Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2008.04.07
CITY G BURLINOAME c o° oq q oanco u.rc b' BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Monday April 7,2008 CLOSED SESSION—Immediately following Joint City Council & Central County Fire Board Closed Session - Conference Room A a. Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant to Government Code § 54956.8: Property: City Parking Lot B-1 on Chapin Avenue Agency Negotiators: Syed Murtuza& Art Morimoto Negotiating Party: Gray Peak Fork LLC Series B Under Negotiation: Access for utilities across Lot B-1 to serve 1427 Chapin Avenue 1. CALL TO ORDER—7:00 p.m. —Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—Regular Council Meeting of March 17, 2008 5. PRESENTATION a. Celebration of Burlingame High School Panthers Varsity Women's Soccer Team b. Recognition of outstanding athletic achievements by Burlingame High School's Boys Basketball and Wrestling Teams c. Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance Shuttle Program Update 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Adopt Ordinance revising Burlingame Municipal Code, Section 13.28.010 establishing one-way traffic on South Lane in the easterly direction b. Adopt Ordinance to amend Chapter 6.40 to clarify definitions and exemptions regarding massage permits 1 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Presentation and Discussion of Comprehensive User Fee and Development Impact Fee Study— Discuss/Direct b. Confirm plans to plant street trees as per current City policy allowing property owners to select the tree species— Discuss/Direct c. Review report from Green Ribbon Task Force and provide direction regarding their recommendations— Review/Direct d. Approval of Nominees for the 2008 Walk of Fame - Discuss/Approve 9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR a. Resolution of Intention to renew Broadway Business Improvement District and setting assessments for 2008-09 b. Adoption of Pandemic Influenza and Reduced Staffing Continuity of Operations—Policies & Guidelines c. (1)Approval for Chamber of Commerce Art& Jazz Festival, August 9 & 10 and (2) Expand Fresh Market to North Burlingame on Wednesdays d. Approve Resolution urging opposition to Proposition 98 and a Resolution supporting Proposition 99 at the June 3, 2008 election e. Adopt Resolution approving agreement between Central County Fire Department and International Association of Fire Fighters 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 12. OLD BUSINESS 13. NEW BUSINESS 2 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, January 17, & February 21, 2008; Planning, March 24, 2008; b. Department Reports: Police, February, 2008; Building, March, 2008 c. Letter from Comcast concerning digital receiver rental charges 15. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at 650 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office,City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—MONDAY, APRIL 21, 2008 3 CIT7 C BURLINGAME 0 om o a �RwTEo DYNE 6 BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA Monday,April 7, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER—5:00 p.m.—Conference Room A 2. ROLL CALL 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS—As this is a special meeting of the Council,only comments regarding the subject matter of the meeting will be received;speakers are requested to limit their comments to no more than three minutes. 4. CLOSED SESSION a. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6: City Negotiators: Deirdre Dolan, Glenn Berkheimer(IEDA), Jim Nantell Labor Organizations: Fire (International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2190); Fire Administrators 5. ADJOURNMENT TO REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 1 a�CITY e AGENDA CLOSED ITEM# SESSION BURLINGAME MT& STAFF REPORT �' �• DATE 4/7/2008 <o �Em'9 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTE BY- DATE: Y_DATE: April 3, 2008 APPROVE BY G _ FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: POSSIBLE UTILITY ACCESS ACROSS PARKING LOT R-1 TO 1427 CNAPIN AVFNITF RECOMMENDATION: Discuss in closed session and instruct real property negotiators (City Manager and Director of Public Works) regarding negotiations about a possible utility access across Parking Lot B-1 to serve the new building at the Garden Center property. DISCUSSION: The owners of 1427 Chapin Avenue have begun the construction of a new building on the property. In order to provide electric power to the property, the owners must either pay for a power extension up Primrose to Chapin and down Chapin Avenue at great expense and public inconvenience, or bring it behind the buildings across Parking Lot B-1. This closed session will discuss this alternative and ways of ensuring public goals and needs are met. CITY C ti BURLINGAME `$ X. AAT[b June b• BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of March 17, 2008 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the Lane Room of the Main Library. Mayor Rosalie M. O'Mahony called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Jo-Ellen Ellis. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Deal, Keighran, Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. MINUTES Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to approve the minutes of the March 3, 2008 regular Council meeting; seconded by Councilman Deal. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5. PRESENTATIONS a. COUNCIL RECOGNITION OF THE VOLUNTEERS WHO CONDUCTED THE CENTENNIAL VARIETY SHOW AND VINTAGE FASHION SHOW P&RD Schwartz stated that the successful Centennial Variety Show held at the Burlingame High School auditorium raised $6801. He introduced Committee Co-Chairs Jeriann Fleres and Jo-Ellen Ellis and the show's choreographer, Cathy Foxhoven. There were 63 local performers in the show and many others who skillfully worked behind the scenes. Cathy Foxhoven stated that Burlingame needs theatre and a place to perform. P&RD Schwartz stated that the successful Vintage Fashion Show held at Kohl Mansion raised about $1800. He introduced Committee Co-Chair Sister Barbara Moran who thanked her Co-Chairs Mary Poppingo and Jean Hastie and all committee members for their help in making the show a success. P&RD Schwartz reviewed the upcoming Centennial events which culminate with the Centennial Gala on the City's 100th birthday, June 6, 2008. At Mayor O'Mahony's request, the Variety Show Committee members sang"Burlingame Is"which had been performed at each of the Variety Show performances. 1 Burlingame City Council March 17,2008 Unapproved Minutes b. PRESENTATION BY BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL TO THE YOUTH ADVISORY COMMITTEE (YAC) P&RD Schwartz introduced Recreation Supervisor Stacey Poncia who reviewed upcoming YAC events, including the Centennial event, Day on the Green, which will feature several high school bands, food, games and contests on Burlingame's history. RS Poncia thanked YAC for their donation to the Burlingame High School's Associated Students group. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PROPOSITION 218 PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION NO. 25-2008 INCREASING THE 2008 SOLID WASTE RATES BY FIVE PERCENT (5%) FinDir Nava reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 25-2008 to increase all solid waste rates by 5% for 2008. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to approve Resolution No. 25-2008 authorizing Allied Waste Services (formerly BFI)to increase rates for refuse collection services; seconded by Vice Mayor Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS The following citizens spoke about human rights in China: Ming Hu, Foster City; Wu Lu,Union City; and Lin Liu, San Mateo. The following citizens spoke in favor of synthetic turf for Bayside Park: Steve Kassel, 3138 Rivera Drive; Tom Russell, 455 Chatham Road; Phillip DeRosa, 731 Winchester Drive; and Ed Larios, 1536 Barroilhet. Peter Gum, 747 Winchester, spoke about consequences of citizens using radar guns. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke about the tree replacement policy. There were no further comments from the floor. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE REVISING BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE, SECTION 13.28.010 ESTABLISHING ONE-WAY TRAFFIC ON SOUTH LANE IN THE EASTERLY DIRECTION DPW Murtuza reviewed the staff report and requested Council introduce an ordinance establishing one-way traffic on South Lane in the easterly direction. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance amending Section 13.28.010 of the Municipal Code to establish South Lane as a one-way street. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Keighran. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 2 Burlingame City Council March 17,2008 Unapproved Minutes Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. b. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 6.40 TO CLARIFY DEFINITIONS AND EXEMPTIONS REGARDING MASSAGE PERMITS CA Anderson reviewed the staff report and requested Council introduce an ordinance that would amend Chapter 6.40 to clarify definitions and exemptions regarding Massage Permits. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 6.40 to expressly define instrument for purposes of requiring massage permits, prohibit physical agent modalities as included within a massage permit, and expressly exempting occupational therapists from the chapter. Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. C. PRESENTATION OF THE REVISED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS PROGRAM FOR THE 2008-09 BUDGET P&RD Schwartz reviewed the staff report and requested Council provide staff direction for the preparation of the 2008-09 Budget recommending revisions from the February 27th Budget Study Session. Council expressed the following concerns: funding priorities include infrastructure and Recreation Center seismic retrofit;before committing to fund a synthetic field at Bayside Park, Council requested funding commitments from youth groups and for staff to consider soliciting corporations for sponsorships; if the State pays for Burlingame High School backfield turf, staff should ask the youth groups who committed funds to the backfield turf to redirect their commitments to the Bayside Park field. CM Nantell stated that staff will put $200,000 from Village Park Playground into the Recreation Center seismic retrofit project since staff won't know until June if we will be receiving the $220,000 grant money applied for by the City; and in June staff will advise Council of any youth group commitments received to fund Bayside Park field; also at that time, staff will propose funding for Street Lighting based on any changes in the Parks and Recreation budget. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor O'Mahony requested removal of Items b. and d. from the Consent Calendar for postponement to a future Council meeting. Vice Mayor Keighran requested removal of Item a. from the Consent Calendar for further discussion. b. APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION AMENDING THE AGREEMENT WITH THE BURLINGAME AQUATIC CLUB, INC. FOR THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN AQUATIC PROGRAMS AT THE BURLINGAME AQUATIC FACILITY Item removed from Consent Calendar. 3 Burlingame City Council March 17,2008 Unapproved Minutes C. RESOLUTION NO. 27-2008 APPROVING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH NOLTE AND ASSOCIATES FOR THE DESIGN OF THE INFLUENT STORM WATER RETENTION BASIN AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP) DPW Murtuza requested Council approve Resolution No. 27-2008 authorizing execution of agreement for professional services with Nolte Associates for the design of the influent storm water retention basin at the Wastewater Treatment Plant, City Project No. 81260. d. APPROVAL OF LABOR AGREEMENT WITH INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIRE FIGHTERS, LOCAL 2400 Item removed from Consent Calendar. e. WARRANTS & PAYROLL FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants#30677-31348 duly audited, in the amount of $2,650,272.54 (excluding Library checks#30933-30980); Payroll checks #170879-171089 in the amount of $2,651,090.88 for the month of February 2008. Vice Mayor Keighran made a motion to approve Items c. and e. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. a. COUNCIL POLICIES AND COMMISSIONER/BOARD MEMBER REOUIRED TRAINING CM Nantell requested Council approve a resolution establishing City Council Policies and a resolution amending procedure for appointments to City Commissions and Boards to require commissioner training. Council recommended the following changes to the City Commissions and Boards appointment procedure: to require Commissioner training in the first year after appointment; and to develop training that chairs of commissions and boards would receive before taking office as chairperson. Council recommended the following changes to City Council policies: Item IV-5., to be revised to show Councilmember should obtain Council approval when more than two hours of staff time is requested; and Item VI-2., to strike the last sentence. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve amended Resolution No. 24-2008 establishing City Council Policies; seconded by Councilman Deal. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve amended Resolution No. 26-2008 to amend procedure for appointments to City Commissions and Boards to require commissioner training; seconded by Councilman Deal. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS 4 Burlingame City Council March 17,2008 Unapproved Minutes There were no comments from the floor. 12. OLD BUSINESS At Mayor O'Mahony's request, CDD Meeker provided an overview of the three alternative visions proposed by the Citizens Advisory Committee that were discussed at the Downtown Specific Plan public workshop held on Saturday, March 15. 13. NEW BUSINESS a. SET APPEAL HEARING DATE FOR 3066 HILLSIDE DRIVE Council set May 5, 2008, as the hearing date for the Planning Commission appeal for 3066 Hillside Drive. b. At Council's request, CM Nantell will place Streetscape Tree Replacement Policy on the April 7th Council Agenda for Council discussion. c. Councilman Deal spoke about obtaining wine and champagne for the Centennial Gala and requested that the schools not schedule Ski Week when Valentine's Day occurs so that local businesses might benefit from residents staying in town at that time. d. Councilwoman Nagel commended the City for attaining a 60%Diversion Rate. 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Library, January 15, 2008; Parks &Recreation, February 21, 2008; Planning, February 25, 2008 and March 10, 2008 b. Department Reports: Building, February 2008; Finance, February 2008 c. Letter from the McKinley School Principal gratefully acknowledging the City's donation of a new tree planted at the school d. California Integrated Waste Management Board Annual Report 15. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. to Closed Session. CLOSED SESSION Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following: a. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6: City Negotiators: Jim Nantell, Deirdre Dolan, Glenn Berkheimer(IEDA) Labor Organizations: Fire; Fire Administration 5 Burlingame City Council March 17,2008 Unapproved Minutes b. Pending Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(a): Granger vs. City of Burlingame, CIV 458317 Kuc vs. City of Burlingame, CIV 461468 16. ADJOURNMENT Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 10:05 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 6 Burlingame City Council March 17,2008 Unapproved Minutes 9URLINGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM# 5a 5b DATE 4/7/08 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL sus TED BY DATE: November 5, 2007 APPR �ED FROM: Parks& Recreation Director (558-7307) BY i SUBJECT: RECOGNITION OF OUTSTANDING ATHLE C ACHIEVEMENTS BY BURLINGAME HIGH SCHOOL'S GIRLS SOCCER, BOYS BASKETBALL AND WRESTLING TEAMS RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council recognize the Girls Soccer,Boys Basketball and Wrestling teams from Burlingame High School on their outstanding performances during the 2007-08 school year. BACKGROUND: The Girls Soccer Team had an amazing season, with 23 wins, no losses and two ties. This team won the PAL Bay League championship and the Burlingame Thanksgiving Invitational tournament and is one of only four teams in Central Coast Section history to go undefeated. The team posted 18 shutouts while outscoring their opponents 71 to 8. The team was also recognized by the referee's association for their outstanding sportsmanship both on and off the field. The Boys Basketball Team finished the season with a 22-7 record; winning the PAL Championship game on May 16 for the 6t' straight year. The team won 12 straight games before losing in their CCS Playoff game. This was the first time, in the history of the school that BHS' Boys Basketball team has ever won the PAL Tournament. Three years ago the BHS Wrestling Team had only 5 wrestlers, an 0-8 record and was on the verge of being cut. For the 2008 season the team had 25 wrestlers, a record of 8-0 and were the both the Varsity and J.V. PAL Ocean Division champions. It has been over 10 years since the BHS wrestling team has won a title. BUDGET IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS: None Burlingame Shuttle Service Presentation Burlingame City Council April 7, 2008 PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE The Alliance The Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance is San Mateo County's transportation demand management agency, whose mission is to reduce the number of single occupant vehicles traveling to, from or through San Mateo County, reducing traffic congestion, resulting in improved air quality. Burlingame City Council Shuttle Presentation-4/07/08 PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE z Burlingame Presentation - 04/07/08 The Alliance The Alliance is funded by: • San Mateo County Transportation Authority • C/CAG of San Mateo County • Bay Area Air Quality Management District • Metropolitan Transportation Commission PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE Alliance Works with Stakeholders • Burlingame City Council member Jerry Deal represents the City of Burlingame on Alliance Board of Directors. • Burlingame City Staff members coordinate shuttle efforts with Alliance staff. • The Alliance works with community stakeholders, in partnership with SamTrans, to determine the most efficient and effective shuttle service to meet a specific community's transportation needs. PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE Burlingame Presentation - 04/07/08 2 Alliance Works with Stakeholders • Cost of operating the service, funding agency efficiency measurements, convenience to the riders along with meeting the riders needs, are taken into account when planning or changing a shuttle service program. C4iUUlE 3EI: PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE The Alliance • Commuter Benefits Transit Information Consulting Source • Rebates & Incentives — www.commute.org — Vanpool, Carpool, — V: 650.588.8170 Schoolpool — F: 650.588.8171 — Try Transit Program — alliance@commute.org — Bicycle Parking &Safety — Emergency Ride Home C1SIUlElBp Burlingame City Council Shuttle Presentation-4/07/08 PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE 6 Burlingame Presentation - 04/07/08 3 The Alliance • Shuttle Program Management — Customer Service — eRiderAlerts — Vendor Relations — Shuttle Line: — Fiscal Mgmt 650.588.1600 — Grants/ Reimburs. — shuttles@commute.org — Schedules — Service Creation/Adjust. — Service RFP Burlingame City Council Shuttle Presentation-4/07/08 PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE 7 Background — Alliance Shuttle Program • Alliance shuttle services are primarily utilized to assist with the last mile trip from BART or Caltrain to employment worksites. • The Alliance operates 17 shuttle routes in San Mateo County. • In 2007, 478,525 riders were transported or 1,904 riders per day on average. PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE Burlingame Presentation - 04/07/08 4 Funding Models in City of Burlingame • JPB Contracted (Special) — Broadway-Millbrae Caltrain • JPB Contracted — Alliance Managed — Bayside BART/Caltrain • City Contracted — Alliance Managed — North Burlingame BART/Caltrain — Burlingame Trolley Burlingame City Council Shuttle Presentation-4/07/08 PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE 9 Shuttle Operating Efficiency Measurements • To determine shuttle operating efficiency, shuttles are measured by a variety of metrics including Riders Per Service Hour (Rider/Hr) and Cost Per Passenger (CPP) to name a few. • Rider/Hr = Avg. Daily Ridership = Daily Service Hours • For shuttles receiving C/CAG funding, which are most community services, the benchmark goal is _> 10 Riders Per Service Hour. PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE Burlingame Presentation - 04/07/08 5 Shuttle Operating Efficiency Measurements • CPP = Operating Cost = Ridership • The more riders transported, the less cost to operate the shuttle per person. • Caltrain benchmark goal for long running services s $4.00 Per Passenger. • For shuttles receiving C/CAG funding, which are most community services, the benchmark goal is _<$6.00 Per Passenger. PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE Broadway-Millbrae Caltrain . JpB Contracted (Special) • 100% Funded by SMCTA • Approximate Total Annual Cost: $104,000 9 Connects Broadway Caltrain to Millbrae Caltrain during : r commute periods ax:.xx-.x Daanrx,:ria uan nn,w.ti,.w,u»c:rr,�xmsu,.cnn ✓Grs Idc.Mly:ri016nY Dassn.Gs9an alsoti,�a ikXctpYblallDroFsn Burlingame City Council Shuttle Presentation-4/07/08 PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE 12 Burlingame Presentation - 04/07/08 6 Broadway-Millbrae Caltrain Began due to Caltrain By-Pass of Broadway Station • Not Alliance Managed • 22,300 Annual Boardings w 85 riders per day I Service Began 2005 w a>TTnm aw M H� ear M..n earamr. e»eye eanm.!MI.! erorslacmrN a�+ltwacasax.cyo-an amc:ry arrx.4tfualoroaan Burlingame City Council Shuttle Presentation-4/07/08 PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE 13 Burlingame Bayside BART/Caltrain Burlingam • 1PBContracted —Alliance e"+ Bayside Managed Marriott Hotel Millbrae ~may'° Station Baysh...lHinckley • 75% Funded by Caltrain • d� Hyatt Regency A a an — -'. Y% • 25% Funded by Burlingame Road •Doubletree Hotel Rollins/Guittard• 700 Airport 1600 Rollins d. ;Golf rlf W Sheraton • Approximate Total Annual kz Cost: $87,000 David Bar iew Rollins A Alliance Managed 2002 ra„ Burlingame City Council shuttle Presentation-4/07/08 PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE 14 Burlingame Presentation - 04/07/08 7 Burlingame Bayside BART/Caltrain Burlingamed ' BART& Caltrain Shuttles Bayside Merged 7/03 Marriott Hotel Millbrae SayshorelHinckley Station No Employer Group Hyatt Regency 4 1649 +sp, yj 9 Alliance: Customer Service, �` Adrian G Doubletree Hotel RollinslGuittartl�Road Golf 0 700 Airport 1600 Rollins Rd. s,.., Sheraton Vendor Liaison, Reporting, Airport/ David! Bayview Marketing & Schedule �v;L Rollins ' Recommendations. Burlingame City Council Shuttle Presentation-4/07/08 PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE is Burlingame Bayside BART/Caltrain 24-Month Ridership for Burlingame Bayside Shuttle a2v a= s" � 4a E f @ ,.,�, r.w_., e... .� e•r :.« ,a, .w.� s.,'.Ta.• oma., �,...t..-c«._r.. ®Jan.07-Dec 07 .ms` s • _, L9`.'gakec Burlingame City Council Shuttle Presentation-4/07/08 PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE 16 Burlingame Presentation - 04/07/08 8 Burlingame Bayside BART/Caltrain • 28,904 Boardings — 2007 • 26,099 Single Occupancy Vehicle Trips Eliminated • 13.6% Rider Increase • 113 Average Daily Riders 21.3 Rider/Hr — Target met • $2.97 CPP — Target met Burlingame City Council Shuttle Presentation-4/07/08 PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE 17 North Burlingame BART/Caltrain Millbr• North • City Contracted —Alliance Station a Burlingame Managed Via;` rtn 50% Funded by C/CAG • 50% Funded by Burlingame, Sisters of Mercy of the Mills- Balboa, c �R"<u Americas & Mills-Peninsula Peninsula Adeline! Health Bernal Health Services Services o • Sisters of Mercy iTd?:4..ib:;EG Burlingame City Council Shuttle Presentation-4/07/08 PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE 18 Burlingame Presentation - 04/07/08 9 North Burlingame BART/Caltrain Millb>• North • Approximate Total Annual Station ,m Rh Burlingame cert Cost: $94,000 • Service Began 7/03 • Alliance: Customer Service, Vendor Liaison, Reporting, Adeline Mills- Balboa 9 Marketing &Schedule k�I Peninsula Adeline/ Health Bernal Recommendations. Services & P� Sisters of Mercy Burlingame City Council Shuttle Presentation-4/07/08 PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE 19 North Burlingame BART/Caltrain 24-Month Ridership for North Burlingame Shuttle UW a � � rWi. -X0 rc � ®.mn 07-pec 07 ,O6-,oec.o5 q CEd Burlingame City Council Shuttle Presentation-4/07/08 PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE 20 Burlingame Presentation - 04/07/08 10 North Burlingame BART/Caltrain • 111979 Boardings — 2007 • 71899 Single Occupancy Vehicle Trips Eliminated • 30.8% Rider Increase 9 47 Average Daily Riders • 6.7 Riders/Hr — Near Target • $7.75 CPP — Near Target PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE Burlingame Trolley • City Contracted —Alliance Managed IIMr[�. <. • Approximate Total Annual Cost: $182,000 • Began as Midday Shopper • Hotel Group Burlingame City Council Shuttle Presentation-4/07/06 PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE 22 Burlingame Presentation - 04/07/08 11 Burlingame Trolley a Alliance Managed 1/02 - Service Expansion 7/04 - Alliance: Customer service, Vendor Liaison, Reporting, Marketing &Schedule Recommendations. Burlingame City Council Shuttle Presentation-4/07/08 PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE 23 Burlingame Trolley 24 Month Ridership for Burlingame Trolley H -77 H Burlingame City Council Shuttle Presentation-4/07/08 PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE 24 Burlingame Presentation - 04/07/08 12 Burlingame Trolley • 421934 Boardings — 2007 38,159 Single Occupancy Vehicle Trips Eliminated • 25.5% Rider Increase • 118 Average Daily Riders • 12.5 Riders/Hr — Target met • $4.26 CPP — Target met * Although Trolley receives no grant funding measurements are used to gauge efficiencies. PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE Burlingame Trolley DBBA Contributions FY 0708 $5,000, BroadwayAssn.—_ City $5,000, 3% $88,000 ■ Embassy Suites 460/c $10,987,6% Sheraton Gateway $12,959,7% kiyattSIF, Ct . $25,354, 13%, ■ Doubletree SFO $12,583, 6% Crowne Plaza/011" laza ■ SFO Marriot $9,954, 5% $22,068, 11% *SMCCVB— In Kind Contribution Burlingame City Council Shuttle Presentation-4/07/08 PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE 26 Burlingame Presentation - 04/07/08 13 Changes to Existing Shuttles • Surveys are one method to partially determine ridership interest indicated by time of day, type of use, and expected frequency of use. • The Alliance works with SamTrans to determine how to best compliment existing transit service. This includes shuttle connections to SamTrans, Caltrain and BART. PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE Changes to Existing Shuttles • Expansions to existing service must be beneficial to both current riders as well as new riders. Ex: If a service route is expanded, the length of each shuttle trip is expanded - reducing service frequency to meet public transit connections. The end result can be a decrease in ridership by current riders. PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE Burlingame Presentation - 04/07/08 14 Thank You Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance 1150 Bayhill Drive, Suite 107 San Bruno, CA 94066 650.588.8170 Christine Maley-Grubl Michael Stevenson Executive Director Shuttle Program Manager christine@commute.org mike@commute.org PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION RELIEF ALLIANCE Burlingame Presentation - 04/07/08 15 Agenda Item # 6a Meeting BURLINGAME Date: April 7, 2008 STAFF REPORT SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY ` Ll TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: March 20, 2008 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT SUBJECT: ADOPT ORDINANCE REVISING BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 13.28.010 ESTABLISHING ONE-WAY TRAFFIC ON SOUTH LANE IN THE EASTERLY DIRECTION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council hold a public hearing to: 1 . Adopt proposed ordinance. 2. Direct City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND: On June 5, 2006, the City Council reviewed plans of the Burlingame Train Station Improvements and approved a cooperative agreement with Caltrain for design, construction and implementation of the new station. The approved design included the closure of South Lane to through traffic to accommodate new longer platforms at the station. The design also converted the remaining portion of South Lane, from California Drive to West Lane, to a one-way designation in the easterly direction to match the existing one-way flow of West Lane. DISCUSSION: The completion of the station is anticipated in May 2008. A revision to the Municipal Code is required in order to formally designate South Lane as a one-way street. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no budget impact with this action. EXHIBITS: Ordinance Site Map C: City Clerk, City Attorney SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Adopt Ordinance-South Lane One Way.doc 1 ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 13.28.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH 3 SOUTH LANE AS A ONE-WAY STREET 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 Section 1. Caltrain is rebuilding the station platforms for the railroad station at Burlingame 7 Avenue. As part of that project, additional parking is being provided around the station, and this 8 construction requires that South Lane be directed in only an easterly direction to enter the station 9 area. This ordinance also reorders Section 13.28.0 10 so that the streets are identified generally in 10 an alphabetical order. 11 12 Section 2. Section 13.38.010 is amended to read as follows: 13 13.28.010 One-way streets and alleys designated. 14 13.28.010 Streets and alleys designated. 15 (a) It is unlawful for any person to drive any vehicle on Alvarado Avenue from Hillside 16 Drive to Hillside Circle except in a southerly direction. 17 (b) It is unlawful for any person to drive any vehicle on Capuchino Avenue between 18 Broadway and Carmelita Avenue except in a southerly direction. 19 (c) It is unlawful for any person to drive any vehicle on Capuchino Avenue between 20 Lincoln Avenue and Broadway except in a southerly direction. 21 (d) It is unlawful for any person to drive any vehicle on Chula Vista Avenue between 22 Broadway and Carmelita Avenue except in a southerly direction. 23 (e) It is unlawful for any person to drive any vehicle on lands of the City and County of San 24 Francisco paralleling California Drive between North Lane and the northerly curbline of Bellevue 25 Avenue, extended, except in a northerly direction. 26 (f) It is unlawful for any person to drive any vehicle on City Hall Lane between Primrose 27 Road and Park Road except in an easterly direction,such traffic to enter on Primrose Road and exit 28 on Park Road. 1 1 (g) It is unlawful for any person to drive any vehicle on East Lane from North Lane to 2 Burlingame Avenue except in a southerly direction. 3 (h) It is unlawful for any person to drive any vehicle on Hatch Alley except in a southerly 4 direction. 5 (i) It is unlawful for any person to drive any vehicle on Highland Avenue between 6 California Drive and Howard Avenue except in a southerly direction. 7 0) It is unlawful for any person to drive any on Hillside Circle except in a clockwise 8 direction. 9 (k) It is unlawful for any person to drive any vehicle on Laguna Avenue between Carmelita 10 Avenue and Broadway except in a northerly direction. 11 (0 It is unlawful for any person to drive any vehicle on North Lane between Carolan 12 Avenue and East Lane except in an easterly direction. 13 (m) It is unlawful for any person to drive any vehicle on Paloma Avenue between 14 Broadway and Lincoln Avenue except in a northerly direction. 15 (n) It is unlawful for any person to drive any vehicle on Paloma Avenue between Carmelita 16 Avenue and Broadway except in a northerly direction. 17 (o) It is unlawful for any person to drive any vehicle on the alley from Parking Lot `P' to 18 Laguna Avenue except in an easterly direction;provided,no vehicle having a manufacturer's gross 19 vehicle weight of five(5)tons or more shall drive on said alley in any direction,refuse collection 20 and emergency vehicles excepted. 21 (p) It is unlawful for any person to drive any vehicle on the Service Road between Dufferin 22 Avenue and Murchison Drive except in a northerly direction. 23 (q) It is unlawful for any person to drive any vehicle on South Lane between California 24 Drive and the railroad tracks except in an easterly direction. 25 (r) It is unlawful for any person to drive any vehicle on West Lane except in a southerly 26 direction. 27 The director of public works is authorized and directed to procure and install appropriate 28 signs giving notice of the provisions of this section. 2 I Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 2 3 Mayor 4 5 I,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 6 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17'day 7 of March,2008,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_day 8 of , 2008, by the following vote: 9 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 10 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 11 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 12 City Clerk 13 14 U:AFILES\ORD[NANO\onewaysouthlane.pwd.wpd 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 Burlingame Avenue Caltrain Station w GATE (TYP) CAROLAN ANCHUE CLOSE SOM LMIE NEW CROSS4140 SURFACE PARSUNG -•x NEW PLATFORM (ENTER FENCE _ � Ew-STI►jCt hWATF M-A ,a-- �,.,... PARKING NEW PED STAflON PLATFORM !� --CLOSE SOUTH LANE `p �_ GATE (TYP.) NEW PED `��, GATE (TYP.) .� NORTH TO SFTRAFFIC LIGHT (TYP) SOu7tt TO 5 t � CALFORMA AVENUE `---i• mJ CITY G AGENDA 6b �Z ITEM# BURLINGAME MTG. STAFF REPORT �- - DATE 4/7/2008 Ao , Hni[o,.uE 090 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED BY DATE: March 18, 2008 APPRO BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: ADOPT ORDINANCE TO AMEND CHAPTER 6.40 TO CLARIFY DEFINITIONS AND EXEMPTIONS REGARDING MASSAGE PERMITS RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance that would amend Chapter 6.40 to clarify definitions and exemptions and direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. DISCUSSION: In 2005, the City Council adopted a comprehensive revision to the City's massage regulations to bring them up- to-date. However, Chapter 6.40 does not currently contain a definition of"instrument," and occupational therapists are not designated for exemption even though they are licensed by the State. The proposed ordinance would address both issues. In particular, the term"instrument"would exclude physical agent modalities, because these require separate State licensing and training, and would also exclude heat and cold packs, which are widely used in a number of personal service settings. Finally, a section stating that a City permit does not allow use of practices or techniques that require a State license is also added. Attachment Proposed ordinance Distribution Chief of Police Finance Director 1 ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 6.40 TO EXPRESSLY DEFINE INSTRUMENT FOR PURPOSES OF 3 REQUIRING MASSAGE PERMITS, PROHIBITING PHYSICAL AGENT MODALITIES AS INCLUDED WITHIN A MASSAGE PERMIT,AND EXPRESSLY 4 EXEMPTING OCCUPATIONAL THERAPISTS FROM THE CHAPTER 5 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 6 7 Section 1. Ordinance Nos. 1750 and 1755 redrafted the massage regulations in the City. 8 Because the State of California continues to refuse to regulate the practice of massage in the 9 State and the oversight of State occupational boards and consumer protection has been poorly 10 funded in the past ten years, it is imperative that cities continue local efforts to protect the 11 public and practitioners from unlicensed health practices and associated criminal elements. 12 This ordinance explicitly defines the term of"instrument" as used in the massage regulations, 13 expressly delineate that the use of physical agent modalities require a license from the State and 14 is not authorized by a massage permit, and further expressly exempts occupational therapists 15 who are licensed by the State to practice therapy by the State. 16 17 Section 2. Section 6.40.030 is amended to read as follows: 18 For the purpose of this chapter, the following words and phrases shall have the 19 meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section: 20 (a) "Health officer"means the health officer of the County of San Mateo or the health 21 officer's authorized representative. 22 (b) "Instrument" means any tool or instrument, but does not include physical agent 23 modalities, including light/laser therapy, ultrasound, phonophoresis, microcurrent, TENS, 24 neuromuscular electrical stimulation(MMES) iontophoresis, interferential current, or HiVolt. 25 Heat or cold packs are not considered instruments under this chapter. 26 (c) "Massage"means any method of treating the external parts of the human body by 27 bathing, rubbing, pressing, stroking, kneading, tapping, pounding, vibrating or stimulating with 28 the hands, other parts of the human body, or any instrument. 4/7/2008 1 I (d) "Massage, spa, bathing or other similar establishment' or "massage establishment' 2 means any establishment having a fixed place of business where massages,baths or health 3 treatments, involving massage,hot tubs, saunas, or baths as the principal function, are given, 4 engaged in or carried on, or permitted to be given, engaged in or carried on in any manner 5 described in Section 6.40.030(b). 6 (e) "Massage practitioner" means any person who administers a massage, bath or 7 health treatment involving massage or baths as a principal function to another person for any 8 consideration whatsoever. 9 (f) "Operator" means any person who owns or operates a massage, spa, bathing or 10 similar establishment or an out call massage service. 11 (g) "Out call massage service" means any business, in which the primary function of 12 such business is to engage in or carry on massage treatments at a location designated by the 13 customer or client and not at a fixed location. 14 (h) "Person" means any individual, partnership, firm, association, corporation,joint 15 venture, or combination of individuals. 16 (i) "Recognized school" means any school or institution of learning which has been 17 approved pursuant to Division 7.5 of title 5 of the California Code of Regulations or an 18 equivalent out-of-state school and which has for a purpose the teaching of a resident course of 19 study of not less than five hundred(500) hours of theory, ethics,practice, methods, profession 20 or work of massage, or baths or health practice with relation thereto, and which provides a 21 diploma or certificate of graduation upon successful completion of such a course of study or 22 learning. Schools offering a correspondence course not requiring attendance or courses taught 23 solely by video tape or other electronic means shall not be deemed a recognized school. 24 25 Section 3. Subsection 6.40.055(a) is amended to read as follows: 26 (a) Physicians, surgeons, chiropractors, osteopaths, acupuncturists, and physical 27 therapists, and occupational therapists duly licensed to practice in the state of California, but 28 only when engaged in the practice for which they are so licensed and in accordance with the 4/7/2008 2 I terms of the licensing. Section 4. A new Section 6.40.057 is added to read as follows: 4 6.40.057 Permit not entitlement to violate other laws. 5 The issuance of a permit under this chapter shall not entitle the permittee to engage in 6 any business or practice which for any reason is in violation of any law or ordinance and shall 7 not entitle the holder thereof to carry on any business or practice unless he or she has complied 8 with all the requirements under the other ordinances of the city and all other applicable laws, 9 nor shall it entitle the permittee to carry on any business in any building or on any premises 10 designated in such permit in the event that such business or premises are situated in a zone or 11 locality in which the conduct of such business is a violation of any law. In particular, a permit 12 issued under this chapter does not entitle any person to use physical agent modalities that 13 require separate licensing by the State of California, including light/laser therapy, ultrasound, 14 phonophoresis, microcurrent, TENS, neuromuscular electrical stimulation(MMES) 15 iontophoresis, interferential current, or HiVolt. 16 17 Section 5. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 18 19 20 Mayor 21 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that 22 the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17`h 23 day of March, 2008, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 24 day of , 2008, by the following vote: 25 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 26 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 27 City Clerk 28 U:\F[LES\ORDINANC\massage2008.bpd.wpd 4/7/2008 3 CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8a MTG. A DATE April 7,2008 FATED JUNE 6 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: April 7,2008 APPROV BY / FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director 558-7222 SUBJECT: Presentation and Discussion of Comprehensive User-Fee & Development Impact-Fee Study RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council discusses implementation of the user-fee and development impact-fee study and direct staff to prepare resolutions and ordinances adopting the new fees. BACKGROUND: The City Council requested a comprehensive city fee and development impact fee study as part of the FY06-07 Adopted Budget. A request for proposals was prepared and MuniFinancial was selected as the best, qualified firm to undertake the study. User Fee Study California law gives cities the ability to impose fees for services if the use of the service is voluntary and the fee is reasonable. The fee study ensures that the city's fees are legal; it identifies all costs associated with providing the service; and, it identifies where the General Fund taxes subsidize current user-fees. The staff recommendation is to price user-fees at 100% cost recovery,with exceptions at Council's discretion. The proposed fees include the cost of direct labor(staff time spent directly on service); indirect labor(administrative and supervisory time spent directly on service); and, central services overhead (other support for department providing service). These costs are called"fully-burdened rates." The recommended fees were a result of the following process: 1. Review of department budgets 2. Identification of appropriate overhead cost allocations 3. Identification of services provided by each city department 4. Establishment of department staffing levels and associated fully burdened hourly rates 5. Completion of a time and materials survey for each service to determine fee 6. Completion of a user fee schedule showing fully burdened costs for user fees Development Impact-Fee Study California law also gives cities the ability to impose impact-fees on new development to fund facilities needed to serve growth. The impact-fee study determines the most effective use of impact-fees to fund capital improvements and the maximum justifiable fee that can be charged. It also provides a legally defensible nexus between new development and the need for additional facilities. Finally it documents all findings and conclusions in compliance with Mitigation Fee Act. The Mitigation Fee Act (CA Govt. Code §66001) requires the following findings: 1. Identification of the purpose of the fee 2. Identification of the use of the fee revenue 3. That development impact-fee revenue benefits new development 4. That the need for new and expanded capacity in facilities is due to development 5. That new development pays only their fair share (proportion) of facility costs The study looked at the need for additional city facilities in the following areas: police, fire, library, parks &recreation, general public facilities; transportation; storm drain; water and sanitary sewer. The study used the "planned facilities" approach, which assumes that additional facilities are required to address needs created solely by new growth. The study recommends the following development impact fees: Service Area Single Family Multifamily Commercial Office Industrial Fee per Dwelling Fee per,Dwelling Feeper 1,000 sq.ft. Fee per 1,000 sq.ft. Fee per 1,000 sq.ft. Unit ltnit of Building of Building of Building General Govt. $ 2,756 $ 1,636 $ 640 $ 930 $ 305 Library $ 2,383 $ 1,415 $ 478 $ 695 $ 228 Police $ 437 $ 259 $ 102 $ 147 $ 48 Parks $ 590 $ 350 $ 118 $ 172 $ 56 Traffic/Streets (i) $ 1,573 $ 1,105 $ 1,810 $ 7,285 $ 1,146 Fire $ 642 $ 381 $ 248 $ 360 $ 118 Storm Drainage $ 781 $ 391 $ 442 $ 717 $ 628 Total Impact $ 9,162 $ 5,537 $3,838 $10,306 $2,529 Fee: (1) Fee based on estimated trip allocation. Actual fee based on actual trips. The City Council held a Study Session on March 3, 2008 to review the user-fee and development impact- fee studies. Council requested that staff provide a comparison of proposed fees with other San Mateo County cities. The Community Development Department developed a"Fee Comparison" of development user fees and development impact fees as compared with the cities of Belmont, Millbrae, San Bruno, San Carlos, and Foster City. ATTACHMENTS: Community Development Memorandum—"Fee Comparison—Various Cities in San Mateo County", dated March 27, 2008. List of Exceptions to Full Cost Recovery CITY OF BURLINGAME Ih-�r 13URLINGAME Community Development Department MEMORANDUM / DATE: March 27, 2008 TO: Jesus Nava, Finance Director FROM: William Meeker, Community Development Director SUBJECT: FEE COMPARISON —'Various Cities in San Mateo County Community Development Department staff has completed its comparison of the proposed fees recommended in MuniFinancial's fee study. The comparison is two-fold; a comparison between current City "processing" fees (FY 07-08) versus proposed fees (FY 08-09), and for the City of Burlingame versus fees in other San Mateo County jurisdictions. Both comparisons use the same basic assumptions regarding the type of"project" analyzed (see description below). Processing fees are broken into two (2) categories: "Planning" fees and "Building" fees. The summary attached to this memorandum also includes a listing of"impact" fees collected by the same jurisdictions, with the exception that impact fee information could not be obtained from the City of Foster City. For purpose of comparison, staff gathered information from five (5) other jurisdictions in the County: ■ Belmont ■ Millbrae ■ San Bruno ■ San Carlos ■ Foster City Three (3) different project "types" were compared: ■ New Single-Family Home ($430,000 construction valuation) ■ New Multi-Family Building ($3.5 million construction valuation) ■ New Commercial Building ($2.0 million construction valuation) Significant effort was taken to ensure that all applicable fees for different development types were captured in the analysis. However, since approval processes vary from community to community, there can be significant variation depending upon a communities review procedures. Please review the attached information and let me know if you require any additional information. Attachment: Fee Comparison Summary Copy: Jim Nantell, City Manager Larry Anderson, City Attorney COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT SURLINGAME PROCESSING FEE AND IMPACT FEE COMPARISON 1408, ��408,AM ' VARIOUS SAN MATEO COUNTY JURISDICTIONS (NH/lNNIiI��A"��/iPil March 27, 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME - FEE COMPARISON YEAR-TO-YEAR BUILDING DIVISION PLANNING DIVISION PROJECT TYPE FY 07-08 FY 08-09 FY 07-08 FY 08-09 New SFD $420K $7,853 $7,853 $1077.00 $1466.00 New Multi-Family ($3.5MM) $45,642 $45,642 " $1340.00 $2090.00 New Commercial $2MM $29,871 $29,871 $1116.00 $1466.00 FY 08-09 PROPOSED PROCESSING FEE - COMPARISON WITH SIMILAR CITIES New SFD ($420K) New Multi-Family ($3.5MM) New Commercial ($2MM) CITY BUILDING PLANNING BUILDING PLANNING BUILDING I PLANNING Burlingame $7,853 $14bb $45,b41 $LU9U $L9,8/"1 $'1400 Belmont $16,332 $5086 $37,136 $16,813 $26,076 $6120 Millbrae $6,554 $1837 $29,368 $1975 s $19,077 $1975 San Bruno $6,893 $1610 $48,389 TBD $28,132 $1600 San Carlos $5,337 $4326 „ $25,564 $4720 $16,901 $4621 Foster City $6,489 $2003 $29,096 $14004 $18,896 $9005 1 Does not include fee for processing Tentative Condominium Map 2 Deposit collected at time of application intake—amount of deposit determined by Community Development Director&Planning Manager 3 Deposit only—applicant will be charged based on time&materials 4 Deposit only—applicant will be charged based on time&materials 5 Deposit only—applicant will be charged based on time&materials COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME -- PROCESSING FEE AND IMPACT FEE COMPARISON VARIOUS SAN MATEO COUNTY JURISDICTIONS March 27, 2008 IMPACT FEES - SELECTED SAN MATEO COUNTY CITIES CITY TYPE OF FEE AMOUNT CHARGED San Carlos No Impact Fee General Plan Update Fee 4% of Application fee Millbrae Park & Recreation Fee $6,459 Single family dwelling $4,306 Duplex/triplex unit $2,153 Multi-family unit Development Impact Fee — Millbrae Station $10/SF Commercial Floor Area Area Specific Plan $6,767 Hotel Room $9,032 Multi/family dwelling unit Belmont Park Dedication or in-lieu fee— For new In-lieu of dedication of land (or for projects less than 50 subdivisions, requires dedication of land parcels) —fee is based on the fair market value of the based on no. of residents added x .005 acres land that would have been dedicated using formula 0 resident x .005 acres) San Bruno Park Dedication or in-lieu fee —for new For less than 50 lots (or in-lieu of dedication) subdivisions with more than 50 lots, requires Single Family = 3 x 0.0045 x fair market value dedication on the basis of 2 acres for each Multi-family = 2.5 x 0.0045 x fair market value fifty acres within the subdivision 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA EXCEPTIONS TO THE USER-FEE RECOMMENDATION OF 100% COST RECOVERY City Depart Service/Application Full Cost Recommended Fee City-wide Copy of general city documents $1.08 per page $0.25 per general copy City Clerk Copy of election documents $64.52 per document $0.10 per page based on FPPC Regulations City Clerk Search&retrieve election doc(inside City Hall) $69.29 per document $5 per request based on FPPC Regulations City Clerk Search&retrieve election doc(outside City Hall) $69.29 per document $5 per request based on FPPC Regulations City Clerk Filing of Nomination Papers $92.39 per candidate $25 per candidate per Election Code 10228 Comm Dev Anntenna Exceptions $946 $25(to promote compliance with permit) Comm Dev Design Review Deposits-New Construction $903 $600(actual costs are still paid by applicant) Comm Dev Design Review Deposits-Addition $887 $580(actual costs are still paid by applicant) Comm Dev Design Review Deposits-Amendment $773 $425(actual costs are still paid by appplicant) Comm Dev Design Review Deposits-Handling Fee $447 $290(actual costs are still paid by applicant) Comm Dev Design Review Deposits-Info Submittal to Comm $194 $200(actual costs are still paid by applicant) Comm Dev Noticing-Second Unit Amnesty $101 $55(to promote compliance with policy) PW-Eng Block Party Permit $193 $50(to promote civic engagement) Police Burglar Alarm Permit $142 $49.50(to promote active registration) Parks Protected Tree Removal Application $146 $50(to promote compliance with policy) Additional exceptions may be added based on Council discussion and review of proposed fees. � I I City Burlingameof Ex ertis Educafion . Development Impact Fee Study Bob Spencer, Principal Consultant Revenue p Katie Wilson, Principal Consultant nhance rte t April 7, 2008 MuniFinancial • Member of Willdan Group Inc. • Services — Financial & Economic Consulting — Development Impacts & Financing — Fiscal Impact Analysis — Special District Formations — Utility Rates and Fees — District Formation & Administration — Arbitrage Rebate & Continuing Disclosure • Size and locations: — Over 70 employees — Over 600 client agencies in 38 states — Headquarters in Temecula with Offices in CA, AZ, WA, TN & FL N MuniFinancial 2 Z Mitigation Fee Act Findings • Purpose of Fee - Reference General Plan's Goals and Objectives, Community Plans, and other adopted policies. • Use of Fee Revenue - General description with existing standard; project list. • Reasonable Relationship (Nexus) - Need: Development = Need for Facilities - Benefit: Development = Use of Revenue • Rough Proportionality - Fee Amount = Development's Share of Facility Costs MMuniFinancial 3 Mitigation Fee Act Implementation • Put fee revenues in separate accounts • Credit interest on fund balances • Spend fees for intended purpose • Designate fund balances to specific capital projects • Update fees annually for inflation • Comprehensive update every 4 to 6 years NMuniFinancial 4 ' Cities with Development Impact Fees in San Mateo and Adjacent Counties City of Belmont City of Pacifica City of Brisbane City of Palo Alto City of Daly City City of Portola Valley City of East Palo Alto City of Redwood City City of Foster City City of San Bruno City of Gilroy City of San Carlos City of Half Moon Bay City of San Francisco 5 City of Menlo Park City of San Jose City of Millbrae City of San Mateo City of Morgan Hill City of South San Francisco City of Mountain View City of Sunnyvale NMuniFinancial 5 STAFF REPORT BU .RLINGAME AGENDA gb ITEM # MTG. 4/7/08 •��41 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: March 27, 2008 APPROVED FROM: Jim Nantell 558-7205 BY suB.rEcr: Confirm Plans to Plant Street Trees as per Current City4olicy Allowing Property Owners to Select the Tree Species RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council concur with staff recommendation to move forward with the April planting of street trees as per current city policy allowing property owners to select the tree species. BACKGROt�ND: As per the Urban Forest Management Plan as approved by the City Council in August of 2008 the city's current policy relative to the selection of tree species for street trees is as follows: • The City has five separate street tree lists in place for selection of replacement trees, distinguished by the planting space (size, power lines or location) • Property owners are generally required to replace trees that are removed • Property owners are allowed to select a tree off the list applicable to their property That policy allows residents to pick from a wide array of species that have been approved for their property. From time to time, and as recently as May 4, 2006, members of the public approach the Beautification Commission requesting that we change the policy to one that specifies only one species for each block in the city so as to allow a more consistent look and feel for that block or street. The Commission has consistently held fast to the current and long standing policy to allow the home owners to select the species that they feel is most appropriate for their home and property rather than mandate a particular species. We have received correspondence from Pat Giorni and Ralph Osterling requesting that the Beautification Commission reconsider the policy. They have also requested that the park staff suspend plans to do the spring planting of about 55 street trees that have been requested by property owners. Since the property owners have followed the long standing policy and have been promised a tree will be planted this spring, staff feels that we should honor that commitment and proceed with the street tree planting as planned. Although it will mean that, should the Commission decided change the policy and move to a specified tree for each street and block, the 50 trees planted this spring may well not be the same species as the one that may eventually be selected and approved; it will not require the city to reverse it's previous policy as it applies to these property owners who merely followed the policy in effect at the time. If the Commission decides to revisit the policy it will take many months to determine the desired species and hold the necessary hearings in preparation for eventual Council action. ATTACHMENTS: A. E-mail thread between Ralph Osterling, Pat Giorni and staff B. Proposal from Pat Giorni Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT A MGR-Nantell, Jim From: Ralph Osterling [ralph@ralphosterling.com] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 1:56 PM To: PARKStREC-Schwartz, Randy, MGR-Nantell, Jim Subject: RE: Help, please Randy Thanks for the quick response. Obviously I am pushing for the theme trees (exclusive of blue gum!) for the long term. I would think that if a few streets that have some pattern strength were chosen and we focused on them, the 56 trees could easily find a home within your grant period. Ralph Ralph Osterling President ralph�m�slphoskrl in$.co_m Ralph Osterling Consultants, Inc, 1650 Borel Place, #204 San Mateo, California 94402 (650) 573-8733 (650) 345-7890 fax From: PARKS/REC-Schwa rtz, Randy [mai Ito:RSchwartzCCburlingame.org] Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 1:26 PM To: MGR-Nantell, Jim; Ralph Osterling Subject: RE: Help, please Jim/Ralph, We are scheduled to plant 56 trees in April, but they have not been ordered. This is scheduled to be done next week. My recommendation would be to continue with the planting for four reasons: 1. The residents we have been working with have been told the plantings will be done in April 2. In the larger picture, 56 trees is a very small number 3. 1 can foresee this process taking a year or more to work through. Not only does it have to go to Commission and then Council, but then we will need to go through a process to work with each block of residents on the select species 4. The tree planting grant we have expires in 2010 Randy Randy Schwartz Parks & Recreation Director, City of Burlingame 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 558-7307 Creating a Better Place to Live, Work & Play From: MGR-Nantell, Jim Sent: Friday, March 14, 2008 11:47 AM 4,131/2008 Page 2 of 3 To: 'Ralph Osterling' Cc: PARKS/REC-Schwartz, Randy Subject: RE: Help, please Ralph — Randy knows that my personal view (which is essentially irrelevant) is to go with the themed or consistent tree for each block of series of blocks. Randy do you see any problem with delaying planting of trees until the commission has once again had a chance to hear the proposal? If you feel that some of the public who are waiting for a new tree may object we could ask the Council to weight on the idea of delaying. .Iim Nantell City Manager City of Burlingame (650) 558-7205 (650) 556-9282 fax ' r ale 5 Zr9tl!4 • 2111!,4 Sign Up for City e-News at www.burlingame.org From: Ralph Osterling [mai Ito:ralph@ra I pho5terli ng.corr] Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2008 1:01 PM To: MGR-Nantell, Jim Subject: Help, please Hello Jim On two fronts I need your help. The easy one first, namely the name and contact information for the GM at the Hyatt. We were over last weekend and were served by the most pleasant and professional person... .he should know. Second, on a City issue: Please request that no further street tree planting occur until a theme program is developed. The impacts of random planting has a long term impact to lose the character of many of our streets. Having theme tree streets — sycamores on Columbus — magnolias on Easton, etc have a remarkable value to enhance the neighborhood. I know Randy and his team have commitments to plant, but a delay at this point is warranted because the impacts are so positive and long term — 75+ years. You, the Council and Randy can put out a positive message that Burlingame is thinking thru and planning for themes in the tree planting. Thanks Ralph Ralph Osterling President raIph(a?ral phosWrling.com Ralph Osterling Consultants, Inc. 1650 Borel Place, #204 San Mateo, California 94402 4/3/2008 From: PARKS/REC-Schwartz, Randy Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 1:00 PM To: 'Ann Keighran' Cc: MGR-Nantell, Jim Subject: RE: Tree planting -- URGENT! Ann, The City has had a policy for approximately 15 to 20 years that allows the property owner to pick trees off lists that contain trees appropriate to the location. We currently have five different lists: • Planting areas less than 3' wide • Planting areas T to 6' wide • Planting areas over 6' wide • Plantings under power lines • Lower 6 blocks of Easton While some people (such as Ralph, Jennifer Pfaff & Pat Giorni) prefer to have streets that have a monoculture of trees, others prefer variety and want to prevent a single disease wiping out the entire block of trees. The item has been brought up a few times in the past few years, but the Beautification Commission has continually stated the preference of allowing the property owner the choice — most recently 9-12 months ago by Jen. Pat met with Jim, Tim Richmond & me on January 31st regarding this topic and told us that she and Ralph were interested in changing the existing policy. We ended the conversation by agreeing that Pat, Ralph & Jen would be going to the Beautification Commission together to raise the issue again. Pat asked to wait a few months in respect of Jen whose father just passed away. Staff's opinion: we see & understand both viewpoints. The look of a single species is very attractive. On the other hand, shouldn't a property owner be given a choice? Even the versions of the plan as described by Pat & Jen have significant differences such as who selects the tree for each street, when the plan is put into effect, etc. Jen would like to remove trees to plant the 'chosen' tree, while Pat does not want to remove any trees until they die or become a hazard My suggestion (if you have decided to read this far) is to tell Ralph that you understand Pat Giomi has asked to have this issue placed on an upcoming Beautification Commission Agenda and that Pat, Jen & Ralph are supposed to make the presentation together. Randy Randy Schwartz Parke & Recreation Director, City of Burlingame 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 558-7307 Creating a Better Place to Live, Work & Play From: Ann Keighran [mailto:Ann@sjkdev.coml Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 12:08 PM To: PARKS/REC-Schwartz, Randy Subject: FW: Tree planting -- URGENT! Importance: High Randy, I received this email from Ralph. I actually think he makes some good points. I think it makes the street more charming and consistent. What do you think? Thanks, Ann K. From: Ralph Osterling [mailto:ralph@ralphosterling.com] Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2008 10:06 AM To: Ann Keighran Cc: russ@russcohen.com; hogorni@yahoo.com Subject: Tree planting -- URGENT! Importance: High Good Morning Yesterday's paper had an interesting article on a grant issued for tree planting in Burlingame. Congratulations to all, for these plantings make a long term impact and improvement in our City. At PC we discussed tree planting and recommended that themes be developed for given streets instead of each owner having the one they want. The theme approach gives the wonderful look of a continuous crown mass such as the catalpa on Balboa and near Roosevelt school, the sycamore on Easton, and the magnolia and sycamore on Columbus. Just recently, many trees have been planted and most likely without a theme approach.(! have not checked each for species) I urge you and the Council request the Park Department and Mr. Richmond to hold off on tree planting until the themes can be established. CE:rtainly the remnants of many are present and planting should focus on strengthening those established planting instead of a widely mixed batch that will be with us for 50 or more years. A good example of what not to do is the ginkgo that is planted between large established magnolia and sycamore across from my home on Columbus. If by chance trees have been ordered or delivered to the city, they can be held for theme planting or returned to the supplier if need be. Proper planting now sets the scene for the future and the Historical Association can look back and say, "hey, Council had it together in "08". Thanks Ralph Ralph Osterling President rah a Wphosterling Ralph Osterling Consultants, Inc. 1650 Borel Place, #204 San Mateo, California 94402 (650) 573-8733 (650) 345-7890 fax From: PARKS/REC-Schwartz, Randy Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2008 11:41 PM To: COUNCIL-Baylock, Cathy; 'pat giorni' Cc: PARKS-Richmond, Tim; MGR-Nantell, Jim; GRP-Council Subject: RE: Spring Planting Tree Replacement List Sorry about that. The spreadsheet was in Excel. I am pasting it below and attaching a pdf of the spreadsheet. 1f you need it redone, please let me know. Randy Planting Cut-off Date - Feb 3/18/2008 - April 28th/March 17th 2008 Grow S.R. for Removal Choice of Address Site Space List Letter Removal Comp Stump Tree 2200 S#3 3-6- na na na na na 1-15 gal Pistacia Adeline Dr Chinensis 2215 F#1 P 12/11/2008 12/11/2008 12/11/2008 na Adeline Dr 2505 F#1 P 2/5/2008 na na 1/8/2008 Mar 1-24" box Pyrus Adeline Dr Calleryana'Arist' 130 Arundel F#2 3-6- 1/15/2008 1/15/2008 1/8/2008 1-15 gal Ave Eucalyptus Ficifolia 1208 F#1 3- 1/15/2008 1/15/2008 1/15/2008 2/5/2008 Jan 1-15 gal Prunus Balboa Ave Yedoensis'Akebo 1446 F#2 3-6- 1/15/2008 1/15/2008 1/8/2008 Balboa Ave 1557 S#2 3-6- 1/16/2008 1/16/2008 na complete Jan Balboa Ave 30 Bancroft F#2 3- 1-24 box Geijera Rd parviflora 232 F#2 3- 1/16/2008 1/16/2008 storm complete Jan 1-15 gal Geijera Bancroft Rd Parviflora 1632 F#1 P Mar 1-15 gal Sapium Barroilhet Sebiferum Ave 216 2 6- 1/16/2008 1/16/2008 storm complete Jan Bayswater trees Ave 1129 Bernal F#1&2 3- from Jan plt 2-24" box Prunus Ave Yedoensis'Yos' 208 F#1&2 3-6- 2/5/08- 2/5/08- na complete 2-15 gal Bloomfield Pittosporum Rd Undulatum 1400 F#1 3- na na na yes Jan 1-15 gal Cupaniopsis Broadway Anacardiodes 1108 F#2 3- 1/15/2008 1/15/2008 1/8/2008 1/7/2008 Jan 1-15 gal Cabrillo Ave Lagerstroemia Indica 1121 F#1&2 3- 1/15/2008 1/15/2008 1/8/2008 Jan 2-15 gal Photinia Cabrillo Ave Frasier 101 S#2 6- 1/15/2008- 1/15/08- 1/15/2008 2/7/2008 Mar Vacant-BD California Dr choose 1400 F#2 6- 2/22/08- 2/22/08- 2/22/08- 1-15 gal Robinia Capuchino Ambigua Ave 1412 F#1 from Jan pit construction 1-15 gal Acer Capuchino Rubra-IY Ave 1410 Carlos F#3&4 3-6- 12/11/2008-12/11/08- 12/11/2008 3111/2008 Jan 2-15 gal Magnolia Ave 'Little Gem' 200 S 2-15 gal Maytenus Channing Boaria Rd 230 F#1 3- 1/15/2008- 1/15/08- 1/15/2008 2/5/2008 1-15 gal Prunus Channing Yedoensis Yosh Rd 400 Chapin S#5 3- 2/22/08- 2/22/28- 2/22/08- 3/11/2008 1-15 gal Crataegus Lane Lavigata 937 Chula F#1 3-6- 2/22/08- 2/22/08- 2/22/08- 3/3/08- Vista Ave 1042 Chula Vista na na na na na 1-15 gal Elm AveF#1 'frontier or pioneer' 1556 P 1/08/08- na na Red oak/Red Columbus Maple-Move to Oct Ave 1280 Cortez F#1-6 3- 6-15 gal Photinia Ave Frasier S#1 1-15 gal Eucalyptus Citriodora 120 Costa F#1 P 2/5/08- 2/5/08- na complete 1-24"box Rica Ave Lagerstroemia Indica 1711 Davis F#2 6- 1/15/2008- 1/15/08- 1/8/2008 1-15 gal Robinia Dr Ambigua 1453 Drake F#1 3-6- 2/5/08- na 2/5/08- 1-15 gal Celtis Ave Sinensis 1473 Drake F#1 3-6- 2/22/08- na 2/22/08- 3/11/2008 1-15 gal Magnolia Ave 'SamSommers' 12 Dwight F#1&2 3-6- 1/24/08- 1/24/2008 2/4/2008 complete Jan 2-15 gal Rd Eucalyptus Nicolii 2405 F#1&2 P 2/14/08- na storm 1/11/2008 2-15 gal Prunus Easton Ave Cercisfera 2508 F#2 storm 1-15 gal Easton Dr Pittosporum Undulatum 1609 Forest F#1 6- 2/25/08- 2/25/08- na complete Mar View 2612 Hale F#1&3 P 1/15/2008- na 1/15/2008 Jan 2-15 gal Sapium Dr Sebiferum 14 Highland F#2 6- 1/16/2008- 1/16/08- storm complete Jan 1-15 gal Tristania Rd Conferta 2212 F#1&2 6- 2/5/08- 2/5/08- na complete Bob choose L&L Hillside Dr return not deliv 1117 F#1 6- 1/15/2008- 1/15/08- 1/8/2008 1-15 gal Quercus Juantia Ave Rubra 1012 F#1 3-6- 12/11/2008- 12/11/08- 12/11/2008 1-15 gal Magnolia Laguna Ave 'Little Gem' 724 Linden F#1 3-6- 2/25/08- 2/25/2008 na complete Mar Ave 725 Linden F#1&2 P 1/16/2008- 1/16/08- 1/16/2008 Mar 2-15 gal Cercis Ave Occidentalis 740 Linden F#1 3-6- 2/22/08- 2/22/08- 2/22/08- 3/11/2008 Mar 1 -15 gal Pistacia Ave Chinensis 936 Linden S#2 3-6- 2/22/08- 2/22/08- 2/22/08- 3/14/2008 Ave 806 Morrell F#1 9- 1/16/08- 1/16/08- storm complete Jan 1 -15 gal Geijera Ave Parviflora 905 Morrell F#1 P 2/22/08- na 2/22/08- 3/11/2008 na 1 -15 gal Pyrus Ave Calleryana 'Arist' 1247 F#1 P 1/15/2008- 1/15/18- 1/8/2008 1 -24"box Geijera Paloma Ave parviflora 1000 Park S#3 P na na na 2/20/08- 1 -15 gal Geijera Ave Parviflora 2305 Poppy F#1 3-6- 1/16/2008- 1/16/08- storm complete Jan 1 -24" box Fraxinus Ave Oxycarpa 439 F#1 3-6- 1/16/08- 1/16/08- storm complete Jan 1 -15 gal Crataegus Primrose Rd Phaenopyrum 2200 Ray S#3 3-6- 2/25/08- 2/25/08- na complete Mar 1 -15 gal Pyrus Dr. Calleryana 'Arist' 909 Rose CtF#1 6- 1/16/2008- na 1/16/2008 2/7/2008 Mar 1 -15 Quercus Rubra 109 Victoria F#1-3 3- 11/21/2008- 11/21/08- 11/20/2008 Jan 3-15 gal Rd Lagerstroemia Indica 860 Walnut 3-6- storm Feb 1 -24" box Tristania Ave Conferta 1532 F#1 3-6- 2/5/08- 2/5/08- na na na HO does not want Westmoor a tree Rd 1536 F#1 3-6- 2/5/08- 2/5/08- na na na Westmoor Rd Parking Lot na na written request Mar Bob choose tree G TOTAL: 60 72 request; 60 returned species wanted 1461 Drake-HO will contact us when she is ready to plant. -----Original Message----- From: PARKS/REC-Schwartz , Randy Sent : Sat 3/22/2008 5 : 14 PM To : ' pat giorni ' Cc : PARKS-Richmond, Tim; MGR-Nantell, Jim; GRP-Council Subject: RE: Spring Planting Tree Replacement List Pat, Thank you for the help on this. Attached is the list of trees that were scheduled to be planted in April. FYI - We have 72 trees to plant. When we sent the previous email, we had heard back from 56 residents on their choices. Since then we have now heard from four more. Randy Randy Schwartz Parks & Recreation Director, City of Burlingame 850 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 558-7307 Creating a Better Place to Live, Work & Play ATTACHMENT B 1 STREET TREE POLICY REASSESSMENT PROPOSAL The observation has been made that what was a consistently lush and magnificent tree canopy is becoming somewhat haphazard looking and ho-hum in places around town, especially on blocks where themed or mono-cultured areas have been degraded with plantings inconsistent with those in close proximity. Long-time residents miss the canopy they have always known to be quintessential Burlingame, and feel they had no voice in the change despite the well-meaning policy of allowing property owners to choose replacement trees. The city has an Urban Forest Management Plan in place that in theory provides an excellent blueprint for maintaining an invaluable part of its infrastructure. However in practice, policy implementation should now be reassessed if the City is going to continue to promulgate the vision of those past planners who laid out streets and neighborhoods with themed areas of monoculture, as well as diversity. Therefore, the proposal is 4—fold: •REVIEW POLICY IMPLEMENTATION OF BURLINGAME'S URBAN FORESTRY MANAGEMENT PLAN, FOCUSING ON AREAS IN NEED OF IMPROVEMENT (SEE EXCERPTS BELOW). -POSTPONE SPRING PLANTING. UPDATE STREET TREE INVENTORY, NOTING THE TRENDS OR "THEMES ON CERTAINSTREETS. •REVIEW AND REASSESS CURRENT M) EET TREE LIST, KEEPING IN MIND THAT THE PRIMARY GOAL (WHENEVER POSSIBLE) SHOULD BE TO ENHANCE THE BEAUTY OF OUR STREETS WITH THE CONTINUITY OF THE DOMINANT, 'GRANDER' TYPES OF TREES RATHER THAN ORNAMENTALS. •VISUALLY ASSESS NEIGHBORHOODS THAT HAVE FEW OR NO TREES AND SELECT THREE (3) SPECIES, (INCLUDING TWO (2) TYPES THAT WILL BE GRAND IN STATURE AND APPROPRIATE WHERE NO OVER-WIRES EXIST) FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO CONSIDER. NOTIFY PROPERTY OWNERS OF THE PROGRAM AND IF INTERESTED, HAVE THEM RETURN A POSTCARD WITH THEIR CHOICE. 2 EXTRACTS FROM THE URBAN FOREST MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR DISCUSSION Page 5: I ADDED THE LAST BULLET POINT THAT IS BOLD AND UNDERLINED... Mission Statement The Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department is Creating a Better Place to Live, Work and Play by • Pro viding well-maintained playgrounds, street trees, park spaces and recreational facilities; • Offering a high-quality, diversified program of recreational activities; and • Supporting local community groups • Maintaining and enhancing the street trees to strengthen the structure of the streetscape and to strengthen neighborhood cohesiveness QUESTION: 1.) IS IT FEASIBLE TO MOVE THE: OVERSIGHT OF TREES TO PUBLIC WORKS-STREETS? The rationale being that street trees are a part of the integral infrastructure of the city and should not have to compete with recreational considerations. It would appear prudent that PW absorb the entire tree infrastructure, so that Park and Rec could call upon PW for playground and park tree maintenance. Presently, Park and Rec has no full-time Arborist; and major maintenance and a great deal of tree assessment is being done by outside consultants and contractors. Page 6 Goals of Urban Forest Management Plan An important part of understanding the :status of the urban forest is knowing how it has been managed. This requires information on both past and current management methods and actions, such as: • municipal tree care practices, including planting, maintenance, and removal; • existing ordinances, and the level of enforcement practiced (numbers of violations, permits and citations issued, penalties and fines collected); • planning regulations and guidelines that pertain to trees, and numbers of tree- related permits granted, modified, or denied; • activities of municipal departments and public utilities that impact trees. 3 • Urban forestry needs can be grouped into three broad categories, although many needs may actually fall into more than one category. Biological needs are those that are related tr:) the tree resource itself. Typical needs in this category include the need to: • increase species and age diversity to provide long-term forest stability; • provide sufficient tree planting to keep pace with urban growth and offset tree removal; • increase the proportion of large-statured trees in the forest for greater canopy effects; • ensure proper compatibility between trees and planting sites to reduce sidewalk damage and conflicts with overhead utilities that lead to premature tree removal . Management needs refer to the needs of these involved with the short- and long-term care and maintenance of the urban forest. Some common management needs include: • develop adequate long-term planning to ensure the sustainability of the urban forest; • optimize the use of limited financial and personnel resources; • increase training and education for tree program employees to ensure high quality tree care; • coordinate tree-related activities of municipal departments. Community needs are those that relate to how the public perceives and interacts with the urban forest and the local urban forest management program. Examples of community needs include: • increase public awareness of the values and benefits associated with trees; • promote better private tree care through better public understanding of the biological needs of trees; • foster community support for the urban forest management program; promote conservation of the urban forest: by focusing public attention on all tree age classes, not just large heritage trees. Pg 38 inventory—updated aug 23, 2007 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Pg 38 Attachment D Street Tree Inventory Report—(updated aug 23, 2007?) Catall2a speciosa WESTERN CATALPA) 71 .52 Pg 37 Aesculus spa. HORSE-CHESTNUT SPECI) 5 .04 4 Platanus acerifolia (SYCAMORE/LONDON PVaN, 1758 12.96 QUESTIONS: 1.) WHY ARE THE ABOVE LISTED SPECIES NO LONGER PLANTED TO INCREASE THE PROPORTION OF LARGE-STATURE CANOPY? 2.) WHY HAS THERE BEEN A REDUCTION IN MAINTAINING ALREADY DEVELOPED "THEME" BLOCKS AND NEIGHBORHOODS? 3.) WHY HASN'T THERE BEEN ANY (EFFORT TO CREATE MORE "THEMED" BLOCKS AND NEIGHBORHOODS? Pg 13 Inventory of Existing Trees All City trees with a residential street address were inventoried in 1984. The inventory has been updated as trees have been removed and replaced. Diameter and height data has not been updated for trees still in place from the original inventory. Trees in City Parks do not exist on an inventory, with the exception of the trees in Washington Park. Public Trees without an associated street address do not appear on an inventory. The City is in need of an updated inventory of its residential trees. Staff is looking at grants for which an updated inventory might be eligible. The Parks & Recreation Department has a data base of each street tree in the City that includes its location, specie, approximate size and maintenance history. Attachments • Street Tree Inventory Report, Attachment "D" Pages 37-41 QUESTIONS: 1.) HAS THE TREE INVENTORY BEEN UP-DATED SINCE 1984; OR ONLY THE URBAN FOREST PIAN WITH THE OLD INVENTORY INCLUDED? 2.) WOULD THE BEAUTIFICATIOIN COMMISSIONERS VOLUNTEER TO WALK THE CITY TO UP-DATE THE RESIDENTIAL 5 INVENTORY IF PARK AND REC PROVIDES A MAP THAT COULD BE DIVIDED INTO "PRECINCTS"? This would eliminate the need for money for staff time. Pat Giorni and Jennifer Pfaff will volunteer time to help in this endeavor. 3.) IT HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED THAT GRANT FUNDING WAS PROCURED. HOW MUCH? WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC STIPULATIONS FOR ITS USE? f Pg 16 Tree and sidewalk impacts If the tree is deemed healthy and structurally sound, several sidewalk design alternatives will be recommended to increase the planting space for the current tree and future trees. *********************Curvingsidewalks*** **** ************ — When at all possible, increasing the City right-of-way toward the homeowner's property for the minimum ADA requirement will be encouraged. This will increase the growing area for the current tree, protect roots, and provide a larger planting area for future large-stature tree species. • The City has five separate street tree lists in place for selection of replacement trees, distinguished by the planting space (size, power lines or location) • Property owners are generally required to replace trees that are removed • Property owners are allowed to select a tree off the list applicable to their property QUESTIONS: 1.) WHY ARE REPLACEMENTS INOW BASED PRIMARIALLY ON PLANTING STRIP SIZE WITH NO THOUGHT GIVEN TO THE FACT THAT THOSE STRIPS CAN BE ENLARGED IN FUTURE WITH CURVING SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT? Although the City is NOT paying for sidewalk replacement, that will change in the next few years when the budget can once again fund repair and replacement. In most cases it will take 15-20 years for trees replaced today to need any sidewalk improvement. 2.) WHERE "THEMED" TREES HAVE BEEN REMOVED, WHY CANNOT THEY BE REPLACED WITH THE SAME SPECIES IF THE PLANTING STRIP CAN BE WIDENED IN FUTURE WITH CURVED SIDEWALK? See specifically the example of the 1300 block of 6 Drake where the London Plane are being replaced with a variety of species, breaking the continuity of a 3 block canopy. 3.) WHY ARE PROPERTY OWNERS ALLOWED TO PICK THE STREET TREE? The haphazard look of our canopy is due to a number of factors: a) in many cases the property owner is not given the option of replacing the removed tree with a same species because it has been removed from the street tree list that he has been shown. In some cases, if he knows to insist, he may be able to replace like for like; b) he has no real interest or understanding of how his selection may fit into his surroundings, thus making a poor choice; c) many are choosing evergreen rather than deciduous because they don't want to be bothered with leaf removal. This is causing a darkening of our neighborhoods during the low-Light winter season and removes the awareness of seasonal change; d) with up to 9 choices from which to pick more diversity than was intended can completely change the nature of the canopy and streetscape. 4.) WHAT ABOUT AREAS WHERE TREE REPLACEMENT HAS NOT OCCURRED OVER THE LAST 5 OR SO YEARS? See specifically the 1100 block of Vancouver which is almost unrelieved by the softening effect that trees would give to a street that has seen mature landscaping as well as street trees removed. Page 31 Plan to Plant in New Areas The City has consistently encouraged home owners to plant new trees on their property. The City has added over 300 more trees than have been replaced in the past four years (averaging 75 additional trees each year) The Department's 2007-08 budget submittal includes $5,000 for street tree reforestation — the first time we have ever budgeted for additional trees PLANTING ON STREETS WITH FEW TREES In late 2006 Council requested that the Burlingame Beautification Commission make a recommendation concerning the planting of vacant planting sites in the City (residential addresses with a designated City 7 planting strip). Tree planting by the Parks Division focuses on planting trees where they have been removed and on planting vacant sites when requested by the associated property owner. The Commission is in the process of identifying those vacant sites. It is also considering means of funding the program to plant the vacant sites. Concurrently Staff is exploring grant options for the funding of the project. A strategy for implementation will follow the above assessments. QUESTIONS: 1.) ON STREETS, SUCH AS 1100 BLOCK OF VANCOUVER, WHY CAN? THE BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION MAKE A DETERMINATION OF THE TYPE OF CANOPY IT PROPOSES AND THEN PICK 3 SPECIES THAT WOULD FULFILL THAT VISION? Property owners could then be asked to vote on those three choices to set the "theme" for that block. 2.) ON BLOCKS OR IN AREAS WHERE IT IS DETERMINED TO NOT HAVE A MONOCULTURE CANOPY, WHY CANNOT THE CHOICE OF PLANTING BE LIMITED TO THREE SPECIES MAXIMUM? Page 53 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 Red Maple green leaves; showy flowers; brilliant Fall CINNAMOMUM CAMPHORA 40-50' 45' EVERGREEN : Slow to moderate growth; Camphor (300-400 blk. Burlingame Ave.) yellow green aromatic leaves; tiny yellow 8 EUCALYPTUS MICROTHECA 35-40' 40' EVERGREEN: Fast growth; ribbon-like, 8in. long leaves; bushy, round-headed, LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA (City Hal%501 Primrose Rdd, 40-60' 40' DECIDUOUS: Moderate to fast growth; American Sweet Gum along Bellevue side) very colorful Fall foliage, stays on into MAGNOLIA GRANDIFLORA 20-40' 25' EVERGREEN: Moderate to fast growth; 'Samuel Sommers' (Broadway Shopping Area) white Flowers, similar to Southern Magnolia, MYOPORUM LAE-FUM 20-30' 25' EVERGREEN: Fast growth; dense, glossy, (856 Edgehill Dr., F#1 & F#2) light green Myoporum foliage. PLATANUS ACERIFOLIA (Lines Lexington and 40-60' 45' DECIDUOUS: Fast growth; large, lobed, London Plane(Sycamore) Francisco Drives) maplelike leaves; sheds old bark; new bark QUESTIONS: 1.) WHY IS EUCALYPTUS MICROTHECA ON THE ABOVE LIST AS WELL AS ON "TREES TO BE USED IN PLANTING STRIPS OVER 3' AND UNDER 6' WIDE"? It is understood that CalTrans has found these to NOT be a suitable replacement for the EI Camino Real . 2.) WHY IS LIQUID AMBER STILL ON THE LIST? Over the years there have been numerous complaints about the spiny-balled seed pods as tripping hazards. They are also highly prone to lose limbs during high wind storms, leading to property damage, most often falling on parked cars. 3.) WHY CANT ACER RUBRUM (RED MAPLE) BE USED FOR LIQUID AMBER REPLACEMENT? CITY o^ STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 8c ITEM # MTG. 4/7/08 I%AT. �6.9DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED ,�i G BY %�'v DATE: March 27, 2008 APPROVE FROM: Jim Nantell 558-7205 BY SUBJECT: Review Report from Green Ribbon Task Force and Provide Direction Regarding Their Recommendations. RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council review report from Green Ribbon Task Force and provide direction regarding their recommendations. BACKGROUND: Council Members Nagel and Baylock have been co-chairing a committee comprised of two Plannin Commissioners and member of the public. After generating dozens of ideas they have identified ; riority areas they would like to pursue and at this time they would like to review them with the full Council before moving forward. ATTACHMENTS: A. Recommendations from the Green Ribbon Task Force B. Staff Comments re: Recommendations from the Green Ribbon Task Force ATTACH Mff A Green Ribbon Task Force Recommendations April 3, 2008 Recommendation No. 1: Develop Green Ribbon pages on the city's Web site to educate residents and businesses and provide them with resources Communications Committee: Mike Kerwin and Terry Nagel Benefits that would result: Convenient information for residents and businesses Cost:None City staff time involved: City's Web support staff would need to post new information Timeline: Ongoing;new info would go up periodically Burlingame's Web site currently describes the city's progress to date in lowering carbon emissions and promoting sustainable practices. We would like to create an expanded"green" section that includes information about how residents and businesses can expand their recycling efforts,replace equipment with energy-efficient models, conserve water,access mass transit, follow"green"building practices and much more. There would be links to helpful resources.This section would also promote green-certified businesses in Burlingame and would recognize sustainable ideas and practices by individuals. We would solicit ideas and content for these pages from other Green Ribbon Task Force members and from the community. Requests for ideas could be sent out on the city's e-newsletter and via the Green Ribbon listserv. We would update the material on the Web site on a regular basis, as new information became available. All content would be submitted to the city manager for approval. Recommendation No. 2: Organize and create an informational kiosk and green building library of reference books in the Planning/Building Departments Green Building Committee: Michael Brownrigg, Stan Vistica,Randy Grange and Mike Kerwin Benefits that would result: Green information and resources would be readily available for the staff and the public in the Planning and Building Departments Cost: None City staff time involved:Minimal Timeline: 2 months Mike Kerwin has volunteered to work with both departments to institute the kiosk and communications program.He has already provided Green Point Rated(GPR)literature and the Green Building Basics book to the Building Department,but these are not currently on display. He would check with staff before creating a display. Recommendation No.3: Explore a city car share program Transportation Committee: Neal Kaufman and Pat Gray Benefits that would result: Fewer cars and carbon emissions, savings on city fleet Cost: To be determined 1 City staff time involved: Up to 11 hours for initial analysis Timeline: To be determined Car sharing is a system in which vehicles are placed in convenient locations(pods), often located near mass transit stations,high-density housing,hospitals, city centers, etc. An individual can use the Internet to reserve a car, essentially renting the vehicle by the hour for short trips. Car sharing allows people to own fewer cars, and often to own smaller cars,without having to sacrifice in terms of quality of life. Cities such as Berkeley and San Francisco have benefited from supporting car share programs, saving money, increasing the availability of transportation for city workers and reducing congestion and parking issues,while at the same time helping the environment. City CarShare(www.citycarshare.org) is a nonprofit organization located in San Francisco that has cars located throughout San Francisco and the East Bay. The organization is very interested in expanding into the Peninsula,with Burlingame being the anchor starting point. Neal Kaufman and Jim Nantell met this week with the executive director and head of operations of this organization and discussed the possibility of setting up a pod of two cars at or near Burlingame City Hall and one more car by the Burlingame Avenue Caltrain station. Under the plan, Burlingame might eliminate two(and possibly more)city vehicles.The City CarShare vehicles would be available for use by city employees during the day and would be used by local citizens at night and on weekends. This model has proven effective in Berkeley, where the city replaced a number of city vehicles with City CarShare cars and saved a great deal of money. City CarShare intends to submit an operating plan that will explain how the program would work in greater detail and would include costs and benefits.Neal plans to speak with the person in Berkeley who administered and implemented the plan.He will present his findings and recommendation to the full Task Force for further consideration. If the Task Force approves his recommendation,it would be presented to the City Council. We recommend that the City Council support the next steps in this effort,which would involve five to eight hours of a city analyst's time to review the financial model that we would furnish. It would also require two to three hours of the city manager's time to give further input on the financial implications and the format of our presentation to the City Council. Recommendation No.4: Investigate and streamline shuttle services and connections to public transit Transportation Committee: Pat Gray and Neal Kaufman Benefits that would result: More convenient connections to shopping areas and public transit Cost: To be determined City staff time involved:To be determined Timeline: Survey could be completed and tallied by mid-June Although vehicles account for approximately half of all carbon emissions in the Bay Area, Burlingame has very little shuttle service available to the public.The city contributes funds to three free shuttle routes that primarily serve the needs of the hotels on the bayfront and people shuttling between Mercy High School,Peninsula Hospital and the Millbrae transmodal station. 2 An informal study has found that these shuttles usually have very few, if any,passengers on them. Many elderly residents live in areas of our city that lie a long way from the buses that run on El Camino Real and the train stations. Better links to shopping areas and to public transportation are needed to serve the needs of our residents and would contribute to our goal of being a more green and sustainable city. We would like to investigate extending the North Burlingame free shuttle to serve the needs of citizens west of El Camino. The present route could be extended by a continuation of that route up Trousdale Avenue to Skyline Boulevard, then south to Hillside Drive and north on El Camino Real to the Millbrae intermodal station. We would like to send a postcard survey to citizens in the affected areas to determine public interest in an extension of the North Burlingame shuttle route. In addition,we would like to survey the 5,000 people signed up for the city's e-newsletter. If sufficient interest were found, and if areas currently served would not be adversely affected, we would investigate sources of public funding as well as possibly shifting funding from some of the other shuttles. Recommendation No. 5: Adopt a green building guidelines checklist Green Building Committee: Michael Brownrigg, Stan Vistica,Randy Grange and Mike Kerwin Benefits that would result: More residential and commercial projects would follow green guidelines Cost:None City staff time involved: About 8 hours Timeline: 2 months NOTE: See attached sample checklist We would like to help Burlingame residents and developers become better informed about green building practices by adopting and publishing an established and proven third-party green building checklist for all new residential remodeling, single family and multi-family projects. We would do the same for commercial projects,basing the list on the relevant LEED programs. These checklists would be entirely voluntary.By including them on every planning and permit application,we would hope to encourage people to think about meeting voluntary guidelines. In the future, after public hearings held by the Planning Commission, we might evolve the program into one with either incentives or requirements to achieve a minimum number of points that each project should have. Burlingame could model its program on similar programs that other Peninsula communities have adopted. A great many cities in Northern California have adopted all or part of the Build It Green(Green Point Rated)program and/or checklist or have met with representatives and are planning to institute voluntary and mandatory green building guidelines for all residential and remodeling projects. Those that have mandatory green building programs include Livermore, Pleasanton, Albany, San Rafael,Novato,Rohnert Park,Larkspur,Cotati, Sebastopol, Santa Cruz(city), Moraga, Los Altos,Windsor,Marin County, Berkeley, Hillsborough, San Mateo(city), Los Altos Hills,Hayward, Santa Rosa and Brisbane. Jurisdictions in Northern California that are developing mandatory green building programs include Petaluma, Alameda, Palo Alto, San Francisoc, San Jose, Sonoma(city),Napa Cities, 3 Marin Cities, Sacramento(city),Atherton, Gilroy, Lodi, Davis, Capitola, Scotts Valley, Watsonville, Sonoma County, Campbell, Santa Clara(city), Cupertino,Morgan Hill, Saratoga, Monte Sereno,Milpitas, Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Gilroy and San Mateo County. Voluntary programs are under way in Petaluma, Santa Rosa,Dublin,Mill Valley,Brentwood, Emeryville, Oakland, San Leandro and Union City. Attached is a sample checklist called the Green Points Rating System for Remodeling Projects which is currently in use in many cities in the Bay Area. A total of 25 measures are highlighted on this list. They are the items that can provide the greatest impact on the environment and the health of a home, are easiest to implement and lowest in cost.They are the suggested"starting point" for a green project. We estimate it would take approximately eight hours of staff time to update permit forms utilizing the GPR checklist. Recommendation No. 6: Investigate stormwater drainage regulations Recommendation No. 7: Evaluate hardscape limits and requirements for residences Green Building Committee: Michael Brownrigg, Stan Vistica,Randy Grange and Mike Kerwin Benefits that would result: Less water in the storm drain system, substantial cost savings to residents Cost: None City staff time involved: 7-8 hours Timeline: 2 months Stormwater drainage should be handled on-site wherever possible. Residents should not be required to pump water to the street(as is presently the case)if they can demonstrate adequate on-site water management. On a related matter,we want to examine whether we ought to cap the amount of hardscape on residential lots so as to encourage more ground percolation(and areas for planting as well). Findings.Today virtually every Burlingame remodel/tear-down is confronted with this language in their applications: The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to drain towards the Frontage Street. What this means in practice is that most remodels are putting substantially more water into our overloaded storm drain system than they used to. This runoff can take sediment from the roof, driveway and other hardscape into the stormwater system and,thus, directly into the bay. Exacerbating this unfortunate environmental impact is the fact that, if a lot is below the level of the street,then the applicant must install sump pumps to pump the water to the street.Water pumps are some of the most energy-intensive appliances in a home. If the applicant has constructed a basement and its construction is done inadequately, then the basement becomes a receptacle for groundwater(not just rainwater),meaning that the applicants are pumping groundwater into the stormwater system and the bay. A storm drain expert confirmed during an informal consultation that our policy is ripe for review: 4 [The February 2003 changes to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System] require the City and other local agencies to enact and enforce development regulations limiting the amount of runoff to the local storm drain system and urban creeks (to encourage on-site water management more in tune with the site's predeveloped hydrologic regime) . . . In addition, I was not able to find out anything about Burlingame's stormwater program from their Web site. The NPDES permit might even require them to have such outreach[in public outreach/education element of permit]. Finally, we note that Hillsborough recently changed its drainage requirements,which had been similar to the ones we have now. Hillsborough now requires water management on-site. On a related matter, we note that there is at present no limit on the amount of hardscape residents can install on a lot,which exacerbates the potential drainage issue and eliminates landscaping (carbon sequestration) opportunities. Proposed Action. We would examine changes to these twin issues with Engineering,Planning and Building Department staff. We estimate it would take approximately seven to eight hours of staff time to refine these proposals and to ensure their feasibility. This recommendation would not cost the city anything(other than slightly expanded inspection time on the hardscape requirement) and could lead to net savings for residents if they can switch from complicated and expensive pumping systems and install french drains and other on-site solutions instead. With respect to hardscape limitations,we would need to discuss with Planning staff members whether they feel a public hearing would be in order before recommending this sort of change. Again, this proposal would have minimal impacts in terms of cost to either the city or to residents, although it might limit some residents' choices in terms of landscaping their lots. Recommendation No.8: Investigate the solar permit and fee structure for all projects. Recommendation No.9: Investigate programs to expand or encourage the use of solar energy for residential, commercial and public buildings Solar Purchase Committee: Mike McCord and Michael Brownrigg Benefits that would result: Increased deployment of solar energy would reduce the energy costs, fossil fuel consumption and carbon footprint of the city and citizens of Burlingame Cost: Minimal City staff time involved: Approximately 10 hours Timeline: 3-5 months Burlingame today is one of the least"solar"cities in San Mateo County. According to data from the state,in the last three years only 24 Burlingame homes (out of 5,230 single family homes) have added solar photovoltaic (PV)panels. This figure compares to 33 in Hillsborough, 86 in San Mateo and 191 in Menlo Park over the same period. On a per-household basis, only Millbrae and San Bruno have lower solar penetration rates than Burlingame. Cost barrier. Since cost is most frequently cited as a barrier to deployment,we examined group purchase programs with four reputable vendors. Each vendor had group plans available,but we learned that the cost savings are not generated by cheaper equipment costs—the price of solar panels is virtually fixed—but in allowing the companies to be more efficient in their installation labor and in saving salesman labor. Group purchases seemed to create discounts of somewhere 5 around 5 percent,plus or minus 1 percent. But in order to work, these programs require a community activist to become a proponent for solar on behalf of Company X. We have not identified such an activist and are not sure we want to try. This is a question we plan to explore with the wider committee. The working group is also exploring new financial vehicles called power purchase agreements (PPAs)whereby a third party purchases some or all of the solar panels and then charges the homeowner a fixed long-term rate for that energy. This reduces the upfront cost for homeowners but, in the long run, costs them more,rather like leasing a car versus buying it. In sum, and while we are still working on our conclusions,we are leaning toward the view that we ought to make Burlingame residents aware of solar companies and the various financing options available,but we are not yet convinced that a group buy(locking into a single vendor)or advocating a single financial plan is appropriate. Other Barriers to Deployment: ➢ Many busy Burlingamers do not have time to research solar energy. To that end,we recommend hosting ad hoc solar seminars with vendors. ➢ We have learned that Burlingame's Building Department has stricter roof inspection requirements for solar panels than most other cities(adding to cost and delay); its fee structure is at the median point on the Peninsula. ➢ The articulated nature of many Burlingame roofs, the mature treescape on some lots and the smaller overall roof footprint of our city compared to some other communities(e.g., Portola Valley)means that some Burlingame homes will just not be good candidates for solar. ➢ There is a concern that solar deployments may lead to arguments between neighbors over shade trees and shrubs. State law on this point is clear: Existing treescapes cannot be amended to make room for solar,but a solar deployment must not be blocked by future landscaping. Given the very small number of homes we are talking about and the fact that it is only the south/west exposure that matters,we hope that this concern will not become a major deterrent. Still, we need to consider the tradeoffs. Preliminary Recommendations.With the endorsement of the City Council, we would consult relevant city staff about the following: • We want to reconsider the permitting process and requirements for solar photovoltaic (solar electricity)ad solar thermal (hot water) installations, in order to eliminate any disincentives.This will require consultation time with the Planning and Building Departments. • We would like to investigate the viability of Solar PV or solar thermal installations on city buildings and consider different financial models to pay for them. We will need to see PG&E billing data for appropriate city buildings for the past two years, and we will need to provide access to contractors or consultants to view building roofs and electrical systems so as to get nonbinding estimates. Should the city ultimately decide to purchase a solar array,it could create a"group buy"discount for residents as well,potentially leading to a"two-fer." • We are consulting with solar installation firms who might be interested in running solar seminars throughout the year. We have invited four vendors to come to Our Green Fair on May 18. In the year ahead, we may wish to request the use of city facilities (Lane Community Room, Recreation Department rooms, etc.)to present educational seminars 6 and workshops to the community, and would like to inform residents of these opportunities via the city's Web site and e-newsletter. Throughout our recommendation refinement process, we will be careful to communicate with appropriate commission members and staff, including the Beautification Commission, so that we can have their input as well. We will ensure that all points of view are represented in any final recommendations. Recommendation No. 10: Encourage staff to attend training at the Green Building Exchange Green Building Committee: Michael Brownrigg, Stan Vistica,Randy Grange and Mike Kerwin Benefits that would result: Staff would be familiar with green building practices and resources Cost: Depends on amount of training City staff time involved:Depends on amount of training Timeline: Depends on when classes are offered and when staff is available The Green Building Exchange(GBE)in San Mateo County offers an array of ongoing workshops and events. GBE and its partners provide training on green home building, solar energy,water conservation, green roofs and walls, sustainable landscape design, and advanced LEED and Green Point Rated trainings. We suggest inviting staff members in the Planning and Building Departments to take Green Building 101 workshops. The Green Building 101 half-and full-day workshops target those not currently involved with green building or who are just getting started. Instructors outline working with LEED and Green Point Rated standards and professional certifications available.They provide resources and information to help participants integrate ecological principles and sustainable materials in their work. With the Home Builders Association's recent endorsement of Build It Green's (www.builditgreen.org) Green Point Rated guidelines,the Bay Area is on track to require green guidelines for all new construction. Many localities, including San Mateo County,have already passed green building ordinances. To help contractors transition,the Green Building Exchange has teamed up with San Mateo RecycleWorks to offer a comprehensive series of introductory green building workshops. Its trainers have extensive experience in building and landscaping trades. For details on training, contact the Green Building Exchange, 305 Main Street,Redwood City, CA 94063; phone: (650) 369-4900; email: info(a greenbuildin exchan ems. Recommendation No. 11: All Burlingame hotels should actively participate in the City of Burlingame's recycling programs,especially the Organics Recycling Program Recycling Committee: Terry Nagel and Joe LaMariana Benefits that would result: Greater percentage of solid waste will be diverted from the landfill and into recycling programs. There will also be a cost savings for hotels that participate in the Organics Recycling Program. Cost: Resources are available from Allied, SBWMA and Burlingame's Solid Waste Fund City Staff Time Involved: 20 to 25 hours per year Timeline: Ongoing effort with goal of generating 100 percent participation by March 2009 7 Elizabeth Ricard of Allied and SBWMA Recycling Staff will be working with Jesus Nava to educate and train hotel employees about the value and cost savings of recycling more solid waste. Although the city has a 60 percent diversion rate as a whole,the hotels have been lagging in their recycling rate.At a recent meeting,Allied and SMWMA representatives agreed to make increasing the hotel diversion rate a high priority. 8 SAMPLE GREEN CHECKLIST Green Points Rating System for Remodeling Projects A.Site 1.Recycle Job Site Construction&Demolition Waste 65%=1 point;75%=2 points;80%=4 points 2.Salvage Reusable Building Materials 3.Remodel for Mixed Use,Adaptive Reuse,and Historic Preservation 4.Protect Native Soil 5.Minimize Disruption of Existing Plants&Trees 6.Implement Construction Site Stormwater Practices 7.Protect Water Quality with Landscape Design 8.Design Resource-Efficient Landscapes and Gardens 9.Reuse Matedals/Use Recycled Content Materials for Landscape Areas 10.Install High-Efficiency Irrigation Systems 11.Provide for On-Site Water Catchment/Retention B.Foundation 1.Incorporate Recycled Flyash in Concrete 25%Recycled Flyash=2 points;Add 1 point for every 10%increase of flyash,up to 5 points 2.Use Recycled Content Aggregate 3.Insulate Foundafion/Slab before ball C.Structural Frame 1.Substitute Solid Sawn LumberwHh Engineered Lumber 2.Use FSC Certified Wood for framing (For every 10%of FSC lumber used=2 points,up to 10) 3.Use Wood I-Joists for Floors and Ceilings 4.Use Web Floor Trusses 5.Design Energy Heels on Trusses 6'or more 6.Use FingerJointed Studs for Vertical Applications 7.Use Engineered Studs for Vertical Applications 8.Use Recycled Content Steel Studs for Interior framing 9.Use Structural Insulated Panels(SIPs) a.Floors b.Wall c.Roof 10.Apply Advanced Framing Techniques 11.Use Reclaimed Lumber for Non Structural Applications 12.Use OSB a.Subfloors b.Sheathing D.Exterior Finish 1.Use Sustainable Decking Materials a.Recycled content b.FSC Certified Wood 2.Use Treated Wood That Does Not Contain Chromium/Arsenic 3.Install House Wrap under Siding 4. Use Fiber-Cement Siding Materials E. Plumbing 1. Install Water Heater Jacket 2. Insulate Hot and Cold Water Pipes 3. Retrofit all Faucets and Showerheads with Flow Reducers a. Faucets (1 point each, up to 2 points) b. Showerheads (1 point each, up to 2 points) 4. Replace Toilest with Ultra-Low Flush Toilets (1 point each, up to 3 points) 5. Install Chlorine Filter on Showerhead 6. Convert Gas to Tankless Water Heater 7. Install Water Filtration Units at Faucets (2 points each, up to 4 points) 8. Install On-Demand Hot Water Circulation Pump F. Electrical 1. Install Compact Fluorescent Light Bulbs(CFLs) (6 bulbs=2 points, 10 bulbs =3 points, 12 bulbs = 4 points) 2. Install IC-AT Recessed Fixtures with CFLs (1 point each, up to 5 points) 3. Install Lighting Controls (1 point per fixture, up to 4 points) 4. Install High Efficiency Ceiling Fans with CFLs (1 point each, up to 4 points) G. Appliances 1, Install Energy Star Dishwasher 2. Install Washing Machine with Water and Energy Conservation Features 3.Install Energy Star Refrigerator 4. Install Built-In Recycling Center H. Insulation 1. Upgrade Insulation to Exceed Title 24 Requirements a. Walls b. Ceilings 2. Install Floor Insulation over Crawl Space 3. Install Recycled-Content, Fiberglass Insulation with No Added Formaldehyde 4. Use Advanced Infiltration Reduction Practices 5. Use Cellulose Insulation a. Walls b. Ceilings 6. Alternative Insulation Products(Cotton, spray-foam) a. Walls b. Ceilings I.Windows 1. Install Energy-Efficient Windows a. Double-Paned b. Low-Emissivity (Low-E) c. Low. Conductivity Frames 2. Install Low Heat Transmission Glazing J. Heating Ventilation and Air Conditioning 1. Use Duct Mastic on All Duct Joints 2.Install Ductwork within Conditioned Space 3.Vent Range Hood to the Outside 4.Clean all Ducts Before Occupancy 5.Install Solar Attic Fan 6.Install Attic Ventilation Systems 7.Install Whole House Fan 8.Install Sealed Combustion Units a.Furnaces b.Water Heaters 9.Replace Wall-Mounted Electric and Gas Heaters with Through-the-Wall Heat Pumps 10.Install 13 SEERM 1 EER or higher AC with a TXV 11.Install AC with Non-HCFC Refrigerants 12.Install 90%Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency(AFUE)Furnace 13.Retrofit Wood Burning Fireplaces a.Install EPA certified wood stoves/inserts b. Install/Replace Dampers c.Install Airtight Doors 14.Install Zoned,Hydronic Radiant Heating 15.Install High Efficiency Filter 16.Install Heat Recovery Ventilation Unit(HRV) 17.Install Separate Garage Exhaust Fan K.Renewable Energy and Roofing 1.Pre-Plumb for Solar Water Heating 2.Install Solar Water Heating System 3.Pre-Wire for Future Photovoltaic(PV)Installation 4.Install Photovoltaic(PV)System (1.2 kw=6 points,2.4 kw=12 points,3.6 kw=18 points) 6.Select Safe and Durable Roofing Materials 7.Install Radiant Barrier L.Natural Heating and Cooling I.Incorporate Passive Solar Heating 2.Install Overhangs or Awnings over South Facing Windows 3.Plant Deciduous Trees on the West and South Sides M.Indoor Air Quality and Finishes 1.Use Low/No-VOC Paint 2,Use Low VOC,Water-Based Wood Finishes 3.Use Low/No VOC Adhesives 4.Use Salvaged Materials for Interior Finishes 5.Use Engineered Sheet Goods with no added Urea Formaldehyde 6.Use Exterior Grade Plywood for Interior Uses 7.Seat all Exposed Particleboard or MDF 8.Use FSC Certified Materials for Interior Finish 9.Use Finger-Jointed or Recycled-Content Trim 10.Install Whole House Vacuum System N.Flooring 1.Select FSC Certified Wood Flooring 2.Use Rapidly Renewable Flooring Materials 3.Use Recycled Content Ceramic Tiles 4.Install Natural Linoleum in Place of Vinyl 5.Use Exposed Concrete as Finished Floor 6.Install Recycled Content Carpet with Low VOCs ATTACHMENT B Staff Comments Re: to Recommendations from the Green Ribbon Task Force April 27,2008 Recommendation 2: Organize and create an informational kiosk and green building library of reference books in the Planning/Building Departments Staff has already collected a bit of information from BuildItGreen.org and can certainly work with any other representative from subcommittee to create a kiosk of "green" information within the CD Department. • Recommendation No.3 -Explore a City Car Share Program Although the amount of time suggested for staff involvement is minimal, it is unclear as to how this program works and whether it has demand in Burlingame. Jim suggested that the program sponsor would meet with him to further explain the program and then determine whether it would be feasible in Burlingame. • Recommendation No. 4—Investigate and Streamline Shuttle services and connections to Public Transit Our shuttle program is managed by Peninsula Relief Congestion Alliance. Christine Grubl from the Alliance will be making a presentation to the Council regarding the program on April 7h Council meeting. I understand the interest of the Committee to improve the current program and possibly add connections to the residential areas. I wanted to point out that 8 years ago there used to be a SAMTRANS bus that ran on Hillside Drive and other residential areas but was discontinued due to inadequate demand from the residential areas. The committee proposes to investigate the `North Burlingame Shuttle' to serve the community west of El Camino. The shuttle is funded 50% ($47K)by C/CAG County congestion relief funds and 37% ($35K) by City funds. The remaining $12K is contributed by Peninsula Hospital and Sisters of Mercy. The shuttle operates during the morning peak hour (5:45 am — 9:00 am) and evening peak hour (3:00 pm — 6:30pm). In order to continue to receive County congestion funds, the shuttle has to meet ridership requirements and work in coordination with BART and Cal Train schedules. If the schedule is changed to extend areas which would then add time to each trip potentially resulting in long gaps between Cal Train/BART connections, the shuttle may be discontinued by C/CAG. This has been previously attempted few years ago and was not pursued. I suggest the Green Ribbon Committee and staff meet with Alliance to develop a better understanding of the issues and then determine whether to pursue a survey of the residents. My concern is that you might generate interest in the community raising their expectation for a shuttle but may not be able to fund it. City staff and Alliance staff time would be based on the direction this subject will take. I would budget at least 80 to 100 hours to review routes, modifying the program, working with the County to determine whether they would support this and determine funding. • Recommendation 5 - Adopt a green building guidelines checklist As a document that a member of the public can voluntarily choose to use, I think this is a good idea. There are other communities that have created similar checklists that could be drawn from. • Recommendation 6 & 7 — Investigate storm water drainage regulations and evaluate landscape limits for developments. (Public Works) The current requirements of discharging the storm water from a private property to the frontage street or storm drain is resulted from a number of civil disputes (between private properties from flooding) where a remodeled or redeveloped parcel directed their runoff onto adjacent property causing flooding into the neighbor's yard and home. Further, there are many properties in the City with inadequate drainage which experience flooding during a typical winter storm. In many instances, the backyards are lower in elevation than the street frontage; therefore the homeowner has to install a sump pump to drain the water from the back of the property to the street. If the sump-pump is not installed or doesn't work properly, the property may get flooded and it overflows into the neighbor's property causing damage. The current requirements protect the residents and the properties from being flooded. There are alternatives to sump-pumps such as `French Drains' or `Ponds' where the water would percolate down to the ground. However, there are issues with installing `French drains or Ponds'. French drains would work for up to a certain time and then would clog up and the water would resurface somewhere else on the property such as beneath the foundation of the house, garage, or basement which would be potentially a severe liability and public health and safety risk. The Pond concept is not feasible for typical 5000 square feet size lots and due to shallow ground water table; the water won't disappear and may stay stagnant causing concerns of mosquitoes. The idea of pond would work in places such as new cities in the East Bay where there is plenty of land and new subdivisions are required to build a green area/pond which would offset their newly created acres of impervious areas as well as create a recreation spot. Our own example is that we required Mills Peninsula Hospital to build a detention pond with a fountain on site to treat their on-site storm water as they have more land available to do so and is cost effective and environmentally sound. This concept is feasible for large projects but would present problems and risks doing on single family homes. The new NPDES permit would require larger developments 10,000 square feet or more impervious area to mitigate the storm water on-site. With regards to Hillsborough, to help offset their storm water impact on our dilapidated storm drainage system, we asked them to control their storm water on site from new development. Hillsborough responded and is now requiring their resident to build on-site retention facilities because their parcel sizes are reasonably large and it is feasible as they are on the hill. We would welcome the Green Ribbon Committee members to meet with staff to explore opportunities but would be concerned reversing the current requirements as it would be greater public health risk. • Recommendation 7- Evaluate hardscape limits and requirements for residences(Community Development) This has become a keen interest of members of the Planning Commission. In addition to working with staff, I would suggest working with a Planning Commission subcommittee. • Recommendations No. 8-Investigate the solar permit and fee structure for all projects Recommendation No. 9- Investigate programs to expand or encourage the use of solar energy for residential, commercial and public buildings Staff is certainly willing to discuss any proposals that come forward from further subcommittee work. • Recommendation 10-Encourage staff to attend training at the Green Building Exchange The only concern here is the cost of the training. Admmk BURLIP,GAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA 8d ITEM# MTG. 4/7/08 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUB 'TED BY DATE: November 5, 2007 APPRO FROM: Parks& Recreation Director (558-7307) BY SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF NOMINEES FOR THE 2008 ALK OF FAME RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the applications of Martha Rosman May and Mary Janney for the 2008 Walk of Fame as recommended by the Walk of Fame Committee. BACKGROUND: On March 18f, representatives from the City's Beautification Commission, Civil Service Commission, Library Board and Parks & Recreation Commission met to review the applications for the Walk of Fame. The Committee members considered four applications and approved two for recommendation to the City Council for approval. The two,Martha Rosman May and Mary Janney, were recommended for the long service and for establishing new organizations to the Burlingame community. The Committee was impressed by Martha's 32 years of work and noted that the Burlingame Historical Society would not exist without Martha's efforts. She was considered"Truly Burlingame". Mary Janney's over 20 years of volunteer service included organizing the Burlingame Community for Education(BCE) and Burlingame Rotary. Mary was the first woman District Governor of Rotary and was viewed by the Committee as someone who made a positive impact in the community. If the Council confirms the Committee's recommendation,the recognition of Martha and Mary will be part of the Centennial Gala on June 6, 2008. Per the Walk of Fame policy, a plaque recognizing Walk of Fame members will be placed in City Hall, plaques are to be given to the recipients or their families and a plaque will be placed near the honorees place of service. BUDGET IMPACT: The cost of the recognition plaques will be approximately $500 ATTACHMENTS: A. Walk of Fame Committee's Meeting Notes B. Application Form and Applications Attachment"A" Walk of Fame Committee Meeting Notes March 18, 2008 Committee Members • Beautification Commission—Leslie McQuaide • Civil Service Commission—Elise Clowes • Library Board—Pat Toft • Parks &Recreation Commission—Colin Fisher • Parks &Recreation Commission—Laura Hesselgren Staff liaison—Randy Schwartz(non-voting) Introduction Schwartz described: • The background of the Walk of Fame • Criteria for recognition • Recognition at Centennial Gala Applications (reviewed by the Committee members in the order they were received) • Virginia Opperman—nominated by Broadway by the Bay Committee members appreciated Virginia's length of service for Broadway by the Bay, but questioned her direct impact on the lives of Burlingame individuals. The application did not mention any new programs or opportunities originated by Virginia. Consensus of the group is to not recommend Virginia this year for the Walk of Fame • Martha Rosman May Committee members mentioned that there would not be an Historic Society, if not for Martha's 32 years of work. They appreciated her years of service,that Martha is "truly Burlingame" and a wealth of information. Consensus of the group is to recommend Martha for the Walk of Fame • Marc Friedman Committee members noted Marc's ten years of volunteer service to the youth sports programs,but the application did not attribute any new opportunities for community members to Marc's volunteerism. The Committee appreciated Marc accompanying his children through the sports program,but did not see this as significantly more than many other parents in the community. Consensus of the group is to not recommend Marc this year for the Walk of Fame • Mary Janney Committee members commented that Mary was President of the Burlingame Rotary Club,the first woman District Governor for Rotary, organized the Burlingame Community for Education and assisted for many other non-profit organizations for over 20 years. Beyond her work in elected positions, Mary was viewed as someone who made a positive impact in the community. Consensus of the group is to recommend Mary for the Walk of Fame Committee's Recommendation • The Committee is recommending to the City Council that Martha Rosman May and Mary Janney be recognized for the 2008 Walk of Fame. • The Committee further requests that, in honor of Martha's accomplishments to the Historical Society, a plaque be placed at the Carriage House until it can be moved to a more permanent home in the future Museum at the Train Station. • The Committee further requests that, in honor of Mary's contributions to many organizations in the community, a plaque be placed near City Hall. ATTACHMENT "B" CITY OF BURLINGAME euRLIyGAME COMMUNITY RECOGNITION POLICY WALK OF FAME APPLICATION The City of Burlingame will establish a Walk of Fame in order to honor those who have made significant contributions to our Community. The Walk of Fame will be a permanent honor, consisting of a marker describing the honoree's accomplishments,placed along a selected pathway. The initial "class"of honorees will be recognized at the City's Centennial Gala on Friday, June 6,2008. Criteria-For a Walk of Fame marker to be dedicated,the individual must have demonstrated or performed the following: a. Ten(10) or more years of volunteer service to the community b. Had a positive impact on the lives of Burlingame individuals C. Been considered an appropriate role model d. Made a significant contribution to the Burlingame community by (1) Creating opportunities for the community through new facilities or programs; and/or (2) Making a significant impact on the continuation and/or enhancement of established community programs Nomination a. Nominations must be submitted by at least one(1) established Burlingame non-profit organization b. Each community organization is limited to one (1)nomination per year C. Nomination submissions should include the completed application and a list of contributions d. Nominations must be submitted to the City Manager's Office at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame,no later than 4:00pm on January 315`. Selection a. The Selection Committee will consist of two(2)representatives from each City Commission, appointed by each Commission's Chairperson. b. The Selection Committee will consider the nominations and supporting documentation, and will conduct a public hearing before making a recommendation to the City Council. C. The City Council will take the Selection Committee's recommendations into account and will conduct a public hearing before making a final decision. d. No more than four(4) individuals will be selected to the Walk of Fame in any one year. e. Nominees not selected will be added for consideration to those nominated during the one following year. Annual Timeline a. January 315'—Nomination deadline b. March—Selection Committee makes recommendations C. April—Council vote d. June 6,2008—Recognition Ceremony(Ceremonies in future years will be held in May) For more information about the Walk of Fame or the application process, please contact Randy Schwartz at(650) 558-7300 or rschwartz@burlingame.org. CHRISTIE PUIELLO )F BURLINGAME Box Office &Administrative Assistant RECOGNITION POLICY 650.579.5565 ext. 210•650.579.5567 fax christie@bbbay.org •www.broadwaybythebay.org JF FAME APPLICATION 851 Burlway Road•Suite 300• Burlingame, CA 94010-1712 Organization's Name ��' Tax!D# �"' Z Oq 6 Organization's Address %51 bu r l"r' Q R-d . 54e• 3010 , b utc I 1 n Cid Lh A e t rA -(Llo f 1 Organization's contact: Name C I r1 s4 If e� PLA 1'e t 10 Phone# L�5 0 ` q—5565 x 2— j b Nominee's Name V 1,ra 11r 6 p D errr ar Phone# (65 0) 7 q - 65. 5 'yc- j Information regarding the Nominee 1. Please describe nominee's scope of volunteer service to the Burlingame community, including dates. Please include any significant con—Iluutions, such as creating opportunities for the community through new facilities or programs or enhancing established programs. VI r l 0 I 0 .415 If e- S(.L Or4t She, h115 beep ayolu.o+-e-cr Far I years aild ICeCQs Our Pax FfLe✓ ru as5,1n► Season -H;:� s -0 our r7 abD _stb-<,� ri ber'S Crca.k,n C"A d G eM `n,4 car-is {M UGtrfbus Cohar� �abI�C>r�h� OtM - �`nJJ� r1d►v.°d.�c1`C. e4- a rders . 2. How did the nomineehave a positive impact on the lives of Burlingame individuals? V� r ' reAi'W +-echer aigd has a !Secl-a a. o-F deal W i le. �yejNdav She 3peaKs wi* Ofir Subswbers e5 exire - cf'ults a-r6 vv1I 6o 0 uk,+ f her Iry 4D h�aV-e, �u;r-e ey e, ire ds k xve- bee h �r se1cF�'nt �►�- � -t Cards �'ci�ct�-►=f-is she e h n C�es � t y o 3. 'Why would t e nomi ee be considered an appropnate ro a mo el? �(,(Y jih��m3 f � _ A l ►owjh Wrni"n « _�`ceA she cQ�-hnLAe5 .p rbe4-er' I f yes �i b on 1i herya r1'ems i obs- i v► a ►c� �- o'v� a or1�1'f1 c� dor a►w `� she also ej-i -or i`n vl�: Yvot �cc�,cr, a+ vim o�� �a1 u h ©�tf Sa.n ma�+eo C'U'LLYI+ f s at, k l'nd pX�o n Who co n sI -f 5 UPPP)Ctls oLkr cc, � S rn m�c- n a This nomination form, along with any supportingdocumentation, should be submitted to Me_%rneUtV City Manager's Office at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, V0 hca Cet V no later than 4:00pm on January 31" b e r�eu.4 l y a d m 1'red --fro r h e iiarci w o r j- - L-A.nd enoryrlDLtS V)-ea,r-+ • CITY OF BURLINGAME BURLtNGAME COMMUNITY RECOGNITION PO WALK OF FAME APPLICATION JAN 2 5 2008 CITY OF BURLINGAME MANAGER'S OFFICE Organization's Name 13v F-U N GA-M t` 4(S-('Diztc-A L- Sic.( Er`( 1 ax ID# R -Z4 I ( 1 L- Organization's Address Po %OX k44..4 (?VP-(a t Y6AM IS I GAr ` 4 0( 1 Organization's contact: Name P-u SS C-e>P E-" Phone# 6-50 - 3f8- 61---'o Nominee's N ame M 4r-T" tz05nA A-cJ M i4Y Phone# b S O -34-7 - 03 a 3 Information regarding the Nominee 1. Please describe nominee's scope of volunteer service to the Burlingame community, including dates. Please include an sig--11ificant contributions, such as creating o unities for the communis•through new facilities or programs or y s' g pp� y s Y� s enhancing established programs. ,5c-r=- 2. er=- 2. How did the nominee have a positive impact on the lives of Burlingame individuals? SoF A-r 3. Why would the nominee be considered an appropriate role model? This nomination form, along with any supporting documentation, should be submitted to the City Manager's Office at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, no later than 4.00pm on January 31' -- - ::Ahl+lu7• '- • %'%tib''"�����: '�1�a'i� THE BURLINGAME HISTORICAL SOCIETY P.O. BOS 144• BURLINGAME, CA 94011 1/20/07 CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY RECOGNITION POLICY WALK OF FAME APPLICATION ORGANIZATION NAME; BURLINAME HISTORICAL SOCIETY NOMINEE: MARTHA ROSMAN MAY 1. Describe scope of volunteer service... The archives of The Burlingame Historical Society contain over 125,000 artifacts chronicling the history of both Burlingame and Hillsborough, California. Martha Rosman May has been a pivotal figure in the development of this vast collection, a collection that is arguably the premier source of information on the history of these two towns. She has spent the last 32 years volunteering with the Society, much of that time being spent inside the archives, cataloging the artifacts and conducting research for the hundreds of request that come before the society annually. Without her involvement it is quite possible that the archives and the society itself'would not exist. She continues to volunteer to this day. 2. How did the nominee have a positive impact... Martha May has educated thousands of residents and hundreds of business people on the history of Burlingame and Hillsborough. She has painstakingly researched the history of many individual businesses and residential homes. She has taken thousands of photographs of the area. She was instrumental in developing a city significant properties list in 1982 and she was instrumental in helping with the research for several books on area history including,Lively Memories,Burlingame-City of Trees,and most recently,Burlingame- The Centennial. 3. Why would the nominee be considered an appropriate role model? Martha May serves as a role model for those just beginning their involvement in helping the community.For Martha,her longevity in helping The Burlingame Historical Society translates into commitment and dedication as well as passion.All qualities that help inspire others. She certainly has inspired those of us who have served along side her and I am certain she has been a role model to the many who she has helped during her 32 years of service. Sincerely, Russ Cohen President Burlingame Historical Society CITY OF BURLINGA,ME BURUNGAME COMMUNITY RECOGNITION POL a JAN 2 2 2008 WALK OF FAME APPLICATION CITY OF BURLINGAME MANAGER'S OFFICE Organization's Name Y (Jct Tax !D # q� 3/ Mo Organization's Address 0 . Ex1( q 2�& 13 U Y I ,1WLUM, L-0 Organization's contact: Name 6n as l_.O ks6n Phone # &15 Z. Nominee's Name � Y Q� I ti Phone # (r5Z . 3 q 2_ -qo 45 CoSv • 2-x-0 • �-p� Information regarding the Nominee 1. Please describe nominee's scope of volunteer service to the Burlingame community, including dates. Please include any significant contributions, such as creating oppounities for the community through new facilities or programs Or enhancing established programs. ( lggf-L008) Tyj&M hos b6Mgym{Vu . l () Vea.6 CL a 0_0ae h , 0,C[ —S ta.Y' htxtyA mPmhPr Presic(t" . --k Inas ' ad Ila* P+ + ilv 65P Iyay �, l� h'�s J2 � 4 a iyt =, LSS �)an j v%acr a 1'r(s 65 tz�y+, 6 Up r� err 2. How did the nominee have a positive impact on the lives of Burlingame individuals? TA&�Z, k4--S woo-ked &c Li,g rmre +kL kt�, %, a i ye- the cr i r t s C`, Ike 4t' f,� a A11*QA0J IA&b LA. eoa� -�ftzC�+nd �C nGt,IA.C.La1Z SCSL�.1� r r�ctc�ffl.e u llas r� fo 3. Why would the nominee be considered an appropriate role model? vis '. Yf'la.yr�i5ct -� p . a t-neyrnc51 0ho, A4L�5 -f cudren IsNun boarb m e m-b ..r- f- wart<s ecrostc►'t�-(� 6n ISI-laL f of f' '14. 13o Uv-�.m� c s%� W-Merl This nomination form, along with any supporting documentation, should be submitted to the City Manager's Office at Burlingame City Hall; 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, no later than 4:06pm on January 31s' 06" + � sc�tvaft uyg4 Ino be CUs sd-rmq , 14C JT-�cnts W - - - COA5 �/ • CITY OF BURLING� ME ■URUNGAME COMMUNITY RECOGNITION POLICY IM WALK OF FAME APPLICATION Organization's Name Rotary Club of Burlingame Tax ID# Organization's Address P.O. Box 313,Burlingame, CA 94011 Meetings are held at the Sheraton Hotel in Burlingame Organization's contact: Name Marilyn Orr Phone# (650)378-3628 Nominee's Name Mary Janney Phone# Information regarding the Nominee 1. Please describe nominee's scope of volunteer service to the Burlingame community,including dates. Please include any significant contributions,such as creating opportunities for the community through new facilities or programs or enhancing established programs. Mary joined the Rotary Club of Burlingame in 1989, serving as President in 1994, and volunteering thousands of hours in the Burlingame community until 2007. In 1998-99,Mary became the District Governor of Rotary District 5150 (Marin, San Francisco & San Mateo counties);the first women ever to be selected as District Governor. Mary has received the distinguished Wade Macomber award and multiple Paul Harris Fellowships for her service to the Community. The Dr. Henry"Wade"Macomber award is Burlingame Rotary's highest honor and is given to a Rotary for their steady, loyal, selfless service to the Community. 2. How did the nominee have a positive impact on the lives of Burlingame individuals? Mary has recruited over a dozen Rotarians and began many programs. 3. Why would the nominee be considered an appropriate role model? Despite being widowed with two young,adopted sons, Mary made a tremendous impact on the Burlingame community. Aside from her serving in Burlingame Rotary, she was elected to the Burlingame Elementary School Board and assisted in the founding of the Burlingame Community for Education Foundation. Mary was then elected to the San Mateo Union High School District Board of Trustees. Mary was then elected to the Burlingame City Council and was instrumental in raising the funds necessary to upgrade the revations of the Burlingame High School pool to an Olympic size pool which also could be used by the community. This nomination form, along with any supporting documentation,should be submitted to the City Manager's Office at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame, no later than 4.00pm on January 31s` BUwi) PROCLAMATION Honoririg Mare JanneN for 26 Years of Service to the CommunitN Whereas, Marva Janney has [cab a prolific career as a civil servant anb community leaber, making outstanbing contributions on a personal anb professional level. Elected to the Burlingame City Council in 1995 anb later re-elected for an additional terve, Marey served as Vice-]\Aavyor in 1998 and Mayor in lggg and 2oo2;and Whereas, Mary's tenure on the Burlingame City Council to the City has included raising significant funding for a f ter-school programs and the construction of the Aquatic Center,soccer f ielb,driving range and bog run at the golf center;and Whereas, Prior to 1995,she serveb two terms on the Burlingame School District Board of Trustees anb three terms on the San Mateo Union High School District Boarb of Trustees;anb Whereas, Her communitil involvement indubes a membership in the Burlingame Rotor-y where she serveb as Presibent in 1994 and District Governor in 1998 anb iggg. She has also bebicateb time anb effort to the Burlingame Senior Commission, the American Cancer Society Board of.Directors, the San Mateo Cfjamber of.Cowmnerce, the Leabership San Mateo Abvisorvy Committee, the Mills Peninsula Hospital Breast Center Abvisorvy Committee,the Burfiingame-Hillsborough Auxiliary to Chilbren's Hospital at Stanf orb, the Children's Home Society of California,the county Mental Health Abvisorvy Boarb, the Millbrae Nursery Schoof anb Heab Start Auxiliary, the American Association of University Women anb the League of Women Voters;anb Whereas, She has been the,Executive Director of the Sterling Court senior housing community in San Mateo since 1989;anb Whereas, Marey Jannevo's selfless time,energy anb contributions have not gone unnoticeb anb she is greatly appreciateb by her fellow council members,staff anb citizens;anb Now,tf ere f ore I,Michael J.Coffey,Mayor of the City of Burlingame,bo yerebN proclaim the honor of recognition anb appreciation to Marey Janney for her service to the City of Burlingame. In-witness whereof,i have hereunto set my hanb anb causeb the seat of the city of Burlingame to be a f f ixeb this,the 17� bay of November. Michaef J.Coffey,mayor CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 9a i MTG. 0� 9 A4TED JYNE6 DATE April 7,2008 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL sUBMI BY DATE: April 7, 2008 AP VED FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director V BY SUBJECT: Resolution of Intention Renewing Broadway Avenue Bu ess Improvement District and Setting Assessments for FY08-09 RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve a Resolution: (1) Declaring its Intention to Renew the Broadway Area Business Improvement District for Five Years; (2) Declaring its Intention to Levy Assessments for Fiscal Year 2008-09; (3) Approving the Broadway Avenue Business Improvement District Annual Report for FY07-08; (4) Setting Public Hearings for Monday, May 5, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. and Monday, June 2, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. BACKGROUND The Broadway Area Business Improvement District submitted its annual report on March 10, 2008. Their recommended FY 2008-09 budget is included as part of the report. There are no recommended changes in the boundaries, assessments or classifications of businesses within the Broadway Business Improvement District. This year the Broadway BID needs to be renewed. The Advisory Board has requested that the BID be renewed for another five years. The process will include an ordinance extending the BID to June 30, 2013. The Resolution of Intention to renew the district and levy assessments notifies all businesses within the district of the City Council's intention to implement such actions. The public hearing(s) give the businesses an opportunity to voice their opinions, comments, suggestions and concerns directly to the City Council. Public hearings are Monday, May 5, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. and Monday, June 2, 2008 at 7:00 p.m. BUDGET IMPACT Annual assessments total $28,000. The funds are forwarded to the Broadway BID for improvements as authorized by their Board of Directors. The Broadway BID proposes to expend FY08-09 assessments as follows: Advertising and BID Events 30% Burlingame Shuttle Contribution 30% Streetscape Beautification 40% The City covers the expenses associated with the renewal of the BID and collection of assessments. Those expenses are approximately$6,000 and relate to required newspaper advertisements and BID mailings to all businesses within the Broadway BID. 1 ATTACHMENTS: A Resolution of the City Council Of The City of Burlingame Declaring Its Intention To Renew The Broadway Area Business Improvement District for Five Years, To Establish 2008-09 Assessments For The Broadway Area Business Improvement District And Approving the 2007-08 Annual Report Broadway Business Improvement District Annual Report for FY 2007-2008 Draft Letter to Broadway Business Improvement District Merchants (Required Notice) Notice of Public Hearings for the Broadway Area Business Improvement District's Proposed Renewal for Five Years and Establishment of Business Assessments for Fiscal Year 2008-09 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO RENEW THE BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR FIVE YEARS, TO ESTABLISH 2008-2009 ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, AND APPROVING 2007-2008 ANNUAL REPORT WHEREAS,pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et sea.,the Broadway Area Business Improvement District was established for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and physical maintenance of this business district; and WHEREAS,the Broadway Area Business Improvement District Advisory Board has filed its 2007-2008 annual report and requested the Burlingame City Council to: A. Renew the Broadway Area Business Improvement District for an additional five (5) years; and B. Set the assessments for the 2008-2009 year. WHEREAS,it appears that the Broadway Area Business Improvement District has provided important services in enhancing the District and its businesses and properties, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine, and find as follows: 1. The 2007-2008 annual report of the Broadway Area Business Improvement District Advisory Board is approved. 2. The Burlingame City Council intends to extend the Broadway Area Business Improvement District for an additional five(5)years to June 30,2013,by adoption of an ordinance extending the date. 1 3. The Burlingame City Council further intends to levy an assessment for the 2008- 2009 fiscal year on businesses in the District, as the District is described in Ordinance No. 1461,to pay for improvements and activities of the District. 4. The types of improvements and activities proposed to be funded by the levy of assessments on businesses in the District are set forth in Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference. These activities and improvements are without substantial change from those previously established for the District. 5. The method,basis,and amounts for levying the assessments on all businesses within the District are set forth in Exhibit "B", incorporated herein by reference, and would remain the same as those levied in the previous fiscal year. 6. New businesses shall not be exempt from assessment. 7. A first public hearing on the proposed extension and assessments for 2008-2009 is hereby set for May 5, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council's Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 8. A second public hearing on the proposed extension and assessments for 2003-2004 is hereby set for June 2,2008,at 7:00 p.m.before the City Council of the City of Burlingame,at the Council's Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 9. The Council will receive testimony and evidence at both of the public hearings, and interested persons may submit written comments before or at either public hearing, or they may be sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. 10. Oral or written protests maybe made at these hearings. To count in a majority protest against the proposed extension or to the proposed assessment for 2008-2009, a protest must be in 2 writing and submitted to the City Clerk at or before the close of the second public hearing on May 19, 2008. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of that second public hearing. Each written protest shall identify the business and its address, include a description of the business and the number of employees. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of the City of Burlingame as the owner of the business,then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the business. Any written protest as to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceeding shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made. 11. If at the conclusion of the second public hearing,there are of record written protests by the owners of businesses within the District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District,as to the proposed renewal of the District or to the proposed assessments for 2008-2009, no assessment for 2008-2009 shall occur. If at the conclusion of the second public hearing, there are of record written protests by the owners of businesses within the District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District only as to an improvement or activity proposed,then that type of improvement or activity shall not be included in the District for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. 12. Further information regarding the proposed assessments and renewal and procedures for filing a written protest may be obtained from the City Clerk at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, phone 650 - 558-7203. The annual report of the Business Improvement District is on file and available at the Office of the City Clerk at 510 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 13. The City Clerk is instructed to provide notice of the public hearing by publishing this 3 Resolution in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Burlingame in accordance with the requirements of the Government and Streets&Highways Code and mailing them in accordance with those requirements as applicable. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2008, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK U:\FILES\BIDBRDWY\BDWYINTr2OO8.BID.wpd i i 4 EXHIBIT A TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES PROPOSED TO BE FUNDED BY THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS 1) Streetscape Beautification, Seasonal Decorations, and Public Arts Programs a. Seasonal street plantings of flowers. b. Seasonal flags and banners. f. Sidewalk enhancement and maintenance. 2) Business Recruitment and Retention a. Matching funds for storefront improvement incentive b. Develop strategy to fill commercial vacancies. C. Small business assistance workshops. 3) Commercial Marketing, Public Relations, and Advertising a. Organize special events throughout the year. 4) Shuttle Establish a people mover system between the area and the hotel district, to be funded on a cooperative cost sharing basis. U:\FILES\BIDBRDWY\improvmtlis2OOO.bid.wpd EXHIBIT B BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT BASIS* BUSINESS TYPE NO. OF STAFF ** ANNUAL ASSESSMENT RETAIL& 4+ $450 ------------------------ ------------ RESTAURANT 1 - 3 $300 SERVICE ----------3+------------ -------------$250$250 ------------ 1 - 2 $150 PROFESSIONAL ----------3+ -----------------------$200$200 ------------ 1 - 2 $150 FINANCIAL NA $500 * ----- Amount shown is annual total ** --- Staff means any persons working(full time or full time equivalency) including owners, partners, managers, employees, family members, etc. Business Definitions (Burlingame Municipal Code § 6.52.010): Retail ❑ Businesses that buy and resell goods. Examples are clothing stores, shoe stores, office supplies, etc. Restaurant ❑ Selling prepared food and drink. Service ❑ Businesses that sell services. Examples are beauty and barber shops, repair shops that do not sell goods, contractors, auto shops, etc. Professional ❑ Includes engineering firms, architects, attorneys, dentists, optometrists, physicians, realtors, insurance offices, etc. Financial ❑ Banks, savings and loans, household finance companies, etc. U:\FILES\BIDBRDWY\assessbas.bid.wpd BROADWAY VILLAGE SHOPS RESTAURANTS SERVICES March 10, 2008 City Manager City of Burlingame c/o Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District 1399 Broadway Burlingame, CA 94010-3422 aE Dear City Manager: }=' RE: BID Annual Report and 2008-2009 Budget The BID proposes no changes in boundaries or assessments. Budget outline for fiscal 2008-2009 activities (in percent of total revenue): A) Advertising & BID Events 30% B) Burlingame Shuttle 30% C) Streetscape Beautification 40% Detail of Funds as of February 29, 2008 (Funds on Hand) Income Received Interest Income $ 17.36 Bid Assessment Collected 28,350.00 Other Income 0.00 Total Income Received $ 28,367.36 Broadway Business Improvement District • 1399 Broadway, Burlingame,California 94010 U�'ING BROADWAY VILLAGE SHOPS RESTAURANTS SERVICES Expenditures Advertising & BID Events $ 6,810.19 Shuttle Contribution 0.00 Streetscape Beautification 12,065.71 Miscellaneous 1,322.76 Total Expenditures $ 20,198.66 The Business Improvement District made a shuttle contribution $7,500 in February 2007 which a in a month not covered by this report. Status of Funds as of February 29, 2007 (Funds on Hand) Checking Account 1 $ 0.00 Checking Account II 35,046.15 Checking Account III (Merchants' Association) 1,846.60 Total $ 36,892.75 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at A.V.R. Realty, Inc. (650 342-2073. Sincerely, Ross Bruce President, BID I Broadway Business Improvement District • 1399 Broadway,Burlingame,California 94010 Green & Green, LLP Certified Public Accountants EDMUND M.GREEN 5 Third Street,Suite 616 Phone:415.778.3969 DIANE A.GREEN San Francisco,CA 94103 Fax:415.243.8411 To the Board of Directors Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District Burlingame,CA We have compiled the Statement of Funds — Cash Basis of Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District (a not-for-profit corporation) as of February 29, 2008 and the related Schedule of Income Received and Expenditures — Cash Basis for the twelve months then ended included in the accompanying prescribed form in accordance with Statements and Standards for Accounting and Review Services issued by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. The financial statements have been prepared on the cash basis of accounting, which is a comprehensive basis of accounting other than generally accepted accounting principals. Our compilation was limited to presenting in the form prescribed by the City of Burlingame information that is the representation of management. We have not audited or reviewed the financial statements referred to above and, accordingly, do not express an opinion or any other for of assurance on them. The Business Improvement District made a shuttle contribution $7,500 in February 2007 which was in a month not covered by this report. The Statement of Funds—Cash Basis and related Schedule of Income Received and Expenditures — Cash Basis are presented in accordance with the requirements of the City of Burlingame, which differ from generally accepted accounting principals. Accordingly, these financial statements are not designed for those who are not informed about such differences. We are not independent with respect to this engagement. C-%— g Com— , t—t✓� GREEN&GREEN, LLP March 10,2008 Broadway Burlingame Improvement District Schedule of Income Received and Expenditures - Cash Basis For the Twelve Months Ended February 29, 2008 Income Received Interest Income $ 17.36 Bid Assessment Collected 28,350.00 Other Income 0.00 Total Income Received 28,367.36 Expenditures Advertising & BID Events 6,810.19 Shuttle Contribution 0.00 Streetscape Beautification 12,065.71 Miscellaneous 1,322.76 Total Expenditures 20,198.66 Total Income Received less Expenditures $ 8.168.70 See accountant's Report Broadway Burlingame Improvement District Statement of Funds - Cash Basis For the Twelve Months Ended February 29, 2008 Checking Account 1 $ 0.00 Checking Account II 35,046.15 Checking Account III (Merchants' Association) 1,846.60 Total $ 368-9275 See accountant's Report Al� CITY C BURUNGAME 04 ,9D0 DFGTED JUNE 6 The City of Burlingame City Hall — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 April 11 , 2008 odba» oofficername» «address» cityzip» RE: BL Account # «license» The City congratulates the Broadway Area Business Improvement District (BID) on completing its FY07-08 program year. A total of$28,350 was collected from the district merchants and remitted to the Broadway BID for its activities. The Broadway BID Advisory Board submitted its annual report to the City Council on March 10, 2008. The report highlights the activities of the BID and provides a financial accounting of the BID funds. The Advisory Board members consist of Ross Bruce, John Kevranian, David Hinkle, Barbara Zukowski, Denise Groebner, Dr. Andrew Soss, Sidney Wu, Tom Koros, Peggy Sutterfield, Gerald Weizel and Lee Porebski. The Advisory Board has requested the renewal of the business improvement district for a period of five years and has asked the Council to continue to assess the Broadway District businesses using the same business categories and fee structure as in prior years. In response the Council has adopted a resolution declaring its intention to renew the Broadway BID (for five years — until June 30, 2013) and to levy assessments for fiscal year 2008-09 to each business. Enclosed you will find the documents that are required to be submitted to each business within the improvement district. They are: • A Resolution of the City Council Of The City of Burlingame Declaring Its Intention To Renew The Broadway Area Business Improvement District for Five Years, To Establish 2008-09 Assessments For The Broadway Area Business Improvement District, And Approving 2007-08 Annual Report • Exhibit A. Types of Improvements And Activities Proposed To Be Funded By The Levy of Assessments • Exhibit B. Broadway Area Business Improvement District Assessment Basis • Exhibit C. Notice Of Public Hearings for Broadway Area Business Improvement District/s Proposed Renewal for Five Years and Establishment of Business Assessments for Fiscal Year 2008-09. S:\Business Improvement DistrictsTY 08-09 Renewal Process\Notice to BID businesses - Broadway Ave .doc 1 Please note the following public hearings: The first public hearing on the Broadway BID renewal and the assessments for fiscal year 2008-09 is set for May 5, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council Chambers, located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. The second public hearing on the Broadway BID renewal and assessments for fiscal year 2008-09 is set for June 2, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council Chambers, located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. The City Council will hear from all interested persons who wish to speak at the public hearing. You are also welcome to send written comments to the City Council by mailing them to Ms. Doris Mortensen, City Clerk, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. Individuals wishing to protest part or the entire business improvement district should read the resolution of intention and follow the process described within it. Please feel free to contact my office if you have any questions pertaining to the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District. I can be reached at 650-558-7222 or at jnavaAburlingame.org. Sincerely, Jesus Nava Finance Director/Treasurer S:\Business Improvement DistrictsTY 08-09 Renewal Process\Notice to BID businesses-Broadway Ave.doc 2 EXHIBIT C NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR THE BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT'S PROPOSED RENEWAL FOR FIVE YEARS, AND ESTABLISHMENT OF BUSINESS ASSESSMENTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2008-09 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the City Council of the City of Burlingame will be considering the following: The renewal of the Broadway Area Business Improvement District for a period of five years, starting July 1, 2008 and ending June 30, 2013. The establishment of annual assessments for fiscal year 2008-09. Methodology for determining assessments would remain the same as in 2007-2008. The assessments are levied to support activities of the Broadway Area Business Improvement District as described in Exhibit A to the Resolution of Intention that is enclosed. The first public hearing on the Broadway BID renewal and the assessments for fiscal year 2008-09 is set for May 5, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council Chambers, located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. The second public hearing on the Broadway BID renewal and assessments for fiscal year 2008-09 is set for June 2, 2008, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council Chambers, located at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA. At that time, the Council will hear from any interested person who wishes to submit written or oral testimony regarding the proposed amendment. Oral or written protests may be made before or at that hearing. See the resolution for information on how protests are made and what effect protests have. Further information regarding the proposed assessments may be obtained from the City Clerk at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010 (650-558-7203). Written comments may be directed to the Council at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. U:\FILES\BIDBRDWY\notice2007.bid.wpd CITY 0� STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA 9b ITEM# MTG. °oRATEo JUNE DATE AM I U -7 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL suBMITED BY DATE: March 11, 2008 APPROVE FROM: Fire Department BY_ /J& SUBJECT: Adoption of Pandemic Influenza & Reduced Staffing C inuity of Operations — Policies & Guidelines Recommendation: It is recommended that the Council adopt by resolution the Pandemic Influenza&Reduced Staffing Continuity of Operations—Policies & Guidelines. Background: In cooperation with the San Mateo County Office of Emergency Services, the Central County Fire Department and each of the City's departments; a Pandemic Influenza&Reduced Staffing Plan has been developed to meet the operating needs of the City of Burlingame if and/or when needed due to widespread reduced staffing. The plan includes a number of forms to be used as needed to assist managers in maintaining essential operations during periods of reduced staffing. These special policies and guidelines were developed to assist our managers in providing for the health and safety of our employees, to implement the necessary staffing changes and maintain the essential services to our citizens. Attachments: Pandemic Influenza&Reduced Staffing Continuity of Operations—Policies & Guidelines RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING CITY OF BURLINGAME PANDEMIC INFLUENZA& REDUCED STAFFING CONTINUITY OF OPERATIONS-POLICIES & GUIDELINES RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,the City has adopted an emergency plan in conformance with State law and National Incident Management System(NIMS); and WHEREAS, for the future,the threat of a pandemic influenza outbreak will continue to exist for the San Francisco Bay Area as a center of international trade and travel; and WHEREAS,the attached continuity of operations guidelines are intended to set a baseline for meeting such an occurrence in providing City services,as well as to provide direction in case of any other disasters or occurrences that might limit or disrupt City staffing; and WHEREAS,the guidelines also establish succession planning for management of the City in case of a disaster or pandemic, NOW,THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The City of Burlingame Pandemic Influenza&Reduced Staffing Continuity of Operations-Policies &Guidelines are approved. MAYOR I,DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2008,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK City of Burlingame Department of Human Resources Pandemic Influenza & Reduced Staffing Continuity of Operations Policies and Guidelines Table of Contents TOPIC PAGE Business Continuity Plan 1 Health & Prevention 2 Employee Leaves 4 Telecommuting 5 Emergency Response Telework 6 Alternative/Flexible Work 10 Travel 11 Frequently Asked Questions Business Continuity Plan INTRODUCTION This Business Continuity Plan has been developed to address the potential of a pandemic influenza outbreak. It is currently unknown whether the currently circulating H5N1 (Avian or "bird flu") strain of the virus will cause a human pandemic. If this does not happen with the current H5N1 strain, history suggests that a different influenza virus will emerge and result in the next pandemic. According to the San Mateo County Office of Emergency Services, the pandemic is expected to come in 4 local phases and last from 3 to 9 months separating each outbreak. The phases of the pandemic flu are categorized as follows: 1. Green-little or no transmission 2. Yellow-limited to moderate transmission 3. Red-extensive transmission 4. Black-uncontrolled transmission and uncontrollable transmission Each phase is expected to last approximately 6 to 8 weeks. A pandemic may last in these cycles for up to 2 years. In light of a potential pandemic influenza outbreak, it is important to be sure that core business activities can be maintained for several weeks or months as recovery from a pandemic may not be able to start immediately. Employees or their families may become infected, exposed or incapacitated by the virus. This will impact the employees' options to come to work. Therefore, the City has developed policies and guidelines that provide information on the use of employee leave, telework arrangements; flexible or alternative work schedules; travel guidelines; health and prevention; and other human resource matters. -1- Health and Prevention in case of a Pandemic Influenza Outbrea Purpose In accordance with the guidance provided by OSHA regarding incubation periods, managers should err on the side of caution in exercising due diligence and may send an employee home with pay until the manager is satisfied that the employee's presence in the workplace does not present a risk for other employees or the public. Policy/Guidelines Managers are to encourage employees to follow some basic hygiene and social distancing that can be implemented in every workplace. • Encourage sick employees to stay at home. • Encourage your employees to wash their hands frequently with soap and water or with hand sanitizer if there is no soap or water available. Also, encourage your employees to avoid touching their noses, mouths, and eyes. • Encourage your employees to cover their coughs and sneezes with a tissue or to cough and sneeze into their upper sleeves if tissues are not available. All employees should wash their hands or use a hand sanitizer after they cough, sneeze or blow their noses. • Employees should avoid close contact with their coworkers and the public (maintain a separation of at least 6 feet). They should avoid shaking hands and always wash their hands after contact with others. Even if employees wear gloves, they should wash their hands upon removal of the gloves in case their hand(s) became contaminated during the removal process. • Provide customers and the public with tissues and trash receptacles, and with a place to wash or disinfect their hands. • Keep work surfaces, telephones, computer equipment and other frequently touched surfaces and office equipment clean. Be sure that any cleaner used is safe and will not harm your employees or your office equipment. • Discourage your employees from using other employees' phones, desks, offices or other work tools and equipment. -2- • Minimize situations where groups of people are crowded together, such as in a meeting. Use e-mail, phones and text messages to communicate with each other. When meetings are necessary, avoid close contact by keeping a separation of at least 6 feet, where possible, and assure that there is proper ventilation in the meeting room. • Reducing or eliminating unnecessary social interactions can be very effective in controlling the spread of infectious diseases. Reconsider all situations that permit or require employees, customers, and visitors (including family members) to enter the workplace. Workplaces which permit family visitors on site should consider restricting/eliminating that option during an influenza pandemic. Work sites with on-site day care should consider in advance whether these facilities will remain open or will be closed, and the impact of such decisions on employees and the business. Promote healthy lifestyles, including good nutrition, exercise, and smoking cessation. A person's overall health impacts their body's immune system. -3- Employee Leave during a Pandemic Influenza Outbreak Purpose The City Burlingame will work with managers to ensure that workplace disruption, illness and mortality are minimized, and critical services are maintained. Therefore, during a pandemic influenza outbreak, employees suspected of having the virus or of being in the incubation stage may be instructed to not report to work, or sent home from work, and advised to seek medical attention. If it is confirmed that an employee does have the virus, consideration will be given to sending their co-workers in their work units home to minimize the risk factors. Policy/Guidelines • If an employee is instructed not to report to work or sent home, employees will not be required to submit a leave form or asked to take sick leave, vacation, or compensatory time for periods that management has suspended normal business hours. The City will allow up to 5 (??) work days of paid leave should an employee become ill with the virus. Inasmuch as possible, a doctor's certification must be submitted to the manager. • If an employee on leave (e.g., vacation, sick, family related, or leave without pay) was previously approved before the suspension of normal business hours, he/she had already planned on not reporting to work during that time. Therefore, the employee would not be affected by the closure and would have to utilize their related leave bank. • Managers shall have the discretion to verbally grant a leave of absence to employees directly affected by an emergency situation caused by the pandemic. The decision to grant or not grant leave will be determined by the manager who knows the operational requirements of the work area. Once the employee has resumed work, leave forms must be completed for the absences that had been verbally authorized by the manager. • For those employees who may require additional leave (outside of the 5 days offered by the City) to care for self or an immediate family member, he/she is eligible to use any accrued vacation, compensatory, or sick leave on the books at that time. The employee will also be eligible to request FMLA if necessary. A doctor's certification is required. Immediate family member shall be restricted to father, mother, brother, sister, spouse, child, step-father, step-mother, step-sister, step-brother, step- child, mother-in-law, father-in-law, grandparents, grandchildren, and domestic partner. -4- Telecommuting and Emergency Response Telework Policies Telecommuting Purpose To reduce traffic congestion, improve air quality, lessen commuting time and assist with family life issues, the City of Burlingame actively encourages employees to consider telecommuting if their job can be performed off-site. Telecommuting is done on a voluntary basis only. The number of telecommuters may be limited due to the needs of the department. Employees who telecommute are expected to comply with City policies to the same extent they would if they reported to work daily. Policy/Guidelines Employee Request. Employees who are interested in telecommuting must submit a written proposal to their department head/supervisor outlining the following: • the number of days per week they wish to telecommute �— • the schedule and process they propose to communicated with their supervisor and department • the task they can accomplish via telecommuting • the equipment they will need • their availability to both come in to work and put in overtime in an emergency • how they will control any distractions at home that might interfere with their work • the area that will be considered the "workplace" in their homes. Equipment/Services. The City will provide equipment and services such as lap tops, cell phones, palm pilots, etc., and technical support to assist in accomplishing the job. Any equipment provided to the employee remains the property of the City at all times. Upon departing the City, the employee must return all equipment in good condition; normal wear and tear is expected. Accountability. Employees shall be accountable for securing information by taking reasonable and prudent measures to safeguard information on a routine basis. Information will be protected by the employee in a manner consistent with its value, in all forms (e.g. written, oral, computers). -5- Dependent Care. Telecommuting is not a substitute for appropriate child care -� and/or elder care. The City may require telecommuters to submit written proof that they have arranged for adequate dependent care during working hours. Employer Inspection. The City retains the right to periodically inspect the telecommuter's home office. If the workspace does not meet company standards for safety, the City reserves the right to terminate the telecommuting agreement. At-will Employment or Contract. Employment remains at will or contract regardless of whether the employee works at the company facility or in a telecommuting arrangement. Emergency Response Telework Purpose In case of a Pandemic Influenza outbreak, the City will employ its telework policy in order to slow the spread of disease by keeping face-to-face contact to a minimum (often referred to as "social distancing") while maintaining operations as close to normal as possible. Telework can also help to retain functionality as infrastructure issues and other challenges make the worksite difficult to access. Telework is a work arrangement in which an employee regularly performs officially assigned duties at home or other work sites geographically convenient to the residence of the employee. The City has the discretion to define the hours worked by an employee that best fits the business need. Participating in telework does not give the employee legal right to telework on a permanent basis. Policy/Guidelines • All employees assigned to perform telework during a pandemic crisis will have signed agreements for emergency telework arrangements, to provide structure and accountability. Key components of a telework agreement include the following: schedule; communication expectations with the employee's manager, workgroup, and customers; equipment; tasks; information security obligations; pandemic, or other emergency situations. • Managers may deny a telework request or terminate a telework agreement for business reasons. The denial or termination must be documented in writing and shared with the employee. -6- • Teleworkers who work from home must provide an appropriate workspace and should certify that it is free from hazards. City employees who sustain a work-related injury /illness at the alternative worksite (home, telework center, or other location) are covered by the California Workers' Compensation benefit, as appropriate. • Employees who use computers and other information technology while teleworking need effective support during work hours. The City will ensure technical support and training will be taken into account in planning for using a distributed workforce during a pandemic crisis. • Accountability. Employees shall be accountable for securing information by taking reasonable and prudent measures to safeguard information on a routine basis. Information will be protected by the employee in a manner consistent with its value, in all forms (e.g. written, oral, computers). • Employees designated to work from home during a pandemic crisis should telework frequently enough to ensure all systems are working smoothly. All employees are considered eligible for telework except the following: Employees whose positions require, on a daily basis, on-site activity that cannot be handled remotely or at an alternative worksite, such as hands-on contact with machinery, equipment, vehicles, etc., or other physical presence/site dependent activity, such as police officer or firefighter activities. Department managers should assess who is and who is not eligible in their workgroup based on the above eligibility guidelines and any applicable collective bargaining agreements. Managers will also have the discretion in deciding whether to grant or deny a request to telework from an eligible employee based on additional factions such as staffing or budget. -7- Teleworking Agreement The following constitutes the terms and conditions of the Telework Agreement between: Employee Last Name First Name Middle Initial Title Department/Extension Pay Rate Telework Assigned Site: ❑ Home (please list address, and contact telephone/cell no.): ❑ City Facility (please list facility and contact telephone/cell no.) ❑ Alternative worksite: i.e. community agency/organization, etc. (please list name, location and telephone/cell no.) -8- Teleworker Work Assignment The employee is approved to work at the approved alternative worksite in the following capacity. Specify the type of work to be performed: Trial Period Employee and the City agree to try out the teleworking arrangement for at least number of weeks/months beginning until unless unforeseeable circumstances require earlier cancellation. Changes to Telework Agreement An employee who teleworks must be available to work at the traditional worksite on their telework day(s), normally with one-day notice, when management makes a determination their presence is required. The teleworker may request to telework on an alternate day when they are required to report to the traditional worksite on a regular scheduled telework day. Employee Signature Date Department Head or Manager Signature Date Human Resources Director Signature Date -9- Alternative/Flexible Work Schedules Purpose In the event of a pandemic flu outbreak, employees may be asked to work alternative or flexible hours in order to meet the core business activities of the City. Changes in an employees work schedule are within the discretion of the City as long as the changes are consistent with law, regulations, and any applicable negotiated agreement. In addition the, the City may require employees to perform over-time work. Policy/Guidelines • Managers are expected to contact their employees to discuss what arrangements may be made for off-site or on-site work, developing a list of priorities and how best to remain in touch and up to date on activities of the work unit. • Managers are to review work-plans and consider who should or should not access the workplace and what issues and projects urgently need to be dealt with. Managers and employees shall communicate by e-mail, telephone as much as possible. • Employees are encouraged to check their voice-mail boxes regularly and some wish to modify their recorded greetings to add alternate contact numbers. • Employees or their family members who are not incapacitated by the virus are required to report to work, if called upon. Failure to do so may result in a disciplinary action. -10- Travel Introduction The City of Burlingame realizes that employees have families that live and work abroad, and other geographic areas have different influenza seasons and will likely be affected by a pandemic at different times than the United States. The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) has not recommended that the general public avoid travel to any of the countries affected by the virus at this time. Policy/Guidelines In the event of a pandemic outbreak, employees are to notify their manager or human resources if they, or a family member have visited, or plan to visit an affected area. The CDC recommends some the following routine precautions: Before you or a family member travel • Visit CDC's Traveler's Health Website to educate yourself and others who may be traveling with you about any disease risks and CDC health recommendations for international travel in areas you plan to visit. • Be sure you are up-to-date with all your vaccinations, including seasonal influenza vaccine, and see your doctor , ideally 4-6 weeks before travel to get any additional vaccinations, medications or information you may need. • Assemble a travel health kit containing first aid and medical supplies. • Identify in-country health-care resources in advance of your trip. During travel to an affected area • Avoid all direct contact with birds, including domestic poultry (such as chickens and ducks) and wild birds. • Avoid visiting places such as poultry farms and bird markets where live birds are raised or kept. • Avoid touching surfaces contaminated with poultry feces or secretions. • Frequently wash your hands with soap and water. Use waterless alcohol- based hand gels when soap is not available. -11- • All foods from poultry, including eggs and poultry blood, should be cooked - thoroughly. • Cover you mouth and nose with a tissue when you cough or sneeze. If you do not have a tissue, cough or sneeze into your upper sleeve, not your hands. • Put your used tissue in the waste basket. • Clean your hands after coughing or sneezing by washing them with soap and water(or by using an alcohol-based hand cleaner when soap and water are not available). • You may be asked to put on a surgical mask to protect others. After you return from an affected area • Closely monitor your health for 10 days • If you become ill with a fever plus a cough, sore throat or have trouble breathing during this 10-day period, seek medical attention. • Do not travel while ill, unless you are seeking local medical care. Limiting contact with others as much as possible can prevent the spread of an infections illness. For more information about preventative measures, visit www.cdc.gov/flu/avian and www.pandemicflue.gov. -12- Frequently Asked Questions Where can I find information on pandemic flu? Q. What should I do to avoid getting the flu? A. Employees should heed the advice by health authorities to the general public. You can play an active role in staying healthy and preventing the spread of influenza. Follow these simple steps recommended by various Public Health Agencies: Get an annual flu shot Wash your hands frequently Cover up when you cough or sneeze Keep shared surfaces clean If you get sick, stay home! Q. As a manager, what are my responsibilities in the event of an influenza pandemic? A. Managers are responsible at all times, both by policy and by law, to provide their employees with a safe and healthy work environment. In the event of an pandemic influenza outbreak, managers must remain informed of orders, directions and guidance issued by the San Mateo County Pandemic Influenza Business Continuity Plan and from their own City's EOC. Managers also have the duty to inform their employees of these orders, directions and guidance. Managers are also responsible for familiarizing themselves on how to handle an employee's right to refuse to come to work, and know the operational requirements of the work area in order to rearrange work assignments. Q. As an employee, what are my responsibilities in the event of an pandemic influenza outbreak? A. Employees are responsible for following their management's directions regarding reporting to work and workplace health procedures. In addition, employees have the responsibility to inform themselves by using information provided by Public Health Agencies and information provided by the City. Employees responsibilities include by not limited to: Using safe equipment provided to them; Complying with all instructions from the City concerning the health and safety of employees; and Cooperating with any person carrying out a duty set out by the City. ��� CITY ,� STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 9c ITEM# MTG. '"�►•� °' DATE 4/7/08 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: April 3,2008 APPROVED ` FROM: Jim Nantell 558-7205 BY SUBJEcr: Approval of Chamber of Commerce Art and Jazz Festival fo gust 9 & 10 and Approval Expansion of Fresh market to North Burlingame on Wednesdays RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council approve Chamber of Commerce Art and Jazz Festival for August 9 & 10 and Approve the Expansion of Fresh market to North Burlingame on Wednesdays. BACKGROUND: The Chamber of Commerce Art and Jazz Festival has been a successful event for many years in our downtown and helps re-enforce the small town flavor of Burlingame. The Farmers Market is another Chamber program that also creates a great opportunity for"community bonding". The Chamber is proposing to once again hold the Art and Jazz Festival and they would like create a second venue for the Framers Market in the north end of Burlingame on City road way in front of the Burlingame Plaza near the intersection of ECR and Murchison. ATTACHMENTS: A. Letter from the Chamber of Commerce BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE March 13,2008 Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony Vice Mayor Ann Keighran Council Members: Cathy Baylock,Jerry Deal and Terry Nagel City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 Dear Mayor O'Mahony and Council Members: The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce respectfully requests the City's permission for the 2008 Burlingame Art&Jazz Festival as described below. The Chamber requests the City's permission for the "Burlingame Art and Jazz Festival,"calendared for Saturday and Sunday,August 9 and 10, 2008, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m.each day. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce is in contract with Team PRO Event, of Mill Valley,CA,based upon the Burlingame City Council's permission to allow this community event. Details of the production are under the auspices of Team PRO Event and include the following elements: A. Closure of Burlingame Avenue from California Drive to El Camino Real(up to the driveway of the Chevron Station)from 2:00 a.m. Saturday,August 9 until 11:59 p.m., Sunday August 10. B. Closure of Lorton Avenue between Donnelly and Howard for the full duration of the festival,closure of Park Road between Burlingame Avenue and Howard for the full duration of the festival and closure of Primrose Road for the full duration of the festival(as it was in 2007). All public parking lots in the area will remain accessible at all times during all hours of closure. C. Festival booths set up on Burlingame Avenue(the 1100, 1200, 1300 and 1400 blocks),as well as on Lorton and Primrose Avenues will remain set up overnight on Saturday. Team PRO Event will arrange for overnight security. D. Team PRO Event will arrange for entertainment throughout each day of the festival as part of this community event. 290 California Drive • Burlingame,CA 94010 • 650/344-1735 • Fax 650/344-1763 e-mail:BgameCofC@aol.com • www.BurlingameChamber.com 2 E. The City of Burlingame fees in conjunction with this event will be paid directly by the Chamber within seven(7)days after the event. Please advise if fees will be different from last year. F. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce respectfully requests that the City of Burlingame allow the sale of beer,wine,margaritas and commemorative glassware as part of the Burlingame Art and Jazz Festival on August 9 and 10, 2008. Insurance for general and liquor liability in the amount of$1 million will be obtained and a certificate of insurance naming the City of Burlingame as additional insured will be issued. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce carries liquor liability insurance in addition to its general liability insurance and will provide a certificate of insurance naming the City of Burlingame as an additional insured. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce will purchase the beer,wine and margarita license. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce and Team Pro Event will gladly meet with City staff to address any questions or concerns. On another matter,we know that the Council is aware of the successful relocation of the seasonal Fresh Market from parking lot W to Park Road. The relocation resulted in significant increase in community involvement in the fresh market which enhances the sense of community and small town flavor of Burlingame. The Chamber Board has decided that we expand the Fresh market experience to another part of the community and therefore we would like to request the City's permission for a new annual seasonal Fresh Market located in north Burlingame at the Burlingame Plaza on the City's frontage Road in front of the Long's parking area. The Fresh Market—Burlingame(Wednesdays)will operate this year from May 7,2008 to November 26, 2008, on Wednesdays from 4 p.m. until 8 p.m. The stalls will be set up and ready for sales no later than 3: 45 p.m. and cleared by 8:30 p.m. We hope that the Council will support the opportunity to expand this"community building"event to another day and venue in Burlingame. We have received approval from Longs and met on site with the Police Department to work out traffic flow details and talked with Public Works staff about the logistics as well. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce will gladly meet with City staff to address any questions or concerns. Thank you. Sincerely, Lindl White, Chair 6eorgette Na r, President/CEO Burlingame Chamber of Commerce Burlingame Chamber of Commerce ITY STAFF REPORT BURLJNGAME AGENDA 9d ITEM# MAGE 4/7/08 °. TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SSUBMITTEDBY DATE: March 27,2008 APPROVE FROM: Jim Nantell 558-7205 BY SUBJECT: Approve Resolution Urging Opposition to Proposition 98 and a Resolution Supporting Proposition 99 at the June 3,2008 Election RECOMMENDATION: Recommend that the City Council approve resolution urging opposition to Proposition 98 and one urging support for Proposition 99 at the June 3, 2008 Election BACKGROUND: That the City Council review the attached information on Propositions 98 and 99 relative to restrictions on the future use of imminent domain. The League of California Cities is a sponsor of Proposition 99 and opposes Proposition 98. ATTACHMENTS: A. Information from the Yes on Proposition 99 and No on Proposition 98. B. Information from the Yes on Proposition 98 and No on Proposition 99. CLCV: NO on Proposition 98 and YES on Prop 99 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT A Search • • • ecovote.org> no on 98/yes on 99 ' •' - - NO on Proposition 98LL • . - . , YES on Proposition 99 NO on Proposition 48 There is a dangerous measure on YES on Proposition 99 • • the June 2008 Ballot that could •�• - • • __ wipe out important laws and Get the Facts: regulations that protect our • Conservation Impact environment. The proponents of • Environmental Impact Proposition 98 - dubbed the • A Planning and Zoning "Hidden Agendas Scheme" - want Nightmare REGISTER TO Y{��'�� • Effects on Renters voters to believe it's about eminent domain. But a legal analysis by the respected Contribute to our environmental law firm of Shute, work to protect the Mihaly & Weinberger(read the environment! analysis in PDF format) has found Donate now! that hidden provisions in this measure would wipe out Tel! a Friend! regulations intended to protect our environment. Send a message to your contacts Also on the June 2008 ballot is a urging them to vote No on 98, Yes real eminent domain reform on 99: measure that will Constitutionally Your email address': protect homeowners, without the hidden agendas and adverse Your name consequences of Prop. 98: • Proposition 99 - The Your friend's email address": Homeowners Protection Act - will prohibit the government from using Your friend's name: http://www.ecovote.org/no98yes99/ 3/27/2008 CLCV: NO on Proposition 98 and YES on Prop 99 Page 2 of 2 Additional Message: eminent domain to take a home to transfer to a private developer. Send! (� Prop. 99 is supported by a broad indicates a required field.) coalition of homeowners, business, labor, cities, counties and environmentalists who want straightforward eminent domain reform. Read more: Conservation Impact Environmental Impact A Planning and Zoning Nightmare I Effects on Renters Find out more: visit the No on 98/Yes on 99 website ®2008 California League of Conservation Voters.Contact us. http://www.ecovote.org/no98yes99/ 3/27/2008 COMPARISON OF PROP. 98 (Rent Control Rollback) & PROP. 99 (Homeowner Protection Act) PROVISIONS Prop. 98 Prop. 99 (Rent Control Rollback) (Homeowner Protection Act) EMINENT DOMAIN FOR 0 Redefines "public use" to prohibit taking any property to • Constitutional prohibition on taking owner-occupied PRIVATE convey to private party, including homes and commercial homes for conveyance to private party. DEVELOPMENT properties. ■ Prop. 98 would abolish rent control laws in California. ■ No changes to state or local rent control laws or RENT CONTROL ■ More than 85% of funding to qualify Prop. 98 comes ordinances. from mobile home and apartment owners and associations that represent them. ■ According to Western Center on Law and Poverty, Prop. ■ No changes to laws dealing with tenant protections IMPACT ON 98 will invalidate inclusionary housing requirements that and or affordable housing requirements AFFORDABLE HOUSING require a certain number of units to be affordable to low- AND TENANT income families. PROTECTION LAWS ' According to Western Center on Law and Poverty, Prop. 98 will likely eliminate tenant protection laws, including: o Laws governing return of rental deposits. O Tenant notice periods, such as 60-day notice requirement prior to forcing renters out of unit. O Protections regarding terminations of tenancy. EMINENT DOMAIN FOR 0 Prop. 98 includes provisions that will increase taxpayer ■ Does not change or limit acquisitions for traditional TRADITIONAL PUBLIC costs and cause delays for traditional public works public works like schools, roads, bridges and other WORKS PROJECTS projects like schools, roads, bridges and other projects. projects. • Section 19(b)(5) changes constitutional definition of "just compensation", adding new requirements that will make all property acquisitions vastly more expensive, including required payments for attorneys fees if jury awards even $1 more than agency offered. PROVISIONS Prop. 98 Prop. 99 (Rent Control Rollback) (Homeowner Protection Act) • Contrary to claims by 98 proponents, buried in ■ No changes to laws surrounding regulatory takings. definitions section of initiative are new constitutional REGULATORY TAKINGS changes that would prohibit certain regulatory actions PROVISIONS regulating use of real property. • Section 19(b)(3)prohibits"regulation of the ownership, occupancy or use of privately owned real property or associated property rights in order to transfer economic benefit to one or more private persons at the expense of the property owner". ■ According to an analysis conducted by one of the state's leading environmental law firms, Shute, Mihaly& Weinberger, "nearly all regulation provides an economic benefit to some private person. Accordingly, although the Initiative is ambiguous in several significant areas,a court could interpret it to restrict a host of environmental and land use regulations..." IMPACT ON • Prop. 98 changes existing law and would wreak havoc on ■ No changes to environmental laws or regulations. local land-use planning and environmental protections. ENVIRONMENTAL ■ According to the Shute, Mihaly&Weinberger analysis, PROTECTIONS AND LAND-USE "there is a substantial risk... that(the initiative) REGULATION would be broadly construed to prevent the enforcement of many existing environmental regulations as well as the adoption of new laws and policies to protect the environment". • SMW legal analysis also warns that Prop. 98"appears to impair a broader class of environmental protections than did Proposition 90." • Unlike Proposition 90(which required compensation for regulations that caused economic damages), Proposition 98 outright prohibits such laws and regulations that "transfer economic benefits". PROVISIONS Prop. 98 Prop. 99 (Rent Control Rollback) (Homeowner Protection Act) ■ Prop. 98 would prohibit the use of eminent domain to ■ No change and no impact on public water projects or IMPACT ON WATER acquire land and water to develop public water projects, any other traditional public works project. PROJECTS 0 The Association of California Water Agencies warns Prop. 98 could "derail efforts to build the infrastructure and other water projects we need to ensure an adequate supply of safe, clean drinking water. " • The Western Growers Association warns Prop. 98 could "block future development of surface water storage and conveyance-" ■ That's because Prop. 98's proposed amendment to Section 19(a) of the constitution prohibits the taking of private property for "private use." Proposed section 19(b)(3)(ii)defines "private use" as including: transfer of ownership, occupancy or use of private property or associated property rights to a public agency for the consumption of natural resources or for the same or a substantially similar use as that made by the private owner; (Emphasis added.) • Since virtually all elements of a public water project involve the "consumption of natural resources", Prop. 98 would prohibit property acquisitions for public water projects. Changes to Section 19(b)(3)contain no exceptions for ■ Measure preserves ability to protect public health and PUBLIC HEALTH AND actions taken to protect health and safety. safety. SAFETY EXEMPTIONS ■ Land-use decisions(such as restrictions on building in ' Prop. 99 contains specific public health and safety unsafe areas, or zoning decisions to protect residents from exemptions to eminent domain restrictions. Language undesirable or unsafe businesses)could be ruled permits the use of eminent domain to protect public prohibited under Proposition 98. health and safety;preventing serious and repeated criminal activity;response to an emergency; and to remedy environmental contamination. Proposed Sec 19(i). PROVISIONS Prop. 98 Prop. 99 (Rent Control Rollback) (Homeowner Protection Act) ■ Prop. 98 would shift power from locally elected ■ No changes to balance of power. CHANGES TO BALANCE legislative bodies to the courts by: (a)mandating that OF POWER BETWEEN courts essentially ignore the local governments' JUDICIARY AND legislative deliberations in all eminent domain LEGISLATIVE proceedings when cases are challenged in court, and(b) BRANCHES OF permitting the introduction of new evidence in court GOVERNMENT cases that was never presented to the public agency. ■ Should Prop. 99 pass with more votes than Prop. 98, WITH OTHER MEASURE PROVISIONS DEALING ■ NONE Proposition 98 would be nullified. ON SAME BALLOT TIMING OF • Regulatory takings provisions in Prop 98 could apply to ■ Applies to future eminent domain actions. APPLICATION EXISTING laws and regulations, as well as future laws. ■ Provisions abolishing rent control apply to future rent control laws and rent control protections abolished when unit is vacated. Paid for by No 98/Yes 99,Californians to Stop the Prop 98 Attack on Renters and in Support of Prop 99,the Homeowners Protection Act A committee of seniors,homeowners,taxpayers,renters, educators,business,labor,environmentalists,local government and public safety,League of California Cities(Non-Public Funds)and Californians for Neighborhood Protection:Yes on Prop 99,No on Prop 98,a sponsored committee of conservationists and labor 1121 L.Street,Suite 803—Sacramento,CA 95814—916.443.0872 www.No98Yes99.com Yes on Proposition 98 Page 1 of 1 ATTACHMENT B PROP 9 • , THE BEST YES, ', QZ HOME GET THE FACTS READ THE INITIATIVE OUR SUPPORTERS TAKE ACTION NEWS CONTACT US YES ON PROP 98: Protect All Property Rights Sign Up For Coalition Updates First Name Right now, government has the right r to take private property-our homes, Last Name family farms, mom-and-pop small Email Address businesses-to build a sports Zip Code stadium, big-box chain store, ora -- --- hotel. Politically connected special interests use and abuse I Submd government's power to take and develop private property. 41 other Take Action now states have enacted property rights reforms. ' _- (view all_v_ideos_») It is time for Californians to protect our property and restore our Join the Team contolxrte TeN a Friend private property rights. Proposition 98,the California-Property ,. � 1„ e:rs 8r_Farmland Protection Act is on the ballot in June. Eminent Threat Property seizures are happening all over our state. It is time to Latest news about victims and those leading the fight take action against the government's abuse of power. against eminent domain abuse "The City of Baldwin Park is using eminent domain to seize my home Saturday,March 15,2008 for a development project that benefits a politically connected Residents Oppose Development San Gabriel Valley Tribune developer. They should not be able to take my home. Where are my Baldwin Park,CA-Property owners rallied against a rights?” proposed multimillion-dollar development this week at Ms. Cruz Baca Sembello, Homeowner, Baldwin Park a forum backing eminent domain reform. more... "I never thought that something like this could happen to me. Thursday,March 13,2008 Government should not be able to profit by seizing private property Editorial:A slippery practice San Diego Union-Tribune from unwilling sellers. It shows what little regard government has for The state Fair Political Practices Commission has the personal and financial costs associated with throwing us out on begun an investigation into whether the League of the streets." California Cities,the California Association of Mr. Tim Cunha, Property Owner, Seaside (Watch TV News in Counties and the California Redevelopment Association are using taxpayer dollars to tout Seaside here) Proposition 99,their property rights initiative,and to oppose Proposition 98. more... Get the Facts.Join Our Coalition. Support Our Campaign Now. Saturday,March 8,2008 Prop.99 backers accused of illegal funding Orange County Register A complaint by proponents of a competing initiative to reform eminent domain suggests a complex scheme to launder taxpayer dollars. more... YesProp98.com j Contact Us I Copyright 62008 Yes Prop.98,Californians for Property Rights Protection,a project of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association with funding by its No New Taxes Committee and the California Farm Bureau Federation and supported by the California Alliance to Protect Property Rights. Committee ID#1296303 http:/yesprop98.com/?_adctiid=v%7Cwynx8c5jjesxsb%7CxO55w o97us75h 3/27/2008 Comparison of proposed "CA Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act" and the proposed "Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act" PROVISIONS PROP. 98 - "CALIFORNIA PROPERTY OWNERS PROP. 99 - ""HOMEOWNERS AND PRIVATE AND FARMLAND PROTECTION ACT" PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT" BALLOT MEASURE #07-0015 BALLOT MEASURE #07-0018) OVERVIEW This is a statewide ballot measure co-sponsored by the This is a statewide ballot measure submitted by the League Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, California Farm of California Cities, California State Association of Bureau Federation and the California Alliance to Protect Counties and the California Redevelopment Association. Private Property Rights. STATUS Certified by the Secretary of State on January 16, 2008. Certified by the Secretary of State on January 23, 2008. Will appear on the June 3`d ballot as Proposition 98. Will appear on the June 3rd ballot as Proposition 99. INDEPENDENT According to the Institute for Justice(IJ), a non-profit IJ says of the Homeowners and Private Property Protection ANALYSIS organization who litigated the Kelo v. New London case Act, "Californians require real, substantive reform for before the U.S. Supreme Court, "CPOFPA restores everyone and the Act does not come close to providing it." constitutional protections against eminent domain abuse, and would ensure all homes and small businesses, churches and farms remain in the hands of those that own them." "KELO" Provides absolute "Kelo" protections for ALL property — Would not provide absolute "Kelo" protections for private PROPERTY prohibits government from seizing property from unwilling roe . The Legislative Analyst's Office analysis of this PROTECTIONS sellers and giving it to another private owner, a common measure from June 19, 2007 stated that it "is not likely to practice among public agencies seeking greater property tax significantly alter current government land acquisition and sales tax revenue. practices." HOMEOWNER Prohibits government's ability to seize private property, Protections only apply to owner-occupied homes that have PROTECTIONS including homes, for private purposes. been the primary residence for a minimum of 1 year. (See "incidental" private uses for more loopholes) SMALL BUSINESS All businesses, no matter the size, are protected from being No business protections. PROTECTIONS taken for transfer to another private owner. FARMLAND Prohibits government's ability to seize private property, No farmland protections. PROTECTIONS including farmland, for private purposes or same use. PROTECTIONS Prohibits government's ability to seize private property for No protections for places of worship. FOR PLACES OF private purposes. This protection includes places of WORSHIP worship. DEFINITION OF Measure prohibits private to private takings, without Does not redefine the term blight, which often includes "BLIGHT" prohibiting public agencies ability to abate public nuisances conditions such as "lack of parking," "adjacent or nearby or close down sites of criminal activity. uses that are incompatible with each other," or "existence of subdivided lots of irregular form or shape," allowing modest homes and businesses to be seized by eminent domain. Updated 1/30/2008 1 :58:23 PM SAME USE— To address situations like Conaway Ranch in Yolo County, No such provisions in this measure. For details on Yolo "Conaway Ranch this measure specifies that property may not be taken by a County's plan to seize Conaway Ranch,read Dan Provision" public agency for the same use as the existing owner(Sec. Weintraub's column in the July 28,2005 Sacramento Bee. 3(b)(4)(ii)). For example, an apartment complex cannot be seized to provide affordable housing. QUICK TAKE Should a public agency exercise a"quick take" (a procedure No such provisions in this measure to protect individuals PROTECTION where the agency takes immediate possession of the with limited means,who may rely on the money provided at property),the owner is entitled to prompt release of the the time of the taking and as a result, lose the right to seek money offered while keeping the right to challenge the greater compensation. sufficiency of this amount Sec. 3(b)(7)). ABANDONMENT To address abuses like those of Cal-Trans in Orange No such provisions in this measure. CLAUSE CoMly,this measure provides that if the stated purpose for the property is ever abandoned,the property will be offered to the original owner at the price at which it was taken. It will also be taxed at the re-condemnation value Sec. 3(e)). JUST Defines just compensation as fair market value as This measure does not change the current definition of just COMPENSATION determined by a jury. A property owner is also entitled to compensation. As such, an owner would not be entitled to reasonable costs and attorney fees if a court ruling reimbursement for expenses(legal or otherwise)incurred as determines the value to be more than the amount offered. a result of eminent domain action. Additional Owner is also entitled to compensation for temporary reimbursement would be at the discretion of the condemning business losses,relocation expenses and other reasonable agency(Sec. 3-4). expenses incurred by the owner as a result of eminent domain action Sec. 3(b)(6)). "INCIDENTAL" Defines public use as"use and ownership"by a public Allows private property to be taken and transferred to PRIVATE USES agency or public utility. Does not extend the use of property another private owner for any amount of use the agency taken by eminent domain to any private individual except deems incidental to,or necessary for,the public for"leasing limited space for private uses incidental to the improvement to be feasible. For example,a city could take stated public use"(Sec. 3(b)(3)). An example of such a twice as much land as it needs to build a sports arena,and permitted use would be the operation of a cafeteria inside a transfer the excess to private retail developers because the public building. revenue is"necessary"to finance the construction of the arena. POISON PILL No such provision This measure contains a controversial poison pill provision (Sec.9), intended to deprive Californians of additional property rights protections,even if those additional protections are approved by a majority of California voters. Updated 1/30/2008 1:58:23 PM PRICE CONTROLS This measure will limit government's ability to decide the This measure does not include provisions to protect a ON PRIVATE amount a property owner can charge to sell or lease his property owner from government's ability to regulate the TRANSACTIONS property,but it will not affect any existing rental price he or she can sell or lease real property. agreements. This measure allows property owners to reassess rent at the time the unit is vacated and the existing agreement is terminated. Nothing in this measure prevents government from providing other options for affordable housing. Sec. 6). COSTS TO According to the State Legislative Analyst's Office,the The Legislative Analyst's Office concludes that this TAXPAYERS "fiscal effect on most governments probably would not be measure"would likely not have a significant fiscal significant." impact on state or localgovernments." HEALTH AND Public agencies maintain the ability to abate public Contains a far broader exception allowing the use of PUBLIC SAFETY nuisances and close down sites of criminal activity. There is eminent domain"for the purpose of protecting public health nothing in this measure that restricts government's ability to and safety." regulate property in ways that protect the general public. Additionally,this measure will not restrict the power of the Governor to take property under a declared state of emergency. VOTER Would not limit voters from enacting local land use or Would not limit voters from enacting local land use or AUTHORITY planning decisions unless such decisions were intended to planning decisions. However,the lack of true protections strip property owners of their rights by transferring property for all properties would put many in danger of losing their from one private owner to another. property as a result of these local decisions. LOCAL ZONING Does not include any of Prop 90's regulatory takings that Does not impact local zoning ordinances or require ORDINANCES could impact local zoning ordinances or require compensation. compensation. "REGULATORY Do not contain any"regulatory taking"provisions, as seen in Prop. 90 TAKINGS" LIMITS ON THE None. Would not limit the use of eminent domain for public projects. Without Prop. 90's costly"regulatory taking" USE OF EMINENT provisions,the cost of land use decisions and public projects will not place any additional burden,on taxpayers. DOMAIN FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS ENVIRONMENT Will not affect governments' ability to implement reasonable land-use planning or zoning restrictions that protect the environment. WORKPLACE Do not include regulatory provisions that invite frivolous lawsuits against labor or work place regulations. REGULATIONS Updated 1/30/2008 1:58:23 PM RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME URGING OPPOSITION TO PROPOSITION 98 AT THE JUNE 3,2008, ELECTION RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Burlingame, California: WHEREAS, a constitutional amendment, Proposition 98, will appear on the June 3, 2008, State ballot; and WHEREAS, Proposition 98 proponents want voters to believe the initiative is about eminent domain, but in fact the measure contains hidden agendas and flawed language which will eliminate inclusionary houisng programs, wipe out locally adopted rent control and other renter protections, threaten development of public water projects, destroy local land use planning, and impair local governments' ability to protect the environment; and WHEREAS,the majority of the funding to qualify this measure comes from wealthy apartment and mobile home park owners who are attempting to trick voters into abolishing rent control and other renter protections, thereby jeopardizing an important affordable housing tool to protect working families, seniors, single-parent homes, veterans and others; and WHEREAS, the voters of the City of Burlingame have already adopted regulations prohibiting rent control that would be preempted by this Proposition, and the community does not need or want another costly and destructive State mandate imposed by special interests; and WHEREAS, provisions in the initiative would also preclude the use of eminent domain to acquire land or water to develop public water projects that are needed to provide our residents, businesses, farmers and economy with a reliable and safe supply of water; and WHEREAS, Proposition 98 is opposed by the Association of California Water Agencies and the Western Growers Association, who warn the initiative will impair water projects to protect water quality and supply; and WHEREAS, language in the initiative will also prohibit the passage of regulations, ordinances, land use and other zoning laws that enable local governments to plan and protect communities, and in Burlingame's case, would severely limit the current Downtown planning process; and WHEREAS,the California Police Chiefs Association opposes the measure because it threatens their ability to keep communities and the public safe; and 1 WHEREAS, leading environmental groups warn provisions in the measure would impair our ability to enact environmental protections such as laws that control greenhouse gas emissions, preserve open space, protect coastal areas, and regulate development; and WHEREAS,the No on Proposition 98 campaign is represented by the League of California Cities, California State Association of Counties, League of California Homeowners, California League of Conservation Voters, California Alliance for Retired Americans and other leading state and local associations who oppose Proposition 98; and WHEREAS, this new State intrusion would override local general plans and land use regulations without regard to Burlingame's interests, values, or needs and without any clear environmental or planning review at any level, NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED: 1. The City Council of the City of Burlingame urges opposition to Proposition 98 and this resolution and its adoption are a matter of public record. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2008, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 2 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME URGING SUPPORT FOR PROPOSITION 99 AT THE JUNE 3, 2008, ELECTION RESOLVED, by the Council of the City of Burlingame, California: WHEREAS, the California Legislature has failed to reform State laws to ensure that government cannot use the power of eminent domain to take homes for private development; and WHEREAS, Proposition 99, which will be on the June 2008 ballot, will prohibit government from using eminent domain to take an owner-occupied home to transfer to another private party; and WHEREAS,the protections in Proposition 99 directly address this issue, and the measure does not contain any unrelated provisions that will result in unintended, harmful consequences for California; and WHEREAS,the League of California Homeowners supports this measure because it will provide ironclad protections for California homeowners; and WHEREAS, the Yes on Proposition 99 campaign represents a broad-based coalition, including the League of California Cities, California States Association of Counties, League of California Homeowners, California League of Conservation Voters, California Alliance for Retired Americans, and other leading state and local associations, NOW, THEREFORE,IT IS HEREBY DETERMINED: 1. The City Council of the City of Burlingame urges support for Proposition 99 and this resolution and its adoption are a matter of public record. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2008, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK ,00;0 CITY ,AS. STAFF REPORT BURUNGAMEAGENDA ITEM# 9e 4� MTG. 417/08 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY ! DATE: March 17, 2008 APPROVED n� FROM: Deirdre Dolan, Human Resources Director BY SUBJECT: Approval of Labor Agreement with International Association of Fire Fighters, Local 2400 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council approve the resolution authorizing the City Manager to incorporate the tentative agreement between the International Association of Fire Fighters (IAFF)Local 2400 and the Central County Fire Department into the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for this unit. The comprehensive tentative agreement is attached to this report as Exhibit A. BACKGROUND: Central County Fire Department is a joint powers agency of the City of Burlingame and the Town of Hillsborough. IAFF Local 2400 represents the Central County Fire Department Fire Fighter, Fire Captain, Fire Fighter Trainee, Fire Mechanic, Deputy Fire Marshal, and Fire Inspector positions. The IAFF labor agreement expired on December 31, 2007 after a four-year term. The City and Town have been meeting with IAFF for several months to negotiate the terms of a new agreement. The City and Town reached tentative agreement with IAFF on February 22, 2008. IAFF has ratified the agreement, and the Town of Hillsborough approved the agreement at their March 10, 2008 meeting. The major components of the tentative agreement are as follows: Term: 5 years; January 1, 2008 through December 31, 2012. Salary: 6.0% increase effective December 24 2007 2.5% increase effective April 14, 2008 Effective the first pay period including January 1, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012, the salary will be increased to 4th in the market place based upon a salary survey. The minimum increase shall be 2.0%; the maximum increase shall be 5.0%. Retirement: The current language in the MOU will be maintained, except the re-opener will be limited to one time instead of annual. The current language provides for the possibility of implementing the 3% at 50 benefit if the cost is no more than 5% greater than the current cost of the 3% at 55 benefit. Should the 3% at 50 benefit be implemented, there would be a corresponding reduction in retiree medical benefits, and potential cost-sharing with the union for the 3% at 50 retirement benefit. Retiree Medical.- A minimum of five years of service with the Department will be required to qualify for a retiree medical benefit. Dental: The City of Burlingame will assume responsibility for administering the IAFF dental plan (currently administered by IAFF). There will be no increases to the dental benefit. More detailed information regarding these and other changes agreed to in negotiations are included in the attached Exhibit A. In addition, it is notable that during the period of time the parties were negotiating this contract, the Fire Chief was in discussions with IAFF regarding changes in the department structure that would result in significant cost savings. BUDGET IMPACT: The City and Town share the cost of Central County Fire Department on a 60% City of Burlingame, 40% Town of Hillsborough basis. The City's 60% share of the estimated cost of the new agreement is $407,150 in salary costs for the first year of the agreement. This cost will be partially offset by departmental restructuring which is expected to save the Department approximately $450,000 in operational costs ($270,000 City savings and $180,000 Town savings). ATTACHMENTS: Resolution for IAFF Local 2400 Agreement Exhibit A—Comprehensive Tentative Agreement RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE TENTATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH,through THE CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT,AND THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF FIREFIGHTERS (IAFF)AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE CITY RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame and Town of Hillsborough, through their joint powers agency,the Central County Fire Department, and the International Association of Firefighters Local 2400 (IAFF)have met and conferred in good faith on the terms and conditions of employment as provided by State law; and WHEREAS,the City and the IAFF have reached agreement on certain changes to be made to the existing terms and conditions of employment and memorandum of understanding between the City and the IAFF; and WHEREAS,the proposed changes are fair and in the best interests of the public and the employees represented by the IAFF and is consistent with the changes made to the understandings between the Town and the IAFF; and WHEREAS,these changes will be reflected in a single memorandum of understanding between the City,the Town, and the IAFF, NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The changes in existing salary of the employees represented by the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF) as contained in Exhibit A hereto are approved. 2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the terms contained in Exhibit A and incorporate them into the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Burlingame,the Town of Hillsborough, Central County Fire Department, and the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF). MAYOR I,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 17th day of March, 2008, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A Tentative Agreement between City/Town and IAFF Local 2400 February 22,2008 Term-January 1,2008-December 31,2012 6.1 Salary Increases Effective: Year l 6.0%effective December 24,2007 2.5%effective April 14,2008 Year 2 Effective the first pay period including January 1,2009,the salary will be increased to 4th in the market place(using survey in Section 6.1 of the MOU). Year 3 Effective the first pay period including January 1,2010,the salary will be increased to 4th in the market place(using survey in Section 6.1 of the MOU). Year 4 Effective the first pay period including January 1,2011,the salary will be increased to 4th in the market place(using survey in Section 6.1 of the MOU). Year 5 Effective the first pay period including January 1,2012,the salary will be increased to 4th in the market place(using survey in Section 6.1 of the MOU). The minimum increase shall be 2.0%,the maximum increase shall be 5.07..This shall apply to each year a salary survey is conducted Survey Language: Classification to be surveyed-Firefighter/Engineer or equivalent Survey Agencies: ■ Palo Alto ■ Foster City ■ San Bruno ■ Redwood City ■ San Mateo ■ Menlo Park Fire District ■ South San Francisco ■ Daly City ■ South County Fire Dept ■ Millbrae 1 U:Wiret2007 Fire Negotiationsff Mediafion 022208.doc Survey Items: ■ Top Step Salary ■ Employer Paid deferred Comp ■ Employer Paid Employee's PERS contribution ■ Maximum Education Incentive ■ Maximum Longevity Pay ■ EMT Incentive ■ ALS Support Pay ■ Holiday Pay shall be calculated as: o (56/wk x 52 wks = 2912 hrs/yr divided by 12 mo = 243 hrs mo. (Top step salary + EMT + Ed Incentive)/243 hrs/mo = hrly rate x # of holiday hrs paid)/12 mo. For: ■ San Mateo ■ Redwood City ■ San Bruno ■ Menlo Park ■ Belmont/San Carlos • Millbrae ■ Palo Alto o Daly City = (Top step salary + EMT + Ed Incentive) x .075 o Foster City = (Top step salary + EMT + Ed Incentive) x .045 o South San Francisco = ((((Top step salary x 12)/26)x. 017)x 13)/12 6.2 Ability to Pax Eliminated. 6.10.5 Head Mechanics Special Pay for Outside Work Add: The Department and the Association shall re-open Section 6.10.5, upon written notice from either party for the sole purpose to discuss the implementation of a 40 hour workweek for the Head Mechanic. ■ If the Head Mechanic position is vacant, the parties shall meet and confer regarding the implementation of a 40 hour work week for the Head Mechanic position. ■ If the Head Mechanic position is filled, the parties shall meet; however, any modifications must be mutually agreed upon. (Meet and Confer = Meet and confer for a reasonable period of time to allow for the free exchange of information, opinions and proposals. Each party should endeavor to reach agreement on matters within the scope of representation. Meet and confer allows for the appropriate time to utilize the Agency impasse procedure.) 6.10 SCBA Technician • 1 per shift (3 maximum) • 3.57o of base salary special assignment pay 2 U1Fire12007 Fire NegotiationsTF Medation 022208.doc 11. New During the term of the Agreement, the Department may notify the Association in writing to meet and confer regarding vacation scheduling (Sections 11.3.1, 11.3.2, 11 .6 and any other appropriate sections). The Department may only exercise this re- opener when it is in the process of increasing staffing levels to 22 per shift online not including the B/C. 11.3 56 Hour Emplovee Vacation Schedule Will be modified to reflect the elimination of annual pre-scheduled vacation allotment. 11.3.1 Eliminate 11.3.2 Modify to reflect the new vacation accrual amount. 11.3.3 Modify to reflect the deletion of annual pre-scheduled vacation. 11.6 Vacation Scheduling Modify to reflect the deletion of annual pre-scheduled vacation. 12.3 EMT Firefighters and Fire Captains shall maintain certification as EMT. The base salary range as indicated in Appendix A-1 is stipulated to include 3.57o differential for EMT certification. Fire Inspectors have the option to not maintain certification as an EMT. If a Fire Inspector chooses not to maintain an EMT, he/she will not be eligible to receive the 3.57o salary differential. The EMT requirement in 12.5 will not apply to Fire Inspectors and will not exclude them from receiving full educational pay. If a Fire Inspector chooses to maintain an EMT, he/she will receive the 3.57o and will be eligible for all benefits given to other department EMTs. If choosing not to maintain EMT, Fire Inspectors must maintain CPR, First Aid, and AED certifications. 13.3.2 Sick Leave Incentive Plan The Sick Leave Incentive Plan in Section 13.3.2 shall be implemented when the average sick leave usage for the bargaining unit is equal to or less than 2.4 shifts per employee. If the average sick leave usage is more than 2.4 shifts then the Sick Leave Incentive Plan in Section 13.3.2 will not be implemented for that calendar year. Long term sick leave (6 or more shifts for the same illness or injury) will be excluded from the calculation of the average. 13.4 Sick Leave for Care of Family Maintain current language. 3 U1FW2007 Fire NegotiationsTF Mediation 022208.doc 16.1 Medical Modify to a Flexible benefit language to allow for the 5 years vesting on the retiree medical) 16.2 Dental City will administer the IAFF Dental Plan not later than July 1 , 2008. 16.3 Vision TA City's Proposal (1117107) . Effective January 1 , 2004, employees shall be covered by the City of Burlingame Vision Care Reimbursement Plan. The DePGFtRqeRf ,,,,ill GGRt b ate $10.00 mere+hly fcr eGiG ernpleyee. .meet GIRGI r.-.n.RfPhr nn 17.0 Uniform Allowance Effective July 1 , 2011 , the uniform allowance will increase to $850.00. 32.14 3% @50 Benefit Once during the term of the MOU, at the written request of Local 2400, the MOU will be reopened to discuss the possible implementation of the 3% @ 50 retirement benefit. (See attached language) 32.16 Maintain current language. Add Vesting for the retiree medical benefit shall be 5 years service with the Department. (The implementation of this provision will require the modification of the current health insurance language.) 33.2 Maintain current language with the following exception; new fiscal year should be 2012-2013. For the City: F oc 2400: Glenn Berkheimer Br e Ba on Deirdre Dolan Jeff eaKer Kris Ar r ster i I Ve Jar M kas 4 4 UAFire\2007 Fire Negotiations\FF Mediation p22208.doc 32.14 3% @ 50 Benefit Enhancement As seen as ..etuar-ial data is available ftem CaIPERS fe T- my-,2007Fetkelent. benefits, One time during the term of this agreement, the LeY.,Ament will er-der- union may request that the City order an actuarial evaluation for the 3% @ 50 benefit. If the 'Base Retirement Rate" of the 3% @ 50 benefit is equal to or less than the 'Base Retirement Rate" as defined below, the agencies will implement the 3% @ 50 benefit e€fee-tive Adly 1,2007. The 'Base Retirement Rate" is calculated by adding the July 1, 2007 rate of the 3% @ 55 benefit for the City of Burlingame and Town of Hillsborough. The "Base Retirement Rate" is as follows: City of Burlingame 3% @ 55 rate= 16.122% ➢ Town of Hillsborough 3% @ 55 rate=28.427% ➢ Base Retirement Rate: (16.122%+28.427%)=44.549% The 'Base Retirement Rate for the 3% @ 50 benefit will be determined by adding the rate of the 3% @ 50 benefit for the City of Burlingame and Town of Hillsborough. If the initial ev lu tion of July 1 2007 shews the base retirement + is hi t. ef than 0 and the Union does net opt to " 11 the benefit, the City andToym will eFder eest evaluations fer- Afly 1 eff-eetive dates in subsequent years o the eentraet. If these evaluations show the mte to be less than 0 ' 7 and Town will amend fer-the 0 716 @ 50 benefit effective the fellowing hdly 1. The Union will hav theY fi v a+w t✓ui viahuati.a the be t,benefit ' year as outlined in t v If the City and Town merge their respective CalPERS fire retirement accounts into one retirement contract with CalPERS, the parties will meet and confer on the impact such a retirement plan merger may have on the base retirement rate of future benefits and modify the formula accordingly. 32.15 Union Benefit Purchase Option When the actuarial evaluations are received from CalPERS, the City and Town will meet with the Union and review the cost data. If the 3% @ 50 base retirement rate is no more than 5% higher than the 3% @ 55 "base retirement rate" the Union can elect to pay for one-half of the difference. Such payment will be deducted from salary and will be effective commensurate with the implementation date of the 3% @ 50 benefit. The following table illustrates the Union Benefit Purchase Option: 3%@ 55 Base Retirement 3% !50 Base Retirement Increase in Base Retirement Union Benefit Purchase Cost Rate Rate Rate sa deduction 44.549% 45.549% 1% .5% 44.549% 46.549% 2% 1% 44.549% 47.549% 3% 1.5°/a 44.549% 48.549% 4% 2% 44.549% 49.549% 5% 2.5% The percentage paid by the membership under the Union Benefit Purchase option will remain fixed and unchanged for a period of 3 years (36 months). Unless the Department determines otherwise, the payment will be made on an after-tax payroll deduction. At the end of the 3 years (36 months), the City and Town will pay for the employer cost of the retirement plan. Any percentage of salary paid by the membership for the 3% @ 50 benefit will be added back to base salary when performing salary surveys per section 6 of this agreement. The deduction will be on an after-tax basis. BURLINGAME The City of Burlingame CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Approved Thursday, January 17, 2008 Commissioners Present: Dan Conway, Chair Mike Bohnert, Vice Chair Mark Noworolski Stephen Warden Commissioners Absent: Jerry McDonnell Staff Present: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Sgt. Dean Williams, Police Department Joanne Louie, Administrative Secretary, Public Works Visitors: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue Farris Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive Rudy Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive Pat Gray, 1616 Adeline Drive 1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:05 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. 3. ROLL CALL. 4 of 5 Commissioners present. 4. Acknowledgements None. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Motion: To accept the minutes of December 13, 2007 as submitted. M/S/C: Warden, Bohnert; 4/0/1 (McDonnell - absent) 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Gray requested that TSPC not support the repeal of the Overnight Parking Ordinance that has been on the books since 1936. Ms. Gray expressed that having the ordinance if enforced would result in safer streets by reducing the number of cars parked on the street. 1 Pat Giomi stated that the Overnight Parking item that is going before Council on January 22nd is not a public hearing. However,comments can be made during the Public Comment period. Farris Horak thanked Mr.Chou for the LED lights and markers on Broadway and also for drafting the Commission Procedural Policy. Pat Giorni stated that there are a lot of construction/debris dumpsters placed on the streets and requested that TSPC and Planning Commission coordinate to keep these dumpsters on the property,as opposed to the street. Mr.Chou replied that he would coordinate Public Works staff to make sure that a review comment is added specifying"location of dumpster"be part of the plan review process. 7. CURRENT BUSINESS 7.1 Commission Procedures Policy Mr. Chou presented a draft document of the Commission Procedural Policy and recommended ongoing discussions to create a final draft. Chair Conway suggested a discussion on the process and proposed that this occur over the next two meetings. Commissioner Warden felt it could be accomplished in one meeting and noted a correction needed on page 2,section III-A referencing the time and places of meetings. 8. STAFF REPORTS 8.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 8.1.1 Broadway/Paloma Avenue Crosswalk—Verbal Update Mr.Chou reported that there have been missing signs and placards from the new LED crosswalk installation at Broadway&Paloma Avenue. He said that the disappearances have been attributed to theft. 8.1.2 Traffic,Safety&Parking Seminar Series—Verbal Update Mr. Chou reported that February 7, 2008 has been confirmed with Kimley-Horn Associations as the first seminar date for the technology series. He added that this seminar would be held in the Lane Room at 7:00 pm. Discussion occurred as to the role of TSPC as the sponsor of these seminars. Mr.Chou said that he would be presenting the consultants and letting them conduct the 2 presentation. He also said that he would be available to answer questions specific to Burlingame. Chair Conway stated that the first seminar be General Information and the second be Parking Technology and save the topic of Citizen Enforcement for a future seminar or official TSPC meeting. 8.1.3 TDA 08/09 Grant Application —Verbal Update Mr. Chou reported that a grant application was submitted for bicycle maps. Mr. Chou stated that we should know the results of the application in March. Commissioner Warden once again suggested that a LED crosswalk be looked at for the crosswalks on Burlingame Avenue at Park Road and that perhaps a committee be formed to address this matter. 8.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report 8.2.1 Residential Permit Parking Program —Verbal Update Sergeant Williams reported that they will be presenting the staffs recommendation to Council on February 4, 2008 for a Residential Permit Pilot Program. A special meeting will be held on January 23, 2008 at the Rec Center to receive public comment on this matter. Sergeant Williams reported that they will be presenting the staffs recommendation to Council on January 22, 2008 to repeal the Overnight Parking Ordinance. Sergeant Williams stated that other surrounding cities still have this ordinance, however, only one city, Menlo Park, enforces this ordinance at a cost of$75,000. 9. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Warden reported that for that past couple of months vehicles have been observed parked in the crosswalk of Acacia Drive and Oak Grove Avenue. Commissioner Warden reported that California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue used to have two distinct separates lanes and needs to be restriped as near misses have occurred at this intersection. Commission Warden stated that a cargo container was still parked on Edgehill Drive. He said that it now a new year and their permit should have expired. He added that efforts should be made to get this shipping container off the street. Chair Conway inquired of Mr. Chou in regards to follow-up on the Black Sea Gallery signs. Mr. Chou replied that this matter was referred to the City Attorney and Code Enforcement and has not received a response. 3 Commissioner Warden reported that a Nor Cal sign has been placed on California Drive at the City parking lot next to the Caltrain lot. Mr. Chou stated that they would be notified to remove the sign form City property. 10. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS 10.1 Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Commissioner Noworolski reiterated that a TDA grant was submitted for bike maps and reported that a bike rack unveiling is planned for 2"d quarter for the rack installation on Burlingame Avenue. Mr. Chou reported that the committee is also trying to formulate what application(s) to submit this December. 10.2 Miscellaneous Reports None. 11 . ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 7:47 p.m. 4 BURLINGAME The City of Burlingame CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Approved Thursday, February 21 , 2008 Commissioners Present: Dan Conway, Chair Michael Bohnert, Vice Chair Mark Noworolski Stephen Warden Jerry McDonnell Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Sgt. Dean Williams, Police Department Joanne Louie, Administrative Secretary, Public Works Visitors: Farris Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Way Rudy Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive 1 . CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. 3. ROLL CALL. 4 of 5 Commissioners present (Commissioner Noworolski, 7: 10PM) 4. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT None. 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Motion: To accept the minutes of January 17, 2008 as submitted M/S/C: Warden/Bohnert; 3/1/1 (McDonnell abstained) Page 1 of 4 6. PUBLIC COMMENT Rudy Horak suggested extending the operational time period for parking meters in the commercial areas from 6:00 pm to 7:00 pm as means of additional revenue. Mr. Horak mentioned that this is being done at other nearby cities. Charles Voltz expressed his support for the idea and recommended a survey of the surrounding communities. Pat Giorni expressed her concern that the City take a look in the future at enforcing no parking to allow adequate street sweeping. 7. CURRENT BUSINESS 7.1 Commission Procedures Policy Chair Conway and the Commissioners reviewed the draft policy page by page and offered their input and comments. These included a new section on procedures to vote off officers, the duty of the Chair as it pertains to the press, the duty of the Vice Chair regarding orientation of new members,and the order of business/agenda format. Mr. Chou will return next month with a second draft based on the input and comments offered. 8. Staff Reports 8.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 8.1.1 TDA 08/09 Grant Application—Verbal Update Mr. Chou reported that a presentation will be made next week to the County B/PAC regarding the City's TDA grant application for Bike Maps. 8.1.2 Neighborhood Speed Watch Program—Update Mr. Chou made a presentation on the Community Speed Watch Program outlining the program objectives, description, steps and requirements for volunteers. Commissioner Noworolski asked about the cost of the program. Mr. Chou replied that he did not have the specific details, but that the highest single cost would be the purchase of the radar unit if the City did have one available already. Mr. Chou stated that the City was seeking grant funding to purchase another radar unit if possible. Commissioner Warden stated that this program needs to be done as soon as possible before school lets out for the summer. Page 2 of 4 Motion: Endorse the Community Speed Watch Program as presented. M/S/C: Warden/Noworolski; 5/0/0 8.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report 8.2.1 Residential Permit Parking Program—Verbal Update Sergeant Williams reported that the proposed Residential Parking Pilot Program went to Council this past Tuesday. Sergeant Williams reviewed a summary of the final details of the program. 9. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Noworolski inquired as to the status of the crosswalk request near Ray Park, especially in light of a recent accident where a dog was hit by a vehicle on Balboa by the park. Mr. Chou replied that work orders were already sent out for this work, but that due to inclement weather, the crews were backlogged. He said the work would be done when the situation was warmer and drier. Commissioner McDonnell suggested that a green, left-turn arrow indicator be considered for the intersections of Rollins Road & Cadillac Way and EI Camino Real&Murchison Avenue. He also suggested looking into a right-turn arrow signal at northbound Carolan onto eastbound Broadway. Mr. Chou replied that the Broadway/California/Carolan signals were being redesigned at this time. He added that signal operation would be looked at by the consultant/contractor during this time. Commissioner Warden requested status on the container issue that has been on-going. Mr. Chou replied that Associate Engineer, Victor Voong spoke with the resident and the contractor. He said Mr. Voong was assured that the container would be gone soon since the construction/remodel work has been finaled by the City. Commissioner Warden reported that the sewer system work on California Drive and Oak Grove Avenue might have damaged the signal sensors, resulting in a longer light. Mr. Chou acknowledged that he was aware that during trenching, the loop detectors were cut and the signal was on"recall"mode. Commissioner Warden suggested that due to the increase in business and the mix on Broadway, parking has been difficult. He suggested that consideration should be made to raise the meter rates to match Burlingame Avenue rates. He added that this could be a future agenda item that should involve the businesses. Mr. Chou suggested that a subcommittee could be formed at an exploratory level. Commissioner Noworolski volunteered to be on the subcommittee. Commissioner Warden reminded the Commission of the Commissioner's dinner on March 14,2008. Page 3 of 4 Chair Conway expressed his thanks for the timely repair of the traffic signal by St. Catherine's church, at EI Camino Real and Bayswater Avenue. Chair Conway reported that the first seminar series went very well and that the next topic would be on parking. Chair Conway suggested that more public relation efforts be made to drive up future attendance to the seminar series. Commissioner Warden suggested the series be videotaped and shown on the local Burlingame station. Commissioner McDonnell suggested that it be advertised in the water bills. The next seminar will be offered at a date yet to be determined in April. Mr. Chou advised that the Downtown Specific Plan Workshop was being held on March 15th at 9am in the Lane Room. He said that this workshop was specifically related to B/PAC and traffic calming issues around downtown. 10. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE REPORTS 10.1 Burlingame Bicycle/Pedestrian Advisory Committee Commissioner Bohnert reported that the TDA grant for bike maps was been submitted. He also expressed his interested in getting involved with the Downtown Specific Plan subcommittee. Commissioner McDonnell agreed to also join this subcommittee. 10.2 Miscellaneous Reports None. 11 .ADJOURNMENT 9:03 pm Page 4 of 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION BURLINGAME UNAPPROVED MINUTES Burlingame Public Library— Lane Community Room 480 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California March 24, 2008 - 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cauchi called the March 24, 2008, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Osterling (arrived at 7:02 p.m.), Vistica and Yie Absent: Commissioner Terrones Staff Present: Community Development Director,William Meeker; Planner, Ruben Hurin; and City Attorney, Larry Anderson III. MINUTES Commissioner Vistica moved, seconded by CommissionerAuran, to approve the minutes of the March 10, 2008 regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Motion passed 5-0-2 (Commissioners Osterting and Terrones absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; noted that when attempting to determine if an impervious surface is present versus a pervious surface; if grass is growing in cracks between pavers, water is percolating, therefore the surface is pervious. Regarding 1412 VancouverAvenue(Agenda Item 1),the designer met all of the criteria to have the item placed on the Consent Calendar, but would like to know if a condition requiring a deposit for a street tree has included as a condition of approval, as suggested by the City Attorney. VI. STUDY ITEMS There were no Study Items. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar- Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon 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. Chair Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 24, 2008 1. 1412 VANCOUVER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FORA NEW,TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN& ENGR., INC.,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND YANG MIN YANG PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Commissioner Auran moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. The Commission directed staff to review the potential for requiring a deposit for a street tree for 1412 Vancouver Avenue, and directed that the information be returned to the Commission as an FYI item. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 118 DWIGHT ROAD,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FORA FIRSTAND SECOND STORYADDITION TOA SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JESSE GEURSE,APPLICANTAND DESIGNER; AND PAT BURNS PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated March 24, 2008, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Jesse Geurse, 405 Bayswater Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: • Complemented the design • The existing water table element on the house grounds the house; could it be continued as an element? • Clarified that the trim package around windows and doors is real wood, as is the water table. • The possibility for a color change below the water table is acceptable. Public comments: • None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Osterling 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 Division date stamped March 3, 2008, Sheets T.0, L.0, and A.0 through A.B, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 18, 2008 memos,the City Engineer's June 18, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 15, 2007 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 18, 2007 memo shall be met; 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 24, 2008 3. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, 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 Planning Commission review; 5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 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 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; 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, �— 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 9. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer, or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 10. 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; and 11. 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: • Encouraged a change in color tone below the water table to anchor the house and reduce the appearance of mass. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 24, 2008 Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at T18 p.m. 3. 1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SAMUEL AND ELAINE WONG,APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND T PETER LAM AIA ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated March 24, 2008, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven (11) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Peter Lam, 848 Folsom Street, San Francisco; represented the applicant. Commission comments: • Skylights call for dark brown domes; brown gives a dusty interior color(applicant clarified that frame is brown, but dome is clear). • Roofing material is not a stylistic match; but this type of roof is present in the neighborhood; what is warranty on coating (applicant indicated that the warranty is 50-years). Public comments: • Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and Paul Grech, 1315 Skyview Drive; asked about the noise factor —� from the metal roofing material during a rainfall; could need good insulation. Can sound be heard by neighbors? The Planning Commission previously approved a good plan for the project. The house is one of the sentinel houses as you enter Skyview Drive. Feels a terra-cotta color roof is not appropriate for Skyview Drive. Some composition tile roofs can be quite attractive. Applicant response: • The roof profile is very low; doesn't think that it defines a particular style. • The owner was unable to be at the meeting tonight; couldn't address suggestions for different style/color of roofing material. Additional Commission comments: • A number of different profiles and colors are available for the roofing material;there may be another profile that is more appropriate to the home style. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: • Opposed to this type of roof for Burlingame; homogenous in color and style; suitable to subdivisions on the East coast; doesn't meet the local design guidelines. • Encouraged approving the skylight, but deferring action on the roofing material until the applicant can bring back a different material profile. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the proposed skylights. 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes March 24, 2008 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to continue the discussion of the roof material to permit the applicant to consider other profiles and colors. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling. Discussion of motion: ■ There are composition shingle roofs that have similarlives to the material proposed; these may be a better choice. ■ Would like to see color and style of proposed roofing material. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). This item concluded at 7:34 p.m. 4. 750 WALNUT AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TOA PREVIOUSLY APPROVED NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE (JAJE DU AND FATALI RUSLI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND A.S.I. CONSULTING ENGINEERS DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER- LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated March 24, 2008, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: ■ Asked who signed the architect's certification; please provide copy of letter. Jaje Du, 750 Walnut Avenue and Thomas Woo, General Contractor for project; represented the applicant. Additional Commission comments: ■ How did all of the changes occur; who approved the changes; why weren't the changes brought back to staff before being implemented? ■ Only change that was approved was the side door for the garage. City Attorney Anderson suggested a continuance to request further clarification regarding the changes that have been made to the project. Public comments: ■ Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and Mark Grandcolas, 754 Walnut Avenue, and Francis Tolde, 701 Walnut Avenue; when approved, the Commission wanted wood-clad simulated true divided light windows. How much more paving is being added; notes show that more is being provided; how does this relate to the maximum FAR. Construction of the project has taken three and one-half years to date. The added plate height and new trim pattern do not matter to neighbor. The applicant 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Unapproved Minutes March 24,2008 was told to install divided lights. The windows that have been installed do not appear bad. The house looks great as currently built. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: • Not just the trim package has been changed;the window type has changed;vinyl windows have been installed;is a net loss to the design. • Too much concrete has been installed;would like landscape plan. • Concerned about the outcome of the changes that have been made. • Increased plate height makes home appear like a storage building. • Not comfortable with the garage doors;they look like they belong on a storage building. Chair Cauchi moved to continue the matter with direction to the applicant to provide a clearexplanation for the changes that have been made to the project. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: • On Sheet A-4,appears that the front left garage door matches the proposed plan;be sure that the proposed matches the existing. • Need a description of the pervious material to be used for the paving. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1(Commissioner Terrones absent). This item concluded at T53 p.m. Chair Cauchi recused himself and left the dais since he lives within 500'of 612 Concord Way(Agenda Item 5). 5. 612 CONCORD WAY,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(BAHMAN AVAL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JOHN AND PATRICIA EATON, PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER:LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated March 24,2008,with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven(11)conditions were suggested for consideration. Secretary Vistica opened the public hearing. Commission comments: • None Daniel Bierman,1649 Laurel Street,San Carlos;represented the applicant. • Noted that he was hired to re-draw the plans based upon the Commission's prior comments. 6 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes March 24, 2008 Public comments: ■ Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; expressed concern about the vinyl windows proposed on the plan; there is not that much as a cost differential with wood clad; plus wood clad can be painted. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Appreciated the efforts of the applicant. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions.- 1 . onditions:1 . that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 8, 2008, sheets Al , Al . 1 , A2, A2. 1 , A3, A4, A4. 1 , and A4.2 and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 13, 2007 memo, the City Engineer's June 18, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's June 15, 2007 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 18, 2007 memo shall be met; 3. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, 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 Planning Commission review; 5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 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 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 orfull demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Unapproved Minutes March 24,2008 9. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer,or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing,such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans;architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 10. 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;and 11. 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Secretary Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Chair Cauchi recused.). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:59 p.m. Chair Cauchi returned to the dais. 6. 1530 DRAKE AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR LOWER LEVEL ADDITION TO SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING(DII LEWIS,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER,AND DANIEL AND HARRIET DOWER PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated March 24,2008,with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight(8) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: • Noted that the project should have been on the Consent Calendar. Dii Lewis,205 13`"Street,San Francisco;represented the applicant. • Provided an updated exhibit correcting an error; clarification of crawl-space height area; plan demonstrates that considerable excavation would be required to convert it to livable space. • Lattice will be attached to the new structure in the same manner as currently attached. Public comments: • None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following conditions: 8 CIN OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 24, 2008 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped March 12, 2008, sheets A-0.0, A-1.0, A-2.0, A-2.1, A-3.0, A-3.1, ME-4.0, and A-5.0, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's December 17,2007 memo,the City Engineer's January 2, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's December 17, 2007 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's December 17, 2007 memo shall be met; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the lot coverage variance, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 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 project shall complywith 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; 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: • This is an existing situation that can't be fixed. • The restriction on 2-foot height often causes a conflict with existing conditions. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:05 p.m. 7. 1105 BURLINGAME AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR CHANGES TO WINDOWS INA PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT(SFL PARTNERSHIP, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND CATHY NILMEYER, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 24, 2008, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten (10) conditions were suggested for consideration. 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION - Unapproved Minutes March 24, 2008 Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: ■ Noted that General Plan reference needs to be corrected in staff report. Cathy Nilmeyer, 128 Pepper Avenue; represented the applicant. ■ Couldn't find the original windows; if true divided light windows, would overpower the windows; would like to stay with wood, double-hung windows without mullions. Additional Commission comments: Match the color of the windows to existing. Public comments: ■ Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; Marvin windows does make a replacement, custom window that could work. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica 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 Division date stamped -� February 28, 2008, North and East Elevations; any changes to the exterior materials shall require review by the Planning Commission; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 28, 2008 memo shall be met; 3. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to commercial design review; 5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 6. 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; 7. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 24, 2008 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 9. 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; and 10. 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. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling. Discussion of motion: ■ Match the color of the windows to existing. ■ Would like the mullions to stay. ■ The divided light windows add character to the building; will be lost with clear windows;beneficial to people inside and outside the building; will lose charm. ■ Doesn't seem that the applicant explored the wood options for divided light windows; the windows are most prominent on the California Drive elevation. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed 3-3-1 (Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg and Yie dissenting, Commissioner Terrones absent). Motion failed. Additional Commission comments: ■ The applicant was encouraged to come back with another option. ■ Some sort of special treatment on tower windows would be helpful. Commissioner Osterling made a motion to continue the item with direction to the applicant to pursue other window options and to consider a special treatment on the tower element windows. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). This item concluded at 8:18 p.m. Chair Cauchi recused himself and left the dais due to a potential conflict of interest regarding 1440 Chapin Avenue (Agenda Item 8) 8. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE, SUITE 200, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1 —APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXPANSION OF A REAL ESTATE USE (APR REALTY, INC., APPLICANT; S. J. SUNG AND ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT; AND CORTINA INVESTMENTS, LTD., PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 24, 2008 Reference staff report dated March 24, 2008, with attachments. Planner Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine (9) conditions were suggested for consideration. Secretary Vistica opened the public hearing. Commission comments: ■ None Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road; represented the applicant. Public comments: ■ None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Noted that, historically, this building has had more than enough parking to accommodate realtor uses. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the real estate business shall be limited to 12,012 SF in Suites 100 and 200 at 1440 Chapin — Avenue (9,615 SF in Suite 200 and 2,397 SF in Suite 100), as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division and date stamped February 28, 2008 (11" x 17" sheet); 2. that the real estate business shall not expand into the remainder of the tenant space in Suite 200 (4,380 SF) or into any other tenant space in the building without an amendment to this permit; and that the subleased area shall not be occupied by any other business which has an employee to office density exceeding one person to 300 SF; 3. that the real estate business may not be open for business except during the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., seven days a week; weekly agent meetings shall be on Monday mornings between 9:00 a.m. and 10:30 a.m., with a maximum of 78 persons on site during the meeting which includes agents, full-time employees, and managers; 4, that the real estate business shall have a maximum employees/managers of 111 part-time agents and 5 full-time employees/managers (with a maximum of 14 persons on-site at any one time except on Monday from 9:00 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. for group meetings); the number of full-time or part-time real estate agents, employees and managers for a real estate use in 12,012 of Suite 100 and 200 and the maximum of 14 persons on site except for one and one-half hours on Monday, shall not be increased (from 116) without an amendment to this permit; 5. that due to the impact of weekly agent meetings on parking in this area, the owner agrees to schedule the weekly group meetings or client conferences so that the parking impact is minimized and will consult with the City Planner on an annual basis regarding any difficult times or days of the week and shall make adjustments that may be applicable; _ 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 24, 2008 6. that any changes in operation, floor area, use, or number of employees, which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit; 7. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's February 29, 2008 memo and the Recycling Specialist's March 10, 2008, memo shall be met; 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; and 9. that this Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed upon complaint. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling. Secretary Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Chair Cauchi recused). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:27 p.m. Chair Cauchi returned to the dais. 9. 2300 AND 2750 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — REVIEW OF COMPLIANCE WITH CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF THE APPROVED CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR EXISTING HIGH SCHOOL AND RELIGIOUS FACILITY USE (JEAN HASTIE, SISTERS OF MERCY AND LAURA HELD, MERCY HIGH SCHOOL, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS (Request to continue to Planning Commission's April 14, 2008 meeting) Item was continued to April 14, 2008, at the request of the applicant. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS Commissioner Yie recused herself and left the dais, due to a potential conflict of interest. 10. 1140 CORTEZ AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (SIMON JANG, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JD AND ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 28, 2008,with attachments. Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Michael Kaindl, 875 Mahler Road, represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Generally like the design; existing front porch is distinctive; could another beam be added to the proposed porch to add a bit more craftsmanship to the design. ■ Impact of home will be immense on the block; is taken nearly to the maximum height; could be done with a flatter roof; doesn't see the reason for the 12:12 pitch; not supportive. ■ Could upper area of second floor be pulled in to eliminate the declining height envelope Special Permit. ■ The existing porch far exceeds the design of the proposed porch. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 24, 2008 Public comments: ■ Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and Steve Johnson, 1136 Cortez Avenue; agreed with Commissioners' comments; the size of the porch was reduced to increase the FAR. The porch has been relegated to second class element of the design. Encouraged reduction of second floor to permit an increase to the front porch size. Mr. Johnson is the neighbor to the right and agrees with comments regarding the porch. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. ■ Could come back on regular action. ■ Some concern with left elevation; lowering the roof pitch could help; but also bringing down the elevation could help. ■ Make the front porch more generous and transparent. ■ Could benefit from having a large-scale tree within the front; should be pulled away from the house, halfway between the new porch limit and the sidewalk line; species is good for the area. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the RegularAction Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Chair Cauchi 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 5-0-1-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent, Commissioner Yie recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:43 p.m. _ Commissioner Yie returned to the dais. 11. 2515 POPPY DRIVE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND YANG MING YANG, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 24, 2008, with attachments. Planner Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Good job on design; will never know the addition is there when completed. • Neighbors will appreciate the rear of the home as well. Public comments: ■ None There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 24, 2008 This motion was seconded by Commissioner Osterling. Chair Cauchi 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 (Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8.49 p.m. 12. 2843 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (ROBERT VAN DALE, EDI ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DENHAM LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 24, 2008,with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. The applicant was not present at the beginning of the public hearing(8:51 p.m.). The Commission deferred the matter until later on the agenda. 13. 1324 MONTERO AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN AND ENGINEERING,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND CRAIG SUHL AND VALERIE KAURIN, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 24, 2008, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. James Chu, 55 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo and Craig Suhl, P. O. Box 117697, Burlingame; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Is there any way to eliminate the Special Permit; the rooms affected are pretty gracious (if house were on a flat lot, wouldn't require the Special Permit). ■ Significant encroachment into declining height, but somewhat mitigated by presence of neighbor's driveway. ■ Clarify trim package for windows; wood trim. ■ Clarify material above window dormer elements. ■ Continue lawn strip further towards back. ■ Walkway or stepping stones should be added between the driveway and front entry. Public comments: ■ Bob Curry, 1320 Montero Avenue; happy to see the nice design. States that trees are to remain; may be nearly dead because have been without water for two years; may need to be removed. Are there any structural things along his property line (right side)? ■ Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; suggested providing people with 11 x 17 plans that can be read. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Unapproved Minutes March 24,2008 There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Osterling made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: • Suggested having an arborist review the trees to determine if they may be retained. • Have landscape changes reviewed by landscape architect; then have any improvements to landscaping be brought back as an FYI,if changes need to be made. • Kudos to City staff for not bowing to an applicant trying to bully through the approval process. Chair Cauchi 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(Commissioner Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:06 p.m. The following item was deferred from earlier in the agenda. 12. 2843 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW,TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE (ROBERT VAN DALE, EDI ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DENHAM LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 24,2008,with attachments. Community Development Director Meekei briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Alex Mortazavi,851 Burlway Avenue;represented the applicant. Commission comments: • Provide a more complete history of the property,particularly during the time that the property division was being considered,when returned for action. Recalled that there was a discussion of retaining the Oak tree canopy on the property;would be important to build the home behind the trees;though you would need to weave through the Oak trees. Typical of a house this size to have a winding driveway. • Would like front entry to be emphasized more;the driveway is the predominant feature;provide a more architectural treatment for the entry. • Two rows of Camphor trees on the landscape plan are too large;need something smaller scale;the Palm trees are unusual in Burlingame;not sure how they would do on the property if the soil is too wet. Perhaps eliminate the Palm trees. Choice of vegetation is not appropriate for the area;need larger scale trees as well. • Could be more amenable to considering a height Variance, rather than placing home at the proposed location. There is a pretty clear natural hardship for the Variance;shouldn't let the height limit drive the decision. Public comments: 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes March 24, 2008 ■ Art Labrie, 2839 Adeline Drive; Mike and Donna Gaul, 2838 Adeline Drive; and Ginny Wright, 2811 Adeline Drive; the neighbor to the left feels the location of the home is perfect. Placing it further up the hill would impact his light. Agreed with many of the Commission comments; there is ambiguity on the height of the structure. Would rather see the home pushed further back, and request a height Variance. This is a situation for a Variance. Is really close to the street. Agrees with story poles for the front fagade only. If you're doing a spec home, take a close look at the other homes in the area. Palm trees are not appropriate in the area. Would like to see a flag lot and build one home on the Vista Drive lot. Shocked by the size of the home. Surprised that it is under consideration. Some neighbors did not receive notices. She did not have time to prepare, did not receive a notice. Planner Hurin noted that broader noticing would be provided for subsequent public hearings. Additional Applicant comments: ■ John Ward, 792 Willborough Road; noted that the proposed home falls far below the maximum FAR for the lot. The applicant is not trying to maximize development of the site. They are attempting to balance the environment while still allowing the development of the site. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Left and right setbacks are pretty close to the edge of the lot; causing the home to appear sprawling. ■ Design review would be appropriate for the project; perhaps the right design reviewer could assist with determining if another entry to the lot could work; and help make the design a little less bulky. ■ The design doesn't take advantage of the natural contours of the lot. There are other styles of home that can meander around the site; that could be a more appropriate approach for a site of this type. ■ Rendering may not accurately represent how the home will look from Adeline Drive; could benefit from having story poles erected for front elevation to show visual impact upon Adeline Drive. Chair Cauchi made a motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to refer the project to a design reviewer. The motion carried 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones absent). This item concluded at 9:44 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ April 3, 2008 Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting has been cancelled. ■ Reminder of the April 5, 2008 Joint City Council/Planning Commission work program meeting for the _ upcoming fiscal year. The meeting will be held from 9 a.m. to Noon in the Lane Community Room. ■ Community Development Director Meeker thanked outgoing Commissioner Osterling for his years of service to the Planning Commission and the community. 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 24, 2008 ■ Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; presented Commissioner Giorni with a departing gift. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of March 17, 2008: ■ None FYI: 1535 Los Montes Drive: ■ Pulled for discussion Additional comments: ■ Staff was requested to prepare a Commissioner's report regarding the Downtown Specific Plan, particularly for those Commissioners that have not yet been involved in the process. ■ Staff was requested follow-up from staff regarding the desk item received this evening regarding construction hours. ■ It was note that two (2) Commissioners will have potential conflicts regarding the Mercy High School matter agendized for April 14tH ■ Commissioners were reminded to file their Fair Political Practices Committee disclosures by April 1 St ■ The Commission was reminded of the importance to always state applicants' appeal rights at the closure of action on items. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 9:58 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stanley Vistica, Secretary 18 POLICE DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME�I City of Burlingame Jack L.Van Etten Chief of Police February,2008 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Police Department Statistics and Highlights for the month of February,2008 DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS: -Two officers graduated from the police academy and in our field training program -Three additional officers have been hired and will attend the police academy in March -One parking enforcement officer vacancy is being filled -Four sworn officers and one dispatcher continue on long-term disability -One officer is in a month-long K-9 training program with our newly donated K-9 -Neighborhood Watch presentations continue -Additional department training continues TRAFFIC MATTERS: -Moving citations have almost doubled from the same time last year(selective enforcement) -Parking citation totals are down for the month,due in part to our replacing of a PEO -A second motorcycle officer is scheduled for training in the next couple of months -Citizen Speed Watch has been delayed,but is about ready to begin -The pilot parking permit program will begin in April MONTHLY STATISTICS: -Remember that the monthly police department report is displayed in both numbers and percentages.When reviewing the police department report remember to consider the actual numbers of various crime categories in conjunction with the percentages. Kindly feel fre to contact me if you have any questions. V fJ k Van Etten Burlingame Police Department 1111 Trousdale Drive-Post Office Box 551-Burlingame,California 94011-0551-(650)777-4100-Fax (650)697-8130 )3-11-08 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1 FOR: FEBRUARY, 2008 , . Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD rime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . . YTD. . . Change W Change 4urder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 4anslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 Rape By Force 1 0 2 0 2 kttempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery Firearm 0 0 1 0 1 Robbery Knife 1 0 1 0 1 Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon 0 1 0 1 -1 -100 . 00 Robbery Strong-Arm 0 0 2 1 1 100 . 00 kssault - Firearm 0 0 0 0 0 kssault - Knife 0 0 0 0 0 kssault - Other Dangerous Weapon 1 1 2 3 -1 -33 .33 kasault - Hands, Fists,Feet 0 1 2 1 1 100. 00 kssault - Other (Simple) 10 20 19 32 -13 -40 . 63 Burglary - Forcible Entry 8 2 15 5 10 200 . 00 Burglary - Unlawful Entry 4 6 17 10 7 70 .00 Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 0 0 3 0 3 Larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Purse-Snatching 1 0 1 0 1 Larceny Shoplifting 0 0 4 1 3 300. 00 Larceny From Motor Vehicle 12 14 43 29 14 48 .28 Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 9 11 21 25 -4 -16 . 00 Larceny Bicycles 2 1 4 2 2 100. 00 Larceny From Building 6 10 13 12 1 8 . 33 Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 0 0 0 5 -5 -100. 00 Larceny All Other 2 3 8 10 -2 -20. 00 Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 3 10 9 17 -8 -47 . 06 Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 5 0 6 0 6 Motor Vehicle Theft Other 0 0 1 0 1 ------- ------ ------ ------ 65 80 174 154 65 80 174 154 )3-11-08 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: FEBRUARY, 2008 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change Change All Other Offenses 24 25 61 46 15 32.61 Animal Abuse 0 0 0 0 0 Animal Nuisance 0 0 0 0 0 Arson 0 0 4 2 2 100.00 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 0 0 0 0 Bomb Threat 0 0 1 0 1 Bribery - 0 0 0 0 0 Check Offenses 0 1 1 2 -1 -50.00 Child Neglect/prot custody 2 7 8 12 -4 -33.33 Computer Crime 0 0 0 0 0 Conspiracy 0 0 0 0 0 Credit Card Offenses 1 0 1 0 1 Cruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 0 0 0 Curfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 0 0 0 Death Investigation 4 1 6 5 1 20.00 Disorderly Conduct 1 0 1 0 1 Driver's License Violations 1 0 1 0 1 Driving Under the Influence 15 8 21 19 2 10.53 Drug Abuse Violations 2 3 3 7 -4 -57.14 Drug/Sex Registrants/Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Drunkeness 2 5 4 16 -12 -75.00 Embezzlement 1 0 1 1 0 0.00 Escape 0 0 0 0 0 Extortion 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 False Police Reports 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 False Reports of Emergency 0 0 0 0 0 Fish and Game Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Forgery and Counterfeiting 5 5 8 5 3 60.00 Found Property 8 4 16 8 8 100.00 Fraud 2 3 3 6 -3 -50.00 Gambling 0 0 0 0 0 Harrassing Phone Calls 0 2 1 8 -7 -87.50 D3-11-08 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: FEBRUARY, 2008 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change % Change Hit and Run Accidents 3 3 4 5 -1 -20.00 Impersonation 0 1 1 3 -2 -66.67 Incest 0 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00 Intimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 Lewd Conduct 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Liquor Laws 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 Marijuana Violations 1 4 3 6 -3 -50.00 Mental Health Cases 6 5 13 13 0 0.00 Missing Person 2 6 3 10 -7 -70.00 Missing Property 5 it 11 15 -4 -26.67 Municipal Code Violations 5 11 10 20 -10 -50.00 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 1 0 1 Offenses Against Children 1 0 1 0 1 Other Assaults 10 20 19 32 -13 -40.63 Other Juvenile Offenses 2 0 4 0 4 Other Police Service 5 3 8 5 3 60.00 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 0 0 2 1 1 100.00 Perjury 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of Burglary Tools 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0 Probation Violations 1 0 1 1 0 0.00 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Prowling 0 0 0 0 0 Resisting Arrest 2 0 2 0 2 Restraining Orders 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0 Sex Offenses 0 0 0 0 0 Sex Offenses against Children 1 0 1 0 1 Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 Stalking 0 0 0 0 0 03-11-08 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 L CITY REPORT FOR: FEBRUARY, 2008 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change % Change Statutory Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 1 0 1 0 1 Suspended License 9 2 1.0 7 3 42.86 Tax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 Terrorist Threats 0 1 2 1 1 100.00 Towed Vehicle 26 35 60 71 -11 -15.49 Trespassing 0 2 1 2 -1 -50.00 Truants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 0 0 0 0 US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 Vandalism 12 9 31 21 10 47.62 Vehicle Code Violations 1 2 6 4 2 50.00 Violation of Court Order 5 1 5 2 3 150.00 Warrants - Felony 2 2 3 4 -1 -25.00 Warrants - Misd 6 2 13 6 7 116.67 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 1 0 1 3 -2 -66.67 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 ------- ------ ------ ------ 175 188 358 377 175 188 358 377 03-11-08 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : 1 CITY REPORT FOR: FEBRUARY, 2008 Prev Last Act Act Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD . . . YTD. . . Parking Citations 3116 3 , 352 6 , 045 7 , 083 Moving Citations 399 193 804 438 ---- - -- - - - --- - - - - - - - - - - - - 3515 3 , 545 6 , 849 7 , 521 3515 3 , 545 6 , 849 7 , 521 BURLINGAME Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 03/11/2008 at 02 : 28 : 35 PM Reported On: All Officers Report Range : 02/01/2008 to 02/29/2008 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Valid % All Voids % All % officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ALVISO 355 901 31.91 9 24.32 99.01 DOTSON 509 1031 36.51 15 40.54 98.57 GARRETT 501 185 6.55 7 18.92 96.35 SMITH 654 707 25.04 6 16.22 99.16 Total 2824 37 Page 1 of 1 City of Burlingame MARCH PERMIT ACTIVITY Construction activity was down significantly compared to March 2007; on average 70% in both the residential and commercial sectors. However, excluding the valuation of the new medical office building for Peninsula Hospital ($42MM)the total construction valuation for this fiscal year is down only 3% compared to FY2006-2007. "There were no pre-application meetings held in March. THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F. Y. 2008 F. Y.2007 DIFF Permit Type # # % # # % WATER HEATER 1 8,000 5 9,100 -12 25 45,372 37 56,692 -20 SWIMMING POOL 6 151,000 2 86,500 75 SIGN 2 3,050 4 9,700 -69 32 134,605 38 219,595 -39 ROOFING 16 254,932 19 165,567 54 173 2,472,210 210 2,789,704 -11 RETAINING WALL 1 75,000 1 75,000 3 274,020 -73 PLUMBING 13 20,185 10 34,472 -41 105 386,324 130 385,928 0 NEW SFD 6 3,395,000 8 4,169,000 -19 NEW COMMERCIAL 1 42,000,000 NEW 5 UNIT APT OR CO 1 3,500,000 NEW 3 OR 4 UNIT APT MECHANICAL 3 13,785 4 143,540 -90 31 210,998 43 547,598 -61 KITCHEN UPGRADE 2 55,000 3 74,283 -26 43 1,294,543 29 938,753 38 FURNACE 1 0 5 67,235 -100 19 85,699 17 129,996 -34 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 2 2,000 3 4,600 -57 24 100,965 15 36,750 175 City of Burlingame MARCH PERMIT ACTIVITY THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F. Y. 2008 F.Y.2007 DIFF Permit Type # # % # # % ELECTRICAL 5 36,900 5 54,400 -32 38 152,539 37 348,046 -56 BATHROOM UPGRADE 7 116,354 6 134,800 -14 39 663,609 33 486,500 36 ALTERATION RESIDENTI 26 1,074,891 31 2,807,335 -62 280 11,460,316 238 12,073,441 -5 ALTERATION NON RES 6 129,030 10 542,500 -76 80 13,959,734 64 9,392,774 49 Totals: 85 1,789,127 105 4,047,532 -56 903 76,587,914 905 35,435,297 116 comcastn Comcast Cable 12647 Alcosta Boulevard March 31 , 2008 Suite 200 San Ramon,CA 94583-5147 Office:925.973.7000 Fax:925.973.7015 www.comcast.com Mr. Jesus Nava City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Jesus Nava: As you know, Comcast is committed to offering the best value in home entertainment in a competitive marketplace, providing a wide variety of programming and an array of packages to accommodate customers' preferences. We're also working every day to improve the customer experience. To meet increased demand for our products, we've hired more than 4, 000 call center and field service representatives on a company-wide basis, increasing appointment availability and investing in new customer care technologies. This year, we are pleased to inform you that there will not be an increase to the equipment and installation prices, at this time. Rather, effective June 1 , 2008, the price for the rental of our Digital Receiver (non High-Definition) will decrease from $3.50 to $3.20 per month. The Comcast remote price will remain $0.20. The total cost for the rental of the Digital Receiver and Remote will be $3.40. Our customers will be informed of the price decrease via billing message scheduled to appear on their March and/or April billing statements. As always, if you should have any questions about this matter, or any other Mattpr, -la`-,.p finial friary fn -r,nt.z-t .. „!. !---! r oV -,Me,,.4 r,f `F - - -. J'` . iv'vG, :ail �iinilGiil P'1!fQirs LJIICl:LVI, LeC- Ann Peling at (415) 715-0549. Sincerely, Mitzi Givens-Russell Government Affairs Franchise Compliance Manager Bay Area Market