The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2006.03.06 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame eu- wGwE Regular Meeting—Monday, March 6,2006 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 +•..m-.�•'�� 650 558-7200 Page 1 of 2 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 February 22, 2006 Approve 5. PUBLIC HEARING The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS-At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law prohibits council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a "request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Resolution of Intention to approve Broadway Business Discuss/Approve Improvement District 2006-2007 assessments and approve 2005-2006 Annual Report b. Introduce Ordinance amending Advisory Board Introduction membership for the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District to add a position for an owner or manager of a hotel in the City of East Palo Alto 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve a. Resolution in support of measure to secure local transportation funding b. Resolution approving the Memorandum of Understanding for the Police Officers Association c. Recommendation to adopt the second revised 2006 City Council calendar 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. 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 that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a "request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. CITY O� BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame 8Y.FaMcaME 501 Primrose Road Regular Meeting—Monday, March 6, 2006 Burlingame,CA 94010 • � 650 558-7200 Page 2 of 2 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. Department Reports: Police, January, 2006 b. Commission Minutes: Planning, February 27, 2006 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.burtingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—Saturday, March 18,2006 CITY C BURLINGAME Fb A g0 �Nsi[o JUNE b• BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of February 22, 2006 STUDY SESSION a. Study Session on Water and Sewer Systems DPW Bagdon and staff made a presentation to Council providing them with the background, the capital improvements program and several rate scenarios for the sewer and water systems so that they could make an informed decision later this spring on future rate adjustments. The important point for Council is to strike the right balance between the level of capital replacement funding and the level of the rate adjustments. 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 Cathy Baylock called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Nancy Doss. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Cohen, Keighran, Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. MINUTES One correction was made to the minutes of the February 6, 2006 regular Council meeting: Add to Item 7.a.: ...and agreed to hold off on location of the Walk of Fame until further notice. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the amended minutes of the February 6, 2006 regular Council meeting; seconded by Vice Mayor Nagel. Approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. CLOSED SESSION: CA Anderson advised that Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following: a. Claim of Georgia Fie pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(b)(1),(3)(c) (Threatened Litigation) b. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government code §54956.6: City Negotiators: Jim Nantell, Deirdre Dolan, Glenn Berkheimer Labor Negotiators: Police Officers Association; Police Administrators 1 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2006 Unapproved Minutes 5. PRESENTATION a. SOUTH LANE STREET CLOSURE/BROADWAY TRAIN PLATFORM At the outset, CM Nantell announced that Caltrain advised that they have no plans to discontinue service on weekends at Broadway. Ian McAvoy, Chief Development Officer for SamTrans and Caltrain, and Chuck Harvey, Chief Operating Officer for SamTrans and Caltrain made a presentation and answered questions on the status of the Broadway and Burlingame Train Stations as well as the platform improvement plans for the Burlingame station. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. CALTRAIN PRESENTATION AND RESOLUTION CLOSING THE SOUTH LANE CROSSING OF THE RAILROAD CORRIDOR TO VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC FOR THE BURLINGAME TRAIN STATION IMPROVEMENTS AND USAGE CITY PROJECT NO. 74230 Following Caltrain's presentation, Council members had several questions and comments: is it physically possible for Burlingame to have the local service and the Baby Bullet service at the same time; would scheduling solve the need for a hold out station; request was made for a mid-platform crossing; would Caltrain continue shuttle service funding; are there any plans for a grade separation at Burlingame station; request was made for landscaping plans. Caltrain's responses: there is not enough track and signal infrastructure for both local and Baby Bullet services; scheduling could solve the need for a hold out station; California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) does not allow a mid-platform crossing and Caltrain would not support it because of safety; shuttle service funding will continue; there are no plans for a grade separation at Burlingame station. Councilman Cohen suggested that a separate meeting be scheduled to discuss the Broadway station. Mayor Baylock opened the public hearing. The following citizens spoke in favor of restoring Broadway train service: Ross Bruce of Broadway BID; Barbara Zukowski, 1108 Capuchino; Garbis Bezdjian, 1199 Broadway; Jacqueline Sontag, 2601 Adeline Drive; Justyn Schnee, 1246 El Camino Real; and Tom Carey, 1216 El Camino Real. The following citizens spoke against closing South Lane and in favor of a mid-platform pedestrian crossing: Rosalie McCloud, 1215 Bayswater; Tom Paine, 728 Concord; Rich Grogan, 1450 Columbus Avenue; Cristus Goodrow, 323 Dwight Road, Angela Johnson, 1528 Ralston Avenue; Stephen Hamilton for Citizens for a Better Burlingame; Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Way; Mary Hunt, 725 Vernon Way; Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater; and Juergen Pfaff, 615 Bayswater. The following citizens spoke on other aspects of the plans: Diane Condon Wirgler, 1536 Cypress Avenue, gave station's historical background; John Root, 728 Crossway Road, landscaping plans; Jeannie Gilmore, 1431 Carlos Avenue, community station square; Kent Lauder, 449 Bloomfield Road, negative effects of proposed fence; Gary Doss, 214 California Drive, construction and parking issues for nearby businesses; Jeff Carter, 1720 Adeline Drive, pedestrian tunnel and grade separation; Rudy Horak, 1332 Edgehill, passenger shelters; Cathie Jennings, 1225 Oak Grove Avenue, Hayward Park platform redesign effects; David Hyman, 711 Lexington Way, platforms moved northerly or staggered; Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue, safety and 2 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2006 Unapproved Minutes possible grade separation on Peninsula Avenue; and Elrae Bilsey, 112 Howard Avenue, Mt. View's automatic pedestrian gates. Caltrain responses to public comments: the 670-foot platform is needed to accommodate the length of trains that would stop at Burlingame; Broadway service is dependent on operating funds; they cannot proceed with design as is should South Lane not be closed; difficulty in moving platform north of North Lane is due to the wetlands environment; Eucalyptus trees being cut down, and requirement to add a pedestrian crossing which would effect closure of a crossing elsewhere; fencing might still be required between North and South Lanes should the station remain as is; proposed plans include two covered pedestrian shelters for each side of the tracks; Joint Powers Board has no intention of closing Burlingame station should South Lane not be closed; need to reengineer project into a new master schedule if it is delayed; the expected increase in future ridership creates the demand for adding more parking spaces. There were no further comments, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve closure of South Lane. The motion was not seconded. Council held further discussion. Comments included: requests to see landscaping schematics and plans for passenger shelters, new Council has not seen current plans, can't support proposal without enhanced pedestrian access, willing to go to CPUC to keep mid-span crossing, can't support plan without City negotiating alternatives; City staff and Council have invested a lot of time on this project. Mayor Baylock suggested that Council meet in the future to further discuss the plans and determine direction. CA Anderson advised that staff would work with Caltrain to gather more information on the issues as requested by Council. Mayor Baylock declared a five-minute intermission at 10:50 p.m.; then reconvened the meeting at 10:55 p.m. b. AMENDMENT TO CHAPTER 8.18 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1777 REGULATING SMOKING AT CITY SPORTS ACTIVITIES AND EVENTS AND TO PROHIBIT SMOKING IN CITY VEHICLES P&RD Schwartz reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and adopt Ordinance No. 1777 amending Chapter 8.18 to regulate smoking at city sports activities and events and to prohibit smoking in city vehicles. Mayor Baylock opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1777 amending Chapter 8.18 to regulate smoking at city sports field, activities, and events and to prohibit smoking in city vehicles; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote 5-0. Mayor Baylock directed CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on funding options for pedestrian crossings. John Root, 728 Crossway Road, spoke about Caltrain's plans. There were no further comments from the floor. 3 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2006 Unapproved Minutes 8. STAFF REPORTS a. ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 9-2006 ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT PORTION OF THE CITY'S PURCHASING AND CONTRACTING PROCEDURES CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council adopt Resolution No. 9-2006 adopting amendments to the expense reimbursement portion of the City's purchasing and contracting procedures. Councilman Cohen made a motion to approve Resolution No. 9-2006 adopting amendments to the reimbursement of expenses portion of the City's purchasing and contracting procedures; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion was unanimously approved by voice vote, 5-0. b. INFORMATION ON THE PARKS FOR THE FUTURE PROPOSAL TO FUND PARKS AGENCIES WITHIN SAN MATEO COUNTY P&RD Schwartz reviewed the staff report and introduced Julia Bott, Executive Director of the San Mateo County Parks Foundation, who presented background on Parks for the Future, a ballot measure campaign to increase sales tax 1/8th cent to secure dedicated tax-based revenues to support parks and recreation related activities of San Mateo County, its cities, recreation districts and open space district. C. COUNCIL GOAL SETTING ROUND II-CONFIRMING THE SCHEDULING OF COUNCIL STUDY SESSION, FEBRUARY 25, 2006 CM Nantell reviewed the staff report and the proposed Agenda for the February 25th meeting. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Vice Mayor Nagel requested removal of Item a. from the Consent Calendar for further discussion. b. RESOLUTION NO. 10-2006 ACCEPTING CALIFORNIA DRIVE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO JMB CONSTRUCTION, INC. DPW Bagdon requested approval of Resolution No. 10-2006 accepting California Drive Storm Drain Improvements to JMB Construction, Inc. C. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants #16226-16905 duly audited, in the amount of $3,187,178.10 (excluding library checks 16340-16360), Payroll checks #164540-164770 in the amount of $2,544,120.57 for the month of January 2006. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Items b. and c. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. APPROVE OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL FOR FOUR CITY EMPLOYEES TO EMMITSBURG, MARYLAND 4 Burlingame City Council February 22,2006 Unapproved Minutes Fire Chief Reilly requested Council approve out of state travel for employees from the Public Works, Police and Fire Departments to attend the Emergency Management Institute in Emmitsburg, Maryland in March. Vice Mayor Nagel requested a report from the employees on what they learn at this event. Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to approve out-of-state travel for four City employees to Emmitsburg, Maryland; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion was 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. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 12. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 13. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Department Reports: Building, January 2006; Finance, January 2006 b. Commission Minutes: Parks &Recreation, January 19, 2006; Beautification, February 3, 2006; Planning, February 13, 2006 15. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Baylock adjourned the meeting at 11:50 p.m. in memory of Sheila Boyle, former Burlingame Police Communications Dispatcher. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 5 Burlingame City Council February 22, 2006 Unapproved Minutes �� CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 7a MTG. O� AATEO JUNE 69O DATE 3/6/06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT BY DATE: March 6, 2006 APPR A/ FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director BY SUBJECT: Resolution of Intention: Broadway Avenue Business Improvement District—Setting 2006-2007 Assessments RECOMMENDATION That the City Council approve the Broadway Avenue Business Improvement District Annual Report for FY05-06; adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessments for Fiscal Year 2006-07 and set a public hearing for Monday, April 3, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. BACKGROUND The Broadway Avenue Business Improvement District submitted its annual report on February 27, 2006. A review of their FY 2005-06 budget was included as part of the report. There are no recommended changes in the boundaries, assessments or classifications of businesses within the improvement district. The Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessments notifies all businesses within the district of the City Council's intention to levy and collect fees. The public hearing gives the businesses an opportunity to voice their opinions, comments, suggestions and concerns directly to the City Council. The recommended hearing date is April 3, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. BUDGET IMPACT Approximately$25,000 in assessments is collected annually with our business licenses. The funds are forwarded to the Broadway Business Improvement District for improvements as authorized by the BID Board of Directors. The City of Burlingame covers the expenses associated with the renewal of the BID. Those expenses are approximately$6,000. ATTACHMENTS: Broadway Business Improvement District Annual Report for FY2005-2006 A Resolution of the City Council Of The City of Burlingame Declaring Its Intention To Establish 2006-07 Assessments For The Broadway Area Business Improvement District And Approving the 2005-06 Annual Report UEll 'ING BROADWAY VILLAGE SHOPS RESTAURANTS SERVICES February 22, 2006 City Manager City of Burlingame c/o Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District 1399 Broadway Burlingame, CA 94010-3422 Dear City Manager: 5 RE: BID Annual Report and 2005-2006 Budget The BID proposes no changes in boundaries or assessments. Budget outline for fiscal 2005-2006 activities (in percent of total revenue): A) Advertising 10% B) Burlingame Shuttle 20% C) Streetscape Beautification 70% Detail of Funds as of January 31, 2006. (Funds on Hand) Income Received Interest Income $ 39.76 Bid Assessment Collected 26,437.00 Refund Income - Advertising/Promotion 50.00 Refund Income — Street Beautification 250.05 Other Income 100.00 Total Income Received $ 26,876.81 pan Broadway Business Improvement District 0 1399 Broadway, Burlingame,California 94010 �.gU1,11 'ING BROADWAY VILLAGE SHOPS RESTAURANTS SERVICES Expenditures Advertising & Promotion $ 3,347.89 BID Events 5,014.58 Shuttle Contribution 5,000.00 Streetscape Beautification 19,915.30 Miscellaneous 1 ,487.85 Total Expenditures $ 34,765.62 , Status of Funds as of January 317 (Funds on Hand) ' Checking Account I $ 2,676.86 � - 11N, Checking Account II 17,102.69 Checking Account III (Merchants' Association) 4,722.57 P k; Total $ 24502.12 rF If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at A.V.R. it (650 2-2073. Si erel Ross Bru President, BID Broadway Business Improvement District • 1399 Broadway, Burlingame,California 94010 Green & Green, LLP Certified Public Accountants EDMUND M.GREEN 5 Third Street,Suite 616 Phone:415.778.3969 DIANE A.GREEN San Francisco,CA 94103 Fax:415.243.8411 To the Board of Directors Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District Burlingame,CA We have compiled the Statement of Funds — Cash Basis of Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District (a not-for-profit corporation) as of January 31, 2006 and the related Schedule of Income Received and Expenditures — Cash Basis for the period then ended included in the accompanying prescribed form in accordance with Statements and Standards for Accounting and Review Services issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The financial statements have been prepared on the cash basis of accounting, which is a comprehensive basis of accounting other than generally accepted accounting principals. Our compilation was limited to presenting in the form prescribed by the City of Burlingame information that is the representation of management. We have not audited or reviewed the financial statements referred to above and, accordingly, do not express an opinion or any other for of assurance on them. The Statement of Funds—Cash Basis and related Schedule of Income Received and Expenditures — Cash Basis are presented in accordance with the requirements of the City of Burlingame, which differ from generally accepted accounting principals. Accordingly, these financial statements are not designed for those who are not informed about such differences. We are not independent with respect to this engagement. GREEN&GREEN, LLP February 22,2006 Broadway Burlingame Improvement District Schedule of Income Received and Expenditures - Cash Basis For the Twelve Months Ended January 31, 2006 Income Received Interest Income $ 39.76 Bid Assessment Collected 26,437.00 Refund Income - Advertising/Promotion 50.00 Refund Income — Street Beautification 250.05 Other Income 100.00 Total Income Received 26,876.81 Expenditures Advertising & Promotion 3,347.89 BID Events 5,014.58 Shuttle Contribution 5,000.00 Streetscape Beautification 19,915.30 Miscellaneous 1.487.85 Total Expenditures 34,765.62 Total Income Received less Expenditures Broadway Burlingame Improvement District Statement of Funds - Cash Basis For the Twelve Months Ended January 31, 2006 Checking Account 1 $ 2,676.86 Checking Account II 17,102.69 Checking Account III (Merchants' Association) 4,722.57 Total $ 245-02 12 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH 2006-2007 ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, AND APPROVING 2005-2006 ANNUAL REPORT WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et sea., the Broadway Area Business Improvement District was established for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and physical maintenance of said business districts, and WHEREAS, the Broadway Area Business Improvement District Advisory Board has filed its 2005-2006 annual report and requested the Burlingame City Council to set the assessments for the 2006-2007 year; and WHEREAS, it appears that the Broadway Area Business Improvement District has provided important services in enhancing the District and its businesses and properties, NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine, and find as follows: 1 . The 2005-2006 annual report of the Broadway Area Business Improvement District Advisory Board is approved. 2. The Burlingame City Council intends to levy an assessment for the 2006-2007 fiscal year on businesses in the District, as the District is described in Ordinance No. 1461 , to pay for improvements and activities of the District. 3. The types of improvements and activities proposed to be funded by the levy of assessments on businesses in the District are set forth in Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference. These activities and improvements are without substantial change from those previously established for the District. 4. The method, basis, and amounts for levying the assessments on all businesses within the District are set forth in Exhibit "B", incorporated herein by reference, and would remain the same as those levied in the previous fiscal year. 5. New businesses shall not be exempt from assessment. 6. A public hearing on the proposed assessments for 2006-2007 is hereby set for April 1 3, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council's Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 7. The Council will receive testimony and evidence at the public hearing, and interested persons may submit written comments before or at the public hearing, or they may be sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. 8. Oral or written protests may be made at this hearing. To count in a majority protest against the proposed assessments or programs and services for 2006-2007, a protest must be in writing and submitted to the City Clerk at or before the close of the public hearing on April 3,2006. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall identify the business and its address,include a description of the business and the number of employees. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of the City of Burlingame as the owner of the business, then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the business. Any written protest as to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceeding shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made. 9. If at the conclusion of the public hearing, there are of record written protests by the owners of businesses within the District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District,as to the proposed assessments for 2006-2007, no assessment for 2006-2007 shall occur. If at the conclusion of the public hearing there are of record written protests by the owners of businesses within the District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District only as to an improvement or activity proposed,then that type of improvement or activity shall not be included in the District for the 2006-2007 fiscal year. 10. Further information regarding the proposed assessments and changes and procedures for filing a written protest may be obtained from the City Clerk at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, phone 650 - 558-7203. The annual report of the Business Improvement District is on file and available at the Office of the City Clerk at 510 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 11. The City Clerk is instructed to provide notice of the public hearing by publishing notice as well as this Resolution in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Burlingame in 2 accordance with the requirements of the Government and Streets & Highways Codes and mailing them in accordance with those requirements as applicable. 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 , 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK C:\FILES\BIDBRDWY\BDWYINTr2OO6.BID.wpd 3 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\improvmtlis2OOO.bid.wpd z EXHIBIT B BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT BASIS* BUSINESS TYPE NO. OF STAFF ** 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 CITYAGENDA 7b c- ITEM# BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MTG. , DATE 3/6/2006 ue TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTE9-` BY DATE: February 28, 2006 APPROV BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING ADVISORY BOARD MEMBERSHIP FOR THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO ADD A POSITION FOR AN OWNER OR MANAGER OF A HOTEL IN THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO RECOMMENDATION: Introduce ordinance to add a position on the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District Advisory Board for an owner or manager of a hotel in East Palo Alto by: (a) Requesting the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance; (b) Waiving further reading of the proposed ordinance; (c) Introducing the proposed ordinance and directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least 5 days before adoption of the ordinance. DISCUSSION: The City of East Palo Alto was included in the Tourism Business Improvement District late last year. The Advisory Board has requested the Burlingame City Council, as the oversight body for the District, to add a position on the Board to represent the City of East Palo Alto. Attached is the letter from the Advisory Board requesting that the addition be considered by the City Council of the City of Burlingame. Anne LeClair, CEO of the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau is unable to attend the March 6 meeting, but will be present at the March 20 meeting if the Council has any questions for her. This change provides an opportunity to update the entire advisory board section as to membership changes that have occurred over the past 5 years of District operation and amendment. Attachment February 24, 2006, letter from SMCCVB Proposed Ordinance Distribution Anne LeClair, SMCCVB San M ate oCounty Co-rLventioVL and, visitors 6u.reau. February 24, 2006 Burlingame City Council C/o Larry Anderson Burlingame City Hall 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mayor Baylock and Members of the Council: The Board of Directors of the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau respectfully requests that the Burlingame City Council, as lead agency for our Tourism Business Improvement District, add a slot on our advisory board for a hotel general manager or owner from the City of East Palo Alto. The Board believes that it is very important to have guaranteed representation from the southernmost part of our county. I would be happy to appear in person and answer any questions you might have. Thank you in advance for your consideration. Sincerely, au'a Anne LeClair President& CEO 1 Cc: Jim Nantell r I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TO 3 ADD A SEAT ON ADVISORY BOARD REPRESENTING THE CITY OF EAST PALO ALTO AREA 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 Section 1. 7 (a) Ordinance No. 1648 was adopted in February 2001 to form the San Mateo County 8 Tourism Business Improvement District pursuant to the provisions of the Parking and Business 9 Improvement Area Law of 1989, as codified in California Streets and Highways Code sections 10 36500 and following. 11 (b)The City of East Palo Alto was included in the District by Ordinance No. 1774,and the 12 District Advisory Board has requested that the Advisory Board be expanded by one position to 13 represent an owner or manager of a hotel in the City of East Palo Alto on the Board. 14 15 Section 2. Section 14 of Ordinance No. 1648 is amended to read as follows: 16 Section 14. Advisory Board. 17 (a) An advisory board of twenty-four (24) members is established to advise the City of 18 Burlingame on the conduct of the District,including the level of assessments to be levied each year, 19 the services, activities, and programs to be conducted by the District, and the progress of the 20 District in meeting its purpose and goals. The City Council shall appoint the advisory board from 21 a list of nominees submitted by the San Mateo Hotel Council. To be eligible to serve on the 22 advisory board,a person shall be an owner or manager of a hotel or a property occupied by a hotel 23 or an owner or manager of a company or business located in San Mateo County that is directly 24 related to tourism in San Mateo County. The board shall consist of persons from the following 25 geographical areas: 26 (1)Four(4)owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by a hotel in the 27 City of Burlingame; and 28 (2)Two(2) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by a hotel in the 2/28/2006 1 I City of San Mateo; and 2 (3)Two(2) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by a hotel in the 3 City of Millbrae; and 4 (4)Two(2) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by a hotel in the 5 City of South San Francisco 6 (5) One (1) owner or manager of a hotel or owner of property occupied by a hotel in the 7 City of Foster City; and 8 (6) One (1) owner or manager of a hotel or owner of property occupied by a hotel in the 9 City of Half Moon Bay; and 10 (7) One (1) owner or manager of a hotel or owner of property occupied by a hotel in the 11 City of East Palo Alto; and 12 (8) In total, three (3) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by 13 hotels in the Cities of Belmont,Redwood City,San Bruno,San Carlos,and the unincorporated area 14 of San Mateo County; and 15 (9)Eight(8)owners or managers of companies or businesses located in San Mateo County 16 and directly related to tourism in San Mateo County. 17 (b) Terms of membership on the advisory board shall be three (3) years and until their 18 successors are appointed and qualified. 19 (c) Vacancies on the advisory board shall be filled by appointment by the City Council of 20 the City of Burlingame upon nomination by the San Mateo County Hotel Council. Vacancies 21 occur upon resignation of the member or when the member is no longer an owner or manager of 22 a hotel or property occupied by a hotel or of a tourist-related company or business, whichever is 23 applicable, in the geographical area from which the member was appointed. 24 25 Section 3. Except as expressly provided in this Ordinance and as amended by Ordinance 26 Nos. 1678, 1725 and 1774, all other provisions of Ordinance No. 1648 and implementing 27 resolutions shall remain in full force and effect. 28 2/28/2006 2 1 Section 4. The person appointed to the City of East Palo Alto position pursuant to this 2 ordinance shall serve an initial term to May 1, 2007. 3 4 Section 5. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 5 6 Mayor 7 8 I,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 9 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 10 of , 2006, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on 11 the day of , 2006, by the following vote: 12 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 13 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 14 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 15 16 City Clerk 17 18 C:\FILES\IIotelBid\EPABOARDaddtion.ord.wpd 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2/28/2006 3 CITY o� STAFF REPORT BUMJNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8b MTG. act 4,m DATE 3/6/06 $AntEo JUN[6, TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED- g BY DATE: it'IarCll 6, 2006 APPROVED FROM: Deirdre Dolan, Human Resources Director BY SUBJECT: Resolution Approving the Memorandum of Understandin for the Police Officers Association RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve the resolution authorizing the City Manager to incorporate the tentative agreement between the Police Officers Association(POA) and the City of Burlingame into the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for this unit. The tentative agreement is attached to this report as Exhibit A. BACKGROUND: The POA labor agreement expired on December 31, 2005 after a four-year term. The City and POA have been meeting since November to negotiate the terms of a new agreement. The City reached tentative agreement with the POA on February 13, and the POA ratified the agreement on February 22. The major components of the tentative agreement are as follows: Term: 3 years: January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2008. Salary: 2.0% increase retroactive to the first pay period in January 2006; 3.5%increase effective the first pay period in January 2007: and 3.5% increase effective the first pay period in January 2008 The salary increases are expected to keep the POA at or above median in the market over the life of the agreement. Medical: Increase the City's maximum contribution to equal the Kaiser family rate ($1,012.39). Future increases will be tied to the Kaiser family rate. Retiree Medical: The POA agreed to a reduction in the retiree medical benefit for fixture employees. Employees hired after implementation of the 3% at 50 retirement formula(effective June 26, 2006)will not be eligible to receive 100%retiree medical coverage unless they retire with 20 or more years of service. Employees retiring with fewer years of service will receive a significantly lesser benefit. Employees with less than 20 years of service retiring due to industrial disability will be able to receive 100% of the retiree medical benefit, if the disability is directly caused by a shooting, vehicle accident,rescue of an individual, assault, or the apprehension of a suspect while performing police officer duties. Other changes agreed to in negotiations are included in the attached Exhibit A. BUDGET IMPACT: There is sufficient funding in the fiscal year 2005-2006 budget for the salary and benefit cost increases associated with the new agreement. The projected cost for this fiscal year is $69,230, with an annual cost of $139,250. Note that the annual cost includes the cost increase for the 3% at 50 retirement benefit, which was negotiated as part of the prior agreement with the POA, and is due to be implemented effective June 26, 2006 (after a two-year delay in implementation was agreed to by the POA). The cost of the 3% at 50 retirement benefit for this unit is projected to be $177,300 for the coming fiscal year(FY06-07). ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING CHANGES TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON BEHALF OF THE CITY RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame and the Police Officers Association have met and conferred in good faith on the terms and conditions of employment as provided by State law; and WHEREAS,the City and Police Officers Association have reached agreement on certain changes to be made to the existing terms and conditions of employment and memorandum of understanding between the City and the Association; and WHEREAS,the proposed changes are fair and in the best interests of the public and the employees represented by the Police Officers Association; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The changes in existing salary of the employees represented by the Police Officers Association as contained in Exhibit A hereto are approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the terms contained in Exhibit A and incorporate them into the Memorandum of Understanding between the Police Officers Association and the City of Burlingame. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6h day of March, 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: CITY CLERK Exhibit A TENTATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION -ND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME MARCH 6, 2006 The following will be incorporated into the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Burlingame and the Police Officers Association: 1. Section 39 Term • 3 years, January 1, 2006--December 31, 2008 2. Section 6 Salary Plan and Premium Payments • Effective first pay period of January 2006 - 2.0% • Effective first pay period of January 2007 - 3.5% • Effective first pay period of January 2008 –3.5% 3. Section 17 Health and Welfare • Effective January 1, 2006,the City shall provide a medical contribution up to $1,012.39. • Effective January 1, 2007 and each year thereafter for the terns of the Agreement the City's maximum contribution shall be the Kaiser Family rate. 4. Section 17.1.1 Retiree Medical Currentt employees and those hired prior to the implementation of the 3%@,.50 benefit will have a retiree medical contribution that equals the amount received by active employees of the bargaining unit. Employees hired on or after the date 3%@50 benefit is enacted with CalPERS (June 26, 2006) will receive retiree medical contributions based on years of service with the police department. The retiree medical contribution for employees who have a service retirement will be as follows: Years of Service Monthly Contribution 0-end of 9 year of service Minimum monthly amount as governed by the CalPERS Health System. 10 years to the end of the 14th 50% of the lowest medical premium provided through year of service CalPERS for employee +1 dependent. 15 years to the end of the 19 75% of the lowest medical premium provided through year of service CalPERS for employee+1 dependent. 20 years of service or more 100% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS for employee+1 dependent. Exhibit A For employees hired before June 26, 2006 industrial disability retirement medical pay shall equal the amount received by active employees. Employees hired after the implementation of 3% a,50 (June 26, 2006) and that have an industrial disability retirement will have a retiree medical contribution as follows: Years of Service Monthly Contribution 0-end of 19 year of service 75% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS for employee+1 dependent. 0-end of I 91h year of service 1100% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS for employee+1 dependent if the disability is the direct result of performing a specific job task unique to that of a police officer(examples include,but are not limited to,operation of an emergency vehicle, involvement in a shooting, apprehension of a suspect, rescue of a citizen, assault by a suspect or other individual, or direct involvement in a vehicle accident). 20 years of service or more 100% of the lowest medical premium provided through CalPERS for employee+1 dependent. If CalPERS eliminates retiree medical coverage for the City of Burlingame, the City will meet and confer regarding the impact of CalPERS' decision. 5. Section 14 Sick Leave 14.2 Sick Leave Accrual: All full time regular and probationary members shall accrue sick leave at the rate of 3.69 hours per bi-weekly pay period to a maximum of 2080 hours. An employee who is on paid leave shall continue to earn sick leave credit. An employee who is on leave without pay shall not accrue sick leave credit. Sick leave shall accrue during an absence that is a result of occupational disability resulting from employer service. 14.3 Maximum Sick Leave Accrual: Sick Leave with pay shall be granted to all full-time regular and probationary employees to a maximum of 2080 hours accrued. 14.6 Sick Leave Incentive Plan Eliminated. 14.9 Sick Leave Upon Retirement: Upon retirement,the employee shall be entitled to and be compensated for up to 600 hours of the employee's accumulated sick leave. Exhibit A 14.10 Sick Leave Conversion: Employees can elect to have all sick leave hours converted to CalPERS credible service per GC Section 20965. If an employee elects to have sick leave hours paid out per Section 14.9, the remaining sick leave balance not paid out is eligible for conversion to credible service per GC Section 20965. The maximum available for conversion after payout is 2080 hours. Any sick leave hours paid out at retirement are not eligible for conversion. 6. Uniform Allowance January 1, 2006 increase by $35.00 January 1, 2007 increase by $35.00 January 1, 2008 increase by $35.00 7. 7.4 Compensatory Time Off Compensatory Time Off shall be allowed to accrue to a maximum of 160 hours. 8. Paid Work Details Employees who volunteer for Paid Work Details outside their scheduled hours shall receive payment in accordance with Section 7.2 Overtime Definition for a minimum of three(3)hours or actual time worked which ever is greater. If an employee is mandatory assigned to Paid Work Detail, then the employee shall be compensated in accordance with Section 7.7 Call Back. FOR POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION: FOR THE CITY: Robert Boll, President Date Glenn Berkheimer Date Police Officers Association Negotiator, IEDA Todd Chase,Negotiator Date Deirdre Dolan Date Police Officers Association Human Resources Director James Hutchings,Negotiator Date Jim Nantell Date Police Officers Association City Manager Scott Williams,Negotiator Date Police Officers Association Agenda 8a Item Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: March 6, 2006 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY , z / TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION IN SUPPORT OF MEASURE TO SECURE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution to support a constitutional amendment to ensure that Proposition 42 revenues are used exclusively for state and local transportation projects, and that revenues previously used to offset non-transportation purposes be reimbursed. BACKGROUND: In 2002, nearly 70% of California voters overwhelmingly passed Proposition 42. This proposition dedicated the existing state sales tax on gasoline to fund transportation projects such as congestion relief, road repairs, transit and safety improvements. However, Proposition 42 includes a provision that allows the legislature and Governor to divert funds to non-transportation expenses during fiscal emergencies. In two out of past three budget years, the sales tax on gasoline has been diverted to fund non-transportation state expenditures in the State General Fund. As a result, state and local agencies have had to delay or stop many critical safety improvements, congestion relief projects, road repairs and other pressing transportation needs. DISCUSSION: A broad-based coalition of business, labor, local government and community leaders is collecting signatures to qualify a constitutional amendment for the November 2006 ballot. If passed, this measure would close the Proposition 42 loophole, uphold the will of voters, and ensure that the sales taxes paid at the pump are used for transportation improvements only. By closing this loophole, this measure would finally provide a stable funding source for state and local agencies responsible for transportation improvements. BUDGET IMPACT: None EXHIBITS: Resolution Donald Chang, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer c: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk Larry Anderson, City Attorney S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME IN SUPPORT OF MEASURE TO SECURE LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FUNDING RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME that: WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame continually makes capital improvement assessments and planning relating to the condition of its transportation infrastructure; and WHEREAS, the City is concerned that it is not able to maintain its transportation infrastructure consistent with public works best practices because of limited funding availability; and WHEREAS, constraints on the City's ability to fully fund local transportation infrastructure projects adversely affect residents,visitors, and businesses within the City; and WHEREAS, the City had anticipated receiving monies for this purpose as the result of Proposition 42, approved by the State's voters in March 2002, which dedicated the state sales tax paid on gasoline to state and local transportation infrastructure projects and programs; and WHEREAS, Proposition 42 contains a provision that allows the state to transfer the sales tax on gasoline to non-transportation state purposes during times of fiscal need; and WHEREAS, as a result, some $2.5 billion in Proposition 42 monies has been spent over the past three years for non-transportation purposes; and WHEREAS, a measure is being circulated to qualify a constitutional amendment for the November 2006 ballot that would ensure that future revenues raised by Proposition 42 are dedicated to state and local transportation projects only; and WHEREAS, the measure also requires the state to reimburse the $2.5 billion in funds previously spent on non-transportation expenses to be repaid in 10 years; and WHEREAS, ensuring that Proposition 42 revenues are used solely for transportation projects, along with the reimbursement of prior revenues, will greatly assist the City of Burlingame, California in meeting its street maintenance obligations to the benefits of its residents, visitors, and businesses. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED as follows: 1. The City Council of the City of Burlingame, California supports a constitutional amendment to ensure that Proposition 42 revenues are used exclusively for state and local transportation projects, and the revenues previously used to offset non-transportation purposes be reimbursed. Cathy Baylock, Mayor I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES:COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES:COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAW AGENDA ITEM# 8c �o0 000 MTG. �NATED JYNEb DATE 3/6/06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: February 27, 2006 APPROVED FROM: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk By 650-558-7203 SUBJECT: Recommendation to adopt the second Revised 2006 City Council Calendar RECOMMENDATION: To review, make changes if necessary and approve the Revised 2006 Burlingame City Council Calendar reflecting changes and additions. BACKGROUND: To include the addition of the Budget Study Session on May 31 and the Council Retreat scheduled for June 7-9 and the rescheduling of the City Manager's mid-year review and the October 2nd Regular Council Meeting due to Yom Kippur. EXHIBITS: Revised 2006 Burlingame City Council Calendar dated February 27, 2006 REVISED 2006 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR City Council meetings are held on the first and third Monday of each month. When Monday is a holiday,the meeting is usually held on Tuesday or Wednesday. Study meetings are held as scheduled. Meetings begin at 7:00 at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, and are open to the public. Regular Council meetings are televised live via Burlingame's Cable Channel 26 for RCN subscribers and Channel 27 for Comcast subscribers. For more information,please view the City's website at www.burlingame.org or call the City Clerk at 650-558-7203. REGULAR MEETINGS Tuesday, January 3 Monday, July 3 (Canceled) Tuesday, January 17 Monday, July 17 Monday, February 6 Monday, August 7 (Canceled) Wednesday, February 22 Monday, August 21 Monday, March 6 Tuesday, September 5 Monday, March 20 Monday, September 18 Monday, April 3 Tuesday, October 3 Monday, April 17 Monday, October 16 Monday, May 1 Monday, November 6 Monday, May 15 Monday, November 20 Monday, June 5 Monday, December 4 Monday, June 19 Monday, December 18 (tentative) STUDY MEETINGS AND OTHER DATES Saturday, January 28 2006/07 Goals Session, 9 a.m., Recreation Center Wednesday, March 1 2006/07 Budget Session, 6 p.m., Lane Room, Main Library Friday, March 3 Commissioner's Dinner Saturday, March 18 Joint Council and Planning Commission Meeting, 9 a.m. Thursday, May 18 City Manager's mid-year review, 6 p.m. Wednesday, May 31 Budget Study Session, 4 p.m., Lane Room, Main Library Wed.-Fri., June 7-9 City Council Retreat, South Lake Tahoe Wednesday, December 6 City Manager's year end review, 5:30 p.m. 2/27/2006 2:03 PM � w 02-27-06 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1 FOR: JANUARY, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 Manslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 Rape By Force 1 0 1 0 1 Attempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery Firearm 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery Knife 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Robbery Strong-Arm 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Assault - Firearm 0 0 0 0 0 Assault - Knife 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 2 0 2 0 2 Assault - Hands,Fists,Feet 2 0 2 0 2 Assault - Other (Simple) 24 12 24 12 12 100.00 Burglary - Forcible Entry 5 13 5 13 -8 -61.54 Burglary - Unlawful Entry 14 6 14 6 8 133.33 Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Purse-Snatching 1 0 1 0 1 Larceny Shoplifting 5 2 5 2 3 150.00 Larceny From Motor Vehicle 22 22 22 22 0 0.00 Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 12 19 12 19 -7 -36.84 Larceny Bicycles 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00 Larceny From Building 3 0 3 0 3 Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 1 5 1 5 -4 -80.00 Larceny All Other 11 24 11 24 -13 -54.17 Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 7 9 7 9 -2 -22.22 Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 1 0 1 0 1 Motor Vehicle Theft Other 2 0 2 0 2 ------- ------ ------- ------- 113 117 113 117 113 117 113 117 02-27-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD' Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change W Change All Other Offenses 32 38 32 38 -6 -15.79 Animal Abuse 0 0 0 0 0 Animal Nuisance 0 0 0 0 0 Arson 0 0 0 0 0 Assists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Bigamy 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Offense 0 0 0 0 0 ' Bomb Threat 0 0 0 0 0 Bribery o 0 0 0 0 Check Offenses 1 1 1 1 0 0.00 Child Neglect/prot custody 7 4 7 4 3 75.00 Computer Crime 0 0 0 0 0 Conspiracy o 0 0 0 0 Credit Card Offenses 1 0 1 0 1 Cruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 0 0 0 Curfew and Loitering Laws 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00 Death Investigation 4 7 4 7 -3 -42.86 Disorderly Conduct 2 4 2 4 -2 -50.00 Driver's License Violations 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00 Driving Under the Influence 7 10 7 10 -3 -30.00 Drug Abuse Violations 2 2 2 2 0 0.00 Drug/Sex Registrants/Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Drunkeness 4 3 4 3 1 33.33 Embezzlement 1 1 1 1 0 0.00 Escape 0 0 0 0 0 Extortion 0 0 0 0 0 False Police Reports 0 0 0 0 0 False Reports of Emergency 2 0 2 0 2 Fish and Game Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Forgery and Counterfeiting 2 4 2 4 -2 -50.00 Found Property 3 7 3 7 -4 -57.14 Fraud 0 7 0 7 -7 -100.00 Gambling 0 0 0 0 0 Harrassing Phone Calls 4 4 4 4 0 0.00 02-27-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change Hit and Run Accidents 3 2 3 2 1 50.00 Impersonation 0 0 0 0 0 Incest 0 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 1 0 1 0 1 Intimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 Lewd Conduct 0 0 0 0 0 Liquor Laws 0 0 0 0 0 Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 Marijuana Violations 3 0 3 0 3 Mental Health Cases 9 8 9 8 1 12.50 Missing Person 6 5 6 5 1 20.00 Missing Property 7 1 7 1 6 600.00 Municipal Code Violations 7 0 7 0 7 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 0 0 0 Offenses Against Children 2 0 2 0 2 Other Assaults 24 12 24 12 12 100.00 Other Juvenile Offenses 0 0 0 0 0 Other Police Service 4 3 4 3 1 33.33 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 1 0 1 0 1 Perjury 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of Burglary Tools 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0 Probation Violations 2 1 2 1 1 100.00 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 2 0 2 0 2 Prowling 1 0 1 0 1 Resisting Arrest 1 1 1 1 0 0.00 Restraining Orders 0 4 0 4 -4 -100.00 Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0 Sex Offenses 2 1 2 1 1 100.00 Sex Offenses against Children 0 0 0 0 0 Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 Stalking 0 0 0 0 0 02-27-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change Statutory Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Stolen Property;Huying;Receiving;Possess 1 2 1 2 -1 -50.00 Suspended License 4 1 4 1 3 300.00 Tax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 Terrorist Threats 2 1 2 1 1 100.00 Towed Vehicle 21 38 21 38 -17 -44.74 Trespassing 2 3 2 3 -1 -33.33 Truants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 0 0 0 0 - US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 Vandalism - 17 16 17 16 1 6.25 Vehicle Code Violations 0 5 0 5 -5 -100.00 Violation of Court Order 2 1 2 1 1 100.00 Warrants - Felony 2 0 2 0 2 Warrants - Misd 6 4 6 4 2 50.00 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 0 0 0 0 0 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 —----- ------ ------- ------- 204 205 204 205 ------- ------ ------- ------- 204 205 204 205 02-27-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : 1 CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . YTD. . Parking Citations 2095 3 , 494 2 , 095 3 , 494 Moving Citations 208 73 208 73 ------- ------ - -- - - - - ------- 2303 3 , 567 2 , 303 3 , 567 2303 3 , 567 2 , 303 3 , 567 BURLINGAMB Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 02/27/2006 at 10 : 47 : 51 AM Reported On: All Officers Report Range: 01/01/2006 to. 01/31/2006 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Valid All Voids % All Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ALVISO 355 227 10.97 1 3.13 99.56 DAZA-QUIROZ 634 217 10.48 2 6.25 99.09 FEITELBERG 508 1150 55.56 17 53.13 98.54 GARRETT 501 60 2.90 4 12.50 93.75 KIRKPATRICK 502 367 17.73 7 21.88 98.13 ROSCOE 503 49 2.37 1 3.13 98.00 Total 2070 32 Page 1 of 1 r . C CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA February 27, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the February 27, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling, Terrones and Vistica(arrived at 7:02 p.m.) Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner,Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell C. Vistica arrived and took his seat. III. MINUTES The minutes of the February 13, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Because there are members of the audience who came for two related items the Rollins Road zoning and the scoping of the Peninsula Humane Society and SPCA project on Rollins Road,the Commission agreed that it would be more efficient in terms of public comment to consider these items consecutively. So item 6 the Rollins Road zoning should be shifted to follow item 9 and precede item 10 the environmental scoping and design review of the PHS/SPCA project. There were no other changes to the agenda. Chair Auran asked if all the commissioners had visited all the sites for projects on the agenda this evening. All commissioners indicated that they had visited the sites. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1124 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO CONVERT AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE TO ACCESSORY LIVING QUARTERS. (STEVE MENDENHALL, APPLICANT, AND CANDIDA- RENE ORDONEZ, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report and noted that this application is a result of a complaint filed with the Code Enforcement Officer about undocumented construction in a garage to convert it to a living unit. Commission noted that the complaint was filed in May 2005 and asked why it took so long to be placed on the agenda; staff noted that code enforcement items typically take longer because a complete application and plans must be prepared before the Commission can review the project. Commissioners asked: City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 ■ variance application form needs to better address the extraordinary circumstances on this property; ■ stairs for ingress and egress to the house is not an extraordinary circumstance,every house has stairs; ■ if the stairs are a problem,a ramp can be built to accommodate ingress/egress for the resident;see no hardship on this property; ■ application states that the resident suffers from Alzheimer's disease,but when visited the site noted that the detached garage is being used to house a dog, applicant needs to clarify the proposed use of the detached garage; ■ this application has a long way to go,information in the application is inconsistent;generally do not approve applications for living quarters in a detached structure because of zoning issues; ■ response to#3 on the conditional use permit application notes that the existing garage will still house a car, how can this be if the application includes replacing the garage door with a stud wall? ■ sympathetic to the residents'health condition,however second living units are not allowed in the R-1 zone; could add a lift or ramp to accommodate the resident. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 2. 1199 BROADWAY#1,ZONED C-1,BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA—APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR NEW FOOD ESTABLISHMENT. (DANA KERN,APPLICANT;AND GARBIS BEZDJIAN,PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Deal recused himself from this item because he lives within 500 feet of the property. He stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. CA Anderson noted that this application is for a limited food service food establishment and therefore comments on the operation of the business is appropriate. Commissioners asked: ■ does the applicant operate other satellite operations similar to what is being proposed; ■ would like the applicant to discuss what they think is the breakeven point for sales in terms of number of customers and when they expect to reach it; ■ this is the fifth of five additional food establishments recently allowed by the ordinance,this property owner will have 40% of the total,want to make sure business is viable; ■ concerned with the plans submitted, there are clear code problems with the floor plan layout, for example,there is not enough room provided between the display counter and the counter against the wall; these problems need to be corrected on the plans; ■ need to provide the name of the author of the plans,also at action meeting would like to see the plans previously approved for the food establishment in suite#2 at this site; ■ would like to see where the proposed exterior signage will be located; and ■ all exterior venting and equipment should be combined on the roof and not visible from the street, add as a condition of approval. This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. C. Deal returned to his seat on the dais. 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. There are no consent calendar items. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 1416 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE(CATHERINE ANDERSON,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CLEMENT & EVA HUNG PROPERTY OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report February 27, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Catherine Anderson,designer,650 Loma Verde Avenue,Palo Alto, was available to answer questions. Commission noted that this is a much improved project, the design review process worked well for this project; want to make sure that the termination at the top of the roof where the roof ridge meets the flat portion of the roof does not contain a curb,need a ridge shingle along the edge of the flat roof. Commission asked why the detached garage was setback 4'-0" from the rear and side property lines; designer noted that the garage was set back from the rear property line in order to protect existing trees and their root systems. Commission noted that the proposed English Plain trees proposed at the front of the property are too close together,in addition the landscape plans are difficult to understand,the flagstone and concrete is too busy,what is happening with the paving at the front?The designer commented that the English Plain tree is similar to a Sycamore, if manicured and controlled well it can be a nice small shade tree in keeping with the Tudor style,have seen this species in several gardens spaced 6 to 10 feet apart. Commission noted that this style typically generates a stoop at the front of the house and looses the porch element,the design guidelines encourage porches in the design,this design makes the house inward looking, style does not speak to the street with a small porch,however am not requiring the porch to be revised with this project. Commission asked the designer to clarify the type of window proposed; designer noted that simulated true divided light wood windows with metal cladding on the exterior will be used. Commission asked the designer to clarify the vent on the front elevation;designer noted that the vent will be metal with a wood lentil above and stone below, the buildings' exterior will be stucco with stone showing through. Ignac and Edith Sperman, 1417 Balboa Avenue;Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and with a letter submitted from John and Anne Fallon, 1412 Balboa Avenue; noted the following concerns with the project: the existing driveway is narrow and steep,will the new driveway be the same size and slope, current residents don't use the driveway because it is so narrow and steep, as a result cars are parked on the street, current residents have three big vehicles, two of their cars are parked in the street, concern is that if the proposed driveway is the same width and slope it will not get used, street is narrow and essentially a one-way street, parking on Balboa Avenue is a problem,; concerned with the height of the building, 32'-2" previously proposed, now 33'-2" is proposed, house got taller; this is a large house and does not fit into the neighborhood,no exceptions to building height or declining height envelope should be granted, submitted photographs of the existing site, prepared a model of the original and revised designs, the roofline is 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 complicated and problematic; concerned with having a flat roof on a Tudor style house,the September 26, 2005,Planning Commission Minutes note that the Commission was concerned with the amount of flat roof on this project,don't see significant changes made to the flat roof;the propose house will be 3'taller than the house on the right and T taller than the house on the left,concerned with the mass and bulk of the building; concerned with the two tall black acacia trees at the rear of the lot,these trees shed a lot and cause problems with clogging gutters and drainage, without gutters working property water will drain to the neighbors, proposed house will be 4'from the T tall fence,will be hard to clean gutters;plans say wood windows will be used,but designer noted that metal clad windows are proposed,would like to see wood windows used; would like to see story poles installed to show the envelope of the building; do not agree with the design review analysis,the house is more attractive now,however it does not belong on this small lot;the fabric of this block has changed significantly because of several construction projects,the new house recently built at 1453 Balboa Avenue is too big, during the review of that project the Commission noted that the neighbors would have to see this house for the rest of their lives so it should be better integrated into the neighborhood; this project should be sent back to the design review consultant or deny it without prejudice because of the site conditions. Design noted that the driveway width and slope is approximately the same as existing,however the driveway widens towards the rear of the lot because the house steps back,driveway will be 10'-6" in width and wide enough to use, will be able to park three cars on the property. Commission noted that it appears that the current residents do not find the driveway convenient to use because it is steep, a wider driveway will encourage use. Commission asked how the flat roof will be drained;designer noted that the details have not yet been worked out,however the flat roof will have a slight pitch so that water is directed to a drain at the rear. Commission noted that the flat roof could have been avoided by reducing the pitch,the change in pitch would not be that visible, flat roof design will be more costly to build and may cause the roof to leak; designer noted that she came up with several roof designs,including a reduced pitch,but the design review consultant recommended against it because a reduced pitch would not be as consistent with the Tudor style. Clement Hung, property owner, noted that he heard the neighbors concerns with the height, asked the designer to reduce the overall building height to 30',but design review consultant recommended against it, based on his recommendation the height was increased. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal noted that the project has come a long way,the design review process worked well for this project, special permit for height is appropriate because this property is located at the crest of the block,actual house is not over 30'tall as measured from adjacent grade,there are valid findings for the special permit because of the architectural style of the house, do not need to see story poles for this house because there are no view blockage issues,and for these reasons moved to approve the application,by resolution with conditions. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on the motion: still concerned about the landscaping, landscape plan is confusing, proposed landscaping does not do the best job to screen the new house, would like to see project continued to have noted changes incorporated and a revised landscape plan. Maker of the motion and second agreed to continue the project as along as there are no new issues raised. C.Deal made a motion to continue this item on the consent calendar to a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 ■ details of the second floor dormer with the window on the right elevation needs to be refined, the layout of the trim boards should be consistent with the other dormers; ■ consider shifting the detached garage to the right by T-0",this would help increase the useable rear yard space; ■ suggest using London Plane trees rather than English Plain trees at the front,this species would be a better compliment to the Tudor style; ■ the garage vocabulary with the arched roof over the round top vent does not match the vocabulary of the house,roof element and vent should be eliminated; ■ skylights need to be tinted; ■ like the leaded glass window above the dining room window, would be nice for the dining room window to be leaded glass, will leave up to designer and property owners to decide if it can be incorporated into the design; ■ applicant needs to address the concerns noted with the driveway width and slope;there appears to be a discrepancy on the plans regarding the driveway width, 10'-6" between house and property line shown on the site plan, 10'-0" shown on building elevations; clarify driveway location, width and slope, there appears to be 18 inches between the edge of the driveway and the side property line, should increase driveway width by 6 inches towards the property line to make it easier and safer for the residents to use. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item on the consent calendar to a time when the revisions as directed have been made and plan checked and there is space on the agenda. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m. 4. 1329 DE SOTO AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CON BROSNAN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER)(64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Chair Auran and C. Osterling recused themselves from this item because they live within 500 feet of the property. They stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report February 27,2006,with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Vice-chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present to answer questions. Commission noted that photographs indicate that the design of the porch columns were changed from turned columns (originally approved)to square columns,however the revised plans do not reflect this change. In addition, landscaping at the front of the lot is also being revised to include more turf,but this change is not noted in the application. Need further clarification from the applicant regarding several issues. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Vice-chair Brownrigg noted that because further clarification is needed from the applicant,he made a motion to move this item to the end of the agenda to follow Item #10 when the applicant might be present. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on the motion: if this project is continued,do not want to see it bump another application off the next agenda. 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 Vice-chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the end of the agenda following Item #10. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Chair Auran and C. Osterling abstaining). This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. Chair Auran and C. Osterling returned to the dais and took their seats. 5. 1830 SEQUOIA AVENUE,ZONED R-3—APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A STRUCTURAL WALL AT AN EXISTING APARTMENT BUILDING. (ROBERT M.BLUNK,AIA, BDA ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND GEORGE WILLIAMS III TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report February 27,2006,with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Robert Blunk, architect, 1555 Bayshore Highway #300, Burlingame, was available to answer questions. Commission asked who designed the structural wall; architect noted that the engineer designed it, engineer studied the problem and found that this is the best solution to lateral bracing,there are other apartment buildings in the area with the same problem,since there are no extra parking spaces in this complex, could not design the beam inside the parking area, chose the proposed location because it will not eliminate any parking space or conflict with vehicle maneuvering. Commission asked why is the structural beam needed only at this corner of the building;architect noted that the rest of the building has lateral bracing in one direction,the rear wall of the building is open, other parts of the building have solid walls to provide the bracing,the proposed location is where the lateral support is absent. Commission asked if there is a way to screen the wall with landscaping;architect noted that a 3'to 4' tall hedge or shrubs can be planted to screen the front edge of the wall and also plant ivy to climb up the wall. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: would like to see a condition that requires ivy and a 3 to 4 foot tall hedge or shrub to be planted along the edge of the structural wall; also would like to see a condition added that if the building is ever substantially remodeled, expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement the front setback variance for the structural shall become void. C. Brownrigg moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 24,2006,sheets A0.1,Al,S-1 and S-2,and that any changes to building materials,exterior finishes, footprint or location of the structural shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that prior to final inspection, a hedge or shrubs shall be planted along the edge of the structural wall so that it will grow to a height of 3 to 4 feet and that ivy shall be planted to climb up and cover the wall; 3)that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 25,2006 memo,the City Engineer's January 27,2006 memo,the Recycling Specialist's January 30,2006 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's January 19,2006 memo shall be met;4) 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; 5)that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 6) that the front setback variance shall only apply to this structural wall and shall become void if the building is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m. 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN: PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED NEW ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD INDUSTRIAL AREA (NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND 124 NOTICED)CITY PLANNER:MARGARET MONROE This item was moved to follow item 9. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 7. 127 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. (LUIS ROBLES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JAIME GOMEZ, PROPERTY OWNER) (35 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Luis Robles,architect,341 Channing Way,Pacifica,was available to answer questions,noted that four bedrooms is proposed,not five bedrooms as indicated in the staff report; staff noted that the den and family rooms qualify as bedrooms, therefore a total of five bedrooms is being proposed. Commission comment on the project: ■ clarify type material for guardrail on second floor balcony,need to accurately draw the guardrail on the plans; ■ clarify proposed type of window and window trim on plans; ■ second floor bay window at the front of the house is not shown on the side elevations, needs to be shown on all affected elevations; ■ overall the project lacks detail,need to pay close attention to the detail and show them correctly on the plans; ■ clarify first and second floor plate heights on all building elevations, provide dimension from finished floor to top of plate on both floors; ■ concerned that by adding a rim j oist to increase the height of the existing plate height,overtime there will be a visible crack along the seismic joint on the interior wall; ■ concerned with the front elevation, front porch is not integrated into the house well, increasing the size of the porch will help the front elevation; ■ round top windows on the second floor of the front elevation are not compatible with the style and are not used elsewhere in the design; ■ more articulation is needed on the second story; ■ proposed architectural style of house is unclear, adding details such as rafter tails and appropriate colors, would help to define the style; ■ there are inconsistencies between the building elevations and the roof plan,for example the roof plan shows hip roofs at the rear where the building elevations indicates gable ends,need to correct,hip roof may be better for this design; 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 ■ elements on the rear elevation are not clear,clarify proposed material for horizontal bands over the first floor covered porch at rear and for the water table around the house; ■ front elevation at the right side is broad, the existing house has a porch, proposed porch does not embrace the street, larger porch could reduce the massing; ■ south elevation is big with a broad roof, roof eave over the door along this elevation needs more attention and detail; ■ north and south elevations need more details, would like to see more windows added, these elevations need a more human aspect; ■ need to show downspouts and gutters; ■ would like to see landscape plan to help soften the bulk and mass of the building; ■ would like to see a tree protection plan for the trees at the front and rear of the property; ■ windows on garage door are not in proportion with the windows in the rest of the house; ■ should consider a different type of garage door, suggest a heavy timbered design which would be more in keeping with the Spanish style. There were no other 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. Cauchi. Comment on the motion: suggest that the project architect look at Spanish style houses in Burlingame and other cities, take photographs of different elements associated with a Spanish style house, identify those characteristics which he likes and bring them to the meeting with the design reviewer to show the style being proposed. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:40 p.m. 8. 1824 BARRIOLHET AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(PAUL HOWIE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNERS) (37 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission noted during the site visit that a fence with pillars was built in the front setback at the edge of the sidewalk and appears to encroach into the city's right- of-way,was an encroachment permit granted; staff will verify if an encroachment permit was issued and if the fence complies with the height limit for a fence within the front setback. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Paul and Mihaela Howie, property owners, were available to answer questions,noted that a fence exception was granted for the fence,looked at the existing houses in the neighborhood, made an effort to match the other houses, have two-story houses on either side, tried to integrate the design with the adjacent houses. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The consensus of the Commission was that the proposed design was inadequate and the applicant should start over with a design professional. The reasons cited for this conclusion were: 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 ■ plans cannot be reviewed as proposed, there are too many inconsistencies and inaccuracies on the plans,don't know what is going to be built,there are a lot of mistakes,graphics do not show what is happening, drawings lack detail; concerned with quality of plans and level of accuracy; ■ the property owners need to seek a professional architect to create a design that is compatible with the existing house and neighborhood, need someone with experience in this area; ■ applicant should review the residential design guidelines more closely; this plan is not consistent with their direction; ■ need to make sure details are included on the plans and that all dimensions are correct; ■ need to be careful not to match examples of bad design in the neighborhood; ■ the existing house is charming, addition should key off the existing design, the proposed design is not consistent with the current style and is an extreme departure from the design of the existing house, the proposed design concept is unacceptable; ■ the mansard roof does not lend itself to what applicant is trying to accomplish, strongly suggest increasing the living space without a mansard roof,do not see a lot of mansard roofs in Burlingame, do not want to set a precedent; ■ type of window enclosures to be used are unclear on the plans, are they sloped or dormer windows, building elevations are unclear, need to know if these windows comply with egress requirements, this relates back to the character of the roof; ■ bay window along the driveway side which encroaches into the driveway is not shown the site plan; and ■ this project should not be referred to a design review consultant at this stage, it's not the design reviewer's job to design the house. Commission discussion: agree that this project is not ready to be referred to a design review consultant,the project needs to be redesigned by a professional architect;both current design and plans are not acceptable, therefore should consider placing the project on the regular action calendar for a denial.CA Anderson noted that the Commission could place the project on the consent calendar for denial;the applicant may withdraw the application prior to that action and work with a professional architect,if they wish to retain some of the filing fees. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar with a recommendation to deny the application. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar with the recommendation to deny the application. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. 9. 1456 BERNAL AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE. (TONY LEUNG,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JAMES CHU,DESIGNER)(66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description and noted that an email was submitted after preparation of the staff report by John Walsh at 1460 Bernal Avenue expressing concerns with the rear of the proposed house overlooking his yard,need more clarification regarding the landscape screening proposed at the rear and would like to know if the proposed master bathroom windows will be opaque. Commissioner asked if bay windows are allowed to encroach into the setback, and if so,by how much. Plr Hurin noted that a bay window may encroach up to F-6"into the front setback with a maximum footprint of 20 SF. Commissioner 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 asked if the applicant was made aware of the potential drainage issues;yes. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, 39 W. 43d Avenue, San Mateo, was available to answer questions,noted that this is a straight forward project and has been designed to comply with the zoning regulations,don't anticipate problems with drainage on this lot,the low spot on this lot is at the rear left corner,Department of Public Works requires that all drainage be directed to the street by way of a catch basin and sump pump. Commissioner noted that there have been recent drainage problems with new houses built on Occidental Avenue, Poppy Drive and Vancouver Avenue, do not want to see this project have to come back again for review because of drainage problems;finished floor is shown six inches above grade(finished floor proposed at 76.5'adjacent to grade at 75.9'),don't see how the appropriate flashing can occur by the time the mudsill is added,will have to build a trough around the house to comply with building code requirements. Designer noted that the contractor will prepare the entire lot during grading to provide the appropriate drainage from the house, the existing contour will not remain, approximately three to four inches will be over-cut to place the mudsill six inches above grade. Commissioner noted that the appropriate drainage could only be provided by digging down and asked why couldn't the house be raised instead? Designer noted that the house could be raised an additional three to four inches and still be under the maximum height limit,currently there is 10'-0"proposed for the driveway width,could shift the house to the right a few inches and raise the height without encroaching into the declining height envelope. Commissioned noted that shifting the house over a few inches would help the neighbor,however it cannot be shifted over to far because the driveway will become to narrow to use because a landscaped area is proposed along the fence. Mary Francis Nappi, 1452 Bernal Avenue,noted that her house floods without a sump pump,during heavy rains the sump pump is constantly running,has had 6 to 7 feet of water in the basement when the sump pump failed; greatest concern is with the loss of privacy,has a pool in the backyard which is used by her children and grandchildren, asked if there is a code which addresses privacy, second floor balcony at the rear of the house will look into her yard, don't know how far back proposed house is from her house,now will have a driveway and detached garage next door where there currently is no driveway or garage, will impact her backyard, other houses in the neighborhood have attached garages; concerned with the decorative landscaping presently adjacent to her dining room,has worked on maintaining the landscaping for 12 years, would like to see it protected; concerned with the proposed height of the building and that it will cast a shadow;very concerned with the length of the house towards the rear,not too concerned with extending the house at the front;concerned with children congregating on the second floor balcony proposed at the rear of the house, it will be an attractive nuisance; Magnolia tree shown to be removed is actually a cumquat tree, the existing Pepper tree is nice,would like to see it relocated rather than removed;accessory structure at the rear of the lot is the original house,was never used by the previous owners,cannot plant landscape screening on her property because the paving extends to the property line; how big is the proposed balcony? Designer noted that the balcony extends 3 feet from the house,property owner would like to have a balcony because it provides a view of the bay; the existing living unit at the rear of the lot which has not been used will be replaced with a garage, see this as an improvement regarding privacy concerns,property owner also want to protect his privacy. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. ■ need to look closely at how the drainage problem will be addressed on this lot; 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 ■ consider moving the house forward on the lot to increase the rear yard space, bay window may project into the front setback up to 1'-6" and not to exceed 20 SF in footprint; ■ concerned that the proposed porch is too small and not inviting, should increase size of porch,will help to reduce the mass of the building; ■ would like to see detached garage setback an additional F-0" from the side and rear property lines to provide more space for maintenance around the garage structure; ■ concerned with the Photinia species proposed along the left side property line at the rear of the lot, species is susceptible to blight, should choose a different species of the same size; ■ clarify the roofing material above the bay window on the plans; ■ there are Tudor style houses across the street,porches are different with steep pitches,consider using a steeper pitch roof such as 12:12 or 14:12 to create a distinction; ■ consider applying for a special permit for declining height envelope to raise the house,rather than shifting the house over and making the driveway narrower, encroachment into the declining height envelope would be minimal; ■ proposed balcony is an appropriate size,the balcony is small and adjacent to the master bedroom,is located on the opposite side of the house away from the neighbor's pool,will have a minimal affect on privacy, have to keep in mind that this is a suburban neighborhood;balcony helps to reduce the mass and bulk of the building,the balcony details are nice;the house is arranged in such a way that it steps away from the neighboring property towards the rear of the house, helps to improve privacy; ■ balcony will create a shadow on the first floor, could do a mock balcony instead; ■ suggest installing trees in the landscape pockets along the right side property line near the garage to provide privacy for the neighbor's pool in the rear yard;could also install a large scale shrub such as a Pittosporum which has a fast growth pattern; ■ only need a one-car garage for the proposed four bedroom house, consider reducing the size of the garage to increase the useable rear yard; and ■ encourage property owner to talk to the neighbor about type of fencing, could help to improve privacy. Comment on motion:there are a lot of little but important issues which need to be addressed on the plans, a lot of discussion about drainage,need to address drainage now,do not want to see this project come back for changes at time of construction;motion includes accepting the balcony as proposed because it is small and is not different than having a window in the same location,addressing the height of the building as it relates to the concerns with on-site drainage and addressing the landscape issues noted. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. 6. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN: PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED NEW ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE ROLLINS ROAD INDUSTRIAL AREA(NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND 124 NOTICED)CITY PLANNER:MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report February 27,2006,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting that the Rollins Road zoning had been reviewed by the Planning Commission and recommended to City Council in September 2005,and the City Council had studied the proposed regulations on December 19,2005.Council suggested that the regulations be returned to the Commission for further consideration of a number of items raised at their study session. The Subcommittee met twice to discuss and address these issues, their 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 recommendations on these items are included in the draft of the ordinance. The core of the proposed Rollins Road zoning has not changed from September 2005,so the staff presentation focused on the recommended changes to the areas which were identified for further consideration: land uses including veterinary hospital and animal boarding and performance standards for large scale building materials and garden supply stores; clarification of how the auto row overlay applies to the Adrian Court area; performance criteria and uses allowed in the Rollins Road drain;and in the Southern Gateway Entrance area,criteria for eligibility for the FAR bonus, whether the area should be treated as an overlay with all industrial uses also allowed, and whether'pedestrian oriented'retail uses are appropriate in the Southern Gateway Entrance area. Commissioners asked staff: how are 'personal service' uses defined in Burlingame? CP responded that 'personal service' is defined in the zoning code as service which cares for the person or personal goods/apparel such as beauty parlor,barbershop,or dry cleaners. Attorneys,CPAs, or accountant services are not considered to be'personal services'rather they are included in office uses. What kind of office uses are allowed in the industrial area(outside of the Southern Gateway Entrance overlay area)? CP noted only office uses associated with a permitted or conditional use on the site, such as an office to operate a warehousing business or an auto repair shop. Office uses for attorneys,architects or accountants which are independent of a permitted or conditional use on the site,so are free standing and are not allowed under the proposed zoning.The proposed zoning would allow a manufacturing industry like Guittard Chocolate up to 25%of its warehouse to be used as office as a permitted use and up to 50%with a conditional use permit. Commissioner noted that the reason free standing office buildings (occupied by office uses not associated with activities on site)are not allowed is that they are often incompatible with permitted uses which are to be promoted in the zone,e.g.negatively affected by the impacts such as truck traffic,noise,vibration,etc.of the industrial area. CP noted that this is so. Commissioner asked why the criteria for no fee and stay limited to 45 days were added to the definition of 'animal shelter'. CP and CA responded that the no fee was added to distinguish these facilities from for-profit boarding kennels,but the non-profit status would address the same issue, so not charging a fee is a duplicate. The 45 day limit was again a distinguishing characteristic to address differences with breeding facilities. The 45 day time limit was chosen because it was identified as a 'typical stay for a healthy animal in an adoption facility. It was also noted that duration was chosen over density, because there did not appear to be any established density standards (e.g. dogs or cats or native animals per square foot)we could find. The time limit for adoptive healthy animals could be increased to more closely match a maximum stay rather than a'typical stay. Commissioner expressed a concern about vehicle storage in the drain, cars are limited to 30 days but there is no time limit on RV's and boats. These should be treated the same. CA noted the need to be able to move vehicles in the drain quickly in the event of flooding; so there needed to be a single point of responsibility. Commission discussed the differences between a definition in the code and the performance criteria included in a zoning district. CP and CA noted that a definition defines the parameters of the use in a general sense;but based on the objectives of the zone, different performance criteria may be assigned in different zoning districts. There were no more questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa;Kevin Gabarra, 1400 Rollins Road;John Ward, 792 Willborough; Herman Christiansen, 1423-1499 Rollins Road, Jennifer Renk, representing the Peninsula Humane Society/SPCA; spoke. It is appropriate to charge a fee to adopt an animal to discourage misuse of the animal and poor maintenance; during stay the animal may need veterinary services, food and other expenditures which need to be covered,should be considered in the definition. The animal shelter use proposed is in violation of the Specific Plan; animal boarding is incompatible with an industrial area,can't differentiate use based on whether it is for profit or non-profit, only can differentiate based on whether the use is acceptable or not. Represent the corner of Rollins and Broadway, this has been a two year history, biggest issue has been addressed-required combination of parcels for eligibility for density bonus, the use 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 of minimum lot size is appropriate; personal services comment in letter submitted is a misunderstanding, now clear; is Commission aware that this proposal would really eliminate all retail in the overlay area (Southern Gateway Entrance) and would remove a lot of the potential of our site; are the traffic impact requirements for the overlay a policy which applies to all development in the area or just to the Southern Gateway Entrance, if apply to all don't need in the zoning. Should not allow animal shelter/rescue businesses in the Rollins Road area;will discourage other business,have the same impacts and reduce city revenues because non-profit; Humane society is a kennel without breeding, use is inappropriate and incompatible with industrial area,reason that the neighbors oppose,should give them the same consideration that you give residents in a residential neighborhood who oppose a neighbor's house; gave a map to the Planning Commission showing the location of the properties of all the people who opposed animal boarding in the Rollins Road area. Submitted a letter with what we consider technical changes,think the non-profit status covers the fee issue; value adoption if limit days and an animal is not adopted will tie hands, 'typical stay'is 45 days but not always,if not adopted in 45 days then what? There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: How do these zoning regulations relate to the PHS/SPCA application? CP noted that project was submitted before these regulations will be effective, so that project is processed under the current M-1 zoning with the design review based on compliance with the Specific Plan. If the 'animal shelter/rescue'use is not approved, the PHS/SPCA care and concern center would continue in the Rollins Road area as a nonconforming use. A nonconforming use may continue and be maintained over time,but may not be expanded or replaced. Noted that a limitation on the length of an animal's stay in a shelter may not be important since occupancy of the habitat would immediately be filled by another similar animal, so perhaps some generic approach to limits is better. Commissioners discussed setting a maximum number of dogs and cats based on an occupancy density and limiting the size of both veterinary hospitals and animal shelters/rescue centers to 1,500 t0 2,000 SF, small scale like the one that used to be on Amphlett Blvd. Because Animal shelter/rescue center uses are proposed as a conditional use in the Rollins Road zoning,they would be allowed only subject to approval of the size, intensity of use and location. Agree with the prohibition of animal boarding facilities including doggie day care, they do not provide the community service that a veterinarian or the animal shelter/rescue center provides; their impacts are different from commercial recreation facilities, they bring people into the area at peak hour and believe that an animal shelter or rescue center operates more like a veterinary hospital than a boarding kennel does. Comments continued: Do not believe that pedestrian oriented retail is appropriate in the Southern Gateway Entrance area, what CalTrain is going to do at the crossing is uncertain and could affect future pedestrian access from the Broadway Commercial area. There is a lot of vehicular movement in the area so is not a good place to bring people; bicycle and pedestrian access to the Broadway bridge and over it is very dangerous and should not be encouraged; feel that the opportunity to provide free standing office uses at a higher building density than in the industrial area should be sufficient to encourage improvement of the gateway entrance; uses in such office buildings can include a small cafeteria to serve employees in the building; pedestrian retail in this area would also promote more traffic and pedestrians in this area with difficult access. It is important to note that because of the traffic and type of uses in the industrial area that efforts should be made to keep the activities of a use confined to the site,dogs from the shelter should not be walked in the area and uses should not be designed for activities which stimulate off site impacts such as attracting new volumes of pedestrians or bicyclists into the area. The following items were suggested for amendment to the proposed zoning regulations: ■ For Animal shelters and rescue center use remove the prohibition on charging fees for services and retain the nonprofit status requirement. 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 ■ Modify the language limiting a healthy animal's stay at a shelter or rescue center from 45 days or the applicant can propose and justify a density limit which addresses the impacts of various types of animals on site. ■ Amend the regulations for use in the Rollins Road drain to allow customers to come to the area and provide a central location, controlled by an individual,where the keys for all vehicles are kept and where people can come to get their vehicle (car, RV and/or boat). ■ Amend Veterinary Hospital performance standards to allow educational programs with a conditional use permit. C. Brownrigg moved to recommend the proposed zoning regulations for the Rollins Road area to the City Council for adoption with the recommended changes noted. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: Asked how animal shelters and rescue centers were consistent with the Goals and policies for land use set out in the Specific Plan for the Rollins Road area. Staff noted that it was the job of the commission to make this determination, but businesses also contribute to the community's economic base by offering convenient services which provide support to the value of living in the community; providing a positive revenue generation to the city is one of several criteria to be weighed by the Commission and must be balanced with the contribution to the community and the costs of any additional services which the city must provide from the General Fund to support the activity (in this case as the environmental document notes the service demands for a animal shelter/rescue center are no greater than the service demands of any other use in the area, and the utility impacts are paid for by the use through users fees); what is a "vibrant Rollins Road industrial area" is the charge of the Planning Commission and City Council to determine and should be based on the long term vision for the area expressed in the Specific Plan and on the compatibility among the land uses which the environmental study should illuminate. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the proposed Rollins Road zoning district regulations with the revisions noted by the Planning Commission. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. 10. 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT, ZONED M-1 — SECOND ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND DESIGN REVIEW STUDY FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR THE PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY AND SPCA (KEN WHITE, PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY & SPCA, APPLICANT,GEORGE MIERS&ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECT,HENRY HORN&SONS,PROPERTY OWNER) (15 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe noted that the purpose of this meeting is to review the current scope of the project and identify any additional environmental issues which should be investigated and to complete a design review study of the proposed project. Although the applicant has considered a number of changes to the exterior of the building which have evolved with the refinement of the project description, these are not reflected in the plans before you which are the original plans. Staff felt that before a redesign was undertaken,the applicant should have all of your comments on the design issues including whether this project should be referred to a design reviewer. In addition since a visual impact evaluation is required for the CEQA document, design review comments are important at this point so that changes responsive to the design concerns can be incorporated into the visual evaluation. Commissioner noted that he went to the current Coyote Point facility to see what the operation was. Another commissioner noted that he spoke to the architect about meeting, but the meeting never occurred. Commissioner asked if it was clear what activities currently at Coyote Point would be moved to this site and which would stay at Coyote Point. Staff noted that there was a 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 list in the staff report on page 3 which made describes the separation of activities clearly. Commissioner called to the applicant's attention that the Chief Building Official noted in his comments that there were some issues with the parking and that they should be addressed with revisions to the plans for design review. There were no further comments or questions. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Ken White,President of the Peninsula Humane Society and SPCA and George Meyer, architect for the project spoke. Have been working with the city for a year to develop a center which would include a compassion home of adoption including taking injured native animals and make them well enough to be released back into their natural habitats, a public education program and corporate offices. The services which PHS/SPCA provides to the county will stay at the county facility at Coyote Point. PHS/SPCA is very concerned that this project be carefully investigated and believes in the meaning of public participation,so have moved to request a focused Environmental Impact for this proposed project. As they understand CEQA this change requires that the Planning Commission again review the scope of the environmental document. The changes to the project identified since work began are: the fenced area at the front would be enclosed by a solid wall;the use inside the walled area would expand from a quiet meditation area and place to meet prospective adoptive animals to being used to exercise/socialize dogs one-on-one with a volunteer handler; and studies of several responses to concerns expressed by the neighbors and incorporation of appropriate features. The building looks like a well designed building appropriate to the area and people will not be aware that animals are there. He noted that there are a number of interested citizens and board members here this evening to support the application,although they do not intend to speak. A brief presentation of the project and discussion of the model was made by the project architect. He noted that at present the site is occupied by three buildings: the new building at the rear of the site and two older buildings at the front. The two structures at the front will be removed and a new structure added to the existing building at the rear. They are replacing 13,500 SF of existing space with 12,500 SF of occupied space and covered parking; so the new project contains 1,000 SF less of conditioned space. The height exception comes because of the desire to enclose the roof top mechanical equipment on the building to be retained with a screen wall,they are not adding floors to this building. The new structure is glass with metal mullions,with sandstone and metal siding. Revisions being considered include changing the metal siding to cement plaster which is what is on the exterior of the existing new building on the site,and work the stone in with the window pattern for contrast. Angles in the proposed new structure are intended to set off the joint between it and the existing building at the rear. The new addition will step down at the corner and allows the wild life enclosures to be setback further. The opaque wall at the front will enclose the dog exercise area, this is not as consistent with the Rollins Road design guidelines which recommend semi-transparent fencing as the currently proposed open fencing. Commissioners asked project proponent and architect:how big is the outdoor space and how many animals would be in the outdoor exercise area at one time?The area is about 2,000 SF and dogs would be only in the area one-on-one with a handler, if an animal barks it is taken inside,there would only be a couple of dogs, each with a handler, there at one time. What is the actual process used to induct animals? Ninety-nine percent of the animals are brought in from the rear parking area which is fully fenced(noted on the plans as staff parking). When taken for adoption the dog is taken to the visitor parking space area, this could be secured or we could use the fenced staff parking area for pick up. People would not surrender animals at this site so would not be bringing animals to the shelter. Would the Peninsula Humane Society trucks come to this location?No,the 24/7 ambulance service works from the Coyote Point site. Concerned about air quality and smell,how will you handle aggressive native animals like skunks? Will take care two kinds of animals, 15 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 pet animals and wild animals,will not provide service to predators such as mountain lions and bob cats,will take in ill or injured skunks, raccoons, squirrels. Odor is not an issue for but a few skunks at certain ages, know how to handle. Can the building be designed to conform to green building standards and be certified? Are able to commit to a silver certificate but do not know how much it will cost to qualify for a sustainable green certificate. Would you provide information and statistics on escapes and how you handle them?Do not have escapes. With this facility and its walls it will be even easier to assure that there will be no escapes. What will the aviary be made of and what material will the cover be made of? The aviary is made of a black high strength mesh used in zoos,the cover used during inclement weather is a tarpaulin material and will be used on only part of the outdoor aviary. Would you provide picture and samples of these materials? Yes. Commissioners questions continued: What areas will be used for dogs exercise? The two class room areas, mats will be made to cover the floors, and the outdoor fenced/walled area at the front of the building. The activity is not really group exercise as you may think in a group; it is activity in a controlled environment with a trainer. In the environmental review there is a mitigation that all exercise be taken inside, is there a way to change the project to meet this requirement? We have a 3D model which will help in understanding the use of the proposed areas, we will provide it to the Commission. The project as proposed is over the floor area ratio allowed in the area, can you address this? It is over the FAR because of the aviary. The netting of the aviary is almost invisible,so this area does not contribute to the mass and bulk of the building as a visible structure would. Concerned about the maximum stay of 45 days,can you address?Have a policy to keep animals until adopted,a time limit would require change in the way the activity is managed,could be difficult. People may come with pets for training,how can you insure that they will not park on the street, can you provide signage to direct them to the parking on site? Concerned about your community outreach activities, where will buses be parked? Facility will educate children but schools no longer have bus services. The children now arrive by carpools driven by parents,bus parking is not needed. There were no further comments from the Commissioners. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Kevin Gabarra,representing Albert Gabarra, 1400 Rollins Road, called the Commission's attention to the letter submitted by Mr.Moutoux who could not attend the hearing. He noted that among their concerns were the handling of solid animal waste which is currently put in a container at the SPCA location; and the safety of people and children coming to and from the facility because of the dangerous volume of traffic in the area. He submitted pictures of the traffic congestion on Rollins Road at Edwards Court. Also concerned about the impact on Edwards Court of keeping wild animals on the site;feel that there should be a size limitation to veterinarian hospitals allowed in the area and on the number of animals allowed in such a facility. Commission asked if there were any design concerns. He said no. There were no further comments from the floor. The public comment was closed. Commission discussion of design issues: ■ With the redesign suggestions seem to have done a good job, still am concerned about the exterior dog exercise area,the skylights into the dog habitat area should be tinted to avoid night light glow, will noise transmit through these skylight openings? ■ Am concerned about the material use in the aviary enclosure and the cover, please provide more information on its visual quality and impact. ■ Should review the appropriate materials on the outside of the building,provide enough choice,need to redesign to enclose the exercise area. There appears to be a lot going on the exterior of the building on each elevation,the angles shown are not typical of what you see in the area,would like to see a tamer appearance. Applicant stated consider replacing the metal panels with cement plaster, might be good,would like to see more detail of that solution, cement is a reasonable solution. 16 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 ■ Architecture is too contemporary, almost Disneyland; sharp contrast to what one sees there now, should look more like industrial replacements in the future; as one drives on Rollins Road this will look inconsistent, to busy, with colors and graphics, needs to be toned down. Design can be improved by calming and simplification of the design, too bad the existing buildings need to be demolished they are interesting. Not want a tilt up concrete building here because there are a predominant number in the area. ■ This is new construction can bring the building out on the site, and put the exercise area interior to the structure in a court yard area,the aviary can be treated in this way as well,these design problems cause problems in the environmental analysis as well. ■ Am encouraged that the architect has done other animal care facilities,could he provide pictures of one in a similar setting; and could planning talk to the building and planning departments of the community to see what the issues and impacts were 2 to 3 years after it was built. ■ Design will be affected by how the noise is mitigated,make the exercise area interior. Aviary is an interesting element,will not make a lot of noise,raptors and water fowl,benefit aesthetically because it will be visually interesting; ■ design should be driven by environmental mitigations. Commission design review direction: it is not appropriate to send this project to a design reviewer,outside of our reviewers' specialties. Have given clear direction, can come back to commission for review if he wishes, this architect has had a lot of experience designing this kind of facility. Commission environmental scoping: in addition to the items addressed in the discussion with the applicant and from the floor the environmental document should address: ■ noise, smell, and traffic, particularly at the intersection of Rollins Road and Edwards Court; noise analysis should include the impact of sirens (city fire station on Rollins) and noise from dogs on the site; noise from the get acquainted area should also be addressed; ■ how will odors in the ventilation system be filtered? Smell is an important air quality issue,what standards are used and how is the study done? ■ Zoning changes will allow auto sales and service and large scale building materials uses at the end of Edwards Court, future impacts of both uses should be evaluated in the cumulative analysis; ■ concerned about the handling of biowaste include the bedding material used by the animals; ■ Project is over the allowed FAR, new construction should be able to do a better job, what is the justification for the variance, is there a design way out? ■ Traffic indicates that there will be 30 people on site at one time,how do the shifts work,what traffic levels will be expected? ■ Clarify how animal wastes will be handled and disposed of. There were no further comments. This action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:10 a.m. 4. 1329 DE SOTO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 (CONTINUED)—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE(CON BROSNAN,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND MARK ROBERTSON, DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Chair Auran and C. Osterling recused themselves from this item because they live within 500 feet of the property. They stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. 17 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 Vice-chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present to answer questions. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Terrones noted that since the applicant is not present to provide clarification to the proposed project,he made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar on the next open agenda when the applicant could appear. This motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: applicant needs to address the following issues: ■ project was originally approved with turned columns at the porch,columns installed are different that what was approved,what will happen to these columns; ■ applicant needs to explain the revised landscaping at the front of the lot,it appear that the walkway has changed and that shrubs and other landscaping originally approved is now being replaced with more lawn; and ■ should consider installing stone veneer to the bump out(bedroom#5,bathroom and stairway)on the north elevation. Vice-chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar on the next open agenda and when questions have been addressed and the applicant can be present. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Chair Auran and C. Osterling abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:15 a.m. Chair Auran and C. Osterling returned to the dais and took their seats. X. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of February 22, 2006 and second Goals Setting Session on February 25, 2006. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of February 22, 2006. She noted that at the Goals session the Council developed a list of items to be discussed and prioritized with the Planning Commission at the Joint meeting scheduled for March 18, 2006, in Conference Room A, City Hall at 9:00 a.m. - Required Ethics Training; Re: AB 1234 CA Anderson explained this new requirement and the current training opportunities. This training is required for Planning Commissioners. CP noted that if there was a charge for the session she would reimburse the Commissioners if they submitted their receipt. - FYI — 1637 Coronado Way—review requested window changes to approved design review project. Commission had no comments and approved the proposed changes,although they indicated that they felt that this change should have been discussed at the time of design review. - FYI—Guidelines for Resolution of Bay View Disputes,Beautification Commission CP noted that the document followed up the request at the last meeting for the Commission to see what process the Beautification Commission had developed. 18 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 12:35 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary SA IINUTESWinutes Template.doc 19