safeway site ■ A Burlingame Avenue District Specific Area Plan PUBLIC REVIEW AND TSPC PROCESS On April 28, 2005 the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission (TSPC) held a public meeting to receive a presentation on the findings of this report and to hear public comment on the parking program. Based upon the findings of this report and the comments and suggestions received from the public and the TSPC, city staff prepared the following list of possible actions to be considered: Public Education Short Term Actions • Install parking information signage • Provide parking information with tickets • Provide brochures to the Chamber of Commerce, DBID and business owners • Post projects funded by meter revenues on meter poles Enforcement/Meters Short Term Actions • Be flexible in issuing tickets • Provide a more friendly interaction with the public • Consider beginning street parking enforcement one hour later in the morning • Continue to monitor for possible Caltrain parker abuse (study indicates none now) • Provide stronger enforcement of free lot usage by residents • Encourage businesses to provide parking meter change • Explore pilot project to install one change machine 521730 BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 17 PHASE II PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW Longer Term Actions • Consider introducing additional change machines • Provide flexible meter payment methods such as credit/debit cards or paper bills • Study the use of smart meters No Action • Do not extend meter times to evenings or weekends due to impact on residents,possible business loss to other cities and increased enforcement costs Parking Short Term Actions • Increase time limits for underutilized lots B-1 and V as well as along Howard Avenue • Make lot G free • Have merchants investigate employee permit system potentially using lots G, H,F or O • Have merchants investigate business valet service using lot O • Have merchants explore shuttle service between lots Longer Term Actions • Determine amount,timing and location of new parking in conjunction with the Specific Area Plan(SAP) • Determine need for any parking rate increase in conjunction with the SAP • Evaluate elimination of planters to provide more parking in conjunction with the streetscape design No Action • Do not consider extending Burlingame Avenue time limits due to decreased turnover effects • Take no specific action to accommodate short term parking for business needs but rely on other actions to create turnover On May 26, 2005 a special meeting of the TPSC was held to consider these possible actions. The Commission reviewed these actions and recommended their further consideration with the following changes: Public Education Short Term Actions • Add-Provide project funding information on brochures, tickets and signs • Delete-Post projects funded by meter revenues on meter poles 521730 BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 18 PHASE II PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW Enforcement/Meters Short Term Actions • Delete-Be flexible in issuing tickets • Delete-Encourage businesses to provide parking meter change • Delete-Explore pilot project to install one change machine Longer Tenn Actions • Delete-Consider introducing additional change machines Parking Longer Tenn Actions • Delete-Evaluate elimination ofplanters to provide more parking in conjunction with the streetscape design 531]30 BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOGATES Page 19 PHASE II PARKING PROGRAM REVIEW APPENDIX TABLES A -1 TOA - 9 53,110 BURLINGAME PARKING PHASE 2 REVIEW WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES Page 20 Table A-1 Comparison of 2001,2002 and 2004 Weekday Peak Parking Occupancy—Core Area Block Block Total SE= Percent ctocled Number Face Curb Face or Off-Street Facility Spaces 2001 2002 2004 2001 2002 2004 1-1 E Primrose Rd Between Chapin and Bellevue 9 10 8 11 111% 89% 122% 1-1 S Chapin Ave Between EI Camino Real and Primrose 55 46 30 38 84% 55% 69% 1-2 E Primmse Rd Between Chapin and Budingame 19 18 18 17 95% 95% 89% 1-2 N Chapin Ave Between EI Camino Real and Primmse 49 42 36 38 86% 73% 78% 1-2 S Burlingame Ave Between Primrose and EI Camino Real 25 16 24 26 64% 96% 104% 2-1 E Lorton Ave Between Bellevue and Donnelly 4 4 3 4 100% 75% 100% 2-1 W Primrose Ave Between Donnelly and Bellevue 11 11 11 12 100% 100% 109% 2-2 E Lorton Ave Between Donnelly and Burlingame 9 8 9 9 89% 100% 100% 2-2 N Donnelly Ave Between Primrose and Lorton 18 18 19 18 100% 106% 100% 2-2 S Burlingame Ave Between Lorton and Primrose 26 27 27 27 104% 104% 164% 2-2 W Primmse Rd Between Donnelly and Burlingame 10 7 10 8 70% 100% 80% 2-3 E California Dr Between Bellevue and Burlingame 14 16 11 14 114% 79% 100% 2-3 S Budingame Ave Between California and Lorton 6 6 7 8 100% 117% 133% 2-3 W Lorton Ave Beeman Bellevm and Burlingame 17 17 16 14 100% 94% 82% 3-1 E Primrose Rd Between Howard and Burlingame 15 11 16 16 73% 107% 107% 3-1 N Burlingame Ave Between Primrose and EI Camino Real 22 20 21 21 91% 95% 95% 3-1 S Howard Ave Between Primmse and EI Camino Real 5 5 5 2 100% 100% 40% 4-1 E Park Rd Between Burlingame and Howard 27 19 28 24 70% 104% 89% 4-1 N Burlingame Ave Between Primmse and Park 12 11 10 13 92% 83% 108% 4-1 S Howard Ave Between Primrose and Park 10 4 9 4 40% 90% 40% 4-1 W Primmse Rd Between Howard and Burlingame 18 13 16 16 72% 89% 89% 4-2 E Lorton Ave Between Howard and Burlingame 15 14 16 14 93% 107% 93% 4-2 N Budingame Ave Between Park and Lorton 13 11 1D 13 85% 77% 100% 42 S Howard Ave Between Park and Lorton 15 7 13 7 47% 87% 47% 4-2 W Park Rd Between Burlingame and Howard 23 19 22 17 83% 96% 74% 5-1 E Highland Ave Between Howard and Burlingame 19 13 13 17 68% 68% 89% 5-7 N Budingame Ave Between Lorton and Highland 8 7 8 8 88% 100% 100% 5-1 S Howard Ave Between Highland and Lorton 17 13 13 11 76% 76% 65% 5-1 W Lorton Ave Between Burlingame and Howard 22 16 17 22 73% 77% 100% 5-2 1 W lHighland Ave Between Howard and Burlingame 11 4 6 8 36% 55% 73% Core OnStreat Subtotal 524 433 462 467 83% 87% 86% 1-2 - Lot B 44 41 37 44 93% 84% 100% 1-2 - Lot B-1 24 N/A 11 7 N/A 46% 29% 1-2 - Lot K-1 27 3 28 14 11% 104% 52% 2-1 - Lot A 166 160 149 147 96% 90% 89% 2-1 - Lot A-3 26 24 26 24 92% 100% 92% 2-2 - Lot C 82 82 80 78 100% 98% 95% 2-2 - Lot D 48 47 47 47 98% 98% 98% 3-1 - Lot K 69 21 36 41 30% 52% 59% 3-1 - Lot L 20 14 167 70% 80% 35% 4-1 - Lot 74 71 71 67 96% 96% 91% 4-1 - Lot W 591 30 33 56 51% 56% 95% 4-2 Lot E(under wntrucaon-24 spews dosed) 681 64 71 41 94% 104% 93% 5-1 - LotM 26 26 21 25 100% 81% 96% Core Off3treet Su block 733L 683 626 686 80% 80% 82% All Com Areas aces 1257T 1018 1078 1055 81% 86% 80% Source:MIbur Smith Asociates Surveys on 11/8101, 10!31/02 and 101142004 Table A-2 Comparison of 2001,2002 and 2004 Weekday Peak Parking Occupancy—Peripheral Area Block Block Total Occupied Spaces Patent Oommied Number Face Curb Face or Off-Street Facility Spaces 2001 2002 2004 2001 2002 2004 6-1 E Carolan Between North Lane and East Lane 10 9 10 2 90% 100% 20% 6-1 S South Lane W of train tracks;E of California Dr,S of Depot 4 3 2 1 75% 50% 25% 6-1 W California Dr Between North Lane and South Lane 4 1 3 3 25% 75% 75% 6-2 S Burlingame Ave At North Lane/East Lane 3 3 3 2 100% 100% 67% 6-2 W Burlingame Ave At North Lane/East Lane 8 7 8 3 88% 100% 38% 6-3 W California Dr Between S Lane and Howard 12 2 9 7 17% 75% 58% 6-4 E East Lane Between North Lane and South Lane 4 3 3 2 75% 75% 50% 7-3 N Bellevue Ave Between Almer and Primrose 13 20 10 11 154% 77% 85% 10-1 W California Or Between Bayswater and Howard 20 9 10 9 45% 50% 45% 11-1 E Highland Ave Between Bayswater and Howard 20 20 19 17 100% 95% 85% 11-1 N Howard Rd Between Highland and Lorton 19 7 16 14 37% 84% 74% 11-1 W Lorton Ave Between Bayswater and Howard 19 13 16 15 68% 84% 79% 12-1 N Howard Ave Between Primrose and EI Camino Real 12 11 12 9 92% 100% 75% 12-2 E Park Rd Between Bayswaterand Howard 1s 13 16 18 72% 89% 100% 12-2 N Howard Rd Between Primrose and Park 17 8 15 5 47% 88% 29% 12-2 W Primrose Rd Between Howard and Bayswater 16 13 16 it 81% 100% 69% 12-3 N Howard Rd Between Park and Lorton 15 121 161 12 80% 100% 80% Periherel On-Street Subtotal 214 154 183 741 72% 86% 66% 6-1 - Lot V 19 18 14 6 95% 74% 32% 6-2 - Lot 55 36 42 51 65% 76% 93% 9-1 - Lot O 107 93 83 58 87% 78% 54% 11-1 - Lot 69 68 42 58 99% 61% 84% 12-2 - Lot G 98 48 77 38 49% 79% 39% 12-3 - Lot F 98 83 97 96 85% 99% 98% 14-3 Lot H 85 65 72 85 76% 85% 100% Peri heral OffStreet Subtotal 531 411 427 392 77% 80°A 74% All Pen heral Area S aces 745 SBS 610 333 7696 82% 72% Source:Wilbur Smith Asociates Surveys on 11/8/01, 10/31,,02 and 101142004 Table A-3 Average On-Street Parking Duration and Tunover by Curb Face, Fall 200, Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Parking Study Average Parking Turnover Curb Face Meter Number Duration Hours Cars per space) Type Spaces Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday N Side Burlingame Ave Between Primrose and EI Camino Real 1-Hour 24 0.9 0.9 7.0 5.1 N Side Burlingame Ave Between Lorton and Primrose 1-Hour 26 0.9 0.9 9.0 8.6 N Side Burlingame Ave Between California and Lorton 1-Hour 6 0.9 1.1 6.0 6.5 S Side Burlingame Ave Between Primrose and EI Camino Real 1-Hour 21 0.8 1.0 8.6 7.6 S Side Burlingame Ave Between Primrose and Park 1-Hour 12 0.9 0.9 7.9 8.2 S Side Burlingame Ave Between Park and Lorton 1-Hour 10 0.8 1.0 8.5 8.0 S Side Burlingame Ave Between Lorton and Highland 1-Hour 8 1.0 0.8 6.8 8.8 W Side Primrose Rd Between Chapin and Bellevue 2-Hour 11 1.4 1.5 5.3 3.0 N Side Chapin Ave Between EI Camino Real and Primrose 2-Hour 31 1.4 1.4 4.3 2.4 S Side Chapin Ave Between EI Camino Real and Primrose 2-Hour 19 1.6 1.4 3.2 2.9 W Side Primrose Rd Between Chapin and Burlingame 2-Hour 16 1.4 1.6 5.3 4.3 W Side Lorton Ave Between Bellevue and Donnelly 2-Hour 4 1.4 1.3 5.0 5.8 E Side Primrose Ave Between Donnelly and Bellevue 2-Hour 11 1.6 1.4 5.5 4.9 E Side Primrose Rd Between Donnelly and Burlingame 2-Hour 8 1.5 1.3 5.0 5.4 W Side Lorton Ave Between Donnelly and Burlingame 2-Hour 9 1.2 1.5 6.3 5.1 S Side Donnelly Ave Between Primrose and Lorton 2-Hour 12 1.4 1.7 5.1 4.0 W Side California Dr Between Bellevue and Burlingame 2-Hour 13 1.5 1.6 4.2 4.5 E Side Lorton Ave Between Bellevue and Burlingame 2-Hour 14 1.3 1.3 5.6 5.7 W Side Primrose Rd Between Howard and Burlingame 2-Hour 15 1.2 1.5 4.1 4.6 N Side Howard Ave Between Primrose and Park 2-Hour 9 1.3 1.2 2.9 3.7 E Side Primrose Rd Between Howard and Burlingame 2-Hour 18 1.1 1.2 4.5 5.2 W Side Park Rd Between Burlingame and Howard 2-Hour 27 1.5 1.2 3.4 4.9 S Side Howard Ave Between Primrose and Park 2-Hour 13 1.2 1.5 4.1 4.6 N Side Howard Ave Between Park and Lorton 2-Hour 14 1.3 1.3 3.4 4.0 E Side Park Rd Between Burlingame and Howard 2-Hour 16 1.6 1.3 4.4 4.7 N Side Howard Ave Between Highland and Lorton 2-Hour 10 1.3 1.4 4.2 4.3 W Side Highland Ave Between Howard and Burlingame 2-Hour 13 1.5 1.3 4.1 5.4 E Side Lorton Ave Between Burlingame and Howard 2-Hour 22 1.5 1.3 4.0 5.4 E Side Highland Ave Between Burlingame and Howard 2-Hour 8 1.3 1.3 5.3 5.8 N Side Chapin Ave Between EI Camino Real and Primrose 10-hour 22 3.3 3.2 1.4 0.4 S Side Chapin Ave Between EI Camino Real and Primrose 10-hour 28 3.1 2.6 2.0 1.8 S Side Donnelly Ave Between Primrose and Lorton 10-hour 6 6.7 1.8 1.2 3.7 N Side Howard Ave Between Primrose and EI Camino Real I 10-hour 1 12 1 1.7 1 1.7 3.6 2.6 Table A-4 Comparison of On-Street Duration and Turnover -2002 and 2004 Burlingame Avenue Commercial Dlamet Parking Study Weekday Turnover Saturday Turnover Weekday Duration Saturday Duration Utilization Index Curb Face Meter Number Hours/Cr Hours/Cr Cr Haus Pr Available Space Hors Type of Spaces 2002 2004 2002 2004 2002 2004 2002 2004 Weekday Weekend Cars/ Caret Carsi Hours/ oury Space Can Space Care Space Care Spece Cars Cr Cr Hours Cr Cr Hous Cr Cr Hours Cr Cr Hours 2003 2004 2003 2004 N Side Burlingame Ave Between Primrose and EI Camino Real 1-Hour 24 6.8 158 7.0 168 7.7 185 5.1 122 0.7 111 0.9 151 1.0 185 0.9 110 46% 63% 77% 46% N SIM Burlingame Ave Between Lorton and Primrose 1-Hour 20 10.0 260 9.0 234 8.4 218 8.6 224 0.0 208 0.9 109 0.9 197 0.9 201 80% 77% 78% 77% N Side Burlingame Ave Between California and Lorton 1-Hour 6 8.7 52 6.0 38 6.0 3e e.5 39 0.9 47 OA 32 0.9 32 1.1 43 75% 54% 54% 72% S Side Burlingame Ave Between Primrose and EI Camino Real 1-Hour 21 8.8 185 8.6 181 7.0 147 7.8 1110 0.8 148 0.8 144 1.0 147 to 180 70% 69% 70% 76% S Side Burlingame Ave Between Prlmmse and Park 1-Hoa 12 9.8 115 7.9 95 8.8 106 8.2 98 0.7 81 0.9 85 0.9 95 0.9 89 67% 71% 79% 74% S Side Burlingame Ave Between Park and Lorton 1-Hour 10 11.2 112 8.5 85 8.4 84 8.0 80 0.7 78 0.0 71 0.9 76 1.0 80 78% 71% 76% 80% S Side Burlingame Ave Between Lorton and Highland i-Hour 8 8.8 70 8.8 54 8.4 87 8.8 70 0.8 56 1.0 54 0.8 54 0.8 59 70% es% e7% 74% Subtotel-One Flour Spaces 107 8.9 953 8.0 853 7.9 643 7.4 793 0.0 729 0.9 737 0.9 785 01 742 88% 69% 73% 69% W Side Primrose Rd Between Chapin and Bellevue 2-Hou 11 5.0 55 5.3 58 3.7 41 3.0 33 1A 77 1.4 82 1.9 77 1.5 50 70% 74% 70% 45% N Side Chapin Ave Between EI Camino Real and Primrose 2-Hour 31 4.7 146 4.3 133 2.1 85 2.4 74 1.3 189 1.4 187 1.4 91 to 104 81% 90% 29% 34% S Side Chapin Ave Between EI Camino Reel and Primrose 2-Hou 19 4.8 91 3.2 81 3.8 72 2.9 55 1.3 119 1.6 97 1.4 101 1.1 77 82% 51% 53% 41% W Side Primrose Rd Between Chapin and Burlingame 2-Hou 18 4.9 78 5.3 85 5.6 W 4.3 89 1.7 133 1.4 119 1.3 1% 1.9 110 83% 74% 73% 09% W Side Lorton Ave Between Bellevue and Donnelly 2-Hour 4 5.8 23 5.0 20 5.3 21 5.8 23 1.3 30 1.4 29 1.4 30 1.3 30 75% 70% 74% 75% E Side Primrose Ave Between Donnelly and Bellevue 2-Hour 11 6.1 07 5.5 81 4.8 53 4.0 54 1.2 81 1.8 97 1.3 69 1.4 75 73% 88% 62% 69% E Side Primrose Rd Between Donnelly and Burlingame 2-Hour 5 5.7 48 5.0 40 5.4 43 5.4 43 1.2 55 1.5 80 /A 60 1.3 58 68% 75% 78% 70% W Side Lorton Ave Between Donnelly and Burlingame 2-Hour 9 5.7 51 1 0.3 57 5.1 45 3.1 40 1.3 - 87 1.2 M 1.5 69 1.5 69 74% 76% 77% 77% S Side Donnelly Ave Between Prmrcee and Lorton 2-Hou 12 4.2 50 5.1 61 4.4 53 4.0 48 1.9 81 1A N 1.7 90 1.7 82 67% 71% 75% 68% W Side California Dr Between Bellevue and Burlingame 2-Hour 13 5.2 88 4.2 55 4.5 59 4.5 59 1 1.3 Be 1.5 82 1.5 88 1.0 94 88% 63% 1 68% 72% E Side Lorton Ave Between Bellevue and Budingeme 2-Hour 14 5.9 53 5.6 78 5.3 74 5.7 80 1.2 go 1.3 102 1.4 104 1,3 104 71% 73% 74% 74% W SIM Mmrose Rd Between Howard and Burlingame 2-Hou 15 3.9 59 4.1 112 4.5 till 4.e a9 1.3 78 12 74 12 81 1.5 104 51% 49% 54% 69% N Side Howard Ave Between Primrose and Park 2-Hour 9 4.0 36 2.9 28 3.7 33 3.7 33 1.2 43 1.3 34 1.3 43 1.2 40 48% 38% 48% 44% E Side Primrose Rd Between Howard and Burlingame 2-Hour 18 "5.1 92 4.5 81 5.4 07 5.2 04 1.2 110 1.1 N 1.2 117 1.2 112 81% 50% 65% 62% W Side Park Rd Between Burlingame and Howard 2-Hour 27 3.0 81 3.4 92 4.1 111- 4.9 132 to 113 1.5 138 1.3 144 1.2 159 42% 51% 53% 59% W Side Prinrose Rd Between Howard and Burlingame 2-Hour 13 3.9 51 4.1 53 4.5 50 4.8 80 to 71 1.2 04 to 82 1.5 90 55% 49% 63% 69% N Sift Howard Ave Between Perk end Lorton 2-Hou 14 4.1 57 3.4 40 3.3 46 4.0 50 1.4 80 to 02 1.7 17D1.3 73 57% 44% 58% 52% E Side Park Rd Between Burlingame nd Howrd 2-Hou 10 1.2 194.4 70 4.8 74 4.7 75 4.9 94 1.0 113 1.3 1.3 98 59% 70% 60% 61% N Side Howard Ave Between Highland nd Lorton 2-Hou 10 3.3 33 4.2 42 4.646 4.3 43 1.9 63 1.3 55 1.2 1A 80 63% 55% 56% eD% W Side Highland Ave Between Howard end Burlingame 2-Hour 13 3.4 44 4.1 53 4.4 57 5.4 70 1.8 71 1.5 90 1.1 1.3 61 54% 82% 48% 70% E Side Lorton Ave Between Budingeme nd Howard 2-Hou 22 50 11040 86 5.1 112 5.4 119 1.1 151 1.5 132 1.4 1.3 154 70% 80% 71% 70% E Side HI Ind Ave Between Burlin ame nd Howard 2-Hour 0 2.8 22 5.3 42 2.9 23 5.8 48 1./ 25 1.3 55 1.4 1.3 80 1 31% 1 69% 41% 75% Subtotal-Two Har Spaces 313 4.4 1362 4.4 1388 4.3 1342 4.4 1381 1.4 1918 1.4 1901 1 1.1 18M 1.4 1891 1 81% 1 91% 59% 60% N Side Chapin Ave Between EI Camino Reel and Primrose 10-hour 22 2.1 46 1.4 31 0.7 15 0.4 B 1.7 79 3.3 102 1.1 17 3.2 28 36% 46% 8% 13% S Side Chapin Ave Between EI Camino Real and Primrose IG-hour 28 14 95 2.0 56 1.7 48 1.8 50 1 7 182 3.1 174 2.8 124 2.0 131 58% 62% 44% 47% S Side Donnelly Ave Between Primrose and Lorton 10-has 6 1.0 6 1.2 7 3.2 19 3.7 22 7.0 47 6.7 48 2.4 48 1.0 40 78% 80% 77% 87% N Side Howard Ave Between Primrose and EI Camino Real 10-hour 12 3.2 38 3.8 43 2.0 24 2.6 31 2A 92 1.7 73 3.0 72 1.7 33 77% 61% BO% 44% Subtotal-Ten Hour Spaces, 68 2.7 160 2.0 137 1.8 106 1.7 113 1 2.0 1 379 2.9 397 2.4 259 1 2.2 252 56% 58% 36% 37% Total-All Spaces 488 5.1 2501 4,8 2356 4.7 2291 4.7 2287 1 1.2 1 3027 1.3 3035 1.3 2888 1 1.3 2885 82% 62% 59% 59% Table A-5 Average Off-Street Parking Duration and Turnover by Off-Street Facility,Fall 2004 Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Parking Study Meter Average Parking Turnover Activity Activity Utilization Index Off-Street Facility Type Spaces Duration Hours Cars per Space Cars per Day Car Hours per Day Car Hrs/S ace Hrs Sampled Sampled Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday WeekdaL Saturday Weekday Saturday Weekday Saturday Lot B-1 2-Hour 14 1.5 1.3 1 0.5 14 7 21 9 15% 7% Lot K-1 2-Hour 10 1.2 1.3 2.9 3.6 29 36 35 47 35% 47% Lot A-3 2-Hour 17 1.6 1.7 2 4 34 68 54 116 32% 68% Lot D 2-Hour 21 1.4 1.4 5.3 5.4 111 113 156 159 74% 76 Lot C 2-Hour 13 1.8 1.4 3.2 4.1 42 53 75 75 58% 57% Lot L 2-Hour 10 1.7 1.3 3 3.71 30 37 51 48 1 51% 48% Lot J 2-Hour 14 1.5 1.3 2.65.2 36 73 55 95 39% 68% Lot E 2-Hour 15 1.3 1.3 3.8 5 57 75 74 98 49% 65 Lot M 2-Hour 14 1.4 1.6 3.1 3.5 43 49 61 78 43% 56% Total 2 Hour Spaces 128 1.5 1.4 3.1 4.0 397 512 581 724 45% 57% Lot 4-Hour 9 2.1 1.4 2.3 4.7 21 42 43 59 48% 66% Lot A 9-Hour 50 4.8 3.6 1.61 1.8 80 1 90 384 1 324 77% 65% Lot B 10-Hour 19 7.4 3.4 1.2 0.91 23 17 169 58 89% 31% Lot K 10-Hour 19 3.1 2.3 1.1 1.3 21 25 65 57 34% 30% LotW 10-Hour 16 4.6 4.5 1.6 1.51 26 24118 108 74% 68% Total 10 Hour Spaces 54 5.11 3.41 1.3 1.2 1 69 66 351 223 65% 41% Table A-6 Comparison of Average Parking Duration 2002-2004 AVERAGE DURATION HOURS Weekday Saturday 2002 2004 2002 2004 ON-STREET SPACES 1-Hour 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.5 2-Hour 1.6 1.4 1.4 2.3 10-Hour 2.3 3.2 1.7 3.3 OFF-STREET SPACES 2-Hour 2.2 1.6 1.7 1.5 4-Hour 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.4 10-Hour 5.5 4.6 4.5 3.1 ALLSPACES 1-Hour 0.8 0.9 0.9 1.5 2-Hour1.9 1.5 1.5 2.1 4-Hour 2.0 2.1 1.9 1.4 10-Hour 4.7 4.2 3.9 3.1 Table A-7 Burlingame Avenue District Parker Intercept Survey Comparison of 2004&2005 Survey with Earlier Surveys 1999 2002 2004 2005 Total Survey Respondents 232 236 285 310 Percent Respondents by Location Burlingame Avenue/Lorton Avenue 44% 43% 42% 42% Lot D 34% 29% 36% 35% Lot E/Post Office 14% 21% 14% 13% Lot A3 5% 7% 8% 10% N/A 3% — Percent by Party Size 1 Person 57% 53% 72% 83% 2 Persons 35% 19% 15% 13% 3 Persons 2% 5% 7% 2% 4+ Persons 1% 3% 5% 2% N/A 5% 20% 1% Percent by Trip Purpose Shopping 44% 34% 33% 37% Eating/Entertainment 36% 30% 30% 32% Personal Business/Other 9% 34% 36% 22% N/A 10% 2% 1% 9% Percent Driving and Parking Yes 84% 76% 93% 90% No 16% 24% 7% 10% Non-Drivers by Alternate Modes Walk 75% 62% 50% N/A Bus 3% 7% 12% N/A Other 3% 19% 26% N/A N/A 19% 12% 10% N/A Table A-8 Burlingame Avenue District Parker Intercept Survey Comparison of 2004&2005 Survey with Earlier Surveys 1999 2002 2004 2005 Percent by Parking Location City Lot/Garage 47% 42% 57% 55% On-Street in Front of a Business 43% 46% 28% 23% On-Steet in Front of a Residence 1% 5% 3% 4% In a Private Parking Facility 7% 5% 7% 3% Other 1% 1% 3% 3% N/A 2% 1% 2% 12% Location Before Coming Downtown Home 67% 50% 72% N/A Work 9% 8% 9% N/A School 2% 2% 2% N/A Other 9% 18% 16% N/A N/A 13% 22% 1% N/A Origin of Trip Burlingame 35% 26% 27% N/A Other Peninsula 54% 64% 65% N/A San Francisco 7% 6% 3% N/A Other 4% 4% 5% N/A Convenience of Parking Downtown Very Convenient 9% 11% 21% NIA Fairly Convenient 24% 31% 33% N/A Somewhat Inconvenient 29% 33% 33% N/A Very Inconvenient 38% 25% 13% N/A Blocks Parkers are Willing to Walk 0-1 6% 8% 9% N/A 1-2 23% 26% 31% N/A 2-3 27% 16% 28% N/A 3-4 22% 18% 16% N/A 4-5 11% 17% 7% N/A >5 11% 16% 9% N/A Table A-8 Burlingame Avenue District Parker Intercept Survey Comparison of 2004&2005 Survey with Earlier Surveys 1999 2002 2004 2005 Length of Parking 1 Hour or less N/A N/A N/A 27% 1-2 Hours N/A N/A N/A 40% 2-4 Hours N/A N/A N/A 11% More than 4 Hours N/A N/A N/A 8% N/A N/A N/A N/A 14% Frequency of moving car or feeding meter Move car N/A N/A N/A 14% Feed meter N/A N/A N/A 37% Neither N/A N/A N/A 34% N/A N/A N/A N/A 15% Customer Satisfaction with New Parking Measures Have higher rates affected length of parking? Yes N/A N/A N/A 43% No N/A N/A N/A 43% N/A N/A N/A N/A 14% How have these factors made parking less pleasant? VeryMuch Somewhat Not at all N/A Cost of parking 36% 22% 21% 21% Ease of getting parking ticket 42% 20% 16% 22% Difficulty in finding a space 49% 22% 9% 19% Need to carry so much change 39% 20% 14% 27% What factors would make it more likely for you to drive and park? (This question was only asked of those who said they currently do not park downtown.) I Already Very Much Somewhat Not at all Park Easier to find space 5% 2% 2% 91% Cheaper 3% 4% 3% 91% Don't need to carry so much change 3% 3% 4% 91% Less worry about parking tickets 4% 2% 3% 91% Table A-9 Suggestions for Improving Parking In Burlingame Avenue Area October 2004 Parker Intercept Survey WEEKDAY RESPONDENTS I WEEKEND RESPONDENTS 1 ALL COMMENTERS No. Pct. I No. I Pct. I No. I Pct. Need More Spaces 16 24% 29 84% 45 40% Too Expensive/Should be free 16 24% 8 18% 24 21% Enforcement too aggressive/tickets too steep 7 10% 2 4% 9 8% Longer meter time limits for shoppers 7 10% 0 0% 7 6% Mothly permits for residentslemployees 5 7% 1 2% 6 5% Meters that accept more coinslbllis/prepaid cards 4 6% 0 0% 4 4% Other 12 18% 5 11% 17 15% Total 67 100% 45 100% 112 100% February 2005 Parker Intercept Survey WEEKDAY RESPONDENTS WEEKEND RESPONDENTS I ALL COMMENTERS No. Pct. No. Pct. I No. I Pct. Need More Spaces 5 17% 5 38% 10 23% Too Expensive/More time on meters 7 23% 1 8% 8 19% Enforcement too aggressive/tickets too steep 4 13% 2 15% 6 14% Meters broken/don't give time paid for 3 10% 0 0% 3 7% Monthly pennilsAong tens parking for residents/empio 2 7% 1 8% 3 7% Meters that accept more coins/bills/prepaid cardslchar 2 7% 0 0% 2 5% Don't come as often 4 13% 3 23% 7 16% Parking too fight/spaces covered 3 10% 1 8% 4 9% Total 30 100% 13 100% 43 100% 2006 Business Survey Comments No. Pct. Need More Spaces 16 32% Too Expensive/Should be free 1 2% Enforcement too aggressive/tickets too steep 10 20% Longer meter time limits 5 10% Monthly permits/long term for residents/employees 5 10% Meters that accept more coins/bills/prepaid cards 10 20% Poor maintenance of meters and lots 3 6% Total 50 100% 0,01 Our Mission 14111109 WdrW7 To nurture a progressive business environment by bringing the business community together in 'IJ f i J S' .1 YJ defining issues, developing programs and effecting public policy, through active membership involvement. NOW, Your Chamber in Action Y Your Chamber in Action r ✓ Promoting our Community CreatingNetworking g Opportunities ✓ Growing a Vibrant Local Economy ✓Community Map; Ribbon Cuttings; Membership Lists& LabrP. ✓ New Business & Residential Listings; Mailing Services, The Representing the Interests our Businesses rndetkwdent Member Discount; Pro'n,otional Mailing., with our local Government ✓ Providing Opportunities to Build Better ✓Assisting in Community Events Partnerships in our Community ✓Art in the Park; Art &Jazz Festival; Broadway Holiday ( I iro ✓ Event; Burlingame Ave. Holiday Open House; Burlingame Business Referral Center Critenum; Broadway Ave. Pet Parade; City Tree Lighting; � NUVPIrI(>FN ✓ Legislative Information Center Community Fresh Market A4iy Your Chamber in Action ::;.... Your Chamber in Action Commercial Information Exchange ✓Critical Partnerships ✓ Relocation Assistance; Demograpl v Burlingame Conunumty Educabun t oun ,110011; Better Business Key County Contacts; Voter Re<lish,it i i Bureau; SMC Convention &Visitors Bureau; Burlingame Library Assistance; Public Iransportahoo Resource,,, Foundation; SMC Ch,miber Albarn e Website t inks; E-Mail Blasts Business Networking Events ✓ Burlingame Chamber Newsletter ✓C'ornmerce After 5 City Updates; City Calendar of Events; Business v quarterly Commerce& Coffee Profiles; Targeted Business Articles; Promotional s Sh1C Business Trade Expo Inserts; Local Business News 2005 Board of Directors Your Chamber in Action "''''"' oirices n„�rro. loe la Mariana --d evali "i ✓ Business Education Services Rand, -a ✓ Service Corps.of Retired Executives(S.C.C.R.E.) �.i=riv�a�.:=•i M«„„,Rn,n,.. Mentoring Program;San Mateo/Burlingame/Foster City/Hillsborough Chambers Leadership Program Mait,aRe „, ✓ Burlingame Trolley Partnershipn. —dLewin Co-Sponsorship Rwa r,a M-1,lu h 11 — San Mateo County Progress Seminar;Peninsula .. Womens'Chamber Connection `Miu,neMare, Gty of Trees-Burlingame,CA. CITY O� B,URLINGAME O 00 DNwi[D uN[6 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of June 6, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Joe Galligan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. CLOSED SESSION: CA Anderson advised that Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following: a. Pending litigation(Government Code § 54956.9(a)): Day vs. City of Burlingame, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. CIV 436482 b. Pending litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(a)): Crisafi vs. Sargen, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 355462 PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT CM Nantell announced that future City Council meetings would be televised on Channel 27 instead of Channel 26 in hopes that this will allow a much higher quality of sound for our viewers. [Clarification: Channel 27 will broadcast regular City Council meetings for Comcast users; RCN users will continue to receive the broadcast on Channel 26.] 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Michael Reher. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Coffey, Galligan, Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. MINUTES A correction was made to the May 16, 2005 Council minutes: Item 2., to correct the name Rosalie McLoud to Rosalie McCloud. Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to approve the amended minutes of the May 16, 2005 regular Council meeting; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5. CEREMONIAL 1 Burlingame City Council June 6, 2005 Unapproved Minutes a. ROTARY—COMMUNITY GRANTS Cheryl Young, President of Burlingame Rotary Club, provided an update on Rotary projects. Sonny Da Marto, Director of Rotary's Community Service Committee, announced the local community groups who received grants from Rotary totaling $12,000. Ms. Young also announced that former Burlingame Mayor and Councilman, Vic Mangini, was the recipient of the Rotary Presidential Centennial Award; and former Burlingame Mayor and Councilwoman, Mary Janney, was named Lions Club's Citizen of the Year. b. CITY OF BURLINGAME'S 97TH BIRTHDAY Mayor Galligan announced that today is the City of Burlingame's 97th birthday and that applications have been received for the 2008 Centennial Celebration Committee. Vice Mayor Baylock announced that the 100- year celebrations would begin by honoring the first volunteer Fire Department, which was established in 1907. C. RECOGNITION OF STUDENTS FROM OUR LADY OF ANGELS SCHOOL RECORD- BREAKING TRACK MEET Mayor Galligan presented proclamations to the 6th, 7th and 8th graders of Our Lady of Angels School who achieved record-breaking status at the 49th Annual PPSL Track Championship held on May 15, 2005. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE TO AUTO ROW, SUBAREA D, REQUIREMENTS, BUILDING REGULATIONS IN SUBAREA A, LICENSING REQUIREMENTS, LOCATION OF CHURCHES AND COUNCIL PROCEDURES CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing on Ordinance No. 1753 amending the Zoning code to Auto Row, Subarea D, requirements, building regulations in Subarea A, licensing requirements, and location of churches. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Ken Putnam spoke in support of allowing car rental facilities in auto row. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. After Council discussed Council procedures on appeals of Planning Commission actions, CA Anderson stated he would submit an ordinance on these procedures for Council to consider at a later date. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Ordinance No. 1753 amending Chapter 6.38 to clarify fortunetelling locations and Title 25 to clarify uses in Subarea D of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, clearly regulate remodeling or removal of buildings in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, expressly allow churches as a permitted use in the R3 District, and reduce parking requirements for certain secondary dwelling units; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance at least 15 days after adoption. 2 Burlingame City Council June 6,2005 Unapproved Minutes b. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1754 FOR REVISIONS TO FEES FOR WATER SERVICE (FLOW TESTS, TEMPORARY WATER SERVICES AND METER INSTALLATIONS) DPW Bagdon reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing on Ordinance No. 1754 adopting revisions to installation fees for water service. 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 Ordinance No. 1754 adopting revisions to installation fees for water service; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance at least 15 days after adoption. C. CONTINUED HEARING ON APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1524 VANCOUVER AVENUE CA Anderson advised that Mayor Galligan had listened to the audiotape of the May 16, 2005 Council meeting and was qualified to participate in this proceeding. CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing on the changes made to the project at 1524 Vancouver Avenue since the May 16, 2005 Council meeting and requested Council to take action. Changes were based on two meetings with a group of neighbors. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Mike McCracken, 1528 S. El Camino Real, San Mateo, represented the applicant, Gary Partee; and Steve Anderson, 1521 Vancouver Avenue, appellant, spoke. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Resolution No. 40-2005 approving Categorical Exemption Design Review and Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope for 1524 Vancouver Avenue; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. In her motion, Councilwoman O'Mahony noted approval of the following changes to the project from the project discussed at the May 16, 2005 City Council meeting: • Window box at each window on the front as shown on the plans - not over the doorway; • Add a color-coated stucco finish with the same wood trim around the windows, but no belly band; • Stone wall would be installed in front of the lot parallel to the front property line, about three feet behind the front property line; • Reduce by tapering the grade at the front of the lot to increase the visual depth of the front from the street but not enough to affect the live Oak tree on the neighbor's lot; • That no demolition shall occur until the tree protection zone has been documented by the applicant's arborist and approved by the City Arborist and protection fence installed; • That no concrete or foundation which would affect the adjacent California Live Oak Tree shall be removed until the applicant's arborist has identified the method of removal which will be approved by the City Arborist, and the City Arborist shall certify the method of removal; 3 Burlingame City Council June 6,2005 Unapproved Minutes • The surface of the driveway shall be pervious block; and • The house shall not be painted white. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the floor. 8. STAFF REPORTS a. INTRODUCE ORDINANCES TO ESTABLISH ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE 2004 BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE INNER BAYSHORE, SHORELINE AND ANZA EXTENSION SUBAREAS CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council to introduce two ordinances amending Title 25 to establish zoning consistent with the 2004 Bayfront Specific Plan for the Inner Bayshore, Shoreline and Anza Extension Subareas and amend the definitions section of the code. Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed two ordinances. Councilwoman O'Mahony waived further reading of the proposed ordinances; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved by voice vote, 5-0. Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinances; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 5-0. Vice Mayor Baylock requested CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the proposed ordinances at least five days before proposed adoption. b. CONSIDER FURTHER AMENDMENT TO MASSAGE ORDINANCE REGARDING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MASSAGE PERMITS CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council to introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 6.40 to allow lower thresholds of training for massage practitioner permits. 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, 5-0. Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel, approved by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. C. INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10.58.030 TO CLARIFY APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ADULT-ORIENTED BUSINESS PERMITS CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council to introduce an ordinance amending Section 10.58.030 to clarify application requirements for adult-oriented business permits. 4 Burlingame City Council June 6, 2005 Unapproved Minutes 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, 5-0. Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel, approved by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Galligan requested CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. d. CONSIDER APPOINTMENT OF THREE NEW LIBRARY BOARD MEMBERS Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to appoint Bruce Carlton and Deborah Griffiths for the three-year seats and Nancy Brock to complete the term vacated by David Carr; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved by voice vote, 5-0. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR a. REQUEST TO ATTEND OUT-OF-STATE CONFERENCE FOR CITY LIBRARIAN CL Escoffier requested Council approve his attending the American Library Association Conference in Chicago, Illinois. b. RESOLUTION NO. 39-2005 APPROVING NPDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN 2005-2006 GENERAL PROGRAM BUDGET DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 39-2005 approving NPDES Stormwater Management Plan 2005-06 General Program Budget. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Items 9.a. and b. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. C. REQUEST DIRECTION ON WHETHER TO CANCEL THE REGULAR COUNCIL MEETINGS SCHEDULED FOR JULY 5 OR JULY 18 AND AUGUST 15 2005 CC Mortensen requested Council consider cancellation of the August 15 and either the July 5 or July 18, 2005 regular Council meetings. Vice Mayor Baylock made a motion to approve cancellation of the July 18, 2005 regular Council meeting; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Galligan stated that Council would consider cancellation of the August 15, 2005 regular Council meeting at the July 5, 2005 regular Council meeting. Mayor Galligan requested moving now to Item 11. Council concurred. 11. OLD BUSINESS 5 Burlingame City Council June 6,2005 Unapproved Minutes a. BROADWAY TRAIN STATION CLOSURE Councilwoman O'Mahony and PW-Assoc. Engr. Gomery provided information on the weekday peak hour shuttle service going into effect on August 1, 2005, which will replace train service between the Broadway and Millbrae stations. The schedule is designed to optimize a commuter's time when taking the Baby Bullet train at Millbrae. Ms. Gomery also reviewed continuing hourly Caltrain weekend service at Broadway. Caltrain proposes to upgrade the Broadway station by staggering the platforms. A new northbound platform is recommended for the northeast side of Broadway while the existing platform will continue to serve southbound passengers. This will reduce gate downtime at Broadway by 30 minutes a day and eliminate the need for express and local trains to wait while trains are boarding at the station. The work is tentatively planned for winter 2006. Caltrain will review suspended weekday service in eighteen months. 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. 12. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Planning, May 23, 2005 b. Department Reports: Police, April 2005; Fire, May 2005 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 9:52 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 6 Burlingame City Council June 6,2005 Unapproved Minutes CITY OF BURLINGAME UNAPPROVED MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA June 13, 2005 Conference Room A I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Galligan called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers: Baylock, O'Mahony,Nagel; Mayor Galligan Commissioners: Brownrigg, Cauchi (arrived at 6:05 p.m.)Deal, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica(arrived at 6:30 p.m.); Chair Auran Absent: Councilman Coffey Staff Present: City Manager, Jim Nantell; City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. FROM THE FLOOR It was noted that if there is not sufficient time at this meeting for public comment, the Planning Commission will be meeting immediately following and the public is welcome to make any comments they wish at the From the Floor at the beginning of the Planning Commission meeting. IV.DISCUSSION ITEM 1: UPDATE ON THE COMMISSION'S PROGRESS ON DEVELOPING IMPLEMENTING ZONING FO RHTE BAYFRONT AND NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLANS AND ON THE MAJOR REVISON TO THE SIGN CODE. CP Monroe reviewed the briefing paper she handed out on this issue summarizing the status of the work of the three Subcommittees of the Planning Commission assigned to work on the zoning implementation for the two Specific Plans and the Sign Code. The briefing paper included the currently projected public review schedule for the zoning amendment and sign code which will come to the Planning Commission and City Council for study and action. She asked if the Council and Commission wanted to schedule a study meeting in September for presentation of the new sign code. Mayor Galligan asked Councilmembers Baylock and Nagel if they would agree to join the Planning Commission subcommittee working on the sign code. If, after they come up to speed on the proposed changes, they agree with the commissioners on the subcommittee that a joint meeting is needed they should report back to the Council with a proposal. Members of the subcommittees on zoning noted that the proposed zoning, especially for the North Burlingame area is also taking a new approach which will result in a dramatic change in the appearance of the area. A Councilmember noted that it would be good to encourage more height in the El Camino Real area close to BART. CITY OF BURLINGAME UNAPPROVED MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNINGCOMMISSION MEETING June 13,2005 ITEM 2: FUTURE LONG TERM PLANNING FOR THE BULINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA. CP Monroe referred to the briefing paper for this item noting that it was divided into two related topics: (1), the economic study for the downtown area; and(2), proposals for future downtown vision and development presentations. Economic study: it was noted by the CP that City Council had directed staff in April to prepare an economic study which could be a precursor to preparing a Specific Area Plan for the downtown area of Burlingame and would provide an opportunity to look at the economics of mixed use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. The downtown area was defined as the area bounded by Peninsula Avenue (south side), El Camino Real (west side), the rear of the properties along Oak Grove Avenue (north side)and the railroad tracks (east side). In April the council set out two general purposes for the economic study: (1), to develop a baseline for the economy of the downtown area,to determine the "attraction" capacity by land use and type of business for the area, and to project the demand by use for the next 20 years or so; and(2), as a subset, to evaluate the alternatives for the mix and density of uses appropriate for future development of the combined lots at El Camino Real, Howard Avenue, Primrose Road and Fox Plaza Lane. Staff has been directed to bring a proposal for how to proceed with the economic study to the City Council at their meeting on June 20, 2005. Discussion points made by one or more participants regarding the economic study of the Downtown Area: • In the interest of time let the Planning Commission prepare the RFP and involve the community when the consultant has started. • A key interest expressed in the discussion about the economic study was evaluation of the viability of a mixed use (scale and size) on the Safeway site so may need a broader based committee to prepare the RFP to get credibility for the study. • Need to determine what is an economically viable use on the Safeway site. • The study will be funded from the Parking Enterprise Fund because of its focus on integrating public and private activities in the BACA. • A wider area than the Safeway site needs to be evaluated in the economic study. • Would like to incorporate different combinations of land uses on the Safeway site and what is necessary for a reasonable project for the developer. • Important to remember the broader vision for the area, and not get too focuses on the Safeway site. • Include an evaluation of the revenues to the city from proposed uses and the "costs" to the city for maintaining the infrastructure based on the impacts of different mixes and uses. • Determine the critical mass necessary for mixed use on a site and how the public spaces work into that. • Determine the role of the land value of the parking lots and how to arrive at that value. • How should parking work with mix of residential and commercial uses, should it be shared., and how much parking is really needed. 2 , CITY OF B URLINGAME UNAPPROVED MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCILTLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13,2005 • Look at land uses which will bring people into the downtown area, such as movie theater, boutique hotel or bed and breakfast, etc. • The current location of parking lot location in the downtown area is haphazard. • What is the cost of below grade parking, above grade structure parking,what is the appropriate mix? • The economic study will need to listen to the public and provide education for the public. • The economic study should give some idea about the size and economic impact of a project and whether we should allow a use at that size at a given site. So if the study says OK can come back with a project. • Hate to see large land use decisions made only on a financial analysis, such decisions should be based on goals set by planning for the entire area . • Should shorten time to prepare RFP so can get going. Staff noted that some of these issues identified may go beyond the economic study; and these concerns will be carried over to the Specific Plan study for the downtown area. Discussion about Proposals for Visions and Future Projects in the Downtown Area: Many of the land use density issues and allocations are part of the downtown vision which will be a focus of the Downtown Plan to be undertaken in a year and a half from now. If the idea is to proceed with the economic study now, should we tell applicants to wait for submittal for a year and a half to three years? It was generally noted that an education component is key for both the economic and specific plan. Points made in the discussion were: • It might be best to wait for these public presentations until the economist is hired so s/he can listen as well. • Feel the more presentations the better. • Educate the public, good to see the previous Ionescu and Dreiling presentations together. • Could make presentations at the first 30 minutes of Council meetings so would be televised and repeatable (video taped for rebroadcast). • Could do developer presentations in group forums. • Where does an AIA design charrette fit into this? • Feel that a design charrette is a part of the planning program. Needs some lead time to plan since these opportunities book up a year in advance. Beyond the thought that it would be useful for the public and city officials to hear from architects and developers with"visions" or proposals for the downtown area,the group arrived at no specific decision about how to do it. There seemed to be consensus that having public presentations before the city embarked on a specific plan for the downtown area was appropriate. ITEM 3: PLANNING WORK PROGRAM FOR FY 2005-2006 CP Monroe referred to her third briefing paper noting that the city's planning activities are divided into current and advanced planning She commented that there are a significant number of current planning projects in the pipe line for Commission action and the present advanced planning zoning program to 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME UNAPPROVED MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING June 13,2005 implement the specific plans adopted in 2004 will not be completed until the December/January time frame. Commissioner Auran suggested that another item be added to the department's work program for 2005-2006; tweaking the design guidelines and bringing the R-1 zoning district into more consistency with the residential design guidelines. This would speed up project reviews. It was suggested that a commission subcommittee be appointed to look at the R-1 zoning district; and that it would be appropriate for the subcommittee to include representation by the design reviewers. There was general consensus on this item. Mayor Galligan noted that the Commissioners needed to get to their meeting and encouraged any members of the audience who wished to comment on the discussion at the joint meeting to attend the Planning Commission meeting and speak from the floor at the beginning of the commission's agenda. Mayor Galligan adjourned the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting to the Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. 4 CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 5a MTG. O��RATED JV NE 6'9 DATE June 20,2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUB i By Olt DATE: June 20, 2005 A ROVED Y FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director 558-7222 SUBJECT: FY 2005-06 Budget Adoption and Gann Limit Resolutions RECOMMENDATION: That City Council conduct a public hearing and adopt the resolutions in the following order: "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Adopting Operating and Capital Improvement Budgets for the City of Burlingame Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2006." "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Establishing 2005-2006 Appropriation Limit for City of Burlingame Pursuant to Article XIII(B) of the California Constitution." BACKGROUND: The City Council held a Budget Study Session on June 8, 2005 to review the Proposed Budget for FY 2005-06. An overview of the proposed budget was presented at the study session. Each member of the Council then presented a report on their individual review of departments' budgets. The Council also provided direction on funding for community groups. The recommended funding levels were approved on June 8, 2005 and attached as part of this report. The FY 2005-06 budget totals that are recommended for adoption are as follows: Revenues: $70,670,246 Expenditures: $70,670,246 Proposed Adopted Amendments Budget Budget to the Budget General Fund...................................................... $ 36,186,383 $ 36,186,383 $ -0- Water, Sewer, Parking and Waste Enterprise Funds......... $ 20,459,733 $ 20,459,733 $ -0- Financing Authority and Shuttle Grant........................ $ 1,649,130 $ 1,649,130 $ -0- Capital Improvements Fund..................................... $ 12,325,000 $ 12,375,000 $ 50,000 Total Budget........................................................$ 70,620,246 $ 70,670,246 $ + 50,000 1 The amendment is made for the following reasons: Capital Improvements Fund: Add $ 50,000 (Water Capital Improvements Project) Total Amendments: $ 50,000 The new expenditure has corresponding revenues in the respective fund. The proposed amendments have no implications for the General Fund. ARTICLE XIII(B) APPROPRIATION LIMIT (GANN LIMIT) Article XIII(B) of the State Constitution limits all state and local government budgets to a formula based upon the 1978-79 budget plus adjustments for cost of living and population changes. In 1990, voters approved modifications to permit use of the percentage change in commercial assessed valuation to increase the limit under certain conditions. In addition, major capital improvements were excluded from the appropriation subject to the limit. Other exceptions are allowed for service charges, Federal grants and mandated programs. The Appropriation Limit pursuant to Article XIII (B) has been calculated and reviewed by the City's audit firm. The City continues to be well below its appropriation limit of$49,651,721. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A. FY 2005-06 Budget Adoption Resolution Attachment B. FY 2005-06 Appropriation Limit Resolution Attachment C. FY 2005-06 Community Funding Awards 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING OPERATING AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGETS FOR THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30,2006 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME that: WHEREAS, the City prepares an annual budget to plan expenditures in light of expected revenues; and WHEREAS, the City Council has received the proposed budget from the City Manager, conducted a public study session on January 29, 2005, and June 8, 2005, and conducted a public hearing on June 20, 2005, and the Council has received all testimony and documentation submitted in connection with the budget; and WHEREAS, the proposed budget as submitted and amended makes wise choices in spending and funding among competing programs and services, NOW,THEREFORE, IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The operating and capital improvement budget requirements for the coming year of the City of Burlingame as detailed in the copy of the Budget on file in the Office of the City Clerk are hereby adopted for the City of Burlingame for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2006. 2. The budget total is $70,670,246 and consists of- General £General Fund of$36,186,383; Water, Sewer, Parking, and Waste Enterprises $20,459,733; Capital Improvement Fund $12,375,000; and Financing Authority and Shuttle Grant $1,649,130. Mayor 1 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolutions were introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_ day of , 2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING 2005-2006 APPROPRIATION LIMIT FOR CITY OF BURLINGAME PURSUANT TO ARTICLE XIII B OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME that: WHEREAS, in November 1979, the voters of the State of California approved proposition 4,the Gann Appropriation Limit Initiative, which states that beginning July 1, 1980, all state and local government budgets are limited to a formula based upon the 1978-79 budget, plus adjustments for cost of living and population changes, and specific exceptions for service charges, federal and state grants,reserve funds, etc.; and WHEREAS, the State Legislature adopted Government Code Section 7900, implementing Article XIII B of the California Constitution, and Proposition 111 adopted in June 1990 provides new adjustment formulas; and WHEREAS, in accordance with these State laws, the City of Burlingame has prepared documentation establishing the 2005-2006 appropriation limit, and has made this documentation available to the public in the proposed 2005-2006 budget for more than fifteen(15) days before this resolution was adopted, . NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED as follows: 1. For 2005-2006, the City of Burlingame's appropriation limit is $49,651,721. 2. The Adopted Budget for 2005-2006 includes $15,749,144 in appropriations that are subject to the limit, and proceeds of taxes of$29,259,254. 3. For 2005-2006, the City of Burlingame is within the limits of Article XIII B of the California Constitution. Mayor I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolutions were introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk ARTICLE XIII(B)APPROPRIATION LIMIT Article XIII(B) of the State Constitution limits all state and local government budgets to a formula based upon the 1978-79 budget plus adjustments for cost of living and population changes. In 1990, voters approved modifications to permit use of the percentage change in commercial assessed valuation to increase the limit under certain conditions. In addition, major capital improvements were excluded from the appropriation subject to the limit. Other exceptions are allowed for service charges, Federal grants and mandated programs. In accordance with State implementation legislation (SB 1352, Chapter 1205, 1980 Statutes) and the League of California Cities Uniform Guidelines, the following is Burlingame's appropriation limit calculation: APPROPRIATION LIMIT 2004-05 Appropriation Limit $47,018,764 Plus Percentage Growth per State 1.055998 2005-06 Appropriation Limit $49,651,721 APPROPRIATION SUBJECT TO LIMIT CALCULATION Proceeds of Taxes $29,259,254 Exclusions: Qualified Capital Projects and Debt (13,510,110) Appropriation Subject to Limit $15,749,144 2005-06 Appropriation Limit $49,651,721 Appropriation Subject to Limit 15,749,144 Over/(Under) Limit ($33,902,577) xxviii FY05-06 Budget Adoption -Attachment C. (June 20, 2005) CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY GROUP FUNDING AWARDS - FY 05-06 Community Group FY 03-04 Final FY 04-05 Final FY 04-05 Plus FY 05-06 FY 05-06 Final Award Award 3% Increase Requests Award CALL Primrose Center $ 4,950 $ 4,455 $ 4,589 $ 5,000 $ 4,589 Center for Independence of Disabled $ 1,350 $ 1,215 $ 1,251 $ 1,250 $ 1,251 Community Gatepath $ 4,500 $ 4,050 $ 4,172 $ 5,000 $ 4,172 Friends For Youth $ 900 $ 810 $ 834 $ 1,000 $ - Human Investment Project $ 1,800 $ 1,620 $ 1,669 $ 3,000 $ 1,669 Mission Hospice $ 1,800 $ 1,620 $ 1,669 $ 5,000 $ 1,669 PARCA $ 1,800 $ 1,620 $ 1,669 $ 2,000 $ 1,669 Samaritan House $ 7,200 $ 6,480 $ 6,674 $ 7,000 $ 6,674 Legal Aid Society of San Mateo County $ 2,250 $ 2,025 $ 2,086 $ 2,025 $ 2,086 YFA Crisis Intervention Center $ 2,250 $ 2,025 $ 2,086 $ 2,250 $ 2,086 Shelter Network $ 4,500 $ 4,050 $ 4,172 $ 4,500 $ 4,172 Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse $ 3,150 $ 2,835 $ 2,920 $ 5,000 $ 2,920 Burlingame Community Theatre $ 3,150 $ 2,835 $ 2,920 $ 2,835 $ 2,920 Sustainable San Mateo County $ 1,350 $ 1,215 $ 1,251 $ 1,500 $ 1,251 Project FOCYS $ 3,600 $ 3,240 $ 3,337 $ - $ 3,337 Broadway By The Bay(Civic Light Opera) $ 900 $ - $ - $ - $ - Safe Harbor(Winter Shelter) $ 7,200 $ 6,480 $ 6,674 $ 7,000 $ 6,674 Burlingame Historical Society $ - $ - $ - $ 3,000 $ 3,000 Ombudsman Program of San Mateo $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Peninsula Girls Chorus $ - $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ - Totals: $ 52,650 $ 46,575 $ 47,972 $ 63,360 $ 51,138 Budget Appropriation: $ 54,500 $ 49,100 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Surplus (+)/Deficit(-): $ 1,850 1 $ 2,525 1 $ 2,028 1 $ (13,360) $ (1,138) Requested Amounts.xls 6/13/2005 CITY AGENDA 5b ITEM# BURLJNGAMIE MTG. �1nT uuc 6�0 DATE 6/20/2005 STAFF REPORT To: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED / BY 71 DATE: June 14, 2005 APPROVE BY- FROM: Y FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: ANNUAL REVIEW AND RENEWAL OF AMUSEMENT PERMITS RECOMMENDATION: Review existing amusement permits ready for June renewal and renew the following amusement permits for a 12-month period: Alibi Grandview American Bull Bar Hola Mexican Restaurant Behan's Irish Pub Hyatt Hotel Burlingame Station Brewery 11 Piccolo Caribbean Gardens Matsusono Restaurant Crowne Plaza Hotel Max's Opera Cafe Dollarwise/Hobby Unlimited Rocket's El Torito (with one revised condition) Roti Indian Bistro Four Green Fields Sheraton Gateway Hotel GoKart Racer Straits Burlingame Towles Cafe Renew the following permit for only six (6) months because the establishment is still evolving and summer will be a good time to continue to verify the performance: Blush (261 California Drive) DISCUSSION: Each June, the Police Department reports on the status of ongoing amusement permits granted by the City Council, and the Council determines whether to renew the permits. The Police Department has completed its review, which is summarized below. The attachment summarizes amusement permits in the City. Mayor and Council Re: Annual Review and Renewal of Amusement Permits June 14, 2005 Page 2 Each of the permit holders was notified of the Council review. REVIEW OF INDIVIDUAL PERMITS The Alibi. It is recommended that the establishment be placed on a yearly review. The Alibi has had a reduced number of calls for service. The establishment has only had 7 calls for service over the past year that involved problem activity. Therefore, it appears that a yearly review may be appropriate. American "Bull" Bar& Grill. There were no calls for service over the past year. This establishment continues to be a model of good management at this time. Behan's Irish Pub. There was only one call for service due to disruptive behavior over the past year. The establishment seems to be run well at this time. Blush (261 California Drive). Blush has had 13 calls for service related to disruptive behavior over its first year of operation, and fewer during the past six (6) months than the first six months of operation. However, there have been some loud music issues, so it is recommended that the permit remain on a 6-month review schedule. Burlingame Station Brewery. There have been no calls for service to the Brewery over the past year. Caribbean Gardens. There have been 38 calls for service over the past year, but only four calls involved disruptive behavior. Crowne Plaza Hotel. The hotel restaurant and bar have not had any calls for service related to disruptive behavior over the past year. Dollarwise/Hobby Unlimited. The establishment has had a permit for 5 video machines for over two years. The Department has monitored the situation and has found that the owners are meeting legal requirements for the sales of various merchandise in the store. There have been no calls for service related to disruptive behavior. El Torito. The establishment has had 22 calls for service, but none involved any disruptive behavior. The establishment asked the City to redraft its condition regarding minors as follows: "No minors shall be allowed in the Cantina when karaoke is being offered." This will allow the restaurant to clearly respond to customers' arguments about minors being allowed in the Cantina. Four Green Fields. The City has not received any complaints and only 3 calls for service. Go-kart Racer. The establishment has had 12 calls for service over the past year, but none involved disruptive behavior. Grandview. There was only one call for service and none related to entertainment. Mayor and Council Re: Annual Review and Renewal of Amusement Permits June 14, 2005 Page 3 Hola Mexican Restaurant. Hola has had 49 calls for service, with seven being related to disturbances. This establishment's change in operation has not reduced the potential problems, so the Police Department will be monitoring the situation over the summer. Staff will also emphasize the establishment's obligation to follow the terms of the permit on May 5, which was a problem during the past 2 years. Hyatt Regency Hotel. There have been 2 calls related to disturbances at the Knuckles Sports Bar or Lobby/Atrium. Il Piccolo. There have been 4 calls for service, but none related to disturbances. Matsusono Restaurant. There have been five calls for service, but none related to disruptive behavior. Max's Opera Cafe. There has been only three calls for service, with one involving disruptive behavior. Rocket's (formerly DiegRiley's). This establishment has been open about a year. Only 2 calls have been received for service involving disruptive behavior. It is recommended that the establishment be placed on an annual review. Roti Indian Bistro. There have been only 2 calls for service, and none involved disruptive behavior. Sheraton Gateway Hotel (formerly Holiday Inn Crowne Plaza. There has been one call for service involving a disturbance at the hotel, but it did not involve the bar area. Straits Burlingame. There has been only one call related to disruptive behavior in the past year; the amusement permit was approved in January and there have been no problems related to the entertainment. Therefore, it is recommended that the establishment be placed on annual review. Towles Cafe. There have been no calls related to disruptive behavior. Attachments Table summary of existing amusement permits Distribution Chief of Police OPERATOR ADDRESS TYPE The Alibi 220 Lorton Avenue Occasional entertainment—live band, acoustical and rock American Bull Bar 1817-19 El Camino Coin-operated machines Jazz band twice monthly— Sat. evening or Sunday afternoon Lounge music with up to 2 performers Private parry w/disc jockey Behan's Irish Pub 1327 Broadway Entertainers on Saturdays and recorded music on Sundays from 9:30 p.m. to 1 a.m. Blush (261 California 261 California Drive Live music, disc jockey or recorded music, 5 p.m.to 1:30 a.m., Drive) seven days a week Burlingame Station 321 California Dr. Billiards Brewery Live music on Fridays and Saturdays with no dancing California Bar& Grill 241 California Dr. Karaoke music for singing and dancing and live bands no more than 10 nights during a year from 7 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. Caribbean Gardens 1306 Bayshore Hwy. Night club with dj, live music and dancing—Wed. thru Sunday, 6:00 p.m. to 2 a.m. Security guard required at closing. No private parties Crowne Plaza Hotel 1177 Airport Blvd. Piano player,trio or 4-piece band in lounge, restaurant, and lobby Dollarwise/Hobby 1205 Broadway 5 video machines Unlimited 10:30 to 7:30 El Torito 1590 Bayshore Blvd. Music, karaoke, and dancing Fanny& Alexander 1108 Burlingame Live Music and Dancing from 9 p.m. to 2 a.m., Monday Av./303-305 through Saturday California Drive Fandorin Restaurant 1492 Bayshore Blvd. Dancing, live band, and recorded music from 11:30 a.m. tol a.m. 1 OPERATOR ADDRESS TYPE Four Green Fields 1107 Burlingame Av. Live music indoors between 12 noon and 9 p.m. GoKart Racer 1541 Adrian Road Up to 20 video games and 2 billiard tables Grandview 1107 Howard Ave. Karaoke from 10 p.m. to 1:30 a.m. Hola Mexican 1448 Burlingame Live music and dj 11 a.m. to 11 p.m., Sunday and Restaurant Avenue Monday, 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. Tuesday thru Saturday Hyatt Hotel - Knuckles 1333 Bayshore Blvd. Piano music and singers in Atrium and Dawson's 7 days a & Atrium week Up to 2 special events per month on conditions Il Piccolo 1219 Broadway Music on Thursday night; Poetry on Wednesday night; and live entertainment on Sunday afternoons Matsusono 1150 Paloma Avenue Karaoke seven nights a week 6 p.m. to 11 p.m. Max's Opera Cafe 1250 Bayshore Blvd. Piano playing and singers, 7 nights a week Rocket's 221 Park Road Disc jockey, karaoke, video machine Roti's Indian Bistro 209 Park Road Live music from 3:00 p.m. to 11:00 p.m. Sheraton Gateway 600 Airport Blvd. Piano bar in lounge Hotel Straits Burlingame 1100 Burlingame Live music and disc jockey music. from 11:00 a.m. to 10 Ave. p.m., Sunday thru Tuesday; 11:00 a.m. to midnight, Wednesday and Thursday; 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m., Friday and Saturday. No dancing allowed Towles Cafe 1401 Burlingame Av. Live music 12 noon to 11 p.m. 2 CITY G AGENDA 5C e ITEM# 6URLJNGAME MTG. STAFF REPORT "' "o DATE 6/20/2005 To: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED BY- DATE: Y DATE: June 13, 2005 APPROVED � BY— FROM: Y FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR NEW OWNER, ANTHONY KOZAK, OF CALIFORNIA BAR& GRILL, 241 CALIFORNIA DRIVE RECOMMENDATION: Approve amusement permit for Anthony Kozak as new owner of the California Bar& Grill at 241 California Drive subject to City's standard conditions for 6 months. DISCUSSION: California Bar& Grill was first approved for an amusement permit in 1986. The current permit allows karaoke for singing and dancing on Friday and Saturday nights, lingerie fashion shows on Wednesday and Friday afternoons, and live bands up to 10 times during a calendar year. The new owner is eliminating the lingerie shows and would like to continue to offer both karaoke and live music. The Police Department has reviewed the application and has no objections. The establishment has had only a four calls for service during the past year that were of substance and seems to have been managed well. Because of the new owner, staff recommends granting the permit for six months so that it can be reviewed at the end of the year. Attachment Application for Amusement Permit Proposed Conditions for Permit Distribution Anthony Kozak, 275 Coronado Avenue, San Carlos, CA 94070 Jack& Pat Casey, 2525 Poppy Drive Chief of Police Planning Department Fire Department The City ct Burlingame BS,RLJN(.AME ,amusement permit Application City Clerk's Office 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 • (650) 696-7200 NAME OF BUSINESS: t \� rid�G STREET ADDRESS: MAILING ADDRESS: 5w;5�w TELEPHONE NUMBER: n -a Lrl� 3 3 APPLICANT'S FULL NAME: X6 �� �7-1(/C �r 7 �II� L AGER STREET ADDRESS: ` G TELEPHONE NUMBER-PAE _ VIOUS ADD I LESS THAN ONE Y ATE OF BIRTH SOCIAr3YCURITY NUMBER VRIVERs UCENSE,NFUMBER PROPERTY OWNER'S FULL NAME(IF DIFFERENT): IW C ADDRESS: s- &�4,1 ��/� � L; TELEPHONE NUMBER: As proper ow:�T out th proposed amusement, and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application. S 0- SITURE DATE PRIMARY TYPE OF BUSINESS: /3/W ��/ L / ;��� � Z.'mac'' � HOURS OF OPERATION PARKING SPACES ON SITE AMUSEMENT DEVICES, NUMBER,AND TYPE: RESTRICTIONS ON USE,AGE, HOURS: ENTERTAINMENT(BRIEF DESCRIPTI N): DESCRIBE ANY O ER RESTRICTIONS AND SECURITY MEASURES: Attach a letter further d ribing details of your business and the proposed amusement. Return this completed form with $100 chec ayable City of Burli ame, for application fee to the City Clerk. You will be notified when the application is on th i C 11 agea.� Date Signature of Ap"ca !� 'loom PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR CALIFORNIA BAR & GRILL, 241 CALIFORNIA DRIVE Permit allows: Karaoke music for singing and dancing from 7:00 p.m. to midnight; and live bands no more than 10 nights during a calendar year from 7:00 p.m. to 1 :30 a.m.; one juke box; one pool table 1 . All alcoholic beverage control laws shall be strictly enforced. 2. Hours of entertainment shall be as set forth above. 3. No variance from the permitted entertainment shall occur without amendment to the permit. 4. No part of the business shall be subleased without notification to the police. 5. The amusement permit is non-transferable. 6. Any fight, ejection of customer, thefts from customers, or any other criminal act occurring at the establishment shall be reported to the Burlingame Police as soon as any employee is aware of such an incident. 7. Any request by anyone in the establishment for an employee to contact the Police shall be honored immediately, without question. 8. Any violations of the law or threatened violations shall be immediately reported to the Police Department and full cooperation shall be given by employees and management of the business. 9. Last call for alcohol service shall be 1 :20 a.m. on nights when entertainment is offered. 10. The owner shall notify the Burlingame Police Department at least two (2) weeks before having live music. The decision of the Council is a final administrative decision pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. If anyone wishes to challenge the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, they must do so within 90 days of the date of the decision unless a shorter time is required pursuant to state or federal law. C ARLES"SPRWcalbargr12005-1.ca.wpd CITYAGENDA 5d 0 ITEM# BURLINGAME MTG. STAFF REPORT DATE 6/20/2005 �gsTEo uuE d,q TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED BY DATE: June 14, 2005 APPROVED BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: APPLICATION FOR AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR NEW OWNER, IRINA LITVAK, OF FANDORIN RESTAURANT, 1492 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY RECOMMENDATION: Approve amusement permit for Irina Litvak as new owner of Fandorin Restaurant for dancing, live band, and recorded music from 11:30 a.m. to 1:00 a.m. DISCUSSION: An amusement permit for Fandorin Restaurant was approved in June 2003, for live and recorded music on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. The restaurant has had few reported problems. In the past year, there have only been three calls for service involving significant incidents. The establishment has a new owner, who would like to continue to offer live music and dancing, and because of the past history, there is no reason not to extend the permit to all seven days as the owner may elect. No changes from the conditions imposed on the previous owner are recommended. Because of the new owner, staff recommends granting the permit for six months so that it can be reviewed at the end of the year. Attachment Permit application from Fandorin Restaurant Proposed conditions for amusement permit Distribution Chief of Police City Planner Irina Litvak The City of Durlinaame BVRIJNS.AN[ Amusement permit Aualication City Clerk's Office • 501 Primrose Road • Burlingame,� CA 94010 (650) 696.7200 NAME OF BUSINESS: 7 0,'701041'19 �,G/h9. STREET ADDRESS: /" '?,2612-/ �t 0Ae e4 W-910 ��y� F�/�" Q�P� 'NAILING ADDRESS: �4/,m7e7( Dl�S TELEPHONE NUMBER: (� .344- / D APPLICANT'S FULL NAME: OR /✓/ /Vi'e{/�C/.S� lQ6U. /MANAGER) }�j_y/�,j E0 STREET ADDRESS: // TELEPHONE NUMBER: K� .3411 77oO P IF LESS THAN ONE Y�-N- UATE F BIRTH SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER 777^^^ DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER PROPERTY OWNER'S FULL NAME(IF DIFFERENT): �`� 2— 4 ADDRESS: TELEPHONE NUMBER: As property owner,I linow about th�rop a amuse74 and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application. SIG E - DATE PRIMARY TYPE OF BUSINESS: Tu�c�aN .Cun czz/ /l✓e erv� 'r7rriPir� Orr �S HOURS OF OP TION PARKING SPACES ON SITE V AMUSEMENT DEVICES,NUMBER ANNDDyTY : m� ZS. 0+1 �O aQear - RESTRICTIONS ON USE,AGE,HOURS: ENTERTAINMENT(BRIEF DESCRIPTION): �Q ('ZfJ tS tau�P KR DESCRI ANY OTHE RESTRICTION AND SE RITY MEASURES: >X APL�Q Q .�eee641-'6V Attach a letter further describing details of your business and the proposed amusement. Return this completed form with $100 check,payable to City of Burlingame,for application fee to the City Clerk. You will be notified when the application is on the City Council agenda. G/ Signature o Applic t Date CONDITIONS FOR AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR FAUDORIN RESTAURANT, 1492 OLD BAYSHORE HIGHWAY Permit allows: Dancing, live band, and recorded music from 11 :30 a.m. to 1 :00 a.m. 1 . All alcohol beverage laws shall be strictly enforced. 2. Any violations of the law or threatened violations shall be immediately reported to the Police Department and full cooperation shall be given by employees and management of the business. 3. No variance from the permitted entertainment shall occur without obtaining an amendment to the permit. 4. No part of the business shall be subleased without notification tot he Police Department. 5. The amusement permit shall be non-transferable. 6. Any fight, ejection of customer, thefts from customers, or any other criminal act occurring at the establishment shall be reported to the Burlingame Police as soon as any employee the establishment is aware of such an incident. 7. Any request by anyone in the establishment for an employee to contact the Police shall be honored immediately, without question. 8. Last call for alcohol service shall be no later than 1 :20 a.m. on evenings when live entertainment is being offered. 9. Labor Code § 6404.5 regulating smoking shall be enforced at all times. 10. No minors shall be allowed on the premises during hours when there is no food service. 11. Loudspeakers for the business shall be directed toward the interior of the business; and The business shall not violate Section 10.40.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code; and The entertainment shall not be audible outside the premises; and Upon request by the City, the establishment shall conduct noise measurements to determine whether the noise from the establishment is exceeding the 5 dBA standard for increases in noise from the baseline as provided in the Burlingame General Plan, and shall report the measurements to the City; and The establishment shall ensure that the 5 dBA standard is not exceeded. 12. Signage for the establishment shall conform to the requirements of the City Sign Code and in particular, no banners will be posted on the property. 13. At least one security person shall be provided in the parking lot between the hours of 9 p.m. and half an hour after closing on nights when entertainment is offered to 9 p.m. or later. The decision of the Council is a final administrative decision pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. If anyone wishes to challenge the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, they must do so within 90 days of the date of the decision unless a shorter time is required pursuant to state or federal law. CITY AGENDA 5e °�` ITEM# BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT " MTG. yHwt[o yyw[6.g0 DATE 6/20/2005 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED BY DATE: June 13, 2005 APPR BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AMENDMENT TO MASSAGE ORDINANCE REGARDING EDUCATION REQUIREMENTS FOR MASSAGE PERMITS RECOMMENDATION: Adopt an amendment to Chapter 6.40 that would phase-in the educational requirements from 200 hours up to 500 hours and direct City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of the date of adoption. DISCUSSION: At the February 22, 2005, Council meeting, the City Council adopted revisions to Chapter 6.40 that among other changes, required applicants for a massage permit to have completed 500 hours of education from a school recognized by the State as providing a curriculum in massage. The former requirement was for only 70 hours. At the public hearing, a citizen testified that this increase seemed to be unnecessary as many cities require 200 hours or so of education. The citizen asked the Council to consider a reduction or at the least, a phase-in of the requirements so that it would be financially possible to attain. On March 7, 2005, the Council directed staff to propose a phase-in of the education requirements in an ordinance amendment. The attached ordinance was introduced on June 6, 2005, and would provide a four-year phase-in with 200 hours this year and an increment of 75 hours being added each year in October. The annual renewal would review the additional increment. Carla Bagneschi, who has provided valuable information to the City on massage training and permits, sent the following comments to staff. It looks good. My only comment refers to Section 2(m), that states: ...applicant's successful completion of a resident course of study of theory, ethics, practice, methods, profession, or work of massage, or baths or health practice with relation thereto of the following minimum hours.... I think that the minimum 200 hours of training should be strictly in massage, so that practioners have Mayor and Council Re: Amendment to Chapter 6.40 to Phase-in Education Requirements June 13, 2005 Page 2 their core competency in that field. "Health practice in relation thereto" is fairly vague without definition, and it appears that someone who received a 200 hr. certificate in tai chi, for example, could qualify for a massage permit. My understanding was that the Council would consider allowing certification/training in other health practices to qualify towards meeting the 500 hr. requirement, but that the 200 hr. minimum training had to be in massage. In either case, perhaps a short paragraph listing acceptable,related health fields would be helpful. Staff believes that the health training has to relate to massage, such as anatomy, first aid, and so forth, under the ordinance language and this staff report as well as the comments at the previous meeting will confirm that position for any future challenges. In addition, the permit process requires a competency examination for massage. As the process evolves, we may be able to establish a list of subjects or competencies for the training, but do not currently believe that is possible. The State Legislature is also considering a bill (SB 412)that would finally implement State regulation of massage therapy. The bill would establish a State licensing system that would require 250 hours for a massage practitioner and 500 hours for a massage therapist. The principal debate so far has been whether to require 500 hours for everyone. It is uncertain if the bill will pass the Assembly, and further whether the Governor will be willing to sign the bill. The bill has passed the State Senate and has been referred to committee in the Assembly. The Council also asked staff to review a possible use of experience or apprenticeship hours in reaching the minimum requirements. However,there simply seems to be no good way of documenting or validating those hours. The National Certification Board has a portfolio certification system, but it is too vague to be used in a government regulation, and simply using the Board's certification would seem to go too far in delegating government responsibility. Attachment Summary of Bay Area Education Requirements Summary of State Education Requirements Distribution Chief of Police Carla Bagneschi 1 ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 6.40 TO ALLOW LOWER THRESHOLDS OF TRAINING FOR 3 MASSAGE PRACTITIONER PERMITS 4 5 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 6 Section 1. Ordinance No. 1750 redrafted the massage regulations in the City. One of 7 the difficulties posed by the lack of State regulation is that the basic qualification standards are 8 often difficult to meet and administer. This ordinance is intended to better phase-in the 9 training requirements over a four-year period, so that by the end of 2009,the national standard 10 of 500 hours of training will be required in the City. 11 12 Section 2. Subsection 6.40.040(m) is amended to read as follows: 13 (m) A copy of a diploma or certificate of graduation from a recognized school 14 demonstrating the applicant's successful completion of a resident course of study of theory, 15 ethics, practice, methods, profession, or work of massage, or baths or health practice with 16 relation thereto of the following minimum hours: 17 (1) Two hundred (200)hours; 18 (2) As of October 1, 2006, two hundred seventy-five (275) hours; 19 (3) As of October 1, 2007, three hundred fifty(350)hours; 20 (4) As of October 1, 2008, four hundred twenty-five (425) hours; and 21 (5) As of October 1, 2009, five hundred(500) hours; 22 provided, however, that an applicant for an operator's permit who will have no physical 23 contact with customers or clients need not possess such a diploma or certificate; 24 25 Section 3. Section 6.40.160 is amended to read as follows: 26 6.40.160 Renewal of permits. 27 Each permit shall be renewed annually, no less than ninety (90) days prior to the 28 anniversary date of its issuance. Any permit not renewed shall be null and void on such 6/20/2005 1 I anniversary date. The investigation fee for renewals shall be one hundred dollars ($100), no 2 part of which is refundable. Additional fees may be charged to cover costs such as processing 3 fingerprints. Prior to permit renewal being granted the permittee shall: 4 (1) Provide two photographs of passport size at least two inches by two inches showing 5 the head and shoulders of the applicant in a clear and distinct manner taken with the sixty (60) 6 days immediately prior to filing the renewal application and current information concerning any 7 changes to the facts set forth in the initial or immediately prior renewal application; 8 (2) Obtain a new certificate, dated within thirty (30) days of the renewal, from a medical 9 doctor stating that the licensee is free from infectious, contagious or communicable diseases 10 capable of being transmitted through therapeutic massage; 11 (3) Obtain clearance from the police department that the permittee has had no arrests or 12 convictions for violations listed in subsection 6.40.080(a)(3) or(4) above since the permit was 13 issued or last renewed. 14 (4) Provide a copy of a diploma or certificate of graduation from a recognized school 15 demonstrating the applicant's successful completion of a course of study that satisfies the then- 16 current requirements of subsection 6.40.040(m) above. However, this requirement does not 17 apply if the original permit was approved March 22, 2005. 18 Upon complete submission of this information together with the required filing fee, the permit 19 shall be renewed. 20 21 Section 4. Section 3 of Ordinance No. 1750 is amended to provide as follows: 22 The provisions of Section 6.40.040(m) contained in this ordinance shall apply as 23 follows until October 1, 2005: 24 (a) Any person who can demonstrate to the satisfaction of the chief of police that the 25 person has been practicing massage in the City of Burlingame for a continuous period of six (6) 26 months before March 1, 2005, under the exemptions contained in Section 6.40.050 as it existed 27 on February 1, 2005, need only provide proof that the person has successfully completed 28 seventy(70) hours of training in a Recognized School in order to be granted a conditional 6/20/2005 2 I massage technician's permit under chapter 6.40. As a condition of such a permit, the person 2 shall be required to have completed a total of two hundred seventy-five (275) hours of training 3 at a Recognized School or Schools within twelve (12) months of the date of issuance of the 4 conditional permit. 5 (b) This conditional permit process shall not apply to any permit application received 6 after October 1, 2005. 7 (c) The requirements of section 6.40.040(m) shall not apply retroactively to any massage 8 permit that was approved by the City of Burlingame before March 22, 2005. 9 10 Section 5. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 11 12 Mayor 13 14 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that 15 the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6t' 16 day of June, 2005, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17 day of , 2005, by the following vote: 18 19 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 20 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 21 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 22 23 City Clerk 24 C:\FILES\ORDINANC\massage2005-2.bpd.wpd 25 26 27 28 6/20/2005 3 CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 5f �oA 90 MTG. �NATEC JUNEb DATE 6.20.05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BYL"T'— DATE: JUNE 10, 2005 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: ACTION ON ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH ZONING NSISTENT WITH THE 2004 BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE INNER BAYSHORE, SHORELINE AND ANZA EXTENSION SUBAREAS Recommendation: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on the ordinances revising and amending the zoning district regulations for the Inner Bayshore, Shoreline and Anza Extension subareas of the Bayfront Specific Plan. Both ordinances may be included in one public hearing. Following the public hearing the Council should act on each ordinance separately e.g. by separate motion and vote. The ordinances by title are: i. Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 to Adopt an Inner Bayshore District and Add Clarifying Definitions. (attached to staff report) ii. Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 to Adopt a Shoreline District and to Clarify Unclassified Lands Conformance to General and Specific Plans (attached to staff report) Affirmative action on an ordinance requires a minimum of three of the five council members votes. If adopted these regulations will become effective in 30 days, July 20, 2005. 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. ACTION ON ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE 2004 BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE INNER BAYSHORE,SHORELINE AND ANZA EXTENSION SUBAREAS June 20,2005 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 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 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. BACKGROUND: At the City Council meeting on June 6, 2005, the Council reviewed the proposed regulation changes for the Inner Bayshore, Shoreline and Anza Extension (Unclassified zoning district) to implement the Bayfront Specific Plan adopted April 5, 2004. Council set the public hearing on the zoning changes for the June 20, 2005 meeting. This item has been noticed in a newspaper of general circulation. 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. Each subarea had something that was distinctive about it. 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. For example the Inner Bayshore area is currently zoned O-M (Office Manufacturing), the Shoreline area is currently zoned C-4 (Waterfront Commercial) and the Anza Extension is currently zoned Unclassified. 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 2 ACIYON ON ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE 2004 BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE INNER BAYSHORE,SHORELINE AND ANZA EXTENSION SUBAREAS June 20,2005 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, Shoreline and Unclassified zoning regulations) The zoning districts being considered here are the two which lie to the northeast of the Broadway Interchange (Inner Bayshore and Shoreline) and the City owned Bayside Park and waste water treatment plant area (Anza Extension). (See Map attached) It should be noted that the entire Anza Extension subarea is in public ownership, so zoned Unclassified. No changes are proposed to the fundamental land use requirement of the Unclassified zone e.g. a conditional use permit for any use. However, an amendment is proposed to require that any future use be consistent with the design guidelines adopted for the area. This provision would apply to all properties zoned Unclassified in the city. Should there be no design guidelines adopted for an area zoned Unclassified elsewhere in the City, such as Burlingame High School, then the requirement would not be applied. Also included in the update of the zoning are new definitions necessary for consistent administration of the revised code. An important aspect of the new Bayfront Specific Plan was to incorporate design guidelines for new development. Implementation of the design guidelines resulted in a change to the approach to site development regulations incorporated into the regulations of the Inner Bayshore and Shoreline zoning districts. In order to reflect these more modern "smart growth" directives, setbacks and height requirements are based on established minimums as well as maximums. For example, to encourage a varied street wall along Bayshore Highway, 40% of a new structure must be built at the front setback line (10 feet), and an additional 15% at 15 feet; the remaining 45% of the building face may be placed at any setback greater than 15 feet desired by the developer. Another technical point is that each of these subareas will have its own zoning district regulations, so the city's zoning map must also be amended. Following adoption of the zoning regulations, City Council will be asked to introduce an ordinance amending the city's zoning district map. Finally, the Bayfront Implementation Subcommittee of the Planning Commission is continuing to work. Zoning for the two remaining subareas, Anza Area and Anza Point, will be coming forward to the City Council in the next several months. 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 further limits both land uses and development standards to match those in the facing shoreline subarea for properties with street frontage on Bayshore Highway. Specific issues for the Inner Bayshore subarea zoning addressed by the Subcommittee and Planning Commission were: 3 AMON ON ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE 2004 BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE INNER BAYSHORE,SHORELINE AND ANZA EXTENSION SUBAREAS June 20,2005 ➢ 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 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 4 ACTION ON ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE 2004 BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE INNER BAYSHORE,SHORELINE AND ANZA EXTENSION SUBAREAS June 20,2005 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 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. General Plan Amendment The Planning Commission is recommending as a part of the zoning, that hotels/motels as a land use be prohibited in the interior, industrial and heavy commercial portion of the Inner Bayshore subarea, and encouraged in the overlay area along the west side of Bayshore Highway. As presently written the land use portion of the Bayshore Specific Plan would allow hotels/motels in the interior area of the Inner Bayshore subarea. If the zoning is adopted as proposed, the Specific Plan will need to be amended. Staff will bring all the plan amendments required after the zoning for the Bayfront planning area is completed to the City Council at one time for action. Shoreline Subarea (C-4,) The Shoreline Subarea is located between San Francisco Bay and Bayshore Highway. The entire area is generally one lot deep, with the rear of the properties with Bay frontage and located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC). The specific plan directs that development in this area should take advantage of the bay shoreline and focus on visitor-oriented development. The Bay Trail was recognized as vitally important to the success of achieving the city's development goals. The major change in land use pattern suggested in the Bayfront Specific Plan was the identification of three potential "retail nodes" located in places accessible to both visitors, bay trail users, and employees in the area. Visual accessibility from the Inner Bayshore subarea to the Bay was important. The zoning regulations treat the 5 AC77ON ON ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE 2004 BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE INNER BAYSHORE,SHORELINE AND ANZA EXTENSION SUBAREAS June 20,2005 Shoreline subarea as a unit. The overlay zone in the Inner Bayshore subarea on the west side of Bayshore Highway reflects the dominant land uses in the Shoreline subarea. The plan limits the land uses to: hotels/motels, offices, destination restaurants, and retail. Since the pattern of development, except for the retail nodes, is well developed in this area. The following the zoning issues were identified as changes from the present C-4 zoning: ➢ Hotels and motels are an existing dominant use in this area. With a few exceptions the regulations remain the same. The proposed additions to the present hotel use include requiring: shuttle service for hotel guests and a place to park the shuttle on site; allowing a car rental desk if parking for rental car inventory is provided on-site in addition to required parking; requiring additional on site parking if the hotel restaurant has an exterior entrance (becomes a destination restaurant). Allowing with a conditional use permit: a park and fly program, more than 65 rooms to the acre, and more than 1.0 FAR. Staff would note that 65 rooms to the acre has been the density standard in the City since the 1980's and many of the existing hotels are built close to that maximum. The Subcommittee felt that by allowing more with a conditional use permit, the city would be supporting upgrading these facilities as they got older. This has already occurred with the DoubleTree. Any new or expanded hotel would be required to fit within the Traffic Allocation for the site or get an exemption prior to coming before the Planning Commission with a project. ➢ The location of schools and classroom uses in the Shoreline area were a topic of much discussion with the Subcommittee. Generally it was felt that a campus oriented educational facility would be appropriate along San Francisco Bay; but individual small school uses were not appropriate because of their impact on parking. However it was noted that generally the parcels in the Shoreline subarea are long and narrow, as well as generally small for a "campus" type of educational institution. For these reasons, the Subcommittee determined that school uses were more appropriate in the Anza Point area where there were larger parcels which could be developed to suit this use. ➢ Long term airport parking uses were allowed as an interim use in the Bayfront area in the 1981 plan. The subcommittee discussed this use, and determined that the use that should be addressed is "commercial parking lots" because the land use impact is not just from parking lots that people use to leave their cars while traveling, but would include off-site BART parking lots and similar commuter lots. A definition of"commercial parking lots" was added to the code (see definitions); and the term "commercial parking lots" replaced the term "long term airport parking lots" in the prohibited uses section. ➢ In the Shoreline subarea there are three "retail nodes" identified (see subarea map). The written description in the plan implies that only one of these areas should be developed with retail uses to support the retail needs of the visitors and employees in the area, including gas stations. To restrict retail uses to just one of these nodes would require that the subcommittee select one of the three and create an overlay zone allowing retail uses only in this area. Since there are existing nonconforming retail uses including gas stations in each of the three nodes identified and it is difficult to determine which might "take off' first, the Subcommittee did not limit retail uses to only one of the three identified nodes. 6 ACTION ON ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE 2004 BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE INNER BAYSHORE,SHORELINE AND ANZA EXTENSION SUBAREAS June 20,2005 ➢ Setbacks, minimum lot sizes and development standards. A fundamental change introduced by the new plan is a new approach to development standards which emerged from the adopted design guidelines for the Shoreline subarea. They represent a substantial change for development along the Bayshore Highway street frontage; will encourage the entrances and parking for hotels to be on the sides of the buildings away from the street, and will require that loading docks and trash enclosures generally to be located at the sides or rear of buildings sometimes facing the Bay Trail. The design guidelines describe the purpose, intention and reason for the all of these changes. The zoning requirements address spatially separating utility functions (trash enclosures and loading docks) from the Bay Trail. The Subcommittee's concern endorsed by the Planning Commission was that the code properly reflects the intent of the combination of the land uses including recreation and the design guidelines. In some cases the design guidelines do not provide direction, on side setbacks for example, so the intent was interpreted. The Planning Commission amended the Subcommittee's recommendation on front setback requirements in order to create a stronger street edge by requiring that 40% of the a structure be placed at 10 feet from the front property line, 15% be placed no farther back than 15 feet from the front property line. The remaining 45% of the fagade may be located more than 15 feet back if the architect desires it. The Planning Commission reviewed and recommends all the setback interpretations finding them consistent with the intent and objectives of the adopted plan. General Plan Amendment In the Shoreline subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan it is proposed that retail uses (except restaurants) should be concentrated in one of three identified retail-nodes. As the zoning was prepared it became clear that it would not be possible to provide the flexibility of opportunity to develop one of three and the limitation of developing only one. So the zoning recognizes all three. The language of the land use portion of the Shoreline subarea needs to be amended to address the fact that there might be more than one retail-node in the Shoreline subarea. Like the plan amendment needed in the Inner Bayshore subarea. Following adoption of all the zoning for the Bayfront planning area all the plan amendments will be brought to the City Council for action at one time. Anza Extension Subarea The Anza Extension subarea houses Bayside Park(Upper and Lower Decks, and Dog Park) and the City's Waste Water Treatment Plant. In the Specific Plan no changes are expected to the land uses in this area. The current zoning is Unclassified. This is a zoning district applied throughout the city to publicly owned land. It requires a conditional use permit for any use added or changed. The Planning Commission suggested one change to the Unclassified regulations: that along with a conditional use permit consideration of any addition to a use or change of a use or construction be found consistent with the land use direction and design guidelines expressed for the site in any plan adopted for the area. New Definitions In revising the code, new terms emerge. To insure consistent interpretation, definitions are added to the definitions section of the zoning code (Chapter 25.08). The new definitions added to assist in the application of these three 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: Map of the Subareas of the Bayfront Specific Planning Area, adopted April 2004. Planning Commission Minutes May 9, 2005. Action Recommendation to City Council. 7 ACTION ON ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH ZONING CONSISTENT WITH THE 2004 BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE INNER BAYSHORE,SHORELINE AND ANZA EXTENSION SUBAREAS June 20,2005 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 Draft Ordinance of the City of Burlingame amending Title 25 to Adopt an Inner Bayshore District and Add Clarifying Definitions. Annotated: Bayfront Specific Plan Implementation Inner Bayshore Subarea Zoning, April 22, 2005 Draft 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. Map Shoreline Subarea, land use Draft Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 to adopt a Shoreline District and to Clarify Unclassified Lands Conformance to General and Specific Plans. Annotated: Bayfront Specific Plan Implementation Shoreline Subarea Zoning Land Use Description for Shoreline subarea. Bayfront Specific Plan, April 2004 Design Guidelines for Shoreline subarea, Bayfront Specific Plan, April 2004 Map Anza Extension, land use Annotated: Bayfront Specific Plan Implementation Anza Extension Subarea Zoning. Land Use Description for Anza Extension subarea, Bayfront Specific Plan, April 2004 Design Guidelines for Anza Extension subarea, Bayfront Specific Plan, April 2004 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 June 10, 2005 U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR 2005\ActionBayshoreZngIB Shoreline Anza Ex 6.20.05.doc 8 Figure III-1 - General Land Use Map BURLINGAME BAYFRONT f� SPECIFIC PLAN horeline General Land Use Map See Figures III-2 through III-6 for Subarea Land Uses Legend �za M Inner Bayshore Office and Warehouse ® Shoreline Waterfront Commercial Anza Extension `O 01 , Public Facilities- Park ® Anza Area Waterfront Commercial Anza Point Waterfront Commercial City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan III-1 General Plan 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. X1, -41L-ANNER-REPURTS� w of City Council regular meeting of May 2, 2005. CP Monro ewed the actions of the Council meeting of May 2, 2005. Commission also di Dan Ionescu's request, s ted that he had also made a request to the City Counci ce a "Smart Growth" presentation similar to one a at the Progress Seminar. Council suggested that how to go forward on this be discussed at the jom CounciU P mg Commission meeting on June 13, 2005 at 6:00 p.m. before the regular Commission meets 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 e 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 ma eria s or a ac ion meeting. X14 A i 7 ii11�� 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 nsent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simulta ess sepa e discussion and/or action is requested-by t e applicant, a member o t e public or a commissionerprior to t time the commis 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 A NEW DE CHED GARAGE IN AN R-2 ZONE (JO MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AN 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 VN FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BASEMENT FOR NEW, INGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TRG ARCHITECTSAND ARCHITECT; KEITH RUZICKA, PROPERTY OWNER 65 NOTICED PROJCATHERINE BARBER Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audie e 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. Bojues noted that he would r use himself from the vote on item 3C, 20 Carmelita Avenue, since he lives within 500 feet of the p 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 calen 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 igg. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve 3A 1340 Sanc z Avenue, and 3 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. Bojues, Deal abstaining, C. Keighran absent). A eal prQcedures were advised This item �nnnlu rl At 8:10 p.m. 3 I Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Inner Bayshore Area Land Use Map - Office and Warehouse Hefei 65-rr rt'• Offices 0.9 FAR (� Retail < 5000 SF Warehouse 0.5 FAR Light Industrial 0.5 FAR Nil- Resta ant Overlay -84-5-1P Properties with Bayshore Highway Frontage • "-r — o tSXYZ w 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 fron ages. 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) 1 I and the Light Industrial District(M-1)zones. In its uses,this District shall be consistent with the interl 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 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 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 rentea 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; 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 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 0) Hotels,motels, and extended stay hotels without lot frontage on Bayshore Highway; 22 (k) Long term airport parking facilities; and 23 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: 5 1 (1) Free standing food establishments with a floor area ratio of no more than 0.15 and wit 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 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 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 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 113 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; 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. 9 1 (2) At least sixty(60) percent of the area between the front property line and the front of any-J.., 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: 10 1 ©rtnerciat.-req, 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 P� d remises and use thereof for the retail 23 distribution of gasoline directly to motor vehicles except semi-trailer trucks, bil 24 }_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 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. 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 Mayor 26 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_day of 13 1 , 2005, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2 _day of ,2005, by the following vote: 3 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 4 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 5 City Clerk 6 C:\FILES\Planning\innerbayshoredraft.ord.wpd 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 14 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. !lass or-seheel use in e stf:uetures ever-20,000 gross squar-e feet, where the total ehis-8 er seheel use does net exee Afvnty(20)pereent of the gressfleer area on the site, and with par-king as set for-th in Seetion 25.43.090(4)-, �— 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 22,1005 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; 6) 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 Bayshore subarea and to the Bayfront Specific Plan. This means that the city's General Plan, of which the Bayfront Specific Plan is a 1�4.e 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, autemobile fental 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 El 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 .-IN 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 4, } Burlineame 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, a 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 prov i _ 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 Land Use Ma 0 Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Inner Bayshore Area Land Use Map- Office and Warehouse Hotels 65 rms/acre Offices 0.9 FAR G Retail. <5000$F s,O Warehouse OS FAR Light Industrial 0.5 FAR S f Restaurant Overlay-0.15 FAR FYI Properties with Bayshore Highway Frontage r rr�■ City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan 111-2 General Plan Burlin ame Bayfront S ecific 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 scam 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-pro erties 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 �laN Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines N � UT � a � Inner A rerea Features Features \`gyp � - d 5 � iz.�n.►a`•a��,M. � \ ice_\�J_ \:... � ,^ Building/Street Relationships Inner Bayshore Area g s p Goat: To create a mixed district of industry To create a consistent and attractive and business with pedestrian-oriented buildings and streetscape and focused. streetscape,buildings should be located Tela- 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 .....k entrances at the building corner_ "°'-'"~•�•"� Curb cuts should be limited to ease pedestrian/vehicular a o r conflict. prop �b�OQ Qp� Businesses fronting on Bayshore Highway should have �., 1 an attractive 15'landscaped front setback and a 8'-10' F....F_- wide sidewalk. Businesses fronting on all other streets should have an attractive 10'landscaped front setback and at.least a 6' . "".` sidewalk_. Seating areas should be encouraged within the front set- back. From setbacks sboatd be rwmwent oW attnxmr. 4 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- scapmg, signage and streetscape standards should be the same for properties in both the Shoreline and Inner Bayshore areas that front on Bayshore Highway.. Additionally: 0 o0 • An average of 15'landscaped front setback is appropri- ate • Lighting should emphasize pedestrian users,not build- ing facades. 8'-10'Sidewalk width is appropriate. Attractive parking areas should be located to the rear and sides of the building to encourage a pedestrian-friendly street edge. • There should be a consistent pattern of street trees and street lights. Bayshore Highway should receive priority in and r...:..R Ls—b*9 D„kfii I teat 2S•T■ streetscape program. . 'r Parking Attractive, landscaped parking areas should be located to the rear and sides of the build- ing to encourage a pedestrian-friendly street ' 0 0 0 s,"„`' edge. Additionally: • Parking is not allowed in front setback. at L.eaat SOX M..ISn=F.ond�e • Parking should be screened with landscaping and/or low screen walls Buildings should be located relatively dose to the street with ottroctivek • Truck loading areas should be located to the rear of landscape front setbacks. buildings,and screened from view. • Parking entry drives should be encouraged to be shared Buffer with adjacent businesses to minimize multiple curb- Ptwr cuts. � .. ng Lor • Parking areas should be broken up with landscape fm- Will 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. �'Grcen. Landscaping f mser5- Street Trees A consistentand PaviM Demils Low, formal landscaping treatment w2H should be developed throughout the Inner Bayshore Area. Additionally: A consistent formal landscaping treatinent should be developed _ 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 /f parking and loading areas. N \ Landscape features should not just be visually appeal- ing,but also should function as open space amenities to be used and enjoyed. 71 1 �L .a9 j Landscaping should enhance the site,but not obscure building signage and entrance areas. - 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 Yew Corridors can be framed by buildings,and may terminate with a landscaping. landmark bu8ding • 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: t Views may be framed by buildings. View corridors may terminate with a_landmark building. Signage 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- ridors- View or- ridors_View corridors at the ends of streets shall tie into visual openings to the bay across Bayshore 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 Attractive sigrwgc directories mra e encouraged to help provide oyfirding elements_ in the District • Projecting signs should be attractive and eye-catching. 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 1 1 1 decorative element. BUauNGAHE • 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- Mn1BRAE Attractive signage directories should be encouraged to help provide wayfinding within the Inner Bayshore District. A gateway feature on Boyshore Highway at the Burftngome I Mil(bme border should be a landscape treatment with a monumental bridge design_ Gateways Gateway features should be located on pri- vate land at prominent locations along the edges of the Inner Bayshore Area. Additionally: ° u °o01 aA' • Any gateway feature on Bayshore Highway at the Burlingame/Millbrae border should be a landscape treatment or pocket park with a monumental bridge 10/ T— O/ • a` ® �r d design. Coordination with the City of Millbrae would T�4 �`` Y 13 py at, be required. r-C--Q— ° ® d • Gateways should maintain a consistent design motif '�`a�ion E �` '` �• throughout the Inner Bayshore Area. • •,, � �. Consistent landscaping should be encouraged,but shouldn't conceal busi- U.S. 101 Frontage nesses that rely on being seen by U.S_101 tra/fec_ U.S. 101 Frontage treatment'should 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_ CITY OF BURLINCAMF- 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 ` t The streetscape in the Inner Bayshore area should be consistent, attractive and well- tr unr' lroj roir-tz 1,1 rao m s �'„�;� n�� tr�t..t r�;;�„��� defined. Additionally:. ,tet � • Streets should be designed for both the automobile and the pedestrian/bicyclist. • A variety of lighting features should be used to accom- Bayshore Highway is envisioned 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. tin.. Bayshore Highway should receive priority in any Olr sr...e.,,s streetscape program. The street should be designed as a 4--d .0&" "Grand Boulevard"with landscaping,lighting and sidewalks standards the same on both sides. r•�• Landscaped medians and left turn lanes should be developed along Bayshore Highway. Exact locations ' \ should be determined by the Department of Public Works. t'-1P SAYstwne Hw+mAr sia.w�rk Building Design A wide variety of fighting should be encouraged Building facades should animate the street, providing visual interest to passers-by. ShjppinL Additionally: t,,— J It "�` Buildings should have entries directly accessible and visible from the street. Tawe Et—c Entries should be marked by architectural features such as projecting overhangs,special lighting,awnings and I 0 oFF� Q signage that emphasize their importance. p Dp U� Building facades should be designed to have a rhythm 0 and pattern and should be articulated as an expression of the building use. . Projcct:nf O—O.-V W.d—,t The use of reflective or dark-tinted glass should be dis- \\ v-n-ea<. Street Ecra couraged,especially at ground level,because it creates nttrxtire an effect which lacks the visual interest of clear window Entry openings - Building design should animate the street,providing visual interest to Building facades should be articulated with a building passers-by base,body and roof or parapet edge. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-10 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines ti. All visible sides of buildings should be designed with. the same level of detail- . etal• 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-11 General Plan Permitted,Conditional and Prohibited Uses for Inner Bayshore,Bayshore Highway Overlay and Shoreline Subareas ... ........ . . . ..... ............. Shoreline ..... .. ........ .... ........ ..... .............I ... ................. .............................. Accessory Uses Necessary for Permitted Uses Air Courier,Delivery,Freight Forwarding Class/School<20%of GFA in Buildings;20,000 SF Health Services&Medical Cliriics:<- Health Services<8�0=00 SF WW SF in Structures>20,000 SF in Structures>20,000 SF Incidental Food Establishment in Multi- Use B ......... Restaurants<0.115FAR ldg to ......... ......... Lab/Clean Room .......... ..... 49 Light Industrial/Manufacturing 5 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 and Retail SalemService<6000 SF 50%of floor area of structure CL ........ ......... Trash Enclosures Required Warehouse&Storage/Distributiorri ... .... .......... E0.5 FAR Free Standing Food Establishments Commercial Recreation w/Related <0.15 FARRetails Sales<1500 SF .......... Motel/Hotel<65 Rooms/Acre Motel/Hotel<65 Rooms/Acre ......... &<1.0 FAR <1.0 FAR Psychic Services ...... Psychic Services Adult Oriented Business %%......... Publicly Owned Recreation Facilities Auto Rental X. .......... Class/School>20%of GFA in Buildings>20.000 SF ......... ...... Conference S Exhibition Facilities Convention&Exhibition Facilities .......... .......... Drive Intake Out Services Associated Drive Intake Out Services Associated Drive Intake Out Services Associated with Permitted or Conditional Use with Permitted or Conditional with Permitted or Conditional Use Incidental Food Establishments Which Are Not Primary Use of Building Light Industriat/Manufacturing Which Exceeds Criteria .. ...... ....... Outdoor Storage>10%of Site #A ---ii;;;�&ceeding FAR or Land Use a) ' Densty or Design Guidelines Projects That Do Not Comply to iw/Design Guidelines Structures>35'in Height Structures>35'in Height Structures>40'in height Located win 100'of Shoreline O Use Similar To Permitted Which Does Use Sknilar To Permitted Which Does s > Use Similar To Permitted Which Does 0 Not Exceed Traffic Analyzer Not Exceed Traffic Analyzer Not Exceed Traffic Analyzer HoteWWtels Which Do Not Meet Hotel/Motel with>65 rooms/acre 0 Criteria ............... and/or with>1.0 FAR L) C ......... nin rcial Recreation wl Relate Commercial Recreation offim Retails Sales>1500 SF Gas Stations with Limited Repair " Gas Stations in Retail Node with nor Services&<600 SF Retail Sales Auto Repair Services&<500 SF Retail Sales Incidental Food Sales&Services<100 Incidental Food Sales&Services<-00 SF in Office Buildings>20,000 SFeSF xclusive access to outside in Office Buildings>20,000 SF Massage/RathingrTanning Retail Sales&Personal Service<0.5 FAR in Designated Retail Node Structures>66'in Height or 5 Stories Structures Wider Than 50%of Lot Front or ExceedfideiSetih WkR firements Adult Oriented Business Auto Dealers&0nS;netedLBoUtssA"uto Leasing In Freestanding&Office Bldg Auto Dealers&Sales Lots ........ Auto Dealers&Sales Lots Auto Rental Exceeding Performance Auto,Tnrck&Other Vehicle Rental& Auto,Truck&Other Vehicle Rental& Criteria ........ Storage -Auto Wrecldng/Jur*prd . .... Auto WreckwWJunkyard Auto Wreddng(Junkyard Freestanding Food Establishment Restaurants&Food Establishments V) >0.25 FAR to Gas Stabons/Aurlo Repair.Body Shop HoWlMoWEXIended Stay Hotel D ............. Extended Stay Hotel Extended Stay Hotel outside overby) 4) "'Livery Business&Storage Lhnwine/Livery Business&Storage LimosinerLivery Business&Storage Long-Term Airport Parking Long-Term Akport Parking ....... Massage/Bathing/Tanning thing/Tanning O` Obnoxious Use Obnoxious Use Psychic Services Residential uses Residential Residential Uses ........ ....... Outdoor Storage ........ Outdoor Storage ......... .......... comineirclai Parking Lots Manufacturing&Warehousing ......... ..... Medical Clinics&Health Services . ............... .......... ........ .......... .. ........ ...... ... .......... ....................................... .. ............... ... ..... . . ....... ... .......... .......... ......................... .... .. ............... . ... .. ... . . ............. .... ............... ......... ................ . .. ... .. ............ . .. --- ......... Draft 03117105 + � i Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Shoreline Area Land Use Map - Waterfront Commercial I . ® Hotels 65 rms/acre Offices 0.9 FAR Restaurants 0.15 FAR Sites with Characteristics for Potential Retail Node - G One Only - 0.5 FAR o� Open Space N 6 I ORDINANCE No. `— 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 TO ADOPT A SHORELINE DISTRICT AND TO CLARIFY 3 UNCLASSIFIED LANDS CONFORMANCE TO GENERAL AND SPECIFIC PLANS 4 Section 1 . In 2004, the City Council adopted a revised Bayshore Specific Plan to guide 5 development and use of the Bayshore Area of the City. Among the subareas in the Plan is the Shoreline, 6 7 which includes a variety of uses and lot sizes. This ordinance implements the Specific Plan for this subarea. 8 9 Section 2. A new Chapter 25.41 is adopted to read as follows: 10 Chapter 25.41 11 C-4 Shoreline District Regulations 12 Sections: 25.41 .010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 13 25.41 .020 Permitted uses. 25.41 .025 Conditional uses. 14 25.41 .030 Prohibited uses. 25.41 .040 Setbacks, minimum lot sizes, and development standards. `— 15 25.41 .045 Height and bulk of buildings. 25.41 .047 No variance for lot size or street frontage. 16 25.41 .050 Landscaping and general design requirements. 25.41 .052 Design review. 17 25.41 .060 Public access. 25.41 .080 Parking requirements. 18 19 25.41 .010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 20 It is the purpose and policy of this chapter to establish and maintain land uses for the areas 21 designated as Shoreline and Anza Extension subareas in the Bayfront Specific Plan, and to cause 22 development of buildings and structures that will benefit from their proximity to the open water areas 23 of San Francisco Bay and will support and be beneficial to the public access and use of this irreplaceable 24 natural resource. Development of these areas should contribute positively to the economic future of the 25 city. In creating this district, the city asserts that economic as well as aesthetic advantages accrue to the 26 land, the occupants and the public from the required controls and regulations. In addition, these 27 regulations insure that new development can be supported by the local roadway system and other public 28 infrastructure. 511712005 1 1 25.41.020 Permitted uses. 2 The following uses are permitted in the Shoreline district: 3 (a) Commercial recreation facility that includes the sale of merchandise and items which are 4 related to the principal use but does not exceed one thousand five hundred(1,500)square feet of support 5 retail sales area; 6 (b)Restaurants with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.15; 7 (c) Motels and hotels with a maximum density of sixty-five (65)rooms to the acre and a floor 8 area ratio of 1.0 or less; facilities provided on site may include such retail sales and service uses as meal 9 and beverage services, barber and beauty shops, smoke shops, shuttle bus service to serve only hotel 10 guests so long as the operation does not use parking required for primary hotel use, convention and 11 meeting facilities,and similar services which are clearly incidental and accessory to provision of lodging 12 accommodations; a motel or hotel may also have no more than one dwelling unit within the motel or 13 hotel structure that is used exclusively by the owner or manager of the motel or hotel; 14 (d) Publicly owned recreation facilities; 15 (e) Office uses with a maximum floor area ration of 0.9; and 16 (f) Adult oriented businesses that meet all of the requirements of chapters 25.76 and 10.58 of 17 this code. 18 19 25.41.025 Conditional uses. 20 The following are uses requiring a conditional use permit: 21 (a) Motels and hotels with more than sixty-five(65)rooms to the acre or with a floor area ratio 22 more than 1.0,or both; facilities provided on site may include such retail sales and service uses as meal 23 and beverage services,barber and beauty shops, smoke shops, shuttle bus service to serve only hotel 24 guests so long as the operation does not use parking required for primary hotel use, convention and 25 meeting facilities,and similar services which are clearly incidental and accessory to provision of lodging 26 accommodations; 27 (b) As part of a hotel or motel use, an automobile rental desk or a park and fly program-, 28 associated with the renting of rooms and that does not affect the availability of on-site parking for hotel 5/17/2005 2 I or motel guests and the use and parking for any on-site meeting facilities; 2 (c) Retail sales and personal service uses which are located in a designated retail node as shown 3 on the Shoreline subarea plan, which depend on proximity to San Francisco Bay and have a maximum 4 floor area ratio of 0.5; 5 (d) Commercial recreation facility including the retail sale of merchandise and items which are 6 related to the principal greater than one thousand five hundred(1,500) square feet ; 7 (e) Incidental food sales and services in office buildings of twenty thousand(20,000)square feet 8 or more, not to exceed a maximum of one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet and without 9 exclusive access to the outside; 10 (f) Gas stations with a maximum of five hundred(500)square feet of retail sales area and limited 11 to minor automobile repair services,excluding specialty food shops,and limited to the areas identified 12 as retail nodes in the Shoreline Subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan. 13 (g) Buildings and structures that exceed forty (40) feet in height when located within one 14 hundred (100) feet of the San Francisco Bay shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and `-- 15 Development Commission. 16 (h) All buildings, structures and site plans that do not comply with the adopted Design 17 Guidelines in the Bayshore Specific Plan for the Shoreline subarea as established by resolution of the 18 city council; 19 (i) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted and conditional uses; 20 0) Massage,bathing,tanning or similar establishments when in compliance with chapter 6.40 21 or 6.41; 22 (k) Structures over sixty-five(65) feet in height or five(5) stories; 23 (0 Structures which are wider than fifty(50)percent of the lot front or exceed the side setback 24 requirements; 25 (m) Any use similar in nature to one which is permitted or for which a permit is required in this 26 district at a density determined not to exceed the trip generation for the planned use of the site using the 27 adopted Bayfront traffic analyzer. 28 5/17/2005 3 1 25.41.030 Prohibited uses. 2 Uses not listed as permitted or conditional shall be prohibited, including: 3 (a) Automobile dealers and sales lots, wholesale and retail, including automobile leasing, 4 freestanding and in office buildings. 5 (b) Automobile truck and other vehicle rental and associated rental storage,except a car rental 6 desk only is permitted inside hotels; 7 (c) Automobile wrecking,junkyards, storage or baling of scraps,paper,rags, stacks or metals; 8 (d) Extended stay hotels; 9 (e) Limousine and livery businesses and associated storage facilities; 10 (f) Restaurants and food establishments greater than 0.25 FAR; 11 (g) Commercial parking lots; 12 (h) Manufacturing and warehousing except as designated and limited in the permitted uses; 13 (i) Medical clinics and health services; 14 6) Outdoor storage of merchandise,inventory,and material, including automobile storage lot 15 not related to a permitted or conditional use on the same lot or parcel;however,boats and boat trailers 16 may be displayed in connection with permitted marinas; and 17 (k) Residential uses including mobile homes except for an owner/manager residence within 18 a motel or hotel as expressly permitted above. 19 20 25.41.040 Setbacks,minimum lot sizes, height, and development standards. 21 (a) The following minimum setbacks shall apply to all buildings and structures and shall apply 22 to any enlargement thereof: 23 (1) Front setback. Structures shall be set back at least ten (10) feet. At least fifty-five (55) 24 percent of the buildings on the lot shall be set back between ten(10) and fifteen(15) feet from the lot 25 front,and at least forty(40)percent of the buildings on the lot shall be set back at ten(10)feet from the 26 lot front. 27 (2) Side setback. Structures shall be set back at least ten(10)feet from side property lines,and 28 no more than fifty(50)percent of the lot front shall be occupied by structures; 5/17/2005 4 1 (3) Rear setback. Structures shall be set back at least ten(10) feet from rear property lines. 2 (4) Setbacks from shoreline. In any event,structures shall be set back an average of seventy-five 3 (75) feet between structures and the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development 4 Commission;in addition,for any building that is forty(40)feet or taller,then the setback of the building 5 to the shoreline shall be equal to or greater than the height of the building. 6 (b) No parking spaces shall be provided within the ten(10) foot minimum setback across the 7 lot front on any property. Driveways are allowed in the setback, but the driveways shall not be 8 considered as landscaped area. No parking areas shall be located between any structure and the lot front, 9 except for loading zones. Placement of parking shall be consistent with the design guidelines for the 10 Shoreline subarea. 11 (c) To provide a view corridor,the width of a structure or combined structures on a lot shall not 12 obstruct more than fifty(50)percent of the length of the property line on Bayshore Highway; and the 13 development shall be consistent with the design guidelines for the Shoreline Subarea. 14 (d) No structure shall exceed a maximum height of sixty-five (65) feet or five (5) stories, �.. 15 whichever is less; 16 (e) There shall be a maximum lot coverage of thirty-five (35)percent; 17 (f) There shall be a minimum lot size of twenty thousand(20,000) square feet and a minimum 18 street frontage of fifty(50) feet. No property in the district shall be divided or subdivided into a lot 19 with less area or less street frontage. 20 21 22 25.41.045 Height and bulk of buildings. 23 For every project hereafter constructed or reconstructed in the Shoreline zoning district, the 24 height and bulk of buildings shall be further limited and based on the density of use established for the 25 Shoreline subarea in the Bayfront Specific Plan. For a use whose density is based on floor area ratio, 26 the building height and bulk is further limited and determined by the building or buildings relation to 27 the area of the lot or lots upon which the building is located as determined by the adopted ratio. Where 28 the density of the use is determined by some other standard than floor area ratio,the height and mass of 5/17/2005 5 I the structure or structures shall be further limited and based on the adopted design guidelines tl, 2 development constraints documented in the Bayfront Specific Plan and zoning regulations for the area 3 in which the property is located. 4 5 25.41.047 No variance for lot size or street frontage. 6 No variances for lot size or street frontage shall be granted to any property within the Shoreline 7 district. 8 9 25.41.050 Landscaping and general design requirements. 10 Standards for landscape and design in the Shoreline district are taken from the Bayfront Specific 11 Area Design Guidelines and shall be supported in their implementation by incorporation of the adopted 12 guidelines: 13 (a) A minimum of fifteen(15)percent of the total area of each property or group of properties 14 to which a land use is applied shall be suitably landscaped and the landscaped portions shall be proper] 15 maintained. A landscape plan shall be submitted with any application for an approval under this title 16 for any use on the lot. 17 (b) At least sixty(60)percent of the area between the front property line and the front of any 18 building on a lot shall be landscaped. Where no building exists along a lot front, at least sixty (60) 19 percent of the front setback area shall be landscaped. Landscaping may include walkways and seating 20 features; driveways shall not be counted as landscaped area. 21 (c) A minimum of ten(10)percent of all parking areas shall be landscaped. 22 (d) Each building or group of buildings upon a lot or parcel of land shall provide a fully enclosed 23 area for refuse,garbage,and recycling containers and such an enclosure shall be placed only at the sides 24 or rear of the building or buildings, not within one hundred (100) feet of the rear property line, and 25 outside the jurisdiction ofthe Bay Conservation and Development Commission..Details ofthe enclosure 26 shall be submitted as part of the design review. 27 (e) Loading docks and truck loading access shall be fully enclosed and shall placed only at th 28 sides or rear of the building,no closer than one hundred(100)feet to the rear property line,and outside 5/17/2005 6 I the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Details of the enclosure shall 2 be submitted as part of the design review. 3 4 25.41.052 Design Review 5 Construction and alterations including substantial construction or change to more than fifty(50) 6 percent of the front facade or change to more than fifty(50) percent of any fagade facing a public or 7 private street or parking lot shall be subject to design review based on the design guidelines for the 8 Shoreline subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan and shall be processed as provided in section 25.57.030. 9 (a) A design review application in the Shoreline district shall be reviewed by the planning 10 commission for the following considerations: 11 (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles as defined in the design guidelines for 12 the Shoreline subarea; 13 (2) Respect and promotion of the streetscape by the placement of buildings to maximize the 14 commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces, and by locating parking so that it does L.- 15 not dominate street frontages, and for properties fronting on Bayshore Highway, that the design 16 contributes to the interface with the Inner Bayshore subarea as directed in the Bayshore specific plan; 17 (3) On visually prominent and gateway sites,whether the design fits the site and is compatible 18 with the surrounding development and consistent with the design guidelines for the Shoreline subarea; 19 (4) Compatibility of the architecture and landscaping with the design guidelines for the 20 Shoreline subarea including materials used in existing development,location and use of plant materials, 21 and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; 22 (5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the lot that is 23 consistent among primary elements of the structure(s) and with the directives of the design guidelines 24 for the Shoreline subarea; 25 (6) Provision of site features identified in the design guidelines such as landscaping and 26 pedestrian circulation which enriches the existing opportunities of the commercial neighborhood. 27 (b) When any part of a commercial structure is subject to design review, any awnings on the 28 commercial structures shall be included in the design review. 5/17/2005 7 1 (c) Exemptions from design review: 2 (1) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for development in the Shoreline 3 district filed before and certain amendments to those applications or permits as 4 specifically provided in Ordinance No. 5 (2) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for developments in the Shoreline 6 district filed before 5:00 p.m. on and certain amendments to those applications as 7 specifically provided in Ordinance No. 8 9 25.41.060 Public access. 10 (a) An average of seventy-five(75)feet of the lot as measured from the shoreline as defined by 11 the Bay Conservation and Development Commission shall be maintained and developed for public 12 access based on the city-adopted and Bay Conservation and Development Commission-approved Public 13 Access Guidelines for Burlingame. 14 (b) All areas improved for public access within the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation an 4 15 Development Commission shall be maintained by the property owner and shall be available to the public 16 in perpetuity as determined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; 17 18 25.41.080 Parking requirements. 19 All uses shall provide parking in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 25.70 of 20 this code with the following changes or additions: 21 (a) Food establishments. Establishments for the sale and consumption on the premises of 22 beverages, food and refreshments shall provide the following: 23 (1) Customer parking shall be provided on-site at the rate of one car space for each one hundred 24 (100) square feet of gross floor area; and 25 (2) In addition, employee parking shall be provided on-site or within reasonable proximity, in 26 the judgment of the city planner, at the rate of one car space for each one thousand(1,000) square feet 27 of gross floor area. 28 (b)Bay Trail parking. On sites with frontage on San Francisco Bay,the Bay Conservation ani. 5/17/2005 8 I Development Commission shall determine the number of on-site parking spaces to be designated for `- 2 public Bay Trail Access parking;these on-site spaces shall be designated from the required parking for 3 the site, shall be available to the public without charge during the hours that the Bay Trail is open, and 4 shall be posted as public access parking by the property owner as required by the Bay Conservation and 5 Development Commission. 6 (c)Hotels. A hotel shall provide the following additional parking: 7 (1) One designated parking space for a shuttle bus; and 8 (2)For any food establishment on the hotel property that has an entrance separate from the hotel's 9 main entrance, the number of parking spaces required for a food establishment under chapter 25.70. 10 (d) Gas stations. For each gas station with retail sales provided on-site, there shall be two (2) 11 on-site parking spaces provided and designated for retail sales customers in addition to on site parking 12 required for minor automotive repair services provided on site. 13 14 Section 4. Section 25.12.041 is amended to read as follows: �- 15 25.12.041 Continuation of existing use of unclassified lands. 16 Any existing use of unclassified land which was heretofore legally permitted may continue but 17 may not be changed to any other use,expanded,extended beyond present confines or otherwise modified 18 without a conditional use permit from the planning commission h p P g .NOW,.. �e'. :..,. 19 '.. 4 . ? .. � - 20 21 22 Section 4. This ordinance is to be published according to law. 23 24 25 Mayor 26 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 27 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the—day of 28 2005, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the- 511712005 9 I _day of , 2005, by the following vote: 2 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: 3 ABSENT: COUNCMMEMBERS: 4 City Clerk C:\FILES\Pianning\sborelinedraft.ord.wpd 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5/17/2005 10 Annotated Shoreline District April 28,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action Bayfront Specific Plan Implementation Shoreline Subarea Zoning (with annotations) Draft:April 28,2005 Planning Commission Action PC study revisions(March 28,2005) Changes in boldface italics Chapter 25.41 Shoreline District Regulations Annotation: The regulations which follow will apply only to the Shoreline Subarea as designated in the adopted 2004 Bayfront Specific Plan. The subarea in the plan will be addressed individually in terms of implementing zoning. The Shoreline and Inner Bayshore subareas will each have zoning districts which apply to them alone . The Anza Extension subarea will continue to be zoned Unclassified e.g. each use or development will require a conditional use permit . The Anza Area and the Anza Point subareas will each have their own zoning regulations . Changes shown in italics below are those suggested by the Subcommittee during their review of the first draft of the ordinance. Sections: 25.41.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 25.41.020 Permitted uses. 25.41.025 Conditional uses. 25.41.030 Prohibited uses. 25.41.040 Setbacks, minimum lot sizes. 25.41.0451-leight and bulk of buildings 25.41.047No variance for lot size or street frontage 25.41.050Landscaping and design requirements. �" 1 Annotated Shoreline District April 28,2005 Draft ..� Planning Commission Action 25.41.052 Design Review 25.41.060 Public access. 25.41.080 Parking space requirements. 25.41.090 Height and bulk of buildings. Section 25.41.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. It is the purpose and policy of this chapter to establish and maintain land uses for the areas designated as Shoreline and Anza Extension subareas in the Bayfront Specific Plan, and to cause development of buildings and structures that will benefit from their proximity to the open water areas of San Francisco Bay and will support and be beneficial to the public access and use of this irreplaceable natural resource. Development of these areas should contribute positively to the economic future of the city. In creating this district, the city asserts that economic as well as aesthetic advantages accrue to the land, the occupants and the public from the required controls and regulations. In addition, these regulations insure that new development can be supported by the local roadway system and other public infrastructure. Annotation: This section establishes the purpose of the zoning regulations to implement the policies, land use designations, land use densities, and design direction of the Bayfront Specific Area Plan for the Shoreline subarea which was amended by the City Council to the Burlingame General Plan on April 5, 2004 . Section 25.41.020 Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the waterfront commercial district: (a) Commercial recreation facility that includes the sale of merchandise and items Which are related to the principal use but does not exceed one thousand five hundred(1,500) square feet of support retail sales area; Annotation: Commercial recreation uses are currently allowed by the zoning in the Shoreline subarea. "Commercial recreation facility" is defined as a recreation facility operated as a business and open to public for a fee. (Definition has been added to the definitions section of the code, see below) . The principle change to the current requirements proposed is to allow a "modest" retail -� 2 Annotated Shoreline District April 28,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action sales component for sale of equipment, food or specialized services on-site to accompany/support the recreational use. To avoid the retail sales component overtaking the primary public recreation use, the retail space was limited to 1,500 SF which is what is allowed in the O-M zone for incidental retail uses such as a coffee shop or news stand in an office building with more than 20,000SF of floor area. (See end of code section for definition of Commercial Recreation Facilities) b)Restaurants with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.15; Annotation: The 1981 Bayfront Plan established the FAR for restaurants/food establishments in the C-4 district at 0.15 FAR. This FAR was based on the fact that restaurants in this area would be destinations, with limited walk-in traffic accessed almost exclusively by car. The FAR was never put in the zoning, but was administered through design guidelines in the 1981 Bayfront/Anza Plan. For consistency of administration it is suggested that the FAR be included in the zoning along with the use. With the destination feature of restaurants in this area in mind, the parking requirements were also increased in 1981 from 1:250 gross square footage to 1:100 GSF (for customers) plus 1:1000 GSF(for employees) . Other than walking from your hotel on the Bay Trail there is no way for customers or employees to get to restaurants east of US 101 except by car. Since 1981 a number of restaurants have been built in this area and this FAR and parking requirement have worked very well; so no change is proposed. (c) 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 service uses as meal and beverage services,barber and beauty shops,smoke shops,and shuttle bus service to serve only hotel guests so long as the operation does not use parking required for primary hotel use,convention and meeting facilities,and similar services which are clearly incidental and accessory to provision of lodging accommodations;and no more than one dwelling unit within the motel or hotel structure that is used exclusively by the owner or manager of the motel or hotel; Annotation: The only change to the existing zoning regulations in this section is the addition of the density of rooms per acre. Previously we took the density per acre number from the land use in 1981 Bayfront Specific Area Plan and imposed it on the zoning. Since many developers look at the zoning first and then the plan, 3 Annotated Shoreline District April 28,2015 Draft Planning Commission Action adding the rooms per acre and baseline FAR to the zoning p ovides better information earlier in the development process . Si ce 1981 a conditional use permit has been required for devel pment of more than 65 rooms to the acre. For that reason the conditional uses section will include hotels of more than 5 rooms to the acre in this area. By doing this, a conditio al use permit not a variance will be required for more than 65 rooms/acre. Findings for a conditional use permit are eas 'er to make, and the administration of the hotel regulations will stay the same. FAR, which was included as a review line in the conditional use section in the current C-4 zoning, has bee added here as a maximum. However, because FAR, like rooms to th acre, is included with the conditional uses, it becomes a "revie line" for which the findings are less difficult than a variance. Generally conditional use permits for more rooms and floo area were allowed in the past if the intersection capacity as documented by the Traffic Analyzer of the intersections affected by the project was adequate to handle the traffic generate by the larger proposal . it should be noted that in the Curren Specific Plan, extended stay hotels are not allowed inthe Shoreline subarea because it has developed as a center for transient hotels and the remaining sites are small . Also 't should be noted that a definition of "hotel room" has been dded to the proposed regulations to insure the quality of the h tel products being developed in Burlingame. (see new definitio s section) . Shuttle bus services have been added as allowed n- site support services at hotels. (d) Publicly owned recreation facilities; Annotation: Presently the only publicly owned recreation facility in the Shoreline area is the Wildlife Sanctuary. Listing this as a use would clarify that public recreation areas include Supp rt facilities such as rest rooms, back stops, snack shops, so Long as they are publicly owned. (e) Office uses with a maximum density of 0.9 floor area ratio; Annotation: Office uses are presently allowed in this subarea as a pe ' tted use. The Specific Plan establishes a floor area ratio for o fice development of 0 . 9 . The FAR is included in the regulation or consistence. As an historical note, 0 . 9 FAR is the office development density used in the 1981 Bayfront plan for this area. The Subcommittee suggested that, based on the plan, 0 . 9 FAR is the maximum density for office development in this area so, to 4 Annotated Shoreline District April 28, 2005 Draft Planning Commission Action �- exceed that amount would require a variance as well as documentation based on the Traffic Analyzer that there was sufficient intersection capacity to accommodate the cumulative traffic impacts . (f) Adult-oriented businesses that meet all of the requirements of chapter 25.76 and 10.58 of this code. Annotation : This use came to be permitted in the C- 4 because it was prohibited in all other zoning districts in the city . Since it is not legal to zone a use out of the city altogether , it was determined that the C-4 zone was the most appropriate zone for this use and a location in which the use could be appropriately monitored and policed . NO change is proposed . Section 25.41.025 Conditional uses. The following are uses requiring a conditional use permit: (a) Motels and hotels with more than 65 rooms to the acre and with a floor area ratio more than 1.0; facilities provided on site may include such retail sales and service uses as meal and beverage services, barber and beauty shops, smoke shops, automobile rental desks and shuttle bus service to serve only hotel guests so long as the operation does not use parking required for primary hotel use, convention and meeting facilities, and similar services which are clearly incidental and accessory to provision of lodging. (b) As a part of a hotel or motel use, an automobile rental desk or a park and fly program associated with the renting of rooms and that does not affect the availability of on site parking for hotel and motel guests or the use of parking for any on site meeting facilities. Annotation : The subcommittee noted that in the current economic times , more airport oriented hotels are engaging in "park and fly" programs . This is a program in which the a guest rents a room in a hotel for one night and is allowed to leave his car on the premises for free or a small fee , for a period of time (days to weeks ) . Currently this use is addressed in the conditions of approval for hotel in Burlingame . This provision would clarify that a conditional use permit is required for any hotel which wishes to pursue a park and fly program and what the issues of concern are to the city . Each CUP is reviewed individually and the city can determine at the time whether the program should be allowed and, based on expected impacts , what the operating parameters of the 5 Annotated Shoreline District April 28,20 5 Draft Planning Commission Action particular park and fly program should be. Car rental faci ities were also added as a conditional use because of the impact that cars have when using required on site parking for storage of rental cars for rent and returns. Original annotation: To avoid a variance for hotels wanting to add rooms in excess of 65 rooms acre which might, as the esult of an upgrading addition become larger than 1.0 FAR, hotel with more than 65 rooms to the acre and/or an FAR greater than .0 are also shown as a conditional use. This provision would pply to a request for more rooms even if the project was within the FAR. Conversely it would also apply if the hotel were adding square footage to exceed 1.0 FAR by adding meeting space, Jor example, but did not propose to increase the number of roods. This would avoid the Commission having to make variance findings based on a hardship on the property if an existing hotel, built close to 65 rooms to the acre, wants to do an upgrade which includes adding some rooms. Since the plan encourages destination or transient traveler hotels in the Shoreline subarea and there are a considerable number of hotel properties there now, this seems to be an appropriate encouragement for maintenance and future investment in this revenue generati g land use. This approach of providing for an conditional use permit, e.g.. commission discretion, for an increase to a developme t standard is used in other districts where performance criteria are set out, see M-1 as an example. Since shuttle buses are required to support the lower on-site parking requirement for hotels and livery operations are prohibited in this zone, the addition of this language mak s it clear that hotels may provide for the storage and operatio of shuttle bus services on their sites if they choose to do s . s (c) Retail sales and personal service uses which are located in a designated ret ' node as shown on the Shoreline subarea plan, which depend on proximity to San Franci co Bay and have a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5; Annotation: Previously psychic services were included as a permitted us in p this district. However, this use was reclassified as a ' sonal service" use and should no longer be called out separately n the zoning code. Psychic services may now be located in any district where personal service use is allowed or conditio 1. Free standing retail sales and service uses, other than restaurants were prohibited in the Bayfront area in the 19 1 plan. Retail sales and service businesses include what to y we 6 Annotated Shoreline District April 28,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action refer to as "personal services" including beauty shops, shoe repair, dry cleaning, etc. Retail sales and service uses were allowed back into the Shoreline subarea in the 2004 plan but only to be located in a single visitor/employee serving retail node envisioned as small shops to serve visitors. It was anticipated that the development in the node would be and centered on some kind of indoor commercial recreation destination such as a movie theater. Because of the vision of the retail node, retail sales and service uses in this area were limited to a maximum FAR of 0 . 5 . Parking to code requirements (1:400 SF) must be provided on site for these uses. The Subcommittee felt that given the nature of the three commercial node areas identified, that narrowing this regulation to one area would not be necessary. (d)Commercial recreation facility including the retail sale of merchandise and items which are related to the principal greater than one thousand five hundred(1,500)square feet; Annotation: Having the commercial recreation use as both permitted and conditional would allow commercial recreation facilities which wish to have more than 1, 500 SF total retail space of secondary support retail activities the opportunity to ask for more by applying for a conditional use permit. Otherwise the retail sales and service uses would be limited to 1, 500 SF and any overage would be prohibited by the zoning. These secondary uses might include a snack bar, video game parlor, etc. Receiving a conditional use permit does not exempt the operator from other regulatory provisions of the Municipal Code, such as permits for more than three video machines on one premise. (e) 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 and without exclusive access to the outside; Annotation: At study the Planning Commission suggested that 1, 000 square feet of incidental sales in services in a large office building was probably not enough and this number should be increased to 1, 500. This change has been made in both the Inner Bayshore and Shoreline areas zoning. Original Annotation: Incidental food sales are allowed in the Bayshore overlay area of the Inner Bayshore subarea across the street . In the first draft of the Shoreline provisions this opportunity was not addressed. The purpose of these food sales 7 Annotated Shoreline District April 28, 2005 Draft --� Planning Commission Action areas is to provide employees in the building with a place ,, to get a quick cup of coffee or a pre-made sandwich . For that reason the spaces are kept small . One concern is that these incidental sales areas will become destinations , beyond supporting the employees in the building . That is not the intension of this provision . On the bayside this is particularly key, since there is a market for walkers and visitors to have a place to buy a inexpensive meal they can eat outdoors . For this reason whale 1 , 500 SF of building area is allowed on the west side ( inland side ) of Bayshore Highway it is proposed to allow only 1 , O00 SF on the bayside . Moreover , to reduce the possibility of this incidental food sales becoming a " destination" a provision to not have the food sales area have a direct public access to the outside of the building has been added . On the west side of Bayshore highway the maximum permitted size was 1 , 500 SF . (� Gas stations with a maximum of five hundred (500) square feet of retail sales area and limited to minor automobile repair services, excluding specialty food shops, and limited to the areas identified as retail nodes in the Shoreline Subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan. Annotation : The Subcommittee felt that gas stations were a visitor serving --� retail use so should be allowed with other retail services in the Shoreline area as they are in the overlay portion (west side of Bayshore Highway) of the Inner Bayshore subarea . So the gas station provision is the same with one exception . In the Shoreline subarea gas stations will be limited to those areas identified as " retail nodes " , as will all other retail uses . It should be noted that the Subcommittee was concerned about the trend for gas station operators to team up with drive through franchised food servers . To make it clear that such food providers are not appropriate in combination with gas stations , a rider was added to the provision that specialty food shop flood establishments are not allowed on gas station sites . Specialty food establishments are defined in the zoning code as businesses in which the customer stands in line , orders from a posted fixed menu , pays in advance , and where the volume of business from the site exceeds the seating . (g) Buildings and structures that exceed forty (40) feet in height when located within one hundred (100) feet of the San Francisco Bay shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Annotation : The BCDC adopted guidelines call out 40 feet as the " control " -� 8 Annotated Shoreline District April 28,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action height within their jurisdiction. Staff does not know where the 35 foot number came from, except that in most zones in the city there is a review line at 35 feet. Since the newly adopted design guidelines for the Shoreline subarea and the BCDC guidelines both call out 40 feet at the review line limit within BCDC jurisdiction it is appropriate to make the zoning consistent. (h)All buildings,structures and site plans that do not comply with the adopted Design Guidelines in the Bayshore Specific Plan for the Shoreline subarea as established by resolution of the city council; Annotation: Presently the C-4 zone includes this provision. The proposed provision is modified slightly because the 1981 design guidelines were overlaid on the zoning, and the measurable standards such as apparent width or setbacks were not written into the code. With the shoreline zoning district as many as possible of the measurable design guidelines have been incorporated into the regulations. This provision addresses the more "visual" aspects of the design guidelines such as adequate landscaping within parking areas or landscaping along the bay trail, where it would be difficult to place measurable standards on the intent of the code. (i) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted and conditional uses; Annotation: This existing provision provides review of uses which include drive-in/through or take-out services. It was placed in the code to require review of any drive-in/through service. over the years it has been applied to photo vendors, restaurants, ATM machines and banking, etc. It is most useful in reviewing impacts caused by the uses from curb cut locations, turning movements, noise, etc. For this reason it should be retained, especially given the one sided roadway access of the majority of properties in these subareas. (j) Massage,bathing,tanning or similar establishments when in compliance with chapter 6.40 or 6.41; Annotation: This is a use which is prohibited in other zoning districts in the City. Since the law requires that uses be allowed some place in the city, massage, bathing and similar establishments are allowed as a conditional use in this zoning district. 9 Annotated Shoreline District April 28, 2005 Draft -� Planning Commission Action (k) Structures over sixty-five (65) feet in height or five (5) stories; (1 ) Structures which are wider than fifty (50)percent of the lot front or exceed the side setback requirements; Annotation : Height review lines , setting a maximum and allowing with a conditional use permit addition height , are used throughout the Burlingame Zoning Code . For example in multiple family residential zones the city has a review line at 35 feet . This means that any structure proposed to be taller than 35 feet in such a zone requires a conditional use permit ( Planning Commission review) . Since the findings for a CUP are not as rigorous as those for a variance , the Commission can decide on a case by case basis how much height over the review line and under the maximum height line is appropriate . In such a determination the commission would take into account the location, design , location and other factors which might affect the compatibility of the proposed structure with the fabric of the development and city development policy for the area where it is located . In the case of the height review line for the Shoreline subarea , the FAA has a varying aviation height limit over this area because of the -� proximity to the take off - landing pattern at SFIA . For that reason the FAA may not allow buildings taller than 65 ' in some locations and allow buildings as tall as 150 ' in other locations within this subarea . The height review line will give the city the opportunity to be flexible based on design taking safety and policy in to consideration as well . The 65 foot review line was chosen because it is the minimum aviation ceiling for part of this subarea . This same review line principle has been extended to building widths at the front of the lot and side setback requirements . This means that applicants may ask for a conditional use permit instead of a variance for exceeding ,either building width and/or side setbacks . One reason for adding building width and side setbacks to the review lines is that the design guidelines for the Shoreline area refer to a range ( 40% to 60% ) in the case of building widths , and are less directive on side setbacks , relying more on the siting of the building and maintaining view corridors , which may have a lot to do with how the neighboring property is developed . The Subcommittee felt in their review that a review line was the appropriate way to see that these provisions of the design guidelines were implemented as intended . (m) Any use similar in nature to one which is permitted or for which a permit is -� 10 Annotated Shoreline District April 29,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action required in this district at a density determined not to exceed the trip generation for the planned use of the site using the adopted Bayfront traffic analyzer. Annotation: This new provision provides the commission and council with the latitude to allow new uses which behave like currently known uses to locate in the Shoreline area with a conditional use permit so long as the new use is "similar in nature" to a permitted or conditional use and it is not projected to generate more trips (traffic) to and from the sight than those it would generate if it were used for a known permitted or conditional use. The Subcommittee felt that over the years this latitude would extend the life of the zoning provisions and add flexibility which would facilitate accomplishing the objectives of the Bayfront Plan for the Shoreline subarea. Section 25.41.030 Prohibited uses. Uses not listed as permitted or conditional shall be prohibited,including: (a)Automobile dealers and sales lots,wholesale and retail,including automobile leasing,freestanding and in office buildings. (b)Automobile truck and other vehicle rental and associated rental storage,except in hotels only a car rental desk; (c)Automobile wrecking,junkyards,storage or baling of scraps,paper,rags,stacks or metals,- Annotation: etals,Annotation: The Subcommittee asked that for clarity these uses, which are also prohibited in the Bayshore overlay area (west side of Bayshore Highway facing the Shoreline area) also be prohibited in the Shoreline subarea. The reason for the addition was to insure implementation of the land use policy of the Specific Plan that the two sides of the street have compatible development. All of these uses are allowed as permitted uses in other zoning districts of the city. (d)Extended stay hotels; Annotation: The Bayfront Specific Plan included extended stay hotels in the area east of US 101, except for the Anza Point area. The plan 11 Annotated Shoreline District April 28,20 U Draft Planning Commission Action also excluded residential uses from the entire area east o US 101. Since hotel can be seen as a broad term by developers it is important to make clear in the zoning what we mean. This provision, backed up by definitions in the definitions sec ion, which define the characteristics of each sub-set of hotel . (e) limousine and livery businesses and associated storage facilities; Annotation: Limousine and livery (bus) businesses are uses which have een a continual parking problem in the Inner Bayshore area. The e operators tend to rent space in office buildings and use t e required on-site parking to store their fleets. This caus s a shortage of on-site parking during the day and security p oblems for controlling overnight parking which can lead to abuse y long term airport parkers. As a result of the impacts of thes uses, many office building owners allow no on-site parking overn ght, which results in these businesses making major use of on-s reet parking for their fleet vehicles over night. Since there i little or no on-street parking in the Shoreline area, all wing these uses could result in serious problems. Even if the e tenants met the on site storage requirements for their use as outlined in the M-1 district regulations, they are unattra tive appearing from the street and bay trail, and not the best se of bay frontage property. (f) Restaurants and food establishments greater than 0.25 FAR.; Annotation: This provision sets a maximum size for a restaurant or foo establishment in the Shoreline subarea. The maximum permit ed size in the Specific Plan is 0 . 15 FAR. Given the shoreline location the parking alone to support a restaurant over 0 .2 FAR would resemble a "sea" of asphalt, which is not consistent ith the shoreline design review guidelines. A food establishme t with an FAR greater than 0 .25 would be prohibited. A food establishment between 0 . 15 and 0.25 FAR would require a variance. Finally such a large restaurant or complex of successful restaurants and bars would generate more trips and have an rea wide impact on the character of the area not currently anticipated in the plan. In the plan, food service, bars, tc. are viewed as secondary uses to support the hotels and oth r uses in the area, not as attractor uses . 1 12 Annotated Shoreline District April 28, 2005 Draft Planning Commission Action `— (g) Commercial parking lots; Annotation : After discussion the Subcommittee and staff agreed that " long term airport parking" the previous term in this provision was perhaps to narrow . The use which was not desirable was any large private parking lot operated for profit . The large expanse of paving , the under use of the land, the fact that each use in the area is required to provide sufficient parking on site , would mean that such lots would be used by those coming into the area to leave their cars . In addition to the traffic impacts , this is not an appropriate use for valuable bay frontage property; and does not support the recreational usage of the Bay Trail . (h) Manufacturing and warehousing except as designated and limited in the permitted uses; Annotation : This does not represent a change from the in the original C-4 zoning district regulations . (i) Medical clinics and health services; Annotation : The subcommittee determined that there were no employers in the Shoreline area requiring the need for health services and medical clinics which could not be met in the overlay area on the west side of Bayshore Highway . For this reason the two uses were added to the prohibited uses list . One concern expressed was the 24 hour nature of these uses , particularly medical clinics . 0) Outdoor storage of merchandise, inventory and material including automobile storage lots not related to a permitted or conditional use on the same lot or parcel; however, boats and boat trailers may be displayed in connection with a permitted marinas; and (k) Residential uses including mobile homes except for an owner/manager residence within a motel or hotel as expressly permitted above; Section 25.41.040 Setbacks, minimum lot sizes and development standards. Annotation : The Subcommittee wanted the entire commission to look over the �'" 13 Annotated Shoreline District April 18,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action new approach to development standards that have emerged from the new design guidelines for the Shoreline subarea. They represent a substantial change for development along the Bayshore Highway street frontage; will encourage the entrances and parking for hotels to be on the sides away from the street, and will require that loading docks and trash enclosures generally be at the rear of buildings facing the Bay Trail. The design guidelines describe the purpose, intention and reason for the all of these changes. The Subcommittee's concern was that the code properly reflects the intent. In some cases the design guidelines do not provide direction, on side setbacks for example, so the intent was interpreted by the Subcommittee. (a) The following minimum setbacks shall apply to all buildings and structures and shall apply to any enlargement thereof: (1) Front setback. Structures shall be set back at least ten(10)feet. At least fifty-five (55)percent of the buildings on the lot shall be set back between ten(10)and fifteen(15)feet from the lot front,and at least forty(40)percent of the buildings on the lot shall be set back at ten(10)feet form the lot front. Annotation: The Planning Commission at study(March 28,2005) noted that there is a need to create a "street wall" along Bayshore Highway as well as provide "view corridors" to the Bay in the Shoreline subarea. For this reason the commission suggested that while 40% of a building must be set at 10 feet from front property line, there should be a maximum setback for at least part of the building to insure that the street edge is defined. This would mean that 55% of the length of a building would need to be within 10 to 15 feet of the front property line. The remainder of the building-face could be setback farther. original annotation: The Subcommittee discussed the problem of encouraging articulation along the front of buildings in the context of the design guidelines which say front setbacks should be 10' to 15' along the east side of Bayshore Highway. The Subcommittee concluded that 40% of the structure at 10 feet would be enough to establish the "edge" and the remainder can vary; but at least 5 feet in depth is necessary to achieve any sense of articulation. For this reason the requirement that the rest of the structure be placed at least 15 feet from front property line was established. The provision is written so that if the architect wishes to set part of the building back more than 15 feet that is possible. However 40% must be at the 10 foot minimum build line. It should be noted that a port cochere is considered 14 Annotated Shoreline District April 28, 2005 Draft Planning Commission Action `-- a " structure " , so could be extended to 10 feet of front property line . (2) Side setback . A minimum ten (10) feet from the side property lines; with no more than fifty (50) percent of the lot front occupied by structure; Annotation : This clarification notes that a structure may be no longer than half the length of the front property line . The previous section provides that of the total structure length 40% must be at 10 ' and 55% at 151 . Original annotation : The design guidelines do not address side setbacks directly . However , they do discuss view corridor protection , noting that to establish view corridors between buildings a building " shall not obstruct more than 40 - 60 percent of the Bayshore Highway frontage " . This is a standard that was in the original 1981 design guidelines , so does not represent a change . The change is that the design directive has been included in the development standards . Since ranges are not useful in development standards (developers generally go for the most permissive in a range ) the Subcommittee decided to use the �— mid point - 50% ; and allow more or less than 50% with a conditional use permit ( See CS 25 . 41 . 020 (K) ) above . (3) Rear setback . Structures shall be set back at lest ten (10)feet from rear property lines. Annotation : This provision establishes the rear setback when the rear of the property is not along the bay edge . There are a few landlocked sites where this provision will apply in the Shoreline subarea . Generally however the rear of the lot is along the bay and provision (4 ) below will apply . (4) Setbacks from shoreline. In any event ,, structures shall be set back an average of seventy-five (75)feet between structures and the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; in addition,for any building that is forty (40)feet or taller, then the setback of the building to the shoreline shall be equal to or greater than the height of the building. Annotation : The BCDC guidelines which have been in effect along the shoreline since 1982 require that there be an average of 75 feet of path � 15 Annotated Shoreline District April 28,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action and trail along the shoreline of each property. The original design guidelines required that the portion of the trail area adjacent to buildings 40 feet or taller be at least as deep as the adjacent building is tall (hence the reason that the 75 foot dimension is an average) . These two regulations have governed development along Burlingame's shoreline for more than 20 years and have resulted in a "consistent" bay trail. As a result these standards were included in the current design guidelines, and are incorporated into the development standards for the shoreline area. BCDC jurisdiction is 100 feet inland from the highest high tide line about elevation 6.5 MSL. These standards apply to whichever side of the property is adjacent to San Francisco Bay or its estuaries. This standard for setback equal to the height of a building is included in the BCDC guidelines which the City negotiated with BCDC in 1982. It has been met, or seriously considered, as a part of all development in the Bayfront area since. It should be noted that the approval of the Marriott Hotel preceded the adoption of these guidelines. In that case the hotel does not sit back a distance equal to its height; but there was a hardship on the site since the site varies in width from 260 feet to 285 feet. The hotel was placed at the southern, most narrow end, of the site in part because of the distance from the protected wetland at the north, FAA height limitations because of the landing zone at the airport, and the better interface with local access roads. The hotel is 100 feet tall. (b)No parking spaces shall be provided in the ten(10)foot minimum setback across the lot front on any property.Driveways shall be allowed in the setback,but shall not be counted as landscaping. No parking areas shall be located between the structure and the lot front,except loading zones. Placement ofparking shall be consistent with the design guidelines for the Shoreline Subarea. Annotation: At study the commission noted that it was better to have more parking on the side and toward the front of a building on those lots with a segment of the Bay Trail on them. The trade off here is the landscaped edge along Bayshore Highway. Ten feet is about the minimum. To pave this area would add only one parking space across the front of the parking area. The addition of this paved area would eliminate the landscaping between the sidewalk and parking area. Because of the shallow depth of the lots in the Shoreline subarea, the issue of where best to put parking on-site relative to the Bay Trail may have to be determined at design -� review. For these reasons provision was not changed from PC 16 Annotated Shoreline District April 28,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action �. study, although a reference to the design guidelines was added. Original annotation: These requirement comes from the Shoreline subarea design guidelines (pg. SAP V-12 Building/street relationships) . The objective is to create a tree lined urban edge with glimpses of the waters of San Francisco Bay along Bayshore Highway. To do this the design guidelines require that parking be at the sides of buildings behind the front setback or rear of the buildings . This provision tells the developer to plan for locating parking at the side or rear, except for loading areas generally at the fronts of hotels. Other provisions regarding landscaping define what can be included as "green space" . Since landscaping requirements are 60% of the front setback or of the area in front of structures there is plenty of space for driveways to access port cocheres or parking located at the side or rear of a site. (c) To provide a view corridor, the width of a structure or combined structures on a lot shall not obstruct more than fifly(50)percent of the length of the property line on Bayshore Highway; and the development shall be consistent with the design guidelines for the Shoreline Subarea. Annotation: Because of the importance of the proximity of San Francisco Bay and the generally narrow depth of the lots The provision for view corridor (view from Bayshore Highway to San Francisco Bay) is included in the design guidelines for the Shoreline subarea. The idea is to be able to see between the buildings; so the critical property line in this case is the one on Bayshore Highway. In most cases this is the front property line, but in the event that the narrowest portion of a lot is not on Bayshore Highway, this provision is written to make it clear that the area of concern is along Bayshore Highway. The range of 40% to 60% were originally used in the 1981 Bayfront SAP design guidelines and referred to as the "apparent width" . The apparent width varied depending upon how close or far from the street the widest point of the building was . This requirement was applied to the properties in the shoreline area but never worked very well because of the relatively narrow dept of the properties on the east side of Bayshore Highway. The intention in the revised design guidelines was to apply the same concept of view corridor protection, with some room for adjustment to the nature of the lot, hence the range 40 to 60%. However, when a range is given in a requirement, staff ' s experience is that the minimum view corridor width will almost always be seen as the rule by the developer. For that reason a maximum is set in this section at 50%, the mid- 17 Annotated Shoreline District April 28,20 5 Draft Planning Commission Action point of the range in the design guidelines. If a develop r wishes to go to 60% he may apply for a conditional use pe it . If a developer wishes more than 60%, a hardship on the pro erty will be required for a variance. The intent of both the 1 81 and 2004 design guidelines is to provide passing motorists and those riding bicycles or walking along the street a "sense" that San Francisco Bay is present . It is appropriate to add the requirement to the zoning code to protect the view corrido s as a measurable standard because it is important to inform developers as early as possible about a siting requirement (d) No structure shall exceed a maximum height of sixty-five (65) feet or five (5)st ries, whichever is less; Annotation: In the present C-4 zoning there is no maximum height limit The height limit is derived from the application of the FAR an other design requirements as well as FAA limitations which affec part of the Shoreline subarea. In the past not having height limitations resulted in confusion, since developers someti es did not realize that there were aviation height limits in the rea until a project had been designed and a CEQA document was prepared. The proposed height limit here is based on the Environmental Constraints Studies prepared for the environ ental document for the Bayfront Specific Plan and the specific application of these studies to the Shoreline Subarea. If a property in this area is not affected by the flight patter from SFIA for some reason, they can document that through the F early in the design phase, and ask the city for a variance to the height limit for their proposal . (e) There shall be a maximum lot coverage of thirty-five (35)percent; Annotation: In the past lot coverage was derived from the application f the design guidelines. While this system worked, developers al ays want to know the limits. This percentage (taken from the w design guidelines) was based on an analysis of what is now existing in the built environment in the Shoreline subarea. Since the basis of the 1981 Bayfront design guidelines has een retained in the 2004 Shoreline guidelines and the city had lot of development experience in the Shoreline Subarea over the intervening 20 years, 35% lot coverage figure is reasonable. Developers who wish to have a greater lot coverage because f a hardship on their property may ask for a variance. 18 Annotated Shoreline District April 28,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action (f) There shall be a minimum lot size of twenty thousand(20,000) square feet and a minimum street frontage of fifty(50) feet. No property in the district shall be divided or subdivided into a lot with less area or less street frontage. Annotation: This section establishes the minimum lot size for the Shoreline area. This has been the minimum lot size in this area since 1969 and it does not appear that there is a need to change it now. In fact, with a focus on floor area ratio to define many uses and the stricter parking and landscape requirements in effect today, it is economically desirable to have lots larger than 20, 000 SF for most uses allowed in this subarea. Section 25.41.045 Height and bulk of buildings. For every project hereafter constructed or reconstructed in the C-4 Shoreline zoning district the height and bulk of buildings shall be further limited and based on the density of use established for the Shoreline subarea in the Bayfront Specific Plan. For a use whose density is based on f oor area ratio, the building height and bulk is further limited and determined by the building or buildings relation to the area of the lot or lots upon which the building is located as determined by the adopted ratio. Where density of the use is determined by some other standard than f oor area ratio, the height and mass of the structure or structures shall be further limited and based on the adopted design guidelines, the development constraints documented in the Bayfront Specific Plan and zoning regulations for the area in which the property is located. Annotation: In the current C-4 zoning regulations there are two FAR limitations . The first is based on the 1981 Bayfront Design Guidelines and requires a conditional use permit for any development on a site which exceeds 1. 0 FAR. A variance is required for any development on a site which exceeds a 2 . 0 FAR. By this strategy 1 . 0 FAR becomes the "review line" and 2 . 0 FAR the maximum. In preparing the 2004 Bayfront Specific Plan more detailed environmental studies were done. The community standards established by these studies will limit the height and footprint therefore FAR of development on some sites at key locations. For these reasons this section has been rewritten to call developer' s attention to the design guidelines which reflect the adopted community standards and their role in mass and bulk regulation. Section 25.41.049 No Variance for Lot Size and Street Frontage. No variances for lot size and street frontage shall be granted to any property within the 19 Annotated Shoreline District April 28,20 S Draft Planning Commission Action Shoreline Sub area of the Bayfront Specific Plan. Annotation: Experience has documented that better development occurs o larger lots along San Francisco Bay in Burlingame. For th s reason the subcommittee was interested in encouraging lot ergers or at a minimum keeping the current lots from being divide into smaller units which could commence to have a "strip" mall appearance which besides being less economically efficient would fracture the view corridor from the public street to the b y. For this reason the subcommittee is recommending that vari nces to lot size and street frontage not be allowed. Section 25.41.050 Landscaping and design requirements. Standards for landscape and design in the Shoreline district are taken from the Bayfr nt Specific Area Design Guidelines and shall be supported in their implementation by incorporation of the adopted guidelines: (a) A minimum of fifteen(15)percent of the total area of each property or group of properties to which a land use is applied shall be suitably landscaped and the Ian soaped portions shall be properly maintained. A landscaping plan shall be submitted an accompany plans for construction of any building or structure for review by the ity planner. Annotation: This section is not changed from the current C-4 district regulations and is consistent with the 2004 adopted shoreline area design guidelines. In updating the 1981 Bayfront plan an effort was made to include as many of the current standard as possible. This provides for a sense of equity among grope ty owners and increases consistency of development and applic tion of the zoning regulations. (b) At least sixty(60)percent of the area between the front property line and the fro t o ntf the any building on a lot shall be landscaped. Where no building exists along a lot at least sixty(60)percent of the area in the front setback shall be landscaped; lands aping may include walkways and seating features; Annotation: The objective of the design guidelines for the Shoreline s area is to bring structures closer to the public right-of-way an to provide a landscaped buffer, with trees, between the edge o the street and the edge of the building. The design guidelines lso provide for a varying front setback in front of the structu e to 20 Annotated Shoreline District April 28,2005 Draft Planning Commission Action �— insure articulation of front facades . For these reasons the landscaping requirement needs to address the area between the building and the front property line and, separately, the area on the site where there are no structures . It should be noted that a minimum 10 foot front setback is required of all properties (design guidelines V15 and code section 25 .41 . 040 (b) above) and 60% of that area shall be landscaped according to this provision as well as 60% of the area between the public street and the face of the structure some of which may be outside of the front setback area. (c) A minimum often(10)percent of all parking areas shall be landscaped. Annotation: This is landscape requirement included in the design guidelines (pg. SAP V-15) . Again for early warning it is important to include this in the zoning requirements . (d) Each building or group of buildings upon a lot or parcel of land shall provide a fully enclosed area for refuse, garbage and recycling containers and such enclosure shall be placed only at the sides or rear of the building or buildings and not within one hundred (100)feet of the rear property line, and outside the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Details of the enclosure shall be submitted as apart of the design review. Annotation: At study the Planning Commission expressed concern about how visually unattractive these necessary facilities can be. It was suggested that they only be allowed in side yards. This provision requires that these facilities be placed within a structure and that, if at the rear of a property they be located 100 feet from the highest high tide line e.g. outside of BCDC jurisdiction. This distance will cause them to have only a small impact on the Bay Trail users. In any event the design guidelines give the Commission the ability to review the location of the trash facilities early in the development review process and provide grounds for requesting their relocation. This provision appears in the current zoning requirements. There is a dilemma in the Shoreline subarea since trash enclosures at the rear of buildings will be very visible to users of the Bay Trail, for this reason such facilities are required to be setback 100 feet (outside of the BCDC jurisdiction) along the San Francisco bay frontage . 21 Annotated Shoreline District April 28, 2005 Draft -� Planning Commission Action (e)Loading docks and truck loading access shall be fully enclosed and shall be placed only at the sides or rear of the building with the further requirement that, when placed in the rear of the building, no closer than one hundred (100)feet to the rear property line and outside of the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Details of the enclosure shall be submitted as apart of the design review. Annotation : At study the Planning Commission expressed a preference for keeping loading, delivery and trash and recycling facilities away from the rear of a property when the rear of the property is along the Bay Trail . The revision to this provision addresses this preference by requiring that the trash, recycling and loading dock facilities be placed outside of BCDC jurisdiction ( 100 feet from the highest high tide line) which will certainly discourage them from being located at the rear or facing the Bay Trail . The provision does not forbid location of these facilities at the rear 1 ) because the rear may not be along the Bay Trail and 2 ) there may be a characteristic of the property which makes the rear the best place for such facilities . However, this provision would require a variance if the facilities could not be placed far enough away, so the Planning --� Commission would have discretionary authority. The provision has also been strengthened to require that these facilities be fully enclosed within a structure . Many of the existing loading dock areas which are unsightly along the Bay Trail are those which have poorly maintained fencing with broken slats and dead vegetation . Original Annotation : This provision appears in the current zoning requirements . However , it is not sensitive to the fact that the rear of every building in the Shoreline area will be fully exposed to people using the Bay Trail . If the location of loading docks is to be regulated, it should be clear in the zoning requirements , so the developers can plan early for this essential facility . The 100 foot requirement sets back such facilities so that they will not impact bay trail users and also places them outside of BCDC jurisdiction . If a requirement is made in this section of the code a variance would be required for a developer to put this use elsewhere on the site . Section 25.41.052 Design review guidelines 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 faq�ade facing a public or private street or parking lot shall be subject to design review based on the design guidelines for the shoreline subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan and shall be processed -� as provided in CS 25.57.030 . 22 Annotated Shoreline District April 28,2005 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. `— 23 Annotated Shoreline District April 28,20 5 Draft Planning Commission Action Annotation: Since the design guidelines for the Shoreline 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 Shoreline subarea using the current residential and commercial design review 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 Shoreline subarea, and (3)the landscape design guidelines for the Shoreline subarea are included as well. Section 25.41.060 Public access. (a) An average of seventy-five(75)feet of the lot as measured from the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission shall be maintained and developed for public access based on the city adopted and Bay Conservation and Development Commission approved Public Access Guidelines for Burlingame. Annotation: Should this be worded "as measured from the line of highest tidal action" in order to make it clear that the point of departure for this measurement is the water's edge of the BCDC jurisdiction? or is the language proposed clear enough? (b)All areas improved for public access within the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission shall be maintained by the property owner and shall be available to the public in perpetuity as determined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; Annotation: This section is the best example of the magnitude of the changes which have occurred in regulating bayside properties in the last 40 years. The most significant change came with the creation of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission in the 1970's. Under BCDC administration (a State agency) it was necessary to have private property owners develop and maintain the public bay access trail system (including assuming liability exposure) . The 24 Annotated Shoreline District April 28, 2005 Draft Planning Commission Action �- city did install improvements , does maintain and bears liability for the portions of the Bay Trail on city owned property e . g . wild life sanctuary, Keyston Park , containment barrier etc . Therefore this section of the code was rewritten to exclude the city from responsibility for establishing or maintaining any portion of the bay trail on private property . The new text directs developers to the BCDC Public Access Guidelines for Burlingame , and informs them of their responsibilities . The average of 75 feet public access area on each property is the current standard taken from the BCDC guidelines as it applies to the Shoreline subarea , so does not represent a new standard . Section 25.41.080 Parking space requirements. All uses shall provide parking space in accordance with the applicable provisions of Chapter 25.70 of this code. (a) Food establishments. Establishments for the sale and consumption on the premises of beverages, food and refreshments shall, however, be subject to the following special requirements: (1) Customer parking to be provided on site at the rate of one car space for each one hundred (100) square feet of gross floor area; (2) In addition, employee parking to be provided on site or within reasonable proximity, in the judgment of the city planner, at the rate of one car space for each one thousand (1,000) square feet of gross floor area; (b) Bay Trail parking. On sites with frontage on San Francisco Bay the Bay Conservation and Development Commission shall determine the number of on-site parking spaces to be designated for public Bay Trail Access parking; these on-site spaces shall be designated from the required parking for the site, shall be available to the public without charge during the hours that the Bay Trail is open, and shall be posted as public access parking by the property owner as required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Annotation : Item 1 is the same requirement for destination restaurants that are imposed by the current zoning . Item 3 is added because BCDC always requires off - street public access parking to be designated on each property . It is city policy that the public access parking is taken out of the required parking for the site ; so it is not provided in addition to the required parking . For consistency of administration, it is helpful to make this clear in the zoning regulations . �' 25 Annotated Shoreline District April 28,2005 Draft -� Planning Commission Action (c) Hotels. A hotel shall provide the following additional parking: (1) One designated parking space for a shuttle bus; and (2) For any food establishment on the hotel property that has an entrance separate from the hotel's main entrance, the number of parking spaces required for a food establishment under chapter 25.70. Annotation: The current parking requirement for hotels at one space per room is minimal . It was a parking requirement based on the fact that Burlingame hotels were airport oriented and a large number of the customers would come to and from the hotel by shuttle bus . However experience has taught us that a destination restaurant located in a hotel which has its own designated entrance, acts like a destination restaurant in this area (people generally come by car) and the parking at l : lroom is not adequate for both uses . As a result the city has been requiring that if a restaurant with a separate entrance is being included the parking ratio for destination restaurant be added to the plans . This has worked well . The best example of the problem was Bobby McGee' s at the Embassy Suites hotel . In the end the hotel rented the parking in the adjacent office buildings at night . During the day, everyone --� had to live with the problem, including bay trail users . The second new provision is on site parking for the hotel ' s shuttle bus . Because of the low parking ratio for hotels, each hotel is required to provide shuttle service to and from the airport . In many cases the location where the shuttle bus will be conveniently parked on site has not been considered. This provision is a head' s up to hotel developers and designers . The shuttle space is also in addition of the 1 : 1 room on site parking requirement . (d) Gas stations. For each gas station with retail sales provided on site there shall be two (2) on-site parking spaces designated for retail sales customers in addition to on site parking required for minor automotive repair services provided on site. Annotation: Along with the concept of allowing a retail sales area in gas stations in the C-4 zone, the subcommittee recognized the need to provide on-site parking for customers of these sales services who were not stopping to purchase gasoline. At other gas stations in the city where they have requested amendments to their conditional use permits to add retail sales, the city has required that they provide two on site parking spaces to support this activity. This requirement is consistent . 26 Burlinzame Bayfront SpeeiGe 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 Iandseap' Development should be oriented to the sidewalk. Local serving streets should act as view mdors across Bayshore Highway to San Francisco Bay. Pedestrians should be encouraged to ss Bayshore Highway at the established view corridors. Landscaping along US 101 s uld screen pedestrians from the presence of the freeway but provide openings so signage usinesses in the Inner Bayfront Area retain some visibility from the freeway. With regional access at each end, arterial access to the Inner Bayshore ea is provided by Bayshore Highway. This arterial provides the seam between the visi r-oriented Shoreline Area and the Inner Bayshore Area. Seven local streets provide access m Bayshore Highway to the properties within the area. Six of the seven local serving stree n this area are connected by a collector roadway parallel to US 101 which allows convenie internal circulation for large trucks. The freeway access to this area is at the Broadway1US 10 terchange near Airport Blvd.and the Millbrae Avenue/US 101 Interchange north of the Burl- game City Limits. Development along the Bayshore Highway fronta should reinforce the interface between visitor oriented and support uses in the Shoreline Area This should be accomplished by encouraging visitor serving and office uses on the properti in the Inner Bayshore Area which front on Bayshore Highway. Along with the simil ` in land uses should be a consistency of building siting and streetscape character for the Inner B shore side of Bayshore Highway that fronts the Shoreline Area. Together these street ontages should support Burlingame's"Tree City"image. A number of local serving streets inte ct Bayshore Highway. Where possible at these intersections, view corridors toward San Franci o Bay should be preserved so that people using the Inner Bayfront Area have a stronger s se of the presence of San Francisco Bay. Because there is no direct ter frontage,no part of the Bay Trail extends into the Inner Bay Area. Pedestrian and bicycle ac ess linking to the Bay Trail should be provided throughout the Inner Bayfront Area. A bicy e-pedestrian interconnect should be included on or adjacent to the Broadway Interchain to provide employees and visitors access to the shopping and commercial opportunities on west side of US 101, as well as to the regional transportation available on the west side of US 1. Clear,safe access across Bayshore Highway should also be provided at focal points in the oreline Area to give employees in the Inner Bayfront Area access to the Bay Trail, both to enco ge pedestrian access to employee services provided in the Shoreline Area as well as access to tive and passive recreational opportunities throughout the Bayfront Planning Area. Any n development and additions within this area shall comply with Design Guidelines as outI' ed in Chapter V,with the primary goal of creating a mixed district of industry and business wi pedestrian-oriented buildings and streetscape and focused nodes of activity. OX 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 Ill-3 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use Figure I1I-3 -Shoreline Area Land Use Ma Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan ' Shoreline Area j Land Use Map- Waterfront Commercial ® Hotels (X rms/aae \/ Offices 0.9 FAR Restaurants 0.15 FAR Sites with characteristics for Potential Retail Node- G One Only-06 FAR g Open Space t � I 1 Principally land uses in this area should take advantage of the bay shoreline and focus on visitor- oriented development. The designated land uses for this area are hotel,office, and destination restaurants with a retail node to be located in a visually prominent location. Appropriate land use densities are: Hotels 65 rooms to the acre Offices 0.9 FAR Restaurants 0.15 FAR Retail 0.5 FAR The Bay Trail is vital to the character and success of the area's visitor and local employee serving role. The Bay Trail serves as an attractive pedestrian link between service uses and a recreational outlet for area employees and visitors alike_ As new development occurs,private property owners should be encouraged to complete the gaps in the trail. Conservation and protection of the bay's adjacent environment and eco-systems,particularly at the Burlingame Wildlife Sanctuary,is important to the unique recreational experience and character of this area. Development in the Shoreline Area should respect the roleof bay access. Development should be sited to enhance view opportunities of San Francisco Bay at the ends of the perpendicular land- locked streets serving the Inner Bayshore Area. View corridors toward San Francisco Bay should be provided where possible for future development fronting on the opposite side of Bayshore City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan 111-4 General Plan La U_V1)4S_S__. Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines '<� ��" �•-:" 06 ^y"F`� t '"•fC. }a Shoreline Area Futures .``l �;_•h.� • . •.; "� \ .Y'. '� SAN FRANCISCO eaY HJ1 ? 4' 65, JF Shoreline Area Goal:To better relate development to both the street and to the Bay,to provide view corridors from and across Bayshore Highway and create gateways at key loca- tions. Building/Street Relationships To create a consistent and attractive streetscape,buildings should be located rela- tively close to the street, with attractively landscape front setbacks. In addition: k. r=�. Building entries should face the street,and should be easily identifiable" Buildings that are setback from the street should have attractively landscaped plazas leading to the main build- ing entry. • At least 50%of the parcel frontage should be non park- ing uses. Buildings should relate both to the street and to Son Francisco,Bay_ Curb cuts should be limited to ease pedestrian/vehicular conflict_ City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-12 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Businesses should have a consistent,attractivel0'-15' PIi -kh landscaped front setback from the public street. • Seating areas should be encouraged within the front set- back- etback s c«+:aor • Businesses at important intersections should locate their I entrances at the building corner. _ Nr_�r • Businesses fronting on Bayshore Highway should have an attractive 10'-15'landscaped front setback J v�,QQ f3 Bayshore Highway Interface To create a consistent design concept on both "`"'`s°""`•�"N��F""'�` sides of Bayshore Highway, building, land= Butldwgs show be located rekrcivel dose to the street,with attractively scaping, signage and streetscape standards landscaped front setbacks should be the same for properties that front on Bayshore Highway in both the Inner Bayshore and Shoreline areas Additionally • An average 10-15'landscaped front setback is • Seating areas are encouraged in front setback • 8'-10'Sidewalk width is appropriate Bn cps Bayshore Highway should receive priority in any — — — 0 4 e an streetscape program. ,,moo , — t Building/Shoreline Relationships To create a dynamic, usable shoreline area, Buildiongs should have well-designed plaza areas adjacent to the BayTrail. buildings should have a consistent, attractive setbacks. In addition: • Continuous public access improvements should be installed and maintained with a consistent standard in LAGOON accordance with BCDC guidelines. I • Open space should extend an average of 75 feet from ' / eArnwr the edge of the bay to the building facade s"""v.•►:.g ) � xy r, I• Where buildings taller than 40 feet are proposed,the °A� minimum width of the open space should equal the height of the building. �_ X- • Pocket parks and seating areas should be located along ` f the shoreline_ ►ins Il To Side • Vertical access,both visual and physically from the ofewac"s g shoreline to the Bayshore Highway should be provided in site planning wherever possible. Attractive parlwrg areas should be located to the sides o(thebuNlding to 1 encourage a pedestrian-friendly street edge_ City of Burlingame BAYFRONT SAP V-13 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Parking. `- f Attractive parking areas should be located to s j the sides of the building to encourage a f pedestrian-friendly street edge. Additionally: Some parking on each site should be reserved for public e' t Bay Trail access_ ti Building entries should be located adjacent to parking and sidewalk- Parking idewalkParking should be screened with landscaping and/or low _ walls_ Y-.corridors to San Francisco Boy ore ia"rtam and should be Truck loading areas should be located to the side of enhanced buildings,and screened from view from the street. • Parking entry drives should be shared with adjacent businesses to discourage multiple curb-cuts- View Corridors View Corridors to San Francisco Bay are important and should be maintained and i enhanced. Additionally • View Corridors should be incorporated in the design of pedestrian plazas. • Continuous public access improvements should be installed and maintained in accordance with BCDC guidelines. View Corridors should be incorporated in the design of pedestrian plazas. • View Corridors may be framed by buildings" • View Corridors may also terminate with attractive building elements such as tower features and entryways. fifer Any new development should respect existing View Low Corridors_ Wall View corridors into the Bay with pedestrian access should be created to line up with the streets in the Inner Bayshore Area and to provide a visual connection across Bayshore Highway. r • To protect view corridors,buildings shall not obstruct -Green more than 40-60%of the Bayshore Highway frontage, Purgers" and shall cover no more than 35%of the site_ Street Trecs 2nd PninK Detwis L.ow Landscaping watt A consistent, attractive landscaping treatment n consistent faunal bndscapFng treatment should be '` should be developed throughout the Shoreline City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-14 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Area. Additionally. — • Landscaping should protect and enhance view corridors_ • Landscaping can be used as a visual buffer to shield parking and loading areas. • Landscape features should not just be visually appeal- ing,but also should function as open space amenities to (� be used and enjoyed 'Id+ • Landscaping should enhance and not obscure building signage and entrance areas. Building signage should be incorporated into the land- scaping. dcr • 10%of the parking area shall be landscaped. Monument signs should be well integrated into the design of the site. • 80'/o of the front setback shall be landscaped_ • 40%.of the shoreline setback shall be landscaped. • Hardscape features such as walkways,seating areas and patios may be included in landscaped areas_ - Signage Visible, attractive signage should be devel- opedthroughout the Shoreline Area. Additionally: • Signs should be designed as an integral part of the building.and should not cover or obscure architectural elements. Attractive gateway signoge directories are encouraged to help provide • Projecting signs should be attractive and eye-catching. way(nding in the District • Projecting signs should be designed as an integral part of the building.and should not cover or obscure archi- tectural elements_ snw s�o►wr • Projecting and wall signs attached to a building can be used as a secondary sign for use as a pedestrian-scaled •�-�•- fa sign. Structural supports should be hidden or designed �. to be a decorative element. • Monument and wall signs should feature individually formed lettering as opposed to box signs. • Monument signs should be low-profile,with a maxi- rte` mum height of 4'_ t • Monument signs should have architectural features con- sistent with the building,and be integrated into the site o` landscape_ f • Attractive signage directories are encouraged to help provide wayfrnding in the Shoreline Area_ A building gateway is appropriate on Boysl w Highway at the Broadway Interchange_ City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-15 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Gateways Y - Gateway features should be located on pri- vate land at prominent locations along the edges of the Shoreline Area. Additionally: R c Any gateway feature on Bayshore Highway at the ""°`r`'""°''S"` Broadway Interchange should be a building treatment. F.oJe Scout 1 The gateway at Bayshore Highway at the Broadway Interchange could consist of wayfinding signage and landscape treatment until the interchange reconstruction e'�® - ,saysHonE HIGIiwA7 occurs. Sidewa4 • A landscape treatment or pocket park is appropriate as a gateway feature on Bayshore Highway at the A We variety of righting should be encouraged_ Burlingame/Millbrae border. Gateways should maintain a consistent design motif throughout the Shoreline Area. Street Design To create a consistent and attractive streetscape, buildings should be located rela- tively close to the street,with attractively s landscape front setbacks. In addition: a-w a mnar warl aiir-�r ,Umi-n, m-is -= s..n sde..alt V+K11xe � v,.a— wK, -TnaeT idn+.lt hwx I— -d—k The sidewalk area should be 8'-10'wide and include uniform street furniture. • Seating areas should be encouraged within the front set- back. Boyshore Highway should be o "Grand Boulevard" Streets should be designed for both the automobile and the pedestrian/bicyclist. A variety of lighting features should be used to accom- 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. • Baysbore Highway should receive priority in any streetscape program_ The street should be designed as a Grand Boulevard"with landscaping,lighting and sidewalks standards the same on both sides. • Landscaped medians and left turn lanes should be developed along Bayshore Highway. Exact locations should be determined by the Department of Public Works. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-16 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Building Design i Building facades should animate the street, = providing.visual interest to passers-by. o,�, Additionally: p Q s,— At . es r • Buildings should have entries directly accessible and 4�4 visible from the street. W-d— • Buildings with Bay frontage should relate to the Bay as well as the street • Entries should be marked by architectural features such as projecting overhangs,special lighting,awnings ander signage that emphasize their importance. k Building design should animate the street providing visual interest to Building facades should be designed to have a rhythm passers-61: and pattern and should be articulated as an expression of the building use. • The use of reflective or dark-tinted glass should be dis- couraged,especially at ground level,because it creates an effect which lacks the visual interest of clear window openings. - • Building facades should be articulated with a building base,body and roof or parapet edge. • All visible sides of buildings should be designed with the same level of care and integrity _ • Exterior building materials and finishes should convey a sense of integrity,permanence and durability,rather than applique. • Buildings should be no more than 5 stories,65 feet in height City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-17 General Plan � I I Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Community Park Anza Extension Area Public Facilities- Land Use Map- Wastewater Treatment Facility Public Facilities + r + la A PQO P ., + r LAGOON N U S 107 6 Bayfront Specific Plan Implementation Anza Extension Subarea Zoning (with annotations) Planning Commission Action May 9, 2005 Bayfront Specific Plan Implementation Anza Extension Subarea Zoning (with annotations) Draft: April 29, 2005 Planning Commission Aciton Annotation : No change is proposed for the existing Unclassified zoning for the Anza Extension Area . With the Specific Plan the Anza Extension area will continued to house only public uses , Bayside Park , Upper and Lower Decks ; the Dog Park , the Waste Water Treatment Plant , Keyston Park and the segment of the Bay Trail located on the containment barrier on the east side of Airport Blvd . and the segment of the Bay Trail which extends from Bayside Park- Upper Deck across the juncture of Sanchez Wetland and Burlingame Lagoon on the Anza Blvd . bridge and includes the area between Burlingame Lagoon and US 101 . All of this land area is zoned Unclassified . As documented below Unclassified zoning means that a conditional use permit is required for any change or development . Because they express the City ' s adopted policy for development in the Anza Extension , compliance with the design guidelines set out in the Specific Plan for the Anza Extension Subarea will be required as a part of any conditional use permit review for this area . No changes are proposed or needed to the Unclassified zoning requirements . The Unclassified zoning section is included here for your reference . UNCLASSIFIED REGULATIONS Section 25.12.040 Unclassified lands. Any lot, parcel of land or area within the city which has not been assigned a zone classification by adoption of a map or by legislative action is unclassified. The use of unclassified land for any purpose for which no permit, license or other evidence of approval has been granted by an appropriate action of the city is declared to be an unlawful use. (Ord. 910 § l ; February 2, 1970). Section 25. 12.041 Continuation of existing use of unclassified lands. Bayfront Specific Plan Implementation Anza Extension Subarea Zoning(with annotations) Planning Commission Action May 9,2005 Any existing use of unclassified land which was heretofore legally permitted may continue but may not be changed to any other use, expanded, extended beyond present confines or otherwise modified without a conditional use permit from the planning commission. (Ord. 910 § 2; February 2, 1970). (1603 § 17, Amended, 09/23/1998) Section 25.12.042 Use of presently unused lands. Any land which is unclassified and unused may not be used for any purpose without a conditional use permit or until and following a completed proceeding to classify the land for the purpose intended. (Ord. 910 § 3; February 2, 1970). (1603 § 18, Amended, 09/23/1998) Draft: July 23, 2004 Burlineame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use Highway. One visually prominent site should be developed as a focal point of commerc' d entertainment activity for the Shoreline and Inner Bayfront Areas. This focal po' s ould serve as a destination for visitors,provide visitor and employee oriented retail serv' and provide some �. indoor recreational alternative. The Shoreline Area is accessed at the south end from th roadway/US 101 Interchange and at the north end by the Millbrae'Avenue/US 101 Interch e in the City of Millbrae. Arterial access is provided by Bayshore Highway,which runs allel to US 101 and San Francisco Bay and connects the two interchanges. Most properties ess directly on to Bayshore Highway. Development along both sides of Bayshore Hi y needs to create a character consistent with Burlingame's image as a"tree city". Agate y entrance should be established at each end of Bayshore Highway. Since the Broadway Inter ange is expected to be replaced within the next 10 years, gateway development should phased. Developmen rojects in this area shall comply with Design Guidelines as outlined in Chapter V. The pri goals of these Design Guidelines are to better relate development to both the street and to 1 ay, to provide view corridors from and across Bayshore Highway and to create gateways at locations. 3. Anza Extension Area The Anza Extension Area is located just.east of the Broadway Interchange where Bayshore Highway ends and becomes Airport Boulevard. The area contains Bayside Park and the city's waste water treatment plant. �. Figure III4—Anza Extension Area Land Use Ma Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Com "tyPark Anza Extension Area Land Use M - hJW ra`r*"t5 Public Facilities Wastewater TrealmeM fa6ky "GOON City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan 111-5 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use. Bayside park was developed in two phases.The lower deck on the west end provides two full baseball diamonds,a soccer field which can be converted to practice baseball fields and a parking_ t lot. Bayside Park's lower area(deck)is connected to its upper area(deck)by a segment of the Bay Trail. The upper deck of Bayside Park at the east end of the area includes a golf driving range,a group of putting greens, a soccer field, a tot lot, an open field for informal group activities and a large parking lot which serves all these uses.Bayside Park also includes a Dog Run Park with _ limited parking. The lower deck of Bayside Park and the Dog Run are accessed-from Airport Boulevard. The upper deck of the park is accessed from Anza Boulevard. Also accessed from Airport Boulevard, and situated between the upper and lower decks of Bayside Park, is the city's wastewater treatment plant. On the north side of Airport Boulevard.is a containment barrier,built to protect the bay waters from infiltration of water which may have percolated through the sanitary landfill on which the upper deck of Bayside Park is built. The top of the containment barrier is developed with a segment of the Bay Trail and trail access parking. On the south side of the upper and lower decks of Bayside Park is the outlet of Sanchez Creek. Sanchez Creek carnes water through developed areas of Burlingame under US 101 to San Francisco Bay. On the east side of US 101 the creek has created a wetland. Water drains through the wetland into Burlingame Lagoon and then through Sanchez Channel into the Bay. Sanchez wetland is protected and human intrusion is discouraged. A segment of the Bay Trail on the upper deck includes wetland observation points and information kiosks for the public. The Bay Trail continues from the Upper Deck,both under and across the Anza-US 101 access bridge to the west side of Burlingame Lagoon where there is a pocket park for picnicking and a wall,built at the turn of the century by Sarah Winchester,now used for fishing. This public access area next to US 101 is west . of the protected wetland, and the design discourages pedestrians and domestic animals from entering the wetland area. Arterial roadway access is provided to the Anza Extension by Bayshore Highway,Airport Boulevard and Anza Boulevard. The entire Anza Extension is in public ownership and fully developed. Bicycle and pedestrian access from the west side of U.S. 101 will be provided with a separated bridge near Broadway when the auxiliary lane project on U.S. 101 is completed. A second bicycle access should also be provided linking the west side of the freeway in the vicinity of Morrell Road directly to Bayside Park. This will provide residents of this area of Burlingame to have better, safer access to Bayside Park. The Anza Extension provides a valuable center for community recreation activities. Because the Upper Deck of the park was built on the city's closed sanitary landfill,major buildings cannot be built in this area. Also because of the protected wetlands, the land area of Bayside Park cannot be expanded in the future. Development projects in this area shall comply with Design Guidelines as outlined in Chapter V, with the primary goal of enhancing the quality of the community oriented open space facilities and services while connecting them to the larger open space network with trails and pedestrian paths. nza Area Because t e orientation of Burlingame's shoreline shifts, the Anza Area extends to the east of the Anza Extension. The a lies between San Francisco Bay to the north and Burlingame Lagoon to the south. Sanc el marks the easterly most boundary of the area and the upper deck of Bayside Park marks the westerly mo dary. The Anza Area was filled in the 1960's;so the development in this area is recent. As a result of eg the time the City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan 111-6 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Aoza Extension Fatures 0 N Anza Extension Goal:To enhance the quality of the community ori- ented open space facilities and services while con- necting them to the larger open space network with trails and pedestrian paths. Most of the site planning and building design issues in the other areas do not apply to this area. The primary role of this area is a com- munity serving facility. The area has been recently developed to the designated land uses. The purpose of these guidelines are to complete and maintain these public facilities and recognize the need to be responsive to the community needs as they change. Parking, landscaping and open space design are the primary considerations. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-18 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Building Design i Building facades should animate the street, providing visual interest to passers-by. Additionally: Qq Op- spia Buildings should have entries directly accessible and ".— visible from the street. Buildings with Bay frontage should relate to the Bay as well as the street. • Entries should be marked by architectural features such ' as projecting overhangs,special lighting,awnings and ` •' signage that emphasize their importance_ Budding design should animate the street,providing visual interest to • Building facades should be designed to have a rhythm passers-by. and pattern and should be articulated as an expression of the building use. The use of reflective or dark-tinted glass should be dis- couraged,especially at ground level,because it creates an effect which lacks the visual interest of clear window openings. • Building facades should be articulated with a building base,body and roof or parapet edge_ • All visible sides of buildings should be designed with the same level of care and integrity. Exterior building materials and finishes should convey a sense of integrity,permanence and durability,rather than applique_ Buildings should be no more than 5 stories,65 feet in height. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-17 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Landscaping -- A consistent, attractive landscaping treatment ' s should be developed throughout the Anza t f Extension area. Additionally: • A natural,park-like landscaping should be encouraged throughout the area. j "t_V • Landscaped wind breaks should be developed through- out the area_ • Public buildings in the Anza Extension Area should have indoor and outdoor spaces which relate to San Francisco Bay. • Lighting should be focused internally so it does not A natural pork-like landscaping should be encouraged throughout the affect adjacent properties. area • Community oriented active recreational uses should be preserved and enhanced. • Landscape features should not just be visually appeal- ing,but also should function as open space amenities to be used and enjoyed. ca• dt tC r� vrar Element Park I / Landscaping should protect and enhance view corridors. t i r Wwffinaft J ,�' • Trails should facilitate pedestrian activity within the IT-,_ area and as connections to the bay and other opens Pedesa awn +� i� space systems. c•��•c 1 Parking AWPOR EV Appropriately sized and attractive landscaped parking areas should be located at the edgy ' TRAIL of the area to conveniently provide service to A gateway element should be located at the entry to the pork the area's many recreational uses. Gateways Gateway features should be located on pri- vate land at prominent locations along the edges of the Anza Extension area. Additionally: Any gateway feature at the Broadway Interchange should be a wayfmding monument sign to complement the gateway feature in the Shoreline area across Airport Boulevard. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-19 General Plan 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 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, tail pipes, 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 of five 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 CITY OF BURLINGAME SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ORDINANCES OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO AMEND TITLE 25 (ZONING CODE) TO ESTABLISH THE INNER BAYSHORE AND SHORELINE ZONING DISTRICTS 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 two proposed ordinances on Monday, June 20, 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 make the following changes to the City Zoning Code: 1) 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; and 2) Establish the Shoreline Zoning District and accompanying regulations for the area between Bayshore Highway and San Francisco Bay, and the Millbrae City limits and Airport Boulevard. The two ordinances 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, Zoning Code definitions, or unclassified lands in the City 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.pin.wpd CITY c AGENDA 5g ITEM# BURLJNGAME MTG. STAFF REPORT �Ns w[6�0o DATE 6/20/2005 Y. TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED BY DATE: June 13, 2005 APPROVED BY— FROM: Y FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 10.58.030 TO CLARIFY APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR ADULT-ORIENTED BUSINESS PERMITS RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance that would clarify the information to be provided with an adult-oriented business permit application and direct City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. DISCUSSION: In 2004, the City Council adopted a comprehensive revision of the adult-oriented business regulations in the City. That revision established proximity limitations at 1,000 feet from another adult-oriented business, a church, a school, or a City athletic facility. However,the information required of the applicant for such a permit was inconsistent with the distances established in the Code. The ordinance that was introduced on June 6 would correct this and make the application information consistent with the proximity distances. Attachment Proposed ordinance Distribution Chief of Police I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 10.58.030 TO CLARIFY APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR 3 ADULT-ORIENTED BUSINESS PERMITS 4 5 The City Council of the City of Burlingame does ordain as follows: 6 7 Section 1. In 2004,the City Council adopted extensive amendments to the City laws governing 8 adult-oriented businesses. As part of that change,such businesses must be located at certain distances 9 from other such businesses and from schools,churches,and athletic fields. To assist in evaluating the 10 business permit, the Code requires the applicant to provide information on nearby schools, athletic 11 fields,and residential uses. In order to ensure a consistency in distance between the information and 12 the limitations,the Code should be amended to require information out to 1,000 feet from the business. 13 14 Section 2. Subsection 10.58.030(h) is amended to read as follows: 15 (h) A certificate and straight-line drawing prepared within thirty (30) days prior to the 16 application that depicts the geographic location of the adult-oriented business with the following: 17 (1) The building and the portion thereof to be occupied by the adult-oriented business; and 18 (2) The property lines of any other adult-oriented business within 1,000 feet of the primary 19 entrance of the adult-oriented business for which the business permit is being requested; and 20 (3) The property lines of any school, athletic field, residential zone, or residential use within 21 1,000 feet of the primary entrance of the adult-oriented business for which the business permit is being 22 requested. 23 24 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published according to law. 25 26 Mayor 27 28 5/24/2005 1 1 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th day of 2 June, 2005, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2005, by the following vote: 3 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 4 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 5 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 6 7 City Clerk 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5/24/2005 2 CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 5h ITEM# ° m MTG. CD4 OD DANTED JVNEb DATE 6.20.05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: JUNE 14, 2005 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION AND PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND BROADWAY FOOD ESTABLISHMENT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS Introduction: City Council should review the proposed ordinance and hold a public hearing. Council may direct staff to make revisions. If the ordinance is ready for action this ordinance should be set for second reading and public hearing on Tuesday, July 5, 2005, and the City Council should do the following: A. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. The public hearing at introduction was noticed by mail to all property owners and merchants in the Broadway Commercial Area and was published in a newspaper of general circulation. Notice for the second reading and public hearing will be distributed in the same way. 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 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. INTRODUCTION AND PUBLIC HEARING ONAN ORDINANCE TO AMEND BROADWAY FOOD ESTABLISHMENT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS June 20,2005 General Plan Compliance: The proposed change to the zoning regulations for the Broadway Commercial Area (Broadway Center) is consistent with the Land Use Element of the General Plan 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. 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 restaurateursibakery 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 2 INTRODUCTION AND PUBLIC HEARING ONAN ORDINANCE TO AMEND BROADWAY FOOD ESTABLISHMENT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS June 20,2005 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, 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 3 INTRODUCTION AND PUBLIC HEARING ONAN ORDINANCE TO AMEND BROADWAY FOOD ESTABLISHMENT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS June 20,2005 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 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: Unapproved Planning Commission Minutes, June 13, 2005 Ross Bruce, BID President, letter May 13, 2005, to Mayor and City Council Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Chapter 25.36 to Allow Up To Five Additional Food Establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area, proposed changes to regulations. Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Map, Ordinance 1214 Broadway Commercial Area Map, Ordinance 1272 4 INTRODUCTION AND PUBLIC HEARING ONAN ORDINANCE TO AMEND BROADWAY FOOD ESTABLISHMENT REGULATIONS TO ALLOW UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS June 20,2005 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, published San Mateo Times, June10, 2005, and mailed to property owners and merchants June 13, 2005. 5 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 IIA• • TY OF BURLINGAME • NTNG DEPT. Business Improvement District d RECEIVED I ~ RAY 16 200 � 5 ®� May 13, 2005 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF BURLINGAMEg, Honorable Mayor, City Council, City manager, &Meg Monroe > c%City Hall 501 Primrose s m Burlingame, CA 94010 ®0 EP M Re: Change on Broadway, Burlingame restaurant limitation. A�Q )LdCi P Honorable Mayor, City Council, Meg Monroe, & City Manager, The BID Board of Directors has voted to ask the city of Burlingame to change the ❑ Broadway Burlingame restaurant limitation from a maximum of 23 restaurants to a Ell maximum of 28 restaurants. Additionally we ask that the City Council "Fast Track" this <j o MM matter. fit-, o f 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. CTOJ The types of restaurant categories we would like approved are: 1. Full service food establishments a 2. Limited food establishments and 3. Specialty food establishments-no bars. ® Preliminaryfndin s 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 would like to enlist your help in making this happen on Broadway as quickly as possible. Sincere , "Rolm 1ty Council please respond r�,00zo. f /e ty Manager ONity Attorney O No Response Required ir.Finance W (®'City Planner `"v Ross Bruce, President, BID U v ® Dir.Public Works xm . C Human Resources �7®® ❑ Police Chief v C Fire Chief U On Next Agenda �u rC Z U Parks&Rec 3 ti U Librarian ®� ®® PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR RESPONSE TO THE CITY CLERK {� n9QT1DIV#1,r1r"V. 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 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 Section 1. Merchants and property owners in the Broadway Commercial Area have 7 requested the City to allow an increase in the number of food establishments in the Broadway 8 Commercial Area in order to enhance the area as an attraction to the community. 9 10 Section 2. Section 25.36.042 is amended to read as follows: 11 25.36.042 Food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue commercial areas. 12 (a) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall only apply to food establishments 13 in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A, and the Broadway eormnercial ATea. 14 (b) Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue eommercial Area. In Subarea A of the 15 Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area,the number of food establishments shall be limited to those 16 existing and in business on November 1, 1998, and at the locations as shown on the Burlingame 17 Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City 18 Council on October 18, 1999. A food establishment is a business as defined in Section 25.08.268 19 and shall be deemed in business if it was legally open for business as a food establishment to the 20 public on November 1, 1998. 21 (c) Broadway eonnnercial AT= In the Broadway eonunercial ATea,the number of food 22 establishments shall be limited to those existing mid in btisiness on November 1, f 998,and at the 23 locations as shown on the Broadway eonymercial Area Food EstablishTnents by Type Tables 24 approved by the eity eotmeii on October 18, 25 in Section 25.08.268 and shall be deemed in business if it was kgaily open fbr business as a food 26 establisInnent to the pablic on November f, i 998. 27 )-Seating Area. The seating area of the food establishments described in subsections 28 and(2 (b)above as shown on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway 1 I eotmnercial 24ae Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 2 18, 1999,above may be enlarged only by amendment to the applicable conditional use permit for 3 the establishment. 4 (e)(d) Changes in classification and replacement. 5 (1) A food establishment use classified as a full service restaurant by the Burlingame 6 Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishments by 7 Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999,may change its food establishment 8 classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of an amendment to the 9 conditional use permit to the establishment. 10 (2)A food establishment use classified as a limited food service by the Burlingame Avenue 11 Commercial Area Subarea A mid Broadway eotmnercial 24aea Food Establishments by Type 12 Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, may change its food establishment 13 classification only to a full service restaurant or bar with approval of an amendment to the 14 conditional use permit for the establishment. 15 (3) A food establishment use classified as a bar by the Burlingame Avenue Commercial 16 Area Subarea A Food Establishments by Type Tables approved 17 by the City Council on October 18, 1999,may change its food establishment classification only to 18 a full service restaurant or a limited food service with approval of an amendment to the conditional 19 use permit for the establishment. 20 (4) A food establishment use classified as a specialty shop by the Burlingame Avenue 21 Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway eoimnerciaI717ood Establishments by Type Table 22 approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, shall be allowed to change to a different type 23 of food establishment. A specialty shop may be replaced by another specialty shop at the same 24 location within the same or less square footage. If a specialty shop is changed to any other 25 classification the site shall not return to specialty shop use. 26 (5) A food establishment may be replaced by another food establishment of the same 27 classification so long as the replacement business is of the same classification as that shown for the 28 site on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway eoranerciahkrmFood 2 I Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, subject to the 2 conditions of the existing conditional use permit, and it complies with the same conditions as in 3 the existing conditional use permit. 4 (4)(e) Change in location. 5 (1) No food establishment shall occupy a location not shown on the Burlingame Avenue 6 Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishments by Type 7 Tables as approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999. 8 (2) Specialty shops shall not relocate to any other location on the Burlingame Avenue 9 Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway eormnerciaFArea7Food Establishment by Type Tables 10 list as approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999. 11 (g)(f) Review of number of food establishment. 12 (tWhen the total number of food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial 13 Area drops below forty (40) for a period of more than twelve (12) consecutive months, the city 14 planner shall report this to the planning commission and city council. 15 (2) VAien the total number of fbod establisffinents in the Broadway eommercial Mea drops 16 below twenty-three ,the city planneT 17 . 18 " (g) Expansion. An existing food establishment, including specialty shops, may be 19 expanded at its existing location so long as the expansion does not increase the size of the seating 20 area. 21 (i) (h) Loss of use. A food establishment shall be deemed out of business when the 22 premises is occupied by another business which is not a food establishment. 23 (j)(i) Performance standards. All food establishments shall comply with the following: 24 (1) Provide trash receptacle(s) at location(s)and of a design selected by the city; 25 (2)Provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty(50)feet of all 26 frontages of the business; 27 (3)Apply for a conditional use permit for delivery of prepared food from the premise;and 28 (4)Food sales from a window or any opening within ten(10)feet of property line shall be 3 I prohibited. 2 3 Section 3. A new Section 25.36.043 is added to read as follows: 4 25.36.043 Food establishments in the Broadway commercial area. 5 (a) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall only apply to food establishments 6 in the Broadway Commercial Area. 7 (b) Broadway Commercial Area. In the Broadway Commercial Area,the number of food 8 establishments shall be limited as follows: 9 (1)To those existing and in business on November 1, 1998, and at the locations as shown 10 on the Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City 11 Council on October 18, 1999. A food establishment is a business as defined in Section 25.08.268 12 and shall be deemed in business if it was legally open for business as a food establishment to the 13 public on November 1, 1998; and 14 (2) Up to five (5)more food establishments at any location in the Broadway commercial 15 area, so long as any such food establishment is limited to only a full service food establishment, 16 limited food service food establishment, or a specialty shop food establishment upon approval of 17 a conditional use permit. 18 (c) SeatingArea. The seating area of the food establishments described in subsections(b) 19 (1)and(2)above may be enlarged only by amendment to the applicable conditional use permit for 20 the establishment. 21 (d) Changes in classification and replacement. 22 (1) A food establishment use classified as a full service food establishment under 23 subsection (a)(1) or(2) above may change its food establishment classification only to a limited 24 food service upon approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit to the establishment. 25 (2)A food establishment use classified as a limited food service food establishment under 26 subsection(a)(1)or(2)above may change its food establishment classification only to a full service 27 restaurant with approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the establishment. 28 (3)A food establishment use classified as a bar under subsection(a)(1) or(2) above may 4 I change its food establishment classification only to a full service restaurant or a limited food 2 service with approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the establishment. 3 (4) A food establishment use classified as a specialty shop under subsection(a)(1) or (2) 4 above shall be allowed to change to a different type of food establishment, except a bar. A 5 specialty shop may be replaced by another specialty shop at the same location within the same or 6 less square footage. If a specialty shop is changed to any other classification, the site shall not 7 return to specialty shop use. 8 (5) A food establishment may be replaced by another food establishment of the same 9 classification so long as the replacement business is of the same classification as that shown for the 10 site pursuant to subsection(a)(1)or(2)above,subject to the conditions of the existing conditional 11 use permit, and it complies with the same conditions as in the existing conditional use permit. 12 (e) Change in location. 13 (1) No food establishment shall occupy a location not shown on the Broadway Commercial 14 Area Food Establishments by Type Tables as approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, 15 or a conditional use permit approved pursuant to subsection(a)(2) above. 16 (2) Specialty shops shall not relocate to any other location on the Broadway Commercial 17 Area Food Establishment by Type Tables list as approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999. 18 (f) Expansion. An existing food establishment, including specialty shops, may be 19 expanded at its existing location so long as the expansion does not increase the size of the seating 20 area. 21 (g) Loss of use. A food establishment shall be deemed out of business when the premises 22 is occupied by another business which is not a food establishment. 23 (h) Performance standards. All food establishments shall comply with the following: 24 (1)Provide trash receptacle(s)at location(s)and of a design selected by the city; 25 (2)Provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty(50)feet of all 26 frontages of the business; 27 (3)Apply for a conditional use permit for delivery of prepared food from the premise;and 28 (4)Food sales from a window or any opening within ten(10)feet of property line shall be 5 I prohibited. 2 3 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 4 5 Mayor 6 7 I,DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the 8 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_day 9 of ,20_, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held 10 on the day of , 20 , by the following vote: 11 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 12 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 13 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 14 City Clerk 15 16 C:\FILES\ORDINANC\foodestab2005.pin.wpd 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 Subarea A Subarea B i: Subarea D 7Auto Row Subarea B-1 No.1347 adopted by the City Council • ` , � R�� Requiring a Conditional Use Permitfor real estate and financial Institutions on February 17,1987 `• . V1 as � I�.��" • . WFFl .1. a • , GRRM I ' , AV 3€>a�.stal�a .m3�'a? 7�ui�����lam_. • • /' ������ ,;_� ' ', ,Emu,N ��U a �.� � "�'�I'.� ak k � '�4.�UiaBp ,`• �� �L' ,�S'b. YF�/ y�.J�'�A� r. a�u5�'p[ 3G` -� r� + ]tt � iG] , �r tlw? , •, O:' ' �yY.�a' �r�}°¢,�s���..w,�p.�'a„�.3'cfi.,�. .aE i�kWAA.�C..�k..1�sd�Ydl+df•a o-rX.'J�.�,d�L.S_.n��.i.a,� , • _�,y,k`.�;' p"il-i'� If ViY�4�.A �1�T tiM .L�+ q.,siva. ` ",�,,. e� w YH• tF,T.' I WIN waI �„ 3 ME;rgm��`��� s,�t' ► � � .�.� I moi. II O J 1101 1 t28- 116 ,1. . . 11.45 . 11781374. 11 1: 19 T 1184 f. 1,63- 1190. 1169 ^� 1199 �► 120 A 1204' 1210 121 12.22-. �` 1201 1226 1105 *1 1 �• 1236 1215- O 223' (1 �� 1233- 241239 .1300- .12 13110 • 1253 �•y 1316- ,9 1320 • 1-� .1322- . 11305 o°o •1326 ti 1321: . '. 1352• 1327. 1360 h • 355, 13 1400* 1.399 ° 1408- e ° 410 145 a` 1454. / 1405-. 1480* 1480' .14 3 City Q� Parking (� Lot R h .1461 N Broadway Commercial Area F�C Established by Ordinance No.1272 adopted by the '9/f��^. City Council on April 16,1984 'VO 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 25.08.265 Floor area ratio(FAR). above existing grade. (a) "Floor area Ratio"or"FAR"means the ra- (Ord. 1025§ 1;December 10,1974,Ord. 1482§2; do of the gross square footage of the--floor area of a May 3, 1993,Ord. 1521 § 13;April 17, 1995,Ord_ building or buildings to the lot on which the build- 1552§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) cludes new structures to be built and those remain- ing. 25.08268 Food establishment. (b) Single family residential. "Food establishment" means a business which (1) In calculating FAR on a lot;the meas_ sells any kind of food or drink at retail and which ch- contains shall include the gross floor areas of the contains any interior or on-site customer seating primary dwelling,attached garages,and all aeces- (seating in the public right-0f-way is not on-site); sory structures on foundations,and shall include all tnirri-marts or similar kiosk-type salesareas.at ser- basements with a ceiling height of six(6)feet or vice stations or other similar free standing retail .-greater. 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 § (2)floors. l; April 15; 1985; 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 25.08.26.8-1 Food establishment—tree greater shall be deducted from the floor area meas- standing. urement for FAR under subsection(b)(l)above if 'Free standing food establishmene-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 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 piimary 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 farruty 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 commercial glass 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 x 25.09.269-3 Food establishment—Full servict, (C) Existing attic areas that are re- "Full service restaurant"or"fullservice 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 as`floor area in calculating FAR; and provides an indoor seating area of at.least two and hundred fifty(250)-square feet- Such businesses (D) Accessible space between the may provide for the sale of alcoholic beverages as surface of the ground and the bottom of the fust an accessory and secondary use. Operating criteria_ floorioists that measures less than six(6)feet in to define a full service food establishment include height shall 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 commercdishwasherdishwasheand food>s z.. (25-08)7 Manch 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 Xof the,exterior walls plus roof-overhangs,.eaves,. . 25.08.268 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 which areas of the floors above the fust which extend be- sells food which is ready to eat such as.sandwiches, yond first floors (Added by Ord- 1460 §-2 (part); frozen deserts or beverages served in edible,plastic. May 18,1992) or disposable containers- Operatnng,criteria to de- . fine a Iimited foodservice include some orall of. the following:_no commercial kitchen;no commer- 25:08.270 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-fifty side of a street, between two.,intersecting streets, (250)square feet measured along the street line.(1941 Code § 1903 (1619§4,Added, 10/18/1999) (part), added by Ord. 539; January 4, 1954, amended by Ord.747;December 18, 196. 1). 25.08.268-5 Food establishment-specialty shop. 25.08.280 Garage,.private. ,"Specialty shop"means a business which sells. "Private garage" means a detached.accessory €oad and has a posted menu. Operating criteria to building or portion of a main building for the park= define a specialty shop generally include two or, - . ing or storage of automobiles of the occupants of more of all of the following: food is ordered the premises. (1941 Code§ 1903 (part), added by and/or served at a counter and paid for before con_ - 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-. 25.08.290 Garage,public._ sumption 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 of self-propelled ve- are insufficient for the volume of food sold in the. hicles,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 § 19113 (part), added by Ord, (1619§4,Added, 10/18/1999) 539; January.4,-1954, amended by Ord 747; De- cember 18, 1061). 25.091684 Food sales-Incidental. "Incidental food sales means a business which the sale of foods prepared on the site is a ,_ 25.083.00 Gasoiine service_station.. minor portion of the non-food sales retail business "Gasoline service station" means:the premises on the site or is an infrequent occturence as a pad. and the use thereof for the retail distribution of of some other on-site business activity,stich_as a - gasoline directly to motor vehicles, oils, greases, special sale or seasonal promotion,and there ns no tires and batteries; greasing and washing, the sale.: interior or on-site seating forrctistomers to_use for . of minor accessories and services ..incidental food or drink consumption. Seating,on the public thereto. (1941.Code.§.1903.-(part), added by Ord-- right-4-way rd.- right of-way is not on-site. Snack shops(such as 539; January 4, 1954, amended by Ord, 747; De-.: candy stores,nut and popcorn speciality shops), _ cember 18,1961). grocery stores,and produce markets ire busuiesses, -MCIUded in this deftru lot - .(1619§4,Added, 10/18/1999) F - _ s March 2004 (25.08)8 LAND USE ELEMENT closings would increase traffic safety in addition to providing very much needed park space. COMMERCLAL USES Three complexes of commercial uses are included in this pian: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 Capuchino 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. 11 1-1999 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CTTY 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, 1999, 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 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 1, Judith A. Malfatti, City Clerk ofthe City of Burlingame, 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: COUNCII.MEMBERS: GALL I GAN, JANNEY , KNIGHT, 0 ' MAHONY , SP I NELL 1 NOES: COUNCII.MEMBERS: NONE ABSENT:: ' -: COUNCELMEMBERS: NONE City Clerk cAwesiTMES\REso\r w1..Pa 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) `l 1 Exhibit A Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area,Subarea A,Food Establishments by Type Table October 18, 1999 Address Name of Business Cate o 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 CafA- 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 ESTABLISHMENTS BY TYPE Full Service :23 Specialty Food Shop :5 Limited Food Service :14 Bar :4 Total Food Establishments :46 Aburtabt0.18 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: 40 SF 1136 La Reserve Full Service 750 SF Broadway 1151 Le Croissant Specialty Food Shop 270 SF Broadway 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 Shigemasu 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 I1 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 Broadwa 1318 Cafes 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. (continued) 1 Exhibit A Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area,Subarea A, Food Establishments by Type Table Revised March 21, 2005 Address Name of Business -Categolry Seating Area 1 1100 Burlingame Ave. Straits Cafe Full Service 1,811 SF 2 1101 Burlingame Ave. Sumac Full Service 1,187 SF (combined former food establishments at 297&299 California Drive) 3 1108 Burlingame Ave/ Fanny&Alexander Full Service 1200 SF 303-305 California Dr. + 1,685 patio area at 1108 j Burlingame Ave.and 735 SF at 303-305 California Dr. I Total Seating:3620 SF 4 1121 Burlingame Ave. ; Sweet reats Limited Food Service 249 SF (vacant) 5 1123 Burlingame Ave. ; Full Service 492 SF vacant 6 1125 Burlingame Ave. La Salsa Specialty Food Shop 385 SF _ 7 1152 Burlingame Ave. Limited Food Service ! none vacant 8 1160 Burlin ame Ave. Starbucks Limited Food Service 331 SF 0W < "Imo;t. a��e+ ���_ - �..N?A4s+�''<'- S'4�,�%°< f: `�s:, `Y�'',..'f>s<x a`5,�'-�. ��'�f� �'e��+• 9 1207 Burlingame Ave. Round Table Pizza Specialty Food Shop '• 785 SFw 10 1213 Burlingame Ave. King Yuan Restaurant Full Service I 500 SF 11 1216 Burlingame Ave. Copenhagen Bakery Full Service 980 SF 12 1219 Burlingame Ave. Caf6 La Scala Full Service I 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 Burlin ame Ave. Cre evine I Full Service 1,269 SF 16 1318 Burlingame Ave. World Wra sI Specialty Food Shop 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. Alan's ! Full Service 266 SF 20 1409 Burlingame Ave. Baskin-Robbins Limited Food Service '_. 128 SF �*� �`'c*s r• ��id EOClxw4 amp '� �' " 3 s v#`a.*'`'�-. ��r`�-,a,""a p�:"tsr,"n"`^ ,.,� 21 1425 Burlingame Ave. Gau Poang Chinese Restaurant Full Service I 936AA SF S:\FOODREGS\Updated Tables\burlingame 3.doc 1 Exhibit A Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A, Food Establishments by Type Table Revised March 21, 2005 Address ; Name of Business CategorySeating Area 71 22 1447 Burlingame Ave. I Sapore Italiano Ristorante i Full Service 628 SF(IS`floor) 216 SF(mezzanine) Total Seating: 844 SF 23 1448 Burlingame Ave. Hola!Mexican Restaurant& Full Service 1,880 SF Cantina j 24 1451 Burlingame Ave. I Isobune Sushi j Full Service934 SF 25 1453 Burlingame Ave. Panda Express Specialty Food Shop 1,119 SF r _ ' -''� ,syr E z"-+3 •' S:.� � c:,ray,y�E s-, �° - r 26 1215 Donnelly Ave. St.Clair's Limited Food Service ! 323 SF 27 220 Lorton Ave. Alibi 1 Bar 475 SF 28 246 Lorton) Padd Fl 's 1 Bar 475 SF 29 250 Lorton Ave. ( Zeyno Full Service 625 SF 30 260 Lorton Ave. House of Bagels Limited Food Service ± none 31 266 Lorton Ave. Trapeze Restaurant j Full Service 376 SF 32 283 Lorton Ave. I L&T Sandwiches 1 Limited Food Service 50 SF I (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 — r 250 SF 37 224 Primrose Rd. Full Service 1 551 SF (vacant) j 38 234 Primrose Rd. Chicken! Chicken! Specialty Food Shop 562 SF(indoor) 90 SF(outdoor porch) Total-Seating:652 SF . 1041 -0-2 r 39 290 Primrose Rd. CJ's Sandwich Shop Limited Food Service 66 SF(indoor) 329 SF(roof deck) ! Total Seating:395 SF 40 h-21 Primrose Rd. Piazza Italia Cafe ! Full Service 288 SF 41 347 Primrose Rd. Barracuda ' Full Service j 921 SF October 18,1999 (March 21,2005) Full Service 23 22 Specialty Food Shop 5 5 Limited Food Service 14 11 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 SAFOODREGS\Updated Tables\burlingame 3.doc 2 Exhibit A Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Table Revised March 21, 2005 Address Name of Business Category Seating Area 1 1130 Broadway Incredible Edible ! Specialty Food Shop 465 SF(indoor) 75 SF(outdoor) Total Seating:540 SF 2 1136 Broadway ! Chez Alexander 1 Full Service 750 SF 3 1151 Broadway Le Croissant i Specialty Food Shop 270 SF 4 1165 Broadway Royal Donut Shop Specialty Food Shop 525 SF S 1170 Broadway i Preston's Ice Cream ' Limited Food Service none 6 1184 Broadway bonne sante Specialty Food Shop 249 SF indoor 38 SF outdoor Total Seating:287 SF 7 1190 Broadway Aji Yoshi Ya Japanese j Full Service 975 SF Restaurant ' 8 1200 Broadway Grace Garden Restaurant Full Service { 735 SF 9 1201 Broadway Village Host Pizza Specialty Food Shop 1,500 SF 10 1204 Broadway Juban Full Service 550 SF 11 1219 Broadway Il Piccolo Caffe Limited Food Service j 675 SF 12 1230 Broadway Starbuck's Full Service 990 SF I i 13 1232 Broadway 1 Mediterranean Cuisine }Full Service 450 SF 14 1236 Broadway Burrito Broadway j Limited Food Service none (inside Broadway Food I Center) _ 15 1251 Broadway Lobos Ta ueria Specialty Food Shop I 530 SF 16 1308 Broadway Subway Sandwiches ; Specialty Food Shop 300 SF 17 1316 Broadway ; Broadway Prime = Full Service 1,450 SF(1St floor) ' 506 SF(mezzanine) Total Seating: 1,956 SF 18 1318 Broadway i Caf6 Figaro Full Service 700 SF 19 1320 Broadway Bua Thong Kitchen { Full Service 750 SF 20 1327 Broadway j Behan's Irish Pub Bar s 525 SF 21 1355 Broadway Jun Restaurant&Sushi bar 3 Full Service 450 SF 22 1431 Broadway Broadway Deli Specialty Food Shop 450 SF 23 1158 Ca uchino Ave. Caf6 Ca uchino ; Limited Food Service 52 SF 24 1150 Paloma Ave. Matsusano Full Service 1,950 SF October 18,1999 (March 21,2005) Full Service 11 11 Specialty Food Shop 8 8 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. SMOODREGS\Updated Tables\broadway 3.doc 1 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 1. .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 11 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.retaiI 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 25.08.268-3, 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 (I) 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 enumerated 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 offood establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area drops 9 below twenty-three(23)for a 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 (1 1) 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 aII 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 Mayor 26 27 I,JUDITH A. MALFATTI,City Clerk of the City ofBurlingame, do hereby certify 28 that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 7 1 4th day of October, 1999, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on 2 the 18 th day of October , 1999, by the following vote: 3 AYES: COUNCIL.MEMBERS: GALL I GAN, JANNEY, KNIGHT, 0'MAHONY, SP I NELL I 4 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE 5 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE 6 City Clerk 7 8 C:\WP51\FILES\OPDINANC\foodeslab.pin.wpd 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 VILLAGI H 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. --------11-1\. Sincerely, ity Council please respond //,tity Manager City Attorney ❑ No Response Required I ir.Finance V (ity Planner ❑ Dir.Public Works Ronal Santero ❑ Human Resources ❑ Police Chief l7 Fire ChiefOn Next Agenda ❑ Parks&Rec ❑ Librarian PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR RESPONSE TO THE CITY CLERK iIICTR IRI TTIl1N. �`CITY oa CITY OF BURLINGAME OOO '� PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 ,. TEL:(650)558-7250 • FAX:(650)696-3790 ,�. www.burlingame.org 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 13, Y' � e 2005 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council # `' Chambers at 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame. M � 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 � � fi_'� ci City Planner,Meg Monroe at 650-558-7250. E (Please refer to other side) CITE'OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applic an yprojec y be reviewed prior to the meeting Primrose Road, Burlingame, C d If you challe e It u m be limited to raising only I Lr blic hearing, described ine e kve d to the city at or prior to he pu cjafDjLn&.t' Fo R x I A Property ow rs v responi ible r informing their tenants bou _ - io al infor atid, , please call (650) 558-7 0�� I Margaret Mo �0 City Planner PU t'o CE (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING ON POSSIBLE INCREASES TO 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 hold a public hearing on Monday, June 20, 2005, at a public meeting at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame, California, to consider whether to introduce an ordinance that would increase the number of food establishments allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area of the City. The Planning Commission is expected to make a recommendation on the issue to the City Council for the public hearing. The ordinance might increase the number of food establishments allowed by five or more, or it might remove any limitation on the number; the ordinance might also limit the type of restaurants that would be allowed under the increase, such as to only full service food establishments. The ordinance might also include changes to the way in which food establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area are regulated, such as removing a requirement for a conditional use permit. Anyone interested in the Broadway Commercial Area should consider attending the public hearing. The City Council will receive testimony on the issue of food establishment regulations in the Broadway Commercial Area from all interested persons who appear at the Council meeting. C:\FILES\Planning\foodestablishmentnotice.pin.wpd i BURL�E AGENDA STAFF REPORT ITEM# 51 ^ MTG. To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED ATE 6/20/05 DATE: June 7, 2005 BY APPROVED FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION APPROVING MITIG ED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AWARDING EASTON CREEK SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT PROJECT NO. 81150 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council hold a public hearing to receive comments and approve the following resolutions for the Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation project. • Resolution approving the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration with findings. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. • Resolution awarding a construction contract to J. Howard Engineering of Burlingame in the amount of $1,455,184 to install a sewer main in Easton Drive with replacement sewer laterals. BACKGROUND: The Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation project consists of installing a new sewer main in Easton Drive between Alvarado Avenue and El Camino Real to divert major flows from an existing sewer main under Easton Creek. Work includes reconstructing all service laterals and sealing all manholes to prevent infiltration into the Easton Creek. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT: The attached initial study identifies potential concerns in the areas of biological resources as discussed in the Biological Resource Assessment report by Environmental Collaborative dated May 4,2005.Based on the mitigation measures identified in the Negative Declaration,it has been determined that the proposed project is environmentally acceptable and will reduce the amount of inflow/infiltration into Easton Creek as well as improve the existing sewer system. A summary of the key mitigation measures includes: ■ A preconstruction survey shall be conducted to confirm the absence of any fish or amphibian species of concern. ■ Any dewatering shall be supervised by a qualified biologist. • All native tree trunks within 20 feet of construction activities shall be flagged by a qualified biologist. ■ Construction personnel shall be instructed to avoid disturbances within the tree dripline. • A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared by a qualified engineer addressing water-quality, sedimentation, and erosion. ■ All in-channel activities shall be performed by hand. Any disturbed channel bank or bed shall be restored to existing conditions. ■ In-channel activities shall be authorized by appropriate regulatory agencies, and all conditions shall be implemented. ■ Construction activities within the creek channel shall be conducted during the dry summer season, avoiding adverse impacts on sensitive aquatic habitat. ■ Heavy equipment shall be prohibited within the creek channel. Page2 . . . . DISCUSSION OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT: Bids were opened on May 31, 2005 and four bids were received. Bids ranged from $1,455,184 to $1,872,829. The Engineer's estimate is $1,455,996 which is about the same as the low bid.The low bidder,J.Howard Engineering,Inc.has met all the requirements for the project,and has extensive experience in work of a similar nature. BUDGET IMPACT: There is approximately$2,194,000 from sewer bond proceeds available for this project.As sewage from Hillsborough flows through the new main, they are responsible for 50% of the improvement cost which will be paid to Burlingame over a 20 year period in accordance with an existing joint sewer agreement. Estimated Project Expenditures: Construction $1,455,184 Contingency(15%) 218,816 Construction Management 350,000 Engineering Administration 170,000 TOTAL $2,194,000 EXHIBITS:Resolution,Initial Study,Mitigated Negative Declaration,Mitigation Measures Manual,Bid Summary c: City Clerk, City Attorney, Finance Director SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\8l l50award.stfwpd RESOLUTION NO. - APPROVING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR EASTON CREEK SEWER REHABILITATION ADOPTING MITIGATION MONITORING PLAN, AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR EASTON CREEK SEWER REHABILITATION TO J. HOWARD ENGINEERING CITY PROJECT NO. 81150 WHEREAS, the sanitary sewer system in the Easton Creek area is in need of rehabilitation in order to ensure that the system operates in a safe and healthful manner; and WHEREAS, an initial study of the proposed rehabilitation project determined that the project could potentially cause significant environmental impacts on the biological resources of Easton Creek if mitigation was not undertaken; and WHEREAS, the City was committed to mitigating these potential impacts in the design and conduct of the project;and WHEREAS, the City retained an independent consultant to prepare a mitigated negative declaration to ensure that specific mitigation measures were formulated to address these potential impacts; and WHEREAS,a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared with such measures as required by law, and those measures have been incorporated into the project and project specifications; and WHEREAS,notice of the preparation of the negative declaration has been given as required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized an invitation for bids for the - CITY PROJECT 81150- CONTRACT FOR EASTON CREEK SEWER REHABILITATION WHEREAS, on MAY 31, 2005, all bids were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, J. HOWARD ENGINEERING , submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the amount of$1,455,184.00; and WHEREAS,on June 20, 2005, a public hearing was held by the City Council at which time all interested persons could submit such testimony on the negative declaration and project as they wished; and WHEREAS,the City Council has considered the negative declaration in authorizing the project to proceed, and the negative declaration reflect's the City's independent judgment and analysis; and WHEREAS, there is no evidence that the mitigation measures identified by and imposed pursuant to the Mitigated Negative Declaration will reduce any potential, significant environmental impacts from the project to less than significant and that the project as mitigated will have a significant adverse environmental impact, 1 NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, as follows: 1. The Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the Easton Creek Rehabilitation Project is approved. 2. The mitigation monitoring plan attached to this Resolution is approved and adopted. 3. The bid of J.HOWARD ENGINEERING,for the Easton Creek Rehabilitation Project in the amount of$1,455,184.00 is hereby accepted; and 4. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute an agreement on behalf of the City of Burlingame for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame with J. Howard Engineering for the Project. 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 s:\apublicworksdir\projects\resolutionaward 2 INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY -ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Project Title: Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation Project, City Project No. 81150 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Department 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame, CA 94010 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Donald Chang,P.E., Sr. Civil Engineer (650) 558-7230 4. Project Location: Easton Drive public right of way and Easton Creek sewer easement between Alvarado Ave. and Vancouver Ave. 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Donald Chang,P.E. Department of Public Works City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 6. General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential 7. Zoning: R-1 APN: N/A 8. Description of the Project: The purpose of the Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation maintenance and repair project is to extend the service life of the existing infrastructure system and to reduce inflow/infiltration. A significant amount of wastewater that now enters the Easton Creek sewer will be diverted to a new bypass line to be constructed in Easton Drive beginning at Alvarado Avenue.Downstream of the new bypass,wastewater from the residential areas in Hillsborough and Burlingame will continue to flow by gravity into the Easton Creek sewer main. The Easton Creek sewer main carries sewage from three jurisdictions: the City of Burlingame, Town of Hillsborough,and the Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District operated by the County of San Mateo.There are 29 manholes and 32 laterals within the 2,200-foot reach of creek from Alvarado Avenue to Vancouver Avenue.The Easton Creek sanitary sewer is more than 80 years old.As part of the periodic maintenance cycle for this line,the existing 12"sewer main along Easton Creek was lined in 1985 with a 12"HDPE liner(with an inner diameter of approximately 10".) The existing liner inside the 12" pipe is structurally in good condition. A physical inspection made of the existing manholes along the creek shows that they are all in poor condition and need to be rehabilitated.Both the laterals and manholes in the creek are a major source of high infiltration/inflow (I/I)entering the existing sewer main. In addition,two of the existing manholes along the creek also experience surcharge because of their low rim elevations. Therefore,the Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation project includes the following maintenance and repair items within the creek corridor: ■ Laterals: Each of the 32 laterals will be replaced from the main to an existing clean-out using horizontal directional drilling or pipe-bursting to avoid trenching within the creek. Each lateral will be reconnected to the existing liner at the main. The existing clean-outs will also be replaced at some locations. ■ Manholes and Lampholes: All 29 manholes will be waterproofed by lining the interior with a spread coating. Manhole frames and cover will be replaced with hinged units. Two manholes will be raised Initial Study Summary Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing required. 00 Syed Mu za, Assi&Director of Public Works Date -3- Initial Study Summary Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation approximately three feet. Two new lampholes will be installed. Pine Liner: A 6"liner and a 12"liner will be installed where these two collector systems tie into Easton Creek sewer main to reduce inflow and infiltration. 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The site is surrounded by other single family residential properties. Easton Creek flows westerly from its headwaters near Skyline Boulevard and freeway 280 to San Francisco Bay. It passes through the Town of Hillsborough and the City of Burlingame,where it is alternatively above and below ground as it passes through residential properties and under area streets. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: The project requires a Streambed Alteration Permit from the California Department of Fish and Game. The Army Corps of Engineers has determined that the project qualifies for authorization under Department of the Army Nationwide Permit 18, Minor Fill Discharges,pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The project must comply with the General Conditions of the Nationwide Permit. The project also requires water quality certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages Land Use and Planning X Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Mineral Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Recreation Materials Hydrology&Water Quality Noise Agricultural Resources Air Quality Public Services Mandatory Findings of Significance Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency). On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment,but at least one effect(1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and(2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. -2- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would theproject: a Physically divide an established community? 1,2,4 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy,or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan,specific plan, local coastal 1,2,4 X program or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural 1,9,14 X community conservation Ian? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING.Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area,either directly (for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example,through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1,3,4 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing,necessitating 3 X the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people,necessitating the 3 X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 6,7,8 X effects, including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated on the 6,7,8 X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 6,7,8 X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 6,7,8 X iv) Landslides? 6,8 X b Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 1,6,8 X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that 1,6,8 X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading,subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the 6,8 X Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic 1,6 X tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements,including the following issues per the California 1,8 X Regional Water Quality Control Boards C.3 regulations. Would the proposedproject: i. Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving 1,8 X waters? ii. Result in significant alteration of receiving water quality 1,8 X during or following construction? iii. Result in increased impervious surfaces and associated 1,8 X increased runoff? -4- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated iv. Create a significant adverse environmental impact to drainage patterns due to changes in runoff flow rates 1,8 X volumes? v. Result in increased erosion in its watershed? 1,8 X vi. involve a tributary to an already impaired water body,as listed on the Clean Water Action Section 303(d)list? If so, 1,8 X will it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired? vii. Have a potentially adverse environmental impact on surface 1,8 X water quality,to marine,fresh,or wetland waters? viii.Have a potentially significant adverse environmental impact 1,8 X on ground water quality? ix. Cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or 1,8 X degradation of beneficial uses? x. Im act aquatic,wetland or riparian habitat? 1,8 X b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing 1 X nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been ranted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1,8 X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface 1,8 X runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off- site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or 1,8 X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,8 X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on 8,10 X a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 8,10 X would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the 1,8 X failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? 1,6 X 5. AIR QUALITY. Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 1,11 X quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or 1,11 X projected air qualityviolation? -5- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria 1,11 X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1,11 X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1,11 X people? 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the 1,13 X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 13 X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns,including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in 1,13 X substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g.sharp 2,8 X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 8 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2,8 X g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting 1,8 X alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans, policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? 1,9,14 X b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or 1,9,14 X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.) 1,9,14 X through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or 1,9,14 X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 1,2 X biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? -6- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation 1 X Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservationplan? 8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 1,6 X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, 1,6 X specific plan or other land useplan? 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,8 X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 8 X involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter 1,8 X mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 15 X 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public 1,12 X airport or public use airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working 1 X in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 1 X plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are 1 X adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of 1 X standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne 1,8 X vibration or groundbome noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the 1 X project vicinity above levels existing without theproject? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 1,8 X levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? -7- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where 12 X such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the 1 X project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities,need for new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a Fireprotection? 1 X b Policeprotection? 1 X c Schools? 1 X d Parks? 1 X e Other public facilities? 1 X 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would theproject: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 1 X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater 1 X treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the 1 X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project I X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider I X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to theprovider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to I X accommodate theproject's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations 1 X related to solid waste? 13. AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not 1 X limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?. c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of 1 X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would 1 X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a I'll X historical resource as defined in§15064.5? -8- Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,8 X archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 1,8 X or site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of 1,8 X formal cemeteries? 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and 1,8 X regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the 1,8 X construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of 1 X Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 1 X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, 1 X to non-agricultural use? 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1 X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but 1 X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable futureprojects)? d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? I X -9- Initial Study Summary Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 The City of Burlingame General Plan,Burlingame,California,2002, 1985 and 1984 amendments. 2 City of Burlingame,Municipal Code, Title 25-Zoning,Burlingame,California,2004 edition. 3 Housing Element, City of Burlingame,Burlingame,California,2002. 4 2000 Census 5 Department of the Interior,U.S.Geological Survey,San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000,Revised 1981. 6 E.Brabb,E.Pampeyan,and M.Bonilla,Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County,San Mateo County,California,1972. 7 Perkins,Jeanne,Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking,U.S.G.S.Map MF,San Mateo County: California, 1987. 8 Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation Project Plans dated April 25,2005 9 Biological Assessment prepared by Environmental Collaborative dated May 4,2005 10 Map ofApproximate Locations of 100 year Flood Areas,from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps, September 16, 1981 11 BAA QMD CEQA GUIDELINES,Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans,December, 1995 12 San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport,December, 1996 13 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program,2003 14 Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance,San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California,State Department of Fish and Game 15 State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List,2002 -10- Initial Study Summary Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation Land Use and Planning Summary: The site and adjacent areas are designated for low-density residential uses by the Burlingame General Plan and are zoned single family residential,R-1.A program goal of the Conservation Element is to retain present natural sections of the creek system in a natural condition. Programs to meet this goal are to inform the public of the part that creeks play in the ecosystem;to instill an understanding and respect of the creek systems; and to study soil stability, vegetation and bank conditions along the creeks and regulate appropriately. In this case, the project is to extend the service life of the existing infrastructure system and to reduce inflow/infiltration and prevent sewer spills into the creek. Mitigation: ■ The City will conduct a neighborhood meeting to discuss the scope of project and potential impact to the creek. ■ The sewer rehabilitation will seal the existing sewer system to make it water proof and will also bypass major portion of the sewer flow into a new pipe on Easton Drive. This will eliminate the sewer spills and leakage into the creek and thereby retain the creek system in a natural condition. Population and Housing Summary: This site and the surrounding area are planned for low density residential uses. The project will not result in a change to the number of housing units nor will it affect area population. Geologic Summary: The site is located in the fully developed City of Burlingame, an urban setting which has been developed with single family homes for over 50 years. The site is approximately 1 1/2 miles from the San Andreas Fault but is not within the Alquist-Priola zone;the site is about one mile from the Serra Fault, a minor thrust fault considered to have common roots with the San Andreas Fault. There are no known faults on the site. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), 2003, publication, Ground Shaking Intensity from Earthquakes,indicates that the site area will experience a Modified Mercalli Intensity of VIII with"Very Strong" shaking and "Moderate Damage" as a result of a scenario earthquake on either the entire length or only the Peninsula segment of the San Andreas fault, a Modified Mercalli Intensity of VII with "Strong" shaking as a result of a scenario earthquake along the San Gregorio fault, and a Modified Mercalli Intensity of VI with "Moderate" shaking as a result of a scenario earthquake along the Hayward fault. The site does not have a history of landsliding. The landslide susceptibly of the site is rated at a level I,which indicates very low susceptibility. Four broad soil groups exist in Burlingame.This site is listed as consisting of gouge and sheared shale with hard blocks, and sandstone, soft to hard. Under seismic conditions this area has high susceptibility to slope failure,up to 25%of the area is likely to fail in a major earthquake. This site is in an area of very low(less than 0.01%probability)liquefaction susceptibility. Water Summary: This project involves the rehabilitation of sewer system in a portion of Easton Creek. The work consists of replacing laterals,reline manholes,and raising about 150 feet of existing pipe to grade. During rainy season the sewer overflow will spill into the creek because of the inflow/infiltration from the leaking laterals and manholes. California Regional Water Quality Control Board C.3 Regulations: Since the project involves rehabilitating of existing sewer system in a creek bed,it will not result in an increase to pollutant discharges which would flow in the creek to San Francisco Bay,nor would it involve in an increase in impervious surfaces, change in drainage patterns,increased erosion,surface or ground water quality. The biotic survey done for the site,which is detailed in the biological resources section of this initial study, indicates that there are no sensitive plant or wildlife -11- Initial Study Summary Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation habitats in the project vicinity, so none will be impacted by the project. During construction,the applicant has proposed the following mitigation measures which will help prevent degrading of water quality during construction. Mitigation: ■ Construction activities shall begin no sooner than June 151h and extend no later than October 151h ■ The contractor shall establish a temporary material and waste disposal area away from the stream to temporarily store concrete rubble and other debris removed from the stream. ■ The contractor shall implement spill prevention measures to control the storage and handling of any hazardous materials, including concrete, at the construction site. ■ At no times shall hazardous materials be released and discharged into the creek. ■ Any accidental spill or hazardous substances shall be reported to the City of Burlingame, the San Mateo County Environmental Health Department,and the California Department of Fish and Game within 24 hours of the release or spill. The Contractor shall implement a corrective action plan to contain and cleanup the release within 24 hours of the accident or release. ■ Any additional applicable requirements of NPDES for runoff and drainage,as well as any requirements of the Department of Fish and Game and U.S.Army Corps of Engineers will be adhered to in the design and during construction. Air Quality Summary:No objectionable odors or alteration in air movement,moisture,temperature or change in local or regional climate is anticipated to occur as a result of this proposal. The project will not result in an increase in traffic,and therefore will not have an affect on air quality based on vehicle emissions. Construction dust and emissions can be kept to an acceptable level by the following mitigation measures. Mitigation: ■ The site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction. ■ Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District. Transportation/Circulation Summary: Because there is no change in population or number of dwelling units resulting from this project and construction will be completed within 30 days,the proposed project will not result in an increase in traffic and will not adversely impact area traffic or the capacity of the street system. Biological Resources Summary: Since the project involves construction within an existing creek,it requires a Streambed Alteration Permit from the State Department of Fish and Game. Generally,the Department of Fish and Game encourages the protection of stream bed and discourages the removal of a piece of natural landscape and topography. The proposed project will have minimal earth moving and excavation in the creek bed. A Biological Resource Assessment has been submitted for the area where the work would occur and surrounding areas, prepared by Environmental Collaborative. The survey notes that the proposed project is to extend the service life of the existing infrastructure system and to reduce inflow/infiltration. A significant amount of wastewater that now enters the Easton Creek sewer will be diverted to a new bypass line to be constructed in Easton Drive,beginning at Alvarado Ave. The work within the creek itself will involve no pipe replacement or new pipe installation. Construction restrictions will be followed to avoid adverse impacts to the habitat along Easton creek,including limitations on in-channel activities to the dry season, access into the channel from only four locations, and prohibition on motorized vehicles or heavy equipment within the creek channel. -12- Initial Study Summary Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation The biologist,James Martin,principal of Environmental Collaborative,conducted a site review and a review of the available background information for the project site. A record search was also conducted by the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). The following provides a summary of the biological and wetland resources on the site, and an assessment of the significance of the potential impacts of project implementation. Easton Creek Existing Conditions: Easton Creek flows from headwaters near Skyline Boulevard and Freeway 280,through urbanized areas of Hillsborough and Burlingame, to San Francisco Bay. The project limit of the creek is between Alvarado Ave. and Vancouver Ave. Stream banks in the vicinity of the project site have been reinforced with concrete, cinder blocks, or other hardscape to reduce lateral erosion, and in some areas the channel bottom is also lined with concrete to control channel incision. The amount of hardscape at or near the creek bed reduces the bank riparian vegetation as well as the emergent bottom vegetation. Vegetation: Vegetation along the project reach of Easton Creek is dominated by an overstory of native and non-native tree species , including coast live oak, California bay, coast redwood, California buckeye, acacia, cypress, and eucalyptus. Trees vary in size and condition, with many mature specimens meeting the size criteria used to define a protected heritage tree under the City of Burlingame's Heritage Tree Ordinance. Understory vegetation is either absent or is generally limited to highly invasive species on the banks of the creek, such as periwinkle, English ivy, and Himalayan blackberry.Native wetland vegetation is absent along the channel bottom, which varies along the length of the creek corridor from gravel,to bedrock, to concrete- lined segments where the sewer main is exposed or the property owner has lined the channel. An estimated one-third of the project reach of Easton creek has been modified through installation of concrete in the bed or concrete, wood retaining walls along the creek. Adjacent yard areas along the creek corridor have been planted with primarily non-native species, with the exception of the remnant native coast live oak, California bay tress, and the California buckeyes which occasionally extend outside the creek channel. These include a groundcover of turf, fern, periwinkle and ivy, shrubs such as bamboo, camellia,juniper, Japanese maple, rhododendron, citrus and other fruit trees, and trees such as fan palms, acacia, holly, and a variety of fruit trees. Wildli e: Habitat values along the project reach of Easton Creek varies,but is generally limited due to the extent of past channel modification,proximity of residences and yards and abundance of non-native species. Some segments of the creek channel have been completely modified by property owners with concrete bottom or vertical walls. Nevertheless, some segments of the creek most likely are used as a dispersal corridor for wildlife, including raccoon, opossum, and black-tailed deer. Segments supporting native woodland cover provide habitat for a variety of bird species, including jays, kinglets, flycatchers, nuthatches, and others. Adjacent yards and structures provide suitable habitat for species common to suburban areas, such as American robin,northern mockingbird, house finch, and brown towhee. No amphibians of aquatic habitat were observed along the entire reach during the field reconnaissance. Water strider was the only invertebrate observed, and mosquito fish were the only fish species observed in three pools. Sensitive Natural Communities: No occurrences of sensitive natural community types have been reported by the CNDDB from the project site, and no native grasslands or other distinctive natural community types are present. However, the Easton Creek corridor still contains a sizeable component of native overstory species. The presence of non-native trees, shrubs, and groundcovers limits the value of this natural community type, but it continues to function as a riparian corridor and is considered sensitive habitat from planning purposes. -13- Initial Study Summary Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation The remaining tree canopy provides important shade for the aquatic habitat along the creek corridor. Special-Status Species: Records maintained by the CNDDB and other information sources indicate that several special-status plant and animal species have been historically reported from or are suspected to occur in the Burlingame vicinity. Two very general occurrences of rare plants extend over much of Burlingame, one of which includes the vicinity of the project site and surrounding one mile radius. These are both historic records from the general vicinity of Burlingame, one for Franciscan onion and the other for Hillsborough chocolate lily. Both of these species have no legal protective status under the Endangered Species Acts but are maintained on List 1B of the CNPS Inventory. Both of these species are found in native woodland and grassland habitat typically on serpentine substrate. Suitable habitat for these and other special-status plant species does not occur along the project site due to the extent of past and ongoing disturbances, extensive modifications to the bed and bank of Easton Creek through the project reach, and absences of appropriate soil substrate or other essential habitat characteristics. No special-status plant species are believed to occur on the project site. In theory, there is a remote possibility that the Easton Creek corridor could provide marginally suitable dispersal habitat for two species; the federally-threatened California red-legged from and the federally- threatened steelhead-Central California Coast Evolutionarily Significant Unit. There are no CNDDB records for any occurrences of steelhead in Easton Creek, but this species may currently utilize accessible segments or could move up the stream in the future if downstream barriers and extensive culverting did not preclude access. However, most of the reach encompassing the project site is absent of pools where any fish could survive during the dry season. Inspection of the entire alignment found no indications of steelhead or suitable plunge pools that would permit survival during summer months. Similarly, there are no reported occurrences of California red-legged frog within the Easton Creek watershed. The closest known occurrence of the California red-legged frog is approximately 1.5 miles southwest of the site reported in 1989. This occurrence is from a completely different watershed, separated from the site by dense development in the hills of Burlingame and Hillsborough. Suitable pools and ponds necessary for the successful breeding by California red-legged frog are absent along the project reach of Easton Creek. The bed and bank of the project reach also lack critical refugia necessary for survival of this species. Wetlands: A preliminary wetland assessment of the project site was conducted during the field reconnaissance. The Easton Creek channel on the site does not support any wetland vegetation,but would considered jurisdictional unvegetated"other waters"by the Corps below the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) and would fall under the jurisdiction of the CDFG within the bank and bed of the channel. A Streambed Alteration Agreement will be required from the CDFG for proposed disturbance to the bed and bank of the creek, and a Nationwide Authorization may be required from the Corps. Water quality certification may also be required by the RWQCB. Conclusion: The assessment concludes that with the implementation of the mitigation measures the project is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to Easton Creek biological resources. Biological Resources Mitigation: (Refer to Biological Resource Assessment pages 9 and 10 for the Easton Creek Sanitary Sewer Rehabilitation project, prepared by Environmental Collaborative, Emeryville, CA and dated May 4, 2005) ■ A preconstruction survey shall be conducted within 15-days of construction to confirm absence of any fish or -14- Initial Study Summary Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation amphibian species of concern any areas of remaining ponded water along Easton Creek. ■ Any dewatering required to accomplish proposed improvements shall be supervised by a qualified biologist. ■ All native tree trunks within 20 feet of construction activities shall be flagged in the field by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of any construction within the Easton Creek corridor. ■ Construction personnel shall be instructed that all disturbances (hand or equipment excavation, pruning, equipment storage, etc.) shall be avoided within the tree dripline. ■ A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared by a qualified engineer utilizing Best Management Practices addressing all water-quality, sedimentation, and erosion aspects of the proposed project. ■ All in-channel activities performed by hand.Any disturbed channel bank or bed shall be restored to existing conditions. ■ In-channel activities shall be authorized by possible regulatory agencies, including the CDFG, Corps, and RWQCB,and all conditions required as part of any required agency authorization shall be implemented and adhered to as part of the project. ■ Construction activities within the creek channel would be conducted during the dry summer season between June 15`h and October 15`h to avoid adverse impacts on sensitive aquatic habitat. ■ Heavy equipment would be prohibited within the creek channel. Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: The amount of energy used to culvert the creek is negligible. Substantial amounts of fuel will not be needed to construct, develop or maintain the project. Hazards Summary: This project is not expected to expose people to health hazards,nor is it expected to create a health hazard. Noise Summary: The site is impacted by noise from traffic on area residential streets and from aircraft landings and takeoffs at San Francisco International Airport, which is located about 2 miles northeast of the site. Construction activities may affect adjacent residences,and noise levels may increase during construction. The mitigation measure listed below will reduce the impact to acceptable levels. Noise Mitigation: ■ Construction hours shall be limited to 7:00 a.m.to 7:00 p.m.weekdays,9:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.Saturdays,and 10:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays per the requirements of the City of Burlingame Municipal Code,except there shall be no construction on holidays. Public Services Summary: The project is not expected to have a significant impact on the provision of other public services, since this is an urbanized area with existing public facilities in place and there will be no intensification of development with this project. Utilities and Service Systems Summary:The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place in the area. Once built, the project will not consume additional utilities. Aesthetics Summary: The project will replace existing concrete retaining walls, and will therefore have no impact on area aesthetics. Cultural Resources Summary: There are no known prehistoric or historic archeological sites at the location of the proposed retaining wall replacement. -15- Initial Study Summary Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation Mitigation: ■ If any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during construction,all work will be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures,as determined by qualified experts, can be implemented. Recreation Summary: The project will have no impact on existing recreational facilities in the project vicinity. Agricultural Resources: There is no farmland in Burlingame. Summary of Key Mitigation Measures: ■ A preconstruction survey shall be conducted within 15-days of construction to confirm absence of any fish or amphibian species of concern any areas of remaining ponded water along Easton Creek. ■ Any dewatering required to accomplish proposed improvements shall be supervised by a qualified biologist. ■ All native tree trunks within 20 feet of construction activities shall be flagged in the field by a qualified biologist prior to initiation of any construction within the Easton Creek corridor. ■ Construction personnel shall be instructed that all disturbances (hand or equipment excavation, pruning, equipment storage, etc.) shall be avoided within the tree dripline. ■ A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared by a qualified engineer utilizing Best Management Practices addressing all water-quality, sedimentation, and erosion aspects of the proposed project. ■ All in-channel activities performed by hand.Any disturbed channel bank or bed shall be restored to existing conditions. ■ In-channel activities shall be authorized by possible regulatory agencies, including the CDFG, Corps, and RWQCB,and all conditions required as part of any required agency authorization shall be implemented and adhered to as part of the project. ■ Construction activities within the creek channel would be conducted during the dry summer season,avoiding adverse impacts on sensitive aquatic habitat. ■ Heavy equipment would be prohibited within the creek channel. ■ Construction hours shall be limited to per city standards to reduce noise in the residential areas ■ The site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction. -16- CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINGAME' MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project Name: Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation Project, City Project No. 81150 The City of Burlingame by Donald Chang_ on May 16, 2005, completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: (XX) It will not have a significant effect on the environment (XX) No Environmental Impact Report is required. Pro iect Description: The purpose of the Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation maintenance and repair project is to extend the service life of the existing infrastructure system and to reduce inflow/infiltration. A significant amount of wastewater that now enters the Easton Creek sewer will be diverted to a new bypass line to be constructed in Easton Drive beginning at the Alvarado Avenue. Downstream of the new bypass, wastewater from the residential areas in Hillsborough and Burlingame will continue to flow by gravity into the Easton Creek sewer main.The Easton Creek sewer main carries sewage from three jurisdictions:the City of Burlingame,Town of Hillsborough, and the Burlingame Hills Sewer Maintenance District operated by the County of San Mateo. The existing liner inside the 12"pipe is structurally in good condition.A physical inspection made of the existing manholes along the creek shows that they are all in poor condition and need to be rehabilitated. Both the laterals and manholes in the creek area major source of high infiltration/inflow(I/I) entering the existing sewer main. The Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation project will repair and replace sewer laterals, line and rehabilitate manholes in the creek, and install a new sewer main in the street at Easton Drive. Reasons for Conclusion: The proposed project will reduce the amount of inflow/infiltration into Easton Creek and improve the existing sewer system. Based on the Initial Study, Biological Resource Assessment report by Environmental Collaborative dated May 4,2005 and with supporting findings,it is found that with the mitigation measures proposed, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the enviro en L f Al i f �f clb!lG lLrwlc, 1 ` Si atureof c ssing Official Title "hate Signed The determination becomes final after action at a public hearing held before the Planning Commission,unless the commission's action is appealed to the City Council. Date posted: May 16, 2005 Declaration of Posting I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council Chambers. Executed at Burlingame, California on May 16, 2005. Appe ed: ( ) es (v)No DORIS MOT SEN, CITY CLERK - CITY OF BURLINGAME MITIGATION MEASURES MANUAL EASTON CREEK SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT City Project No. 81150 Biological Resources 1. that the contractor shall have a preconstruction survey conducted fifteen days before construction begins to confirm the absence of any fish or amphibian special of concern in any areas of remaining ponded water along Easton Creek. The survey shall be conducted by a United States Fish and Wildlife Services (USFWS) approved qualified biologist to ensure the absence of special-status species such as steelhead or the California red-legged frog. Additional conditions pertaining to the preconstruction survey may be required by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) as part of their Streambed Alternation Agreement. The biologist qualifications and final preconstruction survey shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and Project Engineer before commencing construction; (Contractor with review by Planning, Public Works) 2. that any dewatering required to accomplish the proposed improvements shall be supervised by a USFWS approved and qualified biologist. In the remote instance that listed California red-legged frog or steelhead individuals or any other species on the rare and endangered species list are encountered, a USFWS approved biologist shall be retained to relocate individuals to a secure location outside the construction affected segment of the creek channel. Additional conditions pertaining to the preconstruction survey may be required by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) as part of their Streambed Alternation Agreement; (Contractor with review by Planning, Public Works) 3. that removal of woody vegetation shall be minimized and all native trees shall be avoided. All native tree trunks within twenty (20) feet of construction activities shall be flagged in the field by a qualified biologist/arborist prior to initiation of any construction within the Easton Creek corridor. The flagged trees shall be approved in the field by the City Arborist prior to commencing construction activities. Construction personnel shall be instructed that all disturbances (hand or equipment excavation, pruning, equipment storage, etc.) shall be avoided within the tree drip line. No cutting of tree roots over 2" will be allowed with out the review of the project biologist who will submit a written report to the City Arborist; (Contractor with review by the City Arborist) 4. that Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan shall be prepared by a qualified engineer utilizing Best Management Practices addressing all water-quality, sedimentation, and erosion aspects of the proposed project. Approved protections shall be installed before any construction activities begin in the area. Review and approval of the plan shall be by the Chief Building Official and City Engineer; (Contractor with review by the Building Department and Public Works) 5. that the proposed project shall minimize disturbance to the bed or bank of Easton Creek, with all in-channel activities preformed by hand. Any disturbed channel bank or bed shall be restored to existing conditions as approved and certified by the project - 1 - biologist. As necessary, in-channel activities shall be authorized by possible regulatory agencies, including the CDFG, US Army Corps, and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and all conditions required as part of any required agency authorization shall be implemented and adhered to as part of the project. This effort shall be reviewed during construction and approved by the City Engineer and qualified biologist hired by the Contractor as identified in items #I and#2 above; (Contractor with review by the Public Works Department) 6. that construction activities within the creek channel shall be conducted during the dry summer season from April to October, avoiding adverse impacts on sensitive aquatic habitat. Heavy equipment shall be prohibited within the creek channel, and removal of mature trees and woody vegetation shall be avoided and only take place with the agreement of the project biologist as approved by the City Arborist; (Contractor with review by Public Works and City Arborist) 7. that construction hours shall be limited to city standards as specified in the Burlingame Municipal Code for all residential areas; and (Contractor with review by Public Works) 8. that the site shall be periodically sprayed as required by the City Engineer with water to control dust during any grading or major construction activities. Additional dust control shall be done in response to complaints from nearby neighbors. (Contractor with review by Public Works) UAfiles\environemental and CEQATaston Creek sewer\mitigation measures manual 6-20-05.doe - 2 - City of Burlingame EASTON CREEK SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT City Project No.81150 BID SUMMARY Engit-es EstLnsle J.Howard Engineering,Inc. Bay Pack Pipeline Inc. JMB Construction Inc. Trinet Construction,Inc. (Burlingame) (Novato) (South San Francisco) (San Francisco) ITEM DESCRIPTION OF ITEM EST.QUANTITY UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST A GENERAL ITEMS 1 MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION 1 LS $20,000 S 20,000 $68,000.00 $ 68,000.. $40,000.00 $ 40,000 $80,000.00 $ 80,000 $180,000.00 $ 180,000 2 CONSTRUCTION SURVEY&SITE INVESTIGATION 1 LS $10,000 $ 10,000 $30,000.00 $ 30,000 $10,000.00 $ 10,000 $19,000.00 $ 19,000 $10,000.00 $ 10,000 3 SIDEWALK RECONSTRUCTION 800 SF $15 $ 12,000 $ 7.00 $ 5,600. $ 6.00 $ 4,800 $ 10.00 $ 8,000 $ 15.00 $ 12,000 4 DRIVEWAY RECONSTRUCTION 30 SF $15 $ 450 $ 10.00 $ 300 $ 7.00 $ 210 $ 50.00 $ 1.500: $ 40.00 $ 1,200 5 CURB AND GUTTER RECONSTRUCTION WITH ASPHALT REPLACEMENT 200 LF $30 $ 6,000 $ 27.00 $ 5,400 $ 25.00 $ 5,000 $ 60.00 $ 12.000 $ 50.00 $ 10,000 6 POST TELEVISION INSPECTION 4,604 LF $1.50 $ 6,906 $ 3.00 1$ 13,812 $ 2.00 $ 9,208 $ 2.00 $ 9,208 $ 1.00 $ 4,604 B EASTON DRIVE 7 REPLACE 6"SEWER MAIN WITH 8"SEWER MAIN BY RPEBURSTING 120 LF $75 $ 9,000 S 110.00 $ 13,200 S 75.00 $ 9,000 $ 60,00 $ 7.200 $ 150.00 $ 18,000 8 REPLACE 12'SEWER MAIN WITH 18"SEWER MAIN BY PIPEBURSTING 923 LF $135 S 124,605 S 180.00 $ 166,140 $ 100.00 $ 92,300 $ 90.00 $ 83,070 $ 175.00 $ 161,525 9 NEW 8"PVC PIPE-OPEN CUT 69 LF $120 $ 8,280 $ 137.00 S 9,453 $ 175.00 $ 12,075 S 200.00 $ 13,800 $ 15000 $ 10,350 10 NEW 18"PVC PIPE-OPEN CUT 2,126 LF $200 $ 425,200 $ 180.00 $ 382,680 $ 240.00 $ 510,240 $ 270.00 $ 574,020 $ 175.00 $ 372,050 11 REPLACE EXISTING 6'SEWER MAIN WITH 18"PVC OPEN-CUT 748 LF $220 $ 164,560 S 180.00 $ 134,640 $ 240.00 $ 179,520 $ 270.00 $ 201,960 $ 175.00 $ 130,900 12 BORE&JACK 27"STEEL CASING WITH 18'HDPE PIPE 377 LF $435 $ 163,995 $ 405.00 $ 152,685 S 750.00 $ 282,750 S 550.00 S 207,350 S 600.00 S 226.200 13 HAND-DIG TO INSTALL 18'SEWER MAIN 200 LF $75 $ 15,000 $ 200.00 $ 40,000 $ 400.00 $ $0,000 $ 30.00 $ 6,000 $ 200.00 $ 40,000 14 REPLACE 4'EXISTING SEWER LATERAL 33 EA $2200 $ 72,600 $ 1,500.00 $ -'49,500 $ 500.00 $ 16,500 $ 1,000.00 $ 33,000 $ 3,000.00 $ 99,000 15 REPLACE 4"EXISTING SEWER LATERAL AND EXTEND TO NEW SEWER MAIN 12 EA $2,400 $ 28,800 $ 2,000.00 $ 24,000.. $ 500.00 $ 6,000 $ 1,000.00 $ 12,000 $ 4,000.00 $ 48,000 16 REPLACE P EXISTING SEWER LATERAL BY HAND-DIG OPEN-CUT 7 EA $3,000 $ 21,000 $ 2,500.00 $ 17,500 $ 1,000.00 $ 7,000 $ 1,000.00 $ 7,000 $ 3,500.00 $ 24,500 17 REPLACE 4"EXISTING SEWER LATERAL AND EXTNED TO NEW SEWER MAIN 2 EA $4,000 $ 8,000 $ 2.500.00 $ 5,000 S 750.00 $ 1,500 $ 1.500.00 $ 3,000 $ 5,000.00 $ 10,000 BY HAND-DIG OPEN-CUT 18 REPLACE EXISTING LATERAL CLEANOUT 54 EA $400 $ 21,600 $ .500.00 $ 27,000 $ 250.00 $ 13,500 $ 300.00 $ 16,200' $ 500.00 $ 27,000 19 INSTALL SS MANHOLE 14 EA $3,500 $ 49,000 S 3,750.00 $ 52,500 S 4,0D0.00 $ 56,000 $ 3,000.00 $ 42,000 $ 3,000.00 $ 42,000.00 20 INSTALL SS DROP MANHOLE 5 EA $3,600 $ 18 000 $ 4,000.00 $ 20,000 $ 5,000.00 $ 25,000 $ 3,500.00 $ 17,500 $ 4.00000 $ 20,000 21 INSTALL SS DROP MANHOLE AT EASTON DR.&EL CAMINO REAL 1 EA $5,000 $ 5.000 $15,000.00 $ 15,000 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000 $15,000.00 $ 15,000 22 ABANDON EXISTING MANHOLE 5 EA $800 $ 4,000 $ 1,000.00 $ 5,000 $ 1,000.00 $ 5,000 S 1,500.00 $ 7,500 $ 2,000.00 $ 10,000 23 ABANDON EXISTING 6"SEWER MAIN 30 LF $12 $ 360 $ 8.00 S 240 S 1,000.00 $ 30.000 $ 10.00 $ 300 $ 100.00 $ 3,000 21 ABANDON EXISTING 8"SEWER MAIN 60 LF $14 $ 840 $ 8.00 $ 480 S 10.00 $ 600 $ 15.00 $ 900 100 $ 6,000 25 1 ABANDON EXISTING 12"SEWER MAIN 990 LF $18 $ 17,820 $ 15.00 $ 14,850 S 10.00 f 9,900 $ 1500 $ 14,850 $ 100.00 $ 99,000 BASE BID TOTAL(SECTIONS A&B): $ 1213,016 $ 1,252,980 $ 1,411,103 $ 1,382,358 $ 1,680,329 C ALTERNATE BID N0.1-EASTON CREEK 26 SPOT REPAIR EX.12"SS 150 LF $150 f 22,500 S 175.00 $ 26,250 S 150.00 $ 22,500 $ 150.00 $ 22,500 S 300.00 $ 45,000 27 REPLACE 4"SEWER LATERALS AND CONNECT TO EX.12"SS MAIN LINE 32 EA $2,500 $ 80,000 $ 1,500.00 $ 48,000 S 150.00 $ 4,800 $ 1,000.00 $ 32,000 $ 2,000.00 $ 64,000 28 REPALCE EXISTING LATERAL CLEANOUT 32 EA $750 $ 24,000 $ 500.00 $ 16,000 $ 75.00 $ 2,400 $ 300.00 $ 9.600 $ 1,000.00 S 32,000 29 REHABILITATE EXISTING MANHOLE 30 EA $2200 $ 66,000 $ 1,750.00 $ 52,500 $ 2,000.00 $ 60,000 $ 2,600.00 $ 84,000 $ 2,500.00 $ 75,000 30 RAISE EXISTING MANHOLE T HIGHER 2 EA $2,500 $ 5,000 $ 2,300.00 $:r -4,600 $ 400.00 $ 800 $ 1,500.00. $ 3,000 S 1,000.00 $ 2,000 31 INSTALL SEWER LAMPHOLE 2 EA $1,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000.00 $ 4,000 $ 250.00 $ 500 $ 1,500.00 $ 3,000 $ 1,000.00 $ 2,000 32 INSTALL 6"PIPE LINER 222 LF $75 $ 16,650 $ 95.00 $ 21,090 5 95.00 $ 21,090 $ 130.00 $ 28,860 $ 100.00 $ 22,200 33 INSTALL 12"PIPE LINER 142 LF $95 $ 13,490 $ 112.00 $ 15,904 $ 110.00 $ 15,620 $ 150.00 $ 21,300 $ 150.00 $ 21,300 34 ABANDON EXISTING 6"SEWER MAIN 120 LF $12 $ 1,440 $ 3.00 $ 360. $ 9.00 $ 1,080 $ 1000 $ 1200 $ 100.00 $ 12,000 35 ABANDON EXISTING IT SEWER MAIN 5o LF $18 $ 900 $ 15.00 $ 750 $ 10.00 $ 500 $ 20.00 $ 1,000 $ 100.00 $ 5,000 36 ABANDON EXISTING MANHOLE 1 EA $1,000 $ 1,000 $ 2,750 00 $ 2,750 $ 100.00 $ 100 $ 2,000.00 $ 2,000 5 2,000.00 $ 2,000 $ 2,980 $ 19,30 208,460 282,500ALTERNATE BID TOTAL(SECTION C): 2 D ADDITION COSTS TO ALTERNATE BID NO.1-EASTON CREEK ADDITIONAL COST(POSTPONED CREEK PORTION OF WORK TO SUMMER 37 ��) 1 EA 510,000 $ 10 000 S 10,000.00 $ 70,000 5 20,000.00 $ 20,000 $ 10,000.00 $ 10 000 5 10,000.00 $ 10 000 BID INCLUDING BASE BIDS TOTAL,ALTERNATE BID TOTAL,AND S 1,455,996 $ 1,455,184 $ 1,560,493 $ 1,600,818 $ 1,872,829 ADDITION COSTS TOTAL: liv_I I. (I of 1) 6/6/20115 1AiECITY o" STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 7a 100 MTG. E 9q0^TED-Eb DATE 6,20.05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: JUNE 14, 2005 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT:PROPOSAL FOR PREPARING A SCOPE OF WORK AN SELECTING A CONSULTANT FOR AN ECONOMIC STUDY OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA Council Action: To approve the proposed approach for preparing an economic study for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area; and to provide direction on the selection of the RFP advisory committee members. BACKGROUND: In April the City Council directed staff to investigate preparation of an economic study for the expanded Burlingame Avenue Commercial area, to include subareas A, B and D (auto row) and the immediately adjacent residential areas which would be affected by changes within the commercial area. The Council met in Joint Session with the Planning Commission on June 13, 2005. The following proposal is the product of these two discussions. The scope of the study to begin discussion should include (1) an economic study for the downtown area the elements of which would be arrived at though discussion with a representative committee selected by the City Council. Included in the study, as a subset, would be evaluation of the alternatives for the density of mixed uses appropriate for the combined lots at El Camino Real, Howard Avenue, Primrose Road and Fox Plaza Lane. This evaluation should consider the amount of each mixed use necessary to make a mixed use project economically viable at that site. This evaluation matrix may be extended to provide insight into the possible mixed use of other privately and publicly owned sites in the downtown area. Broadbased community input is important in the preparation and presentation of this study. Steps in preparing a scope of work and initiating an economic study: 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, the Traffic, Safety and Parking 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 INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR THE NORTH B URLINGAME AND ROLLINS ROAD SUBAREAS OF THE NORTH BURLINGAME SPECIFIC AREA PLAN JANUARY 3,2005 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 RFP advisory 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 outlined in the RFP is completed in a timely manner. Two Planning Commissioners have expressed an interest in participating in the RFP subcommittee: Commissioners Brownrigg and Vistica. Staff is unaware of any other volunteers who have come forward so far. Attachments: Unapproved Minutes, Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting, July 13, 2005. U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR 2005\EconStudy BACA direction.doc 6.20.05.doc CITY OF BURLINGAME UNAPPROVED MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA June 13, 2005 Conference Room A I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Galligan called the meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmembers: Baylock, O'Mahony, Nagel; Mayor Galligan Commissioners: Brownrigg, Cauchi (arrived at 6:05 p.m.) Deal, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica (arrived at 6:30 p.m.); Chair Auran Absent: Councilman Coffey Staff Present: City Manager, Jim Nantell; City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. FROM THE FLOOR It was noted that if there is not sufficient time at this meeting for public comment, the Planning Commission will be meeting immediately following and the public is welcome to make any comments they wish at the From the Floor at the beginning of the Planning Commission meeting. IV.DISCUSSION ITEM 1: UPDATE ON THE COMMISSION'S PROGRESS ON DEVELOPING IMPLEMENTING ZONING FO RHTE BAYFRONT AND NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLANS AND ON THE MAJOR REVISON TO THE SIGN CODE. CP Monroe reviewed the briefing paper she handed out on this issue summarizing the status of the work of the three Subcommittees of the Planning Commission assigned to work on the zoning implementation for the two Specific Plans and the Sign Code. The briefing paper included the currently projected public review schedule for the zoning amendment and sign code which will come to the Planning Commission and City Council for study and action. She asked if the Council and Commission wanted to schedule a study meeting in September for presentation of the new sign code. Mayor Galligan asked Councilmembers Baylock and Nagel if they would agree to join the Planning Commission subcommittee working on the sign code. If, after they come up to speed on the proposed changes, they agree with the commissioners on the subcommittee that a joint meeting is needed they should report back to the Council with a proposal. Members of the subcommittees on zoning noted that the proposed zoning, especially for the North Burlingame area is also taking a new approach which will result in a dramatic change in the appearance of the area. A Councilmember noted that it would be good to encourage more height in the El Camino Real area close to BART. CITY OF B URLINGAME UNAPPROVED MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13,2005 ITEM 2: FUTURE LONG TERM PLANNING FOR THE BULINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA. CP Monroe referred to the briefing paper for this item noting that it was divided into two related topics: (1), the economic study for the downtown area; and (2), proposals for future downtown vision and development presentations. Economic study: it was noted by the CP that City Council had directed staff in April to prepare an economic study which could be a precursor to preparing a Specific Area Plan for the downtown area of Burlingame and would provide an opportunity to look at the economics of mixed use in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. The downtown area was defined as the area bounded by Peninsula Avenue (south side), El Camino Real (west side), the rear of the properties along Oak Grove Avenue (north side) and the railroad tracks (east side). In April the council set out two general purposes for the economic study: (1), to develop a baseline for the economy of the downtown area, to determine the "attraction" capacity by land use and type of business for the area, and to project the demand by use for the next 20 years or so; and (2), as a subset, to evaluate the alternatives for the mix and density of uses appropriate for future development of the combined lots at El Camino Real, Howard Avenue, Primrose Road and Fox Plaza Lane. Staff has been directed to bring a proposal for how to proceed with the economic study to the City Council at their meeting on June 20, 2005. Discussion points made by one or more participants regarding the economic study of the Downtown Area: • In the interest of time let the Planning Commission prepare the RFP and involve the community when the consultant has started. • A key interest expressed in the discussion about the economic study was evaluation of the viability of a mixed use (scale and size) on the Safeway site so may need a broader based committee to prepare the RFP to get credibility for the study. • Need to determine what is an economically viable use on the Safeway site. • The study will be funded from the Parking Enterprise Fund because of its focus on integrating public and private activities in the BACA. • A wider area than the Safeway site needs to be evaluated in the economic study. • Would like to incorporate different combinations of land uses on the Safeway site and what is necessary for a reasonable project for the developer. • Important to remember the broader vision for the area, and not get too focuses on the Safeway site. • Include an evaluation of the revenues to the city from proposed uses and the "costs" to the city for maintaining the infrastructure based on the impacts of different mixes and uses. • Determine the critical mass necessary for mixed use on a site and how the public spaces work into that. • Determine the role of the land value of the parking lots and how to arrive at that value. • How should parking work with mix of residential and commercial uses, should it be shared., and how much parking is really needed. 2 CITY OF B URLINGAME UNAPPROVED MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCILIPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13,2005 • Look at land uses which will bring people into the downtown area, such as movie theater, boutique hotel or bed and breakfast, etc. • The current location of parking lot location in the downtown area is haphazard. • What is the cost of below grade parking, above grade structure parking, what is the appropriate mix? • The economic study will need to listen to the public and provide education for the public. • The economic study should give some idea about the size and economic impact of a project and whether we should allow a use at that size at a given site. So if the study says OK can come back with a project. • Hate to see large land use decisions made only on a financial analysis, such decisions should be based on goals set by planning for the entire area . • Should shorten time to prepare RFP so can get going. Staff noted that some of these issues identified may go beyond the economic study; and these concerns will be carried over to the Specific Plan study for the downtown area. Discussion about Proposals for Visions and Future Projects in the Downtown Area: Many of the land use density issues and allocations are part of the downtown vision which will be a focus of the Downtown Plan to be undertaken in a year and a half from now. If the idea is to proceed with the economic study now, should we tell applicants to wait for submittal for a year and a half to three years? It was generally noted that an education component is key for both the economic and specific plan. Points made in the discussion were: • It might be best to wait for these public presentations until the economist is hired so s/he can listen as well. • Feel the more presentations the better. • Educate the public, good to see the previous Ionescu and Dreiling presentations together. • Could make presentations at the first 30 minutes of Council meetings so would be televised and repeatable (video taped for rebroadcast). • Could do developer presentations in group forums. • Where does an AIA design charrette fit into this? • Feel that a design charrette is a part of the planning program. Needs some lead time to plan since these opportunities book up a year in advance. Beyond the thought that it would be useful for the public and city officials to hear from architects and developers with "visions" or proposals for the downtown area, the group arrived at no specific decision about how to do it. There seemed to be consensus that having public presentations before the city embarked on a specific plan for the downtown area was appropriate. ITEM 3: PLANNING WORK PROGRAM FOR FY 2005-2006 CP Monroe referred to her third briefing paper noting that the city's planning activities are divided into current and advanced planning She commented that there are a significant number of current planning projects in the pipe line for Commission action and the present advanced planning zoning program to 3 CITY OF B URLINGAME UNAPPROVED MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING June 13,2005 implement the specific plans adopted in 2004 will not be completed until the December/January time frame. Commissioner Auran suggested that another item be added to the department's work program for 2005-2006; tweaking the design guidelines and bringing the R-1 zoning district into more consistency with the residential design guidelines. This would speed up project reviews. It was suggested that a commission subcommittee be appointed to look at the R-1 zoning district; and that it would be appropriate for the subcommittee to include representation by the design reviewers. There was general consensus on this item. Mayor Galligan noted that the Commissioners needed to get to their meeting and encouraged any members of the audience who wished to comment on the discussion at the joint meeting to attend the Planning Commission meeting and speak from the floor at the beginning of the commission's agenda. Mayor Galligan adjourned the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting to the Planning Commission meeting at 7:00 p.m. 4 4� CITY o� STAFF REPORT BIJRLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 7b MTG. a�o4�NATEDJURE6'9Q0 DATE 6.20.05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: JUNE 10, 2005 FROM: CITY PLANNER APPROVEDBY SUBJECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CITY'S NING 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. Introduction: City Council should set the public hearing and second reading of an ordinance amending the zoning boundary map for the Bayshore Planning Area. Staff would recommend that this item be set for public hearing at your meeting on July 5, 2005. Introduction requires the following Council actions. A. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. 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 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. June 20,2005 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 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 district designation, Anza Point South (APS). 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 changes have grown out of the 2004 Bayfront Plan, and reflect the new 2005 zoning regulation changes. 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, Bayshore Highway and Easton Creek. The Shoreline (SS) area is bounded by Bayshore Highway (on the west), the Millbrae City Line, San Francisco Bay and Sanchez Wetland. The Anza Extension area is zoned Unclassified. It does not change. The Anza Extension extends from US 101 (on the west), Bayside Park, San Francisco Bay to Bayside Park, Upper Deck. The Anza Area(AA) is bounded by US 101 on the west, Bayside Park Upper Deck, San Francisco Bay and Sanchez Channel. The Anza Point area is divided into two zoning districts. The Anza Point North (APN) is bounded by the rear of the properties with frontage on Beach Road on the west, Sanchez Channel, to San Francisco Bay (on two sides). The Anza Point South area is bounded by US 101 on the west, Sanchez Channel, the rear of the properties fronting on the east side of Beach Road and San Francisco Bay. 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 U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR 2005\IntroAmendZongDistBoundryMap 6.20.05.doc 2 BURLINGAME BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN Amendment to Zoning District Map GS Ordinance No. oreline Adopted by the City Council on , 2005 � r Legend �� Point Inner Bayshore .... O-M to I-B ::• :••:•. ® Shoreline 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 1 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1621 3 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE THE ZONING MAPS INCORPORATED IN THE BURLINGAME ZONING CODE 4 BY ESTABLISHING NEW ZONING DISTRICTS IN THE CITY'S BAYFRONT AREA 5 6 7 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 8 9 Section 1 . The zoning maps attached to Ordinance No. 539 as amended and referenced 10 in Section 25. 12.010 of the Municipal Code are amended as follows: 11 1 . The area between the Millbrae City limits and Easton Creek, and between the 12 Bayshore Freeway and Bayshore Highway is reclassified from O-M District to Inner Bayshore 13 (I-B) District. 14 2. The area between the Millbrae City limits and Bayside Park/Sanchez Wetlands, and 15 between the Bayshore Highway and San Francisco Bay, including the area between Bayside 16 Park and Airport Boulevard, is reclassified from C-4 District to Shoreline (S-L) District. 17 These reclassifications are generally shown on the Exhibit to this ordinance and shall be 18 effective upon the effective date of this ordinance. 19 20 Section 2. The zoning maps attached to Ordinance No. 539 as amended and referenced 21 in Section 25. 12.010 of the Municipal Code are amended as follows: 22 1 . The area between the Bayshore Freeway and San Francisco Bay, and between the 23 Anza Extension Area and Sanchez Channel, is reclassified from C-4 District to Anza Area (A- 24 A) District. 25 2. The area encompassed between the southern property line of the real property 26 formerly known as 301 Airport Boulevard and San Francisco Bay, and between Sanchez �— 27 Channel and San Francisco Bay, is reclassified from C-4 District to Anza Point North (A-P-N) I District. 2 3. The area encompassed between the southern property line of the real property 3 formerly known as 301 Airport Boulevard and the Bayshore Freeway, and between Sanchez 4 Channel and San Francisco Bay, is reclassified from O-M District to Anza Point South (A-P-S) 5 District. 6 These reclassifications are generally shown on the Exhibit to this ordinance and shall be 7 effective upon the effective date of the City ordinances establishing the zoning regulations for 8 the Anza Area, Anza Point North, and Anza Point South Districts. 9 10 Section 3 . This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 11 12 13 Mayor `. 14 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that 15 the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16 day of , 2005, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City 17 Council held on the day of , 2005, by the following vote: 18 19 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 20 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 21 22 23 City Clerk 24 25 26 �- 27 - 2 - 1,�� cITY o�,,, STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 8a ITEM # MTG. DATE June 20, 2005 �AATED JVNE� TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMI 'P BY DATE: June 20, 2005 AP OVED B FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director 558-7222 SUBJECT: CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PROMOTIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT FOR FY 05-06 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the promotional services contract with the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce for fiscal year 2005-06. BACKGROUND: The City of Burlingame contracts with the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce to provide promotional and information services to businesses, visitors and residents. The services include: • Distribution of materials and information to businesses and residents about Burlingame programs, events and activities. • Referral services to businesses and residents about Burlingame City government. • Sponsor and coordinate community events involving merchants, businesses and the public. • Promotion of business, community and economic development activities. • Business retention and relocation activities. A complete listing of all services is included in the attached funding agreement document. The adopted budget contains $27,620 in the Non-Departmental account for this purpose. Disbursements are made monthly to the Chamber. The agreement has been amended to incorporate the following City Council's goal: "Work to develop a partnership with the City of Burlingame's business improvement districts that include the exploration of (1 ) creating a "Buy Burlingame" campaign and (2) use of a joint website to promote Burlingame businesses. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Authorizing the City Manager to Execute Agreement with the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce to Provide Information and Promotion Services in 2005-2006. Funding Agreement for Promotional Activities — Chamber of Commerce U:\FY06 Budget Development\Non Departmental Agreement Renewals\Chamber of Commerece Agenda Report 2005.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH THE BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION AND PROMOTION SERVICES IN 2005-2006 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,the City needs an ongoing public information service that can respond to inquiries from business, visitors, and residents about the public and private services available in the community; and WHEREAS,the City also needs a ready source of information and coordination of community events; and WHEREAS,there is also a need for local promotion of community events; and WHEREAS, Government Code sections 40100 and following allow the City to appropriate money to publicize and advertise the City; and WHEREAS,the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce has provided these services to the community on a timely, professional basis, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A is approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the agreement for and on behalf of the City. 3. The City Clerk is directed to witness the Manager's signature on behalf of the City. 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: 1 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 2 2 AGREEMENT PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES—CHAMBER OF COMMERCE This Agreement is made and entered into as of the 1St day of July, 2005, by and between the City of Burlingame, a municipal corporation of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce (hereinafter referred to as "Chamber"),with reference to the following Recitals: RECITALS: WHEREAS, City desires to promote its advantages as a business, educational, cultural, recreational and residential center, and to disseminate information relative thereto, and to properly respond to inquiries made from time to time relating to the various activities of City; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereby agree as follows: AGREEMENT: 1. Duties of Chamber. In exchange for the consideration specified in paragraph 3 below, Chamber shall perform the following promotional activities on behalf of City: a. Distribute materials and information to residents and businesses about Burlingame relating to the activities described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. b. Answer public inquiries about community facilities, events, organizations,businesses, and other community informational needs, through availability on a"walk-in"basis, as well as through mailings, telephone and e-mail. C. Provide referral services to citizens and businesses to appropriate City or government offices, including without limitation, the City Business License Bureau (located in the Water Department), Burlingame Recreation Department, Planning Department, Public Works Department, Police Department and Fire Department. d. Coordinate community events involving merchants and businesses requiring City services as needed and help promotion by City. e. Sponsor/coordinate/advertise special events and activities involving businesses and the public, including the following: (1) Produce Burlingame Art &Jazz Festival 14168.00004\BGLIB 1\I 187929.1 1 (2) Assist with the December Merchant Holiday Open House and Tree Lighting Ceremony (3) Assist the Recreation Department with advertising the Burlingame Millbrae Golf Tournament (4) Conduct seasonal Farmers Market (5) Sponsor Broadway Holiday Cheer event f. Produce/distribute materials about Burlingame, as follows: (i) Burlingame/Hillsborough Street Map g. Promote business, community and economic development through the activities described in Exhibit B attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. h. Assist City with the continuation of the currently operating commuter shuttle service between the Broadway Caltrain station and the business area East of the Bayshore Freeway. i. Promote the retention and relocation of businesses to City by participating (in conjunction with City) in the activities of San Mateo County Economic Development Association. j. Maintain and operate an office open to the general public for discharging the obligations of Chamber under the terms of this Agreement (including, without limitation, promoting the residential and business attributes of City to the public). k. Employ competent personnel to carry on the promotional activities enumerated herein. 1. Work to develop a partnership with the City of Burlingame's business improvement districts that include the exploration of: (1) Creating a"Buy Burlingame" campaign (2) Use of a joint website to promote Burlingame businesses 2. Certain Political Activities Prohibited. The Chamber shall not support, endorse or oppose any candidate for municipal, county or school elections in San Mateo County. The Chamber may conduct candidate debate forums or similar events of a public information nature. 14168.00004\13GLIB I\1 187929.1 2 3. Consideration. a. General Promotional Activities. City shall pay Chamber, in the manner specified below, the sum of Twenty-seven Thousand Six Hundred Twenty Dollars ($27,620) for general promotional services performed by Chamber hereunder for the period commencing July 1, 2005, and ending June 30, 2006. The foregoing sum shall be paid in twelve equal consecutive monthly installments commencing July 1, 2005. Chamber shall send to City on the first (1St) day of each month a written invoice describing in a summary manner the services for which Chamber is to be paid. Invoices dated the first day of each month shall be paid no later than the fifteenth day of each month. 4. Assignment. This Agreement shall not be assigned by Chamber without the written consent of City. 5. Notices. All written notices and demands which either party may serve on the other may, as an alternative to personal service, be served by registered or certified mail. Any such notice or demand so served shall be deposited in the United States mail with postage fully prepaid and addressed to the party at the address specified below: City: City Manager City Hall 501 Primrose Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Chamber: Chair, Burlingame Chamber of Commerce 290 California Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 Either party may change such address by notice in writing to the other party, and thereafter notices shall be addressed and transmitted to the new address. 6. Relationship of parties. It is agreed the Chamber is an independent contractor and all persons working for or under the direction of Chamber or its agents, servants and employees are not agents or employees of City. 7. Termination. This Agreement shall commence on July 1, 2005 and shall terminate on June 30, 2006, unless extended by the parties in writing. 8. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 14168.00004\BGLIB 1\1187929.1 3 9. Entire Agreement. The terms of this Agreement are intended by the parties as a final expression of their agreement and may not be contradicted by evidence of any prior or contemporaneous agreement. This Agreement constitutes the exclusive statement of its terms and no extrinsic evidence whatsoever maybe introduced in any judicial proceedings involving this Agreement. 10. Attorneys' Fees. In the event of any litigation between the parties hereto to enforce any of the provisions of this Agreement, the unsuccessful party to such litigation shall pay to the successful party all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorneys' fees incurred by the successful party, all of which may be included as part of the judgment rendered in such litigation. 11. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement should be invalid or unenforceable the remaining provisions shall not be affected thereby, and every provision hereof shall be valid and enforceable to the fullest extent permitted by law. 12. Headings. The title and headings of the various sections hereof are included for purposes of reference only and are not intended to place any construction on the provisions hereof. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set forth above. CITY OF BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE By By Attested: By By 14168.00004\13GL1B 1\1187929.1 4 EXHIBIT A DISTRIBUTION OF MATERIALS AND INFORMATION ABOUT THE CITY OF BURLINGAME 1. Burlingame Demographics 2. Essential information for new Burlingame residents, including, without limitation, information materials for Burlingame Newcomers Club for all new Burlingame residents contacted by the club. 3. Community Event Information including: a. Art In The Park b. Broadway Festival (when applicable) c. Burlingame Art and Jazz Festival d. Concert In The Park Series e. Concerts at Kohl Mansion f. Public Elementary School, Public and Private High School Events g. Burlingame Night—S.F. Giants h. Burlingame Millbrae Golf Tournament i. Burlingame Avenue Area& Broadway BID's. j. Merchant Sidewalk Sales (April &August) k. December—Merchant Holiday Open House and Tree Lighting 4. Public Transportation Information (Samtrans, Caltrain, BART and Burlingame Trolley) 5. Historical Information—Burlingame 6. Churches, parks and schools in Burlingame 7. Wedding/Meeting Sites Information 8. Clubs and Organizations Information 9. Hotel and Restaurant Information 10. Realtor Information 11. Burlingame Business relocation assistance 12. Burlingame Business Economic Profile 13. Publication handouts include: 14168.00004\BGLIB 1\l 187929.1 5 a. Burlingame/Hillsborough Street Map b. San Mateo County Convention&Visitors Bureau County Image c. Burlingame Golf Center d. Burlingame Recreation Department Brochures (3 per year) e. Social Service Resources 14. Provide direction or resource information to meet unique or uncommon requests 14168.00004\13GLIB1A 187929.1 6 EXHIBIT B ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES PROMOTING BUSINESS, COMMUNITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 1. Promotion of special community meetings, seminars and special events 2. Promotion of community events and services 3. Information to Burlingame Elementary Schools about Burlingame 4. Chamber Membership Advertising and Promotional Budget promotes Burlingame in coordination with the Business Associations and BID's 5. Prepare publicity releases for Community Events 6. On-going business economic development programs: a. Hotels b. Office Buildings c. Providing SCORE counselor in Chamber office for business counseling d. Support of Private Industry Council (PIC)—Youth for Employment Program 7. Chamber Representation at San Mateo County PROGRESS SEMINAR to study regional issues 8. Response to City of Burlingame requests regarding all business issues 9. Chamber/Business Annual Report—Independent Special Edition Insert 10. Promote the annual county business trade show 11. Burlingame Trolley 14168.00004\BGLIB 1\1187929.1 7 Agenda 8b Item # BURLIIVGAME STAFF REPORT Meeting a�- Date: June 20, 2005 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED B TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: May 23, 2005 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT WITH THE CULVER GROUP FOR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND PLUMBING INSPECTION SERVICES, CITY PROJECT NO. 80770 - Phase II RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution authorizing an amendment to the agreement with The Culver Group for additional construction management and plumbing inspection services in the amount of $137,895. BACKGROUND: Council approved agreements with The Culver Group to design two phases of water main replacements in the Burlinghome/Easton subdivisions. Construction of Phase I was completed in 2004. Council also approved an agreement with The Culver Group for $280,365 to provide management services during construction of the Phase II improvements. DISCUSSION OF ADDITIONAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES ($120,625): The Phase II project involves the installation of two miles of new water main and service connections to 300 homes. During construction, there have been a significant number of rainy days which extended the contract duration by 27 days. Also, a 25 working day time extension was granted to the contractor due to the added difficulty for the work crews to install water service connections in very saturated soil conditions. Although the contractor was not able to work productively during all of these days, construction maragement efforts were still required as follows: • meeting with residents in the project area to discuss resident concerns • providing daily project documentation • obtaining Right of Entry Agreements from residents • inspecting pressure testing of water mains, house services and fire hydrants • inspecting the transfer from old to new water services inspecting the chlorination and water quality sampling of new mains • conducting weekly construction meetings with the contractor and program manager Additionally, staff determined that a deteriorated and undersized section of water main located adjacent to the project area along Adeline Drive was severely leaking and creating significant operational and maintenance problems. Due to the urgency of the situation, The Culver Group was asked to manage the water main replacement. S:AA Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\80770 Water Main Replacement\80770 ResolutionCulverAgreement_modified3.doe In summary, the unforeseeable atypical rainy winter occurring this late in the spring resulted in an additional 52 working days for the consultant which was not anticipated in the original agreement. Also, The Culver Group was asked to manage the replacement of a high-priority water main. Staff has carefully reviewed the request for $120,625 in added management expenses including details of work, daily reports as well as time cards and finds it reasonable given the complexity of the work. With this agreement amendment, the total cost of construction management services is $418,260 or 18.4% of the total project construction cost which is within the industry standard of 15% to 20%. Staff also believes that the consultant oversight during this time minimized the risk of construction related damage to landscaping and property owner claims against the City. DISCUSSION OF PLUMBING INSPECTOR SERVICES ($17,270): During the development of the project scope, it was anticipated that the Building Division could perform the plumbing inspections which are critical during the installation of new service connections to the houses. Unfortunately, the workload of the Building Division increased significantly and City staff could not provide the necessary timely inspections. In order to avoid costly construction delay claims by the contractor, staff negotiated with the consultant to provide these services utilizing the former Assistant Superintendent of the Water Division who is extremely familiar with the City's water system. His expertise resulted in a very low average inspection cost per property of $58, or $17,270 for all 300 homes. BUDGET IMPACT: The total Phase II project costs including this amendment are $2,795,128. The total available budget is $2,970,000, which is funded by water bond revenues. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Agreement Amendment SAA Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\80770 Water Main Replacement\80770 ResolutionCulverAgreement_moditted3.doc RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT AMENDMENT WITH THE CULVER GROUP FOR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND PLUMBING INSPECTION SERVICES CITY PROJECT NO. 80770 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in the title above. 2. The City Manager be,and he is hereby,authorized to sign said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and instructed to attest such signature. 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 SAA Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\PROJECTS\RESAGRMT.GEN AMENDMENT AGREEMENT NO. 1 WITH CULVER THE CULVER GROUP FOR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND PLUMBING INSPECTION SERVICES CITY PROJECT NO. 80770 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into this day of 2005, by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and the CULVER GROUP hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT", WITNESSETH : WHEREAS, CITY and CONSULTANT have previously entered into an agreement for certain services, said agreement being dated JUNE 18, 2004; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the parties to amend said agreement as hereinafter set forth; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Amendment of Agreement Said agreement dated JUNE 18, 2004, is hereby amended to include those revisions in services and compensation set forth in EXHIBIT "A" attached. 2. In all other respects said agreement dated JUNE 18, 2004, shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AGREEMENT on the day and year first above written. CITY OF BURLINGAME A municipal corporation Approved as to form: By City Manager-Jim Nantell City Attorney - Larry Anderson ATTEST: City Clerk - Doris Mortensen Consultant - The Culver Group S:W Public Works Directory\Author,By Name\Peggy Adam Letters\AGREEMENTAMENDMENT.wpd THE CULVER GROUP, INC. EXHIBIT A Engineering • Construction Management Land Surveying Services 5/16/05 Mr. Mathew Zucca, P.E. Program Manager Erler& Kalinowski, Inc. 1870 Ogden Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Proposed Budget Augmentation for Construction Management Services on the Burlinghome Easton Water Main Replacement. - Phase II City of Burlingame Project# 80770 Dear Zucca: The Culver Group ("TCG") is submitting this letter to request a budget augmentation to our existing construction management agreement for the Burlinghome/Easton Water Main Replacement Project -Phase II, City Project Number 80770 ("Agreement") with the City of Burlingame ("City"). This budget augmentation is necessary to address (1) added construction management during the extended Phase II water main replacement project("Phase II Project") construction period resulting from inclement weather and unforeseen conditions, (2) added construction management during the installation of approximately 1,200 feet of water main along lower Adeline Drive, and (3)plumbing inspection services on behalf of the City. ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES The additional construction management and inspection tasks are discussed in further detail below. Task 1 - Construction Management Associated with Construction Rain Days and Time Extensions As indicated above, the Phase II Project experienced significant inclement weather during the 2004-2005 rainy season. Whereas the Phase I Project, for which TCG also performed construction management, only saw 3 rain delay days, the Phase II Project experienced a total of 27 rain delay days. Additionally, while no time extensions were granted to the contractor during the Phase I project, a total of 25 days of time extension were granted to the contractor during the Phase II Project. These rain delay days and time extension resulted in a total added duration to the project of 52 days. TCG's original agreement for construction management of the Phase II water main replacement project assumed a project duration of 140 days. This assumed duration of construction management services was based upon the total number of working days granted to the contractor to complete the Phase II project. However, from the original contract duration of 140 days, a total of 52 additional days were granted to the contractor due to the significant rain experienced during the project and unforeseen conditions that needed to be Page 2 of 2 Matt Zucca 5/16/05 addressed by the contractor. As a result,the total duration of the construction project increased from 140 days to 192 days. Typically, during normal working days, the contractor was able to keep one to two crews busy on the job with one crew installing water mains and the other crew typically performing service lateral installation. During normal working days, TCG was able to inspect the work of both crews. However, during the rain days and days where time extensions were granted, the contractor was not performing work that would be impacted by the saturated soil conditions. As a result, the contractor was only able to keep one crew busy working on other construction tasks. Per City policy,the presence of a construction manager was still required to oversee the one working crew. Although the reduced productivity during the rain days and time extensions did not result in additional construction costs due to the fixed-price nature of the construction contract, additional efforts were required to oversee the contractor during the extended duration of the project. As a result, TCG needed to perform construction management during an additional 52 working days that were not anticipated in TCG's original scope of work. During rain days and time extensions, TCG generally performed the following tasks. • Completed daily project documentation that was required for the entire duration of the project, not just the original 140 working days. • Developed punch list items for the contractor to complete prior to project acceptance. Over 100 punch list items were identified throughout the course of the project. • Inspected pressure testing of water mains, house services, and fire hydrants; • Inspected the transfer from old to new water services (TCG inspected the water service transfers for the nearly 300 homes in the Phase II project area); • Inspected the chlorination and water quality sampling of new mains; and • Conducted weekly construction meetings with contractor and program manager. In addition, TCG utilized the rain days to meet with residents in the project area to discuss resident concerns. During the project approximately 225 calls were received on the Project Information Line from residents, many of which required direct attention by TCG. Unfortunately, TCG was unable to estimate before or during the project the total impact of inclement weather and the associated additional time needed to complete the project and was therefore unable to complete and submit a proposal to accommodate the additional construction management services that would be needed to inspect the entire project. Now that the rainy season is over, TCG has reviewed the work performed during rain days and time extensions and prepared this proposed budget augmentation to cover the additional construction duration. 6850 Regional Street,Ste.210•Dublin,California 94568•(925)556-6252 Fax(925)556-3364 9 website—www.culvergroup.com Page 2 of 2 Matt Zucca 5/16/05 Although the above tasks were contemplated in the original Agreement, TCG feels the budget augmentation is merited because the rain days and time extensions resulted in significant additional time at the project site overseeing work. This additional time at the project site was not contemplated in the estimated total labor hours established in the Agreement. For this extra construction management effort, TCG has spent and proposes a total budget augmentation for this task of$78,625 or an average of$1,512 per day. This average daily construction management cost is significantly lower than the average of$2,000 per day for the original scope of work. The reduced average daily cost of construction management services during the added 52 working days is because TCG adjusted the level of construction management to be commensurate with the reduced construction activities during those days. Task 2 - Construction Management of Lower Adeline Water Main Replacement As directed by the City, The Culver Group performed construction management on a high- priority main replacement at the border of the Phase II project area along a portion of Adeline between Alvarado and Hillside Drive. The construction management of the Adeline main replacement lasted approximately 4 weeks during which time The Culver Group provided, in general, the same construction management services as the original Phase II project. However, because the work was conducted in an unincorporated part of San Mateo County, TCG had to provide additional compaction testing required by San Mateo County for this water main replacement effort. • Observed contractor's water main construction work to determine if work was proceeding in accordance with the Contract Documents; • Performed daily compaction tests in accordance with San Mateo County requirements; • Completed daily project documentation, including date-stamped photographs, written daily logs, and summaries of quantities of work completed; • Reviewed weekly construction schedules relative to baseline schedules; • Developed punch list items for the contractor to complete prior to project acceptance; • Inspected pressure testing of water mains, house services, and fire hydrants; • Inspected the transfer from old to new water services; • Inspected the chlorination and water quality sampling of new mains; • Conducted weekly construction meetings with contractor and program manager; • Prepared field markups of changed conditions from the design drawings so that As-Built drawings could be prepared; and • Reviewed progress payment requests. For this extra construction management effort, TCG has spent and proposes a total budget augmentation for this task of$42,000 or an average of$2,100 per day. This average daily construction management cost is slightly greater than the average of$2,000 per day for the original scope of work due to the added compaction testing required by San Mateo County. 6850 Regional Street,Ste.210•Dublin,California 94568•(925)556-6252 Fax(925)556-3364 9 website—www.culvergroup.com Page 2 of 2 Matt Zucca 5/16/05 Task 3 -House Plumbing Inspections The Culver Group performed this work as added service to our construction management services. The Culver Group was authorized to perform the house plumbing inspections of approximately 300 houses in order to speed up the process in timely manner. The City of Burlingame Building Department was not able to allocate the manpower required to perform this work at on time. Cost breakdown of inspection of 300 houses: Inspection 150 hours @ $92.00 = $13,800 Re-inspection for the punch list 10 hours @ $92.00 = $920 Administration and coordination 15 hours @ $125.00 = $1,875 Direct Costs = $674 For this extra plumbing inspection effort, TCG has spent and proposes a total budget augmentation for this task of$17,270. PROPOSED BUDGET AUGMENTATION Inasmuch as the added work was unanticipated at the beginning of the project, TCG believes the request for a budget augmentation is reasonable and is requesting a total budget augmentation in the amount of$137,895. Additionally, TCG has submitted to the City's program manger, Erler & Kalinowski, Inc., daily work logs and labor time cards which are intended to demonstrate that the requested budget augmentation is reflective of the additional labor hours and direct costs incurred by TCG during the management of the Phase II project. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, ?rev Philipovitch, E. Project Manager cc: Matt Zucca- EKI John Dewitt-EKI Projects-2 B UR0104-extracompen sation 6850 Regional street,Ste.210•Dublin,California 94568•(925)556-6252 Fax(925)556-3364 •website—www.culvergroup.com CITY o'�' STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM # 8c MTG. '4%A1E1 JU..4' DATE June 20, 2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMI T 40 BY DATE: June 20, 2005 A ROVED Y Y �i � r FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director ✓ 558-7222 SUBJECT: PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER MEDIATION SERVICES CONTRACT FOR FY 2005-06 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a funding agreement with the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center (PCRC) for fiscal year 2005-06. BACKGROUND: The City of Burlingame contracts with the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center to provide mediation and conciliation services to residents, landlords, tenants, businesses and other persons needing these services. The services include: • Information and referral services. • One party assistance in conflict situations. • Conciliation services as a neutral third party. • Mediation services to resolve conflicts between two parties. • Recruitment and training of community volunteers. A complete listing of all services is included in the attached funding agreement document. The FY06 budget contains $ 14,961 for this purpose. The appropriation contains a 3% increase from fiscal year 2004-05. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Authorizing The City Manager to Execute Agreement with the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center to Provide Conciliation and Mediation Service in FY 2005-2006 Agreement for the Provision of Community Mediation Services U:\FY06 Budget Development\Non Departmental Agreement Renewals\Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center - FY06.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH THE PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER TO PROVIDE CONCILIATION AND MEDIATION SERVICES IN 2005-2006 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,the City wishes to continue to provide a ready means by which its citizens can obtain ready, low cost, effective mediation and conciliation services to resolve conflicts that may arise between neighbors, landlords and tenants, consumers and business, and other persons; and WHEREAS, this service provides cost savings to the City in resolving disputes without the need for extensive City involvement while enhancing the community with better relations between citizens; and WHEREAS,the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center has provided this service to the community on a professional and able basis, NOW,THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A is approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the agreement for and on behalf of the City. 3. The City Clerk is directed to witness the Manager's signature on behalf of the City. 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: I AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 2 PeV11V1SLAIa GoVAflicf Resol"fion GevifeN cmoweriv� eo le. Buildivi9 relatioviski s. Reduiciv\ viole"ce. C' 91' p I' 9 Agreement for the Provision of Community Mediation Services The Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center (PCRC),a 501(c)(3)public benefit corporation,wishes to provide conflict resolution services for the City of Burlingame (City). The Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center is an independent contractor,organized in accordance with the laws of California and is capable of performing the conflict resolution services described in this agreement. PCRC and Burlingame agree as follows: 1. SERVICES. The PCRC shall provide the services described in Exhibit A, attached to and made a part of this agreement. 2. FUNDING. Funding by the City shall be in advance and shall not exceed $14,961. PCRC shall provide documentation to specify how the funds requested shall be spent,including such details as the City deems appropriate. Additional documentation may be requested by the City. 3. CONTRACT TERM. This contract shall commence on July 1,2005 and shall terminate on June 30,2006 unless terminated before that time,as described in Paragraph 6 of this agreement. 4. PROGRAM REPORTS. A performance report shall be submitted to the City on a quarterly basis. This report shall include a description of all program activity related to this contract for the particular quarter. 5. BREACH OF CONTRACT. The City reserves the right to waive any and all breaches of this contract,any such waiver shall not be deemed a waiver of all previous or subsequent breaches. In the event the City chooses to waive a particular breach of this contract,it may condition said waiver on payment by PCRC of actual damages occasioned by such breach of contract. PCRC shall make every effort to resolve the breach quickly and amicably. 6. TERMINATION. In the event the PCRC is unable to fulfill its responsibilities under this contract for any reason whatsoever,including circumstances beyond its control, the City may terminate this contract. Either party to this agreement may terminate this contract without cause by giving 10 days written notice to the other party. 7. INTEREST OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS. No members,officer or employee or agents of the City,no member of the City Council,and no other public official exercising any function or responsibility with respect to this program during his/her tenure,shall have any interest,direct or indirect,in this contract or a related subcontract or the proceeds thereof. 8. RELATIONSHIP OF PARTIES. It is expressly understood that PCRC is an independent contractor and that no agency,employee or other relationship is intended to be or is established by this contract. 1660 S. Amphlett Blvd., #219 • SQv\Mateo, CA 94402 • 650-513-0330 • l=ox 650-513-0335 ' vvww. percweb.org fA vlonrl-ofit commwviify resource serving 5av,Mateo Gouvity since 1986 9. INSPECTION OF PROGRAM. It is understood that periodic review of PCRC's program may be necessary and the right to do so is reserved by the City. 10. ASSIGNABILITY. PCRC shall not assign in this agreement and shall not transfer any interest in the same,without the prior written consent of the City. a. HOLD HARMLESS AND INSURANCE. PCRC agrees (1) to hold harmless and indemnify the City and its officers and employees from and against any and all claims,loss,liability,damage and expense arising from performance of this contract, including claims, loss,liability, damage and expense caused or claimed to be caused by passive negligence of the City or its officers or employees. (2) to defend (City),its officers or employees there-against;provided however that this provision does not apply to claims,loss,liability,damage or expense arising from(a) the sole negligence or willful misconduct of(City)or (b) the active negligence of(City). General liability and automobile liability insurance shall provide the following minimum benefits: (1) general liability,including comprehensive form,personal injury,broad form property damage,contractual and premises/operation in limits of$1,000,000. aggregate,bodily injury and property damage combined: (2) automobile liability in limits of$1,000,000,bodily injury and property damage combined. Additionally,workers compensation insurance in at least the minimum statutory amounts shall be maintained. All liability insurance policies shall specify(City),its elective and appointed boards,commissions,officers, agents and employees as additional insureds. A certificate of insurance shall be provided to (City)prior to performance pursuant to this contract. It shall include policy endorsement verifying City's additional insured status. Further,any changes in insurance,required herein must be approved in writing by the City Attorney's Office. 12. NONDISCRIMINATION. a. General: No person shall,on the basis of race,color,national origin, religious affiliation or non affiliation,marital status,medical condition, sex,age,handicap,sexual orientation or political affiliation be excluded from participation in,be denied the benefits or be subjected to discrimination,under this agreement. b. Employment: PCRC shall ensure equal employment opportunity based on objective standards of recruitment,selection,promotion, classification,compensation,performance evaluation and management relations,for all employees under this agreement. PCRC's personnel policies shall be made available to the City upon request. 13. PROJECT REPRESENTATION. PCRC and the City hereby designate the following agents to act as project representatives and receive all notices in the matters dealing with the performance of work,under this agreement. PCRC: Patricia Brown,Executive Director CITY: James Nantell,City Manager 2 14. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. In the event that differences relating to this contract, or to the relationship between the contracting parties,should arise during the term of this agreement,both parties will pursue resolution using an interest- based,non-adversarial approach and utilizing the services of a neutral third party mediator if direct negotiations are not successful. 15. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS. Additional provisions,if any,are contained in Exhibit A,attached to this document. In witness thereof,this agreement has been duly executed by the parties named above. PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER 1660 South Amphlett Blvd,Ste. 219 San Mateo,CA 94402 (650)513-0330 By Date Patricia Brown,Executive Director CITY OF Burlingame James Nantell,City Manager 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 By Date 3 EXHIBIT "A" I. What PCRC will provide: Conflict management and resolution services to be provided to the City of Burlingame through this contract are described below. A city which contracts for full membership with PCRC can offer its residents the following services: A. Information and Referral:A resource person is available by telephone, to assist residents who have specific questions relating to a conflict. Through this conversation the resident may clarify issues of concern,be given specific information about common practices related to landlord-tenant and community issues and receive a referral to an appropriate agency/resource. B. Information and Assistance:A resource person assists the concerned caller to de- escalate feelings,clarify issues and underlying needs,develop possible solution options, and begin to design an approach to dispute resolution. C. One Party Assistance:A resource person assists a caller to think through a conflict situation,including clarifying issues and interests of involved parties,exploring approaches to dealing with the situation and solution options and assisting with the selection of an approach to resolution. A follow-up call is arranged to determine the outcome of the situation,with the understanding that mediation would be the next step if negotiation is unsuccessful. D. Conciliation: Conciliation is the resolution of a conflict through the intervention of a neutral third party,without the disputing parties coming together in a face to face mediation. A resource person works with a resident,clarifying issues of concern, explaining approaches to seeking resolution,and gaining agreement by the party to pursue mediation and case intake. A case development process,involving contacts with both/all involved parties,is initiated and during that process,a resolution of concerns is achieved, to the satisfaction of the involved parties. E. Mediation: Mediation through PCRC involves a face to face meeting between disputing parties who call PCRC directly or are referred by city staff or community agencies. With the assistance of a panel of trained volunteer mediators,parties work through a non- adversarial problem solving process and attempt to develop a mutually acceptable resolution to the issues of concern. There is a two-fold focus: development of a satisfying and durable agreement and the preservation of an effective relationship in situations where the parties will continue to be in contact with each other. PCRC provides mediation services in a wide variety of conflict situations including: landlord/tenant,neighbor/neighbor,consumer/business,workplace or organizational, community,and domestic or family.In addition to community mediation,PCRC provides mediation services which are specifically designed to meet the needs of family conflict situations and conflicts involving groups. F. Administration of a Community Mediation Program:In collaboration with the contracting city,PCRC will administer a mediation program responsive to the unique needs of the community. PCRC may utilize a program development advisory committee and solicit input from city staff to develop an understanding of(1) unique areas of concern in the city,(2)potential approaches to program initiation and 4 implementation, (3)long term goals for the program. Professional staff will manage and support the work of volunteers,who provide the direct service to clients in most instances. G. Promotion of Use of Conflict Resolution Services: A member city will participate in PCRC's community outreach program which is designed to familiarize city staff, community service providers and the public with the use of non-adversarial conflict resolution services in a variety of conflict situations. This effort involves both PCRC staff and volunteers in making presentations,developing press releases and media coverage and identifying referral points where community members can receive information about PCRC services. Member cities are also expected to promote the use of conflict resolution services through city staff and in the community. H. Recruitment and training of community volunteers:PCRC will develop and maintain a pool of trained volunteer mediators,case developers and facilitators to serve the conflict resolution needs of the community. These residents of local communities will become skillful in the interest-based approach to conflict resolution.PCRC volunteers complete a minimum of 25 hours of training,according to regulations that govern programs receiving support from the Dispute Resolution Trust Fund established within the County. I. Ongoing skill development for volunteers:PCRC will offer regularly scheduled training to assist volunteers to improve and enhance their conflict resolution skills. There will be evening and weekend opportunities for learning and practicing advanced mediation,case development and facilitation skills and developing a base of knowledge in topics such as landlord tenant law,family dynamics,communication skills,and multi-cultural differences. J. Discounted Conflict Resolution Services: If the City,residents or local organizations want to utilize additional conflict resolution services offered by PCRC, they will receive a 20%discount on the fees charged to residents and organizations located in non- contract cities. Examples of the services available for a fee include: 1) Special Training: PCRC offers orientations to city staff about the mediation program and its services as part of the basic contract. In addition,there are training opportunities for supervisory personnel,public contact employees and department managers that include theory and practice of interest-based conflict management, negotiation,mediation and facilitation skills. 2) Conflict Assessment/Consultation:PCRC can assist cities,as well as local community organizations/groups to assess specific conflict situations, analyze concerns of stakeholders and develop strategies for pro-active and interest based conflict resolution. PCRC utilizes its staff,volunteers,professional mediators and local representatives in this assessment process. The conflict assessment process usually involves third party neutral contact with stakeholders to gather input and provide information about interest-based conflict resolution. 3) Conflict Resolution System Design:PCRC can assist organizations in building internal conflict resolution capacity,i. e. the development of policies and procedures for interest-based dispute prevention and early resolution. This service is tailored to the unique needs of the individual group,but is based on recognized and proven design principles. 5 4) Design and facilitation of Community Forums,Public Conversations,Dialogues: Through the Civic Engagement Initiative,PCRC is developing expertise in managing public discussions. Working with local representatives,PCRC will assist with the design and facilitation/recording for a wide variety of group sessions in which members of the public are encouraged to participate in dialogue about issues that affect the health and well-being of the community. 5) Facilitation of planning sessions for Committees,Departments,Councils:PCRC will assist with the design and facilitation of planning sessions for elected,appointed and civic groups who are coming together to plan for the future. K. "Add-On"training packages (available for an additional contract amount):These training packages are available if a city chooses to supplement its contact amount.Once the service is contracted for,implementation and scheduling will be done at the convenience of both the city and PCRC. In each case,PCRC staff would tailor the session to meet the needs of the group of trainees. 1) Training in facilitation skills for City Boards and Commissions-$1000.00 for a 6 hour session for up to 30 participants Highlights: • Tools for managing group interaction • Listening skills for group settings • Tips for successful deliberation • Meeting management tools(agenda,group agreements,decision-making) • Tools for improving public input processes References from the City of San Mateo could be provided. 2) "Skills for Dealing with an Angry Public" a training for front line city staff--$500 for a 3 hour session with up to 20 participants Highlights: • Tips for managing people with high emotions • Techniques for helping an angry citizen"feel heard" • Tools for helping people in conflict • Practice opportunities using realistic scenarios 3) "Skills for a Facilitative Leader": a workshop for city staff who are moving into leadership roles--$2000 for an 11 hour training,up to 20 participants Highlights • Enhancing effective communication skills • Tools for managing group interaction • Meeting management tools(agenda,group agreements,decision-making) • Conflict resolution techniques • Practice opportunities in pairs and small groups References from the City of Redwood City could be provided. 6 II. What the City of Burlingame will provide: A. Funding in the amount of$14,961 for Fiscal Year 2005-06.This fee is full payment for the services defined above. Payments will be made upon receipt of invoice. B. Support for the program from city officers and staff members,demonstrated through public statements,publicity,and referrals through city departments to the mediation program. C. At least one article or ad placed in a city run publication to promote the use of PCRC services among residents and businesses in the city. A PCRC staff person will work with a city contact person to develop this material. D. Assistance in scheduling appointments for PCRC representatives to make outreach presentations to groups of city staff,civic organizations and other relevant groups.This assistance should result in a minimum of 2 presentations in the city per year. E. Free use of city-controlled public meeting space,as needed and as available,for training sessions,meetings and mediations. This use will be subject to the existing rules and regulations that govern the use of these spaces. III. Agreement by both parties,in concept: Both PCRC and the City recognize that this is an ongoing program. If the Community Mediation Program meets the terms of this agreement to the City's satisfaction,and in the absence of unexpected financial constraints,it is expected that the City will consider funding the Community Mediation Program,on an annual basis,as negotiated between the two parties. 7 VeVAiVlSLAIa GOVX fli& Re_SA Oi A GetA+ev` (Pci) Gm oweeih people-. Buildivi relatiohski s. ReJLAcin violence. I' 9 !' 1' 9 p 9 Outline of Fees for Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center Services to be implemented July 1,2005 This outline is intended for city staff and other frequent referrers to the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center to have a basic understanding of fees that users of PCRC services may be asked to pay. Please direct questions about fees to PCRC. Community Mediation-this includes interpersonal disputes among neighbors, landlords and tenants,businesses and consumers,some family members and other general interpersonal relationships. I. For cities that contract with PCRC • No fee will charged at case intake and no fee will apply in cases that do not have a mediation session(e.g. those that are resolved without a mediation or those that are not resolved) • When a mediation session is scheduled,each party is charged a$25 fee • Additional mediation session would require the same fee ($25 per party) • The fee could be reduced or waived in cases of financial hardship or if the party will not participate due to the fee • This fee would apply for all cities that have a contract with PCRC,regardless of the level of that contract. II.For cities without a contract with PCRC: • A$50 fee is charged to the initiating party at intake • If a mediation session is scheduled,the other party(ies)will be charged a$50 fee at the time that the mediation is scheduled. • Additional mediation session would require the same fee($50 per party) • The fee could be reduced or waived in cases of financial hardship or if the party will not participate due to the fee Other services carry a per hour fee which is generally negotiated on a case-by-case basis. We offer discounts on these services to cities that contract with PCRC. Please contact PCRC if you have questions about these services or the fees involved. These services include: • Multi-party or"complex'cases (such as a group of staff,a whole neighborhood,a dispute with multiple stakeholders) • Meeting facilitation services • Training Services • Community Building or civic engagement consultation services (such as process design assistance for public meetings,consulting on community based project processes) 1660 S. AmPkIetl Blvd., #219 • San Mateo, CA 94402 • 650-513-0330 • Tax 650-513-0335 • www, pcecwe6.or9 A nonprofit comm'oXity reesotwce serving San Mateo Gowify since 1986 CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8d 9Da MTG. 6/20/05 ,cD 1 DATE DAATED J NE b TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTE BY /U DATE: June 3, 2005 APPROVED FROM: Fire Department BY SUBJECT: Adoption Resolution Amending Joint Powers Agreement stablishing the San Mateo Pre- Hospital Emergency Services Group Recommendation: Recommend the City Council adopt by resolution the amendment of two sections of the original JPA Agreement as follows: Il. Purposes of this Agreement. The purposes of this Agreement are. . . 1. To devise and administer cooperative mechanisms to efficiently provide fire protection and suppression services. V. Powers of the Group. The Group shall have the following powers and duties. . . M. To support or cause the delivery of efficient fire protection and suppression services through multi-agency arrangements, as approved by the Board, that enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of fire services on behalf of the Group's member agencies. Background: The original Joint Powers Authority establishing the San Mateo Pre-Hospital Emergency Services Providers Group (JPA) was approved by the governing bodies of all 17 member agencies in 1996- 97. The purpose of the JPA was to provide advanced life support services throughout San Mateo County, utilizing our fire departments for paramedic first response. This has been a highly successful, award winning program that has greatly benefited the citizens of our cities and County. The Executive Committee and Board of Directors for the JPA have recognized that there are potential economic and service benefits for our JPA member agencies if the JPA's mission was broadened to provide for the administration and legal umbrella for other fire related activities being undertaken by our member agencies. Which include consolidating the Public Safety Communications contract for non-ALS emergency calls for service and purchasing regional equipment such as breathing support units. At its meeting of December 8,2004,the JPA Board approved amendments to two sections of the original Agreement which,if approved,would permit the JPA to assist our member agencies manage certain non-medical fire activities. The Board further directed that these amendments be submitted to the governing bodies of our 17 member agencies for their consideration and approval. Attachments: Resolution approving two specific amendments to the JPA Agreement. RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING SPECIFIC AMENDMENTS TO THE JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT ESTABLISHING THE SAN MATEO PRE-HOSPITAL EMERGENCY SERVICES PROVIDERS GROUP (JPA) RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the San Mateo Pre-Hospital Emergency Services Providers Group (JPA) consists of seventeen (17) San Mateo County municipalities and fire districts for the purpose of providing pre-hospital advanced life support services throughout the County; and WHEREAS, the JPA has been successfully providing such services for the past six years and has received national recognition; and WHEREAS, the JPA operates pursuant to a written Agreement, which has been approved by the governing bodies of the seventeen member agencies and this Agreement currently authorizes the provision of pre-hospital advanced life support medical services; and WHEREAS, there are potential economic and service benefits for our JPA member agencies if the JPA's mission was broadened to allow for the management or oversight of related non-medical fire functions; and WHEREAS, the JPA Board of Directors has approved and recommended certain amendments to the current JPA Agreement, which would permit the JPA to provide administrative support for specific projects that have been reviewed and approved by the Board of Directors; and WHEREAS, the JPA Board is now requesting approval of these amendments by the governing bodies of the seventeen member agencies as required by the JPA Agreement, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED as follows: 1 . The following two amendments to the JPA Agreement are approved: A. A new paragraph 1 is added to Section 11 (Purposes of the Agreement) as follows: "I. To devise and administer cooperative mechanisms to efficiently provide fire protection and suppression services." B. A new paragraph M is added to Section V (Powers of the Group) as follows: "M. To support or cause the delivery of efficient fire protection and suppression services through multi-agency arrangements, as approved by the Board, that enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of fire services on behalf of the Group's member agencies." 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the necessary documents to effectuate these two amendments. 3. The City Clerk is authorized and requested to attest to the Manager's signature. 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 CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA 8e ITEM# 00 MTG. A' DATE June 20,2005 ANTED JYN[6. TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMI BY DATE: June 20,2005 A OVED Y FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director (✓ 558-7222 SUBJECT: APPROVE OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL FOR FINANCE DIRECTOR RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Finance Director's travel to Baltimore, MD to attend the Summer Meeting of the Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Council (GASAC), July 17 - 19, 2005. There is no impact on departmental budgets. The GASAC will cover the costs associated with the travel. BACKGROUND: The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) appointed Jesus to the Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Council. $1,893,920.01 Ck. No. 11564 - 12050 Excludes Library Cks. 11685 - 11709 RECOMMENDED FOR PAYMENT APPROVED FOR PAYMENT Payroll for May 2005 $2,417,232.37 Ck. No. 162185- 162448 INCLUDES ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS PERS HEALTH PERS RETIREMENT FEDERAL 941 TAX STATE DISABILITY TAX STATE INCOME TAX PERS & ICMA DEFERRED COMP SECTION 125 DEDUCTION on cD O act D 3 S:\FINEXCEL\MISCELLANEOUS\COUNCILCKS.XLS N ' ' c CITY OF BURLINGAME 06-02-2005 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 FUND RECAP - 04-05 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 96,530.95 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 21,841 .22 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 2,588.07 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 25,237.76 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 21,732.23 WATER FUND 526 14,716.76 SEWER FUND 527 2,100.48 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 3,045.82 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 166.43 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 13,500.00 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 2,466.83 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 14,318.60 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 198.21 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 1,099.45 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 4,230.40 PUBLIC TV ACCESS FUND 738 53.92 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 47,955.04 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $271.782.17 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 8 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 11949 THROUGH 12050 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $271,782.17, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ............ . .. .......... . ..... . . . . . .. ./.../. . . FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................... ....... ....... . . . . ./.. ./... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 06/02/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 12038 PHA TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS 25417 4,500.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,500.00 320 79160 220 12039 JUAN CONTRERAS 25418 1 ,015.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1 ,015.00 101 22525 12040 JEFF LABORDE 25419 1 ,015.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1 ,015.00 101 36630 12041 DAN LUCIER 25420 1 ,015.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1 ,015.00 101 36630 12042 CALIFORNIA FLEET NEWS PUBLISHING 25421 250.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 250.00 620 66700 250 12043 NETVERSANT SILICON VALLEY 25422 2,213.74 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,213.74 320 76010 210 12044 THOMSON-WEST/BARCLAYS 25423 86.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 86.00 101 64400 120 12045 WAI CHAU 25424 195.00 MISCELLANEOUS 195.00 101 36330 000 1644 12046 CHERYL YOUNG 25425 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00. 101 22593 12047 JACKIE ROSALES 25426 225.00 MISCELLANEOUS 225.00 101 22593 12048 YAFFA TYGIEL 25427 125.00 MISCELLANEOUS 125.00 101 22593 12049 PAUL BAXTER 25428 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 12050 MEL KOHLER 25429 200.00 MISCELLANEOUS 200.00 101 22593 TOTAL $271 ,782.17 / CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 06/02/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '•' Denotes Hand Written Checks 12024 TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 856 24528 320.60 MISCELLANEOUS 315.08 130 21092 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 5.52 130 21015 12025 CINGULAR WIRELESS 24607 390.10 COMMUNICATIONS 58.28 10164250 160 COMMUNICATIONS 331.82 101 65100 160 12026 CINGULAR WIRELESS 24640 890.00 COMMUNICATIONS 281.14 101 66100 160 UTILITY EXPENSE 608.86 896 20281 12027 SPRINGERWEST LLC 24704 - 810.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 810.00 101 68010 220 1660 12028 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK 24714 564.00 MISCELLANEOUS 564.00 101 64420 030 12029 AETNA 24760 2,772.52 MISCELLANEOUS 271.30 130 20028 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 2,501.22 130 20022 12030 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CALIFORNIA 24793 4,945.08 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4,945.08 130 20014 12031 THE HARTFORD PRIORITY ACCOUNTS 24796 5,020.02 MISCELLANEOUS 935.50 130 20025 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4,084.52 130 20021 12032 CAPORICCI &LARSON 24920 32,332.50 SUPPLIES • 32,332.50 101 15000 12033 A2Z BUSINESS SYSTEMS 25020 1,110.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,110.00 101 65100 220 12034 SBC LONG DISTANCE 25033 107.87 UTILITY EXPENSE 107.87 896 20281 12035 JESSE MOORE 25104 55.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 55.00 101 68010 220 1785 12036 HAWK SOLUTIONS 25161 2,041.20 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,041.20 101 68010 220 1349 12037 OFFICE DEPOT 25244 129.90 OFFICE EXPENSE 129.90 101 65100 110 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 06/02/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 12008 GWENDOLYN BOGER 23703 11,424.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11,424.00 101 68010 220 1331 12009 SCS FIELD SERVICES 23727 3,045.82 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,045.82 528 66600 210 12010 KEITH MARTIN 23788 53.49 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 40.00 101 66210 250 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 13.49 526 69020 250 12011 INDUSTRIAL PLUMBING SUPPLY 23857 666.18 MISC. SUPPLIES 666.18 619 64460 120 12012 CAL SCHOOL AND SPORT 23932 506.56 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 506.56 101 68020 190 2200 12013 QUILL 24090 198.21 OFFICE EXPENSE 198.21 621 64450 110 12014 FLORA ROBELET 24167 50.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 50.00 101 68010 220 1521 12015 ERIC GATTMAN 24169 379.20 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 379.20 101 68010 220 1521 12016 GLOBAL DOCUGRAPHIX 24170 354.94 OFFICE EXPENSE 354.94 101 64250 110 12017 EASYLINK SERVICES CORP 24430 11.03 COMMUNICATIONS 11.03 101 65100 160 12018 CENTRAL COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24518 4,200.00 MISCELLANEOUS 4,200.00 130 20016 12019 CENTRAL COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24519 64.00 UNION DUES 64.00 130 21080 12020 BURLINGAME POLICE ADMINISTRATION 24520 180.00 MISCELLANEOUS 180.00 130 20024 12021 BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSN 24521 560.00 MISCELLANEOUS 560.00 130 20024 12022 C.L.E.A. 24523 663.00 MISCELLANEOUS 663.00 130 20026 12023 TEAMSTERS #856 24526 476.00 UNION DUES 476.00 130 21091 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 06/02/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 11994 VERIZON WIRELESS 22593 50.09 COMMUNICATIONS 50.09 101 68010 160 1101 11995 TURF STAR 22682 114.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 114.00 101 68020 200 2200 11996 HOLDEN DANIELS 22687 625.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 625.00 201 65200 260 11997 BURLINGAME FAMILY PET HOSPITAL 22773 101.76 MISC. SUPPLIES 101.76 101 65100 120 11998 PENINSULA UNIFORM & EQUIPMENT 22899 166.43 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 166.43 530 65400 140 11999 T. RANDOLPH GRANGE 23112 775.00 MISCELLANEOUS 775.00 731 22525 12000 OFFICE DEPOT 23153 356.47 OFFICE EXPENSE 356.47 101 68010 110 1101 12001 OFFICE TEAM 23256 2,480.00 PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 2,480.00 101 64420 210 12002 SHAUNA MCKIMMIE 23270 712.04 TRAINING EXPENSE 712.04 201 65500 260 12003 OFFICE MAX 23306 375.59 OFFICE EXPENSE 119.44 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 16.13 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 14.84 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 159.75 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 29.95 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE -159.75 101 68010 110 1101 MISC. SUPPLIES 195.23 101 68010 120 1101 12004 UNIVERSAL SPECIALTIES, INC. 23311 57.96 MISC. SUPPLIES 57.96 619 64460 120 5180 12005 SCAPES, INC. 23326 14,775.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 14,775.00 320 81070 220 12006 ICE CENTER OF SAN MATEO 23512 249.60 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 249.60 101 68010 220 1762 12007 BKF ENGINEERS 23641 21,732.23 PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 1,489.03 327 81330 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 20,243.20 327 81150 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 06/02/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11979 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 114.19 OFFICE EXPENSE 69.52 101 64250 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 44.67 620 66700 120 11980 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 41.96 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 41.96 201 65200 203 11981 BAY AREA BUSINESS CARDS INC 19588 32.48 MISCELLANEOUS 32.48 101 64400 115 11982 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 3,914.00 RENTS & LEASES 1,957.00 526 69020 180 RENTS & LEASES 1,957.00 527 66520 180 11983 RACQUET SMITH 20339 - 2,143.20 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,143.20 101 68010 220 1782 11984 JEFF DOW 20779 228.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 228.00 101 68010 220 1785 11985 MELANIE MARANI 21132 688.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 688.00 101 68010 220 1331 11986 RENEE RAMSEY 21136 756.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 756.00 101 68010 220 1331 11987 UNITY BUSINESS SERVICE 21364 830.45 MISC. SUPPLIES 830.45 101 68010 120 1111 11988 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 183.43 MISC. SUPPLIES 129.51 526 69020 120 MISCELLANEOUS 53.92 738 64580 400 11989 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS, INC. 21680 200.70 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 200.70 101 66210 222 11990 CINGULAR WIRELESS 21747 103.50 COMMUNICATIONS 103.50 101 65300 160 11991 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 2,845.02 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,845.02 526 69020 120 11992 BUSINESS 2000 INC 22326 450.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 450.00 320 81120 210 11993 NORTH AMERICAN SPORTS MANAGEMENT 22382 1,280.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,280.00 101 68010 220 1785 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 06/02/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 11964 WECO INDUSTRIES, INC. 11640 143.48 MISC. SUPPLIES 143.48 527 66520 120 11965 SENSUS METERING SYSTEMS 14144 9,771.74 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 9,771.74 526 69020 803 11966 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 14855 1,188.89 MISC. SUPPLIES 107.85 619 64460 120 PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 1,081.04 619 64460 210 11967 DHL EXPRESS 14958 43.47 MISC. SUPPLIES 43.47 101 65100 120 11968 PARKIN SECURITY CONSULTANTS 15250 85.00 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 85.00 101 64420 121 11969 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 3,455.40 MISCELLANEOUS 3,455.40 731 22594 11970 PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS 15711 1,581.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,581.00 101 68010 220 1787 11971 VALLEY OIL CO. 15764 14,023.93 SUPPLIES 14,023.93 620 15000 11972 MIKE SMITH 16637 156.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 156.00 101 68010 220 1789 11973 COLORPRINT 17497 702.65 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 702.65 101 64560 290 11974 GEORGE MASTALIR 18088 130.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 130.00 101 68010 220 1789 11975 TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH 18419 2,640.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,640.00 130 20018 11976 BAY ALARM 18854 262.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 262.50 619 64460 220 5140 11977 SCOTT SAMMONS 19170 560.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 560.00 101 68010 220 1950 11978 OLIVER THOMPSON 19172 1,300.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,300.00 101 68010 220 1950 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 06/02/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11949 ANASTASIA COLE 01945 2,511.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,511.00 101 68010 220 1644 11950 WATER/FINANCE PETTY CASH 02184 2,881.36 MISCELLANEOUS 2,881.36 896 20282 11951 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 819.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 477.23 101 68020 190 2200 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 50.47 101 66210 222 SMALL TOOLS 291.30 619 64460 130 11952 MANPOWER 02819 920.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 920.00 101 65300 220 11953 P. G. & E. 03054 61,735.66 GAS & ELECTRIC 17,378.71 101 66100 170 UTILITY EXPENSE 44,356.95 896 20280 11954 SBC 03080 52.37 COMMUNICATIONS 52.37 101 65100 160 11955 STEPHEN J. PICCHI 03168 199.20 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199.20 101 68010 220 1372 11956 INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT. 03378 1,963.83 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,963.83 101 65150 220 11957 TOMARK SPORTS, INC. 03764 1,981.84 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 1,981.84 101 68020 190 2200 11958 JEAN BUCKS 09019 463.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 463.50 101 68010 220 1644 11959 CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 09461 3,299.02 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,299.02 320 81090 210 11960 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 13,500.00 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 13,500.00 618 64520 601 11961 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING A 10101 1,384.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,384.75 101 65300 220 11962 AUGUST SUPPLY, INC 10256 119.44 MISC. SUPPLIES 119.44 201 65200 111 11963 WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE SYSTEMS 11316 2,189.08 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,089.63 201 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,099.45 625 65213 203 CITY OF BURLINGAME 05-26-2005 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 FUND RECAP - 04-05 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 57,291.10 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 3,547.65 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 500.00 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 177,689.90 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 256,003.91 WATER FUND 526 9,706.40 SEWER FUND 527 203,299.71 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 21,568.93 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 4,733.00 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 3,490.07 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 2,864.31 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 1,296.69 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 1,517.99 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 288.70 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 138,227.27 PUBLIC TV ACCESS FUND 738 2,753.60 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL 84,779.23 UVI D 33to,�l-hr� ax- 4.Lt x-4.Lt E HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 9 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 11838 THROUGH 11948 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF 8884,779.23, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 05/26/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11935 1250 OAK GROVE LLC 25403 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 11936 ELIZABETH HARTWIG 25404 55.00 MISCELLANEOUS 55.00 101 36330 000 1646 11937 JUDITH GEE 25405 35.00 MISCELLANEOUS 35.00 101 36330 000 1645 11938 SARA HODGE 25406 35.00 MISCELLANEOUS 35.00 101 36330 000 1645 11939 CHRISTINE CARBERRY 25407 78.00 MISCELLANEOUS 78.00 101 36330 000 1645 11940 PERISSA CLARK 25408 46.00 MISCELLANEOUS 46.00 101 36330 000 1331 11941 DIANE WEISS 25409 60.00 MISCELLANEOUS 60.00 101 36330 000 1283 11942 JOHN HEDBLOM 25410 360.00 MISCELLANEOUS 360.00 101 36330 000 1330 11943 SYLVIA WONG 25411 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 11944 VICTORIA PAREDES 25412 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 11945 KATHLEEN CAMMARATA 25413 150.00 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00 101 36330 000 1283 11946 AMERICA BROWN 25414 145.00 MISCELLANEOUS 145.00 101 36330 000 1890 11947 MARIA PLEADWELL 25415 150.00 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00 101 22593 11948 MWH SOFT INC. 25416 800.00 SMALL TOOLS 800.00 326 80770 130 TOTAL 8884,779.23 � CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 05/26/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11920 OLIVIA CHEN CONSULTANTS 24445 1,000.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 1,000.00 101 22520 11921 C.W. ROEN CO. 24474 255,831.55 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 255,831.55 327 79480 220 11922 THE INVIRONMENTALISTS 24747 750.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 750.00 619 64460 210 5230 11923 S AND S SUPPLIES & SOLUTIONS 24963 70.59 TRAINING EXPENSE 70.59 527 66520 260 11924 PENINSULA TEMPLE SHALOM 24996 3,525.00 MISCELLANEOUS 7,500.00 101 22546 MISCELLANEOUS -3,975.00 101 31510 11925 JAMES MURPHY 25080 364.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 364.50 101 68010 220 1661 11926 OFFICE DEPOT 25244 236.49 OFFICE EXPENSE ._236.49 101 68010 110 1101 11927 RAMONA HERNANDEZ 25312 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 11928 DELIA & ASSOCIATES 25364 4,000.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 4,000.00 101 64420 262 11929 ROCKY MOUNTAIN COMMUNICATIONS SY 25378 1,877.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,877.00 101 65300 220 11930 BLUE SHIELD OF CALIFORNIA 25398 1,591.04 MISCELLANEOUS 1,591.04 526 69020 010 11931 SOLOMON DAS 25399 1,904.00 MISCELLANEOUS -2,244.00 101 31510 MISCELLANEOUS 4,148.00 101 22546 11932 WENJUN MIAO 25400 130.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 130.00 618 64520 210 11933 JULIA LAU 25401 1,100.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,100.00 101 68010 220 1950 11934 ARYEH FRANKFURTER 25402 300.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00 101 68010 220 1950 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 05/26/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11908 OFFICE MAX 23306 680.91 OFFICE EXPENSE 13.96 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 15.07 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 94.56 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 33.54 101 66100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 56.88 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 29.00 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 14.32 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 335.51 101 66100 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 55.58 101 66100 120 OFFICE EXPENSE 32.49 201 65200 110 11909 TAMMY MAX 23445 438.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 438.50 101 64420 210 11910 SBC/MCI 23728 94.63 COMMUNICATIONS 94.63 101 64150 160 11911 SFPUC WATER QUALITY BUREAU 23846 2,840.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,840.00 526 69020 233 11912 CHERI NICHOL 23901 301.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 301.00 101 68010 220 1661 11913 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 23905 2,201.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,137.00 101 23620 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 64.00 101 64420 210 11914 CHOICE POINT BUSINESS AND GOVERN 23935 250.00 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 250.00 101 65100 292 11915 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 1,607.28 MISC. SUPPLIES 286.27 101 68010 120 1114 MISC. SUPPLIES 125.04 101 68010 120 1112 MISC. SUPPLIES 765.48 101 68010 120 1111 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 430.49 619 64460 220 5110 11916 CHRISTINE GRANUCCI 24197 200.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 200.00 101 64420 210 11917 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY 24249 576.00 MISCELLANEOUS 576.00 526 69020 233 11918 THE BERKELEY CHESS SCHOOL 24287 144.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 144.00 101 68010 220 1349 11919 SUSAN MCKEE 24442 1,035.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,035.00 101 68010 220 1661 CITY OF BURU NGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 05/26/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '*' Denotes Hand Written Checks 11896 CIR 21211 1,774.59 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 182.66 101 66210 226 MISC. SUPPLIES 876.93 527 66520 120 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 715.00 527 66520 220 11897 REDWOOD GENERAL TIRE 21216 1,373.53 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,373.53 625 65213 203 11898 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 2,753.60 MISCELLANEOUS 2,753.60 738 64580 400 11899 HILLYARD 21658 98.55 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 98.55 101 68020 190 2200 11900 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS, INC. 21680 746.57 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 746.57 101 66210 222 11901 HATTON'S CRANE & RIGGING 21925 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 11902 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 3,372.90 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,714.23 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,658.67 527 66520 120 11903 GERALD JOSEPH LASPINAS 22280 $50.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 550.00 101 68010 220 1950 11904 CAROL BRIA 22284 600.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 101 68010 220 1950 11905 CSG CONSULTANTS 22465 1,020.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,020.00 201 35221 000 7100 11906 PITNEY BOWES 23128 548.00 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 548.00 621 64450 200 11907 NADINE RONSON 23195 216.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 216.00 101 68010 220 1661 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 05/26/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11882 ANG NEWSPAPERS 19083 284.29 MISC. SUPPLIES 111.93 101 64400 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 172.36 327 81150 120 11883 PRIORITY 1 19239 206.75 MISC. SUPPLIES 206.75 527 66520 120 11884 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 693.93 OFFICE EXPENSE 57.00 101 67500 110 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 205.66 101 67500 200 MISC. SUPPLIES 431.27 201 65200 111 11885 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 1,717.35 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,572.89 201 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 144.46 625 65213 203 11886 POWER WASHING SERVICE 19564 1,111.28 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,111.28 528 66600 210 11887 BAY AREA BUSINESS CARDS INC 19588 32.48 OFFICE EXPENSE 32.48 101 65300 110 11888 MONICA OLSEN 19832 249.20 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 249.20 101 68010 220 1661 11889 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 748.69 COMMUNICATIONS 748.69 621 64450 160 11890 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES 20501 5,790.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,790.00 326 75170 210 11891 SPRINT PCS 20724 96.60 COMMUNICATIONS 33.99 101 64420 160 COMMUNICATIONS 62.61 101 65150 160 11892 LORI MOITIE 20768 900.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 900.00 101 68010 220 1950 11893 JEFF DOWD 20779 739.20 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 739.20 101 68010 220 1785 11894 PACIFIC COAST TRANE SERVICE 20818 743.75 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 743.75 619 64460 210 5120 11895 RENEE RAMSEY 21136 495.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 495.00 101 68010 220 1331 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 05/26/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '•' Denotes Hand Written Checks 11867 DOUBLETREE HOTEL 16247 3,915.06 MISCELLANEOUS 3,915.06 731 22542 11868 SYDNEY MALKOO 16347 275.96 SMALL TOOLS 275.96 620 66700 130 11869 LINHART PETERSEN POWERS ASSOC. 16599 12,053.01 MISCELLANEOUS 12,053.01 101 22515 11870 JMB CONSTRUCTION, INC. 17299 171,099.90 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 171,099.90 326 80770 220 11871 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 17402 92.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 92.00 101 65100 200 11872 COLORPRINT 17497 68.20 OFFICE EXPENSE 68.20 619 64460 110 11873 URS GREINER WOODWARD CLYDE 17606 13,877.90 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 13,877.90 528 66600 210 11874 ACCURATE MAILINGS, INC 17623 1,897.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,897.00 526 69020 233 11875 SIERRA MORENO MERCANTILE CO. 18357 130.98 MISC. SUPPLIES 130.98 101 68020 120 2300 11876 PLASTI-PRINT, INC 18794 298.77 MISC. SUPPLIES 298.77 527 66520 120 11877 BAY ALARM 18854 215.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 215.00 619 64460 220 5240 11878 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSN. 18951 1,048.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,048.00 526 69020 260 11879 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 40.13 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 40.13 526 69020 140 11880 PREFERRED ALLIANCE 19025 211.20 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 211.20 101 64420 121 11881 MILESTONE PRODUCTS 19028 15.34 MISC. SUPPLIES 15.34 101 68010 120 1950 - CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 05/26/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11852 FASTSIGNS 09136 57.21 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 57.21 101 68010 150 1950 11853 FRANK ERBACHER 09195 30.00 MISCELLANEOUS 30.00 731 22542 11854 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFC. 09433 2,222.00 PRISONER EXPENSE 2,222.00 101 65100 291 11855 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPPLY 09459 389.70 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 389.70 101 68020 190 2200 11856 OCE 09493 857.34 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 857.34 101 66100 210 11857 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 4,603.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 75.00 618 64520 210 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 4,528.00 618 64520 601 11858 MARGARET KRAMER 09612 3,096.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,096.00 101 68010 220 1661 11859 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING A 10101 491.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 491.00 201 65200 220 11860 RADIOSHACK CORPORATION 11749 64.89 COMMUNICATIONS 64.89 101 65100 160 11861 3M COMPANY 13848 2,707.61 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 2,707.61 101 66210 222 11862 DAVID MAGIDSON 14712 750.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 750.00 101 68010 220 1950 11863 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 14855 135.26 SMALL TOOLS 135.26 619 64460 130 11864 MARK ABDILLA 15502 300.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00 101 68010 220 1950 11865 HITECH SYSTEMS, INC. 15712 1,399.00 COMMUNICATIONS 500.00 101 65100 160 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 101 65100 220 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 399.00 101 65150 250 11866 SUPERIOR ALUMINUM BODY CORP. 16229 2,428.29 SUPPLIES 2,428.29 620 15000 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 05/26/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11838 EDWARD R. BACON CO., INC. 01182 160.06 SUPPLIES 160.06 620 15000 11839 CITY OF BURLINGAME 01624 2,807.48 MISC. SUPPLIES 18.78 101 68010 120 1100 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,460.00 101 68010 120 1422 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,040.00 101 68010 120 1521 MISC. SUPPLIES 145.81 730 69533 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 142.89 730 69583 120 11840 VEOLIA WATER 02110 199,473.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199,473.00 527 66530 220 11841 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 46.01 MISCELLANEOUS 46.01 101 68020 192 2200 11842 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 1,312.57 MISC. SUPPLIES 196.47 101 66210 120 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 1,116.10 101 66210 226 11843 MACTEC ENGINEERING 02365 1,718.75 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,718.75 528 66600 210 11844 K & W DISCOUNT LIGHTING & SUPP 02645 1,000.77 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,000.77 619 64460 120 11845 KAVANAGH ENGINEERING 02665 500.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 500.00 320 81070 210 11846 PERSONAL AWARDS, INC. 03145 220.83 MISC. SUPPLIES 220.83 101 68010 120 1788 11847 SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL 03380 4,861.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 4,861.00 528 66600 120 11848 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONVENTION & 03431 134,282.21 MISCELLANEOUS 134,282.21 731 22587 11849 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 376.09 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 376.09 101 64350 210 11850 B.E.I. ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 09072 146.60 MISC. SUPPLIES 19.29 619 64460 120 5130 MISC. SUPPLIES 53.96 619 64460 120 5150 MISC. SUPPLIES 73.35 619 64460 120 5140 11851 TARGET SPECIALTY PRODUCTS, INC. 09112 504.36 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 504.36 101 68020 190 2200 CITY OF BURLINGAME 05-20-2005 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11 FUND RECAP - 04.05 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 82,641.42 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 1,175.50 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 6,033.13 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 14,196.48 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 5,350.88 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 347,084.97 WATER FUND 526 18,289.73 SEWER FUND 527 37,908.79 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 3,430.39 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 1,947.75 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 36,782.00 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 3,180.37 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 1,102.25 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 27,312.65 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 2,243.85 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 1,010.06 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 3,455.40 BURLINGAME TRAIN SHUTTLE PROGRAM 736 20,665.62 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 591.04 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL 8614,402.28 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 11 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 11710 THROUGH 11837 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF 8614,402.28, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .........................I.......... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME ' WAR RANT REG I S T E R PAGE 10 05/20/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11829 ROSS FINEMAN 25389 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 36330 000 1422 11830 VIRGINIA CHIN 25390 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 36330 000 1422 11831 SANDY PAIGE 25391 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 11832 MELODY LINN 25392 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 11833 ROBIN REYNOLDS 25393 87.00 MISCELLANEOUS 87.00 101 36330 000 1780 11834 LORAL LANDSCAPING 25394 320.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 160.00 101 66210 190 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 160.00 527 66520 190 11835 SCOTT WILDY 25395 468.00 MISCELLANEOUS 468.00 101 22546 11836 BORIS CARVALLO 25396 37.00 MISCELLANEOUS 37.00 101 36330 000 1890 11837 MICKEY YOUNG 25397 271.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 271.00 130 20060 / TOTAL $614,402.28 NO `�� CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 05/20/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11813 STEVE STURGEON 25288 210.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 210.00 101 68010 220 1787 11814 PAT KERRISK 25322 700.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 700.00 526 69020 260 11815 DELI & FINE FOODS 25342 181.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 181.00 101 64420 262 11816 ARTISTIC BUILDERS 25368 736.69 MISCELLANEOUS 736.69 526 22502 11817 SSFFD CTC 25376 450.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 450.00 201 65200 260 11818 CITY OF FOSTER CITY 25377 6,000.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,000.00 101 64420 210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,000.00 201 65200 220 11819 JOYCE QUINN 25379 432.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 432.00 101 68010 220 1644 11820 MICHELLE TANDOWSKY 25380 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 36330 000 1422 11821 GREG ST.CLAIR 25381 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 36330 000 1422 11822 ALEXANDER KLEIN 25382 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 36330 000 1422 11823 MELINDA RALLY 25383 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 36330 000 1422 11824 KRISTIN KELLY 25384 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 36330 000 1422 11825 MARILYN KAHN 25385 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 36330 000 1422 11826 ALIDE IZOUIERDO 25386 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 36330 000 1422 11827 SANDRA HARTFORD 25387 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 36330 000 1422 11828 JENNIFER FRANET 25388 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 36330 000 1422 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 05/20/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11797 CINGULAR WIRELESS 24640 73.00 COMMUNICATIONS 73.00 101 65100 160 11798 DIAMOND COMMUNICATIONS INC 24659 915.00 OFFICE EXPENSE 915.00 101 64420 110 11799 MARY PIAllA 24807 688.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 688.00 101 68010 220 1661 11800 AD CLUB 24809 15.00 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 15.00 101 64420 150 11801 SHIRLEY LADDY 24826 328.50 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 328.50 130 20015 11802 S AND S SUPPLIES & SOLUTIONS 24963 97.50 TRAINING EXPENSE 97.50 527 66520 260 11803 LAURA MARSH 24964 602.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 602.00 101 68010 220 1646 11804 WATKINS AND BORTOLUSSI 25011 10,143.90 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,143.90 320 79300 220 11805 JOHN CHILCOTT 25032 435.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 435.00 130 20015 11806 CATHY FOXHOVEN 25088 1,011.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 774.00 101 68010 220 1349 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 237.00 101 68010 220 1644 11807 JESSE MOORE 25104 82.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 82.50 101 68010 220 1785 11808 ADVANCED MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 25198 251.09 RADIO HIAINT. 251.09 201 65200 205 11809 OFFICE DEPOT 25244 19.02 OFFICE EXPENSE 19.02 101 65100 110 11810 MERCY MARTIN 25270 623.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 623.50 101 68010 220 1661 11811 KSM PRINTING 25283 175.42 OFFICE EXPENSE 175.42 201 65200 110 11812 CARRIE FRANCIS 25286 1,075.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,075.00 101 68010 220 1349 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 05/20/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 11782 ATLAS TOWING 23684 725.00 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 725.00 625 65213 203 11783 SCS FIELD SERVICES 23727 3,414.31 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,414.31 528 66600 210 11784 KAREN LIU 23823 83.25 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 83.25 101 68010 220 1645 11785 DAVE CREAMER 23876 844.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 733.50 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 111.00 101 68010 220 1646 11786 MELISSA GINSBERG 23877 183.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 183.75 101 68010 220 1646 11787 DUNBAR ARMORED 23925 2,475.85 BANKING SERVICE FEES 528.10 101 64250 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,947.75 530 65400 120 11788 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 682.08 MISC. SUPPLIES 384.45 619 64460 120 5121 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 297.63 619 64460 220 5240 11789 NE%TEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 213.75 COMMUNICATIONS 42.75 101 65300 160 COMMUNICATIONS 171.00 101 68020 160 2200 11790 CITICORP VENDOR FINANCE 24030 66.71 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 66.71 201 65200 200 11791 AMAZON.COM CREDIT 24070 1,953.78 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 1,953.78 101 67500 129 11792 CHRISTINE GRANUCCI 24197 216.90 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 216.90 101 64420 210 11793 KUMUDINI MURTHY 24210 1,376.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,376.00 101 68010 220 1644 11794 JC WHITLAM MANUFACTURING 24369 1,297.40 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 1,297.40 101 68020 190 2200 11795 MAYBELLE PINSON 24419 426.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 426.50 101 68010 220 1644 11796 GRETCHEN LOTT 24452 11419.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,419.00 101 68010 220 1661 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 05/20/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11770 PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA 22500 19,030.60 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,878.43 736 64572 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 13,152.17 736 64571 220 11771 LINCOLN EQUIPMENT 22529 137.98 MISC. SUPPLIES 137.98 101 68010 120 1114 11772 SAN MATEO REGIONAL NETWORK, INC. 22759 435.00 UTILITY EXPENSE 435.00 896 20281 11773 JIM NANTELL 22762 1,414.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,414.00 101 64150 031 11774 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 22804 500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 500.00 526 69020 233 11775 JENKINS/ATHENS INS 22851 11,929.00 CLAIMS ADJUSTING SERVICES 11,929.00 618 64520 225 11776 PENINSULA FORD OF SAN BRUNO 22894 201.13 VEHICLE MAINT. 201.13 201 65200 202 11777 O'ARCY & HARTY CONSTRUCTION, INC 23092 322,429.13 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 322,429.13 327 81010 220 11778 OFFICE TEAM 23256 2,232.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,232.00 101 64420 210 11779 SIERRA OFFICE SUPPLIES 23301 1,082.51 OFFICE EXPENSE 46.73 101 64150 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 78.61 101 65100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 145.06 101 64350 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 119.86 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 91.63 101 64350 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 401.99 526 69020 120 OFFICE EXPENSE 77.20 527 66520 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 121.43 620 66700 120 11780 OFFICE MAX 23306 575.65 OFFICE EXPENSE 35.07 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 133.84 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE -8.56 101 66100 110 MISC. SUPPLIES -7.28 101 66100 120 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 422.58 320 79160 210 11781 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. 23436 1,573.15 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 1,573.15 621 64450 200 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 05/20/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11755 FRANKLIN OFFICE SUPPLIES 20523 56.27 OFFICE EXPENSE 56.27 101 64420 110 11756 JEFF DOWD 20779 228.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 228.00 101 68010 220 1785 11757 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR-042 21240 889.57 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 667.93 619 64460 220 5110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 221.64 619 64460 220 5130 11758 SPARTAN TOOL LLC 21329 66.69 MISC. SUPPLIES 66.69 527 66520 120 11759 THE BANK OF NEW YORK 21439 1,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,500.00 101 32100 11760 JACKIE COOPER 21469 903.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 903.00 101 68010 220 1646 11761 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 116.63 OFFICE EXPENSE 116.63 526 69020 110 11762 UNIVERSAL FLEET SUPPLY INC. 21543 394.61 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 394.61 625 65213 203 11763 HILLYARD 21658 105.05 MISC. SUPPLIES 105.05 101 68020 120 2200 11764 ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY, INC. 21749 2,860.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,860.00 320 80480 120 11765 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 21767 7,209.55 MISCELLANEOUS 7,209.55 101 37010 11766 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONTROLLERS OFF 21897 14,534.50 MISCELLANEOUS 14,534.50 101 37010 11767 PUBLIC AFFAIRS MANAGEMENT 21986 5,350.88 PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 5,350.88 326 80770 210 11768 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 1,755.74 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,450.60 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 305.14 527 66520 120 11769 CSG CONSULTANTS 22465 1,275.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,275.00 201 35220 000 7100 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 05/20/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '•' Denotes Hand Written Checks 11741 JOE MCCLAIN 16066 112.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 112.00 101 68010 220 1787 11742 LINDA HOECK 16390 3,526.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,526.00 101 68010 220 1349 11743 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE 16629 229.97 SUPPLIES 229.97 620 15000 11744 CINTAS CORP. #464 16911 586.64 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 586.64 101 68020 140 2200 11745 CALIFORNIA PNEUMATIC TOOL CO 17741 37.89 MISC. SUPPLIES 37.89 526 69020 120 11746 AHR ENTERPRISES 18416 186.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 186.00 327 77040 220 11747 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSN. 18951 62.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 62.00 101 66100 240 11748 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 19027 1,103.38 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 219.85 101 66210 140 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 191.92 201 65200 220 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 206.12 526 69020 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 219.85 527 66520 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 16.08 528 66600 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 99.08 619 64460 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 150.48 620 66700 140 11749 PEGGY GUARALDI 19044 172.80 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 172.80 101 68010 220 1661 11750 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 18.92 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 18.92 201 65200 203 11751 KATHY KARAS 19812 264.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 264.00 101 68010 220 1644 11752 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 1,635.02 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,635.02 736 64570 220 11753 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 350.00 COMMUNICATIONS 350.00 621 64450 160 11754 DAPPER TIRE CO., INC. 20464 600.37 SUPPLIES 600.37 620 15000 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 05/20/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11732 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 09670 2,303.29 OFFICE EXPENSE 16.75 101 65100 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 269.72 101 68020 120 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 44.35 101 66210 120 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 142.21 101 68020 190 2200 MISCELLANEOUS 92.59 101 68020 192 2200 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 42.37 101 66210 219 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 25.96 101 66210 222 MISC. SUPPLIES 12.96 201 65200 111 SMALL TOOLS 203.88 201 65200 130 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 18.39 201 65200 190 VEHICLE MAINT. 0.69 201 65200 202 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 24.55 201 65200 203 MISC. SUPPLIES 376.74 526 69020 120 MISCELLANEOUS 54.36 526 69020 233 MISC. SUPPLIES 285.90 619 64460 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 204.73 619 64460 120 5240 MISC. SUPPLIES 57.42 619 64460 120 5190 MISC. SUPPLIES 56.31 619 64460 120 5121 SMALL TOOLS 373.41 619 64460 130 11733 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC 09790 769.66 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 418.93 101 66210 222 TRAINING EXPENSE 350.73 526 69020 260 11734 AUGUST SUPPLY, INC 10256 1,142.47 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,142.47 201 65200 111 11735 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMEN 10567 410.00 MISCELLANEOUS 410.00 101 66210 010 11736 ROMEO PACKING CO 11348 714.45 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 714.45 101 68020 190 2200 11737 A T & T 13940 2.16 COMMUNICATIONS 2.16 101 64400 160 11738 SUZETTE TOLIFSON 14294 1,461.38 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 1,001.32 101 68010 150 1950 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 460.06 730 69544 150 11739 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 3,455.40 MISCELLANEOUS 3,455.40 731 22594 11740 PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS 15711 1,860.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,660.00 101 68010 220 1787 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 05/20/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 11724 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. 03760 11,272.48 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11,272.48 101 68020 220 2300 11725 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. 03788 300.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 300.00 101 65100 120 11726 BURLINGAME REC. DEPT./PETTY CASH 03910 4,061.86 OFFICE EXPENSE 77.51 101 68010 110 1101 MISC. SUPPLIES 54.92 101 68010 120 1114 MISC. SUPPLIES 253.98 101 68010 120 1521 MISC. SUPPLIES 224.93 101 68010 120 1890 MISC. SUPPLIES 174.95 101 68010 120 1781 MISC. SUPPLIES 314.75 101 68010 120 1101 MISC. SUPPLIES 81.61 101 68010 120 1520 MISC. SUPPLIES 19.45 101 68020 120 2200 SMALL TOOLS 82.83 101 68020 130 2300 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 357.82 101 68020 140 2200 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 17.11 101 68020 190 2200 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 18.00 101 64420 210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 426.00 101 68010 220 1349 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 518.00 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 270.00 101 68010 220 1331 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 155.00 101 68010 220 1645 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 120.00 101 68010 220 1423 TRAINING EXPENSE 275.00 101 68020 260 2200 TRAINING EXPENSE 70.00 101 68020 260 2100 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 550.00 730 69533 220 11727 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 108.25 MISC. SUPPLIES 108.25 101 64350 120 11728 CITY OF MILLBRAE 09234 3,152.82 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,152.82 101 64350 210 11729 TESTING ENGINEERS, INC. 09270 240.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 240.00 320 80832 210 11730 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 24,853.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,853.00 618 64520 210 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 22,000.00 618 64520 601 11731 BERNARD EDWARDS 09548 1,376.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,376.00 101 68010 220 1762 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 05/20/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11710 BAYSHORE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 01236 1,124.24 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,124.24 625 65213 203 11711 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 01862 25,389.50 COMMUNICATIONS 300.00 621 64450 160 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 25,089.50 621 64450 220 11712 VEOLIA WATER 02110 61,442.02 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 24,469.84 327 79480 210 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 18,467.75 527 66530 190 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 18,504.43 527 66530 800 11713 GENE EVANS 02149 193.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 193.50 101 68010 220 1644 11714 U.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 531.87 - MISC. SUPPLIES 531.87 619 64460 120 11715 MANPOWER 02819 1,472.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,472.00 101 65300 220 11716 P. G. & E. 03054 10.23 GAS & ELECTRIC 10.23 527 66520 170 11717 SBC 03080 156.04 UTILITY EXPENSE 156.04 896 20281 11718 ALFRED J. PALMER 03085 141.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 141.00 130 20015 11719 STEPHEN J. PICCHI 03168 199.20 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199.20 101 68010 220 1372 11720 SANDRA POBE 03175 2,184.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,840.00 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 344.00 101 68010 220 1646 11721 PUMP REPAIR SERVICE CO. 03197 13,357.98 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 13,357.98 526 69020 230 11722 R & S ERECTION OF 03234 530.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 530.00 320 80790 210 11723 RANDY SCHWARTZ 03518 34.95 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 34.95 101 68010 250 1100 l CITY OF BURLINGAME 05-12-2005 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11 ' FUND RECAP - 04-05 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 77,136.89 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 4,288.26 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 4,799.30 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 6,220.13 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 30,344.60 WATER FUND 526 5,215.18 SEWER FUND 527 2,655.40 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 270.60 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 17,175.04 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 2,890.25 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 434.99 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 866.18 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 2,415.69 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 1,258.57 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $155,971.08 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 11 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 11564 THROUGH 11684 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $155,971.08, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 05/12/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11672 NANCY STONE NILSEN 25363 70.00 MISCELLANEOUS 70.00 101 36330 000 1644 11673 DELIA & ASSOCIATES 25364 660.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 660.00 101 64420 262 11674 JOE MARSTON 25365 325.00 MISCELLANEOUS 325.00 201 35220 000 7150 11675 CEILING SYSTEMS SUPPLY 25366 403.27 MISC. SUPPLIES 403.27 619 64460 120 5120 11676 SHI HUA WANG 25367 1,125.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,125.00 101 22546 11677 ARTISTIC BUILDERS 25368 7,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 7,500.00 101 22546 11678 MAGNUM ENTERPRISES 25369 1,200.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,200.00 101 22546 11679 CALPERS 25370 600.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 600.00 101 64420 210 11680 JOANNA RUTH GERRY 25371 64.00 MISCELLANEOUS 64.00 101 36330 000 1782 11681 KATHLEEN W00 25372 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 11682 JILL JOHNSON 25373 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 11683 DEEPA NAVANI 25374 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 11684 TITAN CONSTRUCTION 25375 510.00 MISCELLANEOUS 510.00 101 22546 TOTAL 8155,971.08 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 05/12/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11656 AD CLUB 24809 150.00 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 150.00 101 64420 150 11657 S AND S SUPPLIES 8 SOLUTIONS 24963 178.04 MISC. SUPPLIES 178.04 101 66210 120 11658 HEART OF SAN MATEO COUNTY 25152 4,357.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,357.00 101 64560 220 11659 OFFICE DEPOT 25244 933.26 OFFICE EXPENSE 662.66 101 65100 110 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 270.60 530 65400 200 11660 ECONOLITE CONTROL PRODUCTS 25321 3,948.96 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 3,948.96 101 66210 222 11661 CHRISTIE KONG 25349 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 36330 000 1216 11662 MERCY HIGH SCHOOL 25350 100.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 100.00 101 64420 250 11663 CATHERINE CANNON•COREA 25354 86.00 MISCELLANEOUS 86.00 101 36330 000 1890 11664 MR. STEWART 25355 37.00 MISCELLANEOUS 37.00 101 36330 000 1890 11665 SUPERIOR SERVICE PLUMBING CO. 25356 150.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 150.00 101 22520 11666 TONY CONSTRUCTION CO. 25357 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 11667 HARRY SURUKI 25358 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 11668 KATHY WEINGAND 25359 324.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 324.00 101 68010 220 1641 11669 ROMTEC 25360 4,900.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,900.00 320 81090 210 11670 ANDREA SWENSRUD 25361 70.00 MISCELLANEOUS 70.00 101 36330 000 1644 11671 KRISTINA CIAMPI 25362 70.00 MISCELLANEOUS 70.00 101 36330 000 1644 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 05/12/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11650 JACK'S AUTO TOP AND UPHOLSTERY 24505 164.38 SUPPLIES 61.65 620 15000 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 102.73 625 65213 203 11651 CINGULAR WIRELESS 24607 81.96 COMMUNICATIONS 81.96 101 64250 160 11652 CINGULAR WIRELESS 24640 306.70 COMMUNICATIONS 306.70 101 66100 160 11653 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK 24714 580.45 MISCELLANEOUS 580.45 101 64420 030 11654 I.M.P.A.C. GOVERNMENT SERVICES 24752 9,308.83 OFFICE EXPENSE 299.49 101 64420 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 58.35 101 67500 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 91.97 101 68010 120 1370 MISC. SUPPLIES 145.24 101 68010 120 1521 MISC. SUPPLIES 55.29 101 67500 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 49.56 101 68010 120 1330 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,622.25 101 68010 120 1423 MISC. SUPPLIES 234.75 101 68010 120 1891 MISC. SUPPLIES 5.08 101 68010 120 1787 MISC. SUPPLIES 418.95 101 68010 120 1422 MISC. SUPPLIES 33.51 101 68010 120 1114 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 18.00 101 64420 121 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS -20.14 101 67500 129 COMMUNICATIONS 240.94 101 65100 160 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 118.21 101 67500 190 MISCELLANEOUS 140.71 101 67500 235 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 43.80 101 64150 250 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 425.00 101 64350 250 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 31.60 101 64150 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 80.00 101 67500 260 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 57.37 101 65100 292 MISCELLANEOUS 411.35 101 68010 400 1101 MISCELLANEOUS 923.69 101 68010 400 1114 MISCELLANEOUS 586.02 101 67500 400 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 297.80 526 69020 250, TRAVEL & MEETINGS 890.40 527 66520 250 MISC. SUPPLIES 103.54 730 69582 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 229.96 730 69533 120 MISCELLANEOUS 716.14 731 22548 11655 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CALIFORNIA 24793 4,288.26 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4,288.26 130 20014 C CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 05/12/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11641 KEITH MARTIN 23788 83.45 MISC. SUPPLIES 9.33 101 66210 120 OFFICE EXPENSE 5.94 526 69020 110 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 25.75 526 69020 250 MISCELLANEOUS 42.43 731 22542 11642 DEWEY SERVICES, INC. 23902 530.00 RAT CONTROL PROGRAM 100.00 101 66210 218 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 55.00 619 64460 210 5130 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 55.00 619 64460 210 5170 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 70.00 619 64460 210 5120 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 55.00 619 64460 210 5150 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 70.00 619 64460 210 5180 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 55.00 619 64460 210 5160 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 70.00 619 64460 210 5110 11643 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 13,629.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 129.00 619 64460 220 5230 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 964.00 619 64460 220 5210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 397.00 619 64460 220 5170 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,671.00 619 64460 220 5240 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,836.00 619 64460 220 5180 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,195.00 619 64460 220 5110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 855.00 619 64460 220 5190 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,036.00 619 64460 220 5130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 546.00 619 64460 220 5121 11644 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 846.88 COMMUNICATIONS 659.94 201 65200 160 COMMUNICATIONS 186.94 619 64460 160 11645 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TIRE SERVICE 23950 874.94 SUPPLIES 874.94 620 15000 11646 MUSIC SYSTEMS 23956 500.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 730 69533 220 11647 QUILL 24090 249.95 OFFICE EXPENSE 249.95 621 64450 110 11648 ELISE MILANO 24098 108.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 108.00 101 68010 220 1645 11649 JESUS NAVA 24204 190.00 MISCELLANEOUS 190.00 101 64250 031 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 05/12/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *. Denotes Hand Written Checks 11628 PITNEY BOWES RESERVE ACCOUNT 22624 5,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 5,000.00 101 15500 11629 CHROMARK CORP 22784 115.29 MISC. SUPPLIES 115.29 730 69533 120 11630 THE MOBILE STORAGE GROUP 23138 96.24 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 96.24 526 69020 210 11631 TLC ADMINISTRATORS 23156 175.00 MISCELLANEOUS 175.00 101 64420 031 11632 SIERRA OFFICE SUPPLIES 23301 98.84 OFFICE EXPENSE 98.84 101 65300 110 11633 OFFICE MAX 23306 656.80 OFFICE EXPENSE 49.11 101 64200 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 12.78 101 66100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 199.48 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 255.06 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 140.37 201 65200 110 11634 UNIVERSAL SPECIALTIES, INC. 23311 70.69 MISC. SUPPLIES 70.69 619 64460 120 5190 11635 WILCO SUPPLY 23333 69.31 MISC. SUPPLIES 69.31 619 64460 120 5240 11636 CRESCO EQUIPMENT RENTALS 23470 165.08 MISC. SUPPLIES 108.25 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 56.83 526 69020 120 11637 ERLER AND KALINOWSKI,INC. 23531 1,927.09 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,927.09 526 69020 220 11638 BANK OF NEW YORK 23553 2,800.00 BANK TRUSTEE SERVICES 1,857.52 526 69020 763 BANK TRUSTEE SERVICES 942.48 527 66520 763 11639 AT&T 23661 25.04 COMMUNICATIONS 25.04 621 64450 160 11640 THE MARLIN COMPANY 23712 27.06 TRAINING EXPENSE 27.06 526 69020 260 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 05/12/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT �•� Denotes Hand Written Checks 11613 CENTRAL GARDEN CENTER 20300 529.67 MISC. SUPPLIES 529.67 101 68020 120 2200 11614 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 20394 150.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 150.00 101 66100 240 11615 DAPPER TIRE CO., INC. 20464 122,81 SUPPLIES 122.81 620 15000 11616 CWEA - CALIFORNIA WATER 20631 476.10 TRAINING EXPENSE 476.10 527 66520 260 11617 DELL MARKETING L.P. 20900 3,457.72 MISCELLANEOUS 3,457.72 101 68010 400 1100 11618 RENEE RAMSEY 21136 1,026.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,026.00 101 68010 220 1331 11619 QUICK MIX CONCRETE 21140 476.06 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 476.06 101 66210 219 11620 DEB 21210 152.09 MISC. SUPPLIES 152.09 101 64350 120 11621 UNIVERSAL FLEET SUPPLY INC. 21543 680.94 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 680.94 201 65200 203 11622 DU-ALL SAFETY 21613 2,700.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,750.00 101 64420 210 TRAINING EXPENSE 285.00 101 66210 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 285.00 526 69020 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 285.00 527 66520 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 95.00 619 64460 260 11623 STAR COFFEE INC. 21623 160.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 160.00 621 64450 190 11624 ALL PETROLEUM RECOVERY SERVICE, 22008 85.00 GAS, OIL & GREASE 85.00 201 65200 201 11625 UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER 22305 30,344.60 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 30,344.60 327 81010 210 11626 COMMUTER CHECK CORP-SF BAY AREA 22485 1,269.80 MISCELLANEOUS 1,269.80 101 15400 11627 VERIZON WIRELESS 22593 1 38.71 COMMUNICATIONS 38.71 101 68010 160 1101 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 05/12/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11598 CON BROSNAN 16126 3,350.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 3,350.00 101 22520 11599 SYDNEY MALK00 16347 16.23 SMALL TOOLS 16.23 620 66700 130 11600 GOLDEN NURSERY 17128 - 7.40 MISC. SUPPLIES 7.40 526 69020 120 11601 PRIDE PAINT 17414 993.47 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 993.47 101 68020 190 2200 11602 COLORPRINT 17497 99.05 OFFICE EXPENSE 99.05 526 69020 110 11603 HI•TECH EMERGENCY VEHICLE 17546 163.19 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 163.19 625 65213 203 11604 SOLANO PRESS BOOKS 17761 119.25 MISC. SUPPLIES 119.25 101 64400 120 11605 PARAMOUNT'S GREAT AMERICA 18078 667.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 667.00 101 68010 220 1212 11606 VERIZON WIRELESS MESSAGING SERVI 18763 63.79 COMMUNICATIONS 21.26 101 66210 160 COMMUNICATIONS 21.26 526 69020 160 COMMUNICATIONS 21.27 527 66520 160 11607 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 248.65 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 248.65 201 65200 140 11608 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 64.12 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 64.12 201 65200 203 11609 JOHN CAHALAN, ASLA 19561 525.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 525.00 320 81070 210 11610 BURCH BROS. INC 20136 1,200.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 1,200.00 101 22520 11611 GE CAPITAL 20216 379.75 OFFICE EXPENSE 94.93 101 68020 110 2100 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 284.82 101 68010 220 1101 11612 HERTZ EQUIPMENT RENTAL CORP. 20284 991.54 RENTS & LEASES 991.54 101 66210 180 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 05/12/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '•' Denotes Hand Written Checks 11585 LEONA MORIARTY 09979 3,612.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,612.00 101 68010 220 1644 11586 CAL-STEAM 10557 50.78 MISC. SUPPLIES 31.60 527 66520 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 19.18 619 64460 120 5120 11587 WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE SYSTEMS 11316 2,428.20 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,062.63 101 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,062.63 201 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 302.94 625 65213 203 11588 GWENN JONES 13824 86.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 86.00 101 68010 120 1661 11589 NATIONAL RECREATION & PARK ASSN 13935 215.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 215.00 101 68010 240 1100 11590 STANDARD BUSINESS MACHINES 14252 1,400.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,400.00 101 68010 220 1101 11591 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 14855 102.96 MISC. SUPPLIES 102.96 619 64460 120 11592 DHL EXPRESS 14958 73.59 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 73.59 101 65100 200 11593 LAERDAL MEDICAL CORP. 15055 344.87 MISCELLANEOUS 344.87 201 22585 11594 DAILY JOURNAL CORP. 15626 3,380.00 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 3,380.00 101 64200 150 11595 PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS 15711 1,813.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,813.50 101 68010 220 1787 11596 MILLBRAE LOCK SHOP 15739 262.02 OFFICE EXPENSE 8.55 101 65100 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 56.17 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 7.58 101 68020 120 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 172.51 101 68010 120 1787 MISC. SUPPLIES 8.55 527 66520 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 8.66 619 64460 120 5140 11597 TEAM CLEAN 15827 315.52 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 315.52 201 65200 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 05/12/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11575 MILLBRAE LUMBER CO. 02898 1,810.19 MISCELLANEOUS 35.69 101 68020 192 2200 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 198.23 101 66210 226 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 41.71 201 65200 190 TRAINING EXPENSE 103.96 201 65200 260 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 701.09 320 80790 210 SMALL TOOLS 246.55 526 69020 130 MISC. SUPPLIES 28.38 619 64460 120 5110 MISC. SUPPLIES 454.58 619 64460 120 5140 11576 PACIFIC NURSERIES 03041 1,553.39 MISC. SUPPLIES 86.49 101 68020 120 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,466.90 730 69560 120 11577 PATTERSON PARTS, INC 03106 53.10 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 65.59 201 65200 203 SUPPLIES 57.16 620 15000 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. -69.65 625 65213 203 11578 MARGARET PRENDERGAST 03179 1,482.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,482.75 101 68010 220 1641 11579 SAN MATEO UNION HIGH 03471 2,167.34 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,167.34 101 68010 120 1423 11580 RANDY SCHWARTZ 03518 507.00 MISCELLANEOUS 507.00 101 68010 031 11581 WEST GROUP PAYMENT LTR. 03964 307.24 MISC. SUPPLIES 307.24 101 64350 120 11582 B.E.I. ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 09072 177.13 MISC. SUPPLIES 6.75 619 64460 120 5130 MISC. SUPPLIES 40.21 619 64460 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 44.43 619 64460 120 5180 MISC. SUPPLIES 85.74 619 64460 120 5240 11583 LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS 09143 504.17 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 242.48 101 68020 190 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 261.69 526 69020 120 11584 SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP 09560 779.05 SMALL TOOLS 265.37 101 68020 130 2300 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 114.22 101 68020 200 2200 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 341.43 101 68020 200 2300 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 58.03 201 65200 203 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 05/12/05 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 11564 * 808 MALLAMO 23173 500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 500.00 731 22542 11565 GRAY'S PAINT, BURLINGAME 01025 533.45 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 94.04 320 80790 210 MISC. SUPPLIES 119.02 619 64460 120 5180 MISC. SUPPLIES 161.89 619 64460 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 45.97 619 64460 120 5120 MISC. SUPPLIES 112.53 619 64460 120 5140 11566 BAYSHORE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 01236 69.93 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 69.93 625 65213 203 11567 BURLINGAME AUTO SUPPLY 01507 2,132.94 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 56.16 101 68020 200 2200 VEHICLE MAINT. 114.31 201 65200 202 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 240.20 201 65200 203 SUPPLIES 1,425.23 .620 15000 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 297.04 625 65213 203 11568 BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 01637 2,301.63 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,301.63 101 64560 220 11569 CALIFORNIA PARK & RECREATION 01726 260.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 260.00 101 68010 240 1101 11570 CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTS, INC., 01992 2,257.64 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,257.64 101 64400 120 11571 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 684.76 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 684.76 101 66210 226 11572 PENINSULA BATTERIES 02625 332.23 SUPPLIES 332.23 620 15000 11573 K & W DISCOUNT LIGHTING & SUPP 02645 1,060.53 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,060.53 619 64460 210 5120 11574 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. 02755 248.46 SMALL TOOLS 248.46 201 65200 130 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# l la MAG. DATE 6/20/05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL suBM ED BY DATE: June 8, 2005 �— APPRO % FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY l I Y SUBJECT: UPDATE ON A POTENTIAL MERGER BE EN BURLINGAME AND MILLBRAE RECREATION DIVISIONS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council receive the update from staff regarding the potential merger between the Burlingame and Millbrae Recreation Divisions. BACKGROUND: Since February 2003, Burlingame and Millbrae have shared the services of a Parks & Recreation Director. On March 23, 2005, a committee comprised of two Council members from each City (Burlingame: Galligan, O'Mahony - - Millbrae: Hershman, Quigg) met and outlined the process to determine the pros, cons and feasibility of merging the two Recreation Divisions. Since that meeting, staff has met with the front office staff members (April 12), program staff members (April 13), Millbrae Parks & Recreation Commission (April 19), Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission (April 21), Millbrae Recreation staff(May 12), a joint meeting of the Burlingame and Millbrae Parks & Recreation Commissions (May 17) and Burlingame Recreation staff(May 18). The public gave input at each of the three Commission meetings and both of the Council Committee meetings(March 23 &June 7). At the set of meetings in April, there were several requests for a more detailed look at how a merged operation may function. After those meetings, a list of Agreement Points was drafted based upon the input from the public, Commissions and staff. The list was presented at the May set of meetings and has been further revised based upon further comments. This list, attached, is intended as an outline for an Agreement between the two cities, if they should decide to go forward and merge the Recreation operations. The Council Committee's second meeting was held at the Burlingame Recreation Center on Tuesday, June 7`". Minutes will be distributed to the Council when they are available. At the end of the meeting, it was decided that each City would conduct a study session on the topic within the next two months. BUDGET IMPACT: No budget impact is associated with this update. No financial benefit from shared services was included in the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department's 2005-06 Budget; therefore, any merger will only have a positive budget impact. ATTACHMENTS: Notes from the staff and Commission meetings List of Agreement Points–May 24, 2005 Draft AGREEMENT POINTS for Shared Recreation Services between the cities of Burlingame and Millbrae May 24,2005 Draft Time Frame 1. Three year agreement, with additional three years extensions. 2. Written notice to amend or terminate Agreement to be given by Dec 31"and effective July 1't of any year. City Responsibilities 3. Each City to provide and maintain existing facilities for recreational programs. 4. Each City to provide and maintain existing working offices. 5. Each City to maintain existing Agreements with school districts for recreational opportunities. 6. Each City will retain ownership of property and facilities. 7. Provisions to be developed for future joint ownership of property and/or facilities. 8. Joint hold harmless/indemnification clauses and insurance policies for personnel, facilities, vehicles, etc. 9. Cities will contribute by predetermined percentage to risk management fund. Recreation Budgets 10. Cities will establish a ratio to be used to share expenses and revenues. Potential factors to determine ratio are historical percentage of expenditures, historical percentage of net cost to General Fund or other. 11. Prepare annual report and budget for review by both City Managers. 12. City Managers will consider adjustments to funding formula annually as part of budget process. 13. Special funds (donation accounts, special revenue accounts, trust funds, etc) to be continued independently of jointly funded recreation budget. Scholarship accounts to be shared. 14. Staff will work with City Managers to ensure that an inability on the part of either City to fully fund the Recreation programs will not affect the services provided to the other City. Recreation Programs 15. Programs will be open to residents of both Cities at the established resident rate. 16. Programs designated by Director as impacted (examples: preschool or senior special events) will be initially open only to residents of host City. Residents of other City will have next priority for registration before program is opened to residents of other cities. 17. 50% of any expense savings or excess revenues to be placed in a trust fund for capital outlay for the Recreation programs. 18. New non-self supporting programs, or existing programs that need additional General Fund support, will be offered to both Cities. If only one City approves program, that City will need to fund program and will retain control. 19. Director, staff representatives, City Managers and other personnel from each City will form transition team to address questions on finances,personnel, computer equipment, program details and other items. Personnel 20. Regular staff to remain employees of existing City and will retain union or bargaining group affiliation for at least first three years. Existing mployees who wish to remain employees of their existing agency throughout their tenure will be allowed to do so. 21. Integrate regular staffs, with no lay-offs due to merger. 22. Commitment to bring compensation(salaries &benefits)in line with each other of comparable positions. 23. Areas of responsibility& site location for recreation staff to be determined by Director. 24. Director selected by City Managers will serve as the Department Head for both cities. 25. Millbrae to add extra funds to bring the Building Attendant position in line with Burlingame position prior to merger. 26. Vacancies that occur within the first three years will be filled by City where vacancy occurs and the new employee will become an employee of that City. Adjunct Services 27. The parties agree that an administration fee will be paid to the city providing administrative services (legal, financial, HR, etc). Commissions/Council 28. Establish ad hoc committee comprised of two Parks&Recreation Commissioners from each City to meet quarterly during initial year of recreation operation to assist with merger of policies. Unanimous votes of the ad hoc committee may be presented to both City Councils as recommendations of each Commission. Split votes need to be returned to each Commission for separate votes and recommendations to Councils. 29. Cities will consider the reorganization of the Commission after the first year of the merger. 30. Staff to attend Council, Commission and Committee meetings, as required by agenda items or minimum of quarterly. Notes from Burlingame Recreation Staff Meeting Shared Services w/ Millbrae - - May 18, 2005 Additional Concerns ♦ Mechanism for reviewing"impacted" status of programs—Deal Breaker ♦ Logistics of three registration periods for impacted programs ♦ Which agency would hire new employees during first three years? ♦ Workload issues—Are there going to be a sufficient number of efficiencies found to help ease load? Or are we just"robbing Peter to pay Paul''? ♦ Can we combine items such as staff trainings to be more efficient, or are the logistics of working w/the larger numbers of people going to make the scheduling too difficult? ♦ Are we spreading ourselves too thin? ♦ Are we able to continue the current level of quality programming? ♦ Can we handle the increased capacity at registration? ♦ Can we meet the needs of Burlingame residents (continue at the same level of service, maintain the same quaintness of small town, etc)? ♦ Would like to see long term personnel issues detailed more fully ♦ The human element of changes in job duties or locations ♦ Program staff may not be available to office staff due to other commitments ♦ Will we lose customers if the merger does not work out? ♦ People come to City because of small town feel—ability to meet with staff ♦ We have a great staff and specialize very well—fear that we will lose staff who enjoys working in that environment ♦ Get the issue to Council and let's see where it goes ♦ With a six-month buyout in place,there is no huge commitment Cities of Millbrae and Burlingame Parks and Recreation Commission Joint Meeting Tuesday, May 17, 2005 Comments/Concems: • Senior fundraising efforts are for many senior activities—not just for senior van • Location of staff work sites • What are the P &R Director's responsibilities • Need for additional staff • What is the future status of the existing Commissions • Timeline is too aggressive • Need for more public outreach • Staff costs vs program costs • What is the per capita spending for each city • Concern about priority registration for impacted programs (ex. Village Park Pre-School) • Abuse of 416—who decides about money spent on capital outlay projects • Need more specifics—report on efficiencies • Burlingame has more to offer than Millbrae • Move forward with the timeline • Process is moving too fast • Place merge on the ballot • Not enough information to make a decision • Need budget,handbook, and bylaws indicating specifics on how the merge would work • Concern about 412—groups fundraising for their own programs • Staff programming efforts inhibited—unsure of the future • Some residents are under the impression that departments have already merged • Recreation needs a director 100% of the time • Millbrae and Burlingame have different circumstances • Problems with logistics for the proposed merge • Apprehensive about the director being a Burlingame employee and where loyalties lie • Extra costs to hire a Recreation Superintendent • Try an in-house solution by using existing staff in Millbrae • Affect of processing fee funding Burlingame Teen Coordinator • Benefit of the Burlingame Driving Range • Benefit of the Burlingame Aquatics Center 1 Notes from Millbrae Staff Meeting May 12, 2005 ADDITIONAL CONCERNS Special fundraisers for senior programs should be placed in a senior citizens donation account Allowing for"Impacted Programs"keeps cities separate. Citizens from each City need to have a fair shot at registration. This should be dropped or possibly phased out of the Agreement points. Include along w/#17, existing programs that need extra funding, such as the senior van in Millbrae Administrative fee needs to be clarified and 15%needs to be reconsidered Which Commission would approve or recommend items to the City Council, such as reconciling registration fees, refund fees, senior discounts, etc. Pay equity needs to include benefit value, such as medical or dental coverages How will we communicate with the Parks Divisions Need to add a Building Attendant position for the Millbrae Community Center ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS Establish a"Recreation Commission"that oversees the joint operation and make the existing P&R Commissions "Parks Commissions". Develop a transitional team now to work on#18's Would like to keep union affiliation and membership Need to keep morale high—skeptical of being relocated Millbrae needs more than 1.5 positions in the Front Office Commission Notes MILLBRAE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION (April 19) Potential Merge of Millbrae and Burlingame Parks and Recreation Departments R. Jaeck gave an overview of the current situation regarding shared services in the Parks and Recreation Department. The City is currently investigating the possibility of merging the Recreation Division with the City of Burlingame. A merge of this nature would make it possible to enhance programs by operating on a larger scale than the two cities can afford by operating alone. The Commission/community members expressed concern regarding oversight, logistics, efficiencies, budget and timeline. Ralph suggested that staff come back to the Commission with specifics. The merge was compared to larger cities that provide different programs at more than one community center within their boundaries. After much discussion, the consensus was that the Commission would like more information. The City Manager suggested that the timeline set is a general guideline and will return with a more specific plan. Ralph also addressed many questions from the Commission/community regarding the proposal from the Sheriff's Department to operate police services in Millbrae. BURLINGAME PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION (April 21) Shared Parks &Recreation Services with Millbrae Manager Nantell gave an overview of the proposal to share Recreation services with the City of Millbrae. The two cities have shared a Parks & Recreation Director for the past two years and should move forward with a long-term decision. Although finances are a key,this is not only driven by financial issues and should not be considered as a short term money issue. Nantell cited several examples of issues in the County,such as the"woefully inadequate infrastructure"and$30 million a year that is spent on salaries for City Managers and Department Heads. The impact on citizens and employees of shared services for the short-term is not worth the struggle. Nantell discussed the benefits of Recreation programming specialists, rather than generalists. Similar to doctors,the recreation now has more professionals specializing in one area of recreation programming to improve the quality of the services provided. Department heads need to be up to date on the rules and regulations of their professional areas and cannot also be expected to be experts in HR regulations. Such specialization can exist with larger program staffs. Nantell spoke of the efficiencies that could be gained through a merger, citing brochure productions and budget preparation as two examples. He noted the amount of time spent by the Director in meetings each month that could be reduced. Becoming more efficient will allow the staff to be more creative in their programming for the community, but also stated that staff needs to balance control with the quality of services. Schwartz pointed out several examples where a larger staff serving the two cities could be more efficient. Having two staff members attend league meetings representing two middle schools in Burlingame and Millbrae is not as efficient as having one staff member attend the same staff meeting representing three middle schools in South San Francisco. Nantell discussed the reasons such mergers do not happen,such as loss of control,residents wanting 1 their own identity or the loss of contact with staff if the community is expanded. He stated that there are always trade-offs; that things are not necessarily better or worse,just different. Commissioner Lawson asked for a more specific definition of what we are now considering. Schwartz replied that the current proposal only includes merging the Recreation Divisions of the two cities. Because of the difference in operations and types of special projects between the two Parks Divisions, they are not being considered at this time, but nothing in the current proposal would preclude a future Parks merger. Commissioner Heathcote stated that he has attended all of the meetings on this topic so far and has many concerns including loss of personnel,which City Council would oversee the merged operation, would commissions be merged, are the benefits the same for each city and does a larger staff mean better programs. He also said that he does not think the salary for the Director of the merged Department should be reduced from the current level. Heathcote asked if the pay scales of the two cities are the same and stated that any merger should not focus upon potential savings, but on the quality of the programs. Commissioner Muller asked if this merger may result in a loss of front office personnel. Schwartz stated that both departments have already lost staff to budget reductions and no further positions will be lost because of this merger. However, both cities still have difficult budget situations in the future and may face further reductions. Staff will need to ensure that any budget reductions in one city do not affect the services provided to the other city. Muller asked how policies between the two divisions would be set,such as equating the prices of classes and senior citizens discounts. Schwartz replied that these decisions would be made by staff recommendations to whichever commission oversees the merged division. Muller asked how this arrangement could be undone by either party, if need be. Nantell stated that this is fully described in fire merger where it would be more difficult because of the capital items shared between the cities. Schwartz stated that this would be more difficult for the parks division because of the equipment that would be purchased for the cities to share. Also,if the two cities were ever to jointly construct a facility—such as a gymnasium and/or teen center—provisions for use and terms of use would need to be spelled out in the agreement. Muller also asked about resident/non-resident fees and the number of people that would sign up for classes. Schwartz replied that these would be other items that staff and the commission would have to discuss in more detail. Commissioner Erickson illustrated the need to look down the road 30 years and plan for the future. Chairman Larios is not keen on the idea of a merger. Larios asked if Burlingame would be supplementing Millbrae and stated that this merger would mean our top Parks and Recreation administrator would not always be available because of commitments to Millbrae. He asked how the benefits of such a merger compare for each city and said that Burlingame is doing things so well, others are attaching themselves to us. He shared a concern of our staff resources being taken away. Nantell agreed that we need to maintain the quality of the programs,but pointed out that Millbrae's recreation operation is slightly more efficient than Burlingame's. He stated that we are all good people doing good things, but Larios' concern of subsidizing an under-funded community is one shared by some council members. Larios also expressed concern over separating the Parks and Recreation divisions. Schwartz agreed with the cooperation between the two divisions, cited the improved coordination since the Burlingame Parks Department was relocated to the Recreation Center several years ago and pointed out that Burlingame's Parks and Recreation divisions would 2 remain in the same department. In response to Larios' question about how much control would a consortium have over each city, Nantell explained that each city would have control over their assets, but would contribute to a joint budget. Commissioner Heathcote commented that the Millbrae Parks&Recreation Commission requested that the City Managers and Director draft a proposal and bring it back to the Commissions. Nantell pointed out the "Catch-22" that, if such a proposal had been drafted and presented, some would complain that it was done without public input. He also relayed the frustration of staff, citing one Supervisor who exclaimed"just make a decision". Heathcote said the proposal should have a two to five year test cycle and that he has more confidence of Millbrae's ability to recover after seeing City Manager Ralph Jaeck's 5-year plan. Schwartz discussed the process to date and planned. A process planning meeting was held in March with Burlingame Council members Galligan and O'Mahony,Millbrae Council members Hershman and Quigg,City Managers Jaeck and Nantell,Director Schwartz and approximately 20 members of the public. The Council members asked staff to meet with staff, commissions and the public and develop a timeline for the process. Last week,the Managers and Director held meetings with staff from each Recreation Division. The Millbrae Parks&Recreation Commission meeting earlier this week discussed the potential merger, as will the Millbrae Senior Advisory Committee meeting on April 27h. The schedule after that was left open to take into account the progress at the Commission meetings. Schwartz suggested that staff draft a proposal and bring it to each Commission for their May meetings. Larios suggested that the May meeting be a joint meeting of the Commission. Heathcote expressed concern for a joint meeting, stating that the Millbrae Commission did not get far into the discussion because of the lack of details and the feeling of being betrayed by the Millbrae Council in the past. He wondered if the Millbrae Commission needed more time before having a joint meeting. After discussion, it was agreed that Schwartz will work with the Commission Chairmen to arrange a joint meeting at a time/place/location that is acceptable to both. Chairman Larios then opened the discussion to members of the public. Marge Colapietre stated that she has been a Millbrae resident for 3 5 years and owns a small business in Millbrae. She spoke of the huge volunteer effort in Millbrae and agreed with Heathcote that Millbrae's Commission did not get far in the discussion;that Burlingame's meeting was much more efficient. Millbrae is a tiny community that has accomplished a lot because of their volunteers and asked the Burlingame Commissioners not to discount the fact that Millbrae residents are personally invested in their community. She pointed out that things in Millbrae got bad because of the City's management; that past Councils micro-managed the community and City staff. She stated that before a joint meeting is attempted,the Millbrae Commission needs to be brought up to par,but the meeting should be held sooner rather than later. Nantell spoke about the differences in the City Administrator and City Manager forms of government—pointing out that Millbrae's current City Council made a switch to the Manager style only a few months ago. John Root said that he has lived in Burlingame for 28 years. He complimented the Millbrae City Manager's presentation of the five year plan and stated that the Director appears to be held in high esteem in Millbrae. He likes the idea of the merger on the face of it,but said that proposed savings would be important to many Burlingame residents. He suggested a series ofFAQ's would be helpful to the Commissioners and the public; that people need to see something in writing. 3 Larios stated that a merger needs to have benefit for Millbrae as well as Burlingame. He asked staff to arrange for the next meeting and pointed out that the joint meeting would save time, avoid a duplication of questions and would stimulate the discussion. Colapietre said Millbrae has been told that this merger is because of the money situation and thought the first meeting would be to learn how to cut costs. Millbrae does not want the topic to drag on, but, at the Millbrae Commission meeting, Jaeck suggested that time is not a factor. 4 Notes from the Joint Staff Meetings of the Millbrae and Burlingame Recreation Divisions Support Staff (April 12,2005) Concerns -one or two finance departments -classes: more, same?? -where will work stations be -who will we be employed by -What if Millbrae goes to 2.7%at 55 -Will there be pay equity -Can people register for classes in both communities -Will there still be non-res fees for those in the other city or will we switch to single fees? -How will we set up a system of communications -Who gets registration priorities -Are there union concerns -The rules&policies need to be combined -How will we handle communication between front office staff and the supervisors -Right now we are comfortable where we are—why do we have to change -There may be a need for more staff Program Staff(April 13,2005) H We have been sharing (Softball/Golf Tourney/Golf classes/Legos)-this is a win for community NIB Had fear 2 years ago, now ready to go w/merger- We are not working in our areas of expertise- This would benefit both communities-disheartened by Millbrae meeting and the expressed fear of loss of control, changes, and being eaten up—we have had time to work together—this is a winning opportunity LM 2 years ago had fear—we are never going back to our little Rec. department w/Randy—We need to use our expertise/specialties—in favor of a merger also GM What will happen 6 months from now? Who will handle softball?Recreation and the community is 99% same in Millbrae-Who will handle teens? Camps?Trips?Where and when will these programs be held? AC Which programs will be held where—has worked well w/shared transportation—Howard, Mike W& Charlene have been great—working w/van LC City of 50,000 is small—has worked in San Jose—for shared services—could use Mills' pool for Summer programs TB Share Softball for the past 1.5 years—People have fear, will need to learn new quirks,programs, etc.-There is a huge benefit for sharing. TP There is more apprehension than is being stated here—Burlingame has a strong program-Millbrae can benefit more by working with us—We have been working more together- seniors do not accept change easily—The Burlingame brochure is complete-our residents will not see a benefit to a merger—Has apprehension of how it will play out—We could be more efficient. MW Millbrae is small, but we know how to do things -Millbrae residents are territorial& afraid of losing their identity-w/o Randy there will be a need to backfill from underneath—that will be less efficient—we need to focus on programs KH The financial benefits not worth hassle-Haven't seen benefits for Burlingame—The benefits all seem to be for Millbrae because Millbrae is short staffed- Small may not be efficient, but big is not better—Explained a snafu on a preschool field trip to the Fire Station-preschool parents would go wild if Village program was open to Millbrae residents at the same time as Burlingame residents-Services will get watered down- Change is not easy-whatever happens, happens, but is sick of sharing -Wants to be done with the discussions—Is least in support of merger and sees no benefit for Burlingame—there is negligible duplication TP We should continue to share with each other after separating the two cities LM Sharing often creates more work—advocates for merging to become more efficient KH Expressed frustration at the loss of Randy's time—Randy is an outstanding leader and supervisor, but has watched Randy age&get worn down Group discussions about productivity, revenue growth w/increased visibility, lack of Randy's time, Loss of connection with community KH Devastation—the Devil takes us from excellence to very good,makes our standards slip just slightly Long-Term Plan for the Burlingame and Millbrae Parks & Recreation Departments Committee Meeting Minutes —March 23, 2005 — 5:00 pm Millbrae Community Center, 477 Lincoln Circle, Millbrae Introductions/Attendance Committee: Galligan(Burl), Hershman(Mill), O'Mahony(Burl), Quigq(Mill) Staff: Jaeck,Nantell, Schwartz Guests: All in attendance introduced themselves Current Status of Parks & Recreation Departments Hershman asked Director Schwartz to give an overview of the current status of the Burlingame and Millbrae Parks &Recreation Departments and the efforts to work together. Schwartz stated that sharing of the Parks &Recreation Director, originally a six-month experiment, has now extended over two years. In that time,there have been questionnaires of staff and commissions;joint meetings of commissions, program staff, parks administrators, front office staff, combined recreation programs; a combined effort to fund a teen center; shared transportation programs; etc. Discussions of Committee Process Nantell stated(1)that it would be easier to combine the Recreation Divisions of the two cities than the Parks Divisions because of the scope of services they provide and(2) there is only a $300,000 maximum savings in a potential merger of recreation administrative services. Galligan said shared services could result in a better product at a cheaper price. Jaeck added this may be an opportunity to restore programs that were cut due to budget reductions. Galligan noted his concern that asking the Director to operate each Department independently would lead to burn out and suggested we should decide on a long term course of action quickly. He stated there are a couple of major hurdles in the future and used union representation and differences in employee compensation as examples that occurred in the Burlingame-Hillborough Fire merger. Nantell and Jaeck both stated the need to establish a timeline of meetings and goals necessary in the process of these discussions. This would include the process for gathering input from staff, commissions and community members. Nantell stated the Managers would meet with the Commissioners to explore why the Managers see positives in going forward with a joint operation. Quigg said that together the cities are still smaller in population(50,000)than many other cities in the County. Galligan noted that San Mateo has a population of 90,000 with one Fire Chief, that efficiencies can be achieved by combining and that no positions were lost in the Burlingame- Hillsborough Fire merger. Hershman stated that Schwartz has been in place for the past two years and has the skills and knowledge to operate a joint department. He then agreed that Nantell,Jaeck and Schwartz should create a timeline for the decision making process. O'Mahony noted the fire merger was successful because of the many years put into the process,but shared Galligan's concern that a lengthy process will bum out Schwartz. Jaeck noted the inefficiencies of operating two separate departments. Public Comments GEORGE LYNCH: Schwartz is doing great job, but we need to take care of Millbrae first and Burlingame second. Don't jump into something—Commission wanted to be met with Council first. Recreation is not a business; that Councils should look to other areas to make money. The Burlingame Recreation Center is too far from other end of Millbrae. Why do we need to merge? If we don't merge can't the two staffs still talk and work together? Council has already made up their minds. We should not do this just to make it easier for Schwartz. HARRIETT LARSON: The Millbrae Sr. Coordinator is like a mom and seniors need a mom here at home. Seniors come here because of Charlene's warmth and caring. Harriett has directed a Senior Center& understands those come to be loved &nurtured. Schwartz stated that the senior citizens coordinators would continue to work with their current programs under any administrative models. MARGE COLAPIETRO: Is glad to hear both the coordinators and programs would not change and that seniors are a special group. Are we doing this for short time savings? Reinforced Lynch's comments that we need to consider more than the effect this is having on one individual. MARILYN COONEY—Millbrae has worked hard to preserve parklands and those decisions should in no way be handed over to another group of people. It would be great if a merger could take care of Millbrae's maintenance issues that have not been addressed. Hershman pointed to the Pewaukee, Wisconsin case study where two Parks agencies merged, but continued to have local control of their natural assets and facilities. Gallligan agreed by stating the need for community ownership and the importance of preserving open space. JOHN COONEY: Need to maintain local control over parks. Galligan stated there are not enough fields now in the two cities; a shared administration would not reduce the amount of open space or parkland. KIRK HEATHCOTE: Are we talking about answering to one Council or having a cooperative arrangement? He would advocate for a cooperative arrangement. Hershman noted that is the process that we need to address. MIKE SULLIVAN: Echoes the statement made by all. Recreation functions can be combined easily; it would be more difficult with parks structure because of physical aspects. GALE GRINSELL: Working together should be a way to emphasize programs for both should benefit all of us; enhance all of our lives. It would be helpful if we can have these preliminary meetings in each City. LOU SANDR ,I: This could be positive process for all. Run Parks &Recreation programs for all without Schwartz. Seniors are a special program. Need to look at costs for participants (travel, time, etc). We have discussed higher service levels; where do we need higher service levels? The criteria for a solution can be quantifiable or non- quantifiable. The coordination between Parks and Recreation divisions is important for scheduling of maintenance of physical assets. Not sure why would Burlingame want to take on financial burden of Millbrae Parks. STEPHEN HAMILTON: Commended group for having meeting and looking at ways to operate more efficiently; to deliver greater service. Change is difficult and communication is the key. He hopes to have another meeting in Burlingame. GARY NORTH—Echoes Hamilton's comments; need for program& parklands meeting for each city. Council needs to show courage and keep land management autonomous. TERRY BAUER: Discussion of need for closeness to participants in senior citizens programs, which portions of recreation programs don't need that closeness? Why are seniors different than other programs? Because of other issues from the past, he is afraid of back room politics. It's almost as if you are ready to go ahead. Schwartz explained the shared services discussions in recreation only relate to recreation programming. Seniors are different because the coordinator is part of the administrative staff, unlike other programs where a contractor or part-time staff member works directly with the participants. Next Steps Hershman asked for committee agreement that we ask staff to take a look at the time sequence,talk to staff and commissions and then set a future committee meeting. The other committee members agreed. Collapietro asked for diversity in scheduling of future meeting times. Lynch would like to know earlier of the next meeting date and time. Respectfully submitted, Randy Schwartz L I� 1 BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY Burlingame Public Library Board of Trustees Minutes April 19, 2005 I. Call to Order President Herman called the meeting to order at 4:30pm. II. Roll Call Trustees Present: David Carr, Mary Herman, Katie McCormack, Carol Rossi and Pat Toft Staff Present: Al Escoffier, City Librarian Sidney Poland, Recorder III. Warrants and Special Funds The Trustees unanimously approved the warrants. M/S/C (Carr/Toft) IV. Minutes The Trustees unanimously approved the minutes of the March 15, 2005 meeting. M/S/C (Rossi/McCormack) V. Correspondence and Attachments Correspondence and Attachments were noted. VI. From the Floor VII. Reports A. City Librarian's Report - Highlights of Report 1. Library Budget - The budget has been submitted to the Finance Department for review. Key features of the new budget include 3% increase in employee costs, 3% increase in operating budget, loss of a vacant full time position which will be .filled with a 25 hour permanent part time employee, and no change in hourly staff. The book budget remains down 22% from 3 years ago. 2. On-Line Migration - The introduction of the new Triple III system to the public has been delayed until August 17th. 3. Easton Library - Easton circulation continues to rise topping off at 4,811 for March. Increased use of the self check has made it possible to triple our circulation and still staff the library with two employees per shift. 4. Rental Collection - The rental collection will be discontinued on May 30th. 48o Primrose Road•Burlingame•CA 94010-4083 Phone (650) 558-7474'Fax(650) 342-6295 5. Cluster Holds - The new system does not provide for Burlingame patrons to have first chance on new materials. The Library staff is trying to find an alternative way to give our patrons immediate access to new materials. B. Foundation Report - The Directors agreed to reconfirm the four original goals of the Foundation. The Development Committee presented its specific goals for 2005 and after discussion, the Directors selected Programs and Collections as their first priority for fund raising. The fund raising event for this year will change direction and be geared to families with younger children. It will also coincide with the 10th anniversary of the Foundation. VIII. Unfinished Business - Change of Meeting Date The Trustees passed a motion to move the May meeting date from May 17, 2005 to May 24, 2005. M/S/C (Rossi/Carr) IX. New Business - Discussion and Approval of documents entitled Library Bill of Rights, Freedom to Read Statement, and Citizen Request for Reconsideration of Library Material. A. The City Librarian noted that the Library Bill of Rights and Freedom to Read documents were previously adopted by the Library Board of Trustees in 1953 and requested that the Trustees reaffirm these policies as guidelines for developing the collection, serving our patrons, and providing uninhibited access to library materials. B. The Citizen Request for Reconsideration of Library Materials is a form, revised as of April 2005, that a patron can use to express his/her objections to a specific book, DVD, CD, or magazine and request that the item be reviewed with regard to its place in the collection. C. The Trustees unanimously approved Trustee Rossi's motion to reaffirm the Library Bill of Rights and Freedom to Read Statement, and approve the 2005 revised Citizen Request for Reconsideration of Library Materials in order to set a standard policy should library materials be challenged. M/S/C (Rossi/Toft) X. Announcements A. PLS Activities - Trustees Herman, McCormack, Toft and the City Librarian, Al Escoffier, will attend the Legislative Breakfast on April 16th. B. Library Board Appointments - The City will begin the application process for the upcoming Library Board of Trustee positions on May 2nd through May 20th. C. Joint Meeting - The Library Board of Trustees annual meeting with the City Council will take place on June 21 st. Library Board of Trustee Minutes April 19,2005 XI. Adjournment-The meeting was adjourned at 6:00pm.The next meeting will be held May 24,2005 in the Conference Room. Respectfully Submitted, Alfred H. Escoffier City Librarian Library Board of Trustee Minutes April 19,2005 The City of Burlingame CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Approved Thursday - April 14, 2005 Commissioners Present: Stephen Warden, Chair Eugene Condon, Vice Chair Russ Cohen Dan Conway Victor James Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Sergeant Don Shepley, Police Department Lori Brock, Secretary, Public Works Staff Absent: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Visitors: Chris Knight, 1624 Coronado Way Rochelle Tolard, 1609 Larsen Way �-- Laurie Ken, 1632 Mc Donald Way Teresa Post, 1617 Coronado Way Jen Ulrich, 1637 Coronado Sigrun Franco, 1700 Davis Drive Alan Drummer, 1653 Coronado Way Denise Martin, 1900 Davis Drive Vadim Gertsvalf, 1636 Coronado Way Todd Keleaer, 1632 Coronado Way Jenny Keleaer, 1632 Coronado Way Ray Chun, 1621 Coronado Way TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Approved Thursday, April 14, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 5 of 5 Commissioners present. 4. CURRENT BUSINESS 4.1 ACTION ITEMS 4.1.1 Minutes for March 10, 2005 4.1.1.1 Commissioner Conway recognized that the sentence in paragraph six,item 5.2.3 was not complete. He added that he welcomed the chance to provide assistance in this area since -� he lives on Howard Avenue and is aware of the traffic problem at Howard Avenue and Crescent Avenue. 4.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS 4.2.1 Appeal Process for the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission The Commission decided to table this matter until next meeting. 4.2.2 Vehicle Racing on Gilbreth Road Chair Warden stated that the Police Department was concerned about after-hours vehicle racing in the industrial areas around Gilbreth Road and Adrian Road. He presented some options for action such as review other city's policies regarding racing,vehicle impoundment, and a review business hours on Adrian Road (since several business keep late hours and or are open 24 hours there ). 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS 5.1 Carolan Avenue at Broadway -parking enforcement and time limit extension. It was relayed to the Commission that Mike Harvey submitted this request, but was unable to —� attend today's meeting due to scheduling conflicts. The City of Burlingame Page 2 -TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes -Approved Thursday, April 14, 2005 6. FROM THE FLOOR 6.1 The Commission acknowledged receipt of a faxed communication from Karen Kearney and Stanley Parker regarding stop signs and crosswalk safety measures at Ray Drive and Lassen Way. 7. INFORMATION ITEMS 7.1 Bicycle safety issues in Burlingame Commissioner Condon reported that the City is still waiting to hear if the City of Daly City has received additional funding from an alternate source for their Bikeways/TDA projects. 7.2 From Staff to Commission 7.2.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 7.2.1.1 Burlingame Downtown Parking Study. Commissioner Warden announced an April 28, 2005 public hearing date regarding the Burlingame Avenue Downtown District Parking study. 7.2.1.2 Senate Bill 466 - Use of Mobile Photo Radar Enforcement for residential street speeding. Commissioner Condon suggested that two or three such devices could be used for traffic calming, and suggested that the City look into grant funding for the purchase of these devices. He said that Cortez and Sherman are prime examples of areas that would benefit from these devices. 7.2.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report Sergeant Shepley reported on the following items: - The department is down two motor officers, since they have been switched over to patrol duties. He said that these officers might be back in mid May of this year. - A vehicle was towed from 834 Crossway due to expired tags (six months). - Selected speed enforcement was performed on April 6 at Sherman and Cortez. Police staff issued warnings to all except to one vehicle. - An April 22"d DUI check point program has been funded by an Office of Traffic Safety (OTS) grant. - Seatbelt enforcement program has been scheduled for May 5, 2005. - The elective enforcement list has been reduced due to less complaints and lower requests for special enforcement. The City of Burlingame Page 3 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes -Approved Thursday, April 14, 2005 7.3 From Commission to Staff 7.3.1 Double-yellow center lines in Commercial Districts Chair Warden commented on the effectiveness of the double-yellow centerlines down Burlingame Avenue. He suggested that the City extend a double-yellow centerline down on Broadway as well. Chair Warden recommended placing this matter on next month's agenda as an Action Item. Commissioner Conway spoke regarding the commercial delivery trucks parked for long periods of time. He said that it appears that UPS and FEDEX drivers are abusing the twenty minute parking limit. Commissioner Condon recommended that City educate the merchants and retailers that use them by issuing flyers to the truck drivers. Commissioner Warden suggested the possibility of contacting the companies involved and providing them with other parking location alternatives. He recommended that this item be placed on next month's agenda as an Action Item. 7.4 Reports of citizens complaints or requests None. 7.5 Comments and communication None. 7.6 Next Meeting: May 12, 2005 There were no reported scheduling conflicts by the Commission. 8. INACTIVE ITEMS 8.1 Mahler road - Height and overnight parking restrictions Commissioner James stated this is working well. 8.2 Franklin School - Crosswalk enhancements at Trousdale Drive and Quesada Way Commissioner Condon explained that he and Commissioner Conway were able to meet and begin developing a process to compile a set of criteria and conditions to apply for marked crosswalks around schools. Commissioner Conway stated that there could be some unintended consequences from installing -� unwarranted stop signs which could increase danger. He cited "California Stops" as an example. Resident Theresa Post thanked the Commission for their work, especially the yellow crosswalks The City of Burlingame Page 4 -TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Approved Thursday, April 14, 2005 at Lincoln school. Ms. Post added that the existing red curb on Ray Drive and Lassen Way needed to be extended farther back. Ms. Post said that visibility was poor and that pedestrians were in danger. Resident George Atkinson agreed with Ms. Post and would like to see knockdown delineators installed. 8.3 4-way stop signs -Howard Avenue and Crescent Avenue Chair Warden stated that this matter was still pending pedestrian count. 8.4 3-way stop signs - Ray Drive and Lassen Way Chair Warden read the fax from Karen Kearney and Stanley Parker which stated that they were unable to attend tonight's meeting, but that they were still concerned about traffic safety in the neighborhood. Their letter also stated that they wanted a solution that showed fairness and equity for all parties involved. Ms. Kearney and Mr. Parker also stated in their letter that they believe speeding is an issue, and supported the opinion of the City's Traffic Engineer. Ms. Franco of Davis Drive spoke. She said that she believes speeding is an issue and would like to see cameras installed. 8.5 Easton Drive - Eucalyptus tree at Easton and Cabrillo Commissioner Cohen stated that he found this issue to be of a challenge, given the structure of the Eucalyptus roots. He added that accident counts would be taken into consideration, but that the Commission needed to make sure that it exhausted and explored all opportunities on Easton Drive before looking at tree removal. He cited examples such as curb realignment, one-way traffic, and working with the Beautification Committee. Chair Warden stated the Beautification Committee was already working on reforestation and studying the life of useable trees. Commissioner Cohen reported that the trees were inspected, and were deemed in good health with a life expectancy of 30 to 60 more years. 8.6 Occidental Avenue - 6 month temporary re-installation of 2-hr. parking restrictions. Chair Warden confirmed this to be an Inactive Item, with five months remaining on the study period. Commissioner Condon reported that he received feedback from some of the residents that drivers were still parking on the corners. The City of Burlingame Page 5 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes -Approved Thursday, April 14, 2005 --N 9. AGENDIZE FOR THE NEXT MEETING-MAY 12, 2005 • 4.2.1 Appeal process for the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission- Discussion Item • 7.3.1 Commercial Districts (Double-yellow centerlines) - Action Item • 8.3 Howard Avenue and Crescent Avenue (4-way stop signs) -Discussion Item • 8.2 Franklin School (Crosswalk Enhancements) -Discussion Item • 4.2.2 Gilbreth Road (Vehicle Racing) -Discussion Item • 5.1 Carolan Avenue at Broadway(Parking enforcement and time-limit extension) - Discussion Item 10. ADJOURNMENT 8:02 p.m. SAA Public Works Directory\TSP Commission\Minutes\2005 Minutes\4.14.05 Minutes.wpd The City of Burlingame Page 6 The City of Burlingame CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.budingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Approved Thursday - May 12, 2005 Commissioners Present: Stephen Warden, Chair Eugene Condon, Vice Chair Russ Cohen Dan Conway Victor James Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Sergeant Don Shepley, Police Department Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer,Public Works Lori Brock, Secretary, Public Works Staff Absent: None Visitors: Dorothy Kislingberry, 1710 Ray Drive �. Evelyn Win, 1636 Lassen Way Judy Downing, 1809 Ray Drive Laurel and Pat Kane, 1608 Coronado Way Rochelle Tolard, 1609 Larsen Way Jen Ulrich, 1637 Coronado Teresa Post, 1617 Coronado Way Laurie Ken, 1632 Mc Donald Way Patricia Stratigas, 1709 Ray Drive Adine Varah, 1552 Meadow Lane Ray Chun, 1621 Coronado Way Eleanor Dwyer, 1901 Ray Drive TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Approved Thursday, May 12, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 5 of 5 Commissioners present. 4. CURRENT BUSINESS 4.1 ACTION ITEMS 4.1.1 Minutes for April 14, 2005 Minutes have been delayed and will be presented at the June 9, 2005 meeting for approval. 4.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS 4.2.1 3-way stop signs -Ray Drive and Lassen Way Traffic Engineer Chou made a presentation to the Commission and residents in attendance, and reiterated that the installation of stop signs at this intersection was not warranted. He explained that fresh paint at the intersection, using new cross-hatch crosswalk lines, new centerline stripes, and the addition of reflective buttons along both sides of the crosswalk, should help to increase the visibility of the crosswalk. Mr. Chou also recommended that the existing red zone be extended on Ray Drive from the current 10 feet to 20 or 30 feet. All this should help to slow down drivers and provide better visibility at the intersection. Mr. Chou also recommended repainting the roadway legends which indicate a crosswalk ahead. Commission Conway questioned whether or not the existing advanced warning signs would help the situation. Traffic Engineer Chou stated that the advanced warning signs which are fluorescent are more effective at eye-catching than the current reflective yellow. Mr. Chou referred to the recent work that was done next to Lincoln School on Deveruex Drive. Chair Warden stated that the school crosswalk committee is looking at developing an overall crosswalk warning and sign-safety plan for all crosswalks around schools in the city. Commissioner Conway stated that the committee's research is about done,but the committee still needs to work on making sure that the established criteria the city will eventually use are consistent with state and federal guidelines. He added that the committee has approximately 15 measure that they will be proposing to the Commission for review. Traffic Engineer Chou explained that the reduction of speed does occur right in the immediate The City of Burlingame Page 2 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes -Approved Thursday, May 12, 2005 vicinity of stop signs, it should be considered a by-product and a side benefit, not a means. �- He said that stop sign installation, as dictated by the Federal Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices(MUTCD)and the State of California, specifically states that stop signs are used for right-away assignments. Commissioner James asked about the intent of narrowing streets,painting red curbs,and how such action affects property values. He said that in his opinion, curb marking in residential areas have no impact on property values, but curb marking in commercial areas do have impacts on property values. Commissioner James stated he received this information from Caldwell Banker in Burlingame (554-8200). Traffic Engineer Chou stated that the reason for the proposed additional red curb was to aid the pedestrians by giving them more sight-visibility when standing at the corner. He added that the use of centerlines was to create a visual affect of a narrower street or"tunnel"for the driver. He said that this is a visual trick traffic engineers use to get drivers to reduce their speed. Mr. Chou also stated that the additional red curb would not eliminate all on-street parking in front of 1710 Ray Drive. It would just remove one of two existing spaces that are between the corner and the driveway of the residence. There would still be ample spaces beyond the driveway and around the corner, on Lassen Way. Mrs.Dorothy Kislingberry,the homeowner at 1710 Ray Drive,spoke of her parking concerns for visiting friends and relatives. She also stated that the concrete wall across the street at 1800 Ray Drive blocks visibility for drivers. She also said that mothers park in front of her home to pickup their children. Chair Warden reiterated that 1710 Ray Drive would only lose one legal parking space if the red curb were extended. Commissioner Condon stated that he saw this as a safety issue; and, that the city needed to seriously consider painting this curb red so that parents would not park on the corner and reduce the kids' visibility as they neared the intersection. Commissioner Cohen asked Mrs. Kislingberry for clarification regarding the red zone. Did she 1)preferred not to have any red zone at all,or 2)prefer to keep the red zone that is already there? Mrs.Kislingberry stated that she wasn't happy with the red zone in front of her home. Theresa Post stated that the fluorescent signs do work and she would like to have them used permanently at that location. She also stated that visibility at the corner was poor and felt that the resident at 1710 Ray Drive has plenty of parking. She added that she would like to have the delineators in place. Pat Stratigus stated the need for protecting the children in the area. Laurie Kum presented the Commission with a handout that she received from her place of �.. employment. The City of Burlingame Page 3 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Approved Thursday, May 12, 2005 Rochelle Tolard stated that she believes the city needs to go all-out to protect the children. Adeine Varah thanked the Commission for their efforts, and also stated that her son was almost hit by a vehicle. She said that she believes that simple solutions will also help. Patrick Kane spoke regarding the types and sizes of vehicles on the street that reduce visibility. He stated that the street slopes downward towards El Camino Real and allows vehicles to pickup speed. Mr. Kane said that a red zone in this area is needed. Eleanore(no address given)stated that a red zone would be reasonable and would benefit the children. Judy Downing spoke of the danger of being struck by a vehicle following the"S"curve in the road which allows vehicles to pickup additional speed. Motion: To move this to an Action Item. M/S/C: Cohen, Condon; 5/0/0 Commissioner Cohen made a motion to recommend 20 feet of red zone, installation of reflectorized markers,replacement of existing warning signs with fluorescent warning signs, installation of cross-hatch paint at the crosswalk, installation of new double-yellow centerlines, and the installation of centerline knock-down delineators on Ray Drive. Commissioner James said that he did not support shorter red zone due to the fact that the citizens have been complaining about visibility at that intersection for five years;and,because staff has made a number of suggestions to slow down the traffic in the area. Commissioner Conway stated that while he supported the motion, he was not sure that the delineators fit into the overall strategy. He also stated that he believes there is a downside to installing similar mechanisms when it hasn't been shown to be clearly needed. There was no second to the motion, so Chair Warden recommended splitting the work into three motions, as follow: 1) Yellow crosswalk, reflector buttons, double yellow lines and signage 2) Red zone 3) Delinators Motion: To approve the installation of cross-hatch painting and reflectorized markers at the existing crosswalk at Ray Drive,install double yellow centerlines on Ray Drive,and post new fluorescent crosswalk warning signs. --� M/S/C: Cohen, James; 5/0/0 The City of Burlingame Page 4 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes -Approved Thursday, May 12, 2005 Motion:To approve the installation of an additional 10 feet of red curb to the northeast corner `- of Ray Driver, at 1710 Ray Drive, making for a total of 20 feet of red zone. M/S/C: Cohen, Conway; 4/1/0 (Commissioner James opposed) Commissioner Condon made a motion to incorporate knock-down delineators in the center of the crosswalks if the street meets the required width. Commissioner Cohen said that he advocated installing the delineators even if the road doesn't meet the required width. This was because of the fact that the street has a rise, and drivers cannot see the crosswalk until they are actually upon it. Commissioner Condon said that since the Commission voted to reduce the recommended red curb from a total of 30 feet to 20 feet, there should be a second option to get the delineators in place. Commissioner James questioned the issue and said that delineators need further study. He asked if the Commission would consider tabling this motion for further study. Chair Warden said that he supports the third motion but believed that if the street did not qualify for delineators, the Commission would need to pursue other avenues available in trying to emphasize that this is a school area with high traffic. He added that it was also possible that Council might need to approve a special ordinance for this school zone. Commissioner James stated that there were too many issues(street width,state involvement, etc.) to move forward with this motion. He said the perhaps the Commissioners should consider amending the motion. Commissioner Conway stated that he did not believe the delineators would solve the visibility issue, and wondered if the new reflectorized markers, cross-hatching, red curb, and fluorescent warning signs would actually address the issues. Traffic Engineer Chou stated that the delineators are typically used to delineate the centerline or lanes on the roadway because of construction or confusion of lanes. He added that the staff recommendation would be to use all the other options discussed first, without totally discounting the delineators. He said that the Commission might want to look at how all the other options do - and wait for the crosswalk committee to make their recommendation - before finally considering delineators. Commissioner Condon withdrew his motion, but said that he would like to have all the recommendations completed by the next meeting. He added that the red curb should be extended to the full distance of 30 feet due to the severe safety issue,if the use of delineators is determined to be inadvisable at this location. �.. Chair Warden requested the homeowner at 1710 Ray Drive to stay in touch with the Commission or Traffic Engineer Chou regarding the red curb situation. The City of Burfingame Page 5 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Approved Thursday, May 12, 2005 4.2.2 Franklin School - Crosswalk enhancements at Trousdale Drive and Quesada Way Traffic Engineer Chou spoke of request to put cross patch painting (a highlighter paint) on the crosswalk. The sub committee will need to consider this. Typically cross patching isn't used on controlled intersections. Chair Warden said that this item would be moved to Inactive Item until the traffic signal warrant study is completed by the traffic engineer. 4.2.3 Carolan Avenue at Broadway-parking enforcement and time-limit extension Traffic Engineer Chou informed the Commission that Mr.Mike Harvey could not be present at tonight's meeting. Mr. Chou related that Mr. Harvey was concerned about the 2-hour parking limitation along Carolan Avenue, south of Broadway. He said that of the four signs on this short block,three signs state"2-hour parking, Sunday and holidays excepted,"and a single sign reads, "2-hour parking, Saturdays, Sundays and holidays excepted." Mr. Chou said that Mr. Harvey's concern was over the exception for both Saturdays and Sundays. Mr. Chou reviewed the city ordinance and found that the exemption should only be for Sundays and holidays. He said that this matter is resolvable on a staff level by switching out the single incorrect sign. The 2-hour parking restriction should be enforceable for Saturdays on an on- call basis. 4.2.4 4-way stop signs -Howard Avenue and Crescent Avenue Traffic Engineer Chou explained the existing conditions of the intersection and presented an aerial photo diagram. He said that the intersection was a four-legged intersection with only two of the approaches having stop signs. He stated that despite this,all four approaches have painted crosswalks on them. Mr. Chou explained that a pedestrian counts was conducted between 3 PM and 4 PM on a weekday. The study results showed that only three pedestrians crossed during this time. Mr.Chou also stated that during the study,that some vehicles were stopping at the crosswalk despite not having a stop sign, and caused confusion with cross traffic.He said that staff was recommending the elimination of the painted crosswalks across Howard Avenue,but retain the crosswalks along Crescent Avenue(the side street with stops). Mr. Chou concluded that before such action should be done, a separate pedestrian count should be taken during the weekends. Chair Warden recommended this item be tabled until July, when children are out of school for the summer,and asked that staff conduct a new count during the weekend after Pershing Park is reopened. In the meantime, he said that perhaps a sign stating"cross traffic does not stop" may be in order. Motion: To move this to Action Item. -� M/S/C: Condon, Conway; 5/0/0 The City of Burlingame Page 6 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Approved Thursday, May 12, 2005 Motion: To deny the request for a 4-way stop at Howard Avenue and Cresent Avenue and recommended that staff provide a new pedestrian count by the summer,which will include weekend counts. M/S/C: Condon, Conway; 5/0/0 4.2.5 Appeal Process for the TSP Commission Chair Warden provided a brief history as to how this matter came to light and how decisions the Commission makes might be appealed. He also stated that he felt stop signs should not be appealed since they are warrant driven. In reference to the different curb zones such as yellow, red, or handicap, Chair Warden recommended that the Commission investigate assessing a fee for the appeal process. He said that this would give the city more control over the appeal process. Commissioner Cohen said that the appeal process should be implemented and that the City Attorney and Traffic Engineer should be involved in informing the Council if an item did not meet warrants and to be cautious when going against the advice of the City Attorney,Traffic Engineer, and the Traffic Commission. 4.2.6 Vehicle Racing on Gilbreth Road �. Chair Warden said that he was waiting for information from the Association of Bay Area governments (ABAG), the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), City of Oakland,and notes from Police Chief Van Etten regarding possible deterrents to this problem. 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS 5.1 Appeal the installation of one loading zone and one metered parking on the west end of City Hall Lane. Traffic Engineer Chou reported that approximately a year ago, as part of the parking strategy for City Hall Lane, the City decided not to install parking meters or controls in the parking area directly behind Crosby Commons. However, due to this space being available after the removal of large tree planters, their has been some problems with people parking there. Mr. Chou explained that citations have been issued and a dispute has arisen about the rights to use these unmetered, unregulated spaces. As a fair and impartial solution, the office of the City Manager and Public Works have plans to install one additional meter and one loading zone to this area. Mr.Chou explained that Mr. Karim Salma, property owner of Crosby Commons, would like to attend the next meeting so he can explain why he does not want to have this area metered or marked as a loading zone. 6. FROM THE FLOOR �.. None The City of Burlingame Page 7 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Approved Thursday, May 12, 2005 7. INFORMATION ITEMS 7.1 Bicycle Safety Issues in Burlingame Traffic Engineer Chou reported the City of Daly City received additional monies for their TDA projects from another funding source, and will be relinquishing a portion of the monies they were awarded in the most recent TDA grant cycle. Mr. Chou explained that this means that Burlingame's last project will be funded by TDA and all the projects submitted will be fully funded. 7.2 From Staff to Commission 7.2.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 7.2.1.1 Burlingame Downtown Parking Study(Special Meeting-Thursday, May 26, 7 PM, Council Chambers) Traffic Engineer Chou confirmed a date of May 26, 2005 for the next Downtown Parking Study meeting. 7.2.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report Traffic Sergeant Shepley explained that Police staff is down, but that he expected one new full-time employee for the Parking Enforcement Officer position (PEO) to be sworn in on May 15, 2005. Sgt. Shepley also reported that selective enforcement was conducted last month on Cortez Avenue and warnings were given in all cases except for one. Regarding street racing on Gilbreth, Sgt. Shepley said that it has become a rarity except in the last few weeks. Citations were issued and vehicles inspections have been performed. Most citations have been issued as non-correctable. Stg. Shepley reported that the Department's DUI checkpoint program, which is funded by OTS Grants, was cancelled due to poor weather conditions. He said that it has been rescheduled for Friday, June 3, 2005. 7.3 From Commission to Staff 7.3.1 Reports of citizen complaints or requests Commissioner Cohen reported an illegally parked vehicle on southbound Rollins Road, south of the Broadway intersection. He stated that it had been parked for weeks next to where all the --� off-duty school buses have been parked, and was facing the wrong direction with a flat tire. The City of Burlingame Page 8 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Approved Thursday, May 12, 2005 Traffic Sergeant Shepley stated that he would assign his staff to look into this matter. He also reported that a few of the school buses in this area were legally parked since an investigation showed that there was no business being run from that residential area. He added that several residents have complained about the buses causing sight visibility problems for drivers wanting to turn from Larkspur and Borel. He concluded by saying that no current calls have been recorded in the last few months, but that it was believed that the buses would go away for the summer duration. 7.4 Comments and communications None. 7.5 Next Meeting: June 9, 2005 Commissioner James said that he might not be able to make this meeting due to a scheduling conflict. 8. INACTIVE ITEMS 8.1 Mahler Road height restrictions - (120 day review coming up next month with 31 days left.) Nothing new to report. 8.2 Easton Drive Eucalyptus Trees on Easton and Cabrillo Chair Warden reported that he, Commissioner Cohen, and Traffic Engineer Chou met with Parks &Rec Director Randy Schwartz to discuss the area that this Commission would be evaluating, and to review the Beautification and Parks Committee plans. He stated that a public hearing would be scheduled later in the year. 8.3 Occidental Avenue - (Six month temporary installation of two hour parking restrictions, four months remaining.) Traffic Engineer Chou reported that Public Works received no new comments other than a question about a "missing", or as yet uninstalled sign at the corner of Occidental Avenue and Ralston Avenue. He stated that afer a field investigation, it was determined that there was an old pole which had no new sign posted. Mr. Chou explained that it was determined that the pole should be removed, because its placement was redundant and unnecessary. 10. AGENDIZED FOR THE NEXT MEETING - JUNE 9, 2005 • 4.2.1 Ray Drive/Lassen Way(Crosswalk Delineators) - Discussion Item • 4.2.2 Franklin School (Crosswalk Enhancements) - move to Inactive Item • 4.2.3 Carolan Avenue/Broadway(2-Hour Parking Limits) -Discussion Item �-- 0 4.2.4 Howard Avenue/Crescent Avenue (Summer Ped Counts) - move to Inactive Item • 4.2.6 Gilbreth Road (Racing Vehicles) - move to Inactive Item The City of Burlingame Page 9 TRAFFIC,SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes-Approved Thursday,May 12,2005 11.ADJOURNMENT 9:28 p.m. SM Public Works Directory\TSP Commission\Minutes\2005 Minutes\5.12.05 Minutes.wpd The City of Burlingame Page 10 BEAUTIFICATION COM MISSION BURLINGAME Juney en called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Comm'ss�on to order at 5:33 Chairperson Hesselgr P.M. McQuaide, and O'Connor Commissioners Carney, Lauder, ROLL CALL Secretary Harvey Present: Chairperson Hesselgren, Conte W ebb Richmond, Supervisor Disco, Commissioners Grandcolas and Absent: Parks Superintendent Richm Staff: p &R Director Sc1556 Balboa) Guests: Sarah O'Connoress Commission meeting were corrected to enanceicad dhe trees Bcould live KI--T OLD BUSINESS_ Tree View Ordinance_ Com The Commission discussed mi�tteeRcomand red the rn ndation— Contd. Following the discussion, Com mmlttee's recommendation. Tree View "Ordinance" missioner not be O'Connor moved to key points and reco established but that, the Com accept the Committee's reco S—0—2 mmend a `policy"with re mission endeavor to mmendation that a (Absent/Grandcolas, Webby regard to ba develo y views and trees,seconded, Mcp the recommendation's Chairperson Hesselgren thankedQuaide- Motion carried recommendation on the Committee and the content of the asked Commissioners to be "policy"at the next meeting. Prepared to discuss Street Tree Removal Polis _ and make recommends this process when resSdentsnte have Richmond stated that Director Commission reviewed the process: Street Tree Removal P Schwartz has submitted and is to be used along with the Criteria or Ci quested removal of a City tree kith regard to sidewalks. Permits When There is On oin Sidewalk Dama e The Apel 7, 2005 meeting. Street Tree Removal form that was a roved b pp which y the Commission at the Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Lauder moved that th Permits Where There is Ort oin a Commission accept the Street Tree Remov McQuaide- Motion carried S_ Sidewalk Dama a process submitted b 0—2(Absent/Grandcolas, Webb), y Director Schwart al Z, seconded, Easton Drive Eucal tus Trees — Lon Range Reforestation Plan — Cha' for now, the removal of the Eucalyptus tree in front of the Library has been put Chairperson Hesselgren commented that, Traffic and Safety Committee. But that,the Commission has been asked by Council to for future Eucalyptus removals But Easton Drive whereby selective tree p it hold for further study by the before any removals occur. Chairperson Hesselgren then asked for three vol develop a reforestation plan planting in existing "gaps" could begin Long Range Reforestation Plan. The Committee will focus on replacement serve on ecies r the Easton Drive Commissioner's Lauder, McQuaide, and O'Connor volunteered c serve on the Committee. p recommendations. NEW BUSINESS Appointment of Nominatin Committee for Election of Officers in August — Commissioner's Lauder and Carney agreed to serve on the Nominating Committee and meeting. will present a slate of nominees at the August 4, 2005 July 7th Beautification Commission Meeting — After Chairperson Hesselgren availability for the next meeting, it was the consensus of the Commission that the my 7 polled meeting be cancelled due vacation schedules. The next regularly scheduled meeting will be Thursday,August 4, 2005. REPORTS— Superintendent Richmond- 1) Tree Crew is working south from Toyon Drive conducting grid pruning/inspection on each City tree. Progress has been good. 2) Landscaping upgrades in the front of City Hall have received positive comments. 3) New Tree Maintenance Worker is on duty in the Parks Division. 4) Adopt-a-Planter group successfully replanted the Burlingame Ave planter boxes. 5) Tree honoring Girl Scout leader was planted in the rear of Washington Park. 6) Merit pesticide soil injection was completed on selected City Trees with a history of aphid or Elm Leaf Beetle infestation. McQuaide— Commented that the entrance on Dwight Road and Peninsula looks great and wonders if the entrance to Burlingame at El Camino Real and Millbrae Avenue could be improved aesthetically. Chairperson Hesselgren responded that the improvements at Dwight Road and Peninsula were installed for traffic calming in the area. 2 REPORTS—(Contd.) Hesselgren — Reported that she attended the Mayor's luncheon. The Planning Department will be working on Bayfront Improvements and will be soliciting input from all the City's Commissions. The remainder of meeting was spent on Commissions sharing the business on which they are currently working. O'Connor — Commented that she views the Commissions work as very opportunistic and how great it would that if over time all the trees in the City could be sustainable and also provide both a canopy and a view. There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 7:00 pm. Respectfully submitted, C�'4 Karlene Harvey Recording Secretary 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA June 13, 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the June 13, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:07 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer;Doug Bell III. MINUTES The minutes of the May 23, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, noted Council was looking at ways to notify the public about projects other than the blue cards and noticed in Berkeley they post sign boards on properties where developed is proposed. The boards have an architectural renderings of the proposal with a phone number and address for the public to get more information. Thought this was a good idea that should be considered. John Root, 728 Crossway Road, comments on study session that was held at 6:00 p.m.this evening with City Council. Want to make sure there is plenty of public input on the RFP for the Burlingame Downtown Economic Study. Concerned with any decision made on Safeway based on economic study. May find that the economic study doesn't match the vision of the people, should not take the vision from the economic study,it is dangerous to piece meal this process and relay too much on economics, need to make sure that public is involved the whole way through. Bernard Corry, 1224 Cabrillo Avenue, has been some confusion with the memo staff prepared regarding FYI item 1224 Cabrillo Avenue. Has provided a letter explaining the changes for the Planning Commission,please consider approving the"as-built"drawings. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items 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. 800 BURLINGAME AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(MARK ROBERTSON,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;MARIE BENEDETTI, PROPERTY OWNER)(55 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 13, 2005 1B. 1808 DAVIS DRIVE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION(POKO KLEIN,TRG ARCHITECTS,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; CAROLYN AND —� KEY WAY PROPERTY OWNERS) (43 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER 1C. 1800 RAY DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS RUFFAT, STEWART ASSOCIATES,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;DAVID AND HOLLY PARRY,PROPERTY OWNERS) (64 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests from the public.However a Commissioner had some comments on item 1D. 1312 Vancouver Avenue and asked that this item be moved to the regular action calendar. C. Keighran moved approval of the consent calendar items IA. 800 Burlingame Avenue, 1B. 1800 Davis Drive, and IC. 1800 Ray Drive based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and each by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 1D. 1312 VANCOUVER AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOHN SHANLEY, PROPERTY OWNER) 58 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Chair Auran recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property, C. Deal recused himself because he has a business relationship with the property owner, they both left City Council Chambers. Reference staff report June 13,2005,with attachments. Plnr.Barber presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. John Shanley,property owner,was present to answer questions. Commission concerned with how close the garage is to neighbor,has the property owner tried to contact the neighbor since the last meeting. Mr. Shanley noted that he left messages for the neighbor including his phone number and email address but has had no response from the neighbor. Commission noted that the plans have been revised so that there is 2 feet between the detached garage and the property line at the rear and at the side property line, this is better than the 1 foot originally proposed. One foot is pretty tight to get in to maintain the structure,but with the new site plan provided there appears to be 4 feet to the adjacent garage,so if the owner wants to have only 1 foot between the garage and the property lines it is o.k.. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to approve the application as submitted with the garage 2 feet from the side and rear property lines,by resolution,with the following conditions: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 18,2005,sheets 2 through 7,and G-1,floor plan, building elevations and garage plan, and sheet 1, date stamped June 1, 2005, site plan (including landscaping); and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment; 2) that the property owner shall trim the existing hedge along the driveway as often as necessary to provide adequate vehicular access to enter and exit the new detached 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 13, 2005 garage; 3)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; 4) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, Fire Marshal, Chief Building Official,NPDES Coordinator and City Engineer's memos dated March 7,2005 shall be met;5)that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect,engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans;7)that 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 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;9) 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 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Acting Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve as submitted. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Auran and Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. Chair Auran and C. Deal returned to the dias and took their seats. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 1353 VANCOUVER AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION(ERNIE SELANDER,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; FRANK SCHAFFER, PROPERTY OWNER) (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Chair Auran and C. Osterling recused themselves because they live within 500 feet of the subject property and left Council Chambers. Reference staff report June 13,2005,with attachments. Plnr.Barber presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. CA Anderson noted that the noticing was done incorrectly with a special permit for height noticed not a variance for height which should have been noticed. He instructed the Planning Commission to hold the public hearing and then place the item on the next consent calendar for action when the project will be properly noticed for a variance for height. Acting Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Ernie Selander,architect,noted that they did not want to wait two weeks more for this proj ect because of noticing error. Was instructed by the Planning Commission to apply for the height variance,can they at least apply for the building permit? CP Monroe noted that they 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 13, 2005 can apply for a building permit and begin plan check process,but that it can't be issued until the Planning Commission's action is final,which can be before the building plan check is done. Commission noted that this is a dramatic change from previous proposal,positive changes made. Commission asked the applicant to explain how the 10' plate heights work. Plans look like there is an 8'4"plate height on first and second floors,usually see not more than 8'1"on second floor,but there is one area where the plate height is as high as 9'9". Mr. Selander noted that is only the turret area. Planning Commission clarified that it is a 17'-18' long area on the left side of the east elevation, high plate height in this area needs to be reduced to 8'4", appears to be 9' because it will appear massive when the house is built. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns: • project has improved,but concerned with front landscaping, 38'8"height is because of the slope on the lot,but there is hardly any landscaping at the front of the house, add another tall,wide evergreen at the front from the City street tree list; • nice project but need to add more landscaping at the front; • reduce plate height on east elevations to 8'4"in the 17'-18' area noted by the Planning Commission. C. Keighran voted to place this item on the consent calendar when the item has been properly noticed and when the above comments have been addressed and revised plans have been submitted. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Acting Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (C. Auran and Osterling abstaining). This item concluded at 7:32 p.m. Chair Auran and C. Osterling returned to the dias and took their seats. 3. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITE 200, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF AN EXISTING REAL ESTATE USE (APR REAL ESTATE SERVICES, INC., APPLICANT; S.J. SUN AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT; CORTINA INVESTMENTS LTD., PROPERTY OWNER) (91 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C.Cauchi recused himself because he is an employee of APR Real Estate Services,Inc.,and he left the City Council Chambers. Reference staff report June 13,2005,with attachments. Plnr.Barber presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak,216 Park Road,Burlingame,and Joanne Quandalski, manager of Alan Pinel Realty, noted that Chapin Avenue has become a financial center, with real estate uses,financial consultants,and banks. Success story for the zoning code which was updated in the 1980's to move these types of uses from Burlingame Avenue to the side streets. When this building was constructed real estate uses were in mind for occupancy of the building, 160 on-site parking spaces were included. -� Parking statistics show that this is an over parked building, last year when the conditional use permit was processed for this suite there were 10 or 12 real estate offices located in Subarea B. The Planning Commission was worried about parking,however real estate offices usually are not occupied by the realtors 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 13, 2005 much because they are out in the field,have cell phones and home offices. The parking statistics show there are many parking spaces available during the day at this site,especially on the lower level,which is virtually unused. The subtenants in this suite did not take ups all of the space,building has an interior courtyard,hard configuration to work with,only 1,000 SF left in suite. This is a service business that will bring people to the downtown area to use our restaurants and shops. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C.Keighran moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following conditions: 1)that the real estate business shall be limited to 8,465 SF in Suite 200 at 1440 Chapin Avenue, as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped May 23, 2005 (8%2" x 11" sheet); 2) that the real estate business shall not expand into the remainder of the tenant space(5,530 SF)without an amendment to thispermit;and that the subleased area shall not be occupied by any other business which has an employee to office density exceeding one person to 300 SF; 3) that the real estate business may not be open for business except during the hours of 9:00 a.m.to 9:00 p.m.,seven days a week;weekly agent meetings shall be on Monday mornings between 9:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m.,with a maximum of 54 persons on site during the meeting which includes agents,full-time employees,and managers;4)that the real estate business shall have a maximum employees/managers of 73 part-time agents and 5 full-time employees/managers(with a maximum of 10 persons on-site at any one time except on Monday from 9:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. for group meetings);the number of full-time or part-time real estate agents,employees and managers for a real estate use in 8,465 SF of Suite 200 and the maximum of 10 persons on site except for one hour on Monday, shall not be increased(from 78)without an amendment to this permit; 5)that the owner of the propertyshall file a report with the City Planner by July 1 of each year declaring how many managers, employees, agents,and independent contractors have been working at the site over the previous calendar year, and the date and maximum number of employees, agents and independent contractors who have been on-site at any one time and the report shall include the usage(business and employee count)of the 5,530 SF sublet space; 6)that due to the impact of weekly agent meetings on parking in this area, the owner agrees to schedule the weekly group meetings or client conferences so that theparking impact is minimized and will consult with the City Planner on an annual basis regarding any difficult times or days of the week and shall make adjustments that may be applicable; 7)that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees,which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 8)that the conditions of the Fire Marshal's May 26, 2005, memo, and the Recycling Specialist's May 27, 2005, memo shall be met; 9)that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 10) that this conditional use permit shall be reviewed in two years from the date of approval (June, 2007) or upon complaint. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: there is enough parking on this site, drove by the site at various times and observed vacant parking spaces. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:43 p.m. C. Cauchi returned to the dial and took his seat. 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 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 13, 2005 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 shot. 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 foot'-� 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 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 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 13, 2005 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. 5. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MITIGATION AND PROCESS ESTABLISHED BY MILLS PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICE FOR IMPACT ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES FOR ISSUES SUCH AS DUST, NOISE AND LANDSCAPING DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE PENINSULA HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT PROJECT - PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report June 13,2005,with attachments. CP Monroe noted that as a part of the conditions of approval for the Mills-Peninsula Hospital replacement project approved November 2004. Commission is required to review the applicant's proposed implementation programs for a number of the conditions. This is the first of those reviews. The proposal before the commission is the mitigation measures and process for allocation for the impacts created throughout the construction project on the immediately neighboring properties to the hospital on Davis Drive. Commission asked if the applicant was available to respond to questions. Staff noted that they were. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Oren Reinbolt represented the Mills Peninsula Hosptial project. Commission asked how the reimbursements would work if the correction exceeded the estimated amount allocated for each affected property. If over run in one area will draw from another area which is under spent,the amount is fixed for an item if the property owner prefers to do the work himself. Confident the estimates of costs are good. Applicant noted that there is a contingency fund included incase they have 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 13, 2005 under estimated the cost. You are proposing to address dust control for only these 20 or so properties,is that sufficient. Applicant noted that this program does not exempt the hospital from all the other dust controlF which are required during construction. There should be little dust problem, but if there is a particular problem because these properties are so close,these funds would be used to address individual solutions on the specific property. Who will own the fence when it is built? Hospital has no desire to own the fence. Commission noted that this is an issue that you should discuss with property owners. How will the adjacent owners picking the vegetation between their property line and the water easement fit with the adopted landscape plan? Expect that some people will want lower vegetation for more light in the back yard and others will want taller for more screening. Applicant not do not expect to change the variety of species shown on the plan,but may vary their placement,should not have much effect overall. Staff pointed out that this mitigation only involves the 10 feet between the rear of the properties on Davis Drive and the water line easement. The vegetation on the easement itself and on the other side next to the hospital structure will not be affected. Regarding the fence, what will you do if not all the property owners want the hospital to be build them a new fence? Applicant noted that they must all agree before the hospital builds the fence.If they don't all agree,those who want a new fence will be given the money and they can oversee building their own fence. CP noted that the result will be a variety of fencing along the Hospital property line. Commissioner noted dust is not an issue, there are all kinds of conditions calling for dust control measures during construction, so the money is intended to be used in addition to meeting the standard construction requirements;the new fence should be built on the property owners land. Applicant noted that some of the current fences are on hospital property, it's a small enough land area hospital is not going to dispute, concerned that requiring people to move back to their property may be seen as a taking and want to be a good neighbor. And the fence in the future? Applicant in the past the hospital shared the cost, if the property owner takes the money,will not feel good about also sharing the cost of construction at this time; but willing to consider once the site is back to'steady state'. Commissioner noted regarding selection of the adjacent vegetation,people who have lived in their houses for any length of time know exactly where they need light in their back yards and where they will want the new trees to be located between their rear property line and the water easement. There were no more comments on the item. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that this is a complex agreement but its intent is correct given the condition and it will provide mitigation to the immediately adjacent property owners along Davis Drive as directed in the conditions of approval, so she moved to acknowledge the proposal and approve it for consistency with condition 119 of the November 15, 2004, action on the Peninsula Hospital replacement project. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion that the proposed mitigation process and program are consistent with condition 119 of the November 15,2004,conditions of approval for the Peninsula Hospital replacement project. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice. This action is appealable to the City Council within 10 days of the commission's action. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 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 Plnr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 13, 2005 The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns: • need to add landscaping with taller trees and shrubs; • drawings need work,do not correctly convey project,trellis on front is not shown on side elevations, roof height shown on elevations is not consistent,plans need clarification and detail,there are a lot of discrepancies; • Front porch is big now, but with new design it is too small, column detailing is not appropriate, detailing on porch is awkward,porch should be expanded,porch is lost as the focal point with this project; • staircase is a looming large vertical element,too tall,the largest window is in the staircase,doesn't seem right; too strong of a vertical element with stairs; • placement of addition is fine; • brackets on this house have no rhyme or reason; • not fond of shingles on this house;project needs design review; • no view blockage, complicated situation with existing house, they make the entrance look small, need more information and detailing on the plans; and • add condition to approval that requires the rear setback to not get smaller, so there could be no addition to the rear of the garage in the future. C.Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on motion: big improved from last project,addition is placed in the right location,improved over original project,no view impact,concern with porch,strong vertical element,porch should be expanded and would help relieve the vertical element, materials are o.k.,; south elevations of two story staircase will be overbearing, doesn't have to be two stories, location is o.k., trellis on front but not shown on sides, plans need correcting, too many discrepancies, needs to be sent to a design review consultant, needs to built according to plan;not in favor of sending to a design review consultant,o.k.with design,problem with the porch,too vertical,make it longer,wood shingle is better than stucco;two major elements in the front need work,plans will be delayed if not addressed,may take longer to make corrections on own,design review can help this project; like the design, improved over original. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with the direction given. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-2 (Cers Brownrigg and Cauchi dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 8. 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. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 13, 2005 Chair Auran opened the public comment. Randy Grange,TRG Architects,205 Park Road,Burlingame,w&c available for questions. He noted that this is a classic bungalow that they are making more interesting with a second floor. The basement is more than two feet above grade,so it does count in the floor area. Floor area ratio is near the limit. However because it is partially in-ground the house appears visibly smaller. Noted that there is a drafting error on sheet A-3, on the second floor on the front elevation the four windows are suppose to be a clear band of windows on the same plane, the center two do not pop out as drawn. Commission noted that there was letter received by the neighbor at the rear regarding the fence height and screening shrubs,please meet with the neighbor. Commission noted that this is a difficult style house to add on to with the low sloping roof,but architect did a nice job,pushing addition to rear. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Commission had the following comments: • new chimney has stone,recommend adding stone to the existing chimney to match; • clarify rear fence height and add screening at the rear for neighbors, should discuss both with rear neighbor; • would like to see taller trees added to this project to soften the height,need to add two Evergreens in back and one in front,pick from street tree list. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked. Comment on motion: near maximum floor area but it does not appear massive because a lot of the square -� footage is below grade; nice addition,blends with the existing architecture and with the neighborhood. 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 8:41 p.m. 7. 1509 LOS ALTOS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JACK AND KIMBERLY STRATTON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; ERNESTO BARRON, ARCHITECT)(46 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plnr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Kim Stratton, property owner and Ernesto Barron, project architect,were available to answer questions. Commission asked if the property owner would be opposed to having a condition added to the approval that requires the rear setback to not get smaller,basically so there could be no addition to the rear of the garage in the future. The property owner was fine with that condition. Commission complimented the project,creative way to add space with out impacting views. Shingles will look great,this is a whole new look. Mr.Barron noted that the existing stairs are narrow and window was added to work with the design,larger porch area would block light to the dining room. Trying to make this addition work with minimal impact on the neighbors. Brackets are included as part of the bungalow component,shutter added to break up shingles. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 13, 2005 C. Auran recused himself because of a business relationship with the property owners, and C. Keighran recused herself because she lives within 500 feet of the subject property. Both Commissioners left Council Chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Acting Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. James Chu,project designer,39 W.43Rd Avenue,San Mateo,and Bob and Cyndi Gilson,property owners,were present to answer questions. Mr.Chu submitted a color rendering of the proposed houses and he noted that they shared the plans and rendering with the neighbors. The property owners talked with twenty or more neighbors about the project on Memorial Day weekend,there will be a colonial on the interior lot and one bungalow with shingles on the corner lot. Feel that these houses will fit in with the neighborhood. Commissioner noted that on the corner lot, front west elevation shows Pacific Myrtle #4 to be planted but they will grow too large and will encroach into the existing oak tree,should use lower shrubs,will be better. Tree near driveway has no species name,just says Evergreen,please label. On other re-emerging lot projects have had the first house at 100%floor area and the second house at 90% of the allowable floor area, this reduces impact on the neighborhood. Have applicants considered this approach? Mr. Chu noted that because lot 40 is on the corner the floor area ratio formula is already lowered, so corner house is smaller,it is 300 SF under the maximum floor area usually allowed. He noted that there is a lot of vegetation and landscaping that will be added to screen the house. Commissioner stated that they do not like to see a landmark house being torn down and replaced with two new homes. Nice designs but you have an existing 2,900 SF house being replaced with a total of 6,500 SF of buildings,concerned with impact with more than one house,if square footage is reduced the impact will also be reduced. Mr. and Mrs. Gilson noted that the corner house is quite a bit smaller to start with. When `-- purchased the property researched keeping the existing house and removing part,but a structural engineer looked at the house and said that it has no foundation and can not be moved. Want to keep the 30's style. Reviewed proposed with over twenty neighbors and they liked the project. The house now has a huge lawn area in the front,tried to keep this lawn area. As you come down Adeline you will still see a colonial. The corner lot was designed to have a wider setback along Adeline Drive,corner house is also smaller and has a lower height. The other corner neighbor really liked the wood shingle siding on the house on the corner house. Commission noted that the applicant appears to have done due diligence. Mr. Gilson noted that he got good input from the neighbors,Steve Anderson suggested that dental molding be added to the colonial, so they did add them. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: two houses proposed where one house was located,old house is a landmark house but the two new houses will also be landmark houses in 40 years, new houses are well designed, corner house has a lot of articulation,will be an asset to the neighborhood. The Commission had the following comments and concerns and asked for changes to the plans: • change tree#4 Pacific Myrtle on the front,west elevation to lower shrubs so that it doesn't encroach into the existing oak tree; • tree near driveway on corner lot has no species name,just says Evergreen,please label; • right side on lot 39 has small windows, on other elevations the windows are spread out, match window pattern of other elevations. C. Cauchi made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C.Deal. 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 13, 2005 Comment on motion: this is a landmark house but new houses will also become landmark houses,change is healthy,nice designs will add quality to Burlingame; should Commission consider requiring story poles to show mass and bulk for the neighbors to see,new buildings will be closer to the street,impact of two houses may be a surprised and story poles may help, there is no neighborhood opposition, concerned that neighborhood is not aware;don't think story poles are needed because the density of the landscaping won't be reflected; the General Plan values having different houses on different size lots and it is unfortunate that these larger lots are going away, so will abstain form this vote. Action Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 4-0-1-2(Cers. Auran and Keighran recused,C.Brownrigg abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:27 p.m. 9. 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 C. Deal recused himself because of a business relationship with the property owner and because he lives within 500 feet of the subject property and he left Council Chambers. CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Nick Cairns,property owner,was available to answer questions. --� He explained that he did too much work under the original building permit and sees that now,but noted that he wants to finish this project. Disagrees that the plate was raised,the old house's plate height was 10'4"not 8'5", the roof was slanted with 2' x 6'joists used. The new house has the same plate height but it is only a '/2"increase in plate height due to double top plate used,2'x 12'. Commission asked if what is framed out there now is representative of the drawings? Mr. Cairns stated that no it is not,there is a lot more work to be done. Commission confirmed that the rest of the construction must be done as shown on plans. Commission asked if the windows will be true divided light wood windows or simulated divided light windows, the plans are not clear? The property owner did not know the answer to this question. Commission suggested that the applicant use good windows on this project, it is a simple design and it would benefit from wood true divided light windows. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns: • Need to provide a landscape plan; • Plans need to clarify window type and note on plans that they are true divided light wood framed windows with wood mullions because they will be key to the quality of the design of this simple house. C. Visitica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 13, 2005 10. 1123 BURLINGAME AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO COMBINE TWO TENANT SPACES FOR A NEW FULL SERVICE RESTAURANT(JOEL CAMPOS, APPLICANT; MARK CRONANDER, ARCHITECT; SALMA FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (28 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER C. Vistica recused himself because of a business relation with the property owner and he left City Council Chambers. Plnr. Barber briefly presented the project description. Commission asked staff for the exact number of parking spaces required,not the rounded up amount. Staff noted that based upon replacement of the mezzanine and the proposed storage and office on the mezzanine that 1.57 additional parking spaces are required. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Mark Cronander, 1800 Laguna Street, San Francisco, project architect, Joel Campos, 454 Hazel Avenue, San Bruno,business owner, and Mr. Kareem Salina,property owner 1123 Burlingame Avenue noted that they will be doing a new storefront with this application,going for a more progressive design,business owner has two other restaurants in San Francisco,is making an effort to upgrade this Spanish colonial design building. Had some exiting issues with the Building Department, could not exit at the rear of the store, so there are two exits onto Burlingame Avenue. The new restaurant will have an open patio at the front at sidewalk level with plants, are planning to have a family restaurant. Commission complimented design of building,like the tile base with the lantern and window sash. Have a problem with the variance request,need only 1.57 spaces. Is the parking space on the this site communal? Mr. Cronander noted that he can use one space for this business,but it is existing not an additional space. Commission asked CA Anderson if this space can be counted for this use if it is part of the lease. CA Anderson noted that the space can not be counted for two businesses, this came up on a project on `— Whitehorn Way. If the space is to be used as mitigation then it must be recorded with the approval. CP Monroe noted that when the old mezzanine(which was non-conforming with no parking) is taken out,and a new mezzanine is constructed that parking for the new mezzanine area is required to be provided on-site, even if the new mezzanine is the same size. Commission asked if an in-lieu parking fee can be paid for the required spaces. CA Anderson noted that the in-lieu parking fee is only for retail uses,and has to be offered by the applicant. Mr. Cronander noted that existing mezzanine does not work for this tenant and is not up to code, they are trying to bring it up to code,not making it bigger,not sure how staff calculated parking. The mezzanine area will be used only by one person, the manager, and there may be another employee up there occasionally during interviews or meetings, but all of the accounting is done off-site. The mezzanine will not add to traffic congestion. Commission stated that they could not find a hardship on the property to grant the variance. Applicant needs to look at creative ways to eliminate this variance or come up with an in-lieu parking fee. The variances for parking downtown accumulate over time, and we don't want to add to our existing 160 parking space shortage and impact downtown. Commission asked if the applicant has a design materials board? Mr. Cronander passed up the materials board submitted for this project. Commissioner asked if the size of the letters shown on the materials board is the real sign size? Applicant said he would clarify that point. CP Monroe noted that sign permits are not included in this application. A separate sign permit application will be reviewed upon submittal. Commission clarified if there is one parking space dedicated for this restaurant use on-site? The business owner,explained that he has an agreement with the building owner as part of his lease that he will have the use of one parking space. The property owner confirmed that there is one parking space that can be used by this business. Commission asked if the space is for sole use by this business? Property owner noted that there are seven tenants that use the area. CA 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 13, 2005 Anderson noted that staff will clarify the status of the parking issue with the property owner and the business owner before this item returns to the Planning Commission. Caroline Serrato, 8 Peninsula Avenue,Burlingame,is a new resident,recently moved from San Francisco. Used to live in Glen Park where Mr. Campos had another restaurant she went to often. Encourages Commission to approve,he has nice facilities,clean,well run with fresh healthy reasonably priced food. Mr. Campos hired local people to work at his restaurant and was an asset to the community, donated to neighborhood groups and became active in the community. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Commission had the following comments and concerns: • Need to clarify parking requirement, is there a parking space dedicated for this restaurant only on- site,need to show on plan; • Concerned with hardship for parking variance, should submit findings; • Consider reducing size of mezzanine to reduce the parking variance to less than 1.5. C.Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made,and plan checked, and the parking status has been discussed with the property owner and the business operator. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Comment on motion: parking impact will be the restaurant not the mezzanine,but need to make sure that there is a parking space assigned specifically to this tenant,project is tastefully done,think that suggesting an in-lieu parking fee for a restaurant is tough considering how tough the restaurant business is;need mitigation -� for the parking, no hardship to justify the variance; if one space can be dedicated for this tenant and the remainder of the parking demand is less than .5 may be able to consider impact to be de-minimus. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have been revised and the parking issue is clarified and addressed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C.Vistica abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable.This item concluded at 10:05 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of May 16, 2005. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of May 16, 2005. The AutoRow Omnibus Zoning Amendment was adopted and will become effective July 6,2005.The continued public hearing for 1524 Vancouver Avenue was also on May 16,2005. The project was approved by City Council 5-0. The colonial style was retained but was changed to stucco with wood windows and flower boxes were added at the front. The front wall of the house was moved back 4 feet on the lot, and the porch was made 1 foot deeper. There was discussion about lowering the site 18"however there is a protected oak tree on the neighboring property that would be damaged so this could not be done,however tree protection measures were added. The Bayfront Zoning for the Inner Bayshore, Shoreline and Anza Extension Subareas was introduced to City Council, and the second reading will be June 20, 2005. The City Council cancelled their meeting of July 18,2005 and are considering canceling their August 15, -� 2005 meeting as well. This will be determined at a later date. The massage regulations and adult oriented business regulations were also cleaned up. 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 13, 2005 - FYI: Revisions to an approved design review project at 2112 Easton Drive. Chair Auran noted that he lives within 500 feet of this project and would abstain form discussion. CP Monroe reviewed requested change to remove the shower window of the master bathroom on the second floor and noted that is being done because of a request by the structural engineer to increase the shear wall area. There were no other changes requested. The Planning Commission had no comments on the requested changes. - FYI: Revisions to an approved design review project at 1224 Cabrillo Avenue. CP Monroe introduced the FYI noting that after this item was continued from the May 23,2005,meeting; staff discovered that the plans presented as"as built"on May 23,2005 did not represent the project as it is presently built in the field. Before the commission tonight are plans for each elevation of the house which accurately represent what is now built in the field and the changes which are possible to do to make the exterior of the as built house look as much as possible like the originally approved design. Also at your desks this evening is a letter received today, June 13,2005, from the developer making it clear that his request is to leave the house as currently built. Commissioners expressed dismay at the amount of staff and commission time which had been"burned"on this project just because the developer did not follow the plans as approved by the Commission. Commissioners noted that the conditions of approval represent a contract between the city and the developer, and he has violated this agreement. The commission approved the original project and this should be rebuilt to get the original,this house looks unfinished as it stands. Enjoy going around town and looking at houses which have benefited from design review;I will not be proud of this one. Burlingame has been very good to contractors, and situations like this cause the processes to become much less friendly. It would only have taken 10 days to get this reviewed during construction,so the review time was �-' not an issue. Applicant came to commission a few weeks ago,we did a site visit,then delayed a few more weeks; did this applicant do things the right way?No. If he does anything in the city in the future,he will do it correctly, think front elevation is OK, there is less roof to look at. Commissioner asked CA what their choice of action was now: he noted if design as built is OK can accept; could look at changes proposed and select among those to have developer add;could put this over to a public hearing and have it noticed to the neighbors and do new design review; or could direct applicant to go back and build the house as it was approved. Discussion on the correction: ■ Feel that as built the house has an odd trellis device that is not blended into the deign with awnings or vines; ■ this is like the shutters that don't fit the window, a new idea that doesn't work; ■ the original was a nicer design than anything shown to us so far; ■ don't think it's the Planning Commission's job to fix this problem so the applicant can make more profit from this project; ■ question the trim on the windows at the front of the house,other windows have no trim at all, should be consistent; ■ question is would we approve the house as built,is it consistent with the design guidelines? ■ Trellis feature is odd; ■ the open trellis/unroofed beams look like a sore thumb on this building; looks unfinished at least should be roofed. Direction: should send this project to a design reviewer who can make a recommendation to the Commission on what should be done to make this design consistent and acceptable in accord with the 15 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 13, 2005 design guidelines; item should be put on consent calendar when the design reviewer has made his recommendations and plans are submitted which accurately reflect the design reviewer's recommendations. C.Vistica made a motion to send this item to a design reviewer and have it return to the consent calendar when accurate plans reflecting the recommendations of the design reviewer have been submitted and checked, and when there is space on the Commission's agenda. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. The motion passed on a 5-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran dissenting)voice vote. Staff also asked Commission about how to deal with occupancy of a project when all construction requirements for health and safety are met but the architectural features have not been completed as approved. Commission's consensus was that in the future for new construction occupancy(all utilities connected and people moving in) should not be allowed until all the architectural features have been installed. Commission noted that this is more difficult when the house is a remodel and the occupants never moved out. A standard condition should be added to all future substantial/new construction projects requiring that no occupancy shall be allowed until all the architectural features are in place and have been inspected by the Planning Department. FYI: Revisions to an approved design review project at 1544 Los Montes Drive. CP Monroe reviewed the requested change to increase the roof deck area above the lower floor addition by 2'5" increasing the size from 90 SF to 120 SF, with no change to the footprint of the floor below. The change results in an portion of the roof becoming flat to accommodate the deck. The Planning Commission had no comments on the requested changes. Xl. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME BUILDING INSPECTION MONTHLY PERMIT ACTIVITY MAY, 2005 F.Y. 2004 F.Y. 2003 SAME MONTH THIS YEAR LAST YEAR THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF TO DATE TO DATE DIFF Permit type # Valuation # Valuation % # Valuation # Valuation % New Single Family 2 $770,000 1 $300,000 156.7 18 $6,785,327 14 $5,675,822 19.5 New Multi-Family 1 $2,465,540 1 $2,323,600 6.1 1 $2,465,540 2 $4,123,600 40.2- New Commercial 1 $15,000 0 $0 .0 3 $1,815,000 3 $5,775,000 68.6- Alterations-Res 29 $1,308,650 35 $1,133,250 15.5 313 $14,580,666 309 $14,362,607 1.5 Alterations-NonRes 10 $477,510 11 $890,107 46.4- 90 $9,033,040 79 $8,822,657 2.4 Demolition 11 $8,000 10 $33,001 75.8- 46 $505,500 75 $178,301 183.5 Swimming Pool 2 $30,000 2 $64,480 53.5- 6 $142,300 5 $144,480 1.5- Sign Permits 4 $9,079 2 $5,000 81.6 31 $94,311 27 $106,739 11.6- Fences 0 $0 0 $0 .0 0 $0 2 $9,500 100.0- Reroofing 18 $175,908 18 $185,810 5.3- 223 $2,719,693 279 $3,270,017 16.8- Repairs 2 $14,500 4 $11,000 31.8 27 $309,004 41 $411,950 25.0- Window Repl 11 $131,805 10 $69,060 90.9 61 $553,625 90 $839,267 34.0- Miscellaneous 4 $151,000 2 $17,000 788.2 24 $469,334 28 $388,001 21.0 TOTALS...... 95 $5,556,992 96 $5,032,308 10.4 843 $39,473,340 954 $44,107,941 10.5- 6/01/05 7:36:02 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary May 31 , 2005 Days tTM YTM y Y Book %of Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Par Market Value Portfolio 3.043 Value 3.001 Investments Value 22 478,082.19 71'41 933 549 2.914 2.954 22,478,082.19 LAIF & County Pool 22,478,082.19 9,000,000.00 28.59 — 9,000,000.00 6,911,940.00 --p 268 158 2.976 3.018 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 100.00% � 31,478,082.19 31,390,022.19 31,478,082.19 Investments May 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Total Earnings y 735,473.53 Current Year 74,997.14 30,650,50753 29,322,108.21 . Average Daily Balance 2.73% Effective Rate of Return 2 88% es, and Pursuant to State law, there are sufficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure requirements for the Entergy se funds). Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fun types, av ' ty of some of these f ds is restricted by law (e.g. Gas Tax, Trust Agency funds, Capital Projects, an P U NAV , FINANCE DIR./TREASURER Portfolio CITY CP pM(PRF2M1)SymRept 23 Reporting period 0510112005-05/31/2005 Report Ver.5.00 Run Date: 0611 32005-09:22 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments Page 2 May 31, 2005 Average Purchase CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Stated Market Value YTM Days to Maturity LAIF&County Pool Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Date SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 8,143,833.55 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 8,143,833.55 8,143,833.55 2.854 14,334,248.64 14,334,248.64 2.854 1 Subtotal and Average 21,650,507.53 14,334,248.64 3.150 Aaa 3.150 22,478,082.19 22,47808219 1 , . Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 22,478,082.19 3.043 1 3133X9QV5 517 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/22/2004 1,000,000.00 3133XARN9 518 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/08/2005 987,500.00 1,000,000.00 3.500 1,000,000.00 995,590.00 Aaa 3.500 751 06/22/2007 2,000 3128X16Q5 513 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 11/17/2003 1,000,000.00 3.390 Aaa 3.390 464 09/08/2006 ,000.00 1,990,000.00 2,000,000.00 2.300 3128X2NA9 514 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP, 01/30/2004 3,000,000.00 Aaa 2.300 169 11/17/2005 3136F5TJ0 515 FANNIE MAE 2,957,280.00 3,000,000.00 3.000 04/27/2004 1,000,000.00 986,880.00 Aaa 3.000 608 01/30/2007 3136F6FZ7 516 FANNIE MAE 10/18/2004 1,000,000.00 3.100 Aaa 3.100 695 04/27/2007 1,000,000.00 994,690.00 1,000,000.00 3.000 Subtotal and Average 9,000,000.00 Aaa 3.000 869 10/18/2007 9,000,000.00 8,911,940.00 9,000,000.00 2.954 Total and Average 30,650,507.53549 31,478,082.19 31,390,022.19 31,478,082.19 3.018 158 Run Date:06/13/2005-09:22 Portfolio CITY CP PM(PRF PM2)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 J - CITY OF 131INGAME Portfolio Management Page 3 Activity By Type May 1, 2005 through May 31, 2005 Beginning Stated Transaction Purchases Redemptions Ending CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Rate Date or Deposits or Withdrawals Balance LAIF&County Pool (Monthly Summary) SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 2.854 2,000,000.00 0.00 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 3.150 605,273.63 0.00 Subtotal 19,872,808.56 2,605,273.63 0.00 22,478,082.19 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon Subtotal 9,000,000.00 9,000,000.00 Total 28,872,808.56 2,605,273.63 0.00 31,478,082.19 Portfolio CITY CP PM(PRF PM3)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Run Date:06/13/2005-09:22 Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 4 Activity Summary May 2004 through May 2005 Yield to Maturity Managed Number Number Month Number of Total 360 365 Pool of Investments of Investments Average Average End Year Securities Invested Equivalent Equivalent Rate Purchased Redeemed Term Days to Maturity May 2004 5 32,351,524.97 2.412 2.445 2.368 0 0 181 157 June 2004 5 32,705,947.05 2.452 2.486 2.420 0 0 180 150 July 2004 5 31,221,968.21 2.561 2.597 2.553 0 0 188 151 August 2004 5 31,242,288.45 2.603 2.639 2.605 0 0 188 145 September 2004 5 25,250,564.07 2.625 2.662 2.624 0 0 232 172 October 2004 6 28,964,592.72 2.629 2.666 2.618 1 0 240 181 November 2004 6 25,300,063.99 2.661 2.698 2.653 0 0 275 198 December 2004 7 30,433,082.99 2.695 2.732 2.673 1 0 259 188 January 2005 7 30,025,165.46 2.659 2.696 2.622 0 0 262 182 February 2005 7 30,076,952.25 2.728 2.766 2.717 0 0 262 174 March 2005 8 27,632,224.41 2.824 2.863 2.819 1 0 305 199 April 2005 8 28,872,808.56 2.864 2.903 2.880 0 0 292 181 May 2005 8 31,478,082.19 2.976 3.018 3.043 0 0 268 158 Average 6 29,658,097.33 2.668% 2.706% 2.661 0 0 241 172 Portfolio CITY CP PM(PRF PM4)SynnRept 6.41.202a Run Date:06/13/2005-09:22 Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 5 Distribution of Investments By Type May 2004 through May 2005 May June July August September October November December January February March April May Average Security Type 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2004 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 by Perlod LAIF&County Pool 81 5 81.7 80.8 80.8 76.2 75.8 72.3 73.7 73.4 73.4 67.4 68.8 71.4 75.2% ........- ....._ ... ......... _ _ ._ .. _1111...... . Certificates of Deposit-Bank ......_...._......................... ....._.._.__......_..... 1111_ ......... _.... ..........1111 ......................................_........................................................................................................................... Certificates of Deposit-S&L Certificates of Deposit-Thrift&Ln _1_111 ..................... ...11.1....1........_. Negotiable CD's-Bank ........ .......................... ..................._......_........................._................................................................................................_......................................................_.............................................................................._....................... 1111 CORP NOTES _..._............................__................................................ _....... ................... ............... ..... ........................................................................ _1111.. _1111. Bankers Acceptances _.. _ _ ... .... ... ........_ . .. .................... ................................-_......................... ...................................... .. Commercial Paper-Interest Bearing ..................................................................................................................................:.............._.... _.__........................_............................................... ..... ...................... ......_............._... .............. ..._. ... . Commercial Paper-Discount _ _1111. _ __ _.. ..... .._....... Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 18.6 18.4 19.2 19.2 23.8 24.2 27.7 26.3 26.6 26.6 32.6 31.2 28.6 24.8% .... ._ ...................... .... ................................ ..... .........._... .... .............. . . ....................... . ..... ._...... . .... ... ....... Federal Agency Issues-Discount .......... ....._._........................................................................._..........._.........._.........................1._....... 1.11. .._.... . _... ....._..................... ... ........... . .... .. . _ .... ......�............................. ....... ....... ....................... .................................................................._.................................................................................................................. Treasury Securities-Coupon ... . ........ .... ..... . .......... .....1111 ........ . ._...... Treasury Securities-Discount .......... ......._. ............. 1.1.11 ... . ...... .. . ...... ......................... ........... ............................... .. . ....... .................................. 1111 ..... . Miscellaneous Securities-Coupon ............................................................... ........................................................................................._. ... . .. 1111. .......... ........................._..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................._............-....................................................... Miscellaneous Securities-Discount . 1..1.1.1..... .. .1111..... 1111........................................................ ........, ...... ..,. . ...... .,...._1,1,11.. _.. .,..1111 . ..,,.......... Non Interest Bearing Investments . .1111.. ... ........................... .... ... .. ..._1111 . .......... .... . .._ Mortgage Backed Securities ........ ._......_..........................................._..._1_111 . ._. .. _.................... .......................................... ... .�..........._......_ .. _ . _ _ ._.... ...._.�......._............... ................_.....�..........._.....................__......_..----.........................._......................... .................... 1111 1111 .. . . ... _.... ........ .............................._.................................._......_.__...................................................................................................................__......................._........ Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 2 ......... ........._ 1111. _......... . ..._....... .. . ....__... . _...111......1 _111.1 _ _1111... _._.. Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 3 ............ _ ........... ..........1.....11................ ........................ ........................................................................................................................................................................................ ........_............................... ............ . . .......... .... ...... Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:06/13/2005.09:22 PM(PRF_PM5)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 6 Interest Earnings Summary May 31, 2005 May 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date CD/Coupon/Discount Investments: Interest Collected 23,000.00 182,000.00 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 61,824.16 61,824.16 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 62,665.83) ( 48,883.33) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 22,158.33 194,940.83 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Periods 22,158.33 194,940.83 Pass Through Securities: Interest Collected 0.00 0.00 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 0.00 0.00 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 0.00 0.00 Adjusted by Premiums and Discounts 0.00 0.00 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Periods 0.00 0.00 Cash/Checking Accounts: 0.00 554,670.04 Interest Collected Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 368,322.82 368,322.82 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 315,484.01) ( 382,460.16) Interest Earned during Period 52,838.81 540,532.70 Total Interest Earned during Period 74,997.14 735,473.53 Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Total Earnings during Period 74,997.14 735,473.53 Portfolio CITY CP PM(PRF PM6)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 Run Date:06/13/2005-09:22 i i 04BD Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary May 31, 2005 Par Market Book %of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Managed Pool Accounts 15,436,938.10 15,436,938.10 15,436,938.10 100.00 1 1 2.815 2.854 15,436,938.10 15,436,938.10 15,436,938.10 100.00% 1 1 2.815 2.854 Investments Total Earnings May 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 36,193.37 323,222.28 Average Daily Balance 15,620,421.97 16,624,818.44 Effective Rate of Return 2.73% 2.12% / d es ava, inance Dir[Treasurer Portfolio 04BD Reporting period 05/01/2005-05/31/2005 CP PM(PRF_PM1)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Run Date:06/14/2005-08:26 Report Ver.5.00 04BD Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments May 31, 2005 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts SYS85 85 Local Agency Investment Fund 15,436,938.10 15,436,938.10 15,436,938.10 2.854 2.854 1 Subtotal and Average 15,620,421.97 15,436,938.10 15,436,938.10 15,436,938.10 2.854 1 Total and Average 15,620,421.97 15,436,938.10 15,436,938.10 15,436,938.10 2.854 1 Portfolio 04BD CP Run Date:06/14/2005-08:26 PM(PRF PM2)SyrnRept 6.41.202a ( ( ( Report Ver.5.00 • SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE r Z FOR: MAY, 2005 )6-10-65 prey I Current Actual YTD YTD Last Actual Change Change YTD•• YTD.- Current year• • 0 0 Yrlme Claagificati0n........ 0 0 O 0 0 0 hter 0 2 -1 -50.00 4urder and Nonnegligent Mansl au g o 1 0 00 1 0 200.00 augh'er y Negligence o 1 2 4ans1 b 0 3 tape BY Force Rape 1 p 0 0 kttempt " Commit Forcible 0 0 0 1 4 -3 -75.00 2obbery Firearm 0 1 6 1 5 500.00 0 2 jobb if e o err Kn Weapon 2 2obb Dangerous 0 2 33.33 err, Other 0 3 1 2obbery Strong-Arm 0 4 7 1 14.29 0 �asaul t - Firearm 1 8 5 _4 -80.00 2 �ssaul G Knife Brus W0.00 'Weapon 0 2 83 97 -14 -14.43 %a$ault Other Danger ang 24 24 36 0 FistsIe, 36 28 -37.78 �8 I �8g3ll�t - Hands, 8 13 45 -17 _ Other (Simple)ga�lt 2 ll 0 2 Entry 0 2 Il3uiglprY - Forcible 0 0 0 Entry 0 0 3urgZarY _ Unlawful Entry 0 0 0 ted Forcible 0 0 21.43 11I'�u=91ary _ Attempted 0 14 3 picking 4 17 -6.94 IC•ar�eny Pocket- 3 123 -11 Snatching 18 112 38 146.15 C•ar�eny purse- 25 26 5 64 0.00 C,aYcenY Shoplifting 18 9 0 M°tor Vehicle 4 9 500.00 J_ cent' From 0 7 35 �� parts Accessories 42 Motor Veh 0 8 2 25.00 `atcenY 14 10 Bicycles o -50 -44.64 �rceny 1 67 112 From Building 20 -20 -37.04 ,�iceny Machine g 34 54 `,$rceny Frg 2om Any Coin-OP l0 2 0 All Other o 1 _1 -100.00 larceny eft Auto 0 0 Vehicle Th 0 _ Motor 0 ------- ---- Motor Vehicle The Bus ------- --_-- Other 527 555 Vehicle Theft 113 Motor 118 ====527 ===555 118 113 i I I I I ` i)6-10-05 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: MAY, 2005 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD :rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change 3 Change 111 Other Offenses 37 52 198 207 -9 -4.35 knimal Abuse 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 ),nimal Nuisance 0 0 1 0 1 krson 0 0 4 0 4 k55ists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 3icycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0 3igamy 0 0 0 0 0 3omb Offense 0 0 0 0 0 3omb Threat 1 0 2 0 2 3ribery 0 0 0 0 0 -heck Offenses 0 0 4 3 1 33.33 ,hild Neglect/prot custody 2 2 15 8 7 87.50 'omputer Crime 0 0 0 0 0 --onspiracy 0 0 0 0 0 ,redit Card Offenses 0 0 0 0 0 :ruelty to Dependent Adult 0 1 2 1 1 100.00 2urfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 2 0 2 Death Investigation 5 0 23 14 9 64.29 Disorderly Conduct 1 4 18 9 9 100.00 Driver's License Violations 2 0 4 2 2 100.00 Driving Under the Influence 8 2 32 35 -3 -8.57 ,Drug Abuse Violations 0 3 13 22 -9 -40.91 Drug/Sex Registrants/Violations 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Drunkeness 1 7 13 26 -13 -50.00 Embezzlement 0 0 2 7 -5 -71.43 ,Escape 0 0 0 0 0 ,Extortion 0 0 0 0 0 False Police Reports 0 0 0 0 0 False Reports of Emergency 0 0 0 0 0 Fish and Game Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Forgery and Counterfeiting 4 1 21 16 5 31.25 Found Property - 13 8 50 44 6 13.64 Fraud 0 3 15 13 2 15.38 3ambling 0 0 0 0 0 Harrassing Phone Calls 6 4 13 19 -6 -31.58 OF PART TWO OFFENSES MONTHLY SUMMARY R-� CITY REPORT FOR: MAY, 2005 X6-10-OB ' Current Prev YTD Actual YTD Last Actual Change %- Change YTD.. YTD. Current year.. 27 -11 -40.74 .... 16 gime Classification••• 2 1 100.00 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 -2 fit and Run Accidents 0 0 -100.00 mPersonation 0 -1 0 -100.00 0 0 1 incest 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 0 0 _2 -100.00 a Witness o 0 2 5 intimidating 0 0 _3 -60.00 tid,,pping 0 2 2 0 p lewd Conduct 0 0 12 -5 0 -41.67 liquor Laws 1 0 7 42 -11 -26.19 Tittering/Dumping 7 10 31 23 4 17.39 4arijuaria Violations 7 3 _12.20 '4erntal Health Cases 1 13 6 2 29 -5 41 -5 -17.24 +ty$ging Person 7 5 24 1 1 _100.00 K iBeing Property 0 0 0.00 Violations 0 1 0 �t�icipal Code 0 1 -14 -14.43 narcotics Against 1 anufacture 24 63 97 -100.00 Children 24 2 _2 ffenses Against 0 0 _2.94 o 0 34 -1 tether Assaults 5 33 Offenses 12 0 0 ether Juvenile 0 0 0 1 1 _100.00 ether Police Seryice 0 0 immoral purposes 0 0 0 pandering for 0 0 0 0 1 parole Violations 0 1 0 0 0 0 perjure' Tools 0 0 0 of Burglary p o possession raphernalia 0 0 -2 -66.67 of drug pa 1 3 possession literature%Picture 0 0 0.00 obscene 0 1 1 possession i 0 0 2 Violations 2 0 probation Vice 0 _1 -50.00 and Commercial 0 1 2 prostitution 0 0 _6 -33.33 12 18 prowling 0 4 0 Arrest 0 0 .RArr esisting 0 p 1 Orders 1 0 0.00 '.Restraining 0 0 1 g 0 0.00 (Under 18) 1 ',gunawaY 1 0 0 0 Sex offenses 0 0 Children 0 0 0 Sex offenses against 0 0 0 Sodomy Stalking r MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 CITY REPORT FOR: MAY, 2005 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD iication. . . lrrent Year. . YTD. . YTD. . Change 8 Change Rape 0 0 2 0 2 Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 1 0 3 0 3 Suspended License 3 0 12 23 -11 -47 . 83 rax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 terrorist Threats 1 8 4 16 -12 -75 . 00 rowed Vehicle 27 47 167 159 8 5 . 03 trespassing 0 1 6 6 0 0 . 00 truants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 1 1 2 -1 -50 . 00 JS Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 Vandalism 19 16 91 77 14 18 . 18 Vehicle Code Violations 1 1 13 10 3 30 . 00 Violation of Court Order 0 1 3 6 -3 -50 . 00 Warrants - Felony 1 1 6 8 -2 -25 . 00 Warrants - Misd 8 4 35 26 9 34 . 62 weapons;Carrying, Possessing 0 1 3 8 -5 -62 . 50 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 --- - -- - - - -- -- ----- -- --- ---- 210 235 1, 060 1, 116 210 235 1 , 060 1 , 116 I . i I PACE = 2 MONTHLY SUMKARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES CITY REPORT FOR: MAY. 2005 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD YTD.. YTD.. Change Change Current Year— Classification... ear.- Classification.................... 27 -11 -40.74 2 2 16 1 1 100.00 lit- --.Lgd Run Accidents0 1 2 0 0 0 [mp z sonation 0 0 2 _2 -100.00 to t o 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 c �8 0 0 Crim _,ent Exposure 0 0 0 0 Cryo— ztnidating a Witness 0 0 2 _2 -100.00 0 0 �i c�riaPPing 0 2 5 _3 -60.00 0 2 0 Conduct 0 0 i ,Or Laws 0 0 12 -5 -41.67 tering/Dumping 1 0 7 10 42 _11 -26.19 31 17.39 d�Y ijuana Violations 7 27 23 4 metal H 7 Health Cases 1 41 -5 12.20 6 36 -17.24 �L Z gsin4 5 24 Person 13 29 -5 �Z -,,gsing Property 7 0 1 _1 -100.00 --� _ :vviolations 0 nicipal Code 0 1 0 0.00 1 —,=arcotics Sales/Manufacture 1 0 97 -14 -14.43 ---,[fen24 83ses Against Children 24 2 _2 -100.00 -)cher Assaults 0 o 0 5 33 34 -1 -2.94 ether Juvenile Offenses 12 0 0 Service 0 0 7ther Police 0 1 _1 -100.00 purposes 0 0 pandering for immoral Pure 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 0 0 1 0 1 perjury Tools 0 0 0 Possession of Burglary 0 0 0 0 0 possession of drug Paraphernalia 0 0 3 o _2 -66.67 possession of obscene literature; icture 0 0 1 1 Vice 0 2 0 1 0 0.00 Probation Violations 0 0 2 prostitution and Commercial 0 2 _1 -50.00 0 1 Prowling 0 12 18 _6 -33.33 Arrest 0 4 (Resisting 0 0 0 Orders 0 0 0.00 .Restraining 1 1 0 g (Under 18) - 0 0 0.00 .,Runaway 1 1 0 0 Sex Offenses 10 0 0 against Children 0 p Sex Offenses a4 0 0 0 Sodomy 0 0 Stalking r )6-10-05 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: MAY, 2005 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD 7rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Pi Change lit and Run Accidents 2 2 16 27 -11 -40.74 Impersonation 0 1 2 1 1 100.00 Incest 0 0 0 0 0 indecent Exposure 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Intimidating a Witness 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 (idnapping 0 0 0 0 0 Lewd Conduct 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Liquor Laws 0 2 2 5 -3 -60.00 .littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 4arijuana Violations 1 0 7 12 -5 -41.67 4ental Health Cases 7 10 31 42 -11 -26.19 4issing Person 1 7 27 23 4 17.39 4issing Property 13 6 36 41 -5 -12.20 4unicipal Code Violations 7 5 24 29 -5 -17.24 Jarcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 )ffenses Against Children 1 0 1 1 0 0.00 7ther Assaults 24 24 83 97 -14 -14.43 Other Juvenile Offenses 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Other Police Service 12 5 33 34 -1 -2.94 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Perjury 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of Burglary Tools 0 0 1 0 1 Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0 Probation Violations 0 0 1 3 -2 -66.67 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 Prowling 0 0 2 0 2 Resisting Arrest 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00 Restraining Orders 0 4 12 18 -6 -33.33 Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0 Sex Offenses 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 Sex Offenses against Children 1 0 1 1 0 0.00 Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 Stalking 0 0 0 0 0 )6-10-05 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 CITY REPORT FOR: MAY, 2005 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD '7rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change Statutory Rape 0 0 2 0 2 Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 1 0 3 0 3 Suspended License 3 0 12 23 -11 -47.83 rax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 Irerrorist Threats 1 8 4 16 -12 -75.00 (rowed Vehicle 27 47 167 159 8 5.03 irrespassing 0 1 6 6 0 0.00 Irruants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 1 1 2 -1 -50.00 iJS Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 Vandalism 19 16 91 77 14 18.18 Vehicle Code Violations 1 1 13 10 3 30.00 !Violation of Court Order 0 1 3 6 -3 -50.00 Warrants - Felony 1 1 6 8 -2 -25.00 Warrants - Misd 8 4 35 26 9 34.62 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 0 1 3 8 -5 -62.50 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 ------- ------ ------- ------- 210 235 1,060 1,116 210 235 1,060 1,116 r BURLINGAME Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 06/10/2005 at 05 : 33 : 50 PM Reported On: All Officers Report Range : 05/01/2005 to 05/31/2005 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Valid All Voids % All % Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DAZA-QUIROZ 634 191 10.93 2 11.76 98.96 FEITELBERG 508 138 7.90 0 0.00 100.00 GARRETT 501 129 7.38 3 17.65 97.73 HARRISON 506 652 37.32 6 35.29 99.09 KIRKPATRICK 502 585 33.49 6 35.29 98.98 ROSCOE 503 52 2.98 0 0.00 100.00 Total 1747 17 Page 1 of 1 06-10-05 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : 1 CITY REPORT FOR: MAY, 2005 Current Prev Last Actual Actual Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD . . YTD. . Parking Citations 1823 4 , 032 14, 407 19, 455 Moving Citations 120 211 542 1, 521 ------- ------ ------- ------- 1943 4, 243 14, 949 20 , 976 ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------ ------- ------- 1943 4, 243 14, 949 20, 976