Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2006.04.03 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame euRUN----E 501 Primrose Road Regular Meeting-Monday, April 3, 2006 S Burlingame,CA 94010 Page 1 of 3 650 558-7200 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES-Joint Planning Commission& Council Meeting Approve of March 18, 2006 & Regular Meeting of March 20, 2006 5. PRESENTATION a. Presentation on tree planting by Peninsula Temple Presentation Sholom at Cuernavaca Park 6. PUBLIC HEARING The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each a. Adoption of Broadway Area Business Improvement Hearing/Action District Resolution setting 2006-2007 assessments b. (i)Adopt Ordinance amending the existing City Hearing/Action Municipal Code (Section 13.40) to allow for a parking permit program on specified public streets and(ii) adopt a Resolution approving the parking permit program in long term city parking lots c. (i) Introduce Ordinance and (ii) approve Resolution of Hearing/Action Intention to amend the contract for Police Employees with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) and the City of Burlingame 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS-At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law prohibits council from acting on any matter 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. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Introduce Ordinance for proposed zoning for the Anza Introduce Point North Zoning District to implement the Bayfront Specific Plan b. Update on the plans for Burlingame's Centennial Update Celebration ��,rCITY O BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame euru�tH�aptE 501 Primrose Road Regular Meeting—Monday,April 3,2006 Burlingame,CA 94010 650 558-7200 Page 2 of 3 c. Review and discussion of the annual alarm permit fees Discuss/Direct and false alarm charges 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve a. Approve Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 and adopt a Resolution of Intention to change an impose assessments for the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 b. Employer Pickup Resolution—Pre-Tax Payroll Deduction Plan for Service Credit Purchases c. Approval for Chamber of Commerce Art& Jazz Festival, August 12 & 13, 2006 d. Resolution accepting Sanchez Creek Box Culverts cleaning from Carolan Avenue to Sanchez Lagoon by JMB Construction e. Amend 2006 City Council calendar to add a regular City Council meeting on May 22, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. 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. 12. OLD BUSINESS a. Resolution No. 16-2006 approving extension of Discuss/Approve Agreement with VB Golf II to operate the Burlingame Golf Center 13. NEW BUSINESS a. Outline of campaign finance regulations for discussion Discuss 14. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Parks&Recreation, February 16, 2006; Planning, March 27, 2006 CITY U BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame euquw91AME 501 Primrose Road Regular Meeting—Monday, April 3, 2006 � Burlingame,CA 94010 9'�••.m Page 3 of 3 650 558-7200 b. Letter from Comcast concerning programming changes c. Burlingame Avenue Train Station Study Session minutes of March 28, 2006 15. 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.burl in ag me.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—Monday, April 17, 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME UNAPPROVED MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Fire Station No. 34 799 California Drive,Burlingame,CA March 18,2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Baylock called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Present: Councilmembers: Mayor Baylock, Cohen, Keighran, O'Mahony,Nagel Commissioners: Chair Auran,Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal,Terrones, Vistica Absent: Planning Commissioner Osterling Staff Present: City Manager,Jim Nantell; City Planner,Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks II. DISCUSS THE COUNCIL'S FY 2006-2007 GOALS FOR PLANNING AND SET FY 2006-2007 WORK PROGRAM CP Monroe reviewed the current Planning Department work program and the status of current projects, and timing for their consideration; and reviewed the proposed items identified for consideration by the City Council at their recent goal sessions. Council members and Planning Commissioners participated in discussions on each of the identified goals and issues. The following priorities were determined for the FY 2006-2007 Planning work program. Specific Plan for the Downtown Area Preparation of a Specific Plan for the Downtown area which would include developing goals and policies for development in the area,a land use plan and urban design elements, along with establishing community environmental standards for the area. Additional direction included: • Public participation program should focus on a Citizens Advisory committee made up of stakeholders; Safeway should be invited to be a member. • Scope should include an historic inventory which reviews all buildings in the planning area. • Consider Form Based Zoning, if appropriate for zoning implementation. • Funding from parking enterprise fund. Charrette A design charrette to proved an opportunity for the community to come together with teams of design professionals to focus on developing design concepts for up to four areas within the downtown area. Everyone is welcome; all ideas are heard and considered. A charrette is an educational opportunity for members of the community to hear from expert designers. Additional direction included: • Should plan for October 7, 2006,date. • Should focus on Howard Avenue and its cross streets—linkages to Burlingame Avenue. • Should set a second study meeting of City Council and Planning Commission to discuss the "design parameters" for the event(June, 2006). • Staff should budget$25,000($15,000 for AIA and$10,000 for event) in FY 2006-2007 budget. • Funding from Parking Enterprise Fund. CITY OF B URLINGAME MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 18,2006 Encourage Safeway to Submit Plans for a New Store in the Burlingame Avenue Area At the conclusion of the Economic Study,the City should have some idea of what is a viable Safeway project on the site at El Camino/Howard/Primrose. The City should be receptive to a submittal of plans for a new store in the Burlingame Avenue area,whenever it is submitted. Direction included: • Continue dialogue, invite them in economic study presentations, and invite to participate in Citizens Advisory Committee for Specific Plan. • Accept an application if choose to make one before or during Specific Plan process. • Give them the option of providing funding for a contract planner to expedite their project processing. Investigate Development Impact Fees With the increase in construction particularly in the single family residential areas,the conditions of the local roads,curbs, gutters and sidewalks has been impacted alarmingly. The purpose of a development fee would be to address off-site damage. Discussion expanded this item to an evaluation of all fees: • Evaluate advantages of increasing three types of fees (1)application and processing fees; (2) construction impact fees (building department,public works)effects at time of construction; and (3)on going impact fees (park development fees, civic improvement fees). • Hire a consultant to prepare information and document local fee schedules($40,000) • Work to be overseen by Finance and Public Works Departments,Planning will also participate. Investigate Effectiveness of Design Review(impact on single family neighborhoods) During discussion this goal was clarified,to include focusing on an overview of the design review process/issues,working with Council to identify three which would improve the process and implementing those. Discussion included: • Have Neighborhood consistency subcommittee work with Planning Commission to identify three issues to work on. • Each Council member and Planning Commissioner should E-mail to City Planner their list. (Face Print and incentives for basements to reduce lot coverage and mass and bulk were identified to start the list at the meeting). • Planning Commission will review; select three to recommend to City Council. Council will review and approve list. • Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee will work on with staff and make recommendation to Planning Commission;will go to City Council for public hearing. Demolition Policy • Do nothing now. A group of residents is studying the city's demolition policy and that of the surrounding cities. They will provide a report to the City Planner. Can decide at that time what to do. Other Goals • Council will let Commission know when they need Commission representation to assist them in implementation of the goal to attract and retain desired business. • C. Cauchi volunteered to participate on a Bicycle Committee to identify projects and get them ready for grant funding should one be reconstituted. -2- CITY OF BURLINGAME MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 18,2006 III. PUBLIC COMMENT Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; John Root,728 Crossway;and Dennis O'Brien,2204 Poppy Drive, spoke. It is gratifying hearing the Council and Planning Commission discuss the issues brought to this forum,; complimented the new Commissioner, Richard Terrones, in bringing balance to the Commission; encouraged the Council to pursue funding for bicycle projects and to stay on top of the issues with the Caltrain transportation corridor and the trend toward more bullet trains and less local service. Hope that someone talks to Safeway on a regular, informal basis; the idea of a citizens advisory committee for the Specific Plan is really important,can act as buffer if the committee membership is representative of the Community; if focus of the charrette is Howard, make sure the train station is included; concerned with changes to the floor area ratio regulations, will destroy what is working well now, will drive away builders, shouldn't'change things based on a couple of bad experiences,most builders are reputable. Mayor Baylock adjourned the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting at 12:00 noon. -3- CITY G 5 BURLINGAME b "NwrEo uu[b• BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of March 20, 2006 STUDY SESSION a. TRAFFIC CALMING DPW Bagdon introduced Traffic Engineer, Augustine Chou, who presented the City's Residential Traffic Calming Program designed to reduce speeding. 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 7:05 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Kathy Lavezzo of PG&E. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Cohen, Keighran, Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. MINUTES Councilman Cohen made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 6, 2006 regular Council meeting; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. Approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5. PRESENTATIONS a. PRESENTATION OF PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER(PCRC) MEDIATORS DURING CALIFORNIA MEDIATION WEEK, MARCH 19-25, 2006 Mayor Baylock presented a proclamation to Cynthia Pilch, a volunteer mediator for PCRC. The proclamation recognizes PCRC volunteer mediators for their important work and generous donation of their time. b. PG&E PRESENTATION 1 Burlingame City Council March 20, 2006 Unapproved Minutes Mitchell Kirk, PG&E Superintendent of Maintenance and Construction for San Mateo County, presented their Winter Storm Update for Burlingame and responded to the following citizens who spoke on PG&E issues: Gerald Weisl, 136 Bloomfield Road, spoke about electrical problems in the Broadway business area; Dennis Kleid, 1349 Vancouver Avenue, spoke on undergrounding; Ramona Martinez, 709 Walnut Avenue, spoke on poor service due to frequent transformer outages; Dru Guevara, Willow & Walnut Avenues, spoke on PG&E outage prioritization; Sue Fuller, 2210 Poppy Drive, spoke on improved PG&E service; Cynthia Pilch, 1221 Floribunda, spoke on improved PG&E service; Michelle Kleid spoke on undergrounding; and Mark Grandcolas, 754 Walnut Avenue, spoke on poor service versus PG&E rates and also suggested that PG&E trim trees by tunnel-cutting rather than by flat-topping. Vice Mayor Nagel asked about the funds remaining in the Rule 20 undergrounding account for Burlingame. DPW Bagdon stated that there is about $3 million in the account to underground PG&E utility lines. However, there are restrictions on the use of the account funds for residential streets. The City would be responsible for the cost of undergrounding other utilities on the pole such as telephone or cable television. Property owners would be responsible for the cost of undergrounding service lines to their houses and electrical panel modifications. Vice Mayor Nagel asked PG&E about the power outage reporting process and made recommendations to improve the process. Mayor Baylock requested that a discussion on undergrounding funds for Burlingame be added to a future Council agenda. Mr. Kirk agreed to respond to Council on the issues that had been discussed. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1778 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 CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and adopt Ordinance No. 1778 amending Advisory Board membership to add a position for a hotel owner or manager in East Palo Alto. Mayor Baylock opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1778 amending the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District to add a seat on Advisory Board representing the City of East Palo Alto area; seconded by Councilman Cohen. 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 There were no comments from the floor. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS 2 Burlingame City Council March 20,2006 Unapproved Minutes a. RECEIVE ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID) FY2005-06 Cheryl Enright, Chair of the Burlingame Avenue Area BID,presented their annual report for FY 2005-06 giving highlights of their accomplishments and proposed changes to the assessments. Councilwoman O'Mahony complimented the board for their leadership, for visiting each of their members, and for appointing a Chamber of Commerce representative to their board. Councilman Cohen acknowledged the high return on the BID's member survey and commended the board on their accomplishments. Mary Beth Essa, Board Member, thanked CM Nantell for his support. b. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE ADOPTING PILOT PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM Police Commander Matteucci reviewed the staff report and requested Council introduce an ordinance amending Section 13.40 to provide and allow for a parking permit program in the Burlingame Avenue area. Mayor Baylock requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance providing a Parking Permit Program on specified blocks where long-term parking meters are located in the Burlingame Avenue Area. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Baylock requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. C. PLANNING COMMISSION VACANCY Mayor Baylock set the application deadline of April 14, 2006, for the impending vacancy on the Planning Commission. Councilwoman O'Mahony and Councilman Cohen were appointed to conduct the interviews. d. EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT WITH VB GOLF II FOR CONDUCT OF GOLF OPERATIONS AT THE BURINGAME GOLF CENTER P&RD Schwartz reviewed the staff report and requested Council adopt Resolution No. 16-2006 giving the City Manager approval to sign an extension to the current agreement with VB Golf II and to decide whether the extension should be for three or five years. Pat Cowell of VB Golf recommended a five-year, rather than a three-year extension to the agreement to encourage Bay Golf to open a satellite operation at the Burlingame Golf Center. The satellite operation would potentially increase retail revenue. Vice Mayor Nagel stated she would prefer a three-year extension based on the City's loss of revenue resulting from an earlier agreement for the Golf Center. 3 Burlingame City Council March 20,2006 Unapproved Minutes Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Resolution No. 16-2006 approving an extension of the current Agreement with VB Golf Il, LLC, for a period of five years to operate the Burlingame Golf Center; seconded by Mayor Baylock. Councilwoman Keighran suggested adding to the motion a performance review after three years. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion amending the original motion to add: "subject to a formal performance review after three years;" seconded by Councilwoman Keighran. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-1 (Nagel dissented). 9. CONSENT CALENDAR a. RESOLUTION NO. 14-2006 APPROVING THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR THE ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ADMINISTRATORS HRD Dolan requested Council approve Resolution No. 14-2006 approving changes to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the Association of Police Administrators and authorizing the City Manager to execute the MOU. b. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 15-2006 FIXING THE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT FOR THE BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION HRD Dolan requested Council approve Resolution No. 15-2006 fixing the employer's contribution under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act. C. RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT THE SECOND REVISED 2006 CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR CC Mortensen requested Council adopt the second Revised 2006 City Council Calendar. d. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants#16906-17447 duly audited, in the amount of $2,150,559.05 (excluding library checks#16906-16955), Payroll checks #164771-165004 in the amount of $2,594,921.00 for the month of February 2006. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilman Cohen. 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 John Root, 728 Crossway Road, spoke on PG&E, Burlingame Avenue Area BID, Golf Center and Burlingame Train Station. Glenn Harvey, 200 California Drive, spoke on PG&E and Burlingame Train Station. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on Caltrain grade separations and potential loss of service to Burlingame. There were no further comments from the floor. 12. OLD BUSINESS 4 Burlingame City Council March 20, 2006 Unapproved Minutes a. PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF RELATIVE TO THE FOLLOW-UP SESSION ON THE BURLINGAME TRAIN STATION Mayor Baylock set March 28, 2006, for a Study Session on the Burlingame train station with a stakeholder spokesperson from each constituency in attendance to exchange ideas on Caltrain's plans. 13. NEW BUSINESS Councilwoman O'Mahony requested an update on the Centennial Committee plans at the next meeting. CLOSED SESSION CA Anderson advised that Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following: a. Threatened Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(b)(1),(3)(C)) Claim of Harry Gogarty 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Department Reports: Building, February 2006; Finance, February 2006 b. Commission Minutes: Library, January 17, 2006; Beautification, March 2, 2006; Planning, March 13, 2006 Re Beautification Commission's response to Council Goals in the March 2nd minutes, Councilman Cohen requested the Beautification Commission consider a more proactive program on street tree plantings for treeless streets. c. Memorandum from Parks &Recreation Commission providing input on Goal Statements d. Memorandum from Beautification Commission providing input on Goal Statements e. Letter from Comcast advising of new Government Affairs Director 15. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Baylock adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m. in memory of Elaine Reinbolt, Gary Norton, and Pat Kelly, former Mayor of Hillsborough. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 5 Burlingame City Council March 20,2006 Unapproved Minutes CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 6a 4�oq 9Do MTG. 4/3/06 DAATED JUNE DATE To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT BY DATE: April 3, 2006 APP'R::: FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director By U SUBJECT: Public Hearing & Adoption of Broadway Area Business mprovement District— Setting 2006-2007 Assessments RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a public hearing and adopt the resolution setting 2006-2007 assessments. BACKGROUND: At the March 6, 2006 meeting, the City Council adopted a resolution of intention to set the 2006-2007 Broadway Area Business Improvement District assessments and set April 3, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. as the public hearing date and time. There are no changes proposed in the boundaries, assessments or business classifications. If there is a protest by a majority of the value of the assessments to any of these items, the resolution cannot be approved. As of the time of writing this memorandum, the City had not received any protests, although protests may be presented in writing before or at the hearing. Any and all protests must be received by the City Clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. BUDGET IMPACT: Approximately$26,000 in assessments is collected annually with our business licenses. All of these funds are forwarded to the Broadway Improvement District for improvements as authorized the BID Board of Directors. The City of Burlingame covers the expenses associated with the renewal of the BID. Those expenses are approximately $6,000. ATTACHMENTS: 1.) Resolution Of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Establishing 2006-2007 Assessments For the Broadway Area Business Improvement District 2.) Exhibit A: Types of Improvements and Activities Proposed to be Funded By the Levy of Assessments 3.) Exhibit B: Broadway Area Business Improvement District Assessment Basis 4.) Assessment Roll RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING 2006-2007 ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS,pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq.,the Broadway Area Business Improvement District has been established for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and physical maintenance of this important business district; and WHEREAS, the Broadway Area Business Improvement District Advisory Board has requested the Burlingame City Council to establish 2006-2007 assessments for the improvement district; and WHEREAS, on March 6, 2006, the City Council received and approved the annual report of the Broadway Area Business Improvement District Advisory Board; and WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed assessments was duly noticed for April 3, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, as required by State law; and WHEREAS,at the public hearing held at that place and time,the City Council received and considered all oral and written testimony from all interested persons; and WHEREAS, it appears that the current assessments should continue so that improvements and programs may continue in the District, and the activities and improvements are without substantial change from those previously established for the District. NOW,THEREFORE,the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve,determine,and find as follows: 1 I. Written protests to assessments, improvements or activities were not received at or before the close of the public hearing that constituted a majority as defined in Government Code sections 36500 and following.. 2. The City Council does hereby levy an assessment for the 2006-2007 fiscal year on businesses in the District as described in City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 1461, to pay for improvements and activities of the District. 3. The types of improvements and activities to be funded by the levy of assessments on businesses in the District are set forth in Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference. 4. The method and basis for levying the assessments on all businesses within the District are set forth in Exhibit "B", incorporated herein by reference. 5. New businesses shall not be exempt from assessment. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK C:AFILES\BIDBRDWY\BIDBDWYres22006.RE2.wpd 2 EXHIBIT A TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES PROPOSED TO BE FUNDED BY THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS 1) Streetscape Beautification, Seasonal Decorations, and Public Arts Programs a. Seasonal street plantings of flowers. b. Seasonal flags and banners. f. Sidewalk enhancement and maintenance. 2) Business Recruitment and Retention a. Matching funds for storefront improvement incentive b. Develop strategy to fill commercial vacancies. C. Small business assistance workshops. 3) Commercial Marketing, Public Relations, and Advertising a. Organize special events throughout the year. 4) Shuttle Establish a people mover system between the area and the hotel district,to be funded on a cooperative cost sharing basis. C:\FILES\BIDBRDWY\improvmtiis2OOO.bid.wpd 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 PROFESSIONAL ----------3+ -----------------------$200$200 ------------ 1 - 2 $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:AFILES\BIDBRDWP\assessbas.bid.wpd BROADWAY AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - FY 2006-07 ASSESSMENTS LICENSE CODE BID FEE BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS VOTE WEIGHT 30674 D1 $ 450 BURLINGAME GAS & CAR WASH 1000 BROADWAY 1.73% 33210 D1 $ 450 1 MIKE HARVEY ACURA 1070 BROADWAY 1.73% 17408 D1 $ 450 TUNISS COMPUTER 1124 BROADWAY 1.73% 18813 D1 $ 450 WALGREENS#06655-J JACKSON-TAX DEPT 1160 BROADWAY 1.73% 7704 D1 $ 450 ROYAL DONUT 1165 BROADWAY 1.73% 14722 D1 $ 450 PRESTON'S CANDY& ICE CREAM 1170 BROADWAY 1.73% 17895 D1 $ 450 AJI YOSHI YA 1190 BROADWAY 1.73% 30410 D1 $ 450 VILLAGE HOST 1201 BROADWAY 1.73% 7979 D1 $ 450 YAKINIKU HOUSE JUBAN 1204 BROADWAY 1.73% 21407 D1 $ 450 RISTORANTE ROCCA 1205 BROADWAY 1.73% 7373 D1 $ 450 IL PICCOLO CAFFE 1219 BROADWAY 1.73% 19703 D1 $ 450 STARBUCKS COFFEE#6871 1230 BROADWAY 1.73% 19745 D1 $ 450 MIVAN MEDITERRANEN CUISINE 1232 BROADWAY 1.73% 15916 D1 $ 450 LOBOS MEXICAN GRILL 1251 BROADWAY 1.73% 22535 D1 $ 450 SIWOOD INC, DBA BROADWAY PHARMACY 1300 BROADWAY 1.73% 10222 D1 $ 450 GOLDENWEST DIAMOND DBA JEWELRY EXCH. 1301 BROADWAY 1.73% 10449 D1 $ 450 SUBWAY 1308 BROADWAY 1.73% 17948 D1 $ 450 BROADWAY PRIME 1316 BROADWAY 1.73% 5991 D1 $ 450 CAFE FIGARO 1318 BROADWAY 1.73% 10027 D1 $ 450 EARTHBEAM 1399 BROADWAY 1.73% 13026 D1 $ 450 DOLAN'S WINDOWS AND DOORS 1410 BROADWAY 1.73% 16659 D1 $ 450 AQUA DEVELOPMENT CORP DBA PISCES 1190 CALIFORNIA DR 1.73% 20872 D2 $ 300 AMERICAN WOOD FLOOR CENTER 1120 BROADWAY 1.15% 17342 D2 $ 300 CHEZ ALEXANDER 1136 BROADWAY 1.15% 18486 D2 $ 300 LE CROISSANT 1151 BROADWAY 1.15% 19329 D2 $ 300 SUTTERFIELD CONSIGNMENT 1174 BROADWAY 1.15% 17378 D2 $ 300 WEIMAX CORPORATION 1178 BROADWAY 1.15% 20481 D2 $ 300 BONNE SANTE' 1184 BROADWAY 1.15% 20232 D2 $ 300 BURLINGAME JEWELRY CENTER 1199 BROADWAY#3 1.15% 15708 D2 $ 300 GRACE GARDEN CHINESE RESTAURANT 1200 BROADWAY 1.15% 20061 D2 $ 300 E MOBILE CELLULAR 1212 BROADWAY 1.15% 19967 D2 $ 300 DOODLEDINGS DOG BAKERY& BOUTIQUE 1224 BROADWAY 1.15% 19108 D2 $ 300 ATELIER DESIGN STUDIO, GP 1233 BROADWAY 1.15% 21201 D2 $ 300 THE SHOP 1233 BROADWAY 1.15% 17712 D2 $ 300 BURLINGAME FOODS 1236 BROADWAY 1.15% 11683 D2 $ 300 NUTS FOR CANDY 1241 BROADWAY 1.15% 15633 D2 $ 300 LA DOLCE VITA TILE&STONE 1247 BROADWAY 1.15% 20529 D2 $ 300 JAY'S SMOKE SHOP& NOVELTIES 1305 BROADWAY 1.15% 35174 D2 $ 300 BUA THONG KITCHEN 1320 BROADWAY 1.15% 12505 D2 $ 300 BROADWAY HARDWARE 1326 BROADWAY 1.15% 30427 D2 $ 300 BEHAN'S"AN IRISH PUB" 1327 BROADWAY 1.15% 20108 D2 $ 300 RESTAURANT JUN 1355 BROADWAY 1.15% 21935 D2 $ 300 GEM DESIGNS 1365 BROADWAY 1.15% 6601 D2 $ 300 ABSOLUTE CELLULAR SERVICES 1405 BROADWAY 1.15% 44399 D2 $ 300 YOUNG'S BURLINGAME LIQUOR 1408 BROADWAY 1.15% 10133 D2 $ 300 ROBENALT ENGRAVING 1423 BROADWAY 1.15% 16731 D2 $ 300 KCB&ASSOCIATES LLC 1431 BROADWAY 1.15% 17162 D2 $ 300 ANTIQUE MARKET 1452 BROADWAY 1.15% SABusiness Improvement Districts\FY 06-07 Renewal Process\BID BW EFILE.xIs 1 BROADWAY AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT - FY 2006-07 ASSESSMENTS LICENSE CODE BID FEE BUSINESS NAME ADDRESS VOTE WEIGHT 16408 D2 $ 300 ROSEDALE 1454 BROADWAY 1.15% 14938 D3 $ 250 L&S AUTO REPAIR CENTER 1100 BROADWAY 0.96% 7232 D3 $ 250 CHEVRON STATIONS INC.#1504 1101 BROADWAY 0.96% 21324 D3 $ 250 BROADWAY REALTY/TRAVEL DESIGNERS 1199 BROADWAY#5 0.96% 20765 D3 $ 250 TRENZ SALON 1211 BROADWAY 0.96% 17617 D3 $ 250 NETWORK VIDEO INC 1215 BROADWAY 0.96% 35910 D3 $ 250 SUPERCUTS 1222 BROADWAY 0.96% 21002 D3 $ 250 BLISSFUL NAILSCARE 1323 BROADWAY 0.96% 20962 D3 $ 250 JVL KIM'S PERFECT 10 SALON 1360 BROADWAY 0.96% 19790 D3 $ 250 SDT BROADWAY STATION 1480 BROADWAY 0.96% 6003 D4 $ 150 GATEWAYS TO THE WORLD 1122 BROADWAY 0.58% 15975 D4 $ 150 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA PRACTICE SALES 1126 BROADWAY#8 0.58% 17348 D4 $ 150 ON BROADWAY 1163 BROADWAY 0.58% 19645 D4 $ 150 BURLINGAME LAGUNA FLORIST 1202 BROADWAY 0.58% 13277 D4 $ 150 BROADWAY CLEANERS 1234 BROADWAY 0.58% 8225 D4 $ 150 HJS PROP. & INVEST.!SECURED ASSET MGT 1243 BROADWAY 0.58% 20729 D4 $ 150 BUNKY BROTHERS 1243 BROADWAY 0.58% 8621 D4 $ 150 'CHIC 1249 BROADWAY 0.58% 16449 D4 $ 150 BELLALUNA-AVON PRODUCTS 1310 BROADWAY 0.58% 9304 D4 $ 150 YOUR CLEANERS/YOUR FRENCH TAILOR 1321 BROADWAY 0.58% 9412 D4 $ 150 ADAMS FINE TAILORING 1324 BROADWAY 0.58% 5233 D4 $ 150 EIGHTY EIGHT PHOTO LAB 1352 BROADWAY 0.58% 13318 D4 $ 150 RAINBOW FULL SERVICE SALON 1361 BROADWAY 0.58% 20619 D4 $ 150 IMMIGRATION&TRANSLATION SERVICES 1425 BROADWAY 0.58% 18408 D4 $ 150 ANNE H HINCKLE 1425 BROADWAY#2 0.58% 12031 D4 $ 150 DESIRED DATA&DESIGN 1425 BROADWAY#7 0.58% 13566 D4 $ 150 SPANEK INTL TRADE FACILITATOR 1425 BROADWAY#11 0.58% 21340 D4 $ 150 SOOGLE TOURS AND TRAVEL 1425 BROADWAY#17 0.58% 21218 D4 $ 150 PAWSITIVELY GROOMED PET SALON 1427 BROADWAY 0.58% 21008 D4 $ 150 MAGIC NAILS HAIR SALON 1199 CHULA VISTA AV 0.58% 14434 D5 $ 200 A.V.R. REALTY, INC. 1169 BROADWAY 0.77% 17316 D6 $ 150 BROADWAY EYE CENTER 1159 BROADWAY 0.58% 13602 D6 $ 150 T C KITA,O.D. 1322 BROADWAY 0.58% 17010 D6 $ 150 HUI LIN- HO WAI CHEUNG 1425 BROADWAY#8 0.58% 11170 D6 $ 150 MARIBETH HULSEY 1425 BROADWAY#12 0.58% 20538 D6 $ 150 MARTHA POLLOCK, LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL V 1425 BROADWAY#14 0.58% 10050 D6 $ 150 CELEBRITY CONNECTION 1425 BROADWAY#19 0.58% 11918 D6 $ 150 TRIO CONSULTING 1425 BROADWAY#20 0.58% 8831 F2 $ 500 WELLS FARGO BANK-CORP PROP GRP 99167 1145 BROADWAY 1.92% 173901 F2 $ 500 STERLING BANK&TRUST FSB 1210 BROADWAY 1.92% 17800 F2 $ 500 U.S. BANK ATTN CORP REAL ESTATE 1188 EL CAMINO REAL 1.92% TOTAL ASSESSMENTS: $ 26,000 TOTAL VOTES 100.00% SABusiness Improvement Districts\FY 06-07 Renewal Process\BID BW EFILE.xIs 2 a-- TO: AGENDA ITEM# 6b STAFF REPORT MAG. DATE Aoril.-a,21?Qfi.Honorable Mayor and City Council ______ _ SUBMITTED BY Sergeant Don Shepley_, Traffic Director DATE: _March 280�__ APPROVED FROM: .lack Van Etten, Police Chief�V' BY Jim Nantell, City Mana er SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Adoption to amend the existing Burlingame City Ordinanc (section 13.40) to include and allow for a parking permit program on specified public streets where long term parking meters are located (specifically in the Burlingame Avenue area). The council should also adopt a resolution to allow the parking permit program in long term city parking lots (in the downtown Burlingame Avenue area). RECOMMENDATION: A. The City Council should hold a public hearing and take action to adopt and amend the existing Burlingame City Ordinance (section 13.40) to include and allow for a parking permit program on specified public streets where long term parking meters are located (specifically the downtown Burlingame Avenue area). B. The City Council should also adopt a resolution to also allow the parking permit program in long term city parking lots (also in the downtown Burlingame Avenue area). The City Council will need to separate motions on this matter tonight; first the public hearing on action to adopt the parking permit program on city streets; secondly, to adopt the resolution to allow the parking permit program in our long term city parking lots. BACKGROUND: The Downtown Burlingame Improvement District (DBID) approached City of Burlingame staff with the idea of implementing a pilot parking permit program. Staff was represented by the Engineering, Finance, Police, the City Attorney, and the City Manager. Throughout the meetings it was decided that the permits for the 90 day pilot program, could be used only in areas already designated as long term parking. Thus, the pilot program has two goals. First, it will encourage merchants, restaurateurs, and employees to park on the outskirts of the Burlingame Avenue core business area where long term parking is located. This shift in parking will increase the parking inventory for customers of the core area. Secondly, it will also provide for an easier and more convenient parking system for merchants, restauranteurs, and their employees. It is believed this should result in less frustration for this particular group of citizens. It is also felt that this pilot permit parking program will reduce the number of parking citations that citizens could receive and eliminate the necessity to carry coins and currency to pay parking meters and (or) pay-by-space machines. Both the DBID and Burlingame Parking Enforcement Officers (PEO's) surveyed the majority of the Burlingame Avenue downtown merchants and restauranteurs. This survey revealed the merchants and restauranteurs support this program and believe it will meet their needs. Business owners have also indicated they plan to purchase multiple permits for their employee usage. DISCUSSION: Procedure:During this 90 day trial period,the City Manager will authorize the issuance of 50 parking permits. These permits will be purchased from the Finance Department by the DBID.The cost for a permit will be $40.00 per month.The DBID will in turn issue the permits to applying merchants,restauranteurs,and employees for the$40.00 monthly fee.The DBID will not gain revenue from this program,as the program is intended to be one of convenience and to move employee parking outside of the core downtown area.Should the DBID not sell all 50 permits,they will be able to receive a refund from our Finance Department. Parking permits can be transferred between cars as the parking inventory(spaces)have been paid for by purchasing the parking permit.Thus,any car a permit holder drives should be able to park in any of the designated areas of this permit program.Due to the transferability of permits,there will be a zero tolerance approach to enforcement.The need for this zero tolerance is to protect the integrity of this program.For the purpose of this program,zero tolerance equates to tickets not being voided or dismissed by staff,should a merchant or employee state the permit was affixed to the proper location of their vehicle and the parking enforcement officer failed to notice the permit.The alternative to this zero tolerance approach would be removing the transferability option of the parking permits. Parking permits are to be affixed to the inside of the lower,left corner of a vehicle's rear window.This is to aid the PEOs in locating the permits.The goal of this placement is to eliminate parking tickets issued in error. Parking enforcement staff will be thoroughly trained in recognizing the permits and the operation of the parking permit program.To avoid any confusion,the DBID will provide all of the conditions discussed in this staff report to those citizens who purchase parking permits. Purpose of Trial:Following the 90 day trial period,feedback will be solicited to determine how the program should be expanded,reduced,or modified.The hope is that this program will meet the two goals mentioned above;and the number of permits issued for this program by the city manager will increase.There were initial concerns that certain parking areas could become congested,however,the small number of initial permits issued should not create any parking congestion.Ultimately,however,this could result in the reversal of progress that the recent parking strategy and changes have facilitated. It should also be noted the ordinance does not specify merchants,restauranteurs,and employees as the only parities eligible to purchase a parking permit.Citizens,not employed in the Burlingame Avenue core retail area,could also purchase parking permits.This is something that will have to be monitored in the pilot program. City Ordinance Amendment: Chapter 13.40 of the Burlingame Municipal code needs to be amended to include meter rate changes for designated street areas.The rate will be a flat fee of$40.00 per month.The areas the flat fee will apply to 10 hour meters at the following locations: City Hall Ln 100 Block of Primrose 100 Block of Park Rd 100 Block of Lorton 200 Block of East Ln 1000 Block of North Ln 1200 Block of Donnelly 1400 Block Bellevue 1400 Block of Chapin 1400 Block of Howard FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: 1) Proposed Burlingame City Ordinance 13.40.105 2) Resolution authorizing the parking permit program into city parking lots is attached for council edification only at this time. The resolution will be brought back to the April 3, 2006, Council meeting for public hearing and approval. 3) Parking Map I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME PROVIDING A PARKING PERMIT PROGRAM ON SPECIFIED BLOCKS WHERE 3 LONG TERM PARKING METERS ARE LOCATED IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 Section 1. The City Council has established parking zones with parking meters in certain 7 areas of the Burlingame Avenue Business District in order to encourage turnover of parking spaces 8 while ensuring convenient access to visitors and customers of the Districts. Vehicle Code § 9 22507(b) allows the City to adopt a parking permit program to meet community needs. This 10 ordinance is intended to enhance the metering program by allowing persons to purchase parking 11 permits for parking at long term meters to encourage employees to park in these long term spaces, 12 to place a higher value on more convenient parking, and to better meet the parking needs within 13 the District. 14 15 Section 2. A new Section 13.40.105 is added to read as follows: 16 13.40.105 Parking Permits. 17 (a) The city manager is authorized to issue parking permits subject to a payment of$40.00 18 per month for use in lieu of the deposit of coins in the parking meters at meters designating ten(10) 19 hour parking spaces on the following streets: 20 (1) Bellevue Avenue from El Camino Real to Primrose Road; 21 (2) Chapin Avenue from El Camino Real to Primrose Road; 22 (3) City Hall Lane from Primrose Road to Park Road; 23 (4)Donnelly Avenue from Primrose Road to Lorton Avenue; 24 (5)East Lane from Burlingame Avenue to North Lane; 25 (6) Howard Avenue from El Camino Real to Primrose Road; 26 (7) Lorton Avenue from Bayswater Avenue to Howard Avenue; 27 (8)North Lane from Carolan Avenue to East Lane; 28 (9)Park Road from Bayswater Avenue to Howard Avenue; and 3/212006 1 1 (10)Primrose Road from Bayswater Avenue to Howard Avenue. 2 (b)Parking permits issued pursuant to this section do not assure the owner of a particular 3 parking space of any kind nor at any particular location,but are a one-time payment for a calendar 4 month in lieu of the hourly payment otherwise required for occupancy of an otherwise metered 5 space. 6 (c) No parking permit issued pursuant to this section shall be used or interpreted to extend 7 the maximum amount of time allowed for parking at any parking space pursuant to the time limits 8 established by this title. 9 (d) In order to ensure orderly and efficient use of the parking supply,the city manager is 10 authorized to limit the number of permits which may be issued, in which case priority shall be 11 based on the order in which requests for such permits are received. 12 (e) The city manager is authorized to collect deposits,require the submission of application 13 forms,and to establish other administrative procedures for the parking permit program as may be 14 necessary from time to time. The parking permits issued pursuant to this section may also be used 15 as may be provided by council resolution in designated municipal parking lots. 16 17 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 18 19 Mayor 20 21 I,DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the 22 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2&day of March,2006,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 23 day of ,2006, by the following vote: 24 25 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 26 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 27 28 City Clerk CADocuments and SettingsWanetten\Local SettingsUemporary Internet Files\OLK5\parkingpermits.pwd.wpd 3/212006 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING ISSUANCE OF PARKING PERMITS IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA RESOLVED,by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME, California, that: WHEREAS, Municipal Code title 13 provides the framework for regulating the City's parking lots; and WHEREAS,this Council has from time to time established regulations for charges for various City parking lots and on-street parking; and WHEREAS,the City has issued parking permits for its employees and those doing business with the City for other parking lots; and WHEREAS,the City has conducted extensive parking studies of the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway areas to determine what might be the best balance of parking availability in public off-street and on-street parking that will provide the greatest benefit to motorists, pedestrians, merchants, and property owners; and WHEREAS, it is important to provide an incentive to persons to use areas off of Burlingame Avenue; and WHEREAS,the issuance of parking permits for certain lots will make it easier for regular users of the lots to park and will assist in shifting employee parking out of the retail core and will not adversely affect parking conditions for residents and merchants in the Burlingame Avenue area, NOW,THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED, ORDERED and DETERMINED as follows: 1. The City Manager is hereby authorized to issue parking permits subject to a payment of$40.00 per month for use as follows: Municipal Lot"B" Municipal Lot"F" Municipal Lot"G" 1 Municipal Lot "K" Municipal Lot "N" Municipal Lot "O" Municipal Lot "W" and at the 9- and 10-hour meters only in the following parking lots Municipal Lot "A" Municipal Lot "A-3" Municipal Lot "B-1" Municipal Lot "C" 2. It is understood that these parking permits do not assure the owner of a particular parking space of any kind nor at any particular lot, but are merely a one-time payment for a calendar month in lieu of the hourly or daily payment otherwise required for occupancy of the described parking lots. It is further understood that this parking permit program is a trial program and there is no assurance that the program will continue beyond any particular month. 3. No parking permit issued pursuant to this resolution shall be used or interpreted to extend the maximum amount of time allowed for parking at any parking lot pursuant the time limits established by Council resolution. 4. In order to ensure orderly and efficient use of the parking supply, the City Manager is authorized to limit the number of permits which may be issued, in which case priority shall be based on the order in which requests for such permits are received. It is intended that parking permits issued pursuant to Section 13.40.105 of the Burlingame Municipal Code would also be usable in the areas designated by this resolution. 5. The City Manager is authorized to collect deposits, require the submission of application forms, and to establish other administrative procedures for the parking permit program as may be necessary from time to time. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 2 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: CITY CLERK 3 Parking Rates Guide to Parking in the On-Street Meters Burlingame Avenue 24 minute $0.30/24 minutes District 1-2 Hour $0.75/hour t 0 Hour $0.25/flour The City of Burlingame maintains on-street and off- street parking spaces to serve customers, visitors, employees and residents in the business district. g Parking Lot Meters Parkin fees and time restrictions are set to 2-4 Hour $0,75/hour encourage employee parking in the outer fringe areas of the district, while promoting customer and 4-10 Hour $0.25/hourvisitor parking closer to Burlingame Avenue. The . rJ funds derived from parking fees payfor parking lot and garage maintenance,as well as for future district ` Pay-and-Display Parking Lots improvements. Flat rate of$2 for up to 10 hours ON-STREET PARKING ? On-street parking is primarily controlled by meters which accept nickels,dimes,and quarters.Meters on Parking LocationsBurlingame Avenue have a one-hour time limit,while most of the other meters in the area have a two- For the location of on-street parking and parking hour iimit.A limited number of 24-minute meters are lots,refer to map. For a description of parking lots, provided near businesses which generate high see below. turnover activity.There are also 10-hour meters in the more remote areas which are available for dam` Lot A 2 and 9 hour meters employees or long-term visitors. .: Lot A-3 2 and 9 hour meters w" Lot B* Pay-and-Display(10-hour) PARKING LOTS The City provides 19 off-street parking lots. Thec ft Lot B-1 2 hour meters majority have 2-hour, 4-hour, and 10-hour parking o� * Lot C 2 and 10 hour meters �..ms meters.Six of the lots are equipped with special pay- Lot D 2 and 4 hour meters + and-display meters.To use these meters,insert $2.00 •;;.,, Lot E 2 and 4 hour meters for 10 hours of parking, enter your parking space Lot F* Freeparking number and then = place the printed receipt on the Lot G* Pay-and-Display (10-hour) dashboard of your car. Lot H* Free parking t, Loth 2 and 4 hour meters FREE PARKING g Lot IC* Pay-aid-Display (10-haur) Parkin lots F and H are free, but have a 12-hour r "� Lot K-1 2 hour meters parking restriction. Lot L 2 hour meters For more information about public parking, please Lot M 2 hour meters c tact, �. < <..,i� : � , ,}� 230.of . ., • Lot N* Pay-and-Display(IQ-hoar) ins Lot O* Pay-and-Display (I0-hour) SURUNCpAl; & I=0 hour meters Lott/ 2 hour meters Lot W* Pay-and-Display (I0-hour) 77 77 Ml * Long-Term Parking - n v ON-STREET PARKING �Z One Hour or Less Metered BELL EV °p 2 Hour Metered v�gV� ® 10 Hour Metered Free Parking(time limits may apply) LOT LOT LOT A A-3 O CHAPIN AVE N I LOT LOT DONNELLY AVE B B-I LOT LOT C D NOR?H LN M I LOT LOT }: Kt BURLINGAME AVE LOT K SOUTH LN \ LOT LO7 M ®LOT LOT E LOT 3 L z H O� YN� E F�PL5_I0A PJ LO HOWARD AVE h _ O 7 n O LOT ➢ LOT � LOT � PARKING LOTS G F O N z �Z Free Parking Cl m p m ® Metered Parking { OS P _ Pay-and-Display Parking (Long-Term Parking) ��� /VOtrO'PTS S CITY STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 6c MTG. 4/3/06 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMiTTE ! BY /L I DATE: April 3, 2006 APPROVED FROM: Deirdre Dolan, Human Resources Director BY SUBJECT: Introduction of Ordinance and Resolution of Intention to Amend the Contract for Police Employees with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) and the City of Burlingame RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council approve the Resolution of Intention to Approve an Amendment to the contract with the California Public Employees Retirement System. Staff also recommends that the Council introduce the proposed Ordinance to amend the City of Burlingame's contract with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS). Both the Resolution of Intention and the proposed ordinance would amend the contract to provide Police employees with the following benefit enhancement effective June 26, 2006: • Section 21362.2—3% @ 50 Formula Pursuant to Ca1PERS requirements, the City Council must adopt the Resolution of Intention and introduce the proposed ordinance to amend the CaIPERS agreement as follows: 1. Request City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. 2. Waive further reading of the ordinance. 3. Introduce the proposed ordinance. 4. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before the proposed adoption. The ordinance would then come back for adoption on the May 1 agenda. BACKGROUND: The 3% at 50 retirement formula enhancement was negotiated with the Police Officers Association (POA) as part of the January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2005 Memorandum of Understanding. The labor agreement securing this benefit enhancement for the Police Officers was approved by the City Council at the regular council meeting of March 18, 2002. When the City agreed to amend its contract with this provision, it was based on the fact that the majority of the agencies in San Mateo County already offered the 3% at 50 enhanced retirement formula. To achieve parity between the safety groups (Fire employees had already negotiated the 3% at 55 benefit), as well as remain competitive in the labor market, the 3% at 55 formula enhancement was granted to Police employees in the approved 2002 contract, with an agreement to move to the 3% at 50 formula effective July 1, 2004. However, in November 2003, the POA agreed to a two-year delay in implementation of this benefit as a cost-saving measure for the City, thereby deferring the implementation date to July 1, 2006. The actual implementation date will be June 26, 2006, since Ca1PERS requires that the effective date coincide with the first day of the nearest payroll period. The 3% @ 50 benefit is a change in the calculation used to determine employees' retirement plan benefits. The monthly retirement allowance is determined by age at retirement, years of service credit and final average compensation. The basic benefit is 3% of final average compensation for each year of credited service upon retirement at age 50. The allowance is limited to 90%of final compensation. BUDGET IMPACT: The change in the present value of benefits that the 3% @ 50 benefit enhancement represents is $1,921,911. The change in the accrued liability $1,770,105. The change in the total employer rate is 6.518%. The cost of this benefit is included in the 2006-2007 fiscal year budget. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution of Intention Ordinance to Amend Agreement Exhibit—Amendment to Contract RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY COUNCIL CITY OF BURLINGAME WHEREAS,the Public Employees' Retirement Law permits the participation of public agencies and their employees in the Public Employees'Retirement System by the execution of a contract, and sets forth the procedure by which said public agencies may elect to subject themselves and their employees to amendments to said Law;and WHEREAS,one of the steps in the procedures to amend this contract is the adoption by the governing body of the public agency of a resolution giving notice of its intention to approve an amendment to said contract, which resolution shall contain a summary of the change proposed in said contract;and WHEREAS,the following is a statement of the proposed change: To provide Section 21362.2(3%@ 50 Full formula)for local police members. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the governing body of the above agency does hereby give notice of intention to approve an amendment to the contract between said public agency and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto,as an"Exhibit"and by this reference made a part hereof. By: Presiding Officer Title Date adopted and approved (Amendment) CON-302(Rev.4/96) Ca1PERS EXHIBIT California Public Employees' Retirement System AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT Between the Board of Administration California Public Employees ' Retirement System and the City Council City of Burlingame The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective July 1 , 1942, and witnessed July 6, 1942, and as amended effective February 1 , 1954, July 1 , 1956, April 1 , 1963, March 1 , 1964, April 1 , 1965, March 16, 1967, November 1 , 1968, September 1 , 1970, April 1 , 1973, May 1 , 1974, November 1 , 1974, February 20, 1975, March 16, 1975, July 1 , 1976, August 16, 1976, May 1 , 1979, December 1 , 1985, December 1 , 1987, December 6, 1989, November 15, 1990, May 26, 1997, December 121 2000, November 1 , 2001 , December 30, 2001 , July 15, 2002, June 5, 2003 and July 121 2004 which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows: A. Paragraphs 1 through 12 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective July 12, 2004, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 13 inclusive: 1 . All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 55 for local miscellaneous members, age 55 for local fire members and age 50 for local police members. PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT ONLY" 2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after July 1, 1942 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions thereof,apply only on the election of a contracting agency. 3. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Local Fire Fighters(herein referred to as local safety members); b. Local Police Officers(herein referred to as local safety members); C. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members). 4. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law,the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System: a. PLAYGROUND LEADERS WHO ARE PAID ON AN HOURLY BASIS; POLICE CADETS,AND LIBRARY PAGES HIRED ON OR AFTER MARCH 16,1967;AND b. FIRE CADETS AND CROSSING GUARDS HIRED ON OR AFTER MAY 1,1974. 5. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law (2%at age 55 Full). 6. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local police member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21362.2 of said Retirement Law (3%at age 50 Full). 7. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local fire member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21363.1 of said Retirement Law (3%at age 55 Full). PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT ONLY" 8. Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following optional provisions: a. Section 21573 (Third Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local miscellaneous members only. b. Section 20425 ("Local Police Officer' shall include employees of a police department who were employed to perform identification or communication duties on August 4, 1972 and who elected to be local safety members). C. Section 21222.1 (One-Time 5% Increase - 1970). Legislation repealed said Section effective January 1, 1980. d. Section 21222.2 (One-Time 5% Increase - 1971). Legislation repealed said Section effective January 1, 1980. e. Sections 21624, 21626 and 21628 (Post-Retirement Survivor Allowance). f. Section 21319 (One-Time 15% Increase for Local Miscellaneous Members Who Retired or Died Prior to July 1, 1971). Legislation repealed said Section effective January 1, 2002. g. Section 20614, Statutes of 1978, (Reduction of Normal Member Contribution Rate). From May 1, 1979 and until December 1, 1985, the normal local miscellaneous member contribution rate shall be 3.5% and local safety member contribution rate shall be 4.5%. Legislation repealed said Section effective September 29, 1980. h. Section 20690, Statutes of 1980, (To Prospectively Revoke Section 20614, Statutes of 1978). i. Section 20042 (One-Year Final Compensation). j. Section 21574 (Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local safety members only. k. Section 20965 (Credit for Unused Sick Leave) for local miscellaneous members and local fire members only. I. Section 21024 (Military Service Credit as Public Service). M. Section 20903 (Two Years Additional Service Credit). n. Section 21037 (Cancellation of Payment for Optional Service Credit Upon Retirement for Industrial Disability). PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT ONLY" 9. Public Agency, in accordance with Government Code Section 20790, ceased to be an "employer" for purposes of Section 20834 effective on August 16, 1976. Accumulated contributions of Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as provided in Government Code Section 20834, and accumulated contributions thereafter shall be held by the Board as provided in Government Code Section 20834. 10. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members and local safety members of said Retirement System. 11. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows: a. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21573 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local miscellaneous members. b. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21574 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local safety members. C. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. d. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. 12. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law. 13. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the e m ployee and the Board. B. This amendment shall be ef�EnC 1ve on the day of BOARD OF ADMINISTRq \� CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC EMPLOYEE\�>E IREMENT SYSTEM CITY OF BURLINGAME BY Ole BY LORI RTLAND, CHIEF PRESIDING OFFICER E ER SERVICES DIVISION P LIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM " Witness Date Gam\" AtteNOS S� \VV Q� Clerk AMENDMENT ER#18 PERS-CON-702A(Rev. 10\05) I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND 3 THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CALPERS) TO PROVIDE SECTION 21362.2 BENEFITS (3%AT 50 FULL FORMULA) TO 4 LOCAL POLICE MEMBERS 5 6 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 7 Section 1 . Pursuant to the California Government Code and the Contract between the City 8 of Burlingame and the California Public Employees Retirement System (CALPERS), the City has 9 agreed in its collective bargaining with the safety employees in its police department to amend its 10 contract with CALPERS to provide them with a retirement benefit of 3% @ 50. On April 3, 2006, 11 the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to consider this amendment at a duly noticed 12 public hearing, and notice of that public hearing has been properly provided. Written comments 13 and oral testimony of all interested persons have been considered. 14 Section 2. The Amendment to the Contract between the City of Burlingame and the Board 15 of Administration, California Public Employees Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy 16 of this amendment is attached to this ordinance, marked Exhibit A, and by such reference is made 17 a part hereof as though herein set out in full. The amendment shall be effective on June 26, 2006. 18 Section 3. The Mayor of the City of Burlingame is hereby authorized, empowered, and 19 directed to execute this amendment for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 20 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall take effect thirty 21 days after its adoption. 22 23 24 Mayor 25 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 26 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 27 of , 2006, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 28 day of , 2006, by the following vote: 1 I AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 2 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 3 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 4 5 City Clerk 6 CTILE S\ORDINANC\calpersemn6.per.wpd 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 SIA CITY o-,11 STAFF REPORT BL WlirfAME AGENDA ITEM# 8a �O�AATm JUNE 6`O MTG. DATE 4.03.06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY jaw& DATE: MARCH 28, 2006 FROM: CITY PLANNER APPROVEDBY SUBJECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONI G FOR THE ANZA POINT NORTH ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN Introduction: City Council should review the proposal to amend the zoning regulations to establish a new zoning district for the Anza Point North portion of the Bayfront planning area. Council acted previously to create the zoning district boundry for Anza Point North which becomes effective when the Anza Point North zoning regulations are adopted. A public hearing on this ordinance will be held at the second reading, April 17, 2006. Public notice will be published in a newspaper of general circulation and will be mailed to all affected property owners ten days prior to the April 17, 2006, meeting. Introduction requires the following Council actions. A. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. If the proposals are complete, this item should be set for a second reading and public hearing at the Council meeting of April 17, 2006. General Plan Compliance: The Anza Point North zoning district is part of the implementation phase of the Bayfront Specific Plan adopted by the City Council and amended to the Burlingame General Plan in April 2004. The provisions in the ordinance are consistent with the plan because they are taken from the land use element and design guidelines in that adopted plan supplemented with provisions from the existing C-4 district for the Anza Point North district which currently regulate development in this area. The C-4 zoning has been fundamental in implementing the 1969 General Plan, the 1981 Bayfront Specific Plan and in establishing the existing land use pattern for this area. The Anza Point North (APN) district includes the northern portion of the Anza Point subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan. The APN district is the undeveloped area adjacent to San Francisco Bay and Sanchez Channel. The proposed provisions of the district is consistent with the directives of the Specific Plan they are intended to implement. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA POINT NORTH ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN April 3,2006 CEQA Compliance: Negative Declaration ND531-P was prepared and adopted for the Bayfront Specific Plan in April 5, 2004. Since this zoning action is an implementation of that adopted plan and is consistent with the provisions of that plan, this zoning action to adopt the implementing regulations for the Anza Point North district is determined to be covered by ND531-P. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission held several public hearings on the proposed Anza Point North regulations. (See PC Minutes August 22, 2005 and September 12, 2005) At their conclusion the Commission referred several items back to the Commission Subcommittee for further comment. These items included: ■ how height was to be regulated; ■ requirements for minimum lot size and for minimum lot frontage; and ■ regulation of particular land uses: 'time share properties', extended stay hotels, medical clinics and health services. The Subcommittee met twice, discussed these issues and directed staff. (See Working Paper: Revision to Anza Point North Zoning District, February 2, 2006) On March 13,2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and recommended the proposed Anza Point North(APN) district regulations to the City Council for action. No changes were made to the draft ordinance as proposed by the Subcommittee. City Council Study Session: On March 29, 2006, the City Council held a study session to review the proposed regulations for the Anza Point North zoning district. Following study the consensus of the Council was that the proposed draft was ready for Council action. Discussion focused on land use modifications including the appropriateness of allowing health services, medical clinics and extended stay hotels in this area; and the height of buildings, how height is measure and the community wind standard. BACKGROUND Proposed Anza Point North Zoning Regulations: When the Anza Point North regulations were initially heard by the Planning Commission, there was general consensus about most of the proposed standards. However, there were a few areas where questions were raised at the public hearing. (See PC Minutes September 12, 2005 and correspondence) Commission referred these items back to the Bayfront Zoning Subcommittee who met and made specific recommendations on each of these items follows. (The background on each of these issues is found in the Working Paper: Revision to Anza Point North Zoning District and a summary of the reasons for changes made are included in the Annotated Ordinance attached to this staff report). ■ Permitted Uses. o Recommended adding health services and medical clinics up to a maximum of 5,000 SF in office buildings 20,000 SF or larger, with no additional parking required. (Same regulation used for this use in the Inner Bayshore zoning district). (CS 25.48.020 (c)) Subcommittee felt that if this area becomes an employment center, health services and/or medical clinic uses at the size proposed would serve the employees in the area in the same fashion envisioned in the Inner Bayshore subarea. CS 25.48.025 (i) allows an applicant to request a conditional use permit to have more than 5,000 SF of health service and medical clinics in the APN zone. Such 2 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA POINT NORTH ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN April 3,2006 expansion would be discretionary and parking requirements would need to be considered as a part of that application. ■ Conditional Uses o Extended stay hotels, recommend that this use be retained as a conditional use in the Anza Point North area because it is a type of hotel not represented in Burlingame's hotel market, because the extended stay industry notes that the majority of stays are less than 29 days those are subject to Transient Occupancy Tax, and this use can be conditioned never to be converted to a multi-family residential use. o Separated park and fly programs to promote room occupancy from the hotel use, and provide that they be separately reviewed. This change was made because park and fly programs usually are requested after a hotel has been in operation and more is known about the actual use of the on-site parking and effectiveness of the hotels shuttle service to the airport. ■ Prohibited Uses o The Subcommittee reviewed the question about 'time share property' and determined that it was a residential use and therefore prohibited by the Specific Plan in the entire Bayfront planning area. To make this clear, they recommended adding a definition for 'timeshare property' to the definitions section of the zoning code (CS 25.08.649) and listed'time share property' on the prohibited uses list in the APN district. For more information on the residential determination of the 'time share property' use see the annotation for CS 25.40.030 (q) attached. Also in the zoning code if a use is not listed as permitted or conditional it is prohibited. So by adding a definition of the use 'time share property', it is prohibited in all of the zoning districts in the Bayfront area even though it is not listed on the prohibited uses list for each district. ■ Height and Bulk of Buildings o One of the issues raised at public hearing was the presentation in the design guidelines in the plan which shows the intended gradation of height expressed in 'stories' across the properties in the Anza Point North area. The gradation is required to meet the community wind standards. Elsewhere in the building design criteria(Bayfront SAP V-33) this gradation is expressed in terms of feet, 30 feet, two story; 35 feet, three story; and 50 feet, four story. The zoning regulation was based on the height as measured in feet. (CS 25.48.042 (a)) The subcommittee recommended that the development(zoning) standard should be expressed in feet and that the plan diagram figures on page Bayfront SAP V-26 and V-27 should be revised to show feet as expressed in the building design criteria not in stories. This will require an amendment to the Bayfront Specific Plan, but represents no change to the proposed height regulations. o Subcommittee did note that the zoning was unclear about how the height should be measured in this area given the unique wind conditions, e.g. how are mechanical penthouses addressed . They recommend that height be measured in the same way it is in the rest of the city, to the top of the parapet if the mechanical equipment is not taller than 10 feet and does not cover more than 5% of the roof area. If the mechanical equipment exceeds either of these standards the height will be measured from the average top of curb at the front of the site to the top of the mechanical equipment. 3 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA POINT NORTH ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN April 3,2006 o The third height issue raised was related to requiring a conditional use permit for structures taller than the 30'to 50' allowed in CS 25.48.042 (a) height and bulk of buildings. This conditional use provision CS 25.48.025 (a)provides that a developer may ask for a maximum of 10 additional feet over the height allowed on his site,but must undertake a wind study and demonstrate via that study that the additional height will be consistent with the community wind standard. The Subcommittee felt that this was a reasonable and prudent provision, and that it should not be changed. Concern was expressed that the construction of one building could have a dramatic negative impact on the development of adjacent sites and on valued community recreation areas, if a broader based study is not done for the additional height. It was also noted that the maximum height number was appropriate because the only way to exceed the community wind standard (which is an environmental standard not a zoning standard) would be to redo the environmental document for the Specific Plan and amend the plan by adopting a new community wind standard. Certainly such an action would require a wind study. (See also Annotated Ordinance page 14 attached) ■ Minimum lot size and street frontage o The Subcommittee recommended that the minimum lot size be changed from 4 acres to 2 acres. The issue was raised that the recommended lot size of 4 acres was too large and that given the size and shape the property could not be evenly divided into 4 acre parcels, thus forcing them to leave some land undeveloped. The Subcommittee noted that the minimum lot size is just that, a minimum; and future development, particularly given the design guidelines would have a variety of lot sizes. The objective of a minimum lot size is to insure that new lots created would be large enough to be reasonably developed within the design guidelines requirements and not so small that it would thwart future changes in land use consistent with the development standards and design guidelines. One of the issues in the Inner Bayshore area is that many lots are very small, and current uses demand larger parcels in an environment where lot combination is very difficult given ownership patterns and land prices. o Minimum street frontage was recommended by the Subcommittee to be changed from 250 feet to 150 feet, based on the fact that 150 feet is the minimum street frontage required in the adjacent Anza Point South zoning district and is 'typical' of the development in that area. (See Annotated Ordinance page 15, CS 25.48.045) o The subcommittee did not recommend a change to the requirement that no variance be granted for lot size or street frontage. They felt that this area is essentially undeveloped and there are many ways to subdivide the area within the standards now proposed. The Subcommittee did note that commercial condominium developments are still possible because in a condominium, the underlying parcel is jointly owned by all the condominium owners, so is not divided. ■ Parking Requirements o Since health services and medical office uses are restricted to 5,000 SF in office buildings larger than 20,000 SF so that they are oriented to serve employees in the area, the Subcommittee felt that the same parking standards used in the Inner Bayshore district should apply. In the Inner Bayshore district when health services of less than 5,000 SF went in to a larger office building, the city discovered that there was sufficient parking on site to cover the higher parking demand caused by the 5,000 SF of health services use. This is so in part because of the large amount of parking for the office building and the fact that all office users are rarely on the site at one time. (See annotated ordinance page 20, CS 25.48.080) 4 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA POINT NORTH ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN April 3,2006 ■ New Definition "Time Share Property" o To clarify what a'time share property' is and that it is a land use, the Subcommittee recommended that the following definition be added to the zoning code: "Time share property" or "interval ownership" or "condominium hotel" means a "time share property" as defined in Business and Professions Code Section 11212 without regard to any minimum number of time share interests or minimum of years used." (CS 25.08.649) As noted in the Annotated Ordinance (page 21) 'time share property' is a relatively new ownership concept and is not addressed in the city's current zoning ordinance. Because the concept raises issues about land use and it has become a type of ownership/use, it is appropriate to add a definition to the city's zoning code. Because this particular type of ownership is emerging, it seemed best to use in our definition the definition used by the State of California(Business and Professions Code section 11212)which is attached at the end of the annotated ordinance for your reference. This means that as the state definition is changed our definition will be changed as well to stay current with the law. The state definition has been supported by case law which has defined 'time share properties' as residential in terms of ownership and use because the ownership entitles the owner to live in the unit for a given period of time. For this reason such uses are not treated as hotels and are usually exempt from Transient Occupancy Tax to the city. These recommendations have been included in the general summary of the ordinance provisions below in italics. All these revisions were included in the ordinance recommended by the Planning Commission to the City Council on March 13, 2006. General Summary of the proposed Anza Point North zoning regulations with changes from C-4 noted ➢ Permitted uses: o Hotel densities are increased from 65 to 85 rooms. o Office uses are permitted at a lower FAR(0.6) as recommended by the plan based on factors learned from previous project review. Office uses include research and development facilities and laboratories including biotechnology; health services and medical clinics as a conditional use (see below). Training facilities which are associated with research and development also are allowed. o Privately funded recreation (commercial recreation) is distinguished from public recreation. Commercial recreation has a limit of 0.5 FAR limit and 1,500 SF of support retail; to do more would require a conditional use permit. o Restaurants/food establishments continue to be allowed at the same 0.15 FAR. ➢ Conditional uses: o Extended stay hotels at a density of 85 rooms to the acre. o A CUP is required if the height of a building violates the community wind standards adopted in the plan, heights 10 feet over the maximum allowed by the plan are prohibited. However, text has been clarified so that mechanical penthouse equipment/areas which do not exceed a height of 10 as measured from the adjacent roof surface and do not cover more than 5%of the roof area will be exempt. o Commercial recreation facilities including gyms with more than 0.5 FAR. 5 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA POINT NORTH ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN April 3,2006 o Commercial parking lots (including park and fly) are listed as an interim use, which was recommended by the Specific Plan; the current performance criteria were carried forward, including a maximum 5 years for a permit. o Education and technical schools will continue to be allowed in buildings with greater than 20,000 SF, can occupy no more than 10,000 SF of such a building, and the trip generation must be within the allocation for the planned use of the site. o Day care facilities for children to support employees in the area is called out as a conditional use. o Automobile rental desks with supporting on site parking at hotels are added as a CUP. o Health services and medical clinics are allowed as a conditional use in office buildings larger than 20,000 SF, if they do not exceed S,000 SF. (These are the same regulations placed on health services and medical clinics in the Inner Bayshore zoning district.) o Any exception to the design guidelines requires a CUP, this same provision exists in the current zoning. ➢ Prohibited uses are the same in the AA, APN and APS zoning districts. However, "time share property"is called out as a prohibited use in the Anza Point North district. Since timeshare property is not noted as a permitted or conditional use in any of the other Bayfront zoning districts, the use is prohibited in those districts as well. It should be noted that any use which is not permitted or conditional, is prohibited. The prohibited uses section is included to respond to the most frequent questions asked staff. Other uses not listed or as permitted or conditional uses on this list are also prohibited. ➢ Setbacks: o The current plan requires that new development create a "street wall". The plan requires an average setback of 15 feet on each property, however, this is translated in the zoning to mean that 40%of a new structure must meet the maximum setback of 15 feet. Setbacks in this area previously were based on the width and height of the proposed structure. o To insure a visual connection between the street and the bay or estuary 20 feet is required between buildings on the same site and minimum side setbacks are established at 10 feet. o Rear setbacks are established at 10 feet, however, setbacks from shoreline (which on many properties is the rear setback) follow the BCDC guidelines which range from 75 feet along San Francisco Bay to 65 feet along the edges of the estuaries (Sanchez Channel) o Parking is discouraged in the front setbacks, particularly between any structure and the lot front. o Height is varied across the area based on the prevailing winds going from 50 feet on the Sanchez Channel side to 30 feet on the eastern San Francisco Bay side. However, the additional 10 feet with a conditional use permit and wind study is also recommended by the Subcommittee; and the text has been amended to exempt from the height measurement roof top equipment which is not taller than 10 feet from the surface of the roof and covers no more than 5%of the roof area. o Mass and bulk regulation is based on the land use FAR's and design guidelines in the plan. ➢ Lot size. o Because of the existing large parcels and the economics of efficient development in this area, the minimum lot size recommended is 2 acres. This has changed from the 4 acres previously shown. The Subcommittee felt that in this area the minimum lot size should be bigger than in other areas because of the size of the existing lots. Also a larger lot provides the developer with more flexibility to meet the development requirements and the design guidelines adopted 6 INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA POINT NORTH ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN April 3,2006 for the area. Two acres achieves these objectives while giving the developer more flexibility in his layout and overall development design. ➢ Street frontage. o The proposed 150 foot street frontage is the same requirement as used in the adjacent Anza Point South district, so the pattern of development in the Anza Point subarea will be consistent. This is a change from 250 feet previously suggested. The subcommittee felt the reduction was justified on the basis of the consistency with the adjacent Anza Point South area. ➢ Landscaping and design review. o Landscaping requirements are taken from the BCDC guidelines and design criteria set out in the Specific plan. They are consistent with the current requirements of the C-4 zone which are also taken from the BCDC guidelines and have been in effect since 1982. o The design review criteria are the same ones used in the Shoreline area, with the same emphasis on integrating development with the Bay Trail, recreation and water features in the area. ➢ Public Access. These standards are also based on the 1982 BCDC guidelines and represent no change to development standards for the area. ➢ Parking requirements. As in the C-4 zone the specific parking requirements for food establishments and instructional uses in office buildings exceeding 20,000 SF are the same.In addition the parking requirements for health services and medical clinics in office buildings over 20,000 SF used in the Inner Bayshore area have been added. New parking requirements are added for one on site space for the airport shuttle at hotels. The fact that Bay Trail parking is included in the required parking count for any use and must simply be designated is clarified. ATTACHMENTS: Map: Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan, amendment to Zoning District Map, Adopting July 5, 2005 Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 to Adopt the Anza Point North District and Establish Classification Determination Annotated Anza Point North(APN) District PC Minutes August 22, 2005 and PC Minutes September 12, 2005 Also refer to Anza Point North section of the Background Binder. 7 BURL INGAME BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN 14 Amendment to Zoning District Map GS Ordinance No. 1759 Orellne Adopted by the City Council on July 5, 2005 rn ♦` j Legend • r �Poiht MMM Inner Bayshore �' ;• .... O-M to 16 a3� eV ::• :•:•. .... ® Shoreline 140 C-4toSL Anza Extension Unclassified ® Anza Area Anza C-4 to AA Point Anza Point North South C-4 to APN . ::. Anza Point South "" O-M to APS I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 TO ADOPT THE ANZA POINT NORTH DISTRICT AND 3 ESTABLISH CLASSIFICATION DETERMINATION 4 5 Section 1. In 2004, the City Council adopted a revised Bayshore Specific Plan to guide 6 development and use of the Bayshore Area of the City. Among the subareas in the Plan is the Anza 7 Point area,which includes a variety of uses and lot sizes. This ordinance implements the Specific Plan 8 for the northern portion of this subarea. 9 10 Section 2. A new Chapter 25.48 is added as follows: 11 Chapter 25.48 Anza Point North (APN) 12 13 Sections: 25.48.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 14 25.48.020 Permitted uses. 25.48.025 Conditional uses. 15 25.48.030 Prohibited uses. 25.48.040 Setbacks. 16 25.48.042 Height and bulk of buildings. 25.48.045 Minimum lot size and street frontage. 17 25.48.048 No variance for lot size and street frontage. 25.48.050 Landscaping. 18 25.48.052 Design review. 25.48.060 Public access. 19 25.48.080 Parking requirements. 20 21 25.48.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 22 It is the purpose and policy of this chapter to establish and maintain land uses for the northern 23 portion of the area designated as the Anza Point subarea in the Bayshore Specific Area Plan.The Anza 24 Point subarea lies east of Sanchez Channel, is bounded on two sides by San Francisco Bay and by US 25 101 on the south side. The Anza Point subarea is divided into two sections: the northern one of 26 currently vacant land served by Airport Boulevard.These provisions address the Anza Point North area 27 which include all the properties north of Beach and Lang Road with frontage on Airport Boulevard. 28 The purpose of these regulations is to direct the siting and development of structures which adhere to 3/14/2006 1 ANZA POINT NORTH I the development policies and adopted design guidelines of the Bayfront Plan in general and to the 2 properties in the north portion of the Anza Point subarea specifically. The intention is to attract 3 development which will benefit from the proximity to the open water areas of San Francisco Bay and 4 its estuaries,will support public recreation and access along San Francisco Bay, and will protect this 5 irreplaceable natural and recreation resource.Future development consistent with the Bayfront Specific 6 Plan will create a viable transition from the heavy commercial uses along US 101 to the visitor oriented 7 and office uses with Bay orientation to be developed on the vacant land at the north end of the Anza 8 Point subarea, establish a bayside gateway to Burlingame on its eastern end, and contribute to the 9 revenue base of the city. In creating this district, the city asserts that economic as well as aesthetic 10 advantages accrue to the land, its occupants and the public from the required controls and regulations. 11 12 25.48.020 Permitted uses. 13 The following uses are permitted in the Anza Point North district: 14 (a) Motels and hotels with a maximum density of eighty-five(85)rooms to the acre and a floor 15 area ratio of 1.0 or less;facilities provided on site may include such retail sales and personal service uses 16 as meal and beverage services,barber and beauty shops, smoke shops,and shuttle bus service to serve 17 only hotel guests so long as the operation does not use parking required for primary hotel use, 18 convention and meeting facilities, and similar services which are clearly incidental and accessory to 19 provision of lodging accommodations; and no more than one dwelling unit within the motel or hotel 20 structure that is used exclusively by the owner or manager of the motel or hotel; 21 (b) Restaurants with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.15; 22 (c) Office uses with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.6, including research and development 23 facilities and laboratories;however,manufacturing is not allowed,and health services or medical clinics 24 are only allowed pursuant to section 25.48.025 below; 25 (d) Training facilities associated with and related to a primary activity of research and 26 development facilities located in the Anza Area,Anza Point North, or Anza Point South district; 27 (e) Commercial recreation facility with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5; these facilities may 28 include the sale of merchandise and items which are related to the principal use that do not exceed a total 3/14/2006 2 ANZA POINT NORTH I of one thousand five hundred(1,500)square feet of support retail sales area located within the facility; 2 (f) Publicly owned recreation areas; 3 (g) Adult oriented businesses that meet all of the requirements of chapters 25.76 and 10.58 of 4 this code; 5 (h) Accessory uses which are necessary for the permitted uses under this section. 6 7 25.48.025 Conditional uses. 8 The following are uses requiring a conditional use permit: 9 (a) All structures that are taller than the maximum height allowed pursuant to section 25.48.042 10 below, if wind studies demonstrate that the additional height is consistent with the community wind 11 standards;but in no event shall any structure be taller than ten(10)feet above those maximum heights 12 allowed pursuant to section 25.48.042; 13 (b) Commercial recreation facilities including gymnasiums with a floor area ratio of more than 14 0.5 or that include a total space of more than one thousand five hundred(1,500)square feet of recreation 15 business related merchandise which are related to the principal use in the facility; 16 (c) Commercial parking lots as an interim use as is described in the Bayfront Specific Plan as 17 adopted by the City Council,which comply with at least the following criteria: 18 (1) The sole purpose of the use is the parking for one day or longer of vehicles of persons using 19 San Francisco International Airport; and 20 (2)A minimum lot size of three(3)acres; and 21 (3) Permit term limited to five(5)years;and 22 (4) No more peak hour vehicle trips are generated than allowed by the traffic analyzer for the 23 use designated for the site in the general plan; 24 (d) Day care with on-site drop-off and parking as required by chapter 25.70; 25 (e) Educational institutions, trade and technical schools in buildings with twenty thousand 26 (20,000)or more gross square footage,with all educational uses in a single building occupying no more 27 than a total of ten thousand(10,000)gross square feet and whose trip generation as calculated using the 28 Bayfront traffic analyzer is no greater than that of a use permitted on the same site; 3/14/2006 3 ANZA POINT NORTH I (f)Extended stay hotels; 2 (g) Motels and hotels with more than eighty-five(85) rooms to the acre or with a floor area ratio 3 of more than 1.0; facilities provided on site may include such retail sales and service uses as meal and 4 beverage services,barber and beauty shops, smoke shops, and shuttle bus service to serve only hotel 5 guests so long as the operation does not use parking required for primary hotel use, convention and 6 meeting facilities,and similar services which are clearly incidental and accessory to provision of lodging 7 accommodations including park and fly programs associated with the letting of hotel rooms which does 8 not impact the availability of on site parking for guests and the use and parking for any on site meeting 9 facilities;and no more than one dwelling unit within the motel or hotel structure that is used exclusively 10 by the owner or manager of the motel or hotel; 11 (h) As part of a hotel or motel use, an automobile rental desk or a park and fly program 12 associated with renting of rooms and that does not affect the availability of on-site parking for hotel or 13 motel guests and the use and parking for any on-site meeting facilities; 14 (i) Health services and medical clinics that do not exceed five thousand(5,000)square feet total 15 in office structures over twenty thousand(20,000)gross square feet,with parking as set forth in section 16 25.48.080 below; 17 0) Any building,structure or site plan that does not comply with the adopted Design Guidelines 18 in the Bayshore Specific Plan for the Anza Point subarea as established by resolution of the city council; 19 (k) Incidental food sales and sale of convenience amenities to support on-site office employees 20 in office buildings of twenty thousand(20,000)square feet or more,whose total area shall not exceed 21 a maximum of one thousand five hundred (1,500) square feet and without exclusive access to the 22 outside; 23 (0 Drive-in services or take out services associated with permitted and conditional uses; 24 (m) Any use similar in nature to one which is permitted or for which a permit is required in this 25 district that is: 26 (1) Consistent with planned land uses in the Anza Point subarea; and 27 (2)At a density determined not to exceed the trip generation for the planned use of the site using 28 the adopted Bayfront traffic analyzer. 3/14/2006 4 ANZA POINT NORTH 1 25.48.030 Prohibited uses. 2 Uses not listed as permitted or conditional shall be prohibited, including: 3 (a)Automobile rental uses; 4 (b)Automobile dealers and sales lots; 5 (c)Automobile wrecking and junk yards,storage or baling of scraps,paper rags,sacks,or metals, 6 including recycling facilities for green waste and other materials; 7 (d) Commercial parking lots except as expressly allowed pursuant to section 25.48.025(c); 8 (e) Retail sales uses except as expressly allowed within the uses designated in section 25.48.020 9 or 25.48.025; 10 (f) Service businesses, except as expressly allowed within the uses designated in section 11 25.48.020 or 25.48.025; 12 (g)Personal services,except as expressly allowed within the uses designated in section 25.48.020 13 or 25.48.025 14 (h) Air courier, delivery or other trans-shipment services,including freight forwarding; 15 (i) Free standing specialty food establishments or any specialty food establishment with direct 16 external access within any building; 17 0) Warehouse, storage and distribution of goods,materials,liquids and equipment; 18 (k) Outdoor storage of materials including contractors storage yards; 19 (0 Health services and medical clinics,except as expressly allowed under section 25.48.025; 20 (m)Industrial and manufacturing uses; 21 (n)Massage,bathing or similar establishments; 22 (o)Residential uses and buildings, except for an owner/manager residence in a hotel or motel 23 as expressly allowed under section 25.48.020 or 25.48.025; 24 (p)Gasoline service stations and major and minor automobile repair,including auto body work; 25 (q)Time-share property; 26 (r) Any use determined to be obnoxious or offensive. 27 28 // 3/14/2006 5 ANZA POINT NORTH 1 25.48.040 Setbacks. 2 The following minimum setbacks shall apply to all parcels, buildings and structures or any 3 enlargement thereof located in the district: 4 (a) Front setback. There shall be an average front setback of fifteen(15)feet,with at least forty 5 (40)percent of the structure at the maximum setback of fifteen(15) feet; 6 (b) Side setback. There shall be a ten(10)foot side setback. 7 (c) Distance between buildings. To provide useable wind-sheltered outdoor area and to provide 8 a visual connection to the Bay Trail, there shall be a distance of at least twenty (20) feet between 9 buildings on the same lot. 10 (d) Rear setback. Structures shall be set back at least ten (10) feet from rear property line. 11 (e) Setbacks from shoreline. In any event,structures shall be set back an average of sixty-five 12 (65)feet from Sanchez Channel and seventy-five(75)feet from San Francisco Bay and the shoreline as 13 defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; in addition, for any building that is 14 forty(40)feet or taller,then the setback of the building to the shoreline shall be equal to or greater than 15 the height of the building. 16 (f) In addition to the setbacks set forth above, there shall be a fifteen (15) foot setback from 17 Airport Boulevard for all below grade construction. 18 (g) No parking spaces shall be provided within the ten (10)foot minimum setback across the 19 lot front on any property. Driveways are allowed in the setback, but the driveways shall not be 20 considered as landscaped area. No parking areas shall be located between any structure and the lot front, 21 except for loading zones. Placement of parking shall be consistent with the design guidelines for the 22 Anza Point subarea. 23 24 25.48.042 Height and bulk of structures. 25 (a) Maximum height shall be determined by impact on the prevailing wind and shall be 26 staggered with a maximum height of thirty(30) feet along the eastern side of the lot, increasing in a 27 graduated manner to a maximum of fifty(50)feet along the western, or Sanchez Channel, side of the 28 lot,as established in the Anza Point subarea design guidelines and consistent with the community wind 3/14/2006 6 ANZA POINT NORTH I standards. The maximum height may be exceeded by a mechanical penthouse with a maximum height 2 of ten(10)feet as measured from the adjacent roof surface and covering no more than five(5)percent 3 of the roof area. 4 (b) Maximum bulk and mass shall be determined by the floor area ratio established in the 5 Bayfront Specific Plan for the land uses in the Anza Point subarea. Where no floor area ratio is 6 provided,mass and bulk shall be based on the adopted design guidelines,the development constraints 7 documented in the Bayfront Specific Plan,and the zoning regulations where the property is located. 8 9 25.48.045 Minimum lot size and street frontage.. 10 There shall be a minimum lot size of two(2)acres and a minimum street frontage of one hundred 11 fifty(150)feet. No property in the district maybe divided or subdivided into a lot with less area or less 12 street frontage. 13 14 25.48.048 No variance for lot size or street frontage. 15 Notwithstanding any other provision of this code,no variance for lot size or street frontage shall 16 be granted to any property within this district. 17 18 25.48.050 Landscaping. 19 The following landscaping requirements shall apply to all lots: 20 (a) The landscape requirements of the design guidelines for the Anza Point subarea of the 21 Bayfront Specific Plan as adopted by the city council shall be met; and 22 (b) A minimum of ten(10)percent of the parking area shall be landscaped; and 23 (c) A minimum of eighty(80)percent of the front setback shall be landscaped; and 24 (d) A minimum of forty (40) percent of the lot area within the Bay Conservation and 25 Development Commission jurisdiction shall be landscaped. 26 27 25.48.052 Design Review. 28 Construction and alterations including substantial construction or change to more than fifty(50) 3/14/2006 7 ANZA POINT NORTH I percent of the front fagade or change to more than fifty(50)percent of any fagade facing a public or 2 private street, parking lot, or the Bay Trail shall be subject to design review based on the design 3 guidelines for the Anza Point North subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan and shall be processed as 4 provided in section 25.57.030. 5 (a) A design review application in the APN district shall be reviewed by the planning 6 commission for the following considerations: 7 (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles as defined in the design guidelines for 8 the Anza Point subarea and the role of the shoreline in creating a network of interconnected open spaces; 9 (2) Respect and promotion of the streetscape by the placement of buildings to maximize the 10 commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces,and by locating parking so that it does 11 not dominate street frontages, and for properties fronting on Airport Boulevard, that the design is 12 sensitive to the surrounding bodies of water,physical and visual presence of the Bay Trail, orientation 13 of the prevailing winds and to the Coyote Point recreation area. 14 (3) On visually prominent and sites with shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and 15 Development Commission, the design shall fit the site, support the Bay Trail and its park and 16 recreational uses,provide for maximum user access and support recreational use by those who work in 17 the area as well as those who visit;and the design is compatible with the surrounding development and 18 consistent with the design guidelines for the Anza Point subarea; 19 (4) Compatibility of the architecture and landscaping with the design guidelines for the Anza 20 Point subarea including materials used in existing development,location and use of plant materials,and 21 compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; 22 (5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is 23 consistent among primary elements of the structure(s)and consistent with the directives of the design 24 guidelines for the Anza Point subarea; and 25 (6) Provision of site features identified in the design guidelines such as orientation to minimize 26 wind obstruction on San Francisco Bay, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation which enriches and 27 enhances the existing recreation opportunities of the area,including extension of the Bay Trail. 28 (b) When any part of a commercial structure is subject to design review, any awnings on the 3/14/2006 8 ANZA POINT NORTH I commercial structures shall be included in the design review. 2 (c) Exemptions from design review: 3 (1) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for development in the Anza Point 4 North district filed before 5 (2) Any amendment to a project exempt from design review pursuant to subsection(1)above 6 shall be subject to design review if the project involved would have otherwise been subject to design 7 review under subsection (a) above, the project has not been completed, and the amendment would 8 extend any structure involved in the application outside the envelope of the structure for which the 9 approval was granted or sought in the underlying application or would change a facade. Changes to, 10 additions of, or deletions of awnings as an amendment to a project shall not trigger design review under this 11 subsection. 12 13 25.48.060 Public access. 14 Public access shall be maintained and developed based on the city-adopted and Bay Conservation 15 and Development Commission-approved Public Access Guidelines for Burlingame based on the 16 applicable water frontage as follows: 17 (a) On San Francisco Bay proper: An average setback of seventy-five (75) feet of the lot as 18 measured from the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; in no 19 case shall the area as measured from the top of bank be less than the minimum width for the Bay Trail 20 as required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; and 21 (b) On Sanchez Channel: An average setback of sixty-five (65) feet as measured from the 22 shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; in no case shall the area 23 as measured from the top of bank be less than the minimum width for the Bay Trail as required by the 24 Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 25 (c) All areas improved for public access within the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and 26 Development Commission shall be maintained by the property owner and shall be available to the public 27 in perpetuity as determined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; 28 3/14/2006 9 ANZA POINT NORTH 1 25.48.080 Parking requirements. 2 All uses shall provide parking in accordance with the applicable provisions of chapter 25.70 of 3 this code with the following changes or additions: 4 (a) Food establishments. 5 (1)Food establishments that are the primary use of the lot shall provide the following: 6 (A) Customer parking shall be provided on-site at the rate of one parking space for each one 7 hundred(100) square feet of gross floor area; and 8 (B) In addition,employee parking shall be provided on-site or within reasonable proximity,in 9 the judgment of the city planner,at the rate of one parking space for each one thousand(1,000)square 10 feet of gross floor area; 11 (2)Food establishments that are located in an office building of 20,000 square feet or more or 12 that are not the primary use of the lot shall provide parking on-site at the rate of one parking space for 13 each three hundred(300) square feet of gross floor area of food establishment. 14 (b) Instructional uses. Instructional uses related to a permitted or conditional use shall provide 15 parking on-site at the rate of one space for each three hundred(300) square feet of gross floor area; 16 (c) Health services and medical clinics. Health services and medical clinic uses shall provide 17 parking on-site at the rate of one parking space for each three hundred(300) square feet of gross floor 18 area occupied by the uses. 19 (d) Bay Trail parking. On sites with frontage on San Francisco Bay and its estuary including 20 Anza Lagoon, Sanchez Channel, and Burlingame Lagoon, the Bay Conservation and Development 21 Commission shall determine the number of on-site parking spaces to be designated for public Bay Trail 22 Access parking;these on-site spaces shall be designated from the required parking for the site,shall be 23 available to the public without charge during the hours that the Bay Trail is open, and shall be posted 24 as public access parking by the property owner as required by the Bay Conservation and Development 25 Commission. 26 (e)Hotels. A hotel shall provide one additional,designated parking space for a shuttle bus. 27 28 Section 3. A new Section 25.16.145 is added to read as follows: 3/14/2006 10 ANZA POINT NORTH 1 25.16.145 Ambiguity of use. 2 If any ambiguity arises concerning the appropriate classification of a particular use within the 3 meaning and intent of this title, any person may apply to the city planner for a determination of the 4 ambiguity, and the planner's shall be subject to appeal pursuant to this chapter. 5 6 Section 4. A new Section 25.08.649 is added to read as follows: 7 25.08.649 Time-share property. 8 "Time-share property" or"interval ownership" or"condominium hotel"means a"time-share 9 property" as defined in Business & Professions Code section 11212 without regard to any minimum 10 number of time-share interests or minimum of years of use. 11 12 Section 5. Section 25.36.050 is deleted. 13 14 Section 6. Section 25.38.050 is deleted. 15 16 Section 7. Section 25.43.050 is deleted. 17 18 Section 8. Section 25.44.050 is deleted. 19 20 Section 9. This ordinance is to be published according to law. 21 22 23 Mayor 24 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 25 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_day of 2006, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 26 _day of , 2006, by the following vote: 27 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 28 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 3/14/2006 11 ANZA POINT NORTH I ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 2 City Clerk C:LFII.ES\Planning�A=PointNorth32006.ord.wpd 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3/14/2006 12 ANZA POINT NORTH Draft 7 Date: February 21, 2006 as Recommended by the Planning Commission March 13, 2006 (revisions bold face based on Subcommittee direction February 2006) Annotated Anza Point North (APN) District Chapter 25.48 Anza Point North(APN)Zoning District Regulations Sections: 25.48.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 25.48.020 Permitted uses. 25.48.025 Conditional uses. 25.48.030 Prohibited uses. . 25.48.040 Setbacks. 25.48.042 Height and bulk of buildings. 25.48.045 Minimum lot size and street frontage. 25.48.048 No variance for lot size and street frontage. 25.48.050 Landscaping. 25.48.052 Design review for proposed and existing structures. 25.48.060 Public access. 25.48.080 Parking requirements. Section 25.48.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. It is the purpose and policy of this chapter to establish and maintain land uses for all areas designated as the Anza Point subarea in the Bayshore Specific Area Plan. The Anza Point subarea lies east of Sanchez Channel, is bounded on two sides by San Francisco Bay and by US 101 on the south side. The Anza Point subarea is divided into two sections: the northern one of currently vacant land served by Airport Boulevard. These provisions address the Anza Point North area which include all the properties north of Beach and Lang Road with frontage on Airport Boulevard. The purpose of these regulations is to direct the siting and development of structures which adhere to the development Anza Point North(APN)Zoning District Regulations February 21,2006 Draft 7 policies and adopted design guidelines of the Bayfront Plan in general and to the properties in the north portion of the Anza Point subarea specifically. The intention is to attract development which will benefit from the proximity to the open water areas of San Francisco Bay and its estuaries ,will support public recreation and access along San Francisco Bay, and will protect this irreplaceable natural and recreation resource. Future development consistent with the Bayfront Specific Plan will create a viable transition from the heavy commercial uses along US 101 to the visitor oriented and office uses with Bay orientation to be developed on the vacant land at the north end of the Anza Point subarea, establish a bayside gateway to Burlingame on its eastern end, and contribute to the revenue base of the city. In creating this district, the city asserts that economic as well as aesthetic advantages accrue to the land, its occupants and the public from the required controls and regulations. Annotation: This section establishes the link between the Bayfront Specific Plan adopted as a part of the Burlingame General Plan and the zoning for the northern, presently vacant, portion of the Anza Point subarea. The purpose establishes that the intention of the zoning regulations is to implement the policies, land use designations and densities, and design direction of the Bayfront Specific Area Plan which was amended by the City Council to the Burlingame General Plan on April 5, 2004 . This section is the key legal link between the more subjective aesthetic and economic objectives of the plan and the specific development regulations. This section also defines the location of the Anza Point subarea and the Anza Point North (APN) area within the Anza Point subarea. 25.48.20 Permitted uses. The following uses are permitted in the Anza Point North district: (a) Motels, hotels and extended stay hotels with a maximum density of eighty-five(85)rooms to the acre and a floor area ratio of 1.0 or less; facilities provided on site may include such retail sales and personal service uses as meal and beverage services, barber and beauty shops, smoke shops, and shuttle bus service to serve only hotel guests so long as the operation does not use parking required for primary hotel use, convention and meeting facilities, and similar services which are clearly incidental and accessory to provision of lodging accommodations; and no more than one dwelling unit within the motel or hotel structure that is used exclusively by the owner or manager of the motel or hotel; Annotation: This is the same definition for motel and hotel used in the Inner Bayshore, Shoreline and Anza subareas with two differences . The land use for the Anza Point subarea allows a maximum density of 85 rooms to the acres and extended stay hotels are included since they are allowed in this subarea. For the Anza point subarea it is suggested that automobile rental desks on site at hotels be allowed only as a conditional use; so hotels, motels and extended stay uses 2 Anza Point North(APN)Zoning District Regulations February 21,2006 Draft 7 will appear as a conditional use in the Airport Blvd. portion of this subarea. The adopted land use for the Anza Point subarea does not allow hotels and motels in the Beach and Lang Road area. (b) Restaurants with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.15; Annotation: Destination restaurants or food establishments are allowed with the current zoning of these properties at an FAR of 0.15. The adopted land use for the subarea allows destination restaurants with the same density as the 1981 plan. This provision does not change the current regulation. Special parking requirements are included at the end in this section. They are the same as in 1981, e.g. 1:100 GSF plus 1:1000 SF for each employee. The specific plan does not allow free standing restaurants in the Beach and Lang Road area. (c) Office uses with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.6,including research and development facilities and laboratories;however, manufacturing is not allowed and health services or medical clinics are only allowed pursuant to section 25.48.025 below;pmvided that no .f eturing aetivity is allowed, ept health s Annotation: On their second review the subcommittee felt that small (5,000 SF or less) health services and medical clinics should be allowed as conditional uses in the APN zone, since they were as likely to be needed as support services for the concentration of employees in this area as they were in the Inner Bayshore area where they are allowed as a conditional use. In addition these uses would be supported by the employees in the adjacent Anza Point South area where health services and medical clinics are not allowed. However, the subcommittee thought that the same limitations should be placed as in the Inner Bayshore area e.g. that the health service or medical clinic should be located only in an office building larger than 20,000 SF with the same benefit of a parking compensation. Because of the size of the office building the on-site parking requirement for the health service drops from 1:250 SF to 1:300 SF. This revision is shown in the parking section below. First Revision: The subcommittee felt it was important to make it clear that health services were not included as a permitted or conditional office use in the Anza Point North area. Adequate area for such uses was included in other subareas of the Bayfront and close to Peninsula Hospital in the North Burlingame area. Original Annotation: The Bayfront plan encourages office uses at a 0.6 FAR in the Anza Point subarea. However, the plan is not so detailed that it dictates the "type" of office. Given the size of the vacant parcels in this area, their unique location close to the 3 Anza Point North (APN) Zoning District Regulations February 21, 2006 Draft 7 Bay, and the environmental constraints on developing these parcels , these sites are an ideal location for a company office campus . For that reason this provision is written to make it clear that the full range of corporate office functions , including research and development are allowed . Since the biotech industry is one that is growing in our area and the city has defined laboratories as a type of office use in other areas , this provision makes it clear that laboratories associated with product development would be allowed as an office use . However , laboratories or other structures whose purpose is to manufacture product or support the manufacture of product on- site , are not allowed in this subarea . (d) Training facilities associated with and related to a primary activity of research and development facilities located in the Anza Area, Anza Point North, or Anza Point South district; Annotation : This provision addresses schools or education facilities used regularly for training or instruction which support permitted uses but are not " freestanding" . For example this provision would allow Virgin Airlines to have a flight simulator facility for training pilots ; but probably would not allow a UC Berkeley Extension Campus . (e) Commercial recreation facility with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.5; these facilities may include the sale of merchandise and items which are related to the principal use but do not exceed a total of 1,500 square feet of support retail sales area located within the facility; Annotation : This is the same definition with the same limitations for commercial recreation use allowed in the Shoreline subarea . The only change is the floor area ratio limitation . Since the lots are larger and the potential for a major commercial recreation use greater as a result , the specific plan places a maximum FAR for this type of development in the Anza Point subarea . (f) Public Recreation areas; (g) Accessory uses which are necessary for the permitted uses under this section. 25.48.025 Conditional uses. The following are uses requiring a conditional use permit: (a) All structures that are taller than the maximum height allowed pursuant to section 25.48.042 below, if wind studies demonstrate that the additional height is consistent with the community wind standards; but in no event shall any structure be taller than ten (10) feet above those maximum heights allowed pursuant to section 25.48.042; 4 Anza Point North(APN)Zoning District Regulations February 21,2006 Draft 7 Annotation: The Anza Point North subarea is the area in the city where development is most vulnerable to blockage of the prevailing winds across bay waters and the subsequent affect on the adjacent recreational uses at Coyote Point Park. Previous studies of the area indicate that buildings 30 feet or less in height, anywhere in this area are unlikely to have a wind blockage impact . However taller structures may have an impact, dependent upon where they are located on the site . So requiring a CUP will insure that the wind impact of all structures over 30 feet in height is evaluated as a part of the project review process . If a wind study finds no impact, that becomes the finding for the permit . (b) Commercial recreation facilities including gymnasiums with a floor area ratio of more than 0.5 or that include a total space of more than one thousand five hundred(1,500) square feet of recreation business related merchandise which are related to the principal use in the facility; Annotation: The subcommittee felt that it was important, because this area may develop principally as an office area, that it be clear that gyms which would serve the people who worked in the area were an appropriate commercial recreation use. Original Annotation: Commercial recreation facilities including 1, 500 SF or less of retail sales area permitted. However, if a developer' s proposal exceeds 0 . 5 FAR or includes more than 1, 500 SF, this provision allows him to request a conditional use permit for the excess. If this provision was not included in this way, a variance would be required for more than 1, 500 SF of retail sales area or 0 . 5 FAR. (c) Commercial parking lots as an interim use as is described in the Bayfront Specific Plan as adopted by the City Council,which comply with at least the following criteria: (1) The sole purpose of the use is the parking for one day or longer of vehicles of persons using San Francisco International Airport; and (2) A minimum lot size of three(3) acres; and (3) Permit term limited to five(5) years; and (4) No more peak hour vehicle trips are generated than allowed by the traffic analyzer for the use designated for the site in the general plan. 5 Anza Point North(APNJ Zoning District Regulations February 21,2006 Draft 7 Annotation: In the Shoreline subarea zoning the Subcommittee decided to broaden the idea of "long term airport parking" to commercial parking lots to address other privately operated, pay for parking uses. Since for planning purposes in the Bayfront area such parking lots have always been seen as "place holders" until a higher and use more compatible with the long term development goals comes along, the use is included as an interim use in the Anza Point area. Key for this provision is to let the developer know before he commits to the site improvements required by NPDES, BCDC and others that the maximum time for the permit is 5 years. (d) Day care with on site drop off and parking as required by Ch.25.70. Annotation: The Subcommittee felt that if this area became an employment center in the future, day care might well be an important support service for employees and should be allowed. The provision includes performance criteria which emerged as important when a large day care facility was considered for the Beach/Lang Road area in the past. (e) Educational institutions,trade and technical schools in buildings with twenty thousand (20,000)or more gross square footage,with all educational uses in a single building occupying no more than a total often thousand(10,000)gross square feet and whose trip generation as calculated using the Bayfront traffic analyzer is no greater than that of a use permitted on the same site; Annotation: The concern about the area being taken over by educational uses in a campus form, focused primarily on the loss of tax revenue to the city. Should such an institution be public, there would be a cost to the city who would have to provide services with no compensating tax income. For this reason the Subcommittee suggested that while the use may be appropriate it should be regulated and limited in size—so it would be more attractive to the "private" kinds of schools which support experienced employees. Original Annotation: The Planning Commission in their review of the Shoreline subarea discussed the appropriate location for educational uses arranged as a campus. It was suggested that educational campuses would be an appropriate use for the Anza Point subarea. This provision allows free standing educational uses, so long as the number of a.m. and p.m. hour trips generated does not exceed the maximum trips generated by the most intense use permitted on the site as determined by the Bayfront traffic analyzer. 6 Anza Point North(APN)Zoning District Regulations February 11,2006 Draft 7 (1) Extended stay hotels; Annotation: The question was raised at the public hearings on the Anza Point zoning that extended stay hotels should not be allowed in the Anza Point North area because they tend toward residential uses (longer stay) which are prohibited in the Bayfront area. In reviewing this issue the Subcommittee noted that while during the planning process there was considerable debate about the location of extended stay hotels in the Bayfront area, the debate was resolved in the adopted Bayfront Specific Plan when it recommended that extended stay hotels, a product now absent from the hotel mix on the Bayfront, should be allowed in the Anza Area (Bayfront Plan pg. III-6-8) and Anza Point area (Bayfront Plan pg. III 8-10) . This proposed change to the zoning makes it clear that extended stay hotels are allowed as a conditional use in the Anza Point North zone as shown on the adopted land use map Figure III-6 . (g) Motels and hotels with more than eighty-five (85) rooms to the acre or with a floor area ratio of more than 1.0; facilities provided on site may include such retail sales and service uses as meal and beverage services,barber and beauty shops, smoke shops, automobile rental desks and shuttle bus service to serve only hotel guests so long as the operation does not use parking required for primary hotel use, convention and meeting facilities; and similar sefvieeg whish «d r fly preg :..,ed with the letting e f hetel Feems...1.: l. .7 L J Y b` bnat availability f on site parking fer guestsa h use a paf7 ' C any en it Meeting e' s;-and no more than one dwelling unit within the motel or hotel structure that is used exclusively by the owner or manager of the motel or hotel; Annotation: The use of on-site parking facilities for promotional programs such as park and fly to promote room occupancy, has been separated from the definition of hotel in order to call out the fact that in zoning such use is considered a separate/different use. (see provision (h) below. Original Annotation: Hotels area included here as a conditional use so that if an applicant wishes to build more than a 1 . 0 FAR, to add more meeting rooms for example, he may do so with findings for a conditional use rather than findings for a variance. It should be noted that the conditional use for hotels, motels and extended stay hotels includes park and fly programs which are not in the permitted use. So a park and fly program can only occur on a hotel site as a conditional use. All of the other support uses area allowed as described, but would require a conditional use if they wished to exceed the requirements listed in the definition. For example, if the hotel wanted to add a automobile rental desk they would need a 7 Anza Point North(APN)Zoning District Regulations February 11,2006 Draft 7 CUP if the cars to be rented were to be parked in any of the on site required parking for the hotel and other uses permitted. (h) As part of a hotel or motel use, an automobile rental desk or park and fly program associated with renting of rooms and that does not affect the availability of on- site parking for hotel or motel guests and the use and parking for any on-site meeting facilities; (i) Health services and medical clinics not to exceed five thousand (5,000) square feet total in office structures over twenty thousand (20,000) gross square feet, with parking as set forth in section 25.48.080 below; Annotation: The Subcommittee recommended that health services and medical clinic were a use which was compatible with biotechnological research (an allowed use) in the Anza Point North district, as conditional uses in the same way that these two uses are allowed in the Inner Bayshore district. These provisions would allow both health services (e.g. doctors, dentists, acupressurist, chiropractor, etc, uses providing they are located in a large (more than 20, 000 SF) office building. It has been determined in other zoning districts, and experience has confirmed, that if the office building is 20, 000 SF or larger and parked to city office standards, the parking can absorb the impact of conversion of 5, 000 SF to an health service use without causing landscaping to be removed to provide for health service parking requirements (e.g. 1:300 SF for office, 1:250 SF for health service) . If the office building had received a parking variance at the time of construction and a health service wished to move into to it later, the health service would require a parking variance because the code requirements for an office use were not met on the site and a health service is an intensification of use. (j) Any building, structure or site plan that does not comply with the adopted Design Guidelines in the Bayshore Specific Plan for the Anza Point subarea as established by resolution of the city council; Annotation: This provision makes all exceptions to the design guidelines not incorporated as measurable standards in the zoning regulations a conditional use rather than a variance. This is the approach which was used in implementing the 1981 Bayfront design guidelines . (k) Incidental food sales and sale of convenience amenities to support on-site office employees in office buildings of twenty thousand(20,000) square feet or more,whose total area shall not exceed a maximum of one thousand five hundred(1,500) square feet and without exclusive access to the outside; 8 Anza Point North(APN)Zoning District Regulations February 21,2006 Draft 7 Annotation: Because office users will be isolated from secondary support services in the Anza Point area since retail uses are not allowed, the Subcommittee felt that it would be appropriate to allow other small scale retail support services which might include sale of newspapers, magazines and books, shoe repair and dry cleaning pick up/delivery. However, to avoid the support services taking over the office uses, this activity was limited to a total of 1, 500 square feet in any single building. Original Annotation: Given the size of the existing parcels, if office uses are ever built in the North Anza Point area they will be in a campus setting. Since free standing retail uses are not allow in this zoning district, the office users may need some limited support services . In the Shoreline are this provision would allow both food and services. As written here this provision would only allow food sales. (1) Drive-in services or take out services associated with permitted and conditional uses; (m) Any use similar in nature to one which is permitted or for which a permit is required in this district which is: (1) Consistent with planned land uses in the Anza Point subarea; and (2) At a density determined not to exceed the trip generation for the planned use of the site using the adopted Bayfront traffic analyzer. Annotation: This provision is a catch all which will allow flexibility for future uses interim and permanent which may be appropriate in this area, consistent with the concepts of the plan, but not listed. The criteria set out the basic parameters required for compliance with the plan. 25.48.030 Prohibited uses. Uses not listed as permitted or conditional shall be prohibited, including: Annotation: In the case of the Anza Point subarea there are two distinct areas. The Beach-Lang Road area which is fully developed with an established land use pattern and the northern portion of the subarea which is undeveloped and vacant. Since the Bayfront plan proposes very different land use patterns for each of the two areas, it is important to establish that many of the uses being promoted in the Beach and Lang Road area are not allowed in the undeveloped area to the north. The prohibited uses section below is driven by this concept, and may appear to be either repetitive or contradictory. 9 Anza Point North(APN)Zoning District Regulations February 21,2006 Draft 7 (a)Automobile rental uses; (b)Automobile sales lots; (c)Automobile wrecking and junk yards, storage or baling of scraps,paper rags, sacks, or metals, including recycling facilities for green waste and other materials; (d) Commercial parking lots except as expressly allowed pursuant to section 25.48.025(c); (e) Retail uses except as expressly allowed within the uses designated in section 25.48.020 or 25.48.025; (f)Retail service businesses, except as expressly allowed within the uses designated in section 25.48.020 or 25.48.025; (g)Personal services, except as expressly allowed within the uses designated in section 25.48.020 or 25.48.025; (h) Air courier, delivery or other trans-shipment services, including freight forwarding; (i) Free standing specialty food establishments or any specialty food establishment with direct external access within any building; 0) Warehouse, storage and distribution of goods,materials, liquids and equipment; (k) Outdoor storage of materials including contractors storage yards; (1)Health services and medical clinics, except as expressly allowed under section 25.48.025; Annotation: This provision would allow health services and medical clinics up to 5, 000 SF in office buildings which are over 20, 000 SF with a conditional use permit (see CS 25.48. 025 above) ; but would not allow, with a variance, more than 5, 000 SF in a given building. (m) Industrial and manufacturing uses; (n)Massage,bathing or similar establishments; (o)Residential uses and buildings, except for an owner/manager residence in a hotel or motel as expressly allowed under section 25.48.020 or 25.48.025; (p)Gas stations and major and minor automobile repair, including auto body work; (q) Time share property; and Annotation: After discussion with the City Attorney regarding recent legal determinations regarding "time share" developments, and noting that such development has been most often interpreted as a residential kind of use, the Subcommittee recommended that "time share developments" not be allowed in the Bayfront and particularly in the Anza Point North zoning district. Their opinion was based on the fact that the Bayfront Specific Plan prohibits residential land uses in the Planning Area and that the zoning, by law, must be consistent with the adopted land use policy. It was also noted in the discussion about time share property use that one reason that they were seen as residential is that this use is not required by law to pay Transient Occupancy Tax on the same basis as hotels. To clarify, if a time share owner exchanges the use of his unit with another owner he cannot be required to pay TOT. However if the time share owner does not use his time it reverts to the corporation 10 Anza Point North (APN) Zoning District Regulations February 21, 2006 Draft 7 which owns the facility and they may rent the unused property to people with no interest in the property . This rental may be subject to TOT . At this point the legal issue is still being resolved . The problem for the city is one of accurate accounting by the operator, enforcing payment and collection, the significant possibility of expensive audits ; together which represent a management nightmare . The developer advocating placing this use in the Anza Point North area noted that they would agree to pay an "equivalent" to TOT to the City . While such a fee could be required as a condition of approval , providing the developer volunteered to pay it , the enforcement of the condition would fall to the city, and the enthusiasm to pay by the developer may wane over time making collection a management and enforcement headache for the city over time . Moreover, residential developers building condominiums or time share properties on the west side of US 101 in Burlingame might be concerned about the unusual precedent established both in terms of volunteering to pay overtime and basing the general plan policy and land use determination of hotel on the fact a voluntary TOT is paid . (r) Any use determined to be obnoxious or offensive. Annotation : While the subcommittee felt that allowing small food and retail support services in office buildings , they did not feel that " fast food" type restaurants were appropriate or consistent with the design guidelines set on the plan for this subarea . Annotation : The ambiguity of use provisions which were at this location in the C-4 zoning district have been added to the procedures section of Chapter 25 since they apply to all zoning districts in the city . See section 3 below . Section 25.48.040 Setbacks. The following minimum setbacks shall apply to all parcels, buildings and structures or any enlargement thereof located on a lot with lot frontage on Airport Boulevard or on any new street in the Anza Point subarea: (a) Front setback: There shall be an average front setback of fifteen (15) feet, with at least forty (40) percent of the structure at the maximum setback of fifteen (15) feet; (b) Side setback: There shall be a ten (10) foot side setback. 11 Anza Point North(APN)Zoning District Regulations February 21,2006 Draft 7 Annotation: The Subcommittee felt that there was a strong similarity between the "grand boulevard" vision for Bayshore Highway to support the new uses anticipated there and the development of the vacant land in the Anza Point North area. For that reason they suggested that the same setback requirements be used in both areas. The revisions reflect the changes to make the setback requirements the same. Original Annotation: The design guidelines do not suggest a standard for separation between structures or along side property lines for development on the large vacant parcels in the Anza Point subarea. However, the design guidelines do require that there be enough space between structures to provide a view corridor to the Bay Trail e.g. so people on the site are always aware of the proximity of the Bay Trail and how to get there. In the Shoreline subarea it was established that 20 feet between buildings was an adequate distance to provide a sense of the presence of San Francisco Bay. However, those guidelines also provided for larger "view" corridors by requiring that buildings not block more than 50% of the street frontage. In the case of the Anza Point area a 20 foot separation between buildings is suggested to establish view corridors to the Bay Trail. (c) Distance between buildings. To provide useable wind-sheltered outdoor area and to provide a visual connection to the Bay Trail,there shall be a distance of at least twenty(20) feet between buildings on the same lot. Annotation: The proposed change to this provision is to include a reason for the requirement for a minimum distance between buildings. Both are objectives of the adopted plan for this area. Original Annotation: One objective for design expressed in the plan for the Anza Point is to preserve the view through buildings to the Bay Trail and the adjacent water bodies. This provision is to insure that there is at least 20 feet between buildings where no side setback is required. (d) Rear setback: Structures shall be set back at least ten(10)feet from rear property line. Annotation: The subcommittee suggested that the rear setback requirement be taken from the Shoreline subarea, which is 10 feet. However in the Shoreline area there are also setbacks required when a property is has frontage on the bay. Since the existing lots in the Anza Point North area have bay frontage these provisions have been added below. Original Annotation: As with side setbacks the guidelines for the Anza Point subarea provide no measurable direction. However the guidelines encourage and promote provision of "parking internalized 12 Anza Point North(APA)Zoning District Regulations February 21,2006 Draft 7 and should have interior courts with open space to provide protection from the wind" . It seems appropriate that these open space areas would be shared between the rears of buildings e.g. 80 feet. (e) Setbacks from shoreline. In any event, structures shall be set back an average of sixty- five(65) feet from Sanchez Channel and seventy-five(75) feet from San Francisco Bay and the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; in addition,for any building that is forty(40) feet or taller, then the setback of the building to the shoreline shall be equal to or greater than the height of the building. Annotation: The subcommittee recommended adding the same shoreline setback provisions in the Anza Point North area as established for the Shoreline area. IN the Anza Point North area there are two types of bay frontage, San Francisco Bay proper and Sanchez Channel Greek. The BCDC guidelines treat these two waterways differently in terms of required setback. These different requirements are reflected in the provision. (f) In addition to the setbacks set forth above,there shall be a fifteen(15) foot setback from Airport Boulevard for all below grade construction. Annotation: The subcommittee wanted the standards for the Anza Point North area to be similar to those for the Inner Bayshore overlay zone along Bayshore Highway. In that area below grade garages and other below grade construction are required to be held back 15 feet from the property line along the street to insure that there is enough dirt to support viable landscaping and trees along the street. The same provision is added here for the same reason. (g) No parking spaces shall be provided within the ten(10) foot minimum setback across the lot front on any property. Driveways are allowed in the setback,but the driveways shall not be considered as landscaped area. No parking areas shall be located between any structure and the lot front, except for loading zones. Placement of parking shall be consistent with the design guidelines for the Anza Point subarea. Annotation: A design objective for the Anza Point North area is to establish a green edge along the paved street. Allowing parking within this area increases the dominance of the automobile. Because they address the interface of street, building and landscaping, the provisions of the Shoreline zoning were incorporated here. 13 Anza Point North(APN)Zoning District Regulations February 21,2006 Draft 7 Section 25.48.042 Height and bulk of buildings. (a) Maximum height shall be determined by impact on the prevailing wind and shall be staggered with a maximum height of thirty(30) feet along the eastern side of the lot, increasing in a graduated manner to a maximum of fifty(50) feet along the western, or Sanchez Channel, side as established in the Anza Point subarea design guidelines and consistent with the community wind standards. The maximum height may be exceeded by a mechanical penthouse with a maximum height of ten (10) feet as measured from the adjacent roof surface and covering no more than five (5) percent of the roof area. Annotation: In response to questions asked at the public hearing, the Subcommittee pointed out that the community height standards could not be exceeded with out amending the General Plan. The amendment to the General Plan would need to be based on completing a new area wide wind study to establish justification for a new community wind standard and which would be amended to the environmental study adopted with the Specific Plan. In addition the Subcommittee noted that the recreational opportunities being protected by the current community wind standard were an important community asset and of value to the future development and to the use of the Bay Trail in this now vacant area. However, the Subcommittee did recognize the need to clarify the height regulations as set out in this provision, by noting that the height standard (e.g. 30 feet or 50 feet) did include an additional allowance for roof top mechanical equipment, the same as any other commercial or industrial building in the city (e.g. coverage of up to 5% of the roof surface area with mechanical equipment no taller than 10 feet as measured from the adjacent surface of the roof. ) Larger roof top mechanical installations would be counted in the height of the building and could affect the overall height and number of floors allowed. For this reason the Subcommittee recommended that the figures on pages Bayfront SAP V-26 and V-27 be revised to show maximum building heights rather than number of stories since number of stories might be misleading to future developers . This change would take a General Plan amendment which will be considered for the Bayfront area when all the zoning districts have been approved. (b) Maximum bulk and mass shall be determined by the floor area ratio established in the Bayfront Specific Plan for the land uses in the Anza Point subarea. and Where no floor area ratio is provided, mass and bulk shall be based on the adopted design guidelines, the development constraints documented in the Bayfront Specific Plan, and the zoning regulations where the property is located. Annotation: The subcommittee discussed the problems of letter FAR determine mass and bulk without limiting lot coverage. They concluded that since 14 Anza Point North(APN)Zoning District Regulations February2l,2006 Draft 7 the minimum lot size is 4 acres in this area with real landscape requirements, even with the strict height limits, it is unlikely that a minimum lot size would be a necessary regulation. Original Annotation: The specific plan recognizes that the environmental constraints on the vacant northern portion of the Anza Point subarea are different from the developed Beach and Lang Road area. The primary difference is the importance of wind to the recreation uses immediately adjacent in the Coyote Point Recreation Area. For this reason, the plan establishes particular height restrictions for future development in the northern portion of the Anza Point subarea. This section documents and establishes as regulations those height restrictions . Section 25.48.045 Minimum lot size and street frontage.. There shall be a minimum lot size of feu(4) two(2) acres and a minimum street frontage of one hundred fifty(150) feet. No property in the district maybe divided or subdivided into a lot with less area or less street frontage. Annotation: The Subcommittee expressed concern that in the future the large parcels which now compose the APN zone would be divided, in order to promote immediate sale, into small parcels which could not be developed or maintained over time in a manner consistent with the design guidelines in the Bayfront Plan. The Subcommittee felt that 2 acre parcels (minimum) with required street frontage the same as exists in the Anza Point South district was appropriate. First, the 2 acre minimum would give the future developer flexibility in size and shape while retaining sufficient area on the site to address the required design guidelines and development requirements. Often use drives the size of parcel in the sense hotel developers usually look for a minimum parcel size as do other users. Because there are 16 acres in one site and about 9 acres on the other a mix of uses would dictate division into a variety of sized lots, many larger than two acres. So to organize the division to have a remainder site of two acres, which is a viable size for a number of uses based on past experience in the Bayfront area, does not appear to be unreasonable. The minimum street frontage requirement proposed is the same as the size adopted in the Anza Point South district, immediately west of the Anza Point North district. Using this minimum frontage should provide a consistency of pattern and equity between the development in the two areas, although the uses promoted in each district are different. Finally, it should be noted that the minimum parcel size does not affect commercial condominium development because with condominiums the ownership of the land is joint, while the ownership 15 Anza Point North(APN)Zoning District Regulations February 21,2006 Draft 7 of the unit is individual e.g. condominium ownership does not require the further subdivision of the underlying property. Original Annotation: This is the same minimum lot size requirement used in the Inner Bayshore and Shoreline subareas . As written it would apply to the entire Anza Point subarea. The two vacant parcels in the Anza Point subarea are 15 and 9 acres . They are among the last of the larger parcels in the city. Section 25.48.048 No variance for lot size and street frontage. Notwithstanding any other provision of this code, no variance for lot size or street frontage shall be granted to any property within this district. Annotation: Based on the fact that the Anza Point North area contains the largest vacant land area in the city and one purpose of the Specific Plan is to see that this area is developed in a manner which is consistent with the image of Burlingame as defined in the adopted design guidelines for the area, the Subcommittee felt that the minimum lot size and street frontage established for the APN should not be eligible for variance. The city' s past experience with creating and developing smaller parcels (see Inner Bayshore and Shoreline area) is that it is very difficult to achieve the community goals of consistent visual and pedestrian access to the bay and unified, attractive and quality design in new development. Moreover, because consolidation of small parcels is cost prohibitive 20 years later new development opportunities which would upgrade older development do not occur. For these reasons, the Subcommittee felt that the minimum lot size and street frontage established for the APN should not be eligible for variance. Moreover, because commercial condominium ownership which can occur in office buildings or biotech office space does not cause the division of the underlying property, the Subcommittee felt that the needs of individual small users could be met without variance to either lot size or street frontage. Original Annotation: Same requirement as in other Bayfront subareas. Purpose of this provision is to keep smaller lots that will be inefficient to develop in a manner consistent with the design guidelines from being further subdivided. Existing nonconforming lots, those smaller than the minimum, are not affected and may be developed, they just can' t be further divided. Section 25.48.050 Landscaping. The following landscaping requirements shall apply to all lots: 16 Anza Point North (APN) Zoning District Regulations February 21, 2006 Draft 7 (a) The landscape requirements of the design guidelines for the Anza Point subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan as adopted by the city council shall be met; and (b) A minimum of ten (10) percent of the parking area shall be landscaped; and (c) A minimum of eighty (80) percent of the front setback shall be landscaped; and (d) A minimum of forty (40) percent of the lot area within the Bay Conservation and Development Commission jurisdiction shall be landscaped. Annotation : The measurable standards are taken from the design guidelines as adopted for the Anza Point subarea . This section is intended to include the design standards which are more subjective as well e . g . the purpose of (a) . Section 25.48.052 Design review . Construction and alterations including substantial construction or change to more than fifty (50) percent of the front fagade or change to more than fifty (50) percent of any facade facing a public or private street, parking lot, or the Bay Trail shall be subject to design review based on the design guidelines for the Anza Point North subarea of the Bayfront Specific Plan and shall be processed as provided in section 25.57.030. (a) A design review application in the APN district shall be reviewed by the planning commission for the following considerations: (1) Support of the pattern of diverse architectural styles as defined in the design guidelines for the Anza Point subarea and the role of the shoreline in creating a network of interconnected open spaces; (2) Respect and promotion of the streetscape by the placement of buildings to maximize the commercial use of the street frontage, off-street public spaces , and by locating parking so that it does not dominate street frontages, and for properties fronting on Airport Boulevard, that the design is sensitive to the surrounding bodies of water, physical and visual presence of the Bay Trail, orientation of the prevailing winds and to the Coyote Point recreation area; (3) On visually prominent and sites with shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, the design shall fit the site, support the Bay Trail and its park and recreational uses, provide for maximum user access and support recreational use by those who work in the area as well as those who visit; and the design is compatible with the surrounding development and consistent with the design guidelines for the Anza Point subarea; (4) Compatibility of the architecture and landscaping with the design guidelines for the Anza Point subarea including materials used in existing development, 17 Anza Point North(APN)Zoning District Regulations February 21,2006 Draft 7 location and use of plant materials, and compatibility with transitions where changes in land use occur nearby; (5) Architectural design consistency by using a single architectural style on the site that is consistent among primary elements of the structure(s) and consistent with the directives of the design guidelines for the Anza Point subarea; and (6) Provision of site features identified in the design guidelines such as orientation to minimize wind obstruction on San Francisco Bay, landscaping, and pedestrian circulation which enriches and enhances the existing recreation opportunities of the area, including extension of the Bay Trail. Annotation: The Subcommittee felt that especially in this subarea where water bounds three sides, that emphasis on the bay trail and access should be included in the design criteria. So the criteria have been amended to increase the emphasis on visual and physical access to the bay trail and noting that the design should support the trail . Original Annotation: Three criteria have been derived from the adopted design guidelines. There are to be used as the basis for findings for design review. (b) When any part of a commercial structure is subject to design review, any awnings on the commercial structures shall be included in the design review. (c) Exemptions from design review: (1) Applications for building permits or planning approvals for development in the Anza Point North district filed before (2) Any amendment to a project exempt from design review pursuant to subsection(1) above shall be subject to design review if the project involved would have otherwise been subject to design review under subsection above, the project has not been completed, and the amendment would extend any structure involved in the application outside the envelope of the structure for which the approval was granted or sought in the underlying application or would change a fagade . Changes to, additions of, or deletions of awnings as an amendment to a project shall not trigger design review under this subsection. Annotation: This section was added as a precaution. There are no structures in the Anza Point North area at this time. However, should any be built before these zoning regulations area adopted this would apply. It was noted that in the design review regulations there is a provision which addressed existing structures and established a base line for when they would be subject to design review under the 18 Anza Point North(APN)Zoning District Regulations February 21,2006 Draft 7 provisions of this current code amendment . If a new structure includes awnings as a design feature they are subject to design review, but if an owner wants to replace or add awnings to an existing structure, the awnings will not trigger design review, as these provisions are proposed above. Section 25.48.060 Public access. Public access shall be maintained and developed based on the city-adopted and Bay Conservation and Development Commission-approved Public Access Guidelines for Burlingame based on the applicable water frontage as follows: (a) On San Francisco Bay proper: An average setback of seventy-five (75) feet of the lot as measured from the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; in no case shall the area as measured from the top of bank be less than the minimum width for the Bay Trail as required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; and (b) On Sanchez Channel: An average setback of sixty-five (65) feet as measured from the shoreline as defined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission; in no case shall the area as measured from the top of bank be less than the minimum width for the Bay Trail as required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Annotation: There are two "bay frontages" in the Anza Point subarea, San Francisco Bay on the north and east sides and Sanchez Channel and Burlingame Lagoon on the west side. The access guidelines jointly adopted by the city and BCDC in 1982 set a different standard for the portion of the BCDC 100 foot jurisdiction which must be set aside to support the Bay Trail . All properties with frontage on San Francisco Bay proper are required to leave an average of 75 feet along their water frontage in open space to support the Bay Trail . All properties with frontage on Burlingame Lagoon and Sanchez Channel are required to leave an average of 65 feet along the channel in open space. These areas are measured from the water side from the BCDC jurisdiction line e.g. the highest, high tide line. (c) All areas improved for public access within the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission shall be maintained by the property owner and shall be available to the public in perpetuity as determined by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Annotation: This provision is included to inform developers and provide property owners that it is their responsibility to install, maintain and allow the public unlimited use of the Bay Trail and the open space portion of the site which includes the bay trail . 19 Anza Point North(APN)Zoning District Regulations February 21,2006 Draft 7 Section 25.48.080 Parking requirements. All uses shall provide parking space in accordance with the applicable provisions of chapter 25.70 of this code,with the following changes or additions: (a) Food establishments. (1)Food establishments that are the primary use of the lot shall provide the following: (A) Customer parking shall be provided on-site at the rate of one parking space for each one hundred(100) square feet of gross floor area; and (B) In addition, employee parking shall be provided on-site or within reasonable proximity, in the judgment of the city planner, at the rate of one parking space for each one thousand(1,000) square feet of gross floor area; (2)Food establishments that are located in an office building of 20,000 square feet or more or that are not the primary use of the lot shall provide parking on-site at the rate of one parking space for each three hundred(300) square feet of gross floor area of food establishment. However, food establishments located within a hotel or motel are not required to provide the additional parking required under this subsection unless the food establishment has a public entrance that opens directly to the exterior of the building. (b) Instructional uses. Instructional uses related to a permitted or conditional use shall provide parking on-site at the rate of one space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area; (c) Health services and medical clinics. Health service and medical clinic uses shall provide parking on-site at the rate of one (1) parking space for each three hundred (300) square feet of gross floor area occupied by the uses; Annotation: Since health services and medical clinics are allowed in the Anza Point North district because they are compatible with biotech uses and support other employee-intensive office uses. This is the same basis used for allowing health services and medical clinics in the Inner Bayshore district and the same parking provision is proposed. Experience has supported that if an office building is over 20, 000 SF and parking on site meets the City' s parking requirement of 1:300 SF for office, up to 5, 000 SF of health service in the building will have little impact on the availability of parking. (c) Bay Trail parking. On sites with frontage on San Francisco Bay and its estuary including Anza Lagoon, Sanchez Channel, and Burlingame Lagoon, the Bay Conservation and Development Commission shall determine the number of on-site parking spaces to be designated for public Bay Trail Access parking; these on-site spaces shall be designated from the required parking for the site, shall be available to 20 Anza Point North(APN)Zoning District Regulations February 21,2006 Draft 7 the public without charge during the hours that the Bay Trail is open, and shall be posted as public access parking by the property owner as required by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. (d)Hotels. A hotel shall provide one additional, designated parking space for a shuttle bus. Annotation: Because they are destinations and the only access to the area is by car, food establishments in the Bayfront area are required to provide more on-site parking(1:100 GSF plus 1:1000 GSF)than food establishments downtown. As written here the on-site parking requirement for a food establishment in with a separate entrance in a hotel is 1:200 GSF, the same as downtown. Presently, and with these provisions, no additional parking beside that required for the hotel(1 space per room) is required for a restaurant which does not have its own exterior entrance. When the subcommittee expanded the support retail uses in large office buildings,they felt that limiting the total to 1,500SF would keep such uses from becoming a destination and generating additional parking at the site. Moreover, there are economies of scale in the usage of parking in large buildings because not all the employees who work there are there every day. As a result this lower parking ratio has worked well when used similarly in the O-M district. The same economies of scale in use of parking as experienced for employee serving food sales have been found to work for instructional uses, so long as the educational use does not take over the entire building. In the case of these zoning provisions the greatest amount of school use allowed would be 10,000 SF in a building which is at least 20,000 SF. Section 3. A new Section 25.16.145 is added to the Zoning Code to read as follows: 25.16.145 Ambiguity of use. If any ambiguity arises concerning the appropriate classification of a particular use within the meaning and intent of this title, any person may apply to the city planner for a determination of the ambiguity, and the planner's shall be subject to appeal pursuant to this chapter. Annotation: This will place this general provision in Chapter 25 . 16 replacing individual provisions in various zoning districts, and apply the process to all of the City' s zoning districts. Section 4. A new definition to be added "Time Share Property" CS 25.08.649 "Time share property" or interval ownership" or "condominium hotel" means a "time- share property as defined in Business and Professions Code section 11212 without regard to any minimum number of time-share interests or minimum of years of use. Annotation: Time share property is a relatively new ownership concept which has emerged since the last major revision to the zoning ordinance in 21 Anza Point North(APN)Zoning District Regulations February 21,2006 Draft 7 1954. It has been called by a number of names including 'interval ownership' and 'condominium hotel'. Because the use raises issues about land use and it has become a common type of ownership/use, it is appropriate to add a definition to the city's zoning code. Because of the 'morphing' of this use, it operation and the terminology used to define it, it seemed most appropriate to reference its definition in our code to the one used by the State of California (Business and Professions Code section 11212) . This means that as the State definition is refined by legislation the city's definition will automatically be amended. A copy of the State code section is attached for your reference and documents the complexity created as this use concept evolves along with the evolution of the methods of operation. This state definition is supported by case law which has defined time share properties' as residential in terms of ownership and use, e.g. your participation entitles you to live in the "unit" for a given period of time. For this reason, such uses are usually exempt from paying Transient Occupancy Tax to the city. (See also the annotation on page 10-11 above) . 03/17/06 22 BUS & PROF § 11212, Definitions Page 1 *26320 West's Ann.Cal.Bus. & Prof.Code § in a time-share plan. 11212 (d) "Assessment" means the share of funds WEST'S ANNOTATED required for the payment of common expenses CALIFORNIA CODES which is assessed from time to time against each BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS purchaser by the managing entity. CODE DIVISION 4. REAL ESTATE (e) "Commissioner" means the Real Estate Commissioner. PART 2. REGULATION OF TRANSACTIONS (f) "Component site" means a specific CHAPTER 2. THE VACATION geographic location where accommodations that OWNERSHIP AND TIME- are part of a multisite time-share plan are located. SHARE ACT OF 2004 Separate phases of a time-share property in a ARTICLE 1. GENERAL specific geographic location and under common PROVISIONS management shall not be deemed a component site. Current with all 2005 laws, Governor's (g) "Conspicuous type" means either of the Reorganization Plans No. I & 2, and all following: propositions appearing on the Nov. 8 2005 ballot (1) Type in upper and lower case letters two § 11212. Definitions point sizes larger than the nearest nonconspicuous type, exclusive of headings, on the page on which As used in this chapter, the following it appears but in at least 10-point type. definitions apply: *26321 (2) Conspicuous type may be utilized in (a) "Accommodation" means any apartment, contracts for purchase or public permits only condominium or cooperative unit, cabin, lodge, Where required by law or as authorized by the hotel or motel room, or other private or commissioner. commercial structure containing toilet facilities therein that is designed and available, pursuant to (h) "Department" means the Department of Real applicable law, for use and occupancy as a Estate. residence by one or more individuals, or any unit or berth on a commercial passenger ship, which is (i) "Developer" means and includes any person included in the offering of a time-share plan. who creates a time-share plan or is in the business of selling time-share interests, other than those (b) "Advertisement" means any written, oral, or employees or agents of the developer who sell electronic communication that is directed to or time-share interests on the developer's behalf, or targeted to persons within the state or such a employs agents to do the same, or any person who communication made from this state or relating to succeeds to the interest of a developer by sale, a time-share plan located in this state and contains lease, assignment, mortgage, or other transfer, but a promotion, inducement, or offer to sell a time- the term includes only those persons who offer share plan, including, but not limited to, time-share interests for disposition in the ordinary brochures, pamphlets, radio and television scripts, course of business. electronic media, telephone and direct mail solicitations, and other means of promotion. (j) "Dispose" or "disposition" means a voluntary transfer or assignment of any legal or equitable (c) "Association" means the organized body interest in a time-share plan, other than the consisting of the purchasers of time-share interests transfer, assignment, or release of a security © 2006 Thomson/West. No claim to original U.S. Govt. works. BUS&PROF§ 11212,Definitions page 2 interest. owners of time-share interests in the time-share plan is limited to a term of not more than three (k) "Exchange company" means any person years, subject to renewal or extension. The term owning or operating, or both owning and shall not include an offer of the use of the operating,an exchange program. accommodation, product, service, discount, or other benefit on a free or discounted one-time (1) "Exchange program" means any method, basis. arrangement, or procedure for the voluntary exchange of time-share interests or other property (n) "Managing entity" means the person who interests. The term does not include the undertakes the duties, responsibilities, and assignment of the right to use and occupy obligations of the management of a time-share accommodations to owners of time-share interests plan. within a single site time-share plan. Any method, arrangement, or procedure that otherwise meets (o) "Offer" means any inducement, solicitation, this definition in which the purchaser's total or other attempt, whether by marketing, contractual financial obligation exceeds three advertisement, oral or written presentation, or any thousand dollars ($3,000) per any individual, other means, to encourage a person to acquire a recurring time-share period, shall be regulated as a time-share interest in a time-share plan, other than time-share plan in accordance with this chapter. as security for an obligation. For purposes of determining the purchaser's total contractual financial obligation, amounts to be (p) "Person" means a natural person, paid as a result of renewals and options to renew corporation, limited liability company, shall be included in the term except for the partnership,joint venture, association,estate,trust, following: (1) amounts to be paid as a result of government, governmental subdivision or agency, any optional renewal that a purchaser,in his or her or other legal entity,or any combination thereof. sole discretion may elect to exercise, (2) amounts to be paid as a result of any automatic renewal in (q) "Promotion" means a plan or device, which the purchaser has a right to terminate including one involving the possibility of a during the renewal period at any time and receive prospective purchaser receiving a vacation, a pro rata refund for the remaining unexpired discount vacation, gift, or prize, used by a renewal term, or(3)amounts to be paid as a result developer, or an agent, independent contractor, or of an automatic renewal in which the purchaser employee of any of the same on behalf of the receives a written notice no less than 30 nor more developer,in connection with the offering and sale than 90 days prior to the date of renewal of time-share interests in a time-share plan. informing the purchaser of the right to terminate prior to the date of renewal. Notwithstanding (r) "Public report" means a preliminary public these exceptions, if the contractual financial report, conditional public report, final public obligation exceeds three thousand dollars ($3,000) report, or other such disclosure document for any three-year period of any renewal term, authorized for use in connection with the offering amounts to be paid as a result of that renewal shall of time-share interests pursuant to this chapter. be included in determining the purchaser's total contractual financial obligation. (s) "Purchaser" means any person, other than a developer, who by means of a voluntary transfer *26322 (m) "Incidental benefit" is an for consideration acquires a legal or equitable accommodation, product, service, discount, or interest in a time-share plan other than as security other benefit, other than an exchange program, for an obligation. that is offered to a prospective purchaser of a time- share interest prior to the end of the rescission (t) "Purchase contract" means a document period set forth in Section 11238, the continuing pursuant to which a developer becomes legally availability of which for the use and enjoyment of obligated to sell, and a purchaser becomes legally ©2006 Thomson/West.No claim to original U.S.Govt.works. BUS&PROF§ 11212,Definitions Page 3 obligated to buy, a time-share interest. (2) A "time-share use," which is the right to occupy a time-share property, which right is (u) "Reservation system" means the method, neither coupled with a freehold interest, nor arrangement, or procedure by which a purchaser, coupled with an estate for years with a future in order to reserve the use or occupancy of any interest,in a time-share property. accommodation of a multisite time-share plan for one or more time-share periods, is required to (y) "Time-share period" means the period or compete with other purchasers in the same periods of time when the purchaser of a time-share multisite time-share plan, regardless of whether plan is afforded the opportunity to use the the reservation system is operated and maintained accommodations of a time-share plan. by the multisite time-share plan managing entity, an exchange company, or any other person. If a (z) "Time-share plan" means any arrangement, purchaser is required to use an exchange program plan, scheme, or similar device, other than an as the purchaser's principal means of obtaining the exchange program, whether by membership right to use and occupy accommodations in a agreement, sale, lease, deed, license, right to use multisite time-share plan, that arrangement shall agreement, or by any other means, whereby a be deemed a reservation system. When an purchaser, in exchange for consideration, receives exchange company utilizes a mechanism for the ownership rights in or the right to use exchange of use of time-share periods among accommodations for a period of time less than a members of an exchange program, that utilization full year during any given year, on a recurring is not a reservation system of a multisite time- basis for more than one year, but not necessarily share plan. for consecutive years. A time-share plan may be either of the following: *26323 (v) "Short-term product" means the right to use accommodations on a one-time or (1) A "single site time-share plan," which is the recurring basis for a period or periods not to right to use accommodations at a single time-share exceed 30 days per stay and for a term of three property. years or less, and that includes an agreement that all or a portion of the consideration paid by a (2) A "multisite time-share plan," which person for the short-term product will be applied includes either of the following: to or credited against the price of a future purchase of a time-share interest or that the cost of a future (A) A "specific time-share interest," which is purchase of a time-share interest will be fixed or the right to use accommodations at a specific time- locked-in at a specified price. share property, together with use rights in accommodations at one or more other component (w) "Time-share instrument"means one or more sites created by or acquired through the time-share documents, by whatever name denominated, plan's reservation system. creating or governing the operation of a time-share plan and includes the declaration dedicating (B) A "nonspecific time-share interest," which accommodations to the time-share plan. is the right to use accommodations at more than one component site created by or acquired through (x) "Time-share interest" means and includes the time-share plan's reservation system, but either of the following: including no specific right to use any particular accommodations. (1) A "time-share estate," which is the right to occupy a time-share property, coupled with a *26324 (aa) "Time-share property" means one freehold estate or an estate for years with a future or more accommodations subject to the same time- interest in a time-share property or a specified share instrument, together with any other property portion thereof. or rights to property appurtenant to those accommodations. ©2006 Thomson/West.No claim to original U.S. Govt.works. BUS&PROF§ 11212,Definitions Page 4 CREDIT(S) Debts for assessments that arise on and after Jan. 1, 2006, collection of delinquent assessments, see Civil (Added by Stats.2004, c. 697 (A.B.2252), § 14, eff. July 1, Code§ 1367.4. 2005) Multisite time-share plans, applicants for public reports, certification requirements, see Business and <General Materials (GM) - References, Professions Code§ 11226. Annotations, or Tables> CODE OF REGULATIONS REFERENCES HISTORICAL NOTES "Developer"defined,see 10 Cal.Code of Regs.§2805. HISTORICAL AND STATUTORY Reservation rights,see 10 Cal.Code of Regs.§2805.9. NOTES RESEARCH REFERENCES 2006 Electronic Pocket Part Update Encyclopedias Derivation: Former § 11003.5, added by Stats.1980, c. 601, p. 1654, § 6, amended by Stats.1996, c. 541 CA Jur.3d Hotels and Motels§ 18,Licenses and Taxes. (A.B.2530),§ 10; Stats.2000,c.522(A.B.935),§ 1. CA Jur. 3d Pollution and Conservation Laws § 298, REFERENCES Exemptions and Exclusions from Permit Requirements. CROSS REFERENCES CA Jur.3d Property Taxes§ 131,Time-Share Projects. CA Jur.3d Property Taxes§ 156,Overview. Common interest developments, notice of assessments, see Civil Code§ 1367.1. Current through Ch. 729 (end) of 2005 Reg.Sess. Common interest developments, notice to members of urgency legislation & Governor's Reorganization association prior to beginning of fiscal year, see Plans No. 1& 2 of 2005, and all Initiative Civil Code§ 1365.1. Measures Appearing on Nov. 8,2005 ballot ©2006 Thomson/West.No claim to original U.S. Govt.works. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 Commissioners discussion: It is a good point that this zoning should be kept moving however,would like to look at this as a complete district,so should consider continuing until the Group Residential facility issues can be resolved;not see a problem to carve out that piece and move the rest on;what about the other issues think parish houses and convents OK but no financial institutions in the Marco Polo overlay area;CA noted that a parish house or convent was like an apartment house. C.Osterling made a motion to continue this item for two weeks so that staff could bring back the issue of the separation of convalescent facilities and group residential facilities for the elderly. The motion died for want of a second. Comment on the motion: endorse sending this forward, think solution is simple, assisted living provides different kinds of services with a different impact on parking. C.Brownrigg made a motion to move the TW district regulations forward without CS 25.40.050(4)group residential facilities and convalescent facilities and with the recommendation that financial institutions be deleted from the Marco Polo overlay and that parish houses and convents be allowed in the district. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the ordinance to the City Council for adoption with the amendments proposed. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.Vistica absent)voice vote. This item will be taken forward to the City Council. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. �8. BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA AREA, ANZA POINT NORTH AND ANZA POINT SOUTH DISTRICTS — CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE (NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND 40 NOTICED) (REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE HEARING ON THE ANZA POINT NORTH ZONING DISTRICT) Reference staff report August 22,2005,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting that this public hearing was noticed for three zoning districts Anza Area,Anza Point North and Anza Point South. Attached to the packet is a request to continue the hearing on Anza Point North district. The Commission may decide to continue the hearing on the Anza Point North district, any testimony on that district this evening will be carried over to the continued hearing. CP noted that an Errata for the Bayfront zones was placed at the Commissioner's desks tonight. The errata includes minor edits to make language in the six new zoning districts in the Bayfront consistent. These edits should be considered at the public hearing on the zoning districts tonight. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Nikki Zito, 615 Airport Blvd; spoke. Last April when the plan was approved it was determined that there would be no residential uses in the Bayfront area,do not recall extended stay hotels being allowed,concerned that given their design,if one of these hotels should close it could easily be converted to some kind of residential use; the plan states on pages 4-5 that hotel density was increased for extended stay hotels;in TW district extended stay hotels are allowed because they are compatible with the residential district, should consider dropping the idea of extended stay hotels in these proposed zoning districts. What is an "apartment hotel"? CP noted that this term has been dropped from the code;she referred to the errata sheet of corrections. CA noted that extended stay and time share condominiums were discussed during the planning process. Council determined that extended stay hotels were appropriate in part because they are a hotel product meeting a special customer 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 22, 2005 need not currently provided in the city's hotel market. Time share condominiums, even if built as hotels, were determined at that time by City Council to be residential uses and excluded from the Bayfront area. Commissioners discussed the 29 day limitation on occupancy caused by the Transient Occupancy Tax,and how that would be affected by extended stay hotels. CP noted that at the time the plan was being approved the hotel industry provided information which documented that not many of the hotel stays in an extended stay hotel exceeded 29 days. Would like to know how the revised zoning will affect the future uses of properties in the Anza Area. CP suggested that she sit down with Mrs.Zito and review the provisions of the new zoning district along with her particular property interests. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: how would a limitation on rooms affect an extended stay hotel? CA noted probably not much since the characteristic of an extended stay hotel is the configuration of the room;how is an extended stay hotel differentiated from an apartment building? CA noted given the density of the hotel, the cost of land would prohibit the hotel from becoming an apartment complex.Could extended stay hotels be made a conditional use so that appropriate limitations could be placed on them to keep them from becoming residential uses?Suggest that extended stay hotels be shifted to only a conditional use in the Anza Area and Anza Point North districts. C.Keighran moved to recommend the Anza Area and Anza Point South zoning districts to the City Council for approval with the amendment of the errata sheet corrections and that extended stay hotels be made a conditional use only in the Anza Area and Anza Point North zoning districts. The motion was seconded by Ralph Osterling. Chair Auran noted that the public hearing on the Anza Point North district is continued to the Commission meeting of September 12,2005,including the direction that extended stay hotels be made a conditional use in the Anza Point North district. Tonight's action will not include the Anza Point North district. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the Anza Area and Anza Point South zoning districts to the City Council for approval with the errata sheet corrections and making extended stay hotels a conditional use in the Anza Area district. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica absent)voice vote. There is no appeal this item will be set for City Council action. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 379 LEXINGTON WAY, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION(CHRISTOPHER MAFFEI,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;HERMANN DIEDERICH, ARCHITECT) (63 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Hermann Diederich,architect and Christopher Maffei,property owner and applicant,represented the project. They stated they wanted to stay within the lines ofthe existing roof; wanted to stay within design of existing neighborhood; set back front addition; changed siding to shingle cedar siding so that house has uniformity to it. Commission stated:front porch post is small in scale, trellis in rear has small scale posts, and living room lacks window area. Applicant responded that post in front could be made larger and more decorative,trellis posts also could be made larger and more decorative and that windows could be added to the living room area. Commission asked what will the second floor 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall become void; 14)that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Chief Building Official's,Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's June 28,2004,memos shall be met; and 15)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-0-2-1 (Cers.Cauchi and Keighran absent,Vistica abstained). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. C. Vistica took his seat on the dial. 7. BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION: ANZA POINT NORTH ZONING DISTRICT —CITY PLANNER:MARGARET MONROE(40 NOTICED)(CONTINUED FROMA UGUST22,2005 MEETING) Reference staff report September 12,2005,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report noting that this item was continued from the previous meeting at the request of the representative of the property at 301/309 Airport,because of the wish to discuss issues relating to height,minimum lot size,minimum street frontage and land use(allowing medical clinics/health service uses) Only one change was proposed from the previous meeting and that was to shift extended stay hotels from a permitted to a conditional use. Commissioners asked that there has been a lot of concern about wind,observe fewer wind surfers in this area today than two years ago, there are other locations in the county to serve wind surfers, might it be wise to increase the limit for height covered by a conditional use permit. CP noted that the wind standards which are driving the height regulations as proposed for this area are established in the adopted plan,community wind standard section;if they are substantially exceeded the specific plan will need to be amended and that could trigger a new environmental document on the specific plan. Wasn't the part of the 16 acre site on Beach Road subdivided off in the past?CP noted that was her understanding,however all the acreage is still in one ownership. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, and Jim Madden and Tom Gilman DES Architecture represented the property at 3 01/3 09 Airport Blvd.;Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue;John Ward,representing the property owners at 350 Airport Blvd.;Tom Baluchi, 114 Stanley Road;all spoke on the zoning proposal. Owner at 309 Airport wants a development of signature buildings on this site that will cause people in airplanes and on 101 to want to come and see what's there, need good mix of buildings, biotech and hotel, market is competitive for these uses in this area today, regulations should say"come to Burlingame to invest",not much city can do now but maximize flexibility for development,50 feet too short, barely 4 stories for Class A office building, minimum 4 acre lot size too big, never seen so large a requirement in this area-sending a message that cannot optimally divide. Did studies of various lot sizes and arrangements within 309 Airport parcel,need to sell off buildings individually so need smaller parcels,need enough flexibility for economic success;biotech buildings have 17'floor to floor,Class A office tight with 12.5'floor to floor;biotech also requires 15 foot penthouse for equipment which can cover 30%to 85%of the roof area and at grade service areas for gases and other storage of 2,500 to 3,000 SF for each building, there are covered loading areas and enclosures for trash recycling needed. So want building height and lot size kept flexible--only way to meet master plan goals. Other communities have minimum lots sizes of 20,000 SF with 100 foot frontages, in order to finance developers have to be able to sell buildings independently,the market in this area is not for 100,000 SF buildings but for 30,000 SF,so need to be able to do for economics. Commissioner asked how FAR's worked, Architect noted that smaller the site the harder to maximize FAR allowed because of other requirements such as parking and open space. Generally 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2005 2 to 3 story buildings have FAR of 0.6 with parking at grade. What is the ideal footprint for biotech? Generally 25,000 SF to 30,000 SF per floor,labs need more space,research and development fits in 25,000 SF. How tall is Gilliard, is it typical? One and two stories, and yes its typical, although Genintech is 5 stories of mixed use. Developer is proposing 3 and 4 stories in order to keep people in the same building; west coast has taken longer to get people into taller buildings. Commissioner noted that 16 acres provides a campus opportunity with many small users. Owner wants option to subdivide later for multiple users. Additional public comment:remember at workshop Buddhist group want to buy 301 Airport and put a hotel on it, seems like someone tore down the drive-in too soon;wind surfing is a seasonal sport and dependent upon winds strongest in the Spring and in October,three places to do sport in San Mateo county,County put in Seal Point Park for wind surfers but behind a hill and no wind,this site attracts development,benefit from open water,support recreation activities on the bay;not sure want a deadly virus in Burlingame;do not want taller buildings,am a bicyclist, affected by wind as well;remember that the runway extension closer to our shores will happen one day as well, this could affect building height; like 4 acre parcels, keep from subdividing so it will not look like the Beach and Lang Road area,part of taller buildings could be put under ground, medical uses are not allowed in this area now, does biotech open the door to medical uses? Represent the 9 acre parcel at 350 Airport,may remember during public hearing on plan owner asked City Council to consider"time share" ownership; innovative approach to continue strong growth in hospitality industry,something like extended stay hotel,does not give rise to residential uses average stay is 1-2 weeks; no plan presently for development on this site,would like to include time share with CUP for extended stay. Resident recalled public hearing in 1960's and 1970's which called out a vision for the area similar to South San Francisco, was concerned that the commission did not realize what opportunity the city has on the Bayfront,there are plenty of places for the wind surfers to go,eventually the runways are going to be built, have a gold mine at this location, allow developers to do what they want.There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: compelling issues,need to think more about minimum size and time share; CA noted that City Council directed staff to look at time share,were waiting for input property owner said was going to provide, there is no definition or status of ownership known at this time, Council specifically deferred action at the time of adopting the plan. Height issue is that the specific plan has been adopted, standard was based on specific site studies and on careful technical analysis by most qualified wind people in area,from this came the community wind standard,if change is needed,will need to amend the specific plan (and general plan)and open the current plan document to further environmental analysis. Would like to give the property owners some leeway over the 50 foot maximum.CA like a maximum number,without have to do an EIR because of cumulative impact(e.g. effect of wind on water and at grade on adjacent properties), these wind studies are very expensive,the purpose of the plan standard is to avoid these costly studies and define what will work. Can revise height over 50 feet that requires a conditional use permit? CA noted could go to 20 feet maximum and stay within range. Height is based on community standards where did stories come from? CP noted that the number of stores was put in the design guidelines to illustrate how the gradient in height caused by the wind standard was to work for development on the site. If wanted to illustrate height gradient in another way in the plan beside stories that would require a general plan amendment. Commission noted taking out the stories restriction might be one less restriction. Also need to look at minimum lot size,4 acres seems to reduce flexibility,could a Planned Unit Development concept be used?CA noted that the city does not have a Planned Unit Development ordinance,CP noted that have done similar in the past(301 Airport office project example)with a phased development plan at approval,actually gives a longer time frame than a PUD. With PUD the city would have no control over how or what size parcels would be sold off,but could have more uniform development. Subcommittee focused on a narrower line of thinking,options within the height,work with the developer,focus on the issues raised. Difficult to 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 12,2005 ask developer because he will always want a bigger building,more FAR. Should refer back to subcommittee for one review;need to appoint third member of subcommittee.Subcommittee might also consider PUD and its use;need to refer to subcommittee. C.Vistica moved to continue this item and to refer it back to the subcommittee for further review of the items raised at this hearing. The motion was seconded by C.Auran. The motion passed on a 5-0-2(Cers. Cauchi and Keighran absent).voice vote. Chair Auran appointed C.Vistica to the Bayfront Subcommittee. This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m. 8. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN IMPLEMENTATION:PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE TROUSDALE WEST DISTRICT—DENSITY FOR GROUP RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES CITY PLANNER:MARGARET MONROE(NEWSPAPER NOTICE AND 212 NOTICED) Reference staff report September 12,2005,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report noting that the Commission at their last meeting forwarded the Trousdale West regulation to the City Council without the provisions for convalescent hospitals and group residential facilities for the elderly.Tonight the hearing is on separating the regulation of convalescent hospitals from group residential facilities and establishing different standards for determining density for each,based on the nature of the services offered,the needs of the clients,and the differing number of employees required for each type of service. Commission asked if parking numbers shown in letter from Sunrise are similar to city's experience.CP indicated that the proposed Sunrise project meets city on site parking requirements and we have had no problems with other similar facilities built in the city based on these on-site parking requirements. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue, noted that with current demographics more people are going to need the service of these facilities and they will not be driving,using parking to establish density for group residential facilities for the elderly is the right direction to go;don't think family members visiting will affect the neighbors a lot. There were no finther comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C.Osterling made a motion to recommend the amendment as proposed in the staff report to the Trousdale West zoning district regulations for convalescent hospitals and group residential facilities for the elderly to city council for action. There were no firther comments and the public hearing was closed. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: using the current on site parking requirements to determine the density of the group residential facility for the elderly is logical since it is based on the way multiple family residential densities are established in the R-3 and R-4 zoning districts,it is a standard the city has used overtime with success and no complaints,and,in this area,the proximity to BART insures that some employees will use mass transit to work rather than bring their cars. This action will facilitate the development of convalescent hospitals and group residential care facilities for the elderly within this zoning district as support uses to the hospital,consistent with the specific plan. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend to the Council for approval the amendment for group residential facilities for the elderly and convalescent hospitals to the Trousdale West zoning district regulations. The motion passed on a 5-0-2(Cers.Cauchi and Keighran absent). This item will go forward to City Council for action. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. 15 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM # 8b MTG. 4/3/06 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL susN�qTED BY Qc. �a a DATE: March 25, 2006 APPROVED_,--,,,, FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BYr -/r% SUBJECT: UPDATE ON THE PLANS FOR BURLINGAME'! CENTENNIAL CELEBRATION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive the staff report regarding the plans for Burlingame's Centennial celebration. BACKGROUND: On June 6, 2008, Burlingame will turn 100 years old. Last year, a committee was established to conduct a year-long celebration. The Committee is comprised of four sub-committees: Marketing — Developing logos, marketing materials / Media relations Finance — Fund Development (donations, sponsorships & grants) / Accounts Payable Events — Recommending and conducting Centennial Events Executive — Oversight of Centennial Celebration / Approve budget allocations At the April 3, 2006 Council meeting, staff will update the Council on the structure and progress of the various committees. BUDGET IMPACT: It is anticipated that budgets for the various events and promotional materials have will be established by July 2006. The City has been setting aside funds for the past few years in preparation for the City's Centennial Celebration. This will provide $50,000 in start-up funds for the events, souvenirs and promotional materials. ATTACHMENTS: None City of Burlingame's BURLINGAME CENTENNIAL STEERING COMMITTEE Centennial Co-Chair Centennial Co-Chair (Mayor Baylock) (Vice-Mayor Nagel) City Staff Rep. Secretary Treasurer (Randy Schwartz) (Doris Mortensen) (Judy Jingirian) Finance Committee Event Committee Marketing Committee Jeff Griffith, Chair Gene Condon, Chair Dan Anderson, Chair (Staff Liaisons: (Staff Liaisons: (Staff Liaisons: Jesus Nava, Randy Schwartz, Al Escoffier) Joleen Butler) Doris Mortensen) Responsible for Responsible for Responsible for Recommending: Recommending: Recommending: - Development - Event timeline - Logos * Donations * Sponsorships - Budget allocations * Grants - Marketing Materials Conduct or - Accounts Payable co-sponsor events - Media Relations March 25,2006-RS CENTENNIAL EVENTS KICKOFF EVENT.• Ceremony and BBQ for Fire Department Turning 100 Who: Target Audience(s): Burlingame Community Staff needed: Committee members and volunteers Where: Washington Park When:Wednesday June 6, 2007 at 7:00pm Timeline (Steps & dates necessary to meet) 1. Set date,time, location: April 2006 2. Set cost per ticket: June 2006 (for budgeting) 3. Get Donations for raffle prizes: 5 to 6 months before the event 4. Organize events: 3 months before event 5. Publicize: (Burlingame Brochure) 2 months before the event 6. Pre-Sell Tickets: 6 weeks before the event 7. Order Food/Drinks: 1 month before the event(pick-upl week before the event) 8. CommitteeNolunteer duties: (Have a list of volunteers one month before the event) a. Collect or sell tickets b. Cook and help serve food and drink c. Sell raffle tickets d. Set up e. Clean up 9. Buy decorations: (Table Clothes/Center Pieces/balloons): Order 1 month in advance 10. Pick up decorations: 1 week before the event, balloons should be picked up on the day of the event Why: (Goals): - To have over 1,000 people come to the kickoff BBQ - To get the food and prizes donated for the event - To celebrate the fire department turning 100 with the community - To have volunteers help out with the barbeque, and selling and collecting the tickets Budget Items: - Publicity - Tickets - Raffle prizes - Food/Drinks - Decorations - 1 - FIRST CENTENNIAL EVENTS Essay Contest--Parade-- Steam Train Ceremony-- Art in the Park-- Softball game Essay Contest for the Next 100 Years (March 2007- 100x`days left to 20 in school year) Who: Target Audience(s): Burlingame School Children Staff needed.- Committee members and teacher Where: All schools in Burlingame When:March 2007 Timeline Steps & dates necessary to meet): 1. Contact School: September 2006 2. Information to Schools: January 2007 3. Prizes: Order prizes or get donations 2 or 3 months before the contest 4. Publicize: (Burlingame Brochure) 6 weeks before the event 5. Entry Date: March 2007 6. Volunteers to read the essays: 1 month to read the essays and pick the winners 7. Award Prizes: June 6, 2007 Why: (Goals): To have all of the schools participate in the essay contest - To have the committee read the essays and pick a winner for each grade - To have the prizes donated for the winners Budget Items: - Publicity - Prizes Parade Who: Target Audience(s): Burlingame Community Staff needed: Committee members, Volunteers, and Police staff(traffic&cadets) Where: Aquatic Center parking lot to Train Station When:Saturday June 8�or Sunday June 9th, 2007 Timeline (Steps & dates necessary to meet): 1. Set date,time, location: April 2006 2. List of parade participants: two or three months in advance • Vintage Cars and Trucks • Police and Fire Department: • City Officials: • Schools: -2 - 3. Volunteer or Police assignments: 6 weeks before the event • Traffic Control • Set up • Clean up 4. Publicize: (Burlingame Brochure)6 weeks before the event 5. Organize the order of Parade: 1 month in advance Why: (Goals) - To have at least 25 vintage cars and trucks for the parade - To have each school participate in building a float for the parade - To have participation from the police, fire fighters, service clubs, and city officials - To have volunteers help with the parade - To have 1,000 spectators - To stage the cars,trucks, and floats on Oak Grove near the tennis courts Budget Items: - Publicity - Traffic Control??? Steam Train/Ceremony Who: Target Audience(s): Burlingame Community Staff needed.- Committee members Where: Burlingame Avenue Train Station When: Saturday June 8t' or Sunday June 9t', 2007 Timeline (Steps & dates necessary to meet): 1. Set date,time: April 2006 2. Speakers: 2 months in advance 3. Publicize: (Burlingame Brochure) 6 weeks before the event 4. List of volunteers: 1 month before the event(Set up and clean up) Why: (Goals) - To establish a smooth agenda of speakers and times - To have 1,000 people attend the ceremony directly after the parade - To have the Steam Train come to Burlingame for free or at a discount rate Budget Items: - Publicity - Steam Train - Decorations - 3 - 1P Softball Game Who: Target Audience(s): Burlingame Community Staff needed: Committee members Where: Washington Park When: Saturday June 8h or Sunday June 9h, 2007 at 1:30pm Timeline (Steps & dates necessary to meetL- 1. Set date,time, location: April 2006 2. Invite teams (police/fire): 3 months before the event 3. Buy the prizes or get donations: 3 months before the event 4. Order trophies: 2 months before the event 5. Publicize: (Burlingame Brochure) 6 weeks before the event 6. Find Referees and scorekeepers: One month before the event 7. Staff(volunteers): Have a list of volunteers at least one month before the event • Field Preparation • Games/activities Why: (Goals for each event—participation, budget, etc): - To have the Burlingame fire fighters play against the police officers - To have 300 spectators - To have volunteers serve as umpires, scorekeepers and announcers - To have activities during the game for spectators - To have prizes donated for the game Budget Items: - Publicity - Prizes - Trophies -4 - 4*4!9 44 SECOND CENTENNIAL EVENTS Scavenger Hunt--Pioneer Days-- Street Gala Scavenger Event with Passports Who: Target Audience(s): Burlingame Community(Families) Staff needed: Committee members and volunteers at the start/finish and one or two at each historical spot. Where: Burlingame Historical Spots (TBD) When:Saturday October 6t', 2007 from 9:00 to noon. Timeline (Steps & dates necessary to meet): 1. Time, Date, Location: April 2006 2. Get donations: 3 months in advance 3. Make clues and word search puzzles: 3 months in advance 4. Publicize: (Burlingame Brochure) 6 weeks before the event 5. Buy Additional Prizes: 1 month 6. Staff(volunteers): Have a list of volunteers at least one month before the event • Start Location/Finish Location • Set up (Place the clues at each Historical Spot) • Clean up Why: (Goals) To have over 100 families or individuals participate in the scavenger hunt - To have volunteers at each historical spot to help with the clues - To have the prizes and material donated for the event Budget Items: - Passports - Rubbers stamps (10-15) - Clues and word search puzzles - Prizes - Publicity Pioneer Day Who: Target Audience(s): All Schools and the Community Staff needed: Committee members, school representatives and volunteers Where: Burlingame High School Track - 5 - 4 When:Saturday October 6 th, 2007 from 12.00 to 3:00pm. Timeline (Steps& dates necessary to meet): 1. Set time, date, and location: April 2006 2. Select games and activities to be held: 6 to 7 months before the event 3. Decide on cost for food, drinks, games and raffles: 6 to 7 months before the event 4. Announce to all schools the event and their time period: Sept 1, 2007 5. Publicize: 6 weeks before the event • Flyers to students • Flyers to the community • Burlingame Brochure 6. Order food, prizes, and decorations for games and raffle: 1 or 2 months before the event 7. Staff(volunteers): Have a list of volunteers at least one month before the event • Sell food/drinks • Collect tickets • Sell Raffles • Carnival Games • Set-up • Clean up 8. Delivered food, prizes, and decorations: 1 week before the event Why: (Goals for each event—participation, budget, etc): - To have all of the schools participate in Pioneer Day - To have at least two Centennial members and teachers assist each school, along with all of the teachers to help with each grade - To have 1,000 people come out and watch the parade - To have volunteers help with the parade and the carnival booths - To have many of the prizes and food donated for the event Budget Items: - Publicity - Material for the games and activities - Prizes for the carnival games - Raffle and Prizes - Food/Drinks - Decorations Street Gala Who: Target Audience(s): Adults and Seniors Staff needed: Committee members, volunteers and police staff(including cadets) Where: Burlingame Avenue or Broadway - 6 - When:Saturday evening for 4:00/5:00-9:OOpm Timeline (Steps & dates necessary to meet): 1. Set date,time, location: April 2006 2. Select games and activities to be held: 6 to 7 months before the event 3. Set cost for food, drinks, and games: 6 to 7 months before the event 4. Order the food, prizes, and decorations: 1 or 2 months before the event 5. Hire a Disc Jockey or Band- sign a contract 2 months 6. Publicize: (Burlingame Brochure) 6 weeks before the event 7. Build the booths for the games and activities: 1 month before event 8. Staff(volunteers): Have a list of volunteers at least one month before the event • Serve food and drinks • Games/Activities Set up • Clean up 9. Delivered food, prizes, and decorations: 1 week before the event Why: (Goals for each event—participation, budget, etc): - To have a variety of quality bands play the event - To have volunteers help with the booths and games - To get the prizes and food donated for the event - To have 2,000 people come to the event Budget Items: - Publicity - Material for the games and activities - Prizes for the games - Raffle and Prizes - Food/Drinks - Decorations - DJ - 7 - THIRD CENTENNIAL EVENTS Vintage Fashion Show and Luncheon --Variety Show- - Historic Building Tour Vintage Fashion Show and Luncheon at the Kohl Mansion Who: Target Audience(s): Children, Adults and Seniors Staff needed(Committee members, City staff or volunteers): Where: Kohl Mansion/Mercy High School When:February 24, 2008, 12:00-3:00pm Timeline (Steps& dates necessary to meet): 1. Food: (Caterer) 6 months before the event 2. Pianist: 6 months before the event 3. Programs: Designed(4 months before event), Printed(1 month before event) 4. Publicize: (Burlingame Brochure) 6 weeks before the event 5. Decorations: (Table Clothes/Center Pieces)Order 2 months in advance 6. Pre-Sell Tickets: 2 months before the event(on-line) 7. Assign Volunteer Duties: 1 month before the event • Check-in • Greet • Parking • Serve or Buffet food and drinks • Set-up • Set-tables ;ick Clean-up 8. up Decorations: 1 week before the event Why: (Goals for each event—participation, budget, etc): - To have volunteers help with the fashion show - To set up a babysitting service for those needing - To have all quality food and decorations - To have at least 150 people come to the event - To be able to borrow the costumes for the fashion show Budget Items: - Publicity - Tickets - Programs - Catered Food - Decoration - Pianist - 8 - Variety Show If"16 Who: Tar et Audience : Children Adults,� (s) u ts, an 1 Seniors Staff needed(Committee members, City staff or volunteers): Where: Burlingame Intermediate School Theater or the Burlingame High School Theater When:February 2008, Friday& Saturday nights from 7-9pm, Sunday matinee Timeline (Steps & dates necessary to meet 1. Set time, days, and location: April 2006 2. Programs: Design (4 months before the event),Printed(1 month before the event) 3. Publicize: (Burlingame Brochure) 6 weeks before the event 4. Pre-Sell Tickets: 2 months before the event(on-line) 5. Staff(volunteers): Have a list of volunteers at least one month before the event • Lighting and Sound System • Sound Bar • Collect Tickets • Sell Programs • Announcers • Back stage help • Set up ;uy Clean up 6. prizes, food, and drinks: 1 week before the event Why: (Goals for each event—participation, budget, etc): - To have volunteers help with the back stage, snack bar, and memorabilia - To have at least 500 people attend the performances - To have at least 15 different acts - To provide a quality snack bar and memorabilia section Budget Items: - Publicity - Tickets - Programs - Prizes - Snack food/drinks - 9 - Historic Building Tour , t Who: Target Audience(s): Adults and Seniors Staff needed: Committee members and volunteers Where: Burlingame Historical Buildings When: February 2008, Sunday morning Timeline (Steps & dates necessary to meet): 1. Set date,time, locations: April/May 2007 2. Set cost: June 2007 3. Set Tour Route: 1 year before the event 4. Publicize: (Burlingame Brochure) 6 weeks before the event 5. Pre-Sell Tickets (Maximum#: ) 6 weeks before the event 6. Staff(volunteers): Have a list of volunteers at least one month before the event Why: (Goals) - To have volunteers help give the bus tour of Burlingame - To have volunteers at every stop to give a tour of the building - To establish and distribute maps of all the stops and buildings - To develop a list of interesting facts of Burlingame for the volunteers giving the tour - To have over 150 people attend the tour Budget Items: - Publicity - Bus - Tickets - 10 - FINAL CENTENNIAL EVENT �%4xp* Day on the Green--All School Dance-- Centennial Ball Day on the Green Who: Target Audience(s): Burlingame Teens Staff needed(Committee members, City staff or volunteers): Committee members and volunteers. Where: Burlingame High School When:Saturday, May 3, 2008, at 3:00-7:00pm or 5:00-9:00pm Timeline (Steps & dates necessary to meet): 1. Set date,time, and location: April 2006 2. Submit a facility request: 6 months before the event 3. Set a date for Local Bands to sign up: 6 months before the concert 4. Make the tickets: 3 months before the event 5. Publicize with flyers and posters: (Burlingame Brochure)2 months before the event 6. Staff(Volunteers): Have a list of volunteers at least one month before the event • Collect and sell tickets • Check Ids • Sell food and drinks • Chaperons the concert • Set up • Clean up 7. Ticket sale: 3 weeks before the event(on-line) 8. Buy food and drinks: 1 week before the event Why: (Goals) - To schedule at least 5 bands to play - To have over 500 students attend this event - To have volunteers help with the check-in table, snack bar and memorabilia sales - To have adequate supervision for the event - To get the food and drinks donated for the concert Budget Items: - Publicity - Tickets - Food/Drinks - Prizes - 11 - All School Dance for 7th and 8th Graders 40*4944x; Who: Target Audience(s): 7th and 8'h graders from Burlingame Middle Schools Staff needed: Committee Members and Youth Advisory Committee Where: Burlingame Recreation Center Auditorium When:Saturday, May 3,2008, from 7:00-10:00pm Timeline (Steps& dates necessary to meet, 1. Set date,time, location: April 2006 2. Submit a facility request: 1 year before the dance 3. Hire a DJ- sign a contract: 5 months before the dance 4. Make the tickets and number them: 2 months before the event 5. Publicize with posters and flyers: 6 weeks before the dance 6. Staff the dance at least 1 month before the dance • Collect and sell tickets • Check Ids • Sell food and drinks • Chaperons the dance • Set up • Clean up 7. Give some tickets to the school for pre-sale: 2 or 3 weeks before the event 8. Buy refreshments: 1 week before the dance Why: (Goals for each event—participation, budget, etc): - To have the volunteers and the YAC committee help with the check-in table,ticket sales, snack bar, and decorations - To have adequate food, drinks and decorations - To have over 300 student attend Budget Items: - Publicity - Tickets - Snack food/drinks - DJ - Decorations - 12 - Centennial Ball 'Q�94 Who: Target Audience(s): Adults and Seniors 4� Staff needed Committee members and volunteers Where: Hyatt Regency Hotel When:Friday June 6"', 2008 Timeline (Steps & dates necessary to meet 1. Set date,time, location: April 2006 2. Reserve a Hotel: June 2006 3. Hire the bands (3): 1 year before the event 4. Set cost per ticket: June 2007 5. Purchase Fireworks and set up with necessary agencies: 1 year before 6. Invitations: Design: (6 month before the event),Print& distribute: (2 months before) 7. Set food&beverages: 7 months before the event 8. Purchase/Donations for the Raffle and Auction: 6 to 8 months in advance 9. Select a Master of Ceremonies: 3 months 10. Publicize: (Burlingame Brochure)2 months before the event 11. Begin ticket sales: 2 month before (on-line) 12. Make Favors: 2 months before the dance 13. Decorations: (table centerpieces,balloons, etc.) 1-2 months in advance 14. Staff(volunteers): Have a list of volunteers at least one month before the event to: • Check-in& Greet • Set-up decorations • Clean-up 15. Make nametags for the guest: 1 month before the dance 16. Pick up the decorations: 1 week before the event 17. Balloons should be picked up on the day of the event Why: (Goals for each event—participation, budget, etc): - To get the Hyatt rooms donated or at a discount rate - To have over 1,000 people attend the event - To get a variety of quality bands— suitable for every ear - To have a centennial committee put together a slideshow of the community Budget Items: - Publicity - Invitations - Hotel Rental - Food&Beverages - Bands - Decorations - Favors - Fireworks - 13 - 6 carr c AGENDA ITEM# 8c BURIJNGAME STAFF REPORT MAG_ DATe 4/3/2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED BY:Jack Van Etten,Chief of Polic DATE: March 28,2006 APPROVED FROM: Jack Van Etten,Police Chief E�DBY:Jim Nantell,City Manager SUBJECT: Review and discussion of the annual alarm permit fees and false alarm charges; erection to staff by council RECOMMENDATION: The City Council has requested additional information from staff relative to current alarm permit fees and false alarm charges. Following their review and discussion,council should provide staff with direction as to what action or changes,if any,they would like staff to take on this matter. BACKGROUND: False Alarm Ordinance Historically,the false alarm ordinance was created to monitor the residential and commercial alarms within the city and to reduce the exorbitant number of false alarms(and associated time and costs) that the police department was spending responding to such alarms.(Note-99.9%of all alarms are false due mainly to operator error,followed by mechanical breakdown).The alarm ordinance included both a renewable yearly alarm permit fee,as well as an associated fee for an emergency response to a false alarm. The police department learned that it was using a great deal of city resources responding to a high number of false alarms.This included:2 officer(s)time(as a cover unit is necessary for safety purposes),a communications dispatcher's time to field the call,make the appropriate entries and dispatch the officers; police department verification time for false alarms and response to citizen inquiries;use of gas,oil and the wear and tear on city vehicles;city finance personnel time for billing; and lastly,but also very important,the police department's inability to provide pro-active enforcement or respond to other routine calls for service in our community when handling alarms that result in false alarms.Additionally,the police response to the vast number of false alarms also tends to create a false and dangerous atmosphere,where responding officers let down their guard,which can have deadly results for officers and citizens, if the alarm is actually real and officers engage suspects during the commission of a crime.A partial cost recovery for the false alarm fees is included in the information provided above. The alarm permit fee was established to provide updated contact information on the alarm location, contact names and addresses at the alarm premises in the event of emergency or other need for a response to the location (police, fire, public works response,) etc. There have been past occurrences where homeowners have had alarms installed but have failed to register their alarm with the city. This has resulted in the alarm malfunctioning when the homeowner was away and the city had no emergency contact information for the alarm or location. In one case that I'm personally aware of, the city had to neutralize a loud alarm to preserve the tranquility of the neighborhood. Updated information from the alarm permit can and is also used for emergency situations (such as a tactical response to the neighborhood or for a medical or ambulance call). Alarm Permits and False Alarm Fees The City of Burlingame currently charges an annual alarm permit fee of $49.50 per location. The original alarm permit fee was $25.00 and was established, along with the false alarm fee schedule in approximately 1993. The alarm permit fee remained at that rate for approximately 10 years, until the 03-04 FY, when it was changed to the existing rate by council. At the present time, the City of Burlingame has approximately 1 ,516 registered alarm permits. This includes both residential and commercial facilities. The current annual revenue to the city from alarm permit fees is approximately $75,000 at the current rate of $49.50, compared to approximately $37,900 in revenue at the $25.00 alarm permit fee rate. Elimination of the annual alarm permit fee would result in a loss of approximately $75,000 to the general fund. Chart #1 illustrates some comparisons of a number of San Mateo County cities and their relative costs for alarm permit fees and for false alarms. As you can see, some cities don't charge for an alarm permit fee, while others either charge a one time fee or a yearly renewable alarm permit fee, similar to Burlingame. From the information listed, when cities don't charge for a one time alarm permit fee or for a yearly renewable alarm permit, the cities usually charge much higher rates for response to false alarms. Also, the City of Oakland charges a higher annual alarm permit fee for commercial locations and a lower annual alarm permit fee for residences. Chart #2 illustrates the actual number of false residential and commercial alarms that were received during the calendar years of 2003, 2004 and 2005. Considering that it takes a conservative average of 30 minutes for 2 officers to investigate a false alarm call and a conservative average of 10 minutes for a communications dispatcher to receive, dispatch, track and enter the call, at the current salary rates alone, it costs the city approximately $51 .00 per false alarm call. This information is included in the chart information. Chart #3 provides a "breakdown" in the total number of false alarms that could be billed for the years of 2003, 2004 and 2005, and at either the $50.00 rate of 3-5 false alarms or 6 or more false alarms at the $100.00 rate. The chart also provides a three (3) year average and the approximate fines that could be collected for the false alarm billings (note that the total may not be the actual billed or collected, due to contesting of the false alarms, negotiated number of false alarms due to other than user or mechanical error, etc.). Options for Council to Consider The following options are available to city council members to consider on this matter and to provide their direction to staff: 1) Continue with the existing alarm permit and false alarm fees, and make no changes (this option would maintain the current revenue of approximately $75,000 to our general fund and off-set the current costs for finance, police and communications, as well as the cost billed for false alarms). 2) Reduce the annual alarm permit fee from $49.50 back to $25.00 for all alarm permits. This would result in the loss of approximately $37,100 to our general fund. To off-set the loss, consider increasing the false alarm fee, allowing 1 false alarm for free, and increasing the false alarm charges to $100.00 for every second alarm and to $150.00 for 3 or more alarms. Based on the 3 year averages, this could generate a total of $36,850 in false alarm fees to off-set the reduction in the annual alarm permit fees. However, this option will still result in the yearly loss of approximately$13,000 to our general fund. 3) Consider reduced annual alarm permit fees of $25.00 for residences and $35.00 for commercial establishments. 15`false alarm would be free with a permit. The 2nd false alarm - $100.00, 3`d false alarm - $200.00, 4 or more false alarms - $300.00. Charge $250.00 for a false alarm response without an alarm permit. Based on previous averages in the attached charts, this option would generate approximately$89,000 (or the same as the existing annual alarm permit and yearly false alarm fees) to help off-set the reductions in the alarm permit fees and the billing for false alarms. Changing the cost for the annual alarm permit fee will result in a one time cost of $1200.00 - $1500.00 for computer programming changes. It is also felt that this change will also increase the complaints that both the finance and the police department will receive from the public. 4) Eliminate the annual alarm permit fees altogether (this would result in a $75,000 annual loss to our general fund). However, increase the false alarm fees to $50.00 for the 15`false alarm, to $100.00 for 2-3 false alarms and to $150.00 for 4 or more false alarms. This option would require citizens or businesses to actually pay for every false alarm they are responsible for and received by the police department. From the 3 year average, this would generate approximately$91,400 (or closely approximate the elimination of the annual alarm permit fees) to help off-set costs. Elimination or reduction of the annual alarm permit fee will increase the work load for BOTH finance (billing) and police personnel (alarm verification, etc), and it is felt that such a change will increase the number of complaints that both departments will receive from the public. 5) Similar to option #4, eliminate the annual alarm permit fee altogether (this would result in a $75,000 annual loss to our general fund). However, increase the false alarm fees beyond that of option #4 above. Make the 15t false alarm free, $150.00 for the 2nd false alarm, $200.00 for the 3`d false alarm, and $250.00 for 5 or more false alarms. Based on the 3 year false alarm average, this would result in the yearly loss of approximately$31,000 to our general fund, as the first false alarm would not be charged. 6) Any combination of false alarm fees or other options that could be considered by the city council. FISCAL IMPACT: CHART#1 CITY ALARM PERMIT AND FEE COMPARISONS CITY PERMIT FEE FALSE ALARM FEE Belmont $25.00 annual fee 1-2 free; 3-$50.00; 4-$75; 5 or more-$100.00 Burlingame $49.50 annual fee 1-2 free; 3 to 5-$50.00; 6 or more-$100.00 Daly City $25.00 annual fee 1-free; 2 or more-$50.00 Half Moon Bay $50.00 annual fee 1-3 free; 4-$100.00; 5- $125.00; 6 or more- $150.00 Pacifica $50.00 initial fee 1-2 free; 3 to5-$70.00; 6 or more-$100.00 Redwood City None 1-3 free; 4 or more- $100.00 San Bruno None 1-2 free; 3-$75.00; 4- $100.00; 5 or more-125.00 San Mateo None 1-free; 2 or more-$100.00 San Carlos $27.00 initial fee 1-free; 2 or more-$80.00 Oakland $25.00 annual residence Wout permit - $250.00 fee each $35.00 annual business with permit 1- free with fee permit; 2-$100.00; 3- $200.00; 4 or more $300.00 CHART #2 BURLINGAME FALSE ALARMS (2003 — 2005) # of Alarms 2003 (663 2004 (604 2005 (671 3 Year 3 Year sites) sites) sites Average Total 1 1214 1075 1172 1153 3461 2 140 125 135 133 400 3 64 57 64 62 185 4 32 30 31 31 93 5 or more 74 55 63 64 192 Total 1524 1342 1465 1443 4331 Consider the conservative costs of $51 .00 per false alarm call, which includes 2 officers at 15 minutes each (30 minutes total), and 10 minutes of a communications dispatcher's time (not including vehicles, gas, police department verification time, city hall billing, etc.), the ACTUAL conservative cost of false alarm calls in Burlingame are listed as follows: 2003 - $77,000 2004 - $68,000 2005 — $749000 Three Year Average — $73,600 Three Year Total Costs - $221 ,000 CHART #3 FALSE ALARM FEES BILLED (2003, 2004, 2005) 2003 3 to 5 (170) @ 50.00 = 8,500 6 or more alarms (51) @ 100.00 = 5,100 Total = $13,600 2004 3 to 5 (142) @ 50.00 = 7,100 6 or more alarms (39) @ 100.00 = 3,900 Total = $11,000 2005 3 to 5 (158) @ 50.00 = 7,900 6 or more alarms (40) @ 100.00 = 4,000 Total = $11,900 Three Year Average (2003 - 2005) Total = $12,266 Three Year Maximum that could be Billed(2003, 2004 and 2005) Total = $36,900 CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 9a "coq Spm MTG. ORATED JUNE6 DATE April 3,2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITT BY DATE: April 3, 2006 APPR FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director BY SUBJECT: Approve Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 and Adopt A Resolution of Intention To Change and Impose Assessments for the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 RECOMMENDATION 1. That the City Council adopt a Resolution that: A) Approves the Annual Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2005-2006. B) Declares its Intention To Adopt an Ordinance Increasing Some Assessments To The Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District and Imposing Assessments for Fiscal Year 2006- 2007. C) Sets a Public Meeting for Monday, April 17, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 to take public testimony regarding the proposed new assessment fee structure recommended by the Advisory Board. (At that time the Council will introduce A Proposed Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Chapter 6.54 Establishing The Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District Pursuant To California Streets and Highways Code Sections 36500 and Following.) D) Sets a public hearing for Monday, May 22 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Lane Room of the Burlingame Public Library located at 480 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. This public hearing will pertain to the adoption of 2006-2007 Assessments and the Proposed Ordinance. 2. Approve the Notice of Public Meeting and Hearing Pertaining to the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District Assessments—FY 2006-2007 BACKGROUND The Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District Advisory Board presented its annual report to the City Council on March 20, 2006. The annual report highlights the activities of the BAABID and provides a financial accounting of its funds. As part of the report, the Advisory Board has asked that Council approve a new assessment fee structure for area businesses, which decreases the fee for certain businesses and increases them for others. S:\Business Improvement DistrictsTY 06-07 Renewal Process\Staff Report Burlingame Resolution of Intent_2006.doc 1 Notice of Public Meeting and Hearing The Ralph M. Brown Act requires the City Council to conduct at least one public meeting at which local officials shall allow public testimony regarding any proposed new or increased assessment before adopting the assessments. The requirement to hold a public meeting is in addition to the required public hearing that must be held at the time that the City Council proposes to increase the assessment. The City Council must provide at least 45 days' notice of the public hearing and provide the notice for the public meeting at the same time and in the same document as the notice for the public hearing. However, the public meeting must occur prior to the public hearing. The joint notice of both the public meeting and the public hearing for the new or increased assessments must by sent to all businesses subject to the new or increased assessment through a mailing, postage prepaid addressed to the owners of the businesses listed on the official business license roll. If the assessments are proposed to be increased from any previous year, the joint notice shall separately state both the amount of the existing assessment and the proposed increased assessment. Notice is deemed to be given when the mailing is deposited in the U.S. Postal system. The draft joint notice of both the public meeting and the public hearing is attached for your review and approval. The notice will be sent out by Friday, April 7, 2006. This is when the 45 days' noticing period commences. City Council will hear from all interested persons who wish to speak at either the public meeting or the public hearing. Written comments are also welcome and can be sent to Ms. Doris Mortensen, City Clerk, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. Individuals wishing to protest part or all of the business improvement district or its assessments should read the Resolution of Intention and follow the process described within it. Any and all protests must be received by the City Clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing. BUDGET IMPACT Approximately$162,000 in assessments would be collected annually with our business licenses. The funds are forwarded to the Burlingame Improvement District for improvements as authorized by the BID Board of Directors. The cost of processing, mailing and publishing the required public notices is $8,000. ATTACHMENTS: A Resolution of the City Council Of The City of Burlingame Declaring Its Intention To Adopt an Ordinance Increasing Some Assessments To The Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District; Imposing Assessments for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 And Approving 2005-06 Annual Report Notice of Public Meeting and Hearing Pertaining to the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District Assessments—FY 2006-2007 SABusiness Improvement DistrictsTY 06-07 Renewal Process\Staff Report Burlingame Resolution of Intent_2006.doc 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ADOPT AN ORDINANCE THAT WOULD INCREASE CERTAIN ASSESSMENT LEVELS IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, TO ESTABLISH 2006-2007 ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, AND APPROVING 2005-2006 ANNUAL REPORT WHEREAS,pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et sea•,the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District was established for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and physical maintenance of said business districts, and WHEREAS,the Burlingame Avenue 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 Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District has provided important services in enhancing the District and its businesses and properties; and WHEREAS,the District Advisory Board has recommended amendments to the assessment basis to minimize the impact of the assessments on small businesses while increasing the assessments on large businesses in the area, NOW,THEREFORE,the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine,and find as follows: 1. The 2005-2006 annual report ofthe Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District Advisory Board is approved. 2. The Burlingame City Council intends to adopt an ordinance amending the assessment bases for businesses in the District as described below and to levy an assessment for the 2006-2007 fiscal year on businesses in the District, as the District is described in Ordinance No. 1735, 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 1 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 be changed from those levied in the 2004-2005 year and from those provided in the current Chapter 6.54: a. The assessment for retail and restaurant would add a new category for businesses with 10 or more staff with an assessment of $1,000 (Subarea A) or $750 (Subarea B); the previous assessment was $600 and $500,respectively. The middle category would be adjusted to be from 5 to 9 staff members and remain at$600 if in Subarea A,and be reduced to $400 if in Subarea B. For businesses with less than 5 staff members, the assessment would remain the same, $350 (Subarea A) and $250 (Subarea B). b. The assessment for financial businesses would be changed to match the assessments for retail and restaurant categories, instead of the current$550 for any financial business regardless of subarea or staffing: $1,000 (Subarea A) or $750 (Subarea B)for businesses with 10 or more staff, $600(Subarea A)and$400(Subarea B)with 5 to 9 staff members; and$350(Subarea A)and$250 (Subarea B) with 4 or less staff members. c. The assessment for service and professional would be combined into a single assessment type with staffing categories generally matching retail and restaurant, but generally at lower rates than previously considered. The large business category (10 or more staff members) would be $1,000 (Subarea A) or $500 (Subarea B). The middle category (5 to 9 staff members) would be $350(Subarea A)and $200(Subarea B). The lower category(less than 5 staff members)would be $100 (Subarea A) and $50 (Subarea B). These are the assessments that are proposed to be levied in 2006-2007. 5. New businesses shall not be exempt from assessment. 6. A public meeting on the proposed changes and increases in assessments and the proposed assessments for 2006-2007 is hereby set for April 17, 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. A public hearing on the proposed changes and increases in assessments, the proposed assessments for 2006-2007, and proposed programs for 2006-2007 is hereby set for May 22,2006, at 6:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame,at the Lane Room of the Burlingame 2 Main Library at 480 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 7. The Council will receive testimony and evidence at the public meeting and the public hearing, and interested persons may submit written comments before or at the public meeting or 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 the public meeting and at the public hearing. However,to count in a majority protest against the proposed changes in the assessment bases,or 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 time fixed for the public hearing on May 22, 2006; in other words,if a person wishes to file a written protest,the person should file the written protest no later than 6:00 p.m. on May 22, 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 if possible,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. a. 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 changes in the bases for assessments in the District, the assessment bases will not be amended or changed and no assessment for 2006-2007 shall occur. b. 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. C. 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 3 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 changes in the assessment bases, the proposed assessments for 2006-2007,and the 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 meeting and the public hearing by publishing this Resolution in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Burlingame in accordance with the requirements of the Government and Streets&Highways Code and mailing the notice approved by the City Council on April 3, 2006, and this Resolution to businesses in the District in accordance with those requirements as applicable. MAYOR 1, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK U:\FILES\BIDBGAMEAV\BurlingameAvfNTr2OO6.BID.wpd 4 EXHIBIT A BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES PROPOSED TO BE FUNDED BY THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS All assessments raised by the Burlingame Avenue Area Improvement District ("District") shall be spent only in accordance with California Streets &Highways Code §§ 36500 and following and on such purposes as the District's Advisory Board recommends and the City Council approves. The following types of improvements and activities are proposed: 1) Communications and Parking Outreach Program a. Implement and evaluate parking permit program b. Work with City on parking information and programs C. Provide regular updates to members 2) Streetscape Beautification, Seasonal Decorations, and Public Arts Programs, including: a. Seasonal street plantings of flowers. b. Street trees. C. Sidewalk enhancements and maintenance. d. Planters. e. Benches. f. Trash receptacles. g. Electrical outlets and supply. h. Seasonal decorations i. Banners 3) Commercial Marketing and Advertising, including: a. Complete 3-year marketing plan b. Signage. C. Website design and maintenance. d. Print, radio, television, and electronic advertising. e. Publications for use with hotels and the San Mateo County Convention&Visitors Bureau e. Explorer hotel book. f. Concierge training. g. Member communications. Exhbit A - 1 4) Promotional and special events, including: a. Holiday Open House. b. Semi-annual sidewalk sale events. C. Spring Open House event. d. Performances, concerts,readings, etc. e. Art &Jazz on Avenue Festival 5) Business recruitment and retention, including: a. Matching funds for storefront improvement incentive. b. Development of strategies to fill commercial vacancies. C. Small business assistance workshops. 6) Shuttle Service a. Contribute to shuttle operation connecting hotels and Burlingame Avenue Area. U:\FILES\BIDBGAMEAV\improvmtlis2006.bid.wpd Exhbit A - 2 EXHIBIT B BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT BASIS* ANNUAL ASSESSMENT BUSINESS TYPE NO. OF STAFF ** SUBAREA A SUBAREA B RETAIL& ---------10+--------- ---------$1,000-------- -------$750------ RESTAURANT & 5 - 9 $600 $400 FINANCIAL ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------ 1 - 4 $350 $250 10+ $1,000 $500 ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------ SERVICE & 5 - 9 $350 $200 PROFESSIONAL ---------------------- ------------------------ ------------------ 1 - 4 $100 $50 * ----- Amount shown is annual total ** --- Staff means any persons working(full time or full time equivalency) including owners,partners, managers, employees, family members, etc. Business Definitions Retail ❑ Businesses that buy and resell goods. Examples are clothing stores, shoe stores, office supplies, grocery stores, etc. Restaurant ❑ Selling prepared food and drink. Financial ❑ Banks, savings and loans, household finance companies, title companies, etc. 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. U:\FILES\BIDBGAMEAV\assessbas2OO6.bid.wpd 4CITkob NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING & HEARING surtuNGAME PERTAINING TO THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT D�gDAATED JYNE69Y0 ASSESSMENTS - FY 2006-2007 April 7, 2006 Business Owner Name Business Owner Address City, CA Zip Code RE: Business License Account# - Business Address The Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District (BAABID) Advisory Board submitted its annual report to the City Council on March 20, 2006. The annual report highlights the activities of the BAABID and provides a financial accounting of its funds. The Advisory Board has asked that Council approve a new assessment fee structure for area businesses, which decreases the fee for certain businesses and increases them for others. In response the City Council has adopted a formal resolution declaring its intention to assess the businesses based on the proposed new assessment fee structure. In fiscal year 2004—2005 (the last year an assessment was imposed) your assessment was $ . According to the city's current business license records, your business is located in Sub area and classified as with (number of employees). Therefore, your assessment for fiscal year 2006-2007 is estimated to be $ Enclosed you will find the documents that are required to be provided to each business within the improvement district. Please take time to review the documents. They are: • A Resolution of the City Council Of The City of Burlingame Declaring Its Intention To Adopt an Ordinance Increasing Some Assessments To The Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District; Imposing Assessments for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 And Approving 2005-06 Annual Report. • Exhibit A. Burlingame Area Business Improvement District Types of Improvements And Activities Proposed To Be Funded By The Levy of Assessments. • Exhibit B. Burlingame Area Business Improvement District Assessment Basis. Please note that the City of Burlingame will hold a public meeting on Monday, April 17, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 to take public testimony regarding the proposed new assessment fee structure recommended by the Advisory Board, specifically the Proposed Ordinance amending the Assessment Structure to Notice to BID businesses-Burlingame Ave.doc 3/29/2006 increase the Assessments on Certain Businesses in the Burlingame Avenue Area BID and the Proposed Fiscal Year 2006-2007 Assessments. The City of Burlingame will also hold a public hearing on Monday, May 22, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. in the Lane Room of the Burlingame Public Library located at 480 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. This public hearing will pertain to the adoption of the Proposed Ordinance as well as the proposed assessments for the 2006-2007 assessment year. The City Council will hear from all interested persons who wish to speak at the public hearing. You are also welcome to send written comments to the City Council by mailing them to Ms. Doris Mortensen, City Clerk, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. Individuals wishing to protest part or all of the business improvement district programs, assessments, or the proposed ordinance should read the Resolution of Intention and follow the process described within it. Any and all protests must be received by the City Clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing on May 22, 2006. Questions pertaining to the process for protest should be directed to the Burlingame City Clerk, Ms. Doris Mortensen at 650-558-7203 or dmortensen(a?burlingame.org. All other questions pertaining to the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District can be directed to my office at 650-558-7222 or at]nava(a?burlingame.org. Sincerely, f ti Jesus Nava Finance Director/Treasurer Notice to BID businesses-Burlingame Ave.doc 3/29/2006 CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURIJNGAME AGENDA 9b ITEM# •,• MTG. 4/3/06 ,.�,,,�• DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: April 3, 2006 APPROVED / FROM: Deirdre Dolan, Human Resources Director BY 4; SUBJECT: Employer Pickup Resolution--Pre-Tax Payroll Deductio lan for Service Credit Purchases RECOMMENDATION• Staff recommends that the Council approve the resolution authorizing the California Public Employees' Retirement System(Ca1PERS) pre-tax payroll deduction plan for service credit purchases. BACKGROUND: Employee retirement plan contributions fall under the provisions of section 414(h)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code(IRC), which allows for tax deferment of the employees' required CalPERS contribution(7%for miscellaneous employees; 9% for safety employees). IRC section 414(h)(2) enables the employer to"pick up" the employees' Ca1PERS contribution, after deducting the employee contribution from the employees' salary on a pre-tax basis. Currently, employees have the option of purchasing various types of service credit under Ca1PERS, including temporary service time, military service time, and the newly available"Additional Retirement Service Credit" (which allows employees to purchase up to five years of service credit that is not based on employment with a Ca1PERS employer). Employees who elect to purchase Ca1PERS service credit via payroll deduction are doing so at their own expense on an after-tax basis. Filing the attached Employer Pickup Resolution—Pre-Tax Payroll Deduction Plan for Service Credit Purchases with Ca1PERS will enable the City to extend the pick-up of member contributions under IRC section 414(h)(2) provisions to service credit purchases that are made through payroll deduction. This will provide employees with the benefit of electing to pay for service credit purchases on a pre-tax basis. This is a relatively minor administrative change that can be implemented at no cost to the City. BUDGETIMPACT: There is no budget impact. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Return to Ca/PERS - Unit 830 Employer code: 0018 EMPLOYER PICKUP RESOLUTION PRE-TAX PAYROLL DEDUCTION PLAN FOR SERVICE CREDIT PURCHASES (CONTRIBUTION CODE 14) WHEREAS, the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees' Retirement System(Ca1PERS) at the April 1996 meeting approved a pre-tax payroll deduction plan for service credit purchases under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 414(h)(2); and WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame has the authority to implement the provisions of IRC section 414(h)(2) and has determined that even though implementation is not required by law, the tax benefit offered by this section should be provided to those employees who are members of Ca1PERS; and WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame elects to participate in the pre-tax payroll deduction plan for all employees in the following CalPERS coverage group(s): Miscellaneous Plan of the City of Burlingame (70001) Safety Police Plan of the City of Burlingame(75001) Safety Fire Plan of the City of Burlingame (74001) NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: I. That the City of Burlingame will implement the provisions of IRC section 414(h)(2) by making employee contributions for service credit purchases pursuant to the California State Government Code on behalf of its employees who are members of CalPERS and who have made a binding irrevocable election to participate in the pre-tax payroll deduction plan. "Employee contributions" shall mean those contributions reported to CalPERS which are deducted from the salary of employees and are credited to individual employee accounts for service credit purchases, thereby resulting in tax deferral of employee contributions. II. That the contributions made by the City of Burlingame to CalPERS, although designated as employee contributions, are being paid by the City of Burlingame in lieu of contributions by the employees who are members of CalPERS. III. That the employees shall not have the option of choosing to receive the contributed amounts directly instead of having them paid by the City of Burlingame to CalPERS. IV. That the City of Burlingame shall pay to Ca1PERS the contributions designated as employee contributions from the same source of funds as used in paying salary, thereby resulting in tax deferral of employee contributions. V. That the effective date for commencement of the pre-tax payroll deduction plan cannot be any earlier than July 1, 1996, or the date the completed resolution is received and approved in CalPERS, whichever is later. VI. That the governing body of the City of Burlingame shall participate in and adhere to requirements and restrictions of the pre-tax payroll deduction plan by reporting pre-tax payroll deductions when authorized by Ca1PERS for those employees of the above stated Coverage Group(s) who have elected to participate in this plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the governing body of the City of Burlingame this 3'd day of April, 2006. BY 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 3rd day of April, 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: CITY CLERK RETURN ADDRESS: FOR CALPERS USE ONLY Pre-tax Payroll Deduction Plan Effective Date: Approved by: Title: MEMBER SERVICES DIVISION, Service Credit Section—Unit 830 CITY c AGENDA 9c �t a. ITEM# BURL,NGAME MTG. c`, STAFF REPORT n DATE April it 3,2006 34a a>,Ee «. TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT BY DATE: March 27, 2006 APPROVE FROM: Netie Shinday (558-7204) BY D ��!% 1 r ' SUBJECT: Approval for Chamber of Commerce Art & Jazz FestivZAugust 12-13, 2006 RECOMMENDATION: Recommend approval for Chamber of Commerce Art & Jazz Festival. BACKGROUND: Attached is the request letter from the chamber of Commerce for approval of the above event. The Chamber is requesting permission to hold the event on Burlingame Avenue on Saturday and Sunday, August 12 and 13, 2006 from 10:OOAM to 6:OOPM each day. The Chamber has contracted with Team PRO Event of Mill Valley, CA to operate the event which includes the following elements: • Closure of Burlingame Avenue from California Drive to EI Camino Real (upto the driveway of the Chevron station) from 2:OOAM Saturday, August 12 until 11 :59PM Sunday August 13. • Closure of Lorton Avenue between Donnelly and Howard as well as Primrose Road for the full duration of the festival (as it was in 2005). All public parking lots in the area will remain accessible at all times during all hours of closure. • Festival booths set up on Burlingame Avenue (the 1100, 1200, 1300, and 1400 blocks), and on Lorton and Primrose will remain set up overnight on Saturday. Team PRO Event will arrange for overnight security. • Team PRO Event will arrange for entertainment throughout each day of the festival. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce requests that the City of Burlingame allow the sale of beer, wine, margaritas and commemorative glassware as part of the Burlingame Art and Jazz Festival on August 12 and 13, 2006. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce carries liquor liability insurance in addition to its general liability insurance, in the amount of $1 million, and will provide a certificate of insurance naming the City of Burlingame as an additional insured. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce will purchase the beer, wine and margarita license. BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE d March 14, 2006 Mayor Cathy Baylock Vice Mayor Terry Nagel_ Council Members: Russ Cohen,Ann Keighran and Rosalie O'Mahony City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mayor Baylock and Council Members: The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce respectfully requests the City's permission for the 2006 Burlingame Art&Jazz Festival as described below. The Chamber requests the City's permission for the "Burlingame Art and Jazz Festival,"calendared for Saturday and Sunday,August 12 and 13, 2006, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. each day. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce is in contract with Team PRO Event, of Mill Valley, CA,based upon the Burlingame City Council's permission to allow this community event. Details of the production are under the auspices of Team PRO Event and include the following elements: A. Closure of Burlingame Avenue from California Drive to El Camino Real(up to the driveway of the Chevron Station)from 2:00 a.m. Saturday,August 12 until 11:59 p.m., Sunday August 13. B. Closure of Lorton Avenue between Donnelly and Howard for the full duration of the festival, closure of Park Road between Burlingame Avenue and Howard for the full duration of the festival and closure of Primrose Road for the full duration of the festival(as it was in 2005). All public parking lots in the area will remain accessible at all times during all hours of closure. C. Festival booths set up on Burlingame Avenue(the 1100, 1200, 1300 and 1400 blocks),as well as on Lorton and Primrose Avenues will remain set up overnight on Saturday. Team PRO Event will arrange for overnight security. D. Team PRO Event will arrange for entertainment throughout each day of the festival as part of this community event. 290 California Drive • Burlingame,CA 94010 • 650.344.1735 • Fax 650.344.1763 e-mail:nlfo@burlingamechamber.org • www.burlingamechamber.org 2 E. The City of Burlingame fees in conjunction with this event will be paid directly by the Chamber within seven(7)days after the event. Please advise if fees will be different from last year. F. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce respectfully requests that the City of Burlingame allow the sale of beer,wine, margaritas and commemorative glassware as part of the Burlingame Art and Jazz Festival on August 12 and 13, 2006. Insurance for general and liquor liability in the amount of$1 million will be obtained and a certificate of insurance naming the City of Burlingame as additional insured will be issued. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce carries liquor liability insurance in addition to its general liability insurance and will provide a certificate of insurance naming the City of Burlingame as an additional insured. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce will purchase the beer,wine and margarita license. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce and Team Pro Event will gladly meet with City staff to address any questions or concerns. Thank you. Since , David Lewin, Chair eorgette Nayl4r,President/CEO Burlingame Chamb4 of Commerce Burlingame Chamber of Commerce Agenda th Item # 9d IIIIIIIIIff Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: April 32.006 SUBMITTED BY 1 APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: MARCH 22, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING SANCHEZ CREEK BOX CULVERTS CLEANING FROM CAROLAN AVENUE TO SANCHEZ LAGOON, TO JMB CONSTRUCTION, INC., CITY PROJECT NO. 80900 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council approve the attached resolution accepting $422,512 in improvements to the Sanchez Creek box culverts by JMB Construction, Inc. DISCUSSION: On August 16, 2004 Council awarded a contract in the amount of $353,000 to JMB Construction, Inc. for removal of debris and repairs to the Sanchez Creek box culverts from Carolan Avenue to the Sanchez Lagoon. The two box culverts carry storm water to the San Francisco Bay from Sanchez and Terrace Creek watersheds. The culverts are over 800 feet long and are located in easements under the North Park Apartments and Highway 101. In the past, the 900 blocks of Paloma, Laguna, and Chula Vista Avenues experienced flooding during heavy storms. The project increased the capacity of the creek thereby reducing the potential for flooding in these upstream residential areas. The final cost was $69,512 above the awarded contract amount due to the unforeseen need to dispose of hazardous materials found in the culvert at a special (Class 3) dump. BUDGET IMPACT: There are sufficient funds in the CIP 80900 for this contract. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Final Invoice Doug B��,N//�! Senior 1vll Engineer SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\80900 Sanchez Crk Bx Culvt Resolution.doc RESOLUTION NO. - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING SANCHEZ CREEK BOX CULVERT CLEANING FROM CAROLAN AVENUE TO SANCHEZ LAGOON CITY PROJECT NO. 80900 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council does hereby find, order and determine as follows: 1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by JMB CONSTRUCTION, INC. under the terms of its contract with the City dated August 16, 2004 has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 80900. 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. 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 SAA Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\80900\80900_Resolution Accepting.wpd JMB CONSTRUCTION SANCHEZ CREEK BOX CULVERT CLEANING 150 Executive Park Blvd.-Suite 4400 FROM CAROLAN AVENUE TO SANCHEZ LAGOON DATE:February 2nd,2006 San Francisco, CA 94134 CITY OF BURLINGAME FOR THE MONTH OF:Feb'06 TELEPHONE (415)330-3100 PROGRESS PAYMENT.NO#6 FINAL CITY PROJECT NO.80900 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT BID BID QTY THIS QTY TO %AGE $AMOUNT PREVIOUS $AMOUNT PRICE SIZE QTY TOTAL PERIOD DATE TO DATE TO DATE PAID THIS PERIOD 1 Mobilization $31,000 LS 1 $31,000 0.00 1.00 100% $31,000.00 $31,000.00 $0.00 2 Structural Excavation $16,000 LS 1 $16,000 0.00 1.00 100% $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $0.00 3 Clearing and Grubbing $20,000 LS 1 $20,000 0.00 1.00 100% $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 4 Clean Debris from Twin Box Culverts $161,000 LS 1 $161,000 0.00 1.00 100% $161,000.00 $161,000.00 $0.00 5 Class 2 Aggregate Base $100 TORS 92 $9,200 0.00 81.00 88% $8,100.00 $8,100.00 $0.00 6 Asphalt Concrete Pavement $300 TONS 30 $9,000 0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 7 Cofferdam&Temp Pump Bypass $24,000 LS 1 $24,000 0.00 1.00 100% $24,000.00 $24,000.00 $0.00 8 Hatch Cover Risers(Structural Cone) $1,000 CY 16 $16,000 0.00 18.00 113% $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $0.00 9 Steel Hatch Covers $5,000 EACH 6 $30,000 0.00 8.00 133% $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $0.00 10 Hatch Cover Support System $20 LB. 1600 $32,000 0.00 2132.00 133% $42,640.00 $42,640.00 $0.00 11 Concrete Curb,Gutter and Sidewalk $80 LF 60 $4,800 0.00 1 85.00 142% $6,800.00 $6.800.00 $000 12 Sheeting,Bracing and Sharing r $0 0% $0000 $0.00 TOTAL CONTRACT $353,000 $367,540.00 $367,540.00 $0.00 *Required by Sections 6700-6708 of the Labor Code with pricing included in items 1 through 11 above. CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS CRD CREDIT-$250/day for use of yard ($250. L.S. 1 -$250.00 3 3 ($750.00) ($750.00) $0.00 ADD C.C.O.#1:Repair Storrs Laterals �$49,9971.00 - ,000. L.S. 1 $2,000.00 1 1 100% $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 ADD C.C.O.#2:Test Contaminated Material ,726. L.S. 1 $3,726.00 1ADD C.C.O.#3:Additional Qty-Bid item 4 L.S. 1 $49,997.00 1 1 100°A $49,997.00 $49,997.00 $0000 $54,973.00 $54,973.00 $0.00 PREPARED BY: SUBTOTAL "******* ****** $422,513 $422,513 $0 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES(DEDUCTION) "***`*'******** $0 $0 $0 CHECKED BY: LESS IN PERCENT RETENTION(DEDUCTION) $0 ($42,237) $42,251 l� SUBTOTAL WITH DEDUCTIONS ***"*" ***"'** $422,513 $380,262 $42,251 CONTRACTOR: Kew JMBC6N N4 ° »,,,0,,0»00.. ..»..*».*......... ......*.....*..*.....**>..*.*........*.*..» TOTAL THIS PERIOD '*******"****'* '**"*'***"**** $422,513 $380,262 $42,257 APPROVED BY .*.*. CITY ENGINEER: G V FES noI DEPT, OF PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF BURLINGAME 2.7120068:54 AM U.NAMCUMB-AMGIJMB-JOSS1Progress Payment 601-06 CITY AGENDA 9e ITEM# BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MTG. DATE 4/3/2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMIT BY DATE: March 29, 2006 APPROV BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: AMEND 2006 CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR TO ADD A REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON MAY 22,2006, AT 6:00 P.M. RECOMMENDATION: Amend City Council Calendar for 2006 by adding a regular City Council meeting on May 22, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. DISCUSSION: In order to meet the timing requirements for full notice of the proposed assessment changes for the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District, while still coordinating the possible assessments with the City's business license schedule, a regular Council meeting is required in late May. May 22 appears to be a date that is available for Councilmembers. Therefore, it is respectfully requested that the City Council amend its 2006 Calendar to add a regular City Council meeting on May 22, 2006, at 6:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in the Lane Room of the Burlingame Main Library at 480 Primrose Road, so that it will not conflict with the Planning Commission meeting in the Council Chambers. Attachment Amended Calendar BURlI7Y[.,AMff 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.burlin ag me.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, May 22, Library Lane Room, 6 p.m. Monday, December 4 Monday, June 5 Monday, December 18 (tentative) Monday, June 19 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., Conference Room A Thursday, May 18 City Manager's mid-year review, 6 p.m., Conference Room A Wednesday, May 31 Budget Study Session, 6 p.m., Lane Room, Main Library Wed-Fri, June 7-9 City Council Retreat, South Lake Tahoe Thursday, December 7 City Manager's year-end review, 5:30 p.m. 3/29/2006 4:15 PM CITY G� AGENDA 12a ITEM# BURLINGAME MTG. STAFF REPORT DATE 4/3/2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMIT TE BY DATE: March 28, 2006 APPROVEI),-? . BY �C�Jr� ✓ Vii. FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: RESOLUTION NO. 16-2006 APPROVING EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT WITH VB GOLF II TO OPERATE THE BURLINGAME GOLF CENTER RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and decide whether to reconsider Resolution No. 16-2006 authorizing the City Manager to negotiate a 5 year extension to the current agreement with VB Golf II to operate the Burlingame Golf Center. DISCUSSION: On March 20, 2006, the City Council discussed VB Golfs request to extend the existing agreement to operate the Golf Center for a period of five years so that VB Golf could bring in a vendor to operate a golf club fitting and repair shop. The extension would be beyond the current term of approximately 2 years left on the existing agreement. The Director of Parks & Recreation had suggested that it might be possible to extend the agreement for 3 years, but no agreement on such a shorter agreement had been reached. The Council voted to approve the 5-year extension in the attached resolution with direction for 3-year checkpoint on performance. If the Council would like to reconsider the approval, a motion by a councilmember who voted in the majority is required, and a majority vote on that motion would have to follow. If the Council would like to rescind the approval, the matter can be put on the April 17 agenda without a first motion of reconsideration. Attachment March 22, 2006 Staff Report Resolution No. 16-2006 Distribution Director of Parks & Recreation STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 12a MTG. 4/3/06 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL sBuB TEn MS DATE: March 25,2006 a`J l APPROVEby� FROM: Parks& Recreation Director (558-7307) BY SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT WITH VB GOLF II FOR CONDUCT OF GOLF OPERATIONS AT THE BURLINGAME GOLF CENTER RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council direct the City Manager whether to sign a three-year or a five-year extension to the current Agreement with VB Golf II. BACKGROUND: On March 20, 2006, the City Council approved a resolution to extend the current Agreement with VB Golf II for the operation of the Burlingame Golf Center. A five-year extension was requested by VB in order to host Bay Golf, a high quality club repair and fitting business, in the Golf Center's pro shop. Bay Golf, although interested in coming to Burlingame, is hesitant about establishing itself at the facility with only two additional years guaranteed in the Agreement. Council cited VB Golf's acceptable operation and care of the facility over the past two years as a factor in agreeing to the extension, but has asked that the item be revisited to discuss the length of the extension. BUDGETIWACT: The existing Agreement calls for VB Golf to make annual payments to the City of$60,000 for the 2006- 07 and 2007-08 fiscal years. The Agreement also calls for the annual payment in any additional five-year terms to be the same throughout the life of the term, increased only by the CPI from the start of the five- year term. If the City elects to seek bids from other operators at the end of any term, VB Golf shall be given the opportunity to match an offer unless the Agreement is terminated for cause. Assuming VB continues to perform in an adequate manner and the annual CPI is 5%, a five-year extension (ending in 2013) would result in $135,000 in additional revenue to the City than currently anticipated. Approval of the three-year extension (ending in 2011) would bring the City $89,000 in currently unexpected revenues. 5-Year Extension Plan 3-Year Extension Plan Current Proposed Current Proposed 2006-07 $60,000 $70,000 $60,000 $70,000 2007-08 $60,000 $80,000 $60,000 $80,000 2008-09 $77,000 $90,000 $77,000 $90,000 2009-10 $77,000 $100,000 $77,000 $100,000 2010-11 $77,000 $100,000 $77.000 $100.000 2011-12 $77,000 $100,000 $351,000 $440,000 2012-13 $77.000 100 000 $505,000 $640,000 ATTACHMENTS: Proposal letter from VB Golf II March 10,2006 Randy Schwartz Director,Parks and Recreation 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame,CA 94010 Dear Randy, Many thanks for meeting with Pat and me today. I thought the conversation was very helpful. As we discussed,Bay Golf would like to open a satellite office at the Burlingame Golf Center. Bay Golf is the largest club repair/fitting center in the Peninsula area.While they will maintain a headquarters office in San Bruno,we think this satellite office will be very successful. We are interested in improving and expanding the golf services offered at Burlingame,and we expect that Bay Golf will attract golfers who will use the range facilities to practice before or after a fitting or while their clubs are being tuned up. We're working on having this satellite office open for business before the middle of April. Naturally,Bay Golf will obtain the proper licensing and permits for operations in Burlingame. As we also discussed,with the new Bay Golf arrangement and with only two years remaining on our current lease,we believe that we are at the point to request a five year lease extension. Our proposal would be to increase our current$60,000 annual rent by$10,000 per year starting on July 1st with the City's 2006-2007 fiscal year and maxing out at$100,000 per year in fiscal year 2009-10. Effectively,we are willing to pay an additional$30,000 rent over the next two years of our current lease in hopes that we can extend the existing lease by the requested five years. This would give us an effective seven year lease beginning July,2006. In summary,we would propose the rent structure to look like: 2006-2007 $70,000 2007-2008 $80,000 2008-2009 $90,000 2009-2010 $100,000 2010-2011 $100,000 2011-2012 $100,000 2012-2013 $100,000 We look forward to hearing back from you on this proposal. We are very happy with our operation at the Burlingame Golf Center and hope we can get Bay Golf up and running quickly and have our lease extended. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Chris Aliaga CEO,VB Golf H STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8d MTG. 3/20/06 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCH, ssUB=:= By DATE: March 12,2006 APPROVRD FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY 9� SUBJECT: EXTENSION OF AGREEMENT WITH VB GOL H FOR CONDUCT OF GOLF OPERATIONS AT THE BURLINGAME GOLF CENTER RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution giving the City Manager approval to sign an extension to the current Agreement with VB Golf II. BACKGROUND: When the Burlingame Golf Center (BGC) opened in March of 2000, it was projected to be a source of revenue to the City. However, the Center lost money during each of the first three years of operation. In July of 2003, the City and VB Golf entered into a new Agreement that gave VB Golf the exclusive right to operate Golf lessons and activities at BGC until June 30, 2008 for $60,000 each year. The Agreement would be automatically renewed for additional five-year terms, with an adjustment for CPI over the five years, unless either party gives written notice at least 4 months in advance of the expiration of a term. If, at the end of any term, the City elects to not renew the Agreement for the sole purpose of making more money from a golf facility at BGC the City will offer VB Golf the opportunity to match any bone fide offer. Since July 2003, VB Golf has complied with or exceeded all of the operational provisions of the Agreement, including (1) keeping BGC open at least 11 hours each day — exceptions for rain — with lights off before 10:00pm, (2) maintain and attend to the timely repair of City owned property (netting, synthetic grass, lighting systems, etc), (3) offering discounts on range balls to Burlingame residents, (4) providing free use of the driving range and free range balls to City events and (5) providing free use of the Center and free balls to students of Burlingame Intermediate School, Burlingame High School and Mills High School's golf teams. In addition, the Center has seen improvements to the instructional programs and dining area. VB Golf has an opportunity to host Bay Golf, a high quality club repair and fitting business, in the existing pro shop. However, Bay Golf is hesitant about coming to BGC with only two years left on the current lease. Bay Golf would add to BGC's visibility and would attract more golfers to the facility and would increase the amount of range balls sold annually. In order to bring Bay Golf to Burlingame,VB Golf is seeking an extension to their current Agreement. VB Golf is seeking a five year extension to the Agreement, with annual lease payments as shown below: Current Agreement Proposed Agreement 2006-07 $60,000 $70,000 2007-08 $60,000 $80,000 2008-09 $80,000* $90,000 2009-10 $80,000* $100,000 2010-11 $80,000* $100,000 2011-12 $80,000* $100,000 2012-13 $80,000* $100,000 Total $520,000* $640,000 *indicates approximated amount as CPI for 2003-08 is still unknown In past discussions, Council has stated a preference to limit the contractual obligation of a City facility to no more than a five year period. The proposed extension would commit the BGC to VB Golf for the next seven years. VB Golf is willing to extend the current Agreement by an additional three years, if the same renewal clauses can be retained. If the City wishes to limit the extension to three years, the same lease payments listed above would apply until fy 2010-11. BUDGET IMPACT: Approval of the Agreement extension for five years would realize the City an increase of approximately $120,000 by 2013 over the revenue anticipated under the current Agreement. A three year extension would generate approximately $80,000 in revenues over the amount anticipated under the current Agreement. ATTACHMENTS: Proposal from Chris Aliaga, CEO, VB Golf 11 BURUNGAME r .+ March 10,2006 Randy Schwartz Director,Parks and Recreation 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame,CA 94010 Dear Randy, Many thanks for meeting with Pat and me today. I thought the conversation was very helpful. As we discussed,Bay Golf would like to open a satellite office at the Burlingame Golf Center. Bay Golf is the largest club repair/fitting center in the Peninsula area.While they will maintain a headquarters office in San Bruno,we think this satellite office will be very successful. We are interested in improving and expanding the golf services offered at Burlingame,and we expect that Bay Golf will attract golfers who will use the range facilities to practice before or after a fitting or while their clubs are being tuned up. We're working on having this satellite office open for business before the middle of April. Naturally,Bay Golf will obtain the proper licensing and permits for operations in Burlingame. As we also discussed,with the new Bay Golf arrangement and with only two years remaining on our current lease,we believe that we are at the point to request a five year lease extension. Our proposal would be to increase our current$60,000 annual rent by$10,000 per year starting on July 1st with the City's 2006-2007 fiscal year and maxing out at$100,000 per year in fiscal year 2009-10. Effectively,we are willing to pay an additional$30,000 rent over the next two years of our current lease in hopes that we can extend the existing lease by the requested five years. This would give us an effective seven year lease beginning July,2006. In summary,we would propose the rent structure to look like: 2006-2007 $70,000 2007-2008 $80,000 2008-2009 $90,000 2009-2010 $100,000 2010-2011 $100,000 2011-2012 $100,000 2012-2013 $100,000 We look forward to hearing back from you on this proposal. We are very happy with our operation at the Burlingame Golf Center and hope we can get Bay Golf up and running quickly and have our lease extended. Thanks for your consideration. Sincerely, Chris Aliaga CEO,VB Golf H RESOLUTION NO. 16-2006 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH VB GOLF II, LLC, TO OPERATE THE CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLINGAME GOLF CENTER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, in Resolution No. 74-2003 on July 7, 2003, the City Council approved an agreement with VB Golf II, LLC ("VB Golf')to operate the Burlingame Golf Center for a period of five (5)years; and WHEREAS, VB Golf has requested an extension of the 2003 Agreement so that VB Golf can subcontract a portion of the existing pro shop to club repair and fitting business; and WHEREAS, VB Golf has offered to increase the payments under the current agreement on an escalating scale over the provisions of the current agreement in exchange for the extension; and WHEREAS, VB Golf has provided good service at the Golf Center since 2003 and this extension would be in the public interest, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to negotiate and execute an extension to the current Agreement for Conduct of Golf Operations at the Burlingame Golf Center with VB Golf II, LLC on the following terms and conditions: a. An extension of the current Agreement for a period of five (5)years. In addition, the parties will conduct a formal performance review in the third year of the extension. b. An increase of the payments due under the current Agreement to the following amounts: 2006-2007 $70,000 2007-2008 $80,000 2008-2009 $90,000 2009-2010 $100,000 2010-2011 $100,000 2011-2012 $100,000 2012-2013 $100,000 2. The Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the Manager. MAYOR 1 I, DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20`'day of March, 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL,MEMBERS: BAYLOCK, COHEN, KEIGHRAN, O'MAHONY NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:NAGEL ABSENT: COUNCII.,MEMBERS:NONE CITY CLERK 2 CITY AGENDA ITEM# 13a AMWUNGA'I�ME STAFF REPORT MAG. w16.Ao DATE 4/3/2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMIT BY l DATE: March 30, 2006 APP BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: OUTLINE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REGULATIONS FOR DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION Discuss outlines of campaign finance regulation issues and direct staff whether to return for further discussion following decisions in pending cases in the United States Supreme Court. DISCUSSION Last month, the Council asked staff to provide a background memorandum on campaign finance issues so that the Council could decide whether to develop any campaign finance regulations. This memorandum is intended to provide that background information; the United States Supreme Court is currently considering a campaign finance case from Vermont,Randall vs. Sorrell, which will probably provide an important update to the landmark case of Buckley vs. Valeo, which was decided some 30 years ago, particularly with a relatively new court in place. Therefore, it is recommended that further discussion be postponed until the Randall case is decided some time in early summer. History For the past 30 years or more, various levels of government, from Congress to small towns, have tried to address concerns about the high costs of elections and the effects that money can have on policy-making. Campaign finance regulations are often motivated by a number of reasons: 1) creating a more level playing field for candidates; 2) opening up the election process to more candidates; 3) relieving candidates and officeholders from the need to be constantly raising money; and 5) minimizing the possible corruption of both the electoral and the policy-making process. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Buckley vs. Valeo, a review of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The Court determined that disclosure and record keeping requirements of the Federal law were valid. The Court also found that limitations on contributions as provided in the Federal law were constitutional; the Court reasoned that these limits served an overriding governmental interest in avoiding "the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions." Mayor and Council Re: Campaign Finance Regulations March 30, 2006 Page 2 However, the Court struck down the Federal law's limits on expenditures. The Court determined that the First Amendment right of speech of a candidate to spend the money that the candidate felt was necessary to win an election could only be overcome by a compelling governmental interest that was implemented in the only way possible by expenditure limitation. The Court did not agree with the Federal Election Commission that expenditure limitations were necessary to reduce the costs of elections; the Court decided it was not the government's business to regulate the costs of elections or other free speech expression, and that expenditure limitations might unfairly affect a less-recognized candidate. The Court also strongly disapproved of any limitation on a candidate's personal expenditure on behalf of the candidate's own campaign. In Nixon vs. Shrink Missouri Gov't PAC in 2000, the Supreme Court determined that states could also set limits on contributions in State election campaigns and the states could individually determine what limits were appropriate. In establishing the need and level for contribution limits, the Court made clear that the regulating agency had to develop evidence of possible corruption and the contribution levels necessary to retain an effective election system. California voters have made several attempts at campaign finance regulation. After a number of court decisions threw out earlier initiatives, the voters in 1996 adopted Proposition 208, which imposed a variety of campaign contribution limits, including a$100 individual contribution limit to local elective offices; however, before the measure could be fully tested in the courts, the California Legislature proposed Proposition 34, which wiped out Prop 208's local agency provisions and according to some, eroded some of the contribution limits found in Prop 208; Proposition 34 passed in 2000. At about the time of Proposition 208, many cities adopted supplementary campaign finance regulations. Here in Burlingame, the City Council adopted a voluntary expenditure ceiling in Ordinance No. 1575 that applied to just the 1997 election. The cap was $28,500, or roughly$100 per resident, which matched with the maximum contribution of$100 per individual. Acceptance of the voluntary ceiling entitled the candidate under Proposition 208 to recognition on the ballot. However, that basis for recognition was swept away by Proposition 34 A summary of local agency campaign contribution regulations for smaller cities in the Bay Area, as well as the County of San Mateo, is attached for the Council's reference; the left hand column contains the date of the first adoption by that city of campaign finance regulations as well as the current population. As the summary shows, there is a wide variety of levels of regulation in the ten (10) local agencies. Scope Local campaign finance regulations can address various levels or issues of campaign finance: A. Disclosure. A local regulation could impose more stringent levels of disclosure, such as for every $50 contribution, rather than the $100 contribution disclosure required under the State Political Reform Act, or more detailed expenditures disclosure. Or it could impose disclosure more often, such as four pre-election statements, rather than the two required by the State Political Reform Act. Mayor and Council Re: Campaign Finance Regulations March 30, 2006 Page 3 Some cities require prompt disclosure of large contributions, such as any contribution over$250 being reported within twenty-four hours of receipt,particularly near an election date. B. Voluntary Limits on Campaign Contributions or Expenditures. Some agencies have created a voluntary system of campaign contribution or expenditure limits, in which candidates commit to be bound by certain limits on either contributions or expenditures, or both. The regulations then provide a mechanism where the candidate who accepts the limits is recognized on the ballot or on the ballot statements. Of course, candidates themselves could agree on such a system without regulations. C. Voluntary-Mandatory Limits on Campaign Contributions or Expenditures. Proposition 208 adopted by the voters in 1996 provided a mix and match option to local agencies. If a candidate voluntarily agreed to limit expenditures, for example, then the candidate was entitled to a certain per-individual contribution limit; if a candidate did not agree to limit expenditures, then the contribution limit was lower. Proposition 34 adopted in 2000 by the voters swept that option out of State law for local agencies, but cities could probably still seek to craft such a system. Palo Alto, for example, still has vestiges of the Prop 208 approach. D. Mandatory Contribution Limits. The most common approach is a simple limit on the amounts that a single individual or single organization can contribute during either a calendar year or election period of some kind to a candidate. E. Public Financing. The only currently approved approach to limiting expenditures that has a mandatory element is the exchange of public moneys for the commitment to limit expenditures. In other words, the local agency contracts with any candidate willing to accept the expenditure limits that the candidate will, in turn, not spend more than a certain amount of money on the election campaign. Constraints and Principles Campaign finance regulations occur within the context of three provisions of the Federal Constitution: 1. First Amendment Right to Free Speech. The Supreme Court has found that an expenditure limit is a "direct restraint"on free speech and is therefore subject to "strict scrutiny"to determine if it advance a compelling government interest in the least restrictive means possible. Given that test, expenditure limits have uniformly failed. However, contribution limits have been viewed as only an indirect restraint on free speech—contributing money so that someone else can speak on your behalf, in effect. The Court has found that the test for these limits is less exacting—was the regulation "closely drawn"to advance a"sufficiently important interest;"the dollar amount of the limit did not have to be"fine tuned,"but did have to allow for an adequate campaign. 2. First Amendment Right to Free Association. The Court has applied the same tests to contentions that campaign regulations adversely affect the right of candidates and contributors to associate in a Mayor and Council Re: Campaign Finance Regulations March 30, 2006 Page 4 political campaign. However, the Court has noted that the right to freely associate is the primary right affected by contribution limits. 3. Fifth Amendment Guarantee of Equal Protection. The Supreme Court has rejected contentions that valid contribution regulations violated equal protection guarantees to be accorded unknown candidates or minor parties; however, this issue would, of course, be raised if expenditures were going to be regulated, or if the contribution limits were so skewed as to favor one type of candidate over another. The upcoming decision on the Vermont law should provide new guidance on this issue. The Supreme Court has also made clear that there are a couple of aspects of campaign finance regulation that are, in effect, off limits: A. Personal Contributions. Personal contributions to one's own campaign is viewed as the essence of free speech. A limit on personal contributions might well be viewed as antithetical to the expressed government purpose of avoiding corruption,because using one's own money would seem to avoid the entanglement with fund-raising and influence-peddling. Therefore, personal contribution limits have been uniformly rejected. Some cities have imposed limits on loans that a candidate might make to the candidate's own campaign on the basis that the loan is going to be repaid by others' contributions, even after the election is over. Such a provision would have to be narrowly crafted to be limited to the issue of repayment by others. A second issue is contributions by a candidate's own family. In a community property state such as California,how does limiting a spouse's contributions to the other spouse's campaign address corruption? Once again, any such provision would have to be carefully considered as there is no case law to support such a limitation. B. Independent Political Committees. The courts have almost uniformly refused to apply any contribution or expenditure limitations to political committees that are not connected to a candidate. Some cities in the State have made attempts at regulation, and those have failed. Therefore, any campaign finance regulation system has to recognize that a political committee may be able to have a strong influence on an election but be exempt from the regulations imposed on a candidate or a candidate-controlled committee. Specific Provisions In crafting a campaign finance regulation, the following aspects can be addressed. Of course, the regulations can be as simple or as complicated as a city council may wish. It is important to recognize that enforcement may be problematical; even the State Fair Political Practices Commission has been severely underfunded and is often able to sanction only the most egregious violations. Local governments do not have the staffing or financial capability to provide an independent enforcement agency. Instead, reliance is placed in many Mayor and Council Re: Campaign Finance Regulations March 30, 2006 Page 5 cases on the city clerk and the belief that open disclosure will be a strong enough incentive to gain compliance. 1. Contribution Limits. As can be seen in the summary table, contribution limits range from $100 to $500 or more, and are structured on calendar years, election periods (2 years), or terms of office (4 years). In developing a contribution limit, a court would expect a study of past contribution history to ensure that the limits provide adequate leeway for effective campaigns. The limits can also be adjusted automatically by an index, such as the Consumers Price Index, so that the limits stay current and do not require an ordinance amendment. B. Contribution Categories. Contribution limits can also vary according to the contributor's identity. Different limits might be placed on individuals, organizations (such as committees and corporations), and aggregations of individuals (such as the employees or officers of a corporation). Limits can also be placed on anonymous contributions below the $100 limit imposed by Gov't Code § 84304 and on cash contribution below the $100 limit imposed by Gov't Code § 84300. C. Loans. As discussed above, limits can be placed on how much money a candidate can loan the candidate's own campaign, but these have to be carefully crafted to focus on repayment by others. D. Publication of Contributors. As part of additional disclosure, some cities publish a list of large contributors to candidates just before the election. Others impose additional disclosure filings in the weeks just before the election with regard to larger contributions. E. Disqualification from Participation. Some cities have added disqualification requirements on top of those found in the Political Reform Act and FPPC regulations, so that if a matter comes before a city council within a specified period following an election that involves a larger campaign contributor to a councilmember, the councilmember is required to disqualify him or herself from participation. Under current FPPC rules, this disqualification requirement is imposed on an unsuccessful candidate serving on a board or commission, but not on an elected official. Some cities go so far as to disqualify a candidate from office if the candidate violates the campaign finance regulations. CONCLUSION It is hoped that this memorandum has given the Council a beginning outline on the issues involved in campaign finance regulations. The upcoming decision in Randall vs. Sorrell should provide us with a strong update on the standards to which campaign finance regulation must conform. Therefore, it is recommended- that ecommendedthat if the Council wishes to discuss this issue further, staff be directed to bring it back to the Council once the Randall decision is made and a chance has been given to evaluate the impact of that decision on campaign law. Mayor and Council Re: Campaign Finance Regulations March 30, 2006 Page 6 Attachment Summary of local campaign finance regulations SUMMARY OF SMALLER CITIES' CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION REGULATIONS CITY/ MANDATORY- INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE/ PERSONAL PAC LIMIT LOAN LIMITS OVERSIGHT SANCTIONS COUNTY VOLUNTARY LIMIT ORGANIZATN LIMIT City of Sausalito Mandatory $250/election $250/election Unclear $500/election No None Civil penalties (1999) cycle(4 years) cycle(4 years) cycle(4 years) +7,500 per candidate per candidate per candidate City of Milpitas Mandatory $350/election per $350/election per No None No None General code (1996) candidate candidate violation +65,000 City of Mandatory $250/candidate $250/candidate No $250/candidate No None General code Livermore per term of office per term of office per term of office violation (1986) +80,000 City of San Mandatory $250 per election $500 per election None None $15,000 -No ne Infraction Mateo(2005) Candidate per candidate per candidate outstanding Misdemeanor if +90,000 elections only knowing/willful County of San Mandatory $1,000 per $1,000 per None None None None Not specified— Mateo(2005) Candidate election per election per general code elections only candidate candidate provisions City of Belmont Mandatory $100 per $200 per None $200 per Not clear None Misdemeanor (1986) candidate per candidate per candidate per +25,000 year year year Conviction Candidate cannot triggers vacancy receive more in office than$600 from PAC's City of Dublin Mandatory $300 per $300 per Unclear Unclear None None Misdemeanor (1998) candidate per candidate per +38,000 election year election year Summary- 1 SUMMARY OF SMALLER CITIES' CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION REGULATIONS CITY/ MANDATORY- INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE/ PERSONAL PAC LIMIT LOAN LIMITS OVERSIGHT SANCTIONS COUNTY VOLUNTARY LIMIT ORGANIZATN LIMIT City of Union Mandatory $600/term of $600/term of No Unclear No None Misdemeanor City(1994) office per office per +70,000 candidate candidate Bar from office City of Palo Alto Voluntary (1997) expenditure of +61,000 $14,000—seems to be no longer valid under PRA City of Walnut Mandatory $100/election per $100/election per Unclear No No City Clerk General code Creek(1985) candidate candidate provisions +66,000 CPI adjust since CPI adjust since 1996 1996 City of Scotts Mandatory $100/election per $0 Unclear $0 No City Clerk Misdemeanor Valley(1992) candidate +15,000 Voluntary expenditure—$1 per resident Summary- 2 MEETING MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission Thursday, February 16, 2006 The regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks&Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Heathcote at 7:10 pm at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Dittman,Heathcote,Larios, Schreurs, Shanus Commissioners Absent: Hesselgren,Muller Staff Present: Randy Schwartz,Parks &Recreation Director; Joleen Butler,Account Clerk II; Rocque Yballa, Fire Marshal, Central County Fire Department. Others Present: Julia Bott,Executive Director of San Mateo County Parks Foundation; Robert&Ruth Jacobs, 2965 Arguello Drive; Connie Brown, 3400 Douglas Ct., SM; Bob Brown, 3008 Arguello Drive; Helaine Darling, 3100 Marguarita Ave.; Mr&Mrs. Emilio Rossi, 3019 Arguello Drive; Mr. William Brown, 3008 Arguello Drive; Annette Hart, 1112 Peninsula Ave.; Gerda Levy, 2814 Arguello Drive; John Ijes, 2814 Arguello Drive; Bobbi Benson, 550 El Camino Real, 9103; Sister Carolyn Krohn, 2300 Adeline Drive; Ray Forrest, 6 La Mesa Ct.;Karlyn Schneider, 2705 Arguello Drive; Martin Peters,2982 Arguello Drive; Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Rd.#206; Dian Delantoni, 27 Mills Canyon Ct; Mary& Joe Dees, 2909 Arguello Drive; Diana Leos, 2989 Arguello Drive. MINUTES The minutes of the January 19, 2006 regular Commission meetings were approved as submitted. PUBLIC COMMENTS None NEW BUSINESS Council Goal Study Session- (In order to accommodate the public present for the discussion this item was moved forward on the agenda) Director Schwartz explained that during the City Council's goal setting session in January, over 200 items were submitted by the public or Council members. Of these, five items were referred to the Parks &Recreation Commission for their input. • Parks&Recreation Department should reserve some space for community meetings instead of conducting classes • Improve signage in Mills Canyon • Need for directional signage to Mills Canyon • Removing the Parks Yard from Washington Park • More lap hours at pool Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes February 16, 2006—page 2 Schwartz noted that the public was present for the two items regarding Mills Canyon and that staff had invited Bobbi Benson to attend the meeting. Chairman Heathcote invited Bobbi Benson to speak regarding Friends of Mills Canyon(FOMC). Ms. Benson explained that she does not live in the area of Mills Canyon however she is the Chairman of FOMC. Ms. Benson informs the public about the background of FOMC. Ed Taylor Trail was named for Ed Taylor,the co-founder of FOMC with partner Bill Friedman. Margaret Taylor,Ed Taylor's widow is still active with FOMC today. FOMC organizes many activities at the canyon including hikes every second Saturday of the month and mushroom hikes, which are quite popular. FOMC acts as a support group for the Parks Department. They help groom the trails, helping tic abatement and chop away deadwood and return it to the forest floor. FOMC is currently seeking 501(c)3 status to enable the organization to obtain grant monies to help pay for maintaining bridges, retaining walls and waterdogs. FOMC also seeds wildflowers and removes invasive species in the Canyon. FOMC wants the habitat to remain as natural as possible. FOMC would like to plant native oak trees on the Arguello entrance on Arbor Day to replace the eucalyptus that recently came down in a storm. FOMC has a wish list of items for the Park including$7,000 to pay the CCC for 34 days to fix the washouts. Chairman Heathcote invited the public to make comments regarding the two Mills Canyon items. Ruth Jacobs (2965 Arguello Drive) asked what we need the signage for, where would the signage be located, where it is planned for the public to park and what role will the police play regarding kids in the Park. Bob Jacobs (2965 Arguello Drive) commented the he has lived next to the Canyon for 44 years. He agreed there are problems in the Park but that magnificent changes proposed to the Canyon by someone new to the area and whom does not live in the area is not right. Fire is the main concern of the neighbors. The Canyon is in a natural state and should remain thus. He agrees there is a huge amount of fuel down there increasing the danger and there are periodic fires. Neighbors have extinguished many of the fires and/or have called the Fire Department. However, a fire of any magnitude would be disastrous. Neighbors have cleared their own back hills to avoid a fire possibility. Mr. Jacobs believes that increased traffic in the Park would increase the fire risk. The second issue is kids in the Park. Middle school kids use it as a hangout, having loud late night parties with smoking and alcohol. The police have been responsive but lack adequate personnel to properly patrol the area. A third issue is periodic robberies with easy ingress and egress to the Canyon. A fourth issue is the main entrance to the Canyon at Arguello is on a residential block with lots of children, with limited parking in this area. The efforts of the people who work on the Canyon are greatly appreciated by the neighbors, however developing the area as a regional attraction could become seriously overrun. Karlyn Schneider(2705 Arguello Drive) says there are fires every summer. There are kids that smoke at the Toledo Court end of the Park. Ms. Schneider suggests there be No Smoking signs on the trails. She also felt that if Mills Canyon is opened the deadwood and fires will increase. Connie Brown(3400 Douglas Ct., SM) has lived next to the Canyon for 40 years. Her son is buying the family home at 3008 Arguello Drive. Mrs. Brown says the Canyon has changed. There are many teenagers and the parties in the Canyon have increased. The Police Department is slow to respond due Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes February 16,2006—page 3 to less staff. Often fires cannot be seen until too late. Mrs. Brown feels that marketing Mills Canyon will cause an increase in fires. Mrs. Brown suggests that instead of planting new trees at Agruello on Arbor Day to leave the area natural and wait and see what happens as teenagers used to hide behind the old trees to smoke. Sister Carolyn Krohn(2300 Adeline Drive) says she lives at the base of the Canyon at Sisters of Mercy. Sister Carolyn says that they are concerned about fires. Helaine Darling(3 100 Marguarita Ave.) lives at the top of the Cyon. Ms. Darling would like to commend Bobbi Benson and her efforts within the Park, however, she feels that the Canyon should not be opened up as there is a lot of work that needs to be done to secure trail safety and would expose the homes. She also feels it should remain a City Park and, if a change in status is desired, an environmental impact study would need to be done on the area. Ms. Darling mentioned that fire is a primary danger. She has also been a robbery victim and has concerns about safety of the area residents if the traffic is increased. She feels it is a poor idea to proceed with signage. She reads a letter from a neighbor who could not attend the meeting. The letter contains concerns about hazards to the hikers by the natural erosion from the creek. Mary Dees (2909 Arguello Drive)comments on a chain link fence that has been put up that blocks the passageway that was meant for the Fire Department. She also mentioned that good weather brings young kids to the Park and they party in the passageway. She commented that the biggest concern regarding this is fire danger Ray Forrest(6 La Mesa Ct) said he has lived next to the Canyon for 35 years. He built his house in 1975 and has noticed there has been increased traffic to the area resulting in large parties which the police are slow to respond to. There are fires all the time. There is no water supply to the area. He has heard rumors of picnic tables being put into the Park and has seen benches that just appeared one day with no notice to the surrounding neighbors. Diana Leos (2989 Arguello Drive)who has two small children says that she is very concerned about fire and undesirables coming to the area. The neighbors have been self policing the area so far however with increased traffic along comes increase debris. Ms. Leos requests a letter be sent to the neighbors before action is taken. She also mentioned the slow replacement of the lamp at the entrance to Argruello. Robert Brown (3008 Arguello) said that he has lived next to the Canyon since 1963. He feels the benches are a huge attraction that the neighbors do not need and should be removed. He has no problem with FOMC and their efforts. He agrees with removing the old eucalyptus trees, however, he does not think they should be replaced with new trees. He feels signage regarding the Park is fine as it currently is and thinks we should clear weeds and then leave well enough alone. He also thinks the Park should be closed sunset to sunrise. If anything should be done, it should be thinning of the trees at the entrance. Martin Peters (2982 Arguello) said that we should be setting priorities. Until the City can provide protection via the Fire Department and Police Department,the focus should be on cleanup. The Canyon and the trails are listed on a local Bay Area Trails website as dirty with bottles and cans lining the trails. Parks&Recreation Commission mutes February 16, 2006—page 4 Mr. Peters also mentioned that it is very difficult for the local homeowners to obtain fire insurance due the proximity to the Canyon. Rocque Yballa, Central County Fire Department Fire Marshal, stated he is a resident of Burlingame and that his son loves to hike the Canyon. Yballa said that public education will do much to keep fires down in the Canyon and has sent a letter to the local residents with this information. Yballa said that his firefighters are now strike team certified and they are working to incarcerate and fine fire starters. Yballa earnestly requested the public to record any fires that happen even if the public puts them out themselves and he urgently requests them to inform the Fire Department of the incident. Yballa let the public know that they can contact him personally at any time. He is open to questions and concerns. Heathcote asked Benson if she would like to comment on the concerns of the residents. Benson said that she was delighted to meet with the neighbors and encouraged them to join her in the Park for trash pick-up, FOMC never conducts evening hikes and invited the public to the FOMC board meetings. She said FOMC was only considering improving the directional signage within the Park,but, after hearing from the residents, will not request the City increase any signage. Schwartz reminded the Commission and the audience that this topic was initiated by an email received from a member of the public. There is no City plan to add signage, benches, or change the status or usage of Mills Canyon. The City is working with FOMC in hopes that FOMC, upon gaining 501(c)3 status, will be able to obtain grants to improve maintenance, deadwood removal and fire prevention. Schwartz also encouraged the public to call the City if they want to confirm work in the Canyon has been permitted and to sign up for the City's list serve to keep abreast of City information. Heathcote then closed the public comment portion and asked for input from Commissioners. Commissioner Shanus expressed concern regarding roadside access and feels that there are other more pressing issues in the Canyon, i.e. fire safety that should be addressed before any parking plans. He feels if roadside parking is not readily available then it should not be encouraged in the area. He suggests that Arbor Day be used to remove fuel from the Canyon. Commissioner Schreurs echoed Shanus regarding the parking issue. She also said that trespassing could be reduced with less signage. She feels the issue needs more discussion. She thought that educational signage that the head of the trail would be a good idea and would be in favor of a future study session on Mills Canyon so the Commission could gain more knowledge. Commissioner Larios said that problems are inherent in the area. He feels the current signage is adequate, but additional signage regarding the fire dangers would be the most helpful. He also feels that the parking issue is serious and that park hours should be prominently posted. He feels these signs would be enough to allow a person to call the Police Department if someone was not abiding by the regulations. Larios also agreed with the seriousness of the parking problems in the area. Chairman Heathcote said that he has lived in Burlingame for many years and he feels that to direct more people to the Canyon is not a good idea. He feels that directional and informational signage could be Parks&Recreation Commission mutes February 16, 2006—page S useful inside the park; however, he would not recommend signage to the Park. He felt that other issues brought up by the public this evening should be addresses at another meeting. Schwartz stated that the recommendations from the Commissioners would be given to the Council for consideration at their upcoming Goal Setting session. OLD BUSINESS Senior Mobility— Chairman Heathcote suggested that the Commission wait until the San Mateo County Senior Mobility Action Plan,presented at the January 2006 meeting, is finalized before making a recommendation to the City Council. Parks for the Future— Julia Bott reported on the Parks for the Future proposal, an effort to secure dedicated tax-based revenues to support the parks and recreation agencies within San Mateo County, including city parks and recreation departments, special districts and the County's Parks Department. The proposal would increase sales tax in the County by 1/8h cent and would generate between$13 and $16 million per year to be distributed by a negotiated allocation. The funds may be used for parks and recreation related functions such as maintenance, operations, activities and programs, capital improvements and acquisition. The proposal will be presented for the first time to the City Council on February 22nd. In the summer, support from each of the cities will be sought and the item may be placed on the County's November 2006 ballot. If the ballot measure remains unchanged and approved by the voters, Burlingame is anticipated to receive approximately$300,000 each year in new parks revenues. Commurifty Recognition Policy pdate -Director Schwartz reported that City Council asked to change the timeline of the solicitation to November and would like to revisit this matter in April or May. No Smoking in Sections of City Parks Update— Schwartz reported that the City Council unanimously supported establishing No Smoking sections in City parks. The issue will go back to Council for a second reading. NEW BUSINESS Uxdate Senior Citizens Programs—This item was postponed due to the lateness of the meeting. Senior Resource Handbook—Due to the lateness of the meeting,this item was tabled until the March meeting. Commissioner Dittman said she would be more than happy to work on the revised handbook. Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes February 16, 2006—page 6 Council Goal Study Session - The Commission discussed the remaining items from the Council's Goal Setting Session and made the following recommendations: Parks &Recreation Department should reserve some space for community meetings instead of conducting classes—Recreation Staff needs to continue offering as many recreation activities as possible to the community. Staff should also assist community groups in finding space for meetings within the community when the Recreation Center is not available. Such meeting space may include other City facilities, school facilities, local meeting spaces or private businesses including the hotels. Removing the Parks Yard from Washington Park—Because there is no immediate need to remove the Parks Yard, no plan for the use of the space and the cost of such a move, the item may be considered in conjunction with the Facilities Master plan. More lap hours at pool—Recreation Staff needs to continue balancing the use of the Aquatic Center between City, School and Club programs with the goals of maximizing use and proper fiscal management. REPORTS/HAND-OUTS Parks &Recreation Department Reports Monthly Report(see attached) 2004-5 FY Revenue Report(see attached) Fall 2005 Scholarship Breakdown(see attached) Fall 2005 Senior Discount Report(see attached) Commissioners Chairman Heathcote suggested staff relocate the Arbor Day ceremony after learning the concerns of the Canyon's neighbors. Commissioner Dittman mentioned that she feels that oak trees would be appropriate for Arbor Day. Commissioner Larios mentioned that Bayside needs trees and perhaps Arbor Day planting could take place there. Commissioner Shanus reminded the Commission about the Commissioners Training Workshop scheduled for February 25th. Schwartz said to contact him to register. NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Parks &Recreation Commission is scheduled to be held on Thursday,March 16, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. at Burlingame City Hall. Parks&Recreation Commission mutes February 16, 2006—page 7 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before the Commission,the meeting was adjourned at 10:25pm. Respectfully submitted, 1 v Joleen Butler Parks &Recreation Account Clerk 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME UNAPPROVED MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Fire Station No. 34 799 California Drive, Burlingame, CA March 18, 2006 I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Baylock called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. Present: Councilmembers: Mayor Baylock, Cohen, Keighran, O'Mahony,Nagel Commissioners: Chair Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Terrones, Vistica Absent: Planning Commissioner Osterling Staff Present: City Manager, Jim Nantell; City Planner, Margaret Monroe; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks II. DISCUSS THE COUNCIL'S FY 2006-2007 GOALS FOR PLANNING AND SET FY 2006-2007 WORK PROGRAM CP Monroe reviewed the current Planning Department work program and the status of current projects, and timing for their consideration; and reviewed the proposed items identified for consideration by the City Council at their recent goal sessions. Council members and Planning Commissioners participated in discussions on each of the identified goals and issues. The following priorities were determined for the FY 2006-2007 Planning work program. Specific Plan for the Downtown Area Preparation of a Specific Plan for the Downtown area which would include developing goals and policies for development in the area, a land use plan and urban design elements, along with establishing community environmental standards for the area. Additional direction included: • Public participation program should focus on a Citizens Advisory committee made up of stakeholders; Safeway should be invited to be a member. • Scope should include an historic inventory which reviews all buildings in the planning area. • Consider Form Based Zoning, if appropriate for zoning implementation. • Funding from parking enterprise fund. Charrette A design charrette to proved an opportunity for the community to come together with teams of design professionals to focus on developing design concepts for up to four areas within the downtown area. Everyone is welcome; all ideas are heard and considered. A charrette is an educational opportunity for members of the community to hear from expert designers. Additional direction included: • Should plan for October 7, 2006, date. • Should focus on Howard Avenue and its cross streets—linkages to Burlingame Avenue. • Should set a second study meeting of City Council and Planning Commission to discuss the "design parameters" for the event(June, 2006). • Staff should budget $25,000 ($15,000 for AIA and $10,000 for event) in FY 2006-2007 budget. • Funding from Parking Enterprise Fund. CITY OF B URLINGAME MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 18,2006 Encourage Safeway to Submit Plans for a New Store in the Burlingame Avenue Area At the conclusion of the Economic Study, the City should have some idea of what is a viable Safeway project on the site at El Camino/Howard/Primrose. The City should be receptive to a submittal of plans for a new store in the Burlingame Avenue area, whenever it is submitted. Direction included: • Continue dialogue, invite them in economic study presentations, and invite to participate in Citizens Advisory Committee for Specific Plan. • Accept an application if choose to make one before or during Specific Plan process. • Give them the option of providing funding for a contract planner to expedite their project processing. Investigate Development Impact Fees With the increase in construction particularly in the single family residential areas, the conditions of the local roads, curbs, gutters and sidewalks has been impacted alarmingly. The purpose of a development fee would be to address off-site damage. Discussion expanded this item to an evaluation of all fees: • Evaluate advantages of increasing three types of fees (1)application and processing fees; (2) construction impact fees (building department, public works) effects at time of construction; and (3) on going impact fees (park development fees, civic improvement fees). • Hire a consultant to prepare information and document local fee schedules ($40,000) • Work to be overseen by Finance and Public Works Departments, Planning will also participate. Investigate Effectiveness of Design Review(impact on single family neighborhoods) During discussion this goal was clarified, to include focusing on an overview of the design review process/issues, working with Council to identify three which would improve the process and implementing those. Discussion included: • Have Neighborhood consistency subcommittee work with Planning Commission to identify three issues to work on. • Each Council member and Planning Commissioner should E-mail to City Planner their list. (Face Print and incentives for basements to reduce lot coverage and mass and bulk were identified to start the list at the meeting). • Planning Commission will review; select three to recommend to City Council. Council will review and approve list. • Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee will work on with staff and make recommendation to Planning Commission; will go to City Council for public hearing. Demolition Policy • Do nothing now. A group of residents is studying the city's demolition policy and that of the surrounding cities. They will provide a report to the City Planner. Can decide at that time what to do. Other Goals • Council will let Commission know when they need Commission representation to assist them in implementation of the goal to attract and retain desired business. • C. Cauchi volunteered to participate on a Bicycle Committee to identify projects and get them ready for grant funding should one be reconstituted. -2- CITY OF B URLINGAME MINUTES JOINT CITY COUNCILIPLANNING COMMISSION MEETING March 18,2006 III. PUBLIC COMMENT Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; John Root, 728 Crossway; and Dennis O'Brien, 2204 Poppy Drive, spoke. It is gratifying hearing the Council and Planning Commission discuss the issues brought to this forum,; complimented the new Commissioner, Richard Terrones, in bringing balance to the Commission; encouraged the Council to pursue funding for bicycle projects and to stay on top of the issues with the Caltrain transportation corridor and the trend toward more bullet trains and less local service. Hope that someone talks to Safeway on a regular, informal basis; the idea of a citizens advisory committee for the Specific Plan is really important, can act as buffer if the committee membership is representative of the Community; if focus of the charrette is Howard, make sure the train station is included; concerned with changes to the floor area ratio regulations, will destroy what is working well now, will drive away builders, shouldn't change things based on a couple of bad experiences, most builders are reputable. Mayor Baylock adjourned the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting at 12:00 noon. -3- co m ca st Comcast Cable � 12647 Alcosta Boulevard Suite 200 San Ramon,CA 94583 March 20, 2006 Office:925.973.7000 Fax:925.973.7015 www.comcast.com Mr. Jesus Nava City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Jesus Nava: As you may be aware, it has always been our policy at Comcast to ensure that our customers and your office remain informed of the programming services we offer in the various communities that we serve. In an effort to continue to keep you abreast of the current channel enhancements and programming adjustments that are rapidly taking place in the Bay Area Market, we are sending you this letter as a courtesy to inform you that effective March 23, 2006, Comcast will be relocating the FSN Plus programming from the Limited Basic level of services to the Digital Classic level at channel 410. Comcast will maintain carriage of the FSN programming on Limited Basic until May 2, 2006. Our customers will be able to catch the A's, Giants, Sharks and Warriors on FSN Bay Area on channel 40 on the Expanded Basic level of service and FSN Plus on channel 410. Here at Comcast we have informed our customers of the relocation of the FSN programming through several methods of communication including: cross-channel sports, bill messaging, DCT messaging and radio DJ mentions on several radio stations reaching sports listeners. Fox Sports Net Bay Area has informed our subscribers of the relocation of the FSN programming through several methods of communication including: the FSN website and FSN Plus crawls and announcements on their channel. We are excited to be able to provide such enhanced programming services to our customers in the Bay Area Market and look forward to continuing to provide the communication products and services that connect people to what is important in their lives! If you should have any questions or concerns regarding the matter, please feel free to contact your local Government Affairs Director, Kathi Noe at (650) 289-6794. Sincerely, V. Mitzi Givens-Russell Franchise Compliance Manager Bay Market CITY OF BURLINGAME STUDY SESSION ON BURLINGAME AVENUE CALTRAIN STATION Recreation Center— 850 Burlingame Avenue March 28, 2006 Mayor Baylock called the Study Session to order at 6 p.m. All Council members were present. Council agreed to the following points for staff to negotiate with Caltrain regarding the Burlingame Avenue Train Station project. NEGOTIATION POINTS WITH CALTRAIN • Obtain a resolution from the Joint Powers Board agreeing to restore South Lane at its expense if the Burlingame Avenue station is closed or South Lane is grade separated. • Narrow the cobblestone areas to provide wider walkways and replace the cobblestones with landscaping. • Widen the sidewalk on the south side of North Lane to 20 feet and include a landscaping strip and railing between the road and sidewalk on both sides. Remove six commuter parking spaces along the east side (northbound) platform from North Lane to Burlingame Avenue and replace them with sidewalk and landscaping. • Eliminate the outer fencing along the platforms between North Lane and South Lane and use wrought iron for all remaining fencing. • Use more aesthetic materials such as tiles or pavers for the platforms, similar to those at the Menlo Park station. • Use a greater variety of landscaping with appropriate irrigation as identified through a meeting of the Mayor, City Arborist and Caltrain landscape architect. • Provide a split rail fence per historic photographs at each end of South Lane behind the platforms with rose bush planters and irrigation. • Eliminate the streetscape sidewalk along California Drive between North Lane and South Lane. • Use a color selected by the City for all new sidewalks. • Provide landscaping strips and railings between the sidewalks and roadway along Howard Avenue similar to North Lane. 0 Provide a solid versus transparent back to the shelters.