Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2005.05.02 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame BURUNGAME wRegular Meeting - Monday, May 2, 2005 CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD vZ Page 1 of 2 REVISED BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 CLOSED SESSION: a. Conference with Labor Negotiators pursuant to 6:00 Conference Room A Government Code § 54957.6: City Negotiators: Bob Bell and Jim Nantell Labor Organizations: AFSCME, Locals 2190 and 829 b. Consider initiation of litigation(Government Code § 54956.90)): Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board decision to end service to Broadway Train Station (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 April 18,2005 Approve 5. PRESENTATION a. Housing Endowment and Regional Trust of San Mateo Presentation County b. Burlingame Girls Softball League update Presentation C. Historic Gunst Carriage House Restoration Project Presentation 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. a. Public Hearing and adoption of Broadway Area Business Hearing/Action Improvement District setting 2005-2006 assessments b. Public Hearing and adoption of Burlingame Avenue Area Hearing/Action Business Improvement District setting 2005-2006 assessments C. Resolution approving the 2005 Master Fee Schedule for Hearing/Action City services 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS -At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits council from acting on any matter which is not on the agenda. It is the policy of council to refer such matters to staff for investigation and/or action. Speakers are requested to 611 out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Introduction of an Amendment to the Zoning Code to Auto Introduction Row, Subarea D requirements,building regulations in Subarea A, licensing requirements, location of churches, and Council procedures BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA BURLINGAME City of Burlingame Regular Meeting - Monday, May 2, 2005 CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD Page 2 of 2 REVISED BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 b. Introduce Ordinance increasing business license processing Introduction fees 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve a. Resolution accepting a settlement agreement and approving a third party amendment to the Franchise Agreement for Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials and Plant Materials Collection Services between the City of Burlingame and BFI Waste Systems of North America, extending the Agreement until December 31, 2010 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. OLD BUSINESS a. Broadway Train Station closure Discuss/Direct Staff 12. NEW BUSINESS a. Request for Appeal Hearing for 1615 Willow Avenue Set Hearing 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Parks& Recreation, April 21, 2005; Planning, April 25, 2005 b. Department Reports: Police, March, 2005 C. Letter from Burlingame School District Board of Trustees concerning their inability to contribute for the legal expenses incurred in connection with the Jefferson-Martin power line d. Peninsula Health Care District letter thanking the City for its effort with the Jefferson-Martin Transmission Line and contribution for the City's out-of-pocket expenses in the CPUC proceedings e. Letter from Dan Ionescu requesting the opportunity to make a Council/Community presentation on smart growth concepts 14. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE:Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities,please contact the City Clerk at(650)558- 7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office,City Hall,501 Primrose Road,from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at the meeting.Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.orQ. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—Thursday, May 5,2005 CITY C BVRLk"QAME 'ti C h �0 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of April 18, 2005 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Joe Galligan called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Paul Prendiville. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Coffey, Galligan, Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None CLOSED SESSION CA Anderson advised that Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following: a. Claim of Alyce Denke b. Claim of Gloria& Clayton Burnell C. Claim of Carole Pena d. Claim of Egidio Bertola 4. MINUTES Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 4, 2005 regular Council meeting; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5. PRESENTATIONS a. PROCLAMATION TO DECLARE WEST NILE VIRUS AND MOSQUITO AND VECTOR CONTROL AWARENESS WEEK Mayor Galligan presented Dennis Preger, Burlingame Representative to the San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District, with a proclamation declaring the week of April 25 through May 1, 2005 as West Nile Virus and Mosquito and Vector Control Awareness Week. Mr. Preger introduced Bob Gay, District Manager, who stated that with the increased rains this year, mosquito populations are appearing earlier in the season than usual. He advised citizens to be aware of potential mosquito breeding areas around their homes, 1 Burlingame City Council April 18,2005 Unapproved Minutes such as backyard ponds which are common in this area. He suggested contacting the District who will provide mosquito-eating fish free of charge and to contact the District if you see any signs of mosquito infestation. b. INTRODUCE CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT DIVISION CHIEF Fire Chief Reilly introduced Mark Ladas as the new Central County Fire Department Division Chief. C. CALIFORNIA SOCIETY OF MUNICIPAL FINANCE OFFICERS FINANCIAL REPORTING AWARD FinDir Nava advised that he received the Financial Reporting Award from the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers for excellence in finance reporting and in preparation of the financial audit. He thanked the Audit Committee members and the Finance Department staff for their expertise, which contributed to their receiving this award. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NON-AUTO RELATED USE (PRINTING SERVICE) AT 220 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA D CP Monroe requested Council hold a public hearing and take action on the appeal of a conditional use permit for a non-auto related use (printing service) at 220 California Drive. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Scheherezade Sharabianlou, applicant, gave 13 reasons why Council should approve her application and stated that existing parking availability at this location will meet her needs. Joe Karp, 1209 Burlingame Avenue, reiterated his appeal that traffic and parking in this area are problems particularly along the portion of California Drive at the front of this building. Annamarie Holland Daniels, 515 Howard Avenue, spoke in favor of the applicant. Gary Doss, 214 California Drive, stated that he represents six businesses on this block which support the applicant. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. DPW Bagdon stated that the recently completed parking study update for the Burlingame Avenue area shows that the parking occupancy along California Drive and Highland Avenue from Howard Avenue to Burlingame Avenue as well as Lot V in front of the train station is 58%. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission's decision and approve Resolution No. 27-2005 approving categorical exemption and conditional use permit for 220 California Drive; seconded by Vice Mayor Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Valerie Teele, 1448 Alvarado, spoke on a newly formed organization made up of Broadway merchants called Broadway BABES (Broadway Association of Business Entrepreneurs) to establish a vision for the Broadway business area. Ann Keighran, 1531 Vancouver, spoke on the Broadway BABES survey for customers and merchants, which will help them formulate a vision for the area. The survey is online at www.broadwgyburlingame.com and is also available in various Broadway stores. John Root, 728 Crossway Road, spoke on the Redwood City forum presentation on parking. He also stated that the City should provide 2 Burlingame City Council April 18,2005 Unapproved Minutes each BID with a document stating the City's role in overseeing the BID. Debra Hubert, 740 Linden Avenue, spoke on an anti-war resolution on the war in Iraq. Maritsa Chew, 1224 Broadway, spoke on the BABES survey. Nicholas Koros, 1400 Broadway, spoke on the future of Broadway. There were no further comments from the floor. 8. STAFF REPORTS a. LIBRARY BOARD VACANCIES CM Nantell requested Council call for the application period to fill three impending vacancies on the Library Board. Mayor Galligan requested Vice Mayor Baylock and Councilwoman O'Mahony to conduct the interviews. The application period is open through May 20, 2005. b. REPORT BACK ON DIRECTION TO SAFEWAY Mayor Galligan, Vice Mayor Baylock and City staff met with Safeway representatives to discuss several options in response to Safeway's December letter requesting City direction. CM Nantell made a PowerPoint presentation on the Safeway issues and suggestions that evolved from the subcommittee and Safeway meetings. Conducting an independent economic feasibility analysis to determine the intensity of use required for a viable mixed-use project at that location was discussed. An analysis could be conducted as part of a broader economic study for a future Downtown Specific Area Plan. The parameters for the broader analysis would be developed by a team comprised of representatives from Council, the Planning Commission and citizens with divergent opinions involved in the previous Safeway project review. At Mayor Galligan's request regarding the potential traffic impacts of mixed use around the Safeway site, CP Monroe advised that based on present proposals for mixed use, there would be a substantial increase in traffic, particularly during peak hours which could affect the operation of the roadway system in a major way. Mayor Galligan stated that the impact of the mixed use would not be acceptable to the community because the roadways are only so wide and cannot take the amount of extra traffic without major changes, making a single use of the site more attractive. He urged Safeway to move forward now on a new proposal rather than delay the planning process for another six months to wait for the results of the economic analysis. Councilmembers O'Mahony, Coffey and Nagel commended the work of the Mayor, Vice Mayor and staff on working through how to best move forward to provide Safeway representatives with the direction that will allow the redevelopment of the store. Council recommended moving forward with the broader economic feasibility study, including consideration for a viable use on the Safeway site. The Parking Fund balance will be used as the source to fund the study. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR a. RESOLUTION NO. 28-2005 ACCEPTING HYATT PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT TO W.R. FORDE CONSTRUCTION, INC. DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 28-2005 accepting improvements to the Hyatt Pump Station Improvement Project by W.R. Forde Construction, Inc. 3 Burlingame City Council April 18,2005 Unapproved Minutes b. FILE RETENTION EA Shinday requested Council approve Resolution No. 29-2005 approving the Schedule for Retention and Destruction of Building Division Records and Amendment to City Manager Schedule pursuant to Government Code Section 34090. C. APPROVE OUT OF STATE TRAVEL FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES MANAGER AND ADMINISTRATIVE/INFORMATION SERVICES MANAGER FinDir Nava requested Council approve out of state travel for two Finance Department employees to attend the Governmental Finance Officers Association Annual Conference June 26-29 in San Antonio, Texas. d. UPDATE ON BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT CA Anderson provided Council with an update on the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District. e. WARRANTS & PAYROLL FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants #10445-11027 duly audited, in the amount of $3,171,161.12 (excluding library checks 10552-10589), Payroll checks #161644-161916 in the amount of $2,404,515.15 for the month of March 2005. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. Vice Mayor Baylock and Councilwoman Nagel noted another hearing on the closure of the Broadway Train Station and reduction in service to San Mateo County and encouraged public participation at the next hearing scheduled for Friday, April 22, at 1:30 p.m. at Caltrain, 1250 San Carlos Avenue in San Carlos, or to email them at changeskcaltrain.org or to send a letter to help fight to keep the Broadway and Burlingame schedules. 11. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 12. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 4 Burlingame City Council April 18,2005 Unapproved Minutes 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety &Parking, March 10, 2005; Beautification, April 7, 2005; Planning, April 11, 2005 b. Department Reports: Building, March 2005; Finance, March 2005 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. in memory of Harold Otto, a long-time Burlingame resident. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 5 Burlingame City Council April 18, 2005 Unapproved Minutes Housing Endowment And Regional Trust HEART of San Mateo County 690 Broadway Redwood City CA 94063 (650)364-4578 FACT SHEET WHAT IS THE HOUSING ENDOWMENT AND REGIONAL TRUST (HEART)? The Housing Endowment and Regional Trust(HEART) of San Mateo County envisions a county where housing is attainable for all. HEART's mission is to raise and distribute funds from public and private sources to meet critical housing needs. THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING Constrained by the Bay on one side and beautiful open space in the hills and westward,housing development in San Mateo County has fallen far below what is needed to house our workforce, especially public employees, service workers,and many of the people who grow up here.The County of San Mateo estimates the need—based on population and job growth—at 15,000-24,000 new units over the next six years. Meanwhile,actual housing production lags far behind,with fewer than 7,000 units produced in the past five years. HEART'S GOALS AND ACCOMPLISHMENTS HEART can help stabilize the housing market for all county residents by raising money for affordable housing construction and rehabilitation. HEART's goal is to raise up to$10 million a year. In its first year alone (2004),HEART has raised a total of$5 million. Of that,$3 million was provided by the County of San Mateo Board of Supervisors as seed money.That initial investment attracted a matching grant of$2 million from the State of California through Proposition 46 housing bond funds for new housing trust funds. HEART was able to capture the maximum matching grant from the state—one of only a handful of funds in the state to do so. GOVERNANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY HEART is a collaborative, public/private venture. It is structured as a joint powers authority QPA). Currently,twelve cities plus San Mateo County participate as members. The HEART board of directors consists of 11 public-sector representatives and 10 at-large members representing the private sector.As a JPA,HEART is a public entity and subject to the same Brown Act requirements as any public agency.Its board meetings and deliberations are open and members of the public are welcome to attend. ADMINISTRATION AND FUTURE PLANS HEART member agencies pay dues annually to finance the basic administrative costs of the fund. Staffing is provided on an annual contract basis by the Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County,a nonprofit community-based organization,and the San Mateo County Office of Housing. Contracting reduces overhead and avoids creation of a new bureaucracy. The specific methods for raising funds will be decided by the JPA board and will reflect the public/private nature of HEART. Housing Endowment And Regional Trust HEART of San Mateo County 690 Broadway Redwood City CA 94063 (650)364-4578 HEART Members & Supporters Spring 2005 Members Supporters Town of Atherton San Mateo County Association of Realtors Building and Construction Trades Council City of Belmont of San Mateo County San Mateo County Central Labor Council City of Burlingame Charles and Helen Schwab Foundation Town of Colina Commission on the Status of Women of San Mateo County Committee for Green Foothills City of Daly City Congresswoman Anna Eshoo HIP Housing City of East Palo Alto Housing Leadership Council of San Mateo County Town of Hillsborough The Independent Newspaper League of Women Voters of San Mateo County City of Menlo Park Ted Lempert, Trustee, County Office of Education Assemblymember Gene Mullin City of Millbrae North Fair Oaks Advisory Council Parca— Serving People with Developmental Disabilities Town of Portola Valley &Their Families City of San Carlos Peninsula Habitat for Humanity Peninsula Interfaith Action City of San Mateo Peninsula Policy Partnership Redwood City— San Mateo County Chamber of Commerce County of San Mateo Samceda San Mateo Area Chamber of Commerce Shelter Network State Senator Joe Simitian Thrive: The Alliance of Nonprofits for San Mateo County Tri-County Apartment Association Assemblymember Leland Yee I 'DECEMBER 25 2004 THETNDEPENDENT SERVING REDWOOD CrIy � PAGE 5A floirne is After two years, County build dwellings that will be 16,000 more by 2010, accord- While all cities in the county affordable to those making ing to Chris Mohr, executive have been asked to sign up gets ready to spring less than 60 percent of the director of HEART. for tfor affordable housing median income. For a family The money should produce have been ablefund, nly to about half afford the of four, that is $55,000 a another 200 to 400 units, 30-cent-per-resident member- BY JUSTIN NYBERG year. Mohr said, some of which ship fee.". Staff Writer It's not going to solve the could break ground within a "Even though the dues are REDWOOD CITY—San Mateo county's housing shortage, year. officials say, but it's a start. Since HEART was established . cit es arreirly eSlaying time staff County is opening its heart. "We have a long way to go," in May 2003, the county con- members they felt that was For the first time since its said Supervisor Rich Gordon. tributed $2 million to. the a more immediate inception two years ago, the "It's really imperative that we fund, which was matched by Mohr said. Housing Endowment and priority," build housing at all income $2 million through state Prop- Millbrae .became the 11th Regional Trust — the center piece of the coup s efforts r levels, for service jobs, entry- osition 46, a housing bond. city to join the effort on Dec. ' level jobs as well as for critical The goal is to collect $10 14. build thousands of affordable public sector jobs in nursing, million per year from cities, ;housing units in coming years firefighting, law enforcement foundations and developers to E-mail.- will begin releasin money and teaching." help affordable housing ro Y Since the 1970s, cities in San ects g p get off the ground jnybergC�lsmindependent.com for new development 2005, officials announced Mateo County have subsidized .recently, I about 4,700 units of below Known as HEART, the fund market-rate housing, and the will distribute $4 million to county is projecting a need for BURL Admalk, STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM# 5b MTG. DATE 5/2/05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL suB TTED BY DATE: April 20,2005 APPRO FROM: Parks& Recreation Director (558-7307) BY suBJECr: BURLINGAME GIRLS SOFTBALL UPDATE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council receive the report from Burlingame Girls Softball President, John Hunter, on the 2005 season and upcoming tournaments. BACKGROUND: Burlingame Girls Softball began in the 1960's under the affiliation with Bobby Sox and switched to its current format in the early 1980's. In the past four years,the program has grown to nearly 500 participants. The program uses Ray Park as its primary site for league play and their annual Father's Day weekend Billie Sue Tournament, but also uses fields at Franklin School, Burlingame High School and Bayside Park. BUDGET IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 6a a�aqSom MTG. RATED JYNE6 DATE 5/2/05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMI ED i BY DATE: May 2, 2005 APPR FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director BY SUBJECT: Public Hearing & Adoption of Broadway Area Business mprovement District— Setting 2005-2006 Assessments RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing and adopt the resolution setting 2005-2006 assessments. BACKGROUND: At the April 4th meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution of intention to set the 2005-2006 Broadway Area Business Improvement District assessments and set the May 2nd meeting as the public hearing date. There are no changes proposed in the boundaries, assessments or business classifications. If there is a protest by a majority of the value of the assessments to any of these items, the resolution cannot be approved. At the time of writing this memorandum,we have received no protests, although protests may be presented in writing before or at the hearing. BUDGET IMPACT: Approximately$25,000 in assessments is collected annually with our business licenses. All of these funds are forwarded to the Broadway Improvement District for improvements as authorized the BID Board of Directors. ATTACHMENTS: 1.) Resolution Of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Establishing 2005-2006 Assessments For the Broadway Area Business Improvement District 2.) Exhibit A: Types of Improvements and Activities Proposed to be Funded By the Levy of Assessments 3.) Exhibit B: Broadway Area Business Improvement District Assessment Basis 4.) Assessment Roll RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING 2005-2006 ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS,pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq.,the Broadway Area Business Improvement District has been established for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and physical maintenance of this important business district; and WHEREAS, the Broadway Area Business Improvement District Advisory Board has requested the Burlingame City Council to establish 2005-2006 assessments for the improvement district; and WHEREAS,on April 4,2005,the City Council received and approved the annual report of the Broadway Area Business Improvement District Advisory Board; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed assessments was duly noticed for May 2, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, as required by State law; and WHEREAS,at the public hearing held at that place and time,the City Council received and considered all oral and written testimony from all interested persons; and WHEREAS,it appears that the current assessments should continue so that improvements and programs may continue in the District, and the activities and improvements are without substantial change from those previously established for the District. NOW,THEREFORE,the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve,determine,and find as follows: 1 1. Written protests to assessments, improvements or activities were not received at or before the close of the public hearing that constituted a majority as defined in Government Code sections 36500 and following.. 2. The City Council does hereby levy an assessment for the 2005-2006 fiscal year on businesses in the District as described in City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 1461, to pay for improvements and activities of the District. 3. The types of improvements and activities to be funded by the levy of assessments on businesses in the District are set forth in Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference. 4. The method and basis for levying the assessments on all businesses within the District are set forth in Exhibit "B", incorporated herein by reference. 5. New businesses shall not be exempt from assessment. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of 2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK C:\FILES\BIDBRDWY\BIDBDWYres22005.RE2.wpd 2 EXHIBIT A TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES PROPOSED TO BE FUNDED BY THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS 1) Streetscape Beautification, Seasonal Decorations, and Public Arts Programs a. Seasonal street plantings of flowers. b. Seasonal flags and banners. f. Sidewalk enhancement and maintenance. 2) Business Recruitment and Retention a. Matching funds for storefront improvement incentive b. Develop strategy to fill commercial vacancies. C. Small business assistance workshops. 3) Commercial Marketing, Public Relations, and Advertising a. Organize special events throughout the year. 4) Shuttle Establish a people mover system between the area and the hotel district, to be funded on a cooperative cost sharing basis. C:\FILES\BIDBRDWY\improvmtlis2000.bid.wpd EXHIBIT B BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT BASIS* BUSINESS TYPE NO. OF STAFF xx ANNUAL ASSESSMENT RETAIL & -----------4+ - --- - $450 ----------------------------- RESTAURANT 1 - 3 $300 SERVICE ----------3+------------ -------------$250$250 ------------ 1 - 2 $150 3+ $200 PROFESSIONAL ------------------------------------------------------- $150 ---------------------- ------------------------------ $150 FINANCIAL NA $500 * ----- Amount shown is annual total ** --- Staff means any persons working(full time or full time equivalency) including owners, partners, managers, employees, family members, etc. Business Definitions (Burlingame Municipal Code § 6.52.010): Retail ❑ Businesses that buy and resell goods. Examples are clothing stores, shoe stores, office supplies, etc. Restaurant ❑ Selling prepared food and drink. Service ❑ Businesses that sell services. Examples are beauty and barber shops, repair shops that do not sell goods, contractors, auto shops, etc. Professional ❑ Includes engineering firms, architects, attorneys, dentists, optometrists, physicians, realtors, insurance offices, etc. Financial ❑ Banks, savings and loans, household finance companies, etc. C:\FILES\BIDBRDWY\assessbas.bid.wpd BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL FY05-06 LICENSE BID CODE BID FEE I BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS 05991 D1 $ 450.00 CAFE FIGARO 1318 BROADWAY 07704 D1 $ 450.00 ROYAL DONUT 1165 BROADWAY 07979 D1 $ 450.00 JUBAN INC 1204 BROADWAY 10027 D1 $ 450.00 EARTHBEAM 1399 BROADWAY 10222 D1 $ 450.00 GOLDENWEST DIAMOND DBA JEWELRY EXCH. 1301 BROADWAY 14722 D1 $ 450.00 PRESTON'S CANDY & ICE CREAM 1170 BROADWAY 15916 D1 $ 450.00 LOBOS MEXICAN GRILL 1251 BROADWAY 16659 D1 $ 450.00 AQUA DEVELOPMENT CORP DBA PISCES 1190 CALIFORNIA DR 17895 D1 $ 450.00 AJI YOSHI YA 1190 BROADWAY 17948 D1 $ 450.00 BROADWAY PRIME 1316 BROADWAY 18813 D1 $ 450.00 WALGREENS#06655 - J JACKSON-TAX DEPT 1160 BROADWAY 19703 D1 $ 450.00 STARBUCKS COFFEE #6871 1230 BROADWAY 19745 D1 $ 450.00 MIVAN MEDITERRANEN CUISINE 1232 BROADWAY 22535 D1 $ 450.00 SIWOOD INC, DBA BROADWAY PHARMACY 1300 BROADWAY 30410 D1 $ 450.00 VILLAGE HOST 1201 BROADWAY 33210 D1 $ 450.00 MIKE HARVEY ACURA 1070 BROADWAY 06601 D2 $ 300.00 ABSOLUTE CELLULAR SERVICES 1405 BROADWAY 07373 D2 $ 300.00 IL PICCOLO CAFFE 1219 BROADWAY 10133 D2 $ 300.00 ROBENALT ENGRAVING 1423 BROADWAY 10449 D2 $ 300.00 SUBWAY 1308 BROADWAY 11683 D2 $ 300.00 NUTS FOR CANDY 1241 BROADWAY 12505 D2 $ 300.00 BROADWAY HARDWARE 1326 BROADWAY 13026 D2 $ 300.00 DOLAN'S WINDOWS AND DOORS 1410 BROADWAY 13111 D2 $ 300.00 DOLLARWISE DBA HOBBY UNLIMITED 1205 BROADWAY 13551 D2 $ 300.00 FOTO FOTO IMAGING 1352 BROADWAY 15633 D2 $ 300.00 LA DOLCE VITA TILE & STONE 1247 BROADWAY 15708 D2 $ 300.00 GRACE GARDEN CHINESE RESTAURANT 1200 BROADWAY 16408 D2 $ 300.00 ROSEDALE 1454 BROADWAY 16731 D2 $ 300.00 KCB &ASSOCIATES LLC 1431 BROADWAY 17162 D2 $ 300.00 ANTIQUE MARKET OF BURLINGAME 1452 BROADWAY 17342 D2 $ 300.00 CHEZ ALEXANDER 1136 BROADWAY 17378 D2 $ 300.00 WEIMAX CORPORATION 1178 BROADWAY 17408 D2 $ 300.00 TUNISS COMPUTER 1124 BROADWAY BID ADDRESS.2005.xls 1 4/26/2005 BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL FY05-06 LICENSE BID CODE BID FEE I BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS 17712 D2 $ 300.00 BURLINGAME FOODS 1236 BROADWAY 18486 D2 $ 300.00 LE CROISSANT 1151 BROADWAY 19108 D2 $ 300.00 ATELIER DESIGN STUDIO, GP 1233 BROADWAY 19329 D2 $ 300.00 SUTTERFIELD CONSIGNMENT 1174 BROADWAY 19967 D2 $ 300.00 DOODLEDINGS DOG BAKERY& BOUTIQUE 1224 BROADWAY 20061 D2 $ 300.00 E MOBILE CELLULAR 1212 BROADWAY 20108 D2 $ 300.00 RESTAURANT JUN 1355 BROADWAY 20232 D2 $ 300.00 BURLINGAME JEWELRY CENTER 1199 BROADWAY#3 20481 D2 $ 300.00 BONNE SANTE' 1184 BROADWAY 20529 D2 $ 300.00 J'S SMOKE SHOP & NOVELTIES 1305 BROADWAY 21935 D2 $ 300.00 GEM DESIGNS 1365 BROADWAY 23724 D2 $ 300.00 THE INCREDIBLE EDIBLE 1130 BROADWAY 30427 D2 $ 300.00 BEHAN'S "AN IRISH PUB" 1327 BROADWAY 30674 D2 $ 300.00 BURLINGAME GAS & CAR WASH 1000 BROADWAY 35174 D2 $ 300.00 BUA THONG KITCHEN 1320 BROADWAY 44399 D2 $ 300.00 YOUNG'S BURLINGAME LIQUOR 1408 BROADWAY 07232 D3 $ 250.00 CHEVRON STATIONS INC. #1504 1101 BROADWAY 14938 D3 $ 250.00 L & S AUTO REPAIR CENTER 1100 BROADWAY 17348 D3 $ 250.00 ON BROADWAY 1163 BROADWAY 17617 D3 $ 250.00 NETWORK VIDEO INC 1215 BROADWAY 17930 D3 $ 250.00 KIMS PERFECT 10 ADVANCED AESTHETICS 1360 BROADWAY 19586 D3 $ 250.00 MOVIE MAGIC BROADWAY 1400 BROADWAY 19790 D3 $ 250.00 SDT BROADWAY STATION 1480 BROADWAY 20765 D3 $ 250.00 TRENZ SALON 1211 BROADWAY 35910 D3 $ 250.00 SUPERCUTS 1222 BROADWAY 06003 D4 $ 150.00 GATEWAYS TO THE WORLD 1122 BROADWAY 08225 D4 $ 150.00 HJS PROP. & INVEST./SECURED ASSET MGT 1243 BROADWAY 08443 D4 $ 150.00 POOCHINI'S 1427 BROADWAY 08621 D4 $ 150.00 CHIC 1249 BROADWAY 09304 D4 $ 150.00 YOUR CLEANERS/YOUR FRENCH TAILOR 1321 BROADWAY 09412 D4 $ 150.00 ADAMS FINE TAILORING 1324 BROADWAY 12031 D4 $ 150.00 DESIRED DATA& DESIGN 1425 BROADWAY#7 13277 D4 $ 150.00 BROADWAY CLEANERS 1234 BROADWAY BID ADDRESS.2005.xls 2 4/26/2005 BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL FY05-06 LICENSE BID CODE BID FEE I BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS 13318 D4 $ 150.00 RAINBOW FULL SERVICE SALON 1361 BROADWAY 13566 D4 $ 150.00 SPANEK INT'L TRADE FACILITATOR 1425 BROADWAY#11 14552 D4 $ 150.00 SUNFLOWER NAILS&HAIR 1323 BROADWAY 15975 D4 $ 150.00 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA PRACTICE SALES 1126 BROADWAY#8 16449 D4 $ 150.00 BELLALUNA-AVON PRODUCTS 1310 BROADWAY 18408 D4 $ 150.00 ANNE H HINCKLE 1425 BROADWAY#2 19645 D4 $ 150.00 BURLINGAME LAGUNA FLORIST 1202 BROADWAY 20067 D4 $ 150.00 MAGIC NAILS HAIR SALON 1199 CHULA VISTA AVE 20110 D4 $ 150.00 A&A NAILS 1134 BROADWAY 20619 D4 $ 150.00 IMMIGRATION&TRANSLATION SERVICES 1425 BROADWAY 20729 D4 $ 150.00 BUNKY BROTHERS 1243 BROADWAY 14434 D5 $ 200.00 A.V.R.REALTY,INC. 1169 BROADWAY 18096 D5 $ 200.00 EMOTION WEB INC 1199 BROADWAY#A 10050 D6 $ 150.00 CELEBRITY CONNECTION 1425 BROADWAY#19 11170 D6 $ 150.00 MARIBETH HULSEY 1425 BROADWAY#12 11918 D6 $ 150.00 TRIO CONSULTING 1425 BROADWAY#20 13602 D6 $ 150.00 T C KITA,O.D. 1322 BROADWAY 16423 D6 $ 150.00 TOWN&COUNTRY INSURANCE SERVICES INC 1126 BROADWAY#5 17010 D6 $ 150.00 HUI LIN-HO WAI CHEUNG 1425 BROADWAY#8 17316 D6 $ 150.00 BROADWAY EYE CENTER 1159 BROADWAY 20538 D6 $ 150.00 MARTHA POLLOCK,LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER 1425 BROADWAY#14 08831 F2 $ 500.00 WELLS FARGO BANK-CORP PROP GRP 99167 1145 BROADWAY 17390 F2 $ 500.00 STERLING BANK&TRUST FSB 1210 BROADWAY 17800 F2 $ 500.00 U.S.BANK ATTN CORP REAL ESTATE 1188 EL CAMINO REAL Count is 90 BID_ADDRESS.2005.xls 3 4/26/2005 M E M O R A N D U M CITY OF BURLINGAME DATE: April 27, 2005 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk Larry E. Anderson, City Atto y?6 RE : Protest Tabulation for Broadway Business Improvement District as of April 27, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. As of 4:00 p.m. on April 27, 2005, the City has not received any protests to the programs, activities, or assessments for the 2005-2006 year of the Broadway Business Improvement District. M E M O R A N D U M CITY OF BURLINGAME DATE: May 2, 2005 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk I Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney RE : Protest Tabulation for Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District as of May 2, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. As of 4:00 p.m. on May 2, 2005, the City has received the following protests to the programs, activities, or assessments for the 2005-2006 year of the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District: Protests received— 94 Protests received from William Boudreau valued at $20,900 10 Protests received separately valued at $ 3,150 (some duplicated Mr. Boudreau's filing and _ have been deducted from Mr. Boudreau's count) 104 Total $24,050 In addition,the City received 10 protests from Mr.Boudreau that did not contain original signatures; those protests appear to have been faxed. The City also received 4 protests from Mr.Boudreau that were not signed at all. Those 14 protests have not been counted. In addition,one business signature (Advanced Beauty and Health)did not relate to the name of the business,and has not been counted. However,the Council could decide to accept the protests for which original signatures have not been provided. In receiving corrections to the mailing list used to provide notice of the proceedings,it appears that the following businesses have closed or moved: Aurora Media Chan & Kosol Cohen& Associates Comandatori Design Clyde's Barbershop Cohen&Associates Enchanted April Gotcha Subpena Service Mayor and Council Re: Protest Tabulation for Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District as of April 27, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. April 27, 2005 Page 2 Graphic Marketing Keiko Jewelers L'Amourette Law Office of Lawrence Leung Law Office of Louis Liberty Nelson's Coffee Shop Neo Salon Partco Worldwide Philip Goodman Stella Alpina Stratego's Zanzinger&Johnston Sam's Italian Sandwich Company,has moved from Zone A to Zone B, so its proposed assessment has been recalculated from $350 to $250. Helen Marlo moved from Zone B to Zone A, so her proposed assessment has been recalculated from $100 to $200. A number of new businesses were identified and confirmed: ACC Investment Management Crary Enterprises Eve's Bridal Healthy Horizons Just KCS L'Vian Pacific Auto Fleet Salon 212 No withdrawal of protests have been received. We still have a few calls out checking on whether a business is open or closed. Therefore,the total valuation of the District at this time is at$131,000, and 50%plus $1 would be $65,501. 4� CITY ob STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 6b ti�oq '• 9oe MTG. 5/2/05 �HATEO DYNE 0 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT BY DATE: May 2, 2005 APPR VED FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director BY SUBJECT: Public Hearing & Adoption of Burlingame Avenue Areasiness Improvement District— Setting 2005-2006 Assessments RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing and adopt the resolution setting 2005-2006 assessments. BACKGROUND: At the April 4th meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution of intention to set the 2005-2006 Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District assessments and set the May 2"a meeting as the public hearing date. There are no changes proposed in the boundaries, assessments or business classifications. If there is a protest by a majority of the value of the assessments to any of these items, the resolution cannot be approved. At the time of writing this memorandum, the City Clerk had received a number of protests. Protests may be presented in writing before or at the hearing. The City Attorney will calculate whether there are enough protests to prevent the assessment of fees at the end of the public hearing. BUDGET IMPACT: Approximately$130,000 in assessments is collected annually with our business licenses. All of these funds are forwarded to the Downtown Burlingame Improvement District for improvements as authorized the BID Board of Directors. ATTACHMENTS: 1.) Resolution Of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Establishing 2005-2006 Assessments For the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District 2.) Exhibit A: Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District Types of Improvements and Activities Proposed to be Funded By the Levy of Assessments 3.) Exhibit B: Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District Assessment Basis 4.) Assessment Roll RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING 2005-2006 ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et sea ., the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District has been established for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and physical maintenance of this important business district; and WHEREAS, the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District Advisory Board has requested the Burlingame City Council to establish 2005-2006 assessments for the improvement district; and WHEREAS, on April 4, 2005, the City Council received and approved the annual report of the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District Advisory Board; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed assessments was duly noticed for May 2, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, as required by State law; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing held at that place and time, the City Council received and considered all oral and written testimony from all interested persons; and WHEREAS, it appears that the current assessments should continue so that improvements and programs may continue in the District, and the activities and improvements are without substantial change from those previously established for the District. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine, and find as follows: 1 1. Written protests to assessments, improvements or activities were not received at or before the close of the public hearing that constituted a majority as defined in Government Code sections 36500 and following.. 2. The City Council does hereby levy an assessment for the 2005-2006 fiscal year on businesses in the District as described in City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 1735, to pay for improvements and activities of the District. 3. The types of improvements and activities to be funded by the levy of assessments on businesses in the District are set forth in Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference. 4. The method and basis for levying the assessments on all businesses within the District are set forth in Exhibit "B", incorporated herein by reference. 5. New businesses shall not be exempt from assessment. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK C:\FILES\BIDBGAMEAV\BIDBuries22005.RE2.wpd 2 EXHIBIT A BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES PROPOSED TO BE FUNDED BY THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS All assessments raised by the Burlingame Avenue Area Improvement District("District") shall be spent only in accordance with California Streets & Highways Code §§ 36500 and following and on such purposes as the District's Advisory Board recommends and the City Council approves. The following types of improvements and activities are proposed: 1) Streetscape Beautification, Seasonal Decorations, and Public Arts Programs, including: a. Seasonal street plantings of flowers. b. Street trees. C. Sidewalk enhancements and maintenance. d. Planters. e. Benches. f. Trash receptacles. g. Electrical outlets and supply. h. Seasonal decorations 2) Commercial Marketing and Advertising, including: a. Signage. b. Website design and maintenance. C. Print, radio, television, and electronic advertising. d. Publications for use with hotels and the San Mateo County Convention & Visitors Bureau e. Explorer hotel book. f. Concierge training. g. Member communications. 3) Promotional and special events, including: a. Holiday Open House. b. Semi-annual sidewalk sale events. C. Spring Open House event. d. Performances, concerts, readings, etc. Exhbit A - 1 4) Business recruitment and retention, including: a. Matching funds for storefront improvement incentive. b. Development of strategies to fill commercial vacancies. C. Small business assistance workshops. 5) Shuttle Service a. Contribute to shuttle operation connecting hotels and Burlingame Avenue Area. C:\FILES\BIDBGAMEAV\improvmtlis2005.bid.wpd Exhbit A - 2 EXHIBIT B BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT BASIS* ANNUAL ASSESSMENT BUSINESS TYPE NO. OF STAFF ** SUBAREA A SUBAREA B RETAIL & ---------6----------------------- 600-----------------$500 ----------------- RESTAURANT 1 - 5 $350 $250 6+ $400 $300 ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------ SERVICE 3 - 5 $300 $200 ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------ 1 - 2 $200 $100 6+ $350 $250 ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------ PROFESSIONAL 3 - 5 $250 $150 ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------ 1 - 2 $200 $100 FINANCIAL l+ $550 $550 * ----- Amount shown is annual total ** --- Staff means any persons working (full time or full time equivalency) including owners, partners, managers, employees, family members, etc. Business Definitions Retail ❑ Businesses that buy and resell goods. Examples are clothing stores, shoe stores, office supplies, grocery stores, etc. Restaurant ❑ Selling prepared food and drink. Service ❑ Businesses that sell services. Examples are beauty and barber shops, repair shops that do not sell goods, contractors, auto shops, etc. Professional ❑ Includes engineering firms, architects, attorneys, dentists, optometrists, physicians, realtors, insurance offices, etc. Financial ❑ Banks, savings and loans, household finance companies, title companies, etc. BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL FY 05-06 LICENSE BID CODE BID FEE I BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS 07713 Al $ 600.00 SUMMIT BICYCLES 1111 BURLINGAME AVE 07720 Al $ 600.00 GAP KIDS #9614 1390 BURLINGAME AVE 07953 Al $ 600.00 MALOUF'S 1426 BURLINGAME AVE 08297 Al $ 600.00 LA SCALA 1219 BURLINGAME AVE 09357 Al $ 600.00 STARBUCKS COFFEE CO#523 1160 BURLINGAME AVE 10168 Al $ 600.00 ALANA'S CAFE 1408 BURLINGAME AVE 10521 Al $ 600.00 BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO#06332-A/P STORES 261 PARK RD 11116 Al $ 600.00 CURRIES CHEVRON 260 EL CAMINO REAL 11589 Al $ 600.00 PEET'S COFFEE & TEA ATTN WINNIE LEUNG 1309 BURLINGAME AVE 11933 Al $ 600.00 SAKAE RESTAURANT 240 PARK RD 12355 Al $ 600.00 LA SALSA FRESH MEXICAN GRILL 1125 BURLINGAME AVE 12722 Al $ 600.00 CHICKEN! CHICKEN! BURLINGAME INC. 234 PRIMROSE RD 12867 Al $ 600.00 POTTERY BARN #281 1218 BURLINGAME AVE 13447 Al $ 600.00 GAU POANG CHINESE RESTAURANT 1425 BURLINGAME AV 13701 Al $ 600.00 BANANA REPUBLIC #8274 1218 BURLINGAME AVE 14322 Al $ 600.00 THE CAKERY 1308 BURLINGAME AVE 14345 Al $ 600.00 PAPER CAPER 1442 BURLINGAME AV 14409 Al $ 600.00 THE GYMBOREE STORES INC #409 1202 BURLINGAME AVE 14674 Al $ 600.00 SUSAN OF BURLINGAME 1403 BURLINGAME AV 15447 Al $ 600.00 GRACE HOLMES INC DBA J CREW RETAIL 1232 BURLINGAME AVE 15666 Al $ 600.00 ANN TAYLOR RETAIL,INC.#497 1325 BURLINGAME AVE 16144 Al $ 600.00 BEBE STORE #108 1354 BURLINGAME AVE 16381 Al $ 600.00 WESTERN POLO RETAILERS, LLC 1304 BURLINGAME AVE 17343 Al $ 600.00 FANNY &ALEXANDER 1108 BURLINGAME AVE 17485 Al $ 600.00 BOOKS INC 1375 BURLINGAME AVE#101 17652 Al $ 600.00 WORLD WRAPPS NORTHWEST INC 1318 BURLINGAME AVE 17705 Al $ 600.00 CHICO'S #274 1113 BURLINGAME AVE 18133 Al $ 600.00 LUCY ACTIVEWEAR, INC. DBA LUCY 1208 BURLINGAME AVE#37 18352 Al $ 600.00 SAPORE ITALIANO DBA MAMME INC 1447 BURLINGAME AVE 18437 Al $ 600.00 HOLA! MEXICAN RESTAURANT & CANTINA 1448 BURLINGAME AVE 18632 Al $ 600.00 BURLINGAME STATIONERS 1320 BURLINGAME AVE 18698 Al $ 600.00 LUCKY BRAND DUNGAREES STORES INC 1344 BURLINGAME AVE 18857 Al $ 600.00 TOWLES CAFE LLC 1401 BURLINGAME AVE B I D_ADD RESS.2005.xls 1 4/26/2005 BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL FY 05-06 LICENSE BID CODE BID FEE I BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS 18989 Al $ 600.00 SEPHORA USA LLC 1205 BURLINGAME AVE 19088 Al $ 600.00 ROUND TABLE PIZZA 1207 BURLINGAME AVE 19161 Al $ 600.00 ISOBUNE BURLINGAME 1451 BURLINGAME AVE 19198 Al $ 600.00 THE CREPEVINE 1310 BURLINGAME AVE 19201 Al $ 600.00 THE TALBOTS 1462 BURLINGAME AV 19458 Al $ 600.00 MARGARET O'LEARY INC 263 PRIMROSE RD 19573 Al $ 600.00 APPLE COMPUTER INC 1301 BURLINGAME AVE 19728 Al $ 600.00 THE SHARPER IMAGE 1375 BURLINGAME AVE 19839 Al $ 600.00 ESTYLE INC DBA BABYSTYLE 1319 BURLINGAME AVE 19868 Al $ 600.00 PANDA EXPRESS 1453 BURLINGAME AVE 20055 Al $ 600.00 GYMBOREE STORES DBA JANIE & JACK#938 1202 BURLINGAME AVE 20071 Al $ 600.00 BARRACUDA/BARRACUDA SUSHI JPN REST 347 PRIMROSE RD#B 20226 Al $ 600.00 GYMBOREE STORES DBA JANEVILLE ST#3004 1235 BURLINGAME AVE 20306 Al $ 600.00 STRAITS BURLINGAME LLC 1100 BURLINGAME AVE 20612 Al $ 600.00 WHITE HOUSE/ BLACK MARKET#3137 1445 BURLINGAME AVE. 38854 Al $ 600.00 KERN JEWELERS 235 PARK RD 39649 Al $ 600.00 MORNING GLORY 1436 BURLINGAME AVE 41253 Al $ 600.00 PENINSULA BEAUTY SUPPLY INC 1316 BURLINGAME AVE 41804 Al $ 600.00 ECCO 322 LORTON AV 42733 Al $ 600.00 GAP#141 1294 BURLINGAME AVE 48991 Al $ 600.00 COPENHAGEN BAKERY & COFFEE SHOP 1216 BURLINGAME AVE 05568 A2 $ 350.00 KEIKO JEWELERS 1419 BURLINGAME AVE 05602 A2 $ 350.00 THE BOMBAY COMPANY#475 1223-1225 BURLINGAME AVE 05854 A2 $ 350.00 NELSON'S COFFEE SHOP/RESTAURANT 1123 BURLINGAME AVE 05974 A2 $ 350.00 MEYER-BUNJE, LLC 308 LORTON AVE 06032 A2 $ 350.00 RADIO SHACK#3891 236 LORTON AVE 06108 A2 $ 350.00 BURLINGAME PAINT &WALLPAPER 311 LORTON AVE 06799 A2 $ 350.00 FIORI 1406 BURLINGAME AVE 09040 A2 $ 350.00 WATCH GALLERY 1375 BURLINGAME AVE #202 09477 A2 $ 350.00 KING YUAN RESTAURANT 1213 BURLINGAME AVE 09504 A2 $ 350.00 LOFT INC 1348 BURLINGAME AVE 09619 A2 $ 350.00 NICKY'S 1419 BURLINGAME AVE #D 10419 A2 $ 350.00 ARBY OF MERCED/TOPPER JEWELERS 1315 BURLINGAME AVE BID ADDRESS.2005.xls 2 4/26/2005 BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL FY 05-06 LICENSE BID CODE BID FEE I BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS 10595 A2 $ 350.00 NARIN THAI CUISINE 231 PARK RD 10862 A2 $ 350.00 PAPER PANACHE 1227 BURLINGAME AVE 11459 A2 $ 350.00 PIAZZA ITALIA CAFE 321 PRIMROSE RD 11658 A2 $ 350.00 HOLIDAY TRAVEL SERVICE OF BURLINGAME 1432 BURLINGAME AV 12057 A2 $ 350.00 PADDY FLYNN'S 246 LORTON 12277 A2 $ 350.00 BURLINGAME TOBACCONISTS 1404 BURLINGAME AVE 12283 A2 $ 350.00 PATRONIK DESIGNS 314 LORTON AVE 12289 A2 $ 350.00 ARYANA FLOOR DESIGN 1419 BURLINGAME AVE 12422 A2 $ 350.00 ROBERTS JEWELERS 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#1 12486 A2 $ 350.00 MR. Z'S STAMPS & COINS 1231 BURLINGAME AVE. 12577 A2 $ 350.00 ENCORE' 1375 BURLINGAME AVE#200 12777 A2 $ 350.00 ST CLAIR'S 1215 DONNELLY AVE 13372 A2 $ 350.00 MICHAEL'S JEWELERS 253 PARK RD 13413 A2 $ 350.00 POT - POURRI 1460 BURLINGAME AVE 13422 A2 $ 350.00 HOUSE OF COFFEE 1407 BURLINGAME AVE 13525 A2 $ 350.00 J.A.E.'S - JENNY ELIOPOULOS 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#J 13623 A2 $ 350.00 ENCHANTED APRIL 341 PRIMROSE RD 14021 A2 $ 350.00 THE ALIBI 220 LORTON AVE 14062 A2 $ 350.00 D'ZOV 1412 BURLINGAME AVE 14103 A2 $ 350.00 GENEVE JEWELERS - GOLDSMITHS 1465 BURLINGAME AVE 14443 A2 $ 350.00 TRIBECA 1444 BURLINGAME AVE 14837 A2 $ 350.00 THE GROCERY STORE 311 PRIMROSE RD 15113 A2 $ 350.00 FGF HOLDINGS LLC DBA FOUR GREEN FIELDS 1107 BURLINGAME AVE 15141 A2 $ 350.00 KUPFER JEWELRY CENTER 1211 BURLINGAME AVE 15588 A2 $ 350.00 D MUSIC CORP DBA COLTON PIANO & ORGAN 1471 BURLINGAME AVE 15693 A2 $ 350.00 DBA ENZO ANGIOLINI #8097 1325 BURLINGAME AVE #1325 16521 A2 $ 350.00 PRESTIGE WINES & LIQUORS 1300 BURLINGAME AVE 17149 A2 $ 350.00 ROBERTA SALMA STUDIO 1375 BURLINGAME AVE-2ND FL 17370 A2 $ 350.00 LES DEUX COPINES 1433 BURLINGAME AVE 17621 A2 $ 350.00 BASKIN-ROBBINS 31 FLAVORS STORE 1409 BURLINGAME AV 17780 A2 $ 350.00 HOUSE OF BAGELS 260 LORTON AVE 17799 A2 $ 350.00 BURLINGAME SMOKE SHOP 1400 BURLINGAME AVE 17970 A2 $ 350.00 TREJERD MEMORIES DBA PAPER& PETALS 1419 BURLINGAME AVE #G BID ADDRESS.2005.xls 3 4/26/2005 BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL FY 05-06 LICENSE BID CODE BID FEE I BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS 17991 A2 $ 350.00 JACADI 1215 BURLINGAME AVE 18261 A2 $ 350.00 PLAZA DEPAWS 1429 BURLINGAME AVE 18578 A2 $ 350.00 YVES DELOREM INC 238 PARK RD 18656 A2 $ 350.00 TRAPEZE RESTAURANT 266 LORTON AVE 18740 A2 $ 350.00 APROPOS PROMOTIONS LLC 329 PRIMROSE RD#202 18852 A2 $ 350.00 LET'S GO!WIRELESS 303 PRIMROSE RD 18920 A2 $ 350.00 THE LUGGAGE CENTER 1200 BURLINGAME AVE 19493 A2 $ 350.00 NATURE AT PLAY 1375 BURLINGAME AVE 19593 A2 $ 350.00 MIMI MATERNITY#1107 1350 BURLINGAME AVE 19624 A2 $ 350.00 L'AMOURETTE 1114 BURLINGAME AVE 19698 A2 $ 350.00 221 PARK COCKTAIL LOUNGE 221 PARK RD 19708 A2 $ 350.00 SW BELL MOBILE SYSTEMS/CINGULAR WIRELESS 1118 BURLINGAME AVE 19828 A2 $ 350.00 ZEYNO MEDITERRANEAN GRILL 248-250 LORTON AVE 19891 A2 $ 350.00 TOO CUTE 1375 BURLINGAME AVE 19905 A2 $ 350.00 SLEEP OUTLET SHOP 1375 BURLINGAME AVE 20006 A2 $ 350.00 WILLA 1402 BURLINGAME AVE 20009 A2 $ 350.00 KEYHAN INC DBA SOLEMATES 318 LORTON AVE 20115 A2 $ 350.00 CJ'S GOURMET DELI 290 PRIMROSE RD 20172 A2 $ 350.00 HAZARD SHOES 1112 BURLINGAME AVENUE 20291 A2 $ 350.00 ELENA DUGGAN HOME 1414 BURLINGAME AVE 20327 A2 $ 350.00 FORTEZZA LLC 269 PRIMROSE RD 20509 A2 $ 350.00 RABAT 1440 BURLINGAME AVE 20525 A2 $ 350.00 L&T SANDWICHES 283 LORTON AVE 20722 A2 $ 350.00 DIRTY LAUNDRY 337 PRIMROSE RD 20767 A2 $ 350.00 GREENS AND THINGS BY DARINA 341 PRIMROSE RD 20795 A2 $ 350.00 MADKAT BEAUTY 1411 BURLINGAME AVE 20831 A2 $ 350.00 GUMSHOE LLC 275 PRIMROSE RD 21219 A2 $ 350.00 THE PERSONAL TOUCH 257 PRIMROSE RD 24653 A2 $ 350.00 BURLINGAME OPTICAL 1380 BURLINGAME AVE 28495 A2 $ 350.00 WHISTLING SWAN ANTIQUES 359 PRIMROSE RD 37336 A2 $ 350.00 THE GALLERY 329 PRIMROSE RD 38847 A2 $ 350.00 KENTZLER FINE JEWELRY 347 PRIMROSE RD#A 39930 A2 $ 350.00 VITALITY HOUSE/NATURES CUPBOARD 1314 BURLINGAME AVE BID_ADDRESS.2005.x1s 4 4/26/2005 BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL FY 05-06 LICENSE BID CODE BID FEE I BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS 40451 A2 $ 350.00 MANIJE 264 LORTON AV 42079 A2 $ 350.00 SAM'S ITALIAN SANDWICH CO. 297 CALIFORNIA DR 42339 A2 $ 350.00 ALL THAT GLITTERS 329 PRIMROSE RD #111 42839 A2 $ 350.00 THE STUDIO SHOP 1103 BURLINGAME AVE 43864 A2 $ 350.00 WHITE DOVE JEWELRY EXCH. 274 LORTON AVE 45184 A2 $ 350.00 BARE NECESSITIES 291 PRIMROSE RD 46400 A2 $ 350.00 AIDA OPERA CANDIES 1375 BURLINGAME AVE 48371 A2 $ 350.00 MACGERAGHTY'S 1241 BURLINGAME AVE 07786 A3 $ 400.00 MORIZONO HAIR DESIGN 309 PRIMROSE RD 07939 A3 $ 400.00 BIJOU HAIR & NAIL STUDIO 1454 BURLINGAME AVE 09809 A3 $ 400.00 ALL CONTINENTS TRAVEL DBA PICASSO TR 1419 BURLINGAME AVE #S 17383 A3 $ 400.00 FOX AVENUE SALON 1461 BURLINGAME AVE 19263 A3 $ 400.00 U.K. HAIR 1410 BURLINGAME AV 20050 A3 $ 400.00 MONDI HAIR SALON 1375 BURLINGAME AVE 26093 A3 $ 400.00 SHEAR MAGIC 311 CALIFORNIA DR 40766 A3 $ 400.00 PACIFIC BELL - ATTN SBC TAX DEPT 1480 BURLINGAME AV 48162 A3 $ 400.00 VICTORIA SEDAN & LIMOUSINE SERVICE 301 CALIFORNIA DR #10 06397 A4 $ 300.00 TU SALON 1221 DONNELLY AVE 09634 A4 $ 300.00 A-1 CLEANERS 240 PRIMROSE RD 14366 A4 $ 300.00 BEAUTY CENTURY 1419 BURLINGAME AVE #B 17561 A4 $ 300.00 L'ESCAPE SPA 1217 BURLINGAME AVE 18992 A4 $ 300.00 FRINGE LLC 371 PRIMROSE RD 19408 A4 $ 300.00 CLASSIC KIDS LLC 315 LORTON AVE 20676 A4 $ 300.00 FRAICHE SKIN 270 LORTON AVE 24937 A4 $ 300.00 POSTAL INSTANT PRESS (PIP) 226 LORTON AVE 48624 A4 $ 300.00 CLYDE'S BARBER SHOP 281 CALIFORNIA DR 04979 A5 $ 200.00 JOANNE'S PLACE 329 PRIMROSE RD #211 05041 A5 $ 200.00 FELICE 1419 BURLINGAME AVE #V 05233 A5 $ 200.00 EIGHTY EIGHT PHOTO LAB 1109 BURLINGAME AVE 07332 A5 $ 200.00 PUTTIN' ON THE RITZ 329 PRIMROSE RD #203 07362 A5 $ 200.00 JOAN RESTIVO 329 PRIMROSE RD #205 07819 A5 $ 200.00 RACHEL & CO 256 LORTON AVE 08460 A5 $ 200.00 ROBIN MELLO ELECTROLYSIS 329 PRIMROSE RD #204 BID ADDRESS.2005.xls 5 4/26/2005 BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL FY 05-06 LICENSE BID CODE BID FEE I BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS 08587 A5 $ 200.00 ELITE TAILORING 1375 BURLINGAME AVE 09654 A5 $ 200.00 DEANNE'S 319 PRIMROSE RD#1 10738 A5 $ 200.00 BEAUTY IMAGE CLINIC 1410 BURLINGAME AVE 11720 A5 $ 200.00 INCOGNITO IMAGE STUDIO 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#V 12509 A5 $ 200.00 GIA'S SKINCARE&ELECTROLYSIS 1410 BURLINGAME AVE 13137 A5 $ 200.00 DE COLORES HAIR STUDIO-NANCY LOPEZ 329 PRIMROSE RD#216 13777 A5 $ 200.00 PRIMROSE CLEANERS 339 PRIMROSE RD 13925 A5 $ 200.00 ANNIE'S NAIL SALON 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#108 14381 A5 $ 200.00 CRYSTAL VISION-CATHY J ADAMS 1410 BURLINGAME AVE#B 15043 A5 $ 200.00 THE CUT 218 LORTON AVE 15360 A5 $ 200.00 JOUVENCE SKIN REJUVENATION CENTER 1375 BURLINGAME AVE 15387 A5 $ 200.00 THE SKIN CARE CLINIC/CLAUDIA PANITTO 1475 BURLINGAME AVE#D 15510 A5 $ 200.00 RUBEN'S 329 PRIMROSE RD#200 15653 A5 $ 200.00 VALET BY THE BAY 228 LORTON AVE#8 15680 A5 $ 200.00 SALON SANFORD/WILLIAM 329 PRIMROSE RD#206 16038 A5 $ 200.00 BURLINGAME PILATES STUDIO 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#102 16099 A5 $ 200.00 THE STATUS THIMBLE 277 PRIMROSE RD 16739 A5 $ 200.00 ADVANCED BEAUTY CARE AND HEALTH 319 PRIMROSE RD#A 16805 A5 $ 200.00 TIP TOP SHOE SERVICE 305 PRIMROSE RD 17040 A5 $ 200.00 WILLIAM PATCHETT INC DBA TREESCAPE 1229 BURLINGAME AVE#17 17041 A5 $ 200.00 NAILS BY DENISE DESOTO 329 PRIMROSE RD#107 17224 A5 $ 200.00 BLU-WHITE CLEANERS 229 PARK RD 17451 A5 $ 200.00 PRIMROSE TAILOR CLEANERS 1475 BURLINGAME AVE 17475 A5 $ 200.00 COMME LA MER SKIN CARE 319 PRIMROSE RD#1 17502 A5 $ 200.00 RITUALS AESTHETIC SKIN CARE 1375 BURLINGAME AVE 17792 A5 $ 200.00 KEN BRADLEY HAIR STUDIO 1316 BURLINGAME AVE 17981 A5 $ 200.00 SERENE 1214 BURLINGAME AVE 18769 A5 $ 200.00 JOY'S EUROPEAN TAILORING 247 PARK RD 18850 A5 $ 200.00 SHOE DOCTOR&IRENE ALTERATION 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#K 18938 A5 $ 200.00 MIA'S PLACE 249 PARK RD#B 18949 A5 $ 200.00 SKIN BASICS STUDIO 329 PRIMROSE RD#214 18963 A5 $ 200.00 MONA KARAM HAUTE COIFFURE 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#21 19420 A5 $ 200.00 DIAMONDS A FINE HAND&FEET SPA 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#103 BID_ADDRESS.2005.x1s 6 4/26/2005 BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL FY 05-06 LICENSE BID CODE BID FEE BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS 19579 A5 $ 200.00 GLOW SKIN CARE AND WAXING 256 LORTON AVE 19609 A5 $ 200.00 COLOR ME COCOA 347 PRIMROSE RD #A 19726 A5 $ 200.00 LA'VANYA 1110 BURLINGAME AVE #107 19741 A5 $ 200.00 NAILS BY RENATA 256 LORTON AVE 20000 A5 $ 200.00 GLAD ON PARIS 329 PRIMROSE RD #104 20164 A5 $ 200.00 SALON 222 - ROXANNE PARKER 222 LORTON AVE 20383 A5 $ 200.00 SERVERS STANDING BY CATERING 1464 FOX PLAZA LANE 20473 A5 $ 200.00 SIDDH GROUP LLC 287 LORTON AVE 23022 A5 $ 200.00 SHOE-CLINIC 248 PRIMROSE RD 31990 A5 $ 200.00 DOERR STUDIOS 1427 BURLINGAME AV 36623 A5 $ 200.00 VISAGE 329 PRIMROSE RD #109 40999 A5 $ 200.00 BRENDA P CURTIS 249 PARK RD 41513 A5 $ 200.00 BARBARA'S NAILS 329 PRIMROSE RD #212 05891 A7 $ 250.00 R-SLICE LTD. 1209 BURLINGAME AVE 07723 A7 $ 250.00 THE TRIMM-WAY 1419 BURLINGAME AVE #Y 07948 A7 $ 250.00 RMC PROPERTIES 1419 BURLINGAME AVE. 16717 A7 $ 250.00 LAW OFFICE OF GRADSTEIN & GORMAN 1204 BURLINGAME AVE #7 18553 A7 $ 250.00 RENNER GROUP / SURVEY'G & ENGINEER'G 226 LORTON AVE 19182 A7 $ 250.00 FIREWHITE CONSULTING INC 1105 BURLINGAME AVE 19273 A7 $ 250.00 STRATEGOS 1110 BURLINGAME AVE #211 20711 A7 $ 250.00 LOOPNET, INC DBA BIZBUYSELL 1110 BURLINGAME AVE #202 29639 A7 $ 250.00 KEN Y. TANISAWA, O.D. 1419 BURLINGAME AVE #F 34961 A7 $ 250.00 THE ZEKA GROUP INC. 1110 BURLINGAME AVE #400 39803 A7 $ 250.00 RESOURCE MORTGAGE CORP. 1419 BURLINGAME AVE #R 45088 A7 $ 250.00 KARP COMPANIES/CALIF. REALTY 1209 BURLINGAME AVE 05931 A8 $ 200.00 KAREL CAPITAL, INC. 1204 BURLINGAME AVE #3 06119 A8 $ 200.00 BALMACARA PRODUCTIONS INC 1110 BURLINGAME AVE #205 07201 A8 $ 200.00 DON SNIDER & ASSOCIATES 1110 BURLINGAME AVE 08872 A8 $ 200.00 PAMELA RUDD PHD. 1204 BURLINGAME AVE. #5 09281 A8 $ 200.00 ROBERT E PISANO, ATTORNEY AT LAW 1204 BURLINGAME AVE #4 10054 A8 $ 200.00 MARIE COCHRAN STUDIOS 1229 BURLINGAME AVE #15 10828 A8 $ 200.00 PENINSULA SPEAKERS SERIES INC 1229 BURLINGAME AVE #9 13214 A8 $ 200.00 MASTERPIECE PRODUCTS 1419 BURLINGAME AVE #T BID_ADDRESS.2005.xls 7 4/26/2005 BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL FY 05-06 LICENSE BID CODE I BID FEE I BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS 16924 A8 $ 200.00 ALEXANDER GLOBAL PROMOTIONS 1229 BURLINGAME AVE#18 17452 A8 $ 200.00 SEABURY VENTURE PARTNERS 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#300 18680 A8 $ 200.00 TAZA INVESTMENTS & REALTY INC 1419 BURLINGAME AVE #P2 18704 A8 $ 200.00 AURORA MEDIA INC 220 PRIMROSE RD 18713 A8 $ 200.00 BAY AREA ART DEALER 337 PRIMROSE RD 18762 A8 $ 200.00 MICHAEL SULPIZIO, CPA 1419 BURLINGAME AVE 18932 A8 $ 200.00 PHILLIP GOODMAN ACCOUNTANCY CORP 301 CALIFORNIA DR#4-8 19688 A8 $ 200.00 AMERICAN LIBERTY CARE PROVIDER 329 PRIMROSE RD #106 19700 A8 $ 200.00 REGENT APPAREL, INC 1204 BURLINGAME AVE#1 19887 A8 $ 200.00 MAAK & SULLIVAN 251 PARK RD 20432 A8 $ 200.00 TRENDY PROMOTIONS & GRAPHICS 251 PARK RD#250 20438 A8 $ 200.00 LAW OFFICES OF H. JASON TOLU 1419 BURLINGAME AVE#X 23046 A8 $ 200.00 CART LENAHAN MFT, ANN ROONEY MFT 329 PRIMROSE RD #210 24300 A8 $ 200.00 S L GRIFFITHS INC 228 LORTON AVE 35078 A8 $ 200.00 MURPHY WOOD INCORPORATED 1110 BURLINGAME AVE#503 38094 A8 $ 200.00 CLAY HERMAN REALTOR, INC. 251 PARK RD #710 08634 B1 $ 500.00 GENERAL APPLIANCE & KITCHEN CENTER, INC 1333 HOWARD AVE 09278 B1 $ 500.00 STACKS RESTAURANT 361 CALIFORNIA DR. 11328 B1 $ 500.00 BURLINGAME STATION BREWING CO 321 CALIFORNIA DR. 11903 B1 $ 500.00 IL FORNAIO 327 LORTON AVE 12041 B1 $ 500.00 GRANDVIEW RESTAURANT OF BURLINGAME 1107 HOWARD AVE 13046 B1 $ 500.00 TOMOKAZU JAPANESE CUISINE 1101 HOWARD AVE 13501 B1 $ 500.00 BROTHERS DELI 1351 HOWARD AVE 15724 B1 $ 500.00 CALICO CORNERS 1100 HOWARD AVE#A 15913 B1 $ 500.00 ALBECO INC DBA MOLLIE STONE'S MARKET 1477 CHAPIN AVE 17272 B1 $ 500.00 WALGREEN'S 1420 HOWARD AV 18906 B1 $ 500.00 FIDELITY BROKERAGE-FIDELITY INVESTMENTS 1411 CHAPIN AVE 19959 B1 $ 500.00 BLUSH 261 CALIFORNIA DR 20631 B1 $ 500.00 SMITH & HAWKEN, LTD 1208 DONNELLY 20794 B1 $ 500.00 STELLA ALPINA OSTERIA/ MATTEO IN YOUR KITCHEN 401 PRIMROSE RD 29146 B1 $ 500.00 NORTH AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE CO 330 PRIMROSE RD #600 33467 B1 $ 500.00 THE UNIQUE BRIDE 1209 HOWARD AVE. 35410 B1 $ 500.00 CHRISTIE'S 245 CALIFORNIA DR BID_ADDRESS.2005.xls 8 4/26/2005 BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL FY 05-06 LICENSE BID CODE BID FEE I BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS 42048 B1 $ 500.00 SAFEWAY STORES, INC. #948 1450 HOWARD AV 06990 B2 $ 250.00 LYNN HILL & CO 330 PRIMROSE RD #302 10282 B2 $ 250.00 HOUSE OF COFFEE 1243 HOWARD AVE 10692 B2 $ 250.00 ALPINE INN 401 PRIMROSE RD #D 12146 B2 $ 250.00 QUENT CORDAIR 346 LORTON AVE 12381 B2 $ 250.00 BLACK SEA GALLERY 350 LORTON AVE 13561 B2 $ 250.00 GRAY'S PAINT&WALLPAPER 1166 HOWARD AVE 14273 B2 $ 250.00 PELUCHE 348 LORTON AVE 14611 B2 $ 250.00 CALIFORNIA BAR& GRILL 241 CALIFORNIA DR 14823 B2 $ 250.00 NUANCE DESIGN JEWELERS 1152 HOWARD AVE 16937 B2 $ 250.00 FINE CONSIGN 233 CALIFORNIA DR 17307 B2 $ 250.00 ALL FIRED UP 344 LORTON AVE 17321 B2 $ 250.00 COCONUT BAY RESTAURANT 1300 HOWARD AVE 17368 B2 $ 250.00 LERNER TAMBOR BLACK DBA FLOORCRAFT 1304 HOWARD AVE 18361 B2 $ 250.00 REDLINE MOTORSPORTS 251 CALIFORNIA DR 18710 B2 $ 250.00 TEA PLUS NOODLE 1100 HOWARD AVE #D 18826 B2 $ 250.00 BISCHOFF'S MEDICAL SUPPLIES 1465 CHAPIN AVE#B 19251 B2 $ 250.00 1212 GALLERY/GALLERY 1212 1212 DONNELLY AVE 19521 B2 $ 250.00 GILMAN SCREENS & KITCHENS 217 CALIFORNIA DR 20318 B2 $ 250.00 SOLO BAMBINI 1150 HOWARD AVE 20322 B2 $ 250.00 ROTI INDIAN BISTRO 209 PARK RD 20651 B2 $ 250.00 BELLA BOTTEGA 347 CALIFORNIA DR. 20671 B2 $ 250.00 401 CLOTHING BOUTIQUE 1223 DONNELLY AVE 21353 B2 $ 250.00 BOB'S SPORTS COLLECTIBLES 345 CALIFORNIA DR 09233 B3 $ 300.00 TRIO SALON 333 LORTON AVE 09664 B3 $ 300.00 TRAVEL WIZARDS INC 200 PARK RD 10094 B3 $ 300.00 SYLVAN LEARNING CENTER-BURLINGAME 1200 HOWARD AVE#105 12748 B3 $ 300.00 MAISON SALON (ERICA CARR) 1100 HOWARD AVE#C 15422 B3 $ 300.00 GALLI HERITAGE 345 LORTON AVE 16594 B3 $ 300.00 RENDA ZA'AROUR SALON 1210 DONNELLY AVE 19218 B3 $ 300.00 M H PODELL CO 1201 HOWARD AVE 45691 B3 $ 300.00 TCI 401 CALIFORNIA DR 10644 B4 $ 200.00 THE UPS STORE #2354 1325 HOWARD AVE BID ADDRESS.2005.xls 9 4/26/2005 BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL FY 05-06 LICENSE BID CODE BID FEE I BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS 14105 B4 $ 200.00 RICHARD OF BURLINGAME 401 PRIMROSE RD#J 17929 B4 $ 200.00 STERLING CLEANERS, INC. 1140 HOWARD AV 17984 B4 $ 200.00 EMILY'S NAILS SALON 211 PARK RD 18765 B4 $ 200.00 THE BENZ DOCTOR 251 CALIFORNIA DR#B 18778 B4 $ 200.00 STUDIO 401 (JONNA DOLLOSSO) 401 PRIMROSE RD #K 19034 B4 $ 200.00 JKC & BEAUTY MARKET INC 1200 HOWARD AVE#102 19895 B4 $ 200.00 GRAPHIC MKTG GRP/ PERSONA IMAGE MAKERS 263 HATCH LANE#C 05847 B5 $ 100.00 THE BURLINGAME BARBER 1345 HOWARD AVE #101 06228 B5 $ 100.00 SALON 1199 1199 HOWARD AVE #103 07392 B5 $ 100.00 UTTERLY GUTTERS 345 CALIFORNIA DR#106 08953 B5 $ 100.00 HOLIDAY EXPRESS 1220 HOWARD AVE 09579 B5 $ 100.00 PARTEE CONSTRUCTION 340 LORTON AVE #211 09609 B5 $ 100.00 AUTO MOBILE CARE 251 CALIFORNIA DR 11079 B5 $ 100.00 SAVVY TRAVEL 1325 HOWARD AVE#416 12234 B5 $ 100.00 SUNKISSED TANNING SALONS 401 PRIMROSE 13833 B5 $ 100.00 MARLINDA'S SKIN & BODY CARE 1200 HOWARD AVE#106 13869 B5 $ 100.00 TIP N TOE SALON 1401 CHAPIN AVE 15445 B5 $ 100.00 ROCKY COLOGNE'S COMEDY TRAFFIC SCHOOL 1243 HOWARD AVE 15553 B5 $ 100.00 LUCAS PARKING CORP 327 LORTON AVE 15994 B5 $ 100.00 LENA 1445 CHAPIN AVE 17545 B5 $ 100.00 MODA SALON 401 PRIMROSE RD #A 18723 B5 $ 100.00 B.J. TRAVEL 200 PARK RD 18746 B5 $ 100.00 PHYSIFIX BODY THERAPY 1209 HOWARD AVE#202 18783 B5 $ 100.00 TRAVEL QUEST 220 PARK RD 18874 B5 $ 100.00 ROBERT LOUTH 1325 HOWARD AVE #106 19257 B5 $ 100.00 PACIFIC AUTO FLEET 1220 HOWARD AVE#209 19262 B5 $ 100.00 ETHAN ALLEN TRAVEL, INC 1199 HOWARD AVE#101 19735 B5 $ 100.00 PILATES FAMILY INC 1209 HOWARD AVE#204 19983 B5 $ 100.00 VALET ORGANIZERS, INC 247 CALIFORNIA DRIVE 20293 B5 $ 100.00 KEVIN MCPHEE AND ASSOCIATES 1419 CHAPIN AVE#2 20295 B5 $ 100.00 OCCUCOM INC 1325 HOWARD AVE#903 20328 B5 $ 100.00 HARLOW'S 1200 HOWARD AVE#103 20549 B5 $ 100.00 CURVES 1115 HOWARD AVE BID ADDRESS.2005.xls 10 4/26/2005 BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL FY 05-06 LICENSE BID CODE BID FEE I BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS 20691 B5 $ 100.00 NEO SALON 401 PRIMROSE RD #G 20813 B5 $ 100.00 ELEGANCE NAILS 349 CALIFORNIA DR 28971 B5 $ 100.00 VIVAAA FOR HAIR 355 CALIFORNIA DR 34790 B5 $ 100.00 JC INTERNATIONAL 340 LORTON AV 207 44022 B5 $ 100.00 A.W. DEVELOPMENT 330 PRIMROSE RD 409B 05900 B6 $ 250.00 ALLIED LOMAR,INC DBA INTL BEVERAGE 330 PRIMROSE RD #402 06352 B6 $ 250.00 COTTONG &TANIGUCHI 215 HIGHLAND AVE 08373 B6 $ 250.00 H.E.R.E. UNION LOCAL 340 209 HIGHLAND AVE. 08729 B6 $ 250.00 TURNER DALE ASSOCIATES INC (TDA) 1214 DONNELLY AVE 08890 B6 $ 250.00 O'CONNOR MORTGAGE COMPANY 330 PRIMROSE RD #201 11003 B6 $ 250.00 JETFLEET MANAGEMENT CORP 1440 CHAPIN AVE#310 11985 B6 $ 250.00 CASHIN COMPANY 1412 CHAPIN AVE 12321 B6 $ 250.00 PARTNERS MORTGAGE 405 PRIMROSE RD #300 12861 B6 $ 250.00 WINTERS, KRUG & DELBON 345 LORTON AVE #101 13249 B6 $ 250.00 CHAN & KOSOL CORPORATION 330 PRIMROSE RD #207 13769 B6 $ 250.00 MCGUIGAN & MCGUIGAN, CPA 345 LORTON AV 205 14359 B6 $ 250.00 J. HOWARD ENGINEERING, INC 1325 HOWARD AVE#265 14375 B6 $ 250.00 THORENFELDT CONSTRUCTION INC 1325 HOWARD AVE #506 15026 B6 $ 250.00 ARES CORPORATION 1440 CHAPIN AVE#390 15185 B6 $ 250.00 REAL PROPERTY SALES, INC. 1345 HOWARD AVE 19713 B6 $ 250.00 B & N INDUSTRIES INC 1409 CHAPIN AVE 19924 B6 $ 250.00 KIDZMOUSE INC 1199 HOWARD AVE SUITE 350 38741 B6 $ 250.00 CHRISMAN &ASSOCIATES 330 PRIMROSE RD #400 39714 B6 $ 250.00 LEE MENDELSON FILM PRODUCTIONS, INC 330 PRIMROSE RD #310 48333 B6 $ 250.00 CARR, MCCLELLAN, INGERSOLL, THOMPSON & HORN 216 PARK RD 08197 B7 $ 150.00 WINGES ARCHITECTS INC 1290 HOWARD AVE #311 08309 B7 $ 150.00 ICHINYOSHA INTERNATIONAL U.S.A., INC. 1200 HOWARD AVE#203 08778 B7 $ 150.00 OLDE ST. NICK DISTILLERY INC 330 PRIMROSE RD #402 10887 B7 $ 150.00 CMA CONSOLIDATED INC 1440 CHAPIN AVE#310 11922 B7 $ 150.00 COLDWELL BANKER/FOX & CARSKADON - NRT 400 PRIMROSE RD #100 12091 B7 $ 150.00 PAGANO & MCKINNEY, LLP 1424 CHAPIN AVE 12512 B7 $ 150.00 OUTSELL INC 330 PRIMROSE RD #510 13876 B7 $ 150.00 WILLIAM L NAGLE SPECIAL MASTER/MEDIATOR 345 LORTON AVE#204 BID ADDRESS.2005.x1s 11 4/26/2005 BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL FY 05-06 LICENSE BID CODE BID FEE I BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS 14562 B7 $ 150.00 TRG ARCHITECTS 205 PARK RD #203 15142 B7 $ 150.00 BAYWOOD CAPITAL CORPORATION 330 PRIMROSE RD #606 16071 B7 $ 150.00 ALL CALIFORNIA MORTGAGE INC 1408 CHAPIN AVE 16091 B7 $ 150.00 Z-COM TECHNICAL SERVICES 1325 HOWARD AVE #131 16314 B7 $ 150.00 DOYLE & BOISSIERE LLC 330 PRIMROSE RD #500 16952 B7 $ 150.00 ATTRACTOR INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT INC 1440 CHAPIN AVE #201 17782 B7 $ 150.00 HAMILTON PARTNERS L.P. 1199 HOWARD AVE#250 17925 B7 $ 150.00 MILLENNIUM STAR LLC 1440 CHAPIN AVE#385 18196 B7 $ 150.00 RE/MAX TODAY 320 PRIMROSE RD 18516 B7 $ 150.00 DUNCAN & BRANSON 1290 HOWARD AVE#323 19394 B7 $ 150.00 SHOUT CREATIVE INC 1205 HOWARD AVE 19643 B7 $ 150.00 JOEDON INC DBA MORTGAGE SERVICES 330 PRIMROSE RD #202 19849 B7 $ 150.00 ALAIN PINEL REALTORS 1440 CHAPIN AVE #200 19925 B7 $ 150.00 RED OAK CAPITAL 1409 CHAPIN AVE 20074 B7 $ 150.00 CHARTERED FINANCIAL INVESTMENT CORP 1199 HOWARD AVE#200 35605 B7 $ 150.00 YF INTERNATIONAL 180 PARK RD 05171 B8 $ 100.00 COHEN & ASSOCIATES 330 PRIMROSE RD #206 05189 B8 $ 100.00 CAPITAL REALTY GROUP 1200 HOWARD AVE #204 05192 B8 $ 100.00 PAULA ZIMMERMAN, MFCC 405 PRIMROSE RD #306 05246 B8 $ 100.00 KAREN S ROBSON MA 405 PRIMROSE RD #309 05715 B8 $ 100.00 KAMRAN EHSANIPOUR, AIA 205 PARK RD #207 05894 B8 $ 100.00 JAN E PERRY 405 PRIMROSE RD #307 07029 B8 $ 100.00 HEALTHY LIFESTYLES PLUS 405 PRIMROSE RD 07251 B8 $ 100.00 R.M. BARROWS, INC 205 PARK RD #208 07267 B8 $ 100.00 THE HILLSDALE GROUP 1199 HOWARD AVE #300 08382 B8 $ 100.00 GOTCHA SUBPOENA SERVICES 205 PARK ROAD #205 08841 B8 $ 100.00 PAZCO FUNDING 330 PRIMROSE RD #208 09161 B8 $ 100.00 EHRNEST E. BALLAGH III ACCT CORP 330 PRIMROSE RD #204 09444 B8 $ 100.00 BAY COUNTIES FINANCIAL 401 PRIMROSE RD #B 09857 B8 $ 100.00 CARSON ENGLISH INC 401 PRIMROSE RD #H 09872 B8 $ 100.00 NEAL LITMAN COMPANY 345 LORTON AVE#304 09996 B8 $ 100.00 ESTATE MORTGAGE GROUP 340 LORTON AVE#202 10375 B8 $ 100.00 PAUL BOLOGNA, D.C. 1234 HOWARD AVE BID ADDRESS.2005.xls 12 4/26/2005 BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL FY 05-06 LICENSE BID CODE BID FEE I BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS 10429 B8 $ 100.00 CARRICK & ENGLISH ASSOC. REAL ESTATE 401 PRIMROSE RD #H 10435 B8 $ 100.00 KATHERINE L MAYER M.A., M.F.C.C. 405 PRIMROSE RD #308 10660 B8 $ 100.00 LEONARD MA, O.D. 411 PRIMROSE RD 11511 B8 $ 100.00 CHASE BERENSTEIN & MURRAY- LAW 1220 HOWARD AVE #250 11762 B8 $ 100.00 BARBARA SEIFER, L.M.F.T. 405 PRIMROSE RD #301 12256 B8 $ 100.00 ALEXIA ESTRELLA CMT 1220 HOWARD AVE #220 12614 B8 $ 100.00 PENINSULA FINANCIAL PLANNING 330 PRIMROSE RD #408 12922 B8 $ 100.00 SCHREURS & SCHREURS 330 PRIMROSE RD #660 14238 B8 $ 100.00 STRATEGIA INVESTORS, INC 330 PRIMROSE RD #502 14373 B8 $ 100.00 LAW OFFICES OF HAITHAM E BALLOUT 1290 HOWARD AVE #302 14567 B8 $ 100.00 BAER MANAGEMENT INC 1440 CHAPIN AVE#310 14588 B8 $ 100.00 EDU - THERAPY 340 LORTON AVE#204 14636 B8 $ 100.00 JDF ASSOCIATES 330 PRIMROSE RD #305 14900 B8 $ 100.00 PENINSULA PSYCHIATRIC PRACTICE 345 LORTON AVE #104 14966 B8 $ 100.00 N SQUARE INCORPORATED 1325 HOWARD AVE#528 14999 B8 $ 100.00 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA APPRAISAL 1200 HOWARD AVE#204 15029 B8 $ 100.00 LAW OFFICES OF MARK FRIEDLAND 1220 HOWARD AVE#250 15161 B8 $ 100.00 PAMELA G KRELL PH.D. 1450 CHAPIN AVE#6 15535 B8 $ 100.00 LOUIS A LIBERTY/A PROFESSIONAL LAW 1290 HOWARD AVE #325 15544 B8 $ 100.00 PASSPORT HOLDING INC 1440 CHAPIN AVE #330 15564 B8 $ 100.00 TOM C. DRYDEN INVESTIGATIONS 1325 HOWARD AVE#519 15581 B8 $ 100.00 DRAKE REALTY 340 LORTON AVE #215 16084 B8 $ 100.00 MARDOLLA MORTGAGE 1201 HOWARD AVE #208 16176 B8 $ 100.00 THE IMPRINT AGENCY 1325 HOWARD AVE#104 16245 B8 $ 100.00 PARTCO WORLDWIDE 1290 HOWARD AVE#325 16267 B8 $ 100.00 LANDCO -A REAL ESTATE SERVICES CORP 330 PRIMROSE RD #210 16269 B8 $ 100.00 LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL D LIBERTY 1290 HOWARD AVE #333 16290 B8 $ 100.00 SAM FERDOWS -ATTORNEY AT LAW 1290 HOWARD AVE #309 16448 B8 $ 100.00 LAW OFFICE OF JAMES C HAIGH 1220 HOWARD AVE #250 16491 B8 $ 100.00 ADHESIVE COATINGS CO 330 PRIMROSE RD #500 16499 B8 $ 100.00 APOGEE VENTURE GROUP LLC 330 PRIMROSE RD #411 16500 B8 $ 100.00 CW CAPITAL LLC 330 PRIMROSE RD #303 16519 B8 $ 100.00 HELEN MARLO PH.D. 1450 CHAPIN AVE#6 BID ADDRESS.2005.xis 13 4/26/2005 BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL FY 05-06 LICENSE BID CODE BID FEE I BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS 16673 B8 $ 100.00 BEVERLEY B CONRAD PH.D. 1131 HOWARD AVE #201 16868 B8 $ 100.00 DAVID LARSON EA 1200 HOWARD AVE#204 16995 B8 $ 100.00 LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN J WERNER 247 CALIFORNIA DR 17007 B8 $ 100.00 GAIL M SHAK PHD 405 PRIMROSE RD #205 17011 B8 $ 100.00 LEONARD M MATESKY INSURANCE SERVICES 405 PRIMROSE RD #324 17025 B8 $ 100.00 HARMONIOUS HOUSING INC 409 PRIMROSE RD 17083 B8 $ 100.00 MARK JURASIN ADVERTISING DESIGN 405 PRIMROSE RD #310 17090 B8 $ 100.00 MARSHA JURASIN &ASSOC 405 PRIMROSE RD #209 17141 B8 $ 100.00 GEORGE S YOUNGLING (LAW OFFICE) 330 PRIMROSE RD #407 17265 B8 $ 100.00 LAW OFFICES OF JOHN G CLARK 1201 HOWARD AVE#202 17280 B8 $ 100.00 PHOENIX PROGRAMS INC 405 PRIMROSE RD #307 17494 B8 $ 100.00 SCOTT DESIGN ASSOCIATES 1319 HOWARD AVE 17546 B8 $ 100.00 SCHEINHOLTZ ASSOCIATES 1319 HOWARD AVE 17774 B8 $ 100.00 RE/MAX DOLPHIN REAL ESTATE 1440 CHAPIN AVE#360 17966 B8 $ 100.00 ROLANDO PASQUALI, ATTORNEY AT LAW 1220 HOWARD AVE #230 18143 B8 $ 100.00 KENNELLY MEDIA REPRESENTATIVES 1199 HOWARD AVE #101 18149 B8 $ 100.00 SOUTH BAY HEARING AIDS 1201 HOWARD AVE#103 18380 B8 $ 100.00 WOODSTOCK DEVELOPMENT INC 330 PRIMROSE RD #203 18476 B8 $ 100.00 LAW OFFICE OF LAWRENCE K LEUNG 340 LORTON AVE #213 18511 B8 $ 100.00 ZANZINGER & JOHNSTON 1200 HOWARD AVE #201 18525 B8 $ 100.00 HARRIS & FRASER 1220 HOWARD AVE#250 18625 B8 $ 100.00 COMANDATORI DESIGN GROUP 1208 DONNELLY AVE 18811 B8 $ 100.00 KAREN LINDAHL MFT 405 PRIMROSE RD #312 19031 B8 $ 100.00 DONALD E NEWMAN MD 345 LORTON AVE #104 19212 B8 $ 100.00 DANLI CHIROPRACTIC &WELLNESS 340 LORTON AVE #203 19505 B8 $ 100.00 LITTLE SCHOLARS 340 LORTON AVE#205 19547 B8 $ 100.00 FIRST COMMUNITY MORTGAGE CO 330 PRIMROSE RD #308 19634 B8 $ 100.00 HARVEY ALLISON INTERIOR/ARCHITECT DSGN 1440 CHAPIN AVE#201 19882 B8 $ 100.00 LUSCIOUS DESIGN & RESEARCH INC 1111 HOWARD AVE#A 19971 B8 $ 100.00 LAURENCE M MAY A PROFESSIONAL CORP 330 PRIMROSE RD #406 20105 B8 $ 100.00 AP CONSULTING ENGINEERS 1220 HOWARD AVE #209 20190 B8 $ 100.00 UNITED STATES CARBON CORPORATION 407 PRIMROSE RD 20224 B8 $ 100.00 JONATHAN D. BROWN, ESQ. 407 PRIMROSE RD BID_ADDRESS.2005.xls 14 4/26/2005 BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL FY 05-06 LICENSE BID CODE BID FEE I BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS 20325 B8 $ 100.00 BACK IN SHAPE CHIROPRACTIC 340 LORTON AVE#212 20354 B8 $ 100.00 WARREN K WOO, ATTY AT LAW 340 LORTON AVE#214 20791 B8 $ 100.00 BR COMMERCIAL 1408 CHAPIN AVE#4 21620 B8 $ 100.00 BURLINGAME MASONIC HALL, INC. 145 PARK RD 22624 B8 $ 100.00 DANIEL C MORENO CPA 180 PARK RD 24266 B8 $ 100.00 SHANNON GREEN TALENT AGENCY 205 PARK RD 211 24824 B8 $ 100.00 HENRY HORN & SONS, INC. 405 PRIMROSE RD #300 25431 B8 $ 100.00 BURLINGAME CHIROPRACTIC CLINIC 1201 HOWARD AVE#101A 29571 B8 $ 100.00 EDIE L SWITZER &ASSOCIATES 1201 HOWARD AVE#101 34365 B8 $ 100.00 THE RIGGS COMPANY 345 LORTON AV 301 36154 B8 $ 100.00 ROBERT A DELIA, INC. 1290 HOWARD AVE #321 37045 B8 $ 100.00 LAW OFFICES OF HERMAN H FITZGERALD 345 LORTON AVE #302 38378 B8 $ 100.00 HORN APPRAISAL SERVICE 409 PRIMROSE RD 38467 B8 $ 100.00 QUEST REAL ESTATE 1201 HOWARD AVE #304 40468 B8 $ 100.00 MORRIS &ASSOCIATES 405 PRIMROSE RD 314 44628 B8 $ 100.00 PREMIERE PROPERTIES, INC. 330 PRIMROSE RD #614 46126 B8 $ 100.00 ROBERT J. LOVEJOY, CFP 330 PRIMROSE RD #408 49495 B8 $ 100.00 LITE FOR LIFE INC 1199 HOWARD AVE#102 20131 F1 $ 550.00 ALLIANCE TITLE COMPANY 330 PRIMROSE ROAD 20132 F1 $ 550.00 BANK OF AMERICA 400 EL CAMINO REAL 20133 F1 $ 550.00 BANK OF THE WEST 149 PARK ROAD 20135 F1 $ 550.00 CITIBANK(WEST) 210 PRIMROSE ROAD 20136 F1 $ 550.00 CITY NATIONAL BANK 350 PRIMROSE ROAD 20137 F1 $ 550.00 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY 1440 CHAPIN AVE 20138 F1 $ 550.00 OLD REPUBLIC TITLE COMPANY 1409 CHAPIN AVE 20139 F1 $ 550.00 WASHINGTON MUTUAL BANK 1430 CHAPIN AVE 20140 F1 $ 550.00 WELLS FARGO BANK 1435 BURLINGAME AVE 20134 F3 $ 550.00 CALIFORNIA SAVINGS BANK 1423 BURLINGAME AVE 'ount is 490 BID_ADDRESS.2005.xls 15 4/26/2005 M E M O R A N D U M CITY OF BURLINGAME DATE: April 27, 2005 TO: Mayor and Council FROM: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk Larry E. Anderson, City Attorne RE : Protest Tabulation for Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District as of April 27, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. As of 4:00 p.m. on April 27, 2005, the City has received the following protests to the programs, activities, or assessments for the 2005-2006 year of the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District: Protests received— 96 Protests received from William Boudreau valued at $21, 600 7 Protests received separately valued at $ 1,700 (some duplicated Mr. Boudreau's filing and have been deducted from Mr. Boudreau's count) 103 Total $23,300 In addition,the City received 1 I protests from Mr.Boudreau that did not contain original signatures; those protests appear to have been faxed. The City also received 5 protests from Mr. Boudreau that were not signed at all. Those 16 protests have not been counted. In addition,one business signature (Advanced Beauty and Health)did not relate to the name of the business,and has not been counted. However,the Council could decide to accept the protests for which original signatures have not been provided. In receiving corrections to the mailing list used to provide notice of the proceedings, it appears that the following businesses have closed: Clyde's Barbershop Keiko Jewelers Nelson's Coffee Shop Another business, Sam's Italian Sandwich Company, has moved from Zone A to Zone B, so its proposed assessment has been recalculated from $350 to $250. No withdrawal of protests have been received. Mayor and Council Re: Protest Tabulation for Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District as of April 27,2005, at 4:00 p.m. April 27, 2005 Page 2 We believe that between April 27 and the hearing, we will receive additional information on new businesses in the District or business closings. Therefore,the total valuation of the District at this time is only a close approximation at$132,150, and 50%plus $1 would be $66,251. 4CITY 0 STAFF REPORT ' b BURUNGAME t AGENDA ITEM# 6c acoq MTG. �AATED JUwE6 DATE 5/2/05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT BY DATE: May 2,2005 � A ROVED 1�1 FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director 558-7222 SUBJECT: Resolution Approving the 2005 Master Fee Schedule for City Services RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Resolution implementing the changes to the City of Burlingame's Master Fee Schedule for FY 05-06 BACKGROUND: The City Council held its annual Budget Policy and Goal Setting Study Session on Saturday, January 29, 2005. At that time, the City Council directed that city staff raise the city's fees to reflect the increase in operating costs that are anticipated in FY 05-06. The increase in operating costs is estimated to be an average of 3%. The practice of making annual incremental increases in city fees was adopted by the City Council in 2003 with the understanding that the increases would not be automatic but would require an annual review and approval by the City Council. The Master Fee Schedule shall take immediately upon City Council approval with the following exceptions: • Planning and Building Department fees shall become effective July 2, 2005. • Engineering fees pertaining to subdivision and planning review shall become effective July 2, 2005. • Business License Processing fees shall be adopted by separate ordinance (effective 30 days after). • Water Meter Installation fees shall be adopted by separate ordinance (effective 30 days after). • Central County Fire fees shall be presented to the City Council for adoption by separate Resolution, after approval by the Central County Fire Board of Directors (scheduled for May 4, 2005). ATTACHMENTS: 1.) Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Approving 2005 Master Fee Schedule for City Services 2.) City of Burlingame 2005 Master Fee Schedule (Adopted May 2, 2005) RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING 2005 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR CITY SERVICES WHEREAS, the City regularly reviews the fees that it charges to persons seeking specific services or use of City facilities; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the cost of such services is borne by the users in a fair and equitable manner, fees are adjusted to better reflect actual costs to the City and the City's taxpayers in providing those services and facilities; and WHEREAS,the increased fees to be charged by the Planning and Building Departments and the development fees charged by the Engineering Division cannot go into effect for sixty(60)days after adoption of this Resolution pursuant to Government Code section 66017; and WHEREAS,while every effort has been made to establish a master schedule of fees,there may be existing fees in the Municipal Code or elsewhere that have been omitted and nothing in this resolution is intended to repeal those fees nor does this resolution affect in any way any taxes of any kind; and WHEREAS,the fees to be charged for fire services are not revised in Exhibit A at this time because Central County Fire Department is in the process of reviewing and revising its fee schedule, so the fees adopted in 2004 for Fire Services shall continue in place, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Master Fee Schedule contained in Exhibit A is approved and shall take effect immediately with the following exceptions: a. The proposed fees contained in the Planning and Building schedules shall go into effect on July 2, 2005. b. The proposed fees for subdivisions and planning review contained on the Engineering schedule shall go into effect on July 2, 2005. c. The proposed fees for business license applications and for water installations and upgrades are subject to adoption of ordinances making the proposed changes. Mayor 1 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk C:\FILES\RESO\masterfeesked2005.pin.wpd 2 A CITY O BURLINGAME C A 1 ) O n x [ w _ f 0q NO00 ORATED JUNE(0 The City of Burlingame 2005 Master Fee Schedule Adopted May 2, 2005 City Hall—501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE CITY-WIDE SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Returned Check $25.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Copying of Routine Document $ .15 per page No change Resolution No. 31-2003 (Copies of sizes other than 8- %2" by 11" or 8 - %" by 14" or 11" by 17 or color copies will be charged at cost) To be paid in advance Audio tape copies (except for Police) If blank tape supplied Cost $5.00 per tape New fee If no tape supplied Cost $8.00 per tape New fee CITY-WIDE FEES - 1 April 21, 2005 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ANIMAL CONTROL NO CHANGES The following is found in Section 9.04.031 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (as of September 4, 2003): (a) License fees and penalties: (1)Unaltered dog (A) 1-year license $30.00 (which includes a$1.00 surcharge on all licenses for the Animal Population Trust Fund) (B) 3-year license $87.00 (C) 1-year license with senior discount $11.00 (D) 3-year license with senior discount $33.00 (2) Altered dog (A) 1-year license $12.00 (B) 3-year license $33.00 (C) 1-year license with senior discount $ 6.00 (D) 3-year license with senior discount $15.00 (3) Wolf-hybrid registration (A) Unaltered 1-year license $21.00 (B) Altered 1-year license $11.00 (4) Additional Penalties and Fees Dog/Wolf-hybrid (A) Late penalty $15.00 (B) Duplicate tag $ 5.00 (b)Redemption and shelter charges (1) Type A (large-size animals—horses, cows, etc.) (A) Impound cost $100.00 (B) Board cost per day $20.00 (C) Transportation cost $50.00 per animal (2) Type B (medium-size animals—hogs, sheep, etc.) (A) Impound cost $70.00 (B) Board cost per day $20.00 (C) Transportation cost $50.00 per use (3) Type C (dogs/wolf hybrids, cats) (A) Impound cost Altered/Unaltered (i)First offense, licensed &wearing tag $30.00/ 50.00 (ii) First offense, unlicensed or no tag $40.00/70.00 (iii) Second offense $60.00/ 80.00 (iv) Third offense $90.00/ 100.00 (v) Fourth offense $120.00/ 140.00 ANIMAL CONTROL FEES - 1 April 21, 2005 (vi) Fifth offense and up $150.00/ 170.00 (B) Board costs (i) Dogs/wolf hybrids $15.00 per day (ii) Cats $13.00 per day (4) Type D (small-size animals-birds, hamsters, etc.) (A) Impound cost $15.00 (B) Board cost per day $ 5.00 (c) Adoption Fees Dogs $70.00 Cats $70.00 Rabbits $40.00 Mice $ 4.00 Rats $ 5.00 Guinea Pig $12.00 Hamster $ 8.00 Pigeon/Dove $ 3.00 Duck/Goose/Chicken $ 5.00 Turtle $ 5.00 Pigs $35.00 (d) Surrender, Euthanasia and Dead on Arrival Disposal Fees Surrender Euthanasia DOA Disposal Dog/Cat $20.00 $40.00 $20.00 Rabbit/Small Animal $20.00 $15.00 $20.00 Litter of three or more $30.00 $30.00 $20.00 Bird/Fowl $20.00 $10.00 $20.00 All Exotic Animals $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 Farm Animal $35.00 $50.00 - $100.00 $50.00 - $100.00 (to be determined (to be determined individually) individually) (e) Quarantine fee $35.00 (f)Dangerous animal permit fee $200.00 (g)Field return fee $35.00 (h)Property inspection fee $25.00 (i)Breeding permit fee $50.00 0) Fancier's permit fee $50.00 per household (k) The Division of Animal Control may establish license discounts for recognized animal rescue organizations and adoption discounts for senior citizens. ANIMAL CONTROL FEES - 2 April 21, 2005 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE BUILDING DIVISION (effective July 2, 2005) SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE BUILDING PERMIT FEES BASED ON TOTAL VALUATION $1.00 to $500.00 $31.20 $32.50 Resolution No. 61-2004 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $31.20 for the $32.50 for the Resolution No. 61-2004 first $500.00 first $500.00 plus $4.00 for plus $4.50 for each additional each additional $100.00 or $100.00 or fraction thereof fraction thereof to and including to and including $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $90.50 for the $93.50 for the Resolution No. 61-2004 first $2,000.00 first $2,000.00 plus $18.20 for plus $19.00 for each additional each additional $1,000.00 or $1,000.00 or fraction thereof fraction thereof to and including to and including $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $509.10 for the $524.50 for the Resolution No. 61-2004 first $25,000.00 first $25,000.00 plus $13.20 for plus $14.00 for each additional each additional $1,000.00 or $1,000.00 or fraction thereof fraction thereof to and including to and including $50,000.00 $50,000.00 BUILDING - 1 April 28, 2005 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $838.00 for the $863.50 for the Resolution No. 61-2004 first $50,000.00 first $50,000.00 plus $9.10 for plus $9.50 for each additional each additional $1,000.00 or $1,000.00 or fraction thereof fraction thereof to and including to and including $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $101,000.00 to $500,000.00 $1,293.00 for $1,332.00 for Resolution No. 61-2004 the first the first $100,000.00 $100,000.00 plus $7.30 for plus $8.00 for each additional each additional $1,000.00 or $1,000.00 or fraction thereof fraction thereof to and including to and including $500,000.00 $500,000.00 $501,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 $4,205.00 for $4,331.50 for Resolution No. 61-2004 the first the first $500,000.00 $500,000.00 plus $6.20 for plus $6.50 for each additional each additional $1,000.00 or $1,000.00 or fraction thereof fraction thereof to and including to and including $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 More than $1,000,000.00 $7,299.00 for $7,518.00 for Resolution No. 61-2004 the first the first $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.00 plus $4.80 for plus $5.00 for each additional each additional $1,000.00 or $1,000.00 or fraction thereof fraction thereof Inspections outside normal business hours $78.00 per hour $80.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 (minimum charge is for four hours) Reinspection fees (minimum—one hour) $78.00 per hour $80.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 BUILDING - 2 April 28, 2005 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE PLAN REVIEW FEES Basic Fee 65% of No change Resolution No. 104- Building Permit 2002 Fee Energy Plan Check Fee (where applicable) Additional 25% No change Resolution No. 104- of Building 2002 Permit Fee Disabled Access Plan Check Fee (where Additional 35% No change Resolution No. 104- applicable) of Building 2002 Permit Fee Planning Department Plan Check Fee (where Additional 15% No change Resolution No. 104- applicable) (minimum fee of$75.00) of Building 2002 Permit Fee Plan Revisions for Planning Department $75.00 $80.00 Resolution No. 104- 2002 Plan Revisions Subsequent to Permit $37.50 plus $80.00 per hour Resolution No. 104- Issuance Cost of plus Cost of 2002 Additional Any Additional Review Review Engineering Division Plan Review(where Additional 25% No change Resolution No. 104- applicable) of Building 2002 Permit Fee Imaging Fee Additional 5% No change Resolution No. 104- of Building 2002 Permit Fee Arborist Review Additional 5% No change Resolution No. 1-2005 of Building Permit Fee' (Effective March 4,2005 BUILDING- 3 April 28, 2005 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE PLUMBING PERMIT FEES (these fees do not include connections fees, such as for seer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies) For issuance of each plumbing permit' $31.20 $32.50 Resolution No. 61-2004 New Residential Building- including all $0.08 per No change Resolution No. 104- plumbing fixtures, connections and gas square foot of 2002 outlets for new single- and multi-family habitable area buildings 1. Fixtures and vents—for each plumbing $12.70 $13.50 Resolution No. 61-2004 fixture or trap (including water and waste piping and backflow prevention) 2. Sewer and interceptors— For each building sewer $31.20 $32.50 Resolution No. 61-2004 For each industrial waste pretreatment $26.00 $27.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 interceptor (except kitchen-type grease traps) 3. Water Piping and Water Heaters For installation alteration or repair of $6.20 each $6.50 each Resolution No. 61-2004 water piping or water-treatment equipment For each water heater including vent $16.10 $17.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 4. Gas Piping Systems For each gas piping system of one to five $8.30 $9.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 outlets Resolution No. 61-2004 For each additional outlet over five $1.60 $2.00 "Following items are in addition to basic permit issuance fee BUILDING - 4 April 28, 2005 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE 5. Irrigation Systems and Backflow Prevention Devices Resolution No. 61-2004 Irrigation systems including backflow $19.20 $20.00 device(s) Resolution No. 61-2004 Other backflow prevention devices: $19.20 $20.00 2 inches (50.8 mm) and smaller Resolution No. 61-2004 Over 2 inches (50.8 mm) $31.20 $32.50 6. Swimming Pools For each swimming pool or spa, all plumbing: Resolution No. 61-2004 Public pool $119.60 $123.50 Resolution No. 61-2004 Public spa $78.00 $80.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Private pool $78.00 $80.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Private spa $39.00 $40.00 7. Miscellaneous For each appliance or fixture for which no $12.70 $13.50 Resolution No. 61-2004 fee is listed Inspections outside normal business hours $78.00 per hour $80.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 (minimum charge is for four hours) Reinspection fees (minimum—one hour) $78.00 per hour $80.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Inspections for which no fee is specifically $78.00 per hour $80.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 indicated (minimum charge is one-half hour) Imaging fee Additional 5% No change Resolution No. 104- of plumbing 2002 permit fee Arborist Review Additional 5% No change Resolution No. 1-2005 of plumbing permit fee... ON Effective March 4,2005 BUILDING- 5 April 28, 2005 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Plan review where plans are required Additional 25% No change Resolution No. 104- of plumbing 2002 permit fee MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES (these fees do not include connections fees, such as for 1 r a seer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies) For issuance of each mechanical permit##a# $31.20 $32.50 Resolution No. 61-2004 New Residential Building - including all $0.08 per No change Resolution No. 104- mechanical work including appliances, square foot of 2002 exhaust fans, ducts, and flues habitable area 1. Furnaces To and including 100 MBTU $19.20 $20.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Over 100 MBTU $26.00 $27.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 2. Boilers, compressors, absorption systems To and including 100 MBTU or 3HP $19.20 each $20.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Over 100 MBTU or 3 HP $36.40 each $38.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 3. Air Conditioners $19.20 each $20.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 5. Air Handlers To 10,000 CFM including ducting $13.00 each $13.50 each Resolution No. 61-2004 Over 10,000 CFM $19.20 each $20.00 each Resolution No. 61-2004 6. Ventilation and Exhaust Each ventilation fan attached to a single $9.40 each $10.00 each Resolution No. 61-2004 duct Resolution No. 61-2004 Each hood including ducts $19.20 each $20.00 each a.#Following items are in addition to basic permit issuance fee BUILDING- 6 April 28, 2005 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE 7. Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of equipment $19.20 each $20.00 each Resolution No. 61-2004 not specifically listed above Inspections outside normal business hours $78.00 per hour $80.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 (minimum charge is for four hours) Reinspection fees (minimum—one hour) $78.00 per hour $80.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Inspections for which no fee is specifically $78.00 per hour $80.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 indicated(minimum charge is one-half hour) Imaging fee Additional 5% No change Resolution No. 104- of mechanical 2002 permit fee Plan review where plans are required Additional 25% No change Resolution No. 104- of mechanical 2002 permit fee ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES (these fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies) For issuance of each electrical permit"" $31.20 $32.50 Resolution No. 61-2004 New Residential Building - including all $0.08 per No change Resolution No. 104- wiring and electrical devices in or on each square foot of 2002 building, including service habitable area System Fee Schedule Swimming Pools 1. Public swimming pools and spas $78.00 $80.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 including all wiring and electrical equipment 2. Private pools for single-family $62.40 $64.50 Resolution No. 61-2004 residences Following items are in addition to basic permit issuance fee BUILDING - 7 April 28, 2005 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Temporary Power 1. Temporary service pole including all $31.20 $32.50 Resolution No. 61-2004 attached receptacles 2. Temporary power pole and wiring for $46.80 $48.50 Resolution No. 61-2004 construction sites, Christmas tree lots, etc. OR Unit Fee Schedule Receptacle, switch and light outlets 1. First 20 units $31.20 $32.50 Resolution No. 61-2004 2. Each additional $1.00 No change Resolution No. 61-2004 Residential Appliances For fixed residential appliances including $6.20 each $6.50 each Resolution No. 61-2004 cooktops, ovens, air conditioning, garbage disposals, and similar devices not exceedingl HP in rating (For other types of air conditioners or other motor-driven appliances having larger ratings, see Power Apparatus below) Nonresidential Appliances Self-contained factory-wired non- $6.20 each $6.50 each Resolution No. 61-2004 residential appliances not exceeding 1 HP, KW, or kVA in rating including medical and dental devices; food,beverage and ice cream cabinets; illuminated showcases; drinking fountains; vending machines; laundry machines; etc. (For other types of devices having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus below) BUILDING- 8 April 28, 2005 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Power Apparatus For motors, generators, air conditioners and heat pumps and commercial cooking devices as follows (ratings in horsepower, kilowatts, kilovolt-amperes, or kilovolt- amperes-reactive): Resolution No. 61-2004 1. Up to 10 $15.60 $16.50 Resolution No. 61-2004 2. Over 10 to and including 100 $36.40 $37.50 Resolution No. 61-2004 3. Over 100 $98.80 $102.00 Notes: a. For equipment or appliances having more than one motor, transformer,heater, etc., the sum of the combined ratings may be used. b. These fees include all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats,relays, and other related control equipment. Busways For trolleys and plug-in type busways $9.40 for each $10.00 for each Resolution No. 61-2004 100 feet 100 feet (30,500 mm) or (30,500 mm) or fraction thereof fraction thereof Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees 1. Signs, outline lighting, or marquees $31.20 each $32.50 each Resolution No. 61-2004 supplied from one circuit 2. For additional branch circuits within $6.20 each $6.50 each Resolution No. 61-2004 the same sign, outline lighting, or marquee Services 1. 600 volts or less and not over 200 $36.40 each $37.50 each Resolution No. 61-2004 amperes in rating 2. 600 volts or less, over 200 amperes to $83.20 each $86.00 each Resolution No. 61-2004 1,000 amperes 3. Over 600 volts or over 1,000 amperes $156.00 each $161.00 each Resolution No. 61-2004 BUILDING- 9 April 28, 2005 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Miscellaneous For apparatus, conduits, and conductors $26.00 $27.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 for which a permit is required but for which no fee is set forth Inspections outside normal business hours $78.00 per hour $80.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 (minimum charge is for four hours) Reinspection fees (minimum—one hour) $78.00 per hour $80.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Inspections for which no fee is specifically $78.00 per hour $80.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 indicated (minimum charge is one-half hour) Imaging fee Additional 5% No change Resolution No. 104- of electrical 2002 permit fee Plan review where plans are required Additional 25% No change Resolution No. 104- of electrical 2002 permit fee GENERAL FEES Appeal Fee to Planning Commission from $125.00 $130.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Building Official Determination BUILDING - 10 April 28, 2005 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE CITY CLERK SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Passport Application Acceptance $30.00 per No change U.S. Department of State application Videotape of City Council meeting to be $15.00 per tape No change Resolution No. 31-2003 paid in advance of copying tape Audiotape of City Council meeting or other $5.00 per tape No change Resolution No. 31-2003 City proceeding that has been taped to be if tape is paid in advance of copying tape supplied by requestor Resolution No. 31-2003 $8.00 per tape if tape is not supplied Certification of Citizenship $5.00 each No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Filing of Nomination Papers $25.00 per No change Burlingame Municipal candidate Code section 2.20.020 (Ordinance No. 1703 (2003)) CITY CLERK- 1 April 28, 2005 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ENGINEERING SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE ENCROACHMENT PERMITS - Sewer Lateral Test $156.00 $161.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Sewer Lateral Replacement w/o Sidewalk $234.00 $241.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Water Service Connection w/o Sidewalk $312.00 $321.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Fire System Connection w/o Sidewalk $374.00 $385.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Curb Drain Installation $156.00 $161.00 Sections 12.10.030/ 12.08.020/ 12.04.030 Sidewalk/Driveway up to 200 sf $281.00 plus $289.00 plus Sections 12.10.030/ $.25 for each $.25 for each 12.08.020/ 12.04.030 square foot foot over 200 over 200 Sidewalk Closure/Pedestrian Protection $166.00 $171.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Traffic Control $166.00 $171.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Block Party(includes up to 6 barricades) $120.00 plus $124.00 plus Resolution No. 61-2004 $5.00 for each $5.00 for each add'1 barricade add't barricade Parking Permit $73.00 plus $75.00 plus Section 13.32.020 $2/space per $2/space per day or meter day or meter rates rates IGENERALFEES ENGINEERING FEES - 1 April 28, 2005 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Demolition Permit (in addition to Building $827.00 $852.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Permit) Includes sewer and water replacement Resolution No. 61-2004 Add fireline $208.00 $214.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Add curb drain $156.00 $161.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Add sidewalk closure $146.00 $150.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Add PG&E $208.00 $214.00 Address Change $260.00 $268.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Transportation Fee $78.00 $80.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Building Moving $100 No change Section 18.07.030 Truck Terminal $250 No change Section 13.60.120 Hauling Permit $35.00 No change Section 13.60.080 application fee 1 Cent per ton per mile SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Permanent structures, such as retaining walls, $338.00 $348.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 fences Right of Way User Fee based on square $2.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 footage over 100 sf square foot Non-permanent installations, such as tables, $260.00 $268.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 chairs,planters SUBDIVISION MAPS ix Lot Line Adjustment (effective 7/2/2005) $447.00 $460.00 Section 26.24.090 Lot Combination(effective 7/2/2005) $520.00 $536.00 Section 26.24.090 ENGINEERING FEES - 2 April 28, 2005 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Subdivision Map (effective 7/2/2005) $718.00 plus $740.00 plus Sections 26.24.090/ $104 for each $104 for each 26.16.151 additional lot additional lot over 5 over 5 Condominium Map (effective 7/2/2005) $1,040.00 plus $1,071.00 plus Sections 26.24.090/ $156.00 for $156.00 for 26.16.151 each unit over each unit over 4 4 ZONING FEES TO BE COLLECTED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Design Review (effective 7/2/2005) Single Family Dwelling $88.00 $91.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 All others $125.00 plus No change Resolution No. 61-2004 $340 if streetscape installation involved Environmental Review (effective 7/2/2005) Traffic &Parking Studies $135.00 $139.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Creek Enclosures $572.00 $589.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Drainage and Utilities $135.00 $139.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 ENGINEERING FEES - 3 April 28, 2005 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FINANCE DEPARTMENT SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Amusement/Entertainment Permit $100.00 No change Section 6.16.030 Duplicate business license (subject to $5.00 $10.00 Section 6.04.120 adoption of ordinance) Application for first business license (subject $30.00 $35.00 Section 6.04.170 to adoption of ordinance) Special Events/Street Closing Permit $100 $110.00 Resolution No. 31-2003 application fee application fee $300/day City $330/day City facility fee facility fee $45/hour $72/hour police officer police officer fee for traffic fee for traffic control control FINANCE FEES - 1 April 28, 2005 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FIRE SERVICE FEE REFERENCE Care Facilities Inspection a Pre-inspection of licensed community care facility $50.00—25 persons Resolution No. 105-2002 or less $100.00 over 25 Resolution No. 105-2002 persons Residential Care Facilities $200.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Residential Care Facilities with Group Care of 6 or fewer $200.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 persons Large Family Day Care $100.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Hospital/Institution $365.71 Resolution No. 61-2004 Re-inspections Second re-inspection $56.00 per inspection Resolution No. 61-2004 Third and subsequent reinspections $100 per inspection Resolution No. 61-2004 EEO 11 Construction Fees Building or Planning Plan Check $100.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Consultation and Planning $100.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Fire Alarm Systems Plan Check $100.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Permit for Monitoring System $50.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Permit for Manual System $100.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Permit for Automatic System $200.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Permit for Combination System $250.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 FIRE-1 April 28, 2005 SERVICE FEE REFERENCE Fixed Extinguishing System Plan Check See above Resolution No. 61-2004 Permit $200.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Standpipe System Plan Check See above Resolution No. 61-2004 Permit $200.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Storage Tank(above or below ground) Plan Check See above Resolution No. 61-2004 Permit $200 Resolution No. 61-2004 High Pile Storage Plan Check See above Resolution No. 61-2004 Sprinkler Systems ',, One or two Family Dwelling Fire Sprinkler System (NFPA 13D) Plan Check $100/hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Permit $300.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Fire Pump Plan Check $100.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Permit $100.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Residential or Commercial Fire Sprinkler System (NFPA 13 or 13R) Plan Check $100.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Permit—Single Story(incl. T.I.) $300.00 (phase Permit - Multi-story inspections billed at $100 per hour) Fire Service Line Inspection $100.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Alternate Means of Protection Review $142.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Miscellaneous Fees and Permits FIRE-2 April 28, 2005 SERVICE FEE REFERENCE Vegetation Management Inspection $200.00 + 20% of Resolution No. 61-2004 contractor's fee Change of Use Inspection(usually triggered by new $55.19 Resolution No. 61-2004 business license) Standby Service Firefighter $97.17 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 (minimum of 3 hours) Engine Company $290.56 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 (minimum of 3 hours) Photographs from investigations Cost of reproduction Resolution No. 61-2004 Fire Hydrant Flow Tests $100.33 Resolution No. 61-2004 Work without a construction permit $243.00+double the Resolution No. 61-2004 permit fees Emergency Response Costs for Driving under the Costs according to Resolution No. 61-2004 Influence Personnel Schedule Below False Alarms $290.00 for 3 to 5 Resolution No. 61-2004 $320.00 for 6 or more Hazardous Materials Clean-up/Response Costs according to Resolution No. 61-2004 Personnel Schedule Below plus actual equipment/materials costs FIRE-3 April 28, 2005 SERVICE FEE REFERENCE Personnel Costs Administration $47.78 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Firefighter $85.30 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Fire Captain $100.23 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Shift Inspector $86.63 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Fire Inspector $88.46 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Fire Marshal $130.83 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Key Switch (Gate/Knox Box) $78.63 Resolution No. 61-2004 General Permits '„> Christmas Tree Lot $66.50 Resolution No. 105-2002 Aerosol Products $163.47 Resolution No. 61-2004 Apartments, Hotels and Motels— 10 or less units $82.37 Resolution No. 61-2004 Apartments,Hotels and Motels— 11 to 25 units $100.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Apartments, Hotels and Motels—26 or more units $135.25 Resolution No. 61-2004 Asbestos removal $76.84 Resolution No. 61-2004 Automobile Wrecking Yard $163.47 Resolution No. 61-2004 Battery System $163.47 Resolution No. 61-2004 Carnivals and Fairs $299.37 Resolution No. 61-2004 Combustible Fiber Storage $120.16 Resolution No. 61-2004 Combustible Material Storage $163.47 Resolution No. 61-2004 Compressed Gasses $163.47 Resolution No. 61-2004 Commercial Rubbish-Handling Operation $163.47 Resolution No. 61-2004 Cryogens $163.47 Resolution No. 61-2004 Dry Cleaning Plants $163.47 Resolution No. 61-2004 Dust-Producing Operations $163.47 Resolution No. 61-2004 FIRE-4 April 28, 2005 SERVICE FEE REFERENCE Explosives or Blasting Agents $210.91 Resolution No. 61-2004 Fire Hydrants and Water Control Valves $100.33 Resolution No. 61-2004 Fireworks $166.68 Resolution No. 61-2004 Flammable or Combustible Liquids $336.73 Resolution No. 61-2004 Hazardous Materials $466.68 Resolution No. 61-2004 High-Piled Combustible Storage—20,000 square feet or $233.02 Resolution No. 61-2004 less High-Piled Combustible Storage—more than 20,000 $432.06 Resolution No. 61-2004 square feet Hot-Work Operations $163.47 Resolution No. 61-2004 Liquefied Petroleum Gasses $163.47 Resolution No. 61-2004 Liquid- or gas-fueled Vehicles or Equipment in $166.68 Resolution No. 61-2004 Assembly Buildings Live Audiences $166.68 Resolution No. 61-2004 Lumber Yards storing in excess of 100,00 board Feet $250.10 Resolution No. 61-2004 Magnesium Working $141.82 Resolution No. 61-2004 Mall, Covered—Display Booth $144.56 Resolution No. 61-2004 Mall, Covered—For Assembly . Mall, Covered—With Open Flame $144.56 Resolution No. 61-2004 Mall, Covered—Display Fuel Powered Equipment $144.56 Resolution No. 61-2004 Motor Vehicle Fuel-Dispensing Stations $250.10 Resolution No. 61-2004 Open Burning $100.33 Resolution No. 61-2004 Organic Coating $163.47 Resolution No. 61-2004 Ovens, Industrial Baking and Drying $141.82 Resolution No. 61-2004 Parade Floats $144.56 Resolution No. 61-2004 FIRE-5 April 28, 2005 SERVICE FEE REFERENCE Places of Assembly $315.08 Resolution No. 61-2004 Production Facilities $293.42 Resolution No. 61-2004 Pyrotechnical and Special Effects Material $255.14 Resolution No. 61-2004 Radioactive Materials $120.16 Resolution No. 61-2004 Refrigeration Equipment $250.10 Resolution No. 61-2004 Repair Garage $163.47 Resolution No. 61-2004 Spraying and Dipping $163.47 Resolution No. 61-2004 Tents, Canopies, and Temporary Membrane Structures $166.68 Resolution No. 61-2004 Tire Storage $141.82 Resolution No. 61-2004 Wood Products $141.82 Resolution No. 61-2004 FIRE-6 April 28, 2005 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE LIBRARY SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Photocopies $ .15 per page No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Internet/Database copies or printouts $ .15 per page No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Rental books for one week $1.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Community Room Rental $50.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Outside System $5.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 PLS CONSORTIUM CONTROLLED FEES �' Hold Fee $ .50 per book No change PLS Overdue Fee for Adult $ .20 per book No change PLS per day Overdue Fee for Child $ .10 per book No change PLS per day Maximum Fee $6.00 per No change PLS book Lost Book Replacement Fee $5.00 per No change PLS book Replacement of Lost Card $1.00 No change PLS LIBRARY FEES - 1 April 28, 2005 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT Group Classifications for Purposes of Parks&Recreation Facilities Usage: Group A: Government agencies with Parks&Recreation service agreements with the City, such as Burlingame School District and SMUHSD Group B: Non-profit(501c(3)) groups or organizations, such as AYSO, BYBA,Library Foundation. Group C: Private parties, commercial,business, and profit-making organizations, such as weddings, seminars, receptions FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE INDOOR FACILITIES Indoor Facilities, except the Auditorium Group A No charge No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Group B Burlingame Residents $13.00 per No change Resolution No. 61-2004 hour Non-residents $17.00 per No change Resolution No. 61-2004 hour Group C Burlingame Residents $28.00 per No change Resolution No. 61-2004 hour Non-residents $33.00 per No change Resolution No. 61-2004 hour Auditorium Group A No charge No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Group B Burlingame Residents $28.00 per No change Resolution No. 61-2004 hour Non-residents $33.00 per No change Resolution No. 61-2004 hour Group C Burlingame Residents $77.00 per No change Resolution No. 61-2004 hour Non-residents $94.00 per No change Resolution No. 61-2004 hour PARK&REC FEES - 1 April 28, 2005 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Building Attendant' $20.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hour Weekend Custodian $75.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Weekday Custodian $25.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Extra,Non-Scheduled Hours $95.00 - $125 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 per hour Security Personnel' $50.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hour Tables/Chairs—up to 50 $7.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Tables/Chairs— 51-100 $15.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Tables Chairs—over 100 $20.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Coffee Pots $10.00 per pot No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Wine/beer to be served $30.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 additional TV/VCR $10.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Overhead Projector $10.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Microphone $10.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 b OUTDOOR FACILITIES Building Attendant or Security will be on duty 1 hour prior to andl hour after duration of activities at Recreation Center. Security fee will be charged for all private parties over 150 persons or serving alcoholic beverages. Building Attendant or Security will be on duty 1 hour prior to and 1 hour after duration of activities at Recreation Center. Security fee will be charged for all private parties over 150 persons or those serving alcoholic beverages. PARK&REC FEES - 2 April 28, 2005 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Ballfield Group A No charge No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Group B Burlingame Residents $5.00/per $5.00 per Resolution No. 31-2003 player per resident league plus player and $30.00/nonres $20.00 per ident nonresident player Non-residents $15.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hour Group C Burlingame Residents $20.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hour Non-residents $25.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hour Tennis Courts Group A No charge No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Group B (residents only) Burlingame Residents $30.00 for 4 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hours Group C Burlingame Residents $40.00 for 4 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hours Non-residents $50.00 for 4 No change Resolution No. 61-2004 hours PARK&REC FEES - 3 April 28, 2005 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Soccer Field Group A No charge No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Group B Burlingame Residents $5.00 per $5.00 per Resolution No. 31-2003 player per resident player league plus and $20 per $30 per nonresident nonresident player Non-residents $20.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hour Group C Burlingame Residents $35.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Non-residents hour $50.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hour Pool— 50 meter Group A Lifeguard cost No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Group B Burlingame Residents $125.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hour plus lifeguard Non-residents $175.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hour plus lifeguard Group C Burlingame Residents $225.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hour plus lifeguard Non-residents $275.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hour plus lifeguard PARK&REC FEES -4 April 28, 2005 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Pool (small pool) Group A Lifeguard cost No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Group B Burlingame Residents $60.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hour plus lifeguard Non-residents $95.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hour plus lifeguard Group C Burlingame Residents $125.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hour plus Non-residents lifeguard $175.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hour plus lifeguard Pool Lanes (short) Group A Lifeguard No change Resolution No. 31-2003 costs Group B $10.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 lane Group C $15.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 lane Pool Lanes (long) Group A Lifeguard No change Resolution No. 31-2003 costs Group B $20.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 lane Group C $25.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 lane Lifeguard(minimum of 2 per event) $25.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 guard per hour Field Lights $20.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hour PARK&REC FEES - 5 April 28, 2005 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Infield dragging and lining Fees to be No change Resolution No. 31-2003 determined by Parks Division based on conditions Facility Maintenance Fee for Field User $5 per player No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Groups per league per season Picnic Permit Small Picnic Area $75.00+ $50 No change Resolution No. 61-2004 refundable cleaning deposit Large Picnic Area $100.00+ $50 No change Resolution No. 61-2004 refundable cleaning deposit Classes Class Fees To be set No change Resolution No. 31-2003 based on class provider and materials/facil ities provided Registration Fees $7.00 No change Resolution No. 61-2004 Non-resident Fee on Classes Add 20% to No change Resolution No. 31-2003 class fee rounded to nearest dollar Senior discount—Burlingame residents age 65 50% off class No change Resolution No. 31-2003 and over fee on classes held at Recreation Center under $75 PARK&REC FEES - 6 April 28, 2005 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Senior discount—non-residents age 65 and Waive non- No change Resolution No. 31-2003 over resident fee Registration cancellation charge $5.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 class or event Tree and Parks Fees Memorial tree plantings and additional street $75.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 tree plantings Protected Tree Removal Applications $50.00 No change Resolution No. 1-2005 Arborist's plan review for landscaping $125.00 No change Resolution No. 1-2005 requirements on planning applications (See also planning fee schedule) Arborist check of construction plans and 5% of No change Resolution No. 1-2005 inspection of landscape requirements on building building permit submittals permit fee Appeal to City Council from Beautification $230.00 No change Resolution No. 26-2005 Commission decision (does not include noticing costs) Noticing, City Council appeal $25.00 No change Resolution No. 26-2005 PARK&REC FEES - 7 April 28, 2005 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE PLANNING DEPARTMENT (effective 7/2/2005) SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED Reference FEE FEE PRE-APPLICATIONS Preliminary Plan Check,New Construction" $170.00 $175.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Preliminary Plan Check, Remodel" $105.00 $110.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 APPLICATIONS = } Antenna Exception $25.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Ambiguity/Determination Hearing before $445.00 $460.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Planning Commission (applies to Planning, Fire, and Building requests) Amendment/Extension to Permits $205.00 $210.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Appeal to City Council from Planning $230.00 $235.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Commission decisions (does not include noticing costs) Conditional Use Permit $870.00 $895.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Condominium Permit, 4 Units or Less $920.00 $950.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Condominium Permit, 5 Units or More $1,120.00 $1,155.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Design Review, Addition $535.00 $550.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Design Review, Amendment $385.00 $400.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Design Review Deposit' $765.00 $750.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 "Fifty percent(50%)of fee will be credited toward required application fees if and when project is submitted as a complete application. "Fifty percent(50%)of fee will be credited toward required application fees if and when project is submitted as a complete application. ' 'Minimum deposit. Formula for ultimate calculation is design review consultant fee times hours spent. Project not set for hearing until actual time paid. PLANNING FEES - 1 April 28, 2005 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED Reference FEE FEE Design Review—Handling Fee None $270.00 New fee Design Review, Information Submittal to $100.00 $105.00 Resolution No. 31-2003 Planning Commission Design Review,New Construction $545.00 $560.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Fence Exception $610.00 $630.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 General Plan Amendment $1,275.00 $1,315.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Minor Modification/Hillside Area $230.00 $235.00 Sections 25.56.050 & Construction Permit 25.61.070 Rezoning $1,120.00 $1,155.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Second Unit Amnesty Permit Building Official Inspection Deposit $380.00 $390.00 Being charged at cost charged at charged at $125 per hour $128 per hour Special Use Permit $870.00 $895.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Variance $870.00 $895.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 ENVIRONMENTAL uON I Wit!U. Environmental, Categorical Exception $55.00 No change Resolution No. 61-2004 Environmental Initial Study $105.00 $110.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Environmental,Negative Declaration $1,225.00 $1,260.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Environmental, Mitigated Declaration and/or $1,430.00 $1,475.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 with a Responsible Agency Environmental Impact Report $35% of No change Resolution No. 31-2003 contract, deposit to be determined by City Planner Environmental Posting Fee, Negative $135.00 $140.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Declaration and EIR Fish & Game Fee for Negative Declaration, $1,300.00 $1,275.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 whether mitigated or not PLANNING FEES - 2 April 28, 2005 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED Reference FEE FEE Fish & Game Fee for Environmental Impact $890.00 $875.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Report PARKS Arborist Review when Required $125.00 $130.00 Resolution No. 1-2005 NOTICING Memo 41, 0 40WR'l Noticing, R 1 and R2 $100.00 $105.00 Resolution No. 31-2003 Noticing, All Other Districts $100.00 $105.00 Resolution No. 31-2003 Noticing, R-1 Design Review, Residential $155.00 $160.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Noticing, Design Review, all other districts $155.00 $160.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Noticing, Minor Modifications, Hillside Area $155.00 $160.00 Sections 25.56.050 & Construction Permits 25.61.070 Resolution No. 61-2004 Noticing, General Plan Amendment $1,005.00 $1,015.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Noticing, Rezoning $1,005.00 $1,015.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Noticing, Environmental Impact Report $1,010.00 $1,025.00 Resolution No. 61-2004 Noticing, City Council Appeal $25.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Noticing, Second Unit Amnesty $55.00 No change Resolution No. 61-2004 g SIGNS = 4 � _ . 50 SF or less $25.00 $26.00 over 50 SF and less than 200 SF $50.00 $52.00 over 200 SF $75.00 $77.00 Sign Variance $920.00 $950.00 FRolution No. 61-2004 PLANNING FEES - 3 April 28, 2005 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED Reference FEE FEE Bayfront Development Fee' Office $1,852/TSF No change Ord. No. 1739 (2004) Restaurant $7,458/TSF No change Ord. No. 1739 (2004) Hotel $607/room No change Ord. No. 1739 (2004) Hotel, Extended Stay $590/room No change Ord. No. 1739 (2004) Office/Warehouse/Manufacturing $2,808/TSF No change Ord. No. 1739 (2004) Retail—Commercial $6,818/TSF No change Ord. No. 1739 (2004) Car Rental $43,268/acre No change Ord. No. 1739 (2004) Commercial Recreation $13,428/acre No change Ord. No. 1739 (2004) All Other $1,492 per No change Ord. No. 1739 (2004) p.m. peak hour trip as det'd by traffic study 'Bayfront Development fee is charged to all new construction/development within the Bayfront Specific Plan Area on the east side of US 101. Ordinance No. 1305 (1985)provides for annual adjustment based on the construction cost index published in the Engineering News Record(ENR)as of July 1 of each year. These fees are current as of September 2004.,subject to effective date of ordinance PLANNING FEES - 4 April 28, 2005 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED Reference FEE FEE North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development FeeII Rollins Road Area of Benefit $0.42 per No change Ord. No. 1751 (2005) square foot of building El Camino North Area of Benefit Multiple family dwelling or duplex use $0.42 per No change Ord. No. 1751 (2005) square foot of building Any use other than multiple family $0.53 per No change Ord. No. 1751 (2005) dwelling or duplex square foot of building nNorth Burlingame/Rollins Road Development fees are charged to all new construction/development within the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Area. Ordinance No. 1715 (2005)provides for annual adjustment beginning in 2006,based on the construction cost index published in the Engineering News Record(ENR)as of July 1 of each year. These fees are current as of May 21,2005,the effective date of ordinance. PLANNING FEES - 5 April 28, 2005 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE POLICE DEPARTMENT SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Vehicle Release $50.00 $60.00 Resolution No. 31-2003 Police Reports Report Copies $1.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 page up to $15.00 maximum Fingerprint Rolling Fee $18.00 $19.00 Livescan Fee Set by State of California Department of Justice Audio Tapes $25.00 $26.00 Resolution No. 31-2003 Videotapes $40.00 $42.00 Resolution No. 31-2003 Photographs $25.00 per $26.00 per Resolution No. 31-2003 roll roll Clearance Letter $10.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Overnight Parking Permit $2.00— % No change Section 13.32.080 year $4.00—Full No change year Repossessed Vehicle $15.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Bicycle License No charge No change Resolution No. 31-2003 POLICE FEES - 1 April 28, 2005 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE DUI Fees $100.00 per $106.00 per Resolution No. 31-2003 hour hour $100 per $106.00 per Resolution No. 31-2003 blood test blood test $55.00 per $58.00 per Resolution No. 31-2003 breath or breath or urine test urine test $50.00 per $53.00 per Resolution No. 31-2003 refused blood refused blood test test Booking Fees Set by No change County Security Service (Outside Detail) $70.00 per $72.00 per Resolution No. 23-2004 hour hour Alarm Permits $49.50 per No change Resolution No. 116-2003 year Section 10.10.110 False Alarm Charge $50.00 for 3 No change Section 10.10.090 to 5 $100.00 for 6 No change Section 10.10.090 or more Solicitors $50.00 for No change Section 6.24.030 investigation Curb Painting $50.00 for No change Resolution No. 31-2003 investigation Tanning Salon Application $150.00 No change Section 6.42.060 Sale or Transfer $100.00 No change Section 6.42.120 Renewal $75.00 No change Section 6.42.160 POLICE FEES - 2 April 28, 2005 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Massage Operator Application $250.00 No change Section 6.40.060 Sale or Transfer $150.00 No change Section 6.40.120 Renewal $100.00 No change Section 6.40.160 Massage Practitioner Application $250.00 No change Section 6.40.060 Renewal $100.00 No change Section 6.40.160 Model/Escort Service Application $150.00 No change Section 6.41.040 Sale or Transfer $100.00 No change Section 6.41.100 Renewal $75.00 No change Section 6.41.130 Private Patrol Company Application $150.00 No change Section 6.44.050 Renewal $75.00 No change Section 6.44.080 Taxi Operator Application $150.00 No change Section 6.36.050 Renewal $75.00 No change Section 6.36.050 Taxi Driver Application $150.00 No change Section 6.36.050 Renewal $75.00 No change Section 6.36.050 Valet Parking $150.00 No change Section 6.30.040 Concealed Weapon $50.00 for No change Resolution No. 31-2003 investigation Fortune Teller $150.00 No change Section 6.38.060 Unruly Gathering Cost of No change Section 10.70.070 Hours of Officer Response POLICE FEES - 3 April 28, 2005 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE SEWER SERVICE FEE REFERENCE Sewer Connection Fees" n' 411 Single-family and Duplex $184/unit Section 15.08.020 Multi-family $140/unit Section 15.08.020 Commercial/Retail $293/thousand square feet Section 15.08.020 (TSF) Office $63/TSF Section 15.08.020 Warehouse $82/TSF Section 15.08.020 Restaurant $725/TSF Section 15.08.020 Hotel with Restaurant $463/room Section 15.08.020 Hotel without Restaurant $286/room Section 15.08.020 Industrial Waste Discharge Fees 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 REFERENCE Light Discharger, Annual $497.00 $509.00 $522.00 Ord. No. 1717 (2003) Moderate Discharger, Annual $1,358.00 $1,392.00 $1,427.00 Ord. No. 1717 (2003) Heavy Discharger, Annual $1,901.00 $1,949.00 $1,998.00 Ord. No. 1717 (2003) Non-Conventional Discharger, Annual***** $,035.00 $1,061.00 $1,089 Ord. No. 1717 (2003) IltSet by Engineering News Record(ENR)Building Index for San Francisco over 1982 and adjusted every January 1.These rates are for year shown on schedule. Discharge fees are subject to increase by CPI according to Ordinance No. 1717 if no further action is taken before September 1,2006. ***** Fee covers two(2)samples;additional samples charged according to Analytical Processing Fee Schedule below. SEWER FEES - 1 April 28, 2005 SERVICE FEE REFERENCE 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 REFERENCE Groundwater Discharger Non- Non- Non- Ord. No. conventional conventional convention 1717 (2003) Fee plus $5.82 Fee plus al Fee plus per 1000 $5.82 per $5.82 per gallons 1000 gallons 1000 discharged discharged gallons discharged Application Processing Fee $135.00 $140.00 $145.00 Ord. No. 1717 (2003) Analytical Fees Ord. No. 1717 (2003) In-house Testing Cost Cost Cost Ord. No. 1717 (2003) Contract Lab Testing Cost plus 15% Cost plus Cost plus Ord. No. 15% 15% 1717 (2003) Bimonthly Sewer Service Charges �an, ��i� �'� ��' � rza � �,.r .. Single-family or duplex $4.65 per $5.67 per $6.30 per Section thousand thousand thousand 15.08.070 gallons; if less gallons; if gallons; if than thousand less than less than gallons, then thousand thousand $9.30 gallons, then gallons, $11.34 then $12.60 Multi-family residential $4.77 per $5.31 per $5.89 per Section thousand thousand thousand 15.08.070 gallons gallons gallons Restaurant, other commercial food-related $13.20 per $14.82 per $16.76 per Section uses thousand thousand thousand 15.08.070 gallons gallons gallons Moderate strength commercial $9.12 per $10.02 per $11.30 per Section thousand thousand thousand 15.08.070 gallons gallons gallons SEWER FEES -2 April 28, 2005 SERVICE FEE REFERENCE 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 REFERENCE Light strength commercial $6.56 per $6.26 per $6.96 per Section thousand thousand thousand 15.08.070 gallons gallons gallons Institutional $1.77 per $2.22 per $2.47 per Section thousand thousand thousand 15.08.070 gallons gallons gallons New Customers in Single-Family or Duplex Classification Number of Residents 1 $18.08 $22.04 $24.49 Section 2 $22.49 $27.42 $30.46 15.08.072 3 $27.53 $33.55 $37.28 4 $32.56 $39.69 $44.10 5 $37.18 $45.32 $50.35 6 $38.51 $46.94 $52.15 7 $41.88 $51.05 $56.71 8 $48.76 $59.44 $66.04 9 or more $57.17 $69.69 $77.42 SEWER FEES - 3 April 28, 2005 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE WATER SERVICE FEE REFERENCE 2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 REFERENCE Monthly Charge for Meters 5/8" and 3/4" meter $13.30 $17.49 $19.23 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) 1" meter $22.61 $29.74 $32.70 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) 1 - %2" meter $43.89 $57.73 $63.47 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) 2" meter $70.49 $92.72 $101.93 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) 3" meter $106.40 $157.45 $192.33 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) 4" meter $162.27 $244.92 $321.19 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) 6" meter $301.52 $472.35 $640.45 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) 8" meter $47.79 $769.76 $1,025.11 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) Water Consum tion"" �����° ��' � ' p ' d}_ iEr ... i a d Within the City $3.42 per $3.81 per $4.19 per Ord. No. 1715 thousand thousand thousand (2003) gallons gallons gallons Outside the City $3.86 per $4.27 per $4.66 per Ord. No. 1715 thousand thousand thousand (2003) gallons gallons gallons '*#*Rates may be further adjusted in response to San Francisco surcharges. See Section 5 of Ordinance No. 1715. WATER FEES - 1 April 28, 2005 SERVICE FEE REFERENCE Water Service Turn-on 8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday thru Friday No charge Ord. No. 1715 (2003) 3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m, Monday thru $20.00 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) Friday 3:31 p.m. to 7:59 a.m., Monday thru $60.00 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) Friday Saturday/Sunday/holiday. $60.00 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) Renewal Fee Not paid within 30 days of billing 1 - % %penalty Ord. No. 1715 (2003) 8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday thru Friday $35.00 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) 3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday thru $45.00 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) Friday 3:31 p.m. to 4:50 p.m., Monday thru $60.00 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) Friday Maintenance of Water in Fire Protection $1.00 per month per inch of Ord. No. 1715 (2003) System pipe diameter, with$2.00 minimum charge Flow Test 5/8" through 1" $50.00 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) 1 - %2" and 2" $80.00 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) Over 2" $100.00 minimum (if over Ord. No. 1715 (2003) $100, cost of testing plus 15%) Temporary Water Service Meter charges (does not include water $750 deposit Ord. No. 1715 (2003) consumption) $43.00 per month for 1-inch meter $85.00 per month for three- inch meters WATER FEES -2 April 28, 2005 SERVICE FEE REFERENCE Water Service Turn-on Deposit if $50.00 or 2 months estimated Ord. No. 1715 (2003) Delinquent on City Water Account in consumption, whichever is Previous 12 months greater Work on City Water System $60.00 permit Ord. No. 1715 (2003) $1,500.00 bond or deposit Water Line Installation (subject to CURRENT PROPOSED adoption of ordinance) FEE FEE 5/8" bypass meter $325.00 $350.00 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) 3/4" service with meter $2,275.00 $3,801.00 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) 1" service with meter $2,300.00 $3,836.00 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) 1 - %2 " service with meter $3,000.00 $4,5756.00 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) 2" service with meter $3,200.00 $4,711.00 Ord. No. 1715 (2003) If larger than 2" or a length of more than Cost plus No change Ord. No. 1715 (2003) 60 feet 15% Meter Upgrade (subject to adoption of ordinance) Upgrade to 3/4" meter None $208.43 New fee Upgrade to 1" meter None $243.43 New fee WATER FEES - 3 April 28, 2005 CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA 8a ITEM# �Oo n 9°0 MTG. °RATED-NE 6. DATE 05.02.05 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY W DATE: APRIL 27, 2005 APPROVED ' FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: Introduction of an Amendment to the Zoning Code to Auto ow, Subarea D, requirements, Building Regulations in Subarea A,Licensing Requirements,Location of Churches, and Council Procedures. RECOMMENDATION: City Council should discuss proposed regulatory changes and direct staff. Then Council should set the public hearing and second reading (public hearing) for the ordinance to amend the zoning code regulations to clarify language and allow car rental agencies in Subarea D, Auto Row; to clarify issuance of demolition permits in Subarea A; to correct reference to zoning in licensing requirements for fortunetellers and psychics; to meet new legal requirements for zoning for churches and religious institutions; and to clarify council procedures in absence of a majority. 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. Planning Commission Action The Planning Commission reviewed these proposed revisions to the zoning code at their meetings on March 14, 2005 (study) and April 25, 2005 (action). The commission recommended these changes to the City Council on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent)voice vote. With their action the commission recommended two changes to the requirements for auto rental facilities as a conditional use in Auto Row, Subarea D. First that car rental operations only be located on the same site as a car sales and service dealership. Second, that the car rental operation be open "within" the hours of the on site car sales and service dealership. Third, that the car rental operation provide a minimum on site storage for rental cars of 10% of the average monthly rentals from the site and no more than 50 cars. The annotations of the ordinance attached clarify the reasoning behind this direction. CP Monroe noted when working with the Planning Commission that all of these amendments affecting properties in the downtown area should be considered to be interim, since once a specific plan has been prepared for the downtown, all of the zoning will be reviewed for consistency with the direction of the plan. The regulations clarifying council action in the absence of a majority vote were not included with the Planning Commission review. BACKGROUND: Periodically it is necessary to do an update of zoning regulations to address places where the language is not as clear as it should be, where because of timing of adoption and revision portions of the municipal code come Introduction of 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. May 2,2005 to be in conflict, or where court cases indicate that regulations should be clarified. This zoning code update is such an omnibus. Below is a summary of the proposed changes to the zoning code text. Also attached is an annotated version of the text which provides the background thinking and planning commission reasoning during the review and recommendation process. Summary of the Zoning Designation and Text Changes Auto Row, Subarea D The proposed changes clarify the language of the current code provision. As written office uses are not addressed in the overlay, which implies that they are prohibited, however the underlying zoning and general plan allows office uses in the C-2 district. Also there was a request from an auto dealer to allow car rental facilities, as a support use to the auto sales and service uses they provide. To make the permitted and conditional uses clearer, the format of the Section 25.38.031 was changed. With this change retail sales and service of automobiles and related storage including automobile sales lots continue to be the only permitted use in Subarea D. However, on-site car rental desks with no on-site rental car storage are included in the auto sales and service use and are also permitted as a matter of right. On site offices for car sales and car service operations have always been assumed to be a part of the permitted use. The major clarification to these provisions comes in the conditional uses section. "Residential" and "retail sales and service" uses other than auto related continue to be allowed. In addition office uses (free standing office buildings or office only tenants in larger buildings) have been added with a conditional use permit. At the request of a representative of auto row, automobile rental uses have been added as a conditional use. Given the Planning Commission's concerns regarding the impact of this use on the downtown area the car rental uses were required to share a site with an auto sales/service use, have limited fleet storage but not be allowed to use on street parking, and to be open within the hours that the on site auto sales/service use is open.. As proposed the car rental use would be required to meet certain performance requirements. These would include: a. must receive a conditional use permit and meet the following minimum criteria: b. a car rental operation must share (be on the same site) as a car dealership; and c. the total cars rented from the agency is limited to a maximum of 1, 250 average per month; and d. parking is provided on site for at least 10 percent of the average cars rented monthly from the site however total storage shall not exceed 50 cars; and e. the car rental agency would be open within the hours as the car dealership where the facility is located; and f. parking is provided on the site for all employees and customers. These performance standards are similar to the ones used by the city in regulating car rental operations in the Bayfront area, and have been effective in addressing the operational and traffic issues raised by this use. The average number of cars rented per month expected to be the same number of daily rentals reported by the from dealerships with on-site rental desks. These on-site desks would close if a single car rental agency were to open to serve all the dealerships in the area. So the volume of car rentals is expected to be about the same as currently occurring in the area from on-site desks. The use by the public who are not having their cars serviced/repaired would be controlled by the fact that the rental agencies hours would not be extended beyond when the car dealership is open. Kent Putnam of Putnam Motors attended the Commission meeting and noted that the operation he envisions could operate effectively within these criteria, and supported car rental uses being added as a conditional use. (See PC Minutes April 25, 2005) The remainder of CS 25.38.031 was not changed.. 2 Introduction of 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. May 2,2005 Building Regulations Subarea A After some discussion about alternative approaches, the Commission suggested that a process be created to review buildings slated for removal in Subarea A before a demolition permit is issued. This would assure that the contribution made by the building to the effective functioning of the pedestrian-oriented downtown area is well understood and can be incorporated into the design of any new structure and that replacement structures are approved before demolition so that there are no long term vacant lots created in the downtown area. The proposed regulations provide for the following process: a. Require design review for any change to any facade of a building in Subarea A; b. Would require an independent evaluation of the building's contribution to the pedestrian-oriented retail fabric and General Plan policies for subarea A to be evaluated as a part of the CEQA review process; and c. Holding of issuance of a demolition permit until (a) and(b) have been completed. Amend Fortunetelling License Requirements (Chapter 6.38) When the Fortunetelling License requirements were added to the Municipal Code the zoning provisions were unclear about which zones would allow these uses. As a result, provisions were put in the License requirements that fortunetelling uses could be allowed only in the C-1 and C-2 zones. Later the zoning requirements (Chapter 25) were amended to allow Fortunetelling ( including psychic services) only in the C-4 zone and only as a conditional use. Psychic services were prohibited in all other zones in the city. Based on the two chapters Fortunetelling is allowed in the C-1 and C-2 zones and is a conditional use in the C-4. Staff does not believe that this was the city's intention at the time the zoning code was amended. For that reason the proposed change is to the Fortunetelling License requirements, indicating that an application must be consistent with the zoning requirements. Amendment to Chapter 25.59 Secondary Dwelling Units At the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting in 2004 staff was directed to add an incentive to homeowners who had second units eligible for amnesty and who were willing to provide these units as very low and low income housing. The proposed incentive was to require no on site parking if the second unit was retained as very low or low income rental housing. The second unit ordinance already included an incentive to provide for affordable housing, no covered parking. As proposed the requirements still rely on parking as an incentive: ■ Provide parking as required in the code for all dwelling units, and the second unit may be marketed at any rent the owner decides (covered and uncovered parking as required by the code based on bedrooms in the primary dwelling, and one uncovered space (no more than two in tandem) for the second unit); ■ Provide three uncovered parking spaces on-site (no more than two in tandem) unit may be managed as affordable housing (e.g. probably for moderate income individuals); ■ Provide no on-site parking for the second unit, and the unit must be managed as very low or low income rent levels. All the remaining performance standards for eligibility of the second unit for the amnesty program remain the same. (See annotations attached). As this code section is written, only the parking for the second unit (one required space) may be provided on the street; and only if that unit is managed by a third party and rented to an eligible very low or low income person. The homeowner must still provide parking for the primary dwelling on-site as required by the zoning code. 3 Introduction of 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. May 2,2005 Churches, Definition and Chante in Legal Requirements The need for this change has come about as the result of a court case in which a church won the right to be treated like any other land uses, meaning that as a class churches/religious institutions had to be treated as other similar uses (clubs and associations) and allowed as a permitted use in at least one zoning district. In the current zoning code churches (and religious institutions of various types) are a conditional use in the R-1, R-2, R-3, R-4, C-1 and C-2 zoning districts. All of the churches/religious institutions in the City are located in the C-1, R-3 or R-1 zones, although the majority of the churches in the city are located along El Camino Real on property zoned R-3. This code change allows churches as a permitted use in the R-3 zone. A conditional use permit is still required for the many auxiliary uses encouraged today by religious communities on church sites for community or economic reasons.. This city review is necessary because these uses can increase and extend the impact of the church or institutional use on the immediate neighborhood, on on-street parking, and on traffic and circulation in the immediate or larger area. Churches and religious institutions and their auxiliary uses, will continue to be a conditional use in the R-1, R-2, R-4, C-1 and C-2 zones. Since convents and parish houses (single family houses or boarding houses) are allowed in the R-3 zone, these uses were also added to the permitted uses section in the R-3 district. A definition for church and religious institution was added to facilitate the administration of these provisions. Council Procedures The zoning code includes a section on procedures, Chapter 25.16. In this chapter the procedures for Planning Commission review and appeal to the city council are defined. CS 25.16.080 addresses review by City Council. It defines how an appeal will be scheduled and that the Council shall have a hearing. Finally that after a hearing the Council shall act. In discussing actions this section does not address what happens if the City Council ties on the vote on an appeal from the Planning Commission. The suggested language is that if the City Council has a tie vote on an appeal the application is denied. (See annotations attached). Staff Comments Staff sees the proposed zoning changes to Subarea D and Subareas A, as being interim. The final step in preparing a Specific Plan for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area will be to review and rewrite the zoning to fit the directions of the new plan. There may be any number of zoning changes required at that time which would affect these provisions. However, since the completion of a Specific Plan is at least two years away and the implementation of new zoning another year after that, these regulations applying to Subareas A and D will clarify the currently allowed and conditional uses and act as a review line during the plan preparation. The other proposed regulations included above will become a part of the permanent requirements for each use or district e.g. second unit amnesty, churches, and clarifying the reference to zoning code in the licensing requirements for fortunetelling. Margaret Monroe City Planner Attachments Ordinance of the City of Burlingame 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, 4 Introduction of 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. May 2,2005 Expressly Allow Churches as a Permitted Use in the R-3 District, and Reduce Parking Requirements for Certain Secondary Dwelling Units, and Clarify Council Appeal Procedures. Annotations: Revisions to the Zoning Code: Auto Row Subarea D; Building Regulations Subarea A; Licensing Requirements; Location of Churches; and Clarify Council Appeal Procedures. Planning Commission Minutes, March 14, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes, April 25, 2005 5 I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 6.38 TO CLARIFY FORTUNETELLING LOCATIONS AND 3 TITLE 25 TO CLARIFY USES IN SUBAREA D OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, CLEARLY REGULATE REMODELING OR REMOVAL OF 4 BUILDINGS IN SUBAREA A OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA,EXPRESSLY ALLOW CHURCHES AS A PERMITTED USE IN THE R3 5 DISTRICT,REDUCE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN SECONDARY DWELLING UNITS,AND CLARIFY COUNCIL APPEAL PROCEDURES 6 7 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 8 9 Section 1. This ordinance is intended to clarify specific issues in the Zoning Code. 10 (a) The ordinance clarifies that fortunetelling or psychic services will be treated as a 11 personal service use, unless otherwise provided. 12 (b) The ordinance details the uses to be permitted or conditional in Subarea D of the 13 Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, confirming that office uses are only allowed with a 14 conditional use permit and allow automobile rental businesses as a conditional use under certain 15 narrow conditions. 16 (c)The ordinance sets forth limitations on removal or remodeling of buildings in Subarea 17 A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area,while the City is working on a specific area plan 18 for the Area. 19 (d) The ordinance expressly permits churches in the R3 districts of the City, which is 20 consistent with the current location of many churches. 21 (e)The ordinance allows a property owner to not provide parking for a secondary dwelling 22 unit under the City's amnesty program if the unit is used for low income or very low income 23 affordable housing. 24 (f) The ordinance confirms the appeals procedure before the City Council that requires a 25 majority vote of the Council to approve an application and provides a de novo hearing before the 26 Council. 27 28 Section 2. Chapter 6.38 is retitled"Fortunetelling 1 1 Section 3. Section 6.38.010 is amended to read as follows: 2 6.3 8.010 Fortunetellin a 3 .&is unlawful for any person to conduct,engage in,carry on,participate in or practice 4 fortunetelling&IQW �Nor cause the same to be done for pay,without have first obtained 5 a permit therefore and without having posted and maintained in full force and effect a surety bond 6 as required by this chapter. 7 No erson shall conduct a fortunetellin " " p g u f3..�ebusiness inany __ 8 � Wzone Oiftlie city exceptin- ore-2 zone,nor shall 9 any person conduct a fortunetelling 0 ®� business at any address or location other than 10 the address or location listed on the application and for which the permit is issued. 11 12 Section 4. A new Section 25.36.036 is added to read as follows: 13 25.36.036 Building replacement in Subarea A. 14 The following provisions shall apply to the removal or remodel of any building constructed 15 within Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District: 16 (a) All facade changes shall be subject to commercial design review under chapter 25.57; 17 and 18 (b) No part of any building shall be removed or significantly altered on the exterior without 19 compliance with all the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act, including an 20 analysis of the contribution,both independently and cumulative,of the structure to be replaced or 21 modified to the pedestrian-oriented retail fabric of and the city's general plan policies for Subarea 22 A; and 23 (c) A demolition permit shall not be issued until the planning commission has approved 24 the design review for the project. 25 26 Section 5. Section 25.57.010 is amended to add anew subsection(c) as follows: 27 (c) In addition to the requirements of subsection (b) above, no building or construction 28 permit shall be issued for work on a building in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial 2 I Area that involves any change to the front facade or any facade facing a public or private street or 2 parking lot unless the proposed change has been reviewed pursuant to this chapter. 3 4 Section 6. Section 25.38.031 is amended to read as follows: 5 25.38.031 Burlingame Avenue commercial area. 6 The following provisions shall apply to the portions of Subarea B of the Burlingame 7 OM Commercial Area that are within the C-2 district and to Subarea D of the Burlingame 8 Avenue Commercial Area: 9 (a) Uses allowed in Subarea D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter,any 10 residential use or retail use other thmi those related to antomobile sales, service,mid storage shall 11 be allowed only with a special permit in subwea D of the Burfingwne Avenne eonnnercial 2�Tea 12 �. . v 13 � � d 14 ..t ,t F� �. � _�.. . .. ... 15 (A) Retail sales�of and les and related storage; 16 (B)Automobile rental desks with no ori-site rental car storage as an accessory use 17 to;retail`sales or service of automobiles„and open only when the primary auto sales or 18 ' . .. wx , 19 (C)"'Automobile sales its 20 (D)Retail sales©f automobile parts and'accessories.. 21 (2) The following uses are conditional uses:. 22 (A)Any residential use; 23 (B)Office uses; 24 (C) Retail sales other than those related to automobile sales or service 25 (D)Personal services other than those related to automobile sales'or scrvt ; 26 (E) , Autaniobile.rental businesses:.that meet all of the follflwingi 27 28 (i) The use is,located on a lot with,an automobile sales or,servicc use; and 3 ovided ori-site for storage of at least ten(I0)percent of the 2 arage number of vehicles rented monthly from the site;the average number shall 3 r aryear;however,in no event,shad storage for ore t-ban MI 4 .. " ciedr -site; and 5 6 � , 7 . . 4e 8 (b) Permitted and conditional uses in Subarea B. Subsections 25.36.040(a) and (b) 9 governing permitted and conditional uses in the portions of Subarea B in the C-ldistrict shall also 10 govern permitted and conditional uses in the portions of Subarea B in the C-2 district. 11 (c) Nonconforming uses. Notwithstanding any contrary provisions of chapter 25.50 of this 12 code, nonconforming uses shall terminate only upon the vacation of the premises by the use 13 occupying said premises on October 1,1981;provided,however,such existing nonconforming uses 14 shall be allowed to continue despite destruction by catastrophe or natural disaster of the existing 15 structure, so long as the use occupying the space at the time of the catastrophe or natural disaster 16 is the use returning into the new structure. New uses in such structures must conform to the 17 permitted and conditional uses for the appropriate subarea. 18 (d) Vehicle parking requirements. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code,the 19 following shall apply to vehicle parking requirements: 20 (1) Uses permitted and existing on October 1, 1981, shall be exempt from the parking 21 requirements of this chapter. 22 (2) Businesses whose use becomes nonconforming as a result of the creation of this area 23 shall be exempt from parking requirements until the vacation of the premises by the use occupying 24 the premises on October 1, 1981. 25 (3) Any new development,except reconstruction because of catastrophe or natural disaster, 26 shall provide on-site parking. 27 (4) Buildings reconstructed after catastrophe or natural disaster shall be required to provide 28 parking only for the square footage over and above the square footage existing at the time of the 4 I disaster. This parking shall be provided on site. 2 3 Section 7. Subsection 25.59.060(a) is amended to read as follows: 4 (a) On site parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms in the primary dwelling and 5 one(1) space for the second unit shall be provided as follows: 6 (1) Parking for the primary dwelling as required by chapter 25.70; and 7 (2) No more than two (2) of the required on-site parking spaces shall be in tandem 8 configuration, covered or uncovered; and 9 (3) No required parking may be provided in the front setback or yard, except in the 10 driveway; and 11 (4) All parking shall be provided on a hard,all-weather surface and properly drained to the 12 public street; and 13 (5) Notwithstanding subsection(a)(1)above,up to three(3)of the parking spaces required 14 for the property by this title may be uncovered if,but only if,the secondary dwelling unit is only 15 used for affordable dwelling unit housing as defined in chapter 25.63. As a condition of 16 approval under this subsection,the owner of the property will be required to enter into and record 17 an agreement generally in conformance with section 25.63.040 to ensure continued affordability 18 of the secondary dwelling unit. 19 (6) Notwithstanding subsection(a) (1) ov o on-site parking for the second unit shall 20 ` ired if,but only if,the secondary dwelling unit is only used as an affordable dwelling uii 21 for which either the rent or lease amount to be charged is at or below the amounts specified fof 22 persons and families of low income as defined inseetibn 50053 of the California Health&Safety 23 Code=: Asa condition of approval under this subsection,the owner of the property will be required 24 to enter into and record an agreement generally_in conformance with section 25.63.040 to ensure 25 c� nM 26 27 Section 8. A new section 25.08.183 is added as follows: 28 25.08.183 Church. 5 1 �, (e -State and local laws for access and egress must be observed,including the provision 2 of necessary fire escapes, Ma 3 (d)One garage space shall be provided for each rented room for the first four ooms and 4 one additional space shall be provided for each additional twoy ooms, 5 (e) When common kitchen and eating facilities are provided as part of the house service, 6 such services shall be limited to the residents of the boardinghouse. 7 , vvMch shall not exceed two square feet it. 8 may be dispfayed on the property, 9 .. h 4-. Group residential facilities for the elderly; 10 _ 5-Any structure that is more than thirty-five feet in height(see 25.32.060). 11 £r: In association with a church or otherreii-giow or nonprofit institution,provision of 12 yusr actlity whichg,religious services by the church 0 13 religious organization includuses or non-religious based 14 cQ� services. 15 ckation with a c g � �` �5 n temporary shelter for x t . ` .,. _ KV 16 homeless individuals or families, provided that the facility is located within a transportation 17 corridor and the use does not occur continuously at any one location for more than six(6)months 18 of any twelve(12)month period. 19 20 Section 12. Section 25.16.080 is amended to read as follows: 21 25.16.080 Review by council. 22 (a) At its next regular meeting following the appeal or the suspension by the council,or at 23 any meeting thereafter to which the matter may be continued,the council shall conduct a hearing 24 thereon 25 (b) After having held such hearing,the council shall make and file its order determining 26 the matter and may approve, disapprove or modify the order of the commission. ' 28 7 1 "Church"means any building wherein persons regularly assemble for religious worship,and 2 which is maintained and controlled by a religious body or organization to sustain public worship. 3 4 Section 9. Section 25.08.545 is amended to read as follows: 5 25.08.545 Psychic services. 6 "Psychic services"means ' m �� ' �` by a business, individual, or 7 group of individuals who provide psychic,medium,palmist, or fortunetelling services. 8 9 Section 10. Section 25.32.020 is amended to read as follows: 10 25.32.020 Permitted uses. 11 The following uses are permitted in the R-3 districts: 12 All uses permitted in R-1 and R-2 districts, subject to the same restrictions, 13 regulations and limitations that apply to those uses in their respective districts; 14 -2-. Apartment houses and multifamily dwellings; 15 3-Accessory uses as described for R-1 districts; 16 Cl�rfi ., 17 18 Section 11. Section 25.32.030 is amended to read as follows: 19 25.32.030 Conditional uses. 20 The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit: 21 ( } -17 All uses allowed with a conditional use permit in the R-1 and R-2 districts and 22 subject to the same restrictions and exceptions; 23 2 Parking areas; 24 3-Roominghouses or boardinghouses; provided, however, that no roominghouse or 25 boardinghouse permit may be granted unless the commission determines that all following 26 conditions are met: 27 (a)�No more than eight paying guests shall be permitted in one building; 28 Se arate and adequate sant facilities shall be provided for each sex; dv ( =„rte p q �' 6 2 3 Section 13. 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 ,2005,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held 10 on the day of , 2005, by the following vote: 11 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 12 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 13 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 14 City Clerk 15 C:\FILES\ORDINANC\zoningupdate2005.pin.wpd 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 Draft: April 26, 2005 Revisions to the Zoning Code:Auto Row, Subarea D; Building Regulation Subarea A; Licensing Requirements; Location of Churches and Council Procedures Two types of changes to the current regulations are noted below. The text in italics are changes proposed for Commission study. The changes in boldface italics are the changes made by the Commission at the action meeting, April 25, 2005,before they recommended the ordinance changes to the City Council. Additions to the annotation sections in boldface explain the reasons expressed by the Planning Commission for directing the changes the changes at the action meeting. Revisions to Subarea D,Auto Row,Regulations 25.38.031 Burlingame Avenue commercial area. The following provisions shall apply to the portions of subarea B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area that are within the C-2 district and to subarea D of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area: (a) Uses allowed in subarea D. Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, any resident use or retail use other-than these related to automobile sales, sefviee, and storage shall be allowe only with a speeial pefmit in subarea D ef the Burlingame Avenue Gemmer-eial A&e the following provisions specify the only permitted and conditional uses in Subarea D of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area: (1)The following uses are permitted uses: (A) Retail sales and service of automobiles and related storage; (B) Automobile rental desk with no on site rental car storage and open only when the primary auto sales and repair business is open. (C) Automobile sales lots. (D) Retail sales of automobile parts and accessories. Annotation: Since many automobile dealerships existing in the Auto Row area now are dependent on automobile sales lots which are adjacent but not on the same site' as the show room, Commission felt it was appropriate to add "automobile sales lots" as a permitted use . Because retail uses that are not auto related are a conditional use, it seemed clearer to note that retail uses that are auto related are a permitted us . (2) The following uses are conditional uses: (A) Any residential use; (B) Office uses; Annotation: Office uses : The current zoning provision does not address office uses at all . The proposed amendment makes office uses a conditional use. The suggestion above is that since free standing office buildings are probably not auto related, it is suggested that they be treated the same Revisions to the Zoning Code:Auto Row,Subarea D;Building Regulation Subarea A; Licensing Requirements;Location of Churches and City Council Procedures Draft April 26,2005 as non-auto related retail uses, as a conditional use . with a conditional use permit the Planning Commission can decide if the proposed replacement of the structure is consistent with the General Plan land use description and policy for auto row. It should be noted that in all zones in the city, small support office areas for the primary business on a site, are allowed as a part of the primary use as long as the activity in the office area is directly related and integral to the primary non-office use on the site. These support office areas cannot be sublet to independent businesses and for this reason are encouraged to be located in areas within a structure without direct access to the outside. If, as often happens in warehouse buildings, these office areas are walled off, parking is calculated based on 1 :300 SF for the designated office area. (C) Retail sales use other than those related to automobile sales or service; Annotation: The wording of the current regulation is not as clear as it could be about which uses are subject to a conditional use permit . The General Plan allows retail sales and service uses, but the zoning refers only to non-auto related "retail" uses . The revision in this section clarifies "non-auto related retail" by to include "retail sales and service uses" as allowed in the underlying C-2 zone and the General Plan. (D)Personal services other than those related to automobile sales or service; (E) Automobile rental businesses which meet all the following minimum standards: (i) The use is located on a lot with an automobile sales or service use; and (ii) Parking is provided on site for storage of at least ten(10) percent of the average number of cars rented monthly from the site; the average number shall be calculated over a calendar year; however, in no event, shall storage for more than fifty(50) rental vehicles be provided on-site; and (iii) Parking is provided on-site for all employees and customers; and (iv) The automobile rental business is open only within hours that the automobile sales and service use is open. Annotation: At the Planning Commission study meeting on March 14, 2005, where the 2 Revisions to the Zoning Code:Auto Row,Subarea D,Building Regulation Subarea A;Licensing Requirements;Location of Churches and City Council procedures Draft April 26,2005 Commission reviewed the staff's initial proposals for revisions to the Auto Row zoning requirements, the Commission expressed concerns about the impacts (traffic, parking, circulation and visual) caused by free standing car rental operations in the auto row area so close to the pedestrian oriented downtown. The Commissioners noted if the free standing car rental use were to be allowed, it should be limited by performance criteria so that it fits into the scale of the other uses in the area. Commission suggested that the staff proposed performance criteria be amended to (1) require that free standing auto related uses be allowed only in combination (separate but on the same site) with an auto dealership e.g. sales, service operation; (2) that the rental "fleet" be limited and consolidated into one site regulating the intensity of use by limiting the hours of operation to be the same as the auto dealership; (3) that the storage area for cars be limited to the size needed for the limited fleet size e.g. 10% of the average monthly rentals from the site. At the action meeting the Planning Commission further revised the criteria by setting a maximum and minimum for the on-site storage of rental cars e.g. 10% of the average monthly rentals would be the minimum and 50 would be the maximum. The reason was that the commission felt that a large, fenced vehicle storage area within Auto Row would be a detriment to the viability of the area and unattractive at the entrance to the downtown shopping area. Also the commission did not felt that it was necessary to place a maximum on the average number of car rentals from the site, they felt that the number was not so important as the visual and physical impact, so if the business could organize around the on-site storage capacity, they could rent as many cars as were needed. However, the criteria make it clear that all parking for a car rental business must be on site, including employees and customer drop off and pick ups. The revised criteria that the commission reviewed at the action meeting included that the car rental facility be on a site with a dealership but in a separate building. After discussion the commission felt that the separate building was unnecessary, so long as the storage area was provided. Finally the commission felt that the car rental agency did not have to be open as long as the dealership site on which it was located, so rephrased the hours to say "within" the hours of operation of the dealership on-site. So the car rental may be open the same or fewer hours, but not longer hours than the dealership on the site. It should be noted after speaking with Kent Putnam of Putnam Automotive (Volvo, Mazda, Toyota and Chevy) who requested that free standing auto 3 Revisions to the Zoning Code:Auto Row,Subarea D,Building Regulation Subarea A; Licensing Requirements;Location of Churches and City Council Procedures Draft April 26,2005 rental uses to support the existing car sales and service uses be allowed in Auto Row, that demand for car rentals based on the activity at current on-site rental desks from his dealerships is 50-65 rentals a day. Given the current size of car rental demand. Using performance criteria to regulate car rental businesses has worked well for the car rental agencies in the Bayfront area, and there have been no on-street parking impacts. Mr. Putnam had no problem with the requirement that the car rental facility be in a separate building but located on the same site with an auto dealership (showroom, sales and service) , although he noted that in that case some or all of the car rental storage would be required to be on another site because of the small physical size of most of the auto dealerships on Auto Row. Mr. Putnam was at the public hearing to address any additional questions . the commission may have regarding the economic benefits and customer service advantages of a free standing car rental facility to serve the auto sales and service businesses in Auto Row. Original Annotation: Currently the automobile dealerships in Auto Row have support service auto rental desks operated on a part time basis, with rental cars being brought to the site on an "as needed" basis. Auto rental desks have been included as a permitted use. Because of its location the auto rentals are limited to service customers. There has been little impact on parking or traffic circulation observed from this support activity. A local auto dealer notes that the daily demand for car rents currently being met daily by the on site desks is: 10-15 cars at Volvo-Mazda, 15-20 at Toyota, and 10-15 at Chevy. Because rental desks are not staffed regularly and customers complain about waiting long periods first for an attendant to arrive and then to have the car delivered to the site; the car dealers have requested the opportunity to have a centralized, free standing car rental operation on auto row. This would mean that customers could simply walk over and rent a car, rather than wait for an attendant and vehicle delivery from an off site location. To address this free standing automobile rental businesses have been added to Auto Row (Subarea D) as a conditional use. As we have learned in the O-M district, the impacts of free standing auto rental operations depend in large part upon the adequacy of the site. For this reason, and because a free standing auto rental operation would be open for more hours and serve more customers than an individual dealer' s desk, it seemed appropriate to make this use a conditional use. (b) Permitted and conditional uses in subarea B. Subsections 25.36.040(a)and(b) governing permitted and conditional uses in the portions of subarea B in the C-I district shall also govern permitted and conditional uses in the portions of subarea B in the C-2 district. 4 Revisions to the Zoning Code: Auto Row, Subarea D, Building Regulation Subarea A; Licensing Requirements; Location of Churches and City Council Procedures Draft April 26, 2005 Annotation : In the past the terms " conditional use permit " and " special permit " were used interchangeable in the zoning code and meant the same thing . More recently the term " special permit " has been given a different meaning with its own criteria and used as a way to provide flexibility for design review e . g . a height between 30 feet and 36 feet on a single family house requires a special permit not a conditional use permit . In the context of the regulations for Auto Row the term special permit means conditional use permit so the term has been changed for consistency . No change to the meaning of the regulations is proposed for this section . The portion of Subarea B which is zoned C- 2 is the area which fronts on California Drive between Lorton and Oak Grove . (c) Nonconforming uses. Notwithstanding any contrary provisions of Chapter 25.50 of this code, nonconforming uses shall terminate only upon the vacation of the premises by the use occupying said premises on October 1, 1981; provided, however, such existing nonconforming uses shall be allowed to continue despite destruction by catastrophe or natural disaster of the existing structure, so long as the use occupying the space at the time of the catastrophe or natural disaster is the use returning into the new structure. New uses in such structures must conform to the permitted and conditional uses for the appropriate subarea. Annotation : This provision was added to make it clear that nonconforming uses in subarea D could relocate into new buildings on the basis of their current use permits if the building were destroyed by a natural disaster ( earthquake ) or catastrophe ( fire ) . Uses which are new to the building replaced after a disaster , and not auto related, would be required to apply for a conditional use permit . It should be noted here , that if a building is voluntarily removed and rebuilt the use permits for all the uses in the previous structure are automatically voided; All non-auto related uses would require a conditional use permit . A final note , this section defines nonconforming use as apply to all uses occupying the premises on October 1 , 1981 . (d) Vehicle parking requirements. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, the following shall apply to vehicle parking requirements: (1) Uses permitted and existing on October 1, 1981, shall be exempt from the parking requirements of this chapter. (2) Businesses whose use becomes nonconforming as a result of the creation of this area shall be exempt from parking requirements until the vacation of the premises by the use occupying the premises on October 1, 1981 . (3) Any new development, except reconstruction because of catastrophe or natural disaster, shall provide on-site parking. 5 Revisions to the Zoning Code:Auto Row,Subarea D;Building Regulation Subarea A; Licensing Requirements;Location of Churches and City Council Procedures Draft April 26,2005 (4) Buildings reconstructed after catastrophe or natural disaster shall be required to provide parking only for the square footage over and above the square footage existing at the time of the disaster. This parking shall be provided on site. Annotation: All of the older, pre-1940 buildings and uses in Subarea D are built or extend virtually lot line to lot line. At the time many of these buildings were constructed, the city had no on-site parking requirement . Many of the older uses are car sales showrooms with service bays and sales lots to the sidewalk with no on-site employee parking or storage for cars being serviced. The purpose of this section was to clarify that businesses and uses located in Auto Row before these regulations were adopted in 1981 are not required to provide on-site parking if they had none at that time, even if the buildings they occupied are demolished in a disaster. However, if the buildings are voluntarily replaced, they must provided parking to code on site. For example, if an existing auto dealership was to be removed and replaced with a mixed commercial/residential use or residential only building, parking to code requirements for the new use would need to be provided on the project site. The parking could be below grade or at grade, whatever could be approved through commercial design review for a mixed use project or residential design review via the condominium permit. Parking variances are an option if the Commission agrees that a hardship exists on the property. Since parking is a use in the Burlingame zoning code, nonconforming use is defined as one existing in the area before October 1, 1981 . No change is proposed to this definition. Add Code Section 25.36.036 Building Replacement in Subarea A 25.36.036 Building Replacement in Subarea A The following provisions shall apply to the removal or remodel of any building constructed within subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue commercial district: Annotation: The Planning Commission suggested that this provision addressing building replacement should be applied to Subarea A as at least an interim requirement . Because of the strong roll played by the existing buildings in the creation of the "pedestrian precinct" which is the underpinning of the General Plan policy for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Commission recognized that these requirements might be revised when a specific plan is adopted for the downtown area. These provisions establish a process for review prior to issuance of a 6 Revisions to the Zoning Code.Auto Row,Subarea D;Building Regulation Subarea A;Licensing Requirements;Location of Churches and City Council procedures Draft April 26,2005 demolition permit for any structure in Subarea A. These provisions are not intended to apply to Subarea B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area (a) All fagade changes shall be subject to commercial design review,CS 25.57;and Annotation: This provision extends commercial design review in subarea A to require that any change to the fagade of buildings within Subarea A shall be subject to the commercial design review process. Currently if a fagade is less than 25 feet wide or less than 50% of the fagade is being altered, commercial design review does not apply. (b)No part of any building shall be removed or significantly altered on the exterior without compliance with all the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act including an analysis of the contribution,both independently and cumulative,of the structure to be replaced or modified to the pedestrian-oriented retail fabric and General Plan policies for subarea A;and Annotation: The Commission felt that given the number of fagade modifications and replacement projects recently requested in subarea A, it would be prudent to require applicants to evaluate the consistency of their proposed changes with the General Plan land use policies for Subarea A before any work, including demolition, is done to an existing structure. Commission recognized that these requirements are a "holding" action and that after a specific plan is prepared for subarea A, these requirements may be modified or refined. (c)A demolition permit shall not be issued until the Planning Commission has approved the design review for the project. Annotation: The Building Replacement provisions establish criteria which must be met before a demolition permit can be issued. They provide the city the opportunity to review the structure to be removed in the "context" of the commercial area and for its role in supporting the "pedestrian precinct" e.g. walk able downtown which is the cornerstone of the land use policy for subarea A. These provisions also insure that buildings are not removed in the downtown area until the community has approved their replacements. This will assure that the new structure will fit the "context" and that is will be reviewed for its role in supporting pedestrian activity in the area. In addition the provision will avoid 7 Revisions to the Zoning Code: Auto Row, Subarea D, Building Regulation Subarea A; Licensing Requirements, Location of Churches and City Council Procedures Draft April 26, 2005 long term vacant lots in subarea A which negatively impact the vitality of the retails area . Add for consistency to CS25.57.010 Design Review 25.57.010 (c) (c) In addition to the requirements of subsection (b) above, no building or construction permit shall be issued for work on a building in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area that involves any change to the front fagade or any facade facing a public or private street or parking lot unless the proposed change has been reviewed pursuant to this chapter. Annotation : This section was added to the design review guidelines because , as a result of the new process for review before issuance of a demolition permit in Subarea A, to remind the user that in Subarea A the " trigger" for design review is different . In the C- 1 and C- 2 zones in general , the trigger for design review is a commercial site wider than 25 feet and change to 50% or more to a fagade facing a public or private street . The new process for subarea A requires design review of any change to any fagade facing a public or private street . This should be considered an interim regulation , and will be re- evaluated when more specific design standards are established for Subarea A though an area wide planning process . For consistency amend CS 25.57.010 (Design Review) Add a new subsection CS 25.57.010 (d) (d) In addition to the requirements of subsection (b) above, no building or construction permit shall be issued for work on a building in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area that involves any change to the front fagade or any fagade facing a public or private street or parking lot unless the proposed change has been reviewed pursuant to this chapter. Annotation : This provision included in the section on Design Review processing requirements is a flag that the design review process will be handled a little differently in Subarea A . This provision will insure more consistency in administering the zoning code . 8 Revisions to the Zoning Code:Auto Row,Subarea D;Building Regulation Subarea A; Licensing Requirements,Location of Churches and City Council Procedures Draft April 26,2005 Amend Fortunetelling and Psychic Services Proposed changes: Current Municipal Code Chapter Title: Chapter 6.38 Fortunetelling Proposed Municipal Code Chapter Title: Chapter 6.38 Fortunetelling and Psychic Services Annotation: This change is proposed because in the zoning code Psychic Services are defined to include fortunetelling. Adding Psychic Services to the title of the section requiring Fortunetelling licensing will make the scope of the regulation clearer to the licensee. Proposed changes to the text of Chapter 6.38 Fortunetelling: Chapter 6.38 is retitled "Fortunetelling and Psychic Services. 6.38.010 Fortunetelling and Psychic Services (a) It is unlawful for any person to conduct, engage in , carry on,participate in or practice fortunetelling or psychic services or cause the same to be done for pay, without have first obtained a permit therefore and without having posted and maintained in full force and effect a surety bond as required by this chapter. (b) No person shall conduct a fortunetelling or psychic service business in-airy at a location that is not in accord with title 25 of the Municipal Code zone of the city except in a r ' ^r-' nor shall any person conduct a fortunetelling or psychic service business at any address or location other than the address or location listed on the application and for which the permit is issued. Annotation: Staff recently discovered that the Fortunetelling section of the Municipal Code Chapter 6 . 38 and the zoning chapter CS 25 were inconsistent . Apparently in 1993 the city added a zoning code section addressing licensing of Fortunetelling (CS 6 .38) , allowing fortunetelling only in the C-1 and C-2 zones . In 1998 the city amended the zoning code to allow fortunetelling (psychic services) only in the C-4 (waterfront) district and only with a conditional use permit . Currently because of the conflicting direction, fortunetelling is allowed in the C-1, C-2 and with a conditional use permit C-4 zones. 9 Revisions to the Zoning Code:Auto Row,Subarea D;Building Regulation Subarea A; Licensing Requirements;Location of Churches and City Council Procedures Draft Apri126,2005 Psychic services are prohibited in all other zoning districts . This proposed change sets the zoning code (Chapter 25) as the standard for determining the location of psychic services and eliminates the overlapping direction. By referring to the zoning code in the licensing requirements, there will be automatic consistency when the zoning requirements are amended in the future . Amend Definition of Psychic Services CS 25.08.545 Psychic Services "Psychic services" means a personal service that is provided by a business, individual, or group of individuals who provide psychic, medium,palmist, or fortunetelling services. Annotation: The performance characteristics of a psychic service business is closest to a personal service such as a beauty parlor or barber shop. The current definition does not make it clear what classification this use is assigned. The amendment clarifies that a psychic service will be permitted or prohibited where personal services are permitted or prohibited. Amendment to Chapter 25.59 Secondary Dwelling Units Amend CS 25.59.060 Performance Standards (amendments in italics) 25.59.060 Performance Standards (a) On site parking spaces based on the number of bedrooms in the primary dwelling and one (1) space for the second unit shall be provided as follows: (1) Parking for the primary dwelling as required by chapter 25.70, and (2)Not more than two (2) of the required on—site parking spaces shall be in tandem configuration, covered or uncovered; and Annotation: A property owner who seeks amnesty for an existing second unit built before 1954, but does not want to be limited by off site management of the leasing by a third party, must provide at least code required parking on-site for the single family house plus one uncovered parking space on site for the second unit. This clarification is necessary 10 Revisions to the Zoning Code.Auto Row,Subarea D;Building Regulation Subarea A; Licensing Requirements,Location of Churches and City Council Procedures Draft April 26,2005 since other paring options are used as incentives to rent second units for moderate income housing. (2) No required parking may be provided in the front setback or yard, except in the driveway; and (3) All parking shall be provided on a hard, all-weather surface and properly drained to the pubic street; and (4) Notwithstanding subsection(a) (1) above,up to three (3) of the parking spaces required for the property by this title may be uncovered if,but only if,the secondary dwelling unit is used as an affordable dwelling unit as defined in chapter 25.63. As a condition of approval under this subsection,the owner of the property will be required to enter into and record an agreement generally in conformance with section 25.63.040 to ensure continued affordability of the secondary dwelling unit. Annotation: Currently the inclusionary housing provisions include the opportunity for up to three of the required parking spaces on a property (including the one space for the second unit) to be uncovered if the second unit met any one of the three affordability choices (moderate, low and very low income) and was managed by a third party so that it was retained as affordable. After this provision was adopted, Council decided that there should be a further incentive given to the property owner if the second unit was offered at very low or low income rents . Therefore the incentive of three uncovered parking spaces is applied to second units with moderate income rent limitations . See below for the added incentives to encourage homeowners to market and rent a second unit as a low income or very low income unit . Note: the change to wording proposed here is to clarify the intent of the subsection. (5) Notwithstanding subsection(a) (1) above, no on-site parking for the second unit shall be required if,but only if, the secondary dwelling unit is only used as an affordable dwelling unit for which either rent or lease amount to be charged is at or below the amounts specified for persons and families of low income as defined in section 50053 of the California Health &Safety Code. As a conditional of approval under this subsection, the owner of the property will be required to enter into and record an agreement generally in conformance with section 25.63.040 to ensure continued affordability of the secondary dwelling unit. 11 Revisions to the Zoning Code:Auto Row,Subarea D;Building Regulation Subarea A; Licensing Requirements;Location of Churches and City Council Procedures Draft April 26,2005 Annotation: Planning Commission wished to make it clear, that waiving the on-site parking requirement was for the second unit only. The primary unit would still be required to provide parking on site to code . The change to the wording clarifies the intention of the code provision. Original annotation: At the joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting in 2004, there was a consensus that existing second units, which were providing affordable housing and did not have on-site parking should be encouraged to remain, so long as they continued to provide very low and low income housing. Adoption of this change to the on-site parking requirements will not alter the requirement that on-site parking to code (covered and uncovered) be provided for the primary dwelling unit on the site. The intention of this change is to address the deterrent to participation in the program for some otherwise eligible properties because they never had any on-site parking for the second unit; and to encourage the provision of very low and low income housing in the city. (b) No more than two (2)persons may occupy the secondary dwelling unit. (c) An owner of the subject property shall reside in at least one of the dwelling units on the property at all times. (d) The floor area of the secondary dwelling unit shall not exceed 640 square feet. (e) The secondary dwelling unit shall conform to the requirements of the California Health and Safety Code, Section 17920.3, and the Uniform Housing Code as adopted by Section 17922. Churches, definition and change in legal requirements. Add definition for church CS 25.08.183 Church "Church" means any building wherein persons regularly assemble for religious worship, and which is maintained and controlled by a religious body or organization to sustain public worship. Add Churches, convents, parish houses to CS 25.32.020 permitted uses: The following uses are permitted in the R-3 districts: (a) All uses permitted in R-1 and R-2 districts, subject to the same restrictions, regulations and 12 Revisions to the Zoning Code:Auto Row,Subarea D;Building Regulation Subarea A; Licensing Requirements,Location of Churches and City Council Procedures Draft April 26,2005 limitations that apply to those uses in their respective districts; (b) Apartment houses and multiple family dwellings; (c) Accessory uses as described for R-1 districts; (d) Churches, convents parish houses. Annotation: Recent case law has dictated that churches be allowed as a matter of right in at least one zone in the city. Currently, because of the Euclidian structure of the present zoning code, churches are a conditional use in the R-1, R-2, R-3 , R-4 . C-1 and C-2 zones . They are prohibited uses in the M-1, 0-M, C-3 and C-4 zones . This proposed revision would allow churches as a permitted use in the R-3 zone . All of the existing churches on El Camino Real are located in the R-3 zone. There are three churches/religious institutions on Trousdale, Sebastian and Summit Drives in the R-1 zone. There are no churches presently in any other zone. The current provisions making churches conditional uses allows the city to review the non-religious sub-tenants of current church communities . These include facilities such as day care, homeless shelters, etc. If churches are made a permitted use in the R-3 zone with out addressing these auxiliary uses, the city would have no opportunity to review how these uses might affect the city' s circulation and adjacent neighborhoods . (see below) Amend Conditional Uses in the R-3 zone, CS 25.32.030 25.32.030Condition uses. The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit: (a) All uses allowed with a conditional use permit in the R-1 and R-2 districts and subject to the same restrictions and exceptions; (b) Parking areas; (c) Rooming houses or boarding houses; provided, however, that no rooming house of boardinghouse permit may be granted unless the commission determines that all the following conditions are met: (1) No more than eight(8)paying guests shall be permitted in one building; and (2) Separate and adequate sanitary facilities shall be provided for each sex; and (3) State and local laws for access and egress must be observed, including the provision of necessary fire escapes; and (4) One garage space shall be provided for each rented room for the first four(4) rooms and one additional space shall be provided for each additional two (2) rooms; and (5) When common kitchen and eating facilities are provided as part of the house 13 Revisions to the Zoning Code:Auto Row,Subarea D;Building Regulation Subarea A; Licensing Requirements;Location of Churches and City Council Procedures Draft April 26,2005 service, such services shall be limited to the residents of the boardinghouse. b. , may be displayed en the pr-epeAy; (d) Group residential facilities for the elderly; (e) any structure that is more than thirty-five (35)feet in height(see 25.32.060). (f) In association with a church of ether-,-eligiott or nonprofit institution, provision of any use or activity which is not directly related to providing religious services by the church or religious organization including leasing of premises for instructional uses or non-religious based counseling services. (g) In association with a church or nonprofit institution,provision of temporary. shelter for homeless individuals or families,provided that the facility is located within a transportation corridor and the use does not occur continuously at any one location for more than six (6) months of any twelve (12)month period. Annotation: Currently a conditional use permit is required if church facilities are to be used during off-hours by other organizations for such activities as music education and homeless shelters . This provision is expanded to include other users, not directly related to the provision of religious services, whose use might intensify the use of the church site and impact the adjacent neighborhood with parking and unusually timed activity as well as impacting the roadway system. Planning Appeals-Review by Council 25.16.080Review by council. (a) At its next regular meeting following the appeal or the suspension by the council, or at any meeting thereafter to which the matter may be continued,the council shall conduct a hearing thereon. The hearing by before the council is de novo. Annotation: The addition to this provision makes it clear that the hearing of the item by the Council is as if it were new. They are no bound by the action of the Planning Commission. At most the Planning Commission action becomes a recommendation, and is always included in the staff report . (b) After having held such hearing, the council shall make and file its order determining the matter and may approve, disapprove or modify the order of the commission. Any such order and 14 Revisions to the Zoning Code:Auto Row,Subarea D;Building Regulation Subarea A;Licensing Requirements;Location of Churches and City Council procedures Draft April 26,2005 decision requires the affirmative vote of a majority of the council. If a majority vote of the council is not obtained,the underlying,original application on which the appeal is based will be considered denied. Annotation: The first change to this provision makes it clear that a majority of the city council must agree for an action on an appeal. Next it notes that the vote must be in the affirmative. The motion could be to deny, and the majority votes yes to affirm the denial. If a motion fails, then the motion is rephrased so that the majority can act in the positive on the motion. This is standard procedure, but has not been stated in the zoning code before now. Finally this section adds a provision to address the situation where the council's vote is tied. This new provision states that in the event of a tie vote the application/request is denied. There has been some confusion in the past with thinking that if the council vote ties the planning commission's decision on the matter (whatever it was) stands. This addition to the code clarifies that the commission's decision would not stand. A tie vote would be a denial of the application. To avoid a tie vote and out right denial of a project or request, the sitting council could continue the item to another meeting when they have enough members to avoid a tie. However, the issue of a tie vote has become more real recently with the Brown Act requirements that a council member cannot vote if s/he lives within 500 feet of the proposed project. This is the reason that it is now appropriate to clarify the rules of procedure in the zoning code. U:\Zoning1ssues\C-2 and Subarea D\Dft 8 AutoRowRevisions et al 4.13.05doc.doc 15 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 25, 2005 7. ZONING CODE REVISIONS: AUTO ROW, SUBAREA D; BUILDING REGULATIONS SUBAREA A; LICENSING REQUIREMENTS; LOCATION OF CHURCHES PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report April 25.2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. C. Keighran was unable to be at the meeting but noted in written responses that she had reviewed the suggested revisions to the zoning and would prefer not to allow car rental,uses in Subarea D. Commissioners asked if it was necessary to have the rental operation in a separate building so long as it was on a dealership site and was open only the same hours as the dealership. Staff noted that had suggested placing car rental uses on dealership sites, to respond to commission concern that there not be a lot of free standing car rental businesses in Auto Row. The text should be changed to require that the car rental operation be open "within" the hours of the dealership, so it would not be required to be open more hours than necessary. Will there be a chance that these rental operations will pick up rentals from the hotels. Staff noted that a number of the hotels have rental desks, also the larger rental operations which have moved onto the airport site, remain legal in Burlingame only so long as they keep a rental desk open, they are closer to the hotels and pick up this business. If rentals are not given from desks in dealerships, can the public rent cars as well? Intended to support auto service business, public could rent if complied with hours. See as indirect support to auto service business at dealerships but do not want to see auto row transformed into auto repair row in the future, storage of 120 cars for car rental indicates support for auto repair not for auto sales.; also a physically large area for auto storage. Concerned about regulating demolition permits in Subarea D and B. CP noted that these changes to the regulations for the downtown area should be considered to be interim since it was possible that a Specific Area plan would be prepared for the entire area in the next several years. The last step in such a planning effort would be to review all the zoning and modify it to comply with the plan, these provisions would also be reviewed in that new context. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Kent Putnam, 65 Mission Trail , Woodside, noted he had requested the consolidated auto rental business to serve all the auto dealerships on Burlingame's auto row. He noted now that on site desks are not always staffed when needed, customers have to be transported to another site to pick up cars, not timely or efficient service. Has no problem with a separate building on a dealership site, since that is what he has and intends to use. Commissioner asked if walking down the street a half block would serve the customers equally? Yes better because the cars would be there. Would car rental serve Putnam dealerships only? No would be available to all dealerships, would be manned full time, and have cars available. Discussed the on site storage requirement, because of the daily volume and repeated use of the same cars felt that 120 cars for on site storage was too much. CA suggested that there could be a minimum based on a percentage of the monthly rentals and a maximum, for example 50. Where would the cars be washed? Staff noted that washing, repair, etc. were issues to be addressed in the conditional use permit, it is proposed that car rental operations, if more than a desk at a dealership, be a conditional use permit. Commissioners continued: Since Kent Putnam is here would like to ask what are the chances that auto row might moved to Adrian Road as proposed in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road specific plan? Kent Putnam noted it is always a business decision, if the economics work they would move. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission suggested the following changes/revisions to the proposed zoning changes: 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 25,2005 • That the on site storage requirement for car rental inventory be changed to 10%of the average monthly rentals and a maximum of 50 cars; • That there shall be no on-street parking allowed for car rental uses,including employees and customers; • That the hours of operation of the car rental operation on a dealership site shall be"within"the hours of operation of the dealership on the site. • That there be no limit on the maximum number of cars rented from a car rental site in Subarea D. C. Osterling made a motion to recommend the proposed zoning changes to the City Council for action with the changes to the text proposed. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Discussion on the motion: do we want to add a limitation on demolition in Subarea D,there are a few nice buildings there and it would be too bad to have them removed to be replaced with car sales lots;CA noted that there is a right to a demolition permit so to limit requires a strong planning policy such as preserving the retail frontage and the semi-historic character stated in the plans for Subarea A,Subarea D is more difficult since there is no development policy to promote pedestrian activity; Subarea B is more like A but is still diverse in the sense of pedestrian access, Chapin Avenue for example; probably best to sit tight until a downtown plan is prepared. Discussed amendments to Auto Row language;and amended motion to include proposed changes noted above. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the zoning changes for Auto Row, Subarea D, building regulations in Subarea A, licensing requirements for Fortunetelling, and location of churches to the City Council for approval. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent). This item will be set on the Council agenda. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 483 CHATHAM ROAD,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (KIM AND TOM HAMILTON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; KURT FEHLBERG, ARCHITECT) (44 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Kurt Fehlberg,5149 Willow View Court,Pleasanton,project architect, and Tom Hamilton, property owner, were available for questions. Commissioners made the following comments: • Need a different approach to limit the size of the roof as seen from the front. Some options suggested: o Could provide a break in the roof plan with a change in pitch somewhere, might be better construction with less dead attic space. o Might consider breaking up that surface by putting dormers in the attic space. o Roof could be broken up in front by making it higher with a wall band added for interest and not include dormers. • Combination of long sloping roof in front with the addition loaded in the back is not indicative of the neighborhood. • It is difficult to add a second story to this type of house,hard to place a small addition with one bedroom over a roof with a 4/12 pitch,there have already been a couple of bad additions done on this house in the 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA March 14, 2005 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Acting Chair Auran called the March 14, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojues, Brownrigg, Deal, Keighran, and Vistica Absent: Commissioner Osterling Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell. III. MINUTES The minutes of the February 28, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Vice Chair Auran noted that he had received a request to remove item 4d, 1450 Capuchino, from the consent to regular action calendar for a public hearing. There were no other changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1340 SANCHEZ AVENUE,ZONED R-2—APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE IN AN R-2 ZONE (JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KEVIN CHRISTIAN PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HUR1N CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners had no comments on the project. This item was set for the consent calendar with no changes to the plans requested. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m. 2. REVISED ZONING REGULATIONS FOR AUTO ROW,SUBAREA D,SECOND UNIT AMNESTY AND OTHER CORRECTIONS CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report summarizing the proposed changes to the overlay regulations for Subarea D of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, zoned C-2; amendment to the Fortunetelling licensing requirements to clarify references to the zoning ordinance; amendment to the second unit amnesty requirements to establish an incentive for making qualified units very low and low income housing;and an amendment to the R-3 zoning regulations making churches and religious institutions a permitted use and auxiliary use of church facilities by other tenants a conditional use. Commission discussion: does the definition of"car rental facilities" include free standing office and a storage lot? Yes. How would these regulatory changes work with adoption of a Specific Plan for the City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 14, 2005 downtown area? These changes should be seen as being interim; when a Specific Plan is adopted for the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, which includes Subarea D, new zoning will need to be written to implement the vision for Subarea D expressed in the adopted plan. CA pointed out that these proposed revisions to Subarea D include a clarification that office uses are a conditional use,currently the zoning is vague on the status of office uses in Subarea D. Car rental uses needed to support auto row are all right, provided the number of cars which can be stored and repaired/maintained on site are limited so the use can be limited to the scale of other uses in the area. If auto dealers need car rental business for support and it allows them to increase their business,should find a way for them to have free standing car rental uses on a limited basis. Concerned that car rental agencies as a use are not consistent with land use goal to promote pedestrian activity in the downtown area, does not sound right to have big parking lot for storage of car rentals in this area. Commission discussion continued: How will the age of buildings be determined if the criteria for review is based on a specific date? Staff has access to a number of documents which provide information on the date of construction,in addition applicants have title reports,and there are local resources such as the Historical Society. Generally,applicants and staff work together to arrive at the date of construction.Is a specific date necessary to demarcate CEQA review before a demolition permit can be issued? No; but if a date is not given,there needs to be some criteria for why some or all buildings are important,that becomes a standard for such review. Don't understand the issue regarding the date criteria for structural removal.CA noted that there is a sense in California law that one has the right to tear down a building, you need to provide a finding for the reason to protect if you are going to limit that right and protect a building. Discussion continued :How is it insured that low income units stay in that segment of the market? Such units are managed by a third party approved by the city;this is established in the city's inclusionary zoning requirements and included by reference in the second unit requirements. What does the "no parking on- site"mean for low income housing? It means that there need be no parking on site for the second unit if the unit is committed to have a rent which qualifies as very low or low income. This was discussed at the Joint Planning Commission/City Council meeting in 2004, there is already an incentive in the second unit program for moderate income housing e.g. none of the on site parking (for primary and secondary unit) needs to be covered. Commission direction: When this item returns to the Commission it would be helpful to have some background on the platform relocation project proposed for the Burlingame Avenue Train Station. The Commercial Design Guidelines should also be included in the staff report so Commission can determine if they are adequate for the auto row area. It would be helpful if a representative of the car dealerships interested in having a free standing car rental facility would come and discuss with the Commission the economic benefit of the car rental use to their business. ■ Alternative language for limiting size or removing car rental agencies (free standing) should be provided. ■ Investigate an alternative to using a date for defining the standard for CEQA review of buildings prior to issuing a demolition permit in Subareas A, B and D. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 3. REVIEW OF THE RECENTLY CITY ADOPTED AMENDMENTS TO THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE AFFECTING THE REGULATIONS TO PROVIDE SPRINKLERS IN SINGLE FAMILY 2 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8b b MTG. 5/2/05 °AnTe°�uHe b. DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT BY DATE: May 2,2005 AP ED BY FROM: Jesus Nava,Finance Director 558-7222 SUBJECT: ORDINANCE INCREASING BUSINESS LICENSE PROCESSING FEES RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Ordinance amending to the Business License Processing Fees. BACKGROUND: The proposed amendments to the Business License Ordinance increase two fees: Business License Application Fee: Persons or business entities applying for a City of Burlingame Business License are charged a one-time, non-refundable application fee. The application fee is currently$30.00 and is paid in addition to the Business License Fee of$100. The application fee will increase to $35.00. Duplicate License Fee: Persons or business entities can request and be issued a duplicate business license to replace any license previously issued, which has been destroyed or lost. The duplicate license fee is currently$5.00. The fee will increase to $10.00. These fees have not been increased in over 12 years. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Sections 6.04.120 and 6.04.170 To Increase Business License Processing Fees. S:\City Fee Schedule\Business License Processing Fees.doc 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTIONS 6.04.120 AND 6.04.170 TO INCREASE BUSINESS LICENSE PROCESSING FEES 3 4 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 5 6 Section 1. The fees for processing business license applications and duplicates have not 7 been increased for over 12 years. In order to ensure that the business license program is self- 8 sustaining a minimal increase in the charges is appropriate. 9 10 Section 2. Section 6.04.120 is amended to read as follows: 11 6.04.120 Duplicate licenses. 12 Duplicate licenses may be issued by the license collector to replace any license 13 previously issued which has been lost or destroyed upon the licensee filing an affidavit attesting 14 to such fact,and at the time of filing such affidavit paying to the license collector the sum of tela 15 (101) fire dollars. 16 17 Section 3. Section 6.04.170 is amended to read as follows: 18 6.04.170 Application for first license. 19 Every person making application for a license shall pay to the license collector the 20 license tax for the business in which he is engaged and a nonrefundable application fee of thirty- 21 five(35) dollars. 22 23 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 24 25 Mayor 26 27 1 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that 2 the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3 day of ,2005,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council 4 held on the day of , 2005, by the following vote: 5 6 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 7 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 8 9 10 City Clerk 11 C:\FILES\ORDINANC\buslicfees.fin.wpd 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 - 2 - CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAMM AGENDA 9a ITEM# MTG. MCO��AATED JUNE 900 DATE May 2,2005 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTE i BY DATE: May 2,2005 APPR FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director/Treasurer BY SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting A Settlement Agreement and Approving A Third Amendment to the Franchise Agreement for Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials and Plant Materials Collection Services between the City of Burlingame and BFI Waste Systems of North America, Extending the Agreement until December 31, 2010. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council approves a Resolution accepting a settlement agreement and approving the Third Amendment to the Franchise Agreement with BFI. The settlement agreement consists of: BFI will pay the SBWMA $11.6 million over the next three years as a negotiated settlement payment. BFI will allow the SBWMA to dispose at the Ox Mountain Landfill for 15 years and will decrease the landfill disposal rate from $43.56 per ton to $31.07 per ton (a $12.49 per ton decrease)retroactive to January 1, 2005. BFI will provide the SBWMA"most favored" disposal rates requiring BFI to automatically lower the disposal rate if it offers a lower rate to any other governmental entity or private party. In return: Collections Agreement: SBWMA will recommend that each jurisdiction approve the automatic three-year extension and approve an additional one-year extension for a total of four years. Prior to the end of the four-year period, the SBWMA will issue a Request for Proposals for solid waste collection services. Transfer Station Operating Agreement: SBWMA Board approved the automatic three-year extension for substantially complying with the requirements of the Uniform Franchise Agreement and approved an additional one-year extension for a total of four years. Prior to the end of the four-year period, the SBWMA will issue a Request for Proposals for transfer station operations services. Solid Waste Disposal Agreement: SBWMA Board approved a fifteen-year disposal agreement that provides an immediate $12.49 reduction in disposal rates from the current $43.56 per ton to $31.07 per ton. PAGE 2 BACKGROUND The City of Burlingame along with all member agencies of the South Bayside Waste Management Authority (SBWMA) entered into a Uniform Franchise Agreement for Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials and Plant Materials Collection Services with BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. effective March 1 , 2000, for an initial term of seven years (ending December 31 , 2006). Member agencies have since approved two amendments to the franchise. The first was for commercial plant material collection. The second was to implement the commercial organics (food waste) recycling collection program. As an incentive to provide a high level of service, the Franchise Collection Agreement provided for an automatic three-year extension of the franchise if BFI performed satisfactorily on waste diversion, liquidated damages, delinquent payments, criminal behavior, customer satisfaction and the competitiveness of rates charged customers. The SBWMA conducted a Performance Hearing of BFI on November 10, 2004. The Hearing Board found that BFI substantially complied with five of the six requirements of the collection agreement. Items of noncompliance included the diversion of commercial waste and the competitiveness of rates. With regard to commercial waste diversion, BFI achieved the diversion standards for 2000 and 2001 but did not achieve the diversion standards for 2002 and 2003. BFI also did not achieve the rate competitiveness standards in Atherton, East Palo Alto and Hillsborough. SBWMA member agencies may waive BFI's non-performance of any standards, allowing for the automatic three-year extension of the Franchise Collection Agreement. Member agencies also have the option to extend the term of the franchise beyond the initial extension for a period of one to seven years in one-year increments. The recommended Third Amendment to the Franchise Collection Agreement grants the automatic three-year extension plus one additional year, thereby extending the franchise to December 31 , 2010. The SBWMA voted to recommend this four-year extension of the Franchise Collection Agreement to all member agencies as part of the settlement with BFI. In 2004, the SBWMA discovered that BFI had negotiated a substantially lower landfill disposal rate with South San Francisco Scavenger Company/Blue Line Transfer Company than the rate being paid by the SBWMA. Subsequently, SBWMA Board directed its consultant, Hilton, Frankopf and Hobson, to renegotiate the disposal agreement with BFI and lower the SBWMA rate to match the lowest rate offered by BFI. On April 5, 2005, the SBWMA Board voted to enter into a new fifteen-year Solid Waste Disposal Agreement with BFI for use of Ox Mountain Landfill in exchange for a disposal rate decrease of $ 12.49 per ton (retroactive to January 1 , 2005) and a settlement payment of $ 1 .6 million dollars to the SBWMA to be paid over the first three years of the Agreement. The SBWMA also granted BFI a restated Operating Agreement for the Transfer Station and Recycling Center, with a termination date of December 31 , 2010. The Disposal Agreement and the payment of the $ 11 .6 million are dependent on the approval by each member agency of a four-year extension of their Franchise Collection Agreement. The SBWMA also approved a Resolution directing SBWMA staff to begin planning the work necessary to prepare a request for proposal for solid waste and recycling services to be issued in a timely manner so that a new agreement for services can commence on January 1 , 2011 . Attachments: 1 . Resolution 2. Third Amendment to the Franchise Agreement RESOLUTION No. 2005- RESOLUTION OF THE BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND APPROVING THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA, INC. FOR SOLID WASTE, RECYCLABLE MATERIALS, AND PLANT MATERIALS COLLECTION SERVICES RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the Franchise Agreement Between the City of Burlingame and BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. for solid waste, recyclable materials, and plant materials collection services was approved and became effective on January 1, 2000, and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame approved the First Amendment to the Agreement establishing the commercial plant material collection program, and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame approved the Second Amendment to the Agreement establishing the commercial organics collection program, and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame participated in negotiations between the South Bay Waste Management Authority and voted to accept a settlement agreement, and WHEREAS, the South Bayside Waste Management Authority recommends that the City of Burlingame approve the Third Amendment to the Franchise Agreement extending the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2010, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The Third Amendment to the Franchise Agreement between City of Burlingame and BFI Waste Systems of North America to extend the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2010, is approved. 2. The Mayor is authorized and requested to execute the Third Amendment to the Franchise Agreement between the City and BFI as contained in Exhibit A hereto. 3. The Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the Mayor. MAYOR 1 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of_ , 2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 2 Third Amendment to the Franchise Agreement between the City of Burlingame and BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. for Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Plant Material Collection Services This THIRD AMENDMENT to the Franchise Agreement between the City of Burlingame and BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. for Solid Waste, Recyclable Materials, and Plant Material Collection Services (Agreement) of March 1, 2000 is made by and between BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. (Contractor) and the City of Burlingame (Agency). RECITALS Whereas, Agency and Contractor entered into the Agreement; and, Whereas, the parties contemplated that the Agreement should be extended from December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2009, conditioned on the Agency's affirmative evaluation of the Contractor's performance in certain areas; and, Whereas, the Agency has found that Contractor's performance has been reviewed and determined to be satisfactory; and, Whereas, the Agreement contemplated that the Agency may wish to extend the term of the Agreement beyond the December 31, 2009 termination date of the initial contract extension, for a period of one to seven years in increments of at least 12 months; and, Whereas, the Agency has determined that the benefits offered by the Contractor in exchange for granting its request are in the best interest of the agency and its residents and businesses; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. The term of the Agreement shall be extended from December 31, 2006 to December 31, 2009, in accordance with Section 2.04 of the Agreement, in recognition of the Contractor's satisfactory performance with certain exceptions, namely: not having achieved the diversion program guarantees described in Section 4.05.A.I of the Agreement and Agency has agreed to waive Contractor's failure to perform to the above standard established in the Agreement. 2. The term of the Agreement shall be extended an additional 12 months, from December 31, 2009 to December 31, 2010, through the exercise of the Agency's right under Section 2.05 of the Agreement. Any extension of the Agreement thereafter shall be at the sole discretion of the Agency. 3. This agreement shall be effective on the date on which the last of the following agreements is executed. a. The Amendment to the Franchise Agreements between the SBWMA Member Agencies and BFI waste Systems of North America, Inc. for solid waste, recyclable materials and plant material collection services extending those agreements to December 31, 2010; and, b. Fifteen-year Agreement between the South Bayside Waste Management Authority and Browning-Ferris Industries of California, Inc. for Solid Waste Disposal Services at most- favored disposal rates and with payments by Contractor to the Authority. 4. In all other respects the Agreement shall remain the same. In witness thereof, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment to the Agreement on the date indicated below. Dated: BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. By: (Title) City of Burlingame By: Jim Nantell City Manager RESOLUTION No. 2005- RESOLUTION OF THE BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL ACCEPTING A SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND APPROVING THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND BFI WASTE SYSTEMS OF NORTH AMERICA,INC. FOR SOLID WASTE, RECYCLABLE MATERIALS,AND PLANT MATERIALS COLLECTION SERVICES RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the Franchise Agreement Between the City of Burlingame and BFI Waste Systems of North America, Inc. for solid waste, recyclable materials, and plant materials collection services was approved and became effective on January 1, 2000, and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame approved the First Amendment to the Agreement establishing the commercial plant material collection program, and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame approved the Second Amendment to the Agreement establishing the commercial organics collection program, and WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame participated in negotiations between the South Bay Waste Management Authority and voted to accept a settlement agreement, and WHEREAS, the South Bayside Waste Management Authority(SBWMA) recommends that the City of Burlingame approve the Third Amendment to the Franchise Agreement extending the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2010; and WHEREAS, the Burlingame City Council understands that SBWMA will immediately begin working on a Request for Proposals for Solid Waste Collection and Recycling Services and Operation of the Transfer Station so that a new franchise is issued no later than December 31, 2010, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The Third Amendment to the Franchise Agreement between City of Burlingame and BFI Waste Systems of North America to extend the term of the Agreement through December 31, 2010, is approved. 2. The Mayor is authorized and requested to execute the Third Amendment to the Franchise Agreement between the City and BFI as contained in Exhibit A hereto. 3. The Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the Mayor. MAYOR 1 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of_ 2005, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 2 CITY AGENDA 0, ITEM# BURIJNGAME STAFF MTG. 5/2/2005 R DATE TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTE BY DATE: May 2, 2005 APPROVED BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: DIRECTION ON PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD CLOSING OF BROADWAY STATION At its April 22 meeting, the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board voted to close Broadway Station and to no longer offer train service at this location. In addition, the Board voted to close Atherton and Paul Avenue stations. College Park in Santa Clara County was given 4 trains a day. Caltrain staff indicated that they would consider shuttle service to serve Broadway and Atherton locations to bring citizens to other stations, but there was no indication that any studies or schedules had been developed. The Board further indicated that the closures were based on an imminent emergency, so that things could change in the future if funding problems were corrected. Among the next steps that the Council could consider are: — Meeting with Caltrain Staff to establish shuttle schedules for Broadway — Jointly meeting with the Atherton Town Council and the San Mateo County representatives to the Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board to establish clear understandings on train schedules, shuttle availability, and station improvements — Working with other cities and organizations in San Mateo County to develop a more assured source of funding for transit service operations These steps might help reduce the sense of urgency being expressed in the community that could lead to litigation and reduced transit usage and support in the County. Monday, May 2,2005 Broadway Station/Broadway Merchants With the City Council considering options seeking to retain CALTRAIN service to the Broadway Station,the Broadway Merchants considered it prudent planning to establish a liaison with CALTRAIN while CALTRAIN acts upon their mandated responsibility to provide a van(s)shuttle from/to the Broadway Station. The Broadway Merchants,thru their Broadway Improvement District, Ross Bruce, President, has appointed Rudy Horak as their point of contact(POC)on matters pertaining to the establishment of the shuttle. Rudy,with his experience in rail travel and engineering has the background to interface with CALTRAIN and the Burlingame City Public Works Department. The Merchant's objective is to be supportive of the of the City's activities of looking at options to retain service,while optimizing, on behalf of Burlingame,the CALTRAIN activities to provide a Van Shuttle starting on July 1,2005. Ross Bruce, President, Broadway Improvement District A rC f I W k CITY OF 7 i! 2005 MANAGER'S WCE c-'lj r "), , --- 7"7 Aa- Honorable Mayor and City Council: Please schedule an appeal hearing for 1615 Willow Road to be heard at the May 16, 2005 Council meeting. City Clerk 1521 VANCOUVER AVENUE BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA April 27, 2005 RECEIVED HAND DELIVERED APR 2 8 2005 City of Burlingame CITY CLERK'S OFFICE City Council CITY OF BURLINGAME Attn: Doris J. Mortensen, City Clerk Hgnorable. Mayor & City Council: Re: 1524 Vancouver Avenue Please schedule an appeal hearing Appeal of Planning Commission Approval of for 1524 Vancouver Avenue to be Partee Application for Design Review and heard at the May 16, 2005 Council Special Permit for Declining Height Envelope meetirrTr City Clerk Madam Clerk: This will serve as a Notice of Appeal of the Decision of the City of Burlingame Planning Commission taken on Monday, April 25, 2005, with respect to the above-referenced application for Design Review and Special Permit. Enclosed is a check made payable to the City of Burlingame in the sum of$250. We, Steven and Patricia Anderson, owners of 1521 Vancouver Avenue, Burlingame, are formally objecting to the approval by the Planning Commission of the Application for Design Review and Special Permit submitted by Applicant Developer Gary Partee with respect to the residence proposed to be constructed by Mr. Partee at 1524 Vancouver Avenue. For various reasons, the proposed residence violates at least four Components of the City of Burlingame Neighborhood Design Guidebook, including, without limitation, Components 3, 5, 6 and 9, as well as Burlingame Municipal Code Section 25.28.0756, and we hereby request that the decision of the Planning Commission be reversed and that the City Council direct the Planning Commission to require Mr. Partee to refer his plans to an outside Design Reviewer prior to approval. Respectfully submitted, 4SEN D. ANDERSON JRICIA M. AN RSON MEETING MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission Thursday, April 21, 2005 The regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Larios at 7:00 pm at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Erickson, Heathcote, Larios, Lawson, Muller Commissioners Absent: Dittman, Schreurs Staff Present: City Manager Nantell, Parks &Recreation Director Schwartz r Others Present: Pouneh Almasi (1604 Davis Drive); Mike Blondino (Staff); Marge Colapietre (367 El Paseo, Millbrae); Grant Gilliam (2305 Ray Drive); Liz Harrelson (Reporter); Greg Milano (Staff); Terry Nagel (City Council); John Root(728 Crossway) MINUTES The minutes of the March 17, 2005 Regular Commission meeting were approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS —None The agenda was adjusted by Chairman Larios to allow more members of the public be present for the shared Parks &Recreation services agenda item. OLD BUSINESS A. Pershing Park Playground Rehabilitation — Schwartz reported that the work will begin next week on the rehabilitation of Pershing Park's playground and should be completed in late May. REPORTS A. Staff—Director Schwartz reported on the following: 1. A committee of City Managers will be meeting with representatives from San Mateo County to discuss a potential sales tax proposal that would generate a revenue source for county parks agencies. There was discussion over the potential split of funds between the different jurisdictions, the maintenance of effort and sales tax process. 2. Registration is underway for the Summer recreation programs. Staff accepted $137,000 of registrations on the first day of sign-ups. 3. An offer has been made to a Tree Crew Maintenance Worker applicant th and he will begin work on April 25 Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes April 21,2005—page 2 4. Pershing Park playground construction will begin next week and is scheduled to be completed in June. 5. Pathways at Bayside Park have been repaired. 6. Registration for summer recreation programs is now on-going, with registrations being accepted via the internet. The volume of registrants shut down the City phone system and overloaded the computer system for the first two hours, but the system is back up and operating. Over $135,000 of class registration was taken on the first day of registration. 7. 3rd annual Burlingame-Millbrae Community Golf Tournament—May 23rd 8. Art in the Park will be held in Washington Park on June l Ith& 12th 9. The attached monthly finance report indicates approximately $100,000 more Recreation revenue than the same period of the previous fiscal year. OLD BUSINESS B. 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. Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes April 21,2005—page 3 Nantell discussed the reasons such mergers do not happen, such as loss of control, residents wanting 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. Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes April 21,2005—page 4 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 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 27th. 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 Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes April 21,2005—page 5 discussion because of the lack of details and the feeling of being betrayed by the Millbrae Council in the past. He wondered if the Millbrae Commission needed more time before having a joint meeting. After discussion, it was agreed that Schwartz will work with the Commission Chairmen to arrange a joint meeting at a time/place/location that is acceptable to both. Chairman Larios then opened the discussion to members of the public. Marge Colapietre stated that she has been a Millbrae resident for 35 years and owns a small business in Millbrae. She spoke of the huge volunteer effort in Millbrae and agreed with Heathcote that Millbrae's Commission did not get far in the discussion; that Burlingame's meeting was much more efficient. Millbrae is a tiny community that has accomplished a lot because of their volunteers and asked the Burlingame Commissioners not to discount the fact that Millbrae residents are personally invested in their community. She pointed out that things in Millbrae got bad because of the City's management; that past Councils micro-managed the community and City staff. She stated that before a 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 of FAQ's would be helpful to the Commissioners and the public; that people need to see something in writing. Larios stated that a merger needs to have benefit for Millbrae as well as Burlingame. He asked staff to arrange for the next meeting and pointed out that the joint meeting would save time, avoid a duplication of questions and would stimulate the discussion. Colapietre said Millbrae has been told that this merger is because of the money situation and thought the first meeting would be to learn how to cut costs. Millbrae does not want the topic to drag on, but, at the Millbrae Commission meeting, Jaeck suggested that time is not a factor. NEW BUSINESS - None Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes April 21, 2005—page 6 REPORTS B. Commissioners—None NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission is scheduled to be held on Thursday, May 19, 2005 at 7:00 p.m. at Burlingame City Hall, but may be rescheduled to meet with the Millbrae Parks & Recreation Commission. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 9:22pm. Respectfully submitted, Randy Schwartz Director of Parks & Recreation CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA April 25, 2005 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the April 25, 2005, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran,Brownrigg, Deal, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi and Keighran Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell III. MINUTES The minutes of the April 11, 2005 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Item No.4, 1329 De Soto Avenue was continued to the Commission's May 9, 2005 meeting due to a lack of a quorum. V. FROM THE FLOOR Russell Miller, 1435 Bellevue, Board President, Redwood Crest Condominiums,and Eileen Landis, 1457 Bellevue,had comments regarding the proposed condominium project at 1441 & 1445 Bellevue Avenue,noting that have very little concerns with the project,think it will fit in nicely with the neighborhood,but have a concern regarding the telephone poles in front of their building, they are leaning, realize that this is not a Planning issue, don't know the process, but would like to go on the record to request undergrounding of the power lines,would be more attractive. Have lived in building to the right of the projectfor nine years, the new condominium building will block light in our unit until 11:00 a.m.,will also block our view of trees,it will be dark, our electricity bills will be higher,would like to see our concerns addressed. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1441 & 1445 BELLEVUE AVENUE, ZONED R-4 — APPLICATION FOR NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT, FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPE VARIANCE, CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND TENTATIVE MAP FOR A NEW, FOUR-STORY 16- UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER, AIA, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BELLEVUE ASSOCIATES, LLC C/O LITKE PROPERTIES, PROPERTY OWNERS)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. She noted that Commissioner Keighran submitted comments on the project and read them into the record. Commissioners asked: • Will the applicant need to replace the sewer line? • Provide an explanation regarding how the traffic volumes will decrease with this project compared to the existing. • Some of the units are extremely large, explain why they need to be that large. Specifically concerned with Units 9, 13, 15 and 16. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 25, 2005 • Would like to see the applicant offer to provide two affordable units and not have to request the special permit for height because it would be offered as an incentive; the community would be served by providing more affordable units. • Concern with four-story building, would like to see three-story building. • Need to discuss garbage collection with BFI, because the trash enclosure is located underground in the parking garage, how will it be accessed. • Balconies on the southwest elevation appear overbearing and look like they are tacked on, especially the ones on the top floor; concern that the iron work and grills are very busy, can the railings be simplified and still maintain the architectural design. • Show the locations of the PN valves and backflow prevention devices, these are often tacked on during the building plan check process and can detract from the building design. • Overhang on mansard roof is a little deep and heavy for this style. • Window patterns are monotonous, should use different sizes for different rooms to add exterior interest. • Could the design be reversed so that the driveway is on the right instead of the left, this would result in a greater setback on the right side where the adjacent building is closer, and might help address the shadow issues raised by the owner at 1457 Bellevue Avenue. • Concerned with the usefulness of the open space at the rear, like to see a toilet facility and sink there so people can make use of the open space. • Open space at the rear of the building has a symmetrical garden design with an axis, this needs to be respected in how the open space relates to the access to it from the building. • Design at the front of the building could be improved if the building were smaller, and the landscape variance could go away; can the curb cuts be reduced and can the driveway width be reduced, should also look at ways to bulk up the landscaping. • Provide clarification on front landscaping, it seems small scale for the size of the building, should include larger scale trees to soften the mass. • The exit stair from the garage at the front of the building at the northwest corner should be moved to the side of the building, the front is a bad spot both for security reasons and for the appearance of the building; placing the stairway from the garage on the side would also help with the amount of front landscaping. • Drawings for shadow study did not show morning shadow, please provide. • What is the groundcover to be used at the southwest corner near trees J and E, need to make sure the groundcover is compatible with the trees. • Both buildings on either side of the project have tall trees along the sides, would like to see how they are shaded by the new building, will they be impacted by being in the shade? • There is a Redwood tree shown to remain, but its canopy is shown to project 15 feet over the building footprint, need to address how that will be accommodated, will the tree be lopsided, will it survive. • Plans note that this will be a true slate roof, this should be maintained in the final plans. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. Chair Osterling noted that the item will be noticed when it is placed on the action calendar and neighbors will have an opportunity to comment at that time. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. 2. 888 HINCKLEY ROAD, ZONED O-M — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO ADD A HEALTH SERVICE (CHIROPRACTIC OFFICE) TO AN EXISTING ATHLETIC CLUB (PAUL BOLOGNA, APPLICANT; DANIEL CAPRINI, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 25, 2005 SP Brooks presented a summary of the staff report. She read C. Keighran's comments on the project into the record. Commissioners asked: • How many people used the pro shop? • What percentage of the on-site parking is usually occupied? • Three treatment tables are proposed without partitions separating them from one another or the reception area, ask the applicant to explain how this will work for more than one customer or privacy? • What is the average length of stay for a client, will there be more than one client at a time, six a day seems low. • What would it take to remove 50 SF from the proposed use, it would reduce the parking variance from two spaces to one space. • Applicant should look at responses in variance application, needs to provide justification for granting variance, need to describe hardship with the property to justify. • How would service be affected if one treatment table were removed from the proposal? • Even though parking variance is small, we have recently studied parking ratios for uses in this area and this is not consistent for the base use, there have been other variance requests in this area so these compound and there is still a concern, the applicant should provide a record of the existing parking conditions on site at different times of day and days of the week. Chair Osterling noted that this item will be brought back on the Commission's action calendar when all the requested information is provided by the applicant. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. 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. 313. 828 LAUREL AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (DAN AND MOIRA LUCIER, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (101 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Osterling noted that he had two requests to speak on the project at 1524 Vancouver Avenue, so would take that item off the consent calendar and put it as the first regular action item. He then asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any other item off the consent calendar. There were no additional requests. C. Deal noted that he would need to recuse himself from the action on the project at 828 Laurel because of a business association. C. Vistica moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 4-0-1-2 (C. Deal abstaining, Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent ). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3A. 1524 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (GARY PARTEE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 25, 2005 C. Brownrigg recused himself from this item since he lives within 500 feet of the project. He stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report April 25, 2005, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. She noted that the applicant was requesting to rotate the roof pitch on the garage 90 degrees so that the pitch would be from side to side; this change is reflected in the conditions of approval. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Gary Partee, owner and builder and James Chu designer, 39 West 43 Street, San Mateo, represented the project. Patricia and Steven Anderson, 1521 Vancouver; George Anders, 1515 Vancouver; Jim Shypertt, 1540 Vancouver; Mark Cosenza, 1532 Vancouver; Beatrice Burke, 2020 Adeline spoke. The applicant noted that he has been working with the neighbors since the April 11 meeting, delivered plans to the adjacent neighbors on April 6th and 7th, spoke to two, Bauer at 1528, liked it but preferred a Spanish style house; owner at 1525 Bernal okay, new house across street already. After April 1 lmeeting knew had problem with 1521 Vancouver, met with her, are happy to plant larger street trees to screen from across street and to plant larger trees in lawn in front of house; agree to paint the house a mocha tan color with off white or toned down trim, not white like colonial down the street. Designer noted that the image that the neighbors have been circulating does not represent the true mass and bulk of this project, does not feel this project would benefit from referral to a design review consultant, there were no problems with the design elements at design review study. Commissioners asked: would you agree to larger street trees and larger trees in the front lawn as a condition of approval? Yes. What is the plate height of the proposed structure? Nine feet on the first floor and eight feet on the second floor, the height from existing grade is 25 feet and even with up slope on lot structure is within the 30 foot height requirement. What is wrong with the graphic by the neighbors? It is not to scale, so distorts mass and bulk. Several people in the neighborhood �-- like the Spanish style house you built on Balboa-why do the Colonial could use that same design, structural work all done, just put on this lot; like the different style, newest house on block is colonial, three existing single story Spanish in row want to do something different, house on Balboa would be much taller especially with the increase in 5 feet from average top of curb, would need a special permit for height. Neighbor comment: told by developer originally to look at house on Balboa, which is Spanish style, told me pitched roof, aware of character of area wanted to stay in character, noted that feelings of neighborhood were tender regarding colonial style, feel existing is too close to the street and too tall, but it was built before she came to the street; it is the Keighran's dream house they will live there forever, this is a spec house, will not live here; looked at house on Balboa, it is beautiful, not think project was a Colonial until saw the plans; like Colonial houses but need a wider street and a greater setback than can get on Vancouver; design may be within regulations but not within design guidelines, misses the spirit of keeping the houses feeling small. Submitted a letter signed by 27 neighbors in opposition, not consistent with the interpretation of the city's residential design guidelines; three concerns, not attempt to meet with neighborhood during the formative time of the design, not heard the reason for the special permit for declining height envelope; consistent with residential design guidelines (page 7) which show sample houses that standout as inconsistent with neighborhoods noting increase in mass and markedly different architectural style; this project should be referred to a design reviewer. Like suggestion that Colonial be replaced with house on Balboa, neighborhood is mostly bungalows, need to keep street view open, Colonial best on flat lot with a big lawn, hard to absorb with 5 foot slope at front of lot up to a 25 foot tall building; like to see a two story house, Tudor would also work. Not feel two identical houses a problem on Balboa and Vancouver. Not opposed to change, good looking house, this is a smaller house on a smaller lot, big Spanish houses on Drake look like Taco Bell, signed the letter with the sketch which was not correct, the eave is lower than the existing colonial on the block, any two story house will look down on the property across the street, trees will not 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 25, 2005 make a difference; house is 14 feet narrower than the width of the lot; it is within the envelope only one corner exceed the declining height envelope. Live on corner, like different styles, could be a Mediterranean or Tudor, not many craftsman style, why not one of them? Applicant responded: Commissioners asked could you do an accurate rendering of the proposed project over the existing house? This house is 25 feet tall plus the 5 foot rise at the front, not think height a problem talked to neighbors on left where declining height exception was, no problem at that time, rendering was not required as a part of submittal. What is the height of the peak roof over the living room? Thirteen feet. Would you consider using the other house (Balboa) design? Can't decide without putting the elevation on this lot, don't know what other permits would need; not willing to do at this point because have to go back to the beginning. Do you know the total height of the Balboa house on this site? No. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: the sketch done by the neighbors is a disservice to the applicant, the existing structure is 13 feet, the project to the gutter is 4'6" taller, setback 4' more to the porch and 4' more to the house, it has a human scale front door; do not have a problem with the declining height special permit and no problem with this house, used to have ordinances whose regulations made it impossible to build Colonial and Tudor designs, changed declining height to a special permit to make it easier to develop these styles, voted for a house this height before and will do again, this is approvable, nice Colonial would be nice for the neighbors to paint it the proposed color scheme. C. Deal moved to approve by resolution the design review and special permit for declining height envelope, even if disagreed with style would not send to a design reviewer, designer is capable, add conditions to place bigger trees in the planter strip and two big trees in the front yard and the condition that the garage roof be rotated so that the pitch is from side to side rather than front to back, and with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 13, 2005, sheets A. 1 through A.6, Ll and Boundary and Topographic Survey; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that prior to the removal of or planting of any trees within the City right of way, the applicant shall obtain a permit from the Parks Department and that the applicant shall install two 24-inch box tall, large-crowned trees selected from the city's street tree list in the planter strip at the front of the house and shall install and maintain two24-inch box tall, large-crowned trees selected from the city's street tree list in the front yard of the house, positioned to screen the view of the mass of the house from the properties across the street, the City Arborist shall approve the tree selections and locations and determine the appropriate timing for planting, however the trees shall be installed prior to issuing an occupancy permit for this house; 3) that the roof of the garage shall be revised so that it is pitched from left side to right side rather than front to back in order to comply with the zoning code requirement for height of an accessory structure; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 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; all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; 7) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 25, 2005 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 prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; l 0) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 11) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 12) that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 13) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 8, 2005 memo, the Recycling Specialist's March 9, 2005 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 14, 2005 memo, the City Engineer's March 15, 2005 memo The NPDES Coordinators March 16, 2005 memo and the City Arborist's March 23, 2005 memo shall be met; 14) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 15) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 16) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: sympathize with the neighbors, but the sketch is misleading, the house is well designed, it is not an "auto scale", that is a house with a two car garage at the sidewalk; fagade is nicely broken up with windows, it is human scale and articulated, its under 30 feet tall including the 5 foot rise on the site; whether it is better to add one more Spanish style to the three Spanish style already there is subjective, in favor of this proposal, think the neighbors will be pleased when it is done. Think the impact will be small the current house is 13 feet tall this will be 16 feet at the gutter, the mass of the roof is pushed back 15 feet from the existing, so there will not be a lot of mass on the street. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review and special permit for declining height envelope. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Brownrigg abstaining, Cers. Cauchi, Keighran absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. C. Brownrigg returned to the dais and took his seat. 4. 1329 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CON BROSNAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER This item was continued to the meeting of May 9, 2005, at the request of the Planning Commission. The neighbors will be renoticed for the public hearing on May 9, 2005. 5. 934 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-2 — APPLICATION FOR SIDE AND REAR SETBACK 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 25, 2005 VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DIRECT EXIT FROM A BASEMENT FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ALINE BIER, PROPERTY OWNER) (74 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report April 25, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked can one add a condition that prohibits any expansion of development on a property. CA responded no, owner can always come to the commission and ask. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Aline Bier, property owner, and Jack Matthews, architect, represented the project, and Rudolph Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive spoke regarding the project. Noted bought this property 35 years ago, at that time had 4 fruit trees, planted an orchard to create a wall of vegetation at the front of the lot, large variety of trees, young parents stop to show their children the ducks and chickens. Commissioner asked why building a new house? There was a leaking sewer pipe under the house, had a 3 year struggle with the city to get it lined, when dug hole through closet to get to sewer pipe found human waste ponding under the house, house needed a new foundation; have not lived there for 16 months, since rental available next door, not safe to live over an open sewer. Rental has steep stairs, it is hard on my dog, want to go home. Commissioner asked would you tell us about the trees? Some trees are rare, participated in a program with Filoli, those who helped prune their rare trees were allowed to graft cuttings on to our trees in order to provide insurance for Filoli, should all their rare plants die they would have stock elsewhere that they can call on. Some of the grafts are now eight years old. Architect noted would not be here if a catastrophe had not occurred, house was built over sewer line installed in 1907, conclusion was best to replace house, unusual that structure is not creating new exceptions, want to replace house that is there, except for addition of second floor; there is a significant setback created by the easements along the right and rear sides of the lot, neighbors have reviewed the plans, signed a letter in support; asked if other houses built similarly to property line, there are four, one to the rear, the precedent is there; the property is a resource to Filoli and to the neighborhood. Would like to request a change to condition 2, think if the house burns down owner should not have to come back to the Commission , feel unreasonable, agree that if demolished or want to add on to should have to return to the Commission. Also condition 4, not allowing the living room and study to be separated by a door, such separation would create a third bedroom, there is sufficient parking on site for a three bedroom house, why limit? Known applicant for two years, am in favor of project. House is in terrible shape, she does not live there but uses the garage; enjoy the time and effort she has put into the orchard, she's an expert on plants and shares her expertise with others, she has lived there 35 years and knows and respects the neighborhood. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the proposed project as revised from study by resolution, noting that the economic externalities of this project were positive, saw 5 small children enjoying the trees and ducks on site inspection; there is a hardship on the property its trapezoidal shape, the location of the public easements, the siting of the existing house at the rear of the lot is off set by the hardships, typically such proposals take away from this city but this one adds to it, the city is protected by condition 2 which requires review if this structure or use is expanded on the lot, feel that in the event of destruction by catastrophe replacement should be reviewed in the event that other conditions on the site are affected, the motion includes the following amended conditions to include voiding the variance if additional structures are added to the site: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 18, 2005, sheets A-1 . 1 through A-3.3, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area ofthe building or exit from the basement area shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the side and rear 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 25, 2005 setback variances and special permit for direct exit from a basement shall only apply to this structure and shall become void if the structure is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement, or if any additional structures are built; 3) that the 260 SF basement shall only be used for storage, shall not be expanded in any way, and shall not contain any windows and shall never be used for living or sleeping purposes; 4) that the opening between the living room and study room shall remain at least 50% open, without a door, and shall not converted to a bedroom; 5) that the conditions of the City Engineer's March 15, 2005, memo, the Chief Building Official's February 16, 2005 memo, the NPDES Coordinator's February 17, 2005, memo, the Recycling Specialist's February 28, 2005, memo, and the City Arborist' March 2, 2005, memo shall be met; 6) that the recommended measures to minimize construction impacts on the existing trees, as listed in the arborist report prepared by Tree Shapers, LLD, dated February 10, 2005, shall be followed during construction; that a tree protection plan shall be submitted to the City Arborist by the property owner and shall be approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit; failure to protect the trees during demolition and construction shall result in stopping construction until proper protection measures, approved by the City Arborist, have been installed; if necessary the property owner shall pay a licensed arborist to regularly inspect the site during the construction to insure that the tree protection measures are adhered to; 7) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration proj ects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 8) that demolition for removal of the existing dwelling shall not occur until a building permit has been issued; 9) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; and 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: Agree would add for the record, this project has a lot of variances but there is ample precedent, do not want a future developer of this property to look at it and add another bedroom or increase the use of the house or to add a second dwelling, it is built to the existing footprint which was a nonconforming condition, should not be allowed to expand or add another unit as allowed with the zoning using these variances; there is enough parking on site for three bedrooms now; preserving potentially rare species of trees is a reason to vote for variances to keep construction at rear of lot. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the variances and with the conditions as included in the staff report expanding condition No. 2 to include additional structures. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. 6. 1615 WILLOW AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — DETERMINATION ON PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION ON A PROJECT AT 1615 WILLOW AVENUE - PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report April 25, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report noting that the determination requested by neighbors Dr. and Mrs. Thomson who live at 732 Newhall Road was to contest that the garage being built at 1615 Willow Road did not conform to the Planning Commission's approval. Commission was directed to determine if the Chief Building Official issued a building permit for the project at 1615 Willow Avenue which was not in conformance with the Planning Commission's decision and if the Planning Commission's decision was based on fraudulent information provided by the applicant 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 25, 2005 which the City had no reasonable means of discovering the actual situation. CP noted that C. Keighran was unable to attend the meeting, but had visited the site and submitted written comments noting: why did the Thomson's not bring this item up when it was on consent. Plans were posted and show the garage with a pitched roof. Plans came back again on September 2002 and October 2002 and Thomson's still did not bring up any issues. Current structure is smaller than original structure. Original structure was 53 feet long and current structure is 24 feet long. Wanted to know if applicant would be willing to plant some landscaping on site at 1615 Willow. Feel applicant built garage according to approved plans and according to the Planning Commission's decision. Commissioners asked staff. could staff clarify if storm water is required to be carried to the street, there appears to be no gutter at the rear of the garage? CP noted storm water should be carried to the street, and will have this situation checked as a part of final inspection. Talked earlier on another project about rotating axis of garage, would that help in this case? CP noted no, because would leave a taller wall on the side property line which would not be code compliant. CA noted the order of presentation, to begin with the Thomson's who bear the burden of proof in this case, followed by the Phillips' who may respond. CA noted that the owner at 1615 Willow has a vested right to continue construction because he has a building permit issued by the city. The questions before the Planning Commission are: did the Chief Building Official rightfully issue the building permit and did the applicant misrepresent something with intent, something that the Planning Commission relied on and that the City had no way to find out if it was right. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing and asked Dr. and Mrs. Thomson to speak. Linda Mallette, attorney, representing Dr. Thomson and Mrs. Thomson spoke. This an issue that something went wrong with what the Thomson's heard at the meeting on August 10, 2001 ; they asked specifically about one view, the agent of the Phillips knew enough to respond, minutes show that that the Planning Commission relied on �-- the agent's comments. Dr. Thomson: Four years ago came to the Planning Commission regarding 1615 Willow, only one area from my house where there is anything to see, put the kitchen window there in our remodel so over look the back yards of four neighbors on Willow. Wanted to be assured that that view would be maintained, that a flat roof on the garage was OK and if not the new garage would be far enough back or forward so we would keep the view. Jerry Winges assured that our view would be maintained and if anything be enhanced. New garage is 6 feet taller than the flat roof that was there, when saw framing called developer, sorry that he did not stop construction then; asked for a temporary injunction, it was denied because the before and after pictures were different. Dr. Thomson submitted to the Planning Commission various pictures of the old and new garage taken from his house. Commented on letters from 1615 Willow attorney and Jerry Winges, architect, noting that he did not think that they ever had a view from the kitchen window because of the fence and pitched roof. The fence is 7 feet tall and the previous peaked roof of the guest cottage was placed to leave about 11 or 12 feet to see through. Sorry that Mr. Winges said he guaranteed a view when he did not know where it was. Mr. Phillips knows where the window was, he knew what we were asking, the view has been obliterated, they did not stop construction and discuss, asked them 3 times March 23, March 30 and April 15, they chose to put the tiles on the roof, now it will cost more to change. We were specific, the only view was the garden window. His house is nonconforming, has a 2 foot side setback and a 2 foot rear setback, except for the patio area, there is not anyplace else; all 24 feet of the garage are in front of the window, we spend most of our time in the kitchen. We did not appear on September 10, 2001 , because Mr. Winges answered our question to our satisfaction that our view would not be impeded, in fact would be dramatically improved. We were concerned about one window at our 20 foot patio. There were no further comments from Dr. Thomson. Chair Osterling asked Mr. Phillips if he would like to make a presentation. George Corey, attorney, 700 El Camino Real, and Jerry Winges, architect, 1290 Howard Avenue, represented Mr. Phillips. A determination 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 25, 2005 hearing is unique; if the building plans conform to what the Commission approved can't rule no; if find fraud the city may rule differently, if can't find fraud your hands are tied, can't take away a vested interest without one or other finding. Know the plans conform to what approved, Chief Building Official checks. There was no fraud from the first meeting, the plan for the garage has not changed, have built exactly the same plan, the commission was not deceived in anyway. Reason to proceed: Thomson's and Phillips' will be neighbors for a long time; Mr. Winges will come before the Commission again. Dr. Thomson and his wife never mentioned the view from the kitchen window before the night of the first meeting, applicant had no opportunity to review ahead or respond. The Thomson lot is unique: it is very small, the kitchen window is in a hole; the structure was reduced from 53 feet to 24 feet along the Thomson's rear property line, new garage covers less than half the rear property line, increases the view, if they pointed to only one window and there was a way to protect, would have a vested right. Commission must rule only on this determination. Would like to find another way out. Architect noted: have been architect for the Phillips' since 2000; 3 %2 years ago met Dr. Thomson once for about 5 minutes, regret the whole situation, misunderstood, but nothing which has happened would have changed decision made, story poles would not have helped. Regarding view, did not know where kitchen window was, not paying attention to the window since the house has three stores which look into the Phillips' property with little view from the first floor; garage and guesthouse were 53 feet long, reduced to 24 feet, did not say flat roof, did not maintain that a particular view would improve, but that view from all windows on the bottom floor would improve; referred to the aerial noted that roof on the new garage is no higher than peaked roof on back portion, guest house,just moved forward, never heard from Dr. Thomson about that roof. View from the 3-story house at 732 Newhall, old flat roof 10.5 to 11 feet tall, see over to back yard of Phillips' with two trees which have been removed for remodel at 1615 Willow, houses beyond down the block did not mean "view" in August 2001 . Have suggested that Phillips' plant additional trees in their backyard behind the garage tall enough to be seen over the garage, trim bushes and see new view to right, greater depth of view because Phillips' house is farther back. Commissioner asked: in the August 27, 2001 transcript, what did "no higher" mean? Winges noted it referred to the entire structure and no higher than the existing peak of that structure. Have you been inside the Thomson house? No; they filed a law suit and was told not to talk to them. Have the plans for the garage changed? They are on file, they were posted on the back wall of the chambers at the Planning Commission August 2001 , meeting, there was no change to the garage throughout the review process. There were no further comments from the representatives of 1615 Willow Road. Chair Osterling asked Dr. Thomson if he would like to respond. Ms. Mallette, Dr. Thomson's attorney, commented they seem to dispute the loss of view, the loss is authentic, found in the picture of the old garage and the new taken from same vantage point. Since beginning have changed their characterization of the original structure, no longer two, but one. It is two can see that the roof lines overlap. Would note that fraud can be negligent fraud, did not see the window, not see the view, represented positively that view was dramatically improved. Relied on what was represented did not look more closely at the location of the garage e.g. 40 feet of the Thomson's lot was not affected. Look at record closely to see if it was a careless representation by Mr. Winges which affected the Planning Commission's action. Mr. Corey challenged that the Thomson's never told anyone that the view was important, spoke up when challenged; look at the new pictures, see two structures of different heights by a couple of feet, it is substantial; tremendous impact. Damages to Thomson's, they willfully proceeded when they knew it was disputed. Commissioners asked: Two transcripts differ in record, exhibit 4 indicates said "existing garage and guest house structure" on August 27, 2001 ? Ms. Mallette, now sees as one structure when it was always 2. There were no further comments by Ms. Mallette and the Thomson's. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 25, 2005 Chair Osterling asked Mr. Phillips if he would like to respond. George Corey, attorney, responded. No one misunderstood that there was a unit at the back of the 53 foot long structure, the part with the peaked roof. Ms. Mallette says commission was defrauded by unintentional statement by Mr. Winges, if he had known more he would have acted differently. You cannot have been defrauded, the City issued permits for construction, you put the city at risk which you do not want to do. If there is a remedy to this surely the court will find it. Commissioner asked can a remedy be found? CA noted that such a remedy was between the applicant and the neighbor, the Planning Commission should not find a remedy. There were no further comments from Dr. Thomson or his representatives. The public hearing was closed. Commission Comment: It is clear that the plans have been out from day one, page 12 of the transcript focuses the issue; see room for interpretation on both parts what the city did, those plans were the same all the way through, what was approved was what was built. Agree, conforms to the Planning Commission approval. CA Anderson noted two questions before the Commission: conforms to the Planning Commission approval and was there some misrepresentation which was relied on, which there was no way to verify based on what the Commission knew or could determine. Commission Comment continued: view was lost by Thomson, went through the process, was reviewed and approved, no fraudulent representation of the project, may be some error in presentation; agree believe should "fix the problem not the blame", have lost a tangible asset but agree that the city acted appropriately on the application, recommend settle without recourse to the court and significantly reduce the height ofthe garage, the rest of the house does not have views, should respond to the neighbors at the rear. Agree plans were there to look at during process, lots of applications have requests made from the floor, it does not mean that they will all be incorporated into the conditions of approval, plans were there for all to see, no fraud, no guarantee of view in the zoning, have right to build the garage, have a view from the second floor. C. Deal moved to uphold the actions of the Chief Building Official in issuing the building permit and the City Planner's decision. Seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on the motion: It is not fair to expect the average citizen to know how to read plans and to dispute, however agree with the consensus on the two issues before the commission. There was no wrong doing, will uphold the decisions of the City Planner and the Chief Building Official, too bad would not speak more with the neighbor when the framing was being done, am disappointed. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to uphold the actions of the Chief Building Official that the building permit was consistent with the plans approved by the Planning Commission and that the Planning Commission's decision was not based on fraudulent information which could not be confirmed. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi, Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m. 7. ZONING CODE REVISIONS: AUTO ROW, SUBAREA D; BUILDING REGULATIONS SUBAREA A; LICENSING REQUIREMENTS; LOCATION OF CHURCHES PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report April 25.2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. C. Keighran was unable to be at the meeting but noted in written responses that she had reviewed the suggested revisions to the zoning and would prefer not to allow car rental uses in Subarea D. Commissioners asked if it was necessary to have the rental operation in a separate building so long as it was on a dealership site and was open only the same hours as the dealership. Staff noted that had suggested 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 25, 2005 placing car rental uses on dealership sites, to respond to commission concern that there not be a lot of free standing car rental businesses in Auto Row. The text should be changed to require that the car rental operation be open "within" the hours of the dealership, so it would not be required to be open more hours than necessary. Will there be a chance that these rental operations will pick up rentals from the hotels. Staff noted that a number of the hotels have rental desks, also the larger rental operations which have moved onto the airport site, remain legal in Burlingame only so long as they keep a rental desk open, they are closer to the hotels and pick up this business. If rentals are not given from desks in dealerships, can the public rent cars as well? Intended to support auto service business, public could rent if complied with hours. See as indirect support to auto service business at dealerships but do not want to see auto row transformed into auto repair row in the future, storage of 120 cars for car rental indicates support for auto repair not for auto sales.; also a physically large area for auto storage. Concerned about regulating demolition permits in Subarea D and B. CP noted that these changes to the regulations for the downtown area should be considered to be interim since it was possible that a Specific Area plan would be prepared for the entire area in the next several years. The last step in such a planning effort would be to review all the zoning and modify it to comply with the plan, these provisions would also be reviewed in that new context. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Kent Putnam, 65 Mission Trail , Woodside, noted he had requested the consolidated auto rental business to serve all the auto dealerships on Burlingame's auto row. He noted now that on site desks are not always staffed when needed, customers have to be transported to another site to pick up cars, not timely or efficient service. Has no problem with a separate building on a dealership site, since that is what he has and intends to use. Commissioner asked if walking down the street a half block would serve the customers equally? Yes better because the cars would be there. Would car rental serve Putnam dealerships only? No would be available to all dealerships, would be manned full time, and have cars available. Discussed the on site storage requirement, because of the daily volume and repeated �.- use of the same cars felt that 120 cars for on site storage was too much. CA suggested that there could be a minimum based on a percentage of the monthly rentals and a maximum, for example 50. Where would the cars be washed? Staff noted that washing, repair, etc. were issues to be addressed in the conditional use permit, it is proposed that car rental operations, if more than a desk at a dealership, be a conditional use permit. Commissioners continued: Since Kent Putnam is here would like to ask what are the chances that auto row might moved to Adrian Road as proposed in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road specific plan? Kent Putnam noted it is always a business decision, if the economics work they would move. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission suggested the following changes/revisions to the proposed zoning changes: • That the on site storage requirement for car rental inventory be changed to 10% of the average monthly rentals and a maximum of 50 cars; • That there shall be no on-street parking allowed for car rental uses, including employees and customers; • That the hours of operation of the car rental operation on a dealership site shall be "within" the hours of operation of the dealership on the site. • That there be no limit on the maximum number of cars rented from a car rental site in Subarea D. C. Osterling made a motion to recommend the proposed zoning changes to the City Council for action with the changes to the text proposed. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 25, 2005 Discussion on the motion: do we want to add a limitation on demolition in Subarea D, there are a few nice buildings there and it would be too bad to have them removed to be replaced with car sales lots; CA noted that there is a right to a demolition permit so to limit requires a strong planning policy such as preserving the retail frontage and the semi-historic character stated in the plans for Subarea A, Subarea D is more difficult since there is no development policy to promote pedestrian activity; Subarea B is more like A but is still diverse in the sense of pedestrian access, Chapin Avenue for example; probably best to sit tight until a . downtown plan is prepared. Discussed amendments to Auto Row language; and amended motion to include proposed changes noted above. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the zoning changes for Auto Row, Subarea D, building regulations in Subarea A, licensing requirements for Fortunetelling, and location of churches to the City Council for approval. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent). This item will be set on the Council agenda. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 483 CHATHAM ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (KIM AND TOM HAMILTON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; KURT FEHLBERG, ARCHITECT) (44 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Kurt Fehlberg, 5149 Willow View Court, Pleasanton, project architect, and Tom Hamilton, property owner, were available for questions. Commissioners made the �- following comments: • Need a different approach to limit the size of the roof as seen from the front. Some options suggested: o Could provide a break in the roof plan with a change in pitch somewhere, might be better construction with less dead attic space. o Might consider breaking up that surface by putting dormers in the attic space. o Roof could be broken up in front by making it higher with a wall band added for interest and not include dormers. • Combination of long sloping roof in front with the addition loaded in the back is not indicative of the neighborhood. • It is difficult to add a second story to this type of house, hard to place a small addition with one bedroom over a roof with a 4/12 pitch, there have already been a couple of bad additions done on this house in the past, concerned with the integration of the second floor into the existing roof, would like to see a stab at another alternative, this is out of character with the neighborhood. • For the chimney, understand the need to extend, but don't know if the building code will allow that type of chimney to be extended so high, think it needs a different type of chimney cap. • Need to see consistency with the muntin bars on the windows, on plans, some are shown with and some without, correct plans to be consistent throughout. • Vinyl windows are called out in the plans, generally the Commission's desire is to see wood windows with more beef and weight, then can use stucco mold. • Rear elevation needs more interest. �. • The left elevation is a stark wall in a single plan, could use articulation. 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 25, 2005 • Would not be a big issue if there was a special permit for an encroachment into the declining height envelope if it is needed to enhance the design and add variety to the wall. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Crs. Cauchi and Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:55 p.m. 9. 1535 ALTURAS DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; GILBERT FITZGERALD AND CAROL MURPHY PROPERTY OWNERS) (56 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Jack Matthews, architect, 335-A Fourth Street, San Mateo, noted that this is an addition to a house with a 4/12 pitched roof, which offers some design challenges, the addition was designed to enhance the look of the house from the street and to create a useable back yard, this is a steeply sloping lot, which is why the structure as measured from the curb is over the height limit, there is one tree proposed to be removed and one fruit tree will be relocated. Commissioners noted that the architect had done a good job with the design and asked about the accessory structure, there is a playroom, a bathroom and a closet, what is its intended use? The applicant noted that this will be a multi-purpose space, the lot slopes steeply, the owner desires to have a covered level space to use, do not intend to use as a second unit. A condition should be added that the space not be converted to a second unit and no cooking facilities added. Commissioners made the following comments regarding the project: • The chimney is shown to be ten feet from the face of the building, however the building code requires that it be ten feet from any portion of the structure including the roof, so it may be too close, please verify. • If the entire ceiling joist is not removed for the new second story, the building may end up being taller than actually shown because it will take more than twelve inches of space between floors, address. • There is another existing accessory structure on the site, will it be removed, show on plans. • Concerned that the new second floor will impinge on view from a landscaped deck in the yard at 1527 Alturas Drive and with the view from the neighbor's house at 1531 Alturas Drive. Request that full story poles be installed for the main structure and surveyed so that the impact on views is made clear, • Provide a letter from the owners to the right to verify that this neighbor is okay with the design because the accessory structure will be closer to and larger than what is existing there now. • Like to see at least single pole to note maximum height of accessory structure so neighbors understand the height of the structure. 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 25, 2005 • On the front elevation, there is a wrought iron railing proposed on the front porch, it seems to be a little light in weight, might want to consider something heavier, it seems like too fine of a detail for such a large house. • Steps to the front door are being redone, might want to consider pulling the living room forward in order to capture the views. • Add condition that the tall trees be trimmed and maintained at the lower level to open up new views for neighbors in exchange for ones affected by the project. • The view ordinance places a priority on protecting on views from interior spaces, does not address as clearly views from decks or outdoor recreation areas. • Neighbors should give contact information to the Planning Department to pass on to the Commissioners so that they can view the story poles from the neighbor's property. Ronald Ehlers, 1527 Alturas Drive, commented on the proposed addition. He noted that he is concerned with the view that will be blocked, there was an addition done several years ago on a neighboring house which blocks some of the view from that direction and presented photos of the view from his the basketball court; concerned with overall impact in the area as second stories are added, eventually the view will be completely blocked. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the story poles are installed and all of the comments have been addressed and the plans checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the story poles have been placed as directed and the information submitted and reviewed by staff. The motion �— passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Crs. Cauchi and Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11 : 15 p.m. 10. 1624 CORONADO WAY, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS KUJAT, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; THORNTON WEILER, ARCHITECT) (76 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HUR1N CP Monroe briefly presented the project description, and noted that a letter dated April 25, 2005 was submitted from the owner of 1625 Balboa Avenue, directly behind this propertywhich addressed issues with drainage, visual impact and privacy. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Chris Kujat, property owner, was available for questions and noted that the addition is proposed because he has 3 daughters and needs more bedrooms, projects have been proposed on this site before, previous application was denied, and did not like the one that was approved, so he is now proposing this design. Commissioners made the following comments: • Will the solar panels now on the front of the house be removed or be relocated? • A lot of the houses in the neighborhood have second stories above the garage, this is the only one like this, should consider matching design to others in neighborhood. • There are inconsistencies in the plans, a dormer is shown on one elevation, but not shown on others, need to correct plans. • Knee braces are only shown on one facade and are paired with short, stubby overhangs, it doesn't come �. off well, need to come up with consistent style and character that is followed throughout the entire 15 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 25, 2005 house; mass and location of addition are okay, but the house needs to be consistent in its style throughout. • Concern with the front roof pattern, proposing gable, gable and hip, might be better with hip, hip and gable. • Drawings should be corrected to show that the existing aluminum windows will be replaced and that all windows will have a consistent style and be made of wood. • Need to include a landscape plan with attention given to the back yard, a retaining wall could address some of neighbor's drainage issues, and landscaping would soften the impact of the second story. • Massing in the center of the house could be a nice departure from an addition over the garage, it is integrated well. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Crs. Cauchi and Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11 :30 p.m. 11. 2202 SUMMIT DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (WARREN DONALD, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JACK CHU, CHU DESIGN & ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (40 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Warren Donald, property owner, and Jack Chu, Designer, were available to answer questions. Commissioners had the following comments: • Existing roof is imitation slate, the new roofing material should match the existing, need to correct the plans to reflect that the roof material will be imitation slate, not asphalt shingle. • Are there going to be gutters on the roof edge, if so, need to show them on the plans. • Need consistency throughout the drawings and more attention to detail, revise plans. • The existing mansard roof is difficult to work with, when approach the house from below it looks awfully'big, this is one of the few houses that cannot be seen from other properties or the street. • Concern with vinyl windows, need to upgrade to real wood windows, will add character and quality. • Access to front door is up a path to the door which is on the far side of the wall, might help the design to emphasize the location of the door, could add a more prominent path. • The dormers in the mansard roof would look better if they were rounded at the top rather than gable, would have a more European look. • Need landscape plan to show approach to front entry, and use landscaping for emphasis. Paul Lynch, 2845 Canyon Road, property adjacent to site, this is a huge lot, can't see the house from the street or my property, the design is decent, but want to raise a concern about the future subdivision of this lot. Agree with the plans for this project, but would like to ask that a condition be added that the property not be subdivided in the future. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 16 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 25, 2005 Commissioners asked if it was possible to add a condition to prohibit future subdivision. CA Anderson noted that you can't prevent someone from applying for a subdivision, but in the findings for this project, Commission can indicate the issues which would be faced, such as lack of street access, the slope of the lot, the existing easements on the property and the location of the creek, all of which would make it difficult if not impossible to subdivide the lot in the future. C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the revisions and corrections to the plans have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when the plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (C. Cauchi and Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11 :45 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of April 18, 2005. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of April 18, 2005. Commission also discusssed briefly the rotation of officers which will occur at the May 9, 2005 meeting and the change in seating. FYI: Revisions to an approved design review project at 1637 Westmoor Road, zoned R-1 . CP Monroe noted that the applicant notified staff that they were going to remove the fireplace in the living �. room altogether,which would benefit the garage because the fire box would be removed from the parking area. They wish to retain the fireplace in the family room but convert it to gas, so no chimney structure will be required. Commission acknowledged these changes and the changes to the window sizes for required egress from bedrooms. However, Commission noted that in the future egress windows should be noted and properly sized on all plans and plans should not be accepted until they are so noted. The egress requirement is well known to architects, designers and contractors, and such requirements should be included and reviewed as a part of the original design review. X1. ADJOURNMENT Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 11 :55 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MINUTES\unapproved.04.25.05.doc 17 ►. 4-14-05 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE : 1 FOR: MARCH, 2005 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD rime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. _ YTD. . YTD. . Change t- Change urder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 anslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 ape By Force 0 0 0 2 -2 -100 . 00 ttempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0 .obbery Firearm 0 1 1 1 0 0 . 00 obbery Knife 0 0 0 0 0 obbery Other Dangerous Weapon 0 0 1 2 - 1 -50 . 00 .obbery Strong-Arm 1 1 4 1 3 300 . 00 .ssault - Firearm 1 0 1 0 1 ssault - Knife 3 0 4 3 1 33 . 33 .ssault - Other Dangerous Weapon 1 1 2 2 0 0 . 00 .ssault - Hands, Fists, Feet 0 0 1 2 -1 -50 . 00 .ssault - Other (Simple) 15 18 50 57 -7 -12 . 28 ;urglary - Forcible Entry 9 4 26 13 13 100 . 00 ;urglary - Unlawful Entry 7 9 20 26 -6 -23 . 08 ;urglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 0 0 0 0 0 ,arceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 arceny Purse-Snatching 0 0 0 0 0 arceny Shoplifting 7 4 9 7 2 28 . 57 ,arceny From Motor Vehicle 21 20 61 81 -20 -24 . 69 ,arceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 9 6 34 12 22 183 . 33 i ,arceny Bicycles 4 2 7 3 4 133 . 33 ,arceny From Building 14 0 16 6 10 166 . 67 ,arceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 0 3 8 8 0 0 . 00 ,arceny All Other 6 26 49 71 -22 -30 . 99 rotor Vehicle Theft Auto 3 11 21 34 -13 -38 . 24 totor Vehicle Theft Bus 0 0 0 0 0 Iotor Vehicle Theft Other 0 0 0 1 -1 -100 . 00 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 101 106 315 332 101 106 315 332 4-14-05 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: MARCH, 2005 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change 11 Other Offenses 36 39 121 113 8 7.08 nimal Abuse 0 0 0 0 0 nimal Nuisance 0 0 1 0 1 rson 0 0 0 0 0 ssists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 icycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0 igamy 0 0 0 0 0 omb Offense 0 0 0 0 0 omb Threat 0 0 1 0 1 ribery 0 0 0 0 0 heck Offenses 2 1 3 2 1 50.00 hild Neglect/prot custody 2 4 8 5 3 60.00 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 0 2 0 2 urfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 2 0 2 eath Investigation 3 3 14 7 7 100.00 isorderly Conduct 8 1 14 3 11 366.67 river's License Violations 0 0 2 1 1 100.00 riving Under the Influence 3 6 19 24 -5 -20.83 •rug Abuse Violations 4 4 8 15 -7 -46.67 -rug/Sex Registrants/Violations 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Prunkeness 0 6 8 18 -10 -55.56 mbezzlement 0 0 1 5 -4 -80.00 ;scape 0 0 0 0 0 ;xtortion 0 0 0 0 0 'alae Police Reports 0 0 0 0 0 'alse Reports of Emergency 0 0 0 0 0 'ish and Game Violations 0 0 0 0 0 'orgery and Counterfeiting 2 5 12 14 -2 -14.29 'ound Property 8 14 24 32 -8 -25.00 'raud 1 2 12 6 6 100.00 ;ambling 0 0 0 0 0 iarrassing Phone Calls 2 3 7 14 -7 -50.00 4-14-05 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: MARCH, 2005 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD rime Classification.... ... ............. Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change t Change it and Run Accidents 7 7 12 20 -8 -40.00 mpersonation 0 0 2 0 2 ncest 0 0 0 0 0 ndecent Exposure 0 1 0 2 -2 -100.00 ntimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0 idnapping 0 0 0 0 0 ewd Conduct 0 1 0 2 -2 -100.00 iquor Laws 2 0 2 2 0 0.00 ittering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 arijuana Violations 3 5 3 11 -8 -72.73 ental Health Cases 5 7 21 25 -4 -16.00 issing Person 9 5 18 14 4 28.57 issing Property 10 18 17 28 -11 -39.29 unicipal Code Violations 4 6 10 19 -9 -47.37 arcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 ffenses Against Children 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 ther Assaults 15 18 50 57 -7 -12.28 ther Juvenile Offenses 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 ther Police Service 6 8 15 21 -6 -28.57 andering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 arole Violations 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 erjury 0 0 0 0 0 ossession of Burglary Tools 0 0 1 0 1 ossession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0 ossession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0 robation Violations 0 2 1 3 -2 -66.67 rostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 rowling 1 0 1 0 1 esisting Arrest 0 2 1 2 -1 -50.00 .unaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0 ex Offenses 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 :ex Offenses against Children 0 0 0 0 0 sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 talking 0 0 0 0 0 ;tatutory Rape 1 0 2 0 2 4-14-05 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 CITY REPORT FOR: MARCH, 2005 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD rime Classification.................... Current Year. . YTD.. YTD.. Change i Change tolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 0 0 2 0 2 uspended License 2 4 4 15 -11 -73.33 ax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 emp Restraining orders 1 4 8 11 -3 -27.27 errorist Threats 2 3 3 7 -4 -57.14 owed Vehicle 38 32 118 86 32 37.21 respassing 0 2 6 2 4 200.00 ruants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 S Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 agrancy 0 0 0 0 0 andalism 21 15 54 49 5 10.20 ehicle Code Violations 1 1 11 8 3 37.50 iolation of Court Order 0 1 3 3 0 0.00 arrants - Felony 3 3 4 7 -3 -42.86 arrants - Misd 10 4 19 16 3 18.75 eapons;Carrying,Possessing 1 3 2 4 -2 -50.00 elfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 ------- ------ ------- ------- 213 240 650 682 213 240 650 682 04-14-05 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : 1 CITY REPORT FOR: MARCH, 2005 Current Prev Last Actual Actual Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . YTD. . Parking Citations 3063 4 , 620 9, 844 11 , 727 Moving Citations 123 394 302 1, 082 ------- --- --- -- ---- - - ------ 3186 5, 014 10 , 146 12 , 809 ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------ ------- ------- 3186 5, 014 10, 146 ,12 , 809 ti U KL 11V lil�l�l i'i Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 04/14/2005 at 11 : 52 : 46 AM Reported On: All Officers Report Range : 03/01/1905 to 03/31/2005 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Valid % All Voids 8s All Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVIS 190 9553 21.84 131 14.30 98.65 DAZA-QUIROZ 634 5315 12.15 74 8.08 98.63 GARRETT 501 9700 22.17 333 36.35 96.68 HARRISON 506 11170 25.53 151 16.48 98.67 KIRKPATRICK 502 7821 17.88 227 24.78 97.18 MORAN 201 158 0.36 0 0.00 100.00 ROSCOE 503 27 + 0.06 0 0.00 100.00 Total 43744 916 Page 1 of 1 1 RECEIVE® APR 21 2005 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF BURLINGAME April 18, 2005 BURLINGAME Mayor Joe Galligan SCHOOL DISTRICT City of Burlingame City Hall 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mayor Galligan: Board of Trustees Michael Barber We are in receipt of your letter of March 30, 2005 once again requesting Marc J. Friedman that the Burlingame School District reimburse the City of Burlingame for a Dave Pine portion of its legal expenses incurred in connection with the proposed Linda Lees Dwyer placement of the Jefferson-Martin power line down Trousdale Drive. Alison Van Dyke As stated in Superintendent Sonny Da Marto's letter to City Manager Jim District Administration Nantell dated January 19, 2005, the District is not in a position to Sonny H. Da Marto,Ed-D. reimburse the City of Burlingame for these legal expenses. Stated briefly, Superintendent our rationale is as follows: Suzanne Hall, Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent, (1) As you know, the Governor's proposed 2005-06 State budget is Curriculum&Instruction balanced on the back of the education community. He is reneging Jing-Jing Wang on his earlier promises to schools and is unwilling to honor the Assistant Superintendent, Chief Business Official voter-enacted Proposition 98 minimum funding guarantee for education. In this budget environment, the District simply does not Pamela McCabe have the leewayto make the requested reimbursement. Director, Special Education& q Categorical Programs (2) We continue to believe that it would be neither equitable nor appropriate to reimburse the City of Burlingame for legal expenses after turning down a similar request by 280 Corridor Concerned Citizens Group. This group did an extremely effective job in its legal filings documenting the potential EMF risks that provided the foundation for Judge TerKeurst's favorable ruling. Moreover, to our knowledge, the 280 Corridor Concerned Citizens Group incurred considerably larger legal fees than any other party opposing the Trousdale power line. (3) Your letter states that the legal work undertaken by the City of Burlingame was done in part at the urging of the Board of Trustees. This is not accurate. The City of Burlingame first.took a public stance against the Trousdale power lines with its letter from Mayor Mike Coffey to the California PUC dated August 15, 2003. The City of Burlingame then formally filed its motion to intervene in the 1825 Trousdale Drive Burlingame,CA 94010 (650)259-3800 Fax: (650)259-3820 www.burlingameschools.com Jefferson-Martin proceeding on October 22, 2003. From that point forward the City of Burlingame, with the assistance of a San Francisco law firm, was an active participant in the proceeding. By the time Trustee Dave Pine appeared at the City Council on May 3, 2004, much of the expense that you are now seeking reimbursement for had already been incurred. (4) The primary purpose of Mr. Pine's participation in the May 3rd City Council meeting was to support the efforts of the Trousdale citizens group who were requesting that the City of Burlingame adopt an EMF ordinance. Ultimately the ordinance was not adopted and therefore did not give rise to any significant part of the legal fees under discussion here. In addition, as reflected in the transcript of the May 3, 2004 City Council meeting, Mr. Pine spoke as an individual citizen on the subject of the proposed ordinance and not as a representative of the Board of Trustees. (5) We believe that the appropriate time to have discussed cost sharing would have been before legal counsel was hired and legal expenses were incurred. As the Burlingame School District was not involved in the selection or management of outside legal counsel, we do not believe the District should now be asked to pay a portion of their fees. Thank you for considering our position. We trust we can put this matter behind us and work together in a collaborative fashion going forward. Sincerely, Alison Van Dyke Marc Friedman President Vice President Dave Pine Linda Lees Dwyer Clerk Trustee Michael Barber Trustee cc: Sonny DaMarto Jim Nantell, City Manager City Council Members Peninsula Health Care District April 21, 2005 Mr. Larry E. Anderson City Attorney The City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Dear Attorney Anderson: Thank you for being in attendance at our March 24, 2005 meeting of our Board and addressing the City's costs in the Jefferson-Martin Transmission Line Proceedings and its request to our District. Enclosed is the District's check in the amount of $32, 057.36 as our contribution toward the City's out-of-pocket expenses in the CPUC proceedings, as requested. We are pleased that we are able to make this contribution at this time on behalf of our District residents for this effort by the City. Again, thank you for your assistance in understanding the matters surrounding the Jefferson-Martin Transmission Line, and we are very happy the City was successful in its endeavors for the citizens and community at-large. Sincerely, SUSAN S. SMITH Treasurer, Board of Directors SSS:mm Enclosure 17B3 EI Camino Real, Burlingame, California 94010 Phone [650] 696-5450 / Facsimile 16501 69B-5336 DISTRICT OFFICE San Mateo, Burlingame, Foster City, Hillsborough, Millbrae, San Bruno and Certain Unincorporated Areas GAN K)NESCU ARCWTECTS 8t PLANNERS DIAPi SAN FRANCISCO-SILICON VALLEY OSLO SHANGHAI BUENOS AIRES Dear Mayor Galligan and honorable City Council Members, As you know, I recently had the opportunity to make a presentation on the application of smart growth concepts at the San Mateo County progress seminar on April 16th. The presentation reviewed the history of development in San Mateo County and then projected what development might look like in the future if we embraced the smart growth concepts vs. the urban sprawl which would be the result of the more traditional development we have seen in the County. Given the enthusiastic reception that the presentation received at the seminar I would like to request an opportunity to make a presentation to the Burlingame Council and community. The presentation would include a specific focus on the ramifications of smart growth for the city Burlingame. I'm interested in making the presentation because I believe that Burlingame is one of the few cities in the County that has enjoyed real success in engaging the community in an educational dialogue around this issue that will have such widespread impact on our region in the years to come. I believe that the information I want to share will help form a foundation for the important community discussions that I know you would need to have when considering proposals that I and others would like to present for your consideration in the future. I would be delighted to make the presentation and City Council meeting or any other special meaning you may think would be more appropriate. The only weeks that I will be unavailable in the next couple of months is the week of the June 20th. I appreciate you and your Council's consideration of my offer. Sincerely, DIAP Dan Ionescu NCARB, AIA 1611 BOREL PLACE #230 SAN MATEO,CA 94402 T 650.570.6681 F 650.570.6540 E : DIONES@DIAP.COM WWW . D I A P . C 0 M