The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2004.09.07 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting - Tuesday, September 7, 2004 Page 1 of 2 City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 CLOSED SESSION: 6:45 p.m. Conf Room A a. Threatened litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), (3)(C)) Claim of Robert Deasy 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES - Regular meeting of August 16, 2004 Approve 5. PRESENTATION a. Government Finance Officers Association Award Presentation 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. a. Public Hearing and action on an amendment to the sign code for the C-4 Zoning District (Waterfront Commercial) Hearing/Action b. Appeal of Planning Commission’s approval of a mitigated negative declaration and conditional use permit for a long term airport parking lot at 620 Airport Boulevard, Zoned C-4 and amendment of the conditional use permit for the Sheraton Hotel at 600 Airport Boulevard, Zoned C-4 Hearing/Action 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS - At this time, persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits council from acting on any matter which is not on the agenda. It is the policy of council to refer such matters to staff for investigation and/or action. Speakers are requested to 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. History and status of City streets tree program Discuss b. Proposition 1A, “Protection of Local Government Revenues” Discuss/Action c. Art in public places Discuss d. Status report of landscaping buffer along BART right-of- way Update 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Regular Meeting - Tuesday, September 7, 2004 Page 1 of 2 City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 a. Resolution approving tree pruning and stump removal, 2004-2005 agreement with Timberline Tree Service b. Resolutions approving an update of an existing sanitary sewer agreement and a new mutual-aid potable water transfer agreement with the Town of Hillsborough c. Resolution awarding Scrub Seal and Microsurfacing Program 2004 to Western States Surfacing, Inc. d. Adopt a Resolution opposing Gaming and Revenue Act of 2004 e. Approval for out-of-state travel for Fire Inspector Christine Reed to attend conference in San Antonio, Texas 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Beautification, August 5, 2004; Traffic, Safety & Parking, August 12, 2004; Parks & Recreation, August 19, 2004; Planning, August 23, 2004 b. Department Reports: Police, July, 2004; Building, August, 2004 c. Letter from James O’Neill commending Parking Enforcement Officer Garrett and Traffic Officer Witt d. Two letters from Comcast concerning programming changes e. Letters from Samaritan House and Youth and Family Enrichment Services acknowledging the City’s contribution to their organizations 14. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities, please contact the City Clerk at (650) 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk’s office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City’s website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING – Monday, September 20, 2004 CITY C BURUNOAME O Rwr[o�uwc� BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of August 16,2004 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 Rosalie O'Mahony called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Ann Musso, City Clerk. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Coffey, Galligan,Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Baylock 4. MINUTES Two corrections were made to the minutes of July 19, 2004, Item 7.c., 4th Paragraph, change the name Galligan to Gilligan; and Item 13., add designation after Olga Nava, "the mother of Finance Director Jesus Nava." Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve the amended minutes of the July 19, 2004 Council meeting; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). CLOSED SESSION: Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following: a. Threatened Litigation(Government Code §54956.9(b)(1),(3)(c)) Late claim of Lorraine Hahn b. Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant to Government Code §54956.8: Property: San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Railway Property— 12+acres along California Drive and Caltrain; Agency Negotiators: Jim Nantell, Larry Anderson and George Bagdon; Negotiating parties: City and County of San Francisco; Under negotiation: Purchase of property or easements C. Pending Litigation(Government Code §54956.9(a)): Teamsters Local 856 vs. City of Burlingame, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 429950 1 Burlingame City Council August 16,2004 Unapproved Minutes 5. PRESENTATIONS a. CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPT-A-UNIT AWARD PRESENTATION Assistant Fire Chief Don Dorrell, Chairman of the Adopt-A-Unit Program, provided a synopsis of recogni- tion programs honoring Burlingame's adopted unit, Bravo Company 1/327, 101St Airborne Division. The unit was the color guard leading this year's Redwood City Independence Day Parade. Hotel accommodations and meals were generously donated by Burlingame establishments. The Retirement Inn of Burlingame donated proceeds from lunch served at their Classic Car Show event to offset some of the costs of bringing the color guard to Burlingame. The newly adopted unit, self-named"Bushmasters,"presented the City of Burlingame with a Certificate of Appreciation. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 1740 TO AMEND CHAPTER 6.36 REGARDING REGULATION OF TAXICAB FARES AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 68-2004 SETTING MAXIMUM FARES TO BE CHARGED CA Anderson requested Council hold a public hearing and take action on Ordinance No. 1740 to amend Chapter 6.36 regarding regulation of taxicab fares and adopt Resolution No. 68-2004 to set maximum fares to be charged. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Thomas Baldwin, 524 Keoncrest Drive, South San Francisco, spoke on the need for the taxicab fare rate increase. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1740 to amend Chapter 6.36 regarding regulation of taxicab fares; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Musso publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least 15 days after adoption. Councilman Coffey made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 68-2004 setting maximum fares to be charged; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). b. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1741 TO UPDATE USE RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR PARKS AND RECREATIONAL AREAS DPR Schwartz requested Council hold a public hearing and take action on Ordinance No. 1741 to amend Chapter 10.55 to update Use Rules and Regulations for Parks and Recreational Areas. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilman Coffey made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1741 to amend Chapter 10.55 to update Use Rules and Regulations for Parks and Recreational Areas; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). 2 Burlingame City Council August 16,2004 Unapproved Minutes Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Musso publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least 15 days after adoption. C. RESOLUTION NO. 69-2004 FIXING AN ASSESSMENT FOR RUBBISH ABATEMENT AT 1200-1240 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY DPW Bagdon requested Council hold a public hearing regarding the rubbish abatement at 1200-1240 Bayshore Highway and approve Resolution No. 69-2004 fixing a rubbish assessment in the amount of $2,242.50. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Robert Wadell, 1350 Bayshore Highway, owner of 1200-1240 Bayshore Highway spoke on his own behalf. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 69-2004 fixing a rubbish assessment in the amount of$2,242.50; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). d. REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR ROOF CHANGES TO THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 2700 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and recommended Council hold a public hearing and take action. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Kevin Parkin, 446—28th Avenue, Contractor, made comments about the design and construction. Kevin Slaboda, 2704 Martinez Drive, adjacent neighbor opposed any change that would raise the house roof height; he had no comment on the garage roof height if within 18 inches. Tiffany, new owner of 2700 Martinez Drive, spoke on the construction timeframe. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Galligan stated that the slope of the garage roof must match the house roof pitch 4:12. Councilman Coffey stated that his message to contractors that build in Burlingame is that projects must be built as shown on the plans as submitted and approved by the Planning Commission; and if changes are needed, they must contact the Planning Department before doing construction. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to deny garage roof amendment and to require the 4:12 roof pitch with the 7 foot maximum plate height with a maximum height of 11' 4" required by the Planning Commission in their original action on this project and to allow the double ridge roof on the house to be retained as the Building Department found that it met all the requirements of the California Building Code; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by roll call vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS Susan Grivakis, 1601 Ralston Avenue, spoke on the Safeway store. 8. STAFF REPORTS a. INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN CODE FOR THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT (WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL) 3 Burlingame City Council August 16,2004 Unapproved Minutes CP Monroe requested Council introduce an ordinance to amend the sign code for the C-4 Zoning District (Waterfront Commercial). Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Musso to read the title of the proposed ordinance to amend the sign code for the C-4 Zoning District. Council directed staff to discuss the proposed changes with some of the hotel managers whose properties would be affected by the signage changes before the second reading. Councilman Coffey waived further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). Councilman Coffey made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel, approved by voice vote 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Musso to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. b. ACCEPT CITY CLERK RESIGNATION AND APPOINT REPLACEMENT CM Nantell requested Council accept City Clerk Ann Musso's resignation effective September 9, 2004, and to appoint Deputy City Clerk Doris Mortensen effective September 10, 2004,to fill out the unexpired term of City Clerk. A lX S �L � �1,0k V��OYlf �'-A-t Councilman Coffey made a motion to appoint Deputy City Clerk Doris Mortensen as City Clerk effective September 10, 2004, to fill out the unexpired term; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved by voice vote 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). C. COMMISSION VACANCIES Mayor O'Mahony assigned Councilmembers to perform interviews for the following Commissions due to commissioner terms expiring in the upcoming months: Beautification—Vice Mayor Galligan and Councilman Coffey; Parks and Recreation—Councilman Coffey and Mayor O'Mahony; Civil Service—Vice Mayor Galligan and Councilwoman Baylock; and Traffic Safety Parking—Councilwomen Nagel and Baylock. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR a. FRESH MARKET PERMANENT RELOCATION TO NORTHERN PORTION OF PARK ROAD DPW Bagdon requested Council approve the permanent relocation of the Fresh Market to the northern portion of Park Road. b. RESOLUTION NO. 70-2004 APPROVING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ERLER & KALINOWSKI,INC. FOR FY 2004-05 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OF WATER SYSTEM CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No.70-2004 approving a professional services agreement with Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. for FY 2004-05 Program Management of the Water System Capital Improvements Program. 4 Burlingame City Council August 16,2004 Unapproved Minutes C. RESOLUTION NO. 71-2004 TO REVERT LOTS P, Q AND Y FROM 2-HOUR PARKING TO A COMBINATION OF 2-HOUR AND 10-HOUR PARKING DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 71-2004 to revert Lots P, Q and Y from 2-hour parking to a combination of 2-hour and 10-hour parking. Councilwoman Nagel requested further information on this item. DPW Bagdon explained that this request is a result of a compromise between Broadway BID merchants and Paloma Avenue residents to change 30% of the meters in these lots to 10 hours to alleviate the impact of long-term parking on Broadway side streets which resulted from recently changing the lot meters to 2-hour parking. The results of changing these lots to a combination of 2-hour and 10-hour parking will be evaluated in the future. Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to approve Item c. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). d. RESOLUTION NO. 72-2004 AWARDING SANCHEZ CREEK BOX CULVERT CLEANING FROM CAROLAN AVENUE TO SANCHEZ LAGOON TO JMB CONSTRUCTION, INC. DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No.72-2004 awarding Sanchez Creek Box Culvert Cleaning Project between Carolan Avenue and Sanchez Lagoon to JMB Construction, Inc. e. RESOLUTION NO. 73-2004 AWARDING CALIFORNIA DRIVE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO JMB CONSTRUCTION, INC. DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No.73-2004 awarding California Drive Storm Drain Improvements Project to JMB Construction, Inc. f. RESOLUTION NO. 74-2004 AWARDING ALMER-BELLEVUE STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS TO HARTY PIPELINES, INC. DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 74-2004 awarding Almer-Bellevue Storm Drain Improvements Project to Harty Pipelines, Inc. g. RESOLUTION NO. 75-2004 AUTHORIZING THE CITY BUILDINGS JANITORIAL CONTRACT TO UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 75-2004 authorizing the City Buildings Janitorial contract to Universal Building Services. h. REPORT ON CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT BOARD ELECTION AND APPOINTMENTS FC Reilly provided a report on the results of the board election and new appointments. 5 Burlingame City Council August 16,2004 Unapproved Minutes i. CITY COUNCIL LETTER SUPPORTING THE SAN MATEO COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING WORKPLACE RELATIONSHIP POLICIES HRD Bell recommended Council support the 2003-04 San Mateo County Grand Jury report on Workplace Relationship Policies and authorize the City Manager to incorporate the recommendations into the City's policies on Sexual Harassment, Relationships and Nepotism. j. WARRANTS & PAYROLL FD Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants #96427-97040 duly audited, in the amount of $4,454,042.31 (excluding library checks 96430-96460), Payroll checks #159010-159523 in the amount of $3,326,345.38 for the month of July 2004. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve Items a., b., d., e., f., g., h., i. and j. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City. 11. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 12. NEW BUSINESS Mayor O'Mahony asked about the list of replacement trees that are deep root types. DPR Schwartz reported that the Beautification Commission was instrumental in helping to provide several lists of trees that are specifically designated for different areas and the different-sized planter strips for City street trees to help avoid future problems with the sidewalk and roadway. Mayor O'Mahony asked for a summary of their findings in the next couple of months and suggested a joint meeting of the Council and the Beautification Commission to discuss. 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Planning, July 26, 2004 b. Department Reports: Police, June 2004; Building, July 2004; Finance, June & July 2004 c. Letters from Sustainable San Mateo County; Parca; Mission Hospice; Community Gatepath; Shelter Network; and Friends for Youth acknowledging the City's contribution to their organizations d. Two letters from Comcast concerning programming adjustments e. Two letters from residents concerning the sidewalk repairs f. Mayor's press release on ordinance change 6 Burlingame City Council August 16,2004 Unapproved Minutes 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 9:27 p.m. in memory of Jo Anne Bustichi, the sister of Chief Van Etten. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen Deputy City Clerk 7 Burlingame City Council August 16,2004 Unapproved Minutes CITYo� STAFF REPORT gV(tLING AGENDA ITEM# 6a MTG. 4 DATE 4.07.04 oAwTE°JUNE 6• TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: AUGUST 26 2004 APPROVED FRoM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON AN AMENDME T TO THE SIGN CODE FOR THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT (WATERFRONT COMMERCIAL) Introduction: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on an ordinance to amend Chapter 22, the Sign Code, to allow new sign regulations in the C-4 zone (waterfront commercial). This amendment also requires that notice be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least five days in advance of the public hearing and Council's action. Finally, if the amendment is approved it will not become effective for 30 days, October 7, 2004. Planning Commission Action The scheduling of this amendment was discussed with the Chair of the Planning Commission and he agreed that since this proposed legislation provides a correction to an existing problem in the city's sign code created by recent court rulings and the change in square footage and number of signs proposed is based on the existing signage allowed in the C-4 district; this sign code amendment should be brought forward directly to City Council. The purpose of this legislation is to make the sign code more equitable and to facilitate processing of sign applications. BACKGROUND: City Council Study On August 16, 2004,the City Council reviewed the proposed changes to the sign code regulations for the C-4 district (waterfront commercial) and asked staff to contact some of the hotel managers whose hotels are located in the C-4 zone to see what they thought of the proposed changes. Staff contacted four hotel managers (DoubleTree, Marriott, Embassy Suites, Sheraton) and all of them were very supportive of the proposed changes. One Manager expressed positive surprise that the city was undertaking this change on their initiative. While all the managers interviewed were supportive of the change, more than one indicated that it may be some time before they took advantage of changing their signs because of the costs involved replacement. Staff had also suggested that the City Council may want to consider whether the maximum size of a parapet/wall sign proposed at 250 SF, is appropriate. In the discussion one manager noted that he was concerned about increasing the size of signage facing the bay because of the "night glow" impacts on Bay Trail and park users. He noted that there is very heavy usage of the Bay Trail/park system at twilight by both hotel customers and local residents who walk, watch planes land and generally enjoy the area. He felt that Public Hearing and Action on an Amendment to the Sign Code for the C-4 Zoning District(Waterfront Commercial) September 7,2004 changing the ambient light in the area would have a negative effect on their enjoyment of the Bayfront. Staff would note that any property owner wishing more than 250 SF in a parapet sign may ask the Commission for a sign variance, so long all the signage on the site over 24 feet in height is within the maximum for the site (1200 SF). History Several years ago, the city modified its sign code in a way that significantly altered the Planning Commission's and City's ability to grant sign exceptions for the amount of signage allowed on a site. With the regulations as revised at that time the city may grant "variances" to the location (placement/height) and number of signs on a site, but a variance may not be granted for the amount of signage (square footage) allowed on a parcel. Our sign code was written in 1978 before the city's high rise hotel boom. The 1978 code, as applied to the C-4 zoning district, was written in reaction to three signs which the community felt were not in keeping with the image of Burlingame: the Ramada Hotel pole sign, the roof sign on what was then the Sheraton(now the Crowne Plaza) and the roof sign on the now demolished AMFAC Hotel. The resulting signage regulations for the C-4 zoning district were very restrictive. • Each site with 50 feet of frontage was allowed 100 SF of signage which increased to a maximum of 200 SF of signage if the site had 150 feet or more of frontage; • in addition each site was allowed 75 SF of signage on each secondary frontage (facing a parking lot, public trail or public street (San Francisco bay oriented signage was allowed as secondary frontage signage in the 1992); • Two signs were allowed on each frontage; • Pole and monument signs were limited to a maximum of 20'; and • The amount of signage at the second story (24' in height)was limited to 60% of that allowed on the frontage, at the third story (36' in height)the amount of signage allowed was limited to 30% and no signage was allowed at the fourth floor or above (48' in height). As the hotels and taller office buildings were constructed in the C-4 zone (the east side of Bayshore Highway and Anza and Anza Point areas)the city soon discovered two things. First , when there is more than one tall hotel, it is difficult to distinguish among them at a distance from the ground, parapet signs are useful if not necessary. Second, the city discovered that signage size needs to be proportional to the size of the building or it looks odd. On this basis substantial sign exceptions both in terms of square footage and height were granted to hotels and office buildings in the Bayfront area. In fact only those smaller hotels built after the recent sign code change conform in terms of maximum total signage square footage; and two of the three hotels (Hilton Garden Inn, Hampton Inn, Bay Landing)built after the sign code change were granted variances to put most of their total square footage of signage allowed on the parcel on the parapets. The Existing Hotel Signage Table describes the city's past practice best. There are twelve hotels in the C-4 zoning district. An analysis of the amount of signage actually approved on these sites shows: • Average square footage of signage per site is 638SF, the range of signage by total square footage goes from 108 SF (Bay Landing)to 1,341 SF (Sheraton). • Average total number of signs per parcel is 6; and the range of total signs per site is 1 to 10. • For sites that have ground signs (less than 24' tall)the average size of ground signage per site is 215.5 SF; the range is 52 SF to 620 SF; • For sites that have ground signs, the average number of ground signs per parcel is 3.72. 2 Public Hearing and Action on an Amendment to the Sign Code for the C-4 Zoning District(Waterfront Commercial) September 7,2004 • For sites that have parapet/wall signs(placed more than 24' high) the average total square footage of signage at this height is 528SF; and the range is 137SF (Hilton Gardens) to 1168 (Sheraton). • For sites that have parapet/wall signs the average number of such signs is 3.2; and these signs range from 2 to 4 on a site. The square footages of signage and number of signs proposed in the revisions to the signage regulations for the C-4 zoning district are based on these findings from the analysis of the existing, previously approved signage for the area (Shoreline and Anza subareas). Proposed Sign Regulation Changes To bring the sign code up to date for the current C-4 zoning district and to facilitate the implementation of the Bayfront Specific Plan for the Shoreline, Anza and Anza Point subareas, there is a need to revise the sign code regulations as they apply in these areas. These changes would allow the future amounts of signage in these Bayfront subareas to be compatible with the existing signage approved in the area between 1981 and 2004. The proposed regulations also include a change in the approach used to determine the amount of signage for each parcel. It has become city practice to allow sign applicants to combine all the signage allowed for each frontage on a site and to propose a signage program based on that total. Where buildings are tall, it has also become the practice to allow allocation of some of the total signage above the forth floor. Based on these now "common" practices it seemed more appropriate to take a different approach to sign regulation in these "high rise" areas. The proposed sign code amendment looks at signage based on signage which is oriented toward the street (ground signs less than 24 feet in height) and signage which is directional, higher on the building to help visitors and customers find the site (parapet/wall signs over 24 feet in height). The proposed ordinance establishes a maximum amount of signage for ground signs and a maximum amount of signage for parapet/wall signs for each parcel. Further the proposed regulations allow a great deal of latitude to the property owner or hotel operator to determine how the allowed square footage can be arranged on the property. This does not really represent a change since essentially this is what happens now. Finally, the proposed regulations will create signage standards which will apply only to properties in the current C-4 zoning district. Presently the standards applied in the C-4 zoning district also apply in the O-M and M-1 districts (CS 22.20). As these three areas have developed over the years they have lost their physical similarity, thus applying the same signage standards has ceased to work very well. These proposed changes will better address the physical differences between the development in the C-4 district (more high rise structures) and the low rise office, tilt-up warehouse development which predominates in both the O-M and M-1 zones. The proposed ordinance establishes the following standards for signage on properties currently zoned C-4 (Waterfront Commercial). These changes are explained in detail in the "C-4 Zoning District Shoreline and Anza Subareas Annotated Sign Code Amendments to Implement Bayfront Specific Plan" attached at the end of the staff report: 3 Public Hearing and Action on an Amendment to the Sign Code for the C-4 Zoning District(Waterfront Commercial) September 7,2004 • CS 22.20.070 (b): Ground signs (no higher than 24 feet), 100 SF of signage for the first 100 feet of primary parcel frontage with an additional one square foot of signage for each additional one foot of primary parcel frontage up to a maximum of 350 SF of signage. • Ground signs must conform to the following: o No single sign larger than 200 SF o No limit on the number or location of signs placed on the site so long as they are less than 24 feet in height. • CS 22.20.070 (c): Parapet/Wall signs(higher than 24 feet), each building frontage is allowed 300 square feet. • Parapet/Wall signs must conform to the following: o No single sign shall be larger than 250 SF; o Only wall signs are allowed; o No more than 3 walls signs are allowed on any single building frontage; o No building shall have more than four building frontages •CS 22.20.070 (d): Prohibited signs in the C-4 district shall include o Roof signs and pole signs; o Off premise advertising (CS 22.48.040) • All forms of illumination are permitted. The proposed changes to the sign code also require the addition or modification of several definitions in the code. The affected definitions are "height", "wall sign", and "sign painted on wall". These are included in the attached annotations of the proposed sign code changes at the end of the staff report. ATTACHMENTS: Table: Existing Hotel Signage: Ground (24' or Less) and Parapet (Over 24'), August 2004 Hotel Sign Survey, August 2004s Current Sign Code Section 22.20 C-4, M-1 and O-M District Regulations C-4 Zoning District Shoreline and Anza Subareas Annotated Sign Code Amendments to Implement Bayfront Specific Plan, August 6, 2004 Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 22 to Update the Sign Regulations Governing the Bayfront Area of the C-4 District U:\CCStaflRepts\CCSR2004\lntroAnzaSignCodeAmend 8.16.04.doc 4 EXISTING HOTEL SIGNAGE: GROUND(24'OR LESS)AND PARAPET(OVER 24') TOTAL SITE GROUND PARAPET SIGNAGE Hotel Name SF # SF # SF # 90 3 137 3 227 6 Hilton Gardens 46 620 6 717 2 1137 8 Embassy Suites 358 96 1 355 3 451 4 Double Tree 118 126 5 300 5 426 10 Hatt 150 193 4 562 3 755 1 7 Marriot 187 173 5 1168 2 1341 7 Sheraton 584 52 4 756 4 808 8 Ramada 200 4 293 3 493 7 - Red Roof Inn 97 504 6 768 4 1272 10 Crown Plaza Hotel 108 1 - - 108 1 Landing - 224.7 3 224.7 3 Hampton 74.9 208 2 - - 208 2 Va abonlnn GROUND SIGNS TOTAL SIGNS ON PARCEL (sites with ground signage) Average Size: 215.5 sf Average Signage: Range in size: 90-620 sf Amt/Site: 638sr Range in size: 103-1341 sf Number: Average: 3.72 Number of signs: 6 Range: 1-6 Range(#): 1-10 PARAPET SIGNS (sites with pampetlwall signs) Average Size: 470 sf Range in size: 137-1168 sf Number: Average: 3.2 Range: 2-4 Hotel Sign Survey Bay Landing 1500 Bayshore Hwy 1.3 ac �- Frontage Location Height SF Size primary monument 20' 108 6' x 9' Crown Plaza Hotel 1177 Airport Blvd 4.967 ac Frontage Location Height SF Size primary wall 120' 384 48' x 8' primary wall 120' 384 48' x 8' primary/double face pole 20' 2 x 112 = 224 14' x 8' secondary/double face pole 20' 2 x 112 = 224 14' x 8' secondary/double face wall 20' 56 14' x 4' DoubleTree Hotel 835 Airport Blvd 4.77 ac Frontage Location Height SF Size primary parapet 84' 232.5 primary parapet 83' 83.5 primary ground 5' 6" 96 secondary parapet 83' 83.5 Embassy Suites 150 Anza Blvd 8.885 ac Sign Belonging to: Frontage Location Height SF Size Crown Sterling Suites primary/double face pole 24' 144 x 2 = 288 12' x 8' Bobby McGee's primary/double face pole 24' 144 x 2 = 288 12' x 4' Crown Sterling Suites primary wall 84' 434 32' 6" x 32' Bobby McGee's primary awning 14' 6 5' 6' x 1' 1" Bobby McGee's primary awning 14' 38 8' 6" x 4' 6" Crown Sterling Suites secondary wall 98' 283 49' x T9. Hampton Inn 1255 Bayshore Hwy .65 ac Frontage Location Height SF Size primary wall 34'-7" 74.9 5'-6" x 14'-3" secondary wall 44'-6" 74.9 5'-6" x 14'-3" secondary wall 44'-5" 74.9 5'-6" x 14'-3" Hilton Garden Inn 765 Airport Blvd 2.038 ac Frontage Location Height SF Size primary/double face ground 42 x 2 =84 secondary wall 56' 45.6 secondary wall 56' 45.6 secondary wall 61' 45.6 secondary wall 14' 5.8 August 2004 1 Hotel Sign Survey Hyatt Regency Hotel 1333 Bayshore Hwy 9.14 ac Sign Belonging to: Frontage Location Height SF Size Scalini restaurant primary canopy 12' 15 Tx 3' Hyatt primary/double face monument 7-5- 2 x 36 =72 6'x 6' Hyatt primary wall 12' 20.5 20'5"x 1' Knuckles Bar primary canopy 12' 18 8'x 2'3" Hyatt secondary/double face wall 109' 150 x 2 = 300 50'x 3' Marriot Hotel 1800 Bayshore Hwy 9.35 ac Frontage Location Height SF Size primary ground 100 primary porte cochere 20 primary ground 64 primary ground 9 secondary 99' 129 secondary 99' 129 secondary 109' 304 38'x 8' Ramada 1250 Bayshore Hwy 3.51 ac Sign Belonging to: Frontage Location Height SF Size Max's primary/double face pole 108 x 2 =216 16'x 6'9" Ramada primary/double face pole 270 x 2 = 540 30'x 9' Max's primary awning 6 Tx 2' Max's primary window 3 x 2 =6 1'x 3' primary porte cochere 25.5 12'9"x 2' secondary 14. Red Roof Inn 777 Airport Blvd 3.08 ac Frontage Location Height SF Size primary/double face ground 12' 2 x 73.6 = 147.2 TT x 9'8 1/2" primary wall 39' 97.5 primary wall ITT 41 6'8"x 6'2" secondary/double face pole 6' 6 x 2 = 12 Tx 2' secondary wall 39' 97.5 secondary 39' 97.5 August 2004 2 Hotel Sign Survey Sheraton Gateway 600 Airport Blvd 4.7 ac Frontage Location Height SF Size primary/double face monument 13' 143 1' 10"/5' 10"x 9'4" primary wall 141' 1008 primary porte cochere 20' 12 Tx 4' primary/double face ground 2'8" 9.2 V 8"x 2'9" primary/double face ground 2-8- 9.2 1'8"x 2'91 secondary parapet 141' 160 5'x 31' 11" Vagabond Inn 1640 Bayshore Hwy 1.25 ac Frontage Location Height SF Size primary pole 20'-6" 160 16'x 10' secondary reader bd. 10' 48 16'x 3'-6" August 2004 3 City of Burlingame Chapter 22.20 22.20.040 Number. C-4,M-1 AND O-M DISTRICT There shall be no more than two signs for REGULATIONS each frontage.(Ord.1096§2(part);January 17, 1977). 22.20.010 Permitted signs. 22.20.020 Sign area—Primary 22.20.050 Lighting. frontage. All forms of illumination are permitted. 22.20.030 Sign area—Secondary (Ord. 1096 § 2 (part); January 17, 1977, as frontage. amended by Ord.1216§3;December 7,1981). 22.20.040 Number. 22.20.050 Lighting. 22.20.060 Height. 22.20.060 Height. No portion of any sign shall exceed twenty feet in height above the established grade below 22.20.010 Permitted signs. the sign,except that a sign erected on a building Any signs permitted by other sections of or structure may be placed higher than the first this title are permitted in the C-4,M-I and O-M floor subject to its area being reduced by the districts. (Ord. 1096 § 2 (part); January 17, following: 1977,Ord.1521§5;April 17,1995). (a)Second floor.sixty percent of permitted signage; 22.20.020 Sign area—Primary frontage. (b)Third floor:thirty percent of permitted Any establishment with primary frontage signage; not exceeding fifty linear feet is entitled to one (c)Fourth floor or above:zero percent of hundred square feet of signage. For each permitted signage. additional foot of primary frontage greater than Where a structure has no floors, or the fifty feet,one additional square foot of signage floors have unusual spacing, a floor shall be shall be allowed, except that in no case shall defined as each twelve-foot increase in height. more than two hundred square feet of signage be (Ord.1096§2(part);January 17,1977). permitted. Primary Frontage Maximum Signage Length(feet) Area(square feet) 50 or less 100 55 105 60 110 80 130 100 150 150 or more 200 maximum. (Ord.1096§2(part);January 17,1977). 22.20.030 Sign area—Secondary frontage. (a)An additional seventy-five square feet of signage shall be allowed on each secondary frontage,regardless of frontage length. (b) Any frontage of a hotel upon San Francisco Bay shall be considered a secondary frontage. Such frontage shall not include any frontage upon Sanchez Lagoon, Sanchez Channel,or Anza Lagoon.(Ord.1096§2(part); January 17, 1977,Ord. 1450§3;January 22, 1992). (22.20)1 C-4 Zoning District Shoreline and Anza Subareas Annotated Sign Code Amendments to Implement Bayfront Specific Plan To bring the sign code up to date for the current C- 4 zoning district and to be responsive to implementation of the Bayfront Specific Plan , there is a need to revise the sign code regulations for the Shoreline and Anza Subareas of the Bayfront planning area . These changes would allow future amounts of signage in these two Bayfront subareas to match the existing signage approved in these areas between 1981 and 2004 . During this period sign exceptions for size and amount of signage allowed on a site were common . Recent revisions to the city ' s sign code prohibit variances to the total amount ( square footage ) of signage on a site . The current sign code , adopted in 1978 , would allow substantially less signage than currently exists because of past exceptions granted to square footage . This means that property owners in this area today are allowed substantially less signage on their properties than their neighbors . The proposed changes to the sign code below are based on the amounts and types of signage granted in the Shoreline and Anza Subareas between 1981 and 2004 . In addition it has become common practice in administering the sign code to allow property owners or project developers to combine the total signage allowed for each frontage and distribute it on the site as they wish . With the present code this can be done with a variance , so long as the total amount of signage is not increased . Because of this practice and in the interest of eliminating the need to go to the Commission for something that probably will be granted, these proposed changes are based on total site signage . Administratively these new requirements would allow the property owner or tenant to decide how to distribute the signage around the site . In this proposal for the overlay , the amount of signage for each site is divided with one amount of square footage for the part of the building less than 24 feet in height and one amount of square footage for the part of the building over 24 feet . In our present code there is a formula which determines the percentage of the allowed signage on a frontage which can be placed 12 feet off the ground, 36 feet off the ground etc . , with no signage over 48 feet off the ground . In the Shoreline and Anza areas where smaller footprint , taller buildings are encouraged, and parapet signs are necessary for customers or clients to find their way around, this height formula has not work well . or rather the height formula results in every project Amendment to C-4 Sign Code Regulations August 6,2004 .� requiring a height variance and a trip to the Planning Commission. One objective of these amendments to the sign code is to tailor our regulations closer to the needs of geographic areas and make them consistent with the development policies of each geographical area so that more sign programs can be approved without having to go to the Planning Commission. Or so that only those which are most "out of the ordinary" are required to go to the Planning Commission. Finally, it should be noted that with these requirements, while a variance may be considered for height of sign, number of signs and placement of signs; a variance may not be considered or granted for amount of signage allowed on each site. As a result the equity for all properties of the base number of square feet allowed becomes very important. Amendment to the sign regulations for the C-4 Zone CS 22.20 22.20.070 Permitted signage in the Shoreline and Anza Subareas of the Bayfront zoned C-4. Instead of the regulations contained in the other sections of this chapter, the following signage regulations apply only in the Shoreline and Anza subareas as defined in the Bayfront Specific Plan adopted by the council: Annotation: The present sign code regulations are based on zoning district. The proposed amendment creates an "overlay" signage provision within the C-4 zoning district. The "overlay" would apply only to signage in the Shoreline and Anza Subareas as they are defined in the 2004 Bayfront Specific Plan/General Plan. (a) Except as prohibited in this section, any type of sign permitted by this title is permitted so long as it conforms to this section. Annotation: This provision allows any type of signage permitted elsewhere in the sign code to be installed in this overlay area as long as its installation conforms to the requirements below. Also it should be noted that the overlay regulations take a different approach to sign regulation from the current sign code. In the present code the amount or square footage of signage is 2 Amendment to C-4 Sign Code Regulations August 6,2004 regulated by the length of the building' s frontage, primary and secondary. In this proposal signage is regulated by height, with one allocation of square footage to the "street level" (24 feet or less off the ground) and a second allocation to the parapet or upper portion of the building (greater than 24 feet off the ground) . A second divergence from our current sign code approach is that a maximum square footage and number of signs is designated for the ground level and the upper level of the building, but it is up to the property owner and tenant to decide the sides of the building they wish to use for signage. This new approach grows out of the current practice of applicants adding all allocated signage to the designated primary and secondary frontages together and asking for a sign variance to distribute it around the building in a manner different that allowed in the code. The Planning Commission and Council almost always grants these requests . For this reason it seemed reasonable to allow the applicant this distribution latitude from the start . The focus in reviewing this approach becomes what should be the proper total amount of signage to allow on a site, at street/ pedestrian level and on the upper portions of the building. The numbers proposed here for street/pedestrian level and the upper portion of the building are based on the amount of signage granted to major projects in the Shoreline and Anza Areas between 1981 and the court decisions in 2000 which resulted in the city no longer being able to grant an increase in the amount of signage beyond what was stated in the sign code for a given site. (b)Signs at a height of no more than twenty-four(24)feet. (1) The maximum square footage of signage at a height of twenty-four(24) feet or less on any parcel shall be based on the length of the primary parcel frontage. Each parcel is entitled to one hundred square feet of such signage, and for each additional foot of primary parcel frontage more than 100 feet, one additional square foot of such signage shall be allowed, except that no more than a total of 350 square feet of signage at a height of twenty-four(24)feet or less shall be allowed on any parcel. As an example: Primary Parcel Frontage Maximum Signage Area Length(feet) above 24 feet in height(square feet) 100 or less 100 3 Amendment to C-4 Sign Code Regulations August 6,2004 150 150 250 250 350 or more 350 In addition, up to six(6)signs not to exceed three (3)feet in height and no larger than three (3) square feet shall be exempt from the total square footage calculation. (2) Subject to safety regulations, signage at a height of twenty-four(24)feet or less may be placed anywhere on a parcel or building; (3)No single sign may be larger than two hundred (200) square feet. (4) There is no limitation on the number of signs that may be placed at a height of twenty-four(24)feet or less. Annotation: Ground signage or signage that is primarily visible and directed toward the street level or pedestrians is proposed to be regulated based on the entire site. Ground signage is defined as being: • no more than 24 feet above grade • each site, at this level, may have a minimum of 100 SF plus one additional foot for each lineal foot of primary street frontage over 100 feet up to a maximum of 350 SF of signage; • the applicant may choose where on the building less than 24 feet off the ground to place this signage; • in addition to the permitted ground signage, each site would be allowed up to 6, 3 SF no more than 3 feet tall, signs which could be used to direct traffic on-site, meet requirements for Bay Trail access and parking identification, and marking the location of hotel services such as airport shuttle loading; • the distribution of the ground signage square footage among the number of signs is up to the applicant, e.g. there is no limit on the number of ground signs; • no single ground side shall exceed 200 square feet. It should be noted that double faced signs have been counted as two signs; so one could have a monument sign with two 175 SF faces under this regulation if the site were eligible for the maximum square footage and if it were all put in one double faced sign, e.g. no other signage would be allowed on the site less than 24 feet off the ground. 4 Amendment to C-4 Sign Code Regulations August 6,2004 This section also includes an exemption for directional signs . Currently we allow an exception for developments on large sites to provide interiorly lit directional signs ("enter", "exit", etc. ) in their parking lots and on pedestrian walkways which are not counted in the total site square footage of signage or in the number of signs on site. The exemption proposed here would put the exception for this type of signage in the code. Currently we do not allow the name or logo of the business on the directional sign, the City Attorney maintains that we no longer can limit what is put on these signs in terms of logos etc. but we can limit their size and height. Q: Should directional signs be exempt from the total amount of signage on site? If they continue to be exempt is the 3 SF and 3 feet in height the appropriate dimensions? (c)Signs at a height above twenty-four (24) feet. Annotation: This section Applies to all signage placed on the building at a height greater than 24 feet above grade. This signage is allowed in addition to the ground signage. Like ground signage, the wall signage allowed above 24 feet may be placed wherever the property owner/applicant wish to put it, and may be divided into only three or fewer signs . Signage above 24 feet may not be placed on, or anchored to, the roof (see below) . (1) The only signs allowed above a height of twenty-four feet are wall signs. (2) A maximum of 300 square feet of signage at a height above twenty-four (24)feet is allowed on each building frontage. (3) No more than three (3) signs above a height of twenty-four feet are allowed on any building frontage. (4) No single sign shall be larger than 250 square feet. (5)For purposes of this subsection, no building shall be considered to have more than four (4)building frontages regardless of the building's design or parcel. 5 Amendment to C-4 Sign Code Regulations August 6,2004 Annotation: The requirements for signage above 24 feet include: • only wall signs; • a 250 square foot maximum for a single sign; • a maximum of 300 SF per building frontage, and building frontages are limited to four per building; • only 3 signs are allowed per frontage e.g. so it would be possible to put one 250 SF sign and one 50 SF or three 100 SF signs, the choice is up to the property owner and his tenants . Based on the combination of ground and above 24 feet signage the maximum signage allowed on a multi-story structure (over 24 feet in height) would be 350 SF ground level visible from the street plus 1200 SF for identification at a distance; or a total of 1500 SF. However the maximum on a single frontage, should anyone have a 350 foot primary street frontage and choose to put all the ground signage on one frontage, would be 650 SF which is less than half the present Sheraton wall sign. Attached is a copy of a survey of the currently approved signage -� on existing hotels . The analysis was based on hotel signage because that is the use which predominates in the Shoreline and Anza area and for which the most exceptions have been granted. Since all uses in a district must have the same signage opportunities, the baseline for the area is set using hotels . A second objective in arriving at the amount of signage is as much as possible of the "reasonable" existing signage becomes conforming. This will allow flexibility for future tenants and give them the ability to have equitable amounts of signage in sign programs that best meet their corporate needs, rather than having to "jerry rig" to fit into a nonconforming situation as Crowne Plaza did on the old Sheraton site on Bayshore at Airport. The signs documented in the sign survey were, in most cases, approved before the sign code was amended to prohibit variances for the amount of signage allowed on a site. The analysis prepared shows that of the existing approved signage on a hotel the average signage over 24 feet on a site is 470 SF and the average number of signs over 24 feet per site is 2 . 6 or an average parapet sign of 180 SF. The range of existing parapet sign size is 584 SF (Sheraton) to 46 SF (Hilton Gardens) . (The -� 6 Amendment to C-4 Sign Code Regulations August 6,2004 Sheraton wall sign, which is in addition to the parapet signs is over 1000 SF) Finally it should be noted that, based on experience, some signs have been proven not to "help" the character of the area; these signs have been regulated out either by limitations on maximum amount of signage or location on the structure. The ones that come to mind as examples of this are the wall sign on the Sheraton Hotel, the roof sign on the Crowne Plaza Hotel, and the pole sign on the Ramada Inn. None of these would be allowed under the regulations proposed. They will become nonconforming and, eventually, will be removed. However, there will be less desire to retain the nonconforming signs if there is a more equitable allocation of signage to each site. (d)Roof signs and pole signs are prohibited. Annotation: Roof signs have been prohibited in Burlingame' s sign code since the first sign code was adopted in 1978 . The prohibition has worked well to keep our skyline clear of clutter. Parapet signs, which are allowed as a matter of right in this code revision, fulfill the need for "locaters" for the uninitiated looking for a hotel or office destination in the Shoreline and Anza areas . Pole signs have long been an issue in the Bayfront area, especially the Anza Area, because they can be oriented to the freeway and used for corporate advertising. Since parapet and wall signs are allowed in these proposed regulations to be located as chosen by the property owners, a franchise uses can choose to place a parapet sign on the face of his building oriented toward the freeway or bay. The need for a difficult to regulate, over-sized, hard to maintain and eventually dated looking pole sign is nullified. (e) All forms of illumination are permitted. Annotation: Presently we allow all kinds of lighting for signs in all signage districts . There seems to be no reason to alter this requirement in the overlay area. The city' s illumination requirements still must be met, e.g. the cone of light must be contained on the site and certainly must not create a traffic hazard, e.g. blinking, flashing, etc. 7 Amendment to C-4 Sign Code Regulations August 6,2004 -. Section 22.48.040 is added to read: 22.48.040 Off-premises advertising. Signs ^r stfuet es carrying the advertising of a person, product, or service other than that of the occupant of the parcel land on which it the sign is placedof the building to whie'it ij ateehed-are prohibited; signs are permitted only to the actual occupant of the parcel building e� prepeFty-upon which the sign is displayed during the period of his occupancy. Annotation: This change is a clarification/clean up of the current wording. Off premises signage is not allowed in any district at this time. This section applies to all districts including the proposed overlay, so off-premise signage would not be allowed in the proposed overlay for the Shoreline and Anza areas . This has been the formal, stated city policy since 1978 . Add Definition for Height CS 22.04.165 Height "Height" for purposes of this title means the distance between the very topmost point of the sign and the established grade directly below the sign. Annotation: In the current code each time height was referred to the means of establishing it was written the text. This definition is based on the description "from the top of the sign to the adjacent grade below the sign" used throughout the present code. One advantage of this definition is it makes it very clear that the top of a sign is its highest point. This will reduce arguments at the counter. Revise Definitions CS 22.04.500 Wall Sign. "Wall sign" is any sign, of solid face construction or individual letters, which is placed flat against the exterior wall or any building or �-e, any sign, motif, symbol, figure, word, words or object painted directly on the surface of the exterior wall of any building or- stfuetur 8 Amendment to C-4 Sign Code Regulations August 6,2004 Annotation: The word structure is removed from this definition to avoid the argument that a monument/ground sign (which is a structure) might be called a wall sign. There is an existing section (Chapter 22 .56) in the sign code which addresses wall signs . This section defines the various types of wall signs, how they can be mounted, and how far they can extend from the surface of the wall . The changes proposed to the definition do not affect Chapter 22 .56. Delete Definition CS 22.04.460 Sign painted en wall- t nt r- et Annotation: "Sign painted on wall" is covered in the definition of "wall sign" and in Chapter 22 . 56 which regulates wall signs . For these reasons it is no longer necessary. Draft: July 30, 2004 August 6, 2004 August 10, 2004 August 11, 2004 9 I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 22 TO UPDATE THE SIGN REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE BAYFRONT AREA OF 3 THE C-4 DISTRICT 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as 6 follows: 7 8 Section 1 . There is a need to revise the sign code regulations for the Shoreline and 9 Anza Subareas of the Bayfront planning area to bring the Sign Code up-to-date for the 10 current C-4 zoning district and to be responsive to implementation of the 2004 Bayfront 11 Specific Plan. These changes will allow future signage in these two Bayfront subareas to 12 match the existing signage approved in these areas between 1981 and 2004. During this 13 period, sign exceptions for size and amount of signage were regularly allowed. Recent 14 revisions to the City's Sign Code prohibit variances to the total amount (square footage) of 15 signage on a site. The current Sign Code adopted in 1978 would allow substantially less 16 signage than currently exists because of past exceptions granted to square footage . This 17 means that property owners in this area today are allowed substantially less signage on their 18 properties than their neighbors. The changes to the Sign Code are founded in the amounts 19 and types of signage granted in the Shoreline and Anza Subareas between 1981 and 2004. 20 These new regulations will allow the property owner or tenant to decide how to distribute 21 the signage around the site in most instances, rather than seeking Planning Commission 22 review for particular variances. These changes will continue to emphasize the safety and 23 aesthetic concerns of the community in an area of the City that has been both a social and 24 economic resource because of its orderly development. 25 26 Section 2. A new Section 22.20.070 is added to read as follows: `— 27 1 22.20.070 Permitted signage in the Shoreline and Anza Subareas of the Bayfront zoned C-4. 2 Instead of the regulations contained in the other sections of this chapter,the 3 following signage regulations apply only in the Shoreline and Anza subareas as defined in 4 the Bayfront Specific Plan adopted by the council: 5 (a) Except as prohibited in this section, any type of sign permitted by this title is 6 permitted so long as it conforms to this section. 7 (b) Signs at a height of no more than twenty-four (24)feet. 8 (1) The maximum total square footage of signage at a height of twenty-four(24) feet 9 or less on any parcel shall be based on the length of the primary parcel frontage. Each parcel 10 is entitled to one hundred square feet of such signage, and for each additional foot of primary 11 parcel frontage more than 100 feet, one additional square foot of such signage shall be 12 allowed, except that no more than a total of 350 square feet of signage at a height of 13 twenty-four(24) feet or less shall be allowed on any parcel. As an example: -� 14 Primary Parcel Frontage Maximum Signage Area Length (feet) above 24 feet in height(square feet) 15 100 or less 100 16 150 150 17 250 250 18 350 or more 350 19 In addition, up to six (6) signs not to exceed three (3) feet in height and no larger than three 20 (3) square feet shall be exempt from the total square footage calculation. 21 (2) Subject to safety regulations, signage at a height of twenty-four(24) feet or less 22 may be placed anywhere on a parcel or building. 23 (3) No single sign may be larger than two hundred (200) square feet. 24 (4) There is no limitation on the number of signs that may be placed at a height of 25 twenty-four(24) feet or less. 26 (c) Signs at a height above twenty-four (24)feet. -� 27 (1) The only signs allowed above a height of twenty-four feet are wall signs. -2 - 1 (2) A maximum of 300 square feet of signage at a height above twenty-four(24) feet 2 is allowed on each building frontage. 3 (3) No more than three (3) signs above a height of twenty-four feet are allowed on 4 any building frontage. 5 (4) No single sign shall be larger than 250 square feet. 6 (5) For purposes of this subsection, no building shall be considered to have more 7 than four(4)building frontages regardless of the building's design or parcel. 8 (d) Roof signs and pole signs are prohibited. 9 (e) All forms of illumination are permitted. 10 11 Section 3. Section 22.48.040 is amended to read as follows: 12 22.48.040 Off-premises advertising. 13 Signs carrying the advertising of a person, product, or service other than that of the �. 14 occupant of the parcel on which the sign is placed are prohibited; signs are permitted only to 15 the actual occupant of the parcel upon which the sign is displayed during the period of 16 occupancy. 17 18 Section 4. A new Section 22.04.165 is added to read as follows: 19 22.04.165 Height. 20 "Height" as applied to a sign for purposes of this title means the distance between the 21 very topmost point of the sign and the established grade directly below the sign. 22 23 Section 5. Section 22.04.500 is amended to read as follows: 24 22.04.500 Wall sign. 25 "Wall sign" is any sign,which is placed flat against the exterior wall of any building 26 or any sign, motif, symbol, figure, word, words, or object painted directly on the surface of `.. 27 the exterior wall of any building. - 3 - 1 2 Section 6. Section 22.04.460 is deleted. 3 4 Section 7. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 5 6 Mayor 7 8 I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 9 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16`h 10 day of August, 2004, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on 11 the—day of , 2004, by the following vote: 12 13 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 14 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 15 16 17 18 City Clerk 19 C:\FILES\ORDINANC\SIGNREVS2004.ORD.wpd 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 -4 �j` CITYjs�-,�,, STAFF REPORT BURUNOAME AGENDA 6b ITEM# MTG. o. Awlm.n.zbO DATE 9.07.04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY W.Gr DATE: AUGUST 30, 2004 / APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY - LZ'1'l SUBJECT: APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING LOT AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,ZONED C-4 AND AMENDMENT OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SHERATON HOTEL AT 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4. RECOMMENDATION: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. At the public hearing the conditions of approval for 620 Airport Blvd. and the amendments to the conditions for 600 Airport Blvd. should be considered (see last section of the staff report) The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. Action alternatives and the required findings for a Negative Declaration and the conditional use permit for 620 Airport Blvd. and for the amendment to the conditional use permit at 600 Airport Blvd. are attached at the end of the staff report. Affirmative action should be made in two motions: 1. Action on the mitigated Negative Declaration and conditional use permit for a long term airport parking use at 620 Airport Blvd. 2. Amendment to the conditional use permit to allow vehicular exiting from the long term airport parking facility through the site at 600 Airport Blvd. and clarifying conditions that hotel promotions which include long term airport parking shall require an amendment to the hotel's conditional use permit and payment of the long term airport parking tax. Planning Commission Action At their meeting on June 28, 2004, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 7-0 to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and a conditional use permit for a long term airport parking interim use on a now vacant parcel at 620 Airport Blvd. In their discussion the commission noted the need for the applicant to observe energy conservation in lighting the proposed lot, wanted to be sure that noise was mitigated adequately to protect the noise sensitive use (hotel) next door, and noted that the 15 gallon trees shown on the landscape plan should be placed a minimum of 20 feet apart. Commissioners noted that "interim" can mean a 5 to 10 year life span for this use so immediate tree cover was important. The Commission added a condition that the City Arborist review and approve the landscape plan and plant selection and spacing for its immediate visual quality before a building permit is issued. Commission asked why the traffic engineer's comments regarding pick up and drop off shelters were not included in the plans. The operator noted that these were operations issues which have not yet been addressed by the property owner. Commission expressed concern APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING LOT AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,ZONED C- 4 AND AMENDMENT OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SHERATON HOTEL AT 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,ZONED C-4. September 7,2004 about how to regulate this long term airport parking so that the city would continue to receive revenue; a condition was added (620 Airport Blvd. condition 10 in italics) to require collection of the long term airport parking tax if the spaces were ever used as a part of a hotel promotion. The operator of the airport parking facility across the street commented before the Planning Commission that he did not understand why the property owner, given current revenue conditions for long term parking, would put this much money into developing this site for long term airport parking; he was concerned that this will become a park and fly lot for the adjacent hotel and the city will not receive the long term airport parking tax as a result because the parking would be a part of the room rate, for this reason he did not think that access should be shared with the hotel. On this basis, he subsequently appealed the Planning Commission's action. BACKGROUND: History: In March 2001, the applicant applied to build a hotel with meeting rooms on the property at 620 Airport Blvd. After initiating the work on the EIR, the hotel market began to flag and the applicant decided that they should look at an interim use for the site until it was economically feasible for them to build a hotel. Since it is not possible to process two projects on one site at the same time, the applicant put the work on the EIR for the hotel on hold and proceeded with an application for a long term airport parking interim use on the site. General Plan Consistency: Long term airport parking is a recognized interim use for the Anza Subarea in the recently adopted Bayfront Specific Plan. As noted the Bayfront Plan, Plan Implementation section (pg. VII-4): "It is consistent with the goals and implementing policies of the Bayfront Specific Plan to allow lower intensity transitional or interim land uses which serve a regional need. There interim uses should comply with the underlying implementation requirements so that the planning area continues to be attractive for the preferred long-term uses identified in the plan. Such underlying implementation requirements include: traffic generation limitations, consistency with the design guidelines adopted for the subarea, and provision of basic public access improvements along all water frontages as approved by BCDC. A use shall be determined to be transitional or interim if it is found to be compliant with the plan implementation requirements, found by the Planning Commission to be consistent with the intent of the Bayfront plan and not in conflict with the long term goals and policies of the adopted Specific Plan. The transitional interim use would be allowed by a conditional use permit for a specific period of time" A Bayfront Development Fee should be paid by the transitional or interim use based on the p.m. peak hour trips generated. A full Bayfront Development Fee based on p.m. peak hour trip generation should be charged to the permanent land use at the time it is proposed for the site. Zoning Compliance: Long term airport parking fits the criteria for a transitional or interim use. In fact the existing Anza Park'n Fly is an interim use. The property owner of a site with an interim use may request an extension of his use each five years. The request must be made before the current permit expires. If granted this conditional use permit 2 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING LOT AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,ZONED C- 4 AND AMENDMENT OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SHERATON HOTEL AT 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,ZONED C-4. September 7,2004 would run to September 7, 2009. The criteria for long term airport parking in the present zoning are as follows (CS 25.41.025 (h)): 1. the sole purpose of the use is the parking for one day or longer of vehicles of persons using the San Francisco International Airport; 2. a minimum site size of three acres; 3. the permit term is limited to five years; 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.the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development and Bay Conservation and Development Commission public access requirements are met; and 6. no parking is within a structure above or below grade. The proposed project at 620 Airport Blvd. complies with all of these zoning requirements. The Project: The applicant is proposing to build and operate a 350 space parking lot for long-term airport parking at 620 Airport Blvd., zoned C-4. The project includes: o at grade paved parking for 350 cars, landscaping and fencing along the perimeter of the site designed to make the site visually open to the bay from Airport Blvd.; o a gated 20 foot wide driveway from Airport Blvd. with a maximum 3% grade will provide ingress for cars and ingress and egress for airport shuttle buses ; and o cars will exit the site through the Sheraton Hotel parking garage existing parking pay booth adjacent to the south of the site. If the use is approved the applicant will hire a company to operate the long term airport parking facility. Operation issues, such as pick-up schedules, shelters, etc. will be determined when an operator is chosen and will be based on the level of parking usage. Since this project was reviewed by the Planning Commission, the applicant has clarified that the shuttle buses will go in and out the ramp on 620 Airport Blvd., while the cars will enter on the ramp at 620 Airport and pay and exit through the Sheraton Hotel parking control gate/booth at 600 Airport Blvd. The use of the ramp as an exit for the shuttle buses will require that the driveway apron on Airport Blvd. be widened to 24 feet and the transition at the bottom of the driveway at the parking area be widened to about 40 feet. Since 620 and 600 Airport Blvd. are in the same ownership and the owner has agreed to this interconnected arrangement, the conditional use permit for the hotel site needs to be amended to provide for the additional use of their parking exit gate and pay booth (see conditions on 600 Airport below). The applicant has indicated that they have no interest at this time in using this lot to support a park-and-fly room rental promotion for any hotel. Should the applicant be interested in doing a room rental promotion in the future it would be essential that the city insure that the long term airport parking daily tax is paid to the city for spaces including in such promotions. If the long term airport parking operator wishes to undertake such agreements with hotels in the area in the future they must amend their conditional use permit. Since hotels in the area are required in their conditional use permits to have all their on-site required parking available for people actually staying on-site or using on-site facilities (meeting rooms, restaurants etc.), any hotel wishing to offer a park and fly promotion is required to amend the hotel's conditional use permit. This use permit amendment for their site would include documentation of when, how and where the cars will be parked off- 3 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OFA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING LOT AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,ZONED C- 4 AND AMENDMENT OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SHERATON HOTEL AT 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,ZONED C-4. September 7,2004 site while their customers are traveling. In addition the hotel operator and long term airport parking operator will be required to provide to the city letters confirming their agreement(s) with the off—site provider(s). As part of the city's amendment to the conditional use permit, the hotel operator shall be required to show how the daily long term airport parking tax will be paid for the customers cars parked off site. Staff Comments: As the result of the request of the applicant to have the shuttle buses exit the 620 Airport site from the on-site ramp and the concerns expressed about insuring that the long term airport parking tax is paid if any of this parking is used as a part of hotel promotions, the conditions of approval have been amended since the Planning Commission's action. The amended conditions appear in italics. Amendments have been proposed for both the conditions for 620 Airport Blvd. and to the conditions for the hotel site at 600 Airport Blvd. The action for this project should include two resolutions one to be recorded with 600 Airport Blvd. and on to be recorded with 620 Airport Blvd. Conditions of Approval to be Considered at the Appeal Hearing: Conditions for 620 Airport Blvd. Recommended by the Planning Commission 1. that the long-term airport parking facility use shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 22, 2004, sheet Sk.l a and date stamped September 2, 2003, sheet Sk.2a; 2. that should the operator decide to have the shuttle buses that pick up and deliver the customers exit using the 20 foot wide driveway ramp located on site, rather than exit through the adjacent hotel parking lot ,the shuttle bus rolling stock shall be limited in size to a maximum of 30 feet in length and 8.5 feet in width, the driveway apron on Airport Blvd shall be increased to 24 feet and the transition area at the bottom of the ramp shall be increased to 40 feet in width where there shall be a 14 foot outbound lane and an 30 foot inbound lane designated along with a three foot area in between for the gate controller box; all of these improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit or any required encroachment permits, it shall be the responsibility of the operator to insure the maintenance of the improvements in the public right-of-way and on site and to insure that roll stock/shuttle standards are met, failure to do so shall cause this conditional use permit to be reviewed by the Planning Commission; 3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 30, 2003, memo and the City Arborist's June 17, 2004, memo shall be met, which includes planting 5-gallon Frazer's Photinia spaced four feet apart, with proper irrigation, in front of the security fence along Airport Boulevard; 4. that the property owner shall pay to the city a Bayfront Development Fee, based on p.m. peak hour trips generated by the interim use, one-half at the time of applying for any permits for construction, including encroachment permits from the city, and one half at the time of final inspection of construction work; 5. that drainage from paved surfaces, parking lot and driveways, shall be routed to catch basins that are equipped with fossil filters (sand/gravel filters) prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning all filters twice each year as well as 4 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING LOT AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,ZONED C- 4 AND AMENDMENT OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SHERATON HOTEL AT 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,ZONED C-4. September 7,2004 immediately prior to and once during the rainy season (October 15 — April 1) and shall submit to the City and have approved a plan for filter/drain maintenance; 6. that the long-term airport parking use shall be operated seven days a week, 24 hours a day with a maximum of 350 parking spaces, and no auto maintenance, auto repair, auto washing or enclosed van storage shall take place on site nor shall the use of any number of parking spaces be contracted to a single user or corporation without amendment of this use permit; 7. that the property owners agree to assume all responsibility for any on-site flooding or storm drainage problems and to hold the City harmless from any claims arising from such problems and that this assumption shall be in a recorded written agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney; 8. that the landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuing a building or grading permit for this project; 9. that the landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained by the property owner including but not limited to weed control, pedestrian and vehicular clearance along the sidewalks and bike path, and replacement of plant material as necessary to maintain a visual barrier and the approved landscape design; 10. that this use permit for long term airport parking with the conditions listed herein is a temporary use and shall expire on September 7, 2009 (5 years); 11. that the parking lot lighting shall be energy efficient to the extent feasible to provide adequate light for customer safety; 12. that the applicant shall work with the City to establish an agreement regarding how the long term airport parking tax is to be collected if the parking spaces are used in association with a park and fly hotel room or other promotion program in association with the adjacent hotel or any office, hotel or other use; 13. that prior to commencement of grading and/or construction activities, the project sponsor shall submit a dust abatement program for review and approval of the City's NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) administrator; the project sponsor shall require the construction contractor to implement this dust abatement program; 14. that if archaeological remains are uncovered, work at the place of discovery should be halted immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find; accidental discovery of archaeological deposits could require additional archaeological investigations to determine the significance of the find; 15. that if human remains are encountered during project construction, the San Mateo County Coroner's Office will be notified immediately. The coroner will determine if the remains are those of a Native American, and if they are, will notify the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will make a determination regarding the individual's "most likely descendant" who will then make recommendations for the disposal of the remains. The Native 5 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OFA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALONG TERMAIRPORT PARKING LOT AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,ZONED C- 4 AND AMENDMENT OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SHERATON HOTEL AT 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,ZONED C-4. September 7,2004 American Heritage Commission will mediate conflicts between the project proponent and the most likely descendant. Accidental discovery of human remains could require additional investigations to determine if other graves are present; 16. that a site-specific, design-level geotechnical investigation shall be prepared that assesses the impacts of proposed project modifications to the levee on levee stability and any fill on site. The geotechnical investigation shall be conducted by a California Certified Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer, and shall include an analysis of expected ground motions along the San Andreas fault in accordance the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the California Building Code (Title 24) additions. Expected ground motions determined by a registered geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated into the final design as part of the project. The final seismic considerations for the site shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Burlingame Structural and City Engineers before grading permits are issued; 17. that the project storm drainage system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the STOPPP NPDES permit, including all provisions to the C.3 requirements, to reduce long-term water quality impacts from potentially contaminated runoff. The project sponsor shall provide a plan for long-term operations and maintenance of the oil and sediment separator or absorbent filter systems including but not limited to the operating schedule, maintenance frequency, routine service schedule, specific maintenance activities, and the effectiveness of the water treatment systems. The performance of the filters shall be monitored regularly by the project applicant or a third party to determine the effectiveness of the water treatment and conclusions reported to the City. To further help minimize and prevent the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system, the project sponsor shall implement Best Management Practices and source control measures that shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, regular street sweeping by mechanized equipment, proper clean-up of soil debris following landscape work or small scale construction, available trash receptacles, regular trash collection and the application of absorbent material on oil and fuel leaks from automobiles; 18. that during operation of the project, the project sponsor shall implement a program for regularly collecting and properly disposing of litter and debris that may accumulate on the project site; 19. that order to maintain the existing on-site well for potential use for any future long-term development on the project site, the well head elevation shall be modified if needed in accordance with proposed project grading and construction plans and a new well vault shall be installed in accordance with San Mateo County water well standards to prohibit infiltration of storm water contaminants and prevent potential damage to the well casing; 20. that the applicant shall require the construction contractor to limit noisy construction activities to the least noise-sensitive times of the day and week (Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; none on Sunday and holidays); 21. that the applicant shall require contractors to muffle all equipment used on the site and to maintain it in good operating condition. All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. This measure should result in all non-impact tools generating a maximum noise level of no more than 85dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet; 6 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OFA MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ALONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING LOT AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,ZONED C- 4 AND AMENDMENT OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SHERATON HOTEL AT 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,ZONED C-4. September 7,2004 22. that applicant shall require contractors to turn off powered construction equipment when not in use; 23. that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 24. that should the hotel at 600 Airport Blvd. at any time deny the long term airport parking facility the use of the exit gate and pay booth, the long term airport parking use at 620 Airport Blvd. shall cease immediately. Cross property use of 600 Airport Blvd. is limited to only the exiting of cars from the long term airport parking use at 620 Airport Blvd. and for no other use of 620 Airport Blvd. or any other property. Additions to Current Conditions for 600 Airport Blvd.: (All current conditions applicable to 600 Airport Blvd. are included along with new conditions, shown in italics) Conditions from Conditional Use Permit to allow controlled access to parking: 1. that the controlled access parking plan shall be built and implemented as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 12, 2000, Site Plan and date stamped February 23, 2000, Lower Level Parking, and the installation shall conform to all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 2. that a fee may be charged for self-park visitors at a rate of up to $1.00 per hour with a maximum of $12.00 for a 24-hour period; the fee for valet parking shall be a $9.00 flat fee for the first six hours and a $16.00 flat fee for hours 6 through 24; and any change to these fees shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing; 3. that any change to the number of parking spaces provided on site, their configuration and/or the operation of the parking controls shall require amendment to this use permit; 4. that any change to the operation of the controlled and/or valet parking affecting the fee charged, the area used, or the traffic controls shall require amendment to this use permit; 5. that the hotel on-site parking shall be reserved for hotel guests and employees and no parking spaces shall be rented or uses as a part of a room rental or any other promotion which shall require or allow customers to leave their cars on the hotel site with or without payment while that customer is not present on the site as a registered guest; 6. that employees shall not leave their vehicles on site for longer than their shifts at the hotel; 7. that the hotel shall report to the city twice a year in 6 month intervals the number of cars which have parked longer than 24 hours and are not registered hotel guests and the use permit shall be reviewed if more than 10% of the on-site parking spaces are employed for this duration; 8. that the required parking areas shall not be used for long-term parking or converted to useable/leasable space as a part of any hotel promotion; 7 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING LOT AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,ZONED C- 4 AND AMENDMENT OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SHERATON HOTEL AT 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,ZONED C-4. September 7,2004 9. that all parking spaces on the hotel site shall be used by guests present on the site or visitors to the site using hotel facilities, no required on-site parking spaces shall be used for any hotel promotions which include parking while the guest is not present on the site; 10. that should the hotel operator ever wish to undertake a promotion which includes providing parking while the guest is not present on the site, the operator shall be required to amend the conditional use permit granted for the hotel use on the site before instituting such a promotion, such request shall include a letter documenting how, when and where the cars of the guests who are not present on site will be parked and how the long term airport parking tax accrued by these parked cars shall be paid to the city; 11. that this proposal for controlled access to parking providing 423 on-site parking spaces is for the existing 404-room hotel and its support facilities; a plan for controlled access parking for a proposed addition to this hotel shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 12. that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual, company or corporate entity for more than 29 days and no rooms and/or any part of the building shall be leased for permanent residential purposes; 13. that the applicant shall provide an airport shuttle service to pick up and deliver customers and which shall include connections to the local CalTrain and Bart stations to accommodate employees at shift changes, failure to do this shall result in review of the hotel's conditional use permit; 14. that hotel employees shall not be charged to park in the hotel parking lot; 15. that the hotel shall contribute its proportional share to the operation of the City's freebee shuttle service; 16. that the applicant shall provide 8 public access parking spaces to be located outside the access control gates at the south entrance from Airport Boulevard, these spaces shall be posted with shore access parking signs per BCDC requirements; and a decomposed granite pathway shall be installed between the parking area and the paved public access pathway along the lagoon; 17. that the exit from the hotel parking garage shall be shared with the adjacent long term airport parking facility located at 620 Airport Blvd. and that this joint use shall be used on by exiting cars from the long term airport parking and that there shall be no direct access from the hotel below grade parking into the long term airport parking lot for hotel guests or visitors, the access shall be protected with tire shredders, to prevent overflow of hotel parking into the long term airport parking lot; and 18. that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 8 APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING LOT AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,ZONED C- 4 AND AMENDMENT OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE SHERATON HOTEL AT 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,ZONED C-4. September 7,2004 Conditions from Originalpproval for Hotel at 600 Airport Blvd.: 1. that all construction and site improvements be generally consistent with the plans and project description contained in EIR-52P; 2. that the mitigation measures identified in Exhibit A of the Planning Commission Resolution N. 5-79 be implemented by the project sponsor; 3. that a development fee consistent with Ordinance No. 1151 be paid; such fee is presently estimated to be $37,180, and the developer shall be allowed to exceed the maximum height of 50 feet; 4. that the final drawings for this project show a parapet height above curb grade of not more than 162 feet; 5. that prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City of Burlingame the following requirements be met: (a) all permits required from other responsible agencies be obtained, such permits to include (but not be limited to) the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the State Lands Commission (for use of the improvements on adjacent State owned parcels); (b) a design for the modification of the center island of the Airport Boulevard median strip be approved by the City; construction to be at the expense of the project sponsor; (c) all landscaping and irrigation systems be approved by the City, and be so designed that the maximum feasible on-site parking spaces are screened from adjacent State lands; and 6. that the proposed signs for this project are specifically excluded from this approval, and will require a separate application. ATTACHMENTS: Action Alternatives, Criteria for Approving a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Requirements for a Conditional Use Permit Monroe letter, July 20, 2004, to Paul Salisbury, setting appeal hearing Jonathan Wu letter, July 6, 2004, to Planning Commission, requesting appeal Jonathan Wu letter, August 10, 2004, to Larry Anderson, with attachments Shelly Takasato letter, August 24, 2004, to Margaret Monroe Fehr& Peers, memo, August 31, 2004, to Margaret Monroe August 27, 2004 memo Planning Commission Minutes, June 28, 2004 Planning Commission Staff Report, June 28, 2004 Resolution 620 Airport Boulevard Resolution 600 Airport Boulevard Notice of appeal hearing, 620 Airport Boulevard, mailed August 30, 2004 Notice of appeal hearing, 600 Airport Boulevard, mailed August 30, 2004 9 620 Airport Boulevard 600 Airport Boulevard ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1.City council may vote in favor of an applicant's request. If the action is a variance, use permit, hillside area construction permit, fence exception, sign exception or exception to the antenna ordinance, the Council must make findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given properties and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2.City Council may deny an applicant's request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning Commission action has been justifiably, with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on the project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission/City Council for the further consideration should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be held before the City Council or the Planning Commission. FINDINGS FOR A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)requires that to be approved the governing body `— acting on a project must find, on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in writing or at the public hearing, that there is no substantial evidence that the project with the mitigations proposed will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment. The proposed mitigations shall be included in the conditions of approval of the project and this constitutes the required mitigation monitoring plan to insure that the terms of the mitigations which reduce the effects of the project on the environment are implemented. REQUIREMENTS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT(CS 25.52.020) The zoning code requires that the following criteria must be met on the property in order to grant a conditional use permit or amendment to a conditional use permit: (a) The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; (b) The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) The planning commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties. The City of Burlingame CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650) 558-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650) 696-3790 July 20, 2004 Paul Salisbury Blunk Demattei Associates 1555 Bayshore Highway, #300 Burlingame CA 94010 Dear Mr. Salisbury, At the City Council meeting of July 19, 2004, the Council scheduled an appeal hearing for your project at 620 Airport Boulevard, zoned C-4. A public hearing will be held on Tuesday, September 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. We look forward to seeing you there to present your project. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely yours, Margaret Monroe City Planner c: City Clerk Boca Lake Office, Inc., property owner 433 California St., 7th Floor San Francisco, CA 94104-2201 a wWAJWA02 Armllilliff 615 Airport Blvd. Burlingame, CA 94010 • (650) 348-8801 Fax (650) 348-9198 July 6, 2004 RECEIVED JUL - 7 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME City of Burlingame PLANNING DEPT. Planning Commission This letter is to serve as our appeal to the Planning Commissions action regarding the property at 620 Airport Blvd., Burlingame. wP ` U-" Jonathan Wu, President fl#/ � �. v Anza Parking Corporation 1�4��, " D E CE 0 M E r- —_� ' JUL 0 6 2004 D v CITY OF BURLuaGAME CITY ATTORNEY Honorable Mayor and City Council Please schedule an appeal- hearing for 620 Airport Boulevard to be heard at the July 19 ,2004 Council meeting. Deputy City Clerk RECEIVED August 10, 2004 AUG 1 1 2004 Larry Anderson, Esq. CITY I P L ADN N II N G DEPT . M E City Attorney City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010-3906 Ref: Appeal to Planning Commission's Action Taken June 28, 2004 Granting Conditional Use Permit for Long-Term Airport Parking to 620 Airport Boulevard; Request for Requirements to be Imposed Upon 600 Airport Boulevard Dear Mr. Anderson: This letter is written on behalf of Anza Parking, the long-term airport parking lot and shuttle service that has continuously operated at 615 Airport Boulevard in Burlingame since the early 1970's. Throughout that time, Anza has complied with City requests and ordinances, and conducted its business in a lawful manner. Since 1996, we have generated over $ 1 ,758,000.00 in parking taxes for the City of Burlingame. For these reasons, we must appeal the granting of the Conditional Use Permit to 620 Airport Boulevard. Let's all play on an even playing field. Two Businesses or One? The Planning Commission granted the long-term parking permit and allowed that facility to share a gate with the Sheraton Gateway Hotel at 600 Airport Boulevard. We believe that 620's long term - parking permit may be used as a subterfuge for the adjacent Sheraton Gateway to avoid paying long-term airport parking taxes for operating its own "Park & Fly" packages. (Please see attached copies of the Sheraton Gateway's web pages. We also attach copies of another hotel's "Park & Fly" advertisement for your review.) With the same gate, there would be no separation of hotel parking from long-term parking. There would be no tracking of 620's airport customers versus the Sheraton's customers. And no parking taxes paid by the Sheraton to the City. If these are two separate businesses, the there should be two separate gates. We ask that 624 be required to operate as a separate business from the Hotel's parking lot. Long-Term Parking Permit for the Sheraton. For nearly two years, the Sheraton Gateway Hotel has been advertising "Park & Fly" packages on their website, citing the use of the "Anna parking lot" (see the attached Sheraton's web page ad, page three). We are the Anza parking lot, and have never had a relationship with the Sheraton for long-term parking. Individuals who have participated in the Sheraton's "Park & Fly" program note that their vehicles are parked at the Sheraton for the entire time. The Sheraton conducts a "Park & Fly" business, so it should be required to obtain a long-term parking conditional use permit and be subject to the same rules and regulations as all other parking businesses. Parking Taxes Unpaid. The rate differences for"Park& Fly"versus regular rooms vary from $10 per night to $60 per night at the Sheraton, depending on how long the guest's car is parked at the Sheraton. Clearly, the difference in room rates is intended to "cover"the cost of parking. Yet, they claim that their long- term parking is"free". The Sheraton's"regular"posted(non long-term)parking rate is $13.50 per day. If tax were to be collected at that regular rate, the City should be collecting $.65 per car per day in taxes. For a thirty-day stay, $19.50 per car in taxes should be paid to the City. Yet,no parking taxes are paid. The Sheraton should be required to pay long-term parking taxes. Penalties for Continuing Non-Compliance. For at least two years,the Sheraton has operated a"Park& Fly"program illegally, using the hotel's own parking lot,and falsely using the"Anza"name. There is no tracking of"regular"parking versus"airport" parking. No permit was obtained. No parking taxes paid. No arrangements made with Anza Parking. There appears to have been a continuous and intentional subversion of the City's permitting and licensing requirements, and deliberate avoidance of taxes. Tax and licensing estimates can be made based on the number of"Park& Fly" rooms rented over the past two years. In these dire economic times,the City can ill afford to forego collecting monies owed for permits and taxes. We suggest that treble damages be assessed against the Sheraton for deliberate non-compliance. For three decades, Anza Parking has complied with the City's requests and requirements. We have spent over a million dollars changing landscaping,lighting, lanes and other facilities as required by the City in recent years. We have paid $1,780,000 in parking taxes since 1996. We have suffered a severe loss of revenue since 9-11. Several other parking facilities have closed in the area. We are already struggling to survive. Now the City has issued a new permit to the business directly across the street from our facility,with unfair advantage to the Sheraton. For at Ieast two years,the Sheraton has already cheated the City of permit and licensing fees, and taxes. Allowing the Sheraton to share a gate with 620 Airport Boulevard further encourages their subversion of the law and avoidance of parking taxes. We hope the City will reconsider its decision, require two gates for two businesses, and cancel 620's permit,and require the Sheraton to obtain a long-term parking permit and pay past and future parking taxes. All long-term parking operators should be required to observe the same rules and regulations. �•. Very truly yours, Wu, �(I�onathan resident �P AUG-12-2004 06 :02 AM 5M2842698 4154354377 P. 02 heraton Uateway Hotel- ban f,ranctsco tceservauons More Hotel Information I Directions Hotel Ratings Sheraton Gateway Hotel Value IndexTM i i i W 600 Airport Boulevard M h.eLService Quality Burlingame , CA 940101 Fxtent of Services Provided Location Convenience Quk*Accu to Yar Matct" Neighbodmd Comfort-level iii d ' ..MOO prey SheratDn Gateway X next Features How LAerW Photo ouW Room Photo Hotel Description My HotelRes Account The Sheraton Gateway SFO is situated on San Francisco l3ay Travel Partner Access just Three miles from the San Francisco Airport and 15 miles Groups& Meetings from Downtown San Francisoo. This Major 4-diamond hotel Government Groups offers great service and amenities including highspeed intern 'Is by City access, 24 hour complimentary airport shuttle, indoor pool ant fitness enter and waterfront dining at their restaurant Windov r-ramiere Hotels on the Bay. Other Cities (cfick to enl Np) (C&*to ) Car Rental Ww or%� Currency Converter Af1P"i o°`� r„r—� -� � �• � - July 14 P94 �1 Site Information Booking Procedures Value Index rm Hotel Rates for 7114/2004 Customer Service Room Type Rats Rooms Available Restrictions Deluxe DbVDbi NonSmokin Available 3109 Open None Things To Know Sheraton Sweet S/eeper2 DBL Beds, NonSrnoldng Room,High Speed INET Connection Weather Deluxe Db/pbI Smoking Available 3109 Open None Tips for Travelers Sheraton Sweet Sleeper 2 DBL Beds, NonSmoking Room,High Speed INET Connection Getting Around _ ---- .- Points of Interest Xtra Value Deluxe King Available 3109 Open None Entertainment& Dining Xtra-Value Rate Sheraton Sweet Sleeper King Bed„High Speed INET Connection About Districts Xtra Value Deluxe DbIMb Available $ 109 Open None Xtra Value Rate Sheraton Sweet Sleeper 2 DBL Beds,High Speed INET Connection About Us Parfc&Fry 14 dep Available $ 149 Open None Privacy Policy King or Dbt/Db1 upon request, Park up to f4 days Company Info ParkA'f* 364im z Available 3169 Open None 'tact Us King or Dbl/Dbl upon requesWark up to 30 days ._.,OnCallTm Deluxe King NonSmoking Available 3 109 Open None SookAbility-net Tu Sheraton Sweet SkWer King Bed, AlonSmoking Room,High Speed INET Connection Newsletter Signup! Deluxe King Smoking Avallabie 3109 Open None Sheraton Sweet Sleeper King sed,Smoking Room,High Speed INET Connection --- Page 1 of 1 to "od Hotels&Resorts Terms-and Conditions: • Basic room rates do not include state/local taxes• and availability. • Rates are per room, per night, based on single/double occupancy y, if you need additional • padaW*KAxles up to i Mghts of parking ask about our$179 package that in 'dft upt&3adays:of"�Qd . • Not to be combined with other offers or promotions. n 2003 Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide, Inc. parr CLOW VMOOW AUG-12-2004 06 _03 AM 5M2842698 4154354377 P_ 03 Sheraton Gateway San Francisco Airport Hotel at Starwood i C45" ` "`` Shetatons4m-:The.bl:�t g�4gm.aji.St�oQd.PeferrALd- 1 .SIGILII 1Q_5M ilQQAPrsfv[[ed Gs1elt Er spa coNmion • ow*Iatlon owe • nbw ps a o"no • rew rw dN • `tither Starwood Sites 1. Sheredw 11101�yA aa�arrA FIND ROOM3 A RATES 3pl:C1AL OffEtit} ABOUT yHMTON CNCCIc RESERVATIONS Sheraton Gateway San Francisco Airport Hotel HOTEL OVERVIEW 600 Airport Boulevard. Burlingame, California 94010. United States Phone (650) 340-8500. Fax(650) 343-1546 GUEST ROOMS&AMENITIES E-MAILS. VISITQUR SITE HOTEL SERVICES Check-in m DDJyyyy Offitk-put MkETING&EVENT FACILITIES RESTAURANTS&LOUNGES Click on an Image to LOCAL AREA enlarge. DRIVING DIRECTIONS Use arrows to scroll through the slideshow. .VIRTUAL HOTEL TOUR -VIDEO TOUR Welcome to the beautifully appointed Sheraton Gateway San Francisco Airport Hotel. Overview Enjoy A Sweet Night's 51600 Relax in the comfort of our new Sheraton Sweet Sleeper(SM) Bed and receive the weekend VIp treatment you deserve for starting at just$99 per night. The package Includes a$30 food and beverage credit, free local&(800)toll calls,guaranteed early check-in and late check out,complimentary hotel parking, and/or airport shuttle service. If you visit during the week, you'll receive all of these special amenities plus enjoy access to our Club Floor, starting at$149 per night) Book n2 Terms&_ fl_dJti904 Park and fly! Our special Stay, Park, and Fly Package starts at$119 per night and includes a deluxe room with the new Sheraton Sweet Sleeper(SM) Bed, complimentary airport shuttle service, free hotel and long-term parking at the adjacent Anza parking lot. Book now Terms&.COnditlor* Discover the beautifully appointed Sheraton Gateway San Francisco Airport Hotel, set along the charming and historic San Francisco Bay. We will exceed your expectations in our 404 spacious guest rooms overlooking the San Francisco Bay, each featuring the new Sheraton Sweet SleeperSM Bed and High Speed Internet Access. We want to do everything possible to make your stay enjoyable.That's why we offer wonderful dlning experiences, a complimentary 3-mile shuttle ride to and from the San Francisco International Airport,an extensive workout room, and all the cutting-edge technology and safety features you demand for business, plus the added comforts and -- gracious service you desire for leisure. It's no wonder we earned the prestigious four- RUG-12-2004 06:04 R11 5112842698 4154354377 P.04 tarwood Hotels&Resorts Page 1 of 1 Terms and Condition$'. • Basic room rates do not Include state/local taxes. • Rates are per room,per nlght,based on single/double occupancy and availability. da If need additional Package Includes up to 14 days free hotel parking.Regular hotel parking is$13.00+tax per y you nights of parking ask about our$179 package that includes up to 30 days of free parking. • Not to be combined with other offers or promotions, CF)2003 Starwood Hotels and Resorts Worldwide,Inc. TM cum& wMw Page I of 3 >ubletrec hotel SFO Airport - San Francisco Rcservation,9 No } ..TOWN~a arr Y ^ OR More Hotel information I Directions Hotel Ratings Doubletree Hotel SFO Airport Value Index T"" Service Quality 835 Airport Boulevard MonthF ncAdb dh db IIIBurlingame , CA 94010 Extent of Services Provided � i� � Location Convenience 0001�� Neighbortlood Camfo(t-level otAar crtlss tiotel Efarior P1100 wed Awrn Photo Hotel Description quick cprrlplirnentary Shy Just 1.5 miles South of SF Airport, a G This full-service hotel ride to charming downtown Burlingame , spacious g 1`00a My overlooks South San Francisco Bay- My HotelRes Account with European deer, High-Speed Wet. Complrmentary 901f- Travel Partner Access rental at putting green adjacent to property. Unwind at the Chutney Grill Restaurant and Lounge. Enjoy your warm Chocc Groups & Meetings dip cookie as a wre upon check-in• Government Groups {�to e, ,) ��*�°°'�'"�') Hotels by City Numsw of Premiere Hotels mai Date s Other Cities Jud 14 � Car Rental Currency Converter No rooms Available for 07'li412004. Site Information Booking Procedures Reservation notes: M club rental far putting green, Pa►k N' Fly Packages for 10 consecutive da. Value Index7m Complimentary go View Rooms upon request,Service with Standard Sleeping Mn. Accommodations. Bay Things To Know Hotel Information `"'gather AAA Ratb : 3 Dra1'oond Avnptr Roan size : 234 Sq Ft cwKsamon Policy : 24 HM chook4n Tim : 3pm for Travelers Check-Out Tune : noon Crea Cam : FN'D1'W'N'MC'X Getting Around Dab Hoii+opowd : 19W Dab Lart R.nov*04 : 1999 j05016 to SF Frequent Sby Progwn : Ham donors HoW LocadordAres : SFO AP, 33 miles le San Points of Interest HOW Typo : Major Max ""a beO1e CAW"° '910` ` 10 ROWA Mobs RMft :3 Star Nan-Guar Rw Hold Time; Entertainment 8 Dining Numdw Bukurvs : l NumW of Floors : 8 About Districts Nwntwr or some : a sumhow : 'roar vuesboorn. : 3W About Us Decodstyts Loaatlon Specious and luxuriously newly renovated guest rooms Conveniently located 1 1/2 mites South of Privacy Policy are elegantly furnished in European decor.King or San Francisco Inten-tional Airport.20 Company Info DoubielDouble beds,IrrRoom Coffeemaker,Hairdryer. minutes to downtown San Francisco,20 Contact Us Highspeed Internet,Work desk,Cade TV,Imr0ron minutes to Silicon Valley&San Jose,10 ResOnC011' board,Two Telephone lines,A/C minutes to candlestick/3 Com Park. BookAbilfty,net^" Guest services Newsletter Signup! Wf ArP01x PkkPD1UPUR f0,00(64AFi24MEvery20Min.mar ig Auto Penang$13 rsemsr$-00 prrr dd+Yl Upon!� Rory./ AUG- 12-2004 06 : 05 AM 5M2842698 4154354377 P . 05 page t of 1 SFO Dtree J . Stay723.com Stay Park d Fly Package Included -0M night hots! accommodations for up to 4 adufts ROUE L ATAE r :� RoundtrIp airport transfers Rab Mon thru Thum $125 Pius tax Rab Fri Sat & Sun $109 Plus tax _ ftowas cafrhr and pool Click Hare to Flaks Rmrv&VQrja Ono-onfimiO res :i for IatO @Eb*L Re.0ervatlon$ q n be qhanged oL&ncelled at no gherQS- r to A date of ardval, Doubletree Club SFO Airport 835 Airport Boulevard Burlingame, CA pr call to►i h 21.8N-STAY123 3 ml to SFO Cli k here 4r other YIgtei5 Cli ere for other cities Save up to 75% on Hptels. Flights. Cruises. Car Rentals. %!Y-Park F Y-V80 ages 433 (6aq"nia,1d9he,,4 711v 9&04/ 91h,0P -- 4.15/398-3333 epyi, g, anemr,% 9/f40�-2097 ��•' 475/982- 7784 August 24, 2004 RECEIVED AUG 2 7 2004 CITY OF BURLINGAME Ms. Margaret Monroe P L A IN N 1 ^: G D E P T . City Planner CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Ms. Monroe: It has come to our attention that we are currently showing on the 620 Airport Long Term parking plans a 20'-0" wide driveway. We are considering utilizing a larger capacity shuttle to service the long term parking lot clients. As the current code allows for a two-lane driveway at 18'-0" we would like to keep the option available to us to provide a second lane which would allow the larger capacity shuttles to exit the parking lot. All client vehicles will still exit through the adjacent property's exit. Please call me if you have any questions at 415.398.3333. Yours sincerely, 00� eh4wlxt Shelley Takasato Project Manager cc: Ruben Hurin Paul Salisbury ST:pc �' H:\Stanford\620 Airport Blvd\620_2-lanedrive.doc From:Fehr & Peers 408 278 1717 08/31/2004 15:48 4051 P.002/004 FEHR & PEERS TRANSFORTATION CON5ULTANTS MEMORANDUM Date: August 31, 2004 To: Margaret Monroe, City of Burlingame Copy To: Paul Mitchell, Environmental Science Associates From: Robert Eckols, P.E. Norman Wong O W, Subject: Updated Site Plan Modifications for Proposed Long-Tenn Parking Lot Located at 620 Airport Boulevard 1035638 This memorandum presents updated site access and on-site circulation recommendations for the proposed 350-space long-term parking lot located at 620 Airport Boulevard in Burlingame, California. Recommendations were presented in an August 27, 2004 memorandum to improve vehicular access and circulation for a 40-foot shuttle bus or emergency vehicle. This memorandum presents updated recommendations to accommodate a shorter shuttle bus. Aisle Width The August 27, 2004 memorandum recommended widening the Airport Boulevard driveway and aisle from 20 to 24 feet to accommodate a 40-foot bus and two-way shuttle traffic. Although an aisle width of 24 feet is still recommended, a minimum aisle width of 20 feet could accommodate a shorter shuttle bus measuring 30 feet long and 8.5 feet wide and two-way traffic. It should be noted that the project is anticipated to generate intermittent shuttle trips (one or two shuttle trips per hour). Increasing the curb radii at the intersection of the project driveway and Airport Boulevard is still recommended. Figure 1 presents an updated graphic illustration of the recommended site plan modifications. Width of Inbound/Outbound Lanes at Parking Control Gate A parking control gate was recommended at the end of the Airport Boulevard ramp for vehicles entering or exiting the parking lot from the Airport Boulevard driveway. A 14-foot outbound lane, a 30-foot inbound lane, and widening of the driveway and aisle to 24 feet were recommended to accommodate the turning radius of a 40-foot shuttle bus. The inbound lane could be narrowed from 30 feet to 23 feet in width to accommodate a shorter shuttle bus (30 feet). It should be noted that the Fire Department should still review the proposed site plan to ensure emergency vehicle access is provided. Relocation of Ticket Dispenser The proposed ticket dispenser, located immediately north of the Airport Boulevard driveway, should be relocated to the end of the ramp as indicated on Figure 1. The previous recommendation to provide a tire shredder should be deleted and provision of a control arm for inbound vehicles should be provided. 255 N.Market Street, Suite 200,San Jose CA 95110 (408)278-1700 Fax(408) 278-1717 www.fehrandpeers.com -n PROVIDE TICKET DISPENSER, PARKING ADD SHELTER CONTROL GATE, AND ARM. PROVIDE 14' '77' EXIT LANE AND 23' ENTRY LANE J —7-7� 777-71f INCREASE CURB RADIUS REMOVE PARKING INCREASE CURB RADIUS AND REMOVE 3SPACES ADD Pr—DEPEDESTRIAN REMOVE WAY 11 PARKING t WALK PROVIDE CENTER LINE STRIPING REMOVE PQ PARKING _. . r _.. ._ _. _ . « ._ _:_ _ T_.. .� RELOCATE TICKET DISPENSER F TO END I WIDEN AISLE TO 28' RO 77, 7 T uz jo, -7 g N—L .No ml�4 to 0 -C�N- INCREASE CURB RADII AIRPORT BOULEVARD co --*—REMOVE MEDIAN ISLAND Airport Long-Term Parking F E H R & PEERS SITE PLAN WITH MODIFICATIONS FRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS (UPDATED 8-31-04) November 2003 1035-633 Primp 1 From:Fehr &Peers 408 278 1717 08/31/2004 15:50 #051 P.004/004 August31,2004 Page FEHR & PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS Figure 4 Alternative Site Plan Modifications A shuttle exit only driveway to Airport Boulevard was recommended at the southeast comer of the project site.Due to the slope of the site,three percent grade,this driveway may not be feasible. Conclusions The proposed 20-foot driveway and aisle width would be able to accommodate a 30-foot long shuttle bus. The recommended inbound lane width of 30 feet at the parking control gate could be narrowed to 23 feet to accommodate a shorter shuttle bus(30 feet). The proposed ticket dispenser,located immediately north of the Airport Boulevard driveway, should be relocated to the end of the ramp as indicated on Figure 2 of the August 27 memo. The previous recommendation to provide a fire shredder should be deleted and provision of a control arm for inbound vehicles should be provided. An alternative shuttle bus exit located at the southeast comer of the site may not be feasible due to the slope of the site. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 28, 2004 for automobile parking; 3) that ata time w n the senior residential care facility ceases to operate from this site the property owner shall notify thearming Department; the property owner shallo fain the necessary permits and remodel the interior o e building to reduce the number of bedroo o no more than four, which would only require one vered parking space and the on-site parkin equirement shall be met; 4) that the conditions of the P15cycling Specialist, Fire Marshal and ChiefB ' ding Official's memos of May 24, 2004 shall be met; 5 at the facility shall obtain and maintain coytffivally all of the required operating license(s) from the S e of California and comply with all requir is of the Burlingame Fire Department; 6) that notice sha a given to the City upon change of owners ' of this property,and that all of the changes required in co itions number 3 and 4 above shall require emolition permit and shall be inspected by the Burlingam uilding Department; and 7) that the pro' t shall meet all the requirements of the California Buildin and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, ended by the City of Burlingame. Th motion was seconded by C. Vistica. ommissioners noted that the conditions of approval would safeguard that the variance would run ' this use, there have been no concerns regarding this proposal raised by neighbors, and particularly onceming a parking impact. Other Commissioners noted at they didn't agree, this is in a residential ntal area, neighbors don't necessarily endorse, only prop owners are notified, this is packing in too y bedrooms, if cost is that much of a concern, then wha vel of care will the clients get; also a conte with the site design and parking concerns; agree that th does not seem to be anything that satisfies ardship finding, project could be made to conform code, there are options there, think we are be' g sandbagged on the number of caregivers that will to come, the area already has inadequate par g, should be redesigned so that the facility is not urden to the neighborhood. Chair Oster) g called for a roll call vote on the motionto a ovf e. The motion failed on a 2-5 . Brownri , Keighran, Keele, Auran, Osterling dissenting) te. C. rownrigg made a motion to deny the applicati without prejudice, with direction t e applicant to come back with a project which conforms to on-site parking requirement. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advis . This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 5. 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 — APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LONG-TERM AIRPORT PARKING INTERIM USE (PAUL SALISBURY, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, BOCA LAKE OFFICE, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (13 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report 6/28/04, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked to clarify an item on the environmental checklist regarding noise, "potential significant effect" is marked on the checklist regarding noise impacts, is this mitigated to an acceptable level. CP Monroe noted that with mitigation the impact is not considered significant. Does the City have energy conservation requirements for the on-site lighting in the parking lot, to use a lower intensity, energy efficient light source? No, the City requirement requires that light cannot spill onto an adjacent property, but a lower intensity light source and an energy saving lumen level would meet that requirement as well. The landscaping shown on Sheet SK-la shows 15- gallon trees a minimum of 20 feet apart, shouldn't that be the maximum. CP Monroe noted that the applicant will respond to this question. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Paul Salisbury, Blunk DeMattei Associates, 1555 Bayshore �-- Highway, architect representing the applicant, he noted regarding the tree spacing, he had worked with the City Arborist on the tree species to use, and the City Arborist had recommended that the trees be spaced 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 28, 1004 twenty feet apart based on the root structure so they would not be crowded at maturity. This is an interim use,but some of the trees on the north side of the property might survive the ultimate construction on the site. Commissioners noted that since this is an interim use and we maybe looking at a 5 to 10 year life span, would like the trees spaced more closely to provide an adequate screen in the early years; and asked what species were identified on the north side of the property. Mr. Salisbury noted that there are four types of trees identified by the City Arborist that will survive in this environment, and that specific species in each location have not yet been chosen. Commissioners noted that it can be included in the conditions of approval that the City Arborist review the landscape plan and plant selection and spacing that is submitted for the building permit. Mr. Salisbury noted that the site lighting has not yet been designed, it has to be adequate for people to feel safe and secure, but will keep it as low as possible and will make it energy efficient to the extent possible. Commissioners noted that the report from the traffic consultant included information on shuttle pick up and drop off,why is this not shown on the plans. Mr. Salisbury noted that the owner has not yet resolved the method of operation, it is more likely that the van will take people directly to where their car is parked and there would be no need for a pick up and drop off shelter. If it is necessary to have a shelter,the structure and site circulation can be reviewed as a part of the building permit process, whether or not the owner chooses to use a shelter is an operational issue. Jonathon Wu, President of the Anza Parking Corporation, operators of Anza Parking at 615 Airport Boulevard,noted that he realizes the applicant has followed the guidelines,but does not understand given current market conditions why the owner would put this amount of money in building 350 parking spaces when revenues from airport parking have dropped significantly in the last few years. When revenues for operators are short,the City's revenue is also short,concerned that this will become a park and fly lot for the adjacent hotel, don't think the access should be shared with the hotel; how would the use as park and fly promotion be policed,if that happened,the City would not be getting revenue because the parking is part of the room charge. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners commented on the concept of the park and fly,how do we regulate. CP Monroe noted that we have had a problem in the past with hotel rooms sold with free long-term parking,it can't be done if they use required parking, this lot would not be required parking. CA Anderson noted that a number of these parking spaces would most likely be used for a park and fly program, it could be done because this is not required parking, the problem would be in enforcing the parking tax, it is hard to sort out what is paid for parking and what is for the room. C.Brownrigg moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following amended conditions: 1) that the long-term airport parking facility use shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 22,.2004,sheet Sk.l a and date stamped September 2,2003,sheet Sk.2a; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 30, 2003, memo and the City Arborist's June 17, 2004, memo shall be met,which includes planting 5-gallon Frazer's Photinia spaced four feet apart,with proper irrigation, in front of the security fence along Airport Boulevard; 3) that drainage from paved surfaces, parking lot and driveways, shall be routed to catch basins that are equipped with fossil filters(sand/gravel filters)prior to discharge into the storm drain system;the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning all filters twice each year as well as immediately prior to and once during the rainy season (October 15—April 1)and shall submit to the City and have approved a plan for filter/drain maintenance; 4) that the long-term airport parking use shall be operated seven days a week,24 hours a day with a maximum of 350 parking spaces,and no auto maintenance,auto repair,auto washing or enclosed van storage shall take place on site nor shall the use of any number of parking spaces be contracted to a single user or corporation 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 28,2004 without amendment of this use permit; 5)that the property owners agree to assume all responsibility for any on-site flooding or storm drainage problems and to hold the City harmless from any claims arising from such problems; 6)that the landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuing a building or grading permit for this project;7)that the landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained by the property owner including but not limited to weed control,pedestrian and vehicular clearance along the sidewalks and bike path,and replacement of plant material as necessary to maintain a visual barrier and the approved landscape design; 8)that this use permit for long term airport parking with the conditions listed herein is a temporary use and shall expire on June 28,2009(5 years);9)that the parking lot lighting shall be energy efficient to the extent feasible to provide adequate light for customer safety; 10)that the applicant shall work with the City to establish an agreement regarding how the parking tax is collected if the parking spaces are used in association with a park and fly hotel room or other promotion program in association with the adjacent hotel or any office, hotel or other use; 11) that prior to commencement of grading and/or construction activities,the project sponsor shall submit a dust abatement program for review and approval of the City's NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) administrator; the project sponsor shall require the construction contractor to implement this dust abatement program; 12) that if archaeological remains are uncovered,work at the place of discovery should be halted immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find; accidental discovery of archaeological deposits could require additional archaeological investigations to determine the significance of the find; 13)that ifhuman remains are encountered during proj ect construction,the San Mateo County Coroner's Office will be notified immediately. The coroner will determine if the remains are those of a Native American,and if they are,will notify the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will make a determination regarding the individual's"most likely descendant"who will then make recommendations for the disposal of the remains. The Native American Heritage Commission will mediate conflicts between the project proponent and the most likely descendant. Accidental discovery of human remains could require additional investigations to determine if other graves are present; 14) that a site-specific, design-level geotechnical investigation shall be prepared that assesses the impacts of proposed project modifications to the levee on levee stability and any fill on site. The geotechnical investigation shall be conducted by a California Certified Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer, and shall include an analysis of expected ground motions along the San Andreas fault in accordance the 1997 Uniform Building Code(UBC)and the California Building Code (Title 24) additions. Expected ground motions determined by a registered geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated into the final design as part of the project. The final seismic considerations for the site shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Burlingame Structural and City Engineers before grading permits are issued; 15)that the project storm drainage system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the STOPPP NPDES permit, including all provisions to the C.3 requirements,to reduce long-term water quality impacts from potentially contaminated runoff: The project sponsor shall provide a plan for long-term operations and maintenance of the oil and sediment separator or absorbent filter systems including but not limited to the operating schedule,maintenance frequency,routine service schedule,specific maintenance activities,and the effectiveness of the water treatment systems. The performance of the filters shall be monitored regularly by the project applicant or a third party to determine the effectiveness of the water treatment and conclusions reported to the City. To further help minimize and prevent the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system,the project sponsor shall implement Best Management Practices and source control measures that shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, regular street sweeping by mechanized equipment,proper clean-up of soil debris following landscape work or small scale construction, available trash receptacles, regular trash collection and the application of absorbent material on oil and fuel leaks from automobiles; 16) that during operation of the project, the project sponsor shall implement a program for regularly collecting and properly disposing of litter and debris �-' that may accumulate on the project site; 17)that order to maintain the existing on-site well for potential use for any future long-term development on the project site,the wellhead elevation shall be modified if needed 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 28,2004 in accordance with proposed project grading and construction plans and anew well vault shall be installed in accordance with San Mateo County water well standards to prohibit infiltration of storm water contaminants and prevent potential damage to the well casing; 18) that the applicant shall require the construction contractor to limit noisy construction activities to the least noise-sensitive times of the day and week (Monday through Friday,7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.;and Saturday, 10:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.;none on Sunday and holidays); 19) that the applicant shall require contractors to muffle all equipment used on the site and to maintain it in good operating condition. All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. This measure should result in all non-impact tools generating a maximum noise level of no more than 85dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet; 20)that applicant shall require contractors to turn off powered construction equipment when not in use;and 21)that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes,2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. 6. NOR BURLINGAME/R INS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN-PUBLIC ARING AND ACTION O INAL DRAFT NO BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPEC C PLAN AND MTi IGATED GATNE DECL TION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. (281 NOTICED) PROJECT PL RS: MARGARET MONROE/MAUREEN PROOKS Referenc taffreport 6/28/04,with attachments. SP Bro s presented the report,reviewed the highlight f thep] ,the proposed changes to land use and the de ' concepts proposed for the E1 Camino Real rridor the Rollins Road area. There were two le submitted regarding properties within plan area, ggesting changes to the density and height 'mits at the Rollins Road/Broadway gatewa • d to the height limits for residential properties on Ogden 've. CP Monroe commented that the pl ontains Community Standards to be used to measure the ' pacts of any future projects, and noted at the plan includes a General Plan Amendment for the spital properties to incorporate the prop 'es/along Trousdale which will be used for access into the site expansion of hospital support services. ese parcels would change their land use designation from " ffice Commercial' use to "Institution , Other" for the hospital use, and the design guidelines on El amino Real revised to encompass the sign proposal of the Revised Project. Commissioners ed that we now have inclusionary zo ' g with a density bonus to encourage affords le units, one of key incentives was to offer increaseight, we now allow additional height b ecial permit,ho ould this work if the plan limits the eight to 35 feet? CP Monroe noted that this ' sue would have to resolved in the zoning,this area w' require anew zoning classification,now t 5-foot height limit' a review line with the opportunity taller buildings through the conditional u permit process,we in want 35 feet to continue to be a view line with a maximum height set th also acknowledges the 'ation limit from SanFrancisco temational Airport which affects this a 're area in varying degrees. Commissioners noted that it w d be important to make this change in h ' t limits in the plan throughout the El Camino Real North ea. Commissioners note that we were looking at the possibili f allowing increased residential d sties across from the spiral and close to the Millbrae BAR station, parking is often the drivi factor in determining sity, can we look at decreasing the king requirement on properties se to transit, consistent th the Housing Element concepts, w ave seta 50-unit per acre density ' the plan,but the parkin quirement would limit the actual den ' to be achieved. CP Monroe note at this is something which could be considered in the impleme ' g zoning which be done once the an is adopted. 10 City of Burlingame Item # 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit for a Action Item Long-term Airport Parking Interim Use Address: 620 Airport Boulevard Meeting Date: 6/28/04 Request: Mitigated negative declaration and conditional use permit for a long-term airport parking interim use at 620 Airport Boulevard, zoned C-4. Property Owner : Boca Lake Office, Inc. APN: 026-342-330 Applicant and Architect: Paul Salisbury, Blunk Demattei Associates Zoning: C-4 General Plan: Waterfront Commercial, Bayfront Specific Plan, Lot Area: 3.70 acres Anza Subarea, long-term airport parking as an interim use. CEQA Status: Refer to attached Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND-533-P. Adjacent Development: Hotels, Offices and Long-term Airport Parking Current Use: Vacant Land Proposed Use: Long-term Airport Parking Allowable Use: Long-term Airport Parking as an interim use requires a conditional use permit in the C-4 zoning district. History: The original application for this site included a proposal to construction a new 600-room hotel. While the environmental impact report was being prepared for the hotel, the applicants decided to place the hotel project on hold, and instead apply for a long term airport parking interim use at this site. Summary: The applicant is proposing to build and operate a 350-space parking lot for long-term airport parking at 620 Airport Boulevard, zoned C-4. The project would include surface-level parking for 350 parking spaces, as well as landscaping along the perimeter of the site, entry gate, lighting, and drainage improvements. A security fence is proposed along the perimeter of the site and will be constructed to be visually open (i.e., not opaque) so that views through the site would not be obstructed. Exiting and pay booths would take place through the parking and site of the adjacent hotel site to the south. The C-4 zoning code states that a conditional use permit is required for airport long-term parking lots in the Anza Planning Area, subject to compliance with the following performance standards: 1 . the sole purpose of the use is the parking for one day or longer of vehicles of persons using the San Francisco International Airport; 2. a minimum site size of three acres; 3. the permit term is limited to five years; 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. the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development and Bay Conservation and Development Commission public access requirements are met; and 6. no parking is within a structure above or below grade. The project as proposed complies with Items 1 through 6 above. The environmental analysis determined that the peak hour trips generated by this interim use will not exceed that allowed by the traffic analyzer for the permitted use which is hotel and restaurant (Item #4) (refer to traffic and parking discussion on page 5 of the staff report). Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit 620 Airport Boulevard Since portions of the west and north sides of the project site are located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission(BCDC),the project will require a BCDC permit. The project complies with the landscaping requirements of the Bayfront Design Guidelines in effect when the project was submitted(July,2003). Since there are no structures proposed,the remainder of the Design Guidelines do not apply to this project. The rectangular-shaped project site is located on the shoreline of San Francisco Bay,adjacent to Anza Lagoon. The site is currently vacant,consisting of a depressed,graded and predominantly bare central area surrounded by shallow slopes on three sides covered with non-native vegetation. The graded central area of the site is approximately at mean sea level. The slopes on the north and west sides of the property are part of an approximate eight-foot high levee which create the manmade Anza Lagoon(Anna Lagoon has a narrow,but direct connection to the San Francisco Bay and is subject to tidal influence). An abandoned storm drainage system(consisting of number of raised inlets partially connected to storm drain pipes)is located in the central area of the site;this system was originally installed to serve a previously anticipated development on the site. Other existing features on the site include a test well and water meter box in the southwest area of the site,and a catch basin and wood retaining wall which encroach on the east property line. Vehicular access to the proposed parking facilitywould be from Airport Boulevard and egress would be from the adjacent Sheraton Hotel. Long-term parking patrons would access the parking lot in their vehicles at Airport Boulevard and pass through an entry gate,consisting of an automated ticket dispenser(issuing a paper parking ticket to the patron)with coordinated lift arm. Patrons would then proceed north along the west boundary of the site down a 20-foot wide ramp and then east into the parking area to park their vehicle. The parking lot would provide four east-west aisles and two north-south aisles for internal circulation. Parking aisles are 24 feet in width. All parking spaces would be 9-feet by 20-feet in dimension. Mile High Service,which currently operates the hotel parking services at the adjacent Sheraton Hotel,would operate parking services for proposed long-term airport parking facility. Hotel Airport Shuttle would operate the shuttle service for the long-tern airport parking facility to and from SFO. Hotel Airport Shuttle currently provides shuttle services for a number of hotels in the area. There would be designated shuttle pick-up and drop-off areas within the proposed long-term parking lot to serve the long-term parking lot patrons. The shuttles would access the long-term parking facility at the entrance on Airport Boulevard and exit at the driveway connecting to the Sheraton Hotel parking lot.Hotel Airport Shuttle's vehicles consist of 30-seat capacity buses. No additional shuttle buses are anticipated to be required by Hotel Airport Shuttle to serve the proposed project. Hotel Airport Shuttle buses currently operate 5:00 a.m.to midnight daily, at 20-minute frequencies. Between midnight and 5:00 a.m.,the shuttles operate on an on-call basis. As with existing conditions,when not in use,these shuttles would be stored at the shuttle company's yard on Bayshore Boulevard.No on-site shuttle storage,maintenance,or fueling facilities would be provided at the proposed long- term parking facility. Departing patron vehicles would exit the long-term parking facility at a driveway connecting to the Sheraton Hotel parking lot,and proceed to the attendant booth for payment prior to exiting the hotel parking lot at Airport Boulevard.No increase in Mile High Service parking attendant employment is anticipated to serve the proposed long-tern parking lot. Other than the use of Mile High Service(which provides parking services for the adjacent Sheraton Hotel)and Hotel Airport Shuttle(which provides shuttle services for other hotels in the area),the long-term parking lot is proposed to operate independently of the Sheraton Hotel and other hotels and businesses in the area. The 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit 620 Airport Boulevard proposed long-term parking lot would not be available for use by Sheraton Hotel guests or employees,or other hotels in the area, for either typical or special event use. A tire mechanism (e.g. tiger-teeth strip) would be installed at the exit of the long-term parking lot to prevent potential vehicular access into the long-term parking lot from the Sheraton Hotel parking lot. The project would include night lighting within the parking facility. Pole-mounted night lighting would be installed within the parking lot and access road to for visibility and security purposes. The proposed project would also include a minimum six-foot high chain-link fencing encircling the project site for security. Landscaping is proposed throughout the perimeter of the site and includes groundcover and trees. The project complies with on-site landscaping as required in the C-4 zoning district and Bayfront Design Guidelines. Refer to Table 1 below for required on-site landscaping and how the project meets the requirements. Proposed landscaping setbacks include an approximate 50-foot landscaped setback along the southern boundary(adjacent to Airport Boulevard),a3-to 25-foot landscaped setback along the west boundary,and landscaping setback along the north boundary ranging between 0- to 35 feet. Planning staff would note that the proposed project was reviewed by the City Arborist. After reviewing the plans, the City Arborist noted that he would require landscaping in front of the security fence along Airport Boulevard, similar to the landscaping required for the long-term airport parking facility across the street at 615 Airport Boulevard. This includes planting 5-gallon Frazer's Photinia along the front of the site,between the security fence and front property line, spaced four feet apart with proper irrigation. With regard to the tree species,the City Arborist noted that he would work with the applicant to choose an appropriate tree species prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. Table 1 620 Airport Boulevard PROPOSED ALLOWED/REQUIRED Site Landscaping: 23.1% 15%of site 37,283 SF 24,168 SF Front Setback Landscaping: 95.8%of 30' front setback 80%of 30'front setback 14,370 SF 12,000 SF Parking Area Landscaping: 10% 10%of parking area 14,412 SF (on perimeter of 14,372 SF parking area) Shoreline Band 54% 40%of area w/in BCDC jurisdiction Landscaping: 14,415 SF 10,675 SF Landscaping Outside 17% 15% Shoreline Band. 22,868 SF 20,165 SF 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit 620 Airport Boulevard Staff Comments: See attached. Planning staff would note that that this conditional use permit for long-teen airport parking is a temporary use which would expire in five years (June, 2009). The applicant may apply to extend the conditional use permit for an additional five years prior to the expiration date. Staff would also note that the mitigation measures listed in the initial study will be incorporated as conditions of approval and would become part of the mitigation monitoring plan. Negative Declaration: The initial study prepared for this project identified potential impacts in the areas of hydrology and water quality,noise,air quality and geology/soils. However,based upon the mitigation measures identified in the initial study, it has been determined that the proposed project can be addressed by a mitigated negative declaration since the initial study did not identify any adverse impacts which could not be reduced to acceptable levels by mitigation(see attached mitigated negative declaration No.ND-533-P). A list of mitigation measures in the initial study are included at the end of the initial study and would be incorporated as conditions of approval and would constitute the mitigation monitoring plan. Please see the attachment titled Environmental Scoping for a discussion of the issues raised at the environmental scoping meeting held on September 8,2003. Study Meeting:At the June 14,2004,Planning Commission study meeting the Planning Commission asked the applicant provide clarification on several issues(June 14, 2004,P.C. Minutes). The following are those issues identified by the Commission and the applicant's response: 1. On page 5 ofthe report there are recommendations that are not included in theproject,but they should be included in the conditions of approval. The initial study identifies several recommendations to improve vehicular access to/from the site, and vehicular and pedestrian circulation within the site. Staff would note that the initial study lists these as recommendations and not mitigations. Below is a list of those recommendations and the applicant's response: • Provide a larger curb radius on the curve between the access road and the parking lot. The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped June 22, 2004 to show a larger curb radius on the east side of the entrance. Since vehicles will not be exiting the site from this driveway,a curb radius was not provided on the west side of the driveway. • Provide a larger curb radius for vehicles entering using the Airport Boulevard driveway as they turn into the parking lot. The applicant revised the plan to provide a larger curb radius at the bottom of the ramp. • Shift the east-west circulation aisles south so that the northernmost aisle would be 33 feet wide, and the southernmost aisle is 24 feet wide. Widen north-south circulation aisle adjacent to the exit driveway to 28 feet in width. This modification would provide a wider circulation aisle for vehicles and shuttles entering from the access road. The applicant revised the aisles so that the northernmost aisle will be 33 feet wide, and a 24-foot wide aisle is provided throughout the remainder of the parking lot. The wider aisle near the entrance will allow for vehicles to maneuver around shuttles which might be waiting in the circulation aisle to pick up passengers. However,the applicant did not widen the north-south circulation aisle adjacent to the exit driveway because the 20 foot width provides adequate width for fire access and no parking spaces back onto this aisle. • Add pedestrian shelter and striped pedestrian walkway. Refer to the applicant's response in#2 below. 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit 620 Airport Boulevard • Remove the short median island on Airport Boulevard. It is recommended that the short median island on Airport Boulevard, located immediately west of the project driveway, be removed to provide additional storage in the two-way left-turn lane for eastbound vehicles to turn left into the site. The City Engineer notes that because the proposed project is estimated to generate 7 trips during the AM and PM peak hours,he does not think vehicles will be queuing on Airport Boulevard and determined that it is not necessary to remove the short median island on Airport Boulevard. Furthermore, he notes that the landscaped median islands add to the beautification of the Anza area and generally does not want to see the medians eliminated. 2 Nothing on plan shows how this parking facility will work. • The applicant notes that at this stage it has not been determined whether a drop-off and pick-up kiosk will be required for the parking facility. In some operations,the shuttles will pick up and drop off patrons at their vehicles. The applicant will provide further details at the action meeting. However,he notes that the parking facility will operation in a similar manner as described below: Long-term parking patrons would access the parking lot in their vehicles at Airport Boulevard and pass through an entry gate, consisting of an automated ticket dispenser(issuing a paper parking ticket to the patron)with coordinated lift arm(shown on Site Plan). Patrons would then proceed north along the west boundary of the site down a 20-foot wide ramp and then east into the parking area to park their vehicle. Hotel Airport Shuttle would operate the shuttle service for the long-term airport parking facility to and from SFO airport. There would be designated shuttle pick-up and drop-off areas within the proposed long-term parking lot to serve the long-tern parking lot patrons. Departing patron vehicles would exit the long-term parking facility at a driveway connecting to the Sheraton Hotel parking lot,and proceed to the attendant booth for payment prior to exiting the hotel parking lot at Airport Boulevard. No increase in Mile High Service parking attendant employment is anticipated to serve the proposed long-term parking lot. 3. Plans are missing landscape detail,need to see these items on plan. Will the applicant be meeting with the City Arborist prior to the next Planning Commission meeting, need to workout landscape details. • The applicant contacted the City Arborist to discuss recommended trees species for this site. In a memo (email) dated June 17, 2004,the City Arborist notes that the list of appropriate trees for this location is limited. Not many tree species will tolerate the windy,salty condition of this bayfront site. The selected tree species should be"evergreen",for good screening as well as pest,(aphid)free. The tree type should also be of a low debris generating type. The City Arborist suggested using the following trees:Australian Willow,FlaxleafPaperbark,Frazer's Photinia,and Victorian Box. He also notes that the trees should be 15-gallon minimum size and spaced 25-30 feet apart. The applicant submitted revised plans date stamped June 22,2004 showing a combination of these trees to be planted throughout the site. The revised plans also shows landscaping in front of the security fence along Airport Boulevard as recommended by the City Arborist. This includes planting 5-gallon Frazer's Photinia along the front of the site,between the security fence and front property line, spaced four feet apart with proper irrigation. 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit 620 Airport Boulevard 4. How many days will the cars be staying? • The applicant notes that cars will be staying a minimum of three days and a maximum of ten days. 5. How many cars will be stored on-site each day and what daily turnover is expected? • The applicant notes that they expect 210 cars per day to be on-site at anyone time. It is anticipated that there will be 70 cars coming in to park each day and 70 cars being picked up each day. Findings for a Negative Declaration: For CEQA requirements the Planning Commission must review and approve the mitigated negative declaration (ND-533-P) finding, on the basis of the Initial Study and any comments received in writing or at the public hearing,that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant (negative) effect on the environment. Findings for a Conditional Use Permit: In order to grant a Conditional Use Permit for a long-term airport parking interim use, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.52.020 a-c): (a) the proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity,and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,general welfare,or convenience; (b) the proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Burlingame general plan and the purposes of this title; (c) the Planning Commission may impose such reasonable conditions or restrictions as it deems necessary to secure the purposes of this title and to assure operation of the use in a manner compatible with the aesthetics,mass,bulk and character of existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements,and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be taken by resolution and should include findings for the conditional use permit. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: Conditions: I. that the long-term airport parking facility use shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 22,.2004,sheet Sk.la and date stamped September 2,2003, sheet Sk.2a; 2. that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 30, 2003, memo and the City Arborist's June 17, 2004, memo shall be met,which includes planting 5-gallon Frazer's Photinia spaced four feet apart,with proper irrigation, in front of the security fence along Airport Boulevard; 6 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit 620 Airport Boulevard 3. that drainage from paved surfaces, parking lot and driveways, shall be routed to catch basins that are equipped with fossil filters (sand/gravel filters) prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning all filters twice each year as well as immediately prior to and once during the rainy season(October 15—April l)and shall submit to the City and have approved a plan for filter/drain maintenance; 4. that the long-term airport parking use shall be operated seven days a week, 24 hours a day with a maximum of 350 parking spaces, and no auto maintenance, auto repair, auto washing or enclosed van storage shall take place on site nor shall the use of any number of parking spaces be contracted to a single user or corporation without amendment of this use permit; 5. that the property owners agree to assume all responsibility for any on-site flooding or storm drainage problems and to hold the City harmless from any claims arising from such problems; 6. that the landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained by the property owner including but not limited to weed control, pedestrian and vehicular clearance along the sidewalks and bike path, and replacement of plant material as necessary to maintain a visual barrier and the approved landscape design; 7. that this use permit for long term airport parking with the conditions listed herein is a temporary use and shall expire on June 28, 2009 (5 years); 8. that prior to commencement of grading and/or construction activities,the project sponsor shall submit a dust abatement program for review and approval of the City's NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) administrator; the project sponsor shall require the construction contractor to implement this dust abatement program; 9. that if archaeological remains are uncovered,work at the place of discovery should be halted immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find;accidental discovery of archaeological deposits could require additional archaeological investigations to determine the significance of the frid; 10. that if human remains are encountered during project construction, the San Mateo County Coroner's Office will be notified immediately. The coroner will determine if the remains are those of a Native American,and if they are,will notify the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will make a determination regarding the individual's"most likely descendant"who will then make recommendations for the disposal of the remains. The Native American Heritage Commission will mediate conflicts between the project proponent and the most likely descendant. Accidental discovery of human remains could require additional investigations to determine if other graves are present; 11. that a site-specific,design-level geotechnical investigation shall be prepared that assesses the impacts of proposed project modifications to the levee on levee stability and any fill on site. The geotechnical investigation shall be conducted by a California Certified Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer,and shall include an analysis of expected ground motions along the San Andreas fault in accordance the 1997 Uniform Building Code(UBC)and the California Building Code(Title 24)additions. Expected ground motions determined by a registered geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated into the final design as part of the project. The final seismic considerations for the site shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Burlingame Structural and City Engineers before grading permits are issued; 7 Mitigated Negative Declaration and Conditional Use Permit 620 Airport Boulevard 12. that the project storm drainage system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the STOPPP NPDES permit, including all provisions to the C.3 requirements, to reduce long-tern water quality impacts from potentially contaminated runoff. The project sponsor shall provide a plan for long-term operations and maintenance of the oil and sediment separator or absorbent filter systems including but not limited to the operating schedule,maintenance frequency,routine service schedule,specific maintenance activities, and the effectiveness of the water treatment systems. The performance of the filters shall be monitored regularly by the project applicant or a third party to determine the effectiveness of the water treatment and conclusions reported to the City. To further help minimize and prevent the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system, the project sponsor shall implement Best Management Practices and source control measures that shall include,but are not necessarily limited to,regular street sweeping by mechanized equipment, proper clean-up of soil debris following landscape work or small scale construction, available trash receptacles,regular trash collection and the application of absorbent material on oil and fuel leaks from automobiles; 13. that during operation of the project, the project sponsor shall implement a program for regularly collecting and properly disposing of litter and debris that may accumulate on the project site; 14. that order to maintain the existing on-site well for potential use for any future long-term development on the project site,the well head elevation shall be modified if needed in accordance with proposed project grading and construction plans and a new well vault shall be installed in accordance with San Mateo County water well standards to prohibit infiltration of storm water contaminants and prevent potential damage to the well casing; 15. that the applicant shall require the construction contractor to limit noisy construction activities to the least noise-sensitive times of the day and week(Monday through Friday,7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.;and Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; none on Sunday and holidays); 16. that the applicant shall require contractors to muffle all equipment used on the site and to maintain it in good operating condition. All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. This measure should result in all non-impact tools generating a maximum noise level of no more than 85dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet; 17. that applicant shall require contractors to turn off powered construction equipment when not in use;and 18. that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes,2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. Ruben Hurin Planner c. Paul Salisbury, applicant 8 PLG-Brooks, Maureen From: Shelley Takasato [STakasato@stanfordhotels.com] Sent: Monday, June 21 , 2004 11 :03 AM To: PLG-Hurin, Ruben Cc: Paul G. Salisbury (E-mail); PLG-Brooks, Maureen; Colman Conneely Subject: RE: Questions for 620 Airport Blvd Ruben: Please see responses below. -----Original Message----- RECEIVED From: PLG-Hurin, Ruben [mailto:RHurin@burlingame.org] R L C Sent: Friday, June 18, 2004 3:43 PM To: Shelley Takasato JUN 2 1 2004 Cc: Paul G. Salisbury (E-mail); PLG-Brooks, Maureen Subject: Questions for 620 Airport Blvd CITY O F B U R L I PLANNING DEE G A M E PT . Importance: High Shelley, At the June 14, 2004, Planning Commission meeting, the Commission asked the following questions regarding the proposed long-term parking facility. 1) How many days will the cars be staying? ***Minimum 3 days stay and Maximum 10 days stay. !) How many cars will be stored on-site each day and what daily turn over is _ expected? ***210 cars per day on-site. The anticipated turnover is 70 cars coming in per day and 70 cars leaving each day. Please provide answers to the above questions by Monday, June 21, 2004. Since I will be out of the office on Monday, please email your responses to Maureen Brooks at: mbrooks@burlingame.org Sincerely, Ruben Hurin Planner City of Burlingame - Planning 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 558-7256 i City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 14, 2004 • S f report notes at residents won't own or drive vehi es,but can not use this as justification for a variance beca a house can revert back to a single amily dwelling; what ' the hardship on the property; • What extraordinary cir stances to jus ' parking variance; • Sta report notes that coverage is at .9%, notes applicant ates that two-car garage ould r ult in less useable pace,however i ould require either a t coverage variance,or r ire that the application re ce the size of t house to meet the p ng required,these are o ions, so the open space co ent is not a va ' argument,should loo at reducing hosue and pr iding parking; Consider a ing bedrooms stairs with an elevato , that way there would b enough room for a two-car age; • Fort parking varianc ,what extraordinary c' umstances apply to this roperty that don't a y to of rs in the area; • ven though the esidents won't be d ' ng, concerned with p ng and the num of visitors coming to the to along with the two mployees and deliveri ,this is an intense se. This item was se or the regular action endar when all the in rmation has been su mitted and reviewed by the Planni Department. This ite concluded at 7:15 p.m. 2. 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C4 — APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LONG-TERM AIRPORT PARKING INTERIM USE (PAUL SALISBURY, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, BOCA LAKE OFFICE, INC., PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. There were no questions of staff. Commissioners asked: • On page 5 of the report there are recommendations that are not included in the project, but they should be included in the conditions of approval; • Plans are missing landscape detail,pedestrian shelter and median work,need to see these items on plan; • Nothing on plan shows how this parking facility will work; • Will the applicant be meeting with the City Arborist prior to the next Planning Commission meeting, need to work out landscape details; • How many days will the cars be staying; • How many cars will be stored on-site each day and what daily turn over is expected? This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. VII. ACTIO TEMS C sent Calendar- ems on the cIcaleneThe ne. They are acted simultaneously u ss eparate discussion a or action is reqcublic or a comm'siWAR athe commission votes o the motion to adopa. 344 OCCI NTAL AVENUEFOR ARKINGOR NUMBE OF COVERED P G SPACES T D ACHED OGE 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8, 2003 Public��ller ents: Concern about shadow studie d loss of view of sky because this building is much anthe buildi he lives in;would no e concerned about los of sky view if the building were 35 et tall; evaluate th eight of the other bu' ings on the street,the are the same as his; would like to s e an analysis of t streetscape, how wil that side of the street ok with the new building included; concerned about a additional traffic b en created by going fro 5 dwellings on this side of the street to 8,this is a bus street which carries a of through traffic to C fomia;have shoehorned this building into every squar foot on this site,think oto analysis of the stre frontage is necessary to evalu to the aesthetic impact,/ s building is taller th all the others on the str et,should be considered;this lding is 15 feet Eom my building and 2 feet taller,my building as 12 units and was built in 1 5;concerned about of the building d the shadows created i is too dominant for the stre . There were no other from the floo . Commission co nts: A number of issu have been identified for ev ation: • Shadow study should show bui ing at 35' and 48' ; • Chan in availability of sky v' w for all adjacent propertie , • Ae etic impact,especially a substantial degrading oft visual character of the area to include a c mprehensive evaluatio of the height, mass and ove 1 design of the building; • Change in the intensity f use(bedroom count is on ay to establish this), and resul ' g effect on traffic; • Would like a sect' n through the project and t buildings on either side to d rmine impacts of height, shadow d mass; and • Should look window placement and siz as a function of design. Commissioners oted: a lot of the environm tal and other issues with thi roject could be addresse y lowering the eight,looked over the condi nal use permit request and s not persuaded that the r uired findings w e made,applicant should co sider lowering the height ear for the environmental s y; it was noted when the environmental do ment is completed this ite ill be noticed and the p lic will have an op ortunity at a hearing to co ent on the findings of these tudies as well as on the roject itself. Chair Bojues noted that the ne review would be schedule hen the report is comp ted,and pub/c , tice will be sent before any ac 'on on this project. The PI g Commission's action is advisory and not appealable . This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. 11. 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD,ZONED C-4—ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING FOR AN APPLICATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LONG TERM AIRPORT PARKING AS AN INTERIM USE. (PAUL SALISBURY, BLUNK DEMATTEI ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; BOCA LAKE OFFICE, LLC., PROPERTY OWNER) (12 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN/MAUREEN BROOKS CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. She noted that this is an unusual situation where an EIR was being processed for a hotel on this site,the applicant decided to install an interim use, so much of the data one would request has already been prepared. Given that staff has included a list of items which relate to the development of this site for this use for which data is already compiled. There were no further questions of staff. Commissioners noted: why is there a concern about permanent increase in noise from this uses?Because the adjacent hotels are noise sensitive uses; landscaping should be evaluated on the basis of impact of fertilizer 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 8,2003 near the lagoon and into drainage system;can landscaping be increased within the parking lot,is more than 10%possible,what"challenges"do the site being so close to the water table present;can landscaping on the perimeter of the site be beefed up to address the aesthetic issue and screen parking from view of trail and street; can trees be placed on the perimeter; it was noted that this should not necessarily be treated as an interim use, since the interim long term parking use across the street has been there for decades. Chair Boju6s opened the public comment. Paul Salisbury, architect, 1555 Bayshore Highway, and Shelly Takasato,representing the property owner Boca Lake Office,Inc.;Jonathan Wu,President of Anza Parking Corporation. They noted that the property owner views this as an interim use,hope to generate hotel revenue to the city within a decade; site deserves better than a long term airport parking use; hope to build hotel within 5 years; have discussed the landscaping in the BCDC jurisdiction with them,it will take the trees 5 to 10 years to look like something; the site is presently unsightly,hope this use will enable them to clean it up, take care of drainage issues presently on the site, and provide some income to the property owner. It was noted that Anza Parking Corporation was required to provide 15%of their site in landscaping. Staff noted that the requirement is 10% within the parking lot and 15% of the entire site. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Chair Boju6s noted that the comments made would be incorporated into the environmental document. When the document has been prepared it will come back to the Planning Commission with the project for a public hearing and action. The item will be re-noticed at that time. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This time concluded at 9:40 p.m. X. PLAN R REPORTS Review of City C ncil regular meeting of tember 2, 2003. CP Monroe review e the actions of the Counc. meeting of September 2,200 . he noted that Council had adopted ordinan s clarifying the recent in usionary zoning regulations ell as clarifying the provisions of the commis oner's stipend. Counci as rescheduled their Septemb 15 meeting to Tuesday,September 16,2003, Council supported ha i g a public meeting with nei ors to discuss the location of the sound wall ext sion along Rollins Roa . The sound wall is a part of e Auxiliary Lane project on US 1.This meeti will be later in Septe er or October. Council disc sed the use of State land on th yfront for rec ational purposes, if it ' determined that more recr tion area is necessary in the B ont Planning ea. They asked staff t discuss with the State Lands ommission representatives. reation uses could e incorporated into roposed hotel developmen ince the remaining state parce s a key hotel location. CP Monroe passed ut forms for the Commissio ers to indicate how they woul e to take their stipend for the coming fisc year. FY Correspondence on Bro ay zoning changes Commis 'oners commented on a let r to the City Planner from a perty owner on Broadw requesting that t Commission consider ' application sooner. Co issioners indicated th as part of this det ination they would like see a poll of the merchants d property owners abo and uses prepared b the BID. Could staff ask e BID if they could prepare is poll sooner? Staff not that they would write a letter of request to the Board. XI. ADJOURNMENT `.. Chair Boju6s a ' urned the meeting at 10:07 p.m. 13 ROUTING FORM DATE: July 14, 2003 TO: V C;ity Engineer Chief Building Official .Fire Marshal _Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for conditional use permit for long term airport parking at 620 Airport Boulevard, zoned C-4, APN: 026-342-330. STAFF REVIEW: Monday, July 21, 2003 n xo� 0 t�v{v 'f �� c ,7 �'(.uJ 'uJ o U V lJ Reviewed By: �:'=� Date of Comments: �� z�3 Page 1 of 1 PLG-Hurin, Ruben From: PARKS-Porter, Steve Sent: Thursday, June 17, 2004 10:27 AM To: PLG-Hurin, Ruben Subject: 620 Airport Blvd. Ruben, The list of appropriate trees for this location is limited. Not many tree species will tolerate the windy, salty condition of this bayfront site. Further limiting is the situation of the use for this site with parked cars. The selected tree species should be"evergreen",for good screening as well as pest, (aphid)free. The tree type should also be of a low debris generating type. I would suggest the following trees; 1. Australian Willow(geijera parviflora) 2. Flaxleaf Paperbark (melaleuca linarifolia) 3. Fraser"s Photinia (photinia frazeri) 4. Victorian Box(pittosporum undulatum) The chosen trees should be professionally installed, irrigated, well staked, of 15 gallon size, and spaced 25-30 feet apart. 6/18/2004 ROUTING FORM DATE: July 14, 2003 TO: _City Engineer Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for conditional use permit for long term airport parking at 620 Airport Boulevard, zoned C-4, APN: 026-342-330. STAFF REVIEW: Monday,July 21, 2003 CO-c wt Reviewed By: �%� Date of Comments: 7- 2/- G`j ROUTING FORM DATE: July 14, 2003 TO: _City Engineer Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for conditional use permit for long term airport parking at 620 Airport Boulevard, zoned C-4, APN: 026-342-330. STAFF REVIEW: Monday,July 21, 2003 Reviewed By: Date of Comments: 2- o 3 ROUTING FORM DATE: July 14, 2003 TO: _City Engineer _Chief Building Official Fire Marshal Recycling Specialist _City Arborist _City Attorney FROM: Planning Staff SUBJECT: Request for conditional use permit for long term airport parking at 620 Airport Boulevard, zoned C-4, APN: 026-342-330. STAFF REVIEW: Monday,July 21, 2003 Reviewed By: sol G ��f/ Date of Comments: D State of California - The Resources Agency ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, Governor DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME http://www.dfg.ca.gov POST OFFICE BOX 47 April 28 , 2004 YOUNTVILLE, CALIFORNIA 94599 (707) 944-5500 RECEIVE ® Mr . Ruben Hurin APR 2 9 2004 Planning Department CITY OF BURLINGAME City of Burlingame PLANNING DEPT . 501 Primrose Road Burlingame , CA 94010 Dear Mr . Hurin : Conditionai. Use Permit 620 Airport Boulevard SCH# 2004042059 , San Mateo County The Department of Fish and Game ( DFG ) has reviewed the document for the subject project . We do not have specific comments regarding the proposed project and its effects on biological resources . Please be advised this project may result in changes to fish and wildlife resources as described in the California Code of Regulations , Title 14 , Section 753 . 5 ( d) ( 1 ) (A) - ( G) 1 . Therefore , if you are preparing an Initial Study and Negative Declaration for this project , a de minimis determination is not appropriate , and an environmental filing fee as required under Fish and Game Code Section 711 . 4 ( d) should be paid to the San Mateo County Clerk on or before filing of the Notice of Determination for this project . If you have any questions , please contact Mr . Scott Wilson , Habitat Conservation Supervisor , at ( 707 ) 944 - 5584 . eiy , Robert W . Floerke Regional Manager Central Coast Region CC : State Clearinghouse ' btip://ccr.oal.ca.gov/ . Find California Code of Regulations, Title 14 Natural Resources, Division 1, Section 753 Conserving Cal fornia-s WildCfe Since 1870 ENVIRONMENTAL SCOPING 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD LONG-TERM AIRPORT PARKING On September 8, 2003, an environmental scoping session was held to give the Planning Commission an opportunity to comment on any potential environmental effects which should be included in the initial study (September 8, 2003, P.C. Minutes). Potential environmental impacts of the project identified by Planning staff, ESA(environmental consultant) and the Planning Commission included: • potential impact on traffic on the roadway network; site access, circulation and parking; • air quality, particularly as related to cumulative increases in traffic; • potential impact of noise during construction and after construction on the adjacent hotel and office buildings; • biological resources, because of the potential for nesting on the site by sensitive species that are known to use open, disturbed sites as well as possible loss of habitat values at Anza Lagoon that could be indirectly affected by the proposed project; • drainage and water quality, including possible effects of runoff into Anza Lagoon and San Francisco Bay; • soil type and constraints found at the project site, potential erosion and seepage issues, and potential seismic-associated hazards; • hazards related to soil and groundwater contamination which could possibly be encountered on the site; and • visual, light and glare effects. The issues identified were incorporated into the initial study for the project (see attached initial study prepared by Environmental Science Associates). A summary of these issues is discussed below. Traffic and Parking --� As described in the "Summary" section, vehicular access only to the proposed parking facility would be directly from Airport Boulevard with the egress only through the adjacent Sheraton Hotel. The proposed project would alter existing traffic volumes and patterns in the site vicinity, particularly at the proposed site entrance, and along Airport Boulevard and Anza Boulevard. Trip generation rates for the proposed project were derived from vehicle counts conducted at the Anza Park and Sky, located across Airport Boulevard from the project site. The Anza Park and Sky is a long-term airport parking facility; the proposed project is anticipating to operate a similar operation. A.m. and p.m. weekday peak-period counts were conducted in October 2003. The highest peak-hour volume was used to derive a.m. and p.m. peak-hour trip generation rates for the proposed project. The resulting projected peak-hour vehicle trip generation rate is estimated to be 0.2 trips per parking space. Applying this rate to the proposed project results in approximately seven new peak-hour trips generated during the either the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This projected increase in vehicle trips would not result in an adverse effect on peak-hour level of service on any local roadways and at intersections serving the project site. Moreover, this increase in trips would not adversely affect operations on any regional-serving roadways and are within the p.m. trips allocated to this site in hotel use by the traffic analyzer. The project would not create a demand for parking beyond the long-term parking generated at the project site. There would be no increase in employees to serve the proposed project, and therefore, no increase in demand for parking service employees. When not in use, shuttles would be stored at the shuttle company's existing yard along Bayshore Boulevard. Consequently, the project would not result in inadequate parking capacity. The initial study notes that there are no apparent significant access and or safety design deficiencies. However, --e the initial study identifies several recommendations to improve vehicular access to/from the site, and vehicular and pedestrian circulation within the site (see pages 47-48 of the initial study). The applicant incorporated Environmental Scoping 620 Airport Boulevard Long-term Airport Parking several of these recommendations into the project. Refer to "Study Meeting" section for a summary of the -tpplicant's response to the recommendations. • Provide a larger curb radius on the curve between the access road and the parking lot. This larger curb radius would better accommodate vehicles turning into the parking lot from the access road. This identified improvement would eliminate a small amount of landscaping and one parking space. • Shift the east-west circulation aisles south so that the northernmost aisle would be 33 feet wide,and the southernmost aisle is 24 feet wide. As currently proposed,the three northernmost east-west circulation aisles are 24 feet wide,and the southernmost east-west aisle(closest to Airport Boulevard)is 33 feet wide. It is recommended that the east-west circulation aisles be shifted to the south so that the southernmost aisle is 24 feet wide and the northernmost aisle would be 33 feet wide. This modification would provide a wider circulation aisle for vehicles and shuttles entering from the access road. • Add pedestrian shelter and striped pedestrian walkway. Although the drop-off and pick-up circulation areas are not marked on the site plan,it is recommended that a pedestrian shelter be placed in the middle of the southern row of parking on the northernmost aisle. A striped pedestrian walkway should extend from this shelter southwards through the lot. These improvements would allow shuttle buses proceed straight from the Airport Boulevard driveway to the Sheraton Hotel exit driveway without circulating through the parking lot. This improvement would eliminate eight parking spaces. An alternative could be to provide a turnout for the shuttle bus on the north side of Airport Boulevard. This alternative would eliminate the need for the shuttle bus to travel through the parking lot. However, this would require the proposed project to provide a dedicated pedestrian walkway/stairs between Airport Boulevard and the parking area. • Widen north-south circulation aisle adjacent to the exit driveway to 28 feet in width. As currently proposed,the north-south circulation aisle adjacent to the exit driveway is approximately 20 feet wide. It is recommended that this aisle be widened to 28 feet to accommodate emergency vehicles. Six parking spaces would be eliminated. • Remove the short median island on Airport Boulevard. It is recommended that the short median island on Airport Boulevard, located immediately west of the project driveway, be removed to provide additional storage in the two-way left-turn lane for eastbound vehicles to turn left into the site. Air Ouality During operation of the parking facility, the project would generate emissions from patron vehicles and operation of shuttle vehicles. Since there would be no increase in employees,there would be no associated increase in employee vehicle trips,compared to existing conditions. No increase in the existing Hotel Airport Shuttle vehicle fleet(the proposed shuttle service provider for the long-term parking facility)is anticipated to serve the project,although it is reasonable to assume that existing shuttles would make either link or new trips to serve the project site. It should be noted that the Hotel Airport Shuttle fleet that would serve the project would consist of 30-seat capacity buses with,compressed natural gas(CNG)engines. CNG buses have cleaner- burning engines compared to conventional diesel buses,and correspondingly,generate considerably lower air emissions. -2- Environmental Scoping 620Airport Boulevard Long-term Airport Parking The total daily vehicle trip generation for the project is conservatively estimated at approximately 250 daily one-way trips. This addition of daily vehicle trips would result in emissions that would be well below the applicable significant thresholds levels for any criteria air pollutants. Furthermore, the project's contribution to cumulative increases in emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. Construction of the project is anticipated to occur over a three-month period. Project construction could generate substantial amounts of fugitive dust. Dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the prevailing weather. A large portion of the total construction dust emissions would result from equipment and motor vehicle traffic over the project site. Other sources of fugitive dust during construction would include earth movement, grading, and wind erosion from exposed surfaces. Project construction activities may result in significant quantities of dust in the absence of mitigation measures and would be a significant effect of the project if not mitigated. Mitigation measures include watering all active construction areas at least twice daily, covering trucks hauling soil or other materials, and dialing sweeping of paved access roads. Noise The noise environment surrounding the project site is dominated by noise from U.S. 101 and Airport Boulevard. Aircraft noise associated with the San Francisco International Airport is also a contributing factor to the local noise environment. The project site is located in an area generally consisting of office, hotel and other commercial land uses, which are not normally considered noise-sensitive; and recreational uses (including Bay Trail and Anza Lagoon). The nearest sensitive residential uses land uses are multi-family residences on Rollins Road on the south side of U.S. 101 (approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site). Local noise levels are regulated by general plan policies and by enforcement of Noise Ordinance standards. The Burlingame General Plan contains a Noise Element that establishes noise exposure standards for land use compatibility. For commercial land uses, the maximum acceptable outdoor noise level is 65 dBA, CNEL, and for passively used open space is 45 dBA, CNEL. 24-hour measurements taken on the project site indicate an existing noise level of 70 dBA, CNEL, in the southwest comer of the project site, and a noise level of 64 dBA, CNEL along the north border of the project site. Based on these measurements, it is estimated the majority of the project site currently exceeds the maximum acceptable outdoor noise level for commercial uses. It can also be inferred from these measurements that the recreational uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site (e.g., along Bay Trail) also currently exceed the maximum acceptable outdoor noise level for open space. Construction of the project would include clearing and grading of the site, utility installation, paving and site landscaping. These construction activities would result in temporary and intermittent increases in noise levels. Construction noise levels at or near locations on the project site would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number and duration of use of various pieces of equipment on the site. The effect of construction noise would depend on how much noise would be generated by construction, the distance between construction activities and the nearest noise-sensitive uses, and the existing noise levels at those uses. Project construction noise would be noticeable to users of the nearby recreational areas. The predominant recreational use in the immediate vicinity of the project site is the Bay Trail, which is set back approximately five and 80 feet from the project site. As discussed above, existing ambient noise levels at this location already exceed City noise standards for passively used open space. Construction-generated noise would be perceived as -3- Environmental Scoping 610 Airport Boulevard Long-term Airport Parking an annoyance by trail users in the project vicinity. However, since the use of this trail is predominantly -ansient in nature (walkers/joggers),resultant noise effects to users would be brief in duration. ---While commercial uses are considered less sensitive than residential and recreational uses for noise, they would also be potentially affected by noise during the project construction. The most noise sensitive period for offices and hotel conference room space is typically daytime business hours, when those uses are most likely to be utilized. Hotel guest rooms would be considered most sensitive during evening and nighttime hours, when guests are more likely to occupy and use the rooms for sleeping. Since construction is only proposed during daytime hours, and the predominant use of the adjacent commercial uses is indoors, the potential effect of construction on indoor day noise levels at these commercial uses would be considered the critical factor. The nearest commercial uses to the project site are the DHL office building (nearest point of building is approximately 250 feet west of the project site), and the Sheraton Hotel building (located approximately 200 feet east of the project site). When considering the distance between the site and these uses, and the noise attenuation features incorporated into the designs of these building (e.g. double-paned, non-opening windows), although the temporary construction-generated noise may be audible within these commercial uses, it would not be of a level that would interfere with normal speech and business operations. Given the relatively small total amount of earthwork and construction required for the proposed project, these temporary noise effects would be considered less than significant. Biological Resources The site consists primarily of large, barren topographic depression composed of imported fill material. This basin bottom is graded and is surrounded on three sides by moderately vegetated slopes. Vegetation within the basin consists of low grasses such as soft chess (Bromus hordeaceous) and ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), with black mustard(Brassica nigra) and coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) growing on the surrounding upland areas. The native pacific gum plant(Grindelia stricta) occurs as a planted ornamental species in the upper portions of `-ne basin alongside the native shrub coyote bush. Few wildlife species were observed on the site, and based on the overall lack of habitat, those expected to occur on the site would only consist of common, disturbance- adapted species. Such bird species include house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), English sparrow (Passer domesticus), and rock dove (Columba livia), and perhaps house mouse (Mus musculus) and California vole (Microtus californicus). Due to its constructed origin and history of disturbance, the project site itself has no potential to support special status plant or wildlife species. Anza Lagoon, a manmade lagoon, lies to the north and west of the project site. The San Francisco Bay shoreline adjacent to the project area and at Anza Lagoon is fortified with large boulder riprap, and is largely unvegetated. Plants that interspersed with the riprap along the shoreline include saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and non-native ice plant(Carpobrotus chilensis). Aquatic birds such as mallard duck (Anas platyrhynchos) and snowy egret (Egretta thula) commonly forage in shallow shoreline habitats in Anza Lagoon, while species such as double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), common loon (Gavia immer), and California gull (Larus californicus) forage in deeper Bay waters. Of these aquatic birds, mallard ducks may nest in upland habitats immediately adjacent the bay shoreline. Like most native birds, active nests for these species are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The project would not have an effect on foraging or nesting of any of these species. Additionally, the project would not have any impacts on common or special status wildlife species in Anza Lagoon. The project site does not support any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, and does not provide a migratory corridor or nursery sites for any species. Due to its disturbed condition, few native or introduced wildlife species occur on the site. As a result, project activities will not inhibit the local or regional movement ,,,.tf wildlife. Because impacts are localized to the immediate project site, the project would not affect habitat for fish or wildlife species in San Francisco Bay or Anza Lagoon. -4- Environmental Scoping 620 Airport Boulevard Long-term Airport Parking Draina¢e and Water Ouality The site consists of a depressed, graded and predominantly bare central area (approximately at mean sea level) and protected by a levee approximately eight to nine feet in height along the Anza Lagoon frontage portion of the property. Ground water occurs approximately two to four feet below ground surface, although ground water elevations are tidally influenced. An existing test well located on-site would be retained for potential use for any future long-development of the project,but the well would be capped for the proposed interim use. The proposed project would increase storm water runoff from the project site through the installation of impervious surfaces. Storm water runoff occurring on the project site is proposed to collected through a new on-site storm drain system. The applicant's project engineer completed a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to determine the peak demand of the system based on a 30-year flood event, using San Mateo County Intensity- Duration-Frequency (IDF) curves, precipitation records for the City of Burlingame, and a review of the City storm drainage master plan; and to determine the resulting capacity required for the proposed on-site storm drainage system. A new on-site storm drainage system would be installed to serve the project site. The storm water would be collected in eight inlets on the project site. Storm drain pipes ranging between eight and 15 inches in diameter would direct these storm flows to a 15-inch diameter storm drain along the west property boundary, which would then carry the storm flows off-site to an existing 21-inch City reinforced concrete storm drainage pipe in Airport Boulevard (these flows would be ultimately discharged to the San Francisco Bay). Two pumps would be installed in a parallel connection on-site [each providing 1,650 gallons per minute (gpm) pumping capacity, for a total pumping capacity of 3,300 gpm], to pump on-site storm flows off-site. The proposed storm drain system, as designed and sized, would have sufficient capacity to adequately accommodate 30-year peak event flows on the project site(Perez 2004; Luzuriaga Taylor, Inc.,2004). The City's storm drain in the vicinity was designed to accommodate the proposed project loads and other anticipated future development along Airport Boulevard. Consequently, the projected increased volume and rate of stormwater discharged from the project site would not exceed the capacity of the City's storm drain system (Luzuriaga Taylor, Inc., 2004). The proposed project could result in an increase of non-point source pollutants being directly discharged to San Francisco Bay. Pollutants of concern typically found in urban runoff include sediments, nutrients, pathogens, oxygen demanding substances, petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, toxic pollutants, floatables, and synthetic organics (pesticides, herbicides, PCBs, etc.). Pesticide and herbicide application to grass and agriculture also contributes significantly to nutrient loading in surface waters. Due to the type of vegetation proposed for landscaping (ice plant), the expected use of pesticides or herbicides for landscape maintenance is negligible. However, automobile use associated with the proposed project could result in the discharge of contaminated stormwater runoff to the City's storm drain system, and eventually discharged to San Francisco Bay. In order to reduce potential increases in petroleum hydrocarbons and other pollutants in storm water runoff, the project storm drainage system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the STOPPP NPDES permit, including all provisions to the C.3 requirements, to reduce long-term water quality impacts from potentially contaminated runoff. The project sponsor shall provide a plan for long-term operations and maintenance of the oil and sediment separator or absorbent filter systems including but not limited to the operating schedule, maintenance frequency, routine service schedule, specific maintenance activities, and the effectiveness of the water treatment systems. The performance of the filters shall be monitored regularly by the project applicant or a third party to determine the effectiveness of the water treatment and conclusions reported to the City. To further help minimize and prevent the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system, the -5- Environmental Scoping 620Airpori Boulevard Long-term Airport Parking project sponsor shall implement Best Management Practices and source control measures that shall include, but -e not necessarily limited to, regular street sweeping by mechanized equipment, proper clean-up of soil debris .ollowing landscape work or small scale construction, available trash receptacles, regular trash collection and the application of absorbent material on oil and fuel leaks from automobiles. Soil The basin-shaped project site is located along the shoreline of San Francisco Bay on artificial fill. Ground surface topography at the bottom of the basin on the project site is relatively level, with a raised levee along the perimeter of Anza Lagoon near the north and west property boundary. Site elevations range from mean sea level on the basin floor to approximately nine feet above mean sea level (amsl) along the levee crest in the northwest comer of the site. Burlingame and the larger San Francisco Bay Area are located in a seismically active region. Recent studies by the United States Geological Survey(USGS) indicate there is a 63 percent likelihood of a Richter magnitude 6.7 or higher earthquake occurring in the Bay Area in the next 30 years (USGS, 2003). The project site could experience a range of ground shaking effects during an earthquake on one of the Bay Area faults. Ground shaking levels could be intensified by the non-engineered artificial fill that currently overlies the project site. Ground shaking of this intensity could result in breakage of underground pipes and conspicuous ground cracking. Potential ground shaking hazards on the project site are limited by the nature of the project, as no structures would be built. The proposed project is separated from San Francisco Bay and Anza Lagoon along the northern and western site boundary by a levee constructed in the 1970's by Harding Lawson Associates (HLA). The levee has a crest ',eight of approximately nine feet ams], is approximately 40 to 60 feet wide at its base and narrows at the crest `.o a width of approximately 10 feet (Treadwell and Rollo, 2003). The proposed project would recontour the existing levee slopes along the western portion of the project site through grading activities in order to construct the proposed parking lot access ramp and the southwest comer of the parking lot. Based upon upwardly revised peak ground shaking estimates due to improved knowledge of earthquakes and seismic effects since the original levee slope stability analysis was performed in the 1970's, the existing levee slopes could fail in the event of a characteristic earthquake (i.e., maximum moment magnitude) on the San Andreas Fault. This failure would not necessarily result in complete levee collapse, but may result in slumping of slope materials or even localized levee failure. The proposed recontouring of the existing levee slope within the project site that would occur with the project would have the potential to affect levee slope stability, if not properly designed. Therefore the following mitigation measure shall be required: • A site-specific, design-level geotechnical investigation shall be prepared that assesses the impacts of proposed project modifications to the levee on levee stability and any fill on site. The geotechnical investigation shall be conducted by a California Certified Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer, and shall include an analysis of expected ground motions along the San Andreas fault in accordance the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the California Building Code (Title 24) additions. Expected ground motions determined by a registered geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated into the final design as part of the project. The final seismic considerations for the site shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Burlingame Structural and City Engineers before grading permits are issued. The proper design of proposed levee modifications associated with the proposed project as required by the .—.litigation would insure that the proposed project would not adversely impact slope stability of the existing levee. However, this mitigation measure would not correct slope instability in the event of a characteristic -6- Environmental Scoping 620 Airport Boulevard Long-term Airport Parking earthquake along any portion of the levee. Therefore, the pre-existing potential for levee failure would remain. Localized levee failure could result in temporary flooding of the parking lot and overwhelm the proposed drainage system, particularly if the earthquake coincided with high tide. As the proposed use of the project site is only proposed for long-term parking, and would not contain any buildings, the presence of individuals on-site would be limited. Any potential flooding on site would also have the potential to result in incidental flooding to the Sheraton Hotel property to the east, including its subsurface parking garage. Although flooding could occur in such an event, the potential for severe injury or death is unlikely. Therefore, with mitigation identified above,potential ground shaking impacts would be less than significant. Hazards Related to Soil and Groundwater Contamination A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project site indicates that, based on a historical review and site reconnaissance, the project site does not pose an apparent environmental concern associated with past or current use. Moreover, the Phase 1 indicates the project site is not located on selected Federal and State regulatory hazardous materials lists, and that off-site properties in the project vicinity that are on regulatory agency lists do not pose an environmental concern to conditions at the project site (Law Engineering and Environmental Services, 1998). Other investigations conducted at surrounding properties have indicated that there is the potential for subsurface artificial fill in the project vicinity to contain debris. This debris could include hazardous materials that have adversely impacted soil or groundwater conditions, potentially posing health risks to construction workers or future users of the site. However, past geotechnical borings at the site have not encountered debris, and the proposed project would only include limited grading and utility improvements. Potential health hazards are therefore minimized by the limited depth and extent of grading, the absence of debris encountered during past on-site geotechnical investigations, and the overall confined nature of the proposed project. Potential hazardous materials issues are considered less than significant. Visual Liieht and Glare Effect The site is currently vacant, consisting of a depressed, graded and predominantly bare central area surrounded by shallow slopes on three sides covered with non-native vegetation. The project site is located adjacent to Anza Lagoon, the Bay Trail and Airport Boulevard. Airport Boulevard is designated as a Local Scenic Connector in the City of Burlingame General Plan. Some close-range views of the site (particularly the lower- lying central area) and some views through the site, are currently obstructed from some vantage points by the existing fence encircling the site (which contains wood sheeting along the south border,Airport Boulevard), the levee and/or existing vegetation. While the project site is not currently visible from U.S. 101 due to interceding vegetation, proposed on-site structures, such as light poles, may be visible with the project. The project site is also visible from the hills to the west. Given that relatively minimal alteration of the existing topography on the site would occur, and because the proposed project would not contain any large or obtrusive structures, the project would not increase potential blockage of views from portions of the Bay Trail to the coastal ridge, nor would it increase potential blockage of views of Anza Lagoon and the Bay from Airport Boulevard compared to existing conditions. Proposed security fencing will be constructed to be visually open(i.e.,not opaque) such that views through the site would not be obstructed. Development of the proposed project would introduce new sources of light and glare onto the project site and increase ambient light at night in the site vicinity, including at the hotel property immediately adjacent. The project would include night lighting within the parking facility. The specific layout of the proposed exterior lighting design for the development including fixture types would be subject to the City review and approval. -7- Environmental Scoping 620 Airport Boulevard Long-term Airport Parking Proposed night lighting would be pole-mounted and similar in type and intensity to that used in nearby parking '-)ts. The preliminary estimated average illuminance values on the project site provided by the proposed night � ,,ghting is 3.66 foot-candles; this value would not be expected to cause excessive spill light off-site. The Burlingame Municipal Code requires that exterior lighting on all commercial properties shall be designed and located so that the cone of light and/or glare from the lighting element is kept entirely on the property or below the top of any fence, hedge or wall. Potential glare from vehicular headlights from project traffic entering the site from Airport Boulevard and from traffic circulating within the project site, would not cause significant glare at off-site locations, because the traffic would be greatly shielded by the slopes, vegetation and security fencing surrounding the project site. Conditions of approval will be added requiring non-glare fixtures which focus the cone of light on site and that the proposed project lighting shall be designed to avoid casting glare on off-site receptors including adjacent hotel, office buildings, public streets and sidewalks, in accordance with the exterior illumination ordinance. -8- City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.burlin ag�me.org 0 CITY o� BY. +E APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit_ Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number: 026-342-330 lot nos. 4 through 8; block 6 Project address' 620 Airport Boulevard APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Paul Salisbury Name: Blunk Demattei Associates Name: Boca Lake Office, Inc. Address: 1555 Bayshore Hwy., #300 Address: 433 California St. , 7th FI. City/State/Zip: Burlingame, CA 94010 City/State/Zip: San Francisco, CA 94104-2201 Phone (w): (650) 692-9911 Phone (w): (415)_398-33' 3 (h): cell (415) 203-9964 (h): (f): (650) 692-0181 ( (415)982-7781 ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: Rlunk nPmattei Associates Address: 1555 Bayshore Hwy. . #300 _ City/State/Zip:_ Burlingame, CA 94010 Please indicate with an asterisk .* Phone (w): (650) 692-9911 the contact person for this project. (h): RECEIVED (fl: (650) 692-0181 JUL 1 4 2003 CITY nl- P !1PLINGM0E PROJECT DESCRIPTION' Interim use of site as long term parking with attendant improvements. AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: Date: I know about the proposed application nd he by au oriz the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commissio . ll Property owner's signature: Date: Date submitted: 14 ' 03 PCAPP.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650)558-7250 F(650)696-3790 www.burlingame.oM CITY RECEIVE CITY OF BURL'INGAME ; 'CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION _ J U L 14 2003 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance(Code Section 25.52.020). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The proposed use is identical to the use of the property across the street and similar to other long term auto storage in the bayfront area. On this site, however, the auto storage will be below grade and therefore less visible to the public. The proposed use will improve an undeveloped piece of land where there has frequently been standing water that these improvements will eliminate. 2. How will the proposed use be located and conducted in accordance with the Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Ordinance? The proposed use--long term airport parking--is an approved interim use in the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan per Res. 24-90 dated 2/5/90. 3. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? Because the proposed long term parking will be below grade, and the perimeter screened, it will improve the aesthetics and character of the site and its impact on existing and potential uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity. CUPYRM ' STANFORD HOTELS CORPORATION MOD 433 CALIFORNIA STREET,7TH FLOOR,SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94104-2011 TELEPHONE(415)398-3333 FAX:982-7781 W W W.STANFORDHOTELS.COM RECEIVED Ms.Margaret Monroe J U L 14 2003 City Planner City of Burlingame CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road PLANNING DEPT. Burlingame,CA 94010 Re: 620 Airport Boulevard Parking Facility Project Dear Ms.Monroe: The purpose of my letter is to clarify the issue of cross usage of the aforementioned proposed project and our existing Sheraton Hotel located next door at 600 Airport Boulevard.It is our intent that these two operations will be quite different in their purpose,operations,and execution. The parking at our hotel exists to service the customers(and to a lesser degree,a small portion of the employees)of the Sheraton.It is priced to be,and its service designed to be,competitive with the parking facilities of the other full service hotel properties in the San Francisco Airport area, in particular hotels such as the Hyatt,Marriott,Doubletree and Embassy Suites.This parking has been proven adequate in its capacity over the years to service our customers and employees. The proposed parking project at 620 Airport Boulevard represents a totally different business,aimed at a long-term parking customer.This facility will be priced in a manner consistent with other such long-term parking facilities and with a competitive service offering—shuttle service,etc.—also competitive with other such facilities in the airport area. As such,the two facilities will have different sets of customers,pricing,service and mission.There will be little, if any,cross over in the two operations...certainly none that would impact or be visible to,either business's customers. We do not anticipate any cross-over in parking between the two facilities as the difficulties inherent in pricing of, and servicing to,the two different sets of customers would be extremely challenging.We also anticipate no compelling reason to do so. Please let me know if you have any questions relative to the aforementioned. Respectfully yours, Clyde E.Guinn,CHA Senior Vice President,Operations Stanford Hotels Corporation ate., CITY... - r �(I ac CITY OF BU GAME_ PLANNING (x�^ 6URUNGAME 501 PRIM 4+ BURLINGA +� TEL (650) k X650}696 3790 vb6dinga,, org IN-! 2M s 4 ; Site: 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD L lication for mtt� ated negative declaration IN F lon erg P L r nd conditional us T T ;port parking sofa i ULEVARD, zoned t �� c S M yx 3 M"�rt the KM Xffwl w` OM 1 ++tjk.` 3: ��:i t 4 -'d F K Y i •s;-., $'�`rS. "" } __$ � Ar ■/�yBIIRLINGAME be revr<ewed>p� .Prin�rose�Rod �r a �: FLLjtL� a i 110% ' [ e Q. e t r ` u ,} t e respon ble r informing # i � rs � j a io al info ati , please call , it yx._ at :� _ i _ �, f 1� w�� •:��r Rin#,� �: '34' 'f`+4..#. ■."'E' _yai„I'� }a. rx be > �'�a�t,�rY•, k?ti` •'"'�`�.aQY �� i `4� '" p, ?sr�• '-x i y SAN FRANCISCO B A Y l,, 2-Nl x 620 � �., i■=, �� Nx z.�i.��'� �rc �. � ,+.,,�" ern� f 5 e i AIRPORT BOULEVARD < 77a. a LAGOON M . r. Saoa 620 - a C-4 . K , s A - lRp ORT , E V •. ,. J rr�;' r ^ ' . R T. G .14+ A ` F G �L. L t - r�o limr� Blvd �[. ,� f ``,� •� Fry t ��. � ` ;� �•6cL�;t� � ��`�• �� _ p G $ft ,f� �� •�� Auto'�t�tage f , p �t sy r l �• 'Al' 5 Airport Blvd 'A t g . � ` r F .��• .�t , _ a Apbrt,Parking t r t�tG a. Epp " , ;;e , . � ■■�■ �. , �r 1y r +Z,.�..e ��p,��rift y.� , f� • r •a=F w'� A .5,,, � .Y "a it ■.,.�`. .,.�f£�. i4 i '�';SL C,�4�'�5�4�7•ti+��i��fc � , r.; , BURL CITY OF BURLINGAME L . . . . �, MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION i File No. ND-533-P 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility The City of Burlingame by Margaret Monroe on April 12, 2004, completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: (XX) It will not have a significant effect on the environment because revisions in the project have been made and/or mitigation measures are identified to ensure all potential impacts are mitigated to a less-than-significant level. (XX) No Environmental Impact Report is required. Proiect Description: The proposed project is the construction and operation of a long-term airport parking facility at 620 Airport Boulevard. The project would include surface-level parking for approximately 350 parking spaces, as well as access, landscaping, lighting, and drainage improvements, and security fencing. The project site consists of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 026-342-330 Lot Nos. 4 through 8; Block 6. The 3.7-acre, roughly rectangular-shaped project site is located on the shoreline of San Francisco Bay, adjacent to Anza Lagoon. The site is currently vacant, consisting of a depressed, graded and predominantly bare central area surrounded by shallow slopes on three sides covered with non-native vegetation. The graded central area of the site is approximately at mean sea level. The slopes on the north and west sides of the property are part of an approximate eight-foot high levee which create the manmade Anza Lagoon. Portions of the west and north sides of the project site are located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission. Vehicular access to the proposed parking facility would be from Airport Boulevard and egress would be from the adjacent Sheraton Hotel. Mile High Service, which currently operates the hotel parking services at the adjacent Sheraton Hotel, would operate parking services for proposed long-term airport parking facility. The parking lot would provide four east-west aisles and two north-south aisles for internal circulation. All parking spaces would be 9-feet by 20-feet in dimension. Hotel Airport Shuttle would operate the shuttle service for the long-term airport parking facility to and from SFO. When not in use, these shuttles would be stored at the shuttle company's yard on Bayshore Boulevard. No on-site shuttle storage, maintenance, or fueling facilities would be provided at the proposed long-term parking facility. Reasons for Conclusion: The project site contains a Waterfront Commercial land use designation in the City of Burlingame General Plan, and a Commercial Recreation, Restaurant and Hotel land use designation in the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan. The proposed long-term parking facility is consistent with these land use designation. The project is zoned C-4, Waterfront Commercial. All zoning code requirements have been met through the project design. Referring to the Initial Study for all other facts supporting findings, it is found that with the incorporation of the identified mitigation measures, there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. File No. ND-533-P 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Page 2 -� Vanvi Sign ture o Processin Official Title Date Signed The determination becomes final after action at a public hearing held before the Planning Commission, unless the commission's action is appealed to the City Council. Date posted: April 12, 2004 Declaration of Posting I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Mitigated Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council Chambers. Executed at Burlingame, California on �—, 2004. A5: ( )Yes ( )No ANN T. SS6, CITY CLERK, CITY 6F B E -� ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project Title: 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Ruben Hurin (650)558-7250 4. Project Location: Parcel with an address of 620 Airport Boulevard, Burlingame, California 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Stanford Hotels Corporation 433 California Street, 7`b Floor San Francisco, California 94014-2011 6. General Plan Designation: General Plan -Waterfront Commercial; Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan—Commercial Recreation, Restaurant and Hotel 7. Zoning: C-4 APN: 026-342-330 Lot Nos.4 through 8;Block 6 8. Description of Project: Summary: The proposed project is the construction and operation of a long-term airport parking facility at 620 Airport Boulevard, along the bayfront in the City of Burlingame. The 3.70-acre site is currently vacant. The project would include surface-level parking for approximately 350 parking spaces, as well as access, landscaping and drainage improvements. Existing Site: The roughly rectangular-shaped project site is located on the shoreline of San Francisco Bay, adjacent to Anza Lagoon (see Figure 1: Project Site Location; and Figure 2: Aerial Photograph of Project Site). The site is currently vacant, consisting of a depressed, graded and predominantly bare central area surrounded by shallow slopes on three sides covered with non-native vegetation. The graded central area of the site is approximately at mean sea level. The slopes on the north and west sides of the property are part of an approximate eight-foot high levee which create the manmade Anza Lagoon. (Anza Lagoon has a narrow, but direct connection to the San Francisco Bay and is subject to tidal influence.) An abandoned storm drainage system (consisting of number of raised inlets partially connected to storm drain pipes)is located in the central area of the site;this system was originally installed to serve 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study I FSA/203409 S P s tl i' San ithrtand Cl7Y LIAA17Raiaei TY SAN MA1E0 CITY LIMIT 1 aAHwI Berk ley Oakland San rrandsCDCt .AI 14 i Dal o - ase SITE "' urd PROJECT SITE s� � 9� ............... .___...:....__._....._....�:. ..._...,..:.._...........,.., .. .,._ Mateo i p 0 o q µ "WAS d Ansa LatoWa ruRr comrry 1 'n'F a '" • �.�aeun aaa i em*Ra4rrNn4.SWXI _ b� °vim r� ! Sv �e3'+w Hai• _.<._ COV07EVOINT I BrACH Rn qof DMrlingame ecreation Lagoon COU"'-..,. ..._...,, _. p� GR. COY TE O I p 4 • bf 9 '. . PFNlNSUL G'AREA pgTf7 rt' 9 iREEWAY 44AN6$7CIC{FTY ... •C�uBNpusa �' � U : f4� � Gh 'A+ 8 �`'� o'' " OQ•' y/ E' �Q!a z c SO. 7AFN7pN K pD. ---.r *n:,.,,, a� , \G\QPy G� S� �\. � GOJQ. • g �qy fb� kao � 41 •4�N� '�i.� '' '.��p�- � q � � Q d+,'T �0 fi. � .� 1 t 3� q�f rf !aq f! P q0 a�R`�F°�. "y �o �� 9y�'t o�4� y q� a „e�tia y• iso 91, 'Olt. � 0 ,rI?' u ��N�<ihCJ N T a V AO y`e,/• ( ,k,NdEl GlrYpq�'b e a .d�4 `�`�!f `O ��/. �r !i! r ! �y cl ,? !�f 1, D W o v4 `�a 1 sy, WV.�� PUBO E, �. � !o, c :, �:\t � qO: ♦y ! ,; a! !a A'r tM ry"°s Qi !aE- �• ..`4 M !° a°'�iJ+� o r �' ao t a•� `�. s �� eD ¢ f° 4 s at'' � •� � � G ♦� E. faDr` q tP yW Oq �'° t�- �• fir.. !a ,a�'•.t�e.� '}"b 4y ,ip .a of 'b .s2 d' M.�oN. '141 � f0 _ NggG Qf' �'rry .,Po J `�. O <4 lfi.• ta° !a• d Ci r °Q9 �? � y WfF Ul aI4YLkf0 . /�yqo. !PO 4s�. � P � ! -ry � c• �^. � b °*!S pR. ! a {��o� �j ?O -► � PC'vv f�r,` �m� �'. q° / � °?qS°y �i. 'd' '�'+4c �pa� �� 1� �^oy f ,aco �� r. f! � � sv!i *r„• y►�fN�� i ry ��' rFygy '� ''� � ! s� l'`�' ss 'S? Ib � 0 2000 Feet V'. `r `"a $ To QO. }`�Fa` 9'a jfA .tP ``,,nn//'' G� N.�� '� .P,Nl ♦ � f SOURCE:American Automobile Association 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking/203409■ Figure 1 Project Site Location � ) I T 0 200 ' • . • . . Feet y � San FrancISco 6 , r. DHL EXPRESS OFFICE 1 BUIL+DINGS m , �, SHI: ATO xr , HOTEL I, 4V Y x *�•rfs,s, ri'� �� . ,' .y, f _♦ �. +� W0. C Air port Boulevard „ 71 .+ y rr Y LONG TERM ,r { .;i41R1JOR11#�PAKKING 14 A I% % o I SOURCE: City of Burlingame;Environmental Science Associates 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking/203409 ■Figure 2 Aerial Photograph of Project Site ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST a previous anticipated development on the site. Other existing features on the site include a test well and water meter box in the southwest area of the site, and a catch basin and wood retaining wall which encroach on the east property line. A chainlink fence extends along the perimeter of the site, and is augmented with wood sheeting along the south border. Portions of the west and north sides of the project site are located within the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC).1 Parking Facility Characteristics and Operations: The proposed project is the construction and operation of a long-term airport parking facility to serve people wishing to park at an off-site location and use a shuttle service to/from San Francisco International Airport (SFO). Figure 3 presents the proposed site site plan; Figure 4 shows typical cross-sections of the site. The project would include surface-level parking for approximately 350 parking spaces, as well as landscaping along the perimeter of the site, entry gate, lighting and security fencing, and drainage improvements. Exiting and pay booths would take place through the parking and site of the adjacent hotel site to the south. Mile High Service, which currently operates the hotel parking services at the adjacent Sheraton Hotel, would operate parking services for proposed long-term airport parking facility. Vehicular access to the proposed parking facility would be from Airport Boulevard and egress would be from the adjacent Sheraton Hotel. Long-term parking patrons would access the parking lot in their vehicles at Airport Boulevard and pass through an entry gate, consisting of an automated ticket dispenser (issuing a paper parking ticket to the patron) with coordinated lift arm. Patrons would then proceed north along the west boundary of the site down a 20-foot wide ramp and then east into the parking area to park _ their vehicles. The parking lot would provide four east-west aisles and two north-south aisles for internal circulation. Parking aisles would range between approximately 20 and 33 feet in width. All parking spaces would be 9-feet by 20-feet in dimension. Hotel Airport Shuttle would operate the shuttle service for the long-term airport parking facility to and from SFO. Hotel Airport Shuttle currently provides shuttle services for a number of hotels in the area. There would be designated shuttle pick-up and drop-off areas within the proposed long-term parking lot to serve the long-term parking lot patrons. The shuttles would access the long-term parking facility at the entrance on Airport Boulevard and exit at the driveway connecting to the Sheraton Hotel parking lot. Hotel Airport Shuttle's vehicles consist of 30-seat capacity buses, and operate with compressed natural gas-burning engines. No additional shuttle buses are anticipated to be required by Hotel Airport Shuttle to serve the proposed project. Hotel Airport Shuttle buses currently operate 5:00 a.m. to midnight daily, at 20-minute frequencies. Between midnight and 5:00 a.m., the shuttles operate on an on-call basis. As under existing conditions, when not in use, these shuttles would be stored at the shuttle company's yard on Bayshore Boulevard. No on-site shuttle storage, maintenance, or fueling ,facilities would be provided at the proposed long-terra parking facility. Departing patron vehicles would exit the long-term parking facility at a driveway connecting to the Sheraton Hotel parking lot, and proceed to the attendant booth for payment prior to exiting the hotel parking lot at Airport Boulevard. No increase in Mile High Service parking attendant employment is anticipated to serve the proposed long-term parking lot. 1 BCDC jurisdiction is measured at 100-feet from the mean high tide line of tidally influenced waters of the San Francisco Bay including Anza Lagoon. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Tenn Parking Facility Initial Study 4 FSA/203409 LAGOON LAGOON .......... 40 . ....... T SITE BOUNDARY_,,. ... .......... 40 --- . .•.... q 22 A $50 .......... If of � , r �. TOTAL STALLS W H: W cam 1 ........... ........... ............ ............................................... ............ .......................... ................... . ... ...... .......... 50 IU re+ce Feet SOURCE Blunk Demattei Associates Architects,AIA 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking/203409 0 Figure 3 Site Plan RAMPDOWN TO PARKING LINE OF(E)GRADE EDGE OF (SHOWN DASHED)MP) PROPERTY LINE SECTION C EDGE OF PROPERTY LINE SECTION B EDGE OF PROPERTY LINE SECTION A SOURCE: Blunk Demattei Associates Architects,AIA 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Tenn Parking/203409 ■ Figure 4 Site Cross-Sections ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Other than the use of Mile High Service (which provides parking services for the adjacent Sheraton Hotel) and Hotel Airport Shuttle (which provides shuttle services for other hotels in the area), the long-term parking lot is proposed to operate independently of the Sheraton Hotel and other hotels and businesses in the area. The proposed long-term parking lot would not be available for use by Sheraton Hotel guests or employees, or other hotels in the area, for either typical or special event use. A tire mechanism (e.g. tiger-teeth strip) would be installed at the exit of the long-term parking lot to prevent potential vehicular access into the long-term parking lot from the Sheraton Hotel parking lot. The project would include nightlighting within the parking facility and potentially with signage elements. Pole-mounted nightlighting would be installed within the parking lot and access road to for visibility and security purposes. The proposed project would also include a minimum six-foot high chain-link fencing encircling the project site for security. Proposed Grading, Drainage and Landscaping_ Figure 5 illustrates proposed grading and drainage plan for the project. As under existing conditions, the central area of the site would be depressed and relatively level; surrounded by shallow slopes on the north, west and south boundaries. With the project, elevations on the project site would range from a minimum of approximately 0.75 feet above sea level (at the lowest point within the parking lot) to a maximum of approximately 8.5 feet above sea level (asl) (along the west and south boundaries). The 260-foot long vehicular ramp that descends from Airport Boulevard to the parking lot would have a grade of between approximately one and three percent. A new on-site storm drainage system would be installed to serve the project site. The parking lot would be divided into six primary storm water collection quadrants (each containing a 2- to 2.6 percent grade), with a storm water inlet at the lowest point of each quadrant. Two additional inlets would be located within the access ramp along west boundary, and the proposed landscaping area along the northern boundary, respectively, to collect storm water from these areas. A series of stormdrains ranging between eight and 15 inches in diameter would direct storm flows collected within these inlets to two on-site electric sump pumps. The two pumps would be installed in a parallel connection on-site [each providing 1,650 gallons per minute (gpm) pumping capacity, for a total pumping capacity of 3,300 gpm total], approximately eight to ten feet below the parking lot surface. During storm events, the pumps would direct flows via an eight-inch force main to an existing 21-inch City reinforced concrete storm drainage pipe in Airport Boulevard. The existing test well located on-site would be retained for potential use for any future long- development of the project,but the well would be capped for the proposed interim use. The majority of the site would be paved, including the areas containing the parking lot and access road. The slopes surrounding the parking lot are proposed to be planted with ice plant. If feasible, there is the potential for trees to be planted within the landscaped area as well. Proposed landscaping setbacks include an approximate 50-foot landscaped setback along the southern boundary (adjacent to Airport Boulevard), a 3- to 25-foot landscaped setback along the west boundary, and landscaping setback along the north boundary ranging between 0-to 35 feet. Project Construction: Construction of the proposed project is anticipated to commence in mid-year 2004, with construction occurring over a three-month period. Construction of the project would include clearing and grading of the site, utility installation, construction of new surface parking lot and vehicular entrance, site landscaping and lighting improvements. A total of approximately 2,275 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 7 ESA/203409 30 IN. ............. a-now .....-PROJECT SITE BOUNDARY -0- T Amon's a-KEN01"" -in _7� MONAARP ................... .....—--- 102. E, 1 T 111 02. FP 4 102.70 + 7+50 4-M OUT 12*� M 102., CX 4�. Till ILI 04 I I I I �T Ts "V .30 12'.V WT 0 + .5 INV N. ;021 IN 'INV INT it ' I "X 2-4. fax Z2. 'kS.IxCr-!!W4 T LNE /V ————— —— ——————————— + P T— P 'X MIACATED P LA. I/-v\ SEE UTILITY 3.(rn ?h �E12. I 11C to 2.W 2.2% L 'r.S_iX O'w wx -2 12�W 0A.i si .1 ET 1 ON 10, INV CUT 6".1'2 FNC jCCL'L 102.5 4— +Z -—---- FP P rn ........................... ................. 11 ........................................ a +FP 0 50 %emmis 0 a moms III x momm 0 111 NINON Oss Owns a 0 wood on OWNS ON on OMNI on Feet .............. ■ ....1-.............. .............. ...........................i ............iiiiiLl Nc .......... M.MT SCIEWALK FM CONNECT .0-AND KP SA.cur0TO(E D-ANO 1EPLACIC CIUIT SA. T(E) VENCM REPLACE Ml (E) AT 1.3 L V A LACE �1LATW ADJACENT IN KM ATCM(E). TC'_" 1.111 UMN A111 �CUNDG: TELLPH M TCN,_147 AN, 'ON.C,4.,M OA '07..% w 2 R UNC ="AV.CURB AM WTTCR. a AND M.. .............. ...... .... SOULLAND ..........._............._11r . ................... . ........... Wrl ............... .......... SOURCE: Luzuriaga Taylor,Inc. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking/203409 0 Figure 5 Grading and Drainage Plan ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST cubic yards would be cut and filled on the site. No importation of soil is expected, other than gravel and sub base for the proposed paving;and no soil is anticipated to be exported from the site. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting. The Bay Trail and Anza Lagoon border the project site on separate parcels on the north and west sides of the property. These bordering properties are owned by the State Lands Commission and currently are leased to San Francisco International Airport Hometel (see Figure 6: Existing Ownership). The Sheraton Hotel property (owned by Harbor View Hotels, Inc.) borders the project site on the east side. Airport Boulevard, a four-lane arterial, borders the site on the south. Across Airport Boulevard to the south is a 13-acre, private long-term airport surface parking facility. DHL Worldwide Express is located in the nearest of the office buildings across Anza Lagoon to the west. An open space area and Kincaid's Restaurant are located across Anza Lagoon to the north. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Review from the San Mateo County Airport Land Use Commission, and the City/County Association of Governments (C/CAG),who administers San Mateo County's Congestion Management Plan. Compliance with National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements for discharges into the storm drain. Approval from the Bay Conservation Development Commission for encroachment within its jurisdiction. Approval from the Federal Aviation Administration. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 9 FSA/203409 LEGEND BCDC Shoreline Setback (within project site) 0 200 --- Project Site Boundary • ® Feet ......••••• State Leasehold Boundary ` E� FfAFF`PINY �{ sL�7te � r ,� �� 3' •Y � A {fig' 1. RF 4 �ye+P : $moi VY j,Yi t ''.�Y{�i � YT.� Ar �Y.•wt Y�" Y..YY'�.Y..YY�Y'1— A � WS`V'.'`� "/;,�YY�y tt,yjx ..'.. Y f h �''l54 .d�. �•xx, k �x. ". I' R} 9�..i"FF't`d1 t Ownedr ^ iBcn � J C 51 E 3' — Plciza • `��li pr erty OFwneclF • (Owned by Boca Lak O" ce Inc Or or l/r m � • � , ��, e.:' F,rff� �ew4Hotels, Inc .. } ro ,r Airport Boulevard 1 WIM. \a M , " Leasehold 't ' d SOURCE: City of Burlingame;Environmental Science Associates 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking/203409 ■ Figure 6 Existing Ownership ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact"as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ® Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ® Cultural Resources ® Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards&Hazardous Materials ® Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ® Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless mitigated"impact on the environment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards,and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION,including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. Sign ture Date V-��Q2 VA n\Q, City of Burlingame Printed Name For 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Tenn Parking Facility Initial Study 1 1 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: -� Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS--Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to,trees,rock outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ I. AESTHETICS Setting The site is currently vacant,consisting of a depressed, graded and predominantly bare central area surrounded by shallow slopes on three sides covered with non-native vegetation. The --� graded central area of the site is approximately at mean sea level. The slopes on the north and west sides of the property are part of an approximate eight-foot high levee which create the manmade Anza Lagoon. The project site is located adjacent to Anza Lagoon, the Bay Trail and Airport Boulevard. Airport Boulevard is designated as a Local Scenic Connector in the City of Burlingame General Plan. Some close-range views of the site (particularly the lower-lying central area) and some views through the site, are currently obstructed from some vantage points by the existing fence encircling the site (which contains wood sheeting along the south border, Airport Boulevard), the levee and/or existing vegetation. While the project site is not currently visible from U.S. 101 due to interceding vegetation, proposed on-site structures, such as light poles, may be visible with the project. The project site is also visible from the hills to the west. I.a Construction Less Than Significant Impact. During the construction phase, the placement of construction equipment and daily movement of on-site construction vehicles and off-site materials delivery trucks, stockpiling of materials on the site, and other potential construction associated nuisances (e.g., dust), would create temporary negative aesthetic effects to travelers on Airport Boulevard, users of the adjacent recreational facilities, and occupants of adjacent businesses with views of the site. Since the effect is temporary and limited to the construction period, it is not considered significant. However, implementation of the following measures would ensure potential -� visual impacts during construction would remain less than significant. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 12 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Measure: • Construction staging areas shall be kept clear of all trash,etc. Construction staging areas shall be located away from Airport Boulevard and adjacent businesses so they are not visible from public view. • During construction, a screened security fence approved by the City of Burlingame, shall be maintained around the perimeter of the project parcel and removed immediately following construction work. • During construction, no construction-related equipment or vehicles shall be stored on Airport Boulevard. Operation Less Than Significant Impact. Given that relatively minimal alteration of the existing topography on the site would occur, and because the proposed project would not contain any large or obtrusive structures, the project would not increase potential blockage of views from portions of the Bay Trail to the coastal ridge, nor would it increase potential blockage of views of Anza Lagoon and the Bay from Airport Boulevard compared to existing conditions. Implementation of the following measure would ensure potential long-term visual impacts during operation would remain less than significant. Measure: • Proposed security fencing shall constructed to be visually open (i.e., not opaque) such that views through the site would not be obstructed. I.b No Impact. The project site consists of a vacant lot on landfill, containing a manmade `-' earthen berm and covered with non-native vegetation. The site itself does not contain any visually significant geologic,hydrologic,vegetative, cultural or structural features. There are no designated state scenic highways in the project vicinity. Ic. Less Than Significant Impact. As discussed above, while the project site is located adjacent to the scenic Anza Lagoon, there are no visually significant natural features on the project site itself. The project site is located adjacent to other existing commercial uses, including another long-term parking facility, as well as office and hotel uses which also contain parking facilities. Since the project site is depressed and the proposed use is compatible, the proposed project would not be considered visually incompatible with adjacent uses. Consequently, with proposed landscaping, setbacks and conformance with other City zoning requirements, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. Id. Less Than Significant Impact. Development of the proposed project would introduce new sources of light and glare onto the project site and increase ambient light at night in the site vicinity, including at the hotel property immediately adjacent. The project would include nightlighting within the parking facility and potentially with signage elements. The specific layout of the proposed exterior lighting design for the development including fixture types would be subject to the City review and approval. Proposed nightlighting would be pole-mounted and similar in type and intensity to that used in nearby parking lots. The preliminary estimated average illuminance 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 13 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST values on the project site provided by the proposed nightlighting is 3.66 foot-candles2; this --� value would not be expected to cause excessive spill light off-site. The Burlingame Municipal Code requires that exterior lighting on all commercial properties shall be designed and located so that the cone of light and/or glare from the lighting element is kept entirely on the property or below the top of any fence,hedge or wall. Potential glare from vehicular headlights from project traffic entering the site from Airport Boulevard and from traffic circulating within the project site, would not cause significant glare at off-site locations, because the traffic would be greatly shielded by the slopes, vegetation and security fencing surrounding the project site. Although no mitigation is required, the following lighting measures for the proposed development would further minimize potential light and glare effects: Measure: • Non-glare fixtures which focuses the cone of light on site should be used for all exterior lighting;and • Proposed project lighting shall be designed to avoid casting glare on off-site receptors including adjacent hotel, office buildings, public streets and sidewalks, in accordance with Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.16.210. 2 A"foot-candle"is a standard unit,established as reference,that is used when measuring quantity of light. One foot-candle equals the total intensity of light that falls upon a one square foot surface that is placed one foot away from a point source of light that equals one candle power. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 14 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than - Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact fact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects,lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as - shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? ❑ ❑ ❑ II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES II.a-c No Impact. The project site is not located on or near any agricultural land. The project site, as with the majority of developed land in Burlingame, is designated Urban and Built-Up Land by the California Department of Conservation (Department of Conservation, 2000). Thus, the project would not convert any prime farmland,unique farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance; would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural land; or involve any changes to the environment that could result in conversion of farmland. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 15 FSA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less Than ..�` Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incomoration Impact Impact III. AIR QUALITY: Where available,the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant -� concentrations? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ❑ III. AIR QUALITY III.a-d Construction Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation. Construction of the project is anticipated to occur over a three-month period. The proposed area of grading is approximately 3.70 acres. Project construction could generate substantial amounts of fugitive dust. Dust emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level and type of activity, silt content of the soil, and the prevailing weather. A large portion of the total construction dust emissions would result from equipment and motor vehicle traffic over the project site. Other sources of fugitive dust during construction would include earth movement,grading, and wind erosion from exposed surfaces. Project construction activities may result in significant quantities of dust in the absence of mitigation measures, and as a result, local visibility and PM10 concentrations may be adversely affected on a temporary and intermittent basis. This would be a significant effect of the project. With respect to the other emissions sources associated with project construction, their related emissions are generally included in the emissions inventory that is the basis for regional air .quality plans and are not expected to impede attainment or maintenance of ozone and carbon 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 16 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST monoxide standards in the Bay Area (BAAQMD, 1999). Therefore, construction-related emissions, other than dust, would not be significant. Mitigation Measure III-1: Prior to commencement of grading and/or construction activities, the project sponsor shall submit a dust abatement program for review and approval of the City's NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) administrator and City Planning Department staff. The project sponsor shall require the construction contractor to implement this dust abatement program. Elements of the program shall include the following: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily; • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer); • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; • Sweep daily(preferably with water sweepers)all paved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; • If visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept (preferably with water sweepers); • Hydroseed or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more); • Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers to exposed stockpiles(dirt, sand,etc.); • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved surfaces to 15 miles per hour; • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public .r roadways; • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible;and • Designate a person or persons to oversee the implementation of a comprehensive dust control program and to increase watering, as necessary. The above list of measures is recommended by BAAQMD as feasible control measures to reduce construction dust emissions. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the residual effect would be less than significant. Operation Less Than Significant Impact. During operation of the project, the project would generate emissions from mobile sources, primarily from patron vehicles and operation of shuttle vehicles. As discussed in the project description, there would be no increase in employees, and therefore no associated increase in employee vehicle trips, compared to existing conditions. No increase in the existing Hotel Airport Shuttle vehicle fleet (the proposed shuttle service provider for the long-term parking facility) is anticipated to serve the project, although it is reasonable to assume that existing shuttles would make either link or new trips to serve the project site. It should be noted that the Hotel Airport Shuttle fleet that would serve the project would consist of 30-seat capacity buses with, compressed natural gas(CNG) engines. CNG buses have cleaner-burning engines compared to conventional diesel buses, and correspondingly, generate considerably lower air emissions, particularly with NOx and PM. The total daily vehicle trip generation for the project is conservatively estimated at approximately 250 daily one-way trips. This addition of daily vehicle trips would result in 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 17 FSA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST emissions that would be well below the applicable significant thresholds levels for any --� criteria air pollutants, including NOx,PM 10,ROG,SOx, and CO. Any incremental increases in CO concentrations at local intersections would also remain well below state and federal standards, and therefore would be considered less than significant. Furthermore, the project's contribution to cumulative increases in emissions would not be cumulatively considerable. III.e No Impact, There are no anticipated activities associated with site development that would be expected to be a significant source of new, objectionable odors. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 18 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES --Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special- status species in local or regional plans,policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to, marsh,vernal pool,coastal,etc.)through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption, or other means? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan,or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IV.a No Impact. Consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game's (CDFG) California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB, 2003) and the California Native Plant Society's (CLAPS)Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California were conducted for special status species in the U.S. Geological Survey San Mateo 7.5 minute quadrangle. ESA biologists also conducted field reconnaissance surveys of the immediate project site and local surrounding vicinity on May, 2001 and November, 2003. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 19 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The site consists primarily of large, barren topographic depression composed of imported fill material. This basin bottom is graded and is surrounded on three sides by moderately vegetated slopes. Vegetation within the basin consists of low grasses such as soft chess (Bromus hordeaceous) and ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), with black mustard (Brassica nigra) and coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) growing on the surrounding upland areas. The native pacific gum plant(Grindelia stricta)occurs as a planted ornamental species in the upper portions of the basin alongside the native shrub coyote bush. Few wildlife species were observed on the site, and based on the overall lack of habitat, those expected to occur on the site would only consist of common, disturbance-adapted species. Such bird species include house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus), English sparrow (Passer domesticus), and rock dove (Columba livia), and perhaps house mouse (Mus musculus) and California vole (Microtus californicus). Due to its constructed origin and history of disturbance, the project site itself has no potential to support special status plant or wildlife species. Anza Lagoon, a manmade lagoon, lies to the north and west of the project site. The San Francisco Bay shoreline adjacent to the project area and at Anza Lagoon is fortified with large boulder riprap, and is largely unvegetated. Plants that interspersed with the riprap along the shoreline include saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and non-native ice plant (Carpobrotus chilensis). Aquatic birds such as mallard duck(Anas platyrhynchos)and snowy egret(Egretta thula) commonly forage in shallow shoreline habitats in Anza Lagoon, while species such as double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus), common loon (Gavia immer), and California gull (Larus californicus) forage in deeper Bay waters. Of these aquatic birds, mallard ducks may nest in upland habitats immediately adjacent the bay shoreline. Like most native birds, active nests for these species are protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The project would not have an effect on foraging or nesting of any of these species. Additionally, the project would not have any impacts on common or special status wildlife species in Anza Lagoon. Special Status Wildlife Based upon database searches, ESA's expert in-house knowledge of local species' distributions, and surveys of the project site and adjacent areas, no special status plant or wildlife species were identified in the local project vicinity. Several wildlife and plant species that are reported within five miles of the miles of the project are considered below on an individual basis. California Clapper Rail: The California clapper rail (Rallus longirostris obsoletus), listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the California Department of Fish Game (CDFG), nests and forages in salt and brackish water marshes. This species typically occurs in gradually sloped shoreline marshes that support perennial pickleweed (Salicornia virginica) and/or Pacific cordgrass (Spartina foliosa). The adjacent shoreline is fortified with riprap and does not provide any of the habitat components required by this species. Based on the lack of habitat in the project vicinity, California clapper rail is not expected to nest or feed in shoreline habitats near the project area. Western Snowy Plover: The Western snowy plover (Charadrius alexandrius nivosus), listed as threatened by the USFWS, utilizes sandy beaches, salt pond levees and shores of large alkali flats for nesting and foraging. Due to the absence of suitable habitat and ongoing local disturbances(e.g., grading)this species is not present on or near the project area. Salt Marsh Harvest Mouse: The salt marsh harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys raviventris -� raviventris) is listed as endangered by the USFWS and CDFG. This species inhabits saline 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 20 FSA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST emergent wetlands dominated by dense stands of perennial pickleweed in the San Francisco Bay and its tributaries. There is no pickleweed habitat that would support this species on or near the project site. Myrtle's Silverspot: Myrtle's silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene myrtleae), listed as endangered by the USFWS, is restricted to costal dunes, scrub, and grasslands that support the larval foodplant, western dog violet (Viola adunca). The project site consists entirely of imported fill and does not support the host plant, thus there is here is no potential for Myrtle's Silverspot on the site. California Red-Legged Frog_ California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), listed as threatened by the USFWS, inhabits marshes, lakes, reservoirs, ponds, and slow-moving streams. This frog breeds in seasonal or permanent water bodies with an average depth roughly greater than two feet. There is no aquatic breeding habitat for California red-legged frog in the local project vicinity, therefore this species is considered absent from the project site. Other Special Status Species: A colony of monarch butterflies (Danaus plexippus) was identified in 1987 roughly 0.5 mile south of the project site at Coyote Point (CNDDB, 2003). The eucalyptus trees at Coyote Point provide a roost site for this species; however, no eucalyptus or other suitable roost sites occur on or adjacent to the project site. As a result, monarch butterfly colonies would not occur on or adjacent to the project site. Special Status Plants Because the project site consists primarily of earthen fill,the project site would not support special status plant species. Thus,no impacts would occur to special status plants. IV.b No Impact. No riparian habitat occurs on or adjacent to the project site, thus impacts would not occur to this habitat type. The project would not otherwise affect any sensitive natural communities. IV.c No Impact. The potential presence of jurisdictional wetlands was assessed during biological reconnaissance surveys of the project site. Based on this assessment,jurisdictional wetlands do not occur on the project site. As a result,no impacts will occur to these resources. IVA No Impact. The project site does not support any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, and does not provide a migratory corridor or nursery sites for any species. Due to its disturbed condition, few native or introduced wildlife species occur on the site. As a result, project activities will not inhibit the local or regional movement of wildlife. Because impacts are localized to the immediate project site, the project would not affect habitat for fish or wildlife species in San Francisco Bay or Anza Lagoon. IV.e Less Than Significant Impact. The San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commissions (BCDC) jurisdiction (the fust 100 feet of the mean high tide line of San Francisco Bay) covers small areas of the north and west portions of the project site. The proposed construction would involve approximately 2,275 cubic yards of material to be cut and filled, some of which would occur within the BCDC jurisdiction on the site. As proposed, a landscaped setback and a portion of the proposed paved access road and parking lot would occur within BCDC's jurisdiction. Prior to construction, the project would be required to consult with BCDC to satisfy any applicable permitting conditions. Such efforts would ensure that applicable shoreline development regulations would be adhered to. As a result, the 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 21 FSA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST proposed project would not conflict with local policies or ordinances regarding biological -� resources. IVJ No Impact. Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) are established under Section 10 of the federal Endangered Species Act; Natural Community Conservation Plans (NCCPs) are established by the California Resources Agency under the Natural Community Conservation Planning Act of 1991. These are plans developed specifically to address the impact of a listed species or natural communities in an area, and establish measures to mitigate a project's impact and the funding that will be available. The project site is not located within the area of adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional or state habitat conservation plan. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 22 ESA 1203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact fact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES --Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to§15064.5? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ V. CULTURAL RESOURCES V.a-d Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporation. The project site and adjacent land areas were reclaimed from the San Francisco Bay by filling in the early 1960's. It is not known whether the areas near the original margins of the Bay shoreline in the project vicinity contain archaeological resources, including shellmound sites. Minimal subsurface disturbance of site soils would occur during site grading and construction of the proposed project. Nevertheless, there is the possibility that buried archaeological deposits could be present,and accidental discovery could occur. Mitigation Measure V-1: If archaeological remains are uncovered,work at the place of discovery should be halted immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find. Accidental discovery of archaeological deposits could require additional archaeological investigations to determine the significance of the find. Mitigation Measure V-2: If human remains are encountered during project construction,the San Mateo County Coroner's Office will be notified immediately. The coroner will determine if the remains are those of a Native American, and if they are, will notify the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will make a determination regarding the individual's "most likely descendant" who will then make recommendations for the disposal of the remains. The Native American Heritage Commission will mediate conflicts between the project proponent and the most likely descendant. Accidental discovery of human remains could require additional investigations to determine if other graves are present. With implementation of these mitigation measures, the impact would be reduced to a less than significant. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 23 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact Lm pact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS --Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury, or death involving: ❑ ® ❑ ❑ i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Be located on geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide,lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994),creating substantial risks to life or property? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? ❑ ❑ ❑ VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS The basin-shaped project site is located along the shoreline of San Francisco Bay on artificial fill. Ground surface topography at the bottom of the basin on the project site is relatively level, with a raised levee along the perimeter of Anza Lagoon near the north and west property boundary. Site elevations range from mean sea level on the basin floor to approximately nine feet above mean sea level (amsl) along the levee crest in the northwest corner of the site. -� 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 24 FSA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST VI.a(i) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or on or immediately adjacent to an active or potentially active fault.3 The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act requires the delineation of zones by the California Department of Conservation, Geological Survey (CGS, formerly known as the California Division of Mines and Geology [CDMG]) along sufficiently active and well- defined faults. The purpose of the Act is to restrict construction of structures intended for human occupancy along traces of known active faults; Alquist-Priolo Zones therefore designate areas most likely to experience surface fault rupture, although fault rupture is not necessarily restricted to those specifically zoned areas. The nearest active faults are the San Andreas, located 4 miles west, and the Hayward, located 15 miles east. Other nearby active Bay Area faults include the San Gregorio-Hosgri fault, located 15 miles west, and the Calaveras Fault, located 22 miles east (ALB Associates, 2003a, and Jennings, 1994). As the project site is not located in an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone or on or immediately adjacent to an active fault, fault rupture hazards associated with the proposed project are considered less than significant. VI.a(ii,iii) Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. Burlingame and the larger San Francisco Bay Area are located in a seismically active region. Recent studies by the United States Geological Survey(USGS) indicate there is a 63 percent likelihood of a Richter magnitude 6.7 or higher earthquake occurring in the Bay Area in the next 30 years (USGS, 2003). The project site could experience a range of ground shaking effects during an earthquake on one of the aforementioned Bay Area faults. Ground shaking levels could be intensified by the nonengineered artificial fill that currently overlies the project site. A characterstic earthquake on the San Andreas fault could result in violent (Modified Mercalli Index IX) ground shaking intensities.4 Ground shaking of this intensity could result in breakage of underground pipes and conspicuous ground cracking (ABAG, 2003a). Potential ground shaking hazards on the project site are limited by the nature of the project, as no structures would be built. However, the proposed project is separated from San Francisco Bay and Anza Lagoon along the northern and western site boundary by a levee constructed in the 1970's by Harding Lawson Associates (HLA). The levee has a crest height of approximately nine feet amsl, is approximately 40 to 60 feet wide at its base and narrows at the crest to a width of approximately 10 feet (Treadwell and Rollo, 2003). The proposed project would recontour the existing levee slopes along the western portion of the project site through grading activities in order to construct the proposed parking lot access ramp and the southwest comer of the parking lot. Previous geotechnical investigations at the project site have noted that HLA's levee design incorporated a slope stability analysis (ALB Associates, 1993b). Slope stability is usually 3 An active fault is defined by the State of California as a fault that has had surface displacement within Holocene time (approximately the last 10,000 years). A potentially active fault is defined as a fault that has shown evidence of surface displacement during the Quaternary(last 1.6 million years),unless direct geologic evidence demonstrates inactivity for all of the Holocene or longer. This definition does not,of course,mean that faults lacking evidence of surface displacement are necessarily inactive. Sufficiently active is also used to describe a fault if there is some evidence that Holocene displacement occurred on one or more of its segments or branches(Hart, 1997). 4 Shaking intensity is a measure of ground shaking effects at a particular location,and can vary depending on the overall magnitude of the earthquake,distance to the fault,focus of earthquake energy,and type of underlying geologic material. The Modified Mercalli(MM)intensity scale is commonly used to measure earthquake effects due to ground shaking. The MM values for intensity range from I(earthquake not felt)to XII(damage nearly total). The concept of"characteristic" earthquake means that we can anticipate,with reasonable certainty,the actual earthquake that can occur on a fault. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 25 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST expressed in terms of an index, referred to as the "factor of safety," which is typically defined as the forces that resist movement (the shearing strength available along a sliding surface) divided by the shearing stresses that tend to produce failure along a surface (Hunt, 1984). Slopes with a factor of safety of 1 or less are considered unstable. HLA's analysis concluded a static factor of safety of 1.7 and a pseudostatic (seismic) factor of safety of 1.0 for a seismic coefficient of O.3g(ALB, 1993b). Expected ground shaking intensities at a particular location is dependent upon several factors, including underlying geologic materials, as the composition of soils, even those relatively distant from faults, can intensify ground shaking. Site-specific analysis in past geotechnical investigations on the project site calculated expected ground surface accelerations of O.47g from an earthquake on the North Coast section of the San Andreas Fault. This analysis was based upon distance of the project site to known faults, peak bedrock acceleration, and attenuation of bedrock acceleration based on local site conditions (ALB Associates, 1993a). Based upon upwardly revised peak ground shaking estimates due to improved knowledge of earthquakes and seismic effects since the original levee slope stability analysis was performed in the 197O's, the existing levee slopes could fail in the event of a characteristic earthquake (i.e., maximum moment magnititude) on the San Andreas Fault. This failure would not necessarily result in complete levee collapse, but may result in slumping of slope materials or even localized levee failure. The proposed recontouring of the existing levee slope within the project site that would occur with the project would have the potential to affect levee slope stability, if not properly designed. Therefore the following mitigation measure shall be required: Mitigation Measure VI-1: A site-specific,design-level geotechnical investigation shall be prepared that assesses the impacts of proposed project modifications to the levee on levee stability and any fill on site. The geotechnical investigation shall be conducted by a California Certified Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer, and shall include an analysis of expected ground motions along the San Andreas fault in accordance the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the California Buflding Code (Title 24) additions. Expected ground motions determined by a registered geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated into the final design as part of the project. The final seismic considerations for the site shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Burlingame Structural and City Engineers before grading permits are issued. The proper design of proposed levee modifications associated with the proposed project as required by Mitigation Measure VIA would insure that the proposed project would not adversely impact slope stability of the existing levee. However, this mitigation measure would not correct slope instability in the event of a characterstic earthquake along any portion of the levee. Therefore, the pre-existing potential for levee failure would remain. Localized levee failure could result in temporary flooding of the parking lot and overwhelm the proposed drainage system, particularly if the earthquake coincided with high tide. As the proposed use of the project site is only proposed for long-term parking, and would not contain any buildings, the presence of individuals on-site would be limited. Any potential flooding on site would also have the potential to result in incidental flooding to the Sheraton Hotel property to the east, including its subsurface parking garage. Although flooding could occur in such an event, the potential for severe injury or death is unlikely. Therefore, with mitigation identified above, potential ground shaking impacts would be less than significant. _ 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 26 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Violent seismic ground shaking of intensity expected on the project site can also trigger ground failures caused by liquefaction, potentially resulting in disruption of utility service �- and roadway damage. Liquefaction potential is highest in areas underlain by shallow groundwater and Bay fills, Bay Mud, and unconsolidated alluvium. The CGS has not investigated the project site and surrounding area for potential designation as a Seismic Hazard Zone for liquefaction. However,geotechnical investigations conducted on the project site have determined that the high clay content of on-site fill minimizes potential liquefaction, resulting in an overall low risk of occurrence (ALB, 2003b). Any potential fill imported to the project site for the proposed project would be required to comply with soil engineering standards that would be detailed in the geotechnical investigation and subsequent report required by Mitigation Measure VI-1, above. The susceptibility of the existing levee to seismic impacts is discussed above. Liquefaction impacts are therefore considered less than significant. VI.a(iv) No Impact. The project site is located in an area of low relief with no significant slopes. Thus,no impacts related to landslide hazards would be associated with project. VI.b Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve clearing and grading prior to the installment of impervious surfaces. As the project site exceeds one acre in size, the project applicant will be required to apply for coverage under the State General Construction Permit in order to comply with federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements. As fully described in Hydrology, Section VIII, Mitigation Measure VIII-1, the project applicant is required to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in order to minimize potential erosion and subsequent sedimentation of storm water runoff. This SWPPP would include Best Management Practices (BMPs) to control erosion associated with grading, trenching, and other ground �. surface-disturbing activities. In addition, the project applicant will be required to submit a grading plan to the City of Burlingame, San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program(STOPP). VI.c Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporation. Please refer to VI.a(i-iv). VIA Less than Significant Impact. Soils on the project site consist of at the project site consist of artificial fill. The U.S. Department of Agriculture(USDA)Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly known as the Soil Conservation Service)has characterized on-site soils as Urban Land-Orthens, reclaimed context. As these soils are fill, the USDA notes that the composition can vary widely and include broken concrete, asphalt, and solid waste (USDA, 1991). Borings conducted during previous geotechnical investigations at the project site indicate approximately 6 to 10 feet of fill consisting of gravels, silty,and clayey materials exist on the site, underlain by several feet of Bay Mud (ALB, 1993b). The potential expansivity of fill overlying the project site has not been characterized. If expansive soils are present and not properly managed, potential damage would be limited to cracking or other damage to parking lot pavement, which would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse affects. However, the project applicant would be required to obtain a grading permit from the City of Burlingame. As required by grading provisions of the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the California Building Code (Title 24) additions, a soils engineering report would be attached to the grading permit which addresses 5 Liquefaction is the process by which saturated,loose,fine-grained,granular,soil,like sand,behaves like a dense fluid when subjected to prolonged shaking during an earthquake. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Tenn Parking Facility Initial Study 27 FSA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST adverse soil conditions that may affect the proposed project, including expansive soils. --�, Compliance with grading provisions of the UBC would minimize potential expansive soil hazards to less than significant levels. VI.e No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative subsurface wastewater disposal systems are proposed as part of the project. Therefore,no project impact is associated with this issue. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Tenn Parking Facility Initial Study 28 BSA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS -- Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? ❑ ❑ ❑ VII. HAZARDS VII.a-b Less than Significant Impact. A Phase 1 Environmental Site Assessment prepared for the project site indicates that, based on a historical review and site reconnaissance, the project 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 29 FSA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST site does not pose an apparent environmental concern associated with past or current use. -� Moreover, the Phase 1 indicates the project site is not located on selected Federal and State regulatory hazardous materials lists, and that off-site properties in the project vicinity that are on regulatory agency lists do not pose an environmental concern to conditions at the project site(Law Engineering and Environmental Services, 1998). Other investigations conducted at surrounding properties have indicated that there is the potential for subsurface artificial fill in the project vicinity to contain debris. This debris could include hazardous materials that have adversely impacted soil or groundwater conditions, potentially posing health risks to construction workers or future users of the site. However, past geotechnical borings at the site have not encountered debris, and the proposed project would only include limited grading and utility improvements (ALB, 1993b). Potential health hazards are therefore minimized by the limited depth and extent of grading, the absence of debris encountered during past on-site geotechnical investigations, and the overall confined nature of the proposed project. Potential hazardous materials issues are considered less than significant. VII.c No Impact. There are no schools located within one-quarter mile of the project site. VIIA No Impact. The project site is not located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5. The site, nor any facilities within a quarter mile of the site, are on the California Office of Planning and Research (CORTESE) list (Law Engineering and Environmental Services, 1998). VII.e Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan boundary, and therefore is subject to Section 21096(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires that the lead agency use the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook as a technical resource in the preparation of environmental documents as they relate to airport safety. The site falls within the horizontal surface on the San Francisco International Airport Imaginary Surfaces Height Restrictions Map, which has a height restriction of 161 feet above sea level. The proposed project does not include a structure and would fall well below the height limits of the San Francisco International Airport Zone(San Mateo County City/County Association of Government, 1996). VII.f No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. VII.g No Impact. The project contains no elements that would impair or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. See also XIII, Public Services,below,for a discussion on potential effects to fire and police protection. VII.h No Impact. The project site is not located in an area subject to wildland fires. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Tenn Parking Facility Initial Study 30 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion of siltation on- or off-site? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off- site? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ j) Inundation of seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 31 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Setting The project site is located on the shoreline of San Francisco Bay, adjacent to Anza Lagoon. The site consists of a depressed, graded and predominantly bare central area (approximately at mean sea level) and protected by a levee approximately eight to nine feet in height along the lagoon frontage portion of the property. Ground water occurs approximately two to four feet below ground surface, although ground water elevations are tidally influenced. A test well is located on-site. The graded central area of the site currently collects and retains rain flows during the wet seasons, and experiences flooding following rainfall events. The basin floor contains two- to three-inch thick layer of sediment material that hardens once the water evaporates. The site is currently drained by a temporary sump pump installed on the project site, which removes the water and pumps it to an inlet located in the adjacent 600 Airport Boulevard property (Sheraton Hotel). The on-site sump pump is operated and maintained by the Sheraton Hotel building engineer. The project site also contains an abandoned storm drainage system consisting of a series of raised inlets partially connected to pipes. This was originally constructed to serve a previous development anticipated for the site. However, this abandoned storm drain system does not currently drain the site nor is connected to the adjacent 600 Airport Boulevard property or any outfall. VIII.a,c-f Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. Construction The proposed project would including clearing and grading and other activities related to the construction of a parking lot. During grading activities, erosion of on-site soils and imported fill could result in sedimentation of storm water runoff from the project site. In addition, hazardous materials related to construction activities and equipment such as oil and grease, petroleum products, and paint would be stored and used on site in small quantities. The storage and use of large quantities of hazardous materials is not expected to occur due to the limited scale and scope of construction activities. Nevertheless, accidental release or poor management of these materials could increase pollutant concentrations in storm water runoff. As the project site exceeds one acre in size, the project applicant is required to apply for coverage under the State General Construction Permit to comply with federal National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)regulations. Impact VIII-l: The project applicant shall apply for coverage under the State General Construction Permit to comply with federal NPDES regulations. The NPDES and State General Construction Permit require the project applicant to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that identifies appropriate construction BMPs in order to minimize potential sedimentation or contamination of storm water runoff generated from the project site. The SWPPP would also be required to include any additional measures identified in San Mateo County's STOPP. The SWPPP shall be prepared and specified BMPs shall be implemented during construction as part of the project, and potential degradation of water quality associated with project construction is therefore reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with - NPDES permit regulations. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 32 FSA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Operation—Drainage The proposed project would increase storm water runoff from the project site through the installation of impervious surfaces. Storm water runoff occurring on the project site is proposed to collected through a new on-site storm drain system. The applicant's project engineer completed a hydrologic and hydraulic analysis to determine the peak demand of the system based on a 30-year flood event, using San Mateo County Intensity-Duration- Frequency (IDF)curves, precipitation records for the City of Burlingame, and a review of the City storm drainage master plan; and to determine the resulting capacity required for the proposed on-site storm drainage system. As discussed in Project Description, the storm water would be collected in eight inlets on the project site. Storm drain pipes ranging between eight and 15 inches in diameter would direct these storm flows to a 15-inch diameter storm drain along the west property boundary, which would then carry the storm flows off-site to an existing 21-inch City reinforced concrete storm drainage pipe in Airport Boulevard (these flows would be ultimately discharged to the San Francisco Bay). Two pumps would be installed in a parallel connection on-site [each providing 1,650 gallons per minute (gpm) pumping capacity, for a total pumping capacity of 3,300 gpm], to pump on-site storm flows off-site. The proposed storm drain system, as designed and sized, would have sufficient capacity to adequately accommodate 30-year peak event flows on the project site (Perez 2004;Luzuriaga Taylor, Inc., 2004). The City's storm drain in the vicinity was designed to accommodate the proposed project loads and other anticipated future development along Airport Boulevard. Consequently, the projected increased volume and rate of stormwater discharged from the project site would not exceed the capacity of the City's storm drain system(Luzuriaga Taylor, Inc., 2004). Operation— Water Quality However, the proposed project could result in an increase of non-point source pollutants being directly discharged to San Francisco Bay. Pollutants of concern typically found in urban runoff include sediments, nutrients, pathogens, oxygen demanding substances, petroleum hydrocarbons, heavy metals, toxic pollutants, floatables, and synthetic organics (pesticides, herbicides, PCBs, etc.). Pesticide and herbicide application to grass and agriculture also contributes significantly to nutrient loading in surface waters. Due to the type of vegetation proposed for landscaping (ice plant), the expected use of pesticides or herbicides for landscape maintenance is negligible. However, automobile use associated with the proposed project could result in the discharge of contaminated stormwater runoff to the City's storm drain system, and eventually discharged to San Francisco Bay. In order to reduce potential increases in petroleum hydrocarbons and other pollutants in storm water runoff, the following mitigation measure shall be implemented: Mitigation Measure VIII-2: The project storm drainage system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the STOPPP NPDES permit, including all provisions to the C.3 requirements, to reduce long-term water quality impacts from potentially contaminated runoff. The project sponsor shall provide a plan for long-term operations and maintenance of the oil and sediment separator or absorbent filter systems including but not limited to the operating schedule, maintenance frequency, routine service schedule, specific maintenance activities, and the effectiveness of the water treatment systems. The performance of the filters shall be monitored regularly by the project applicant or a third party to determine the effectiveness of the water treatment and conclusions reported to the City. To further help minimize and prevent the amount of 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 33 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST pollutants entering the storm drain system, the project sponsor shall implement Best -- Management Practices and source control measures that shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, regular street sweeping by mechanized equipment, proper clean- up of soil debris following landscape work or small scale construction, available trash receptacles,regular trash collection and the application of absorbent material on oil and fuel leaks from automobiles. Mitigation Measure VIII-3: During operation of the project, the project sponsor shall implement a program for regularly collecting and properly disposing of litter and debris that may accumulate on the project site. Mitigation Measure VIII-4: In order to maintain the existing on-site well for potential use for any future long-term development on the project site, the well head elevation shall be modified if needed in accordance with proposed project grading and construction plans and a new well vault shall be installed in accordance with San Mateo County water well standards to prohibit infiltration of storm water contaminants and prevent potential damage to the well casing. VIII.b Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would involve paving the majority of the project site, thereby preventing the absorption of precipitation and recharge of shallow groundwater. Prior to the 197O's, the project site was part of San Francisco Bay. Due to the site's proximity to the existing shoreline of San Francisco Bay and Anza Lagoon, shallow groundwater underlying the project site is tidally influenced and likely high in salt (sodium) content. Shallow groundwater underlying the project site and the surrounding vicinity is therefore not used. A test well was installed on the project site in February 1993 for potential irrigation uses. The well was installed to a depth of 237 feet below ground surface (bgs), and screened between 90 and 200 feet bgs to allow infiltration of non-shallow groundwater. Groundwater samples collected in 1993 indicated elevated minerals, sodium, hardness, and pH concentrations (ASE Drilling, Inc., 1993). The well has not been used for irrigation or water supply since its installation, and the proposed project would not draw upon this well for irrigation of proposed landscaping. Water supply for the proposed project and the City of Burlingame is largely drawn from sources in the Sierra Nevada Mountains (City of Burlingame, 2000). Therefore, the proposed project would not deplete groundwater supplies, or interfere with established or planned groundwater uses, resulting in a less than significant impact. VIII.g-h No Impact. The project property is not located within a 100-year flood zone as mapped on the Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rate Map, and would not include the construction of housing or other structures (Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc., 2003). Refer to the Setting for a discussion of existing flooding instances on the site, and VIII.a,c-f for a discussion of proposed on-site drainage improvements. VIII.i Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation. The proposed project is separated from San Francisco Bay and Anza Lagoon along the northern and western site boundary by a levee. Refer to Geology and Seismicity section VI.a(ii) for an analysis of ground shaking and potential levee instability. VIII.] Less than Significant Impact. Tsunamis (seismic sea waves) are long period waves that are typically caused by underwater disturbances (landslides), volcanic eruptions, or seismic 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 34 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST events. Areas that are highly susceptible to tsunami inundation tend to be located in low- lying coastal areas such as tidal flats, marshlands, and former bay margins that have been `— artificially filled but are still at or near sea level, such as the project site. Tsunamis have been recorded in San Francisco Bay by the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (formerly U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey). The highest wave that has been recorded for the Bay occurred in March 1964 as a result of the Alaskan earthquake. This wave reached a height of 7.5 feet just beyond the Golden Gate Bridge at Fort Point. The San Mateo County General Plan delineates areas susceptible to tsunami inundation based upon a USGS map that depicts a 20-foot runup along coastal areas and at the Golden Gate Bridge, estimated to occur once every 200 years. Wave heights are estimated to attenuate to approximately 4 feet at Ravenswood Point(Ritter and Dupre,USGS, 1972, as cited in San Mateo County, 1986). As the project site is bounded by a levee with a crest height of at least 8 feet amsl, potential tsunami impacts are considered less than significant. A seiche is a free or standing wave oscillation(s) of the surface of water in an enclosed or semi-enclosed basin, such as San Francisco Bay, that may be initiated by an earthquake.6 Due to the relatively large size of San Francisco Bay and its outlet to the Pacific Ocean, the hazard of seiche waves is interpreted to be low. In addition, there is no historic record of such waves occurring in San Francisco Bay during recent strong earthquakes. Potential seiche hazards are therefore considered less than significant. 6 The`sloshing'produced by seiches within enclosed water bodies commonly occurs during earthquakes on a small-scale in swimming pools. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 35 FSA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING--Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project(including,but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING IX.a Less Than Significant Impact. The existing site is vacant and fenced along its perimeter, preventing public access through it. The proposed project would also include a security fence encircling the site. However, the proposed project would not create any physical or psychological barrier in the project vicinity,nor divide an established community. .� IX.b Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is designated for Commercial Recreation, Restaurant and Hotel by the Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan. The land use plan allows long-term parking uses as an interim use. The C4, Waterfront Commercial zoning permits long-term parking uses with a conditional use permit,meeting the following criteria: - the sole purpose of the use is the parking for one day or longer of vehicles using SFO; - a minimum site size of three acres; - permit limited to five years; - no more peak-hour vehicle trips are generated that allowed by the traffic analyzer for the land use designated for the site in the General Plan; - the Design Guidelines for Bayfront Development and BCDC public access requirements are met; and - no parking is within a structure above or below grade. As discussed in XV, Transportation and Traffic, the proposed project would generate substantially less peak-hour trips than that allowed by the traffic analyzer for the General Plan land use designation for the site. Furthermore, the project as proposed would contain adequate landscaping to comply with all of the Zoning Code and Design Guidelines criteria. The proposed project would require approval from BCDC for encroachment within its jurisdiction. As part of this approval, BCDC could require additional conditions from the applicant to offset potential effects from encroachment of the use within the BCDC jurisdiction. IX.c No Impact. The project site is not located within the area of an adopted habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Se IV.f,under Biological Resources, above. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 36 FSA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES--Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ X. MINERAL RESOURCES X.a-b No Impact. The project site is recent (1960's) bay fill. The site does not contain mineral resources, nor does the project site support locally important mineral resources. The proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any locally-important mineral resource. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 37 BSA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less Than "1 Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XI. NOISE--Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? ® E] El b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? ® E] c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? E d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? ❑ ® 0 E] e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, --� within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ❑ E] E XI. NOISE Setting Environmental noise is usually measured in A-weighted decibels (dBA).7 Environmental noise typically fluctuates over time, and different types of noise descriptors are used to account for this variability. A typical noise descriptor includes the energy-equivalent noise level(Leq).8 7 A decibel(dB)is a unit of sound energy intensity. Sound waves,traveling outward from a source,exert a sound pressure level(commonly called"sound level')measured in dB. An A-weighted decibel(dBA)is a decibel corrected for the variation in frequency response to the typical human ear at commonly encountered noise levels. 8 Leq,the energy-equivalent noise level(or"average"noise level),is the equivalent steady-state continuous noise level which, In a stated period of time,contains the same acoustic energy as the time-varying sound level that actually occurs during the same period. CNEL is a weighted 24-hour average noise level. With the CNEL descriptor,noise levels between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 am.are adjusted upward by 10-dBA to take into account the greater annoyance of nighttime noise as compared to daytime noise. The CNEL descriptor also incorporates a 5-dBA upward adjustment for evening noise between 7:00 p.m.and 10:00 P.M. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 38 FSA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The noise environment surrounding the project site is dominated by noise from U.S. 101 and Airport Boulevard. Aircraft noise associated with the San Francisco International Airport is also a contributing factor to the local noise environment. The project site is located in an area generally consisting of office, hotel other commercial land uses, which are not normally considered noise-sensitive; and recreational uses (including Bay Trail and Anza Lagoon). The nearest sensitive residential uses land uses are multi-family residences on Rollins Road on the south side of U.S. 101 (approximately 1,000 feet south of the project site). Local noise levels are regulated by general plan policies and by enforcement of Noise Ordinance standards. The Burlingame General Plan contains a Noise Element that establishes noise exposure standards for land use compatibility. For commercial land uses, the maximum acceptable outdoor noise level is 65 dBA, CNEL, and for passively used open space is 45 dBA,CNEL. 24-hour measurements taken on the project site indicate an existing noise level of 70 dBA, CNEL, in the southwest corner of the project site, and a noise level of 64 dBA, CNEL along the north border of the project site. Based on these measurements,it is estimated the majority of the project site currently exceeds the maximum acceptable outdoor noise level for commercial uses. It can also be inferred from these measurements that the recreational uses in the immediate vicinity of the project site (e.g., along Bay Trail) also currently exceed the maximum acceptable outdoor noise level for open space. XI.a,d Construction Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporation. Construction of the project would include clearing and grading of the site, utility installation, paving and site landscaping. These construction activities would result in temporary and intermittent increases in noise levels. Construction noise levels at or near locations on the project site would fluctuate depending on the particular type, number and duration of use of various pieces of equipment on the site. The effect of construction noise would depend on how much noise would be generated by construction, the distance between construction activities and the nearest noise- sensitive uses, and the existing noise levels at those uses. Typical noise levels generated by backhoes for ground clearing activities is 85 Leq, and typical noise levels generated by scrapers for excavation is activities is 88 Leck (estimates correspond to a distance of 50 feet from the noisiest piece of equipment with a given phase, and 200 feet from the other equipment in that phase). Noise from construction activities generally attenuates (decreases)at a rate of 6 to 7.5 dBA. Assuming an attenuation of 6 dBA per doubling of distance, construction noise from the noisiest pieces of equipment would generate outdoor noise levels of approximately 63 Leq at the location of nearest residences. Given the substantial buffer between the project site and the residential neighborhood (with interceding noise-generating uses, including Airport Boulevard, U.S. 101 and Rollins Road), and because existing daytime outdoor noise levels near these residences are on the order of 73dBA (primarily due to noise currently generated on U.S. 101), proposed daytime construction work would not significantly alter the existing noise environment at the nearest residences. Project construction noise would be noticeable to users of the nearby recreational areas. The predominant recreational use in the immediate vicinity of the project site is the Bay Trail, which is set back approximately five and 80 feet from the project site. As discussed above, existing ambient noise levels at this location already exceed City noise standards for 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 39 FSA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST passively used open space. Construction-generated noise would be perceived as an annoyance by trail users in the project vicinity. However, since the use of this trail is predominantly transient in nature (walkers/joggers), resultant noise effects to users would be brief in duration. While commercial uses are considered less sensitive than residential and recreational uses for noise, they would also be potentially affected by noise during the project construction. The most noise sensitive period for offices and hotel conference room space is typically daytime business hours, when those uses are most likely to be utilized. Hotel guest rooms would be considered most sensitive during evening and nighttime hours, when guests are more likely to occupy and use the rooms for sleeping. Since construction is only proposed during daytime hours, and the predominant use of the adjacent commercial uses is indoors, the potential effect of construction on indoor day noise levels at these commercial uses would be considered the critical factor. The nearest commercial uses to the project site are the DHL office building (nearest point of building is approximately 250 feet west of the project site), and the Sheraton Hotel building (located approximately 200 feet east of the project site). When considering the distance between the site and these uses, and the noise attenuation features incorporated into the designs of these building (e.g. double-paned, non-opening windows), although the temporary construction-generated noise may be audible within these commercial uses, it would not be of a level that would interfere with normal speech and business operations. Given the relatively small total amount of earthwork and construction required for the proposed project, these temporary noise effects would be considered less than significant. Mitigation Measure XI-1: To reduce construction noise effects, the applicant shall require the construction contractor to limit noisy construction activities to the least noise-sensitive times of the day and week (i.e., Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and Saturday,10:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.; none on Sunday and holidays). Mitigation Measure XI-2: The applicant shall require contractors to muffle all equipment used on the site and to maintain it in good operating condition. All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. This measure should result in all non-impact tools generating a maximum noise level of no more than 85dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet. Mitigation Measure XI-3: Applicant shall require contractors to turn off powered construction equipment when not in use. Operation Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed drainage system would include two electric sump pumps on-site. During storm events, these electric pumps would operate to pump storm water collected on-site to the City storm water collection line in Airport Boulevard. These pumps would be located eight to ten feet below grade and would only operate when submerged in water. Given their design, location and projected infrequent use, these pumps would not generate significant periodic increases in ambient noise levels noise levels in the project vicinity. XI.b Construction _ Less than Significant. The project would generate groundbome vibration and potentially groundborne noise during construction. However,grading operations, as is proposed with the 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 40 FSA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST project, do not typically result in significant groundborne vibration or groundbome noise effects. The project would not require pile driving or other special construction techniques that would potentially cause these types of impacts. XI.c Operation Less Than Significant Impact. The additional traffic generated by the project would result in an incremental increase in traffic-generated noise in the project vicinity; however, given the level of increase in traffic,the projected daily dispersion of traffic throughout the day, and the fact that these new trips would primarily be added to Airport Boulevard and Anza Boulevard (both arterials), and U.S. 101, the increase in traffic-generated noise would not exceed any noise standards established by the City, and correspondingly, be considered less than significant. XI.e Operation Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan(ALUP)boundary, and therefore is subject to Section 21096(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, which requires that the lead agency use the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook as a technical resource in the preparation of environmental documents as they relate to noise. The site falls outside of (below) the 65 Community Equivalent Equivalent Level (CNEL) noise contour of the Year 2000 San Francisco International Airport Noise Exposure Map (San Francisco International Airport, 1995). The ALUP indicates that commercial land uses are compatible where the CNEL is less than 70dB (City/County Association of Government, 1996). As a result, the project is not in a location where people would be exposed to excessive aircraft noise levels. XI.f No Impact. The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 41 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Inwact Incorporation Impact fact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING--Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly(for example,by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly(for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? El El ® El b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? El El El ED c) Displace substantial numbers of people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? E] E] El XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING XII.a Less Than Significant Impact. The project would provide short-term employment for a number of construction workers during the construction phase. This minor short-term increase in employment would not substantially induce population growth in Burlingame. As discussed in the project description, there would be no increase in employment associated with the project. Furthermore, the proposed project would not require the new extension of any new public infrastructure, and, therefore, would not indirectly induce population growth in the area. XII.b-c No Impact. The project site is currently vacant. Therefore, the project would not displace any existing housing or people on the site, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. The project site is not identified in the City of Burlingame Housing Element as a potential housing site. The Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan designates the site Commercial Recreation, Restaurant and Hotel. As a result, the project, would not reduce the supply of land in the City available for residential development. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 42 FSA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact Inwact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES-- a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES XIII.a Less than Significant—Fire Protection Services. Operation of the proposed project would introduce new development and population on a currently vacant site, and therefore would increase the need for fire protection and emergency medical services to serve the site. Responses from the Burlingame Fire Department would likely be limited to incidences such as potential medical emergencies, on-or off-site vehicular accidents, and car fires. However, these potential calls would not be expected to be of a nature or magnitude that would significantly affect existing fire protection services, or require the addition of additional Fire Department personnel and equipment. The project design would be required to comply with the requirements of the California Fire Code, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The project would be required to be consistent with all California Building Code requirements regarding fire safety issues, including emergency vehicular access. The Burlingame Fire Department would review project site and building plans as part of the project design process, prior to project approval, to ensure inclusion of adequate fire prevention equipment,and that site access is available for emergency response services. Less Than Significant Impact — Police Protection. Operation of the proposed project would introduce new commercial development and population onto the site and therefore would result in an increase in need for police protection services to serve the site. Responses to the project site from the Burlingame Police Department could potentially include medical emergencies, on- or off-site vehicular accidents, car fires, vandalism, theft or other crimes. However, these potential calls would not be expected to be of a nature or magnitude that would significantly affect police protection services, or require the addition of additional City police personnel and equipment. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 43 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST The proposed project proposes a gated access off Airport Boulevard, security fencing —� encircling the project site, and nightlighting which would serve to minimize the potential for security problems. The Burlingame Police Department shall review the proposed site plan submitted by the project applicant as part of the project design process, prior to project approval, to ensure sufficient on-site security measures are incorporated and adequate access is available for the Burlingame Police Department. As a result, the proposed project would not significantly increase the demand for police protection services. No Impact-Schools. The proposed project would not increase demand for local educational services,or adversely affect public schools. Less Than Significant Impact — Parks. As described in the Project Description, the Bay Trail and Anza Lagoon border the project site on separate properties on the north and west sides of the property. Potential temporary impacts to these facilities during construction are discussed under Aesthetics,Air Quality and Noise above. Operation of the proposed project would not result in any long-term adverse impacts to these facilities. No Impact — Other Public Facilities. No other public facilities would be significantly affected with development of the proposed project. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Tenn Parking Facility Initial Study 44 FSA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XIV. RECREATION-- a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? ❑ ❑ ❑ XIV. RECREATION XIV.a-b No Impact. There is an abundance of off-site open space and recreational facilities in the project vicinity (including the Bay Trail, Coyote Point County Recreation Area, Fishmen's Park and Bayside Park) and surrounding communities. The proposed project would not be anticipated to result in an increase in the use of local existing and planned neighborhood and regional parks. Since the Bay Trail would not cross the proposed construction access to and from Airport Boulevard, but rather, extend north of and around the project site, there are no apparent safety impacts to users of the Bay Trail during construction. With respect to potential other temporary impacts during construction associated with adjacent recreational .... facilities, see Aesthetics,Air Quality and Noise above. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 45 FSA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC--Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system(i.e.,result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm --� equipment)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies,plans,or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ ❑ XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC XV.a-b Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would alter existing traffic volumes and patterns in the site vicinity, particularly at the proposed site entrance, and along Airport Boulevard and Anza Boulevard. Trip generation rates for the proposed project were derived from vehicle counts conducted at the Anza Park and Sky, located across Airport Boulevard from the project site. The Anza Park and Sky is a long-term parking facility; the proposed project is anticipating a operate similar operation. A.m. and p.m. weekday peak-period counts were conducted in October 2003. The highest peak-hour volume was used to derive a.m. and p.m.peak-hour trip generation rates. The resulting projected peak-hour vehicle trip generation rate is estimated to be 0.2 trips per parking space. Applying this rate to the proposed project results in approximately seven new peak-hour trips generated during the either the a.m. and p.m. peak hours. This projected increase in vehicle trips would not result in an adverse effect on peak-hour level of service on any local roadways and at intersections serving the project site. Moreover, this increase in 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 46 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST trips would not adversely affect operations on any regional-serving roadways,including those that are part of the CMP network. XV.c No Impact. The project is below grade level and would not result in a change in air traffic patterns. See also VH.e,under Hazards, above. XV.d-e Less Than Significant Impact. Vehicular access to the proposed parking facility would be from Airport Boulevard with the egress through the adjacent Sheraton Hotel. Long-term parking patrons and shuttles would access the long-term parking facility at Airport Boulevard and pass through an entry gate. Patron and shuttle vehicles would then proceed north along the west boundary of the site down a 20-foot wide ramp and then east to the parking area. Departing patron and shuttle vehicles would exit the long-term parking facility at the driveway connecting to the Sheraton Hotel parking lot, proceed through the Sheraton Hotel parking lot, and exit at the hotel driveway at Airport Boulevard. A tire mechanism(e.g.tiger- teeth strip) would be installed at the exit of the proposed long-term parking lot to prevent potential vehicular access into the long-term parking lot from the Sheraton Hotel parking lot. The project design would be required to comply with the requirements of the California Fire Code as amended by the City of Burlingame, including provisions for emergency vehicle access. The Burlingame Fire Department would review project site and building plans as part of the project design process, prior to project approval, to ensure that adequate emergency vehicle access is available at the project site. While there are no apparent significant access and or safety design deficiencies identified,the following measures are recommended to improve vehicular access to/from the site, and vehicular and pedestrian circulation within the site: Measure: • Provide larger curb radii at the Airport Boulevard driveway. As currently proposed, vehicles traveling westbound on Airport Boulevard would have to make a sharp right-turn movement (>9Odegrees) to access the parking lot. This identified improvement would eliminate a small amount of landscaping near the access. • Provide a larger curb radius on the curve between the access road and the parking lot. This larger curb radius would better accommodate vehicles turning into the parking lot from the access road. This identified improvement would eliminate a small amount of landscaping and one parking space. • Shift the east-west circulation aisles south so that the northernmost aisle would be 33 feet wide, and the southernmost aisle is 24 feet wide. As currently proposed, the three northernmost east-west circulation aisles are 24 feet wide, and the southernmost east-west aisle (closest to Airport Boulevard) is 33 feet wide. It is recommended that the east-west circulation aisles be shifted to the south so that the southernmost aisle is 24 feet wide and the northernmost aisle would be 33 feet wide. This modification would provide a wider circulation aisle for vehicles and shuttles entering from the access road. • Add pedestrian shelter and striped pedestrian walkway. Although the drop-off and pick- up circulation areas are not marked on the site plan, it is recommended that a pedestrian shelter be placed in the middle of the southern row of parking on the northernmost aisle. A striped pedestrian walkway should extend from this shelter southwards through the lot. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 47 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST These improvements would allow shuttle buses proceed straight from the Airport Boulevard driveway to the Sheraton Hotel exit driveway without circulating through the parking lot. This improvement would eliminate eight parking spaces. An alternative could be to provide a turnout for the shuttle bus on the north side of Airport Boulevard. This alternative would eliminate the need for the shuttle bus to travel through the parking lot. However, this would require the proposed project to provide a dedicated pedestrian walkway/stairs between Airport Boulevard and the parking area. • Widen north-south circulation aisle adjacent to the exit driveway to 28 feet in width. As currently proposed, the north-south circulation aisle adjacent to the exit driveway is approximately 20 feet wide. It is recommended that this aisle be widened to 28 feet to accommodate emergency vehicles. Six parking spaces would be eliminated. • Remove the short median island on Airport Boulevard. It is recommended that the short median island on Airport Boulevard, located immediately west of the project driveway, be removed to provide additional storage in the two-way left-turn lane for eastbound vehicles to turn left into the site. XV.f No Impact. The project would not create a demand for parking beyond the long-term parking generated at the project site. As discussed in the Project Description, there would be no increase in employees to serve the proposed project, and therefore, no increase in demand for parking service employees. When not in use, shuttles would be stored at the shuttle company's existing yard along Bayshore Boulevard. Consequently, the project would not result in inadequate parking capacity. 'IN XV.g No Impact. The project would have no adverse effect on adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Tenn Parking Facility Initial Study 48 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less Than Significant Potentially With Less 77um `— Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS --Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEM XVI.a,b,e No Impact. The proposed project does not propose any on-site sanitary sewer facilities. Consequently, the project would have no adverse effect on City of Burlingame sanitary sewer collection and wastewater treatment facilities. XVI.c Less than Significant. Please refer to discussion of proposed on-site drainage improvements in Section VIII. Construction of these storm water drainage facilities would not, in itself, result in significant environmental effects. XVI.d Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would generate a new demand for public water for the on-site landscaping. Given the total area dedicated to landscaping, and the type of landscaping proposed, the amount of water required for landscaping would not be 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 49 FSA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST considered significant. The project applicant proposes to install drought-tolerant landscaping within the project site,further minimizing the amount of water required to serve the site. XVI.f-g Less than Significant Impact. Clearing and construction activities could generate a small amount of construction debris. The general contractor would be required to recycle and transport its construction waste separately. The City of Burlingame currently has a Construction and Demolition Waste Recycling Ordinance. This ordinance requires 60% diversion (without use of ADC for demolition and construction phases); limited reliance on inerts (with no more than 20% of the diversion rate achieved through recycling of inerts); preparation of a waste management plan and compliance reports and deposit guaranteeing ordinance compliance; and walkthrough during the demolition and construction phase by the City's recycling specialist. Compliance with these requirements of the waste recycling ordinance would ensure that the project's waste generation impacts would be less than significant. Operation of the proposed project could not generate small amounts of solid waste (e.g. during routine site cleaning or landscaping operations). Any incidental generation of solid waste on the site would not measurably affect the ability capacity of the landfill serving the City of Burlingame or conflict with any federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 50 ESA 203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues(and Supporting Information Sources): Impact Incorporation Impact 1 act XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulative considerable? ("Cumulative considerable"means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ REFERENCES Association of Bay Area Governments,Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale and Earthquake Hazard Map for Burlingame/Millbrae/Hillsborough, Scenario: Entire San Andreas Fault System, http://www.abag ca. og vlbayarea/egmaps/mapsba.htrnl, November, 2003. ALB Associates,Inc.,Supplementation Information on Soils and Seismicity, Planned Suishaya Restaurants, 620 Airport Boulevard, Burlingame,California,May 25, 1993. ALB Associates,Inc., Geotechnical Investigation, Planned Suishaya Restaurants, 620 Airport Boulevard, Burlingame, California,July 2, 1993. ASE Drilling, Inc., BCI Burlingame Well,February 18, 1993. Blunk DeMattei Associates AIA, Site Plan,July 2, 2003; Site Sections, September 2, 2003; California Native Plant Society(CNPS),2003. CNPS Electronic Inventory for 7.5 minute San Mateo topographic quadrangle. California Natural Diversity Database, 2003. California Department of Fish and Game,Natural Heritage Division. Sacramento, California,Information dated November 2003. Caltrans,Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. January, 2002. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 51 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST City of Burlingame,Burlingame General Plan,amended through 2000. City of Burlingame,Specific Area Plan—The Burlingame Bayfront, 1981. City of Burlingame,Burlingame Municipal Code Title 25-Zoning,January 1999. Environmental Systems Research Institute,Inc., On-line Federal Emergency Management Agency Flood Hazard Maps,http://www.esri.conVhazards/makemap.htn-jd,November,2003. Hart,E.W., 1997,Fault-Rupture Hazard Zones in California: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 with Index to Earthquake Fault Zones,California Geological Survey(formerly known as California Division of Mines and Geology), Special Publication 42, 1990,revised and updated. Hunt,Roy E., Geotechnical Engineering Investigation Manual, McGraw Hill,Inc., 1984. Jennings,C.W.,Fault Activity Map of California and Adjacent Areas,California Geology Survey (formerly known as California Division of Mines and Geology),Geologic Data Map No. 6, 1:750,000, 1994. Law Engineering and Environmental Services,Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Crowne Plaza Hotel and Adjacent Vacant Parcel, 600 Airport Boulevard, Burlingame, California,April 1998. Luzuriaga Taylor,Inc.,Civil Engineers/Land Surveyors,Preliminary Site Grading and Drainage Plan, August 30, 2003. Luzuriaga Taylor,Inc., Civil Engineers/Land Surveyors,letter to Blunk DeMattei Associates, January 15,2004. Perez,Julian,Luzuriaga Taylor,Inc.,Civil Engineers/Land Surveyors,telephone conversation, January 20, 2004. Peterson,M.D.,Bryant,W.A.,Cramer,C.H.,California Geological Survey(formerly California Division of Mines and Geology),Seismic Shaking Hazard Maps of California, 1999. San Francisco International Airport, Noise Exposure Map Update—1995, 1995. San Mateo County City/County Association of Governments,San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, December, 1996. San Mateo County,San Mateo County General Plan, 1986. San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program(STOPP),http://www.flowstobay.ord, November 2003. Treadwell&Rollo, Geotechnical Consultation, 620 Airport Boulevard, Burlingame, California,March 14,2003. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service(USDA NRCS),formerly the Soil Conservation Service(SCS),Soil Survey of San Mateo County, Eastern Part, and San Francisco County, California, 1991. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 52 ESA/203409 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST United States Geological Survey(USGS)Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities(WG02) Earthquake Probabilities in the San Francisco Bay Region: 2003-2032—A Summary of Findings, http://quake.usgs.gov/research/seismology/wg02/summary,2003. U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. 2003. Species list for the U.S.G.S. 7.5 minute San Mateo topographic quadrangle. 620 Airport Boulevard Long-Term Parking Facility Initial Study 53 FSA/203409 Summary of Mitigation Measures—620 Airport Boulevard Air Quality Mitigation Measure III-1: Prior to commencement of grading and/or construction activities, the project sponsor shall submit a dust abatement program for review and approval of the City's NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) administrator and City Planning Department staff. The project sponsor shall require the construction contractor to implement this dust abatement program. Elements of the program shall include the following: • Water all active construction areas at least twice daily; • Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard (i.e., the minimum required space between the top of the load and the top of the trailer); • Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; • Sweep daily (preferably with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; • If visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets, the streets shall be swept (preferably with water sweepers); • Hydroseed or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for ten days or more); • Enclose, cover,water twice daily or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); • Limit traffic speeds on unpaved surfaces to 15 miles per hour; • Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways; • Replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible; and • Designate a person or persons to oversee the implementation of a comprehensive dust control program and to increase watering, as necessary. Cultural Resources Mitigation Measure V-1: If archaeological remains are uncovered, work at the place of discovery should be halted immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find. Accidental discovery of archaeological deposits could require additional archaeological investigations to determine the significance of the find. Mitigation Measure V-2: If human remains are encountered during project construction, the San Mateo County Coroner's Office will be notified immediately. The coroner will determine if the remains are those of a Native American, and if they are, will notify the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will make a determination regarding the individual's "most likely descendant" who will then make recommendations for the disposal of the remains. The Native American Heritage Commission will mediate conflicts between the project proponent and the most likely - descendant. Accidental discovery of human remains could require additional investigations to determine if other graves are present. Geology and Soils Mitigation Measure VI-1: A site-specific, design-level geotechnical investigation shall be prepared that assesses the impacts of proposed project modifications to the levee on levee stability and any fill on site. The geotechnical investigation shall be conducted by a California Certified Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer, and shall include an analysis of expected ground motions along the San Andreas fault in accordance the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the California Building Code (Title 24) additions. Expected ground motions determined by a registered geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated into the final design as part of the project. The final seismic considerations for the site shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Burlingame Structural and City Engineers before grading permits are issued. Hydrology and Water Quality Mitigation Measure VIII-2: The project storm drainage system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the STOPPP NPDES permit, including all provisions to the C.3 requirements, to reduce long-term water quality impacts from potentially contaminated runoff. The project sponsor shall provide a plan for long-term operations and maintenance of the oil and sediment separator or absorbent filter systems including but not limited to the operating schedule, maintenance frequency, routine service schedule, specific maintenance activities, and the effectiveness of the water treatment systems. The performance of the filters shall be monitored regularly by the project applicant or a third party to determine the effectiveness of the water treatment and conclusions reported to the City. To further help minimize and prevent the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system, the project sponsor shall implement Best Management Practices and source control measures that shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, regular street sweeping by mechanized equipment, proper clean-up of soil debris following landscape work or small scale construction, available trash receptacles, regular trash collection and the application of absorbent material on oil and fuel leaks from automobiles. Mitigation Measure VIII-3: During operation of the project, the project sponsor shall implement a program for regularly collecting and properly disposing of litter and debris that may accumulate on the project site. Mitigation Measure VIII-4: In order to maintain the existing on-site well for potential use for any future long-term development on the project site, the well head elevation shall be modified if needed in accordance with proposed project grading and construction plans and a new well vault shall be installed in accordance with San Mateo County water well standards to prohibit infiltration of storm water contaminants and prevent potential damage to the well casing. Noise Mitigation Measure XI-1: To reduce construction noise effects, the applicant shall require the construction contractor to limit noisy construction activities to the least noise-sensitive times of the day and week (i.e., Monday through Friday, 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.; and Saturday, 10:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.; none on Sunday and holidays). Mitigation Measure XI-2: The applicant shall require contractors to muffle all equipment used on the site and to maintain it in good operating condition. All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. This measure should result in all non-impact tools generating a maximum noise level of no more than 85dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet. Mitigation Measure XI-3: Applicant shall require contractors to turn off powered construction equipment when not in use. RESOLUTION APPROVING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been proposed and application has been made for a conditional use permit for a long-term ai ort parkinR interim use at 620 Airport Boulevard, zoned C';-4, Boca T ake Office, Tnc,, 433 California St , 7th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94104-2201, property owner, APN- 026- 342-330; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on June 28, 2004 at which time said application was approved, WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on September 7, 2004, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above with the mitigation measures proposed will have a significant effect on the environment, and a mitigated negative declaration, per Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND-533P, is hereby approved. 2. Said conditional use permit is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit"A" attached hereto. Findings for such conditional use permit are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. MAYOR I, Ann Musso, 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 7th day ofSS .p�er, 7004 and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK Conditions of approval for 620 Airport Blvd. City Council Resolution EYJMIT "A" Conditions for 620 Airport Blvd. Recommended by the Planning Commission 1. that the long-term airport parking facility use shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped June 22, 2004, sheet Sk.l a and date stamped September 2, 2003, sheet Sk.2a; 2. that should the operator decide to have the shuttle buses that pick up and deliver the customers exit using the 20 foot wide driveway ramp located on site, rather than exit through the adjacent hotel parking lot ,the shuttle bus rolling stock shall be limited in size to a maximum of 30 feet in length and 8.5 feet in width, the driveway apron on Airport Blvd shall be increased to 24 feet and the transition area at the bottom of the ramp shall be increased to 40 feet in width where there shall be a 14 foot outbound lane and an 30 foot inbound lane designated along with a three foot area in between for the gate controller box; all of these improvements shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a building permit or any required encroachment permits, it shall be the responsibility of the operator to insure the maintenance of the improvements in the public right-of-way and on site and to insure that roll stock/shuttle standards are met, failure to do so shall cause this conditional use permit to be reviewed by the Planning Commission; — 3. that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 30, 2003, memo and the City Arborist's June 17, 2004, memo shall be met, which includes planting 5-gallon Frazer's Photinia spaced four feet apart, with proper irrigation, in front of the security fence along Airport Boulevard; 4. that the property owner shall pay to the city a Bayfront Development Fee, based on p.m, peak hour trips generated by the interim use, one-half at the time of applying for any permits for construction, including encroachment permits from the city, and one half at the time of final inspection of construction work; 5. that drainage from paved surfaces, parking lot and driveways, shall be routed to catch basins that are equipped with fossil filters (sand/gravel filters) prior to discharge into the storm drain system; the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning all filters twice each year as well as immediately prior to and once during the rainy season (October 15 — April 1) and shall submit to the City and have approved a plan for filter/drain maintenance; 6. that the long-term airport parking use shall be operated seven days a week, 24 hours a day with a maximum of 350 parking spaces, and no auto maintenance, auto repair, auto washing or enclosed van storage shall take place on site nor shall the use of any number of parking spaces be contracted to a single user or corporation without amendment of this use permit; 7. that the property owners agree to assume all responsibility for any on-site flooding or storm drainage problems and to hold the City harmless from any claims arising from such problem and that this assumption shall be in a recorded written agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney; 8. that the landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuing a building Conditions of approval for 620 Airport Blvd. City Council Resolution or grading permit for this project; 9. that the landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained by the property owner including but not limited to weed control, pedestrian and vehicular clearance along the sidewalks and bike path, and replacement of plant material as necessary to maintain a visual barrier and the approved landscape design; 10. that this use permit for long term airport parking with the conditions listed herein is a temporary use and shall expire on September 7, 2009 (5 years), 11, that the parking lot lighting shall be energy efficient to the extent feasible to provide adequate light for customer safety; 11 that the applicant shall work with the City to establish an agreement regarding how the long term airport parking tax is to be collected if the parking spaces are used in association with a park and fly hotel room or other promotion program in association with the adjacent hotel or any office, hotel or other use; 13. that prior to commencement of grading and/or construction activities, the project sponsor shall submit a dust abatement program for review and approval of the City's NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) administrator; the project sponsor shall require the construction contractor to implement this dust abatement program; 14, that if archaeological remains are uncovered, work at the place of discovery should be halted immediately and a qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find; accidental discovery of archaeological deposits could require additional archaeological investigations to determine the significance of the find; 15, that if human remains are encountered during project construction, the San Mateo County Coroner's Office will be notified immediately. The coroner will determine if the remains are those of a Native American, and if they are, will notify the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will make a determination regarding the individual's "most likely descendant" who will then make recommendations for the disposal of the remains. The Native American Heritage Commission will mediate conflicts between the project proponent and the most likely descendant. Accidental discovery of human remains could require additional investigations to determine if other graves are present; 16. that a site-specific, design-level geotechnical investigation shall be prepared that assesses the impacts of proposed project modifications to the levee on levee stability and any fill on site. The geotechnical investigation shall be conducted by a California Certified Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer, and shall include an analysis of expected ground motions along the San Andreas fault in accordance the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and the California Building Code (Title 24) additions. Expected ground motions determined by a registered geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated into the final design as part of the project. The final seismic considerations for the site shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Burlingame Structural and City Engineers before grading permits are issued; 17. that the project storm drainage system shall be designed and constructed in accordance with the STOPPP NPDES permit, including all provisions to the C.3 requirements, to reduce long-term water Conditions of approval for 620 Airport Blvd. City Council Resolution quality impacts from potentially contaminated runoff. The project sponsor shall provide a plan for long-term operations and maintenance of the oil and sediment separator or absorbent filter systems including but not limited to the operating schedule,maintenance frequency,routine service schedule, specific maintenance activities,and the effectiveness of the water treatment systems. The performance of the filters shall be monitored regularly by the project applicant or a third party to determine the effectiveness of the water treatment and conclusions reported to the City. To further help minimize and prevent the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system, the project sponsor shall implement Best Management Practices and source control measures that shall include, but are not necessarily limited to,regular street sweeping by mechanized equipment,proper clean-up of soil debris following landscape work or small scale construction, available trash receptacles, regular trash collection and the application of absorbent material on oil and fuel leaks from automobiles; 18. that during operation of the project, the project sponsor shall implement a program for regularly collecting and properly disposing of litter and debris that may accumulate on the project site; 19. that order to maintain the existing on-site well for potential use for any future long-term development on the project site,the well head elevation shall be modified if needed in accordance with proposed project grading and construction plans and a new well vault shall be installed in accordance with San Mateo County water well standards to prohibit infiltration of storm water contaminants and prevent potential damage to the well casing; 20that the applicant shall require the construction contractor to limit noisy construction activities to the -� least noise-sensitive times of the day and week(Monday through Friday,7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.;and Saturday,10:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.;none on Sunday and holidays); 21.that the applicant shall require contractors to muffle all equipment used on the site and to maintain it in good operating condition. All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be fitted with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. This measure should result in all non-impact tools generating a maximum noise level of no more than 85dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet; 22.that applicant shall require contractors to turn off powered construction equipment when not in use; 23.that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes,2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame;and 24.that should the hotel at 600 Airport Blvd.at any time deny the long term airport parking facility the use of the exit gate and pay booth,the long term airport parking use at 620 Airport Blvd.shall cease immediately.Cross property of 600 Airport Blvd.is limited to only the exiting of cars from the long term airport parking use at 620 Airport Blvd.and for no other use of 620 Airport Blvd.or any other property; RFgOI.I TTION NO- RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, an environmental impact report has been proposed and application has been made for a shared use to allow cars parked in the adjacent long term airport parking at 620 Airport Blvd. to exit through the property located at 600 Airport Boulevard, zoned C-4, APN: 026-363-490; Harbor View Hotels Inc., property owner. WHEREAS, this matter was heard by the City Council and a hearing thereon held on q=te b 7 2004 at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: I. On the basis of Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-533-P and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this council, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment and the Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby approved. 2. Said amendment to the conditional use permit is approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such amendment to the conditional use permit are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. MAYOR I, Ann Musso, 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 71h day of SMIemher , 2004, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK Conditions of Approval for 600 Airport Blvd. City Council Resolution EXHIBIT "A" Current Conditions and Additions to Conditions for 600 Airport Blvd.: Conditions from Conditional T Ise Permit Amendment to allow controlled access to nares 1. that the controlled access parking plan shall be built and implemented as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 12, 2000, Site Plan and date stamped February 23, 2000, Lower Level Parking, and the installation shall conform to all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 2. that a fee may be charged for self-park visitors at a rate of up to $1.00 per hour with a maximum of$12.00 for a 24-hour period; the fee for valet parking shall be a $9.00 flat fee for the first six hours and a $16.00 flat fee for hours 6 through 24; and any change to these fees shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a public hearing; 3. that any change to the number of parking spaces provided on site, their configuration and/or the operation of the parking controls shall require amendment to this use permit; 4. that any change to the operation of the controlled and/or valet parking affecting the fee charged, -� the area used, or the traffic controls shall require amendment to this use permit; 5. that the hotel on-site parking shall be reserved for hotel guests and employees and no parking spaces shall be rented or uses as a part of a room rental or any other promotion which shall require or allow customers to leave their cars on the hotel site with or without payment while that customer is not present on the site as a registered guest; 6. employees shall not leave their vehicles on site for longer than their shifts at the hotel; 7. the hotel shall report to the city twice a year in 6 month intervals the number of cars which have parked longer than 24 hours and are not registered hotel guests and the use permit shall be reviewed if more than 10%of the on-site parking spaces are employed for this duration; 8. that the required parking areas shall not be used for long-term parking or converted to useable/leasable space as a part of any hotel promotion; 9. that all parking spaces on the hotel site shall be used by guests present on the site or visitors to the site using hotel facilities, no required on-site parking spaces shall be used for any hotel promotions which include parking while the guest is not present on the site; Conditions of Approval for 600 Airport Blvd. City Council Resolution 10. that should the hotel operator ever wish to undertake a promotion which includes providing parking while the guest is not present on the site, the operator shall be required to amend the conditional use permit granted for the hotel use on the site before instituting such a promotion, such request shall include a letter documenting how,when and where the cars of the guests who are not present on site will be parked and how the long term airport parking tax accrued by these parked cars shall be paid to the city; 11. that this proposal for controlled access to parking providing 423 on-site parking spaces is for the existing 404-room hotel and its support facilities; a plan for controlled access parking for a proposed addition to this hotel shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 12. that no room in the hotel shall be leased to a single individual, company or corporate entity for more than 29 days and no rooms and/or any part of the building shall be leased for permanent residential purposes; 13. that the applicant shall provide an airport shuttle service to pick up and deliver customers and which shall include connections to the local CalTrain and Bart stations to accommodate employees at shift changes, failure to do this shall result in review of the hotel's conditional use permit; 14. that hotel employees shall not be charged to park in the hotel parking lot; 15. that the hotel shall contribute its proportional share to the operation of the City's freebee shuttle service; 16. that the applicant shall provide 8 public access parking spaces to be located outside the access control gates at the south entrance from Airport Boulevard, these spaces shall be posted with shore access parking signs per BCDC requirements; and a decomposed granite pathway shall be installed between the parking area and the paved public access pathway along the lagoon; 17. that the exit from the hotel parking garage shall be shared with the adjacent long term airport parking facility located at 620 Airport Blvd. and that this joint use shall be used on by exiting cars from the long term airport parking and that there shall be no direct access from the hotel below grade parking into the long term airport parking lot for hotel guests or visitors,the access shall be protected with tire shredders, to prevent overflow of hotel parking into the long term airport parking lot; and 18. that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; Conditions from Original AI)meal for Hotel- 1. otel1. that all construction and site improvements be generally consistent with the plans and project description contained in EIR-52P; 2. that the mitigation measures identified in Exhibit A of the Planning Commission Resolution N. 5-79 be implemented by the project sponsor; Conditions of Approval for 600 Airport Blvd. City Council Resolution 3. that a development fee consistent with Ordinance No. 1151 be paid; such fee is presently estimated to be $37,180, and the developer shall be allowed to exceed the maximum height of -� 50 feet; 4. that the final drawings for this project show a parapet height above curb grade of not more than 162 feet; 5. that prior to the issuance of a building permit by the City of Burlingame the following requirements be met: (a) all permits required from other responsible agencies be obtained, such permits to include (but not be limited to) the Bay Conservation and Development Commission and the State Lands Commission (for use of the improvements on adjacent State owned parcels); (b) a design for the modification of the center island of the Airport Boulevard median strip be approved by the City; construction to be at the expense of the project sponsor; (c) all landscaping and irrigation systems be approved by the City, and be so designed that the maximum feasible on-site parking spaces are screened from adjacent State lands; and 6. that the proposed signs for this project are specifically excluded from this approval, and will require a separate application. -� CITY CITY OF BURLINGAME auRUN PLANNING DEPARTMENT 501-PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 b,.m.,.•'p TEL:(650)558-7250 Site: 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a mitigated negative declaration and conditional use permitfora longterm airport PUBLIC HEARING parking lot at: 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, NOTICE zoned C-4:(APN: 026-342-330). The City of Burlingame City Council announces the following public hearing on TUESDAY,September 7, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed: August 30, 2004 (Please refer to other side) l V ' CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applic Vay be reviewed prior to the meeting a lai g�D p ent 1 Primrose Road, Burlingame,Cal' I If you chal ge t u'ma be limited to raising onl os ssues ed a e blic hearing, described i tfjjqWc � r � l@k to the city . at or prior t C A L I F O R N 1 A Property oers i nsi ori forming their tenants ab t thino i mformatio ple a call (650) 558-7250. iank u. Margaret �O City Planner - as �, PU ICE (Please refer to other side) r�carrCITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT �+ .. 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 TEL:(650)558-7250 Site: 600 AIRPORT BOULEVARD Amendment of the conditional use permit for PUBLIC HEARING the Sheraton Hotel at: 600 AIRPORT NOTICE BOULEVARD, zoned C-4. (APN: 026-363-490). The City of Burlingame City Council announces the following public hearing on TUESDAY, September 7, 2004 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. Mailed:August 30, 2004 i I (Please refer to other side) f CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applic v ay be reviewed prior to the meeting a la �g� a nent 1 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Ca ' If you chal ge u ma be limited to i raising onl os ss ues a e blic hearing, described iri - e d to the city at or prior t C A t T F O R N I A Property o ers r i onsibl ori forming their tenants ab t thi no i informatio ple e call (650) 558-7250. iank Margaret City Planner PU ICE (Please refer to other side) STAFF REPORT BURLtNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8a fto MTG. DATE 9/7/04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: August 21, 2004 APPROVED /ll FROM: Parks& Recreation Director (558-7307) BY SUBJECT: HISTORY AND STATUS OF CITY STREET TRE14ROGRAM RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council review the history and current status of the City's street tree planting procedures. BACKGROUND: At the last City Council meeting,Mayor O'Mahony asked staff about the City's street tree program. A more detailed account of the history and current status of the street tree program is included. History Although trees lined the streets for many years, Burlingame first adopted a street tree plan in the early 1950's, using information from the International Society of Arboriculture and Sunset magazine. At the Western Shade Tree Conference in 1953, a list of ten street trees was presented by Mr. Frank Anderson, Burlingame's first Parks employee. Burlingame Park Department Superintendent, J.L. Francard, sent a list of trees to Eichler Homes, Inc. on December 4, 1964 regarding the types of trees selected for the Eichler subdivision in Mills Estates. The street tree list was first formalized in 1973 and was approved by both the Beautification Commission and the City Council. The list was revised in 1980, 1986 and, most recently, in 1999. Today Reasons for establishing this list half a century ago are still valid today—reduction of the trees' impact to sidewalks and minimizing hazards to pedestrians and property. In its present form, there are four separate street tree lists: 1. Appropriate trees to be planted in spaces of less than three feet 2. Appropriate trees to be planted in spaces of between three and six feet 3. Appropriate trees to be planted in spaces more than six feet 4. Appropriate trees to be planted in spaces under utility lines At the present time, staff works carefully with the residents to ensure that only the approved trees are planted in the appropriate places. When trees become unhealthy and need replacement,the homeowner of the property is given copies of the appropriate list, with addresses of existing trees to assist with their selection. A binder that includes photographs of most of the trees at maturity can be viewed by residents at the Department office. Residents who unknowingly plant inappropriate trees are informed of the correct species and the inappropriate trees are removed. There are thousands of healthy street trees in Burlingame that were planted over the past decades that would not be allowed today in the same location. When these trees become unhealthy,they are removed and replanted with appropriate trees. Staff has met to discuss the factors used in determining potential street tree removals and has agreed to the following(in no particular order): • Health of the Tree o Current o Projected based upon mitigation efforts • Allowing enough width to have a sidewalk • Growth into Utility Lines • Potential for Failure o Partial o Total • Disruption of Sidewalk o Current o On-going In order to put these factors (or others as they are identified)into place, a weighting system would also need to be established. Some of these factors may be considered absolute (example: if the current health of the tree is in serious decline it can be removed), while others may be considered in degrees (example: the tree needs trimming every four years to keep it from growing into utility lines). We believe that the information above would be a good starting place for discussion with either the Council, Commission or both. BUDGET IMPACT: The cost of removing and replacing a mature City street tree can range from $500 to $2,000. If we adopt a policy that allows for an increased rate of removals due to sidewalk disruption, staff recommends that this cost be paid by the resident requesting the removal. ATTACHMENTS: Copies of the current four City street tree planting lists CITY OF BURLINGAME ar CITY o� PARKS DIVISION 558-7330 BURUNGAME OFFICIAL STREET TREE LIST I�[�TT CITY USA DNwT[D JUM[6 ■K[I[I TREES TO BE USED UNDER PRIMARY UTILITY LINES aiWL BOTANICAL NAME Site Height at Minimum (Common Name) Locations Maturity Spacing Description CERCIS OCCIDENTALIS (Across from Rose Garden 10-18' 15' DECIDUOUS:Moderate growth;early Spring flowers are Western Redbud in Washington Park.) sweet pea shaped and leaves are heart shaped;Fall color. GEIJERA PARVIFLORA 25-30' 30' EVERGREEN:Moderate growth;graceful branches; fine Australian Willow (1245 Paloma Ave.--F#2) textured leaves;pest free. KOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA 20-35' 35' DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderate growth;clusters of yellow Chinese Flame Tree (137 Channing Rd.) flowers;leaves yellow in Fall, drop late. KOELREUTERIA PANICULATA 20-35' 35' DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderate growth;yellow flowers; Golden Rain Tree (1152 Balboa Ave.) leaves reddish in Spring, dull-green in Summer. LAGERSTROMIA INDICA (Village Park11535Calif. Dr. 20-30' 25' DECIDUOUS:Moderate growth;Spring foliage light green tinged Crape Myrtle Outside fence on Calif Dr.) bronze red;red flowers July-September;yellow Fall color. * MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 20-40' 25' EVERGREEN:Moderate to fast growth;white flowers; similar 'St.Mary', `Samuel Sommer' (Broadway Shopping Area) to Southern Magnolia,but smaller. (*Requires 6'wide&over planter strip.) MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 20' 10' EVERGREEN:Moderate growth;upright branches; dark green 'Little Gem' ( ) foliage has a rusty bronze coloring on leaf underside. White flowers in early spring and again late in summer. MAYTENUS BOARIA (1115, 1301, &1462 20-40' 25' EVERGREEN: Slow to moderate growth;pendulous graceful Mayten Tree Burlingame Ave) branches. MELALEUCA LINARIIFOLIA (City Hall/Employee Parking 15-25' 20' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth;fluffy white flowers May and Flaxleaf Paperbark lot exit approach on the right) June;thick white bark. PHOTINIA FRAZERI (516 Bayswater& 15' 15' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth;new growth is bronzy red Frazer's Photinia 525 California Dr) in Spring;leaves large glossy green. * PISTACIA CHINENSIS 30-40' 40' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth;large, dark green leaves Chinese Pistache (39 Bancroft Rd.) turn bright orange and red in Fall. * PITTOSPORUM UNDULATUM 30-40' 40' EEERGREEN:Moderate growth;fragrant white flowers; Victorian Box (1201 &1230 Burlingame Ave.) glossy leaves; round headed. PRUNUS CERASIFERA 20' 15' DECIDUOUS: Moderate growth; coppery leaves;light pink Purple Leaf Plum (1400 Lincoln Ave.) * PYRUS CALLERYANA (920 Linden Ave. & 25-35' 25' DECIDUOUS:Fast growth;upright form;masses white Flowering Pear 1429 Burlingame Ave.) floweea in Spring,red leaves in Fall. * SAPIUM SEBIFERUM (1245 Paloma Ave.--F#1) 35' 40' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth;dense,round Chinese Tallow Tree (990 Burlingame Ave./Parking crown;outstanding Fall color Lot median island-Lions Club parking lot) *Requires planter strip 3 feet wide and over 1/99 CITY O� CITY OF BURLINGAME BURU, IS E PARKS DIVISION 558-7330 0 9 .a 9D0 0 gT[D JUNK6j OFFICIAL STREET TREE LIST THE C1W USA TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS Y WIDE AND UNDER AND IN ALL PLANTING SPACES IN PAVED AREAS BOTANICAL NAME Site Height at Minimum (Common Name) Locations Maturity Spacing Description CORDYLINE AUSTRALIS 20-30' 25' EVERGREEN:Moderate growth,upper swordlike leaves erect Dracaena (1200 Block Cortez Ave.) and lower leaves arch and droop;fragrant tiny flowers in late Spring. CRAETAEGUS LAEVIGATA 20-25' 25' DECIDUOUS:Moderate growth;clusters of double rose to red English Hawthorne (1251 Capuchino Dr.) flowers;leaves toothed;few berries. GEIJERA PARVIFLORA 25-30' 30' EVERGREEN:Moderate growth;graceful branches;fine Australian Willow (1245 Paloma Ave.--F#2) textured leaves;pest free. KOELREUTERIA BIPINNATA 20-35' 35' DECIDUOUS: Slow to moderate growth;clusters of yellow Chinese Flame Tree (137 Channing Rd.) flowers;leaves yellow in Fall,drop late. LAGERSTROMIA INDICA ([Tillage Park/1535Calif.Dr. 20-30' 25' DECIDUOUS:Moderate growth;Spring foliage light green tinged Crape Myrtle Outside fence on Calif. Dr.) bronze red;red flowers July-September;yellow Fall color. MAYTENUS BOARIA (1115, 1301, & 1462 20-40' 25' EVERGREEN: Slow to moderate growth;pendulous graceful Mayten Tree Burlingame Ave) branches. MELALEUCA LINARIIFOLIA (City Hall/Employee Parking 15-25' 20' EVERGREEN:Moderate growth;fluffy white flowers May and Flaxleaf Paperbark lot exit approach on the right) June;thick white bark. PHOTINIA FRAZERI (516 Bayswater& 15' 15' EVERGREEN:Moderate growth;new growth is bronzy red Frazer's Photinia 525 California Dr.) in Spring;leaves large glossy green. PRUNUS CERASIFERA 20' 15' DECIDUOUS:Moderate growth;coppery leaves;light pink to Purple Leaf Plum (1400 Lincoln Ave) white flowers. BOTANICAL NAME Site Height at Minimum (Common Name) Locations Maturity Spacing Description PRUNUS YEDOENSIS 40' 30' DECIDUOUS:Fast growth;curving,graceful,open branching Yoshino Flowering Cherry (No Site Location) pattern,light pink to nearly white fragrant flowers in early Spring. P. YEDOENSIS (Wash.Parkl850 Burlingame-- 25' 20' DECIDUOUS:Fast growth. Variety is smaller than species and Akebono' Westside children's playground) flowers are pinker than P.yedoensis. 1/99 CITY O�`l BURLJNGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME PARKS DIVISION 558-7330 OFFICIAL STREET TREE LIST TREE CITY USA TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS OVER Y AND UNDER 6' WIDE BOTANICAL NAME Site Height at Minimum (Common Name) Locations Maturity Spacing Description AESCULUS CARNEA (1421 Palm Dr./Side tree 40' 30' DECIDUOUS:Fast early growth;round headed;dark green leaves; Red Horsechestnut #2&# 4) plumes of crimson flowers in Spring. CELTIS AUSTRALIS (Island west of Washington Park 40-50' 40' DECIDUOUS:Fast growth;gray-green,elm-like leaves;upright, European Hackberry Tennis Courts--ea. end of island) round headed form. CELTIS SINENSIS (501 Primrose Rd.--W. entrance 30-50' 40' DECIDUOUS:Fast growth;glossy,dark green,elm-like leaves; Chinese Hackberry to City Hall parking lot ea.side) broad,upright form. CRATAEGUS PHAENOPYRUM 20-25' 25' DECIDUOUS:Moderate growth;red berries in Winter;good Fall Washington Thorn (1275 California Dr.) color;thorns. EUCALYPTUS FICIFOLIA (1150 Oxford Rd. on Highway 20-40' 30' EVERGREEN:Moderate to fast growth;spectacular pink to red Red Flowering Gum Rd side) flowers in Summer;round headed form. EUCALYPTUS MICROTHECA 35-40' 35' EVERGREEN:Moderate to fast growth;blue green,ribbonlike Microtheca ( ) leaves; smooth bark;bushy,round headed tree. EUCALYPTUS NICOLII 30-40' 25' EVERGREEN:Fast growth;graceful,weeping form;fine textured, Willow-Leafed Peppermint (18 Bloomfield Rd.) light green leaves;slight odor of peppermint. EUCALYPTUS POLYANTHEMOS 30-60' 30' EVERGREEN:Moderate to fast growth;slender form;grey-green, Silver Dollar Gum (1131 Capuchino Ave.) oval to round leaves;mottled bark. FRAXINUS OXYCARPA (1535 Calif.Dr.--Village Park 25-35' 25' DECIDUOUS:Fast growth;compact,round headed;dark green Raywood Ash byplay area&853 Paloma Ave) leaves turn claret red in Fall. GINGKO BILOBA 30-50' 40' DECIDUOUS: Slow growth;fan shaped leaves turn yellow in Maidenhair tree (700&800 blk.BayswaterAve) Fall;spreading,almost umbrella form. BOTANICAL NAME Site Height at Minimum (Common Name) Locations Maturity Spacing Description MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 20' 10' EVERGREEN:Moderate growth;upright branches; dark green 'Little Gem' ( ) foliage has a rusty bronze coloring on leaf underside. White flowers in early spring and again late in summer. MELALEUCA QUINQUENERVIA (1111 Trousdale--around 20-40' 25' EVERGREEN:Moderate growth;yellowish-white flowers; Cajeput Tree Police Dept. on Calif. Dr. spongy white bark & Trousdale sides) PISTACIA CEINENSIS 30-40' 40' DECIDUOUS:Moderate growth;large, dark green leaves turn Chinese Pistache (39 Bancroft Rd.) brilliant red and orange in Fall. PITTOSPORUM UNDULATUM 30-40' 40' EVERGREEN: Moderate growth;fragrant white flowers; dark, Victorian Box (1201 & 1230 Burlingame Ave.) glossy leaves;round headed. PYRUS CALLERYANA (920 Linden Ave. & 25-35' 25' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth;upright form;masses white flowers Flowering Pear 1429 Burlingame Ave) in Spring;red leaves in Fall. SAPIUM SEBIFERUM 35' 40' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth;dense, round crown; Chinese Tallow Tree (1245 Paloma) outstanding Fall color. 10/00 CIT BURLINGAME CITY OFBURLINGAME PARKS DIVISION 558-7330 TREE CI'T'Y USA OFFICIAL STREET TREE LIST TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS 6' WIDE AND OVER BOTANICAL NAME Site Height at Minimum (Common Name) Locations Maturity Spacing Description ACER RUBRUM ( ) 40-50' 35' DECIDUOUS:Fast growth;lobed,shiny green leaves; Red Maple showy flowers;brilliant Fall color. CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA 40-50' 45' EVERGREEN: Slow to moderate growth;yellow green Camphor (300-400 blk.Burlingame Ave) aromatic leaves;tiny yellow flowers in May. EUCALYPTUS MICROTHECA 35-40' 40' EVERGREEN:Fast growth,ribbon-like,Bin.long leaves; ( ) bushy,round-headed,strong looking tree. EUCALYPTUS RUDIS 30-60' 45' EVERGREEN:Fast growth;small white flowers,Spring ( ) Summer;gray green leaves;rough trunk. LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA (City Hal1/501 Primrose Rd. 40-60' 40' DECIDUOUS:Moderate to fast growth;very colorful Fall American Sweet Gum along Bellevue side) foliage,stays on into Winter. MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 20-40' 25' EVERGREEN:Moderate to fast growth;white flowers, 'Samuel Sommers' (Broadway Shopping Area) similar to Southern Magnolia,but smaller. MYOPORUM LAETUM 20-30' 25' EVERGREEN:Fast growth;dense,glossy,light green Myoporum (856 Edgehill Dr.,F#1 &F#2) foliage. PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA (Lines Lexington and 40-60' 45' DECIDUOUS:Fast growth;large,lobed,maplelike London Plane (Sycamore) Francisco Drives) leaves;sheds old bark;new bark smooth,cream colored QUERCUS AGRIFOLIA 40-70' 45' EVERGREEN:Moderate to fast growth;dense foliage; Coast Live Oak (2818 Easton Dr.) rounded holly-like leaves;round-headed,spreading crown. BOTANICAL NAME Site Height at Minimum (Common Name) Locations Maturity Spacing Description QUERCUS COCCINEA 40-70' 45' DECIDUOUS:Moderate to fast growth;high,open branches Scarlet Oak (1200 block Oak Grove Ave) large,bright green leaves turn scarlet in cold Fall. QUERCUS ILEX 40-70' 45' EVERGREEN:Moderate growth;toothed green leaves,with Holly Oak (1769 Escalante) silver underside;dense,oval crown. QUERCUS RUBRA 40-70' 45' DECIDUOUS:Fast growth;spreading branches with round Red Oak (326 Clarendon Rd.) crown. ROBINIA AMBIGUA 30-40' 30' DECIDUOUS:Moderate to fast growth;Spring clusters of Idaho Locust (909 Linden Ave./2 trees) bright magenta flowers;long leaves divided into oval leaflets. TRISTANI CONFERTA (810 Stanton Rd.) 30-60' 45' EVERGREEN:Moderate to fast growth;reddish-brown bark; Brisbane Box green,oval leathery leaves;resembles some Eucalyptus. 1/99 ' CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8b MTG. 9/7/04 •��°' DATE To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: August 31,2004 APPRO9_ FROM: Jim Nantell 558-7205 BY SUBJECT: Proposition 1A, "Protection of Local Government Revenues" Recommendation Adopt a resolution supporting Proposition IA a ballot initiative on the November 2,2004 statewide ballot to restrict the State legislature's ability to take local government funding Background In recent years, the State legislature and previous governors have approved laws that divert local tax revenues away from local governments. Most recently, the State's budget crisis has prompted the legislature to dig even further into local revenues in order to help offset the State's budget deficit. Burlingame's "hit" for this fiscal year amounted to about $2 million. ($1 million in ERAF funds, $.4 in a loan of VLF, and $.62 in additional shift of local funds to the State). This trend toward further confiscation of local tax revenues (that local governments use to provide essential services such as police and fire protection, emergency and public health care, roads, parks, libraries, and water delivery), extends back for more than a decade. Since 1991, the State has taken an estimated $40 billion of local property taxes from cities, counties, and special districts. In just the last fiscal year, cities alone lost $800 million of local funds in this manner, and nearly $7 billion over the last 12 years. Remarkably, even in years of a State budget surplus, the State has continued to take these funds and use them to finance its constitutional funding obligation to education, thus allowing the State to increase State general fund spending for other State programs. It's abundantly clear that the State/local fiscal system is broken, and there has been a lack of any effort by the legislature to address this worsening problem. In response to this inaction, earlier this year the League of California Cities took the lead in sponsoring a ballot initiative entitled the "Local Taxpayers and Public Safety Protection Act." That measure would require voter approval prior to the legislature taking further local funds. Sufficient signatures were gathered, and the measure was placed on the November 2004 ballot as Proposition 65. That initiative got the attention of the legislature, and as part of the recently-adopted State budget, a bipartisan agreement was reached to create a mechanism, Proposition IA (based on the bill SCA 4) by which the legislature is constitutionally restricted from taking local funding, in return for an additional two years of continued cuts to local funding by the State. If approved by the electorate,Proposition IA will constitutionally prevent the State legislature from taking local government funds to pay for state responsibilities. This measure will thereby help protect funding for essential local services like fire and paramedic response, law enforcement, emergency and trauma care, parks, roads, libraries, transportation and more. Proposition IA is crucial to Burlingame and other local governments - since 1991 the State has taken an astonishing total of over$10 million from Burlingame's local funds. Had there earlier been a preventative measure in place such as Proposition 1 A,the most recent State seizures of funds would not have taken place, and our budget deficit would be significantly lower. This measure, if passed by the voters, will restrict the State Legislature's ability to take local government funding, including local governments' share of existing sales taxes, property taxes and Vehicle License Fee (VLF)revenues. It will require the State to provide funding for any program or service the State forces local governments to provide(State-mandated programs). If the State fails to provide that funding,then the legislature must repeal these mandates. The measure provides flexibility in a state budget emergency in that it allows the State to borrow local government revenues if funds are needed in a fiscal emergency to support schools or other state programs. Proposition IA will not raise tax rates or fees; it will not reduce funding for schools or any other state programs or services; it does not increase funding to local governments; and it leaves the door open to future reforms of the state-local fiscal relationship. The complete text of the measure and additional information is available on the State's Elections Web Site http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_bpd_1104_supplemental.htm Fiscal Impact There is no new fiscal impact associated with the adoption of this resolution. Attachments 1. League of California Cities' Proposition IA Information Packet: Key Talking Points Proposition I Frequently Asked Questions Facts About Proposition IA 2. Ballot Title and Summary 3. Argument In Favor 4. Argument Opposed 5. Resolution Proposition 1A--KEY TALKING POINTS • Prop 1A will Protect Local Public Safety,Healthcare and other Services,by Preventing the State Legislature from Taking Local Government Funds. Proposition 1A is a historic,bipartisan agreement that will prevent the state legislature from taking local government funds to pay for state responsibilities. Prop 1A will help protect funding for essential local services like fire and paramedic response,law enforcement, emergency and trauma care,parks,roads,libraries,transportation and more. • Proposition 1A is needed NOW. For more than a dozen years,the state legislature has been taking local tax dollars that local governments use to provide vital services.The State has taken more than$40 billion from cities,counties and special districts in the last 12 years. If these funding raids continue,it could mean fewer firefighters, fewer law enforcement officers and longer waits at emergency rooms--or higher local taxes and fees. • Prop 1A Provides Flexibility In A State Budget Emergency Prop 1A was carefully written to allow flexibility. It allows the State to borrow local government revenues—only in the event of a fiscal emergency—if funds are needed to support schools or other state programs. • Prop 1A Protects Local Taxpayers and Won't Raise Taxes. Prop 1A will not raise taxes. It simply ensures that existing local tax dollars continue to be dedicated to local services. It also helps ensure local governments aren't forced to raise taxes or fees to make up for revenues raided by the State. Prop 1A will also restore predictability to local budgets,and force greater accountability to State AND local budgeting. Local governments can plan for current and future local needs, with greater certainty that local resources will stay local. State legislators must budget without raiding local funds. • Broad,Bipartisan Support. Proposition 1A is supported by Governor Schwarzenegger,local government leaders,public safety officials,healthcare leaders,business and labor leaders,taxpayers,Democratic and Republican leaders. • Prop 1A is A Better Approach That Replaces the Need for Proposition 65. Prop 65 was put on the ballot earlier this year before this historic agreement was reached. Prop 1A is a better,more flexible approach with broad,bipartisan support of legislators and Governor Schwarzenegger.All of the official proponents of Prop 65 are now supporting Prop 1A and opposing Prop 65. • Protect Local Taxpayers.Protect Local Public Safety Services.Yes on Proposition 1A. YES an 1A, PROTECT tOCAtTAAPUERS Frequently Asked Questions i About Proposition 1A www.YesonProplA.com Q: What would Prop 1A do? A: Proposition 1A would prevent the state legislature from taking and using local tax dollars that local governments use to provide essential services like fire and paramedic response, law enforcement, emergency and trauma care, parks, roads, libraries, transportation and more. Specifically, Prop 1A prohibits the State Legislature's ability to lower the existing city, county and special district's existing share of sales taxes, property taxes and VLF revenues. Proposition 1A also requires the state to reimburse local governments for the cost of programs and services it forces cities, counties and special districts to provide. If the state fails to provide reimbursement to local governments for state-mandated local programs, the mandate must be suspended, except for specified employee rights and benefits. Q: Why is Prop 1A needed? A: For more than a dozen years, in both good fiscal times and bad, the state legislature has been raiding local tax dollars to pay for state responsibilities — more than $40 billion over the past 12 years. This practice has starved local communities of the funds needed to pay for vital services like fire protection, paramedic response, law enforcement, healthcare, parks and libraries. If these funding raids continue, it could mean fewer firefighters, fewer law enforcement officers and longer waits at emergency rooms -- or higher local taxes and fees. The system is broken. Voters must act now to protect local revenues for local services from being taken by the State. Q: Who supports Prop 1A? A: Proposition 1A is a historic, bipartisan accord reached among local government leaders, public safety representatives, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, Democrat and Republican state legislators, healthcare advocates, taxpayer groups, business and labor leaders, and many more. The coalition in support of Prop 1A is growing daily. Q: Will Prop 1A raise taxes? A: NO. Proposition 1A will not raise taxes. It simply ensures that existing local tax dollars continue to be dedicated to local services. In fact, Prop 1A helps ensure local governments aren't forced to raise taxes or fees to make up for revenue raided by the State. Paid for By Yes on 1A Californians to Protect Local Taxpayers and Public Safety, Sponsored by a coalition of local government organizations, League of California Cities(non-public funds account), California State Association of Counties(non-public funds account), and the California Special Districts Association (non-public funds account) 1121 L Street,Suite 803•Sacramento,CA 95814•Phone(800)827-9086•Fax(916)442-3510 Q: Will this measure prevent state fiscal reform efforts? A: No. The first and most important step in reforming the troubled State-Local fiscal relationship is to protect local government funding from continual state raids. Prop 1A would accomplish this important first step, while also leaving the door open for more comprehensive fiscal reform in the future. Specifically, Prop 1A would retain authority for the Legislature to approve the exchange of local sales tax for an equal amount of property tax when requested by local agreements. Any type of voluntary revenue exchange agreement must be revenue-neutral for the impacted local governments. Q: Does this measure increase revenues to local governments? A: No. Prop 1A simply prevents the state Legislature from further reducing existing levels of local government revenues. Q: Why doesn't Prop 1A attempt to recollect lost ERAF property tax dollars? A: Prop 1A was intentionally drafted to draw a line in the sand and prevent future state legislative raids of local government funding. While local governments and services are still deprived by the ongoing state raid of property taxes, given the state of California's fiscal health, we believe a more responsible approach at this time is to "stop the bleeding" at current levels. Q: What happened to Proposition 65, which is also on the November ballot and attempts to protect city, county and special district revenues from state raids? A: Our coalition placed Proposition 65 on the ballot earlier this year, prior to the historic, bipartisan July agreement that placed Prop 1A on the November ballot. After Prop 65 qualified for the ballot, Governor Schwarzenegger approached our coalition and asked that we work with him on an alternative local government protection measure. We agreed to provide the state with short-term contributions from local governments to help the state out of its immense budget problems, and the Governor agreed to work with the legislature to place Prop 1A on the ballot and to actively campaign for passage of Prop 1A this Fall. Proposition 65 will continue to be on the ballot, but all of the official sponsors of Prop 65 are now opposing 65 and supporting Prop 1A as a better, more flexible approach to protect funding for local governments and local services. Q: What happens if both Proposition 65 and Prop 1A pass? A: Proposition 1 A was written so that if it gains more votes than Proposition 65, it supersedes Prop 65 in its entirety. Prop 1A contains language that specifically says that Prop 1A is a "comprehensive and competing alternative" to Prop 65, and that "it is the intent of the people that this measure supersedes in its entirety Prop 65", if Prop 1A gets more votes. YES (InIA, THE FACTS ABOUT PROTECT LOCAL TAXPAYERS PROPOSITION 1A 51:111111:1111SUITUTT1177M THE PROBLEM THE SOLUTION = PROPOSITION 1A LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY HISTORIC AGREEMENT TO PROTECT LOCAL SERVICES ARE THREATENED TAXPAYERS AND VITAL LOCAL SERVICES For more than a dozen years, the state legislature Prop 1A is a historic bipartisan agreement between has been taking local tax dollars that local Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, local governments use to provide vital services like fire governments, legislators, public safety officials, protection, paramedic response, law enforcement, healthcare advocates, taxpayers and community healthcare, parks and libraries. The State has leaders. Prop 1A prevents the State Legislature taken more than $ billion from cities, counties from taking and using local government funds. and special districts in the last 12 years. If these Prop 1A would keep more of our local tax dollars raids continue, it could mean fewer firefighters, local and would protect funding for vital local fewer law enforcement officers and longer services like fire and paramedic response, law waits at emergency rooms -- or higher local enforcement, healthcare, parks, libraries, and ttransportation. axes and fees. What Proposition 1A Does: ✓ Restricts the State Legislature's ability to raid local government funding, including local government share of existing sales taxes, property taxes and VLF revenues. ✓ Protects funding for local services like fire and paramedic response, law enforcement, emergency and trauma care, parks, roads, libraries, transportation and more. ✓ Requires the State to provide funding for any program or service the State forces local governments to provide. If the State fails to provide funding, Legislature must repeal these state-mandates. ✓ Provides flexibility in a state budget emergency. Prop 1A allows the State to borrow local government revenues if funds are needed in fiscal emergency to support schools or other state programs. What Proposition 1A DOES NOT Do: O Does not raise taxes. Prop 1 A helps ensure local governments don't have to raise taxes or fees in the future to make up for revenues raided by the State Legislature. O Does not reduce funding for schools or any other state programs or services. O Does not increase funding to local governments. O Does not prevent the state from borrowing local funds in times of fiscal emergency, or shut the door to future reforms of the state-local fiscal relationship. Proposition 1A Replaces Need for Prop 65. A coalition of local government officials placed Proposition 65 on the ballot earlier this year to stop the State from taking local government funding. HOWEVER, that was before passage of the historic bipartisan agreement that put Prop 1A on the ballot. Prop 1A is a better, more flexible approach to protecting local services and local tax dollars. That's why ALL the official proponents of Prop 65 are now supporting Proposition 1A and opposing Proposition 65. Paid for By Yes on 1A Californians to Protect Local Taxpayers and Public Safety, Sponsored by a coalition of local government organizations,League of California Cities(non-public funds account),California State Association of Counties(non-public funds account)and the California Special Districts Association(non-public funds account). 1121 L Street,#803- Sacramento, CA 95814 • Phone(800)827-9086 • Fax(916)442-3510 PROPOSITION 1 A Date August 4. 2004 Protection of Local Government Revenues Resolution Chapter 133, Statutes of 2004 (SCA 4) Sponsor: Senator Tom Torlakson OFFICIAL TITLE AND SUMMARY PREPARED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BALLOT TITLE AND SUMMARY PROTECTION OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT REVENUES • Protects local funding for public safety,health, libraries, parks, and other locally delivered services. • Prohibits the State from reducing local governments' property tax proceeds • Allows the provisions to be suspended only if the Governor declares a fiscal necessity and two-thirds of the Legislature approve the suspension. Suspended funds must be repaid within three years. • Also requires local sales tax revenues to remain with local government and be spent for local purposes. • Requires the State to fund legislative mandates on local governments or suspend their operation. Summary of Legislative Analyst's Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact: Significant changes to state authority over local finances. Higher local government revenues than otherwise would have been the case, possibly in the billions of dollars annually over time. Any such local revenue impacts would result in decreased resources to the state of similar amounts. SUBJECT TO COURT ORDCi;ED CHANGFCC3 ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 1 A PROPOSITION 1 A—A HISTORIC AGREEMENT TO PROTECT LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND VITAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES. Proposition I is a historic bipartisan agreement among local governments, public safety leaders,the State Legislature, Republican Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, and is authored by Democratic State Senator Tom Torlakson. Proposition I prevents the State from taking and using funding that local governments need to provide services like fire and paramedic response, law enforcement, healthcare, parks and libraries. These individuals and groups urge a YES vote: • Governor Schwarzenegger • State Controller Steve Westly • California Professional Firefighters • California Fire Chiefs Association • California Police Chiefs Association • California State Sheriffs' Association • California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems • League of California Cities • California Special Districts Association • California State Association of Counties SUBJECT TO COURT ORDERED CHANGES ,RGWENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 1 R PROPOSITION 1 A IS NEEDED TO STOP THE STATE FROM TAKING LOCAL GOVERNMENT FUNDING. For more than a dozen years,the State has been taking local tax dollars that local governments use to provide essential services—more than$40 billion in the last 12 years. Even in years with state budget surpluses,the State has taken billions of local tax dollars These State raids result in fewer firefighters,fewer law enforcement officers, longer waits in emergency rooms—or higher local taxes and fees. PROPOSITION IA PROTECTS PUBLIC SAFETY, EMERGENCY HEALTHCARE AND OTHER LOCAL SERVICES. Local governments spend a vast majority of their budgets providing critical services, including: • Fire protection • Paramedic response • Law enforcement • Emergency medical • Healthcare • Parks and libraries SUBJECT TO COURT ORDERED CHANGES ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION PROPOSITION 1 A IS A BETTER APPROACH THAT REPLACES THE NEED FOR PROPOSITION 65. Proposition 65 was put on the ballot earlier this year before this historic agreement was reached. Proposition I is a better, more flexible approach to protect local services and tax dollars. That's why ALL of the official proponents of 65 are now ENDORSING PROPOSITION I AND OPPOSING PROPOSITION 65 Join Governor Schwarzenegger, Senator Torlakson, firefighters, police officers, sheriffs. paramedics,healthcare leaders, taxpayers,business and labor leaders. PROTECT LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND PUBLIC SAFETY. Vote YES on PROPOSITION IA. Vote NO on PROPOSITION 65 Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger Chief Michael Warren,President California Fire Chiefs Association Sheriff Robert T. Doyle, President California State Sheriffs' Association SUBJECT TO COURT ORDERED CHANGES ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 2 A Cities and counties also revitalize downtowns and create jobs and affordable housing using redevelopment agency funding. Redevelopment agency tax increment revenues are already protected by the State Constitution and do not need to be further protected by Proposition A, PROPOSITION I PROTECTS LOCAL TAXPAYERS AND WON'T RAISE TAXES Proposition IA will not raise taxes. It simply ensures that existing local tax dollars continue to be dedicated to local services. It also helps ensure local governments aren't forced to raise taxes or fees to make up for revenue raided by the State. PROPOSITION 1A PROVIDES FLEXIBILITY IN A STATE BUDGET EMERGENCY —AND WON'T TAKE FUNDING FROM SCHOOLS OR OTHER STATE PROGRAMS. Proposition IA protects only existing levels of local funding. It does not reduce funding for schools or other state programs. And, 1 was carefully written to allow flexibility. It allows the State to borrow local government revenues—only in the event of a fiscal emergency—if funds are needed to support schools or other state programs. SUBJECT TO COURT ORDERED CHANGES ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 1.A We should protect local taxpayers, not Irresponsible spending by local governments. Vote NO on Proposition SA. As Chairwoman of the State Board of Equalization, I know that too many branches of government waste too much money. Proposition IA gives local governments a spending guarantee without any fiscal accountability or oversight. It's a blank check for spending and turns a blind eye to waste. Did you know that the City of Stockton is emptying its cash reserves to build a downtown arena, but at the same time they're trying to raise taxes to pay for police officers and firefighters? They've got their priorities backwards. Did you know that the City of Los Angeles raised their water rates, but at the same time they're being audited for wasting millions on unnecessary public relations contracts? California has a responsibility to help and support local governments. We are all in this together. But NO one should be exempt from fiscal oversight and accountability. Checks and balances are essential. Public schools in California are funded by Proposition 98. But in 1988, California's teachers included specific language to hold school districts accountable for the money they spend. There is NO fiscal accountability provision in Proposition 1A. Every new school bond we've placed on the ballot contains specific accountability provisions to guarantee that the money is spent the way the voters intend. There is NO fiscal accountability provision in Proposition SA. Every one of California's Water, Parks and Wildlife bonds had strict accountability provisions. There is NO fiscal accountability provision in Proposition IA. SUBJECT TO COURT ORDERED CHANGES ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION. A-A California is facing serious budget challenges. There have been great sacrifices made to meet those challenges... cuts in children's health care, nursing home care, and college admissions. Why should local politicians get a blank check? I say NO they shouldn't. Why should local politicians get a guarantee that sick children don't get? I say NO they shouldn't. This NO fiscal accountability Proposition deserves a NO vote! Please join me in voting NO on Proposition 1A. Carole Migden, Chairwoman State Board of Equalization SUBJECT TO COURT ORDERED CHANGES RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME URGING SUPPORT FOR PROPOSITION IA ON THE NOVEMBER 2, 2004, ELECTION BALLOT TO LIMIT STATE RAIDS ON LOCAL MONIES RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, State government currently seizes more than $5.2 billion annually in local property tax funds statewide from cities, counties, and special districts, costing local governments more than $40 billion in lost revenues over the past 12 years; and WHEREAS, these ongoing shifts and raids by the State of local property tax funds and other funding dedicated to local governments have seriously reduced resources available for local fire and paramedic response, law enforcement, public health and emergency medical care, roads, parks, libraries, transportation and other essential local services; and WHEREAS, these funding raids also add pressure for local governments to increase fees and taxes to maintain basic local service levels; and WHEREAS, this drain of local resources has continued even during periods when the State's budget has been overflowing with surpluses; and WHEREAS, Proposition I is an historic measure that will appear on the November 2, 2004, statewide ballot that would limit the State's ability to take and use local government funding; and WHEREAS, by protecting local government funding, Proposition I would protect local public safety, healthcare and other essential local services; and WHEREAS, Proposition 1 A will not raise taxes and in fact, will help reduce pressure for local fee and tax increases by limiting State raids of local government funding; and WHEREAS, Proposition I does not reduce funding for schools or any other State program or service, and Proposition I was carefully written to allow flexibility in the event of a State budget emergency; and 1 WHEREAS, Proposition I is supported by a bipartisan, diverse coalition including the Governor, Democrat and Republican legislative leaders, local government officials, public safety representatives, healthcare, business, labor and community leaders; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City Council urges citizens to vote in favor of Proposition 1 A to protect local revenues and services. MAYOR I, ANN T. MUSSO, 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 a 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 2 "�� CITY oZ STAFF REPORT lj BURUNGAME AGENDA 8. ITEM# MTG. DATE 9/7/04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: 8-16-04 APPRO D FROM: Jim Nantell 558-7205 BY 17s, suB.IECr: Art in Public Places RECOMMENDATION: Consider accepting and encouraging donations of Public Art. BACKGROUND: Recently friends of former Mayor and Council member Gloria Barton approached staff about a possible donation of public art in memory of Gloria and her many years of service to the City of Buringame. It brought to mind the possibility that such a donation could serve as the first of hopefully many future donations of public art that the Council may want to encourage. Although some cities have created"a percent for the arts"ordinances that require developers to incorporate art into their developments, staff is suggesting that the Council consider the possibility of creating an art in public places program that would encourage organizations, individuals and businesses to purchase art for display in parks, downtown, libraries and other public property. We believe that Burlingame is the kind of community whose reputation and image is consistent with an appreciation of art that could be featured in various public places in the community. If the Council were inclined to support such a program, staff recommends as a first step the formation of a joint committee of representatives of the Beautification,Parks and Recreation Commissions and the Library Board. Their mission would be to develop an Art in Public Places program that would include (among other topics). - Potential locations for art placement - Art&artist selection process - Financial factors(obtaining art, installation, on-going maintenance,vandalism, etc.) - Acquisition of art Ourying, purchasing, shipping, etc.) After a program is developed,the committee would consider the donation of art in former Mayor Barton's memory as the first piece of art. Subject to the development of the program and the placement list, staff recommends the acceptance of the donation of the child-reading statue for placement at the Library. BUDGET IMPACT: The intent would be to create an art in public places program that would not require any City funds, although it would most probably result in some future maintenance costs. EXHIBITS: 1. Picture of suggested art piece to be donated in memory of former Mayor Gloria Barton 2. Example of Public Art Program from Foster City Statues Proposed / Display Burlingame s i F t ° STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the City Council Via: James C. Hardy, City Manager From: Kevin M. Miller, Director of Parks and Recreation Date: Subject: PUBLIC ARTS POLICY RECOMMENDATION That the City Council provide direction to staff by minute order on a public arts policy and their interest in options as presented for the acquisition of public art. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of a Public Arts Policy is to serve as a guide in the purchase, placement, and display of art at public facilities in Foster City. Because art is a cultural reflection of the community and its people, it is important to have a careful review process in place. It is also important to understand that art is appreciated subjectively by the eye of the beholder. Because the Foster City Council is ultimately responsible for the appearance of the community, it is therefore critical that they have the appropriate information to make a wise decision. Art in public places is often controversial. Viewers of art either like it,don't like it,or don't care.Art in public places should be"site specific"and should be complimentary to its location. Community public art should be reflective of its community. Art in public places should not be a safety hazard or interfere with activities for which the space was originally designed. BACKGROUND Without a City arts policy in place situations have occurred involving offers of art gifts to the City, requests from the Arts & Culture Committee to purchase art, and art purchasing programs by the Department. The Parks and Recreation Department staff and members of the Arts & Culture Committee have been researching and studying public arts policies in other communities in order to establish a Foster City arts policy. Conclusions reached are reflected in the resolution. ANALYSIS Principles that provide the foundation for the City of Foster City Public Arts Policy include the following: • Facilitating and stimulating the arts and making them available to all ages • Belief in the fact that arts enhance the quality of life and a healthy society • Endorsement of the fact that community art generates civic pride and enhances Foster City's image • The City celebrates diversity by presenting the arts as a common language • Belief in the social and economic benefits of the arts • Encouragement, in cooperation with the arts community, of a broad range of artistic opportunities accessible to all • Maintaining current support • Endorsement of the principle that financial support to the arts is a sound investment Selection & Location. After careful review by the Arts and Culture Committee and the Parks and Recreation Department, a recommendation for the purchase and placement of public art shall be sent to the City Council with the annual budget. The recommended art should be thought provoking, enduring, and memorable. The art should reflect the diverse social, cultural, and historical values of the City. Special care should be taken to select art that can be properly installed, placed to be seen, and displayed with patron safety in mind. This policy will be reviewed annually by staff, the Arts and Culture Committee and the City Council. Selection options include input from the Beautification Committee, the Planning Commission, and/or the Parks & Recreation Committee. Funding. There are several options for funding public art purchases: 1. The Parks & Recreation Department and Arts & Culture Committee could be given an annual budget for the purchase of public art from the General Fund. The impact on the budget will vary from year to year. 2. The City could consider the lead of other communities and institute a policy requiring that one percent of all public or private capital improvement projects over $1 million be spent on public art. The artwork may be integrated into the development or placed in a public space. Other cities have varying allocations ranging from one to two percent with various minimum thresholds. Examples of these criteria can be reviewed in the attached report entitled "Art In Public Places Criteria". 3. A third option is to solicit private business and/or artists to sponsor or donate art for public spaces in Foster City. 4. A fourth option is to rent or lease art for public spaces. 5. A fifth option is to sponsor artist contests, award cash prizes, and display the art for a period of time. Risks. Protecting public artwork from damage caused by vandals, automobiles and weather is one area of risk. Potential theft of smaller pieces of art is another problem. Yet another problem is the safety of those that make and install the artworks. In addition, protection of citizens from the physical dangers of artwork is another risk. Artwork can be an attractive nuisance. Agreements with artists either for purchase or loaning of art should reflect no liability for the City for loss or damage. Artworks can be accepted conditionally which might include the artist carrying the liability. There are also various insurance options available for displaying public art. Further information on this subject is in the attached document entitled "Managing the Risks of Public Art." Recommendations: 1. The Parks & Recreation Department and Arts & Culture Committee will be responsible for the selection of appropriate art and venues. 2. The Department and Committee will submit its recommendations to the City Council via the Director of Parks and Recreation. 3. The Committee will utilize the following criteria for selecting art and venues: A. Public art should be thought provoking, enduring, and memorable. The art should reflect the diverse social, cultural, and historical values of the City. B. Public art must be properly installed, placed to be seen, and displayed with patron safety in mind. C. Art must enhance the quality of life and a healthy society. D. Art must generate civic pride and enhance Foster City's image. E. When possible the art should celebrate diversity by presenting the arts as a common language. Key Questions: 1. Does the Council wish to have more public art in Foster City? 2. Who should have the responsibility for selecting public art? 3. Which option(s) should staff pursue for the funding of public art? 4. What specific concerns does the Council have in regards to the risks of placing artworks in Foster City? ATTACHMENTS "Managing the Risks of Public Art" (An article examining the risks to the art and to citizens) "Art In Public Places Criteria By City" (A review of what other cities are doing with art taxes) RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FOSTER CITY AUTHORIZING THE ADOPTION OF A PUBLIC ARTS POLICY CITY OF FOSTER CITY WHEREAS, the City of Foster City believes in facilitating and stimulating the arts and making them available to all ages; and WHEREAS, the City of Foster City believes that the arts enhance the quality of life and a healthy society; and WHEREAS, the City of Foster City endorses the fact that community art generates civic pride and enhances Foster City's image; and WHEREAS, the City of Foster City believes in the social and economic benefits of the arts; and WHEREAS, the City of Foster City celebrates diversity by presenting the arts as a common language; and WHEREAS, the City of Foster City, in cooperation with the arts community, encourages a broad range of artistic opportunities that are accessible to all; and WHEREAS, the City of Foster City Endorses the principle that financial support to the arts is a sound investment. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Foster City does hereby authorize a Public Arts Policy. PASSED AND ADOPTED as a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Foster City at the held on the day of , 1999, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: DEBORAH E.G. WILDER, MAYOR ATTEST: THERESE TAHIR, CITY CLERK PROPOSAL Outdoor Sculpture for the Civic Center JANUARY 2000 Sculpture in the Park Committee Rochelle Goldman Karen Rain OBJECTIVE SECURE SUPPORT FROM THE FOSTER CITY COUNCIL FOR THE SCULPTURE CONTEST 1999 PURPOSE • PROVIDE PUBLIC ARTS ENVIRONMENT TO THE COMMUNITY • ELEVATE THE VISUAL ART ENVIRONMENT TO THE COMMUNITY • ATTRACT ATTENTION FROM OUTSIDE THE COMMUNITY TO OUR CULTUREL ADVANTAGE & BRING IN TOURIST BUSINESS PLAN FOR THE FOSTER CITY ARTS & CULTURE COMMITTEE TO SPONSOR A SITE SPECIFIC THEME SCULPTURE CONTEST WITHIN THE ARTISTS' COMMUNITIES OF THE UNITED STATES SELECTED SCULPTURE TO BE INSTALLED AT THE NEW CIVIC CENTER PLAZA CONTEST ANNOUNCEMENT TO BE SENT TO ARTS JOURNALS, ARTS SCHOOLS, AND ARTS DEPARTMENTS OF COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES ARTSJOURNALS S ART CALENDAR ❖ ARTS WEEKLY :• SCULTURE PACIFIC RIM SCULPTORS GROUP PARK & RECREATION WILL PROVIDE BUDGET FOR PLAN -CONT'D • MAILING • COPYING • RUNNING THE CONTEST • JUROR' FEES • PREPARING THE SITES PRIZES - IF PROPOSAL APPROVED • 1 OF $50,000 OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES INSURANCE FOR SCULPTURE • AGAINST VANDALISM - CITY'S RESPONSIBILITY • AGAINST LIABILITY • AGAINST NATURAL DISASTER PROPOSED LOCATION IN FRONT OF THE NEW CITY HALL PLAZA COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION • LETTERS TO RESIDENTS ANNOUNCING THE EVENTS • GALLERY EXHIBITION OF MODELS • SUGGESTION BOX ❖ CITY GALLERY ❖ PARK & RECREATION DEPARTMENT ❖ LOCAL SUPERMARKETS •3 LOCAL BANKS ❖ LOCAL SCHOOLS ❖ LIBRARIES EXAMPLES OF OTHER PROGRAMS • LOVELAND, CO. • BELMONT, CA. - AVENUE OF THE ARTS - NO FUNDING - TEMPORARY INSTALLATION • REDWOOD SHORE, CA. • HALF MOON BAY, CA. • NEW MEXICO COMPETITION - GOING ON NOW - US$47,000.00 PRIZE - ARTIST PAYS HIS OWN EXPENSES • LOS ALTOS, CA. • SAN FRANCISCO, CA. • FOSTER CITY CA. - SCULTURE CONTEST 1997-98 • MILLBRAE, CA. • PACIFICA, CA. FOSTER CITY SCULPTURE CONTEST RULES & REGULATIONS 1999 - APPENDIX 1 • JURORS • 1-2 PROFESSIONAL SCULPTORS PROFESSIONAL SCULPTOR • 3-5 COMMITTEE MEMBERS ROCHELLE GOLDMAN -ARTIST EDUCATOR KAREN RAIN - COMMITTEE MEMBER JONATHAN KORFHAGE - PARKS & RECREATION SUPERINTENDENT • CONSENSUS OF EXPRESSIONS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPANTS • CRITERIA FOR JUDGING • AESTHETICS • SUITABILITY FOR PUBLIC ART • DURABILITY & SAFETY AESTHETICS • SIZE -WEIGHT AESTHETICS • MEDIA AESTHETICS • SITE SPECIFIC OPTION ONE FUNDING FLYER 1 • SELECTED SCULTURE WILL BE PURCHASED FOR THE CITY OF FOSTER • TRANSPORTATION ❖ PRIZE MONEY OF $50,000 MATERIALS AND LABOR TO COVER TRANSPORTATION AND INSTALLATION • TIMELINE - TENTATIVE DATES ❖ APPROVED BY FOSTER CITY COUNCIL - MARCH/APRIL 1999 ANNOUNCEMENT OF THE CONTEST - JULY 1999 ❖ DEADLINE FOR CONTESTANTS PROPOSAL, MODEL OR DRAWING - OCTOBER 1999 ❖ PUBLIC INPUT - NOVEMBER 1999 • LOCAL COMMUNITY TO PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSION OF EXHIBITION OF ALL ENTRIES ❖ JUDGING - DECEMBER 1999 ❖ AWARD ANNOUNCEMENT - JANUARY 2000 ❖ INSTALLATION - COMPLETION OF NEW CIVIC CENTER APPENDIX 2. 1 GRANT - WHAT & WHERE & HOW & WHEN We are asking to support the City of Foster City Sculpture for the new Civic Center 2000. We plan to invite sculptors to submit slides proposals of sculptures for installation at the Civic Center Plaza. Through public art we are trying to bring beautification, improve quality of life, an elevation of standards in enrichment of the visual environment. At present there is a poverty of visual arts environment in the area compared to the Midwest, East Coast and Europe. Because funds have been cut to education, children and other citizens of the community must pay to see works of art. Also art faculty, artists in residents and visiting artists programs have been curtailed. This is a new program for Foster City except for one sculpture contest under the aegis of the Foster City Park & Recreation Department whose goals are to enrich the life of the community. This specific outcome of the program will be to reach a broader section of the approximately 30,000 residents of Foster City and make the community more appealing to non-residents that it is now. This will also be good for business in that outside corporations will want to relocate here because the aesthetic enchantment and local business may benefit from an inundation of art lovers. The cost of the program is estimated at $50,000. A percentage of the cost will be berne by the City of Foster City Park & Recreation Department for administrative and engineering and PLPD costs APPENDIX 2.2 There is no other agency active in our service area that is planning sculpture for the Civic Center. We will be collaborating with the Beautification Committee, engineering department and the Planning Commission of the City of Foster City. The qualification of the key personnel involved in this project are: Ruth Waters — Professional Sculptor, Consultant, Rochelle Goldman, Artist Educator, Karen Rain, Gina Kuo , Evelyn Long and Jonathan Korfhage, Parks and Recreation Superintendent. Administrative costs of $5,000 will be absorbed by the Parks & Recreation Department. The prize money will be for $45,000. The professional juror fee is estimated at $300 per person per day. There will be a reception for the artist to which the public will be invited by mail and public advertising. This cost will be included in the administrative operation budget. The reception and exhibition of the entries will be held in the Foster City Art Gallery which is located in the new Parks & Recreation Center. Whatever funds remained will be put into a trust fund for future acquisition of public art in the parks for Foster City. The advertisements of the reception will be sent to the local papers, schools, and community centers. The contest notice will be sent to four magazines: Art Calendar, Sculpture, Pacific Rim Sculpture Group, Art Weekly and to art schools, college/university art departments. Enclosed is a copy of the Internal Revenue Service letter certifying Foster City status under Section 501 (c )(3). City has to prepare this document for us. STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM # 8d MTG. DATE 9/7/04 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL sus TED BY DATE: September 7, 2004 APPROVED FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY � �K SUBJECT: STATUS REPORT OF LANDSCAPING BUFFER ALONG BART RIGHT OF WAY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council accept the Staff report regarding the landscaping barrier adjacent to the BART tail tracks on California Drive. BACKGROUND: As part of its expansion plans BART built the Millbrae station and tail tracks that extended into Burlingame. Preceding construction BART negotiated an agreement with the City. Included in those negotiations was an arrangement to screen the tail tracks from buildings and traffic on California Drive. In 1999, Council elected to have the tracks screened with a Landscaping Barrier (as opposed to a fixed wall) in the 6' right of way. The project agreement with BART includes a reimbursement provision up to stated limits. The plan calls for the new Landscaping Barrier to begin 150' north of Dufferin and continue to the Caltrain station parking lot near the Millbrae border. Included in the project scope are demolition followed by the installation of 51 new trees, 300 shrubs, irrigation, and mulching material. Aristocrat Pears trees were selected in order to minimize conflict with overhead utility wires. The shrubs will be Escallonias and Photinias. Three existing small Oak trees will remain from the original landscaping. All other plants will be removed. The original projection was for the project to be installed in 2000. BART delays, construction of a stormwater inlet, and remaining contract equipment forced the project date further into the future. In April 2004, Council approved the construction documents, but the BART, JPB permitting process delayed construction until late August. The project includes a 40-day construction period and should be completed by early October. City staff is managing the project with inspections provided by the Landscape Architect. BUDGET IMPACT: BART has committed to reimbursement of up to $124,737.50 of the project costs. ATTACHMENTS: A. Map of the project area 0 1�°� Fy ursrcr 4-24TE , p po 4r I rk ......... AIAFCRr >£t Q4 sr e Al AmpoRr Fmrar1utr A STA Poe << rs a o°�r N'ticA y d �* r® 4 � � XTNET?L-NfAt1;MILLS HrArr .S7AEAr PARK REGMY HS B AGW �F7f PS �1� SFAW(W r I,q �Q LAL49y i l R9 ` ' { ' � 61 ItA FIW u , I /ap c', pir Lo ZO 41/ -9G �' / �; mac, '' FN' F9 A �"rN 13 �• e4 � �c c; usrvaVA is CUT �,`( ° 1 �F�, 4 ,�j Fl 3 ti 'i rT. ncr ' •. C Js�f -z4 �t0 08 cr ct4 21 HA 1 !; I looplip P a. "` � � ��,;�,:,•.' �/ _ ;y� _`g4, �` 1g0�� `�� .p �,` `�� c�, ^ ��O `r�� Grp �/YF,Q � -4�, ��8 •��, � 4MILLS rf� � GANYf1Nl 16 �d R PARKS DR p '�Y '- Ei ►suso amf ry ,�, PROJECT LOCATION ION AT CALIFORNIA ®RIVE V-1w C 1"' `1 T STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDAITEM# 9a MTG. 9/7/04 DATE To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL suB TE BY �/ — DATE: AUGUST 18,2004 FRoM: Parks& Recreation Director (558-7307) SUBJECT: TREE PRUNING& STUMP REMOVAL, 2004z-2005, CITY PROJECT NO. 81170 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution accepting TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC., as the low responsible bidder on this project. BACKGROUND: $135,000 has been appropriated for tree trimming/removal of Eucalyptus and other large trees, and stump removal/grinding on City property at various locations. On August 17, 2002, five bids were opened for this project. TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE'S bid was $29.98 per person hour; this represents a decrease over the previous year's rate of 30.97. Competing bids ranged up to $64.50. Timberline Tree Service was the contractor for 2003-04 fiscal year and completion of the contract was satisfactory. The pruning will be performed primarily on large Eucalyptus trees, and will require the use of high climbers as well as aerial lifts. Stump removal and emergency work will be performed at various locations on an as needed basis. All work will be evenly distributed over the life of the contract. The contractor will be required to perform a minimum of 120 and a maximum of 240 man-hours per month up to the maximum amount of$135,000. Crews will consist of 2 to 3 fully qualified tree workers, each with a minimum of 3 years experience. Each crew will have all the equipment necessary to perform the work, including a chipper and truck of sufficient size to accommodate at least one day's wood chips, and access to an aerial lift. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT:The funds for this project were placed in the 2004-05 budget. RESOLUTION NO. AWARDING CONTRACT - TREE PRUNING& STUMP REMOVAL, 2004-2005 CITY PROJECT #81170 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL, of the CITY OF BURLINGAME, that; WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized an invitation for bids for the TREE PRUNING& STUMP REMOVAL, 2004-2005 - CITY PROJECT #81170 and WHEREAS, on August 17, 2004, all bids received were opened before the City Arborist, Parks Supervisor and the Administrative Secretary of the Parks Division; and WHEREAS, TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, submitted the lowest bid for the job in the amount of$29.98 per man hour; NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the bid of TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE for said amount of$135,000.00 be and the same is hereby accepted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that a contract be entered into between the successful bidder hereinabove referred to and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said work, and that the City Manager be, and he hereby is authorized for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor and materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. MAYOR I, ANN T. MUS SO, 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 6th du of September 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK AGENDA BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT ITEM# 9b MT__j G. 9/07/04 g/p7/04 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: August 27, 2004 BY APPROVED FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY ov-'A��w SUBJECT: RESOLUTIONS APPROVING AN UPDATE OFAN EXISTISANITARY SEWER AGREEMENT AND A NEW MUTUAL-AID POTABLE WATER TRANSFE AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolutions for a sanitary sewer collection,treatment and discharge updated agreement and a mutual aid potable water transfer agreement,both with the Town of Hillsborough. SANITARY SEWER AGREEMENT Backaround:off: For decades Burlingame has been responsible for the collection,treatment and discharge of a portion of Hillsborough's sewage. In December 1975, Hillsborough and Burlingame entered into an agreement which identified the cost sharing,monitoring and testing for the sewerage.The agreement was revised in July 1985 to update the methodology for determining Hillsborough's share of the costs. Discussion: The attached agreement reflects changes in Hillsborough flow characteristics,provides clarification on the methodology for determining Hillsborough's sewage collection, treatment, discharge and capital improvement costs as well as identifies invoicing procedures. The agreement also requires Hillsborough to install flow monitors at the point of entry in the Burlingame sewer system and to calibrate them on an annual basis to verify sewage flow accuracy. MUTUAL-AID POTABLE WATER TRANSFER AGREEMENT Background: The water system periodically is shut down to perform necessary repairs and maintenance. In order to provide an un-interrupted water supply to Burlingame customers,water needs to be transferred from the Hillsborough system (and vice-versa if Hillsborough has a similar need). Currently water transfers are negotiated by the staff of both agencies on a case by case basis in the absence of a formal agreement. Discussion: There are four existing inter-connections between the Burlingame and Hillsborough water systems that allow transfers (see attached map). The agreement defines the method for requesting assistance and coordinating water transfers as well as for reimbursement of indirect and direct costs in planned and emergency situations. These agreements are scheduled for Hillsborough Town Council approval on September 13, 2004. EXJ41BITS: Resolutions and agreements with maps AAsst. a, P.E. tor of Public Works 30 c: City Clerk, City Attorney, Finance Director, Town of Hillsborough SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Hillsborough-water-sewer-agr.wpd RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AN UPDATED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME REGARDING THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame has been providing collection, treatment, and discharge of sanitary sewerage services to the Town of Hillsborough for a number of years; and WHEREAS, the agreement between the Town and the City is in need of revision to better address flow characteristics, methodology of calculations, and billing procedures; and WHEREAS, the updated agreement will continue the mutually beneficial partnership with the Town, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1 . The City Manager is authorized and directed execute the Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A by and on behalf of the City. 2. The Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the Manager. MAYOR I, ANN T. MUSSO, 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 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING A MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT FOR POTABLE WATER TRANSFER BETWEEN THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME REGARDING THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame and the Town of Hillsborough have a number of inter- connections that allowed transfer of potable water between the two agencies; and WHEREAS, in case of an emergency, disaster, or construction, it is important to establish the procedures that would be used to share water or other assets to ensure potable water service to our communities, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The City Manager is authorized and directed execute the Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A by and on behalf of the City. 2. The Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the Manager. MAYOR I, ANN T. MUSSO, 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 2004,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FOR SANITARY SEWAGE COLLECTION, TREATMENT,AND DISCHARGE This Agreement("Agreement") is made and entered into by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation, situated in the County of San Mateo, State of California("Burlingame") and the TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH, a municipal corporation, situated in the County of San Mateo, State of California("Hillsborough"). WHEREAS, both Burlingame and Hillsborough have been jointly using a portion of their sanitary sewer systems for several decades; and WHEREAS,the number of residents being served, and the number and size of structures and uses being served by the system have increased during that time, and the system has been augmented by laterals and by pumping, treatment and disposal facilities; and WHEREAS, both Hillsborough and Burlingame agreed to renegotiate their December 8, 1975,agreement regarding the sanitary sewer system in accordance with federal and state regulations for fair and equitable treatment among participating agencies in Clean Water Grant- funded projects; and WHEREAS, Burlingame is subject to requirements and conditions for wastewater discharge set forth by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board; NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein contained,it is agreed that: 1. Effect of Agreement. This Agreement shall supersede all previous joint sanitary sewerage system maintenance and operations agreements and amendments thereto that have been entered into between the parties. 2. Right to Discharge. Hillsborough shall continue to have the right to discharge its sewage into and through Burlingame's sanitary sewer transmission mains,pump stations, Wastewater Treatment Works, and outfall pipeline to final disposal, subject,however,to the terms,limitations, and conditions provided in this Agreement. 3. System Operation and Maintenance. Burlingame shall maintain and operate the sewerage system within its corporate limits as required by state and federal regulations, shall pump and treat sewage to reduce the sewage to an effluent meeting the requirements of the applicable authorities, and shall maintain and operate sewer outfall lines to the point of discharge. 4. Charges. Hillsborough shall pay Burlingame a pro rata charge for maintenance 1 and operations of the collection system and sewer treatment plant and for capital replacement based on the cost to operate and maintain sewerage systems. Costs shall be defined as total costs,including,but not necessarily limited to,any debt service. The pro rata charge shall be in accordance with the following formula: A. Collection System Maintenance Costs. Hillsborough shall pay fifty percent(50%) of the annual maintenance and operation costs allocated to the portion of the Burlingame sanitary Sewer System used to carry both Burlingame and Hillsborough sewage("Dual-Use Lines"). Dual-Use Lines are set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and by reference incorporated herein. The amount of Hillsborough's payment is calculated by dividing the total mileage of sewers within the Burlingame system into the mileage of Dual-Use Lines, multiplying this by 50 percent,and applying the resulting percentage to the annual maintenance and operations costs of the entire Burlingame sewer system. Per 2004 data,it is estimated that Dual-Use Lines constitute ten percent of the total Burlingame sewer system mileage. Multiplying this percentage by 50 percent equals five percent,which is Hillsborough's percentage share of the annual maintenance and operation costs of the entire Burlingame sewer system for July 1,2004,to June 30,2005. This percentage calculation shall be performed on an annual basis and Burlingame shall provide written notice of the calculation for the coming fiscal year no later than March 1 of each year during the term of this Agreement. The replacement or lining of any pipe not to exceed fifty(50)feet shall be considered maintenance and subject to this subparagraph 4(A),whereas such work to more than 50 feet of pipe shall be considered capital replacement and subject to subparagraph 4(C)of this Agreement. B. Treatment Plant Costs.The cost of maintenance and operation of the main pump station,the force main,the wastewater treatment plant,and the outfall pipelines shall be prorated based on the following elements:(1)average monthly flow;(2) average monthly suspended solids;and(3)average monthly biochemical oxygen demand("BOD"). The flow shall be measured by Hillsborough in accordance with paragraph 5 of this agreement. The suspended solids and BOD shall be measured by Burlingame in accordance with paragraph 6 of this Agreement. The quantities of these three elements so measured shall be computed as a percentage of the totals of each element processed by the treatment plant as reported to the Water Quality Control Board. 2 For purposes of this Agreement,the monthly average value for each of the three (3) elements shall be calculated using the monthly percentages of each element for the previous twelve (12) calendar months. The three derived percentages shall then be added together and then divided by three (3) to arrive at the"monthly average value." The applicable monthly average value shall then be multiplied by the costs incurred at the treatment plant to arrive at the Hillsborough portion of treatment plant costs. The precise computation of the allocation of these treatment plant costs shall be performed in accordance with the EPA Revenue Program, copies of which are maintained in the City Halls of Burlingame and Hillsborough and by this reference made a part of this Agreement. C. Capital Improvements and Replacement and Debt Service Costs. The proration of costs for treatment plant capital improvements and replacement, including any debt service or lease payments as part of any certificate of participation or similar instrument, shall be on the same percentage basis as treatment plant costs set forth in subparagraph(B)above unless both parties mutually agree to weigh the three factors of(1)flow, (2) suspended solids, and (3) influent BOD on other than an equal basis due to the type of capital improvement or replacement. If any specific treatment plant capital improvement project is not necessary for the joint processing of sewage from Burlingame and Hillsborough, then all costs shall be borne by the responsible party. For capital improvement and replacement to the collection system,Hillsborough shall pay Burlingame fifty percent (50%)of any capital improvement or replacement cost, including any debt service, of Dual-Use Lines. If Burlingame is required to increase the capacity of the collection system as a result of increased sewage (as opposed to inflow and infiltration from ground water),the capital cost of increasing the capacity shall be prorated between Hillsborough and Burlingame according to the percentage of the sewer increase generated by each party. 5. Flow Monitoring. In order to implement this Agreement, Hillsborough shall install at least two (2)permanent flow monitoring stations at locations mutually agreed upon by Hillsborough and Burlingame. These stations shall be designed and operated to measure approximately seventy percent(70%)of the Hillsborough sanitary sewage flow into Burlingame, as verified by house counts submitted by Hillsborough to Burlingame. At least monthly, Hillsborough shall provide Burlingame with copies of the weekly/monthly flow;ecords from Hillsborough, and Burlingame shall be allowed to audit or test these reports. Meters shall be tested and calibrated on no less than an annual basis by an independent agency. In the event of a faulty or incorrect meter reading for a given month, the previous year's same month flow data 3 shall be used for invoicing purposes. In order to calculate the monthly flow for purposes of subparagraph 4(B) above,the number of houses whose flow is being monitored by the monitoring stations shall be divided into the total number of houses in Hillsborough to obtain the "adjustment factor." The flow measurements obtained from the monitoring stations shall be added together and then multiplied by the adjustment factor to obtain the monthly flow for that month. 6. Sewage Testing. On a monthly basis,Burlingame shall test the suspended solids and effluent BOD from Hillsborough's sanitary sewage. The results of these tests shall be used as described in paragraph 4 above to calculate the quantities processed by the treatment plant for proration of costs. All test results shall be included in monthly invoices to Hillsborough. 7. Overhead and Supervision Costs. Overhead and supervision costs shall be added to all prorated costs in the following amounts: Collection system costs, fifteen percent(15%); Treatment plant costs,ten percent(10%); Plant capital improvement and replacement costs, five percent(5%). No overhead and supervision shall be charged on debt service costs. 8. Billing. Burlingame shall bill Hillsborough monthly for(1) collection system maintenance costs and(2)treatment plant costs; and in February of each year for(3) collection system capital replacement,plant capital improvement, and debt service costs. Monthly bills may be based on estimated budgeted costs, which shall be adjusted and reconciled to actual costs with each semiannual billing in February and July of each year. Each bill shall be payable by Hillsborough within forty-five (45) days of issuance of the invoice. If a bill is are not paid within forty-vie (45) days, Burlingame may add interest costs on a daily basis at a rate equal to the interest rate then being paid by the State Local Agency Investment Fund. 9. Inflow and Infiltration. Hillsborough and Burlingame shall make reasonable efforts to reduce inflow and infiltration from their collection systems. The ratio of Wet Weather Flow("WWF") (the sum of Dry Weather Flow of sewage plus Inflow and Infiltration)to Dry Weather Flow of sewage ("DWF"), analyzed on a yearly basis, shall be calculated for each party and if either or both ratios are of concern,the parties shall meet about the problem and its effect on treatment plant capacity and Regional Water Quality Control Board requirements. If necessary,either or both parties, as appropriate, shall cause an engineering study to be prepared on limiting inflow and infiltration in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control standards. 4 If after implementing the feasible measures resulting from such engineering studies, Water Quality standards are still not being met,Burlingame, at the direction of the Regional Water Quality Board, may set limits on Hillsborough flows, if necessary, in order to meet Water Quality standards. 10. Financial Records. Burlingame shall consult and provide information to Hillsborough on estimated operating and capital improvement costs prior to the beginning of each fiscal year,and quarterly upon a request from Hillsborough. All financial and other records shall be available for review during business hours. All financial records shall be audited annually and, if necessary, billings shall be adjusted to reflect audited revenues and expenses. Prior to committing to any capital improvement expenditures or replacement of Dual-Use Lines, Burlingame shall consult with Hillsborough and both parties shall attempt to agree on the cost allocations for such expenditures; provided,however, that if major capital improvements are required by Regional Water Quality Control Standards or directions, Burlingame may,if necessary,implement expenditures for such improvements without Hillsborough's consent. Burlingame and Hillsborough's Directors of Public Works shall meet and confer on a semi- annual basis to discuss budget status. 11. Dispute Resolution. A. The parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve through negotiation any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement. If the dispute is not resolved by these negotiations,the matter shall be submitted to a mutually agreed-upon mediator. If the parties are unable to agree on a mediator,the matter shall be referred to Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service (JAMS), or its successor, for mediation. The parties shall cooperate with JAMS and with one another in selecting a mediator from JAMS'panel of neutrals, and in scheduling mediation proceedings. The parties shall participate in the mediation in good faith, and shall share equally in the costs of mediation. All offers,promises, conduct and statements, whether oral or written, made in the course of the mediation by any of the parties,their agents, employees,experts and attorneys, and by the mediator and any mediator employees, are confidential,privileged and inadmissible for any purpose, including impeachment, in any litigation or other proceeding involving the parties, provided that evidence that is otherwise admissible or discoverable shall not be rendered inadmissible or non-discoverable as a result of its use in the mediation. B. All disputes that are not resolved by mediation shall be decided by binding arbitration conducted by JAMS in accordance with the Comprehensive Arbitration Rules then in effect. A single arbitrator shall be appointed. Unless otherwise agreed by both parties,the mediator shall be disqualifigd from serving as arbitrator in the case. The provisions of this paragraph may be enforced by the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Mateo. All discovery shall be conducted in accordance with the JAMS rules. The costs of the 5 arbitration shall be paid equally by the parties. 12. Insurance. Burlingame shall require the private party operators of the Burlingame wastewater treatment plant to name Hillsborough as an additional insured on the liability insurance policy of the operators and shall include Hillsborough within the persons to be defended, indemnified, and held harmless in Burlingame's agreement with the operators with respect to the operations of the treatment plant. 13. Force Majeure. In the event that the performance by either of the parties of its obligations under this Agreement is substantially interrupted by labor disputes,war, fire, insurrection,riots, act of God, or, without limiting the foregoing, any other cause beyond the control of the non-performing party,that party shall be relieved of its obligations hereunder as to all affected services and performances for the duration of such interruption. In the event of any material change in any of the laws and/or regulations pertaining to the handling, treatment, and/or standards of quality of wastewater or sewage rendering performance of the agreement impossible or impracticable,either party may request a renegotiation of the part or parts of the agreement affected by such change. If such request is not honored, the matter shall be resolved pursuant to paragraph 11 of this Agreement. 14. Effective Date. This Agreement shall become effective 2004, and shall remain in full force and effect, as it may be amended from time to time, until terminated by either party upon 180 days prior written notice. The provisions, prorations, and allocations of this Agreement shall be reviewed annually and may be renegotiated as needed and confirmed in writing signed by both parties. 15. Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and properly given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to: To Burlingame: Director of Public Works City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 To Hillsborough: Director of Public Works Town of Hillsborough 1600 Floribunda Avenue Hillsborough,CA 94010 16. Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 17. Amendment. No modification,waiver,mutual termination, or amendment of this 6 Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by both parties. 18. Not a Joint Powers Agreement. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to be nor shall it be construed to create a joint powers agreement pursuant to Government Code sections 6500 and following. 19. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement between the parties. 7 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,Hillsborough and Burlingame have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated on page one (1). CITY OF BURLINGAME TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH City Manager City Manager Attest Attest City Clerk City Clerk Approved as to form Approved as to form City Attorney City Attorney SAA Public Works Directory\SewaXbillsborough-sewer 9-16-Ol.agr.doc 8 MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT FOR TRANSFERS OF POTABLE WATER BETWEEN THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THIS MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT("Agreement") is made and entered into as of , 2004, by and between the Town of Hillsborough("Hillsborough") and the City of Burlingame ("Burlingame"). WHEREAS,the water systems of Hillsborough and Burlingame are currently interconnected at four(4) locations as shown in Exhibit A attached hereto; WHEREAS,the parties have determined that it would be in their best interests to enter into an agreement setting forth the procedures and responsibilities that will pertain whenever, either as part of a Planned Water Transfer or as part of an emergency water transfer,potable water is to be transferred from one party to the other or emergency personnel, equipment and facility assistance are to be provided by one party to the other,or both; WHEREAS,neither party should have to deplete unreasonably its own water supply or other resources when providing potable water or other resources, facilities, or services pursuant to this Agreement; and WHEREAS, this Agreement is consistent with the California Emergency Services Act (California Government Code §§ 8550 et seq.); NOW,THEREFORE, in consideration of the conditions and covenants contained herein,the parties agree as follows: 1. Definitions. For purposes of this Agreement,the following terms have the following meanings: A. "Coordinator" means the person designated by a party to act on behalf of that party on all matters relative to emergency or planned water transfers hereunder, including,but not limited to,requests,responses, and reimbursement. B. "Local Water Emergency" means the unexpected, actual or threatened, severe reduction or loss of potable water service to some or all water customers in Burlingame or Hillsborough. C. "Planned Water Transfer"means a non-emergency water transfer agreed upon by the parties' Coordinators and subject to reimbursement as described in paragraph 7 of this Agreement. 2. Designation of Coordinator. Each party's Director of Public Works (or his/her 1 designee) shall be that party's Coordinator. Whenever the identity of the Coordinator changes, the new Coordinator shall promptly so notify the other party in writing. 3. Requesting Assistance. A Coordinator may request assistance when the Requesting Coordinator("RC")determines that(i)there is a Local Water Emergency; (ii)the city council or authorized official of the Coordinator's municipality has proclaimed a Local Water Emergency; or(iii) a Planned Water Transfer is needed to permit the maintenance of water facilities or for similar reasons. 4. Coordinating Assistance. Upon receiving a request for assistance under this Agreement,the Assisting Coordinator("AC") shall promptly advise the RC of the extent and nature of the assistance that can be provided without jeopardizing the safety of persons or property within the AC's jurisdiction. The Coordinators shall then work together to develop the means and manner of delivering the assistance that can be provided. No party receiving a request for assistance shall be under any obligation to provide assistance or incur any liability for not complying with the request. 5. Concluding Assistance. When the water transfers,personnel, equipment, and facilities are no longer required by the RC's jurisdiction or when the AC advises that the resources involved are required within the AC's own jurisdiction,the RC shall immediately arrange for the end of the water transfers and for the return of any personnel, equipment, and other resources. 6. Safekeeping of Resources. The municipality receiving assistance shall be responsible for the reasonable safekeeping of the resources received from the municipality providing assistance. 7. Planned Water Transfer Reimbursement. For a Planned Water Transfer,the receiving party shall reimburse the assisting party for all indirect(including, but not necessarily limited to, overhead)and direct costs of salary, equipment, and any other costs for the personnel, equipment, and facilities provided. In addition,the receiving party shall reimburse the assisting party for the latter party's direct costs of the water provided. The receiving party shall pay the assisting party within ninety(90)days after receipt of a detailed invoice from the assisting party. If requested by either Coordinator,the two Coordinators shall meet to discuss resource allocations and associated costs. 8. Local Water Emergency Reimbursement. For a Local Water Emergency,the receiving party shall only be required to reimburse the assisting party for the assisting party's costs to the extent that the receiving party actually receives federal and state disaster or emergency reimbursement covering those costs. The receiving party shall make every reasonable effort to obtain such federal and state reimbursement and if successful, shall remit any reimbursement of the costs incurred by the assisting party to the same within ninety(90) days of receipt of reimbursement. The assisting party shall cooperate with the receiving party in providing any necessary documentation and technical assistance in seeking this reimbursement., 2 9. Hold Harmless. The receiving party shall hold harmless,indemnify,and defend the assisting party,its elected officials,officers,agents,and employees against all liability, claims,losses,demands or actions for injury to or death of a person or persons or damages to property arising out of or alleged to arise out of or in consequence of this Agreement,provided that such liability,claims,losses,demands,or actions are claimed to be due to the acts or omissions of the receiving party,its elected officials,officers,agents or employees,or employees of the assisting party working under the direction and control of the receiving party when the act or omission of such assisting party occurs or is alleged to occur under the direction and control of the receiving party. 10. Record-keeping. When mutual aid is provided under Paragraph 8 of this Agreement,the receiving and assisting parties shall keep financial accounting records of the personnel,equipment,and materials provided as required by Federal and State regulations and guidelines to maximize the possibility of Federal and State disaster reimbursement. Each party shall have access to the other party's relevant financial records for this purpose. 11. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall take effect immediately upon its execution and shall remain in effect until terminated. 12. Termination ofAgreement. Either party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause effective sixty(60)days after delivery of written notice thereof to the other party's Coordinator. 13. Regional Emergency or Disaster. If there is a disaster or emergency affecting more cities than the two parties to this Agreement,the parties shall channel their mutual aid assistance requests through the appropriate county or regional State Office of Emergency Services to ensure maximum effectiveness in allocating resources to the highest priority needs. 14. Mediation and Arbitration. A. The parties shall attempt in good faith to resolve through negotiation any dispute, claim or controversy arising out of or relating to this Agreement.If the dispute is not resolved by these negotiations,the matter shall be submitted to a mutually agreed-upon mediator. If the parties are unable to agree on a mediator,the matter shall be referred to Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Service(JAMS),or its successor,for mediation. The parties shall cooperate with JAMS and with one another in selecting a mediator from JAMS'panel of neutrals,and in scheduling mediation proceedings.The parties shall participate in the mediation in good faith and shall share equally in the costs of mediation.All offers,promises,conduct and statements,whether oral or written,made in the course of the mediation by any of the parties,their agents,employees,experts and attorneys,and by the mediator and any mediator employees,are confidential,privileged and inadmissible for any purpose,including impeachment,in any litigation or other 3 proceeding involving the parties, provided that evidence that is otherwise admissible or discoverable shall not be rendered inadmissible or non-discoverable as a result of its use in the mediation. B. All disputes that are not resolved by mediation shall be decided by binding arbitration conducted by JAMS in accordance with the Comprehensive Arbitration Rules then in effect. A single arbitrator shall be appointed. Unless otherwise agreed by both parties, the mediator shall be disqualified from serving as arbitrator in the case. The provisions of this paragraph may be enforced by the Superior Court of the State of California in and for the County of San Mateo. All discovery shall be conducted in accordance with the JAMS rules. The costs of the arbitration shall be paid equally by the parties. 15. Non-Waiver of Immunities. This Agreement shall not be deemed to abrogate or waive any immunity available under the Tort Claims Act. 16. Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 17. Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by both parties. 18. Not a Joint Powers Agreement. Nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to be nor shall it be construed to create a joint powers agreement pursuant to Government Code sections 6500 and following. 19. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement between the parties. 4 IN WITNESS WHEREOF,Hillsborough and Burlingame have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated on page one(1). CITY OF BURLINGAME TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH City Manager City Manager Attest Attest City Clerk City Clerk Approved as to form Approved as to form City Attorney City Attorney SAA Public Works Directory\Water\hillsborough-water mutualaid 8-16-04.agr.doc 5 -K Y X7111 IN C X SY) X-e ,< 11 oroUg u i arae Emergency Water Connections AGENDA BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT ITEM# 9C MTG. 9/07/04 DAT TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: August 27, 2004 BY APPR V D FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AWARDING STREET SCRUB SEAL AND MI OSURFACING PROGRAM 2004 - CP 81130 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council approve the attached resolution awarding the Street Seal and Resurfacing project to Western States Surfacing, Inc. in the amount of$190,323. DISCUSSION: Bids were opened on August 24, 2004; and two bids were received. The low bid was $190,323; and the second low bid was$192,910.The low bid was approximately 6%below the engineer's estimate of$201,800.The low bidder, Western States Surfacing, Inc.,has met all the requirements of the project and has successfully completed a similar project for the City last year. The project consists of installing a layer of microsurfacing on top of a chip seal.The microsurfacing is a new treatment that is slightly higher in cost than a slurry seal but provides additional benefits. The microsurfacing has a faster curing time so the street can be open to traffic within two hours as compared to five hours for slurry sealing. It also provides a stronger wearing course so it will extend the service life of a street by up to ten years.If this process is successful,staff will consider continuing the program in future years. Work will be completed by October on various streets as indicated on the attached map. Notices will be given beforehand to all affected residents. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Agreement, Bid Summary, Map BUDGET IMPACT: The following is a financial summary for the project: Expenditures: Construction $ 190,323 Contingencies $ 16,677 Consultant Testing & Inspection $ 5,000 Engineering Administration $ 5,000 Miscellaneous 33,000 Total $ 250,000 Funding source: CIP 81130 $ 250,000 Donald T. Chang, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer c: City Clerk, Finance, Western States Surfacing, Inc. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\81130award.wpd RESOLUTION NO. - AWARDING CONTRACT FOR STREET SCRUB SEAL AND MICROSURFACING PROGRAM 2004 TO WESTERN STATES SURFACING, INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 81130 WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized an invitation for bids for the - CITY PROJECT 81130 - CONTRACT FOR STREET SCRUB SEAL AND MICROSURFACING PROGRAM 2004 WHEREAS,on AUGUST 24,2004,all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS,WESTERN STATES SURFACING,INC.,submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the amount of$190,323.00. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of WESTERN STATES SURFACING,INC.,for said project in the amount of$190,323.00, and the same hereby is accepted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THERETO that a contract be entered into between the successful bidder hereinabove referred to and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said work,and that the City Manager be,and he hereby is authorized for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. Mayor 1, ANN T. MUSSO, 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 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk s:\apublieworksdir\projects\resolutionaward AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT STREET SCRUB SEAL AND MICROSURFACING PROGRAM 2004 CITY PROJECT NO. 81130 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on , SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City", and WESTERN STATES RESURFACING, INC., hereinafter called "Contractor," WITNESSETH : WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements herein provided for and to authorize execution of this Contract; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and City requirements, a notice was duly published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, on SEPTEMBER 7, 2004 , after notice duly given, the City Council of Burlingame awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to Contractor, which the Council found to be the lowest responsible bidder for these improvements; and WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this agreement for the construction of said improvements, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work. Contractor shall perform the work described in those Specifications entitled: STREET SCRUB SEAL AND MICROSURFACING PROGRAM 2004, CITY JOB NO. 81130. 10/9/99 AGREEMENT- 1 2. The Contract Documents. The complete contract consists of the following documents: this Agreement,Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, the prevailing wage rates of the State of California applicable to this project by State law, the accepted Bid Proposal, the complete plans, profiles, detailed drawings and Standard Specifications, Special Provisions and all bonds, and are hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the Contract Documents. All of the above described documents are intended to cooperate so that any work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. 3. Contract Price. The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full, payment of the work above agreed to be done, the sum of ONE HUNDRED NINETY THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED TWENTY THREE AND 00/100 dollars ($190,323.00). This price is determined by the unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. In the event authorized work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents. 4. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City. 5. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: Donald Chang, Sr. Civil Engineer CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 10/9/99 AGREEMENT - 2 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: WESTERN STATES RESURFACING, INC. P.O. BOX 4770 MODESTO, CA 95252 (209) 525-9065 6. Interpretation. As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural and vice versa. 7. Waiver or Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of three (3) pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAME, "CONTRACTOR" a Municipal Corporation B //SO- By C ty Manager Western States Resurfacing, Inc. Approved as to form: City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk 10/9/99 AGREEMENT - 3 BID SUMMARY SCRUB SEAL AND MICROSURFACING PROGRAM YR 2004 BURLINGAME CITY PROJECT NO.8113 DATE:AUGUST 24 2004 ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION EST, UNIT Engineer's Esl1mate Western States Surfacing,Inc. Graham Contractors,Inc. NO. QUANTITY Modesto San Jose UNIT PRICEALS UNIT PRICE TOTALS UNIT PRICE TOTALS A ITEM DESCRIPTION 1 SCRUB SEAL AND MICROSURFACING 66,000 SY $ 3.00 8,000.00 $2.78 $183 480.00 $2.75 $181 500.00 2 TYPE"A"8"AY" PAVEMENT MARKERS 370 EACH $ 4.00 1 480.00 $5.00 $1850.00 $12.50 $4 625.00 3 TYPE"D""G"8 BLUE PAVEMENT MARKERS 80 EACH $ 5.00 400.00 $7.00 $560.00 $20.00 $1,600.00 4 4"SOLID LINES--PAINT 100 LF $ 1.00 $ 100.00 $2.50 $250.00 $3.15 $315100 5 6"SOLID LINE-PAINT 100 LF $ 1.00 $ 125.00 $2.00 $200.00 $4.00 $400.00 6 8"SOLID LINE-PAINT 100 LF $ 1.00 $ 100.00 $3.00 $300.00 $4.75 $475.00 7 12"SOLID LINE-PAINT 200 LF $ 2.00 $ 300.00 $5.60 $1,120.00 $6.25 1250 8 PARKING TEES-PAINT 2 EACH -f-20 00 $ 40.00 $30.00 $80.00 $35.00 $70.00 9 LEGENDS BARROWS-PAINT 400 SF $ 3.00 $ 1200.00 $6.00 $2400.00 $6.25 $2,500.00 10 HANDICAP LEGENDS--PAINT 1 EACH S 55.00 $ 55.00 103.00 $103.00 $175.00 $175.00 BID TOTAL $ 201,800.00 $190,323.00 $192,910.00 S:\A Public Works Directory\Project80680\BIDSUMMARYseal.xls,Sheetl Page 1 of 3 4 /00 a CT(irt� -Y' �.�• � +DESA JV Ck � l,`,• moi•, �� CITY o� STAFF REPORT HIJRLINGAME AGENDA 9d ITEM# MTG. 9/7/04 �A.ZD.rwe S'9 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY 'L 4�* DATE: August 30,2004 APPRO FROM: Jim Nantell 558-7205 BY SUBJECT: Gaming and Revenue Act of 2004 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution opposing the Gaming and Revenue Act of 2004 (Proposition 68)as request by San Mateo City Council Member Sue Lempert. ATTACHMENTS: A. Resolution B. August 24h Letter from Sue Lempert C. City of San Mateo Staff Report re: Proposition 68 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME URGING OPPOSING THE ADOPTION OF THE GAMING REVENUE ACT OF 2004 (PROPOSITION 68) AT THE NOVEMBER 2, 2004, ELECTION RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Burlingame, California: WHEREAS, owners of horse racing tracks and card clubs in the State have drafted and qualified an initiative measure Proposition 68, known as the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004 ("GRA")to be submitted to California voters at the November 2, 2004, election without consultation with or input from local citizens or government officials; and WHEREAS, the GRA provides that unless every one of the many Native American gaming compacts in the State have been successfully renegotiated within 90 days of the passage of the GRA, the owners of horse racing tracks and card clubs sponsoring the GRA will be allowed to operate some 30,000 slot machines at their facilities without any local government input or oversight; and WHEREAS, this State intrusion would override local general plans and land use regulations without regard to a particular community's interests or needs and without any clear environmental or planning review at any level, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City Council of the City of Burlingame urges opposition to the adoption of Preposition 68, the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004, at the November 2, 2004 election. MAYOR I, ANN T. MUSSO, 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 , 2004,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK o� SANS OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL V _- _ _ ® 330 West 20th Avenue 't * San Mateo,California 94403-1388 ORrlQ, Telephone:(650)522-7048 Fax:(650)522-7041 TDD:(650)522-7047 August 24, 2004 www.cityofsanmateo.org RECEIVED Mayor and Council Members City of Burlingame AUG 2 6 2004 501 Primrose Road CITY CLERK,� OFFICE Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 CI TY OF BURL INCA IE Dear Council Members: On July 19, 2004, the San Mateo City Council adopted a resolution opposing the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004. Enclosed for your information is the material the Council reviewed for that item. The League of California Cities Board and the City County Association of Governments (C/CAG) have taken positions in opposition to Proposition 68. I am writing to request you add this to your Council agenda for consideration of a resolution opposing Proposition 68. Thank you in advance for consideration of this request. Sincerely, Sue Lempert t C/CAG Representative Enclosures DISTRIBUTION: tty council please respond ity Manager City Attorney ❑ No Response Required Dir.Finance City Planner Dir.Public Works ❑ Human Resources '7 Police Chief Fire Chief On Next Agenda Parks&Rec Librarian PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR RESPONSE TO THE CITY CLERK r oAGENDA ITEM# ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT IS � * MTG.DATE 7/19/04 ' '1LirCi&r'~ TO: MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVED BY: DATE: July 14, 2004 SUBMITTED BY: CArzo1-e-njwyM SUBJECT: Mayor Carole Groom City Council Opposition of Gaming Revenue Act(Proposition 68) RECOMMENDATION That the City Council adopt a resolution opposing the passage of the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004. BACKGROUND Staff has prepared the attached administrative report on the proposed Gaming Revenue Act of 2004 that will be placed on the November ballot. At that time the voters of California will decide whether up to 30,000 gaming devices (e.g., slot machines) can be placed at designated horseracing tracks and cardrooms in the State,including potentially up to 3,800 devices at Bay Meadows. If successful, the City of San Mateo would lose its ability to control the decision of whether gaming can occur at this location. San Mateo voters in 1995 overwhelming defeated a measure to provide additional gaming at Bay Meadows. Given the sentiments expressed by the community and Council for some time about this issue,I have asked City Attorney Shawn i Mason to draft a resolution for consideration of the Council to oppose its passage. O ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT AGENDA ITEM# U 0 °°�isoRt''f Z E July 19,2004 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED BY: Arne Croce,City Manager DATE: July 14,2004 1/11k�SUBMITTED BY: S y M.Lo eipuCity Manager (ext 7003) SUBJECT: City Position on Gaining Revenue Act of 2004(Proposition 68) That the City Council review the attached report and consider whether to take a position on the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004. BACKGROUND SununarY of the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004 The Gaming Revenue Act of 2004(GRA)is an initiative sponsored by various card rooms and. horseracing track owners in California. The GRA(Proposition 68)will be on the November ballot and will require majority approval of the voters to pass. Key Elements of Initiative ♦ Within 90 days of the effective date of the initiative, if passed, the Indian tribes must renegotiate new compacts with the Governor providing for 25%of their winnings from each gaming device to a gaming revenue trust fund and agree to comply with State laws, including laws governing environmental protection,gaming regulations,campaign contributions,and public disclosure. If all compacts are successfully renegotiated within this time period,these negotiated compacts allow the Indian tribes to have the exclusive right to operate gaming devices in the State. ♦ If agreement on these terms is not reached with all tribes within the 90 day period, five existing race tracks and eleven existing card rooms(gambling establishments)will have the right to operate not more than 30,000 gaming devices(slot machines). (See list,Attachment 1) ♦ Each authorized horseracing track would have 3,000 gaming devices. In no event may a horseracing track have more than 3,800 gaming devices. The initiative provides the ability for the F owners of horseracing tracks to transfer, sell, license, or assign their rights to one or more of the other authorized tracks. ♦ The remaining 15,000 gaming devices would be distributed to each of the gambling establishments (card clubs)based on the number of gaming tables they are allowed to operate as of September 1, 2003. ♦ The initiative creates a Gaming Revenue Trust Fund which is administered by a Board of Trustees } comprised of five members appointed by the Governor as follows- 2 shall be engaged in public school education, 1 shall be engaged in law enforcement, 1 shall be engaged in fire protection, 1 shall be a certified public accountant. ♦ Payments into the Trust Fund come from a percentage of the "Net win' from the gaming devices. The"Net win'is defined as the wagering revenue from gaming devices operated pursuant to the Act retained after prizes or winnings have been paid to players and prior to the payment of operating or other expenses. ♦ The gambling establishments and horseracing tracks shall pay the following percentage of Net win from each machine: 30%into the Ganging Revenue Trust Fund 2%to the City in which each authorized facility is located I%to the County in which each authorized facility is located ♦ Funds paid into the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund would be allocated as follows: Not more than 1%to the Division of Gambling Control and the California Gambling Control Commission for the cost of administering the Gaming Revenue Act ➢ Monies sufficient to guarantee that each non-gaming tribe shall receive $1.2 million annually from the Indian Gaming Revenue Sharing Trust Fund ➢ $3.0 million be awarded annually to responsible gambling programs After the above distribution,the remaining money would be allocated as follows: ➢ Fifty percent (50%) to County Offices of Education to provide services for abused and neglected children and children in foster care ➢ Thirty-five percent (35%) to local governments on a per capita basis for additional neighborhood sheriffs and police officers ➢ Fifteen percent (15%) to local governments on a per capita basis for additional firefighters It is intended that these monies would be additional funds for these operations and would not be used to supplant existing funds for education,law enforcement,or fire protection. ♦ The GRA also provides for amendments to the Business and Professions Code for additional amounts of the net win to be used for horse related activities and to support thoroughbred racing associations, racing fairs,quarter horse racing,and harness racing. See Attachment 3 for the complete Initiative. WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF THE GRA ON SAN MATEO? If successful,this initiative would allow Bay Meadows to either: 1)install up to 3,800 gaming devices (the 3,000 explicitly stated for horseracing tracks plus up to an additional 800 gaming devices which could be acquired from other sites)or 2)transfer,purchase,license,or sell their rights to the 3,000 gaming devices to one of the other authorized facilities. A myriad of development options exists to accomplish the former. Regardless of their decision,Bay Meadows is not required to keep the horserace track in operation. The GRA establishes the allocation of gaming devices based upon"the real property on which an authorized horseracing track was located as of September 1,2003".The GRA has been written to permit Bay Page 2 Meadows and other track owners to discontinue(or relocate)their racing meets without affecting their rights to continue to operate gaming devices. If the GRA were approved,the actual intentions of the Bay Meadow owners are open to conjecture. The owner's options could range from selling their devices and proceeding forward on their Bay Meadows 2 Plan,keeping the racetrack and installing the 3,000 gambling devices in their current facility, or proposing the development of an entertainment facility with accompanied hotels and retail establishments. Restrictions on City Review: Although approval of the GRA would preclude the City from prohibiting gaming devices at Bay Meadows,the Act would not authorize the development of the site for other uses. As the site is currently zoned for Agricultural,a very narrow range of uses are allowed and the City Council would have discretion in approving or denying any requested changes. If the GRA was approved and Bay Meadows decided to move forward with the installation of slot machines on their site,the city would not be able to require a use permit or deny its use for this purpose. The City could require approval of a Site Plan and Architectural Review(SPAR)for any new buildings or site improvements. This would insure the appropriateness of the site plan and building design. An amendment to the Bay Meadows Specific Plan would also be required to allow any new buildings or improvements on the site as well as any new uses(besides slot machines),such as a new hotel,retail,etc. In addition,depending upon the amount of development necessary to house the slot machines,the project could be subject to the provision of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). This would include an analysis of the traffic impacts generated by the addition of slot machines. The City would have the ability to require mitigation measures for any significant impacts identified If the project only included the addition of slot machines to existing facilities,CEQA analysis may not be conducted. Comparison of Bay Meadows Land Use The comparative impacts of the existing Bay Meadows improvements and the Proposed Bay Meadows 2 Plan are documented in the San Mateo Rail Corridor Plan and Bay Meadows Specific Plan Amendment. Without a defined project it is difficult to compare the current and proposed projects with what would be undertaken as a result of the GRA authority. The scale,scope,and associated impact of the project could vary significantly. Among the several options,the owners could potentially: ♦ Continue horseracing and add up to 3,800 slot machines using existing facilities.This could potentially include some building additions and the construction of more parking. ♦ Continue horseracing with the addition of up to 3,800 slot machines and the addition of a restaurant, and or hotel. This would entail a number of design considerations and a parking structure. Whether there is enough land for this scenario to work with continued horseracing would have to be determined. ♦ Terminate horseracing,add up to 3,800 slot machines,develop a hotel,restaurants,and most likely a parking structure. A variation of this scenario might include some housing and/or office development on a portion of the site. ♦ Terminate horseracing, sell interest to 3,000 slot machines and develop site as proposed with Bay Meadows Specific Plan Amendment. Clearly, depending upon which of the above options was pursued,the associated planning impacts would vary. Page 3 ESTIMATED REVENUE FROM GAMING REVENUE ACT ACTIVITIES As indicated above,the gaming establishments would be required to make payments based upon the net win to the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund and to the city and county in which the facility is located. The Gaming Revenue Trust Fund would subsequently be allocated to various gaming activities,funding for abused and neglected children and children in foster care,and allocated state wide on a per capita basis for firefighters and police officers/neighborhood sheriffs. The estimated revenue that would be generated state wide per the Legislative Office from a renegotiated agreement with the Indians or with the new gaming devices is estimated at over$1 billion. Ci1y of San Mateo Revenue Projections Numerous factors influence the amount of revenue that can be derived from these establishments,e.g., number of slot machines,amount of competition,other casino games offered,density of population,and novelty/quality of casino venue. There exists a great deal of variation in the average net win from slot machines throughout the country and no existing jurisdiction has a situation directly comparable to California. (See Attachment 4 for Table of range of per slot revenue for various casinos.) A comparison of revenue derived from other jurisdictions indicates the range could run from$50,000 to $250,000 annually per device. See table below for estimates for both the 3,000 and 3,800 scenarios in San Mateo assuming the 30,000 maximum gaming devices statewide. A key factor affecting the amount of revenue that could be generated is competition from Artichoke Joe's in San Bruno and Lucky Chances in Colina. The GRA allocates 800 slots to each of these clubs with the potential to purchase or license additional devices not to exceed 1900 per cardroom Bay Meadows Site Revenues for City of San Mateo for 30,000 slots statewide San Mateo's Statewide Average Slot Direct Revenues(3,000 slots) Direct Revenues(3,800 slots) Share(0.26%) Win/Year Host City(2%) Host County(1%) Host City(2%) Host Count (y 1%) Police Fire $50,000 $3M $1.5M $3.8M $1.9M $409,500 $175,500 $150,000 $9M $4.5M $11AM $5.7M $1,228,500 $526,500 $250,000 $15M $7.5M $19M $9.5M $2,047,500 $877,500 Based on the above projections for 3,000 slots,San Mateo would be entitled to the host city revenue and our per capita share statewide for police and firefighters. Our host share could range from$3 million(M) to$15M,Police per capita from$410,000 to$2M,and Fire per capita from$175,000 to$900,000. The median amount for 3,000 slots would generate$9M for the City, $1.2 for Police,and$.5M for Fire. The estimated costs of$1.27 M per year for police services outlined in Captain Callagy's memo would be absorbed from the estimated Police revenue. Note: the above numbers reflect estimated revenue associated with the slot machines. They do not include potential revenue from any ancillary development,e.g.,hotels,restaurants,retail uses,nor increases in property tax from renovation of the existing facility. Page 4 IMPACTS OF GAMING A summary of the research reviewed on the subject of gaming and the social,criminal,and economic impacts is provided in Attachment 5. While the direct revenue derived can eventually be assessed,the cost/benefit in terms of the quality of life of a community is less quantifiable. Often the broader question arises as to how to measure the social and economic impacts—on the local economy,the government,the community,the family,or to the individuals? Police Captain Mike Callagy has prepared a report summarizing gambling's impacts on crime on a community. (See Attachment 1.) Social and Economic Impacts In 1996 President Clinton authorized the National Gambling Impact Study Commission to conduct"a comprehensive legal and factual study of the social and economic impacts of gambling in the United States". Subsequently,the Commission hired the National Opinion Research Center(NORC)at the University of Chicago to complete an extensive study of problem and pathological gambling. In the final report that was published in 1999,N IORC estimated that about 2.5 million adults are pathological gamblers,another 3 million can be considered problem gamblers,and an additional 15 million are at risk for problem gambling. The report also stated the availability of a casino within 50 miles is associated with about double the prevalence of problem and pathological gamblers according to combined patron and telephone surveys completed. The report estimates that pathological and problem gamblers in the United States cost society about"$5 billion per year and an additional$40 billion in lifetime costs for productivity reductions,social services,and creditor losses. However,these calculations are inadequate to capture the interfamilial costs of divorce and family disruption associated with problem and pathological gambling." In 2001,additional research was completed by Earl L.Grinols and David B.Mustard entitled Business Profitability versus Social Profitability:Evaluating Industries with Externalities, The Case of Casinos assessed the social impacts of gaming. In addition to crime impacts,Grinols studied and reported on various social costs of gambling: • Business and Employment Costs:These costs cover lost productivity on the job,lost time,and unemployment. A study showed between 21 and 36 percent of problem gamblers in treatment have lost a job because of their gambling addiction(Lesieur, 1998). • Bankruptcy:According to a study conducted by SMR Research Corporation(1997,P. 118),20 percent of compulsive gamblers have filed for bankruptcy as a result of gambling losses. • Suicide:Lesieur(1992)concluded that problem and pathological gamblers have higher suicide rates than the general public. Phillips et al.(1997)found that Las Vegas deaths were 2.5 times more likely to be caused by suicide than in comparison to similar size cities. Studies also indicate that visitors to Atlantic City and Reno were respectively 1.75 and 1.5 times more likely to die by suicide than tourists to non-gambling areas. • Illness: Sickness associated with gambling can consist of depression,stress, severe headaches, anxiety,irritability,intestinal disorders,and cardiovascular disorders. These costs can be borne by the gambler or as resource costs when seeking treatment. • Social Service Costs: Unemployment,therapy/treatment,and other social service costs. • Governmental Direct Regulatory Cost: Costs associated with regulating the gaming industry Page 5 • Family costs:Families also are forced to suffer when gambling becomes a problem for a family member. Divorce,separation,spousal abuse,and child neglect are some of the consequences suffered by family members when gambling becomes an addiction. • Abused Dollars:This is the cost of all the money that is taken from family,friends,and employers under false pretense to help support a gambler's addiction. Using a cost/benefit analysis of the above social costs,these economists concluded,"the costs of casinos are at least 1.9 times greater than the benefits". Local Government Loss of Control and Other Lm-acts on San Mateo After reviewing this subject at length, regardless of one's personal perspective of the cost/benefit of gambling and its impact on the community, the loss of local control in decision making is the fundamental concern of the passage of GRA.. More and more frequently, local decision-making over local land use and planning issues has been taken away. The GRA is another significant example of this erosion. IF the GRA were successful,San Mateo would lose its local control to decide whether to perniit additional gambling in our City. In November 1995.the voters of San Mateo defeated by a 60%majority the authorization of a 50-table card room at Bay Meadows. The measure was defeated given the voters concerns about the impact of increased gaming on the quality of life of the community. Regardless of the revenue that would be derived,it was perceived the impacts did not justify the financial benefits. The passage of the GRA might also frustrate the City's ability to achieve the vision of the extensive multi-year planning process to establish transit-oriented development at this location. In addition,depending upon the amount of money that would eventually be generated from gambling at this location,the City could find itself in a situation where we would have an unhealthy reliance on this source of funds to provide City services. The City has long held that a well-balanced diversification of revenue promotes financial stability. Other cities have run into difficulties monitoring these establishments when recognizing that their financial livelihood(and many of the non-profits in the community)rely on the continued success of these businesses. Another concern from a practical perspective is that the bulk of the GRA will also become part of the State Constitution necessitating that any amendments would need to occur by a statewide vote on the ballot measure. Adding this detail in the constitution will likely lead to problems in the future. Proponents and Opponents: What are they sa ling_ Proponents argue that this initiative will require Indians to pay their"fair share"of the costs to California to operate a gambling monopoly in the State. The County Sheriffs of Los Angeles,San Mateo,and Sacramento endorse the initiative. Opponents argue that the requirement to reach an agreement with all 61 tribes within the 90-day window is intentionally unachievable,and that the real purpose of the GRA is to allow the 16 businesses to own and operate 30,000 new gaming devices in the State. Governor Schwarzenegger opposes both the GRA and a competing gambling proposition to require Indian gaming tribes to be assessed at the corporate business tax rate. Page 6 The Califomia Police Chiefs Association opposes the measure"because of the serious and well- documented threats to public safety associated with casino gambling"and do not believe the revenue derived justifies the cost to the community/public safety. In addition,many other statewide and local groups are opposed to the measure including public safety organizations,Indian tribes,district attorneys, crime victims'organizations,local public safety leaders,and the education community(see Attachment 6). In June both the League of California Cities'Revenue and Taxation Committee and Public Safety Committees voted to oppose the initiative. The League Board will review the initiative in late July. Attachments 1-Memo from Police Captain Mike Callagy on Crime Impacts 2-GRA Authorized Gambling Establishments 3-GRA Initiative 4-Summary of Casino Slot Machine Revenue 5-Summary of Economic and Social Impacts of Gaming 6-List of Opponents of GRA Q/o"gdsVgmung/ar Page 7 Attachment 1 INTEROFFICE COMMUMCATION San Mateo..Police-Departtaenrt Support Services Date: June 30, 2004 To: Deputy City Manager Susan Loftus From: Captain Mike Callagy Re: Crime and Gambling In preparation of my assessment of the crime impacts of gaming, I reviewed various studies and articles written on the subject of crime associated with gamblers and gaming, I spoke with numerous law enforcement officials across the state with direct experience with this issue, and contacted several national and state organizations familiar with gaming establishments. Crime can be caused by a multitude of factors, including population, density, age ranges, social/ecoriomic conditions, unemployment rates, and per capita income to name a few. With such a large variety of factors contributing to crime rates, it can be extremely difficult attributing one factor, such as gambling, to an increase in crime. REVIEW OF RESEARCH CRIMINAL IMPACTS There has been much debate as to whether crime in cities can be directly related to casinos as opposed to any other land use with a similar amount of people traffic. Crime costs include loss to victims, resources used to apprehend criminals, adjudication of cases, incarceration, and additional police resources used to prevent crime. Crime is very difficult to evaluate when it comes to casinos, because it would be improper to focus only on the city where the casino is located. Instead, the focus needs to include the city and its surrounding area due to the expanded web of crime that gambling can have on an entire county. The most comprehensive and independent analysis on casino crime was conducted by Earl Grinols, Professor of Economics, University of Illinois, a notable researcher on the gaming field. Grinols and his colleagues examined crime statistics for all 3,165 counties in the United States for twenty years starting in 1977. The group included some fifty controls and looked at seven FBI Part I crimes consisting of robbery, aggravated assault, rape, murder, larceny, burglary, and auto theft. The results revealed that, on average, 8-10 percent of the Part I crimes in a county were attributed to the presence of a casino in the county and that adjoining counties with a casino also experienced increased crime rates. This crime resulted in an annual cost of$63 per adult in the county for the apprehension, adjudication, incarceration and police resources associated with casino crime_ Keep,in mind that Grinols' research only takes into account Part I crimes, which do not June 30,2004 Crime and Gambling Page 2 include frauds,such as insurance fraud,spousal abuse,drug abuse,drunk driving,drunk in public, and child neglect. Insurance fraud alone by gamblers has been estimated in the billions,thus acting to increase the cost passed on to all per capita. Additionally,FBI crime statistics in 2002 for major casino gambling cities(Reno,Atlantic City,and Las Vegas)show a higher rate of crime in almost every category of homicide,rape, aggravated assault, and robberies in comparison to the national average. FBI CRIME STATISTICS FOR 2002 OF THE MAJOR CASINO GAMBLING CITIES: Reno Atlantic City Las Vegas National Average Homicide 4.58 per 100,000 13 per 100,000 36 per 100,000 5.6 per 100,000 Rapes 64 per 100,000 51 per 100,000 107 per 100,000 33 per 100,000 Aggravated Assaults 458 per 100,000 856 per 100,000 927 per 100,000 310 per 100,000 Robberies 229 per 100,000 684 per 100,000 821 per 100,000 146 per 100,000 It should be noted that the above numbers do not take into account the fact that the above areas are major tourist attractions that generate huge crowds that are not captured in the population statistics. By way of comparison,San Mateo's statistics for the same time period were: Homicide 0 Rapes 18 per 100,000 Aggravated 237 per 100,000 Assaults Robbery 102 per 100,000 PATHOLOGICAL GAMBLERS Research seems to indicate that compulsive gambling can be an important criminogenic factor. In an article written by Earl Grinols for the Institute of Government and Public Affairs entitled Casino Gambling Causes Crime,volume 13, November 2, 2000, through careful analysis,Grinols shows through data that casino gambling can increase crime. June 30,2004 Crime and Gambling Page 3 Grinols relies on research regarding pathological gamblers and statistical analysis of crimes to show that there is direct evidence that casino gambling causes a significant increase in criminal activity. Pathological gamblers,otherwise known as"compulsive gamblers,"are individuals who cannot resist the urge to gamble,who lose control over gambling,and who can eventually lose control over their lives,employment,and finances. In many cases,these individuals tum to crime to support their habit. Problem gamblers have similar issues,but to a lesser degree. It is widely believed that compulsive gamblers represent one to two percent of the population and that problem gamblers represent two to three percent of the population where casino gambling is located. In 1999,a gambling impact and behavior study was conducted for The National Gambling Impact Study Commission. The study,in put,revealed the following: • Based on criteria developed from the American psychiatric Association,it is estimated that approximately 2.5 million adults are pathological gamblers,and another 3 million adults are problem gamblers. • Extending the criteria more broadly,15 million adults are at risk of becoming problem gamblers. • The availability of a casino within 50 miles(versus 50 to 250 miles)is associated with about double the prevalence ofproblem and pathological gamblers. • Pathological and problem gamblers are more likely than other gamblers or non-gamblers to have been on welfare,declared bankruptcy,and to have been arrested or incarcerated. • Pathological and problem gamblers in the United States cost society approximately$5 billion per year and an additional$40 billion in lifetime costs for productivity reductions, social services,and creditor losses. These figures do not take into consideration the costs of divorce and family disruption associated with problem and pathological gambling. According to Grinols,numerous studies show a strong tendency for pathological gamblers to commit crines to support gambling habits. Grinols cited a study of gamblers in treatment that indicated that 62 percent had committed crimes due to gambling habits. Additionally,according to the 1990 Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene,80 percent of gamblers in treatment committed civil offenses and 23 percent had been arrested. Grinols indicates that in a similar study of 400 members of Gamblers Anonymous,57 percent admitted stealing to support their gambling habit. On average the subjects in this survey group stole$135,000 or some$30 million dollars prior to entering treatment in order to support their gambling habit. Research also indicates that pathological gamblers are three times more likely to be incarcerated in their lifetime in comparison to those who do not gamble. June 30, 2004 Crime and Gambling Page 4 ADDITIONAL RESEARCHA NQUIRIES: The security logs of the San Jose Bay 101 Casino (card room) show that between 1997 and 2003, there were 85 reported incidents of child neglect at the casino. During the same time period at the Garden City Casino in San Jose, there were another 49 cases of child neglect. It is staggering to consider that two locations could produce 134 incidents of child neglect in six years. By way of comparison, during that same time period, the entire city of San Mateo experienced 66 incidents of suspected child neglect. San Jose's numbers reflect an indication of one of the negative consequences of gambling. Other notable crimes at the two casinos during that six-year period are as follows: Assault and Battery: 285 Disturbances: 238 Theft: 184 In total, the combined security logs for the two establishments indicate 1,604 crimes were committed at the two locations between July 1997 and June 2003 (source: San Jose Acting Police Chief Thomas Wheatley's December 2003 Administrative Report to Council). In 2003, police responded to 126 calls for service at the Lucky Chance Casino in Cohna, while San Bruno Police responded to 160 calls for service during the same time period at Artichoke Joe's Casino. These calls for service included thefts, drunk driving, drunk in public, disturbances, frauds, assaults, evictions, and drug arrests. Another police agency, with jurisdiction over several casinos on reservations, reported almost 3,100 calls for service between 2001 and 2003 at all of their casinos, resulting in criminal investigations that included murder, rape, robbery, burglary, theft, aggravated assault, vehicle theft, fraud, and forgeries to name a few. A confidential source at a law enforcement agency, which handles calls at several Indian casinos, indicated a high level of fiustration with the casino operations. The source advised that games were very difficult to regulate, organized crime had infiltrated the casinos, loan-sharking was rampant, and mail theft throughout the county was skyrocketing. The source indicated that checks were regularly stolen from mailboxes throughout the county and cashed at the casinos. The same source advised that Hispanic and Asian gangs had claimed certain casinos resulting in gang fights and ongoing illegal activity at the sites. The source indicated that gambling had a wide-reaching criminal impact on the entire county. Follow-home robberies are a reality of casino operations. Where there are large sums of money collected, there will be criminals who will want to take it illegally. All large agencies that have casinos in their jurisdiction indicated that follow-home robberies are in fact a reality, but very hard to track or document, since they are not often recorded in a way that tie those crimes back to casino operations. In fact, the Emeryville Police Department reports three follow-home June 30,2004 Crime and Gambling Page 5 robberies in the last month,took place after patrons left the Oaks Club in Emeryville. This crime is an underreported by-product of casino operations. In the 2003 survey documented in the California State Sheriff's Association article entitled, Tribal Issues Committee Impact of Indian Gaming,sheriffs with jurisdiction of Indian gaming made some of the following comments: "Indian gaming has resulted in notable increased calls for service and has impacted sheriff's departments' resources in providing for public safety throughout their counties." "We have seen a substantial increase in property crimes, such as petty theft, and have experienced some high profile embezzlement cases,which may have some relation to gambling." One sheriff s department commented on the impacts of gaming as follows, "The negative impact ...has been significant. Calls for service have increased four times with gaming." "Casinos negatively impact law enforcement services due to increased calls for service, increased personal call outs and increased crime at casino facilities,without commensurate increases in law enforcement staffing or resources. The increased demand for law enforcement services to the casinos,therefore, often degrades service availability to surrounding areas." According to Iowa's 1995 study, machine gambling is the most addictive form of gambling and "the greatest contributor to increases in the prevalence of problem gambling." A study by J.W Welte in 2002, entitled, ",alcohol and Gambling Pathology Among U.SAdults, found that slot machine venues may have more adverse impact than casinos, since people in lower income brackets favor slots over casino table games preferred by those with higher incomes. In May 1996,the trade magazine International Gaming and Wagering Business stated that the irresistible attraction to players has made slot machines the king of the casinos and the biggest profit center in the U.S. Nationally, electronic gaming devices account for 80 percent of casino floor space and represent 65 percent of casino profits. According to an October 1995 report by the Maryland Attorney General entitled, The House Never Loses and Maryland Cannot Win, Gambling has been cited as the fastest-growing addiction in teenagers. The city of San Mateo is within the 50-mile radius of five gaming establishments,including four card rooms and another racetrack in Albany. The cardrooms include two in San Jose,one in San Bruno, and one in Colma. According to research,we are,therefore to some degree, already experiencing the criminal and social impacts of casino gambling. To what extent this has already impacted police services are very difficult to determine,because the data is not tracked in a way that can be tied directly to casino gambling. June 30,2004 Crime and Gambling Page 6 IMPACT ON POLICE RESOURCES: A large gaming establishment will have an impact on police services as resources are spread across the community to handle the by-products of gambling. The other two areas of impact are traffic and Investigative services. Though Bay Meadows has ample parking to accommodate a large number of cars,added traffic could be significant. Major events at either the Fairgrounds or at Bay Meadows could impact this issue,and further studies would be needed to fully understand the impact on police resources. Additionally,many of the crimes that maybe associated with casinos,namely robberies,burglaries, frauds,child neglect,and embezzlement,require investigation by detectives-due to the need for specialized training,depth and time of investigation,and court expertise. These types of investigations can be very time-consuming and costly. Estimated Cost of Police Resources Like any land use,casinos will require a percentage of police resources,but casinos can also be unique in the sense that response to crime is only one aspect of the ongoing cost. The staffing requirements would depend on the location,competence of facility security,level of interaction between the police and security,and whether other services,such as hotel accommodations, entertainment/lounge acts,and alcohol services,were provided. Along with incident responses and follow-up investigations,one of the time-intensive areas lies in background checks for new employees. There can be a high rate of turnover by casino staff ranging from 10 percent to 60 percent. Police backgrounds would be necessary on those employees,and additional police resources would be necessary for the permitting process. With the many variables associated with casinos,problems in one city may not be so prevalent in other cities,so,in essence,there is no model formula to predict how many additional resources will be necessary to properly police a casino or the level of crime an additional-casino would bring to the city. Resources may be needed for background checks,incident responses, investigations,and clerical/administrative support. In the cities that I have interviewed,the resources allotted to casinos range from one to four individuals. Clearly the San Mateo Police Department at present staffing levels would not be able to adequately handle the calls for service or associated duties necessary to properly monitor a major casino. Until the specific scope of the project is defined,for planning purposes the Police Department assumes ten additional police resources will be needed(see table below). This includes a representative to work with casino owners to establish and monitor an on-site security program, including establishing policies and security procedures,and training needed for police and security personnel. Additional resources will also be needed for conducting background investigations of employees,owners,and investors. Because of increased calls for service,one additional officer would likely be needed for each shift If the club operates 24 hours per day, five officers would be required to cover all shifts.One of two officers may also be required in Investigative Services to handle follow-up investigations generated by this establishment. June 30, 2004 Crime and Gambling Page 7 Resources for fingerprinting and background checks for new employees, depending upon turnover could also prove significant. A summary of these costs are: FoTice`Depatment.�Costs J Police Liaison 1 Police Lieutenant $ 178,236 Patrol 15 Officers $ 667,223 Investigations 2 Detectives $ 269,408 Permits 1 Community Police Officer $ 84,371 Clerical 1 Secretary $ 74,466 RWL Although a lieutenant Haight initially handle the police liaison position, depending upon the volume of activity, potentially this position could later be converted to a sergeant in charge of a special unit or be eliminated if not needed. CONCLUSION In researching this project, I did not find many scientific or independent studies on this subject matter, with exception of the work completed by Grinols entitled, Casino Gambling Causes Crime. The other problem I encountered during my research was the lack of comparative data to conduct a thorough analysis on the impacts of crime by looking at a similar agency, with similar demographics, that has experienced the presence of thousands of slot machines at an existing racetrack. The above evidence does suggest that casinos can create a target-rich environment for crime opportunists and predators who target people and establishments with concentrated sums of money, and that there are social implications that may impact communities and surrounding cities with casinos. Attachment 2 AUTHORIZED RACETRACK AND CARD CLUB VENUES PER GAMING REVENUE ACT OF 2004 Soathern California Venue city County Devices Commerce Casino Commerce Los Angeles 1,700 Bicycle Club Casino Bell Gardens Los Angeles 1,700 Hollywood Park Casino* Inglewood Los Angeles 1,700 Hawaiian Gardens Casino Hawaiian Gardens Los Angeles 1,700 Normandie Casino Gardena Los Angeles 1,000 Hustler Casino Gardena Los Angeles 1,000 Crystal Park Casino Compton Los Angeles 1,000 Oceans Eleven Casino Oceanside San Diego 800 Hollywood Park Racetrack* Inglewood Los Angeles 3,000 Los Alamitos Racetrack Cypress Orange 3,000 Santa Anita Racetrack Arcadia Los Angeles 3,000 21,000 Northern California Venue City Coun Devices Artichoke Joe's Casino San Bruno San Mateo 800 Lucky Chances Casino Colma San Mateo 800 California Grand Casino Pacheco Contra Costa 800 Golden Gate Fields Albany Alameda 3,000 Bay Meadows Racetrack San Mateo San Mateo 3.000 8,400 * The Hollywood Park Casino and Hollywood Park Racetrack are contiguous properties and would be authorized to operate a combined total of 4,700 on the site. There are rumors that the racetrack may be relocated to Great Park(the old El Toro Marine Air Base)in Orange County,in which case the Hollywood Park Casino could operate a maximum of 3,800 devices. iA03542-0Mv=uadm Attachment 3 THE GAMING REVENUE ACT OF 2004 SECTION 1. Title. This Act shall-be known as-and may be cited'as "The Gaming Revenue Act of 2004." This Act may also be cited as "The Gaming Revenue Act" or the "Act." SECTION 2: Findings and Purpose. The People of the, State of California hereby make the following findings and declare that their purpose in enacting this Act is as follows: (a) California now faces an unprecedented budget deficit of billions of dollars that particularly threatens funding for education,. police _protection, and fire safety. As a result of California's budget crisis, the State needs to find new ways to generate revenues without raising taxes. In March 2000, Proposition l A was'enacted;.which triggered an unprecedented expansion of Indian casino gaming, gave Indian tribes a-monopolyon�casino gaming, and has led to billions . of dollars in profits for Indian tribes, but little or no taxes to the State. Moreover, local governments and communities have not .been adequately -protected, the State does not have sufficient regulation and oversight of tribal casino gaming, and tribal casinos have not complied with state laws applicable to other businesses and designed to protect California citizens, such as laws regarding the environment and political contributions. Gaming tribes also have failed to fully fund a trust fund to promote the welfare of Indian tribes that do not operate large casinos. Some Indian tribes have attempted to..acquire land.far away from their reservations or traditional lands to be used as casinos and not for use as traditional reservations. Tribes have expended over $120 million dollars in political contributions but have refused to comply with disclosure requirements. (b) California should request that all Indian gaming tribes voluntarily share some of their gaming profits with the State that can be used to support public education, and local police and fire services, and address other problems associated with tribal casino gaming, and in the .event all. Indian gaming tribes do not do so, California should grant gaming rights to other persons who. will share substantial revenue with the State that can be used to support public education, and local police and fire'services. (c) The Governor should be authorized to negotiate amendments to all existing compacts with Indian tribes to allow these Indian tribes to- continue to have the exclusive right to operate gaming devices in the State of California if the Indian tribes agree to pay twenty-five percent (25%) of their winnings from such devices to a gaming revenue trust fiord and agree to comply with State laws, including laws governing environmental protection, gaming regulation and campaign contributions and their public disclosure. (d) In the event all Indian tribes with existing compacts do not agree to these terms, five existing horseracing tracks and eleven existing gambling establishments, where forms of legal gambling and wagering already occur; should have the right to operate a limited number of gaming devices, provided they pay thirty-three, percent (33%) of their winnings from the operation of.such gaming devices to cities, counties, and a gaming revenue trust fund to be used for education, and police and fire services, and provided they comply with strict legal requirements on the operation and location of such gaming devices. 1 (e) In addition to paying substantial taxes,the owners of gambling establishments and horseracing tracks authorized to operate gaming devices would have to be licensed by the State Gambling Control Commission under the Gambling Control Act,which requires that they be persons of good character,honesty and integrity,and-persons.whose-prior activities,reputation and associations entitle them to receive a license fiom:th'e State_. . . (f) Permitting five existing horseracing tracks and eleven licensed.gambling establishments to operate gaming devices and requiring them to pay thirty-three percent(33%)of their winnings from these gaming devices will generate revenues estimated to exceed$1 billion annually. These funds will help alleviate California's dire fiscal crisis, which particularly threatens funding for education, police protection.and'fire safety, and will help mitigate the impact on cities and counties where gaming occurs. (g) The Gaming Revenue Act will establish the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund,the sole purpose of which will be to ensure that the revenues raised by this Act are distributed in accordance with the Act. The Act will also.establish a Board of Trustees consisting of individuals who are engaged in public school education,law enforcement,and fire protection. (h) The Gaming Revenue Act will provide funding for the existing Division of Gambling Control and the existing California Gambling Control Commission for the purpose of regulating gaming authorized by this Act. (i) The Gaming Revenue Act will increase the monies distributed to non-gaming Indian Tribes by guaranteeing that each such tribe will receive at least$1.2 million annually,and will award$3 million annually to responsible gambling programs. 0) The Gaming Revenue Act Trust Fund will distribute fifty percent(50%)of the net revenues directly to county boards of education to be used to improve educational services for abused and neglected children and children in foster care. (k) The Gaming Revenue Act Trust Fund will distribute thirty-five percent(351/6)of the net revenues directly to local governments for additional neighborhood sheriffs and police officers. (1) The Gaming Revenue Act Trust Fund will distribute fifteen percent(15°/o)of the net revenues directly to local governments for additional firefighters. (m) The revenues generated for county offices of education for improving the educational outcomes of abused and neglected children and children in foster care and local governments for police protection and fire safety by this Act are not to be used as substitute funds but.rather shall supplement the total amount of money allocated for county offices of education and local governments. (n) Indian tribes have attempted to acquire land at locations off of their reservations or distant from their traditional Lillian lands to be used solely as casinos and not for use as traditional reservations. Gaming on these newly acquired lands would be detrimental to the surrounding communities. Therefore,the Gaming Revenue Act prohibits the location of gaming establishments by Indian tribes on newly or recently acquired lands. (o) In order to reasonably restrict the growth of non-Indian gaming, non-Indian gaming authorized by this Act will be limited to the sites of five existing horseracing tracks located in the counties of Alameda,Los Angeles,Orange and San Mateo,and the sites of eleven existing gambling establishments located in the Counties of Los Angeles, San Diego,Contra Costa,and San Mateo. To insure that there are no new gambling establishments other than those in existence as of the enactment of the Act,the current limitation on the issuance of new 2 gambling. licenses, which expires in 2007, will be made permanent The purpose of such restrictions is to exercise control over the proliferation of gambling. (p) . The expansion of Indian gaming has led to conflicts between tribes and local governments. In some cases,tribes have failed to take sufficient steps to address local concerns and impacts. Therefore, this Act will authorize the Governor to negotiate amendments to all existing compacts pursuant to which all tribes agree to enter into good faith negotiations with county and city governments to address and mitigate community impacts. (c) To clarify legal jurisdiction over Indian casinos, state courts should have jurisdiction over any criminal or civil proceeding arising under this Act, under a compact or related to a tribal casino. Therefore, this Act will authorize the Governor to negotiate amendments to all existing compacts pursuant to which all tribes agree that state courts will have jurisdiction over such disputes. •(r) Indian tribes have used their gambling profits to spend well over $120 million on campaign contributions and political activities in California. But some Indian tribes maintain that they are sovereign nations and do not have to comply with California's laws and regulations relating to political contributions and reporting. Because these tribal political expenditures result substantially from, and.often concern, gaming activities in California,this Act will authorize the Governor to negotiate amendments to all existing compacts pursuant to which all tribes agree to comply with the California Political Reform Act (s). while some terms of this Act concern conditions tribal casinos must meet if Indian'tribes are to retain a monopoly over slot machines,it is the express intent of the voters to raise revenues immediately through this initiative to help solve California's current fiscal crisis, regardless of whether those revenues come from tribal or non-tribal gaming, regardless of court decisions regarding Indian gaming, regardless of changes in federal law, or regardless of any challenges or efforts by the Indian tribes or others to delay or circumvent this Act. Therefore, if all Indian tribes with existing compacts do not agree to share with the State twenty-five percent (25%) of their winnings from gaming devices and do not agree to the other conditions on tribal gaming set forth in this Act within the time limits provided in this Act, it is the express intent of the voters to immediately allow licensed gambling establishments and authorized horseracing tracks to operate a limited number of gaming devices, provided they pay thirty-three percent (33%) of their winnings from the operation of such gaming devices to cities, counties, and the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund. SECTION 3. Section 19 of Article IV of the California Constitution is amended to read: SEC. 19 (a) The Legislature has no power to authorize lotteries and shall prohibit the sale of lottery tickets in the State. (b) The Legislature may provide for the regulation of horse races and horse race meetings and wagering on the results. (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), the Legislature by statute may authorize cities and counties to provide for bingo games,but only for charitable purposes. (d) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), there is authorized the establishment of a California State Lottery. 3 (e) The Legislature has no power to authorize, and shall prohibit casinos of thetype currently operating in Nevada and New Jersey, _ (f) Notwithstanding subdivisions(a)and(e),and any other provision of state law,the Governor is authorized to negotiate and conclude compacts, subject to ratification by the Legislature, for the operation of Am meehines gaming devices and for the conduct of lottery games and banking and percentage card sgames by federally recognized Indian tribes on Indian lands in California.in accordance with federal law. 'Accordingly,slet-n"Aines gaming devices, Ac ttery games, and banking and percentage card games are hereby permitted to be conducted and operated on tribal lands subject to those compacts. ' . (€)(g) Notwithstanding subdivision(a),the Legislature may authorize private,nonprofit, eligible organizations, as defined by the Legislature,to conduct raffles as a finding mechanism to provide support for their own or another private, nonprofit, eligible organization's beneficial and charitable works,provided that(1) at least 90 percent of the gross receipts from the raffle go directly to beneficial or charitable purposes in California,'and (2) any person who receives compensation in connection with the operation of a raffle is an employee of the private nonprofit organization that is conducting the raffle. The Legislature,two-thirds of the membership of each house concurring,may amend the percentage of gross receipts required by this subdivision to be dedicated to beneficial or charitable purposes by means of a statute that is signed by the Governor. (h) Notwithstanding subdivisions(e)and(f) and any other provision of state law_the Governor is authorized to negotiate and conclude amendments to all existing compacts with all Indian tribes in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision (h). An "existing compact" means a gaming compact entered into between the State and an Indian tribe prior to the effective date of the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004 All compacts amended pursuant to this subdivision (h) shall include the following terms conditions and requirements: (1) The Indian 'tribe shall agree to pay twenty-five percent (25%) of its net win from all gaming devices operated by it or on its behalf to the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund Such payments shall be made monthly and shall be due within 30 days of the end of each month. "Net win" means the wagering_revenue from all gaming devices operated by the Indian tribe or on its behalf retained after prizes or winnings have been paid to players or to dedicated to the payment of such prizes and winnings, and prior to the payment of operating or other expenses Such payments shall commence immediately after federal approval of the amended compact. (2) The Indian tribe shall agree to report to the Division of Gambling Control the net win on all gaming devices operated by or on behalf of it. Such reports shall be submitted monthly shall be due within 30 days of the end of each'month,and shall be available to the public upon request. (3)' The Indian tribe shall egret to pay for an annual audit nerformed by an independent Sum of certified public accountants approved by the California Gambling Control Commission to ensure that the net win is properly reported and the payment is properly paid to the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund.The audit report shall be available to the public upon request. 4 (4) The Indian tribe shall agree to comply with the Califomia Political Reform Act. (5) The Indian tribe shall agree that its casino facilities shall comply with the Califomia Environmental Ouality Act. (6) The Indian tribe shall agree to eater into good faith negotiations with any city or county within which the Indian lands are located where Class III gaming-is conducted to mitigate local gamine related impacts within a reasonable time following the State's execution of the compact. The state courts shall have exclusive Jurisdiction to resolve any dispute regarding the failure to reach an agreement or the enforcement of the agreement. (7) The Indian tribe shall agree to comply with all provisions of the Gambling Control Act and shall agree to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Califomia Gambling Control Commission and Division of Gambling Control. (8) The Indian tribe shall agree that state courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction over any criminal or civil proceeding arising from or related to the Gaming Revenue Act, arising from or related to the compact, or arising from or related to any act or incident occurring on the premises pf a tribal casino. Thee-vowers of the State and the applicability of state law to Indian tribes and Indian casinos pursuant to this subdivision(h)are to be construed consistently with the fullest extent of State's rights and powers under federal law to reach agreements with Indian tribes with tribal consent. No tribe with an existing compact is required by this subdivision (h) to agree to amend its existing compact - Nothing in this Act waives or restricts the civil or criminal iurisdiction of the State under Public Law 280 (18 U.S.C. Sec 1162) and the State may not waive such Jurisdiction m any compacts. (i) Notwithstanding subdivisions(a) and(e) and any other provision of state or local law, in the event amendments to all existing compacts with all Indian tribes as provided in subdivision (h) are not entered into and submitted to the Secretary of Interior within 90 days of the effective date of the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004 owners of authorized gambling ' establishments and owners of authorized horseracing tracks shall immediately thereafter be, . authorized to operate not more than a combined total of 30,000 gaming devices. In the event tribal monopolies are adiudicated to be illegal in the event the amended compacts are not. approved or considered approved pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act or in the event subdivision(hl is invalidated or delayed more than 90 days after this Act would otherwise take effect by the State the federal government, or any coact owners of authorized gambling establishments and owners of authorized horseracing tracks shall immcdiately thereafter be authorized to overate the gaming devices authorized by this section. For purposes of this Act "authorized gambling establishment" shall mean a site in the counties of Los Angeles, San Diego Contra Cosia or San Mateo at which 14 or more gaming tables were authorized to be operated as of September 1 2003 pursuant to the Gambling Control 'Act, except such sites that were actually taken into trust for an'Indian tribe or Indians after September 1, 2003. For P=oses of this Act"authorized horsemcing_track"shall mean a site in the counties of Alameda. Los Angeles Orange or San Mateo at which horseracing was conducted by a thorougbbred 5 racing association or quarter horse racing association that was licensed pursuant to the Horse Racing Law to conduct more thus 50 days or nights of racing in'2002. For purposes of this Act, "site" shall meanthe real property on which an authorized horseracing track or an authorized Rambling establishment was located as of September 1 2003 and shall include real property adiacent to the site. The operation of these gaming devices shall be subject to the following provisions: (1) Payments.. a. Owners of authorized gambling establishments and authorized horseracing tracks shall pay thirty percent (30%) of the net win from gaming devices•operated by'them.to the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund created pursuant to this section. Such payments shall be made monthly and shall be due within 30 days of the end of each month "Net win"means the wagering revenue from gaming devices olemted pursuant to this Act retained after prizes or winnings have been paid to players or to pools dedicated to the payment of such prizes and winnings and prior to the payment of operating or other expenses. b. Owners of authorized'gambling establishments and authorized horseracing tracks shall report to the Division of Gambling Control the net win on all gamine devices operated by or on behalf of them Such reports shall be submitted monthly,shall be due within 30 days of the end of each month and shall be available to the public upon request. . . C. Owners of authorized gambling establishments and authorized horseracing tracks shall pay for an annual audit performed by an independent firm of certified public accountants approved by the Califomia Gamblint Control Commission to ensure that The net win is properly reported and the payment is properly paid to the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund The audit report shall be available to the public upon request. d. Owners of authorized gambling establishments and authorized horseracing tracks shall pay two percent (2%) of their respective net win from gaming devices operated by them to the city in which each authorized horseracing track and authorized gambling establishment is located In the event an authorized gambling - establishment or an authorized horseracing_track is not located within the boundaries of a ciri the payment imposed by this Act shall be made to the•county in -which the authorized gambling establishment or authorized horseracing track is located. Such Payments shall be made monthly and shall-be-due within 30 days of the end of each month. e. Owners of authorized gambling establishments and authorized horseracing tracks shall pay one percent (1%) of their respective 6 net win from Pamine devices operated by them to the county in which each authorized garnblin2 establishment and authorized horseracing track is located. Such payments shall be made monthly and shall be due within 30 days of-the endof each month. (2) Number and Location of Authorized Gaming Devices. a. A total of 30,000 gaming devices are authorized to be operated by owners of authorized horseracing tracks and owners of authorized gambling establishments which are allocated as follows: i. For authorized horseracing tracks: Tbree thousand gaming devices for each authorized horseracing track.—En order to ensure the maximum generation of revenue for the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund. in the event that the owners of an authorized horseracing track for any reason cease to have or lose the right to overate any of the gaming devices authorized by this Act, the gaming devices allocated to that authorized horseracing track shall be reallocated equally among the remaining authorized horseracing tracks. Notwithstanding the limit of 3,000 gaming devices owners of authorized horseracing tracks may also transfer, sell license, or assign their rights to own and operate one or more gaming devices to other authorized horseracing tracks or authorized gambling establishments but in no event shall the total number of gaming devices authorized to be operated at an authorized horseracing track exceed 3,800. The owners of gaming devices that are reallocated, or are transferred sold, licensed or assigned pursuant to this subdivision, shall make the distributions required by California Business and Professions Code Section 19609. . ii. For authorized gambling establishments: a. Authorized gambling establishments located in Los Angeles County authorized as of September 1,2003 to operate 100 or more gaming tables shall be authorized'to operate 1700 gaming devices each; authorized gambling establishments in Los Angeles County authorized as of September 1, 2003 to operate between 14 and 99 gaming tables shall be authorized to operate 1000 gaming devices each; and all other authorized gambling establishments 7 shall be authorized to operate 800 gamine devices each. b. Licensed gambling establishments that are not authorized gambling establishments under this section shall be licensed for 4 gaming devices for each table authorized pursuant to the .Gambling Control Act as of Seg ember 1 2003 up to a maximum-of 2000 gaming devices in total, which they cannot operate ' at theii gamblinx establishments but may transfer, sell, or assign the rights to own or operate such gaming devices to authorized gambling establishments. C. In order to ensure the maximum generation of revenue for the Gaming Revenue Taut Fund, in the event the owners of an authorized gambling establishment described in subdivision(a) for any reason cease to have or lose the right to operate any of the gaming devices authorized by this Act, such gaming devices shall be transferred or allocated to authorized ;gambling establishments pro rata according to the allocation in subdivision (i)(2)(a)(ii)(a) Notwithstanding the limitation on earning devices imposed by subdivision (i)(2)(a)(il) a) authorized gambling establishments may also transfer, sell license or assign their rights to own and operate one or more gaming devices to other authorized gambling establishments or authorized horseracing tracks but in no event shall the total number of gaming devices authorized to be operated at an authorized gambling establishment exceed 1,900. d. In the event that the allocation of gaming devices set forth in subdivision (i)(2)(a)(ii) exceeds 15,000, the gaming devices authorized pursuant to subdivision (i)(2)(a)(ii)(b) shall be reduced ratably to bring the total number of gaming devices allocated to all authorized gambling establishments to 15.000 or less. b. The owners of an authorized horseracing track may in accordance with provisions of applicable law, relocate its racing meeting to another site whether or not it is an authorized horseracing track or discontinue its racing operation In the event they do so,however, the gaming devices authorized to be operated by them may only be mated at an authorized horseracing track or an authorized gambling establishment. 8 C. In order to ensure the maximum generation of revenue for the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund, the owner or operator of an authorized horseracing track and the owner or operator of an authorized gambling establishment whose facilities are located in the same city may agree upon the maximum number of gaming devices that may be operated at each such facility subiect to approval of any such agreement by the Gambling Control Commission, which shall make its decision of whether to approve any such agreement based upon a determination that any such agreement is in the interests of regulated gaming in the State of California Any such agreement approved by the Gambling Control Commission shall not exceed three years in duration. (3) Suspension of Authorization. The authorization to operate gaming devices and to transfer, sell, or assign rights to gaming devices Msuant to this subdivision may be suspended by the Gambling Control 'Commission for failure to make .the payments imposed by this subdivision within 30 days of such payments becoming due. (4) Prohibition on Additional Fees,Taxes,and Levies. The payments imposed pursuant to this Act are in lieu of any and all other fees taxes or levies including but not limited to revenue, receipt or personal property taxes that may be charged or imposed, directly or indirectly, against authorized horseracing tracks or authorized gambling establishments their patrons gaming devices employers or suppliers by the State cities or counties excepting fees taxes or levies that were in effect and imposed prior to September 1 2003 that applied to horseracing and controlled games with cards or tiles or that are applied generally to commercial activities including sales and use income, corporate or real property taxes The physical expansion of gaming facilitier� the operation of gaming devices authorized by this Act shall not be considered an enlargement of gaming operations under any local ordinance related to fees,taxes, or levies. (5) Licenses. The owners of authorized gambling establishments and the owners of authorized horseracing tracks shall be licensed by the State Gambling Control Commission under the Gambling Control Act. 9 (6) Other Laws. The Act shall supercede any inconsistent provisions of state.city or county law relating to gaming devices including but not limited to.' laws regarding the transportation manufacture ovetation, sale leam storage ownership licensing repair or use of gaming.devices authorized in this Act In order to encourage the maxitnuin generation of revenue for the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund the operation of gaming devices authorized pursuant to this Act is not subiect to any prohibition in state or local law now existing or hereafter enacted. (j) Gamine Revenue Trust Fund. (1) There is hereby established the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund in the State Treasury that shall receive all payments pursuant to the requirements of subdivisions(h)and(i). (2) There is hereby established the Board of Trustees to administer the Gamine Revenue Trust Fund. The Board of Trustees shall be comprised of 5 members appointed by the Govemor. Of the 5 members, 2 shall be engaged in public school education 1 shall be engaged in law' enforcement, 1 shall be engaged in fue protection and 1 shall be a certified public accountant Each member shall be a citizen of the United States and a resident of this state. No more than 3 of the 5 members shall be members of the same political party. Of the members initially appointed, 2 shall be appointed for a term of two years 2 shall be appointed for a term of three years and 1 shall be appointed for a term of four years. After the initial terms the term of office of each member shall be four years The Govemor shall appoint the members and shall designate one member to serve as the initial chairperson. The initial chairperson shall serve as chairperson for the length of his or her term Thereafter, the chairperson shall be selected by the Board of Trustees. The initial appointments shall be made within three months of the overative date of this Act The Board of Trustees shall approve all transfers of monies from the Gaming Revenue.Trust Fund The Board of Trustees shall engage an independent firm of certified public accountants to conduct an annual audit of all accounts and transactions of the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund. (3) The monies in the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund shall be distnbuted as follows: (a) Not more than one percent of the monies annually to the Division of Gambling Control and the California Gambling Control Commission for the cost of carrying out its administrative duties pursuant to this Act and for reimbursement of any State department or agency that provides any service pursuant to the provisions of this Act. (b) Monies sufficient to guarantee that each non-gaming tribe shall receive $12 million annually from the Indian Gaming Revenue 10 Sharing Trust Fund as codified in the California Government Code. "Non- mri g tribe" shall mean a federally recognized Indian tribe which operates fewer than 350 gaming devices. (c) $3 million to be awarded annually by the Board of Trustees to responsible gambling programs. (d) After the distributions required pursuant to.subdivisions(3)(a).(b), and(c), the remaining monies shall be distributed as follows: I. Fifty. percent (50%) -to county offices.of education to provide services for abused and neglected children and children in foster care. These monies shall be allocated to each county office of education according to each compy's's proportionate share of the annual statewide total of child abuse referral reports for the-prior calendar year and shall be used to improve educational outcomes of abused and neglected childrenandchildren in foster.care. Each county office of education shall allocate these funds to county child protective services agencies to provide these services. Funds received by each county child protective service agency shall be used for the following purposes: i. Out-stationing county child protective services social workers in schools, I Providing atm mute caseloads to ensure that professional staff will have sufficient time to provide services necessary to improve the educational outcomes of abused and neglected children and children in foster care: iii. Providing services to children in foster care to minimize mid-year transfers from school.to school: iv. Hiring iuvenile court workers whose responsibility it is to ensure the implementation of court orders issued by juvenile court judges affecting a foster child's educational performance. Each county child protective service agency ,shall be subiect to all accountability standards including student performance, enrollment, school stability and performance measured by the percentage of children at grade level on standardized tests as provided by state and federal law. Each county child protective agency shall use funds received pursuant to this section in a manner that maximizes the counties' ability to obtain federal matching dollars for services to children in the child protective services svA=. (e) Thirty-five percent (35%) to local governments on a per capita basis for additional neighborhood sheriffs and police officers. (f) Fifteen percent (15%) to local governments on a per capita basis for additional firefihp tern I1 (k) The Governor shall not consent. concur or agree to the location'of any tribal casinos on newly acquired land pursuant to 25 U.S.C. &2719(b)(1)(a). Further, any compact entered into by the State pursuant to 25 U.S.C. &2710(d) shall only be for class III gaming on Indian lands actually taken into trust by the United States for the benefit of an Indian tribe prior to September 1 2003'except for land contiguous to reservations existing as of that date. SECTION 4. Section 19609 is added to the Business and Professions Code to read as follows: 19609. (a) Unless otherwise defined in this chapter, the terms used'in this section shall have the meaning ascribed to them in the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004 ("the Act"). (b) Three quarters of one percent(75%)of the net win from all gaming devices operated by, or on behalf of owners of authorized horseracing tracks upon which a thoroughbred racing meeting was conducted in 2002 shall be distributed for thoroughbred incentive awards and shall be pavable to the applicable official re 'stg tering agency and thereafter distributed as provided in the Califomia Horse Racine Law. (c) One and one-half percent (1'/21/o) of the net win from all gaming devices operated by, or on behalf of owners of authorized horseracing tracks upon which a thoroughbred racing meeting was conducted in 2002 shall be distributed to each of those thoroughbred racing associations and racing fairs that are not authorized horseracing tracks in the same relative proportions that such thoroughbred racing associations or racing fairs generated commissions during the preceding calendar year. A lessee of an authorized horseracing track as of the effective date of the Act shall not be deemed to be an authorized horseracing track for the purposes of this Section. (d) Seventeen and three quarters percent (17.75%) of the net win from all gaming devices operated by,or on behalf of owners of authorized horseracing tracks upon which a thoroughbred racing meeting was conducted in 2002 shall be pooled ("the pooled net win") and 'shall be distributed in the form of purses for thoroughbred horses in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision(d). . (i) The pooled net win shall be allocated to thoroughbred racing associations and racing fairs throughout the State of California and shall be distributed among each of them in such manner as to equalize on an average daily basis purses for thoroughbred races other than stakes and special events. Notwithstanding the foregoing pooled net win may be allocated to supplement purses for thoroughbred races so the thoroughbred racing associations and racing fairs may maintain up to their historic relative proportions between overnight races, and stakes races and special events Increases in the aggregate amount of purses for stakes races of thoroughbred racing associations and racing fairs resulting from pooled net win contributions shall be determined in accordance with an agreement sipted by all the thoroughbred racing associations and the organization responsible for negotiating thoroughbred purse agreements on behalf of thoroughbred horsemen. 12 (ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of subdivision (d) (i) of this Section, the funds distributable to thoroughbred racing associations and racing fairs from the pooled net win shall be allocated in such a manner as to cause avenge daily purses for thoroughbred races, other than stakes races and special events, to be the percentages of the average daily purses for such races conducted by thoroughbred racing associations in the Central and Southern zone as set forth below: (a) 90%for thoroughbred racing associations in the Northern zone; (b) 65%for a racing fair in the Central zone; (c) 50% for racing fairs in the Northern zone other than the Humboldt County Fair; (d) 7'/2%for the Humboldt County Fair. (iii) Notwithstanding the provisions of this subdivision (d) to the contrary, the allocation of purses among the thoroughbred racing associations and the racinR . fairs may be altered upon approval of the California Horse RacingBoard in accordance with an agreement signed by all of the thoroughbred racing associations and the orpanization responsible for negotiating thoroughbred purse dements on behalf of horsemen: (iv) The California Horse Racing Board shall be responsible for the oversight of the distribution of the pooled net win in accordance with the provisions of this subdivision(d). (e) Eighteen and one-half percent (18.5%) of the net win from all gaming devices operated by owners of an authorized horseracing track upon which a quarter horse racing meeting was conducted in 2002 shall be paid to supplement purses of races conducted by a quarter horse racing association. . (fl One and four tenths percent (1.46/6) of the net win from naming devices operated by owners of an authorized horse racing track described in subdivision (e) above shall be paid to supplement the purses of harness races conducted by a hamess racing association that conducts at least 150 days or nights of harness racing annually at the Califbmia Exposition and State Fair, and on-tenth of one percent.(.1%)'Gf such net win shall bepaid to the harness racing association described in this subdivision(fl. SECTION 5. Section 19805.5 is added to the Business and Professions Code to read as follows: Sec. 19805.5. As used in this chapter, and in the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004, "gaming device" shall mean and include a slot machine under state law or any Class III device under the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act. The operation of a gaming device by a tribe, entity or person authorized to operate gamine devices under the Gaming Revenue Act shall constitute controlled gaming under State law. 13 SECTION 6. Section 19863 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read as follows: Sec. 19863. A publicly traded racing association or a qualified racing association, or their.successors in interest, shall be allowed to operate only one gerniag gambling establishment, and the garai$g gambling establishment shall be located on the same premises site as the entity's racetrack was located in 2002. SECTION 7. Section 19985 is added to the Business and Professions Code to read as follows: Sec. 19985. (a) Except as provided in this section, the Gambling Control Act including,but not limited to, the iurisdiction and powers of the Division and Commission to enact regulations, to enforce applicable law, to conduct background investigations and to issue licenses and work permits, shall apply to authorized horseracing tracks as defined in the Gaming Revenue Act, and to the operators of gaming devices thereon, including their successors in interest, in and to the same extent the Gambling Control Act applies to gambling establishments. (b) Employees of authorized horseracing tracks who are not owners, shareholders, partners or key employees, and whose iob responsibilities do not involve controlled games, shall not be required to obtain work permits pursuant to this Chapter: SECTION 8. Section 19962 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read as follows: 19962. (a) On-and after the effective date of this chapter, neither the governing body nor the electors of"a county, city, or city arid county that has not authorized legal gaming within its boundaries prior to January 1, 1996,shall authorize legal gaming. (b) No ordinance in effect on January 1, 1996, that authorizes legal gaming within a city, county, or city and county may be amended to expand gaming in that jurisdiction beyond that permitted on January 1, 1996. (a) This see4ien shall remain epeFalive only uWfl JaneaFy 1, 2007, &ad as ef that date i (c) This section is not intended to prohibit gaming authorized by the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004. 14 SECTION 9. Section 19963 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read as follows: 19963. (a) In addition to any other limitations on the expansion of gambling imposed by Section 19962 or any provision of this chapter, and except as provided in the Gamine Revenue Act of 2004, the commission shall not issue a gambling license for a gambling establishment that was not licensed to operate on December 31, 1999,unless an application to operate that establishment was on file with the division prior to September 1,2000. (b) This - "tien shall _ "a"t "_t. unfit 'I"_.."_., iX2007 .md as of this date i fepeal6d, ._less " leAer enaetea statate A—at ,.,.tea Inanu ry 1 2007,delete" date: SECTION 10. Section 19817 of the Business and Professions Code is amended to read as follows: The commission shall establish and appoint a Gaming Policy Advisory Committee of I0 members. The committee shall be composed of representatives of controlled gambling licensees, authorized horse racing tracks under the Gaming Revenue Act representatives of gaming tribes, and members of the general public. The executive director shall, from time to time, convene the committee for the purpose' of discussing matters of controlled gambling regulatory policy and any other relevant gambling-related issue. The recommendations concerning gambling policy' made by the committee shall be presented to the commission, but shall be deemed advisory and not binding on the commission in the performance of its duties or functions. SECTION 11. Section 12012.6 is added to the Government Code to read as follows: (a) Notwithstanding Government Code sections 12012.25 and 12012 5, and any other provision of law, the Governor is the designated state officer responsible for negotiating and executing on behalf of the state tribal-state gaming compacts with federally recognized Indian tribes located within the State of California pursuant to the federal Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of 1988(18 U.S.C. Sec 1166 to 1168 incl and 25 USC Sec 2701 et seg.)for the purpose of authorizing class IR gaming as defined in that act on Indian lands within this state. Nothing in this section shall be construed to deny the existence of the Governor's authority to have negotiated and executed tribal-state gaming compacts prior to the effective date of this section. (b) The Governor shall submit a cogy of any executed tribal-state compact to the Secretary of State who shall forward a copy of the executed compact to the Secretary of the Interior for his or her review and approval in accordance with paragraph(8)of subsection(d) of Section 2710 of Title 25 of the United States Code. 15 SECTION 12. Section 12012.75 of the Government Code is amended to read as follows: There is hereby created in the State Treasury a'special fund called the "Indian Gaming Revenue Sharing Trust Fund" for the receipt and deposit of moneys derived from gaming device license fees that are paid into the fund pursuant to the terms of tribal-state gaming compacts and monies received from the Gamine Revenue Trust Fund, for the purpose of making distributions to noncompact tribes. Moneys in the Indian Gaming Revenue Sharing Trust Fund shall be available to the California Gambling Control Commission, upon appropriation by the Legislature, for the purpose of making distributions to noncompact tribes,in accordance with the Gaming Revenue Act and tribal-state gaming compacts. SECTION 13. .Section 8.3 is added to Article XVI of the California.Constitution to read as follows: Sec. 8.3 (a) Funds appropriated pursuant to the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004 shall not be deemed to be part of"total allocations to school districts and community college districts from General Fund proceeds of taxes appropriated pursuant to Article XIIIB" as that term is used in paragraphs (2) and(3)of subdivision(b)of Section 8. (b) Revenues derived from payments made pursuant to the Gamine Revenue Act of 2004 shall not be deemed to be "General Fund revenues which may be appropriated pursuant to Article XIIIB" as that term is used in paragraph(1)of subdivision(b) of Section 8 nor shall they be considered in the determination of"per capita General Fund revenues" as that term is used in paragraph(3)of subdivision(b) and in subdivision(e)of Section 8. SECTION 14. Section 14 is added to Article XIII B of the California Constitution to read as follows: Sec. 14 (a) For purposes of this article "proceeds of taxes" shall not include the revenues created by the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004. . (b) For purooses of this article "appropriations subject to limitation" of each entity of govemment shall not include appropriations of revenues from the Gamine Revenue Trust Fund created by the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004. SECTION 15. Amendment The statutory provisions of this Act may be amended only by a vote of two-thirds of the membership of both houses of the Legislature. All statutory amendments to this Act shall be to further the Act and must be consistent with its purposes. 16 SECTION 16. Consistency With Other Ballot Measures The provisions of this Act are not in conflict with any initiative measure that appears on the same ballot that amends the California Constitution to authorize gaming of any kind. In the event that this Act and another measure that amends the California Constitution to permit gaming of any kind are adopted at the same election, the courts are hereby directed to reconcile their respective statutory provisions to the greatest extent possible and to give effect to every provision of both measures. SECTION 17. Additional Funding No monies in the Gaming Revenue Trust Fund shall be used to supplant federal, state or local funds used for child protective and foster care services, neighborhood sheriffs and police officers and firefighters but shall be used exclusively to supplement the total amount of federal, state and local funds allocated for child protective services and foster care which improve the educational outcomes of abused and neglected children and children in foster care and for additional sheriffs,police officers and firefighters. SECTION 18. Judicial Proceedings In any action for declaratory or injunctive relief, or for relief by way of any extraordinary writ,'wherein the construction, application,or validity of Section 3 of this Act or any part thereof is called into question, a court shall not grant any temporary restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction, or any peremptory writ of mandate, certiorari, or prohibition, or other provisional or permanent order to restrain, stay, or otherwise interfere with'the operation of the Act except upon a finding by the court, based on clear and convincing evidence, that the public interest will not be prejudiced thereby, andno such order shall be effective for-more than 15 calendar days. A court shall not restrain any part of this Act except the specific provisions that are challenged. SECTION 19. Severability If any provision of this Act or the application thereof to any person or circumstances is held invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity or unconstitutionality shall not affect other provisions or applications 'of this Act that can be given effect without the invalid or unconstitutional provision or application,and to this end the provisions of this Act are severable. 17 Attachment 4 Summary of Casino Slot Machine Revenue Staten Year #of Slot Machines Total Slot WinNear Average Slot Wm[Year Atlantic City Casinos 2002 38,117 $ 3,261,689,000 $ 85,570 2003 42,378 $ 3,327,361,000 $ 78,516 All Illinois Riverboat Casinos 2002 9,550 $ 1,554,570,005 $ 162,782 2003 9,766 $ 1,458,047,707 $ 149,298 Hollywood Casino, Aurora, IL 2002 1,093 $ 222,782,347 $ 203,826 (Suburban Chicago Area) 2003 1,132 $ 204,814,157 $ 180,931 Empress Casinos, Juliet, IL 2002 1,133 $ 202,776,628 $ 178,973 (Suburban Chicago Area) 2003 , 1,148 $ 202,736,415 $ 176,600 All Indiana Riverboat Casinos 2003 17,601 $ 1,771,107,465 $ 100,625 Iowa Racetrack Casinos FY 2002-03 3,505 $ 314,713,950 $ 89,790 Iowa Riverboat Casinos FY 2002-03 8,708 $ 584,829,280 $ 67,160 Mississippi Casinos March, 2004 39,520 $ 183,042,587 Annualized $ 2,196,511,044 $ 55,580 Missouri Riverboat Casinos April, 2004 17,114 $ 105,897,158 Annualized $ 1,270,766,016 $ 74,253 Excluding less than lyr Average $ 134,007 Median $ 149,298 All w/annualized Average $ 123,377 Median $ 100,625 Attachment 5 Research on Social and Economic Impacts of Gambling The following are excerpts gathered from research completed on the subject of gaming for this report: ..."In recent times,municipal governments have been hard pressed to collect sufficient revenues to fund necessary services. To increase revenues,a small number of incorporated cities in California have legalized cardrooms which operate as large scale gambling casinos and generate millions of dollars of profit.... However,in our view these monetary rewards have come at the expense of public safety and have opened the doors of these cities to organized crime,prostitution,loan sharking,money laundering, extortion and robbery."....Although legalized cardroom casino has in some instances proved to generate considerable revenues for hard pressed municipalities, it has also brought with it the influences of organized crime and corruption that threaten the moral integrity of the community and the safety of its residents." Report in Opposition to Cardroom Casinos,Edwin L. Miller, Jr.,District Attorney, San Diego County, 1992 ➢ ".... Several law enforcement undercover investigations of California cardrooms found various forms of criminal activity. In 1976, a long term undercover operation in Santa Clara County cardrooms uncovered widespread cheating„drug trafficking, prostitution„bookmaking loan sharking and house banking of cards....Another significant problem that is cause for concern is corruption. Profits from gaming have provided irresistible temptations for some local officials who have been convicted of this crime...." Gaming in California, California Department of Justice,Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General Bureau of Investigation, 1993 ➢ "For local governments,the increasing reliance on revenues for legalized gambling presents opportunities and pitfalls. In some cases,legalized gambling can mean economic development,historic preservation,jobs, lower tax rates,increased tourism, and increased revenues. On the other hand,legalized gambling raises concerns about increased crime and traffic,impacts on local businesses,higher property taxes, and corruption." Gambling as a Source of Revenue,National League of Cities,Vol. 2.,No. 8,Nathan Ridnouer and Dennis Rosser,September 1994 ➢ "University of Illinois professor and economist Earl Grinols has concluded casinos shift jobs rather than increase them. Instead of spinning off profits to other businesses, casinos draw money to themselves siphoning local money to make profits for owners who usually live elsewhere....After a two year nationwide study,Robert Goodman, professor at the University of Massachusetts at Amherst concluded"You bring in a gambling venture and it sucks the dollars out of other areas of discretionary spending. There are less dollars spent on sports,movies and restaurants.... Gambling activities that do no `draw people from distant area,bring a cannibalization of the local economy'." Gambling.A Menace to Society,Bishop R. Sheldon Duecker,July/August 1995. ➢ "In recent economic history, legalized gambling activities have been directly and indirectly subsidized by the taxpayers.The field research throughout the nation indicates that for every dollar the legalized gambling interests indicate is being contributed in taxes,it usually costs the taxpayers at least 3 dollars-- and higher numbers have been calculated(Politzer,Morrow and Leavey 1981; Better Government Association 1992;Florida Budget Office 1994). These costs to taxpayers are reflected in: (1)infrastructure costs,(2)relatively high regulatory costs, (3)expenses to the criminal justice system, and(4)large social-welfare costs(Illinois Governor's Office 1992). The Economic Impacts of Legalized Gambling,Dr.John Warren Kindt,Congressional Hearing, September 1994 ➢ "Gambling and bookmaking have long been a major source of income and financial power for organized crime. However, investigations into these crimes are time consuming and prosecutions can be lengthy. To compound the matter, gambling is viewed by many as a victimless' crime, so sentences ten to be lenient. Consequently, law enforcement efforts to prevent this type of organized crime activity have been made more difficult". Organized Crime in California 1971-1991 Daniel E. Lungren,September 1994 ➢ Report on the relationship between card clubs and types of crimes which can be experienced, e.g.,high technology crime,loansharking, auto theft, credit card fraud/check fraud,extortion, drug transactions, fencing stolen property, follow home robbery,bank robbery,murder,intimidation and turf wars. Cardroom Analysis Cardroom&Crime), San Jose Police Chief Louis A. Cobarruviaz, March 1996. ➢ "...The compulsive gambler will bet until nothing is left—savings, family assets, personal belongings,anything of value. The compulsive gambler borrows from family and friends,writes bad checks to associates and ultimately reaches and passes the point of bankruptcy. Compulsive gamblers frequently engage in criminal activity to obtain the means to continue gambling." "The Hidden Illness of the 90's Compulsive Gambling,Arnold Wexler,Executive Director,The Council on Compulsive Gambling of New Jersey,Inc,September 1994 -2 - Prosecuting Attorney Bloomberg before a U.S.House Committee concerning experiences in Deadwood,SD,a small which became the first place outside Atlantic City and Nevada to legalize casino gambling: Bloomberg testified the city was promised"economic development,new jobs and lower taxes. "instead casinos flourished,but other businesses did not. Businesses that provided the`necessities of life such as clothing are no longer available...jobs created earn minimum wage...crimes of theft,embezzlement,bad checks and other forms of larceny have increased.....increase in number of child abuse and neglect cases...Government is hooked on the money generated by gambling..." House Committee on Small Business September 21,1994. ➢ "Between 1988—when the first of Minnesota's 17 casinos opened and 1994,counties with casinos saw their crime rate rise twice as fast as those without casinos" "Gambling's Toll in Minnesota,Reader's Digest,April 1996. D "It can't really be said that there is a great groundswell of public support in many sates for new forms of gambling. By far the loudest voice for slot machines at racetracks ins the voice of the track owners"Bernie Hor,political director,National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling Slot Machines in the Grandstand,Charles Mahtesian,Governing,September 1996 ➢ "Although the card casinos produce revenue for the host city,the costs,in human terms,far outweigh the perceived benefits. To say these problems can't or won't happen here because of safeguards,better policing or more vigilant public officials is to ignore both history and specific evidence to the contrary. History tells us what these problems will be: Increased crime,threats of government corruption,and debilitating effects on the image of our community." Card Room Casinos: The Promise and the Reality,Michael Bradbury,District Attorney,Ventura County,June 1993. ➢ "According to the Minnesota Council on Compulsive Gambling,75 percent to 91 percent of adolescents have gambled at some point in their lives. Between 9.9 percent and 14 percent are at risk of developing serious gambling problems,and between 4.4 percent and 7.4 percent are compulsive or pathological gamblers". Youth Gambling Widespread in Bay Area,Mike Blanding,San Francisco Examiner Living,November 1996 ➢ "Research shows that increasing numbers of children and adolescents are gambling, they are more likely than adults to become problem and pathological gamblers. For instance,a Louisiana survey of 12,000 adolescents found that 10 percent had bet on horseracing,17 percent had gambled on slot machines,and 25 percent had played video -3- poker. The Gambling Commission found that adolescent gambling is "associated with alcohol and drug use,truancy, low grades,problematic gambling in parents, and illegal activities to financing gambling." Gambling in the United States,Final Report of the National Gambling Impact Study Commission, 1999 ➢ "Casinos increase crime in their host counties and that crime spills over into neighboring counties to increase crime in border areas." Casinos, Crime and Community Costs,Grinols,Mustard and Diley, 1996 ➢ As part of the National Gambling Commission Study, after hearing testimony presented from the pari-mutuel industry and others,the Commission recommended,"against adding slots to tracks in order to `save' the tracks economically or boost state coffers. The Commission found that"Adding slots to tacks essentially creates quasi-casinos, which in many cases violates community expectations and/or zoning regulations. It crosses the line from hose racing to Vegas-style gambling and rings with it the host of problems associated therein" "A Researcher Looks at Gambling,Timothy A. Kelly,Ph.D.,Executive Director, National Gambling Impact Study Commission(An address to the National Coalition Against Legalized Gambling, September 2001 ➢ "In case after case,the introduction of gambling on a widespread basis correlates with a market increase in crime. Atlantic City,which began casino operations in the late 1970's,is a prime example. Goodman points out that in the three years following the opening o its first casino,Atlantic City went from 50`h.to first in the nation in per-capita Crime(Goodman, 1994). In the decade following the introduction of casino gambling, total crimes more than doubled in and around Atlantic City(Buck,Hakim and Spiegel, 1991) "You Bet Your Life,The Dangerous Repercussions of America's Gambling Addiction, Ronald Rendo,Public Policy Division Focus on the Family, 1995 ➢ '"Whether any business adds to the economic base or diminishes it depends on whether the business draws more new dollars to the area that are then spent on goods and services in that area. To,benefit the local economy these new dollars must exceed the number of dollars the business causes to be removed from the area. Because casinos have artificially high profit margins, are often owned by out-of-area investors, and frequently take dollars from the area's existing tourist base rather than attracting new tourists,the effect of gambling in many cases is the diminish the economic base and cost jobs." "Gambling as Economic Policy: Enumerating Why Losses Exceed Gains", Earl L. Grinols, Illinois Business Review, Spring 1995 - 4 - Attachment 6 a Californians Against t1 eceptive Gambling Proposition Who Opposes the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004? (as of June 16,2W4) Statewide Public Safety Organizations California Coalition of Law Enforcement Associations California Police Chiefs Association California State Firefighters' Association California District Attorneys Association Peace Officers Research Association of California California Correctional Peace Officers Association Chicano Correctional Workers Association Minorities in Law Enforcement County Sheriffs Alameda County Sheriff Charles C. Plummer Alpine County Sheriff John M. Crawford Amador County Sheriff Michael Prizmich Butte County Sheriff Perry L. Raniff Colusa County Sheriff Scott D. Marshall Contra Costa County Sheriff Warren E. Rupf Del Norte County Sheriff Dean D. Wilson Glenn County Sheriff Robert A. Shadley, Jr. Inyo County Sheriff Dan Lucas Kings County Sheriff Ken Marvin Lake County Sheriff Rodney K. Mitchell Lassen County Sheriff Bili Freitas Marin County Sheriff Robert T. Doyle Mariposa County Sheriff James H. Allen Mendocino County Sheriff Anthony J. Craver Modoc County Sheriff Bruce Mix Mono County Sheriff Daniel A. Paranick Riverside County Sheriff Bob Doyle San Benito County Sheriff Curtis J. Hill San Bernardino County Sheriff Gary S. Penrod San Diego County Sheriff William B. Kolender Santa Cruz County Sheriff Mark Tracy Shasta County Sheriff Jim Pope Solano County Sheriff Gary R. Stanton Sonoma County Sheriff Bill Cogbil Sutter County Sheriff Jim Denney Californians Against the Deceptive Gambling Proposition: A Coalition of Indian Gaming Tubes,major funding by United Auburn Indian Community and Pala Band of Mission Indians 111 Anza Blvd., Suite 406, Burlingame, CA 94010 ♦ Tel: (800) 420-8202 Fax: (650) 340-1740 11300 W. Olympic Blvd., Suite 840, Los Angeles, CA 90064 ♦ Tet: (310) 996-2676 Fax: (310) 996-2673 www.deceptivegamblingprop.com computer Generated County Sheriffs(cont'd) Tehama County Sheriff Clay D.Parker Tuolumne County Sheriff Richard L.Rogers Ventura County Sheriff Bob Brooks Yoko County Sheriff E.G.Prieto Yuba County Sheriff Virginia R.Black County District Attorneys Contra Costa County District Attorney Robert J.Kochly Inyo County District Attorney Art Maillet Kings County District Attorney Ron Calhoun Merced County District Attomey.Gordon Spencer Modoc County District Attorney Jordan Funk Mono County District Attorney George Booth Nevada County District Attorney Michael Ferguson Orange County District Attorney Tony Rackauckas Riverside County District Attorney Grover Trask Sacramento County District Attorney Jan Scully San Bernardino County District Attorney Michael A.Ramos San Diego County District Attorney Bonnie M.Dumanis Santa Clara County District Attorney George Kennedy Sierra County District Attorney Lawrence R.Allen Tehama County District Attorney Gregg Cohen Trinity County District Attorney David Cross Tulare County District Attorney Phillip J.Cline Yolo County District Attorney David C.Henderson Crime Victims Organizations and Leaders Crime Victims United of California Justice for Murdered Children Justice for Murder Victims WeTip Klaas Kids Foundation President Marc Klaas Local Public Safety Leaders and Organizations Tustin Police Chief Steve Foster Carlsbad Police Officers Association Chico Police Officers'Association Combined Law Enforcement Association of Riverside County Contra Costa Deputy Sheriffs Association Deputy Sheriffs'Association of San Diego County Half Moon Bay Police Officers'Association Huntington Beach Police Officers Association Imperial County Sheriffs Association Milpitas Police Officers Association Monterey County Deputy Sheriffs Association Oceanside Police Officers'Association Ontario Police Officers Association Pinole Police Employees Association 2 Local Public Safety Leaders and ftanizations (cnt'd) Placer County Deputy Sheriffs Association Riverside Sheriffs Association San Bernardino County Safety Employees' Benefit Association San Joaquin Delta College Peace Officers Association San Jose Police Officers'Association San Mateo County Deputy Sheriffs Association Yolo County Deputy Sheriffs Association Safety Employees Benefit Association President Jim Erwin San Diego County District Attorney Investigators Association Placer County Deputy Sheriff Van Bogardus Placer County Deputy Sheriff David Hunt Assistant Probation Officer Stephen Henninger (Fair Oaks) Border Patrol Agent Marco Ramirez (La Mesa) Bridge Director Gregory Davis (Novato) Fire Captain Don Combs (Whittier) Firefighter David Blancett(Covina) Firefighter Robert French (San Diego) Firefighter Robert Hawkey(Whittier) Firefighter Robert Miller(Palos Verdes Estates) Lake County DUI Program Supervisor Glenn Trumble Police Officer Glen Schnoor(Menifee) Police Officer Floyd Waldron (Costa Mesa) Police Specialist Pamela Darkes (Canyon Country) Riverside County Sherif Cois M. Byrd (Retired) Carmel-by-the-Sea Police Chief William Ellis (Retired) Laguna Beach Police Chief Neil J. Purcell (Retired) California Highway Patrol Sergeant Kevin Kelly(Walnut Creek—Retired) Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriff Donald McFadden (Retired) Firefighter Lowell Bardwell (Valley Center-Retired) Firefighter Dale Calhoon (Mission Viejo—Retired) Firefighter Robert Clanton (Hesperia—Retired) Firefighter Ead Clark(Yucaipa—Retired) Firefighter Adam Forbes(Santa Ana—Retired) Firefighter Kenneth Hines (Thousand Palms—Retired) Firefighter Grady Houk(Sacramento—Retired) Firefighter Clarence Merriman (Rancho Santa Margarita— Retired) Firefighter Eldon D. Neff(Woodland— Retired) Firefighter Bennie Petty(Capistrano Beach—Retired) Firefighter Robert Pietruszka (Sacramento— Retired) Fire Marshall Remy Zuur(San Leandro—Retired) Deputy Sheriff John Thurman (San Clemente—Retired) Police Detective Edward Hewlett (Garden Grove—Retired) Police Lieutenant Garold Murray(Galt—Retired) Police Officer Kenneth Berggren (Ventura—Retired) Police Officer Robert Fyffe (Lancaster—Retired) Police Officer Roy Kelley(San Diego—Retired) Police Officer Stephen Kelly(Norwalk—Retired) Police Officer John Marshall (Altadena—Retired) Police Officer Ralph Sipes (Escondido—Retired) Police Officer Joseph Soares (San Francisco— Retired) Police Officer Lucky Springer(Tujunga—Refired) 3 Local Public Safety Leaders and Organizations (cont'd) Police Officer Peter Walsh (Riverside— Retired) Children's Services Organizations Prevent Child Abuse California Education Community Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell California County Superintendents Educational Services Association California Association of School Business Officials Alpine County Board of Education Contra Costa County Board of Education Del Norte County Unified School District Board of Trustees Humboldt County Board of Education Imperial County Board of Education Inyo County Board of Education Madera County Board of Education Mariposa County Board of Education Mendocino County Board of Education Plumas County Board of Education Alpine County Superintendent of Schools James W. Parsons Amador County Superintendent of Schools Mike Carey Del Norte County Superintendent of Schools Francis Lynch EI Dorado County Superintendent of Schools Vicki Barber Fresno County Superintendent of Schools Peter G. Mehas Humboldt County Superintendent of Schools Garry T. Eagles Imperial County Superintendent of Schools John D. Anderson Inyo County Superintendent of Schools George Lozito Kings County Superintendent of Schools John Stankovich Madera County Superintendent of Schools Sally L. Frazier Mariposa County Superintendent of Schools Patrick J. Holland Mendocino County Superintendent of Schools Paul A. Tichinin Monterey County Superintendent of Schools William D. Barr Orange County Superintendent of Schools William M. Habermehl Plumes County Superintendent of Schools Michael Chelotti San Diego City Schools Trustee John de Beck Other National, Statewide and Local Organizations Sierra Club California National Tax Limitation Committee California Black Chamber of Commerce The Seniors Coalition California Nations Indian Gaming Association California Association of Welfare Rights Organizations Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees International Union (AFL-CIO) National Native American Bar Association Greater Los Angeles African American Chamber of Commerce Sacramento Civil Rights Network 4 Other National, Statewide and Local Organizations (cont'd) San Diego County Taxpayers Association Temecula Valley Chamber of Commerce Northwood Avenue Block Club (Carson) Local Government Officials Huntington Beach City Council Riverside County Supervisor Marion Ashley Riverside County Supervisor John F. Tavaglione Riverside County Supervisor Jim Venable Antioch CouncilmemberAme Simonsen Calimesa Mayor Sheena Moqeet Cathedral City Mayor George Stettler Cathedral City Councilmember Charles "Bud" England Chula Vista Deputy Mayor Mary Salas Colusa Mayor Rodney L. Biggs Corona Councilmember Eugene Montanez Diamond Bar Mayor Bob Zirbes Escondido Mayor Pro Tem Marie Waldron Fontana Councilmember Josie Gonzales Fortuna Mayor Mel Berti Fresno Mayor Alan Autry Hemet Councilmember Marge Tandy Highland Mayor Pro Tem Larry McCallon Imperial Beach Mayor Diane Rose La Mesa Councilmember Ruth Sterling Los Angeles Councilmember Tony Cardenas Los Angeles Councilmember Bernard C. Parks Los Angeles Councilmember Jan C. Perry Lynwood Mayor Louis Byrd National City Mayor Nick Inzunza Pacific Grove Vice Mayor Don T. Gasperson San Jacinto Vice Mayor Chris Buydos Sand City Councilmember Jerry Blackwelder Santa Clara Councilmember Patrick Kolstad Stanton Mayor Alexander A. Ethans Thousand Oaks Councilthember Dennis C. Gillette Woodland Vice Mayor David M. Flory Woodside Councilmember Dave Tanner Carlsbad City Treasurer Jim Stanton City of Riverside Planning Commissioner Stan E. Brown Former Yolo County Supervisor Tom Stallard Federal and State Officials Lieutenant Governor Cruz M. Bustamante State Treasurer Phil Angelides State Controllet Steve Westly Board of Equalization Member Bill Leonard U.S. Representative Joe Baca 5 Federal and State Officials (cont'd) U.S. Representative Bob Filner U.S. Representative Maxine Waters State Senate Majority Leader Don Perata State Senator James F. Battin, Jr. State Senator James L. Brulte State Senator Gilbert Cedillo State Senator Denise Moreno Ducheny State Senator Dean Florez State Senator Dennis Hollingsworth State Senator Tom McClintock State Senator Deborah V. Ortiz State Senator Nell G. Soto Assemblymember Russ Bogh Assemblymember Ed Chavez Assemblymember Bonnie Garcia Assemblymember Ray Haynes Assemblymember Rick Keene Assemblymember Christine Kehoe Assemblymember Jay LeSuer Assemblymember John Longville Assemblymember Ken Maddox Assemblymember Bill Maze Assemblymember George A. Plescia Assemblymember Sharon Runner Assemblymember Simon Salinas Assemblymember Juan Vargas Former Assemblymember Roderick D. Wright Newspapers Alameda Times Star Black Voice News Fremont Argus Hayward Review Los Angeles Times North County Times Oakland Tribune Sacramento Bee San Diego Union Tribune San Mateo County Times San Mateo Daily Journal Santa Rosa Press-Democrat Torrance Daily Breeze Tri-Valley Herald (Pleasanton) Native American Tribes and Tribal Organizations Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Barona Band of Mission Indians Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria 6 Native American Tribes and Tribal Organizations (cont'd) Big Lagoon Rancheria Big Sandy Rancheria Bishop Paiute Tribe Blue Lake Rancheria Cabazon Band of Mission Indians Cahto Tribe— Laytonville Rancheria Cloverdale Rancheria of Pomo Indians Colusa Indian Community Council, Cachil Dehe Band of Wintun Indians Coyote Valley Band of Pomo Indians Dry Creek Rancheria Band of Pomo Indians Elem Indian Colony Elk Valley Rancheria Ewiiaapaayp Band of Kumeyaay Indians Greenville Rancheria Habemotolel Pomo of Upper Lake (a.k.a. Upper Lake Band of Pomo Indians) Hopland Band of Pomo Indians Ione Band of Miwok Indians Jackson Rancheria Band of Miwuk Indians Jamul Indian Village Karuk Tribe of California La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians Lytton Rancheria— Lytton Band of Pomo Indians Manchester Point Arena Band of Pomo Indians Manzanita Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Mesa Grande Band of Mission Indians Middletown Rancheria Mooretown Rancheria Morongo Band of Mission Indians North Fork Rancheria of Mono Indians' Pala Band of Mission Indians Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians Pauma Band of Mission Indians Pechanga Band of Luiseno Indians Potter Valley Tribe Redding Rancheria Redwood Valley Rancheria Resighini Rancheria Rumsey Band of Wintun Indians San Pasqua] Band of Mission Indians Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Indians Scotts Valley Band of Pomo Indians Sherwood Valley Rancheria Smith River Rancheria Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians Sycuan Band of the Kumeyaay Nation Tule River Indian Reservation Twenty-Nine Palms Band of Mission Indians United Auburn Indian Community Viejas Band of Kumeyaay Indians Yurok Tribe 7 RESOLUTION NO. 75 (2004) 1004 JUL IS A 20 OPPOSING THE ADOPTION OF THE OFFJC� JF CITY CLERK GAMING REVENUE ACT OF 2004 �+ YY Y�AHAL CA RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of San Mateo, California, that: WHEREAS, The owners of 5 horseracing tracks and 11 card clubs in the state have drafted and qualified an initiative measure known as the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004 ("GRA") to be submitted to California voters in November; and WHEREAS, if adopted, the GRA will require the Governor to renegotiate dozens of existing gaming compacts entered into between the State of California and various Indian tribes on terms these tribes will likely find to be highly objectionable; and WHEREAS, the GRA provides that unless every one of these many gaming compacts have been successfully renegotiated within 90 days of the passage of the GRA, the owners of the horseracing tracks and card clubs sponsoring the GRA will be allowed to operate 30,000 slot machines at their facilities; and WHEREAS, Bay Meadows Race Track is one of the horseracing facilities that would be authorized to operate as many as 3,800 slot machines if the GRA is adopted and the Indian gaming compacts are not successfully renegotiated; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that although the GRA would require the owners of Bay Meadows to share a portion of its net win from these slot machines with the City and thus provide the City with a significant, new source of revenue, this financial benefit would be outweighed by the significant social costs that tend to accompany large-scale gaming establishments; and 'WHEREAS, the City Council is mindful of this community's historical opposition to the addition -of expanded gaming opportunities at Bay Meadows and the voters' overwhelming opposition to a measure that would have authorized card tables at Bay Meadows in 1995 and see the passage of the GRA as potentially frustrating the will of San Mateo residents so clearly expressed in that election to prevent the development of a large-scale gambling institution within the City; and -1- Q:\cityatty\Resolutions-Annual\city council- GRA.doc WHEREAS, if adopted, the GRA will provide another example of state intrusion into local land use decision-making, an area traditionally reserved to the local level and vital to the principle of community self-determination. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED and ORDERED that: 1. The City Council of the City of Sari Mateo opposes the adoption of the Gaming Revenue Act of 2004. MAYOR ATTES : CIT ERK -2- Q:\cityatty\Resolutions-Annual\city council-GRA.doc Resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of San Mateo, California, at a regular meeting held on July 19, 2004,by the following vote of the Council: AYES: Council Members LEE, EPSTEIN, LEMPERT, MATTHEWS and GROOM NOES: NONE ABSENT: NONE (SEAL) /s/NORMA GOMEZ, City Clerk .�`CIT~ STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM# 9e RLJNGAME FIRE DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: 9/7/04 � od TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTED BY: FROM: Fire Department APPROVED BY: � SUBJECT: Out of State Travel RECOMMENDATION• It is recommended that the City Council approve out of state travel for Fire Inspector Christine Reed to attend the National FireRMS 5.0 Conference in San Antonio, Texas from October 11-13 2004. BACKGROUND: With the establishment of the Central County Fire Department it was necessary to upgrade our records management system to Sunpro FireRMS 5.0. It brought both Burlingame and Hillsborough into compliance with federal fire reporting requirements and provided added features that integrate with our Computer Aided Dispatch system and our inspections records. This records management system is being used by the majority of the fire departments in San Mateo County. Inspector Reed has been working diligently to upgrade the automation of our fire prevention and fees program to meet the needs of both cities. This conference will expand her knowledge of this records management system and give her the opportunity to network with other fire professionals that have similar duties and responsibilities. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds are available to pay for this conference in the existing fire department training budget. ATTACHMENTS: Memo from Deputy Chief Don Dornell CENTRAL COUNTY Memorandum To: Bill Reilly, Fire Chief CC: Rocque Yballa, Fire Marshal Christine Reed,Fire Inspector From: Don Dornell, Deputy Chief Date: 8/30/2004 Re: Out-of-state attendance at FireRMS Conference Central County Fire Department is transitioning to Ather 5.0 FireRMS for our recordkeeping and reporting systems. Fire Prevention will be relying on this system to manage the new inspection and fees program. Fire Inspector Christine Reed has put in many hours in preparation for the complete transition. To date, she has been self-taught through trial and error as she has worked to bring our system on-line. I am recommending that we send Fire Inspector Reed to the National FireRMS 5.0 Conference in San Antonio, Texas from October 11-13, 2004. Her attendance will provide her with an opportunity to network with other FireRMS users and participate in Basic Core and Advanced Courses related to this important aspect of our daily operations. Her assistance in managing this program will be greatly needed as personnel changes occur within our organization. The following is a breakdown of estimated costs: Registration $ 495.00 Hotel 375.00 Airfare 275.00 Meals 200.00 Estimated total cost $ 1345.00 1 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION August 5, 2004 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairperson Hesselgren. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Hesselgren, Commissioners Carney, Grandcolas, McQuaide, and Webb Absent: Commissioners Ellis and Lauder Staff. Parks Superintendent Richmond, Arborist Porter, Supervisor Disco, Secretary Harvey Guests: Bette Levings (1325 Cabrillo), Mary Ann Martinez, (1321 Cabrillo), Maureen Chenette (1115 Bayswater), Aurora & Winfred Ruperto (1113 Bayswater), Stephen Hamilton, Jennifer Pfaff, and Bobbi Benson. MINUTES The minutes of the June 3, 2004 Beautification Commission meeting were approved as written. CORRESPONDENCE Letter (s)to John Campos (212 Stanley Rd.), Bette Levings &Mary Ann Martinez (1325 Cabrillo Ave.), and Maureen Chenette(1115 Bayswater Ave.)informing them that their appeals for tree removals had been placed on the August 5, 2004 Commission meeting agenda. Memo to Commission from Director Schwartz regarding Commission Direction for Community Volunteers. FROM THE FLOOR- Bobbi Benson reported that she has been in discussions with Bank of America on Chapin and El Camino with regard to their landscape maintenance. She commented that her most recent activities included: 2 hours spent on plant maintenance on the Burlingame Avenue planters and dead budding the roses on the Park Road parking lot planters. She will be pursuing maintenance issues on the Broadway Streetscape and has also asked Vince Falzon of the Public Works Department to place extra trash receptacles on Burlingame Avenue because the existing trash receptacles overflow. She will be working with the Adopt-a-Highway group at the 101/Broadway triangle; and has contacted Ray Fox of CalTrans regarding maintenance issues on El Camino Real from Burlingame Avenue to Trousdale. She stated that there are no Master Gardeners Programs in the area,but that horticultural volunteers are needed in all the cities of San Mateo County. She has addressed this issue in an article in an upcoming issue of the San Mateo County Times. Chairperson Hesselgren thanked Ms. Benson for her work and enthusiasm in this area. OLD BUSINESS - Appeal of the Denial to Remove a City owned Liriodendron Tree 60 212 Stanley Road-Arborist Porter stated the greatest concern of the property owners was the aphid infestation on the City-owned Liriodendron trees in front of their address, and the lean of the one tree that is closest to their driveway. He reported that he had visited the site today and found no evidence of aphid infestation concluding that the aphid infestation had been effectively controlled by the Merit pesticide injection. Arborist Porter added that the tree had grown leaning, and though it does not pose a hazard, could recommend reshaping and heading back from the driveway to improve the aesthetics of the tree. Superintendent Richmond added that Supervisor Disco monitored the aphid infestation over the summer months and it appeared that the Merit injection method was successful. Superintendent Richmond added that the long term success rate could not be guaranteed. Commissioner Carney noted that roots from the trees have cracked and raised the curb. Arborist Porter responded that it was not significant and could easily be repaired. Commissioner Hesselgren commented that she walks the area daily, that the tree looks healthy, and that there is no apparent residue from aphid infestation on the streets and sidewalk. 1 Appeal of the Denial to Remove a City owned Liriodendron Tree (a), 212 Stanley Road - (Contd.) - the applicants were not present for comment. Commissioner McQuaide clarified that in June, the Commission tabled their decision to monitor the effectiveness of the Merit injection and then Commissioner McQuaide moved that the request be denied for the removal of the City-owned Liriodendron tree because the Merit pesticide application had been successful in controlling the aphid infestation;seconded, Webb. The motion carried 5-0-2(Absent/Ellis and Lauder). Volunteer Maintenance Projects-(Staff Report)-Superintendent Richmond stated that the Commission affirmed their participation in the process at the last Commission meeting. He stated that in a memo dated July 18', Director Schwartz gave direction to the Commissioners with the following possible options: A. Approval of the Commission will be required for all volunteer efforts proposed by individuals and by organizations. B. Approval of the Commission will be required for volunteer projects proposed by organizations. C. Staff will notify Commission, but no Commission approval will be required for any project. D. An option yet to be developed. The Commission discussed the 4 options. Commissioner Carney stated that there should be some Commission oversight on the volunteer projects. Commissioner Grandcolas commented that the Commission could serve as some kind of clearinghouse to monitor proposed volunteer activities. Commissioner Webb stated he was concerned that volunteers would take on too much work and then be gone and asked who would then take care of the areas? Superintendent Richmond responded that Supervisor Disco would be monitoring the volunteer activities. The only projects available for volunteers are those that existing park maintenance staff cannot attend to on any regular basis. Supervisor Disco commented that the Park Workers are happy to have additional help. Chairperson Hesselgren suggested that the Commission could choose Option A, and then reevaluate the progress and/or problems in several months. Following the discussion, Commissioner Carney moved that the Commission adopt Option A that, Approval of the Commission be required for all volunteer efforts proposed by individuals and by organizations; seconded, Grandcolas. Motion carried 5-0-2 (Absent/Ellis and Lauder). Burlingame Avenue Planters- Stephen Hamilton from Citizens for a Better Burlingame reviewed with the Commission the progress of the work currently being conducted by volunteers on the planters in front of Copenhagen and La Scala Restaurants. He stated that the volunteer group has donated approximately$250 of their own money and the Burlingame Garden Center donated a tree to be planted in one of the planters. Volunteer management has been successful with 20 volunteers gathering to do the initial planting and then individual volunteers maintaining the planters. Mr. Hamilton stated that he will be recommending to the Downtown Burlingame Business Improvement District that they own the Adopt-A-Planter program. Sam Malouf has agreed in principal to fund $400 and also adopt a planter. The BID will be considering this concept at their next meeting. The Adopt-A-Planter program has been successful in other cities such as Los Gatos and Morgan Hill. W. Hamilton reported that of the 20 planters on Burlingame Avenue, 6 planters have been adopted, none ofwhich have an operating irrigation system. The merchants have agreed to assist with hand watering from hose bibs that are fronting some of the businesses on the avenue during the summer. Cost for reinstalling irrigation in the 20 planters would cost approximately $60-80,000 and the lowest bid thus far for hand watering approximately 55 times a year, would be $10,000 a year; other bids are being sought. 2 Burlingame Avenue Planters - (Contd.) NIr. Hamilton stated that once the program has been approved by the BID, announcements for a public planting and a community breakfast could be planned for early October. A public planting could then be held twice a year. Mr.Hamilton concluded that he believes the Adopt-A-Planter program fits within the guidelines and hopes the Beautification Commission can endorse this program. Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Grandcolas stated that the concept fits within the guidelines and moved that the Beautification Commission endorse and support the Adopt A-Planter program for the Burlingame Avenue Business District; seconded, Webb. Motion carried 5-0-2 (Absent/Ellis and Lauder). NEW BUSINESS Request for the Removal of a Private Cedar Tree(d) 1325 Cabrillo Avenue- Arborist Porter reported that he denied the application in June 2004 because the Cedar tree was healthy, well maintained, and structurally sound. Superintendent Richmond stated that the commission may consider other aspects such as the economic enjoyment of the property and the possible disruption of public utilities. Commissioner Grandcolas asked what the costs may be for the removal of such a large tree as opposed to trimming? Arborist Porter stated that if a crane was used, the cost could be from $5,000 to $8,000 and trimming could cost $500 to $1,500 every 3 to 4 years. Commissioner Grandcolas asked how long ago the tree had last been trimmed? Arborist Porter responded that the tree was last trimmed 2 years ago,was well done, and the tree has been well maintained. Commissioner Webb asked as to the legitimacy of Roto-Rooter being needed 3 to 4 times a year as claimed by the neighbor? Arborist Porter responded that there was no information submitted with the application to support that claim. Chairperson Hesselgren recognized the applicant,Mrs.Levings. Mrs.Levings stated that her neighbor,Mrs. Martinez, has had problems with the pine needles and the roots from her tree but added,that the tree is more work than it's worth. Mrs. Martinez was present and stated that the pine needles get in her gutters and the roots are in her sewer. She stated that Roto Rooter spent 7 hours getting the roots out of the sewer; that, the roots are so big they are breaking her sewer line and are on top of her ground;that, fallen branches have broken her roof 2 times; and that, the tree has many dead branches and pine needles. Chairperson Hesselgren asked Mrs. Levings if she had ever considered root pruning and the placement of root barriers? Mrs. Levings replied that she had not. Commissioner Webb asked how close the Pine tree is to the other trees on the property? Mrs. Martinez said that the trees are not very close to each other. Commissioner Grandcolas stated that his property also has 2 large Pine trees that drop needles;but the City of Burlingame is a Tree City and the trees bring benefit to the community, even if at a cost to the property owner. He noted that there are new gutter covers that can keep the pine needles out of the gutters and the Commission has consistently told applicants that trimming roots, placing root barriers, and routinely maintaining their trees are viable options to removal. 3 Request for the Removal of a Private Cedar Tree(a), 1325 Cabrillo Avenue- (Contd.)- Commissioner Webb stated that this tree should be planted in a forest;that, it could be dangerous, and there are other trees on the property. Commissioner McQuaide stated that the Cedar tree is beautiful and has a life span of upwards of 100 years. She asked Arborist Porter the approximate age of this Cedar tree? Arborist Porter stated that the tree is anywhere from 50-100 years old. Commissioner Grandcolas asked how much more the tree would grow? Arborist Porter responded that the tree had reached maturity, but the canopy would still grow. Chairperson Hesselgren stated she is sympathetic to the applicants and neighbors concerns,but the concerns are maintenance issues,that root pruning,placement of root barriers,and proper pruning could alleviate their problems. Commissioner Carney stated that she sympathizes with the cost involved for the applicant; that, this is an issue as to hardship on people and that is not considered by the Commission. However, she stated the tree is a healthy tree and things can be done to eliminate the problems caused by the tree. Commissioner Webb asked Arborist Porter how close the tree was to the sewer main? Arborist Porter stated he did not know where the sewer lateral was on this property, but added that tree roots do not break sewer laterals; some sewer laterals are still the old, clay laterals that have broken due to age, and then the roots invade at the break. The sewer lateral needs to be replaced. Commissioner Webb asked if the roots of this tree were cut, would the tree be unstable? Arborist Porter responded that an on site inspection and excavation would need to be conducted by an independent arborist to make an evaluation with regard to root pruning. following the discussion, Commissioner Carney moved that the denial be upheld to remove the Cedar tree at 1325 Cabrillo Avenue because the tree is healthy, well maintained, and structurally sound;seconded, Grandcolas. Motion carried 4- I (Webb) - 2 (Absent/Ellis and Lauder). Chairperson Hesselgren thanked and advised the applicant of appeal procedures to Council. Request for the Removal of a City-Owned Walnut Tree(acro, 1115 Bayswater Ave. - Superintendent Richmond stated that the applicant is requesting removal because the walnuts from the tree are chronically dropping. Arborist Porter referred applicant to the Commission because the street tree ordinance allows for consideration of the removal of trees that have "nuisance" fruit. Arborist Porter commented that there are a number of Walnut trees in the City and Walnut trees are not your ideal street tree but that this tree is beautiful and would affect the neighborhood if removed. He added that he sympathized with the applicant because the fallen walnuts do make a mess. Commissioner Grandcolas asked who is liable if someone were to be injured on the sidewalk? Arborist Porter stated that claims can be filed with the City Attorney. Commissioner Carney asked ifthe plant growth around the Walnut tree could affect the health of the tree and because there are utility wires above, should the tree be trimmed? Arborist Porter responded that the tree is not affected by the plant growth and the secondary wires, telephone, and cable lines are of no concern. Commissioner Grandcolas asked if trimming the tree would cut back on the walnut problem? Arborist Porter responded that the tree was trimmed 2-3 years ago, but that trimming and thinning would remove some of the walnuts. Commissioner Grandcolas asked what the life expectancy was of a Walnut tree? Arborist Porter responded that the Walnut tree is not as long lived as other species, but could live anywhere from 30 up to 80 years. Chairperson Hesselgren recognized the property owner, Mrs. Chenette. 4 bequest for the Removal of a Private Cedar Tree(a), 1325 Cabrillo Avenue- (Contd.) - Trs. Chenette stated that the tree is a safety hazard when all the walnuts have dropped and that she needs Usweep 2-3 times a day because the squirrels keeping eating and dropping the walnuts on the sidewalk. She added that because there is no mandatory street sweeping schedule,a big collection of walnuts collects in the gutters and gets under the tires of cars. Mrs. Chenette stated that the sidewalk needs to be repaired because itis raised too high, but the dropped walnuts are a lot higher than the raised sidewalk and causes a hazard. $he concluded that the tree is a beautiful tree, but she cannot continue to sweep 24/7 and requests removal because it is a safety hazard. JN4&Ruperto of 1113 Bayswater stated that she has lived at her address since 1986 and she sees Mrs. Chenette sweeping and cleaning her yard;that many walnuts come from this tree. She commented that when the squirrels eat the walnuts,the walnuts drop on the ground and she is concerned because children pick them up and eat them. She concluded that she is worried that the children may get rabies. Chairperson Hesselgren responded that the problem with the walnuts could be alleviated by the tree being trimmed;that,the walnuts crush under foot and do not pose a tripping hazard; and that, there is no evidence ofdiseases being caused by dropped walnuts. She added that the walnut problem only lasts anywhere from 30.60 days. After a brief discussion, Commissioner Grandcolas moved that because the tree is a healthy tree andposes yto hazards, the denial be upheld to remove the Walnut tree at 1115 Bayswater, with the condition that the City trim the canopy of the tree to help eliminate some of the walnut production, seconded, ]WcQuaide. Motion carried 5-0-2 (Absent/Ellis and Lauder). Chairperson Hesselgren thanked and advised the applicant of appeal procedures to the Council. REPORTS - Sulerintendent Richmond - 1. Agenda for September will include a hearing on the usefulness of a View Ordinance in Burlingame. Randy Schwartz will present relevant material,and the Commission will receive sample ordinances from other cities. The material should be read carefully before the meeting, because a public hearing will be involved. 2. The September agenda will also include a brief presentation by Victor Voong of Public Works who will explain the new sidewalk replacement policy from the Public Works perspective. The Commission should prepare any questions in advance. 3. The Tree Contract is out to bid; bids will be opened on August 17'. 4. The Parks Division has two retirements this month: Leadworkers, John Chilcott and Frank Rancatore, will be retiring. Those positions, and a third leadworker position (December retirement), will be replaced with only a single person. 5. Several individuals are working under the supervision ofBob Disco on volunteer maintenance projects. Commissioner McOuaide - Commissioner McQuaide reported that she cleaned up garbage and removed dead growth on the 101/Broadway triangle with Commissioner Lauder and Nancy Locke. She added that it was fun, only took 1-2 hours, and that they are looking for other volunteers to clean the area once a month. 5 REPORTS - (Contd.) - Chairperson Hesselgren - Chairperson Hesselgren reported that Rector Cadillac removed two more trees, leaving no trees at the site. Arborist Porter responded that the two trees blew down and needed removing. Chairperson Hesselgren noted that the site should have a total of 15 trees. Arborist Porter responded that he will send a letter to the Honda Dealership to begin the process of getting trees replanted on that commercial site. Chairperson Hesselgren also reported that she picks up garbage every morning on the eastern side of Washington Park at the end of Concord Avenue, and suggested a trash receptacle be placed in that area. Supervisor Bob Disco responded that he would look into the possibility of locating a receptacle in that area. There being no further business, Chairperson Hesselgren stated that since the late, former Mayor, Gloria Barton began her civil service by first serving on the Burlingame Beautification Commission, it would be fitting that this meeting of the Burlingame Beautification Commission be closed in her memory. The meeting was then closed in memory of the late, former Mayor, Gloria Barton at 7:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Karle Harvey Recording Secretary 6 f N- The City of Burlingame CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, August 12, 2004 Commissioners Present: Russ Cohen, Chair Stephen Warden,Vice Chair Eugene Condon Victor James Jim McIver Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Officer Chuck Witt, Police Department Doris Mortensen, Administrative Secretary, Public Works �-- Staff Absent: None Visitors: Sue Martinez, 1321 Cabrillo Avenue,Burlingame Patrick Barrett, 1361 Cabrillo Avenue,Burlingame Peg Hactedt, 1324 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame Dorothy Collopy, 1345 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame Joanne Cassanego, 1316 Cabrillo Avenue,Burlingame Gilda Cassanego, 1316 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame Bob Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue,Burlingame Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame Al Lovotti, Jr., 818 Mahler Road, Burlingame Al Lovotti, Sr., 1588 Gilbreth Road, Burlingame Mark Asbury, 1300 block of Cortez Avenue, Burlingame TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, August 12, 2004 1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. 3. ROLL CALL. 5 of 5 Commissioners present. 4. CURRENT BUSINESS. 4.1 ACTION ITEMS. 4.1.1 Approval of Minutes for July 8, 2004 It was moved and seconded (Comms. Warden/Condon) to approve the July 8, 2004 minutes; approved unanimously by the Commission. 4.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS. 4.2.1 Evaluate on-street parking situation on 1300 block of Cortez Avenue and Cabrillo Avenue Mr. Chou presented the letter which will be sent to Our Lady of Angels (OLA) school and church requesting they implement suggestions with the start of the school year. The suggestions are a result of meetings held at OLA with school and church staffs, local neighbors and facilitated by Commissioners Condon and Cohen. Chair Cohen agreed to send a copy of the letter to residents of Cabrillo Avenue and neighbors who attended the meetings. From the floor, Mr. Asbury, thanked the commission for their efforts and urged implementation and subsequent enforcement. Ms. Martinez, asked when street markings will be added. Mr. Chou said approximately late next week or following week. Officer Witt advised residents to call the police if drivers continue to block their driveways. It was moved and seconded (Comms. Warden/McIver) to adopt the recommendations contained in the letter to Our Lady of Angels and to authorize sending the letter to the school principal and to the parish priest; unanimously approved by the Commission. 4.2.2 Request for various improvements to Parking Lot H and 1513 Burlingame Avenue Mr. Chou provided a synopsis of actions completed and pending to accommodate petitioner. 4.2.3 Parking options for Ecco Restaurant patrons Mr. Chou reiterated petitioner's request for a passenger loading zone in front of restaurant for after 6 p.m. He further explained that adding such a sign to the existing parking meters would require enforcement and potentially towing violators after 6 p.m. when meters in general are no longer enforced. For a simple drop off location, two sites are available at each end of the block at Starbucks and at Stacks' Restaurant. Comm. Condon viewed the site with the petitioner and suggested he work with his neighbors on getting a plan for signage established. Comm. Warden stated that the rear parking lot is for Ecco employees and suggested the possibility of a shuttle The City of Burlingame Page 2 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, August 12, 2004 service to and from a specific location,perhaps the high school parking lot. The valet service at I1 Fornaio across the street is provided for all restaurant patrons in the immediate area; however, one of the valets had stated its use was for I1 Fornaio patrons only. Chair Cohen suggested that a letter be sent to 11 Fornaio to remind them that the valet service is for all restaurants in the vicinity and to change the existing valet signs confirming that. From the floor, Ms. Giorni, said that since this is a short block in a small town, it would be an extravagance for a restaurant to have its own drop-off space. It was moved and seconded (Comms. Condon/Warden) to deny this request for two spaces for pedestrian unloading zones at Ecco Restaurant;unanimously approved by the Commission. Chair Cohen suggested the petitioner contact the Business Improvement District to explore possible solutions for the restaurants in this area. 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS. 5.1 Request for 4-way stop signs at Lincoln Avenue and Laguna Avenue Mr. Chou stated that he will bring the accident history and warrants and volumes for this site to the next meeting. Comm. Warden requested that Mr. Chou also look at Lincoln Avenue at Paloma Avenue. 5.2 Request for 75-foot green zone at 706 Carolan Avenue Mr. Chou stated that this request is from businesses affected by high school parking. 5.3 Evaluate limited-time parking at 818-826 Mahler Road Mr. Chou stated that there are concerns about limos and trucks parking along Mahler and will notify all businesses there of the next meeting. Officer Witt stated that this is a commercial district designed for trucks to keep side streets available for long-term parking. From the floor,Mr.Lovotti stated that on Mahler tenants can't park in front of their own offices and they want"no overnight parking" signs with parking limited to 8 hours. 6. FROM THE FLOOR. 6.1 Pat Giorni requested enforcing overnight parking permits to make drivers park off-street; and with more large vehicles (SUV's, etc.) parking near intersections, it's hard for cyclists to see cross traffic. Bob Giorni stated that street cleaning is futile with all the parked cars on the street.He also said there is a problem getting from one point to another through the city on a bicycle, and that it is a riddle to get through a commercial street like El Camino Real. �-- 7. INFORMATION ITEMS. 7.1 From Staff to Commission The City of Burlingame Page 3 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, August 12, 2004 7.1.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 7.1.1.1 Traffic counts on Trousdale Drive at Burlingame Plaza for Mills/Peninsula Hospital project Mr. Chou advised that the commission received a letter which will be forwarded to the traffic consultants working on the hospital remodel. 7.1.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report Officer Witt stated that the Police Department received four new automated citation devices from the county. He also reported on staff assignment changes. 7.2 From Commission to Staff 7.2.1 Reports of citizen complaints or requests Comm. McIver provided a letter he received about the corner of El Prado and Canyon Roads which contains foliage so high you can't see cross traffic on Canyon. Mr. Chou will contact code enforcement. Comm. Warden asked for an update on the Auto Exec cars with For Sale signs still being parked -� on California Drive. Officer Witt will check on it. Chair Cohen asked for an update on Bellevue. Mr. Chou stated that there is a design problem and cannot get Caltrans' agreement on a good sign location. Chair Cohen asked about complaints received since Caltrans removed signals on El Camino Real at Adeline and at Cambridge. Mr. Chou stated that Caltrans is asking the City to install graphic signs to educate drivers. Comm. Condon asked if there is an update on Occidental. Mr. Chou advised that the signs will be removed by Monday. 7.2.2 Comments and Communication-None. 7.2.3 Expected absences of Commissioners at the Thursday, September 9, 2004 meeting -None. 7.3 Bicycle Safety Issues in Burlingame Chair Cohen advised that this committee has drafted a global plan and will schedule a public meeting next week. From the floor, Pat Giorni made the following comments: Bike lanes make cyclists feel safe, but has been hit by parked drivers who open their car doors without looking; if a cyclist then rides out in the main traffic lane, drivers complain so suggests wider bike lanes; the bike detectors at every signal on El Camino Real are a good idea but some signals aren't timed long enough; Ray Drive should be The City of Burlingame Page 4 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, August 12, 2004 included in the plan; the DMV Handbook and driver education classes should cover information that cyclists are supposed to follow the rules of the road, e.g., her right hand signals are treated as waving by drivers; a second bike crossing at Anza is good; likes the idea of having shower facilities at the train stations; likes the idea of a bike path between stations; also need a path from Broadway to Millbrae near California Drive; where East Lane becomes Carolan Avenue creates awkward traffic flow; Carolan Avenue at Oak Grove Avenue is difficult since it's only a 3-way stop; using Adeline or Hillside to get to Skyline is not good, it's better to use Hillsborough Blvd. to Black Mountain Road to Skyline; recommends installing "Share the Road" signs; Burlingame Avenue merchants need to be aware that they need to make room for bike racks; likes the zebra crossings; requests bike rack at City Hall be fixed. She provided a website of interest to cyclists: www.bicyclefriendlycommuniiy.org Comm. Warden suggested moving Item 7.3 close to Item 6 so attendees can input their comments earlier in the meeting. 8. INACTIVE ITEMS. 9. AGENDIZE FOR THE NEXT MEETING. 5.1 to Discussion 5.2 to Discussion 5.3 to Discussion �. 10. ADJOURNMENT. 8:50 p.m. The City of Burlingame Page 5 MEETING MINUTES Regular Meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission Thursday, August 19, 2004 The regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by Chairman Larios at 7: 50 pm at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road. ROLL CALL Commissioners Present: Heathcote, Kahn, Lawson, Larios Commissioners Absent: Dittman, Erickson, Muller Staff Present: Parks & Recreation Director Schwartz Others Present: None MINUTES Commissioner Heathcote noted that the minutes of the June 17, 2004 meeting incorrectly state that the next meeting would be held on July 15`h, instead of August 19th. The minutes were then approved as corrected. OLD BUSINESS A. Pershing Park Playground Rehabilitation — Commissioners Heathcote & Lawson reported on the progress of the Pershing Park Rehabilitation project. At the next meeting of the playground committee, five playground vendors will make proposals of playground equipment. In response to a question from Commissioner Kahn, Director Schwartz stated that Pershing Park and Cuernavaca Park are the last two playgrounds that need to be brought into compliance with ADA & current playground safety standards. The Pershing project is expected to begin in early spring and will use funds from State Proposition 40. PUBLIC COMMENTS - None NEW BUSINESS A. Public Art Policy — Director Schwartz informed the Commissioners that the City Council will discuss establishing a City policy related to public art. Should Council choose to adopt such a policy, Staff's recommendation will include the formation of a Committee comprised of Parks & Recreation Commissioners, Beautification Commissioners and Library Board members. Commissioners Lawson and Kahn volunteered to serve on the Committee, if it is formed. Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes August 19,2004—page 2 REPORTS A. Parks & Recreation Department Report In addition to the attached, Director Schwartz reported on the impacts of the State's budget on the City. B. Commissioners - none NEXT MEETING The next meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission will be held on Thursday, September 16, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. at Burlingame City Hall. There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 8:08 pm. Respectfully submitted, Randy Schwartz Director of Parks & Recreation City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 �.; phone: (650) 558-7300 • fax: (650) 696-7216 recreation@,burlingame.org Date: August 19, 2004 To: Parks &Recreation Commissioners City Council From: Randy Schwartz ttla4_ Re: Monthly Report Parks Division 1. Timberline Tree Service was the low bidder on the annual Tree Pruning/Stump Grinding Contract. 2. Parks has two retirements this month—Leadworkers John Chilcott and Frank Rancatore. Those employees and a third leadworker, scheduled to retire in December, will be replaced with a single person, due to the budget reductions. 3. Several individuals are working under the supervision of Bob Disco on volunteer maintenance projects. 4. Proposals have been received for new playground equipment at Pershing Park. The Playground Committee will interview the vendors in September and select an equipment package for the park. Five vendors submitted nine different designs for the equipment. 5. The Parks Division Yard was repaved in July(last paved in the 70s) and is a great improvement. 6. The BART landscape screen project on north California construction has begun. 7. The Washington Park playground received final approval by the State representative. The final 20% of the Bond funding (about$18,000)will now be dispersed to the City. 8. Parks Division hosted a seminar on ballfield maintenance, sponsored by Sierra Pacific, that included sessions on mound building and infield drilling/filling aeration techniques. City received treatment of its Washington Park infield as a benefit of the seminar. Recreation Division 1. Summer programs were well organized and well attended with over 8,000 enrollments. 2. Impact of construction at Burlingame High School was held to a minimum with restructuring of certain camps, rental of port-a-potties and use of generator. Pool experienced some phone & power problems. 3. Movies in the Park were very well received in both July and August and will be increased in 2005. 4. Music in the Park Concerts were very well attended and were once again sponsored by Violia Water. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA August 23, 2004 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the August 23, 2004,regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran,Boju6s, Keighran, Osterling and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Brownrigg(arrived 7:07 p.m.), Keele Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES The minutes of the July 26, 2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. C. Brownrigg arrived at 7:07 p.m. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. `-dI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1417/1419 SANCHEZ AVENUE,ZONED R-2—APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING DUPLEX AND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (RAYMOND BRAYER, APPLICANT, DESIGNER AND PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • What is the maximum FAR that can be built on this site? • How will the use of the second floor of the accessory structure be divided between the two residences; who will get to use the recreation room? • Why was the accessory structure located where it is proposed? • Could the applicant provide a phone number so it would be possible to schedule an inspection tour,gate was locked when visited. • How was the front property line determined for this land-locked site? What use does the R-2 district allow, this is an extraordinary situation which makes it difficult to interpret the code. • Is the Commission approving the landscaping? • With this plan there is potential for several dwelling units,why will the recreation room over the garage or addition not become another dwelling unit? ., This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:20 p.m. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 23, 2004 2. 1512 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED M-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO SALES (ELLIOT SCHAFFER, APPLICANT; COEN COMPANY INC., PROPERTY OWNER) --� PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Conditions should limit the number of car sales per year from this site to be sure the auto sales does not take over. • What is the type of business done by the other tenant of the building? • Does the lease for this business assign parking spaces? • Signage for this new tenant should not include car sales because it is a retail use. Also there should be no sales signs on the cars. Feel that the number of sales per year should be limited to 10. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant,a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 3A. 1570 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW,TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH DETACHED GARAGE(BRIAN ROCHE,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;JAMES CRU,CHU DESIGN& ENGR., INC., DESIGNER) (59 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 3B. 1208 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW RETAIL TENANT (SMITH AND HAWKEN, APPLICANT; SILMA GONZALEZ, ASHDOWN DOWNEY LLP, ARCHITECT; CAPITAL REALTY GROUP, PROPERTY OWNER) (68 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1(C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. 615 VERNON WAY,ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION(DAVID AND ARLEEN CAUCHI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; PIERLUIGI SERRAINO, DESIGNER) (70 --� NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report August 23,2004,with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 23, 2004 and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. David Cauchi, property owner, noted that the existing house contains three bedrooms,also noted that there is an error on the plans regarding the bathroom window at the rear,revised plans note that the bathroom window was reduced to 36"x 36"',window will actually be 74"x 28" in size. Commission noted that at the last meeting it was suggested that the shed dormer at the rear of the house be offset on the west elevation, feel that it can be easily done, would be a big difference in composition, would read like a dormer,why was it not done? Property owner noted that he reviewed the suggestion with his structural engineer, engineer believes that offsetting the dormer is not a structurally sound option,this portion of the building is not visible except to the next door neighbor. Commission noted that the west elevation was visible from the street when driving by the site,not difficult to offset the dormer as suggested, disappointed that it was not done. Continued discussion: Commission noted that there is a lot of articulation on the west elevation, this elevation is not that massive;respect the structural engineer's comments about offsetting the wall,this side of the house is not highly visible, can support project as proposed. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C.Bojues moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following conditions: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 16, 2004, sheets A.01 and A.02, and date stamped August 6,2004,sheets A.03 through A.06;and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2)that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subject to design review; 3)that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type, etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5)that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7)that the conditions of the City Engineer's June 1, 2004 memo and Recycling Specialist's June 2, 2004, memo shall be met; 8) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 9) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code,2001 edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-1-1 (C. Vistica `-- dissenting, C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 23, 2004 5. 818 LAUREL AVENUE,ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (STEVE RANDAL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; RICHARD ANL`" NANCY SCIUTTO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (97 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report August 23,2004,with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked for a clarification regarding the landscaping, Sheet 1.1 shows landscaping on either side of the front walkway, however the photo in the staff report shows paving,which one is correct? Plr Hurin noted that the photo was outdated since it was taken several months ago,can have applicant clarify further. Commission noted that the shading comparison of the existing and proposed house on sheet 3.1 was very helpful. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Steve Randel, designer, 1655 Mission Street #529, San Francisco, noted that the changes to the side of the house were made as suggested by the Commission, clarified that there will be landscaping on both sides of the front walkway at the front of the lot. Commission noted that there are three bedrooms in the house,can be flexible with the existing garage since only one covered space is required, the garage takes up so much of the rear yard space, should consider reducing the size of the garage in the future; Commission pointed out that the north arrow is incorrectly shown on the plans. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran noted that the addition is modest and blends in well with the existing house and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as --� shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 22, 2004, sheets 1.1 througl: 3.1,site plan,floor plans,building elevations and landscape plan and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit;2)that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window(s),adding a dormer(s)or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type, etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans;5)that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 8) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, City Engineer, Chief Building Official and Fire Marshal's memos dated June 7, 2004 shall be met; and 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,2001 edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by -� C. Vistica. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Keele 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 23, 2004 absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 6. 745 LEXINGTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (WALT WORTHGE, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BRIAN WACHHORST, PROPERTY OWNER) (38 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Reference staff report August 23,2004,with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission noted that condition#7 requires the roof height to be surveyed,how will the FAR be similarly checked during construction so that it is not exceeded? CP Monroe noted that the building inspectors will ensure that the footprint and walls are built according to the plans. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Walt Worthge,designer,21 Avila Road, San Mateo,noted that the roof height was lowered by 18 inches by removing the first floor barreled ceiling. Commission noted that the top of the first floor plate is at 8'-4" and the top of the second floor is at 10'-6",typically see F-2" space rather than 2'-2" as proposed, why do you need 2'-2"? Designer noted that he likes to separate the ceiling joists and second floor floor joists to provide an additional P-0" for heating ducts and plumbing pipes. Commission noted that the proportions are much better with the revised plans,project looks better. Commission asked if the existing hedges will be retained at the front of the lot? Designer noted that the hedges will be removed for the addition, have not thought about replacement landscaping. Commission noted that there needs to be something to bring more focus to the front door,can be done with landscaping on each side; designer agreed. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran noted that the project was greatly improved through the design review process and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 21,2004, Sheets 1 through 7 site plan, floor plans and building elevations; 2)that any increase to the habitable basement floor area and any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure,replacing or relocating a window(s),adding a dormer(s)or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3)that the landscaping at the front of the house shall be designed to enhance the front entrance door;the landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect,engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in the project,the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department;5)that prior to final inspection,Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined,where possible,to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7)that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;and 8)that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 9)that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 23, 2004 interior or exterior,shall require a demolition permit; 10)that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist,City Engineer,Fire Marshal and Chief Building Official's memos dated June 4,2004 shall be met; and 11)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Commission discussion: would like to see a condition added which requires the front yard landscaping be designed to bring focus to the front entrance, and that the landscape plan be reviewed and approved by the City Planner and the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit. The maker of the motion and second agreed. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:00 p.m. 7. 1553 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE(RANDY GRANGE,TRG ARCHITECTS,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;OTTO MILLER, PROPERTY OWNER) (47 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Keighran recused herself from this item because she lives within 500 feet of the property. The City Attorney also recused himself because he was involved in an enforcement action on a neighboring property which involved the same applicant. C. Keighran and the City Attorney left the chambers. Reference staff report August 23,2004,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. She also entered into the record a memo from the City Traffic Engineer,dated August 20,2004,prepared at the request of neighbor Mrs.Garcia,in which he reviews the study and its conclusions prepared by the applicant's Traffic Engineer. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, architect, 205 Park Road, represented the project, he noted that he had not expected that the discussion on this project would come down to the location of the driveway. He noted that he had located the driveway on the south(left)side of the house for what he felt were three obvious reasons:there would be fewer cars at the end of the block;it would be better for 1552 Drake because it would be easier to use their driveway; and it would benefit the houses at the "dead" end of the street. These observations were supported by the professional traffic engineer the Commission directed them to hire to evaluate the circulation. He submitted pictures to support his observations. In picture A it shows a car parked in the one spot that the Garcia's are concerned about,if the driveway is on the north side will have to juggle around. Picture B shows how the driveways currently converge and the potential for vehicular contact. He also noted that he had prepared a shadow study. Commissioners asked: in picture B where would the curb cut be located? would replace in front of both 1553 and 1557 in the public right of way; feel it would be better to move the driveway to the north side of the house based on the test that the people who live there say not on the south side and they are the ones who will have to live with it? Architect noted that both the private consultant and the City Engineer supported relocation to the south,will be safer; thought that the shadow study was thorough and clear. Comments from the public: Janet and Jay Garcia, 1557 and 1561 Drake; Dave Taylor, 1561 Drake. Upset -� that the City Traffic Engineer visited the site without contacting her and talking to her in the field as did the consulting traffic engineer;if there is not a red curb in front of the proposed house,she will not be able to get out of her driveway because the car has to clear her front steps before it can begin to turn, also will be 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 23, 2004 impossible if a car is parked in the proposed apron area; in 23 years she has never had a problem turning using the existing converging driveways. If have second car in the driveway in front of garage door,can't go right without going all the way to the middle of the street, often back in so able to pull out; if one has an emergency with children will delay because have to maneuver in/out; for 22 years never had a problem, including when all three houses occupied;why did the developer not ask them in the beginning?Opposed to losing on-street parking,the proposed new houses are bigger and will need place to put cars. Study prepared does not address delivery trucks who use the combined driveway to turn around at the end of the street;lived there almost 20 years,back into driveway so sure children playing at end of street are safe when pull out;the 5 driveways at the end of the block create a "de facto" cul-de-sac; someone maliciously built a fence between 1557 and 1561 which makes it harder to maneuver at the end of the block; need to consider the credibility of the applicant,asked previously to look at this as a four unit subdivision,has not abided by the construction requirements regarding trucks off street on lot 11,even if allowed to build here will he abide by the conditions of approval, the de facto cul-de-sac has worked for 20 years, not need to change now. Commissioners asked property owners: in your view if the driveway is placed on the south as proposed would it hurt your property value?Not thought about,will change the way we live there;if it were harder to get out? guess it would affect value as a safety issue if you have a family. You are the property owner of 1557? yes. Would it hurt the value of 1557 to relocate the driveway to the south side? 1557 is next door to the new house, it would block the view from the side windows,value is not an issue have raised or plan to raise. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: feel that this is the wrong site location for the building, take the neighbors seriously,may not be the aesthetic solution but it has worked for them for 20 years,its common sense since the street was built as a dead end; feel property values of both 1557 and 1561 will be impaired by building in the proposed configuration especially when there is an alternative,like the building design it's the location which is unworkable. Disagree, even neighbor said no property loss, in fact believe new houses will enhance value; neighbors have created a fog over loosing a parking space, experts reports say that the location to the south will increase safety, there are still five driveways at the end of the street. Agree that adding pretty new houses will improve value whether driveway on left or right.But there will be significant movement problems created and that will impair the value of the driveway and parking of 1557 and 1561. Traffic reports state driveway safer on the south side; accident opportunity is slight only if cars backing out of driveways at the same time; study did not address delivery trucks,configured as it is now(north side)is safer for those types of vehicles;concerned with the impact of shadows of the new house on the house next door,particularly 1553 at the north edge would caste significant shadows on next door house located on an odd shaped lot and would affect where new development on this lot would be located,the shadow impact should be borne by the new house on lot 11;prefer driveway on the north side. Would like to leave action open for architect to make change. Design is tasteful, nice elevations. This house is nicely designed, confident architect can do another as nicely,recognize it is not as easy as flipping the current design,would not encourage flipping the current design. C.Bojues noting the present house is nicely designed and that the architect is very capable,can do a suitable design with the driveway relocated to the south, moved to deny the application without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: regarding the design, think that the second floor deck at the rear is big enough to affect the privacy of the neighbors using their back yards, should make deck smaller; asking for a special �. permit for height, 31'-10" with a 12:12 pitch roof, feel could lower the first floor plate 6" and reduce the mass and bulk some. Commission discussed briefly the alternatives for action. CP noted that if the item 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 23, 2004 were denied without prejudice it is an action and the applicant can appeal to the city council if he wishes. If the item is continued there is no action and the applicant may return with a new design to the Planning -� Commission. There are no additional planning fees in either case. C. Bojues, maker of the motion, moved to amend his motion to deny without prejudice, to a motion to continue action on the item to allow the applicant to respond to the issues raised by the Commission, particularly the relocation of the driveway to the north side of the property. C.Brownrigg,the second on the motion, agreed to the amendment. Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote on the amended motion to continue this item until the applicant had had an opportunity to revise the plans and relocate the driveway to the north side of the property. The motion to continue the item passed on a 4-1-1-1 (C. Auran dissenting, C. Keighran abstaining, C. Keele absent)roll call vote. C. Osterling noted that this action is not appealable,and revised plans will be brought back to the commission as soon as they have been submitted and plan checked by staff. This item concluded at 8:50 p.m. C.Keighran returned to the dias and took her seat. CA Anderson also returned to the chambers and took his seat. 8. 1411 CHAPIN AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA B1,BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA—APPLICATION FOR PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF A WALL SIGN ATTACHED TO THE SIDE OF AN EXISTING BUILDING WHICH ABUTS AN ADJACENT PRIVATELY OWNED PARCEL (KYLE BACH, SITE ENHANCEMENT SERVICES, INC., APPLICANT;RONALD KARP,PROPERTY OWNER)(42 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER:RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report August 23,2004,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if there is a limit on illumination the sign with this application?No. Commission also asked if the proposed sign would create a sight line variance? No,there is no burden created on the adjacent property with this sign proposal. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Kyle Bach, applicant, 3601 W. Lathrop Drive, South Bend, Indiana,noted that they found that the building was offset five inches from the side property line,so reduced the width of the sign to five inches so that it does not extend across the property line, original design had sign extending onto the adjacent property; submitted copy of lease agreement with the adjacent property owner for the overhanging sign which documented that they allowed the encroachment,not necessary now since the sign does not extend across property line. Commission asked about the maintenance of the sign, does the agreement allow access to the sign from the adjacent property? Yes. Commission asked if the existing and proposed signs would be lit all night? Applicant noted that he thinks the existing signs are lit all night, the proposed sign would also be lit all night. Commission noted that sign illumination can be limited with a timer. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following conditions: 1)that the wall sign(E3) (2'-1"x 10'-5", 22 SF in area)shall be installed as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped August 10,2004, sheet 1-10(8%i"x 14" sheet); 2)that the wall sign(E3)on the northeast wall shall have a maximum depth of 5-inches from face of the sign can to wall of the building and that the maximum height of Sign E3 shall be 29'-0"; that any illumination shall be confined within the 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 23,2004 can and face of the sign; 3) that the proposed sign shall not extend over the shared side property line between 1411 Chapin Avenue and 1420 Burlingame Avenue, nor shall the sign be installed, repaired or maintained from the adjacent property without written permission; 4) that the property owner at 1420 Burlingame Avenue shall not be responsible for any damage which may occur to the wall sign(E3)on the northeast wall of the building at 1411 Chapin Avenue; 5) that the placement of the proposed sign in the approved location shall not vest any rights to the property owner of 1411 Chapin Avenue which would prevent future development on the adjacent property at 1420 Burlingame Avenue; and 6)that the project shall meet all the requirements of the municipal code and of the California Building and Fire Codes,2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Commission discussion: would like to see only the sign on the front of the building lit all night,other signs on the side of the building should be limited. CA Anderson pointed out that the Commission can only address the proposed sign on the east wall. Commission agreed to place no limit on the illumination of the proposed sign on the east wall. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. IX, DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 716 VERNON WAY,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR A BASEMENT, FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (JOHN STEWART, STEWART ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; JEFF AND JENNIFER CASTELLO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (68 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked about the removal of the existing Magnolia tree and the Italian Cypress trees in the landscape design,noting that they would be contrasting to other proposed species and should be replaced with something less dramatic. Staff commented that a permit was granted for removal of the Magnolia. Commission also stated that the Crepe Myrtle trees in the front would not properly bloom because of the shade in the area and that other flowering species should be considered. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Alfredo Reyes,applicant and designer, 1351 Laurel Street,San Carlos,submitted a list of neighbors who were in favor of the project;that the addition is consistent with the existing home, the surrounding neighborhood and that it looks like only one story from the street. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commission discussion: • Think the project is a beautiful design and appreciate how the mass of the home is set back from the street; • Concern with the privacy of the neighbors and the lack of detail along both side elevations; • Suggested breaking up the side elevations by adding a trellis with vines growing up it,adding windows along the garage wall and extending the stone veneer along the sides further towards the rear of the property; • A fence along the right hand side of the property would visually break up the side elevation; • A landscape plan should be submitted as part of the resubmittal. 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 23, 2004 C. Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. 10. 116 BLOOMFIELD ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(BOB KOTMEL,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;JESSE GEURSE,DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Jesse Geurse, applicant and designer, 405 Bayswater Ave, spoke in favor of the second story addition which meets the needs of his client's growing family. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commissioners asked that the applicant address the following: • What material is the proposed chimney made of? • The random placement of the windows along the right side elevation should be more organized; • There should be an overhang over the proposed front entryway; • A full set of landscape plans should be provided for the action meeting; • The windows and doors should be true divided light; --� • The applicant should submit studies of alternative heights for the front entry tower, the plan should reflect his preferred choice; • The size of the corbels should be increased to help the design. C. Brownrigg made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. 11. 1444 BERNAL AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (ANDREW YOUNG, YOUNG AND BORLIK ARCHITECTS, INC., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DAVID CROSATTO, PROPERTY OWNER) (73 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Don Crosatto,property owner, stated that he grew up in this house and was given the house by his father, his father will live with his family in the remodeled house. Andrew Young,applicant and architect,261 Hamilton Ave.,Palo Alto,CA,stated that a reduction was made in the originally proposed FAR because of the inclusion of the basement area in the calculation. The side --� was trimmed to avoid a variance for driveway width. He also stated that a neighborhood meeting was held, 9 neighbors attended to take a look at the project. Only one neighbor expressed any concern, it was with 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 23, 2004 privacy. To address,offered to raise the sill height to 5'which is possible and still meet egress requirement. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners asked that the applicant address: • The chimney in the front should come down in height; • The front picture window on the right hand side should be dressed up; • A street tree should be added as part of the project; • The second chimney should also be reduced in height, could it be a gas fireplace? C. Bojues made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. 12. 1101 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA—APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW TO REMODEL AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A CHANGE IN THE CLASSIFICATION OF A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT AND SEATING AREA(RIYAD SALMA,APPLICANT; STAN VISTICA,ARCHITECT; SALMA FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER) (28 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Vistica recused himself because he has a financial interest associated with the proposed project. He `. stepped down from the dias, but stayed in the Chambers to answer questions on the project. Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if material samples were requested? No. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Riyad Salina,applicant,2504 Easton Drive,Burlingame,and Stan Vistica,architect,24 Arundel Road,noted that the four existing retail spaces which would be combined into one large space are now relatively small, their floor plans are awkward, the buildings' mechanical systems are outdated,intent is to enhance the building and the vitality of that corner,this is a focal point of the commercial area,are not at the point of choosing specific materials,type of tiles. Commission noted that the materials should be made available since this is a highly visible corner. Architect noted that only change to the exterior would be the tile color and window system, awnings will be canvas and the color will be chosen depending on the tenant. Commission asked if a tenant has been chosen. Applicant noted that a tenant has not been chosen at this time,it is difficult to choose a tenant without having an approved project, however, Italian, Mediterranean and pizza establishments have shown interest, the anticipated number of employees and customers were derived from sampling other food establishments in the area. Commission asked for clarification about how the proposed operable windows will function? Architect noted that they would most likely slide open, since windows cannot encroach into the public right-of-way. Continued discussion: the proposed large food establishment may be a substantial intensification of use at this location,concerned about impacts on parking in the area,asked if valet parking can be required with the project? CP Monroe noted that it can be required if shown that it is needed. Applicant noted that the �— restaurant would provide valet parking if it would help with parking,could only decide to add valet parking 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 23, 2004 once the restaurant is operating. CA Anderson noted that in the past valet parking program was referred to the Traffic and Safety Commission for review. Commission noted that the idea of valet parking should be -� considered. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojues noted that the design changes are minor, will enhance and revitalize this corner, and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: proposed use will be less intense than the existing uses,existing food establishments have no on-site seating and therefore have a higher turnover of customers,proposed restaurant will have on- site seating and customers will stay for a longer time, even the barber shop has a high turnover demand;do not oppose the project,but concerned with the traffic and parking between 5 and 8 pm. CA noted that the Commission can bring back the conditional use permit for review and ask for additional parking information. Commission asked if a review can be required in six months; yes. A six month review is appropriate, especially if a traffic/parking problem were to emerge. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when a materials board has been submitted and noted that conditions of approval should reflect the concerns expressed by the Commission. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-1-1 (C. Vistica abstaining, C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m. 13. 214-216 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA —APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW TO CONVERT THE GROUND FLOOR OF AN EXISTING TWO-STORY HOTEL TO RETAIL (LORTON LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MICHAEL KASTROP, THE KASTROP GROUP INC., -� ARCHITECT) (38 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Michael Kastrop,architect, 1101 Main Street,Redwood City, noted that the property was recently sold to a new owner,the existing building is in disrepair,the intent is to improve the building, trying to create an old world European feel, the proposed first floor retail use is a better use for the building. Commission noted that this is a major renovation to the fagade, proposal is to reduce the number of windows at the front,is applicant aware of the costs to do the proposed improvements, want to make sure the applicant understands that what the Commission approves must be built,do not want to see the project come back with changes; project looks great, this is a big improvement to the building, would like to see a materials board submitted. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission asked the project to address: • Submit materials board for project. • Have the comments been addressed from the Fire Department regarding providing a dedicated rear exit for the retail and hotel rooms on the second floor? • Will the hotel residents and retail tenant be using the same trash room? Provide information on the adequacy of the proposed size, check BFI service requirements/frequency. -� • Who might the retail tenant be? 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 23, 2004 • Concerned that the frequent delivery and trash pick-up area off Hatch Lane will block traffic,like to see comment from the City Engineer regarding this issue; could recommend a limit on delivery hours. C.Bojues made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the requested information has been provided. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the requested information has been provided. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Keele absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - City Council regular meeting of August 2, 2004, was canceled. - Report on the regular City Council meeting on August 16, 2004. CP Monroe reviewed the actions related to Planning which were taken by the City Council on August 16, 2004. - Planning Commission acknowledged the revisions to chimney material of an approved design review at 2414 Hale Drive. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michael Brownrigg, Secretary S:\MfNUTES\08.23.04.unapproved.doc 13 08- 16-04 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE : 1 FOR: JULY, 2004 Current Prev 1 Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . YTD. . Change % Change Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 Manslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 Rape By Force 0 2 3 4 - 1 -25 . 00 Attempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 1 0 1 Robbery Firearm 1 0 4 1 3 300 . 00 Robbery Knife 0 0 0 1 -1 -100 . 00 Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon 0 0 4 4 0 0 . 00 Robbery Strong-Arm 0 0 2 3 - 1 -33 . 33 Assault - Firearm 0 0 0 0 0 Assault - Knife 1 0 4 3 1 33 . 33 Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 2 3 9 9 0 0 . 00 Assault - Hands, Fists, Feet 2 0 7 3 4 133 . 33 Assault - Other (Simple) 12 18 122 98 24 24 . 49 Burglary - Forcible Entry 10 3 53 41 12 29 . 27 Burglary - Unlawful Entry 7 7 65 33 32 96 . 97 Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Purse-Snatching 0 1 0 1 -1 -100 . 00 Larceny Shoplifting 4 4 20 15 5 33 . 33 Larceny From Motor Vehicle 26 13 180 121 59 48 . 76 Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 6 3 36 31 5 16 . 13 Larceny Bicycles 3 3 14 18 -4 -22 . 22 Larceny From Building 1 1 9 9 0 0 . 00 Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 1 3 11 17 -6 -35 . 29 Larceny All Other 21 22 157 133 24 18 . 05 Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 10 6 72 38 34 89 . 47 Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 0 1 0 2 -2 - 100 . 00 Motor Vehicle Theft Other 3 2 4 3 1 33 . 33 - - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 110 92 777 588 110 92 777 588 08-16-04 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: JULY, 2004 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change All Other Offenses 36 44 274 243 31 12.76 Animal Abuse 0 1 1 1 0 0.00 Animal Nuisance 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Arson 0 4 4 10 -6 -60.00 Assists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Bigamy 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Offense 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Bomb Threat 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Bribery 0 0 0 0 0 Check Offenses 0 1 3 14 -11 -78.57 Child Neglect/prot custody 1 4 12 12 0 0.00 Computer Crime 0 0 0 0 0 Conspiracy 0 0 0 0 0 Credit Card Offenses 0 0 0 0 0 Cruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 2 2 0 0.00 Curfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 0 0 0 Death Investigation 2 0 19 16 3 18.75 Disorderly Conduct 0 2 10 22 -12 -54.55 Driver's License Violations 0 1 2 3 -1 -33.33 Driving Under the Influence 9 6 51 36 15 41.67 Drug Abuse Violations 3 2 26 13 13 100.00 Drug/Sex Registrants 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00 Drunkeness 6 7 34 37 -3 -8.11 Embezzlement 3 0 14 5 9 180.00 Escape 0 0 0 0 0 Extortion 0 0 0 0 0 False Police Reports 0 0 0 0 0 False Reports of Emergency 0 0 0 0 0 Fish and Game Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Forgery and Counterfeiting 4 2 25 31 -6 -19.35 Found Property 10 15 65 55 10 18.18 Fraud 2 3 22 26 -4 -15.38 Gambling 0 0 0 0 0 Harrassing Phone Calls 2 4 27 28 -1 -3.57 08-16-04 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: JULY, 2004 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change Hit and Run Accidents 4 6 36 19 17 89.47 Impersonation 0 1 1 1 0 0.00 Incest 0 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 0 0 3 5 -2 -40.00 Intimidating a Witness 0 0 1 0 1 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 Lewd Conduct 0 0 2 0 2 Liquor Laws 0 0 5 5 0 0.00 Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 Marijuana Violations 3 2 16 11 5 45.45 Mental Health Cases 9 15 63 68 -5 -7.35 Missing Person 6 2 35 1.2 23 191.67 Missing Property 9 11 56 60 -4 -6.67 Municipal Code Violations 7 5 38 21 17 80.95 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 1 0 1 Offenses Against Children 0 1 1 5 -4 -80.00 Other Assaults 12 18 122 98 24 24.49 Other Juvenile Offenses 0 1 2 3 -1 -33.33 Other Police Service 1 8 41 33 8 24.24 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 0 0 1 0 1 Perjury 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of Burglary Tools 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0 Probation Violations 0 0 3 5 -2 -40.00 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 1 0 1 Prowling 0 0 0 0 0 Resisting Arrest 0 0 3 0 3 Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0 Sex Offenses 0 2 1 3 -2 -66.67 Sex Offenses against Children 0 0 1 3 -2 -66.67 Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 Stalking 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00 Statutory Rape 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 08-16-04 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 CITY REPORT FOR: JULY, 2004 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change & Change Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00 Suspended License 5 3 29 17 12 70.59 Tax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 Temp Restraining Orders 2 1 26 20 6 30.00 Terrorist Threats 0 0 20 11 9 81.82 Towed Vehicle 29 50 242 234 8 3.42 Trespassing 1 1 8 9 -1 -11.11 Truants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 0 3 1 2 200.00 US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 Vandalism 14 28 117 157 -40 -25.48 Vehicle Code Violations 5 2 18 32 -14 -43.75 Violation of Court Order 3 3 11 15 -4 -26.67 Warrants - Felony 1 3 9 8 1 12.50 Warrants - Misd 8 4 38 18 20 111.11 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 2 1 12 5 7 140.00 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 ------- ------ ------- ------- 199 267 1,560 1,444 199 267 1,560 1,444 08-16-04 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : 1 CITY REPORT FOR: JULY, 2004 Current Prev Last Actual Actual Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . YTD. . Parking Citations 4662 4 , 698 29, 281 21, 961 Moving Citations 239 259 1, 933 1, 705 - ------ ------ ------- ------- 4901 4 , 957 31, 214 23 , 666 4901 4 , 957 31, 214 23 , 666 BURLINGAME Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 08/16/2004 at 05: 06: 49 PM Reported On: All Officers Report Range: 07/01/2004 to 07/31/2004 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Valid % All Voids All $ Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DAVIS 190 1094 23.76 7 10.45 99.36 DAZA-QUIROZ 634 485 10.53 8 11.94 98.38 GARRETT 501 1129 24.52 21 31.34 98.17 HARRISON 506 1151 24.99 10 14.93 99.14 KIRKPATRICK 502 746 16.20 21 31.34 97.26 Total 4605 67 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME BUILDING INSPECTION MONTHLY PERMIT ACTIVITY AUGUST, 2004 F.Y. 2004 F.Y. 2003 SAME MONTH THIS YEAR LAST YEAR THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF TO DATE TO DATE DIFF Permit type # valuation # valuation % # Valuation # valuation % New Single Family 3 $1,028,688 2 $1,010,000 1.9 4 $1,463,688 3 $1,360,000 7.6 New Multi-Family 0 $0 0 $0 .0 0 $0 0 $0 .0 New Commercial 0 $0 1 $2,500,000 100.0- 0 $0 1 $2,500,000 100.0- Alterations-Res 33 $1,939,050 26 $1,678,165 15.5 59 $3,538,100 65 $2,960,665 19.5 Alterations-NonRes 8 $245,625 11 $1,855,000 86.8- 16 $2,920,732 18 $2,935,500 .5- Demolition 4 $1,500 6 $21,000 92.9- 6 $1,500 13 $21,000 92.9- Swimming Pool 0 $0 2 $50,000 100.0- 0 $0 2 $50,000 100.0- Sign Permits 5 $7,062 3 $13,600 47.9- 9 $13,432 7 $42,900 68.7- Fences 0 $0 1 $1,500 100.0- 0 $0 1 $1,500 100.0- Reroofing 34 $390,659 36 $469,062 16.7- 74 $1,029,403 67 $757,084 36.0 Repairs 3 $24,800 6 $32,700 24.2- 6 $79,800 10 $51,700 54.4 Window Repl 9 $79,056 6 $23,629 234.6 19 $180,691 16 $81,556 121.6 Miscellaneous 2 $3,660 3 $32,000 88.6- 5 $31,430 5 $61,000 48.5- TOTALS...... 101 $3,720,120 103 $7,686,656 51.6- 198 $9,258,776 208 $10,822,905 14.5- 9/01/04 7:21:23 RE ENVED --"mar AUG 2 3 1004 _ CITY CLERK SUFFICE y- OF BURLINGAME Not . j ♦ . -, :e. AA; ! / DISTRI M'ION: rCouncil please responc 9 ity Manager -- City AttorneyE No Response Required w � .. ❑ Dir. Finance City Planner Public Works uman Resources /!, G — Police Chief ' _ f '. (� '• Fire Chief On Next Agenda 0042,.x. _ Parks& Rec s (f/y Librarian at;L nLf4--- _ PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR -- - — - RESPONSE TO THEY CLERK ERK fizV +- - - - -- 9 R.�.� - - 1 _ash/''j�� 1 1 i K 57 XL Comcast® Comcast Cable 12647 Alcosta Blvd.,Suite 200,POB 5147 San Ramon,CA 94583 Tel:925.973.7070 August 18, 2004 www.comcast.com Mr. Jesus Nava Finance Director/Treasurer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94010 Re: Courtesy Notification of Digital Additions and Other Programming Adjustments Dear Mr. Jesus Nava: It has always been our goal at Comcast Cable to ensure that your office remains informed of the programming services offered to our customers who reside in the rebuilt areas of your community. In pursuit of that goal we are sending you this courtesy letter to inform you of upcoming programming adjustments. Effective August 18, 2004 Comcast will add two (2) channels to the current Digital and High Definition (HD) line-ups. The additions are as follows: Channel Action Channel Name Location Service Requirements Add KGO-DT Weather 187 Limited Basic subscription & Digital Converter Add KRON HD 704 Limited Basic subscription & High Definition Converter KGO-DT Weather features a 24-hour Doppler radar weather screen that focuses on the Bay Area. Secondly, in a letter dated July 28, 2004 we notified your office of the relocation of several High Definition (HD) programming services. In the notice we provided an effective date of September 1, 2004. Please be advised that the effective date of the HD relocation is tentatively, September 8, 2004. Please feel free to contact Kathi Noe at (650) 289-6794 with any questions or concerns that you may have regarding the matter. Sincerely, l Mitzi Givens-Fussell on behalf of Kathi Noe Director of Government Affairs and Franchising West Bay Peninsula Area CO J—ica st. Comcast Cable 'f 1T7, Tl 12647 Alcosta Blvd.,Suite 200,POB 5147 San Ramon,CA 94583 Tel:925.973.7070 August 23, 2004 www.comcast.com Mr. Jesus Nava Finance Director/Treasurer City of Burlingame 50 Park Lane Burlingame, CA. 94010 Subject: Comcast's Launch of the NFL Network in Your Community Dear Mr. Nava: In an effort to ensure that your office remains informed of Comcast's expanding programming services offered to our customers who reside in your community we are sending you this letter. This is our official notice to your office of our intention to launch new programming in the rebuilt areas of your community. Effective September 15, 2004 Comcast will launch the NFL Network on the Digital level of services (in the Digital Plus plan). The programming will be located on channel 180. The NFL Network is the first cable and satellite network fully dedicated to the NFL and the sport of football. NFL Network includes the only year-round news show dedicated to the NFL, NFL Total Access, an Xs and Os show called, Playbook, the Emmy-award winning, NFL Presents, preseason games in 2004, NFL Europe League games, replays of classic NFL games, plus a documentary series called, In Their Own Words. There also are coaches' shows, press conference, and condensed versions of some of the most interesting games from Sunday. For more information about the NFL Network please visit the following web address: http://www.nfl.com/nflnetwork/faq#4. Customers will be notified of the channel addition via a Digital Control Terminal (DCT) message, bill message and a separate mailer. If you should have any questions or concerns, please feel free to contact Kathi Noe at (650) 289-6794. Sincerely, Mitzi GiLens-Russell on behalf of Kathi Noe Director of Government Affairs and Franchising West Bay Peninsula Area 0 0 RECEIVED AUG 16 2004 YOUTH AND FAMILY CITY CLERK' 0'i-ICE ENRICHMENT SERVICES CITY OF8LR;_1"" August 12, 2004 City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 To Whom It May Concern: On behalf of all of us at Youth and Family Enrichment Services (YFES) I would like to thank you for your generous grant of $2,025 for The Crisis Intervention and Suicide Prevention Center. Your tax-deductible contribution makes a tangible difference to the thousands of low-income and at-risk youth and families we serve in the San Mateo County area. Each year YFES provides free or low-cost social services to over 45,000 people. Our array of services ranges from providing shelter to homeless and runaway youth to helping victims of domestic violence file restraining orders to protect themselves and their children. We also operate a 24-hour suicide hotline and provide juvenile first-offenders with alternatives to a life of crime and incarceration. Thank you for helping us deliver our vital program services to people in need. While we are proud of our successes, we know that there is still more to be done. With your help and the help of our other community partners, we can continue to invest in youth and families and help build stronger local communities. We look forward to continuing our partnership with you in the near future. Thank you. Sincerely, Bob Rybicki Executive ector J Youth and Family Enrichment Services is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization and this contribution may be deductible on your income tax returns. Please consult your tax advisor. Our tax identification number is 94-3094966. Youth and Family Assistance did not provide any goods or valuable services in exchange for your gift. FORMERLY: YOUTH AND FAMILY ASSISTANCE & FAMILY AND COMMUNITY ENRICHMENT SERVICES 6 10 ELM STREET, SUITE 212. SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 - 650-591-9623 - 650-591-9750 FAX - WWW.YFES.ORG �P.%IAN Np` yP r CELEBRATING 30 YEARS OF NEIGHBOR HELPING NEIGHBOR m � v O \�U FNFIG I.oI F RECEIVED August 13, 2004 AUG 16 2004 Jesus Nava, Finance Director CITY CL[y[KIS OFFICE City of Burlingame CITY OF EILIRLINGAn,IE 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3906 Dear Jesus, I write in grateful appreciation to the City of Burlingame for your two recent donations to Samaritan House of$6,480 —one dedicated to our Safe Harbor Shelter and the second to our agency's other programs. Safe Harbor is now open year-round to provide shelter and a warm meal, as well as to address the many challenges faced by the homeless of San Mateo County. Clients are offered counseling, referrals to job training, life skills courses, and an on-site substance abuse treatment program. The City of Burlingame's donation to other Samaritan House programs will help us provide clothing, food, and medical and dental care; offer counseling and rental assistance during financial emergencies; and so much more. The support of our local city governments is critical to the success of Samaritan House programs. We are profoundly grateful for the City of Burlingame's ongoing support, and for the care and compassion you have expressed in making such generous donations. Sincerely, Kitty Lopez Executive Director In compliance with Internal Revenue Service regulations, we confirm that your gift was in exchange for nothing but goodwill; you received no goods or services for your donation. Samaritan House is classified as a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization; our Federal tax identification number is 23-7416272. CENTRAL OFFICE • 1515 South Claremont Street • San Mateo, CA 94402 • (650) 341-4081 • Fax (650) 341-0526 SAN MATEO CLIENT SERVICES • 401 North Humboldt Street • San Mateo, CA 94401 • (650) 347-3648 • Fax (650) 347-6066 REDWOOD CITY CLIENT SERVICES • 114 - 5th Avenue • Redwood City, CA 94063 • (650) 839-1447 • Fax (650) 839-1457 www.samaritanhouse.com Food & Nutrition Shelter Healthcare Clothing Case Management & Counseling Holiday Assistance