HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2004.07.19 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame
BURLINGAME
Regular Meeting - Monday, July 19, 2004 CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
4 J Page 1 of 3 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010
(650) 558-7200
CLOSED SESSION:
a. Conference with Labor Negotiators pursuant to 6:30 p.m. Conference Room A
Government Code § 54957.6: City Negotiators: Jim
Nantell, Bob Bell; Labor Negotiators: Police/Fire
Administrators; AFSCME, Locals 2190 and 829
b. Pending litigation(Government Code § 54956.9(a):
Dennis J. Amoroso Construction Company
C. Pending litigation(Government Code § 54956.9(a):
Jefferson-Martin Transmission Project(CPUC
Application)
1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
2. ROLL CALL
3. MINUTES -Regular Meeting of June 21, 2004 Approve
4. PRESENTATION
a. Burlingame Girls Softball update Presentation
b. Joint Powers Board/Caltrain Broadway and Burlingame Presentation
Avenue Train Station Improvements
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each.
a. Consider approval of amusement permit for 221 Park Road Hearing/Action
Cocktail Lounge
b. Adoption of Ordinance to amend development fees for Hearing/Action
public improvements in the Bayfront Specific Plan Area
C. Adopt Resolution for annual cost of living adjustments to Hearing/Action
the City of Burlingame master fee schedule
d. Re-adopt Ordinance approving amendment to contract Hearing/Action
between City and CALPERS to provide fire service
employees with credit for unused sick leave and
cancellation of payment for optional service credit
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS - At this time,persons in the audience may speak
on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the
Council. The Ralph M. Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)
prohibits council from acting on any matter which is not on the agenda. It is the
policy of council to refer such matters to staff for investigation and/or action.
Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table
by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes
each.
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City Of Burlingame
BURLINGAME
lax
Regular Meeting - Monday, July 19, 2004 CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
Page 2 of 3 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010
(650) 558-7200
7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. Introduce alternative Ordinances to amend Chapter 6.36 Introduction
regarding regulation of taxicab permits
b. Introduce Ordinance for adoption of Parks Department's Introduction
rules and regulations including prohibiting dogs from City
playgrounds
C. Presentation of Safeway store public opinion research and Presentation
discussion of possible changes in previously denied
proposal for Safeway Walgreens at E1 Camino Real and
Howard Avenue
8. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve
a. City Council letter supporting San Mateo County Civil
Grand Jury recommendations for police departments to
continually review and follow established sexual assault
protocols
b. Authorize City Manager to execute an agreement with the
provide Human Resource
Town of Hillsborough to p
Services / /)
C. Approval of out-of-state travel for Fire Marshal to attend
the National Fire Academy in Maryland �\�'
d. Approval of attendance at out-of-state conference for four
Public Works Department staff in Nevada
e. Proposed rules and regulations prohibiting dogs from City
playground areas
f. Resolution awarding Burlingame Park Subdivision sewer
rehabilitation project, Phase 2
g. Resolution approving the amendment to the BART
Memorandum of Understanding regarding landscaping and
\ tree replacement \
J�1 Lh� Approve Resolution authorizing American Federation of
State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)
Locals 829 and 2190 Labor Agreement
i. Approve Resolution authorizing Association of Police
Administrators Agreement KV
Request to schedule Special City Council meeting on
August 16, 2004
RX J
k. Warrants& Payroll
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame
_11Regular Meeting - Monday, July 19, 21X14 CITY HALL- 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME
Page 3 of 3 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010
(650) 558-7200
9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
10. OLD BUSINESS
11. NEW BUSINESS
a. Schedule an appeal hearing for August 2, 2004 for Set Hearing
Planning Commission's decision at 620 Airport Blvd. (�
12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Parks & Recreation Committee,
June 17, 2004; 2004; Planning Commission, June 28, 2004
& July 12, 2004; Traffic, Safety& Parking, July 8, 2004
b. Department Reports: Building, June, 2004; Police, May,
2004
C. Two letters from Comcast concerning;CableCard service
for digital-cable-ready devices and a programming
adjustment to Digital Premier services
d. Letter from RCN concerning an increase in rates for digital
vision tier and multiple premium channels cable services
e. Letter from William Schwartz concerning the loud music
coming from Abercrombie& Fitch
13. 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.burtinp-ame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site.
NEXT MEETING—Monday,August:2,2004
0aCITY -)C
BUIRyM9f,ME
m
`N�Tm�uwc 6.
BURLINGAM_E CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting of June 21, 2004
CLOSED SESSION:
CA Anderson advised that the Council had met in closed session before the public meeting and instructed the
City Attorney on the handling of the following claim:
a. Threatened litigation—Claim of Douglas Weaver
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall
Council Chambers. Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
The pledge of allegiance to the flag was led by Police Chief Jack Van Etten.
2. ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Coffey, Galligan, O'Mahony
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Nagel
3. MINUTES
An addition was made to the minutes of June 7, 2004, Item 6.c., last paragraph, final sentence: During
Council discussion on the motion, Councilwoman Baylock indicated that she would prefer the soundwall be
extended the full 100 feet at a height of 16 feet, then stepped down as required by Caltrans for an additional
80 feet or so to further protect the residents on Toyon Drive. Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve
the amended minutes of the June 7, 2004 Council meeting; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved by
voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent).
4. PRESENTATIONS
a. RECOGNITION AWARD TO POLICE CHIEF JACK VAN ETTEN FROM THE SAN
MATEO COUNTY TOBACCO PREVENTION PROGRAM FOR HIS SUPPORT AND
COMMITMENT TO PENAL CODE 308
Clara Boyden of the Tobacco Prevention Program of San Mateo County presented an award to Police Chief
Jack Van Etten for his support and commitment to Penal Code 308. COP Van Etten commended Inspector
Laura Terada, and Officers Heather Farber and Richard Harman for their participation in this program.
b. INTRODUCE INTERN SONYA KNUDSEN OF THE SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT
MUSEUM AND THE AVIATION LIBRARY MUSEUM
1
Burlingame City Council June 21, 2004
Unapproved Minutes
CM Nantell introduced Sonya Knudsen who has undertaken a voluntary 3-week internship with the City to
develop key indicators for the different service areas in the City.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. ANNUAL REVIEW OF AMUSEMENT PERMITS: ALIBI CLUB, 220 LORTON AVENUE;
AMERICAN BULL RESTAURANT, 1817-19 EL CAMINO REAL; BEHAN'S IRISH PUB,
1327 BROADWAY; BUR.LINGAME STATION BREWERY, 321 CALIFORNIA DRIVE;
CALIFORNIA BAR& GRILL, 241 CALIFORNIA DRIVE; CARIBBEAN GARDENS, 1306
OLD BAYSHORE HWY; CROWNE PLAZA HOTEL, 1177 AIRPORT BLVD.; DICEY
RILEY'S IRISH PUB, 221 PARK ROAD; DOLLARWISE/HOBBY UNLIMITED, 1205
BROADWAY; EL TORITO, 1590 BAYS RORE BLVD.; FANNY & ALEXANDER, 1108
BURLINGAME AVENUE/303-305 CALIFORNIA DRIVE; FAUDORIN RESTAURANT,
1492 BAYSHORE BLVD.; FOUR GREEN FIELDS, 1107 BURLINGAME AVENUE;
GOKART RACER, 1541 ADRIAN ROAD; GRANDVIEW RESTAURANT, 1107 HOWARD
AVENUE; HOLA MEXICAN RESTAURANT, 1448 BURLINGAME AVENUE; HYATT
HOTEL, KNUCKLES & ATRIUM, 1333 BAYSHORE BLVD.; IL PICCOLO, 1219
BROADWAY; MATSUSONO, 1150 PALOMA AVENUE; MAX'S OPERA CAFE, 1250
BAYSHORE BLVD.; SHERATON GATEWAY HOTEL, 600 AIRPORT BLVD.; TOWLES
CAFE, 1401 BURLINGAME AVENUE; 261 CALIFORNIA DRIVE, 261 CALIFORNIA
DRIVE
CA Anderson requested Council hold a public hearing and review the existing amusement permits ready for
June renewal and renew those amusement permits for a 12-month period. The amusement permits are for the
following establishments: American Bull Restaurant, Behan's Irish Pub, Burlingame Station Brewery,
California Bar and Grill, Caribbean Gardens, Crowne Plaza Hotel, Dollarwise/Hobby Unlimited, El Tonto,
Faudorin Restaurant, Four Green Fields, Go-Kart Racer, Grandview Restaurant, Hola Mexican Restaurant,
Hyatt Hotel, Knuckles & Atrium, 11 Piccolo, Matsusono, Max's Opera Cafe, Sheraton Gateway Hotel, and
Towles Cafe. Renewal of permits for six months is recommended for the following establishments: Alibi
Club, Fanny& Alexander, and 261 California Drive. There is one permit cancellation for Dicey Riley's
which is under new ownership.
Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was
closed.
Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve the issuance of amusement permits as recommended for the
above referenced establishments, and revocation of the permit for Dicey Riley's; seconded by Councilman
Galligan, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent).
b. FY 2004-05 BUDGET ADOPTION & GANN LIMIT RESOLUTIONS
FD Nava requested Council hold a public hearing and to adopt the 2004/05 budget and to establish the
2004/05 appropriation limit.
Councilwoman Baylock asked if any parks projects had been deferred until the City knows what effect the
State budget may have on city budgets. FD Nava stated that it is recommended the budget be adopted as
proposed; once there is settlement on the State budget, staff would then present Council with a contingency
plan to include various reduction options, if necessary. Councilwoman Baylock stated she approves the
budget, except she does not support the cut of the crossing guard funding.
2
Burlingame City Council June 21,2004
Unapproved Minutes
Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was
closed.
Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve Resolution#55-2004 adopting the 2004/05 budget;
seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent).
Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve Resolution#56-2004 adopting the 2004/05 appropriation
limit; seconded by Councilman Baylock, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent).
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
The following residents spoke on the Administrative Law Judge's recommendation for PG&E's proposed
Jefferson-Martin transmission line in the Skyline Blvd. area: Lara Lighthouse, 87 Loma Vista Drive; Barbara
Broaddus, 3208 Hillside Lane; Dave Loutzenheiser, 63 Loma Vista Drive; Heidi Ennis, 61 Loma Vista
Drive; Bettina Holquist, 1305 Skyview Drive; Paul Grech, 1315 Skyview Drive; Vincent Cauchi, 131 Loma
Vista Drive; Carol Eejima, 113 Loma Vista Drive; Jaime Gomez, 127 Loma Vista Drive; David Willoughby,
107 Loma Vista Drive.
7. STAFF REPORTS
a. FRESH MARKET RELOCATION
DPW Bagdon requested Council approve the relocation of the Chamber of Commerce-sponsored Fresh
Market from Parking Lot W to Park Road south of Burlingame Avenue for a trial period of one month to
allow time to carefully assess the location before making it permanent. Toilet facilities for this event would
be retained in Parking Lot W.
Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to allow the Chamber of Commerce to temporarily relocate the Fresh
Market from Parking Lot W to Park Road between Burlingame Avenue and the driveways adjacent to the
Post Office and Blockbuster for the month of July; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved by voice
vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent).
b. CONSIDER REINTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE REGARDING EMF EXPOSURES TO
PROVIDE ALTERNATIVE TO DISTANCE STANDARDS
CA Anderson reintroduced an ordinance regarding electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure standards to
provide the alternative of reduction in exposure as well as distance. CA Anderson stated in regards to the
Administrative Law Judge's recommendation on Jefferson-Martin that individuals can submit written
comments to the CPUC which are due by June 28, 2004; and although the decision is scheduled for CPUC's
July 8th Agenda, they may not take action at that time.
Vice Mayor Galligan stated that this new ordinance helps both Trousdale and Skyline residents by putting in
the 2.0 mG limit which is lower than what the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended. Also, this
ordinance includes some of the verbiage from the ALJ's recommendation.
Mayor O'Mahony requested DepCC Mortensen to read the title of the proposed ordinance regarding EMF
exposures to provide alternative to distance standards. Vice Mayor Galligan waived further reading of the
proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent).
Councilman Coffey made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman
Baylock, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent).
3
Burlingame City Council June 21,2004
Unapproved Minutes
Mayor O'Mahony requested DepCC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five
days before proposed adoption.
C. INTRODUCE ORDINANCE TO AMEND DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC AREA PLAN
CP Monroe introduced an ordinance to amend the development fees for public improvements in the Bayfront
Specific Area Plan.
Mayor O'Mahony requested DepCC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance to amend
development fees for public improvements in the Bayfront Specific Area Plan. Vice Mayor Galligan waived
further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved by voice vote, 4-
0-1 (Nagel absent).
Councilman Coffey made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman
Baylock, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent).
Mayor O'Mahony requested DepCC Mortensen to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five
days before proposed adoption.
d. SCHOOL CROSSING GUARD CONTRACT
CM Nantell requested Council provide staff direction on the issuance of contracting for school crossing
guards this year.
Joe Galligan moved to authorize the city manager to enter into a contract with the Burlingame Elementary
School District for the provision of crossing guards i-or the 2004-2005 school year with the following
guidelines:
1. Until such time as city revenues recover, such that we can return our various reserves to the pre-
economic downturn level, the school district should understand that this council does not intend to
approve any contracts for the provision of crossing guards.
2. Proper wording should be included ensuring that if school district is not able to meet it's funding
commitment for the 2004-05 school year the city will not be liable for those costs.
3. Proper wording should be included ensuring that the school district does not become liable for things
that has normally been born by the City.
4. Reiterate that the City will undertake an evaluation of the current eight locations of crossing guards to
see if all eight locations are warranted. Any desire to add additional sites in the future will continue
to be regulated by the City.
Motion was seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent).
On the motion, Councilwoman Baylock suggested that the contract include provisions that the City select the
intersections. Mayor O'Mahony stated that since St. Catherine's provides their own crossing guard program,
they should not be included in the contract.
e. CONSIDER APPOINTMENTS TO THE LIBRARY BOARD
4
Burlingame City Council June 21, 2004
Unapproved Minutes
Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to appoint Katie McCormack and Patricia Toft to the Library Board;
seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent).
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. RESOLUTION#57-2004 ACCEPTING B;URLINGHOME/EASTON SUBDIVISION NOS. 5
AND 7 WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT, PHASE 1
DPW Bagdon recommended Council approve Resolution#57-2004 accepting Burlinghome/Easton
subdivision Nos. 5 and 7 Water Main Replacement :Project, Phase 1.
b. RESOLUTION #58-2004 APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH KENNEDY JENKS CONSULTANTS FOR DESIGN OF SEISMIC RETROFIT OF
MILLS TANK AND ROUTING STUDY FOR MILLS TRANSMISSION WATER MAIN
DPW Bagdon recommended Council approve Resolution#58-2004 approving a professional services
agreement with Kennedy Jenks Consultants for design of seismic retrofit of Mills Tank and routing study for
Mills Transmission Water Main.
C. RESOLUTION #59-2004 APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO AGREEMENT WITH
PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA FOR HOTEL SHOPPER SHUTTLE SERVICES
EXPANDED HOURS
DPW Bagdon recommended Council approve Resolution#59-2004 approving Amendment No. 2 to
agreement with Parking Company of America for hotel shopper shuttle services expanded hours.
d. RESOLUTION #60-2004 APPROVING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES CONTRACT WITH
UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS FOR THE BURLINGAME PARK
SUBDIVISION SEWER REHABILITATION, PHASE 2
DPW Bagdon recommended Council approve Resolution#60-2004 approving the professional services
contract with Underground Construction Managers for the Burlingame Park Subdivision Sewer
Rehabilitation Project, Phase 2.
e. APPROVAL OF PENINSULA CONFLICT RESOLUTION CENTER MEDIATION
SERVICES CONTRACT FOR FY 2004-0:5
FinDir Nava recommended Council approve the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center Mediation Services
contract for FY 2004-05.
f. APPROVAL OF BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PROMOTIONAL
SERVICES CONTRACT FOR FY 2004-05
FinDir Nava recommended Council approve the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce Promotional Services
contract for FY 2004-05.
g. AFFIRM PAYMENT COMMITMENT TO CONSULTANT TO EVALUATE EMF
PROVISIONS OF PROPOSED EMF ORDINANCE
CA Anderson recommended Council approve payment commitment to consultant to evaluate EMF
provisions of EMF ordinance.
5
Burlingame City Council June 21, 2004
Unapproved Minutes
h. WARRANTS & PAYROLL
FD Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants#95414-96003 duly audited, in the amount of
$2,255,563.56 (excluding library checks 95414-95441), Payroll checks #158396-158689 in the amount of
$2,127,281.97 for the month of May 2004.
Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilman Coffey,
approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel absent).
9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City.
10. OLD BUSINESS
Vice Mayor Galligan suggested that the Reagan Book of Remembrance be relocated to the Library because
of the high volume of citizen traffic there and the number of people who may still wish to send messages.
11. NEW BUSINESS
CP Monroe stated that a schedule is now being prepared for processing the Mills/Peninsula Hospital project.
She asked Council if they would be willing to have a joint study session with the Planning Commission to
review the EIR and project before the action hearing. She suggested some time at the end of August. Council
agreed to the joint meeting. The date will be set in the near future.
12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Library, April 27, 2004; Beautification, June 3, 2004; Traffic Safety and
Parking, June 10, 2004; Planning, June 14, 2004
b. Department Reports: Finance, May 2004
c. Letter from Comcast concerning programming .adjustment to the digital music choice services
13. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m. in memory of Pat Abdilla, retired Recreation Secretary
and the mother of City Clerk Ann Musso, and in memory of Kay Morahan, retired Police Dispatcher.
Respectfully submitted,
Doris J. Mortensen
Deputy City Clerk
6
Burlingame City Council June 21,2004
Unapproved Minutes
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
ITEM# 4a
MTG.
DATE 7/19/04
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL suB TE
BY
DATE: July 5. 2004
APPRO
FRoM: Parks& Recreation Director (558--7307) BY
SUBJECT: BURLINGAME GIRLS SOFTBALL UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council receive the report from the
Burlingame Girls Softball President on the 2004 season and tournament results.
BACKGROUND:
Burlingame Girls Softball began in the 1960's under the affiliation with Bobby Sox and switched
to its current format in the early 1980's. In the: past four years,the program has grown to 427
participants.
The program uses Ray Park as its primary site for league play and their annual Father's Day
weekend Billie Sue Tournament,but also uses fields at Burlingame High School and Bayside
Park.
BGS President John Hunter and BGS Boardmember Joe LaMariana will be at the meeting to
update the Council on the progress of the program over the past year.
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
ATTACHMENTS:
None
AGENDA
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT
ITEM# 4b
MT 7/19/04
DATE
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BY
DATE: July 9, 2004 /2!
APPROV +�
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY ��
SUBJECT: JOINT POWERS BOARD / CALTRAIN BROADWAY AND B RRLINGAME AVENUE TRAIN
STATION IMPROVEMENTS City Project No. 9608
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council provide feedback on the planned Broadway and
Burlingame Avenue Train Station improvements which will be presented by Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers
Board (JPB)/Caltrain representatives at the Council meeting.
BACKGROUND: Over the past year, JPB/Caltrain representatives met with City staff to discuss proposed
improvements for the Broadway and Burlingame Avenue train stations(See attached January 27,2004 letter).
The purpose of the project is to improve safety and circulation; reduce gate time and consequently traffic
delays; replace and upgrade platforms and tracks; and provide grade crossing improvements. In addition,
ADA accessibility will be addressed at both stations and at the Morrell Avenue pedestrian crossing. The JPB
is currently completing preliminary plans and will be seeking comments from the community.
BROADWAY STATION: The gate down time at Broadway is significant with approximately 30 minutes
during each 3.5 hour peak period (15% of the rush hour period). The existing train platforms are located
immediately south of the train station and are not ADA accessible. Proposed improvements include staggered
platforms with a new northbound platform on the northeast side of Broadway; extension of the southbound
platform;new pedestrian crossing gates;streetscape sidewalk at the crossing;and fencing between the tracks
and along the right of way perimeter. By allowing trains to stop beyond the Broadway crossing, the new
improvements will reduce the gate down time by about 50%. The existing parking along the east side of the
tracks on California Drive will serve both the north and south bound platforms.
BURLINGAME AVENUE STATION: The existing station has a center island platform between the north
and south main tracks with passenger access across three, unprotected at-grade crossings. Because of this
platform configuration, trains stopping at the station. block both North and South Lanes and create traffic
delays as well as compromise safety. Caltrain is proposing to permanently close South Lane and replace the
street area with approximately six parking stalls. The level of service in the area will not decrease as a result
of this closure according to a traffic study prepared by Korve Engineering for the JPB. All existing leased
parking along the railroad right of way will be converted to parking for Caltrain passengers. A portion of the
parking along West Lane will be used for metered parking by the City. In addition, new fencing will divide
the north and south platforms with streetscape paving at the North Lane pedestrian crossing.Landscaping will
be added on the east side of the tracks across from the train station. There are no changes proposed to the
historic train station.
MORRELL AVENUE CROSSING: The Morrell Avenue pedestrian crossing from California Drive to
Carolan Avenue is unsafe due to cracked pavement, and a poor bridge connection and crossing. Proposed
improvements include replacing the bridge, reconstructing the path to meet accessibility requirements and
adding a pedestrian crossing gate.
OUTREACH SCHEDULE
Caltrain staff is planning to make a public presentation on the proposed improvements in August and in
September,2004.One public meeting will discuss the Broadway station and the other the Burlingame Avenue
station. These meetings will be advertised and notices will be sent to the merchants in the area as well as
posted at the stations. Caltrain staff will then make a second presentation to Council asking for any further
comments prior to completing the construction documents. Construction is scheduled to begin in January,
2005 with completion in June, 2006.
BUDGET: The estimated $11,000,000 cost for the Broadway, Burlingame Avenue, and Morrell Avenue
improvements will be funded by the JPB from existing Measure A monies.The JPB has assumed a City grant
for grade crossing rehabilitation at North Lane,Howard Avenue,and Bayswater Avenue as part of this project.
The City has $136,250 in the existing CIP program for the required grant matching funds.
EXHIBITS: January 27, 2004 letter to Caltrain with staff comments
c: City Clerk, City Manager, City Planner
Al Fung and Bernard Susanto of Caltrain- San Mateo Transportation Authority
Broadway Improvement District merchant group - Ross Bruce (AVR Realty)
Burlingame Avenue Improvement District merchant group - Sam Malouf(Malouf s)
Burlingame Improvement Committee - Stephen Hamilton
Chamber of Commerce - Georgette Naylor
U:\FILES\Staff Reports and council presentations\Caltrain Presentation for station improvements 7-19-04.sr.wpd
2
> 1
AWK
BURI.INGAME
The City of Burlingame
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD CORPORATION YARD
TEL: (650)558-7230 BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 TEL: (650)558-7670
FAX:(650)685-9310 WWW.BURLINGAME.ORG FAX: (650)69&1598
Mr. Bernard Susanto, Senior Engineer January 27,2004
San Mateo County Transit District-JPB/Caltra.in Engineering
1250 San Carlos Avenue - PO Box 3006
San Carlos, CA 94070-1306
Re: City of Burlingame train station improvements CIP 74230
Dear Bernard,
It was a pleasure meeting with you and Al Fun€;to review the proposed improvements to the
Caltrain stations in Burlingame. The City supports the platform relocations for both Broadway
and Burlingame Avenue stations. Staff has a few comments on the proposed improvements we
would like to see incorporated into the final design.
BURLINGAME AVENUE STATION IMPROVEMENTS
Staff has reviewed the proposed improvements at Burlingame Avenue station including closure
of South Lane to extend the platforms. The following summarizes our comments on the proposed
improvements from Burlingame Avenue to Bayswater Avenue.
■ Proposed parking along East and West Lane is partially in existing city right-of-way and
Caltrain right of way. Therefore the city requests a shared parking agreement with Caltrain
for parking stalls along both West and East:Lane.
■ Issue of parking stalls used by car dealership and private building tenants to be
coordinated by Caltrain. The city supports parking for commuters adjacent to the platforms.
■ Traffic study should include peak hours from 2:30 to 3:30 PM school dismissal time.
■ Provide city standard streetscape pedestrian paving (scored colored concrete) for
pedestrian walks and crosswalks at all intersections.
■ Show landscaping with irrigation in parking lots and at platforms.
■ Site improvements to include paving for North Lane, West Lane, and East Lane as part of
grade crossing and parking lot improvements.
■ Show utilities and connections to existing systems for electrical, sewer,water, and storm
drainage. Lighting at the station should reflect the station architecture and city streetscape
standards. In addition revisions to storm drainage are required at the southwest corner of
Bayswater Avenue at the railroad crossing. Currently Caltrain paving revisions at the signal
box block surface flows causing flooding.
■ Disabled accessible pedestrians should not be required to walk in the street and an
accessible path must be provided to the station. All cross walks should have handicap ramps.
Mr. Bernard Susanto, Senior Engineer City of Burlingame train station improvements
San Mateo County Transit District Page 2
■ Include pedestrian safety fencing along the west and east side of the tracks from North
Lane to Oak Grove Avenue. Fencing should be provided along the entire railroad route
through Burlingame.
■ Remove storage facility off Carolan Avenue at corner of North Lane. This area is already
congested and a storage facility would detract from the new improvements in the area.
BROADWAY STATION IMPROVEMENTS
Broadway station improvements include splitting the platforms north and southbound to reduce
gate time at the crossing. The following summarizes our comments from Broadway to Oak
Grove Avenue including the Morrell Avenue pedestrian crossing.
■ Provide current and projected number of pedestrian crossings at Broadway and California
Drive by time of day(peak AM and peak PM)and crossing direction(north, south, east
and west).
■ Include city standard streetscape paving (scored colored concrete)for pedestrian walks
and crosswalks at all intersections including across California Drive to Broadway.
■ Issue of parking stalls used by car dealerships and automobile repair shops should be
coordinated by Caltrain.
■ Complete improvements to parking lot on north side of Broadway with accessible
disabled parking stalls (current proposed stalls appear to have restricted maneuvering).
■ Show landscaping with irrigation system at platforms, and in parking lot north of
Broadway.
■ Include fencing along west and east side of tracks from Broadway to Oak Grove Avenue.
■ Show utilities and connections to existing systems for electrical, sewer,water, and storm
drainage. This includes design of the open storm drainage channel, and station lighting to
reflect city streetscape standards.
■ Coordinate Broadway and California Drive traffic signal revisions with City.
■ Correct on plans pedestrian crossing location at Carmelita Drive intersection.
■ At Morrell Avenue pedestrian crossing show extent of grading work and impacts to
existing vegetation.
PUBLIC RELATIONS
Public outreach will be a critical component in the design and construction of the station
platforms. The following outlines the city's ideas regarding communications with the
community.
■ Present preliminary design with detail site to City Council as early in the process as
possible.
■ Hold public meetings for both train stations after Council review.
■ Provide notification to merchants and residents before and during construction with
meetings, mailings,news releases, and signage.
■ Caltrain shall lead the process for closure of South Lane and coordinate with the affected
stakeholders.
Mr.Bernard Susanto, Senio Engineer City of Burlingame train station improvements
San Mateo County Transit District Page 3
■ Show all temporary construction impacts to streets including construction schedule and
detours.
Thank you for including the city in your design of the Caltrain station improvements. As the
project progresses please provide 25%, 50% and 90%complete plans for City of Burlingame
review. Under separate cover we are forwarding to you the city utility maps and streetscape
standards. Staff looks forward to working with you in the completion of the new and safer
stations. Please call me at 650-558-7240 if you have any questions regarding the above
comments.
Warm regards,
JaiVGomery
Associate Engineer/Landscape Architect
City of Burlingame
C:Public Works Director,Traffic Engineer,City Engineer
U:\FilesWlliance and Caltrain\Caltrain station comments\Summary comments 1-26-04.doc MW January 27,
2004
Proposed Broadway and Burlingame
Station & Grade Crossing Improvements
Presentation to:
Burlingame City Council July 19, 2004
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (PCJPB)
Capital Project Management
Cal► -
1
Overview
Project Purpose
l
Existing Conditions "
'��
"'�"'�' `"h
Now
Proposed Improvements
Schedule
Burlingame Station
Coordination
Public Outreach '
Summary
Questions
''•,,,� �Biu ��,�,w'
� ..� , . Broadway Station
Cal
2
Purpose
Improve traffic circulation
Enhance safety
Eliminate "holdout rule"
Rehabilitate grade crossing
h
surraces
Replace/upgrade outdated w:
platform & track
ti
Rebuild Morrell Ave -i - :
edestrian crossing
p g
(signalize , ADA Compliant)
\ p / Examples of safety improvements
Cal► -
3
OADWAY STATION
r
lkk
"+.,..,.,4.,ice . �� .-:�.•..
M nay
n. �Ilalat .n,
Syy.ry �:rv�My
A
M.
d
w
4
Existing Conditions
Vehicular Traffic Delays
At;14Y1A °: ,
at Broadway Grade
Crossing
r
Train Delays due to
"hnlrl ni it" ri ilr� (r�AntAr
boarding platform)
Safety Concerns
Platforms not fully ADA
accessible
.�...w_�.._.W��.�� _.....�m.�._�...�.....�.�._ �_�.�..�..�..�__.��.w._..�._�N __��_ _ _..Cal►
5
Broadway Grade CrossIng
GATE DOWNTIME IMPACTS ON
BROADWAY GRADE CROSSING (SWE 2001)
TOTAL DELAYS TOTAL DELAYS_ COMBINED TOTAL
TRAIN TYPE DOWNTIME AM PEAK PM PEAK AM AND PM PEAKS
6 - 9:30 4- 7:30
NB LOCAL 2.5 MINUTES 12.5 MINUTES 12.5 MINUTES 25 MINUTES
NB EXPRESS 40 SECONDS 4 MINUTES 40 SECONDS 5 MINUTES
SB LOCAL 50 SECONDS 4 MINUTES 5 MINUTES 9 MINUTES
SB EXPRESS 40 SECONDS 40 SECONDS 3 MINUTES 4 MINUTES
MEET 4 MINUTES 8 MINUTES 12 MINUTES 20 MINUTES
TOTALS 29.5 MINUTES 33.5 MINUTES 63 MINUTES
AM PEAK. 5 NB LOCALS, 6 NB EXPRESS, 5 SB LOCALS, 1 SB EXPRESS, 2 MEETS
PM PEAK: 5 NB LOCALS, 1 NB EXPRESS, 6 SB LOCALS, 4 SB EXPRESS, 3 MEETS
Ca/► .
6
q (�
Existing Conditions
TO 101
INTERCHANGE
f
TO 101
SAN JOSE
ROLLINS AVENUE �� r
3
U
a� a
J
0
LILIGHTFI(TYP) U
AUTO
DEALERSHIP
' CAROLAN AVENUE
CAR WASH EXISTING PENCE l
CBM Puvow
NORTI TO
CROSSING -
�— GATE (T!P) RESTAURANT TO �.
^\ PARKING
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
1.5 MILES TO MIWWAE STATION < 1 MRf TOBURLINGAM�SIAI" _
p3
d
Broadway Station Options
BROADWAY STATION
AR
SUMMY OF COST AND BE 4 OPTIONS
.._____ . _..___ _._.___ __ __ _ . __
GATE DOWNTIME
REDUCTION % ESTIMATED
(EXISTING MINUTES TO SAFETY& OTHER COST TIME TO
OPTION REDUCED MINUTES) BENEFITS ($ MILLION) DELIVER
STATION PLATFORMS _
1 OUTBOARD 20% PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 1.5 15 MONTHS
PLATFORMS (63 to 50) ADAACCESSIBLE
TRAIN OPERATIONS �� �
STATION PLATFORMS
2 STAGGERED 50% PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 5
PLATFORMS (63 to 311 ADAACCFSSIBL F
TRAIN OPERATIONS
TRAFFIC FLOW
3 STATION TRAIN OPERATIONS
CLOSURE WITH 59% PEDESTRIAN ACCESS 0.75 12 MONTHS
MILLBRAE (63 to 26) TRAFFIC FLOW
SHUTTLE
4 GRADE 100% VERY SAFE FOR TRAIN,
SEPARATION (63 to 1-11 0) _ VEHICLES, PEDESTRIANS ? 5 YEARS
ADAACCESSIBLE
BASED ON TOTAL AM/PM PEAK HOUR REDUCTION
* ASSUMES NO FUTURE INCREASE IN CALTRA IN SERVICE
ASSUMES NO TRAFFIC INTERCONNECT ALLOWANCE
**
'PROJECT STUDY REPORT AND PRELIMINARY ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT-$125,000
8
Proposed Improvements
TO 101
INTERCHANGE
i
TO 101
IIS SAN JOSE
ROLLINS AVENUE
3
J
> TRAFFIC
Q pp LIGHT (TYP)
AUTO
DEALERSHIP
CAROLAN AVENUE
ROW FENCE
NEW PED
STAGGERED PLATFORM GATE (TYP.) CAR WASH
CENTER FENCE
�-
CENTER FENCE CROSSING
TOTH SF GATE (TYP) RESTAURANT PLATFORM EXTENS<ON
PLATFORM-- _ SOUTH TO SJ
PARKING —�--
CALIFORNIA AVENUE
a
1.S 111.ES TO MILLBRAE STATION 3 1 MILE TO 641RLINGAME STATION
O
..:..Call
e
9
Proposed Improvements
Staggered platforms, signalized/gated
pedestrian crossing and center fence
Reduction in Broadway Ave. gate downy � � fAlk
time from 63 minutes to 31 minutes ,
Elimination of "hold out" rule =
New/upgraded station amenities (visual
message system, public address system, ` --
lighting, etc.)
Access from Broadway Ave to Platforms
ADA compatible
New landscaping around the new
Northbound platform
Miscellaneous track improvements
Note: No change in service resulting from
this project
Examples of pedestrian crossings
a.
10
ON
slu
a
31A
ON "
gg
t
i
S
k
_ I
a
MW
!7 _ Alie
_ }
{
{,
Existing Conditions
Vehicular traffic delays at
North and South Lanes (train
straddles both North & South
lanes)
Train delays due to "hold out"
rule (center boarding platform)
Safety concerns
Uondition and appearance or
platforms, grade crossings, -MM EM
tracks, parking, and
landscaping; poor drainage
t F
Station not fully ADA
compatible
Parking not convenient to
passengers
Historic Station Depot
12
Existing Conditions
J�
HIGH SCHOOL 2
/ AUTO
m % DEALERSFpP
[G",,'TE`("T"p) CAROLAN AVENUE
N � PARKING
SIDING �
�-
110 1111111 !HHHHHiiii . =11
###
PLATFORM
iii'iiinnnnn
PLATFORM
PARKING i ,g STATION
� PARKING
AUTO / ?
DEALERSHW
TRAINS BLOCK111 \
BOTH STREETS
WHEN STOPPING
llAFFIG
J� SOUTH TO SJ
LIGHT (TYP) �? CALIFORNIA AVENUE -�
Q
1MILE TO BROADWAY STATIGN ;�
JI
Cal
13
Proposed Improvements
(station area only shown here)
,w
HON SCHOOL 47,
/ v ,WTO
�J4 DEALERSHIP /
GATE (TYP) CAROLAN AVENUECLOSE SOUTH LANE �o
NEW CROSSING SURFACE "--
PARKING � O
NEW PLATFORM CENTER FENCE
---EIfISIING SLA ----�
REHAB
PARKING NEW PC Q� STATION PLATFORM ��CLOSE SOUTH LANE �EXTENFSIIOON NEW PED
GATE (TYP.) 4,/ — GATE (TYP.)
Z
AUTO
DEALERSHIP �
a
NORTH TO SF
� TRAFFIC
SOUTH_ TO SJ
( -
LIGHT TYP) �2 CALIFORNIA AVENUE
Q
1 NILE TO BROADWAY STATION
J�v
m
Cal
14
Traffic Circulation
Summary of Level of Service Analysis-
With CTX Improvements and South Lane Closure
Accounting for Gate Down Delay. Counts taken 9/2002
Intersection LOS
(average delay per vehicle in seconds)
Intersection Peak
Hour With South Lane
Existing With CTX Closure and CTX
Improvement Only Improvement
North Ln / Carolan Ave AM B (12.0) B (12.0) A (6.7)
PM B (12.9) B (12.9) A (7.0)
South Ln / Carolan Ave AM D (29.0) D (29.0) (South Lane Closed)
PM D (27.9) D (27.9)
Howard Ave/ Carolan Ave AM B (14.2) A (8.4) A (8.7)
PM C (15.3) A (9.1) A (9.2)
North Ln /California Dr AM A (9.5) A (9.5) A (4.7)
PM A (7.2) A (7.2) A (4.7)
South Ln / California Dr AM A (2.8) A (2.8) (South Lane Closed)
PM A (2.9) A (2.9)
Howard Ave / California Dr AM B (13.1) B (12.4) B (12.5)
PM B (14.2) B (13.4) B (13.6)
Cal► dr
15
ProposedStatlon Improvements
a Outboard platforms with new center track fence & signalized/gated
pedestrian crossings at North Lane and Howard Avenue
_. Reduction in gate down time
North Lane: 125 minutes to 69 minutes
Howard Ave: 95 minutes to 67 minutes
_ Elimination of "hold out rule
Station platform revitalization with custom shelters compatible with
historic station building. improved aesthetics in station area,
streetscape improvements at North Lane, landscaping between
North and South Lanes
• New/upgraded Station Amenities (visual message system, public
address system, lighting)
Track work improvements; eliminate abandoned spur track, extend
set out track (Oak Grove to North Lane), misc. track work
ADA Compatible
Cal►
16
Proposed Additional Improvements
it)
Grade Crossing Surface Improvements
North Lane
Bayswater Avenue
Closure of South Lane
Morrell Ave Pedestrian Crossing (signalized/gated; ADA
compatible)
nminanA ImnrnyPment-q
North Lane & Howard Ave as part of station construction
Bayswater, Peninsula, Villa Terrace and East Bellevue connected
to City's storm drain system
Trackside drainage both sides from Howard Ave to East Bellevue
Improved parking layouts to accommodate Caltrain passengers
(East Lane)
Shared Caltrain/City of Burlingame parking with reconfigured
parking (West Lane — approximate 45 spaces total; shared 50%)
Calt-
17
Revised Parking Layout
t
m.
rcrncr! mutM®+it! ��. EAST L-1,NE
�r�ru esieums � •d
�.�
is nr.Ntkri
ERTY
-
Or
Novo
w
Y
e• ,
l�
41 TZ,
a
r - a
Cal►
18
Proposed Schedule
(Broadway & Burlingame)
Council Presentation July 2004
Community Meetings (2) July/Aug 2004
Final Council Presentation Sept 2004
nocinn rnmnlA+inn nAG ?nna
Construction
.� Broadway — Approx. 6 months
_. Burlingame — Approx. 10 months
19
Coordination
Permanent closure of South Lane
Revised parking layouts at Station
Traffic signal coordination
Streetscape design at North Lane
Drainage tie ins
Lease modifications
Temporary street closures during
construction
Noise/dust from construction activities
(night/weekend work)
South Bay Historic Preservation Officer
Public process
20
Public Process
City Council Presentation
Design/Issue discussions
■ Community Meetings (2)
❑ Receive and Address comments
Final City Council Presentation
Incorporate appropriate findings
� Construction
Public notifications
21
Summary
Overall improvement in traffic circulation
Completion of two (2) grade crossings in Burlingame
North Lane and Bayswater Ave.
Upgraded station aesthetics
Outboard Platforms
Reduction in vehicular gate down time
Ir r%r/]n01nl1 nneonnnar cafah/
I I\JI %JuvlJu Fc.A 1.1V%.II .�j1./1 V...I V%.7
Eliminate Hold Out Rule improving train transit times
New/enhanced Platform Amenities (Visual Message System,
Public Address System, Lighting)
Morrell Ave pedestrian crossing signalized and ADA
compatible
New/rehabilitated tracks and other misc. track
improvements
Improved drainage at Caltrain crossings
22
Before & After
<
"!mr�
a
Redwood City Redwood City
r�
fr ��
tr
3v:n
`M
Haumrd Park HqYG11ard..P I,._--.-_.-_..—- ,
23
Enhanced Safety
Ito#
R
Examples: Pedestrian
Crossings at Redwood City
. f
s
k i
7
�� - = 24
CITY c AGENDA 5a
ITEM#
BIJRL,NGAIME MTG.
STAFF REPORT
DATE 7/19/2004
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council _ SUBMIT7_�
BY __
DATE: July 13, 2004 APPROVE
BY
FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney
SUBJECT: -
CONSIDER APPROVAL OF AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR 221 PARK ROAD COCKTAIL
LOUNGE
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider amusement permit for 221 Park Road for disc jockey and karaoke from 3:00 p.m. to 1:30 a.m., seven
nights a week and video machine for six-month period.
DISCUSSION:
Dicey Riley's Irish Pub formerly occupied 221 Park Road. The new owner, Mark Botto, has renamed the
location as 221 Parload Cocktail Lounge and would. like to offer disc jockey and karaoke entertainment. N is
not currently offering any entertainment on Sunday, Monday or Tuesday.
During the past year, there have been few calls at the establishment. Dicey Riley's also had few complaints.
The Police Department is recommending approval with standard conditions with a six-month review.
Attachment
Permit application from 221 Park Road
Proposed conditions for amusement permit
Distribution
Chief of Police
City Planner
Mark Botto
The City ct uUtlingame
°"l�un"M- Amusement Dermit Application
"y Qefks/voice • 'An /Y,mrose hii��
head IDvmUk e, Imm - WWI s9fp-lm
^�
NAME OF BUSINESS: A //P l '
STREET ADDRESS: 2Z I �A%� S/ Z' /
MAILING ADDRESS:
TELEPHONE NUMBER: (/So ) 3y W51
APPLICANT'S FULL NAME: 'o /G/ti /D-/h - OG✓i`-!/
/ (OWNER OR LOCAL MANAGER)
STREET ADDRESS: o st 04t- 74- 1-�_ ne'd,.nod 61 /A 1 gOi'2-
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
PREVIOUS ADDRESS(IF LESS THAN ONE YEAR):
DAT OF BIRTH SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER DRIVERS LICENSE NUMBER
PROPERTY OWNER'S FULL NAME(IF DIFFERENT):
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NUMBER:
As property owner,I Imow about the proposed amusemen4 and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application.
SIGNATURE DATE
PRIMARY TYPE OF BUSINESS:
HOURS OF OPERATION r / PARKING SPACES ON SITE
AMUSEMENT DEVICES,NUMBER,AND TYPE: o ab L{� .TU,FydoX,� ( Grit .(/) //
(I)
RESTRICTIONS ON USE,AGE,HOURS:
ENTERTAINMENT(BRIEF DESCRIPTION): 4�A,4-,/ ��ti'd'/w"•� -I/CYC /rt�iL
DESCRIBE ANY OTHER RESTRICTIONS AND SECURITY MEASURES:
Attach a letter further describing details of your business and the proposed amusement. Return this completed form with
$100 check,payable to City of Burlingame,for application fee to the City Clerk. You will be notified when the application
is on the City Council agenda.
Signature of Applicant Date
PROPOSED CONDITIONS FOR AMUSEMENT PERMIT FOR
221 PARK ROAD COCKTAIL LOUNGE, 221 PARK ROAD
Permit allows: Disc jockey and karaoke from 3:00 p.m. to 1 :30 a.m., seven days a week.
1 . Admission to the establishment shall be limited to adults 21 years of age or older.
2. Any violations of the law or threatened violations shall be immediately reported to the Police Department and
full cooperation shall be given by employees and management of the business.
3. No variance from the permitted entertainment shall occur without obtaining an amendment to the permit.
4. No part of the business shall be subleased without notification to the Police Department.
5. The amusement permit shall be non-transferable.
6. Any fight, ejection of customer, thefts from customers, or any other criminal act occurring at or in the
establishment or in adjacent Parking Lot M shall be reported to the Burlingame Police as soon as any
establishment employee or security personnel is aware of such an incident.
7. Any request by anyone in the establishment for an employee or security personnel to contact the Police shall be
honored immediately, without question.
8. Labor Code Section 6404.5 regulating smoking shall be enforced at all times.
9. The establishment shall ensure that patrons in line to enter do not obstruct either the public sidewalk or the public
street.
10. Any advertising of the entertainment shall conform to the requirements of the City Sign Code.
11 . Last call for alcohol service before closing shall be no later than 1 :20 a.m. on nights when entertainment is
offered and no alcohol shall be served after 1 :30 a.m. on those nights.
13. No minors shall be allowed on the premises at any time that the establishment is open for business.
14. Any loudspeakers for the business shall be directed toward the interior of the business; and
The business shall not violate Section 10.40.020 of the Burlingame Municipal Code; and
The entertainment shall not be audible outside the premises; and
Upon request by the City, the establishment shall conduct noise measurements to determine whether the noise
from the establishment is exceeding the 5 dBA standard for increases in noise from the baseline as provided
in the Burlingame General Plan, and shall report the measurements to the City; and
The establishment shall ensure that the 5 dBA standard is not exceeded.
15. The business shall provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of the
business, and upon closing each evening that entertainment is offered, the business shall pick up all litter in front
of the business.
The decision of the Council is a final administrative decision pursuant to the Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. If
anyone wishes to challenge the decision in a court of competent jurisdiction, they must do so within 90 days of the date
of the decision unless a shorter time is required pursuant to state or federal law.
S
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA 5b
ITEM#
MTG.
DATE 7.19.04
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BY
DATE: JULY 12, 2004
APPROVED
FROM: CITY PLANNER BY
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND DEVELO ENT FEES FOR PUBLIC
IMPROVEMENTS IN THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on the ordinance to amend the Bayfront
Development Fee. The Bayfront Development Fee fiinds public roadway improvements in the Bayfront
Specific Plan area (east side of U.S. 101). If approved this change to the Bayfront Development Fee would be
come effective in 60 days (September 17, 2004).
Environmental Review:
In adoption the 2004 Bayfront Specific Plan the city also adopted Negative Declaration ND-531P, on which
the statute of limitations has run. This environmental document covers the impacts caused by adopting the
Bayfront Development fee; however, each of the future projects to be built using the fees collected will
require its own environmental review.
General Plan Compliance:
On April 5, 2004, the City Council approved the Bayfront Specific Plan and amended it to the Burlingame
General Plan. At that time the Implementation Program, including the Bayfront Development Fee, its
proportional distribution between the city and developers, the annual indexing and the list of improvements
and their estimated cost in 2004 dollars, were also amended to the General Plan. Since the proposed fees are
based on the proposals in the adopted plan, this action adopting new fees is consistent with the City of
Burlingame General Plan.
Planning Commission Action:
In February the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that they adopt the Bayfront Specific
Plan amendment to the Burlingame General Plan. The Commission recommendation included the
development of a number of roadway and intersection improvements which constitute the implementation
program for the Bayfront plan. The first step in implementing the plan is the adoption of the ordinance which
adjusts the present fees to cover the additional roadway improvements included in the amended Bayfront plan.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council adopted the 2004 Bayfront Specific;Plan, an update of the 1981 Bayfront/Anza Area
Specific Area Plan, on April 5, 2004. Like the 1981 Bayfront/Anna Plan before it, the 2004 Bayfront Specific
ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND DEVELOPMENT.FEES FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE BAYFRONT
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA JULY 19,2004
Plan implementation program is based on a Bayfront Development Fee. However, the 2004 plan identifies a
new set of improvements to be funded with the fee. As a result of the different list and the cost of these
improvements the associated fee has increased. The new implementation program is based on the same
funding match, 60% city/public and 40% developer that was used for the 1981 Bayfront Development Fee.
A development fee must be rooted in an identified list of projects, adopted as a part of the General Plan. For
the Bayfront Development Fee the list can be found in the implementation chapter of the adopted 2004
Bayfront Specific Plan (page VII-3) and includes the fc)llowing projects:
Airport Boulevard Bridge Reconstruction(Sanchez Creek)
Airport Boulevard Widening (including bicycle lanes. transition with future Broadway interchange,
new signals at Broadway interchange, as well as curb, gutter, sidewalk, undergrounding utilities,
paving, median construction and landscaping)
Bayshore Highway Median Reconstruction
The total estimated cost for these improvements estimated in 2004 dollars in the Bayfront Specific Plan is
$8,295,000. The base of the Bayfront Development Fee now needs to be adjusted inorder to raise from future
developers in the Bayfront area, 40 percent of the cost of these identified improvements.
As with the original Bayfront Development Fee, the fire is based on p.m. peak hour trip generation by land
use. The Traffic Analyzer, updated as a part of the amended plan, provides the underlying trip generation by
land use data for these fees. The new proposed fees are as follows:
Office use $1,852 per thousand square feet
Restaurant $7,458 per thousand square feet
Hotel $607 per guest room
Hotel, Extended Stay $590 per guest room
Office/Warehouse/Manufacturing $2,808 per thousand square feet
Retail-Commercial $6,818 per thousand square feet
Car Rental $43,268 per acre of property in use
Commercial Recreation $13,428 per acre of property in use
All Other 51,492 per p.m. peak hour trip as determined by a traffic
study approved by the City
It should be noted that the number of land uses allowed in the Bayfront area in the 2004 Bayfront Specific
Plan is greater than those allowed in the 1981 plan. The following new uses and fees for them were added:
extended stay hotel, office/warehouse/manufacturing (mixed use), retail commercial, car rental, and a general
category for all other uses which would include interim uses. The 1981 Bayfront plan anticipated the
construction of$2,000,000 (total cost)worth of circulation improvements, including the Anza/101 bridge,
with developers responsible for 40% of the cost of each identified improvement. The 2004 plan anticipates
the construction of $8,295,000 worth of improvements. Even though the developers are responsible for only
40% of this total expenditure, the base amount allocated to developers is greater than in 1981, so the cost per
trip has increased and thus the individual fees by land use type have increased.
Because the 1981 Bayfront Specific Area Plan was intended to be implemented over an extended period of
time, the implementing ordinance provides for the indexing the Bayfront Development Fee to the annual
increase in the cost of living. The new fee is proposed, like the current fee, to be indexed on the construction
cost index published in the Engineering News Recora'as of July V of each year. The City Engineer provides
ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE TO AMEND DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE BAYFRONT
SPECIFIC PLAN AREA JULY 19,2004
the Planning Department a new, adjusted fee schedule ,annually in July. The ordinance amendment is written
to provide for this annual adjustment automatically.
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Development Fees for Public Improvements in the Bayfront
Specific Plan Area
2004 Bayfront Specific Plan, Implementation Chapter, adopted April 5, 2004
z
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan
Plan Implementation
VII. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION
Specific Plans are unique planning documents. The Specific Plan lies between the broad policy of
the General Plan and the regulatory specifics of zoning. The development policy of the Specific
Plan is focused on the attributes and community,needs of a given geographic area within a city. It is
the implementation section of the Specific Plan which sets out the manner in which the proposals of
the specific plan are integrated with both the General Plan and with the zoning.
To make the integration of the Bayfront Specific Plan work, it must be amended to the General
Plan,particularly the land use section. Because State law requires consistency between the General
Plan and its implementing zoning,the existing zoning regulations and the design guidelines for the
area also must be amended. Finally,the adopted plan establishes community standards for the
various environmental factors which affect the planning area. The implementation required for
each of these areas is addressed below.
General Plan
The adoption of the Bayfront Specific Plan is an.amendment to the land use element of the General
Plan. By adopting the Goals and Policies of the Bayfront Specific Plan,the plan will become the
overlaying statement of the city's development policy for the Bayfront Area. The land use
designations and densities of development set out for each subarea will become the guiding
expression of planned land use densities for each subarea. These land use densities are set out by
subarea within the Bayfront Planning Area in Chapter III—Bayfront Land Use Plan. Finally,the
community standards for various environmental conditions will be established as if they were
incorporated into the General Plan.
Zoning
The C-4 Waterfront Commercial and O-M Office Manufacturing zoning district regulations guide
the specifics of development in the Bayfront Planning Area. With the adoption of the plan these
zoning district regulations will need to be amended in order to implement the directions established
by the plan. For example,new land use densities will need to be established for each zoning
-subarea with differing standards of performance and site development; overlay zones within areas
will have to be established to facilitate the types of uses and development promoted by the planned
overlay designation;in some cases regulations for new land uses,not now present in the area may
need to be developed.
Design Guidelines
The updating of the Bayfront Specific Plan also includes thefine tuning of the design guidelines
which have guided development in this areasince1981; as well as incorporating formally into the
plan the jointly prepared and adopted Bay Conservation and Development(BCDC,January 1982)
guidelines which address development within the first 100 feet along all of the City's water
frontages which are within BCDC jurisdiction.
Because of the differing character and environments of each of the Subareas within the planning
area, the design guidelines have been refined by subarea(see Chapter N—Design Guidelines).
City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan V11-1 General Plan
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan
Plan Implementation
Compliance with the updated guidelines will be included,as a conditional use in the zoning
ordinance as is the case with the current Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan. The BCDC shoreline
design guidelines are not proposed to be revised,but will be adopted as a formal part of the
Bayfront Specific Plan and will continue to be a conditional use in the zoning requirements
throughout the Bayfront Planning Area. The BCDC guidelines address each of the types of water
frontage individually,striving for consistency of public access facilities, setbacks and building
sitings by the type and importance of the individual water frontage. With adoption of the Bayfront
SAP,the BCDC guidelines will be formally adopted into the city's plan and policy.
Roadway and Circulation Implementation
The Bayfront Specific Plan sets out a plan to provide incentives to attract development on the east
side of Burlingame which will make a major contribution to the city's revenue base,will cost less
for the city to provide services to than the revenue generated,and will be a destination for visitors
and city residents alike. To accomplish this, the plan links the variety of land uses and their
densities to the capacity of the roadway system in the area. A traffic model,the Traffic Analyzer,
which is based on existing and proposed land uses and densities of development is the instrument
used to determine the impact of each proposed development on the circulation system(see
Appendix E for the Traffic Analyzer). A Bayfront Development Fee is charged to each
development ba.sed.on its measured effect on the circulation system.The funds raised are combined
with city funds to make improvements to portions of the circulation system which are identified as
becoming constricted due to ongoing development in the area. Thus the Traffic Analyzer becomes
an incentive developers in the area by insuring that an acceptable level access to their property and
investment will be maintained.
On June 18, 1979 the Burlingame City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1151,Establishing
Development Fees for Road Improvements. The development fees are to be paid one-half at the
time of planning application for the project and one-half before final framing inspection is
scheduled. When a proposed project exceeds the:traffic allocation to thesite established by the
proposed densities,applicants will follow a procedure requiring council review of available
capacity,before making formal application and;paying the first installment of the required
development fee. Development fees for new land uses and changes in the present fees must be
adopted by ordinance.
Bayfront development fees are based on trip generation by land use. New fees will be developed
and adopted based on the revised list of improvements noted above.
Current fees(2004)based on the list of improvements developed with the 1981 plan are as follows:
Office $1,720.00 per thousand square feet of building
Restaurants $5,427.00 per thousand square feet of building
Hotels $387.00 per room
Office/Warehouse $984.00 per thousand square feet of building
Car Rental $12,633 per acre
Commercial Recreation $9,472.00 per acre;
City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan VII-2 General Plan
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan
Plan Implementation
The Bayfront Development Fees are indexed based on the construction cost index published in
Engineering News Record as of July I't of each:year. The formula used to determine the annual
index adjustment is:
%change = 2002 Index—2001 Index
2001 Index
The roadway and circulation enhancing projects identified as necessary to implementation of the
updated plan and to be funded with the Bayfront:Development Fee include the following(see
Chapter IV—Traffic and Circulation for a description of these projects):
Airport Boulevard curve realignment
Airport Boulevard median reconstruction/site access plan
Airport Boulevard bridge widening, Sanchez Channel
Transition between New Broadway Interchange and Airport Boulevard
Airport Boulevard Bicycle Lanes
Bayshore Highway median reconstruction/site access plan
Local Roadway Signalization Required with Realignment of Broadway Interchange
The fee ordinance for transportation improvements is the most important part of the Bayfront SAP
implementation program because the level of development proposed in the SAP is dependent on the
provision of these improvements.
The cost of building the roadway and circulation improvements required for plan implementation
and described above(for detailed description,see Chapter IV Traffic and Circulation)has been
estimated as follows:
Airport Boulevard Bridge Reconstruction (Sanchez Channel) $800,000
Airport Boulevard Widening $5,445,000
(includes Bicycle Lanes,transition with the future Broadway
interchange,new signals at Broadway interchange, as well as
curb, gutter, sidewalk,undergrounding utilities,paving,
median construction and landscaping)
Bayshore Highway Median Reconstruction $2,050,000
Total Costs for Roadway Improvements $8,295,000
When the fee is updated based on the above list of projects, the Bayfront Development fee will raise
only 40 percent of the required$8,295,000.00 to complete all the roadway and circulation
improvements. The 40 percent is based on the present City policy of developers' contributions for
projects in the Burlingame Avenue Off-Street Parking District and on the original formula
established for the Bayfront fee.
Phasing,Transitional Uses, and Roadway Capacity Timing
Phasing: No specific time line for accomplishing the Bayfront Specific Plan is proposed. One of
the particular assets of the current Bayfront Plan has been the stability of city policy and clear
expectations for developers which the plan provided for two decades of rapid development and
City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan VII-3 General Plan
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan
Plan Implementation
expansion on the San Francisco Peninsula. ThLs experience leads to the idea that the timing of
review and update of the plan should be based on changes in the local economy, demands for new '
types of land uses, and other now unanticipated development pressures,not on a given time frame.
Transitional Uses: In 2003 much of the Bayfront Planning Area is developed.The original Bayfront
Specific Plan established a planning framework which guided much of the build out of the
Shoreline,Anza Extension and Anza Areas. However,much of the Inner Bayshore and some of the
Anza Point Area's development occurred before:the adoption of the original Burlingame Bayfront
Specific Plan. These areas still contain nonconforming uses and development which will take time
to phase out. Several larger in-fill sites remain in the Bayfront Planning Area as well. Since the
cycles of development for many of the preferred uses identified in the revised plan have become
elongated in the current economic climate, it is important to make provision in the plan for
transitional or interim uses.
It is consistent with the goals and implementing policies of the Bayfront Specific Plan to allow
lower intensity transitional or interim land uses which serve a regional need. These interim uses
should comply with the underlying implementation requirements so that the planning area continues
to be attractive for the preferred long-term uses identified in the plan. Such underlying
implementation requirements include: traffic generation limitations, consistency with the design
guidelines adopted for the subarea, and provision of basic public access improvements along all
water frontages as approved by BCDC. A use shall be determined to be transitional or interim if it
is found to be compliant with the plan implementation requirements, found by the Planning
Commission to be consistent with the intent of the Bayfront plan and not in conflict with the long
term goals and policies of the adopted Specific Plan. The transitional interim use would be allowed
by a conditional use permit for a specific period of time.
Transitional or interim uses should generate fewer p.m. peak hour trips than the highest number of
peak hour trips from the highest trip generating land use allowed on the site so that they do not
cause impacts on the circulation system beyond what was anticipated by build out of the area.
Bayfront Development Fees paid by transitional or interim uses should be used at the location(s)in
most need of improvement at the time the transitional or interim use is proposed. A full Bayfront
Development Fee should be charged to the permanent land use at the time it is proposed for the site.
Roadway Capacity Timing: Accessibility is a fitndamental requirement to attract the kind of
development which will support the city's revenue base. In order to provide incentive to attract the
types of development projected in the Bayfront,Specific Plan,it is important to insure optimum
roadway and transportation access to and through the planning area. This includes access to San
Francisco International Airport and to the region serving freeways and mass transit services. The
Traffic Analyzer insures that land use densities and local serving roadway intersection capacity will
be coordinated.. However,the coordination of roadway improvements to address development in
the various Subareas is also critical to maintaining accessibility. For this reason the Traffic
Analyzer is based on a model of the entire area which will identify the specific locations where a
proposed development will impact the system. Bayfront Development Fee expenditures shall be
prioritized on the basis of relieving the most constricted roadway/intersection locations in the
overall circulation system first.
City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan VII-4 General Plan
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan
Plan Implementation
Environmental Review
Planning for the Bayfront Area of Burlingame begins with an evaluation of its environment(see
Chapter VI—Development Framework and Community Standards). No place in the city is the
evaluation of the environment more important in establishing a framework for development than in
the Bayfront Planning Area. From the series of environmental studies used to evaluate the area, a
set of community environmental standards has been established. Adopting the Bayfront SAP will
add these community environmental standards to the General Plan; and they will be the bench
marks for determining the impact of all future development within the Bayfront Planning Area.
Review of Future Projects: Any new development proposed in the Bayfront Area will be
evaluated based on the environmental benchmarks,design guidelines and density limitations
contained in the plan. If a project does not comply with each and every standard established in the
plan,it will require further environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental
Act, and may even require an amendment to the Specific Plan. The following are a summary of the
benchmarks established by the Plan.
o Community Standards For Wind Impacts
In order to preserve the wind resource for recreational users including windsurfers and to
improve the wind environment on the Bay Trail,pedestrian pathways and in useable open
spaces and parking lots near large buildings, standards should be applied to evaluate changes in
wind speed caused by new construction. The:following standards shall be considered for all
new development in the portions of the Bayfi-ont Planning Area described below.
All Areas:
• The community standard to be achieved by wind evaluations required below shall be that the
wind reduction caused by a structure shall reduce the wind speeds compared to existing
conditions by no more than 10% at irreplaceable windsurfing launching and landing sites,or
reduce wind speed by no more than I Mover large portions of the windsurfing transit routes
or primary board sailing areas.
• In the evaluation of wind impacts as they relate to hazardous wind conditions in the
pedestrian and open space environment,the structures shall result in an increase in wind
speed and turbulence in areas adjacent to the buildings of no more than 10%compared to
existing conditions.
• On properties along the shoreline,types of landscaping that can materially affect wind
speeds should be discouraged.
• In order to have a minimal impact on wind in the nearby Bay,planting of trees along the
Bay trails should be minimized and guided by the impact on the wind of the trees at
maturity.
• Within parks and open space areas away iiom the water, small structures and landscaping
should be used to reduce winds and provide protected areas.
Shoreline Area:
• For any building 80 feet tall or more,a wind analysis should be prepared to evaluate the
potential wind effects on bay recreation.
City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan V71-5 General Plan
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan
Plan Implementation `
• The wind analysis should also include evaluation of wind impacts as they relate to
hazardous wind conditions in the pedestrian and open space environment adjacent to these
buildings.
Anza Area:
• For any building 65 feet tall or higher in any area within 400 feet of the north facing
shoreline,a wind analysis should be prepared to evaluate the potential wind effects on bay
recreation.
• The wind analysis should also include evaluation of wind impacts as they relate to
hazardous wind conditions in the pedestrian and open space environment adjacent to these
buildings.
Anza Point Area:
• For buildings 50 feet tall or higher, a wired analysis should be prepared to evaluate the
potential wind effects to bay recreation.
• The wind analysis should also include evaluation of wind impacts as they relate to
hazardous wind conditions in the pedestrian and open space environment adjacent to these
buildings.
• Because the area is surrounded by water on three sides,wind considerations should take
precedence over bay views in placing of buildings. Buildings should be low rise and
clustered to minimize the impacts on wind speed over open water and shoreline areas.
• Development should provide some sheltered passive public open spaces visually connected
to the Bay Trail. ->
o Community Standards for Biological Resources
The only major biological constraints to development in the planning area are the jurisdictional
waters of the drainages and tidelands of San Francisco Bay. The following are standards to be
considered for future development in the Bayfront Planning Area:
■ Because it provides important habitat for wildlife and may be used by special-status species
such as California clapper rail and saltmarsh common yellowthroat,among others,the 20-
acre marshland at the west end of Burlingame Lagoon where Sanchez Creek passes under
US 101 shall be preserved.
■ Given their limited extent and importance to wildlife, any disturbance or modification to the
existing marshlands(Figure VI-7)throughout the planning area should be avoided.
■ Efforts should be made to restore and expand brackish and salt marsh in suitable areas.
■ Any disturbance to potential jurisdictional waters, including the creek and drainage channels
and shoreline of the bay and lagoons,would require authorization from the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers and could require consultation with the U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.
■ The current use of blue gum eucalyptus in Bayside Park for seasonal nesting by raptors or
communal roosting by herons and egrets should be taken into account in any future planning
for the park.
■ Because there is the potential that the two vacant parcels in the Anza Area may have
seasonal freshwater marsh wetlands,further detailed surveys shall be required prior to
development to determine whether jurisdictional wetlands occur on these parcels.
City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan VII-6 General Plan
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan
Plan Implementation
❑ Community Standards for Noise Impacts
• Exterior Noise: The FAA identifies noise sensitive lands(i.e.residences, schools,parks,
churches, etc.)within the 65 CNEL contour to be incompatible with aircraft noise. Land
uses that are compatible within the 65 CNEL generally include commercial and industrial
uses. Development of the above-noted sensitive uses should be discouraged within the
adopted 65 CNEL Noise Contour for San Francisco International Airport, including the
areas affected by the proposed runway expansion project and U.S. 101.
• Interior Noise: Noise attenuating construction techniques shall be used for noise sensitive
uses to reduce interior noise levels to acceptable standards(45 dBA).
• . Land uses in the planning area shall not increase noise levels at the property line by more
than 5dBA, and in proximity to residential uses,by more than 3dBA.
❑ Community Standards for Geological Impacts
In order to reduce impacts related to the geology, earthquake hazards, flooding and erosion, the
following community standards should be applied to all new development:
• buildings shall be placed on pile supported foundations with flexible utility connections.
• hard or impervious surfaces shall be placed on a flexible base.
• any new facilities shall be installed according to the standards of the City of Burlingame
Public Works Department and California Building Code Editions in effect at the time a
building permit is issued.
• the first floor for any proposed building shall be built at an elevation of 10 feet above mean
sea level (+10' MSL), with no occupied areas below elevation 10' MSL to address the
possibility of flooding.
• for properties adjacent to the bay shoreline,the site shall be evaluated to determine if slope
stabilization or other erosion control measures should be done to prevent future erosion of
the bay edge.
• In order to ensure that the public access areas adjacent to the bay edge are not subject to
tidal flooding,the height of the shoreline protection structure shall be at least+8 feet MSL
or as determined necessary to deter tidal flooding by the City Engineer.
'❑ Community Standard for Airport Related Height and Safety Constraints
In order to ensure compliance with the FAA height and safety standards,the following
community standards shall apply to any new development in the planning area.
• Any new development shall be reviewed to determine compliance with the height limits
shown in the San Francisco International Airport Land Use Plan ,per Federal Aviation
Regulations Part 77 (see Figures VI-10 and VI-11).
• Any new development shall comply with the FAA standards for safety regarding flashing
lights,reflective material,uses which attract a large concentration of birds, and uses which
would generate electrical interference affecting aircraft communications or aircraft
instrumentation.
❑ Water Supply
Any residential project proposing more than_500 dwelling units;retail project with more than
500,000 SF of floor space;commercial office building with more than 250,000 SF of floor area;
City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan V11-7 General Plan
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan
Plan Implementation
industrial project with more than 650,000 SF of floor area;or any other project which would
demand an amount of water equivalent to or greater than a 500 dwelling unit project is subject
to the requirements of Senate Bill 610 and Senate Bill 221. These senate bills require a water
assessment be prepared to verify that a sufficient water supply is available to meet project and
cumulative demand in normal, single and multi-dry years for 20 years.
❑ Density Standards
Any new development shall comply with the density standards outlined in Chapter IV, Land
Use.
❑ Design Guidelines
Any development proposal shall be consistent with the Design Guidelines as outlined in Chapter
V,Design Guidelines.
Environmental Analysis of the Plan: Because of the physical orientation of the area on the east
side of US 101 in Burlingame and the varying way in which different portions of the Bayfront
Planning Area are affected by environmental factors,the planning area was divided into five
Subareas: Based on the uniqueness of each subarea,the Bayfront SAP evaluates the environment of
the whole area, leaving the site specific analysis to each project when development is proposed.
Because the environmental analysis concluded that 1)based on the fact that the land use densities
generated from the traffic model caused the proposed uses to fit within the circulation system given
the nine proposed circulation improvements; and 2)because when compared to the existing
Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan, the overall incremental increases in environmental impact were
the same or less; a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared for the update of the Bayfront ;
Specific Plan. The Mitigated Negative Declaration includes by reference the environmental
document prepared for the original Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan(adopted on May 4; 1981).
The Mitigated Negative Declaration analysis also addresses the changes generated by the revised
plan and therefore takes precedence. Given the Mitigated Negative Declaration, all future
development proposed for the area will be required to complete a project related environmental
review which may require an Environmental Impact Report.
City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan VII-8 General Plan
I ORDINANCE NO.
2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING DEVELOPMENT
FEES FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS IN THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC
3 PLANNING AREA
4
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
5
6
Section 1. In 1979, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1151 establishing
7
development fees for the Bayfront area of the City. Ordinance No. 1151 was subsequently
8
amended by Ordinance No. 1305 (1985) to better delineate the necessary fees. The City has
9
now adopted a new Bayfront Specific Plan to guide the development and improvement of the
10
Bayfront area. This ordinance is intended to update the fee schedule and to amend Ordinance
11
Nos. 1151 and 1305 to update references.
12
13
Section 2. The provisions of Ordinance No. 1151 as amended by Ordinance 1305 are
14
amended to read as follows:
15
Section 1. Statement of Intent.
16
The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby finds and declares that it is necessary
17
to provide for future construction,improvement,and enlargement of major arterials and traffic
18
control devices for the primary purpose of carrying through traffic and providing a network of
19
roads within the Bayfront area on the east side of US 101 in the City of Burlingame, and to
20
impose charges to support and defer the costs of the benefits rendered to owners and occupants
21
of lands enjoying these improvements.
22
The City Council further finds and declares that such improvements are necessary to
23
safeguard the life, health, property and public welfare of the area served, and of all persons
24
occupying the properties of the described areas. The specific improvements are described in the
25
Bayfront Specific Plan adopted by the City Council in April 2004, setting the proposed area of
26
benefit,the boundaries of which are specifically described as all of the area in the City east of
27
US 101, the Bayshore Freeway.
28
7/19/2004
I The Council further finds and declares that the contribution of the above--described
2 improvements will(1)enhance the economic value of the occupants,businesses,leaseholds and
3 landowners throughout the area by providing for traffic safety on or near the real property in said
4 area, thereby reducing the probability of bodily injury and property damage, make said area
5 more accessible to emergency services, such as fire and police, and enhance and promote
6 aesthetic and environmental quality on or near the occupants of the real and personal property
7 by making access to said properties quicker and more efficient.
8 It is the intention of the City Council that this ordinance be enacted pursuant to the
9 City's police power for the construction of effective and safe transportation facilities as stated
10 hereinabove.
11
12 Section 2. Confirmation of Area and Costs.
13 The Bayfront Area of Benefit is hereby created having the boundaries as described
14 above. It is determined that all property within the benefit area will be benefitted by the
15 construction of the public improvements set forth in the Bayfront Specific Plan. The estimated
16 construction costs of these improvernents of $8,295,000, as prepared by the Public Works
17 Department and as set forth in the Bayfront Specific Plan, are hereby confirmed.
18
19 Section 3. Required Participation.
20 All persons constructing new buildings or adding more than one thousand(1,000)square
21 feet of gross floor area to existing buildings within said area of benefit are required to participate
22 in the system of regulatory charges hereinafter set forth to insure that all of the objectives set
23 forth in Section 1 are achieved. Additions shall only require the payment for the added square
24 footage of structure or use. Changes of use of existing buildings to a use requiring a higher
25 charge shall require the payment of the difference between the charges.
26
27 Section 4. Fees.
28 Fees are hereby established for all property within the Bayfront Area of Benefit;one-half
7/19/2004 - 2 -
I of said fees shall be deposited with submittal of the project assessment for traffic allocation or
2 planning application to the Planning Department and the remaining one-half shall be paid prior
3 to the approval of final framing of buildings or additions subject to this ordinance. Any project
4 which has submitted a project assessment or planning application prior to the effective date of
5 any amendment to this ordinance but has not received a building permit, shall at the time of
6 receiving the building permit, pay any difference between the amount paid at the submittal of
7 the project assessment or application and the amount of said fee established by such
8 amendment. Said fees shall be in the following amounts and shall be prorated for portions of
9 an acre:
10 Land Uses Fee
11 Office $1,852 per thousand square feet of building
12 Restaurant $7,458 per thousand square feet of building
13 Hotel $607/guest room
14 Hotel, Extended Stay $590/guest room
15 Office/Warehouse/Manufacturing $2,808/thousand square feet of building
16 Retail—Commercial $6,818/thousand square feet of building
17 Car Rental $43,268/acre of property devoted to car rental use
18 Commercial Recreation $13,428/acre of property devoted to commercial
recreation use
19
All Other $1,492 per p.m. peak hour trip as determined by
20 traffic study approved by City
21 Determination as to the appropriate classification of a use shall be determined by the Director
22 of Public Works, subject to an appeal to the City Council filed no later than ten (10) days
23 following determination by the Director. An appeal must be in writing and filed with the City
24 Clerk within the required time period. Fees shall be annually reviewed and adjusted to reflect
25 the increase or decrease in the latest Engineering News Record Highway Construction Cost
26 Index, as of July 1 of each year. If a project does not proceed to construction for reasons
27 determined by the City Planner to be beyond the control of the applicant and loses its traffic
28 allocation,the portion of the Bayfront development fee on deposit with the City may be returned
7/19/2004 - 3 -
I to the applicant. Planning and environmental fees will not be returned.
2
3 Section 5. Use of Funds.
4 All charges collected pursuant to this ordinance shall be placed in a special fund to be
5 known as the Bayfront Benefit Area Fund. Payments for said fund shall be limited to costs
6 related to design,right of way acquisition,and roadway and circulation improvements set forth
7 in the Bayfront Specific Plan or for the reimbursement pursuant to the agreement of a property
8 owner required to construct a portion of said improvements, the construction costs of which
9 exceed the charges which would otherwise be required of said developer. Additionally, said
10 funds may be used to reimburse the City for any City funds advanced for their construction or
11 developer reimbursement purposes in connection with the completion of said work if said City
12 funds exceed more than 60 percent of actual costs of the improvements.
13
14 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall take effect
15 sixty (60) days after its adoption..
16
Mayor
17
18 I,ANN T. MUSSO,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that
19 the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
20 21"day of June, 2004, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
21 the day of , 2004, by the following vote:
22
23 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
24 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
25
26
27 City Clerk
28
7/19/2004 - 4 -
CITY C� STAFF REPORT
BURUNGAME AGENDA 5c
ITEM#
MTG.
DATE /19/04
SCD gDAATED JVNE b 9D0
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMI E
BY
DATE: July 14, 2004
APP VED j
FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director. 558-7222
SUBJECT: Annual Cost of Living Adjustments to the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a Public Hearing and adopt the resolution.
BACKGROUND:
At the January 24th budget study session, staff recommended that city fees be adjusted to reflect the actual cost
increases associated with rising labor costs. At the study session Council members talked about possibly
delaying any fee increases associated with rising employee costs for a year.
On March 15th, staff once again recommended an annual fee adjustment to cover the 4% increase in labor
costs that was projected in the new budget. Staff provided examples showing how annual adjustments would
result in smaller more modest increases than those that were implemented in FY 03-04. At that time, Council
directed staff to bring back annual adjustments for FY 04-05, but did not approve automatic cost-of-living
adjustments in future budgets.
A draft of the annual adjustments was presented at the June 1, 2004 City Council Budget Session.
Central Fire Department also is recommending several new fees to help cover the cost of providing those
services.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Summary of Adjustments to the City of Burlingame Master Fee Schedule
2. Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Approving 2004 Master Fee Schedule for
City Services
CADocuments and Settings\jnava\My Documents\FY 2004-05 Budget Development\Fee Adjustments\Master Fee Schedule Adjustmentsl.doc
SUMMARY OF ANNUAL ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
PUBLIC WORKS - BUILDING DIVISION
New Fee - Arborist Plan Review Fee 4% of Building Permit Fee
New Fee - Appeal Fee to Planning Commission
from Building Official Determination $125
Building Permit Fees 4%Annual Adjustment
(Based on Total Valuation)
Building Inspections Outside of Normal Hours 4%Annual Adjustment
Re-inspection Fees 4%Annual Adjustment
Plumbing Permit Fees 4%Annual Adjustment
Mechanical Permit Fees 4% Annual Adjustment
Electrical Permit Fees 4%Annual Adjustment
PUBLIC WORKS—ENGINEERING
Encroachment Fees 4%Annual Adjustment
General Fees 4% Annual Adjustment
Demolition Permit
Address Change
Transportation Fee
Special Encroachment Permits 4%Annual Adjustment
Permanent Structures
Non-permanent Installations
Subdivision Maps 4% Annual Adjustment
Lot Line Adjustment
Lot Combination
Subdivision Map
Condominium Map
Zoning Fees 4% Annual Adjustment
(Collected by the Planning Department)
Design Review
Environmental Review
C:\Documents and Settings\jnava\My Documents\FY 2004-05 Budget Development\Fee Adjustments\NEW FEES.doc 1
FIRE DEPARTMENT
Fire Inspection fees were analyzed and recalculated to create a uniform fee structure to serve the
Town of Hillsborough and the City of Burlingame through the Central County Fire Department.
Therefore fees are adjusted based on the recommendations of the Fire Marshal.
In addition, several new fees are proposed by the Fire Department:
Construction Consultation and Planning $100 per hour
Fire Service Line Inspection $100
Alternate Means of Protection Review $142
Vegetation Management Inspection $200+20% of contractor's fee
Standby Fire Service
Firefighter $97.17 per hour(3 hour minimum)
Engine Company $290.56 per hour(3 hour minimum)
Photographs from Fire Investigation Cost of reproduction
Fire Hydrant Flow Tests $100.33
Work without A Permit Fine $243 + double the permit fees
EMS for DUI Based on Schedule of Personnel Costs
Fire False Alarms $290 (3 to 5 false alarms)
$320 (6 or more false alarms)
HAZMAT Response/Clean-Up Based on Schedule of Personnel Costs
Key Switch (Gate/Knox Box) $78.63
PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Recommended adjustments for use of facilities are based on a review of rates charged by
surrounding jurisdictions.
Indoor Facilities Usage Fees (not including the Auditorium)
Government agencies No charge
Burlingame Non-profits $1 increase per hour($12 to $13)
Non-Burlingame, Non-profits $2 increase per hour($15 to $17)
Burlingame Private Individuals $3 increase per hour($25 to $28)
Non-Burlingame, Private Individuals $3 increase per hour($30 to $33)
C:\Documents and Settings\jnava\My Documents\FY 2004-05 Budget Development\Fee Adjustments\NEW FEES.doc 2
Auditorium
Government agencies No charge
Burlingame Non-profits $3 increase per hour($25 to $28)
Non-Burlingame, Non-profits $3 increase per hour($30 to $33)
Burlingame Private Individuals $7 increase per hour($70 to $77)
Non-Burlingame, Private Individuals $9 increase per hour($85 to $94)
Tennis Courts
New fee for Non-Burlingame residents $50 for 4 hours
Picnic Permits
Small picnic area $10 increase ($65 to $75)
Large picnic area $10 increase ($90 to $100)
Class Registration Fee $1 increase ($6 to $7)
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Fees were reviewed and adjusted to reflect a 4% increase in labor costs. The actual adjustments
may not equal 4%because labor is one component of the fee.
PUBLIC WORKS WATER& SEWER
Adjustments were adopted by the City Council in 2003 as part of the Water and Sewer Capital
Improvements Financing Plan.
C:\Documents and Settings\jnava\My Documents\FY 2004-05 Budget Development\Fee Adjustments\NEW FEES.doc 3
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING 2004 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR CITY SERVICES
WHEREAS, the City regularly reviews the fees that it charges to persons seeking specific
services or use of City facilities; and
WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the cost of such services is borne by the users in a fair
and equitable manner, fees are adjusted to better reflect actual costs to the City and the City's
taxpayers in providing those services and facilities; and
WHEREAS, the increased fees to be charged by the Planning Department and the
development fees charged by the Engineering and Parks Divisions cannot go into effect for sixty(60)
days after adoption of this Resolution pursuant to Government Code section 66017; and
WHEREAS, many of the fees on the schedule are already in existence and this resolution
simply lists and affirm those fees and should not be construed as re-adopting them in any way so as
to suspend their operation in any way; and
WHEREAS,while every effort has been made to establish a master schedule of fees,there
may be existing fees in the Municipal Code or elsewhere that have been omitted and nothing in this
resolution is intended to repeal those fees nor does this resolution affect in any way any taxes of any
kind,
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Master Fee Schedule contained in Exhibit A is approved and shall take effect
immediately with the following exceptions:
a. The proposed fees contained in the Planning and Building schedules shall go into effect
on September 19, 2004.
b. The proposed fees for Fire services to development applications shall go into effect on
September 19, 2004.
c. The proposed fees for arborist services on planning and building permit applications shall
go into effect on September 19, 2004.
d. The proposed fees for subdivisions contained on the Engineering schedule shall go into
1
effect on September 19, 2004.
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
_day of , 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
C:\FILES\RESO\masterfeesked2004.pin.wpd
2
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
CITY-WIDE
SERVICE Reference FEE
Returned Check Resolution No. 31-2003 $25.00
Copying of Routine Document Resolution No. 31-2003 $ .15 per page
(Copies of sizes other than 8- %" by 11" or 8 - %2" by
14" or 11" by 17 or color copies will be charged at
cost)
To be paid in advance
CITY-WIDE FEES - 1 July 19, 2004
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
ANIMAL CONTROL
The following is found in Section 9.04.031 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (as of September 4, 2003):
(a) License fees and penalties:
(1)Unaltered dog
(A) 1-year license $30.00
(which includes a$1.00 surcharge on all licenses for the Animal Population Trust Fund)
(B) 3-year license $87.00
(C) 1-year license with senior discount $11.00
(D) 3-year license with senior discount $33.00
(2) Altered dog
(A) 1-year license $12.00
(B) 3-year license $33.00
(C) 1-year license with senior discount $ 6.00
(D) 3-year license with senior discount $15.00
(3) Wolf-hybrid registration
(A) Unaltered 1-year license $21.00
(B) Altered 1-year license $11.00
(4) Additional Penalties and Fees Dog/Wolf-hybrid
(A) Late penalty $15.00
(B)Duplicate tag $ 5.00
(b) Redemption and shelter charges
(1) Type A (large-size animals-horses, cows, etc.)
(A) Impound cost $100.00
(B)Board cost per day $20.00
(C) Transportation cost $50.00 per animal
(2) Type B (medium-size animals-hogs, sheep, etc.)
(A) Impound cost $70.00
(B) Board cost per day $20.00
(C) Transportation cost $50.00 per use
(3) Type C (dogs/wolf hybrids, cats)
(A) Impound cost Altered/Unaltered
(i) First offense, licensed &wearing tag $30.00/ 50.00
(ii) First offense, unlicensed or no tag $40.00/70.00
(iii) Second offense $60.00/ 80.00
(iv) Third offense $90.00/ 100.00
(v) Fourth offense $120.00/ 140.00
(vi) Fifth offense and up $150.00/ 170.00
(B) Board costs
ANIMAL CONTROL FEES - 1 July 19, 2004
(i) Dogs/wolf hybrids $15.00 per day
(ii) Cats $13.00 per day
(4) Type D (small-size animals-birds, hamsters, etc.)
(A) Impound cost $15.00
(B) Board cost per day $ 5.00
(c)Adoption Fees
Dogs $70.00
Cats $70.00
Rabbits $40.00
Mice $ 4.00
Rats $ 5.00
Guinea Pig $12.00
Hamster $ 8.00
Pigeon/Dove $ 3.00
Duck/Goose/Chicken $ 5.00
Turtle $ 5.00
Pigs $35.00
(d) Surrender, Euthanasia and Dead on Arrival Disposal Fees
Surrender Euthanasia DOA Disposal
Dog/Cat $20.00 $40.00 $20.00
Rabbit/Small Animal $20.00 $15.00 $20.00
Litter of three or more $30.00 $30.00 $20.00
Bird/Fowl $20.00 $10.00 $20.00
All Exotic Animals $20.00 $20.00 $20.00
Farm Animal $35.00 $50.00 - $100.00 $50.00 - $100.00
(to be determined (tobe determined
individually) individually)
(e) Quarantine fee $35.00
(f)Dangerous animal permit fee $200.00
(g)Field return fee $35.00
(h)Property inspection fee $25.00
(i)Breeding permit fee $50.00
0)Fancier's permit fee $50.00 per household
(k)The Division of Animal Control may establish license discounts for recognized animal rescue organizations
and adoption discounts for senior citizens.
ANIMAL CONTROL FEES - 2 July 19, 2004
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
BUILDING DIVISION
(effective September 19, 2004)
SERVICE REFERENCE FEE
BUILDING PERMIT FEES BASED ON TOTAL
VALUATION
$1.00 to $500.00 $31.20
$501.00 to $2,000.00 $31.20 for the first $500.00
plus $4.00 for each
additionl $100.00 or
fraction thereof to and
including $2,00.00
$2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $90.50 for the first
$2,000.00 plus $18.20 for
each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof to and
including $25,000.00
$25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $509.10 for the first
$25,000.00 plus $13.20 for
each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof to and
including $50,000.00
$50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $838.00 for the first
$50,000.00 plus $9.10 for
each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof to and
including $100,000.00
$101,000.00 to $500,000.00 $1,293.00 for the first
$100,000.00 plus $7.30 for
each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof to and
including$500,000.00
BUILDING - 1 July 19, 2004
SERVICE REFERENCE FEE
$501,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 $4,205.00 for the first
$500,000.00 plus $6.20 for
each additional $1,000.00
or fraction thereof to and
including $1,000,000.00
More than$1,000,000.00 $7,299.00 for the first
$1,000,000.00 plus $4.80
for each additional
$1,000.00 or fraction
thereof
Inspections outside normal business hours (minimum $78.00 per hour
charge is for four hours)
Reinspection fees (minimum—one hour) $78.00 per hour
PLAN REVIEW FEES ���ip ��
Basic Fee Resolution No. 104- 65% of Building Permit
2002 Fee
Energy Plan Check Fee (where applicable) Resolution No. 104- Additional 25% of
2002 Building Permit Fee
Disabled Access Plan Check Fee (where applicable) Resolution No. 104- Additional 35% of
2002 Building Permit Fee
Planning Department Plan Check Fee (where Resolution No. 104- Additional 15% of
applicable) (minimum fee of$75.00) 2002 Building Permit Fee
Plan Revisions for Planning Department Resolution No. 104- $75.00
2002
Plan Revisions Subsequent to Permit Issuance Resolution No. 104- $37.50 plus Cost of
2002 Additional Review
Engineering Division Plan Review(where applicable) Resolution No. 104- Additional 25% of
2002 Building Permit Fee
Imaging Fee Resolution No. 104- Additional 5%of Building
2002 Permit Fee
Arborist Review Additional 4% of Building
Permit Fee
BUILDING- 2 July 19, 2004
SERVICE REFERENCE FEE
PLUMBING PERMIT FEES (these fees do not include
connections fees, such as for seer connections or water
meter fees charged by other City departments nor any
fees charged by public utility companies)
For issuance of each plumbing permit' $31.20
New Residential Building - including all plumbing Resolution No. 104- $0.08 per square foot of
fixtures, connections and gas outlets for new single- and 2002 habitable area
multi-family buildings
1. Fixtures and vents—for each plumbing fixture or trap $12.70
(including water and waste piping and backflow
prevention)
2. Sewer and interceptors—
For each building sewer $31.20
For each industrial waste pretreatment interceptor $26.00
(except kitchen-type grease traps)
3. Water Piping and Water Heaters
For installation alteration or repair of water piping or $6.20 each
water-treatment equipment
For each water heater including vent $16.10
4. Gas Piping Systems
For each gas piping system of one to five outlets $8.30
For each additional outlet over five $1.60
5. Irrigation Systems and Backflow Prevention Devices
Irrigation systems including backflow device(s)
Other backflow prevention devices: $19.20
2 inches (50.8 mm) and smaller
Over 2 inches (50.8 mm) $19.20
$31.20
'Following items are in addition to basic permit issuance fee
BUILDING - 3 July 19, 2004
SERVICE REFERENCE FEE
6. Swimming Pools
For each swimming pool or spa, all plumbing:
Public pool $119.60
Public spa $78.00
Private pool $78.00
Private spa $39.00
7. Miscellaneous
For each appliance or fixture for which no fee is $12.70
listed
Inspections outside normal business hours (minimum $78.00 per hour
charge is for four hours)
Reinspection fees (minimum—one hour) $78.00 per hour
Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $78.00 per hour
(minimum charge is one-half hour)
Imaging fee Resolution No. 104- Additional 5% of plumbing
2002 permit fee
Plan review where plans are required Resolution No. 104- Additional 25%of
2002 plumbing permit fee
MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES (these fees do not � � � �
include connections fees, such as for seer connections or
water meter fees charged by other City departments nor
any fees charged by public utility companies) (( 9"
For issuance of each mechanical permit' $31.20
New Residential Building- including all mechanical Resolution No. 104- $0.08 per square foot of
work including appliances, exhaust fans, ducts, and 2002 habitable area
flues
1. Furnaces
To and including 100 MBTU $19.20
Over 100 MBTU $26.00
2. Boilers, compressors, absorption systems
To and including 100 MBTU or 3HP $19.20 each
Over 100 MBTU or 3 HP $36.40 each
"Following items are in addition to basic permit issuance fee
BUILDING - 4 July 19, 2004
SERVICE REFERENCE FEE
3. Air Conditioners $19.20 each
5. Air Handlers
To 10,000 CFM including ducting $13.00 each
Over 10,000 CFM $19.20 each
6. Ventilation and Exhaust
Each ventilation fan attached to a single duct $9.40 each
Each hood including ducts $19.20 each
7. Miscellaneous
For each appliance or piece of equipment not $19.20 each
specifically listed above
Inspections outside normal business hours (minimum $78.00 per hour
charge is for four hours)
Reinspection fees (minimum—one hour) $78.00 per hour
Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $78.00 per hour
(minimum charge is one-half hour)
Imaging fee Resolution No. 104- Additional 5%of
2002 mechanical permit fee
Plan review where plans are required Resolution No. 104- Additional 25% of
2002 mechanical permit fee
ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES (these fees do not fit_
include connections fees, such as for sewer connections
or water meter fees charged by other City departments .
nor any fees charged by public utility companies) a
For issuance of each electrical permit"' $31.20
New Residential Building- including all wiring and Resolution No. 104- $0.08 per square foot of
electrical devices in or on each building, including 2002 habitable area
service
System Fee Schedule
###Following items are in addition to basic permit issuance fee
BUILDING - 5 July 19, 2004
SERVICE REFERENCE FEE
Swimming Pools
1. Public swimming pools and spas including all $78.00
wiring and electrical equipment
2. Private pools for single-family residences $62.40
Temporary Power
1. Temporary service pole including all attached $31.20
receptacles
2. Temporary power pole and wiring for $46.80
construction sites, Christmas tree lots, etc.
OR
Unit Fee Schedule
Receptacle, switch and light outlets
1. First 20 units $31.20
2. Each additional $1.00
Residential Appliances
For fixed residential appliances including cooktops, $6.20 each
ovens, air conditioning, garbage disposals, and similar
devices not exceedingl HP in rating
(For other types of air conditioners or other motor-
driven appliances having larger ratings, see Power
Apparatus below)
Nonresidential Appliances
Self-contained factory-wired non-residential $6.20 each
appliances not exceeding 1 HP,KW, or kVA in rating
including medical and dental devices; food, beverage
and ice cream cabinets; illuminated showcases; drinking
fountains; vending machines; laundry machines; etc.
(For other types of devices having larger electrical
ratings, see Power Apparatus below)
BUILDING - 6 July 19, 2004
SERVICE REFERENCE FEE
Power Apparatus
For motors, generators, air conditioners and heat
pumps and commercial cooking devices as follows
(ratings in horsepower, kilowatts, kilovolt-amperes, or
kilovolt-amperes-reactive):
1. Up to 10 $15.60
2. Over 10 to and including 100 $36.40
3. Over 100 $98.80
Notes:
a. For equipment or appliances having more than
one motor, transformer, heater, etc., the sum of the
combined ratings may be used.
b. These fees include all switches, circuit breakers,
contractors, thermostats, relays, and other related control
equipment.
Busways
For trolleys and plug-in type busways $9.40 for each 100 feet
(30,500 mm) or fraction
thereof
Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees
1. Signs, outline lighting, or marquees supplied from $31.20 each
one circuit
2. For additional branch circuits within the same $6.20 each
sign, outline lighting, or marquee
Services
1. 600 volts or less and not over 200 amperes in $36.40 each
rating
2. 600 volts or less, over 200 amperes to 1,000 $83.20 each
amperes
3. Over 600 volts or over 1,000 amperes $156.00 each
Miscellaneous
For apparatus, conduits, and conductors for which a $26.00
permit si required but for which not fee is set forth
Inspections outside normal business hours (minimum $78.00 per hour
charge is for four hours)
Reinspection fees (minimum—one hour) $78.00 per hour
BUILDING- 7 July 19, 2004
SERVICE REFERENCE FEE
Inspections for which no fee is specifically indicated $78.00 per hour
(minimum charge is one-half hour)
Imaging fee Resolution No. 104- Additional 5% of electrical
2002 permit fee
Plan review where plans are required Resolution No. 104- Additional 25%of
2002 electrical permit fee
GENERAL FEES
Appeal Fee to Planning Commission from Building $125.00
Official Determination
BUILDING - 8 July 19, 2004
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
CITY CLERK
SERVICE Reference FEE
Passport Application Acceptance U.S. Department of $30.00 per
State application
Videotape of City Council meeting—to be paid in advance Resolution No. 31-2003 $15.00 per tape
of copying tape
Audiotape of City Council meeting or other City proceeding Resolution No. 31-2003 $5.00 per tape if
that has been taped to be paid in advance of copying tape tape is supplied by
requestor
$8.00 per tape if
tape is not supplied
Certification of Citizenship Resolution No. 31-2003 $5.00 each
Filing of Nomination Papers Burlingame Municipal $25.00 per
Code section 2.20.020 candidate
(Ordinance No. 1703
(2003))
CITY CLERK- 1 July 19, 2004
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
ENGINEERING
SERVICE FEE Reference
Encroachment Permits
Sewer Lateral Test $156.00
Sewer Lateral Replacement w/o Sidewalk $234.00
Water Service Connection w/o Sidewalk $312.00
Fire System Connection w/o Sidewalk $374.00
Curb Drain Installation $156.00 Sections 12.10.030/
12.08.020/ 12.04.030
Sidewalk/Driveway up to 200 sf $281.00 plus $.25 Sections 12.10.030/
for each square foot 12.08.020/ 12.04.030
over 200
Sidewalk Closure/Pedestrian Protection $166.00
Traffic Control $166.00
Block Party(includes up to 6 barricades) $120.00 plus $5.00
for each add'l
barricade
Parking Permit $73.00 plus Section 13.32.020
$2/space per day or
meter rates
GENERALFEES
Demolition Permit (in addition to Building Permit) $827.00
Include sewer and water replacement
Add fireline
Add curb drain $208.00
Add sidewalk closure $156.00
Add PG&E $146.00
$208.00
Address Change $260.00
Transportation Fee $78.00
ENGINEERING FEES - 1 July 19, 2004
SERVICE FEE Reference
Building Moving $100 Section 18.07.030
Truck Terminal $250 Section 13.60.120
Hauling Permit $35.00 application Section 13.60.080
fee
1 Cent per ton per
mile
Special Encroachment Permits
Permanent structures, such as retaining walls, fences $338.00
Right of Way User Fee based on square footage over 100 $2.00 per square Resolution No. 31-2003
sf foot
Non-permanent installations, such as tables, chairs, $260.00
planters
Subdivision Maps (Fees Effective September 19, 2004)
Lot Line Adjustment $447.00 Section 26.24.090
Lot Combination $520.00 Section 26.24.090
Subdivision Map $718.00 plus $104 Sections 26.24.090/
for each additional 26.16.151
lot over 5
Condominium Map $1,040.00 plus Sections 26.24.090/
$156.00 for each 26.16.151
unit over 4
Zoning Fees to be Collected by Planning Department
(Fees Effective September 19, 2004)
Design Review
Single Family Dwelling $88.00
All others $125.00 plus $340 if
streetscape
installation involved
ENGINEERING FEES - 2 July 19, 2004
SERVICE FEE Reference
Environmental Review
Traffic & Parking Studies $135.00
Creek Enclosures $572.00
Drainage and Utilities $135.00
ENGINEERING FEES - 3 July 19, 2004
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE FEE Reference
Amusement/Entertainment Permit $100.00 Section 6.16.030
Duplicate business license $5.00 Section 6.04.120
Application for first business license $30.00 Section 6.04.170
Special Events/Street Closing Permit $100 application fee Resolution No. 31-
$300/day City facility fee 2003
$45/hour police officer fee
for traffic control
FINANCE FEES - 1 July 19, 2004
MASTER FEE SCHEDU
FIRE
(items marked ***** effective September 19, 2004)
SERVICE FEE Reference
Care Facilities Inspection
Pre-inspection of licensed community $50.00—25 persons or less Resolution No. 105-2002
care facility
$100.00 over 25 persons
Residential Care Facilities $200.00
Residential Care Facilities with Group $200.00
Care of 6 or fewer persons
Large Family Day Care $100.00
Hospital/Institution $365.71
Re-inspections
Second re-inspection $56.00 per inspection
Third and subsequent reinspections $100 per inspection
Construction Fees
Building or Planning Plan Check $100.00 per hour
Consultation and Planning $100.00 per hour
Fire Alarm Systems
Plan Check $100.00 per hour
Permit for Monitoring System $50.00
Permit for Manual System $100.00
Permit for Automatic System $200.00
Permit for Combination System $250.00
Fixed Extinguishing System
Plan Check See above
Permit $200.00
Standpipe System
Plan Check See above
Permit $200.00
FIRE-1 July 19, 2004
SERVICE FEE Reference
Storage Tank (above or below ground)
Plan Check See above
Permit $200
High Pile Storage
Plan Check See above
Sprinkler Systems*
One or two Family Dwelling Fire
Sprinkler System (NFPA 13D)
Plan Check $100/hour
Permit $300.00
Fire Pump
Plan Check $100.00 per hour
Permit $100.00
Residential or Commercial Fire
Sprinkler System (NFPA 13 or 13R)
Plan Check $100.00 per hour
Permit— Single Story (incl. T.I.) $300.00 (phase inspections
Permit- Multi-story billed at $100 per hour)
Fire Service Line Inspection $100.00
Alternate Means of Protection Review $142.00
i
Miscellaneous Fees and Permits
Vegetation Management Inspection $200.00 + 20% of contractor's
fee
Change of Use Inspection(usually $55.19
triggered by new business license)
Standby Service
Firefighter $97.17 per hour(minimum of 3
hours)
$290.56 per hour(minimum of 3
Engine Company hours)
Photographs from investigations Cost of reproduction
Fire Hydrant Flow Tests $100.33
FIRE-2 July 19, 2004
SERVICE FEE Reference
Work without a construction permit $243.00 +double the permit fees
Emergency Response Costs for Driving Costs according to Personnel
under the Influence Schedule Below
False Alarms $290.00 for 3 to 5
$320.00 for 6 or more
Hazardous Materials Clean- Costs according to Personnel
up/Response Schedule Below plus actual
equipment/materials costs
Personnel Costs
Administration $47.78 per hour
Firefighter $85.30 per hour
Fire Captain $100.23 per hour
Shift Inspector $86.63 per hour
Fire Inspector $88.46 per hour
Fire Marshal $130.83 per hour
Key Switch (Gate/Knox Box) $78.63
General Permits
Christmas Tree Lot $66.50 Resolution No. 105-2002
Aerosol Products $163.47
Apartments, Hotels and Motels— 10 or $82.37
less units
Apartments, Hotels and Motels— 11 to $100.00
25 units
Apartments, Hotels and Motels—26 or $135.25
more units
Asbestos removal $76.84
Automobile Wrecking Yard $163.47
Battery System $163.47
Carnivals and Fairs $299.37
Combustible Fiber Storage $120.16
Combustible Material Storage $163.47
FIRE-3 July 19, 2004
SERVICE FEE Reference
Compressed Gasses $163.47
Commercial Rubbish-Handling $163.47
Operation
Cryogens $163.47
Dry Cleaning Plants $163.47
Dust-Producing Operations $163.47
Explosives or Blasting Agents $210.91
Fire Hydrants and Water Control Valves $100.33
Fireworks $166.68
Flammable or Combustible Liquids $336.73
Hazardous Materials $466.68
High-Piled Combustible Storage— $233.02
20,000 square feet or less
High-Piled Combustible Storage—more $432.06
than 20,000 square feet
Hot-Work Operations $163.47
Liquefied Petroleum Gasses $163.47
Liquid- or gas-fueled Vehicles or $166.68
Equipment in Assembly Buildings
Live Audiences $166.68
Lumber Yards storing in excess of $250.10
100,00 board Feet
Magnesium Working $141.82
Mall, Covered—Display Booth $144.56
FIRE-4 July 19, 2004
SERVICE FEE Reference
Mall, Covered—For Assembly
Mall, Covered—With Open Flame $144.56
Mall, Covered—Display Fuel Powered $144.56
Equipment
Motor Vehicle Fuel-Dispensing Stations $250.10
Open Burning $100.33
Organic Coating $163.47
Ovens, Industrial Baking and Drying $141.82
Parade Floats $144.56
Places of Assembly $315.08
Production Facilities $293.42
Pyrotechnical and Special Effects $255.14
Material
Radioactive Materials $120.16
Refrigeration Equipment $250.10
Repair Garage $163.47
Spraying and Dipping $163.47
Tents, Canopies, and Temporary $166.68
Membrane Structures
Tire Storage $141.82
Wood Products $141.82
FIRE-5 July 19, 2004
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
LIBRARY
SERVICE FEE Reference
Photocopies $ .15 per page Resolution No. 31-2003
Internet/Database copies or printouts $ .15 per page Resolution No. 31-2003
Rental books for one week $1.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Community Room Rental $50.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Outside System $5.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
PLS CONSORTIUM CONTROLLED FEES
Hold Fee $ .50 per book PLS
Overdue Fee for Adult $ .20 per book per PLS
day
Overdue Fee for Child $ .10 per book per PLS
day
Maximum Fee $6.00 per book PLS
Lost Book Replacement Fee $5.00 per book PLS
Replacement of Lost Card $1.00 PLS
LIBRARY FEES - 1 July 19, 2004
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
Group Classifications for Purposes
of Parks &Recreation Facilities Usage:
Group A: Government agencies serving the Burlingame community, such as City, Burlingame School District
Group B: Non-profit(501c(3)) groups or organizations, such as AYSO,BYBA, Library Foundation.
Group C: Private parties, commercial,business, and profit-making organizations, such as weddings, seminars,
receptions
FACILITY/SERVICE FEE Reference
77
77 7
INDOOR FACILITIES
Indoor Facilities, except the Auditorium
Group A No charge Resolution No. 31-2003
Group B
Burlingame Residents $13.00 per hour
Non-residents $17.00 per hour
Group C
Burlingame Residents $28.00 per hour
Non-residents $33.00 per hour
Auditorium
Group A No charge Resolution No. 31-2003
Group B
Burlingame Residents $28.00 per hour
Non-residents $33.00 per hour
Group C
Burlingame Residents $77.00 per hour
Non-residents $94.00 per hour
Building Attendant* $20.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003
Weekend Custodian $75.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Weekday Custodian $25.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Extra, Non-Scheduled Hours $95.00 - $125 per Resolution No. 31-2003
hour
#Building Attendant or Security will be on duty 1 hour prior to andl hour after duration of activities at
Recreation Center. Security fee will be charged for all private parties over 150 persons or serving alcoholic
beverages.
PARK&REC FEES - 1 July 19, 2004
FACILITY/SERVICE FEE Reference
Security Personnel* $50.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003
Tables/Chairs—up to 50 $7.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Tables/Chairs—5 1-100 $15.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Tables Chairs—over 100 $20.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Coffee Pots $10.00 per pot Resolution No. 31-2003
Wineibeer to be served $30.00 additional Resolution No. 31-2003
TV/VCR $10.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Overhead Projector $10.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Microphone $10.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
OUTDOOR FACILITIES
Ballfield
Group A No charge Resolution No. 31-2003
Group B
Burlingame Residents $5.00/per player per Resolution No. 31-2003
league plus
$30.00/nonresident
Non-residents $15.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003
Group C
Burlingame Residents $20.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003
Non-residents $25.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003
Tennis Courts
Group A No charge Resolution No. 31-2003
Group B (residents only)
Burlingame Residents $30.00 for 4 hours Resolution No. 31-2003
Group C
Burlingame Residents $40.00 for 4 hours Resolution No. 31-2003
Non-residents $50.00 for 4 hours
*Building Attendant or Security will be on duty 1 hour prior to and 1 hour after duration of activities at
Recreation Center. Security fee will be charged for all private parties over 150 persons or those serving alcoholic
beverages.
PARK&REC FEES - 2 July 19, 2004
FACILITY/SERVICE FEE Reference
Soccer Field
Group A No charge Resolution No. 31-2003
Group B
Burlingame Residents $5.00 per player per Resolution No. 31-2003
league plus $30 per
nonresident
Non-residents $20.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003
Group C
Burlingame Residents $35.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003
Non-residents $50.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003
Pool—50 meter
Group A Lifeguard cost Resolution No. 31-2003
Group B
Burlingame Residents $125.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003
plus lifeguard
Non-residents $175.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003
plus lifeguard
Group C
Burlingame Residents $225.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003
plus lifeguard
Non-residents $275.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003
plus lifeguard
Pool (small pool)
Group A Lifeguard cost Resolution No. 31-2003
Group B
Burlingame Residents $60.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003
plus lifeguard
Non-residents $95.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003
plus lifeguard
Group C
Burlingame Residents $125.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003
plus lifeguard
Non-residents $175.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003
plus lifeguard
Pool Lanes (short)
Group A Lifeguard costs Resolution No. 31-2003
Group B $10.00 per lane Resolution No. 31-2003
Group C $15.00 per lane Resolution No. 31-2003
PARK &REC FEES - 3 July 19, 2004
FACILITY/SERVICE FEE Reference
Pool Lanes (long)
Group A Lifeguard costs Resolution No. 31-2003
Group B $20.00 per lane Resolution No. 31-2003
Group C $25.00 per lane Resolution No. 31-2003
Lifeguard (minimum of 2 per event) $25.00 per guard per Resolution No. 31-2003
hour
Field Lights $20.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003
Infield dragging and lining Fees to be Resolution No. 31-2003
determined by Parks
Division based on
conditions
Facility Maintenance Fee for Field User $5 per player per Resolution No. 31-2003
Groups league per season
Picnic Permit
Small Picnic Area $75.00 + $50
refundable cleaning
deposit
Large Picnic Area $100.00 + $50
refundable cleaning
deposit
Classes
Class Fees To be set based on Resolution No. 31-2003
class provider and
materials/facilities
provided
Registration Fees $7.00
Non-resident Fee on Classes Add 20% to class Resolution No. 31-2003
fee rounded to
nearest dollar
Senior discount—Burlingame residents age 50% off class fee on Resolution No. 31-2003
65 and over classes held at
Recreation Center
under$75
PARK&REC FEES -4 July 19, 2004
FACILITY/SERVICE FEE Reference
Senior discount—non-residents age 65 and Waive non-resident Resolution No. 31-2003
over fee
Registration cancellation charge $5.00 per class or Resolution No. 31-2003
event
PARK & REC FEES - 5 July 19, 2004
FACILITY/SERVICE FEE Reference
Tree and Parks Fees
Memorial tree plantings and additional $75.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
street tree plantings
Protected Tree Removal Applications $25.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Arborist's plan review for landscaping $80.00
requirements on planning applications
(See also planning fee schedule)
Arborist check of construction plans and 4% of building Resolution No. 31-2003
inspection of landscape requirements on permit fee
building permit submittals
PARK&REC FEES - 6 July 19, 2004
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
(effective September 19, 2004)
SERVICE FEE Reference
Antenna Exception $25.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Ambiguity/Determination Hearing before Planning $445.00
Commission (applies to Planning, Fire, and Building
requests)
Amendment/Extension to Permits $205.00
Appeal to City Council from Planning Commission $230.00
decisions (does not include noticing costs)
Arborist Review when Required $80.00
Bayfront Development Fee'
Office $1,852/TSF
Restaurant $7,458/TSF
Hotel $607/room
Hotel, Extended Stay $590/room
Office/Warehouse/Manufacturing $2,808/TSF
Retail—Commercial $6,818/TSF
Car Rental $43,268/acre
Commercial Recreation $13,428/acre
All Other $1,492 per p.m.
peak hour trip as
det'd by traffic
study
Conditional Use Permit $870.00
Condominium Permit, 4 Units or Less $920.00
Condominium Permit, 5 Units or More $1,120.00
Design Review, Addition $535.00
Design Review, Amendment $385.00
'Bayfront Development fee is charged to all new construction/development within the Bayfront Specific
Plan Area on the east side of US 101. Ordinance No. 1305(1985)provides for annual adjustment based on the
construction cost index published in the Engineering News Record(ENR)as of July 1 of each year. These fees are
current as of September 2004., subject to effective date of ordinance
PLANNING FEES - 1 July 19, 2004
SERVICE FEE Reference
Design Review Deposit" $765.00
Design Review, Information Submittal to Planning $100.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Commission
Design Review,New Construction $545.00
Environmental, Categorical Exception $55.00
Environmental Initial Study $105.00
Environmental, Negative Declaration $1,225.00
With Fish & Game Review Required $1,300.00
Environmental, Mitigated Declaration and/or with a $1,430.00
Responsible Agency
Environmental Impact Report $35% of contract, Resolution No. 31-2003
deposit to be
determined by City
Planner
With Fish& Game Review Required, Add $890.00 added
Environmental Posting Fee, Negative Declaration and EIR $135.00
Fence Exception $610.00
General Plan Amendment $1,275.00
Minor Modification/Hillside Area Construction Permit $230.00 Section 25.56.050
Section 25.61.070
Noticing, R1 and R2 $100.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Noticing, All Other Districts $100.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Noticing, R-1 Design Review, Residential $155.00
Noticing, Design Review, all other districts $155.00
Noticing, Minor Modifications, Hillside Area Construction $155.00 Sections 25.56.050 &
Permits 25.61.070
uMinimum deposit. Formula for ultimate calculation is design review consultant fee times hours spent.
Project not set for hearing until actual time paid.
PLANNING FEES - 2 July 19, 2004
SERVICE FEE Reference
Noticing, General Plan Amendment $1,005.00
Noticing, Rezoning $1,005.00
Noticing, Environmental Impact Report $1,010.00
Noticing, City Council Appeal $25.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Noticing, Second Unit Amnesty $55.00
Preliminary Plan Check, New Construction•.. $170.00
Preliminary Plan Check, Remodel•`' $105.00
Rezoning $1,120.00
Second Unit Amnesty Permit
Building Official Inspection Deposit $380.00 charged at Being charged at cost
$125 per hour
Sign Variance $920.00
Special Use Permit $870.00
Variance $870.00
•••Fifty percent(50%)of fee will be credited toward required application fees if and when project is
submitted as a complete application.
IV Fifty percent(50%)of fee will be credited toward required application fees if and when project is
submitted as a complete application.
PLANNING FEES - 3 July 19, 2004
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
POLICE DEPARTMENT
SERVICE FEE Reference
Vehicle Release $50.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Police Reports
Report Copies $1.00 per page up to Resolution No. 31-2003
$15.00 maximum
Fingerprint Rolling Fee $18.00 Livescan Fee Set by State
of California Department
of Justice
Audio Tapes $25.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Videotapes $40.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Photographs $25.00 per roll Resolution No. 31-2003
Clearance Letter $10.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Overnight Parking Permit $2.00— %year Section 13.32.080
$4.00—Full year
Repossessed Vehicle $15.00 Resolution No. 31-2003
Bicycle License No charge Resolution No. 31-2003
DUI Fees $100.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003
$100 per blood test
$55.00 per breath or urine
test
$50.00 per refused Blood
test
Booking Fees Set by County
Security Service (Outside Detail) $70.00 per hour Resolution No. 23-2004
Alarm Permits $49.50 per year Resolution No. 116-2003
Section 10.10.110
False Alarm Charge $50.00 for 3 to 5 Section 10.10.090
$100.00 for 6 or more
Solicitors $50.00 for investigation Section 6.24.030
POLICE FEES - 1 July 19, 2004
SERVICE FEE Reference
Curb Painting $50.00 for investigation Resolution No. 31-2003
Tanning Salon
Application $150.00 Section 6.42.060
Sale or Transfer $100.00 Section 6.42.120
Renewal $75.00 Section 6.42.160
Massage Operator
Application $150.00 Section 6.40.060
Sale or Transfer $100.00 Section 6.40.120
Renewal $75.00 Section 6.40.160
Masseur/Masseuse
Application $150.00 Section 6.40.060
Model/Escort Service
Application $150.00 Section 6.41.040
Sale or Transfer $100.00 Section 6.41.100
Renewal $75.00 Section 6.41.130
Private Patrol Company
Application $150.00 Section 6.44.050
Renewal $75.00 Section 6.44.080
Taxi Operator
Application $150.00 Section 6.36.050
Renewal $75.00
Taxi Driver
Application $150.00 Section 6.36.050
Renewal $75.00
Valet Parking $150.00 Section 6.30.040
Concealed Weapon $50.00 for investigation Resolution No. 31-2003
Fortune Teller $150.00 Section 6.38.060
Unruly Gathering Cost of Hours of Officer Section 10.70.070
Response
POLICE FEES - 2 July 19, 2004
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
SEWER
SERVICE FEE Reference
Sewer Connection Fees"
Single-family and Duplex $170/unit Section 15.08.020
Multi-family $130/unit Section 15.08.020
Commercial/Retail $272/thousand square feet Section 15.08.020
(TSF)
Office $59/TSF Section 15.08.020
Warehouse $76/TSF Section 15.08.020
Restaurant $672/TSF Section 15.08.020
Hotel with Restaurant $429/room Section 15.08.020
Hotel without Restaurant $265/room Section 15.08.020
Industrial Waste Discharge Fees******
2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006 Reference
Light Discharger, Annual $497.00 $509.00 $522.00 Ord. No.
1717 (2003)
Moderate Discharger, Annual $1,358.00 $1,392.00 $1,427.00 Ord. No.
1717 (2003)
Heavy Discharger, Annual $1,901.00 $1,949.00 $1,998.00 Ord. No.
1717 (2003)
Non-Conventional Discharger, Annual******* $,035.00 $1,061.00 $1,089 Ord. No.
1717 (2003)
vSet by Engineering News Record(ENR)Building Index for San Francisco over 1982 and adjusted every
January 1.These rates are for year shown on schedule.
Discharge fees are subject to increase by CPI according to Ordinance No. 1717 if no further action is
taken before September 1,2006.
Fee covers two(2)samples;additional samples charged according to Analytical Processing Fee
Schedule below.
SEWER FEES - 1 July 19, 2004
SERVICE FEE Reference
2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006
Groundwater Discharger Non- Non- Non- Ord. No.
conventional conventional conventional 1717 (2003)
Fee plus Fee plus Fee plus
$5.82 per $5.82 per $5.82 per
1000 gallons 1000 gallons 1000 gallons
discharged discharged discharged
Application Processing Fee $135.00 $140.00 $145.00 Ord. No.
1717 (2003)
Analytical Fees Ord. No.
1717 (2003)
In-house Testing Cost Cost Cost Ord. No.
1717 (2003)
Contract Lab Testing Cost plus Cost plus Cost plus Ord. No.
15% 15% 15% 1717 (2003)
VM
Bimonthly Sewer Service Chargesx
Single-family or duplex $4.65 per $5.67 per $6.30 per Section
thousand thousand thousand 15.08.070
gallons; if gallons; if gallons; if
less than less than less than
thousand thousand thousand
gallons, then gallons, then gallons, then
$9.30 $11.34 $12.60
Multi-family residential $4.77 per $5.31 per $5.89 per Section
thousand thousand thousand 15.08.070
gallons gallons gallons
Restaurant, other commercial food-related $13.20 per $14.82 per $16.76 per Section
uses thousand thousand thousand 15.08.070
gallons gallons gallons
Moderate strength commercial $9.12 per $10.02 per $11.30 per Section
thousand thousand thousand 15.08.070
gallons gallons gallons
SEWER FEES - 2 July 19, 2004
SERVICE FEE Reference
2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006
Light strength commercial $6.56 per $6.26 per $6.96 per Section
thousand thousand thousand 15.08.070
gallons gallons gallons
Institutional $1.77 per $2.22 per $2.47 per Section
thousand thousand thousand 15.08.070
gallons gallons gallons
New Customers in Single-Family or Duplex
Classification
Number of Residents
1 $18.08 $22.04 $24.49 Section
2 $22.49 $27.42 $30.46 15.08.072
3 $27.53 $33.55 $37.28
4 $32.56 $39.69 $44.10
5 $37.18 $45.32 $50.35
6 $38.51 $46.94 $52.15
7 $41.88 $51.05 $56.71
8 $48.76 $59.44 $66.04
9 or more $57.17 $69.69 $77.42
SEWER FEES - 3 July 19, 2004
MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
WATER
SERVICE FEE Reference
2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006
Monthly Charge for Meters
5/8" and 3/4" meter $13.30 $17.49 $19.23 Ord. No.
1715
(2003)
1" meter $22.61 $29.74 $32.70 Ord. No.
1715
(2003)
1 - %" meter $43.89 $57.73 $63.47 Ord. No.
1715
(2003)
2" meter $70.49 $92.72 $101.93 Ord. No.
1715
(2003)
3" meter $106.40 $157.45 $192.33 Ord. No.
1715
(2003)
4" meter $162.27 $244.92 $321.19 Ord. No.
1715
(2003)
6" meter $301.52 $472.35 $640.45 Ord. No.
1715
(2003)
8" meter $47.79 $769.76 $1,025.11 Ord. No.
1715
(2003)
WATER FEES - 1 July 19, 2004
SERVICE FEE Reference
2003-2004 2004-2005 2005-2006
Water Consumption."'
Within the City $3.42 per $3.81 per $4.19 per Ord. No.
thousand thousand thousand 1715
gallons gallons gallons (2003)
Outside the City $3.86 per $4.27 per $4.66 per Ord. No.
thousand thousand thousand 1715
gallons gallons gallons (2003)
Water Service Turn-on
8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday thru Friday No charge Ord. No. 1715 (2003)
3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m, Monday thru $20.00
Friday
3:31 p.m. to 7:59 a.m., Monday thru $60.00
Friday
Saturday/Sunday/holiday. $60.00
Renewal Fee
Not paid within 30 days of billing 1 - !/2 %penalty Ord. No. 1715 (2003)
8 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., Monday thru Friday $35.00
3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., Monday thru $45.00
Friday $60.00
3:31 p.m. to 4:50 p.m., Monday thru
Friday
Maintenance of Water in Fire Protection $1.00 per month per inch of pipe Ord. No. 1715 (2003)
System diameter,with$2.00 minimum
charge
Flow Test
5/8" through 1" $50.00 Ord. No. 1715 (2003)
1 - %2" and 2" $80.00
Over 2" $100.00 minimum (if over$100,
cost of testing plus 15%)
*"*Rates may be further adjusted in response to San Francisco surcharges. See Section 5
of Ordinance No. 1715.
WATER FEES - 2 July 19, 2004
SERVICE FEE Reference
Temporary Water Service $750 deposit Ord. No. 1715 (2003)
Meter charges (does not include water $43.00 per month for 1-inch
consumption) meter
$85.00 per month for three-inch
meters
Water Service Turn-on Deposit if $50.00 or 2 months estimated Ord. No. 1715 (2003)
Delinquent on City Water Account in consumption, whichever is
Previous 12 months greater
Work on City Water System $60.00 permit Ord. No. 1715 (2003)
$1,500.00 bond or deposit
Water Line Installation Ord. No. 1715 (2003)
5/8" bypass meter $325.00
3/4" service with meter $2,275.00
1" service with meter $2,300.00
1 - % " service with meter $3,000.00
2" service with meter $3,200.00
If larger than 2" or a length of more than Cost plus 15%
60 feet
WATER FEES - 3 July 19, 2004
CITY G AGENDA 5d
OBWU
� � ITEM#
RLINGAME STAFF REPORT
MTG.
DATE 7/19/2004
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITT
BY
DATE: July 15, 2004 APPROVED
BY
FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney
SUBJECT:
RE-ADOPT ORDINANCE APPROVING AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN CITY
AND CALPERS TO PROVIDE FIRE SERVICE EMPLOYEES WITH CREDIT FOR UNUSED
SICK LEAVE AND CANCELLATION OF PAYMENT FOR OPTIONAL SERVICE CREDIT
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt ordinance approving amendment to CALPERS contracts to provide fire service employees with credit for
unused sick leave and cancellation of payment for optional service credit if retired on industrial disability.
DISCUSSION:
On June 7, 2004, the City Council adopted an ordinance approving this amendment.
However, the San Mateo Times did not publish the ordinance as requested within 15 days. This requires re-
adoption of the ordinance to ensure its validity.
Attachment
Ordinance
Distribution
Human Resources Director
1 ORDINANCE NO.
2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CALPERS)
TO PROVIDE FIRE SERVICE EMPLOYEE MEMBERS WITH CREDIT FOR
4 UNUSED SICK LEAVE AND CANCELLATION OF PAYMENT FOR OPTIONAL
SERVICE CREDIT IF RETIRED ON INDUSTRIAL DISABILITY
5
6 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows:
7 Section 1. Pursuant to the California Government Code and the Contract between the City
8 of Burlingame and the California Public Employees Retirement System (CALPERS), the City
9 wishes to amend its contract to allow its fire service employees to be eligible for two benefits: 1)
10 Conversion of unused sick leave to creditable service upon retirement; and 2) Cancellation of
1 1 payment for optional service credit when an employee is retired for an industrial disability. On
12 April 26,2004,the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to consider this amendment at
13 a duly noticed public hearing, and notice of that public hearing has been properly provided.
14 Written comments and oral testimony of all interested persons have been considered.
15 Section 2. The Amendment to Contract between the City of Burlingame and the Board of
16 Administration, California Public Employees Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy of
17 this amendment is attached to this ordinance,marked Exhibit A, and by such reference is made a
18 part hereof as though herein set out in full.
19 Section 3. The Mayor of the City of Burlingame is hereby authorized, empowered, and
20 directed to execute this amendment for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame.
21 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall take effect thirty
22 days after its adoption.
23
24
Mayor
25
26
27 I,ANN T.MUSSO,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the
28 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3'day of
1
I May, 2004, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of
2 , 2004, by the following vote:
3 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
4 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
5 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
6
7
City Clerk
8 C:\FILES\ORDINANC\calpersemn5.per.wpd
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION,
CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter
referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency,hereinafter referred to
as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective July 1, 1942, and witnessed July 6,
1942, and as amended effective February 1, 1954, July 1, 1956, April 1, 1963, March 1, 1964,
April 1, 1965, March 16, 1967,November 1, 1968, September 1, 1970, April 1, 1973, May 1,
1974,November 1, 1974, February 20, 1975, March 16, 1975, July 1, 1976, August 16, 1976,
May 1, 1979, December 1, 1985, December 1, 1987, December 6, 1989,November 15, 1990,
May 26, 1997, December 12, 2000,November 1, 2001, December 30, 2001, July 15, 2002 and
June 5, 2003 which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public
Agency hereby agree as follows:
A. Paragraphs 1 through 12 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective
June 5, 2003, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 12 inclusive:
1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees'
Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise
specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 55 for local
miscellaneous members and age 55 for local safety members.
2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from
and after July 1, 1942 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of
said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law
except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided
for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those,
which by express provisions thereof, apply only on the election of a contracting
agency.
3. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of
said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or
this agreement:
a. Local Fire Fighters (herein referred to as local safety members);
b. Local Police Officers (herein referred to as local safety members);
C. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local
miscellaneous members).
4. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said
Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of
said Retirement System:
a. PLAYGROUND LEADERS WHO ARE PAID ON AN HOURLY
BASIS; POLICE CADETS, AND LIBRARY PAGES HIRED ON OR
AFTER MARCH 16, 1967; AND
b. FIRE CADETS AND CROSSING GUARDS HIRED ON OR AFTER
MAY 1, 1974.
5. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited
prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member shall be determined in
accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law(2% at age 55 Full).
6. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited
prior and current service as a local safety member shall be determined in
accordance with Section 21363.1 of said Retirement Law(3% at age 55 Full).
7. Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following optional
provisions:
a. Section 21573 (Third Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local
miscellaneous members only.
b. Section 20425 ("Local Police Officer" shall include employees of a police
department who were employed to perform identification or
communication duties on August 4, 1972 and who elected to be local
safety members).
C. Section 21222.1 (One-Time 5% Increase - 1970). Legislation repealed said
Section effective January 1, 1980.
d. Section 21222.2 (One-Time 5% Increase - 1971). Legislation repealed said
Section effective January 1, 1980.
e. Sections 21624, 21626 and 21628 (Post-Retirement Survivor Allowance).
f. Section 21319 (One-Time 15% Increase for Local Miscellaneous Members
Who Retired or Died Prior to July 1, 1971). Legislation repealed said
Section effective January 1, 2002.
g. Section 20614, Statutes of 1978, (Reduction of Normal Member
Contribution Rate). From May 1, 1979 and until December 1, 1985, the
normal local miscellaneous member contribution rate shall be 3.5% and
local safety member contribution rate shall be 4.5%. Legislation repealed
said Section effective September 29, 1980.
h. Section 20690, Statutes of 1980, (To Prospectively Revoke Section 20614,
Statutes of 1978).
i. Section 20042 (One-Year Final Compensation).
j. Section 21574 (Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local safety
members only.
k. Section 20965 (Credit for Unused Sick Leave) for local miscellaneous
members and local fire members only.
1. Section 21024 (Military Service Credit as Public Service), Statutes of
1976.
in. Section 20903 (Two Years Additional Service Credit).
n. Section 21037 (Cancellation of Payment for Optional Service Credit Upon
Retirement for Industrial Disability).
8. Public Agency, in accordance with Government Code Section 20790, ceased to be
an "employer" for purposes of Section 20834 effective on August 16, 1976.
Accumulated contributions of Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as
provided in Government Code Section 20834, and accumulated contributions
thereafter shall be held by the Board as provided in Government Code Section
20834.
9. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions
determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect
to local miscellaneous members and local safety members of said Retirement
System.
10. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows:
a. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959
Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21573 of said Retirement Law.
(Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public
Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on
term insurance rates, for survivors of all local miscellaneous members.
b. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959
Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21574 of said Retirement Law.
(Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public
Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on
term insurance rates, for survivors of all local safety members.
C. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board,payable in one installment
within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said
System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the
costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations
required by law.
d. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as
the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of
employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and
valuations required by law.
11. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to
adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees'
Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System
as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said
Retirement Law.
12. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public
Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to
which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If
more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period,
proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances.
Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may
be made by direct payments between the employee and the Board.
B. This amendment shall be effective on the_day of ,
Y C AGENDA 7a
OBUAWNGA"ME
ITEM#
STAFF REPORT DAT
DATE 7/19/2004
eoo...o..wE e,•o
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMIT —
BY
DATE: July 12, 2004 APPROVED
BY—
FROM:
Y FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney
SUBJECT:
INTRODUCE ALTERNATIVE ORDINANCES TO AMEND CHAPTER 6.36 REGARDING
REGULATION OF TAXICAB FARES
RECOMMENDATION:
Introduce each alternative proposed ordinance regarding regulation of taxicab fares:
A. Request City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance.
B. Waive further reading of the ordinance.
C. Introduce the proposed ordinance.
D. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least 5 days before proposed adoption.
DISCUSSION:
The Burlingame Municipal Code contains a specific cap on taxicab fares for taxis that are subject to City permit when
picking up passengers in the City. These fares($2.00 pick-up and$1.60 per mile)have not been changed since 1993.
The taxicab operators are in desperate need of relief so that they can charge fares that are fair and consistent with the
fares in other cities.
The attached letter from a number of taxicab operators proposes an increase in fares on a two-rate basis: $2.50 for pick-
up and $2.50 per mile within the County; and $3.00 for pick-up and $3.00 per mile outside the County. These rates are
consistent with those being charged elsewhere.
The alternative ordinances suggest two approaches: the first is to allow maximum fares to be set by resolution, which is
more flexible;the second is to lift the regulations and instead simply require taxicab operators to file their fares with the
Police Department before they can be charged. The taxicab operators need a quick process, so these alternative
ordinances will give the Council a chance to consider the matter fully at a public hearing and then take action on the
alternative that makes the most sense. In addition, staff would bring a proposed resolution to the August 2 hearing for
consideration in case the first approach is adopted.
Attachment
Letter of July 8, 2004 from taxicab operators
Proposed alternative ordinances
Distribution
Chief of Police
Thomas Baldwin
July 08,2004
Mayor's Office,
City council of Burlingame
Attn: City attorney
Larry Anderson
Dear sir,
We,the cab companies of Burlingame
Yellow Allied Cab Co.
Owner's Name: LE E PA K f R AS H A_R
Signature –P�a 5 t—,
ABC Cab Co.
Owner's Name; ,° A,c�f�Q _L__ C� 4-�
Signature _
California Cab CO.
Owner's Name:aLt( a
Signature >
John 3:16 Cab Co.
Owner's Name:- 'CA�—MW CL _
Signature 0'___----
Airport Express Cab Co.
Owner's Name:_
Signature
Rainbow Cab Co. �yv-\
Owner's Name;
Signature __ ,
Request that the existing meter rates of no less than rate one.$2.50 flag down,$2.50 per mile for
the greater Burlingame area.Rate two$3.00 flag down,$3.00 per mile for outside San Mateo Cotauy.
Be accepted as the authorized meter rates for taxicab companies operating in the Burlingame
area.
We feel that these rates are not only fare but neccessary for us to operate under present economic
conditions.
We thank you for your consideration on this matter and eagerly await your decision at the July
19, 2004 meeting.
Thank You!
Sincerely,
Burlingame Cab Companies,
Thomas E.Boldwin
Yellow Allied Cab CO.
1 ORDINANCE No.
2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING CHAPTER 6.36 TO PROVIDE A PUBLIC HEARING AND
3 RESOLUTION PROCESS TO INCREASE MAXIMUM TAXICAB FARES
4
5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
6
7 Section 1. Taxicab fares for any taxicab picking up passengers in the City are currently
8 regulated by ordinance. However, regulation by ordinance makes any changes difficult and time-
9 consuming and the fare levels have not been increased for over a decade. This ordinance will
10 change the regulation to provide for fare increases by resolution, so that the process may be
11 simplified.
12
13 Section 2. Section 6.36.110(d) is amended to read as follows:
14 (d) Rates. It is unlawful for the owner or driver of any taxicab in the city to fix, charge, or
15 collect for a service a rate more than the rate ,approved by resolution of the city council. the
16 fallowing-
17 (1) For the first one-eighth of a nifle or fraction thereof, two dollarar,
18 - one-ninth
19 cents;
20 (3) When carrying passengers whose point of destination is different, the meter shaff be
21 ,
22 , a charge may be made at the rate not to exceed twenty dolfars pe
23 hour, as is indicated on the taxicab meter to the nearest ten cents, and is to be included in flie total
24 registered fare; provided that the waiting time charged shall not apply to traffic def ays
25 delays f6r train passage. Applications for any adjustment in rates shall first be filed in writing with
26 the city clerk, setting forth justification for such adjustment and requesting a hearing thereon. The
27 application shall include a comparison to rates being charged in other cities in San Mateo and Santa
28 Clara Counties. The city council shall set the matter for hearing and any interested person may be
ALTERNATIVE #1 1
I heard concerning the requested adjustment.
2
3 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
4
5 Mayor
6
I,ANN T.MUSSO,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the
7 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day
of ,2004,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
8 _day of , 2004, by the following vote:
9 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
10 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
11
12 City Clerk
13
14
C:\FILES\ORDINANC\taxirates-2004-I.bpd.wpd
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ALTERNATIVE#1 2
I ORDINANCE No.
2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING CHAPTER 6.36 TO SUSPEND REGULATION OF TAXICAB FARES
3 AND PROVIDE FOR FILING OF FARES WITH CITY
4
5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
6
7 Section 1. Taxicab fares for any taxicab picking up passengers in the City are currently
8 regulated by ordinance. However,regulation by ordinance makes any changes difficult and time-
9 consuming and the fare levels have not been increased for over a decade. It appears that taxicab
10 rates are largely self-regulating because of customer's ability to shop around for the best service
11 and rates. This ordinance will change the regulation to no longer regulate taxicab rates for the time
12 being; rate regulation could be reinstituted if this lack of regulation causes inconvenience or
13 difficulties for the community. However,taxicab rates must be filed with the Police Department
14 in order to provide a means for consumer verification of the rates' legitimacy and to make the rates
15 readily available to the public.
16
17 Section 2. Section 6.36.110(d) is amended to read as follows:
18 (d)Rates. It is unlawful for the owner or driver of any taxicab in the city to fix,charge,or
19 collect for a service a rate more than the rate on,file with the police',department.
the fbilowing-
20 (f) For the first one-eighth of a mile or fraction thereof, two dollarr,
21 - - ,twent
22 cents;
23 , the meter shaf!
24 ,
25 , a charge may be made at the rate not to exceed twenty doffars per
26 , and is to be inefuded in the total
27 registered fare;provided that the waiting time charged shalf not appfy to traffic delay
28 delays for train passage-.
ALTERNATIVE #2 1
1 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
2
3 Mayor
4
I,ANN T.MUS SO,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the
5 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day
of ,2004,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
6 _day of , 2004, by the following vote:
7 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
8 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
9
10 City Clerk
11
12
13 C:\FILES\ORDINANC\taxirates-2004-2.bpd.wpd
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ALTERNATIVE #2 2
BURLINGAME
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA 7b
ITEM#
MTG.
DATE 7/19/04
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBNATTED
BY
DATE: July 14,2004
APPRO
FROM: Director of Parks& Recreation BY
SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF PARKS RULES AND REGUL IONS INCLUDING
PROHIBITING DOGS FROM CITY PLAYGROUND AREAS
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council re-adopt the attached rules and regulations for the use of
Burlingame's Parks as proposed by the Parks & Recreation Commission under Municipal Code
Section 10.55.030, Rules and Regulations. Included is a new regulation that would prohibit dogs
from City playground areas as proposed by the Parks & Recreation Commission at their last
meeting.
BACKGROUND:
In order to ease enforcement, the attached ordinance summarizes the City's existing Parks Use
Rules and Regulations. Included is a new regulation that will prohibit dogs from being in
playground areas.
Citing, amongst other reasons, that playground areas are designed as areas of play for young
children, are often crowded and at times have no direct supervision and that many children are
fearful of dogs, the Commission is recommending that dogs be prohibited from being in tot-lots
or on playgrounds as designated by the surfacing material. This action was taken at the June 17,
2004 Commission meeting because some pet owners bring their dogs onto and around the
playground equipment; an action that is currently permissible if the dog is on leash. The City has
developed a Dog Park at Bayside Park where dogs are allowed off leash and the Commission has
been working with the Police Department to increase enforcement of the existing leash laws in
City parks. This new regulation will help develop a healthier and safer environment for both the
dogs and the public.
ATTACHMENTS:
EXHIBIT "A" — Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Chapter 10.55 to Update
Provisions Regarding Use of Parks and Recreational Areas
BUDGET IMPACT:
Approximately $1,000 from the Department budget will be required for signage at the 12
locations.
CITY AGENDA 7b
°� ITEM#
BURL,NGAME STAFF REPORT MAG.
°'coq DATE 7/19/2004
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTE
BY
DATE: July 15, 2004 APPROVED
BY—
FROM:
Y FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney
SUBJECT:
SUPPLEMENT TO ADOPTION OF PARKS RULES AND REGULATIONS INCLUDING
PROHIBITING DOGS FROM CITY PLAYGROUNDS
In order to introduce the ordinance suggested in the staff report, the Council should do the following:
A. Request City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance.
B. Waive further reading of the ordinance.
C. Introduce the proposed ordinance.
D. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least 5 days before proposed
adoption.
I ORDINANCE NO.
2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 10.55 TO
UPDATE PROVISIONS REGARDING USE OF PARKS AND RECREATIONAL
3 AREAS
4
5 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows:
6
7 Section 1. Chapter 10.55 establishes the basic regulations for use of the City's parks and
8 recreation facilities,and in order to better define the authority of the City Manager and the Director
9 of Parks &Recreation and incorporate rules and regulations that have been approved by the City
10 Council, minor amendments to the provisions should be made.
11
12 Section 2. Chapter 10.55 is amended to read as follows:
13 Chapter 10.55
REGULATIONS FOR PARKS AND RECREATIONAL AREAS
14 Sections:
10.55.005 Definitions.
15 10.55.010 Trespassing prohibited.
10.55.015 Hours.
16 10.55.020 Exceptions.
10.55.025 Use of parks and recreational areas.
17 10.55.028 General rules and regulations.
10.55.030 Additional rules and regulations.
18 10.55.035 Enforcement of rules and regulations.
10.55.040 Special events and group use.
19 10.55.045 Closing parks and recreational areas.
20
Section 10.55.005 Definitions.
21
22 For purpose of this chapter,the following definitions apply:
23 (a) "Director"or "director of parks and recreation" means the city director of parks and
recreation or the director's authorized designee.
24
25 (b) "Park" or "recreation area" means any property, grounds, or facilities under the
26 supervision of the department of parks and recreation. This includes but is not limited to city
27 packs,pools,recreation centers, golf center,playgrounds, fields,open spaces, and all parking lots
28 mid structures involved in these facilities,and school facilities when scheduled or programmed by
1
I the city.
2
3 Section 10.55.010 Trespassing prohibited.
4 (a)'`It is unlawful for any person to trespass upon the grounds and facilities of any park or
5 recreational area of the city which are restricted to the exclusive use of such persons as may be
6 permitted thereon by the rules and regulations governing the use thereof by the general public or
7 as may be engaged in the recreational programs of the city, and the employees assigned thereto.
8 (b) The city manager or the director of parks and recreation is authorized to have excluded
9 from any park any person violating the provisions of this chapter or any of the rules and
10 regulations. Any person thus excluded who fails to leave the park forthwith, or who thereafter
11 enters therein or thereupon, except with the consent of the city manager or director of parks and
12 recreation, is guilty of a misdemeanor or infraction as determined pursuant to this code.
13
14 Section 10.55.015 Hours.
15 Except as provided in Section 10.55.020, the parks, recreational areas and all facilities
16 located therein, including the parking lots serving the parks and recreational areas facilities, shall
17 be closed to the public between the hours of nine(9)p.m. and six(6) a.m. the following morning.
18 In addition to all city owned facilities, the provisions of this section shall also apply to that area
19 known as Wooley Park, located between 150 Anza Boulevard and the entrance to Anza Lagoon,
20 except it shall not apply to the adjacent parking lot or to persons traversing the bayfront pathway
21 between said that parking lot and the bridge at Anza Lagoon.
22
23 Section 10.55.020 Exceptions.
24 The hours established by Section 10.55.015 hereof shall not apply to:
25 (a)The parking lots serving and immediate area of any municipal recreation building during
26 the time the building is being used with permission and for one hour after the closing thereof,
27 (b)Any recreation program conducted or authorized by the parks and recreation department
28 and for one hour after the completion thereof.
2
I Section 10.55.025 Use of parks and recreational areas.
2 It is unlawfulfor any unauthorized person to No pewenter,use, cross or remain in
3 any park or recreational area and the parking lots adjacent thereto except during the hours such park
4 or recreational area and parking lot is open to the public as provided in Sections 10.55.015 and
5 10.55.020.
6
7 Section 10.55.028 General rules and regulations
8 It is unlawful for any person, group, or organization to do any of the following in any city
9 park or recreational area without the express permission of the director of parks and recreation,or
10 the director's authorized designee:
11 (a) Open, expose or interfere with any water or gas pipe, hydrant, stopcock,sewer, basin
12 or other construction, or any natural or artificial drainage;
13 (b) Remove turf, soil, grass, rock, sand or gravel, tree, shrub or wood or portion thereof;
14 (c)Make or kindle a fire for any purpose,`except in places provided therefor or in a portable
15 barbecue in an area designated for such purpose;
16 (d) Play or practice golf or archery or fly,or operate r7lotor-driven models, except in areas
17 specifically designated and pasted for sucks purposes;
18 (c) Take into, exhibit or use any firearm, air gun, slingshot, firecracker,torpedo, rocket or
19 weapon of any sort,whether manufactured or it iprovised. This prohibition includes the use of any
20 item or utensil in such amanner astoapproximate a weapon or to cast fear into anomer;
21 (f) Cut, break, injure, deface or disturb any tree, shrub, plant, rock, building, cage; pen,
22 monument, fence, bench; path, walk or other structure, apparatusor property; or mark or write
23 thereon;
24 (g) Practice, carry on, conduct or solicit for any trade, occupation, business or profession
25 without a permit therefore endorsed by the director of parks and recreation;
26 (h) Sell or offer for sale, any merchandise, article or thing, whatsoever, without a permit
27 therefore endorsed by the director of parks and recreation;
28 (i) Use or attempt to use or interfere with the use of any table, space or facility which at the
3
I time is reserved for any other person or group;
2 (1) Enter any area which is posted by the city as being closed to the public;
3 (k)Operate or park any vehicle except upon areas designated or as may be permittedbythe
4 director of harks;
5 (1)Placelitter or debris her nirt ,a erdesigned to receive such litteror-debris;
6 r' ) Play any game of chance car c try4 betting of any kind;
7 (n) Fish, wade swim:or N excepftthe places designated therefor-;
8 (o)Setup or use a volley'"`;l net so as to'exceed a znakimuna of two such nets in apark at
9 any time;
10 (p) Have ii:411 her phi sior or control any exotic animal as defined by Siection
11 0.08.050 of this code,re ar of like;Marto releaic any such animal in-apark or recreational area;
12 ( ) Operate any of,,,0 following e ui t ent, without express written permit from;the
13 director of parks and recreatiop:
14 1) Generator Cor produ �„ l cirrcal i If or
15 (2) Sound ampltfic n e
16 (3') Any radio or sound re ria duction e ur ° l which causes any noise that disturbs the
17 peace and cluieto the riei� arhoo c tr e users o alae or facility; of
18 (4) hr stable pl y p en ,H` 'has a trey d sim lar items; or
19 )Batting machines,except ort design,' hated ballftelc s between the hours of 9:0 ar
20 and ;00pnr on Mondays through Saturdays ah 'NeOVeen 10 00an-and 9:00pm on Sundays, and.
21 on' unlighted ballfields between the hou I4f--9:d0 a.m. and dusk on Mondays through
22 Saturdays and between 10:00 a.ni. and dusk on Sundays. Batting machines arc only pennntcd on
23 the designated ballfields at Ray Park on Sundays between 11:00am and 5:00ptu.
24 (i:) Gather in groups of fifteen (15) persons or more without specific written pees ipn
25 from the director of parks and recreation in the following locations:
26 (1) Cuernavaca Park at any time; or
27 ( ) pillage Park on weekdays between 10:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m.; or
28 (3)Pershing Park on eekdays between.10:00 aan. and 3:00 p.m.;
4
I (s)Engage in any activity involving batted balls in any park or recreational area,except on
2 a designated ballfield at Bayside Park, Cuernavaca Park,Ray Park, or Washington Park.
3 (t)Possess,serve or sell alcoholic beverages at any park or recreational area,except by the
4 city's authorized golf center operator at the Burlingame Golf Center; or
5 (v) Allow dogs in or around any playground as designated by the surface material at the
6 playground equipment in Cuernavaca Park,Pershing Park,Ray Park,Trenton Park,Victoria Park,
7 Village Park, or Washington Park, or as designated by the fenced area surrounding the City's tot
8 lots at Alpine Park, "J" Lot,Laguna Playground and Paloma Playground.
9
10 Section 10.55.030 Additional rules and regulations.
11 In addition to the general rules and regulations contained in this chapter, the parks and
12 recreation commission shall may promulgate and submit to the council for approval, rules and
13 regulations governing the administration, operation, use and maintenance of each park and
14 recreational area.ft is unlawffil fbr any person to violate any such rule or regulation. Such rules and
15 regulations shaff may stipulate, among other things:
16 (a) The facilities, equipment and provisions of each park together with the maximum
17 number which may safely use such facilities, equipment and provisions at one time;
18 (b)The areas of each park designated for particular uses,whether passive or otherwise and
19 any specific limitations thereon designed to promote the public safety and enhance the greatest use
20 by the greatest number of people;
21 (c) The terms by which park facilities such as tennis courts, ball fields, etc., may be used
22 and any specific requirements designed to protect the playing surface and to insure the safety of
23 participants and spectators;
24 (d) Areas suitable for public assembly and the number which may be accommodated
25 without injury to the park, its plant life or any facilities therein;
26 (e)Areas where sound amplification equipment may be made available or where it may be
27 used together with the maximum sound level at which it may be operated so as to provide full
28 dissemination of sound within the area when occupied by the maximum number allowed so as not
5
I to interfere with the reasonable enjoyment by the public of adjacent areas or of private citizens
2 within adjacent private property; and
3 (f) Procedures for securing the exclusive use of any park or recreational area or facility
4 together with any fee schedule or security deposit requirements necessary to insure compliance with
5 the terms of the permit or to protect the general public from liability for the extra maintenance
6 necessitated by such exclusive use. Such procedure shall include the provisions for appeal to the
7 council.
8
9 Section 10.55.035 Enforcement of rules and regulations.
10 (a) It is unlawful for any person, groupor organization to violate any rule ox-regulation
11 adopted pursuant to section 10.55.035 above.
12 (b) In addition to the other remedies provides by this code and state law, the city manager
13 or the director of parks and recreation may suspend the privilege of a person,group,or organization
14 that violates the provisions o I this chapter or the terms and conditions of any permit issued pursuant
15 to this chapter to obtain any further permit for use of any park or recreational area for such time as
16 the manager or director determines is an appropriate suspension. Any person, group, or
17 organization whose privilege is suspended under this subsection may appeal the suspension to the
18 city council by filing awritten appeal together with an appeal fee with the city clerk within ten ('10)
19 days of the written notice of suspension; The city council will then hear the appeal within a
20 reasonable period of time and rendezra decision on the sLisp ension. The decision of the city council
21 shall be final and conclusive.
22 The director of parks shall enf6rce the f this chapter and all nales mid
23 regulations applicable to the administration, opetat.on, use and maintenance of the parks and
24 recreational areas.
25 .
26 ,hydi ant, stopcock, sewer,basin or other
27 construction, or any natural or artificial drainage,
28thereof,
6
I , except in places provided therefor or in a portable
2 ,
3motor-driven
4 spceifically designated and posted f6r such purposes,-
5 , slingshot, firecracker, torpedo, rocket o,
6 , including dic use of any item or utellsill
7 in such a matincr as to approximate a weapon or to cast fear into another;
8 ,
9 montiment, , bench, path, walk or other structure,
apparattis or property, or mark or write
10 thereon;
11 ,business or profession without
12 a pen nit thet efore endorsed by the director of
,
13 ,
14 therefore endorsed by the director of parks,
15 (i)Use or attempt to use or interfcre with the ttsc of any space or facility which at the time
table,
16 is reserved for any other person or grotjr,
17 0) Enter any area which is posted as being closed to the public to protect growd, or establish
18 plants, is used as a service facility or which is under repair;
19 (k) Operate or park any vehicle except upon areas designated or as may be permitted by the
20 dircetor of parks-,
21 (1) Place litter or debris elsewhere than in container designed to receive such litteT or
debris;
22 (m) Play any gartie of Chance or carry on betting of any
,
23 ,
24 (o) Set up or use a-volleyball net so as to exceed a MaXIMUM OftWO such nets in a park at an
25 time:
26 (P) f f ave in his Or het r control any exotic animal, as defined by Section 9.08.050
27 of this code, regardless of size.
28
7
I Section 10.55.040 Special events and group use.
2 The city manager and the director of parks and recreation shall provide a permit process for
3 group reservations of park areas and recreational areas, special events, and circumstances not
4 covered by this chapter or the rules and regulations. In so doing the city manager or director shall
5 ensure that the
6 parks and recreational centers areas are available and provided for the comfort and convenience
7 of all.
8
9 Section 10.55.045 Closing parks and recreational areas.
10 The city manager or the director of parks and recreation may close any park or recreational
11 area and remove all persons therefrom when in his judgment such closing will best preserve the
12 public peace,prevent damage to public property or quell riots,mobs or violence.The city manager
13 or the director may also cause any and all persons whose presence on the premises is disruptive to
14 the normal and safe use and enjoyment thereof by the greatest number of people to be removed.
15
16 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall take effect thirty
17 days after its adoption.
18
19
Mayor
20
21 I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
22 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day
23 of , 2004, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council
24 held on the day of , 2004, by the following vote:
25 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
26 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
27 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
28
1 City Clerk
C:\FILES\ORDINANC\parks&recrules.p&r.wpd
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
9
000 CITY ,z STAFF REPORT
BURLJNGAME AGENDA
ITEM# 7c
MTG.
DATE 7/19/04
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BY
DATE: July 14,2004
Qt�
APPROVE
FROM: Jim Nantell 558-7205 BY
suwEcr: Presentation of Safeway Store Public Opinion Research an Discussion of Possible Changes in
Previously Denied Proposal for Safeway Walgreens at El Camino Real and Howard Ave.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council review and discuss presentations relative to telephone survey and
signature gathering efforts regarding the Safeway Project that was acted on by the Council last February.
BACKGROUND: As the Council is aware, in recent weeks there have been two separate undertakings
relative to the Safeway Project. Marianne Saucedo has been working with others to survey people in the
community about a desire to consider an advisor ballot measure regarding the Safeway project. In addition
Safeway has engaged a research firm to undertake a random sampling of frequent voters' views on the
Safeway Proposal.
Representatives of both Safeway and the private citizen group have contacted Mayor O'Mahony and requested
that they be allowed to present the Council with the results of a their respective survey/signature efforts. It is
our understanding that David Binder of DBR Research Company will be on hand to make a presentation
regarding their survey. In addition, Marianne Saucedo will also be at the meeting to share the status of her
signature gathering efforts.
As the Council recalls, in February of 2004 you upheld the Planning Commission's denial of the project on a
3-2 vote. Therefore, re-submittal of the same or similar project would not be allowed until February of 2005.
Any desire to submit a project for review in advance of February 2005 would require significant changes to
the previous Safeway proposal.
For the Council's information,Mayor O'Mahony and I, along with Council members Baylock and Nagel,
attended a recent public meeting sponsored by the Citizens for Better Burlingame discussing smart growth.
At that meeting there was considerable discussion about multi-use properties that might allow structured
parking and housing above a retail use. It was my impression from the people I talked to at the meeting that
they hope Safeway might give serious consideration to including some housing in any new proposal they
might submit. Doing so would be an example of a clearly different project. Given the strong push from the
State of California to provide more housing in our community, Council may want to suggest that Safeway give
consideration to the idea before bringing forth any new proposal.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Overview of Public Opinion on the Burlingame Safeway
B. Bio for David Binder, CEO/¢f BDR R search Company
• `•
David Binder Research
44 Page Street,Suite 404-San Francisca,California 94102
800-905 7330-415-621-7655•F:415-621-7663•&-research.com
To: Kathleen Gallagher
From: David Binder Research
Date: June 10"', 2004
Re: Results of Public Opinion Research on the Burlingame Safeway
OVERVIEW
David Binder Research recently conducted a survey of voters living in the City of
Burlingame to determine voter opinion regarding the project that Safeway had previously
submitted to the Burlingame City Council for consideration.
The survey was conducted among 400 registered voters who had a track record of
voting, and were thus considered likely to vote in the November 2004 election. The
survey was conducted using commonly accepted random sampling techniques to ensure
that a representative sample of Burlingame voters was interviewed.
As is the case throughout California, the electorate in Burlingame is somewhat more
likely to be older and wealthier than the population at large. The electorate is also
disproportionately Caucasian and homeowner, as non-white residents and renters are
less likely to register to vote and participate in elections. The demographics of the voter
sample, while different than the demographics of the broader Burlingame population, are
indeed representative of the Burlingame electorate.
The goals of this research project were to gauge the level of support for the Safeway
project that was recently debated and rejected by the Burlingame City Council.
Specifically, this survey tested familiarity with the project, support for the Council's
decision, support for the project, and reaction to several positions taken by supporters
and opponents regarding the project.
To put the issue in context, the survey also asked some questions about the mood of
Burlingame voters, their issues of concern, and their shopping habits with respect to
food and grocery items.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
In an open-ended question in which voters were asked to state the issues facing
Burlingame that concerned them most, four issues were volunteered by more than one-
quarter of the voters: education, jobs and the economy, the Safeway project and
rebuilding Peninsula Hospital.
ISSUE OF CONCERN % Men-
tioned
Education and the public schools 67
Jobs and the economy 29
The Safeway project 29
Rebuilding Peninsula Hospital 26
The city budget 23
Housing 13
Transportation, roads and freeways 13
Growth, development and land use 13
Downtown parking, 11
A new teen center 9
The proportion of voters who mentioned the Safeway and the Peninsula Hospital issue
were remarkably high when compared to other localities, where specific projects are
seldom mentioned as much as general concerns such as education, the economy and
the budget. This indicates a high level of local interest in these two topics.
SHOPPING TRENDS
Results from this survey show that 38% of Burlingame voters primarily use grocery
stores and supermarkets outside of Burlingame city limits. This includes 18% of
Burlingame voters who shop at Albertson's, and another 11% who most frequently shop
at Safeway stores in San Mateo and Millbrae.
Among the grocery stores in Burlingame, most respondents stated they shop at
Lunardi's (30%) or at the Safeway store in Burlingame (24%), with only 9% shopping at
Mollie Stone's.
This indicates that those Burlingame residents who are leaving the city to do their
grocery shopping are most often looking for standard grocery stores, such as Albertson's
or Safeway— not specialty stores (only 5% are primarily shopping at Costco or Trader
Joe's) or smaller boutiques, such as Molly Stone's or Draegers. It is likely that a new,
remodeled Safeway in Burlingame would appeal to many of these residents who are
currently leaving city limits to do their grocery shopping at these stores.
Page 2
June 18",2004
Burlingame Safeway draft 3
VIEWS ON SAFEWAY PROJECT
Fully 70% of Burlingame voters state they are extremely or moderately familiar with the
Safeway project that was presented to the City Council.
Those familiar with the project tend to be older and longer term Burlingame residents.
Younger voters and renters are less likely to have stayed informed about this project.
After hearing a brief discussion of project features, 52% of Burlingame voters state they
would vote yes on an initiative that would allow the Burlingame Safeway project to be
built. 35% state they would vote no on such an initiative, with 13% undecided. (See the
Appendix for the actual questions asked and results.)
Analysis indicates difference of opinion based on several key demographic variables,
including:
• Age. 59% of voters under the age of 50, and 71% of those under the age of 30,
state they would vote yes to allow the Safeway project to continue.
• Years of residence. 67% of newer Burlingame residents (i.e. those who have
lived in Burlingame less than five years) state they would vote yes to allow the
Safeway project.
• Homeownership. Young homeowners, those that have recently moved to
Burlingame and put down roots in the City, strongly support the project. 62% of
homeowners under the age of 50 state they would vote yes on an initiative to
allow the Safeway project, compared to 32% who oppose.
Also, current shoppers of the Burlingame Safeway store strongly support the project.
Among those who say that their primary grocery store is the Burlingame Safeway, 65%
state they would vote to allow the project..
Page 3
June 18`",2004
Burlingame Safeway draft 3 ""
REASONS TO SUPPORT AND OPPOSE SAFEWAY
PROJECT
The most frequently mentioned reasons for voting yes to allow the Safeway project is
that the current Safeway store needs to be updated and modernized,and that the
current store is just too small. Burlingame residents also strongly agreed that anew
Safeway is needed to provide an affordable grocery store for Burlingame residents.
Residents also strongly agreed with the project's goal of keeping a Walgreen's drugstore
in the downtown area.
The most frequently mentioned reasons for voting no to prevent the Safeway project is
that the proposed store is too large,and that it will take away from Burlingame's village-
like character.
Many opponents were also concerned about the possibility of new traffic problems that
may arise with the project. 53%agree that the new Safeway will increase vehicle traffic
and bring heavy trucks down Primrose Road.
Some arguments against the project were not particularly important to residents,
including the argument that the project should be developed with at least two buildings,
rather than a single building(only 28%supported this premise).
Also,most voters rejected the argument that the Safeway project would take business
away from existing local merchants(28%agree).
CONCLUSIONS
A majority of voters state they would vote yes to support the Safeway project presented
to the City Council,with primary support coming from younger homeowners in
Burlingame,many of whom currently shop outside city limits. Many of these supporters
state that they prefer a modernized,updated,larger Safeway store closer to their
residence.
There is also a significant number of opponents to the project,who are primarily longer-
term residents and older voters. These people are concerned about the size and scale
of the proposed project,and also have concerns about additional traffic.
APPENDIX: QUESTIONS ASKED
Now I am going to tell you some statements about the proposal to rebuild the Safeway store in
Burlingame,which was defeated by the City Council. For each that I read,please tell me if it is
very persuasive,somewhat persuasive,not very persuasive or not at all persuasive in convincing
you to SUPPORT the rebuilding project.If you think the statement is not true,just say so.
(ROTATE.)
Page 4
June 78'",2004
Burlingame Safeway draft 3
777-777- Not Not
D
Reftise
._
sive
sive All
SIV
The new Safeway proposed for
1 Burlingame will be about the same size 18 23 14 26 3 16 0
as the updated Safeway stores on EI
Camino in San Mateo and Belmont
The architectural style for the project
2 was created in collaboration with an 19 30 8 23 4 16 <1
architect hired by the City of
Burlingame.
3 The project would keep Walgreen's in 29 29 12 21 2 7 0
the downtown area.
Safeway would donate land to widen
4. Primrose Road and Fox Plaza Lane 32 28 10 19 4 7 0
and create more on-street parking.
5 Parking for the project meets City Code 26 30 8 18 4 14 <1
requirements.
A new Safeway is needed for an <1
6. affordable alternative grocery store for 35 17 13 23 7 5
Burlingame residents.
The project will create new shops along 21 24 13 25 7 10 <1
7' Primrose, down to Howard Avenue.
8. If you knew that each of the statements I just read was indeed true, would you then think
that the Burlingame City Council made the right decision or the wrong decision to deny
Safeway's project? (FOLLOW-UP: Is that strongly or somewhat?)
RIGHT DECISION, STRONGLY 29 441%
RIGHT DECISION, SOMEWHAT 12
WRONG DECISION, SOMEWHAT 15 447%
WRONG DECISION, STRONGLY 32
DON'T KNOW 11
REFUSE 1
Page 5
June 18'", 2004
Burlingame Safeway draft 3 °"'t1erzear
9. If the project to rebuild the Burlingame Safeway was before the voters on the next
election's ballot, would you vote yes to allow the Safeway to be rebuilt, or would you vote
no to disallow the project?
(IF YES OR NO, FOLLOW-UP: Is that a strong yes/no, or might you still change your
mind?)
(IF UNDECIDED, FOLLOW-UP: If you had to decide today, do you lean more toward yes
or more toward no?)
YES, STRONG 39
YES, MIGHT CHANGE 11 -->52%
UNDECIDED, LEAN YES 2
UNDECIDED 12
UNDECIDED, LEAN NO <1
NO, MIGHT CHANGE 8 435%
NO, STRONG 27
REFUSE 1
Now I am going to tell you some statements about the proposal to rebuild the Safeway store in
Burlingame, which was defeated by the City Council. For each statement I read, please tell me if
you agree or disagree. If you don't know,just say so. (FOLLOW UP: If agree/disagree: Is that
strongly or just somewhat?)
(ROTATE)
c
The project will be a huge big-box retail
10. store and will take away from 34 10 27 18 11 44 45.
Burlingame's village-like character.
The new Safeway will increase vehicle
11. traffic and bring heavy truck trucks 33 20 19 17 11 53 36; `
down Primrose Road.
Increasing the size of Safeway will
12. reduce the number of parking spaces 22 17 23 22 16 39 45.
available for downtown shoppers.
The project should be developed with at
13. least two buildings, rather than a large 12 16 22 19 31
single building
14. The project would take business away 16 12 38 24 10 28
from existing local merchants
Safeway is a huge corporation that is
15. only interested in maximizing profits. 32 24 16 20 8 56 36
Their proposal is only designed to make
them the most money
Page 6
June 18`",2004
Burlingame Safeway draft 3 ^
David Binder Research - David Binder Page 1 of 2
a�
p,
-r
tli n
David Binder 7;. . . . 3
David Binder,, CEO
ig'� r� With 18 years of experience in qualitative and `.
quantitative research, David is an expert in
methodology, statistical analysis, and strategic
consulting. David is also a nationally recognized, !
professionally trained focus group moderator, having
conducted approximately 1000 focus groups.
David's clients include a broad range of political,
government, labor, health care and non-profit
organizations, as well as business and marketing
firms. David probes the attitudes of the public, voters,
employees, consumers, union members,
professionals, and leaders. He often serves as an
independent monitor of election trends and returns for ' uWrcwT
election officials and media organizations.
A frequent contributor to the media, David has
appeared as a public opinion and political analyst for
the "CBS Evening News,""The News Hour with Jim
Lehrer" and "California This Week."
David has served as political analyst for San
Francisco's KPIX TV and is also a frequent
commentator and political analyst for San Francisco's
ABC, NBC, and FOX TV stations. David has appeared
on National Public Radio and provides commentary on
KCBS Newsradio and KQED radio's "Forum". He is
frequently quoted in major California newspapers, as
well as the New York Times, the Chicago Tribune, the
Bo3ton Globe, and the USA Today.
David has been an invited speaker at national
meetings of the Qualitative Research Consultants
Association (QRCA) and the American Association of
P' Public Opinion Research (AAPOR). David has been
awarded numerous public service and industry
distinctions, most recently receiving the Excellence in
Community Service Award from the San Francisco
American Marketing Association (SfAMA), in
recognition of his public service contributions in the
Bay Area.
David has a B.S. degree from Syracuse University and
a M.B.A. from Cornell University. He is a member of
the American Association of Political Consultants.
david..@db-research.com
Return to BiograQhies page
'a.
44 Page Street, Suite 404 San Francisco, California 94102
800-905-7330 • 415-621-7655 • F: 415-621-7663•e-mail: infocadb-research.com
http://www.db-research.com/DavidBinder.htm 7/6/2004
David Binder Research - Client List Page 1 of 3
0��ii '�"5�VI6 ^i I E 'a
p� a
Clients �. �per-
m
David Binder search
Client List
Corporations
AT&T
California State Automobile Association
Costco
DirecTV
Duke Energy
Elsevier Science
Engineering Information
Entertainment Development, Inc.
Home Depot
Kaiser Permanente
KP Online, Oakland
Pacific Bell
Reliant Energy
REVENUE Internet Properties Development Group
San Francisco Honda
Telocity DSL Internet
Walgreen's
World Wrestling Federation
Media
KPIX TV, 5, San Francisco
KRON TV, 4, San Francisco
San Francisco Bay Guardian
San Francisco Chronicle
San Francisco Examiner
San Francisco Independent
Non-Profit Organizations
Academy of Sciences, San Francisco
American Heart Association
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)
California Library Association
California Realtors Association
California Tax Reform Association
Coleman Advocates for Youth, San Francisco
Corporation for the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco
Friends of Recreation and Parks, San Francisco
Golden Gate National Parks Association
M. H. de Young Museum, San Francisco
Monterey Bay Aquarium, Monterey
Moscone Convention Center, San Francisco
Palace of Legion of Honor, San Francisco
Presidio Trust, San Francisco
Randall Museum, San Francisco
San Francisco AIDS Foundation
San Francisco Bicycle Coalition
San Francisco Zoo
Sierra Club
Trust for Public Land
Labor Groups
AFL-CIO
http://www.db-research.com/ClientList.htm 7/6/2004
David Binder Research - Client List Page 2 of 3
Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs
California Alliance for Jobs
California Labor Federation
California Professional Engineers in Government
California Professional Engineers in Government
California State Employees Association
Contra Costa Labor Council
Los Angeles County Federation of Labor
Operating Engineers Local 3
Public Employees of Riverside County
Sacramento City Firefighters
Sacramento County Sheriffs
San Diego/Imperial County Labor Council
SEIU Local 99, Los Angeles
SEIU Local 250, Oakland
SEIU Local 399, Los Angeles
SEIU Local 660, Los Angeles
SEIU Local 998,Ventura
SEIU Local 2028, San Diego
SEIU State Council
Educational Groups and Institutions
Association of California School Administrators
California Association of Bilingual Education
California Faculty Association
California Federation of Teachers
California Higher Educational Consortium
California School Employees Association
The California State University System
California Teachers Association
City Colleges of Los Angeles
F�
City Colleges es of San Francisco
Mount San Antonio Community College
United Teachers of Los Angeles
The University of California System
Public Relations and Consulting Firms
Barnes-Clarke, San Francisco
_ Barnes, Mosher, Whitehurst, Lauter and Partners, San Francisco
Davis &Associates, San Francisco
ERW Group, San Jose
Goddard-Clausen, Sacramento
Hoperaft Communications, Sacramento
Kaufman Campaign Consultants, Sacramento
Lew-Edwards Group, Oakland
Phil Giarrizzo Campaigns, Sacramento
Public Strategies, Inc., Austin
Ross Communications, Sacramento
SG&A (Skelton, Grover and Associates), Los Angeles
Staton Hughes, San Francisco
- °.. Stearns Consulting, San Francisco
Stoorza, Ziegaus, Metzger&Hunt, Inc., Sacramento
u., . Storefront Political Media, San Francisco
The Tramutola Company, Oakland
Winning Directions, South San Francisco
Candidate Campaigns
California State Senate
John Burton, State Senator, 3rd District
Michael Machado, State Senator, 5th District
Liz Figueroa, State Senator, 10th District
Byron Sher, State Senator, 11th District
Debra Bowen, State Senate 28th District
California State Assembly
Assembly Democrats, 1998 and 2000
Helen Thomson, Assembly Member 8th District
Tom Torlakson, former Assembly Member 11th District
http://www.db-research.com/ClientList.htm 7/6/2004
David Binder Research- Client List Page 3 of 3
Kevin Shelley, Assembly Member, 12th District
Carole Migden, Assembly Member, 13th District
Fran Pavley, Assembly Member, 41st District
Dario Frommer, Assembly Member, 43rd District
Roderick Wright, Assembly Member 48th District
George Nakano, Assembly Member 53rd District
Lou Correa, Assembly Member 69th District
Howard Wayne, Assembly Member 78th District
Municipal
Martin Chavez, Mayor of Albuquerque
Nick Pacheco, Los Angeles City Council 14th District
Willie Brown, Mayor of San Francisco
Terence Hallinan, San Francisco District Attorney
Tom Ammiano, President, San Francisco Board of Supervisors
Gavin Newsom, San Francisco Board of Supervisors 2nd District
Aaron Peskin, San Francisco Board of Supervisors 3rd District
Leland Yee, San Francisco Board of Supervisors 4th District
Mark Leno, San Francisco Board of Supervisors 8th District
California Statewide Propositions
No on Proposition 35, Competitive Bidding
No on Proposition 37, Fees and Taxes
No on Proposition 38, Education Vouchers
No on Proposition 25, Campaign Reform
Yes on Proposition la, School Bonds
No on Proposition 8, Republican Educ. Reform
Yes on Proposition 224 Competitive Bidding
No on Proposition 226 Union Dues
No on Proposition 227 Bilingual Education
No on Proposition 209, Affirmative Action Ban
Yes on Proposition 210, Minimum Wage
Yes on Proposition 212, Campaign Reform
Yes on Proposition 214, HMO Reform
Yes on Proposition 215, Medical Marijuana
Yes on Proposition 217, Top Income Tax Brackets
No on Proposition 218, Vote on Taxes
Municipalities and Special Districts
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)
City of Berkeley
City of Beverly Hills
City of Glendale
City of San Francisco
City of San Diego
County of San Diego
East Bay Municipal Utility District
Golden Gate Transportation District
Central Contra Costa City. Solid Waste Authority
Municipal Railway (MUNI), San Francisco
San Francisco Public Utilities Comm. (SF PUC)
44 Page Street, Suite 404 San Francisco, California 94102
800-905-7330•415-621-7655• F: 415-621-7663 •e-mail: info@clb-research.com
http://www.db-research.com/ClientList.htm 7/6/2004
CITT AGENDA 8a
�aA °� ITEM # _
iBURLINGAME ISTAFF REPORT
MTG.DATE - ]� 19�7/ 19/04p
0oA4E0 JVMC b`
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members — SUBMITTED
BY -Jack Van Etten. lice
DATE: July 1 , 2004 (IAPPROVED �
FR0M :,lack Van Etten, Chief of Police BY
SUBJECT: City Council Letter Supporting the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommendation for
police departments to continually review and follow established Sexual Assault Protocols
RECOMMENDATION :
That the City Council supports the 2003-2004 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury's report on Sexual
Assault Cases in San Mateo County, and their recommendation for all county police departments to
adhere to officer training , review and following established county sexual assault protocols. The attached
letter by council supports the Civil Grand Jury's recommendations
BACKGROUND:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury made a report on sexual assault cases in San Mateo County
during the 2003-2004 year. Specifically, a portion of their report pertained to local police departments and
recommended , "The Sheriff and all city councils in the County should require all sworn officers to
participate in training on the Sexual Assault Protocols , ensure that the protocols are strictly followed , and
all reported sexually abused children in San Mateo County are brought to the Keller Center."
As detailed in the report, all Police Chiefs in San Mateo County have agreed to follow the sexual assault
protocol. The Police Chiefs & Sheriff Association of San Mateo County support and indeed helped author
the protocol and agree our officers should be periodically briefed on its contents. The protocol calls for the
initial officer investigating such a crime to assess the need for medical care and obtain only basic
information . Officers conducting the in-depth interviews necessary to investigate such a serious offense
receive specialized training for their task.
The San Mateo County Police Chiefs' and Sheriff Association continually reviews and updates the Sexual
Assault Protocol as appropriate, and as needed , reviews the protocol on a regular basis with our
respective personnel . The Association also ensures that the Sexual Assault Protocols are current and
meet today's needs, as well as incorporate any reasonable and practical recommendations as made by
the Grand Jury.
The Burlingame Police Department and other law enforcement agencies in San Mateo County follow the
Sexual Assault Protocol and insures both officer and investigator training .
CITY C
BURLINGAME
m
X09 90
A�gATED JUNE 6
ROSALIE M.OWAHONY,MAYOR �—
JOE GALLIGAN,VICE MAYOR 93 TEL: (650)558-7200
CATHY BAYLOCK FAX: (650)342-8386
MIKE COFFEY CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD www.burlingame.org
TERRY NAGEL BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010-3997
July 20, 2004
Honorable Jonathan E. Karesh
Judge of the Superior Court
Department 20, Hall of Justice
400 County Center, 2nd floor
Redwood City, CA. 94063-1655
Dear Judge Karesh:
Thank you for the opportunity to review the 2003-2004 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury's
report on sexual assault cases in San Mateo County. On behalf of the City of Burlingame, I
applaud the Grand Jury's effort to maximize the ability to apprehend and prosecute those
responsible for these crimes while minimizing the trauma the victims of these acts must
endure.
I recognize that the majority of the recommendations in the report are directed to the District
Attorney or the Board of Supervisors. Section 1.1. however, pertains directly to local police
departments. Specifically, it is recommended: The Sheriff and all city councils in the County
should require all sworn officers to participate in training on the Sexual Assault Protocols,
ensure that the protocols are strictly followed, and all reported sexually abused children in San
Mateo County are brought to the Keller Center.
As is detailed in the report, all Police Chiefs in San Mateo County have agreed to follow the
sexual assault protocol. The Police Chiefs and Sheriff Association helped author the protocol
and agree that our officers should be periodically briefed on its contents. The protocol calls for
the initial officer investigating such a crime to assess the need for medical care and obtain
only basic information. Officers conducting the in-depth interviews necessary to investigate
such a serious offense receive specialized training for their task.
Honorable Jonathan E. Karesh
July 20, 2004
Page 2
The importance of this additional training is also recognized by the California Commission on
Peace Officer Standards and Training (POST)based on their requirement that police officers
assigned to routinely investigate sexual assaults receive advanced training in this area. It
would be problematic for all officers to achieve this level of training and it is in recognition of
this fact that the protocol calls for the initial officer to only ask enough questions to establish
the corpus of the crime.
Law enforcement must balance the currently mandated training requirements with other
training needs that arise. Unfortunately, this must be done in the current economic climate that
has eliminated or reduced any discretionary funds that could be utilized for additional training.
We concur with the recommendation in section 2.1 to review and update the protocol as
appropriate, and to review its content with our personnel on a regular basis. The protocol was
last reviewed in 2002. Our police Chief will participate in future reviews, encourage this staff
to adhere to the protocols, and provide any needed training to his personnel.
Thank you again for allowing me to review and respond to the report prepared by the Civil
Grand Jury. Please pass on my thanks to them for the outstanding work that they perform.
Sincerely,
Rosalie M. O'Mahony, Mayor
City of Burlingame
VI. Recommendations
1. The San Mateo County Sheriffs Office (Sheriff) and all city councils in San
Mateo County should ensure law enforcement agencies consistently implement
the Adult Sexual Assault Protocol and the Children's Sexual Abuse Protocol.
1.1. The Sheriff and all city councils in the County should require all sworn
officers to participate in training on the Sexual Assault Protocols, ensure
that the protocols are strictly followed, and all reported sexually abused
children in San Mateo County are brought to the Keller Center.
1.2. The DA should work with the Sexual Assault Training Faculty to
schedule seminars on both Sexual Assault Protocols on an ongoing basis
beginning immediately for all police departments that have not sent
anyone to the training in the past, and for all incoming officers and staff
that might work on sexual assault cases. Refresher courses with updated
material should also be developed
1.3. The DA should collaborate with RTS and the Keller Center, among
others, to develop and include more training in the emotional and
traumatic aspects of sexual assault in the sexual assault protocol
seminars.
2. The Board of Supervisors should improve sexual assault case procedures to meet
the concerns of the involved agencies by directing:
2.1. The originators of the Adult Sexual Assault Protocol to update the
procedures to require all police and forensic nurse interviewers of sexually
assaulted adults have more intensive training in how to interview adult rape
trauma victims.
2.2. The Keller Center staff to ensure that RTS counselors arriving at the center
within 30 minutes are provided adequate time to meet with the victim before
commencing the forensic exam and interview.
2.3. The Keller Center to consider how satellite offices for forensic exams and
interviews might be established for special circumstances.
3. The DA should immediately send notices to all law enforcement agencies in the
County reminding them the protocol requires that RTS and the Keller Center be
advised when there is a sexually assaulted victim being transported to the
center.
4. The DA in collaboration with the Keller Center, and Child Protective Services
should develop a children's sexual abuse awareness program that targets parents
and provides information how better to protect their children from sexual abuse
by family and friends.
5. The DA should develop an education campaign similar to that of the San Diego
County District Attorney's Office to raise awareness among young adults about
rape, the effects of party drugs, what to watch for, what consent means, and
what the laws require.
6. The Board of Supervisors should direct the Keller Center, and Child Protective
Services to embark on a study with the DA, or engage a consultant to analyze
San Mateo County case data and data from RTS to determine:
• Why many sexual assault cases reported to the police are not referred to
the DA
• Why half of the DA's sexual assault cases are not prosecuted
• Why so many sexual assault cases involve children
• Why the number of sexual assault cases increase every year
• Why the volume of unknown assailants has increased
• How San Mateo County data compares with other counties of similar
demographics.
The study should lead to recommendations for further public awareness
campaigns and additional education for the agencies to understand the
underlying causes driving persons to this type of crime.
7. The Board of Supervisors should improve the process of tracking and reporting
all sexual assault cases by directing the Keller Center to continue to pursue the
development or acquisition of an effective tracking system that includes cases
referred to the DA, DA's disposition, and court disposition, among other tracking
criteria necessary to maintain the NCAC grant.
8. The DA should establish a sexual assault reporting system whereby all police
agencies in the County document and report monthly the number of reported
sexual assaults and the disposition of each report, i.e., closed with no further
investigation, investigation in progress, Keller Center and RTS involved,
referred to DA, etc.
9. The Board of Supervisors should direct the Keller Center and the DA should
direct the Victims Center to pursue opportunities for grants or other state-
sponsored resources for victims of crime to fund forensic examinations at the
Keller Center and full testing of DNA samples from all sexual assault cases.
10.The Sheriff should pursue grants to fund ongoing DNA analysis for CODIS
submissions.
n��CITY o� STAFF REPORT
BUFIJNGAME AGENDA
ITEM# 8b
MTG.
DATE 7/19/04
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL suBMITTE��`W
BY
DATE: July 8,2004
APPROVED
FROM: Robert Bell, Human Resources Director BY
SUBJECT: AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANA REEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF
HILLSBOROUGH TO PROVIDE HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES
RECOMMENDATION•
Adopt resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute an agreement to provide human resource services to
the Town of Hillsborough.
BACKGROUND:
In February of 2003, the City of Burlingame and Town of Hillsborough entered into an agreement to provide
human resource services to the Town of Hillsborough. That agreement has expired and the Town of
Hillsborough has requested that the agreement be renewed for an unlimited term.
The City of Burlingame has a dedicated Human Resources staff of three (3) full-time positions to provide
recruitment, benefit and workers' compensation administration, employee training, labor negotiations,
employee relations, compensation administration, and employee involvement program services to City
employees. The Town of Hillsborough currently has a vacant personnel position that was created to provide
additional support in the areas of recruitment and benefits administration services. In 2003, the Assistant City
Manager of Hillsborough and Human Resources Director of Burlingame began exploring options around
sharing some of the duties associated with personnel administration and human resources in a way that would
reduce costs for both Cities and improve efficiencies. These discussions led to the development of a one-year
professional services agreement. The agreement provides for recruitment services to the Town of Hillsborough
by the Burlingame Human Resources staff.
During the first year of this agreement, the City of Burlingame's HR staff conducted recruitments for a
Maintenance Worker, Assistant Planner and Deputy Fire Chief. Hillsborough staff has been satisfied with the
work of the City of Burlingame's HR department and is requesting to extend the contract. The Hillsborough
City Council approved the agreement at their regular City Council meeting of July 12, 2004. The desire is to
have the contract termination policy read that either party may unilaterally and without cause terminate the
agreement anytime on at least 30 days written notice to the other party.
A copy of the agreement is attached as Appendix A of this report.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Revenue generated by this agreement is anticipated to be between $10,000 - $20,000 per fiscal year
depending on the volume of recruitments conducted for the Town of Hillsborough.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Exhibit A—Agreement
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER IN AN AGREEMENT WITH
THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH TO PROVIDE HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES
RESOLVED,by the City Council and the City of Burlingame
WHEREAS,the Town of Hillsborough is in need of assistance in the area of
recruitment and testing of candidates for hiring purposes; and
WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame and Town of Hillsborough are interested in
Continuing the one year agreement that expired in February of 2004 to allow the City of
Burlingame's Human Resources staff to provide recruitment services for the Town of
Hillsborough and explore other shared service opportunities in the next twelve (12)
months; and
WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame is willing to provide recruitment services to
the Town of Hillsborough per the agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A,
NOW THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED:
1. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the Agreement attached
hereto as exhibit A by and on behalf of the City.
2. The Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the Manager.
3. The City Attorney is directed to approve as to form.
Mayor
I, ANN MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
19t` day of July, 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
City Clerk
Exhibit A
AGREEMENT FOR
HUMAN RESOURCE SERVICES BETWEEN
THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
This Agreement is entered into on March 1, 2004,by and between the CITY OF
BURLINGAME ("Burlingame") and the TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH("Hillsborough"), both
municipal corporations and general law cities located in the County of San Mateo, State of
California and existing under the laws of the State of California.
RECITALS
A. Burlingame has its own Human Resources Department and Hillsborough does
not, and
B. Hillsborough desires to contract with Burlingame to provide for human resource
services within its internal organization pursuant to this Agreement; and
C. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the authority contained in Government
Code section 54981, and any and all other applicable authority, and
D. Burlingame and Hillsborough entered into an agreement in March 2003 and the
parties are desirous to renewing this agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the respective agreements herein contained,
the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Obligations of Burlingame.
(a) Burlingame shall provide the services of its director and staff of its Human
Resources Department for recruitment and placement services to the Hillsborough City Manager
or the Manager's designee(s) pursuant to this Agreement.
(b) The Burlingame Human Resource Director and staff shall deliver these services in
compliance with Hillsborough's polices and procedures regarding employee recruitment and
placement.
(c) Burlingame's services under this Agreement shall be similar to those provided to
Burlingame and include the following:
(i) Preparation of job bulletins and advertisements
1
(ii) Position marketing and outreach
(iii) Test preparation and administration
(iv) Interview planning and coordination
(v) Applicant screening and communication
(vi) Employment List preparation and approval
(vii) Candidate reference and background confirmation
(viii) Job Offer and start date confirmation
(ix) Coordination of pre-employment physical and drug testing
(d) In addition to providing and coordinating position recruitments, the City of
Burlingame shall perform continuous candidate qualifying and marketing of Hillsborough
employment by means of:
(i) On-going candidate qualifying via Employment Interest card placement and
harvesting
(ii) Continuous and joint testing of Safety and other positions identified as critical and
difficult to fill
(iii) Outreach and participation in job fairs and other regional recruitment events as
deemed appropriate by the Burlingame Human Resources Director and the City
Manager.
(e) Except as provided in Section 2 below, Burlingame shall provide all personnel,
supervision, communications, equipment and supplies necessary to perform the services required
by this Agreement.
2. Obligations of Hillsborough
(a) Hillsborough shall provide Burlingame with all necessary regulations, policies,
procedures,manuals, forms, and other information, as well as incidental materials and supplies,
and computer access, for delivery of the services required by this Agreement. All such
documents, notes, supplies, and reports shall remain the property of Hillsborough.
(b) Hillsborough shall provide oversight and direction as to the timing and goals of
recruitments and placements to be performed for Hillsborough.
2
Exhibit A
3. Payment.
(a) In consideration for the services to be performed by Burlingame under this
Agreement, Hillsborough shall pay Burlingame the sum of$4,000.00 for each recruitment that is
conducted during the term of this Agreement. For purposes of this agreement, recruitment is
defined as any position in which Hillsborough instructs Burlingame to conduct a testing process
regardless if the position is in fact filled.
(b) If Burlingame can demonstrate that the actual cost of an individual recruitment,
including Burlingame staff time, exceeds twice the basic fee, or $8,000, Hillsborough shall pay
Burlingame for the actual cost of the given testing process.
(c) No other costs of any kind will be added to the cost of the services unless this
Agreement is otherwise amended.
(d) Burlingame shall provide to Hillsborough an invoice for each recruitment at the end
of the testing process. The end of the testing process is defined as the date in which the eligibility
list for a position is prepared or the date in which Hillsborough advises Burlingame to
discontinue the testing process, whichever occurs first.
(e) Hillsborough shall pay Burlingame within thirty(30) days after receipt of each
invoice for services provided under this Agreement.
4. Term of Agreement.
(a) This Agreement shall be in effect March 1, 2004, and shall be operative until
terminated.
(b) Either party may unilaterally and without cause terminate this Agreement at any time
on at least thirty(30) days written notice to the other party. The notice shall specify the effective
date of termination.
5. Independent Contractor.
Burlingame and its employees, in the performance of the work and services agreed to be
performed, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of
Hillsborough. As an independent contractor, no employee of Burlingame shall obtain any rights
to retirement benefits, medical benefits, leave, or any other benefits that accrue to Hillsborough
3
employee(s). Burlingame shall make its employees available to testify in any litigation brought
regarding the subject of the work to be performed under this Agreement. Burlingame shall be
compensated for its employees' costs and expenses in preparing for,traveling to, and testifying in
such matters at its then current hourly rates of compensation, unless such litigation is brought by
Burlingame or is based on allegations of Burlingame's negligent performance or wrongdoing.
6. Liabilitv and Insurance Provisions.
(a) Burlingame shall maintain Worker's Compensation coverage for its employees
pursuant to State law and its employees shall be considered employees of Burlingame in
performing services pursuant to this Agreement.
(b) Burlingame shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Hillsborough, its officers,
agents and employees from any loss, liability, claim, injury or damage arising out of, or in
connection with, performance of the duties and obligations of Burlingame and its employees as
set forth in this Agreement.
(c) Hillsborough shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless Burlingame, its officers,
agents and employees from any loss, liability, claim, injury or damage arising out of, or in
connection with, performance of the duties and obligations of Hillsborough and its employees as
set forth in this Agreement.
7. Notices.
Any notice required by this Agreement shall be mailed or delivered as follows:
To Burlingame: City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, California, 94010
Attention: Human Resources Director
To Hillsborough: Town of Hillsborough
1600 Floribunda Drive
Hillsborough, California, 94010
Attention: City Manager
Such addresses may be modified by addressee giving written notice of such modification to the
other party calling specific attention to this Agreement.
8. No Third Party Beneficiary.
4
Exhibit A
No person is intended nor shall any person be construed to be a third party beneficiary to
this Agreement.
9. Waivers.
The waiver by either party of any breach or violation of any term or condition of this
Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other term or condition contained herein or
a waiver of any subsequent breach or violation of the same term or condition.
10. Governing Law.
This Agreement,regardless of where executed, shall be governed by and construed
according to the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action regarding this Agreement
shall be in the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo.
11. Amendment.
No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is
effective unless made in writing and signed by both Burlingame and Hillsborough.
12. Entire Agreement.
This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement
between Burlingame and Hillsborough. No terms, conditions, understandings or agreements
purporting to modify or vary this Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the
party to be bound, shall be binding on either party.
5
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Burlingame and Hillsborough have executed this
Agreement.
CITY OF BURLINGAME TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH
By By
City Manager City Manager
Date: Date:
ATTEST: ATTEST:
City Clerk Deputy City Clerk
Date: Date:
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney City Attorney
Date: Date:
6
AGENDA
ITEM# 8c
BURUNGAME STAFF REPORT MTG.
DATE 7/19/04
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITS
BY:
DATE: June 23,2004
FROM: Fire Department APPROVED
A,�e
BY:
SUBJECT: Out of State Travel to Attend National Fire Academy
Recommendation:
It is recommended the City Council approve the out of state travel for Fire Marshal Rocque Yballa to
attend a "Management of Fire Prevention Programs"course at the National Emergency Training
Center at Emmitsburg, MD.
Background:
The National Fire Academy which is located at FEMA's National Emergency Training Center (NETC)
offers executive management courses to qualified senior fire officers. It will be a great benefit to our
organization for our Fire Marshal to learn and share experiences with senior Fire Prevention Officers
from throughout the country.
These courses are fully funded through FEMA to include housing and transportation.
Exhibits:
Acceptance letter from the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Budget Impact:
The total cost to the City will be the $207.00 meal ticket for the week of the course which has been
budgeted.
National Emergency Training Center
U.S.Department of Homeland Security
16825 S.Seton Avenue
Emmitsburg,MD 21727-8998
oEc�a r`Fti
� = FEMA
�q.YD SES'
February 17, 2004
Mr.Rocque J.Yballa
147 Loma Vista Dr
Burlingame,CA 94010
Dear Mr. Yballa:
Welcome to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Emergency Training Center(NETC). We
are pleased to inform you that you have been accepted for:
R225: MGMT.OF F.PREV.PRGMS.
July 26,2004 To August 6,2004
Enclosed is information that you need to plan your travel and training. Please read it carefully.If you are
eligible to receive a stipend,please note that there are changes in our reimbursement policies.
Students staying on campus must purchase a meal ticket. The cost is$207.00, and is payable to Guest Services, -
by cash, city or state checks,traveler's checks,purchase order or advance deposits by department check. Guest
Services accepts credit card payment(VISA and MasterCard),but will not issue refunds.Students staying off
campus are required to purchase break tickets at the cafeteria the first day of class.
If you are a non-DHS Federal employee, foreign student,private sector representative,or contractor to a State or
local government entity,you are responsible for your own travel and per diem costs, and lodging(currently$20
to$30 per night),payable upon arrival to NETC. FEMA accepts credit card payment(VISA,MasterCard,
Discover, or American Express)for lodging. If you are a DHS employee(includes DAE's),you must present a
copy of your travel authorization at registration, and should read the FEMA instructions,policies and
comptroller grams dealing with travel to NETC.
If you are not able to attend this course,please notify us in writing no later than 1 month prior to your course
start date.We have a waiting list of your colleagues who will take your place.Failure io notify us in writing may
result in your restriction from NETC courses.In addition, if your responsibilities or organization change,please
notify us in writing immediately. It may affect your eligibility to attend the course.
If you have any questions,please call(301)447-1035.
Sincerely,
j U.t,-T�
Darlyn M.Vestal
Admissions Specialist
NETC Management,Operation&:Support Services
Enclosures
www.fema.gov
AGENDA ITEM NO.: 8d
BURS STAFF REPORT MTG.DATE: July 19,2004
kW=JD/
TO: Honorable Mayor and City CouncilAMP
Submitted By
DATE: July 9, 2004
FROM: Public Works
Approved By
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF ATTENDANCE AT OUT OF STATE CONFERENCE
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attendance of four staff members at an
out-of-state conference in Sparks,Nevada, for the California Water Environmental Association (CWEA).
BACKGROUND: The CWEA is sponsoring the 2004 Northern Regional Training Conference which includes
technical workshops and seminars pertinent to Burlingame's sewer system, storm system and safety program.
Topics to be covered include stormwater regulations, sewer overflow regulations, confined space compliance,
trenchless pipe installation methods and efficient techniques used to clean sewers and maintain pump stations
and storm lines. Some of the staff also participates on CWEA committees that hold meetings at the conference.
In order to keep current on these issues and to earn Continuing Education Units required for job certifications, it
is recommended that the Public Works Superintendent and three staff members from the Street and Sewer
Divisions attend the conference on September 12 through 14, 2004. Additionally, the Superintendent is a Board
member and will be attending the CWEA Board meeting scheduled for September 12. These employees would
be absent only two workdays as September 12 is a Sunday. Attached is a flyer for the conference.
The estimated cost for travel, accommodations, registration and food for the conference is approximately$538
per person.
EXHIBITS: Conference Flyer
BUDGET IMPACT: Funds are available in the existing Sewer Division operating budget.
c City Clerk, Public Works Superintendent
S:M PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORYISTAFF REPORTMOUT OF STATE SPARKS 9-04.DOC
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
ITEM# 8e
MTG.
DATE 7/19/04
To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL susED
BY
.!7
DATE: June 20, 2004
APPR D
FRoM: Director of Parks& Recreation BY
SUBJECT: PROPOSED RULES AND REGULATIONS P OHIBITING
DOGS FROM CITY PLAYGROUND AREAS
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt rules and regulations prohibiting dogs from City
playground areas as proposed by the Parks & Recreation Commission under Municipal Code
Section 10.55.030,Rules and Regulations.
BACKGROUND:
The Parks & Recreation Commission has been looking at the impact of dogs in City parks for
several years. Some of the steps that have been taken to help develop a healthier and safer
environment for both the dogs and the public have been the creation of a Dog Park and the
increased enforcement of the existing leash laws in City parks.
At the Commission's June 17, 2004 meeting, the Commissioners approved a Parks Use Rule for
recommendation to Council that would prohibit dogs from being in playground areas. This
action is being taken because some pet owners bring their dogs onto and around the playground
equipment; an action that is currently permissible if the dog is on leash.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Resolution
B. EXHIBIT "A" -Proposed Rules and Regulations Prohibiting Dogs from City Playground
Areas
BUDGET IMPACT:
Approximately$1,000 will be required for signage at the 12 locations.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING RULES AND REGULATIONS
PROHIBITING DOGS FROM PLAYGROUND AREAS
WHEREAS, pursuant to Burlingame Municipal Code Section 10.055.030, the City may
adopt rules and regulations for specific City parks; and
WHEREAS, City playground areas are designed as areas of play for young children,
often times without direct supervision; and
WHEREAS, City playground areas are often times crowded; and
WHEREAS, many children are fearful of dogs; and
WHEREAS, City has provided a Dog Exercise Park; and
WHEREAS, dog excrement is often found in City playground areas; and
WHEREAS, dogs in City playground areas may pose a safety risk for both the dogs and
the children; and
WHEREAS, dogs in City playgrounds may be a deterrent to children from using the
playground equipment,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve,
determine and find as follows:
1. The rules and regulations prohibiting dogs from City playground areas contained
in Exhibit A hereto are adopted.
2. These rules and regulations will be enforced pursuant to Section 10.55.030 of the
Burlingame Municipal Code.
MAYOR
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the th day of
2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Baylock, Coffey, Galligan,Nagel, O'Mahony
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT "A"
June 20, 2004
RULES AND REGULATIONS PROHIBITING DOGS
FROM PLAYGROUND AREAS
Pursuant to Burlingame Municipal Code Chapter 10.55, Section 030, the following special rules
and regulations apply to the use of Village Park. These rules and regulations are in addition to
and supplement the general rules and regulations governing the use of City of Burlingame parks.
1. Dogs are prohibited from the following playground areas without the specific written
permission from the City's Parks &Recreation Director:
Alpine Park Playground—within the fenced area surrounding the Tot Lot
Bayside Park Playground—dogs are not allowed on Murray Field, the playground
area or at the Golf Center
Cuernavaca Park — the area defined by the surface material used underneath the
playground equipment
"J"Lot—within the fenced area surrounding the Tot Lot
Laguna —within the fenced area surrounding the Tot Lot
Paloma Playground—within the fenced area surrounding the Tot Lot
Pershing Park Playground — the area defined by the surface material used
underneath the playground equipment
Ray Park Playground — the area defined by the surface material used underneath
the playground equipment
Trenton Park Playground — the area defined by the surface material used
underneath the playground equipment
Victoria Park Playground — the area defined by the surface material used
underneath the playground equipment
Village Park Playground — the area defined by the surface material used
underneath the playground equipment
Washington Park Playground — the area defined by the surface material used
underneath the playground equipment
BURLINGAME AGENDA
STAFF REPORT
ITEM# 8f
MT7/19/04
TE
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED 00,
DATE: July 7, 2004 BY
APPROVED 'L'm woa
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AWARDING BURLINGAME PARK SUBDIVISIO SEWER REHABILITATION PHASE
2, CITY PROJECT NO. 81010
RECOMMENDATION:It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution awarding the Burlingame Park
Subdivision Sewer Rehabilitation project to D'arcy&Harty Construction, Inc. in the amount of$1,289,657 including
the base bid and Alternate Bid No. 1.
BACKGROUND: Bids were opened on July 6, 2004, and two bids were received. The total bid including the base bid
and three alternate bids is the basis for determining the low bidder. The City has the option of awarding the base bid
with none, all, or a portion of the alternate bids.
The low bid is $ 1,488,778 compared to the Engineer's estimate of$1,313,438. Because of the high total bid, staff
recommends awarding the base bid plus Alternate Bid No. 1 only.The scope of work includes sewer rehabilitation in
the remaining portion of the Burlingame Park Subdivision and the 1400 block of Capuchino Avenue. The scope may
be increased to include sewer rehabilitation on Almer Road and Bellevue Avenue by change order if there is adequate
contingency funding remaining at the end of construction.
The low bidder, D'arcy and Harty Construction, has met all the requirements for the project, and has intensive
experience in work of a similar nature. They have successfully completed the Shoreline Sewer Easement Sewer
Rehabilitation project in Burlingame within the last five years. The project is the second phase of a two-year program
within the Burlingame Park Subdivision and represents the second year of the City's long-term Accelerated Sewer
Master Plan implementation. Construction is expected to occur from August 2004 to January 2005 and the affected
residents will be notified beforehand.
EXHIBITS: Resolution and Bid Summary
BUDGETIMPACT:
Expenditures:
Construction $1,289,657
Contingency(10%) 130,343
Construction Management 250,000
Engineering Administration 100,000
TOTAL $1,770,000
There are adequate funding in bond proceeds available.
Donald T. Chang, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
c: City Clerk, City Attorney, Finance Director
S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\81010award.stf.wpd
RESOLUTION NO. -
AWARDING CONTRACT FOR BURLINGAME PARK SUBDIVISION
SEWER REHABILITATION PHASE 2
TO
D'ARCY& HARTY CONSTRUCTION
CITY PROJECT NO. 81010
WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized an invitation for bids for the - CITY PROJECT
81010 - CONTRACT FOR BURLINGAME PARK SUBDIVISION SEWER REHABILITATION
PHASE 2
WHEREAS,on JULY 6,2004,all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and
representatives of the Public Works Department; and
WHEREAS,D'ARCY&HARTY CONSTRUCTION,submitted the lowest responsible bid for
the job in the amount of$1,289,657.00.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the Plans and
Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of D'ARCY&HARTY CONSTRUCTION,for said
project in the amount of$1,289,657.00, and the same hereby is accepted; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THERETO that a contract be entered into between the successful
bidder hereinabove referred to and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said work, and that the
City Manager be,and he hereby is authorized for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said
contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be
furnished by the contractor.
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of
2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
s:\apublieworksdir\projects\rcsolutionaward
BID SUMMARY
BURLINGAME PARK SUBDIVISION
SEWER REHABILTATION
PHASE 2,CITY PROJECT NO.81010
DATE:JULY 8 2004
ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION EST, UNIT Engineer's Estimate D'arcy 8.Harty Construction KJ Woods Construction
NO. QUANTITY San Francisco San Francisco
UNIT PRICE TOTALS UNIT PRICE TOTALS UNIT PRICE TOTALS
A GENERAL ITEMS
1 MOBILIZATION AND DEMOBILIZATION 1 LS $ 20 000.00 $ 20 000.00 $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 $109,270.00
2 CONSTRUCTION SURVEY 1 LS $ 5,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $2,033.00 $2,033.00 $0.00 $15,000.00
3 SIDEWALK RECONSTRUCTION 1,000 SF $ 10.00 $ 10 000.00 $9.00 $9,000.00 $15.00 $15,000.00
4 IDRIVEWAY RECONSTRUCTION 300 SF $ 15.00 $ 4,500.00 $10.00 $3,000.00 $20.00 $6,000.00
CURB AND GUTTER RECONSTRUCTION WITH ASPHAULT
5 REPLACEMENT 200 LF $ 35.00 1 $ 7,000.00 $40.00 $8,000.00 $50.00 $10,000.00
6 POST TELEVISION INSPECTION 9,442 LF $ 0.80 1 $ 7,553.80 $1.00 $9,442.00 $2.00 $18,884.00
7 REPAIR SAG SECTION ON SEWER MAIN 220 LF $ 60.00 $ 13 200.00 $120.00 $26,400.00 $60.00 $13,200.00
B BURLINGAME PARK SUBDIVISION,ALMER ROAD AND
BELLEVUE AVENUE
REPLACE 6"SEWER MAIN WITH 8"SEWER MAIN BY
8 PIPEBURSTING IN BURLINGAME PARK SUBDIVISION 4.706 LF $ 55.00 $ 258 830.00 $70.00 $329,420.00 $49.00 $230,594.00
REPLACE 8"DIAMETER 10"SEWER MAIN WITH SAME SIZE
9 SEWER MAIN 277 LF $ 65.00 $ 18005.00 $41.00 $11357.00 $70.00 $19390.00
10 REPLACE EXISTING SEWER MAIN WITH OPEN-CUT 554 LF $ 70.00 $ 38 780.00 $110.00 $60,940.00 $100.00 $55,400.00
11 HAND DIG AND REPLACE EXISTING SEWER MAIN 150 LF $ 100.00 $ 15 000.00 $100.00 $15,000.00 $40.00 $6,000.00
12 REHABILITATE 4"SEWER LATERALS INCLUDING CLEANOUT 92 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 92 000.00 $900.00 $82,800.00 $400.00 $36,800.00
13 REHABILITATE 6"SEWER LATERALS INCLUDING CLEANOUT 8 EA $ 1,200.00 $ 7,200.00 $1,200.00 $7 200.00 $450.00 $2,700.00
REPLACE 4"OR 6"SEWER LATERALS INCLUDING CLEANOUT
14 BY OPEN CUT 25 EA $ 1,600.00 $ 40 000.00 $1,750.00 $43,750.00 $2,500.00 $62,500.00
15 INSTALL NEW MANHOLE 2 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 5,000.00 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $5,000.00 $10,000.00
16 MANHOLE REPLACEMENT 9 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 22 500.00 $3,000.00 $27,000.00 $6,000.00 $54,000.00
17 IMANHOLE REHABILITATION 2 EA $ 1,800.00 $ 3,600.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $2,000.00 $4,000.00
C EL CAMINO REAL
REPLACE 6"SEWER MAIN WITH 8"SEWER MAIN BY
18 PIPEBURSTING ALONG EL CAMINO REAL 2,079 LF $ 70.00 $ 145 530.00 $95.00 $197,505.00 $100.00 $207,900.00
REPLACE 8"DIAMETER OR LARGER SEWER MAIN WITH SAME
19 SIZE SEWER MAIN 941 LF $ 90.00 $ 84 690.00 $95.00 $89,395.00 $80.00 $75,280.00
20 REPLACE EXISTING SEWER MAIN WITH OPEN-CUT 885 LF $ 100.00 $ 88 500.00 $115.00 $101,775.00 $100.00 $88,500.00
HAND DIG AND REPLACE EXISTING SEWER MAIN ALONG EL
21 CAMINO REAL SPOT REPAIRS 50 LF $ 130.00 $ 6,500.00 $200.00 1 $10,000.00 $40.00 $2,000.00
22 REHABILITATE 6"SEWER LATERALS INCLUDING CLEANOUT 31 LF $ 1,400.00 $ 43 400.00 $1,300.00 $40,300.00 $500.00 $15,500.00
REPLACE 6"SEWER LATERALS INCLUDING CLEANOUT BY
23 OPEN CUT 6 EA $ 1 800.00 $ 10 800.00 $2 600.00 $14,400.00 $3 000.00 $18,000.00
24 INSTALL NEW MANHOLE 3 EA $ 3 000.00 $ 9 000.00 $3,000.00 $9,000.00 $6,000.00 $18,000.00
25 MANHOLE REPLACEMENT 19 EA $ 3 000.00 $ 57 000.00 $3,000.00 $57,000.00 $7,000.00 $133,000.00
26 MANHOLE REHABILITATION 2 EA $ 1 800.00 $ 3,600.00 $1,650.00 $3,300.00 $2,200.00 $4,400.00
27 ABANDON MANHOLE 1 EA $ 1 000.00 $ 1,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00
28 LAMPHOLE RECONSTRUCTION 1 EA $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $300.00 $300.00 $400.00 $400.00
BASE BID TOTAL(SECTION A,B&C) $ 1,018,688.60 $1,187,817.00 $1,234,218.00
ALTERNATE BID NO.1 1400 BLOCK CAPUCHINO
29 POST TELEVISION INSPECTION 860 LF $ 0.80 $688.00 $1.00 $860.00 $ 2.00 $1720.00
REPLACE 6"SEWER MAIN WITH 8"SEWER MAIN BY
30 PIPEBURSTING 735 LF $ 55.00 $ 40 425.00 $70.00 $51,450.00 $50.00 $36,750.00
31 INSTALL 8"SEWER MAIN BY OPEN CUT 75 LF $ 110.00 $ 8,250.00 $130.00 $9,730.00 $100.00 $7,500.00
HAND DIG AND REPLACE EXISTING SEWER MAIN ALONG
EASEMENTS AND BACK OF PRIVATE PROPERTIES(SPOT
32 REPAIRS) 50 LF $ 100.00 $ 5 000.00 $100.00 $5,000.00 $40.00 $2,000.00
33 REHABILITATE 4"SEWER LATERALS INCLUDING CLEANOUT 12 EA $ 1,000.00 $ 12 000.00 $800.00 $9,600.00 $400.00 $4,800.00
34 REHABILITATE 6"SEWER LATERALS INCLUDING CLEANOUT 14 EA $ 1,200.00 1$ 18 800.00 1 $900.00 $12.600.00 1 $450.00 1 $6 300.00
REPLACE 4"OR 6"SEWER LATERALS INCLUDING CLEANOUT
35 BY OPEN CUT 2 EA $ 1,600.00 $ 3,200.00 $1,300.00 $2,600.00 $600.00 $1,200.00
36 INSTALL NEW MANHOLE 1 EA $ 2,500.00 $ 2,500.00 $3,000.00 1 $3,000.00 1 $12,000.00 $12,000.00
37 MANHOLE REPLACEMENT 2 EA 1$ 2,500.00 $ 5,000.00 $3,500.00 1 $7,000.00 1 $6,000.00 S1200000
ALTERNATE BID NO.1(1400 BLOCK CAPUCHINO) $93,863.00 $101,840.00 $84,270.00
ALTERNATE BID NO.2 ALMER ROAD
38 POST TELEVISION INSPECTION 653 LF $ 0.80 $522.40 $1.00 $653.00 $2.00 $1306.00
REPLACE 6"SEWER MAIN WITH 8"SEWER MAIN BY
39 PIPEBURSTING 598 LF $ 55.00 $ 32 890.00 $75.00 $44,850.00 $70.00 $41,860.00
40 INSTALL 8"SEWER MAIN BY OPEN CUT 55 LF $ 110.00 $ 6,050.00 $110.00 $6,050.00 $100.00 $5,500.00
41 REHABILITATE 4"SEWER LATERALS INCLUDING CLEANOUT 5 EA $ 1 000.00 $ 5,000.00 $900.00 $4,500.00 $400.00 $2,000.00
42 REHABILITATE 6"SEWER LATERALS INCLUDING CLEANOUT 2 EA $ 1,200.00 $ 2,400.00 $1,200.00 $2,600.00 $450.00 $900.00
REPLACE 4"OR 6"SEWER LATERALS INCLUDING CLEANOUT
43 BY OPEN CUT 2 EA $ 1 800.00 $ 3 200.00 $1 750.00 $3.500.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00
44 INSTALL NEW MANHOLE 2 EA $ 2:522.00 S 5 000.00 $3 000.00 $6 000.00 $1'000.00 $10,000.00
45 MANHOLE REPLACEMENT 1 EA $ 2500.00 $ 2 500.00 $3 000.00 $3 000.00 $6000.00 $6 000.00
ALTERNATE BID NO.2 TOTAL $67,662.40 $71,163.00 $72,666.00
ALTERNATE BID NO.3 BELLEVUE AVENUE
46 POST TELEVISION INSPECTION 1,193 LF $ 0.80 $954.40 $1.00 $1,193.00 $2.00 $2,386.00
REPLACE 8"DIAMETER OR LARGER SEWER MAIN WITH SAME
47 SIZE SEWER MAIN 1,193 LF $90.00 $107,370.00 $75.00 $89,475.00 $70.00 $83,510.00
48 REHABILITATE 4"SEWER LATERALS INCLUDING CLEANOUT 3 EA $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $900.00 $2,700.00 $400.00 $1,200.00
49 REHABILITATE 6"SEWER LATERALS INCLUDING CLEANOUT 13 EA $1,200.00 $15,600.00 $1,200.00 $15600.00 $450.00 $5,850.00
REPLACE 4"OR 6"SEWER LATERALS INCLUDING CLEANOUT
50 BY OPEN CUT 4 EA $1,600.00 $6,400.00 $1,750.00 $7,000.00 $2,500.00 $10,000.00
51 MANHOLE REPLACEMENT 4 EA $2,500.00 $10,000 $3,000.00 $12,000.00 $6,000.00 $24,000.00
ALTERNATE BID NO.3 TOTAL $143,324.40 $127,968.00 $126,946.00
TOTAL BID INCLUDING BASE BIDS TOTAL AND ALTERNATE BIDS TOTAL: $1,313,438.40 $1,488,778.00 * $1,618,000.00
minor calculation error in the bid
S:%A Public Works Directory\Project\81010\BIDSUMMARYnew.xls,Sheett Page 1 of 1
CITY STAFF REPORT
BURiJNGAME AGENDA
ITEM# 8g
DATE
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUB ED
BY
DATE: July 7, 2004
APPROVE
I"
FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY C
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APROVING THE AMMENDMEN TO THE BART
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution
approving the amendment to the BART Memorandum of Understanding (MOU).
BACKGROUND: 1999 an MOU between BART and the City of Burlingame was drafted
concerning the BART tail track construction in the City. The MOU contained a provision for the
reimbursement of costs to construct a landscape barrier on north California Drive from Dufferin
Avenue to Murchison Drive. The barrier was approved in order to screen the BART tail tracks
on the east side of California Drive. The original plans called for a two phase construction of the
barrier in order to reduce the impact of construction. Staff later recommended that the length of
the barrier be reduced by 150' and the project construction be performed in a single phase. New
construction documents were prepared based on the revised plan. BART approved the revision
at the Staff level. Council approved a construction contract on May based on the revised plan.
The amendment formally acknowledges the revision. The amendment also specifies a
reimbursement amount that includes both past expenses and the cost of the approved
construction contract.
EXHIBITS: Resolution
BUDGET IMPACT: There are no budget impacts.
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING AMENDMENT TO MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE CITY AND BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT (BART)REGARDING
LANDSCAPING AND TREE REPLACEMENT
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame and the Bay Area Rapid Transit District(BART)
agreed in 1999 to implement a landscape barrier along the rail line; and
WHEREAS,the memorandum of understanding requires amendment to properly describe
the landscaping and tree replacement area and to adjust the time frames for completion and
payment,
NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS ORDERED:
1. The City Manager is authorized to execute the amendment to the memorandum of
understanding regarding landscaping and tree replacement contained in Exhibit A hereto by and
behalf of the City of Burlingame.
2. The City Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the Manager.
MAYOR
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of
,2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
C:\FILES\BART\IandscapemouAMNED.res.wpd
1
AMENDMENT TO
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
BETWEEN
THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AND
THE SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID
TRANSIT DISTRICT
REGARDING
LANDSCAPING AND TREE REPLACEMENT
43159.2
This Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding Regarding Landscaping and
Tree Replacement between the City of Burlingame and the San Francisco Bay Area
Rapid Transit District is entered into this day of ,
2004.
WHEREAS the City of Burlingame (the"City") and the San Francisco Bay Area
Rapid Transit District(`BART") are parties to a Memorandum of Understanding
Regarding Landscaping and Tree Replacement(the"MOU"), the Effective Date of
which is June 23, 1999; and
The City and BART wish to amend the MOU.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed as follows:
1. Recital E is revised by adding the following sentence:
"The City, by vote of the City Council on January 4, 2000, approved the
Landscaping Barrier area start approximately 150 north of Dufferin Avenue,
as shown on revised Attachment C-1, dated August 2003."
2. Section 2 is amended by deleting the last four sentences in their entirety.
3. Section 2.A and 2.B are deleted in their entirety.
4. A new Section 2.A is added as follows:
"The Landscaping Barrier removal of existing trees and vegetation will start
approximately 150 feet north of Dufferin Avenue, as shown on Attachment C-
1, dated August 2003, so as to preserve the existing screen of trees and shrubs
in that area. In accordance with the terms of this MOU, BART will pay the
City its actual costs for design and construction of the Landscaping Barrier,
not to exceed One Hundred Thirty Thousand Dollars ($130,000.00). Any
costs of the Landscaping Barrier in excess of$130,000.00 shall be borne by
the City. In no event shall BART pay more than$130,000.00 toward the
Landscaping Barrier."
5. A new Section 2.13 is added as follows:
"Payment. BART's payment for the Landscaping Barrier under this MOU
shall be made upon completion of construction of the Landscaping Barrier and
submittal of an acceptable invoice by the City. Construction of the
Landscaping Barrier shall be completed by October 31, 2004. The City will
invoice BART for the Landscaping Barrier upon completion of construction
and in no event later than December 31, 2004, unless the parties agree
otherwise in writing.
6. Current Attachment C-1 is deleted and the new Attachment C-1, dated August
2003, is substituted therefore.
43159.2
2
7. Excepting only the terms and provisions specifically set forth in this
Amendment, the terms and provisions of the MOU shall remain in full force
and effect. In the event of a conflict between the terms and provisions of the
MOU and the terms and provisions of this Amendment, the terms and
provisions of this Amendment shall govern and control.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have entered into this Amendment on the date
above.
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA
RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT CITY OF BURLINGAME
By: By:
Thomas E. Margro James Nantell
General Manager City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM
Office of the General Counsel Office of the City Attorney
By: By:
BART Legal Counsel Burlingame City Attorney
43159.2
3
is
...................
............
"0
J
............
.......... ............ A�"
LLI 42
U-
LL_
.......................
............
CURB
OF
..........
.............
ALIFORS
CAPE 8 A, 6''C
............. LAN ........ ..................... z
LIMIT, w
SD_..................... ......... ............ .................. ......
..........
M
FOR ER SFWD .. .............
)J� N ...............
R-Tl( Ll E ..........
PR( .... ....... . .. .......
......................... ...................
...... .............
..........
400 ......
HOP �;p
Ld
LLJ
..........
.......... ........
.............. ....... .......
.............
. ................... ...........'
............
.7� S5 ..........
............
.... ...... ................ ...............
....... ............ ......... ......... ............ LJJ
....... .......
..........
I.........
........... ...........
....... .......
..........
..........
... ...... ....... ....
.............. . ................
. ......... -TRACK .........
.... ........
W2
..........
.......... ......
0.1-;
•
.............. ........
......... .... ... ........... ......
.........
......... -------- .........
_4 loo - -
........... ........
. .....'__... Atb
115-6
.................
.... ..............
..........
....... .........
...........
.................
•
—.PLzA—
........... ..........
................ . .................
...... .......
. ..... . ....
LEGEND:
SAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT ATTACHMENT C-1 AJA
LANDSCAPE BARRIER AREA LANDSCAPE BARRIER AREA
Aro9o\dws4,t 4u L"d5oy;ri9 SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT EXTENSION CITY OF BURLINGAME
979 BROADWAY
DATE: APRIL 28, 1999 mokA MILLBRAE. CA 94030
FILE: Cl-C284
CITY o. STAFF REPORT
BURIJNGAME AGENDA 8h
ITEM#
DATE 7/19/04
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTE!!;�;
BY
DATE: July 9,2004
APPROVE �� ,/�G�W
FROM: Robert Bell, Human Resources Director BY
SUBJECT: American Federation of State, County and Municipal mployees (AFSCME) Locals 829 &
2190 Labor Agreement
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council approve the resolution authorizing the City Manager to incorporate the
tentative agreement between AFSCME Locals 829 and 2190 and the City of Burlingame into the Memoranda
of Understanding (MOU) for each of these units. The tentative agreement is attached to this report as Exhibit
A.
BACKGROUND:
AFSCME Local 829 represents the City's non-exempt administrative, library and recreation personnel.
AFSCME Local 2190 represents employees in the maintenance classifications in the City. The current labor
agreement expired on June 30, 2004. The City and both locals have been meeting since April to negotiate the
terms of the new agreement. The City and Union negotiators were able to craft a new agreement that was
ratified by the Union on June 28 and June 30, 2004.
The major components of the tentative agreement are as follows:
■ Term—One year agreement effective 07/01/04— 06/30/05
■ Salary Increases —Effective the first pay period of July, 2004, salaries will be increased by 4% for both
units. This will place the units at median in the survey market. Though this is lower market placement
than the City's 'Td in Market" philosophy, based on the current financial situation in the City, the unit
and City came to an agreement to place the unit at market median. The unit agreed to a salary freeze
last year so they have not had a salary increase in more than 2 years.
■ Health Care - The group agreed to a modified cafeteria plan that will provide the City cost containment
around escalating health care costs. The new structure has the City's contribution towards a CalPERS
medical plan tied to enrollment level of employee only, employee plus one dependent or employee
plus family. The contribution amounts for each level of coverage are tied to various premiums
associated with the CalPERS health plans. In order for this to be equitable for employees, those with
fewer dependents will have an allowance that gives them the ability to select from several plans
without a monthly deduction for health care premiums. However, unlike the City's current
contribution structure, no employee will be able to enroll in the costliest health care plan and have the
City pay the entire premium. The new structure also allows for a "No Plan" allowance so if employees
have coverage through another entity, they can get a monthly cash allowance. Currently, the City
provide no "cash in-lieu" option so employees may be in the City's health care plans despite the fact
they can qualify for or have other medical coverage.
■ Voluntary Time Off Program- The City and Union developed a draft policy that would allow the City
to offer unpaid Voluntary Time Off(VTO) to employees in the Unit. The VTO program would be
offered only in fiscal years where the City is anticipating a budget deficit. The program is an
alternative to layoffs where employees and services are impacted on a permanent basis. The supervisor
and department head would approve requests for VTO.
■ Holiday Week Facility Closure - The Union and City also develop a plan for City facility closures
during holiday week. By providing advance notice, the City can close a City facility during the week
between Christmas and New Years and mandate that employees take the time off. Last year, City Hall
was closed during this week; however, since requiring employees to take time off is a mandated
subject of bargaining, the City had to allow employees to come in and work during the week if they so
desired. The City and Union have now developed a program where employees would be required to
take the time off during this period.
■ Sick Leave Incentive Program and Payout - The City proposed changes to the current sick leave
incentive program. The program had become costly and difficult to administer. This was due in part to
the expansion of State and Federal protected leave laws. The parties agreed to terminate this program
and change the formula of sick leave payout used at retirement. This new program will award
employees retiring from the City that have managed their sick leave well over the course of their
employment.
■ Other Proposals - The majority of the other proposals are language clean-up proposals. This will
ensure that the provisions of the MOU accurately reflect the City's polices and practices as they pertain
to vacation accrual, filling of vacancies, salary increases upon promotion and holiday schedules.
BUDGET IMPACT
■ The salary increases and health care costs associated with the new agreement were included in the
2004/05 Budget. The costs are as follows:
o Project Salary Increase Costs: $255,246
o Tiered Health Care Costs: $78,325
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Exhibit A- Tentative Agreement
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF BURLINGAME APPROVING CHANGES TO THE MEMORANDA OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AND THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE, COUNTY AND MUNCIPAL
EMPLOYEES, LOCAL 829 AND 2190
AND AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE
MEMORANDA OF UNDERSTANDING FOR BOTH UNITS
ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame and the American Federation of State,
County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) local 829 and 2190 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 AFSCME have reached agreement on certain
changes to be made to the existing terms and conditions of employment and
memorandum of understanding between the City and the Association; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes are fair and in the best interests of the public
and the employees represented by AFSCME;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED:
1. The changes in existing salary of the employees represented by AFSCME 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 Memoranda of Understanding between
AFSCME Local 829 and AFSCME Local 2190 and the City of Burlingame.
MAYOR
1, ANN MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on 19`h
day of July, 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
Appendix A
AFSCME - City of Burlingame
2004 Negotiations- Tentative Agreement
1) Contract Term: 1 year, effective 07/01/04 - 06/30/05
2) Wages: The City will maintain the "3'd In the Market" compensation
philosophy. However, in light of the City's current financial
situation, the parties agree to place the unit to market median by
adjusting all classifications by 4% effective June 28, 2004.
3) Insurances:
Medical: Effective January 1, 2005,the City's tiered medical contribution
plan will be implemented. The City's contributions will be as
follows:
1. No Plan-Any employee that demonstrates they have medical
insurance through another source, will receive $200 per month in
lieu of medical benefits. The $200 month may be put in deferred
compensation, section 125 plans or taken in cash. Any cash payout
is subject to normal taxation.
2. Employee Only - The City will contribute $389.96 per month
towards employee only medical coverage. This amount is equal to
the 2005 Blue Shield HMO rate for employee only.
3. Employee Plus One - The City will contribute $779.92 per
month towards employee plus one medical coverage. This amount
is equal to the 2005 Blue Shield HMO rate for employee plus one.
4. Employee Plus Two or more - The City will contribute $922.19
per month towards employee plus two or more for medical
coverage. This amount is equal to the 2005 Kaiser Rate for
employee plus two or more.
An employee that enrolls in a medical plan that has a higher
premium than the City's contribution as stated above, will pay the
difference via pre-tax payroll deductions.
The City's maximum retiree medical contribution will be $922.19
per month, which is equal to the 2005 Kaiser Family rate.
Dental: Effective January 1, 2005, the City will reimburse up to $1700 per
year per employee for dental expenses and a cumulative amount of
$1800 per year for all eligible dependents.
Appendix A
4. Wellness: No later than September 1, 2004,the City will develop a program
to allow employees of the unit to utilize the fitness center located
at the City's Corporation Yard facility. Use of other fitness rooms
at City facilities will be explored.
5. Sick Leave: Upon ratification and council approval of this agreement,the
following changes will be made to the sick leave program:
Sick Leave Payout Upon Retirement:
o All hours between 0 and 600 hours =25%will be paid out
o All hours between 601 and 1200 hours = 35%will be paid out
o All hours between 1201 through 1560 hours = 50%will be paid
out.
o Under this program the maximum amount of hours that will be
paid out is 539.15 hours.
Maximum Sick Leave Accrual:
The maximum sick leave accrual is 1560 hours.
Sick Leave Incentive:
Upon ratification and council approval of this agreement,the Unit
members will no longer be eligible for the City's sick leave
incentive program.
6. Voluntary Time Off Program:
The City agrees to incorporate the Voluntary Time Off Program
into the City's Administrative Procedures. The Voluntary Time
Off Program is attached as Exhibit A.
7. Alternative Work Schedule/Work Hour Flexibility:
Upon request of the Union, the City agrees to explore options to
expand the Alternative Work Schedule (AWS) to allow more
employees or work units. Any changes to the AWS program that
result from this agreement must be approved by the City Manager.
Upon request of a unit member the City agrees to meet with the
Union and employee to examine flexibility in scheduling work
hours for library staff. Such request must be made by August 31,
2004.
Appendix A
8. Bereavement Leave:
When an employee must travel over 300 miles one-way to attend a
funeral for a family member,the City will allow the employee to
use 2 days of sick leave, vacation leave or other accrued leave.
9. HVAC Differential:
Upon ratification and Council approval of this agreement, an
employee designated by the City to obtain and maintain Type I &
Type II Heating, Ventilation, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration
(HVAC/R) certifications will receive a$100 per month
differential.
10. Holiday Week Closure:
The parties agree that upon proper notification by the City, the City
may close one or more City Facilities during "Holiday Week."
Proper notice is notification of at least 60 days prior to "Holiday
Week."
Holiday week has been designated as the period between the
observance of the Christmas Holiday and the New Years day
Holiday.
Employees can take no pay time, accrued compensatory time, or
accrued vacation time during this period. If an employee does not
have sufficient accrued leave times to cover the holiday week
closure,the employee can request vacation accrual advancement
for this period. The employee's future vacation accruals will be
used to repay the advanced vacation until such time there is no
negative balance.
11. Promotion:
The following language will be incorporated into the MOU, section
15. Changes are in bold and italics:
15.1 Filling of Vacancies - The City Manager andlor his/her
designee will determine if higher positions in the classified
service shall be filled by promotion from within. This
determination will be based on the following:
a. It is determined that the best interests of the City will be served
by promoting from within.
Appendix A
b. There is a minimum of one internal person that meets the
minimum qualifications of the promotional position.
15.2 Notice-At least S business days prior to beginning a recruitment
process for a promotional position, the Human Resources
Department will send written notice to the Union of the type of
recruitment process that will be utilized in filling the promotional
vacancy.
15.3 Any promotional examination shall comply with the rules and
regulations governing competitive examinations set forth in the
Civil Service Rules.
12_ Vacation Accrual:
The following language will be incorporated into the MOU, section
12 -Vacations. The accrual rates are not being changed,the language is
being changed to accurately reflect how vacation is accrued by Unit
members:
Hire date to 5'h Anniversary- 10 days per year or 3.08 hours per pay period
5'h Anniversary 15 days per year or 4.62 hours per pay period.
10'h Anniversary 16 days per year or 4.93 hours per pay period.
1 Vh Anniversary 17 days per year or 5.24 hours per pay period.
12'h Anniversary 18 days per year or 5.54 hours per pay period.
13'h Anniversary 19 days per year 5.85 hours per pay period.
14'b Anniversary 20 days per year or 6.16 hours per pay period.
15`h Anniversary 21 days per year or 6.47 hours per pay period.
16a'Anniversary 22 days per year or 6.78 hours per pay period.
17`h Anniversary and each year thereafter-23 days per year or 7.09 hours per pay
period.
13. Salary Increase Upon Promotion:
The following language will be incorporated into the MOU, section
8.4 - Progression within Range_ The language is being changed to reflect
the City's practice of granting step increases following promotions.-
Upon
romotions:Upon Original Appointment
Each employee who is employed shall receive a salary increase to
the next higher step within the range of the assigned classification
upon the anniversary date of the individual employee's original
employment date. A step increase shall only be denied for cause.
Appendix A
Upon Promotion:
Each employee who is promoted shall receive a salary increase to
the next higher step within the range of the assigned classification
upon the anniversary date of the individual employee's promotion.
A step increase shall only be denied for cause.
14. Local 829 Holiday Schedule:
Admissions Day will be removed from the Local 829 Holiday
Schedule. Admissions Day was not an observed, paid Holiday for
members of Local 829.
One-half day for New Years Eve and Christmas Eve will be added
to the Local 829 Holiday Schedule.
00�Clry
� STAFF REPORT
BUMJNGAME AGENDA
ITEM# 8i
MTG.
DATE 7/19/04
�Narco.n1HE�°
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SVBMITTEDZk
BY
DATE: July 9,2004
APPROVE
FROM: Robert Bell, Human Resources Director BY
SUBJECT: Association of Police Administrators Agreement
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Council approve the resolution authorizing the City Manager to incorporate the
Tentative Agreement between the Police Administrators and the City of Burlingame into the Police
Administrators Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). The tentative agreement is attached to this report as
Exhibit A.
BACKGROUND:
The Police Administrators represents the City's Police Commanders and Sergeants. The current labor
agreement expired on June 30, 2004. The City and Police Administrators have been meeting since April to
negotiate the terms of the new agreement. The City and Union negotiators were able to craft a new agreement
that was ratified by the Police Administrators on June 29, 2004.
The major components of the tentative agreement are as follows:
■ Term— 1 & '/z year agreement effective 07/01/04— 12/31/05
■ Salary Increases— Survey to be conducted in September to bring group to market median effective first
pay period of October. Initial survey data suggests a 3% increase for Sergeants in October and a 0%
increase for Commanders. In the second year of contract, if City cannot afford to pay at the 3'd in
Market level, parties will meet and confer on an alternative salary adjustment. If no agreement can be
reached, adjustment will be made based on CPI with a 2% minimum increase and 4% maximum
increase.
■ Health Care - The group agreed to a modified cafeteria plan that will provide the City cost containment
around escalating health care costs. The new structure has the City's contribution towards a Ca1PERS
medical plan tied to enrollment level of employee only, employee plus one dependent or employee
plus family. The contribution amounts for each level of coverage are tied to various premiums
associated with the CalPERS health plans. In order for this to be equitable for employees, those with
less dependents will have an allowance that gives them the ability to select from several plans without
a monthly deduction for health care premiums. However, unlike the City's current contribution
structure, no employee will be able to enroll in the costliest health care plan and have the City pay the
entire premium. The new structure also allows for a "No Plan" allowance so if employees have
coverage through another entity,they can get a monthly cash allowance. Currently, the City provide no
"cash in-lieu" option so employees may be in health care plans despite the fact they can qualify for or
have other medical coverage.
■ Retirement -the language regarding the delay of the 3% @ 50 retirement enhancement has been added
to the Police Administrators tentative agreement. The delay was approved by the Police Officers
Association in 2003 and will now be memorialized in the Police Adminstrators' contract.
■ Tuition Reimbursement - To encourage continued education in the unit and assist in the City's efforts
towards succession planning, the City has agreed to increase tuition reimbursement from $2500 per
year to $3000 per year.
BUDGET IMPACT
■ The salary increases and health care costs associated with the new agreement were included in the
2004/05 Budget. The costs are as follows:
o Project Salary Increase Costs: $23,900
o Tiered Health Care Costs: $23,175
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Exhibit A- Tentative Agreement
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF BURLINGAME APPROVING CHANGES TO THE MEMORANDUM OF
UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AND THE BURLINGAME ASSOCIATION OF POLICE ADMINISTRATORS
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 the Association of Police
Administrators have met and conferred in good faith on the terns and conditions of
employment as provided by State law; and
WHEREAS,the City and the Association have reached agreement on certain
changes to be made to the existing terms and conditions of employment and
memorandum of understanding between the City and the Association; and
WHEREAS,the proposed changes are fair and in the best interests of the public
and the employees represented by the Association;
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED:
1. The changes in existing salary of the employees represented by the Burlingame
Association of Police Administrators 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
Burlingame Association of Police Administrators and the City of Burlingame.
MAYOR
I, ANN MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on 19th
day of July, 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
Exhibit A
TENTATIVE AGREEMENT REVISION
BETWEEN
THE POLICE ADMINSTRATORS
AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
JUNE 24, 2004
The following will be incorporated in the current Memorandum of Understanding
between the City of Burlingame and the Police Administrators:
1. TERM: July 1, 2004 through December 31, 2005 (one& '/z years).
2. SALARY: The City will conduct a salary survey in September of 2004 of the
San Mateo County salary survey market. The survey will include
the following salary components: base salary, City paid deferred
compensation contribution and City paid member's PERS. The
survey will be conducted for both the Police Sergeant classification
and the Police Commander classification. A salary adjustment will
be made to tie each classification to the median of the salary
survey market. If the survey reflects that salaries are above market
median, salaries will not be reduced to market median.
In September of 2005,the City will conduct a benchmark survey to
place the Unit 3rd in the salary survey market. The salary survey
will be on the same salary components as the September 2004
survey. If the City is projecting that revenues in FY 2005/06 will
not be sufficient to cover expenditures, the City can reopen the
contract prior to the start of 2005/2006 fiscal year relative to a
salary increase. If no alternative agreement can be reached on a
salary increase, the Unit will receive a salary increase that is tied to
the April to April CPI-U for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose
Bay Area. The minimum increase will be 2% and the maximum
increase will be 4%.
3. BENEFITS: Effective January 1, 2005, members of the Police Administrators
will participate in the City's Tiered Medical Contribution Plan. The
City contribution towards medical insurance will be as follows:
1. No Plan -Any employee that demonstrates they have medical
insurance through another source, will receive $200 per month in
lieu of medical benefits. The $200 per month allowance may be
put in deferred compensation, section 125 plans or taken in cash.
Any cash payout is subject to normal taxation.
2. Employee Only - The City will contribute $389.96 per month
towards employee only medical coverage. This amount is equal to
the 2005 Blue Shield HMO rate for employee only.
Exhibit A
3. Employee Plus One - The City will contribute $779.92 per
month towards employee plus one medical coverage. This amount
is equal to the 2005 Blue Shield HMO rate for employee plus one.
4. Employee Plus Two or more - The City will contribute $922.19
per month towards employee plus two or more for medical
coverage. This amount is equal to the 2005 Kaiser Rate for
employee plus two or more.
An employee that enrolls in a medical plan that has a higher
premium than the City's contribution as stated above, will pay the
difference via pre-tax payroll deductions.
The City's maximum retiree medical contribution will be $922.19
per month, which is equal to the 2005 Kaiser Family rate.
4. RETIREMENT: As provided in the current POA contract and side letter, the City
agrees to amend the Ca1PERS Section 21362.2, 3% @ 50 effective
July 1, 2006. This benefit will be provided to all employees in
Police Safety classifications. The City will treat Police
Administrators in the same fashion as members of the POA for any
retirements that occur from 07/01/04 - 06/30/06. The City agrees
to provide a supplemental retirement enhancement or plan for any
Police Administrator that retires from City service and accepts a
service retirement from Ca1PERS from the period of July 1, 2004
through June 30, 2006 providing his/her pension benefit is less
than it would have been if he/she would have retired on the same
date under the 3% @ 50 retirement benefit formula. The
supplemental plan or enhancement will give a benefit the same as
what the member would have received if the member would have
retired under the Ca1PERS 3% @ 50 plan. Examples of other
enhancements or supplemental plans include the Ca1PERS Section
20903 - Two Years Additional Service Credit and or the Public
Agency Retirement System (PARS) supplemental annuity
program(s).
5. DIFFERENTIAL: The Sergeants assigned to the Traffic, Administrative Services,
Crime Prevention, and Detective Units will receive a 7%
differential. In exchange for this differential, the Traffic,
Administrative Services and Crime Prevention Sergeants will
forego the additional 16 hours of administrative leave granted to
those in these assignments.
6. TUITION: The City will increase tuition and campus fee reimbursement from
$2,500 per year to $3,000 per year. The City will continue to
Exhibit A
reimburse members up to $500 per year for books, computer-
related educational equipment and programs.
7. UNIFORM Upon ratification and approval of this agreement, the City
ALLOWANCE: will provide an annual uniform allowance of$920.
Effective the first pay period of July, 2005, the City will provide an
annual uniform allowance of$955.
8. LAYOFF The signed Layoff Process will be incorporated into the Unit's
Memorandum of Understanding(MOU) as an exhibit.
FOR THE ADMIlNISTRATOR& FOR THE CITY:
Dawn Cutler Date James Nantell Date
Police Admin. Negotiator City Manager
Michael Matteucci Date Robert Bell Date
Police Admin Negotiator Human Resources Director
Exhibit A
LAYOFF POLICY: Provided for information only. Copy to be signed by POA,
Association and the City.
LAYOFF POLICY
A. Policy Statement
It is the City's intent to avoid employee layoffs whenever possible. When, however, in
the City's judgment it is necessary to abolish a position of employment, the employee
holding the position may be laid off or demoted without disciplinary action and without
the right of appeal. When feasible and practical,the City will meet with employees of the
affected classification and/or their representatives in order to determine whether or not a
voluntary reduction in hours or other solution may be mutually agreed to in order to
avoid the pending layoff.
B. Notice
Whenever possible, an employee subject to layoff will be given at least 14 calendar days
notice prior to the effective date of the layoff Layoff notification will be provided in the
form of a"Notice of Layoff." At the time of notice, the employee will also be notified of
any displacement rights or rights to reemployment, as described below.
C. Order of Layoff
The City will attempt to effect layoffs first in vacant positions. When it is necessary to
eliminate filled positions, employees shall be laid off in the following order: (1)
probationary employees, (2) permanent employees. All employees shall be laid off in the
inverse order of their seniority within their classification.
Seniority is determined by length of service in the classification. "Length of service in
the classification" means employment in the classification without interruption, including
all days of attendance at work and authorized paid and unpaid leaves of absence with the
City. Length of service does not include unauthorized absences or periods of suspension,
layoff or breaks in service. Permanent part-time employees will receive classification
seniority on a pro-rata basis (i.e. an employee that served 30 hours per week over a 12-
month period, would receive .75 year of seniority for that year of service). The 12-month
period will begin from the appointment date into permanent part-time status.
In the rare case where two or more employees in the classification have exactly the same
seniority determination, the following procedure will be used: Employees shall be laid
off on the basis of the last overall evaluation rating in the classification, providing such
information has been on file at least 30 days and no more than 12 months prior to lay off.
In such a case, employees shall be laid off in the following order: (1) employees with a
"below standard" or similar performance rating, (2) employees having a "meets
Exhibit A
standards" or similar performance rating, (3) employees with an "exceeds standards" or
similar performance rating.
D. Displacement Rights
If an employee in the classification of Police Commander is given a Notice of Layoff by
the City and the employee previously held the position of Police Sergeant with the City,
the Commander can displace a Police Sergeant with less City seniority. The Police
Commander must notify the City within 15 days of receipt of the Notice of Layoff of
his/her desire to exercise displacement rights.
If an employee in the classification of Police Sergeant is given a Notice of Layoff by the
City and the employee previously held the position of Police Officer with the City, the
Sergeant can displace a Police Officer with less City seniority. The Police Sergeant must
notify the City within 15 days of receipt of the Notice of Layoff of his/her desire to
exercise displacement rights.
For purposes of displacement, seniority is determined by length of service in the City as a
permanent employee, including any probationary periods served by the employee.
Length of service includes permanent employment without interruption, including all
days of attendance at work and authorized paid and unpaid leaves of absence with the
City.
Conditions which affect displacement rights are as follows: (1) The employee exercising
the displacement privilege will displace employees in lower classifications in the inverse
order of seniority, meaning employees with the least amount of seniority are displaced
first. (2) The employee must exercise displacement privileges within 15 working days
after receipt of the Notice of Layoff, by written notice to the Human Resources Director.
If this choice is not exercised within the specified time period, it is automatically
forfeited.
If the Police Commander given a Notice of Layoff never held the position of Police
Sergeant with the City of Burlingame or left City employment and was rehired as a
Police Commander with the City,the employee will have no displacement rights.
If the Police Sergeant given a Notice of Layoff never held the position of Police Officer
with the City of Burlingame or left City employment and was rehired as a Police
Sergeant with the City, the employee will have no displacement rights.
E. Reinstatement
If a position in the classification series from which the employee was laid off becomes
vacant or a position in the classification series is reestablished during that two-year
period, permanent employees shall be returned to the position in preference to any other
person. Written notice shall be given to the regular employee, who has received a
satisfactory or better evaluation for the 12 months prior to lay off, has completed his/her
Exhibit A
probationary period and who has been laid off,and shall be automatically placed on a re-
employment list for two(2)years for the classification from which be/she was laid off.
CITY 0 STAFF REPORT
BURUNGAME AGENDA
C .
ITEM # 8j
MTG.
'•LCDgA ,900 p
DNATED JUNE6 DATE 08/02/04
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTE
BY
DATE: July 13, 2004
APPROVED
FROM: Ann Musso, City Clerk By
650-558-7203 ;
SUBJECT: Request to schedule Special City Council Meeting on August 16, 2004
RECOMMENDATION: To schedule a special City Council meeting for August 16th at 6:30 p.m. in
Conference Room A to award the following three storm drainage construction projects:
• Sanchez Creek dredging
• Storm drain line crossing California Drive
• Storm drain line in Almer and Bellevue Avenues
EXHIBITS:
None
BUDGET IMPACT:
None
$2,777,889.07
Ck.No.96004-96426
Excludes Library cks.96004-96040
RECOMMENDED FOR PAYMENT APPROVED FOR PAYMENT
Payroll for June 2004
$2,128,767.79
Ck.No.158690-159009
INCLUDES ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS
PERS HEALTH
PERS RETIREMENT
FEDERAL 941 TAX
STATE DISABILITY TAX
STATE INCOME TAX
PERS&ICMA DEFERRED COMP
SECTION 125 DEDUCTION
CCD 0q
CD m
ao fl+
o rn
CDm
..o
S:\FINEXCEL\MISCELLANEOUS\COUNCILCKS.XLS
CITY OF BURLINGAME
07-02-2004 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 12
FUND RECAP 04- 05
NAME FUND AMOUNT
GENERAL FUND 101 162 , 164 .81
PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 14,806.62
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 84, 811 . 05
WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 80,875 .59
SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 194, 277. 73
WATER FUND 526 282 , 627.49
SEWER FUND 527 208,439. 72
SOLID WASTE FUND 528 1 , 552 .60
PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 598. 28
SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 64, 174 .35
FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 6, 158. 16
EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 12 , 504 .49
INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 1 , 587. 55
FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 79. 00
OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 2 , 371 .68
BURLINGAME TRAIN SHUTTLE PROGRAM 736 1 , 636.38
UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 69, 331 . 76
TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $1 , 187, 997.26
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL :
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 12
INCLUSIVE , AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 96286 THROUGH 96426 INCLUSIVE , TOTALING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $1 , 187,997. 26, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER
OFFICIALS , AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON .
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./ . . . / . . .
FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE
APPROVED FOR PAYMENT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . / . . . / . . .
COUNCIL DATE
CITY OF BURLINGAME
07-02-2004 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 13
FUND RECAP 03-04
NAME FUND AMOUNT
GENERAL FUND 101 110,931.93
PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 14,806.62
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 84,811.05
WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 80,875.59
SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 194,277.73
WATER FUND 526 282,627.49
SEWER FUND 527 208,439.72
SOLID WASTE FUND 528 1,552.60
PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 598.28
SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 64,174.35
FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 6,158.16
EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 12,504.49
INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 685.40
FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 79.00
OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 2,371.68
BURLINGAME TRAIN SHUTTLE PROGRAM 736 1,636.38
UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 69,331.76
TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $1,135,862.23
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 13
INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 96286 THROUGH 96426 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $1,135,862.23, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER
OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
.................................... .../.../...
FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE
APPROVED FOR PAYMENT
.................................... .../.../...
COUNCIL DATE
' CITY OF BURLINGAME
07-02-2004 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 14
FUND RECAP - 04-05
NAME FUND AMOUNT
GENERAL FUND 101 51,232.88
INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 902.15
TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $52,135.03
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 14
INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 96286 THROUGH 96426 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $52,135.03, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER
OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
.................................... .../.../...
FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE
APPROVED FOR PAYMENT
.................................... .../.../...
COUNCIL DATE
CITY OF BURLINGAME -
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11
07/02/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96414 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CALIFORNIA 24793 AP 3,693.09
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,693.09 130 20014
96415 THE HARTFORD PRIORITY ACCOUNTS 24796 AP 5,106.93
MISCELLANEOUS 896.86 130 20025
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 4,210.07 130 20021
96416 TOM DONNELLY 24830 AP 675.00
TRAINING EXPENSE 675.00 101 65200 260
96417 EMEDCO 24891 AP 118.34
MISC. SUPPLIES 118.34 101 66240 120
96418 LINDA'S TYPING AND DICTATION 24901 AP 962.50
POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 962.50 101 65100 292
96419 TERRASEARCH INC 24905 AP 100.00
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 100.00 320 80370 210
96420 PLAZA GOURMET 24928 AP 673.75
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 673.75 101 64420 210
96421 THE PUBLIC RETIREMENT JOURNAL 24929 160.00
TRAVEL&MEETINGS 160.00 101 64420 250
96422 GOVPLACE 24930 AP 2,771.44
MISCELLANEOUS 2,771.44 320 80420 400
96423 RON GARIFFO 24931 AP 1,200.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,200.00 730 69544 220
96424 JACK JOHNSON 24932 AP 600.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 600.00 730 69544 220
96425 RC TILE CO 24933 AP 650.00
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 650.00 619 64460 210 5190
96426 MARGARET FARNEY 24934 AP 1,000.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,000.00 101 22525
TOTAL 81,187,997.26
' CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10
07/02/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96401 TEAMSTERS #856 24526 AP 455.00 -
UNION DUES 455.00 130 21091
96402 TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 856 24528 AP 320.60
MISCELLANEOUS 313.64 130 21092
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 6.96 130 21015
96403 BEACON FIRE & SAFETY 24535 AP 146.65
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 146.65 619 64460 210 5130
96404 IMEDD INCORPORATED 24550 AP 1,635.00
PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 884.00 101 64420 121
TRAINING EXPENSE 530.00 101 65100 260
TRAINING EXPENSE 150.00 527 66520 260
MISCELLANEOUS 71.00 618 64520 234
96405 PRESERVATION PAINTING 24552 AP 940.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 940.00 619 64460 210 5190
96406 KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS 24570 AP 9,241.42
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED 5 9,241.42 326 80950 210
96407 AT&T WIRELESS 24607 AP 1,981.74
COMMUNICATIONS 548.71 101 65100 160
COMMUNICATIONS 363.80 101 65200 160
COMMUNICATIONS 53.89 101 64250 160
UTILITY EXPENSE 1,015.34 896 20281
96408 AT&T WIRELESS 24640 AP 676.56
COMMUNICATIONS 631.86 101 66100 160
COMMUNICATIONS 44.70 526 69020 160
96409 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL 24647 AP 497.56
TRAINING EXPENSE 497.56 101 65300 260
96410 PUBLIC SECTOR TRAINING SOLUTIONS 24661 AP 1,225.00
TRAINING EXPENSE 1,225.00 101 64420 262
96411 RUTAN & TUCKER LLP 24678 AP 4,544.74
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,544.74 618 64520 210
96412 THE INVIRONMENTALISTS 24747 AP 225.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 225.00 619 64460 210 5120
96413 W.R. FORDE ASSOCIATES 24759 AP 174,387.76
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 174,387.76 327 77040 220
CITY OF BURLINGAME -
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9
07/02/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96386 DEWEY SERVICES, INC. 23902 AP 5,500.00
RAT CONTROL PROGRAM 5,500.00 101 66210 218
96387 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 AP 836.51
MISC. SUPPLIES 369.92 101 68010 120 1114
MISC. SUPPLIES 278.59 101 68010 120 1111
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00 619 64460 220
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 88.00 619 64460 220 5130
96388 BAYSIDE PRINTED PRODUCTS 24192 AP 1,019.29
OFFICE EXPENSE 1,019.29 101 64250 110
96389 JESUS NAVA 24204 AP 92.50
TRAVEL 8 MEETINGS 92.50 101 64250 250
96390 ROMAN KNOP 24238 AP 7,500.00
MISCELLANEOUS 7,500.00 101 22546
96391 PENINSULA AQUATICS CENTER 24375 AP 382.20
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 382.20 101 68010 220 1372
96392 ALERT-ALL 24392 AP 225.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 225.00 101 65200 120
96393 SAN MATEO MEDICAL CENTER 24408 AP 250.00
POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 250.00 101 65100 292
96394 OLIVIA CHEN CONSULTANTS - 24445 AP 15,359.25
PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 15,359.25 326 80910 210
96395 TOLL ARCHITECTURAL GRAPHICS 24476 AP 98.00
PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 98.00 619 64460 210 5120
96396 BURLINGAME FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24518 AP 3,705.00
MISCELLANEOUS 3,705.00 130 20016
96397 BURLINGAME FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24519 AP 64.00
UNION DUES 64.00 130 21080
96398 BURLINGAME POLICE ADMINISTRATION 24520 AP 180.00
MISCELLANEOUS 180.00 130 20024
96399 BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSN 24521 AP 580.00
MISCELLANEOUS 580.00 130 20024
96400 C.L.E.A. 24523 AP 702.00
MISCELLANEOUS 702.00 130 20026
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8
07/02/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96375 PITNEY BOWES 23128 AP 548.00
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 548.00 621 64450 200
96376 OFFICE TEAM 23256 AP 2,822.93
MISCELLANEOUS 2,507.93 101 65300 010
MISCELLANEOUS 315.00 101 64150 010
- 96377 SIERRA OFFICE SUPPLIES 23301 AP 1,335.87
OFFICE EXPENSE 104.23 101 64150 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 104.24 101 64350 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 117.23 101 65100 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 12.09 101 64200 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 408.18 101 65300 110
MISC. SUPPLIES 131.52 101 66210 120
OFFICE EXPENSE 14.81 526 69020 110
MISC. SUPPLIES 233.20 526 69020 120
OFFICE EXPENSE 140.57 619 64460 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 69.80 620 66700 110
96378 RECALL- TOTAL INFORMATION MGMT 23411 AP 101.00
MISCELLANEOUS 101.00 101 22518
96379 ERLER AND KALINOWSKI,INC. 23531 AP 44,543.13
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 577.83 326 80931 210
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 43,965.30 326 80722 210
96380 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO. 23611 AP 237.94
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 84.47 619 64460 210
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 153.47 619 64460 210 5190
96381 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIBUT 23639 AP 35,74
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 35.74 619 64460 210 5120
96382 GSA MASTER SERIES INC. 23693 AP 16,748.00
CAPITAL. EQUIPMENT 12,561.00 101 66210 800
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 4,187.00 526 69020 290
96383 SBC/MCI 23728 AP 5,891.55
UTILITY EXPENSE 5,891.55 896 20280
96384 KAREN LIU 23823 AP 1,200.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 240.00 101 68010 220 1645
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 960.00 101 68010 220 1646
96385 SFPUC WATER QUALITY BUREAU 23846 AP 7,560.00
MISCELLANEOUS 7,560.00 526 69020 233
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7
07/02/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96361 OFFICE DEPOT CREDIT PLAN 22216 AP 1 ,089.65
OFFICE EXPENSE 710.77 101 65100 110
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 378.88 530 65400 140
96362 POWER MAINTENANCE CORPORATION 22349 2,206.25
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,206.25 101 65100 220
96363 PITNEY BOWES RESERVE ACCOUNT 22624 5,000.00
MISCELLANEOUS 5,000.00 101 15500
96364 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY, INC. 22632 AP 491 .99
MISCELLANEOUS -39.85 527 23611
TRAINING EXPENSE 531 .84 527 66520 260
96365 COLLEEN JONES 22673 AP 182.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 182.00 101 68010 220 1789
96366 FITALI RUSLI 22706 AP 1 ,000.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1 ,000.00 101 22525
96367 JIM NANTELL 22762 AP 150.00
MISCELLANEOUS 150.00 101 64150 031
96368 BURLINGAME FAMILY PET HOSPITAL 22773 AP 101 .76
MISC. SUPPLIES 101 .76 101 65100 120
96369 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 22804 AP 120.00
MISCELLANEOUS 120.00 526 69020 233
96370 PENINSULA UNIFORM & EQUIPMENT 22899 AP 119.02
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 119.02 101 65100 140
96371 IMAGISTICS INTERNATIONAL 22924 AP 309.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 309.00 101 65100 220
96372 FIRST AMERICAN REAL ESTATE SOLUT 23012 AP 8,490.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 707.50 101 65200 120
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 707.50 101 65300 210
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,806.00 101 64400 210
MISCELLANEOUS 1 ,415.00 101 66100 400
MISCELLANEOUS 2,854.00 101 64400 400
96373 S&S WORLDWIDE 23085 AP 132.62
MISC. SUPPLIES 132.62 101 68010 120 1423
96374 BONDLOGISTIX 23088 AP 1 ,000.00
OTHER DEBT EXPENSES 1 ,000.00 527 66530 764
1 ( 1
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6
07/02/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96349 HARDISON KOMATSU IVELICH& 20938 AP 249.54
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 249.54 320 76010 210
96350 QUICK MIX CONCRETE 21140 AP 810.84
MISC. SUPPLIES 810.84 527 66520 120
96351 ANN MUSSO 21178 AP 568.45
OFFICE EXPENSE 568.45 101 64200 110
96352 UNITY BUSINESS SERVICE 21364 AP 548.59
MISC. SUPPLIES 548.59 101 65300 120
96353 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES, INC. 21634 AP 989.78
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 254.24 101 66210 140
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 13.80 101 66240 140
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 289.00 526 69020 140
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 254.22 527 66520 140
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 27.60 528 66600 140
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 87.80 619 64460 140
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 63.12 620 66700 140
96354 D.L. FALK CONSTRUCTION INC. 21647 AP 75,150.07
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 75,150.07 320 80370 220
96355 LINGULAR WIRELESS 21747 AP 445.00
COMMUNICATIONS 301.43 101 66100 160
COMMUNICATIONS 143.57 101 65300 160
96356 POSITIVE PROMOTIONS 21765 AP 97.86
OFFICE EXPENSE 97.86 527 66520 110
96357 PROVIDENCE PEST TERMITE 21947 AP 352.00
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 42.00 619 64460 210 5160
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 42.00 619 64460 210 5150
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 42.00 619 64460 210 5170
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 85.00 619 64460 210 5180
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 62.00 619 64460 210 5120
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 79.00 619 64460 210 5110
96358 PUBLIC AFFAIRS MANAGEMENT 21986 AP 11,731.79
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 11,731.79 326 80770 210
96359 JCC , INC. 22157 AP 1,000.00
PROFESSIONAL &SPECIALIZED S 1,000.00 527 66520 210
96360 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 AP 315.66
MISC. SUPPLIES 315.66 526 69020 120
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5
07/02/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96335 BAY ALARM 18854 AP 374.25
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 198.00 619 64460 220 5180
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 176.25 619 64460 220 5230
96336 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 AP 2,000.87 _
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,758.95 101 64420 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 241.92 527 66520 120
96337 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 19095 AP 1,979.50
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,979.50 101 64420 210
96338 MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEMS 19131 AP 518.93
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 518.93 101 65200 200
96339 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 AP 43.79
MISC. SUPPLIES 43.79 620 66700 120
96340 AMERICA PRINTING 19430 AP 8,766.03
MISCELLANEOUS 8,766.03 526 69020 233
96341 POWER WASHING SERVICE 19564 -AP 1,525.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,525.00 528 66600 120
96342 CHI HUA HUNG 19912 AP 3,000.00
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000.00 101 22546
96343 UTILITY AERIAL INC 19990 AP 382.76
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 382.76 101 68020 200 2300
96344 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 AP 5,496.38
RENTS & LEASES 1,930.00 526 69020 180
RENTS & LEASES 1,930.00 527 66520 180
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,636.38 736 64570 220
96345 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 20335 AP 19,032.62
MISC. SUPPLIES 19,032.62 327 77040 120
96346 FRANKLIN OFFICE SUPPLIES 20523 AP 68.51
OFFICE EXPENSE 68.51 101 64420 110
96347 SPRINT PCS 20724 AP 71.64
COMMUNICATIONS 33.79 101 64420 160
COMMUNICATIONS 37.85 101 64150 160
96348 JEFF DOWD 20779 AP 1,148.55
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,148.55 101 68010 220 1372 -
j ) )
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4
07/02/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
'•' Denotes Hand Written Checks
96320 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 16460 AP 1,130.13
MISC. SUPPLIES 475.61 101 68010 120 1370
MISC. SUPPLIES 419.73 101 68010 120 .1330
MISC. SUPPLIES 234.79 101 68010 120 1423 -
96321 MIKE SMITH 16637 AP 208.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 208.00 101 68010 220 1789
96322 ITRON 16913 902.15
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 902.15 621 64450 200
96323 DREW FLINDERS 16981 AP 502.13
TRAINING EXPENSE 502.13 101 65200 260
96324 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 17402 AP 376.01
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 253.01 101 65100 200
RADIO MAINT. 123.00 101 65200 205
96325 COLORPRINT 17497 AP 102.30
OFFICE EXPENSE 102.30 526 69020 110
96326 ACCURATE MAILINGS, INC 17623 AP 765.59
MISCELLANEOUS 765.59 526 69020 233
96327 JEFF HIPPS 17803 AP 2,457.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,457.00 101 68010 220 1372
96328 OCT INC 17944 AP 375.00
TRAINING EXPENSE - 375.00 526 69020 260
96329 JO CROSBY & ASSOCIATES 18077 AP 350,00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 350.00 320. 80370 210
96330 DUKE'S SALES & SERVICE, INC 18082 AP 750.00
MISCELLANEOUS 750.00 526 22502
96331 GEORGE MASTALIR 18088 AP 208.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 208.00 101 68010 220 1789
96332 RICH SCIUTTO 18572 AP 259.35
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 259.35 101 68010 220 1372
96333 LINDA LENORE 18729 AP 120.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 120.00 101 68010 220 1660
96334 NATURCLEAN 18830 AP 2,008.50
MISC. SUPPLIES 2,008.50 527 66520 120
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3
07/02/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96312 CHIEF BILL REILLY 11568 AP 2,354.51
OFFICE EXPENSE 473.30 101 65200 110
MISC. SUPPLIES 47.67 101 65200 111
MISC. SUPPLIES -625.74 101 65200 120
SMALL TOOLS 35.56 101 65200 130
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 763.32 101 65200 140
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 283.49 101 65200 190
VEHICLE MAINT. 135.31 101 65200 202
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 25 .00 101 65200 250
TRAINING EXPENSE 1 ,085.00 101 65200 260
TRAINING EXPENSE 52.60 101 65500 260
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 79.00 625 65213 203
96313 WECO INDUSTRIES, INC. 11640 AP 579.47
MISC. SUPPLIES 579.47 527 66520 120
96314 BURLINGAME POLICE DEPT 13720 AP 6,011 .94
OFFICE EXPENSE 66.03 101 65150 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 321 .00 101 65100 110
MISC. SUPPLIES 340.88 101 65100 120
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 392.45 101 65100 140
COMMUNICATIONS 194.47 101 65100 160
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 470.83 101 65150 200
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 437.94 101 65100 200
TRAINING EXPENSE 2,284.26 101 65100 260
POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 713.00 101 65100 292
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 120.85 530 65400 140
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 98.55 530 65400 200
OFFICE EXPENSE 405.70 730 69574 110
MISC. SUPPLIES 165 .98 730 69574 120
96315 DANKA OFFICE IMAGING CO 13758 AP 137.40
OFFICE EXPENSE 137.40 621 64450 110
96316 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 14855 AP 438.75
MISC. SUPPLIES 438.75 101 66240 120
96317 IZMIRIAN ROOFING 15573 AP 170.83
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 170.83 619 64460 220 5130
96318 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 AP 3, 109.86
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3, 109.86 101 65100 220
96319 VALLEY OIL CO. 15764 AP 12,011 .38
SUPPLIES 12,011 .38 620 15000
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2
07/02/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96300 INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT. 03378 AP 1,853.98
COMMUNICATIONS 18.14 101 65200 160
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,835.84 101 65150 220
96301 SAN MATEO CTY NARCOTICS TSK FR 03408 37,166.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 37,166.00 101 65100 220
96302 SAN MATEO UNION HIGH 03471 AP 2,148.12
MISC. SUPPLIES 2,148.12 101 68010 120 1422
96303 RANDY SCHWARTZ 03518 AP 180.00
MISCELLANEOUS 180.00 101 68010 031
96304 SNAP ON TOOLS 03587 AP 319.90
SMALL TOOLS 38.93 101 65200 130
SMALL TOOLS 280.97 620 66700 130
96305 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 AP 453.40
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 453.40 101 64350 210
96306 B.E.I. ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 09072 AP 49.89
MISC. SUPPLIES 16.53 619 64460 120 5180
MISC. SUPPLIES 34.36 619 64460 120 5170
MISC. SUPPLIES -1.00 619 64460 120 5180
96307 MUFFIE CALBREATH 09125 AP 1,852.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 760.00 101 68010 220 1660
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,092.00 101 68010 220 1891
96308 TESTING ENGINEERS, INC. 09270 AP 6,190.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 6,190.00 320 80831 210
96309 TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT CO. 09319 AP 35.43
SUPPLIES 35.43 620 15000
96310 OCE'-BRUNING, INC. 09493 AP 857.35
MISC. SUPPLIES 857.35 327 81010 120
96311 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 AP 59,558.61
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 14,558.61 618 64520 210
CLAIMS PAYMENTS 45,000.00 618 64520 601
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1
07/02/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
*6 Denotes Hand Written Checks
96286 ASSOCIATION OF SAY AREA GOVERNME 01131 4,399.00
DUES&SUBSCRIPTIONS 4,399.00 101 64560 240
96287 WHITE CAP 01250 AP 401.92
SMALL TOOLS 401.92 527 66520 130
96288 BAUER COMPRESSORS 01309 AP 192.02
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 192.02 101 65200 203
96289 LEXISNEXIS MATTHEW BENDER 01312 AP 138.35
MISC. SUPPLIES 138.35 101 64350 120
96290 BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 01637 2,301.63
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,301.63 101 64560 220
96291 L. N. CURTIS&SONS 02027 AP 465.05
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 465.05 101 65200 140
96292 VEOLIA WATER 02110 AP 199,473.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 199,473.00 527 66530 220
96293 GENE EVANS 02149 AP 180.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 180.00 101 68010 220 1644
96294 NATER/FINANCE PETTY CASH 02184 AP 3,830.78
MISCELLANEOUS 3,830.78 896 20282
96295 K&W DISCOUNT LIGHTING&SUPP 02645 AP 2,461.49
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 768.79 619 64460 210 5120
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 160.75 .619 64460 210
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 1,531.95 619 64460 210 5120
96296 P. G. &E. 03054 AP 75,866.03
GAS&ELECTRIC 17,271.94 101 66240 170
UTILITY EXPENSE 2,789.86 896 20281
UTILITY EXPENSE 55,804.23 896 20280
96297 STEPHEN J. PICCHI 03168 AP 741.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 741.00 101 68010 220 1372
96298 SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPT. 03353 AP 257,174.20
WATER PURCHASES 257,174.20 526 69020 171
96299 CITY OF SAN MATEO 03366 AP 5,813.12
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 3,329.04 101 66240 210
TRAINING EXPENSE 2,484.08 101 66240 260
CITY OF BURLINGAME
06-24-2004 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10
FUND RECAP 03-04
NAME FUND AMOUNT
GENERAL FUND 101 155,242.64
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 4, 149.20
WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 179,070.89
SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 799,003.63
WATER FUND 526 1 ,684.95
SEWER FUND 527 2,383.08
SOLID WASTE FUND 528 2,793.20
PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 11168.80
SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 8,347.45
FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 4,229.04
EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 2,338.92
INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 2,289.36
FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 862.00
OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 2,935.54
TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 141 ,925.83
UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 811 .49
TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $1 ,309,236.02
Voi
L/ (31J404)
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 10
INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 96165 THROUGH 96285 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $1 ,309,236.02, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER
OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./. . ./. . .
FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE
APPROVED FOR PAYMENT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./. . ./. . .
COUNCIL DATE
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9
06/24/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96277 I.M.P.A.C. GOVERNMENT SERVICES 24752 1,912.61
LIBRARY EXPENSES 395.94 101 22521
OFFICE EXPENSE 54.58 101 65100 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 21.59 101 64420 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 191.67 101 65200 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 97.39 101 64420 110
COMMUNICATIONS 23.70 101 67500 160
COMMUNICATIONS 156.79 101 65150 160
COMMUNICATIONS 244.87 101 67500 160
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 43.90 101 65100 190
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 239.83 101 67500 190
MISCELLANEOUS 133.10 101 67500 235
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 20.85 101 64420 250
MISCELLANEOUS 255.45 101 64400 400
OFFICE EXPENSE 32.95 621 64450 110
96278 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 24815 38.95
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 38.95 101 65200 220
96279 MAE O'MALLEY 24849 300.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520
96280 CITYGATE ASSOCIATES LLC 24921 4,900.00
TRAINING EXPENSE 4,900.00 101 65200 260
96281 ALLEN NELSON 24922 300.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520
96282 GM CONSTRUCTION 24923 3,000.00
MISCELLANEOUS 3,000.00 101 22546
96283 PAUL GUARALDI 24924 300.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520
96284 BRICKMORE RISK SERVICES 24925 2,000.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,000.00 101 64420 210
96285 BROADWAY B.I.D. 24927 420.00
MISCELLANEOUS 420.00 101 36520
TOTAL $1,309,236.02
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8
06/24/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96263 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 23905 1,891.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,827.00 101 23620
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 64.00 101 64420 210
96264 CHOICE POINT BUSINESS AND GOVERN 23935 250.00
POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 250.00 101 65100 292
96265 J&L CONSTRUCTION 24288 2,256.42
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,256.42 320 80790 210
96266 EMILY LORD 24313 900.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 900.00 730 69544 220
96267 BERRYMAN & HENIGAR 24363 1,587.50
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,587.50 527 66520 210
96268 BRIAN WACHHORST 24372 900.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 900.00 730 69544 220
96269 RANGER PIPELINES INC 24433 77,601.32
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 77,601.32 327 80681 220
96270 C.W. ROEN CO. 24474 647,619.30
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 647,619.30 327 79480 220
96271 TOLL ARCHITECTURAL GRAPHICS 24476 264.01
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 264.01 619 64460 210 5120
96272 BANK OF WALNUT CREEK 24613 71,957.70
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 71,957.70 327 79480 220
96273 DIAMOND COMMUNICATIONS INC 24659 120.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 120.00 619 64460 210 5120
96274 UNI STRUCT ENGINEERING 24665 300.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520
96275 SAN MATEO COUNTY FORENSIC LAB 24700 249.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 249.00 101 65100 220
96276 THE POWER SOURCE 24718 1,136.63
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 1,136.63 530 65400 200
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7
06/24/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96250 CYBERNET CONSULTING, INC. 23234 5,531.25
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 1,548.75 320 79400 210
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 2,157.19 326 79400 210
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 1,825.31 327 79400 210
96251 OFFICE TEAM 23256 779.45
MISCELLANEOUS 779.45 101 65300 010
96252 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS CO 23306 757.67
OFFICE EXPENSE 475.21 101 64400 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 112.92 101 65200 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 39.60 101 64400 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 12.35 530 65400 110
OFFICE EXPENSE 117.59 621 64450 110
96253 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC 23382 9,723.20
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 9,723.20 101 68010 200 1286
96254 CULVER GROUP 23448 156,109.57
PROFESSIONAL &SPECIALIZED S 156,109.57 326 80770 210
96255 ERLER AND KALINOWSKI,INC. 23531 19,154.13
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 19,154.13 326 81110 210
96256 EMERALD PLUMBING& FIRE PROTECTI 23586 300.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520
96257 ROBERT ROSELLI 23608 2,800.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 2,800.00 101 22520
96258 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO. 23611 388.25
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 29.20 619 64460 210 5170
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 359.05 619 64460 210 5130
96259 SCS FIELD SERVICES 23727 2,793.20
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 2,793.20 528 66600 210
96260 DCE DESIGN,COMMUNITY&ENVIRONME 23784 5,044.24
PROFESSIONAL &SPECIALIZED S 5,044.24 101 64400 210
96261 KEITH MARTIN 23788 93.75
MISC. SUPPLIES 27.09 526 69020 120
TRAVEL&MEETINGS 60.00 527 66520 250
MISC. SUPPLIES 6.66 619 64460 120 5240
96262 KAREN LIU 23823 450.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 450.00 101 68010 220 1646
C C \
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6
06/24/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96235 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONTROLLERS OFF 21897 19,297.50
MISCELLANEOUS 19,297.50 101 37010
96236 EXPRESS PLUMBING 22092 300.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520
96237 AT&T 22138 22.43
COMMUNICATIONS 22.43 101 65100 160
96238 TOWNE FORD SALES, INC. 22146 223.34
SUPPLIES 223.34 620 15000
96239 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 1 ,227.30
MISC. SUPPLIES 1 ,227.30 526 69020 120
96240 GERALD TAYLOR 22213 60.00
PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 60.00 101 68010 150 1950
96241 COUNTY CLERK SAN MATEO COUNTY 22558 1 ,275.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1 ,275.00 101 64400 210
96242 HOLDEN DANIELS 22687 600.00
TRAINING EXPENSE 600.00 101 65200 260
96243 MASUNE COMPANY 22744 143.55
MISCELLANEOUS - 11 . 10 101 23611
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 154.65 101 68010 140 1892
96244 SAN MATEO REGIONAL NETWORK, INC. 22759 520.00
UTILITY EXPENSE 520.00 896 20281
96245 SMELLY MEL 'S PLUMBING 22763 300.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520
96246 QUALITY LANDSCAPE AND CONCRETE 22934 300.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520
96247 DENIZ SALON 22973 864.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 864.00 101 22520
96248 WEST COAST TURF 23069 327.34
MISC. SUPPLIES 327.34 101 68020 120 2200
96249 PITNEY BOWES 23128 548.00
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 548.00 621 64450 200
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5
06/24/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96220 SUMMIT UNIFORMS 19777 1,135.54
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,135.54 730 69531 120
96221 CIUCCI CONSULTING GROUP INC 19791 157.50
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 157.50 101 65300 220
96222 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 20222 344.03
PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 344.03 320 80520 210
96223 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 1,590.82
COMMUNICATIONS 1,590.82 621 64450 160
96224 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES 20501 1,650.00
PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 1,650.00 326 75170 210
96225 LARRY ANDERSON 20716 564.40
MISCELLANEOUS 564.40 101 64350 031
96226 JEFF DOWD 20779 725.40
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 725.40 101 68010 220 1372
96227 RENEE RAMSEY 21136 1,215.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,215.00 101 68010 220 1331
96228 QUICK MIX CONCRETE 21140 912.27
SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 418.11 101 66210 219
MISC. SUPPLIES 494.16 527 66520 120
96229 CEB 21210 - 305.80
MISC. SUPPLIES 305.80 101 64350 120
96230 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR-042 21240 2,046.16
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,200.00 619 64460 220 5120
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 210.82 619 64460 220 5130
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 635.34 619 64460 220 5110
96231 COW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 107.41
MISC. SUPPLIES 33.49 101 68010 120 1100
MISC. SUPPLIES 73.92 101 66100 120
96232 ALFAX WHOLESALE FURNITURE, INC. 21505 669.75
MISCELLANEOUS 669.75 101 68010 400 1100
96233 PORTOSAN 21656 426.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 426.00 101 68010 120 1372
96234 TRACY SIRI 21685 67.50
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 67.50 101 68010 220 1645
C
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4
06/24/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96205 VALLEY OIL CO. 15764 855. 18
GAS, OIL & GREASE 855.18 101 65200 201
96206 SYDNEY MALK00 16347 322.55
SMALL TOOLS 322.55 620 66700 130
96207 LINHART PETERSEN POWERS ASSOC. 16599 23,656.89
MISCELLANEOUS 23,656.89 101 22515
96208 OTTO MILLER 17129 9,538.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS 9,538.00 101 22520
96209 STANDARD REGISTER 17495 2,567. 15
OFFICE EXPENSE 2,567.15 101 64250 110
96210 COLORPRINT 17497 299.85
OFFICE EXPENSE 299.85 526 69020 110
96211 JEFF HIPPS 17803 3,640.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,640.00 101 68010 220 1372
96212 DEAN 'S AUTO BODY & 18795 1 , 169.97
MISCELLANEOUS 1 , 169.97 618 64520 604
96213 PREFERRED ALLIANCE 19025 228.80
PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 228.80 101 64420 121
96214 GOETZ BROTHERS 19045 713.58
MISC. SUPPLIES 71 .88 101 68010 120 1788
MISC. SUPPLIES 34.64 101 68010 120 1785
MISC. SUPPLIES 347.26 101 68010 120 1780
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 259.80 101 68010 190 1787
96215 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 430.66
MISC. SUPPLIES 430.66 101 65200 111
96216 BURTON'S FIRE APPARATUS 19366 653.59
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 18.13 101 65200 203
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 635.46 625 65213 203
96217 AMERICA PRINTING 19430 970.46
TRAINING EXPENSE 970.46 620 66700 260
96218 BAY AREA BUSINESS CARDS INC 19588 20.57
OFFICE EXPENSE 20.57 101 66100 110
96219 DON DORNELL 19617 323.95
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 323.95 101 65200 140
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3
06/24/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96191 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 4,309.48
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,309.48 618 64520 210
96192 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 09670 185.23
SMALL TOOLS 14.52 101 65200 130
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 32.44 101 65200 190
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 21.59 101 65200 200
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 116.68 101 65200 203
96193 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC 09790 4,332.31
MISC. SUPPLIES 60.00 101 66210 120
TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 4,141.60 101 66210 222
TRAINING EXPENSE 130.71 526 69020 260
96194 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING A 10101 225.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 225.00 101 65200 220
96195 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER 11101 1,215.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,215.00 101 64350 210
96196 COAST OIL CO. 13818 13,215.62
GAS, OIL & GREASE 13,215.62 101 65100 201
96197 GWENN JONES 13824 40.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 40.00 101 68010 120 1661
96198 A T & T 13940 291.49
UTILITY EXPENSE 291.49 896 20281
96199 ADAMSON INDUSTRIES 14414 509.87
POLICE--SUPPLIES 509.87 101 65100 126
96200 RECHARGE'EM 14523 75.78
OFFICE EXPENSE 75.78 101 65200 110
96201 DHL EXPRESS 14958 37.55
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 17.73 101 65150 200
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 19.82 530 65400 200
96202 PARKIN SECURITY CONSULTANTS 15250 74.00
PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 74.00 101 64420 121
96203 AIR EXCHANGE, INC 15625 242.40
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 242.40 619 64460 210 5170
96204 PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS 15711 1,415.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,415.00 101 68010 220 1787
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2
06/24/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96180 CITY OF SAN MATEO 03366 14,850.96
MISC. SUPPLIES 6,670.00 101 66240 120
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 1,400.00 101 66240 200
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,825.96 101 66240 210
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,955.00 101 66240 220
96181 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONVENTION & 03431 141,925.83
MISCELLANEOUS 141,925.83 731 22587
96182 SNAP ON TOOLS 03587 16.90
SMALL TOOLS 16.90 101 65200 130
96183 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. 03788 300.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 300.00 101 65100 120
96184 U S POSTAL SERVICE 03821 1,600.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,600.00 101 64250 114
96185 BURLINGAME REC. DEPT./PETTY CASH 03910 3,510.87
MISC. SUPPLIES 488.36 101 68010 120 1370
MISC. SUPPLIES 82.40 101 68010 120 1890
MISC. SUPPLIES 35.00 101 68010 120 1330
MISC. SUPPLIES 75.75 101 68010 120 1101
MISCELLANEOUS 269.36 101 68020 192 2200
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 325.00 101 68010 220 1645
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 204.00 101 68010 220 1660
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,400.00 101 68010 220 1330
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 470.00 101 68010 220 1646
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 86.00 101 68010 220 1644
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 75.00 101 68020 240 2300
96186 RD OFFICE SOLUTIONS 09213 20.82
OFFICE EXPENSE 20.82 101 66210 110
96187 TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT CO. 09319 38.55
SUPPLIES 38.55 620 15000
96188 LIFE ASSIST 09392 246.81
SUPPLIES 246.81 101 65200 112
96189 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFC. 09433 2,828.00
PRISONER EXPENSE 2,828.00 101 65100 291
96190 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPPLY 09459 506.61
MISC. SUPPLIES 506.61 101 68020 120 2200
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1
06/24/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96165"'THE GIBSON GROUP TRUST 24926 2,868.00
CLAIMS PAYMENTS 2,868.00 618 64520 601
96166 ALAN STEEL&SUPPLY CO. 01059 142.89
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 142.89 101 65200 203
96167 SAYSHORE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 01236 226.54
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 226.54 625 65213 203
96168 BAUER COMPRESSORS 01309 580.47
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 580.47 101 65200 203
96169 BRENTON SAFETY, INC. 01400 241.42
TRAINING EXPENSE 241.42 527 66520 260
96170 BURLINGAME RECREATION DEPT. 01663 1,533.00
RECREATION EXPENSES 1,533.00 101 10700 .
96171 GCS WESTERN POWER& 01857 495.15
SUPPLIES 495.15 620 15000
96172 CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTS, INC., 01992 114.25
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 114.25 619 64460 210 5110
96173 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 71.81
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 71.81 619 64460 210 5150
96174 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 632.44
SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 317.17 101 66210 219
STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 315.27 101 66210 226
96175 K&W DISCOUNT LIGHTING&SUPP 02645 288.87
MISC. SUPPLIES 288.87 620 66700 120
96176 MILLBRAE LUMBER CO. 02898 489.15
MISC. SUPPLIES 130.89 101 66210 120
BLDG. &GROUNDS MAINT. 59.54 101 68020 190 2200
SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 298.72 101 66210 219
96177 SBC 03080 152.76
COMMUNICATIONS 152.76 101 65100 160
96178 STEPHEN J. PICCHI 03168 963.30
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 963.30 101 68010 220 1372
96179 R&S ERECTION OF 03234 975.50
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 975.50 619 64460 210 5150
C � \
CITY OF BURLINGAME
06-18-2004 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11
FUND RECAP 03-04
NAME FUND AMOUNT
GENERAL FUND 101 138,211 .57
PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 498.00
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 8,353.72
WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 4,526.90
WATER FUND 526 28, 188.89
SEWER FUND 527 17,646.96
PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 1 ,317.16
SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 10,711 .41
FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 14,574.60
EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 1 ,244.00
INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 31 ,378.37
FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 18.62
OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 3, 100.45
TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 4,660.09
STATE GRANTS FUND 734 5,000.00
BURLINGAME TRAIN SHUTTLE PROGRAM 736 12,868.89
TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $282,299.63
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 11
INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 96041 THROUGH 96164 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $282,299.63, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER
OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./. . ./. . .
FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE
APPROVED FOR PAYMENT
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./. . ./. . .
COUNCIL DATE
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10
06/18/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96157 ENVIRONMENTS INC. 24913 819.48
MISCELLANEOUS -60.23 101 23611
MISC. SUPPLIES 879.71 730 69583 120
96158 SHADE CONSTRUCTION AND ENGINEERI 24914 3,660.00
MISCELLANEOUS 3,660.00 101 22546
96159 DENISE BALESTRIERI 24915 1,000.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,000.00 101 22525
96160 RICHARD CALAHAN 24916 1,000.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,000.00 101 22525
96161 MANOOCHEHR JAVAHERIAN 24917 4,600.00
MISCELLANEOUS 4,600.00 101 22546
96162 WINZER CORP 24918 47.15
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 47.15 101 65200 203
96163 JACOBSEN'S OF ADAIR 24919 24.81
MISCELLANEOUS -1.55 526 23611
MISC. SUPPLIES 26.36 526 69020 120
96164 CAPORICCI 8 LARSON 24920 32,017.50
MISCELLANEOUS 32,017.50 101 15100
TOTAL $282,299.63
i
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9
06/18/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96144 KIDZ LOVE SOCCER, INC. 24637 3,780.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,780.00 101 68010 220 1372
96145 GOODIN,MACBRIDE,SQUERI,RITCHIE & 24638 220.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 220.00 101 64350 210 3100
96146 DHS OCP 24639 260.00
TRAINING EXPENSE 260.00 526 69020 260
96147 ALBERT GUIBARA 24641 4,526.90
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,526.90 326 80320 210
96148 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL 24647 1,090.49
TRAINING EXPENSE 1,090.49 101 65300 260
96149 DIAMOND COMMUNICATIONS INC 24659 375.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 125.00 101 66210 210
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 125.00 526 69020 210
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 125.00 527 66520 210
96150 T MOBILE 24846 30.88
COMMUNICATIONS 30.88 101 65100 160
96151 SUBURBAN PROPANE 24863 238.96
TRAINING EXPENSE 238.96 101 65200 260
96152 KIEFER AND ASSOCIATES 24869 224.22
MISCELLANEOUS -14.60 101 23611
MISC. SUPPLIES 167.58 101 68010 120 1891
MISC. SUPPLIES 60.51 101 68010 120 1890
MISC. SUPPLIES 10.73 101 68010 120 1891
96153 ALLIED PACKING & SUPPLY 24909 2,378.65
MISC. SUPPLIES 57.20 527 66520 120
MISCELLANEOUS 2,321.45 527 66520 400
96154 CALIFORNIA CLASSIC VANS 24910 2,788.13
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,788.13 526 69020 800
96155 FLAGHOUSE 24911 23.64
MISCELLANEOUS -23.64 101 23611
MISC. SUPPLIES 47.28 101 68010 120 1101
96156 ART IN ACTION 24912 450.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 450.00 101 68010 220 1646
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8
06/18/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96131 WALTER'S SWIM SUPPLIES, INC. 23912 178.46
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 178.46 101 68010 140 1893
96132 DUNBAR ARMORED 23925 1,768.74
BANKING SERVICE FEES 544.74 101 64250 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,224.00 530 65400 120
96133 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 13,198.83
MISC. SUPPLIES 21.83 101 68010 120 1114
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,885.00 619 64460 220 5110
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,386.00 619 64460 220 5240
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,856.00 619 64460 220 5180
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00 619 64460 220 5230
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,967.00 619 64460 220 5130
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 896.00 619 64460 220 5190
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 732.00 619 64460 220 5210
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 355.00 619 64460 220 5170
96134 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TIRE SERVICE 23950 805.32
SUPPLIES 805.32 620 15000
96135 CITICORP VENDOR FINANCE 24030 81.71
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 81.71 101 65200 200
96136 QUILL 24090 241.40
OFFICE EXPENSE 241.40 621 64450 110
96137 SPANGLE ASSOCIATES 24113 2,057.20
DEPOSIT REFUND 2,057.20 101 22590
96138 AEP WORKSHOPS 24166 100.00
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 100.00 101 64400 240
96139 ELIZABETH JOHNSON 24202 1,125.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,125.00 101 22546
96140 CWS UTILITY SERVICES 24249 1,152.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,152.00 526 69020 233
96141 J&L CONSTRUCTION 24288 877.80
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 877.80 619 64460 210 5120
96142 AT&T WIRELESS-TITAN 24299 499.99
SMALL TOOLS 499.99 526 69020 130
96143 BIOSYSTEMS 24345 500.60
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 500.60 101 65200 203
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7
06/18/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96116 JENKINS/ATHENS INS 22851 9,184.00
CLAIMS ADJUSTING SERVICES 9,184.00 618 64520 225
96117 T. RANDOLPH GRANGE 23112 2,100.00
MISCELLANEOUS 2,100.00 731 22525
96118 THE MOBILE STORAGE GROUP 23138 190.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 190.00 526 69020 210
96119 TLC ADMINISTRATORS 23156 175.00
MISCELLANEOUS 175.00 101 64420 031
96120 AT&T WIRELESS 23169 49.00
COMMUNICATIONS 49.00 101 65200 160
96121 OFFICE TEAM 23256 779.45
MISCELLANEOUS 779.45 101 65300 010
96122 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS CO 23306 47.70
OFFICE EXPENSE 47.70 101 64400 110
96123 METROTECH 23337 259.27
MISC. SUPPLIES 259.27 526 69020 120
96124 SAN FRANCISCO EXAMINER 23366 259.84
PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 259.84 101 68010 150 1950
96125 CANON FINANCIAL SERVICES, INC. 23436 1,573.15
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 1,573.15 621 64450 200
96126 TAMMY MAK 23445 339.88
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 339.88 101 64420 210
96127 COAST CRANE 23524 348.42
MISC. SUPPLIES 348.42 527 66520 120
96128 CALIFORNIA EMS ACADEMY 23612 350.00
SUPPLIES 350.00 101 65200 112
96129 ANDREW FREEMAN 23653 360.00
MISC. SUPPLIES 60.00 101 68010 120 1370
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 210.00 101 68010 140 1423
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 90.00 101 68010 140 1422
96130 GWENDOLYN BOGER 23703 3,395.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,395.00 101 68010 220 1331
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6
06/18/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96101 ESA ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC 21160 2,560.09
DEPOSIT REFUND 2,560.09 731 22590
96102 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 76.57
OFFICE EXPENSE 76.57 101 65200 110
96103 ALFAX WHOLESALE FURNITURE, INC. 21505 1,316.56
MISCELLANEOUS 1,316.56 101 68010 400 1100
96104 UNIVERSAL FLEET SUPPLY INC. 21543 336.33
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 317.71 101 65200 203
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 18.62 625 65213 203
96105 DU-ALL SAFETY 21613 2,137.50
TRAINING EXPENSE 641.25 101 66210 260
TRAINING EXPENSE 641.25 526 69020 260
TRAINING EXPENSE 641.25 527 66520 260
TRAINING EXPENSE 213.75 619 64460 260
96106 STAR COFFEE INC. 21623 160.83
BLDG. &GROUNDS MAINT. 160.83 621 64450 190
96107 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 21767 9,239.31
MISCELLANEOUS 9,239.31 101 37010
96108 MANDEGO, INC. 21855 1,470.96
MISC. SUPPLIES. 1,470.96 101 68010 120 1787
96109 TOWNE FORD SALES, INC. 22146 68.85
SUPPLIES 68.85 620 15000
96110 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 568.01
MISC. SUPPLIES 568.01 526 69020 120
96111 PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA 22500 12,868.89
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 12,868.89 736 64571 220
96112 LINCOLN EQUIPMENT 22529 11,734.07
MISCELLANEOUS 11,734.07 101 68010 400 1100
96113 JOHN KAMMEYER 22612 176.50
CLAIMS PAYMENTS 176.50 618 64520 601
96114 WEST COAST WILDLANDS 22622 10,769.50
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 10,769.50 527 66520 220
96115 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 22794 772.75
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 772.75 320 80880 220
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5
06/18/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
'•' Denotes Hand Written Checks
96086 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 1,228.77
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,067.05 101 65300 120
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 161.72 101 64420 240
96087 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 19027 234.36
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 234.36 101 65200 220
96088 PRIORITY 1 19239 1,870.12
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,870.12 101 65200 203
96089 BURTON'S FIRE APPARATUS 19366 62.09
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 62.09 101 65200 203
96090 WINGES ARCHITECTURE & PLANNING 19471 1,600.00
MISCELLANEOUS 1,600.00 101 22525
96091 TOM AMES 19502 600.00
TRAINING EXPENSE 600.00 101 65200 260
96092 JOHN CAHALAN, ASLA 19561 3,998.03
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,648.03 320 81070 210
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 350.00 320 79300 210
96093 CLEARLITE TROPHIES 19679 623.52
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 623.52 101 68020 140 2200
96094 SUMMIT BICYCLES, INC. 19794 1,135.54
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,135.54 730 69531 120
96095 GE CAPITAL 20216 498.67
OFFICE EXPENSE 99.73 101 68020 110 2100
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 398.94 101 68010 220 1101
96096 LONGS DRUGS 20453 19.56
POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 19.56 101 65100 292
96097 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES 20501 240.00
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 240.00 526 69020 290
96098 FRANKLIN OFFICE SUPPLIES 20523 140.63
OFFICE EXPENSE 140.63 101 64420 110
96099 EIP ASSOCIATES 20526 4,296.68
DEPOSIT REFUND 4,296.68 101 22590
96100 RENEE RAMSEY 21136 1,875.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,875.00 101 68010 220 1331
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4
06/18/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96072 SUZETTE TOLIFSON 14294 2,916.69
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,222.57 101 68010 120 1950
PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 1,234.06 101 68010 150 1950
PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 460.06 730 69544 150
96073 IZMIRIAN ROOFING 15573 408.66
MISCELLANEOUS 408.66 618 64520 604
96074 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 3,432.14
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,432.14 101 65100 220
96075 HITECH SYSTEMS, INC. 15712 19,004.38
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 14,004.38 101 65100 800
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,000.00 734 65198 800
96076 SYDNEY MALKOO 16347 243.52
SMALL TOOLS 243.52 620 66700 130
96077 CINTAS CORP. #464 16911 643.66
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 643.66 101 68020 140 2300
96078 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 17402 659.50
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 659.50 101 65200 203
96079 STANDARD REGISTER 17495 707.46
OFFICE EXPENSE 707.46 101 64250 110
96080 PENINSULA DIGITAL IMAGING 17534 455.19
MISC. SUPPLIES 455.19 320 80831 120
96081 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER 18181 500.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 320 80880 220
96082 VERIZON WIRELESS MESSAGING SERVI 18763 75.77
COMMUNICATIONS 25.25 101 66240 160
COMMUNICATIONS 25.26 526 69020 160
COMMUNICATIONS 25.26 527 66520 160
96083 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 18855 772.75
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 772.75 320 79410 220
96084 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSN. 18951 1,290.00
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 1,290.00 526 69020 240
96085 WESTERN RIGGING PRODUCTS INC 18976 1,039.20
SMALL TOOLS 1,039.20 527 66520 130
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3
06/18/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96063 SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP 09560 1,097.06
SMALL TOOLS 746.76 101 68020 130 2300
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 225.40 101 68020 200 2200
SMALL TOOLS 124.90 526 69020 130
96064 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 09670 2,050.43
MISC. SUPPLIES 15.35 101 66210 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 84.41 101 68020 120 2200
SMALL TOOLS 113.03 101 66210 130
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 96.25 101 68020 190 2200
EQUIPMENT MAINZ 66.95 101 68020 200 2200
TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 26.93 101 66210 222
TRAINING EXPENSE 216.90 101 66210 260
MISC. SUPPLIES 98.33 526 69020 120
SMALL TOOLS 84.35 526 69020 130
MISCELLANEOUS 387.87 526 69020 233
TRAINING EXPENSE 216.90 526 69020 260
MISC. SUPPLIES 27.05 527 66520 120
TRAINING EXPENSE 216.90 527 66520 260
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 93.16 530 65400 200
MISC. SUPPLIES 112.02 619 64460 120 5190
MISC. SUPPLIES 169.04 619 64460 120
MISC. SUPPLIES 24.99 619 64460 120 5120
96065 CRAIG W. REED 09881 1,068.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,068.00 101 68010 220 1787
96066 WECO INDUSTRIES, INC. 11640 1,179.77
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,179.77 527 66520 120
96067 RADIOSHACK CORPORATION 11749 32.46
SMALL TOOLS 32.46 526 69020 130
96068 TOM MARRISCOLO 13647 498.00
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 498.00 130 20060
96069 A T & T 13940 22.96
COMMUNICATIONS 22.96 621 64450 160
96070 FOUNDATION FOR CROSS-CONNECTION 13961 357.48
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 357.48 526 69020 240
96071 SENSUS METERING SYSTEMS 14144 16,011.29
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 16,011.29 526 69020 803
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2
06/18/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96055 PERSONAL AWARDS, INC. 03145 757.75
MISC. SUPPLIES 757.75 101 68010 120 1787
96056 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. 03760 5,345.32
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,345.32 101 68020 220 2300
96057 BURLINGAME REC. DEPT./PETTY CASH 03910 4,034.03
OFFICE EXPENSE 38.01 101 68010 110 1101
MISC. SUPPLIES 77.36 101 68010 120 1520
MISC. SUPPLIES 150.00 101 68010 120 1891
MISC. SUPPLIES 103.00 101 68010 120 1423
MISC. SUPPLIES 294.31 101 68010 120 1521
MISC. SUPPLIES 652.34 101 68010 120 1330
MISC. SUPPLIES 13.08 101 68010 120 1100
MISC. SUPPLIES 17.95 101 68010 120 1893
MISC. SUPPLIES 326.00 101 68010 120 1212
MISC. SUPPLIES 203.99 101 68010 120 1781
MISC. SUPPLIES 271 .00 101 68010 120 1422
MISC. SUPPLIES 20.97 101 68010 120 1101
MISC. SUPPLIES 7.50 101 68020 120 2100
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 149.98 101 68020 140 2300
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25.00 101 68010 220 1648
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 75.00 101 68010 220 1422
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 430.00 101 68010 220 1644
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 260.00 101 68010 220 1521
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 10.00 101 68020 240 2100
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 50.00 101 68010 250 1100
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 45.00 101 68020 250 2200
TRAINING EXPENSE 188.40 101 68020 260 2300
MISC. SUPPLIES 40. 14 730 69533 120
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 585.00 730 69533 220
96058 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 52.85
MISC. SUPPLIES 52.85 101 64350 120
96059 CITY OF MILLBRAE 09234 3, 152.82
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3, 152.82 101 64350 210
96060 TESTING ENGINEERS, INC. 09270 1 , 190.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1 , 190.00 320 80831 210
96061 STERICYCLE, INC. 09439 88.44
SUPPLIES 88.44 101 65200 112
96062 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 942.25
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 942.25 618 64520 210
/ CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1
06/18/04
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
96041 ALAN STEEL& SUPPLY CO. 01059 55.75
BLDG. &GROUNDS MAINT. 55.75 101 68020 190 2200
96042 BAUER COMPRESSORS 01309 478.21
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 153.21 101 65200 203
TRAINING EXPENSE 325.00 101 65200 260
96043 HARBOR SAND&GRAVEL 01313 218.42
MISC. SUPPLIES 218.42 101 66210 120
96044 BRENTON SAFETY, INC. 01400 809.78
TRAINING EXPENSE 809.78 527 66520 260
96045 BRODART, INC. 01450 57.45
OFFICE EXPENSE 57.45 101 64400 110
96046 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 01862 32,040.03
MISC. SUPPLIES 1,995.00 101 65200 120
PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 665.00 320 76010 210
OFFICE EXPENSE 17.95 621 64450 110
COMMUNICATIONS 300.00 621 64450 160
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 29,062.08 621 64450 220
96047 CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTS, INC., 01992 548.83
EQUIPMENT MAINT. 548.83 101 65150 200
96048 L. N. CURTIS&SONS 02027 138.55
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 138.55 101 65200 203
96049 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 541.46
STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 541.46 101 66210 226
96050 K&W DISCOUNT LIGHTING&SUPP 02645 75.95
MISC. SUPPLIES 75.95 527 66520 120
96051 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. 02755 69.80
SUPPLIES 69.80 620 15000
96052 NATIONAL WATERWORKS, INC. 02880 2,811.59
MISC. SUPPLIES 2,811.59 526 69020 120
96053 P. G. &E. 03054 99.66
MISCELLANEOUS 89.43 101 66240 172
GAS&ELECTRIC 10.23 527 66520 170
96054 PATTERSON PARTS, INC 03106 91.06
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 34.55 101 65200 203
SUPPLIES 56.51 620 15000
Agenda Item Ila
Meeting Date 7/ 19/04
615 Airport Blvd. • Burlingame, CA 94010 • (650) 348-8801 Fax (650) 348-9198
July 6 , 2004
City of Burlingame
Planning Commission
This letter is to serve as our appeal to the Planning Commission's action
regarding the property at 620 Airport Blvd., Burlingame.
�3
Jonathan Wu , President
Anza Parking Corporation RIECEGWE
JUL 0 6 2004
CITY OF BURL(riGAME
CITY ATTORNEY
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Please schedule an appeal hearing for
620 Airport Boulevard to be heard
at the; - 1-9-, 2004 Council meeting .
1-&t usT 2,.
Deputy City Clerk
i 1i'
MEETING MINUTES
Regular Meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission
Thursday, June 17,2004
The regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by
Chairman Larios at 7:02 pm at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present: Dittman,Erickson,Kahn, Lawson, Larios,
Youth Commissioner Webb
Commissioners Absent: Heathcote, Muller
Staff Present: Parks &Recreation Director Schwartz
Others Present: None
MINUTES
Minutes of the Commission's April 15, 2004 regular meeting were approved as submitted.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Youth Advisory Committee Report—Director Schwartz reported that the Youth Advisory
Committee had a successful cotton candy sale at Art in the Park and will be selling food
and beverages at the upcoming Music in the Park concerts.
B. Parks Use Rule Prohibiting Dogs in Playgrounds—Director Schwartz presented a draft
copy of a Parks Use Rule to the commissioners that would prohibit dogs from being in
playground areas. Commissioners discussed and amended the resolution and rules.
Commissioner Kahn moved that"to accept and recommend to the City Council the Park
Use Rule, as amended." The motion was seconded by Commissioner Erickson and
passed unanimously.
PUBLIC COMMENTS -None
NEW BUSINESS
A. Schedule of Summer Commission Meetings—After reviewing summer schedules, the
commissioners agreed to cancel the July meeting.
B. Discussion of the Brown Act — Director Schwartz distributed a memo to the
commissioners that summarized the Brown Act and discussed the aspects related to
serial meetings.
Parks&Recreation Commission Minutes
June 17,2004—page 2
REPORTS
A. Parks &Recreation Department Report Schwartz reported the following:
1. The Pershing Park Playground program is progressing very well.
2. Progress is still being made on the BART landscaping project, with
construction anticipated to begin within the next few weeks.
3. Recreation Revenues are anticipated to exceed $1,700,000 for fy 03-04; over
$200,000 more than the estimated budget amount.
4. Summer programs started this week, including the summer camps, classes and
aquatics programs. Construction at Burlingame High School is limiting the
City's use of the gymnasium for camps and sports programs during the
summer and may impact programs at the pool.
5. Art in the Park was very successful on June 12th/13'`. This was the first Faire
held with California Artists overseeing the artists' portion of the event. The
event had approximately the same number of artists as last year's event and
- the transition to Calif. Artists went smoothly. The City should recognize
approximately the same revenues as last year, but saved several hundred hours
of staff time.
6. The 2nd annual Millbrae—Burlingame Community Golf Tournament was held
at Green Hills Country Club on May 24ffi with 84 golfers playing.
7. 300 Burlingame residents, family & friends attended Burlingame Night with
the Giants on May 14th.
8. Music in the Park Concerts will be held each Sunday in July from 1:00-
3:00pm in Washington Park. The Youth Advisory Committee will be selling
food and drinks.
9. Schwartz distributed copies of "Key Ethics Law Principles For Public
Servants", a set of principles compiled by the Institute for Local Self
Government. The information relates to fairness, impartiality and avoiding
conflicts of interest.
B. Commissioners
1. Commissioner Erickson apologized for missing the last couple of meetings,
but stated that personal and family commitments happened to fall on the same
days as the meetings. He plans to be at the upcoming meetings.
2. Chairman Larios asked about the status of the upcoming budget including the
Capital Improvement Project (CIP) budget. Schwartz stated that the City
Council, at their June 21�` meeting, is scheduled to adopt the budget. Council
and Department Heads will address the revenue shortfalls and the $620,000
takeaway by the State as part of the budget process. Parks & Recreation will
be losing several positions in the upcoming budget; most to Golden
Handshakes. Though the Parks&Recreation Department will be receiving no
CIP funds from the General Fund budget this year, several projects have been
proposed with the use of grant funds or monies reallocated from other CIF's.
The commissioners expressed their support of the proposed CIF's and asked
Chairman Larios to send a letter stating such to the City Council before
Monday's meeting. Reasons for their support included (1) projects add value
to the community, (2)projects will only be using grant or previously allocated
funds, (3)projects have been part of a long-range improvement plan, (4)lower
risk of liability for injuries, (5) reduction in maintenance, (6) brings projects
into compliance with regulations, (7) reduces liability of lawsuits, (8)
enhances the life style.
3. Commissioner Larios noted the extremely long lines to register for the
preschool program and asked about the possibility of expanding the Village
facility or conducting a program from an additional site. Schwartz stated that
the best options are to add preschool facilities to the proposed Community
Center or renovate a portion of the Recreation Center when the Community
Center is completed.
4. Commissioner Lawson asked about the operation at the Burlingame Golf
Center. Schwartz stated that the City's goals of a steady revenue stream with
reduced workloads have been realized. Larios stated that many new programs
have been started and the Center appears to be much busier. Commissioner
Dittman noted that one of the employees asked the women's soccer players to
not congregate in the pro shop unless they were buying food or merchandise.
Schwartz and Larios suggested Dittman contact the Center Manager to help
resolve the issue.
5. Commissioner Kahn asked if the Dog Park was well attended. Schwartz
- stated that the Dog Park is very well used.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission will be held on Thursday, July 15,
2004 at 7:00 p.m. at Burlingame City Hall.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
7:52 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
Randy Schwartz
Director of Parks &Recreation
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
June 28, 2004
6:15 P.M.
�- Council Chambers
SPECIAL STUDY SESSION
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the June 28, 2004, special study meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at 6:15 p.m.
II. 1783 El Camino Real,zoned Unclassified and C-3. Presentation of Revised Project to reconstruct Mills-
Peninsula Hospital and a new medical office building (Project Planners: Karen Kristiansson/Maureen
Brooks)
Oren Reinbolt,Project Manager, for Sutter Health and Todd Tierney, architect with Anshen and Allen,
presented the revised project. They focused on the outcome of the Draft EIR prepared for the proposed
project and the issues addressed by the two alternatives identified in that document. Then they showed
how their proposed Alternative C and the Revised Project were designed to address the identified
significant and unavoidable environmental issues.The core of the presentation,using diagrams and model
was focused on the Revised Project which is the project being addressed in the Recirculated Draft EIR to
be released on June 30, 2004; and is now identified as the "preferred project". They identified the main
features of the Revised Project and answered questions about the arrangement of buildings, parking,
landscaping, relocation of the San Francisco Water Main, and changes to the "skin" of the building. In
discussion the architect noted that with the reorientation of the project(hospital rotated to the south side of
the site)the medical office building takes on a more prominent role along El Camino Real.For this reason
they are continuing to work on the articulation and massing of that structure as well as on the skin of the
office building and hospital. He noted that the parking garage located at the corner of the site at El Camino
and Trousdale would be partially below grade surfacing to make the entry of the Hospital and Office
building level with the parking on the top deck of the garage. The security center would be located in this
area as well,with visibility of the main entrances of the office building,hospital and parking garage. Key
in the new design is the direct pedestrian access from El Camino Real into the office building and hospital,
including a direct pedestrian connection from the SamTrans bus stop, convenient to employees and
patients at both the hospital and medical office building.
The presentation closed with a note from the City Planner that the Recirculated Draft EIR would be
available at the Library, Planning Department and on the City's Web Page on June 30, 2004. A public
hearing will be held by the Planning Commission to take oral comments on the Recirculated Draft EIR at
the regular Planning Commission meeting on July 26,2004. The City will accept written comments on the
Recirculated Draft EIR through August 13, 2004. At the end of the review period a Response to
Comments document which will include responses to all the comments on the original Draft EIR and on
the Recirculated Draft EIR,will be published. As soon as this document is available and circulated, the
Planning Commission will hold its action hearing on the project. This is expected to be in September or
early-October. Notice of this meeting will be published.
Chair Osterling thanked the presenters for their presentation and the pubic for their attendance. He
adjourned the meeting to the Regular Planning Commission Meeting at 7:05 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 28, 2004
REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
July 28 ,2004—7:00 p.m.
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the June 28, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:08 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Bojues, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele,
Osterling and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks;
City Attorney,Larry Anderson
III. MINUTES Chair Osterling noted that there was a correction to the minutes of the June
14,2004 regular meeting of the Planning Commission in the first line,"Vice
Chair Auran called the meeting to order." The minutes were approved as
corrected.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1755 ROLLINS ROAD,ZONED M-1 -APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE(W.L.BUTLER,
APPLICANT;JASON BELL,CARLILE COATSWORTH ARCHITECTS,INC.,ARCHITECT;GRANT
RIGGS,PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: staff report indicates that
visitors come in groups of about 50,how many times a day does this occur? Need a clearer statement about
the physical hardships unique to this property to justify the variance being requested; unclear about the
present parking demand on site during operating hours, please clarify, take additional counts after the
business has opened; does the original parking variance run with this use?
This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed
by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant,a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the
commission votes on the motion to adopt.
2a. 2108 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT, -�
FLOOR AREA RATIO AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A NEW ATTACHED GARAGE
(ERNIE AND PHYLLIS BODEN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; 2 STUDIO
ARCHITECTS,ARCHITECT) (54 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
2
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 28, 2004
Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. Commissioner asked to have this item taken off the Consent Calendar and a public
hearing held.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
2. 2108 EASTON DRIVE, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT,
FLOOR AREA RATIO AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES FOR A NEW ATTACHED GARAGE
(ERNIE AND PHYLLIS BODEN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; 2 STUDIO
ARCHITECTS ARCHITECT) (54 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
C.Auran noted that he would recuse himself from this item since he lives within 500 feet of the project site.
He left the chambers. Reference staff report June 28, 2004, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the
report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fourteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There
were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Ernie Boden,property owner,represented the project. He noted
that he and his family have lived in this house for 23 years,the redwood tree has continued to lean more on
the garage, lifting up the floor; the garage and house were built in 1920, got a parking variance for the
addition in the 1980's because of the location of the redwood tree;because of progressive damage now want
to build a one car, attached garage,remove part and reduce the existing detached garage to a shed. There
were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner comment:reason called off the consent calendar was the variance to floor area ratio requested
is needed because of retention of storage shed; no problem with design review, attached garage or side
setback requests; don't see the hardship for the FAR caused by retaining the shed. Asked CA if granting a
FAR variance in this circumstance would create a precedent. CA responded very limited precedent if the
findings were clearly stated to relate to the particular circumstances on this lot. Commissioner noted this
request is not to add a new garden shed, but reduce the existing garage to preserve the redwood tree, that
justifies leaving the remainder of the garage, it is a special circumstance.
C. Keighran agreed that this is not a new shed structure,the applicant is making the site better for the tree
and providing a new garage,the tree is the exceptional hardship which creates the need for the exceptions to
the code so move by resolution,with the conditions in the staff report,to approve the design review,special
permit for attached garage, side setback and floor area ratio variances. The motion was seconded by C.
Brownrigg. Maker and second to the motion agreed to amend the motion to tie the floor area variance to the
tree, if the tree is removed the floor area ratio variance will be void.
Comment on the Motion: because of the tree location the applicant is almost being forced into attaching the
garage which causes a reduction in the FAR allowed on the lot. A single car garage is still possible at the
rear of the site so the garage does not need to be attached. If the garage were detached at the rear of the lot
all the variances and special permit would go away;with garage and shed 220 SF over FAR,with detached
garage about 19SF over FAR.
Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the applicant's request including the shed.
The motion failed on a 2-4-1 (Cers. Bojues,Keele,Vistica, Osterling dissenting; C.Auran abstaining)roll
call vote. CA noted that the motion stands denied.
3
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 28, 2004
Commissioner comment: can make an alternate motion;feel that a detached garage can be put in the corner
where the existing garage is and should direct applicant to redesign,could deny without prejudice with that--�
direction; CA noted that a denial without prejudice is not appropriate if the applicant needs to make somt
substantial change. If the problem is FAR or lot coverage,applicant could reduce the size of the shed by 20
SF, this would mean taking an additional 18 inches off the structure; CA noted can't take action tonight
because there is no arborist report defining impacts on the tree.
Chair Osterling made a motion to continue this item until the applicant has prepared and submitted an
arborist's report on the impact of the proposed project shed and attached garage,location of a new detached
garage in the rear yard, and the long term impact of the tree on a new detached structure in the rear yard as
well as on the remainder of the shed. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item until an arborist's report has been
prepared and reviewed by the City Arborist. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting; C.
Auran abstaining) voice vote.
This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. The action is not appealable since the item was continued.
3. 1440 CAPUCHINO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS
AND SPECIAL PERMITS TO BUILD A NEW DETACHED TANDEM GARAGE (JAMES BREEN,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;RANDY GRANGE,ARCHITECT)(79 NOTICED)PROJECT
PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN(CONTINUED FROM JUNE 14, 2004 MEETING)
Reference staff report June 28,2004,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteri, -�
and staff comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Randy Grange, architect, 205 Park Road, and James Breen,
property owner,represented the project. Noted that they need two covered parking spaces but the location of
the tree means that the covered parking needs to be provided in tandem; the street in front is flat, so to
prevent flooding inside the garage need to raise the floor,that raises the plate height,cannot pump because
flows right back into the property. Want to use existing location of garage and extend back into the rear
yard,added the"L"off the parking area for aesthetics,didn't want to push the front of the garage too far back
on the lot, it would be inconsistent with the other garages on the block.
Commissioners asked: how do you plan to use the tandem garage,City doesn't allow for required because
inconvenient?Wife returns home earlier and leaves later in morning so works for them. Mentioned that not
go back too far, structure is one foot from rear property line? Was referring to front of the garage, match
location of front of other garages on block so look the same. Why do you need 14 foot width,city standard
is 10 feet interior clear with one foot for walls, 11 feet? Need extra space to get in and out of car plus 4 feet,
put exterior wall by drain pipe at tree,widest can get is 14 feet without affecting tree. Drain pipe to where?
Pipe to back yard,low point where water ponds when it back flows from the street,in a significant rain get 3
to 4 inches of water, in 1995 storm got one foot. Did you speak with your adjacent neighbor who sent a
letter? No. Have you read the letter? Issue seemed to be the trellis, can work out replacement with the
contractor, problem with view. Problem seems to be with the structure, going the length of the yard,the
mass and height and the impact on neighbor's property,how can you reduce these impacts?Don't know;am-�
confused by his comments. Would you explain photo 5 b? Picture of neighbor two doors north;
combination of structures exceeds the 28 foot length. Does water pond there?Floods some on the neighbors
property on both sides, the property with the picture is in flood zone B and has less ponding. Do you use
4
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 28, 2004
your existing garage for two cars? No,cannot use the garage at all,it is open to the elements,rats and vines.
Could reduce the number of exceptions by taking off 3 feet on the sides and reducing the storage 26 SF,this
would affect the mass and bulk and be a better solution. You mention several properties with similar
accessory structures,on site visit I only saw one,did I miss something? Neighbor to south has shorter garage
with structure to side,same idea as the look he is proposing. That garage looks like a standard garage? Not
if you add in the temporary structure next to the garage. Problem seems to be with the number of requests,
best idea seems to be to shorten the structure and make consistent with code requirements,can you do that?
OK if it is the only alternative,know there are a lot of exceptions,but problem with water run off is an issue
so need to raise the garage floor and this will affect the plate height, would like to park two cars without
affecting the protected tree. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was
closed.
Commission discussion:
• Usually the City Engineer is adamant about taking all roof drainage to the curb, in this case we do
not seem to have a good report from the City Engineer, also there is no arborist report,feel that the
application is incomplete;
• most concerned with the size, would like to see maximum 600 SF,with the width reduced;
• if narrower, still long,impact on neighbor,would like to take out second parking space and reduce
length closer to standard.
C.Brownrigg concluded that the applicant needs to resolve this and address these items with redesign and
return to the commission, including the requested information from the City Engineer and an arborist, so
moved to continue this item. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
`-- Discussion on the motion: could deny without prejudice,so with clear direction,would not slow up action
as much. Maker of motion and second agreed to amend the motion to deny the application without prejudice
as long as the resubmitted project includes an independent arborist's report reviewed by the City Arborist
which addresses the impacts on the tree and tree protection measures and the applicant works with the City
Engineer on the drainage issues and incorporates whatever is required.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the amended motion to deny the application without prejudice and
direct the applicant to redesign the project after completion of an independent arborist report which has been
reviewed by the City Arborist and agreement with the City Engineer on how to address drainage. The
returned project should be scheduled when the plans have been checked by staff and there is space on the
Commission agenda. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 8:00 p.m.
4. 1035 CHULA VISTA AVENUE,ZONED R-2-APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR A
RESIDENTIAL CARE FACILITY (SANDRA B. JIMENEZ, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MARK
DELEON AND RENATO MERCADO,PROPERTY OWNERS)(70 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER:
CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report 6/28/04, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Sandra Jimenez, 71 Haight Street, San Francisco, and Mark
DeLeon,Ray Drive,represented the property,noted that the applicants are in agreement with the proposed
condition,which states that if the property were sold,the interior of the building would be remodeled to a
5
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 28,2004
four-bedroom house,the floor plan as proposed is institutional in nature,with four bathrooms which are
ADA accessible;she noted that the residents of the facility would be no longer driving,the only car at the--�
site would be the van providing transport for the residents.Because the facility would be small,visiting wil,
be scheduled so that residents would have visitors only once a week. Generally,residents only have visitors
on holidays and birthdays,and usually the family takes the resident to their home. She feels that a one car
garage will be adequate,there are many apartments and homes on the block where the residents have more
than one vehicle and they park on the street.
Commissioners asked the applicant: How many prospective residents do the applicants have now? Ms.
Jimenez noted that there are none now,can't start the business without getting the licensing from the State,
and can't get the license without obtaining the City approval. Commissioners asked what the exceptional
circumstance are which justify this parking variance. Ms.Jimenez noted that in order to construct a second
story to avoid the need for a parking variance would be cost prohibitive for the owners and is therefore not
feasible. Are there other care facilities like this one in Burlingame? CP Monroe noted that yes,there were
several now. Will there be visits to the site from physical therapists,speech therapists,or other medical
personnel?Applicant noted that the two people who will be on site are the administrator and a caretaker,the
administrator would take the residents to their medical and other appointments in the van. While the
administrator is gone in the van,a volunteer will be driven to the facility to stay with the residents in the
administrator's absence. The volunteer is a relative of the owners,is elderly and cannot drive,so will always
be dropped off. Commissioners asked if the applicant had considered a four-bedroom facility.Ms.Jimenez
noted that they did consider this option,but decided that since most residents would want a private room,it
would be in the best interests to have six individual rooms. There were no further comments and the public
hearing was closed.
Commissioners asked the City Attorney about the circumstances under which the Planning Commission can
consider the application based on economics,understand the concern with the applicant of the added cost of
elevators for a second story addition,but also concerned with the site design;have an added concern that the
applicant is constrained financially,worry that the economics of the project might not work out,then the
residents of the facility will take the brunt. CA Anderson noted that every City has a different approach on
how economic concerns are handled,the Planning Commission has the right to take into account costs,can
also take into account that this is a needed service. Whenever there is a planning application,in this case it
is a parking variance because they are proposing 6 bedrooms,Planning Commission can weigh all the factors
that would go into making a decision and address in findings.
Commissioners commented that the applicant is trying to push the limits to get six bedrooms,could conform
to the code with 5 bedrooms and a two-car garage;concerned with the enforcement of the conditions,if the
applicant sold without converting to a residence,the burden would fall on the new owner,the variance runs
with the land. Commissioners asked if this facility could be converted to a different type of care facility,
such as drug rehab without any further approval.CA Anderson noted that the conditions specify that the
variance is for senior care,so that is all that would be permitted without amending the permit.
C.Bojues moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following conditions: 1)that the single
story addition and single car garage shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped June 7,2004,sheets ABl,AB2,Al through A3,and GAl,site plan,floorplan
and building elevations,with six bedrooms to be used as a senior residential care facility for up to six adults.
and that upon sale of this property this parking variance shall become void and on-site parking as required b,
the City Code at that time shall be provided on-site before the sale is completed; 2)that the detached one
car garage shall never include a kitchen,bathroom or be used for sleeping purposes and shall only be used
6
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 28, 2004
for automobile parking; 3) that at a time when the senior residential care facility ceases to operate from this
site the property owner shall notify the Planning Department; the property owner shall obtain the necessary
permits and remodel the interior of the building to reduce the number of bedrooms to no more than four,
which would only require one covered parking space and the on-site parking requirement shall be met;
4) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist, Fire Marshal and Chief Building Official's memos of May
24, 2004 shall be met; 5) that the facility shall obtain and maintain continually all of the required operating
license(s) from the State of California and comply with all requirements of the Burlingame Fire Department;
6) that notice shall be given to the City upon change of ownership of this property, and that all of the changes
required in conditions number 3 and 4 above shall require a demolition permit and shall be inspected by the
Burlingame Building Department; and 7) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California
Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Commissioners noted that the conditions of approval would
safeguard that the variance would run with this use, there have been no concerns regarding this proposal
raised by neighbors, and particularly concerning a parking impact. Other Commissioners noted that they
didn't agree, this is in a residential rental area, neighbors don't necessarily endorse, only property owners are
notified, this is packing in too many bedrooms, if cost is that much of a concern, then what level of care will
the clients get; also a concern with the site design and parking concerns; agree that there does not seem to be
anything that satisfies the hardship finding, project could be made to conform to code, there are options
there, think we are being sandbagged on the number of caregivers that will need to come, the area already
has inadequate parking, should be redesigned so that the facility is not a burden to the neighborhood.
Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion failed on a 2-5 (Cers.
Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele, Auran, Osterling dissenting) vote.
C. Brownrigg made a motion to deny the application without prejudice, with direction to the applicant to
come back with a project which conforms to the on-site parking requirement. The motion passed on a 7-0
voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m.
5. 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD, ZONED C-4 — APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A LONG-TERM AIRPORT PARKING
INTERIM USE (PAUL SALISBURY, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, BOCA LAKE OFFICE, INC.,
PROPERTY OWNER) (13 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report 6/28/04, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Eighteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked to clarify an
item on the environmental checklist regarding noise, "potential significant effect" is marked on the checklist
regarding noise impacts, is this mitigated to an acceptable level. CP Monroe noted that with mitigation the
impact is not considered significant. Does the City have energy conservation requirements for the on-site
lighting in the parking lot, to use a lower intensity, energy efficient light source? No, the City requirement
requires that light cannot spill onto an adjacent property, but a lower intensity light source and an energy
saving lumen level would meet that requirement as well. The landscaping shown on Sheet SK-la shows 15-
gallon trees a minimum of 20 feet apart, shouldn't that be the maximum. CP Monroe noted that the applicant
will respond to this question.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Paul Salisbury, Blunk DeMattei Associates, 1555 Bayshore
Highway, architect representing the applicant, he noted regarding the tree spacing, he had worked with the
City Arborist on the tree species to use, and the City Arborist had recommended that the trees be spaced
7
City ojBurlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 28,2004
twenty feet apart based on the root structure so they would not be crowded at maturity. This is an interim
use,but some of the trees on the north side of the property might survive the ultimate construction on the.-,
site. Commissioners noted that since this is an interim use and we maybe looking at a 5 to 10 year life span,
would like the trees spaced more closely to provide an adequate screen in the early years;and asked what
species were identified on the north side of the property. Mr.Salisbury noted that there are four types of
trees identified by the City Arborist that will survive in this environment,and that specific species in each
location have not yet been chosen. Commissioners noted that it can be included in the conditions of
approval that the City Arborist review the landscape plan and plant selection and spacing that is submitted
for the building permit. Mr.Salisbury noted that the site lighting has not yet been designed,it has to be
adequate for people to feel safe and secure,but will keep it as low as possible and will make it energy
efficient to the extent possible.
Commissioners noted that the report from the traffic consultant included information on shuttle pick up and
drop off,why is this not shown on the plans. Mr.Salisbury noted that the owner has not yet resolved the
method of operation,it is more likely that the van will take people directly to where their car is parked and
there would be no need for a pick up and drop off shelter. If it is necessary to have a shelter,the structure
and site circulation can be reviewed as a part of the building permit process,whether or not the owner
chooses to use a shelter is an operational issue.
Jonathon Wu,President of the Anza Parking Corporation, operators of Anza Parking at 615 Airport
Boulevard,noted that he realizes the applicant has followed the guidelines,but does not understand given
current market conditions why the owner would put this amount of money in building 350 parking spaces
when revenues from airport parking have dropped significantly in the last few years. When revenues for
operators are short,the City's revenue is also short,concerned that this will become a park and fly lot for the
adjacent hotel,don't think the access should be shared with the hotel;how would the use as park and fly
promotion be policed,if that happened,the City would not be getting revenue because the parking is part of
the room charge. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Commissioners commented on the concept of the park and fly,how do we regulate. CP Monroe noted that
we have had a problem in the past with hotel rooms sold with free long-term parking,it can't be done if they
use required parking,this lot would not be required parking. CA Anderson noted that a number of these
parking spaces would most likely be used for a park and fly program,it could be done because this is not
required parking,the problem would be in enforcing the parking tax,it is hard to sort out what is paid for
parking and what is for the room.
C.Brownrigg moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following amended conditions: 1)
that the long-term airport parking facility use shall operate as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning
Department and date stamped June 22,.2004,sheet Sk.I a and date stamped September 2,2003,sheet Sk.2a;
2)that the conditions of the City Engineer's July 30,2003,memo and the City Arborist's June 17,2004,
memo shall be met,which includes planting 5-gallon Frazer's Photinia spaced four feet apart,with proper
irrigation,in front of the security fence along Airport Boulevard; 3)that drainage from paved surfaces,
parking lot and driveways,shall be routed to catch basins that are equipped with fossil filters(sand/gravel
filters)prior to discharge into the storm drain system;the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting
and cleaning all filters twice each year as well as immediately prior to and once during the rainy season
(October 15—April l)and shall submit to the City and have approved a plan for filter/drain maintenance;4).
that the long-term airport parking use shall be operated seven days a week,24 hours a day with a maximun
of 350 parking spaces,and no auto maintenance,auto repair,auto washing or enclosed van storage shall take
place on site nor shall the use of any number of parking spaces be contracted to a single user or corporation
8
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 28, 2004
without amendment of this use permit; 5)that the property owners agree to assume all responsibility for any
on-site flooding or storm drainage problems and to hold the City harmless from any claims arising from such
problems; 6)that the landscape plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuing a
building or grading permit for this project;7)that the landscaping and irrigation system shall be maintained
by the property owner including but not limited to weed control,pedestrian and vehicular clearance along the
sidewalks and bike path,and replacement of plant material as necessary to maintain a visual barrier and the
approved landscape design; 8)that this use permit for long term airport parking with the conditions listed
herein is a temporary use and shall expire on June 28,2009(5 years);9)that the parking lot lighting shall be
energy efficient to the extent feasible to provide adequate light for customer safety; 10)that the applicant
shall work with the City to establish an agreement regarding how the parking tax is collected if the parking
spaces are used in association with a park and fly hotel room or other promotion program in association with
the adjacent hotel or any office, hotel or other use; 11) that prior to commencement of grading and/or
construction activities,the project sponsor shall submit a dust abatement program for review and approval of
the City's NPDES (National Pollution Discharge Elimination System) administrator; the project sponsor
shall require the construction contractor to implement this dust abatement program; 12) that if
archaeological remains are uncovered,work at the place of discovery should be halted immediately and a
qualified archaeologist retained to evaluate the find; accidental discovery of archaeological deposits could
require additional archaeological investigations to determine the significance of the find; 13)that ifhuman
remains are encountered during project construction,the San Mateo County Coroner's Office will be notified
immediately. The coroner will determine if the remains are those of a Native American,and if they are,will
notify the Native American Heritage Commission. The Native American Heritage Commission will make a
determination regarding the individual's"most likely descendant"who will then make recommendations for
the disposal of the remains. The Native American Heritage Commission will mediate conflicts between the
project proponent and the most likely descendant. Accidental discovery of human remains could require
�. additional investigations to determine if other graves are present; 14) that a site-specific, design-level
geotechnical investigation shall be prepared that assesses the impacts of proposed project modifications to
the levee on levee stability and any fill on site. The geotechnical investigation shall be conducted by a
California Certified Geotechnical Engineer or Civil Engineer, and shall include an analysis of expected
ground motions along the San Andreas fault in accordance the 1997 Uniform Building Code(UBC)and the
California Building Code (Title 24) additions. Expected ground motions determined by a registered
geotechnical engineer shall be incorporated into the final design as part of the project. The final seismic
considerations for the site shall be submitted to and approved by the City of Burlingame Structural and City
Engineers before grading permits are issued; 15)that the project storm drainage system shall be designed
and constructed in accordance with the STOPPP NPDES permit, including all provisions to the C.3
requirements,to reduce long-term water quality impacts from potentially contaminated runoff. The project
sponsor shall provide a plan for long-term operations and maintenance of the oil and sediment separator or
absorbent filter systems including but not limited to the operating schedule,maintenance frequency,routine
service schedule,specific maintenance activities,and the effectiveness of the water treatment systems. The
performance of the filters shall be monitored regularly by the project applicant or a third party to determine
the effectiveness of the water treatment and conclusions reported to the City. To further help minimize and
prevent the amount of pollutants entering the storm drain system,the project sponsor shall implement Best
Management Practices and source control measures that shall include, but are not necessarily limited to,
regular street sweeping by mechanized equipment,proper clean-up of soil debris following landscape work
or small scale construction, available trash receptacles, regular trash collection and the application of
absorbent material on oil and fuel leaks from automobiles; 16) that during operation of the project, the
project sponsor shall implement a program for regularly collecting and properly disposing of litter and debris
that may accumulate on the project site; 17)that order to maintain the existing on-site well for potential use
for any future long-term development on the project site,the wellhead elevation shall be modified if needed
9
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 28,2004
in accordance with proposed project grading and construction plans and anew well vault shall be installed in
accordance with San Mateo County water well standards to prohibit infiltration of storm water contaminants.-�
and prevent potential damage to the well casing; 18) that the applicant shall require the construction
contractor to limit noisy construction activities to the least noise-sensitive times of the day and week
(Monday through Friday,7:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m.;and Saturday, 10:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.;none on Sunday and
holidays); 19) that the applicant shall require contractors to muffle all equipment used on the site and to
maintain it in good operating condition. All internal combustion engine-driven equipment shall be fitted
with intake and exhaust mufflers that are in good condition. This measure should result in all non-impact
tools generating a maximum noise level of no more than 85dBA when measured at a distance of 50 feet;
20)that applicant shall require contractors to tum offpowered construction equipment when not in use;and
21)that the use and any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes,2001
Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote.
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m.
6. NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN-PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION
ON FINAL DRAFT NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AND MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL. (281 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNERS: MARGARET MONROE/MAUREEN BROOKS
Reference staff report 6/28/04,with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report,reviewed the highlights of
the plan,the proposed changes to land use and the design concepts proposed for the El Camino Real corridor
and the Rollins Road area. There were two letters submitted regarding properties within the plan area
suggesting changes to the density and height limits at the Rollins Road/Broadway gateway;and to the height
limits for residential properties on Ogden Drive. CP Monroe commented that the plan contains Community
Standards to be used to measure the impacts of any future projects, and noted that the plan includes a
General Plan Amendment for the hospital properties to incorporate the properties along Trousdale which will
be used for access into the site or expansion of hospital support services. These parcels would change their
land use designation from "Office Commercial' use to "Institutional, Other" for the hospital use, and the
design guidelines on El Camino Real revised to encompass the design proposal of the Revised Project.
Commissioners noted that we now have inclusionary zoning with a density bonus to encourage affordable
units, one of the key incentives was to offer increased height, we now allow additional height by special
permit,how would this work if the plan limits the height to 35 feet? CP Monroe noted that this issue would
have to be resolved in the zoning,this area will require a new zoning classification,now the 35-foot height
limit is a review line with the opportunity for taller buildings through the conditional use permit process,we
may want 35 feet to continue to be a review line with a maximum height set that also acknowledges the
aviation limit from San Francisco International Airport which affects this entire area in varying degrees.
Commissioners noted that it would be important to make this change in height limits in the plan throughout
the El Camino Real North Area.
Commissioners noted that we were looking at the possibility of allowing increased residential densities
across from the hospital and close to the Millbrae BART station, parking is often the driving factor in
determining density, can we look at decreasing the parking requirement on properties close to transit
consistent with the Housing Element concepts, we have set a 50-unit per acre density in the plan,but&
parking requirement would limit the actual density to be achieved. CP Monroe noted that this is something
which could be considered in the implementing zoning which be done once the plan is adopted.
10
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 18, 2004
Commissioners also asked about the Adrian Road Auto District concept which was discussed at some extent
during the plan process. At a previous City Council meeting, a Councilmember brought up that there may
not be interest by auto dealers in this area,because the primary Auto Row is still on California Drive;has
there been actual interest in this concept? CP Monroe noted that there is no interest from the existing dealers
on California Drive in moving to this area,but interest has been expressed from auto dealers from outside of
the area. Commissioners asked why the FAR for the auto dealers on Adrian Road was set at 0.15,this would
preclude parking garages for car storage like we see now on California Drive,is that the intent? SP Brooks
noted that the sites in this area are larger and the concept was to have open storage on the lots,with a small
building to serve the auto dealer use.
Commissioners asked about the concept of the 35-foot height review line in the zoning code,where does that
come from? CP Monroe noted that the 35-foot height review line was established in the R-3 and R-4 zoning
districts in the 1970's and most structures since that time have been built at no more than 35 feet. Many of
the properties across from the planning area along Ogden Drive were built since then and are about 35 feet
tall. However,a number of the buildings in the area zoned C-3 located between Ogden and Magnolia were
granted exceptions and are taller than 35 feet. Because the aviation limit varies greatly over this area and
over the Rollins Road area as well,it would be appropriate to fix a maximum height limit in both parts ofthe
planning area,as we now have in the R-4 zone,75 feet in the El Camino Real North Area and 60 feet in the
Rollins Road area,with a 75 foot maximum at the Rollins Road/Broadway gateway. The plan should note
that any maximum height would be modified by the height restrictions of the FAA established for the
airport.
Commissioners expressed concern with the 0.5 FAR proposed in the Rollins Road area. SP Brooks noted
this number was arrived at by determining the maximum footprint on lots in different uses which meet on-
site parking requirements. Commissioners felt that this FAR may not provide the encouragement for new
development if existing structures already have a higher floor area ratio, might want to look at how we
provide encouragement, one way might be to have a review line at 0.5 FAR and a maximum at 1.0 FAR.
Could also look at parking requirements and parking space dimensions to provide more flexibility in design.
Regarding the gateway at Rollins and Broadway,Commissioners noted that we wanted to see a landscaped
statement at the gateway, so would like to encourage a taller structure to be able to use more area for
landscaping,would also note that the ultimate design at this intersection will depend on the reconfiguration
of the proposed Broadway interchange,so we will need to see how that will impact this concept. FAR for
the gateway should include a review line and a maximum as well as an incentive for combining lots.
Chairman Osterling opened the public hearing. Merry-Lee Musich,325 El Cerrito Avenue,Hillsborough,
owner of property at Burlingame Plaza,noted that she would like to request that the Commission consider
adding medical offices as one of the uses allowed within the Burlingame Plaza subarea,and noted that many
doctors are seeking a retail setting for their business,she thought it was appropriate at this location across the
street from the Peninsula Hospital,the new entrance to the hospital will be at Magnolia,which is the street
which runs along the back of the shopping center;she thought that medical uses would be appropriate in the
shopping center because: 1)Burlingame Plaza offers abundant parking for visiting patients and shoppers,
offering convenient one-stop for office visits and shopping; 2) including medical offices would have no
adverse impact on the surrounding neighborhood;3)doctors are reliable long-term tenants which would help
retain the viability of the commercial property;and 4)the community surrounding Burlingame Plaza is not
residential but is mixed use, including medical offices. She also expressed concern with the proposal to
build mixed use structures at the comers of Burlingame Avenue adjacent to El Camino Real,noting that new
11
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 28, 2004
buildings would block visibility of the shopping center from El Camino Real, and tenants of the new
buildings would use the shopping center parking. —�
Bruce Balshone, 500 Airport Boulevard, representing the owner of property along Ogden Drive, noted that
they are happy with the change made in residential densities which allow up to 50 units per acre, but
expressed concern with the height limits in this area, a 35 foot maximum height is proposed; in order to give
incentives for affordable housing, need to give options which will allow more density, increasing the
allowable height would do that, when looking at transit-friendly development near major transportation
facilities, you need to look at the parking requirement, what we have now in the code was put in place in the
1970's, but some of the older properties in this area were built before that and may be 50 feet tall, don't want
the plan to preclude discretion regarding height and parking.
Eileen Chow, one of the owners of the property at 1206-1220 Rollins Road, wants to express support for and
agreement with the points made in John Ward's letter; the key point is the proposed floor area ratio (0.5
FAR), the property at the corner is only 20,000 SF, this would allow only a 10,000 SF building,people won't
go to the expense of improving their property if the proposed density is lower than what exists on the site
now, there are other buildings in the area that were recently built that have a higher floor area ratio, the new
building at 25 Edwards Court with parking on the lower level probably has an FAR closer to 1.0; the
Commission should look at what is existing, if future owners want to improve, they may be discouraged
because they are already over the allowable FAR, they won't want to change.
Art Michael, 1 Farm Lane, Hillsborough, owns property in the drainage easement under the high-tension
lines between Rollins and Adrian Roads, would like to have the Auto Row subarea extend to include this
drainage easement, the only possible use for that property given the drainage easement and the high power
lines is for parking, could provide support parking for uses on either side. There were no further public
comments and Chairman Osterling closed the public hearing.
Commissioners asked if the analysis for the traffic flow for the Specific Plan took into account the revised
design for the Peninsula Hospital project. Planning staff noted yes, that these two projects have been
coordinated. The traffic consultant working on the plan is the same consultant reviewing the traffic for the
Peninsula Hospital EIR which has been helpful. Commissioner found that after all this time reviewing the
plan, not a lot of change is proposed, should make sure there is enough flexibility in density and height to
encourage planting of trees and creation of affordable housing that is permanently kept at an affordable level;
would like to see 35 feet be the review line height and could go up from there to the flight limit from the
airport; agree with comments regarding FAR, height and the ability to plant more trees; especially at the
Rollins Road/Broadway gateway, we want a statement with a taller structure and more landscaping, could
limit the lot coverage to make sure there is adequate landscaping; would like it flexible in the plan so that the
zoning will have the broadest capability and ability to provide incentives; for density at this gateway, would
like to see a 1.0 FAR review line, and an incentive of up to 2.0 FAR for properties that are combined to
achieve more landscaping and better traffic access and circulation. The heights of existing buildings in the
Broadway corridor are as tall as 75 feet, would like to see something similar for an entrance statement; could
also have a maximum height of 75 feet if lots are combined to create a larger building site and comply with
FAA overflight limitations.
Commissioner discussion continued: For the rest of the Rollins Road industrial core area, would like to see
a 0.5 FAR review line with a maximum FAR of 1.0, the criteria for higher intensity should be based on th(
traffic generating characteristics and intersection impacts ofthe use, consistent with the use designated in the
plan, if the use meets the criteria established, could have a higher FAR. There was some interest expressed
12
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 28, 2004
by a large scale retailer in the Rollins Road area,has there been any additional interest in this type of use.
CP Monroe noted that there has been no other interest expressed. She also noted that when the Bayfront
Specific Plan was first adopted in 1981,the Traffic Analyzer extended to the intersection of Broadway and
Rollins Road because there was concern that if the industrial area built out, particularly if the land in the
drainage easement were used for required parking for adjacent uses, this intersection would shut down.
Therefore,we haven't allowed the drainage area to be used to provide required parking for adjacent uses.
Commissioner comments: The General Plan identifies this drainage easement area as open space,also the
issue of red-legged frog habitat in this area which has become a concern, we are required to notify the
property owners of the red-legged frog habitat,might want to consider allowing the area which is not habitat
in the drainage areas to be used for required parking, in exchange for developing the creekside trails
proposed by the plan.
C. Keighran moved to recommend to the City Council approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
the Final Draft North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan,with the following revisions to the plan:
❑ that the height limit along Ogden and Marco Polo Way and throughout the El Camino Real
North Area shall be revised so that there is a 35 foot review line,with a maximum height of 75
feet to be used as an incentive to provide permanent affordable housing and more landscaping as
long as the FAA requirements are met.
❑ that medical uses shall be allowed in the Burlingame Plaza subarea,above the first floor only and
subject to obtaining a conditional use permit.
❑ that properties included in the Rollins Road/Broadway Southern Gateway, and designated for
Commercial uses shall have a 1.0 FAR review line, and densities up to 2.0 FAR will be
considered as an incentive to consolidate parcels to achieve more landscaping as a gateway
feature and to allow for better traffic access and circulation.
❑ that the height for the Rollins Road/Broadway Commercial Gateway properties shall be up to 75
feet, similar to other properties in the area and that 35 feet shall be a review line for the
remainder of the Rollins Road area with a maximum height of 60 feet as modified by the FAA
overflight limitations.
❑ that for industrial and other allowed uses within the Rollins Road area, there shall be a review
line of 0.5 FAR;and that an FAR of up to 1.0 will be considered based on the traffic generating
and intersection impact characteristics of the proposed use.
❑ allow the drainage easement between Rollins and Adrian Roads to be used for required parking if
it is on the same parcel as the proposed use, and if a creekside trail or habitat area,as shown in
the plan, is developed as a part of the project.
The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote.
Planning Commission's action is a recommendation to the City Council so the decision is not subject to
appeal. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m.
The Planning Commission took a 5 minute break and resumed the meeting at 10:05 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
`--1. 1224 CABRILLO AVENUE,ZONED R-1-APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR NEW,TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE(JAMES CHU,CITU DESIGN&
13
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 28, 2004
ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BERNARD CORRY, PROPERTY OWNER) (63
NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER —�
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. James Chu,designer,represented the project. Proposed project
is 100 SF under the maximum FAR; setback on the right side is 2'-6"greater than the minimum 4'required;
building is well below the maximum height; fits the neighborhood well.
Commissioners asked: see a lot of Tudors in this neighborhood,who decided the style. Designer noted that
he did. Will the project have true divided light windows throughout? Yes. What is the decoration on the
front of the garage. Designer noted originally had a dormer, but it required a conditional use permit, so
modified it to a vent which conforms to the code but dresses up the front of the structure. Like the open area
off the living room and the entry patio. There were no further questions from the floor or commission,and
the public comment was closed.
C.Boju6s noted that this is a nice design,and made a motion to place this item on consent calendar at a time
when the project is ready and there is space. C. Keighran seconded the motion.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to place the item on the consent action calendar. The
motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This
item concluded at 10:08 p.m.
8. 1512 HIGHWAY ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING
VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JASSON DURHAN, APPLICANT
AND PROPERTY OWNER; J & M DESIGN, DESIGNER) (49 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HURIN
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Jasson Durhan,property owner,represented the project.Gene
Condon, 1308 Mills Avenue,neighbor also spoke. Property owner noted that the existing garage is close to
the required dimension, it would be a big job to widen it to get the required dimension. This building has
been abandoned a long time,the neighbors are in favor of fixing the house up.
Commissioners discussion with applicant: how closely did you look at the city's residential design
guidelines,they refer to consistent architectural style throughout the structure,this did not happen with this
design.Applicant noted that his computer program was not very sophisticated,the elevations do not look the
way the finished house will look, front door will have a copper roof which extends up into the wall behind.
Exterior lacks variation, has a single plate line all the way around. Front elevation has some nice design
features,but there are none on the other elevations,need to add to sides particularly the right and left. There
were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed.
C.Boju6s noted that this applicant needs some guidance and made a motion to send this project to a design
reviewer to get major assistance. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Commissioners noted the following items to be considered as a part of the substantial revision of the design:
14
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 28, 2004
• Need to achieve consistency within the architectural style by addressing:the two story roofplate,the
flattened roof slope,the bay window which creates a two story straight tower and should be broken
UP.
• Look at the existing houses on Highway Road and take the design elements/concepts from them;
they are not about the design being proposed.
• Should have true divided lights throughout the house.
• The entrance should be redesigned.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to send this project to a design reviewer for a
substantial redesign. The motion passed 7-0 on a voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory
and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m.
9. 1516 COLUMBUS AVENUE,ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOSEPH MOORE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; SEAN
CONNOLLY AND HANNAH KLEIN,PROPERTY OWNERS) (71 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HURIN
Cers.Brownrigg and Keighran recused themselves because they live within 500 feet of the proposed project.
They left the chambers. SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of
staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Joe Moore, architect 756 Kansas Street, San Francisco,
represented the project noting that the design emphasizes entryways,beamed porches,columns and railings.
�- Commissioners and architect discussed: nice front elevation with new divided lights, what about the
windows on the rest of the house? Keep existing,no divided lights because of cost. Tudor design detail on
the front, why not extend to the rear? Put the money into the front fagade, at the rear have a beamed
cantilever over the rear deck,rear vent. What is the plate height on the first floor? About 9 feet and a few
inches. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed.
C.Auran made a motion to return this project on the consent calendar for action. The motion was seconded
by C. Vistica.
Comment on the motion: Project is OK as it is, it is well resolved with mass and bulk,would like to see
applicant incorporate issues discussed; architect should look at the details before resubmittal for consent
action.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to place this project on the consent calendar for action
after the architect has reviewed the details discussed. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Keighran and
Brownrigg abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 10:30 p.m.
C.Brownrigg returned to the dais. C.Keighran remained outside of the room since she lives within 500 feet
of the project at 1413 Balboa Avenue.
15
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 28, 2004
10. 1413 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, —�
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; THOMAS O'CONNOR, PROPERTY OWNER) (65 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C.Keighran noted earlier that she lived within 500 feet of this property and recused herself from this action.
She remained outside of the council chambers. SP Brooks briefly presented the project description.
There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Seamus Busby, applicant, 1224 Cabrillo, and Jerry Deal,
designer, represented the project. Designer noted that the room off the garage was mistakenly noted as a
bedroom, it is intended to be a family room.
Discussion with commissioners: hard architectural style to work with,could an edge of tile be placed on the
flat roofed portion of the building? Tile is hard to match,will do if can match,if can't thought it would be
better without. Why so little detail on the right side? The right side is existing and no work will be done
there. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed.
C. Boju6s noted that the design is good and made a motion to put this item on the consent calendar for
action. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to put this item on the consent calendar for action when
there is room. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.Keighran abstained). The Planning Commission's action is _
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:35 p.m.
C. Keighran returned to the dais.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
Review of City Council regular meeting of June 21, 2004.
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of June 21, 2004. She noted that the
Council had agreed to a joint study session with the Planning Commission to study the Final EIR and
Peninsula Hospital project on August 30, 2004. Commissioners agreed. Staff will set up the
meeting.
Minutes of the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee meeting of June 22, 2004, were
distributed. Commission discussed briefly the concept of merging the residential design guidelines
and zoning regulations and suggested to staff that they approach Jerry Deal who worked on the
original guidelines for assistance, if he was willing, and to work with the subcommittee on this
project. Commissioners also discussed ways to clarify direction to the design reviewers.
Chair Osterling recognized out-going Chair Boju6s, thanked him for service as Chair of the
Commission for a year and presented him with a chocolate gavel.
16
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 28, 2004
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael Brownrigg, Secretary
S:\MINUTES\06.28.04.unapprov.doc
17
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
July 12, 2004
Council Chambers
r... I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the July 12, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Boju6s, Keele, Osterling and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: Brownrigg, Keighran
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner,Ruben Hurin; City
Attorney, Larry Anderson
III. MINUTES The minutes of the June 28, 2004, regular meeting of the Planning
Commission were approved with two corrections: page 2 date in heading
should be June 28,2004;and page 16,line 5,should read"C.Keighran noted
she had a personal interest in this property and recused herself...".
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue,thanked the city for improving the bicycle
rack at City Hall; in addition she noted that she had been out of town for a
couple of months, and noticed, from the buildings completed during her
absence, that the Planning Commission and design review are working, no
more"Mc Mansions",these houses look like those built 25 years ago;wished
the Commission good luck.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1115 HOWARD AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA B,BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL
AREA- APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FITNESS AND WEIGHT LOSS
CENTER(LISA ANTER,APPLICANT;DAVE ADAMS,PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HURIN
Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked:
• Curves is a national franchise,what do other sites do when there are more people present than there
are machines to use?
• What has the experience been in other states or areas?
• Is this site the location of the tea shop?
This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the
Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:13 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 12, 2004
2. 1864 ROLLINS ROAD,ZONED M-1 -APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT,PARKING
AND LANDSCAPE VARIANCES FOR AN INDOOR PAINTBALL FACILITY (COMMERCIAL
RECREATION USE) (GRANT TAKAMOTO, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ARTHUR RUDE JR
PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report for this paintball facility in the industrial area.
Commissioners asked:
• Two variances seems like a lot, can one of them, the landscaping,be made to go away?
• May not be able to make the parking shortage go away given the configuration and location of the
building on the site,but can more parking spaces be added?
• Is Burlingame using a different parking requirement than South San Francisco used?
• Do players carpool since this is a group activity?
• How does parking and attendance work at other such indoor facilities?
• Are there other indoor facilities in the Bay Area?
• Did the city grant any variances for the baseball cages, basketball or race car facilities? Provide a
summary of their parking and landscape requirements and what exceptions, if any, were granted.
Include the hours of usage each day. Did these code exceptions run with the use?
This item was set for the action calendar when all the information has been submitted, compiled and
reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:24 p.m.
VII. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unle,
separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the
commission votes on the motion to adopt.
3a. 1224 CABRILLO AVENUE,ZONED R-1-APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR NEW,TWO-
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE(JAMES CHU,CHU DESIGN&
ENGR., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BERNARD CORRY, PROPERTY OWNER) (63
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
3c. 1413 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; THOMAS O'CONNOR, PROPERTY OWNER) (65 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. Item 3b, 1516 Columbus Avenue was removed and set for public hearing as the first item
on the action calendar.
C.Boju6s moved approval of items 3a, 1224 Cabrillo Avenue,and 3c, 1413 Balboa Avenue,on the consent
calendar based on the facts in the staff reports,commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports
with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the two projects at 1224 Cabrillo and 1413
Balboa. The motion passed 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg, Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advisee -�
This item concluded at 7:26 p.m.
2
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes ` July 12, 2004
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
3b. 1516 COLUMBUS AVENUE,ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOSEPH MOORE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; SEAN
CONNOLLY AND HANNAH KLEIN,PROPERTY OWNERS)(71 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER:
RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report July 12,2004. CP Monroe presented the staff report. Commissioner noted he called
the item off the consent calendar for public hearing because at that at the design review study meeting the
Planning Commission had asked for some changes to the project including true divided lights throughout
and Tudor detail on both the front and rear of the structure. No changes have been made to the plans.
Thought the Commission should look at it. There were no further comments or questions of staff from the
Commission.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Joe Moore, 756 Kansas Street, San Francisco, architect
represented the project. Sean Connelly, 1516 Columbus,property owner also spoke.He noted that since the
city would accept internal and external wooden grillage built into to the window frame as equivalent to true
divided lights,their budget would allow for all the windows to be replaced with consistent grillage,he noted
the difference in cost was about$400 per opening. They were also willing to add Tudor half timber detail to
the rear elevation. He submitted a revised drawing of the rear elevation and showing the grillage on the
windows. Commissioner asked if the proposed windows at the rear were similar to those on the front.
Applicant noted that they were the same and the back would look like it belonged to the front.
Commissioner noted that there are a lot of windows on the sides which do not appear to be changed.
Applicant noted that these windows are existing,did not intend to change. Three letters from the neighbors
on the north, south and across the street from the property were submitted from the property owner. There
were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioner discussion: project is OK as proposed with submitted revision.
C. Vistica made a motion to approve the project with the revisions as shown on the submitted illustration
with matching grillage divided light windows on the front and rear elevations, and matching Tudor half
timber detail on the front and rear elevations,with retention of the existing windows with no grillage on the
side elevations as shown on the original plans since there is good detail in the articulation of the addition and
the under eave corbels,by resolution with the conditions in the staff report and with an added condition that
the modifications identified in the revised sketch, dated July 12, 2004, showing matching grillage on the
windows and half timber on the front and rear elevations be included: 1) that the project shall be built as
shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 9,2004,sheets Al through A4
as revised by the revision "proposed East (rear) Elevation" diagram date stamped July 12, 2004 showing
revised windows and Tudor half timber on the rear elevations; and that any changes to the footprint or floor
area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2)that any changes to the size or envelope
of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing
windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;
3) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed
professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations
and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the
project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury;
certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 4) that prior to final inspection, Planning
Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,
3
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes `July 12, 2004
etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 5)that
all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall bF
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 6)`that prior to
scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide
certification of that height to the Building Department; 7)that the conditions of the City Engineer's May 6,
2004 memo, and Chief Building Official's, Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's May 3, 2004 memos
shall be met; 8) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling
Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste
Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or
exterior,shall require a demolition permit; 9)that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City
of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 10)that the project shall
meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the revisions presented to
the Commission by the applicant July 12,2004. The motion passed on a 5-0-2(Cers.Brownrigg,Keighran
absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
4. 446 CUMBERLAND DRIVE,ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING
VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION(EARLE WEISS,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;
MICHAEL DARDIA AND SARAH LUBMAN, PROPERTY OWNERS) (65 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report July 12,2004,with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Earle Weiss, architect, 91 Louise Street, Suite A, San Rafael,
noted that the Commissions'concern at the last meeting was that the front elevation did not look as good as
the rest of the house, revised the front elevation to match the style throughout the house, noted that the
shutters on the front of the house exist now, added a carriage style garage door to pick up the style
throughout the rest of the house;front door is centered with steps next to garage,angle makes it hard to see;
present interior stairway from garage is illegal, probably why the garage was not used for parking, more
likely to be used as a garage if can access from inside,remodeling includes building the narrowest possible
stairway and still comply with the building code, still require variance for covered parking space length.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
C. Auran noted that the applicant addressed all of the concerns, design has done a good job on the front
elevation and garage door and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following
conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department
date stamped May 27,2004, sheets AO-A3,A5 and A6, and date stamped June 30,2004,sheet A4;and that
any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2)that
any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors,which would include adding or enlarging a
dormer(s),moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch,shall—�
be subject to design review; 3)that the parking variance shall only apply to this structure and shall becomt
void if the building is ever substantially remodeled,demolished for replacement or destroyed by catastrophe
4
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 12, 2004
or natural disaster; 4)that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect engineer or other
licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window
locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in
�. the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury;
certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection,Planning
Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,
etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6)that
all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and
installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be
included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that 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; 8) that the conditions of the City Engineer's and
Recycling Specialist's April 5,2004 memos,and the Fire Marshal's April 1,2004 memo,memo shall be met;
9) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which
requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and
meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of a structure,interior or exterior,shall require a
demolition permit; 10)that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm
Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 11) that the project shall meet all the
requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the
City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s.
Comment on the motion:would like to see a condition added that the parking variance shall become void if
the house is ever demolished for replacement or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster. The maker of
the motion and second agreed. Commission also noted that the covered parking space length was increased
as part of this project.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers.
Brownrigg, Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:45 p.m.
5. 1608 MARCO POLO WAY, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(SERGIO GUTIERREZ, S &A CONSTRUCTION,APPLICANT;
JOSE GUADAMUZ, DESIGNER; LUIS AND MHUAM BONILLA, PROPERTY OWNERS) (72
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Reference staff report July 12,2004,with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Jose Guadamuz, designer,267 Gateway Drive#115,Pacifica,
noted that he followed the direction given by the Commission and design review consultant, brought the
porch forward 3'-9" towards the front of the house,reduced the second floor deck size by more than 50%,
added four windows along the left side of the house,think that all of the concerns have been addressed and
changes made a big improvement to the project. There were no further comments and the public hearing
was closed.
C. Boju6s noted that the designer addressed all of the concerns,revisions greatly improved the design, and
moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following conditions: 1)that the project shall be
built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 27, 2004, sheets C1,
Al, A2-A2.3 and A7, and date stamped July 1, 2004, sheets AO and A3-A6; and that any changes to the
5
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 12, 2004
footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2)that all windows on the
first and second floors shall be true divided light; 3)that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or
second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and
architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subject to design review; 4)that prior to
scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect,engineer or other licensed professional shall provide
architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown
on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or
contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the
Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note
compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been
built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6)that all air ducts,plumbing vents,and flues
shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not
visible from the street;and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans
before a Building permit is issued; 7)that 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;8)
that the conditions of the City Engineer's,Chief Building Official's and Recycling Specialist's May 17,2004
memos, and the Fire Marshal's May 24,2004 memo shall be met; 9)that the project shall comply with the
Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new
construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements;any
partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 10) that the
applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and
Discharge Control Ordinance; and 11) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California
Building Code and California Fire Code,2001 edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion
was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers.
Brownrigg, Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m.
6. 2700 MARTINEZ DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR ROOF CHANGES TO
THE SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (VIRGINIA PON AND KEVIN
PARKIN, APPLICANTS; WILSON NG, DESIGNER; JANE H. CHUAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (46
NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report July 12,2004,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria
and staff comments, noting that this is a review of a previously approved hillside area construction permit
which was appealed to the Planning Commission and then not built according to the approved plans. The
Building Department has stopped work on this project until this issue is resolved. Nine conditions were
suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: do not understand the "scissor roof'; CP noted that at
the front there are two ridges of the same height parallel rather than the originally proposed single ridge line
2'-6" lower than the existing roof ridge. There seems to be a discrepancy between the roof ridges shown in
the letter from the roof truss company and the ridges shown on the submitted plans; CP suggested that the
commission discuss this with the applicant. Clarified that the maximum height is as approved even though
there are more ridges? Yes. This one story addition did not require design review? No design review was
required in the code.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Kevin Parkin,446 20th Avenue, San Francisco,represented tht
project. Kevin Slaboda,2704 Martinez Drive,neighbor, also spoke. The project representative noted that
6
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 12, 2004
with the two parallel ridges the maximum height of the roof stays the same,2'-6"lower than the existing,as
originally approved and the 4:12 pitch remains the same; retained the existing garage because of the cost,
roof pitch flattened to 2:12 because of the way the structure was framed originally,particularly the headers at
... the doors, at 2:12 the ridge of the garage is a lower height despite the higher plate line. At time neighbor
complained about the double ridge,the truss company had made a mistake in installing the trusses,this has
been corrected now and the ridges are at the lower approved height. Commission clarified: the present
ridges are the same height as originally approved;yes, 2'-6"lower than existing,only added a second ridge.
Why was the garage not built according to the approved plan?Am asking for a T-4"plate where originally
thought the plate would be 7' the minimum allowed, this addressed the neighbor's view concern, when
opened up garage found unusual framing that would mean the entire building would have to be rebuilt to
meet the approved height requirement with a roof pitch which matched the house,4:12.Changed the garage
roof pitch to 2:12 because thought view more important than aesthetics.Neighbor noted the building is OK
now as shown in picture, concern is roof height,before this present roof, there was a different roof with a
higher ridge line; neighbor asked to sign off on that, refused and then wrote letter which resulted in them
placing a new roof, as roof now done its OK with him. There were no more comments from the floor. The
public hearing was closed.
Commissioner discussion: to be"built to code"structure must be built as shown on the approved plan?CA
noted that was the case, if not according to the approved plan the structure is not compliant with the code.
Am always concerned when applicant returns to the Commission to ask approval for something done which
is not in accord with the approved plans,shows lack of respect for the Commission and process;in this case
the visual impact of the changes,especially the garage,increase the mass and bulk of the house,would like
to see the garage built according to the approved plans. Did the applicant come to the Building Department
and ask to amend building permit for change to roof CP noted no.
C. Auran noted that the applicant had made a strong effort to maintain the view as shown on the approved
plans so would move approval by resolution with the conditions as follows:
1)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped
June 18, 2004, sheet T-1 and sheet A-1 through A-11, and that any changes to building materials, exterior
finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that the
addition to the house shall have two parallel roof ridges,that shall be 2'-6"lower than the existing roof ridge
with a maximum height of 14' and a 4:12 roof pitch for the addition, and that the garage shall have a plate
height of 81" with a 2:12 roof pitch and a maximum height not to exceed 11'4"; 2) 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;3)that the conditions of the City Engineer's,the
Fire Marshal's,the Chief Building Inspector's,and the Recycling Specialist's June 30,2003 memos shall be
met; 4) that the applicant shall submit a certified arborist report to detail tree protection measures for the
protected-size Pepper tree at the front of the property and that this report shall be reviewed and approved by
the City Arborist prior to any grading on the site and prior to the issuance of a Building permit; and if the
protected-size Pepper tree is to be removed,the applicant shall apply for and receive a Protected-size Tree
Removal Permit from the Parks Department prior to removing the tree; 5)that the applicant shall comply
with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;
6) that during demolition and grading for the addition, the applicant shall use all applicable "best
management practices"as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance,to prevent erosion and off-site
sedimentation of storm water runoff, 7)that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation
program,and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation
7
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 12, 2004
plans at time of permit application; 8) that demolition of the existing structures and anygrading or earth
moving on the site shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality..,
Management District; and 9)that any improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Firs
Codes, 2001 Edition as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Keele.
Comment on the motion: Agree that this project clearly was not built according to the approved plans,
builder knew that to deviate from the plans he would need to return to the Planning Commission and
Building Department,would like to slap his wrist,but in the end he did respect the approved height key to
the view issue, and the neighbor has not expressed a concern about additional impact on his view. Would
like the garage roof to be kept at 4:12 and like that the view was respected. It is important that the plans be
followed,not the first time this applicant has come forward with a similar change in the field resulting from
showing the Commission originally something that cannot be built,cannot support when he did not come to
the Commission before changing the structure. What can be done to avoid this problem? CA noted that a
stop work order has been placed on this project,it took some time to get to the Commission and the project
sat, the Commissioners can hold tight on approvals where there is a design element and require that the
project is built as approved or reconstructed,the Commission does not have to accommodate the applicant.
Commission comment continued: have mixed feelings,the mass and bulk of the garage are increased by the
change to the roof of the garage, am offended that applicant went ahead without regard for the city's
concerns, on other hand the view issue was respected; if this were a design review would require
reconstruction,only issue here is hillside area construction permit,testimony of the neighbor and the photo
indicate that the change does not impact any distant views, hands are tied for this application, nothing to
prevent approval,but would have no hesitation to stop other projects and hope that the design community
hears that message. Biggest design impact is the higher plate line and flatter roof on the garage, itis beyond
design review the applicant has violated a contract with the City on this and on previous projects,at least thL
garage was originally agreed to.Would the maker of the motion amend the motion to require reconstruction
of the garage as originally approved with a 4:12 pitch roof? Maker of the motion indicated he would not
amend his motion. It should be clear to the applicant and others what the Planning Commission's concerns
are regarding building which deviates from the approved plans, the project should be returned to the
Commission for review and approval as opposed to walking on everyone.
Chair Osterling called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the hillside area
construction permit to allow two parallel ridges 2'-6"lower than the existing roof ridge and a 4:12 roofpitch
and a garage at the same height as approved with a 2:12 roof pitch and higher plate line. The motion passed
on a 3-2-0-2 (Cers. Bojues, Vistica dissenting; Cers. Brownrigg, Keighran absent) voice vote. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m.
7. 1755 ROLLINS ROAD,ZONED M-1 -APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE(W.L.BUTLER,
APPLICANT;JASON BELL,CARLILE COATSWORTH ARCHITECTS,INC.,ARCHITECT;GRANT
RIGGS, PROPERTY OWNER) (12 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
Reference staff report July 12, 2004,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria
and staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. CP suggested,that if approved, the
addition of a condition that this variance be limited to the warehouse,wholesale showroom by appointment
only not to exceed 10, 000 SF use on this site. Commissioners noted what is the hardship associated with
the applicant being required to replace the sidewalk on the north side of the property? How did th,
replacement affect the on site parking and how did the landscaping installed affect the on-site parking? Is
the sidewalk being replaced the same dimension and location as the existing sidewalk?Were any of the city's
8
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 12, 2004
planned improvements included? CP noted that the sidewalk replacement was required before the plan for
the area was adopted, so is a simple replacement of existing, poor condition sidewalk. How will the
proposed loading dock access affect the entrance to the parking on that side of the building? How do cars
exit on the north side of the building? CP noted that the applicant could respond to these questions. There
were no further questions of staff from the commissioners.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present. There were no other comments
from the floor. The public hearing was closed.
Commissioners comment: CA noted that without the applicant to respond this item should be continued
until the applicant can attend;are the three truck spaces at the loading docks counted in the required parking
spaces? condition 30 is unclear, indicates that maximum people on site is 50 but elsewhere it is unclear if
the maximum 50 include visitors to the site, clarify; should add a condition that if this structure is ever
modified or demolished,all parking variances expire,so that the replacement structure would be required to
meet all on site parking and development requirements in effect at that time; the number of employees on
site should be clarified.
C. Bojues moved to continue action on this item until the applicant can be present. The motion was
seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item. The motion passed on a 5-0-2
(Cers. Brownrigg, Keighran absent) voice vote. There is no appeal to an action to continue. This item
concluded at 8:50 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 2301 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW,TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
GARAGE(WILLIAM RIDDLE,BEST DESIGN&CONSTRUCTION,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;
FAI_LAU, PROPERTY OWNER) (57 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
C.Osterling recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the proposed project. He left the chambers.
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Vice Chair Auran opened the public comment. Bill Riddle,architect,7 Lehning Way,Brisbane,submitted
colored renderings of the proposed project,was available to answer questions. Commission noted that the
second floor wall on the east elevation was blank and asked if a window could be added to break up the
mass; architect noted the master bathroom is located there, could look into adding a window on that wall.
Commission commented that the stairway window draws too much attention and suggested that the window
should be reduced in size. Commission asked the architect to clarify the proposed plate heights throughout
the house; architect noted that the plate height in the living room is 12'-0", the plate height throughout the
rest of the house approximately 9'-0". Commission expressed a concern about the mass on the east
elevation,house looks massive when compared to the detached garage, fagade on the east elevation is not
broken up as on the Hillside Drive elevation,fagade on Hillside Drive is broken up well,but the remaining
three elevations need to be articulated better,concerned with the blank walls,understand when facing other
houses,but in this case there are not enough windows to the street;design is too boxy especially on east and
west elevations, too much mass because of the boxy design, needs more articulation.
9
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 12, 2004
Michael and Betsy Murray, 1367 Columbus Avenue, Scott Taylor, 1369 Columbus,Avenue, Mark
Molumphy, 1354 Columbus Avenue and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue,expressed the following concerns
with the project: this is a difficult lot to build on, slopes down and up toward Columbus Avenue, it
reviewing sheet A-6,it appears that the lot will be filled to level the grade which increases the.height of the
building, house is too big for the neighborhood, design is equivalent to a big box store, not enough
articulation,not enough difference in building materials,big stucco box proposed,elements don't work well,
vertical and horizontal window shapes don't match,columns don't fit with the panel doors at front,eaves are
short,project lacks detail,palm trees shown on the landscape plan are not appropriate to the area,palm trees
have no growth on the bottom,they attract pigeons and roof rats,they provide no screening for the building;
proposed house is too big for the lot, existing houses on Columbus Avenue fit on the lot and are not
overbuilt;this design reflects the big stucco houses which were built before design review was established,
this is exactly the house design review is trying to avoid, do not see any rear yard space,this house appears
to cover most of the lot; this new house is on Columbus Avenue, not on Hillside Drive, current house has
been vacant for some time, appreciate that the lot will be improved, it will be an important house on this
street because it is an entrance to Columbus Avenue from Hillside Drive, have not seen the plans for this
project but ask that the Commission consider all the comments made by the neighbors.
Further discussion:commission asked the applicant if the project includes a change in existing grade and is it
necessary;architect noted that the grade will be increased near the front of the lot by approximately one foot
to make the lot more level,highest point on the lot is where the garage is located,fill is necessary because of
the preferred floor system design and the need to get air under the floor. Commission asked why the
proposed front setback is 28'-0"when the average front setback is 24'-5",could move house closer towards
Hillside Drive and increase rear yard space;architect noted that he calculated the average front setback to be
28'-0" and designed the house to meet that setback, will look at moving house towards Hillside Drive.
Commission expressed a concern with the lawn area around the detached garage, this area needs mors
attention,also reconsider palm trees;architect noted that the palm trees proposed are dwarf palms and have a
very low growth height. The Commission suggested planting trees with an appropriate growth scale at the
front of the lot to help break up the mass. There were no other comments from the floor and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: first reaction to this project was with great caution,this house will be very visible,
concerned with height,lack of landscaping and articulation,question whether this is the right design for this
lot; noted that when the Planning Commission and City Council created the design review guidelines,the
FAR was reduced for corner lots because houses on corner lots are such a focal point. Commissioners noted
the following items to be considered as a part of the substantial revision of the design:
• this is not the right design for this neighborhood,need to seriously consider a substantial redesign of
the project;
• house looks massive when compared to the detached garage,east elevation is not broken up as on the
Hillside Drive elevation, fagade on Hillside Drive is broken up well, but the remaining three
elevations need to be articulated better, concerned with the blanks walls;
• need to reduce the mass and bulk on all elevations, design is too boxy especially on east and west
elevations, too much mass because of the boxy design,needs more articulation;
• house needs to be better articulated on all elevation;
• need to focus more on the landscape plan and how the landscaping will help to screen the building;
• concerned with the height of the building on this sloped lot;
10
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 12, 2004
• concerned with the lack of rear yard space,need to incorporate a useable rear yardtinto the design,
since average front setback is 24'-5", could house be moved closer towards Hillside Drive and
increase rear yard space;
front porch with four columns is not appropriate;
• consider a different roof pitch to address concerns with building height;
• concerned with the lawn area around the detached garage, this area needs more attention, also
reconsider palm trees; suggested planting trees with an appropriate growth scale at the front of the
lot to help break up the mass.
C. Bojues noted that this project needs a lot of work to address mass and bulk and made a motion to send
this project to a design reviewer to get major assistance. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on the motion: the design review consultant should listen to the meeting tapes,there were many
important comments made by the Commission and neighbors concerning this project; applicant should be
aware that the design review consultant may have additional concerns and comments regarding the design
beyond what the Commission has stated.
Vice Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to send this project to a design reviewer for a
substantial redesign. The motion passed 4-0-1-2 on a voice vote (C. Osterling abstaining and Cers.
Brownrigg,Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item
concluded at 9:15 p.m.
C.Osterling returned to the dais and recessed the meeting for a short break. Meeting continued at 9:23 p.m.
�. 818 LAUREL AVENUE,ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
�-' SECOND STORY ADDITION (STEVE RANDAL, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; RICHARD AND
NANCY SCIUTTO, PROPERTY OWNERS) (97 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE
BARBER
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Steve Randel, applicant and designer, 1655 Mission Street
#529,San Francisco,clarified that the photo of the house on the photo board was taken before the porch was
finished,the front of the house now looks like what is shown on the plans,in designing the second story tried
to keep the look of a I%2 story house,second story plate height is T-0",only two-story wall is along the right
side of the house facing the driveway. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing
was closed.
Commission expressed the following concerns:
• the northwest elevation is a very long wall, can it be broken up somehow;
• a box bay might be created at the second floor window similar to the second floor window on the
southeast elevation,can also widen the kitchen at the rear by one to two feet and add a gable to break
up the long plane;
• the revisions offered by the applicant should be incorporated;
• Commission complemented the designer for keeping the profile down;
11
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 12, 2004
• there might be an error on the plans regarding landscaping, site plan indicates a new Oak tree to be
planted in the front yard while the landscape plan shows a new Japanese maple,need to correct the..
plans;
• ornamental grass and shrubs will only grow to 3'-0"in height,would like to see another_Mayten tree
planted along the left side property line between the existing Japanese Maple tree and Mayten tree;
• suggest adding another tree at the front ofthe lot to enhance the front elevation,suggest replacing the
new Oak tree with another Japanese Maple tree or have two new Mayten trees which are evergreen
on either side of the entrance walkway.
C. Vistica noted that the designer has done a great job and made a motion to place this item on the regular
action calendar at a time when the suggested revisions have been made to the project and plan checked. The
motion was seconded by C. Auran.
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans
had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2(Cers.Brownrigg,Keighran absent).
The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m.
10. 615 VERNON WAY,ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION(DAVID AND ARLEEN
CAUCHI, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; PIERLUIGI SERRAINO, DESIGNER) (70
NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description and noted that a letter in support of the project was
submitted from Kerrie and Chris Ronan at 608 Concord Way. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Pierluigi Serraino,designer,901 Market Street,San Francisco,
and Roy Evars, 621 Vernon Way, representing the property owner,noted that the property owner was not
able to attend the meeting because he is on vacation,but will pass along comments and suggestions to him.
The designer, noted that there will be no changes to the footprint or landscaping on site, was available to
answer questions. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission expressed the following concerns:
• clarify the window detail on the new windows, should match the existing dormer windows;
• windows should be true divided light wood windows;
• concerned about the second floor blank wall on the west elevation,high windows should be added in
the closet to break up the wall;
• proposed windows should be more horizontal than vertical to match the existing window pattern;
• also concerned with the blank wall on the west elevation, this wall should be broken up, could
possible add a window at the peak,could also move the shed dormer in by one to two feet and extend
roofline to the first floor roof, and
• Ok to keep the window on the west wall,but also noted that if the mass is broken up by extending
the roofline down the window in the closet would not be needed.
C.Auran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when suggested revisions
have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s.
12
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 12, 2004
Chair Osterling called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans
had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2(Cers.Brownrigg,Keighran absent).
The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m.
11. 1128 OXFORD ROAD, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION(JOSEPH CONTI,CONTI-HURLEY ASSOCIATES,INC.,APPLICANT;
NILES TANAKATSUBO, TSH INTERNATIONAL ARCHITECTURE & DESIGN, ARCHITECT;
STEVE IVERSON, PROPERTY OWNER) (59 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE
BARBER
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Niles Tanakatsubo,TSH International Architecture and Design
represented the project.Mark Silva, 1132 Oxford. Architect noted this is a modest second story addition to
a two story house; added construction detail of belly band with Hardi Shake exterior above for second
story, added 9 SF to kitchen rest of lot coverage increase is from the covered porches added; lowered the
plate on the east side and added dormers to reduce mass. Roof height is 30 feet. Commissioners asked: are
you replacing all the windows,the style on the first floor is different from the second; applicant noted that
the double hung windows on the first floor will be replaced because they work best,on the second floor there
is not enough height for double hung, and need a wide window for egress, however, windows could be
revised to add more double hung and could match second floor in most cases; there is an error on the plans
showing the widows in the closet at the front of the house;by the square footage of the addition it is modest
but the impact on the structure is substantial, it is a complete change, the garage does not match the new
style; what is the reason for the asymmetrical gable at the rear?has to do with where the second floor wall
aligns with the wall in the nook in the kitchen below; like to see stylistic consistency between garage and
house; feel that the new design took all the charm out of the house, disappointed, applicant noted that the
existing house has an awkward exterior resulting from a previous addition,if extended existing slope of roof
house would exceed 36 feet in height and you would see a lot more roof surface/mass,needed to manipulate
rooms to stay within the existing envelope;in this neighborhood a lot of steep roofs,code allows extension
beyond 30 feet for architectural design reasons; concerned about the 30 foot height given the height of the
other houses in the area, one or two are taller but generally they are smaller, like to see the character of the
current architecture preserved. Live next door,this is difficult,this house has problem,the exterior shingles
is not like the rest of the neighborhood, light in my house will be affected by the proposed porch,have 30
years of landscaping which may be affected by the proposed fences,concerned about the over all mass of the
structure, would be concerned about the curb appeal of a 36 foot tall structure, the proposed porch, the
shingles on the second floor; the developer does not live in this house so want to be on the record now.
There were no further comments from the floor. The public comment was closed.
Commission expressed the following concerns:
• plan does not fit the neighborhood,windows do not match,exterior could be designed to fit better,
house should not "pop out" at you;
• the charm of this house has been designed out,could increase height,house has a 37 foot setback to
work with.
C. Auran noted that he did not like the design and moved to refer this project to a design reviewer for
redesign. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues.
13
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 12, 2004
Comment on the motion: concern is not with height if another design would reduce the mass with a tall
structure it would be OK; the height issue is with the currently proposed design,not how much roof see or
the steepness of the peaks in the neighborhood,height OK if it enhances the style.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this item to a design reviewer for a substantial
redesign. The motion passed 5-0-2(Cers.Brownrigg,Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action
is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:10 p.m.
12. 745 LEXINGTON AVENUE, ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SIDE
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (WALT WORTHGE,
APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BRIAN WACHHORST, PROPERTY OWNER) (38 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chair Osterling opened the public comment. Walt Worthge, 21 Avila Road, San Mateo, represented the
project. He noted the majority of the roof lines in the neighborhood were hipped;all the windows match and
are true divided lights.Commissioners asked:will the new windows have the same type of installation as the
existing?yes;How tall is the plate on the second floor? 8 feet;the roof pitch is visually different not match
makes the piece on the top look very tall?tried to keep the 9 foot ceiling in the living room so needed a 9'-6"
plate which forces up the second story addition since most of it is over the living room area;there is an 18
inch skirt roof?yes; Could the plates be varied over the living room area and the rest of the house?most of
the addition is over this area, so can't reduce. Question if this is the proper way to design this house. There
were no further comments from the floor. The public comment was closed.
Chair Osterling noted the second story does stand tall, the second floor plate could be reduced to 7 feet
because of the size and height of the living room,at the rear the skirt roof breaks up the depth and provides
shadow,the wood siding also helps reduce the mass of the house,so move to direct the applicant to make the
revisions discussed and return the project to the action calendar. There was no second to the motion. The
motion died.
Commission expressed the following concerns:
• Is there a way to bring the highest part of the second floor roof down;
• Could make the eaves deeper, set the top plate at 7-6" instead of 8',hip roofs work,problem is all
that is being carried over the 9'-6" height below;
• Design similar to house in RayPark approved earlier,finished house second story looks like a tower
to the neighborhood and existing house; feel that this design does not fit,if cannot adjust the design
to reduce the height of the second floor plate, feel it will not fit;
• Option is to change second floor design, add steps so able to vary height of second floor, if second
story is broken up it will work better;
• Eave depth should be increased,could use a double pitch over the porch,could do on second floor as
well to reduce the height of the roof.
Chair Osterling made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer for substantial redesign. The motion
was seconded by C. Bojues.
14
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes July 12, 2004
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this project to a design reviewer. It will be
returned to the Commission when the review process is completed,the staff has checked the new plans and
there is space on the calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2(Cers.Brownrigg,Keighran absent).
The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m.
X. PLANNER REPORTS
- City Council regular meeting of July 6, 2004 was canceled.
- Report on Schedule for Peninsula Hospital Review and North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan
CP Monroe reviewed the Commission's meeting schedule for the next three months for the Peninsula
Hospital project,including a public hearing on the Recirculated Draft EIR for the revised project on July
26,2004. She also noted the final steps in the city's review of the North Burlingame Specific Plan due
for Council hearing in September.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at 10:45 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Keele, Acting Secretary
S:\MINUTES\7.12.04.unapproved.minutes.doc
15
The City of Burlingame
CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
CALIFORNIA 94010-3997
www.buriingame.org
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, July 8, 2004
Commissioners Present: Russ Cohen, Chair
Stephen Warden, Vice Chair
Eugene Condon
Victor James
Jim McIver
Commissioners Absent: None
Staff Present: Sgt. Dawn Cutler, Police Department
Doris Mortensen, Administrative Secretary, Public Works
Staff Absent: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works
Visitors: Mary Ann Martinez, 1321 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame
Alice Wei, 1513 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame
Ken Wei, 1513 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, July 8, 2004
1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
3. ROLL CALL. 5 of 5 Commissioners present.
4. INTRODUCTION OF NEW COMMISSIONER
Chair Cohen introduced Victor James,the new commissioner.
5. CURRENT BUSINESS.
5.1 ACTION ITEMS.
5.1.1 Approval of Minutes for June 10, 2004
It was moved and seconded (Comms. Warden/James) to approve the June 10, 2004 minutes;
approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Comm. McIver abstained).
5.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS.
5.2.1 Evaluate on-street parking situation on 1300 block of Cortez Avenue and Cabrillo Avenue {
Chair Cohen stated that there is a need for a couple of more meetings with Our Lady of Angels
(OLA) parents and representatives of the school and of the parish to develop a specific plan and
timeframe. They will present their recommended plan to the principal to implement. Comm.
Condon stated that there is no need to request that the principal attend future meetings, but there
is a need to give the school a mandate to implement the plan once it is developed.
From the floor, Ms. Martinez talked about how often parents park illegally on Cabrillo and the
need for the school to have better organization. Other schools are organized and provide guides
for drivers. Ms. Martinez stated she will continue to attend the OLA meetings. The next meeting
is scheduled for July 12 at 7 p.m. at OLA.
5.2.2 Request for various improvements to Parking Lot H and 1513 Burlingame Avenue
Sgt. Cutler stated that the City will install "No Littering" signs in the parking lot. She presented
a copy of the April 28, 2004 letter from Tim Richmond, Parks Superintendent,that he sent to the
resident outlining Parks Department actions as well as recommendations for the resident.
From the floor,Ms. Wei requested the lot be cleaned. Sgt. Cutler will check into this.
This will be a Discussion Item next month.
6. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS. None.
7. FROM THE FLOOR. None.
The City of Burlingame Page 2
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, July 8, 2004
8. INFORMATION ITEMS.
8.1 From Staff to Commission
8.1.1 Traffic Engineer's Report - None.
8.1.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report - None.
8.2 From Commission to Staff
8.2.1 Reports of citizen complaints or requests
Chair Cohen received the same complaint from two citizens about Parking Lot W and the lot
behind Wells Fargo having new $2 long term meters with no option for short term parkers. Sgt.
Cutler suggested they park at on-street meters.
Vice Chair Warden will contact the Code Enforcement Officer regarding a truck trailer being
parked in a residential driveway.
Comm. Condon stated that the Mayor asked about other parking options for Ecco Restaurant
patrons. Comm. Condon asked the commissioners to re-visit the site. There is a private lot for the
restaurant with entry on California Drive. Vice Chair Warden expressed concern that if Ecco is
approved for a passenger loading zone, other restaurants will request one as well. Chair Cohen
stated that 11 Fomaio's valet service appears to be for their use only; but according to Sgt. Cutler,
their valet service is meant to be used by patrons of restaurants in that general area.
Comm. Condon stated that he has a neighbor who wants a no left turn sign on southbound El
Camino Real at Mills Avenue. Comm. Condon's concern is that more traffic will turn left onto
Highway Road which is a one-lane road. Sgt. Cutler advised that issues concerning El Camino
Real are referred to Caltrans since it's a state highway.
Chair Cohen stated that he received several complaints due to Caltrans removing two traffic
signals on El Camino Real at Adeline Drive and stated that anyone complaining should be referred
directly to Caltrans.
8.2.2 Comments and Communication
Chair Cohen stated that in today's San Mateo Journal, there is an article about the City of San
Mateo putting in a parking permit system.
Vice Chair Warden met with Sgt. Cutler and the Traffic Engineer to evaluate the possibility of a
parking permit system in Burlingame. They are considering areas within 300± feet of Burlingame
Avenue and Broadway in their respective business districts. Main elements they will consider are
cost and the number of affected residents.
The City of Burlingame Page 3
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, July 8, 2004
8.2.3 Expected absences of Commissioners at the Thursday,August 12, 2004 meeting
Comm. Condon stated that he may be absent next month.
8.3 Bicycle Safety Issues in Burlingame
Vice Chair Cohen stated that at the subcommittee's last meeting, they identified bike routes in
Burlingame. Existing routes will be re-signed and new routes are being planned with trails designated
for novices,pros, etc.
9. INACTIVE ITEMS. None.
10. AGENDIZE FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
5.2.1 to Discussion Item
5.2.2 to Discussion Item
11. ADJOURNMENT. 7:43 p.m.
The City of Burlingame Page 4
CITY OF BURLINGAME BUILDING INSPECTION
MONTHLY PERMIT ACTIVITY NNE, 2004
F.Y. 2003 F.Y. 2002
SAME MONTH THIS YEAR LAST YEAR
THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF TO DATE TO DATE DIFF
Permit type # Valuation # Valuation % # Valuation # Valuation %
New Single Family 4 $1,310,546 2 $988,000 32.6 18 $6,986,368 22 $8,657,535 19.3-
New Multi-Family 0 $0 0 $0 .0 2 $4,123,600 1 $850,000 385.1
New Commercial 0 $0 0 $0. .0 3 $5,775,000 1 $1,100,000 425.0
Alterations-Res 33 $1,443,256 36 $2,168,956 33.5- 343 $15,955,863 335 $14,534,231 9.8
Alterations-NonRes 4 $508,800 5 $85,200 497.2 83 $9,331,457 84 $10,819,190 13.8-
Demolition 5 $0 7 $2,500 100.0- 80 $178,301 86 $133,975 33.1
Swimming Pool 0 $0 0 $0 .0 5 $144,480 5 $113,475 27.3
Sign Permits 2 $7,300 3 $8,600 15.1- 29 $114,039 32 $199,401 42.8-
Fences 0 $0 0 $0 .0 2 $9,500 4 $13,700 30.7-
Reroofing 39 $532,128 25 $260,553 104.2 318 $3,802,145 285 $3,392,981 12.1
Repairs 5 $138,800 1 $1,000 780.0 46 $550,750 32 $494,660 11.3
Window Repl 7 $57,618 3 $15,061 282.6 97 $896,885 72 $543,319 65.1
Miscellaneous 1 $80,000 1 $3,252 360.0 29 $468,001 57 $550,511 15.0-
TOTALS...... 100 $4,078,448 83 $3,533,122 15.4 1,055 $48,336,389 1,016 $41,402,978 16.7
7/01/04 7:49:01
06-16-04 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1.
FOR: MAY, 2004
if
Current Prev
Last Actual Actual YTD YTD
Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . YTD. . Change Change
Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0
Manslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0
Rape By Force 0 0 2 1 1 100.00
Attempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0
Robbery Firearm 0 0 1 1 0 0.00
Robbery Knife 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00
Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon 1 0 4 4 0 0.00
Robbery Strong-Arm 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00
Assault - Firearm 0 0 0 0 0
Assault - Knife 0 0 3 3 0 0.00
Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 1 0 7 4 3 75.00
Assault - Hands,Fists,Feet 2 0 5 1 4 400.00
Assault - Other (Simple) 24 16 97 63 34 53 . 97
Burglary - Forcible Entry 13 6 36 29 7 24 . 14
Burglary - Unlawful Entry 11 8 45 22 23 104 .55
Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 0 0 0 0 0
Larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0
Larceny Purse-Snatching 0 0 0 0 0
Larceny Shoplifting 4 2 14 10 4 40 . 00
Larceny From Motor Vehicle 18 20 123 94 29 30.85
Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 5 4 26 25 1 4 .00
Larceny Bicycles 4 2 9 12 -3 -25. 00
Larceny From Building 0 1 7 8 -1 -12 .50
Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 0 4 8 12 -4 -33 .33
Larceny All Other 20 24 112 84 28 33 .33
Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 10 5 54 30 24 80.00
Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00
Motor Vehicle Theft Other 0 0 1 0 1
113 93 555 407
113 93 555 407
06-16-04 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1
CITY REPORT FOR: MAY, 2004
Current Prev
Last Actual Actual YTD YTD
Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change 8 Change
All Other Offenses 52 29 207 159 48 30.19
Animal Abuse 1 0 1 0 1
Animal Nuisance 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00
Arson 0 0 0 0 0
Assists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0
Bicycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0
Bigamy 0 0 0 0 0
Bomb Offense 0 0 0 0 0
Bomb Threat 0 0 0 0 0
Bribery 0 0 0 0 0
Check Offenses 0 3 3 11 -8 -72.73
Child Neglect/prot custody 2 1 8 7 1 14.29
Computer Crime 0 0 0 0 0
Conspiracy 0 0 0 0 0
Credit Card Offenses 0 0 0 0 0
Cruelty to Dependent Adult 1 0 1 2 -1 -50.00
Curfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 0 0 0
Death Investigation 0 4 14 14 0 0.00
Disorderly Conduct 4 3 9 16 -7 -43.75
Driver's License Violations 0 1 2 2 0 0.00
Driving Under the Influence 2 9 35 23 12 52.17
Drug Abuse Violations 3 4 22 9 13 144.44
Drug/Sex Registrants 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00
Drunkeness 7 6 26 22 4 18.18
Embezzlement 0 1 7 5 2 40.00
Escape 0 0 0 0 0
Extortion 0 0 0 0 0
False Police Reports 0 0 0 0 0
False Reports of Emergency 0 0 0 0 0
Fish and Game Violations 0 0 0 0 0
Forgery and Counterfeiting 1 3 16 23 -7 -30.43
Found Property 8 8 44 32 12 37.50
Fraud 3 7 13 20 -7 -35.00
Gambling 0 0 0 0 0
Harrassing Phone Calls 4 7 19 18 1 5.56
Hit and Run Accidents 2 2 27 11 16 145.45
�i
Impersonation 1 0 1 0 1
Incest 0 0 0 0 0
Indecent Exposure 0 4 2 4 -2 -50.00
Intimidating a Witness 0 0 1 0 1 •�
Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0
Lewd Conduct 0 0 2 0 2
Liquor Laws 2 0 5 5 0 0.00
Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0
Marijuana Violations 0 2 12 6 6 100.00
Mental Health Cases 10 10 42 44 -2 -4.55
Missing Person 7 2 23 9 14 155.56
Missing Property 6 16 41 38 3 7.89
Municipal Code Violations 5 0 29 7 22 314.29
Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 1 0 1
06-16-04 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2
CITY REPORT FOR: MAY, 2004
Current Prev
Last Actual Actual YTD YTD
Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change % Change
Offenses Against Children 0 0 1 4 -3 -75.00
Other Assaults 24 16 97 63 34 53.97
Other Juvenile Offenses 0 0 2 2 0 0.00
Other Police Service 5 5 34 19 15 78.95
Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0
Parole Violations 0 0 1 0 1
Perjury 0 0 0 0 0
Possession of Burglary Tools 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00
Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0
Possession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0
Probation Violations 0 0 3 5 -2 -40.00
Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 1 0 1
Prowling 0 0 0 0 0
Resisting Arrest 0 0 2 0 2
Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0
Sex Offenses 0 0 1 0 1
Sex Offenses against Children 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00
Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0
Stalking 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00
Statutory Rape 0 0 0 0 0
Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 0 1 0 2 -2 -100.00
Suspended License 0 1 23 9 14 155.56
Tax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0
Temp Restraining Orders 4 4 18 16 2 12.50
Terrorist Threats 8 1 16 9 7 77.78
Towed Vehicle 47 29 159 149 10 6.71
Trespassing 1 0 6 6 0 0.00
Truants/Incorrigible Juvs 1 0 2 1 1 100.00
US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0
Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0
Vandalism 16 24 77 87 -10 -11.49
Vehicle Code Violations 1 7 10 27 -17 -62.96
Violation of Court Order 1 3 6 10 -4 -40.00
Warrants - Felony 1 1 8 5 3 60.00
Warrants - Misd 4 1 26 12 14 116.67
Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 1 0 8 3 5 166.67
Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0
------- ------ ------- -------
235 215 1,116 923
------- ------ ------- -------
------- ------ ------- -------
235 215 1,116 923
06-16-04 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : 1
CITY REPORT
FOR: MAY, 2004
Current Prev
Last Actual Actual
Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . YTD. .
Parking Citations 4032 0 19, 455 14 , 224
Moving Citations 211 484 1, 521 1, 245
------- ------ ------- -------
4243 484 20, 976 15, 469
------- ------ ------- -------
------- ------ ------- -------
4243 484 20, 976 15, 469
} BURLINGAME
Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 06/18/2004 at 08 : 25: 32 AM
Reported On: All Officers Report Range : 05/01/2004 to 05/31/2004
Data Type Reported on: PARKING
Valid % All Voids $ All %
Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DAVIS 190 1383 30.82 8 16.00 99.42
DAZA-QUIROZ 634 504 11.23 0 0.00 100.00
GARRETT 501 1351 30.10 25 50.00 98.18
HARRISON 506 946 21.08 9 18.00 99.06
KIRKPATRICK 502 302 6.73 8 16.00 97.42
MORAN 201 2 0.04 0 0.00 100.00
----------------------
Total 4488 50
Page 1 of 1
co m ca st Comcast Cable Communications,Inc.
� 1205 Chrysler Drive
Menlo Park,CA 94025
Tel:650.289.6799
June 25, 2004 Fax:650.326.1707
www.comcast.com
Jesus Nava
Finance Director/Treasurer
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Jesus:
The purpose of this letter is to inform your office of Comcast's intention to introduce
CableCARDs into the market for Digital-Cable-Ready devices.
Beginning July 1, 2004 Comcast will support digital-cable-ready televisions and other devices
(such as DVRs and VCRs), which are being sold at consumer electronics retailers nationwide.
These sets can receive certain Digital Cable services with the use of a CableCARD, a small
rectangular device that resembles a credit card, instead of a Digital Cable set-top box.
The introduction of digital-cable-ready television sets is an initiative supported by Comcast
Cable, consumer electronics manufactures and retailers. However, these first-generation sets
only support one-way services; meaning that they can receive Comcast's Digital Cable service,
but will not support two-way, interactive services such as ON DEMAND, pay-per-view and
Comcast provided interactive program guides.
Comcast is dedicated to offering our customers a choice of receiving our Cable services in the
way that best meets their needs. Customers can use a CableCARD to receive one-way Digital
Cable channels only, while customers who want to use the full range of Digital Cable features,
such as ON DEMAND, pay-per-view and the Comcast interactive program guide, will continue
using a Digital Cable set-top box.
There is no monthly equipment charge for the CableCARD service above Comcast's current
price for subscription to Digital Cable services. The CableCARDs will only be available through
Comcast as part of a customer's Digital Cable service.
If you should have anv questions or concerns regarding the matter please feel free to contact
me at (650) 289-6794.
Sincerely,
Kathi Noe
Director of Government Affairs and Franchising
West Bay Peninsula
Comcast Cable
Ccomcast 12647 Alcosta Blvd.,Suite 200
P.O.Box 5147
San Ramon,CA 94583
June 29, 2004
Jesus Nava
Finance Director/Treasurer
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA. 94010
Dear Jesus Nava:
in an effort to ensure that your office remains informed of the programming services available to
our customers who reside in your community we are sending you this notice. This letter is to
inform you of a programming adjustment to the Digital Premier level of services.
Effective July 1, 2004 Comcast will add the TVG-Horseracing Network to the Digital Premier
level of services at channel 409.
If you should have any questions or concerns please feel free to contact Kathi Noe at (650) 289-
6794.
Sincerely,
VJ
Mitzi Givens-Russell on behalf of
Kathi Noe
Director of Government Affairs and Franchising
West Bay Peninsula Area
David A.Hankin
} Vice President
Regulatory&Government
1400 Fashion Island Blvd.,Suite 100
San Mateo CA 94404
(650)212-8010
Fax(650)212-8009
July 2,2004
Jesus Nava, Finance Director
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame,CA 94010-3997
Dear Mr. Nava:
RCN is in the process of standardizing our digital and premium service prices and simplifying
our offerings across all our markets.These changes will create greater clarity for our
customers and enhanced marketing efficiencies for RCN.As part of this process,we will be
increasing our rates for the Digital Vision Tier and for our multiple premium channel
offerings.These rate increases,which will take effect August 4,2004,will not impact our
Limited Basic Cable and Expanded Basic Cable service offerings or any other video service
rates.The specific rate increases are as follows:
The Digital Vision Tier(This digital tier consists of 34 program offerings)will increase by
$2.00 from$9.95 to$11.95.Also,the$1.00 discount on the Digital Vision Tier when
purchased with any premium channel will be eliminated.
RCN offers a broad array of premium programming with multiple screens i.e. HBO,Cinemax,
Showtime,The Movie Channel,Starz,and Encore.The price for ordering one premium
channel will remain the same at$13.95.Selecting two premium channels will increase by
$2.00 to$23.95 from$21.95.Selecting three video channels will increase from$29.95 to
$31.95 and there will be a$3.00 increase for selecting four premium channels,from$37.95
to$40.95.
We look forward to continuing to offer the residents of Burlingame a choice for their cable
television,high speed-Internet and telephone services.
Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions on this matter.
Sincerely,
David Hankin
WILLIAM L. SCHWARTZ, M.D.
845 HILLSBOROUGH BLVD.
7-5-04 HILLSBOROUGH, CA 94010-6466
RECEIVED
JUL 8 2004
CITY CI_[_IO ;' ,
CITY
Burlingame City Council and the Mayor
501 Primrose Ave.
Burlingame, CA 94010
To the Council and the Mayor:
I have the great pleasure of walking Burlingame Avenue nearly every day. For the past
year or so I'm frequently confronted with the loud sounds emanating from the open front
door of Abercrombie and Fitch. I believe that this sound represents sound pollution
which permeates nearly the whole street. It would seem to me that this kind of sound
would be comparable to a car without a muffler driving up and down Burlingame
Avenue. I think you have an ordinance that protects the environment from the latter
exposure. Quiet is neutral and is pleasing to pedestrians enjoying the sights and usual
sounds of this most pleasing promenade, business place and social gathering site.
I suspect that my comments will not have any effect at this time; however over the years I
have learned that planting a seed of opinion can bring about change at a later time.
I appreciate the fine work that you do in governing the City of Burlingame.
Sincerely,
William L. Schwartz, MD
DISTRIBUTION:
ty Council ____please respond
v Manager
'" City Attorney No Response Required
Dir. Finance
City Planner
Dir. Public Works
Human Resources
malice Chief
Fire Chief .�n Next Agenda
Parks & Rec
Librarian
PLEASE SEND A COPY OF YOUR
RESPONSE 10 THE CITY CLERK
CITY O�
BU_RUNGAME Joint City Council/Planning Commission
Study Session Meeting Agenda and Special Meeting
of the City Council
Monday, August 30, 2004
Lane Community Room
Burlingame Library, 480 Primrose Road
7:00 p.m.
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Study Session to Review the Revised Project for the Replacement of Peninsula
Medical Center at 1783 El Camino Real,zoned Unclassified and C-3—review of the
Revised Environmental Impact Report and Revised Project to replace the existing
Peninsula Hospital with a new six to seven-story hospital building, a four to five-story
office building for hospital support space and medical offices, a parking garage and a
helipad
IV. Public Comment
V. Consent Calendar for City Council
a. Approve letter to County Civil Grand Jury regarding Narcotics Enforcement
and authorize Mayor to sign letter
VI. Adjourn
CITY 0 STAFF REPORT
BURUNGAME Joint Study Session
'Hc�S ,qo
Meeting Date: 8.30.04
OAATW WNE 6.
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: AUGUST 24, 2004
FROM: CITY PLANNER
SUBJECT PENINSULA MEDICAL CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT
Address: 1783 and 1791 El Camino Real; 1515 and 1811 Trousdale Drive
Request: Study the proposed replacement and expansion of the existing Peninsula Medical Center and medical office
building, including the demolition of nearby medical office buildings, together with related parcel mergers and changes
in zoning designations for the project site.
Applicant: Mills Peninsula Health Services
APNs, PropertvOwners and Zoning Districts:
Assessor's Address Property Owner Lot Area Zoning District
Parcel Number acres
025- 123-040 1515 Trousdale Drive Mills Peninsula Hospitals 1 .24 C-3
025- 123-100 1783 El Camino Real (front) Mills Peninsula Hospitals 8.6 Unclassified
025-123- 120 1811 Trousdale Drive Mills Peninsula Hospitals 0.51 C-3
025- 123-130 1783 El Camino Real (back) Peninsula Hospital District 14.67 Unclassified
025-144- 190 1730 Marco Polo Way Mills Peninsula Hos itals 0.88 C-3
025-201 - 110 Davis Drive parcel Peninsula Hospita District 0. 12 R-1
Nearby Development: Office, Retail Commercial, Multiple Family Residential, Single Family Residential
Background: In October 2002, Mills-Peninsula Health Services submitted an application to the City of Burlingame
to replace and expand the existing Peninsula Medical Center by adding an office building and demolishing nearby
medical office buildings. The project includes related parcel mergers and changes in zoning designations for the
project site. EIP Associates was retained to develop an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the project. The
Draft EIR was released in January 2004. The Draft EIR showed that the proposed project would have six significant
unavoidable environmental impacts, and described two alternatives to the proposed project which would reduce the
identified significant environmental effects.
The applicant recognized the need to address the identified significant environmental effects caused by the project
but found that the alternatives proposed in the Draft EIR would not meet their objectives. The applicant worked
with the City to try to develop an additional alternative to reduce the identified environmental effects. An advisory
committee of Planning Commission and City Council members met with the sponsors and city staff several times to
review potential alternatives. Out of that process, a Revised Project and a new alternative (Alternative C) were
developed. Both of these alternatives address at least some of the environmental issues raised in the DEIR; and both
would meet the project sponsors' objectives.
A Revised Draft EIR was released in June 2004 describing these two additional alternatives and their environmental
impacts. The Revised Draft EIR identified the "Revised Project" as the new environmentally superior alternative
Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project
because it potentially causes the fewest significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. The Planning
Commission held a public hearing on July 26 to hear comments on the Revised Draft EIR. The public comment
period closed on August 13. The Final EIR,consisting of the responses to comments received on both the Original
Project and the Revised Project, is scheduled for release on September 17,2004. The project and its related CEQA
documents is tentatively scheduled for hearing before the Planning Commission on September 27,2004. Once the
Planning Commission acts on the project, it will be scheduled for hearing before the City Council. A summary of
concerns raised in the public comment period is included at the end of the staff report.
Original Proposed Project: Figure 1 (attached) shows the site plan for the project that was originally proposed.
This site plan responds to two key constraints: 1)the location of the San Francisco Water Department water main
crossing the site at Magnolia Drive, and 2)the need to keep the existing hospital operational until the replacement
hospital is ready for occupancy. Given the locations of the water main and the existing hospital, the replacement
hospital and medical office building were necessarily located between the water main and El Camino Real. As a
result,nearly all of the parking for the project was located on the west side of the site around the existing hospital.
The main entrance for the proposed project was from Trousdale Drive, east of Ogden Drive, with an entrance off
Trousdale opposite Magnolia Drive for the Emergency Department.
The Draft EIR found that this proposed project design would result in six significant unavoidable environmental
impacts. These impacts are related to construction noise, parking capacity, and treatment of the El Camino Real
frontage, and are summarized in Table 1 below. Although not found to be a significant impact in the Draft EIR,
members of the public also expressed concern about the proximity of the parking garage to single family residences
along Davis Drive.
Revised Project: Figure 2 (attached) shows the site plan for the revised project . This site plan reflects one
significant change to the site: the relocation of the water main from the center of the site to a location along the El
Camino and Trousdale property lines to Magnolia Avenue. This would allow the new structures on the site to be
located further away from El Camino Real, the parking structure be built near the corner of El Camino Real and
Trousdale, and the entire 809-space parking structure to be built at the beginning of the project rather than in two
phases. In the Revised Project, the hospital building and medical office building have switched places from their
locations in the proposed project,with the medical office building along El Camino Real and the back of the hospital
towards Davis Drive. The main entrance for the Revised Project would be from Trousdale Drive opposite Magnolia
Drive, with the entrance on Trousdale near Ogden used for staff and emergency department traffic.
As shown in Table 1, the analysis in the Revised Draft EIR found the Revised Project layout would have three
significant unavoidable impacts: construction noise, cumulative construction noise, and visual impacts on Davis
Drive residents. Open space and design impacts along El Camino Real would be mitigated by the increase in open,
landscaped space along El Camino caused by relocating the San Francisco water line. In addition,the revised layout
would provide greater interest and pedestrian access along El Camino by locating the medical office building closest
to El Camino,including an outdoor eating area,having a greater variety in setbacks and finishes along the street,and
by incorporating a direct pedestrian connection from El Camino Real to the entrance plaza.
-2-
Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project
Table 1
Significant Unavoidable Impacts of the Proposed Project, the Revised Project, and Alternative C
Impacts Proposed Revised Alt. C
Conflict with General Plano ens ace policies for El Camino Real SU
Change in open sace character along El Camino Real SU
Conformance with design policies along the gateway portion of El Camino SU
Parking supply during construction SU SU
Construction noise SU SU SU
Cumulative construction noise SU SU SU
Visual impacts on Davis Drive residents * SU
* The lack of a significant visual impact on Davis Drive residents for the Proposed Project and Alternative C
depends upon implementation of Mitigation Measure VQ-1.2, which calls for the upper floors of the medical office
building to be set back.
Alternative C: Figure 3 (attached)shows the site plan for Alternative C. This alternative is substantially the same
as the proposed project, with a few changes made to the El Camino frontage. The cooling towers have been
clustered together and moved to a location about 25 feet from Trousdale Drive and 85-95 feet from El Camino Real.
The cooling towers would be placed partially below grade and screened by a wall and vegetation so that the towers
would not be visible from the streets. In addition, the oxygen tanks would be relocated to the Davis Drive side of
the loading docks.The 288-foot long,20-foot tall wall along El Camino Real would be shortened to 100 feet since it
would only need to screen the loading dock and not the cooling towers and oxygen tanks. As a result,the setback
along the other 188 feet on El Camino between Trousdale Drive and the loading docks would increase from 20 feet
to 90 feet. The parking garage would be built on the site closer to Davis Drive, and, as for the Proposed Project,
would be built in phases which would result in a parking deficit during various phases of the six-year construction
project.
The Revised Draft EIR found that Alternative C would have three significant unavoidable impacts, as shown in
Table 1: construction noise,cumulative construction noise,and parking supply during construction. While the back
of the hospital would still face El Camino Real, the larger landscaped area would mitigate open space and design
impacts along the road.
Land Ownership and Zoning: The Proposed Project and Alternative C would include a divided land ownership
pattern,with a portion of the site owned by the Peninsula Hospital District and a portion owned by Mills Peninsula
Health Services(MPHS). Because the Unclassified zoning district is reserved strictly for publicly owned land and
MPHS is a private entity,the site would be zoned C-1. In the Revised Project,the entire site would be transferred to
the ownership of the public Peninsula Hospital District and the core parcels merged into one building site. A new
4.15 acre parcel,also to be owned by the District,would be created on the back of the site. As a result,the entire site
would be zoned Unclassified. For both projects,the parcels along Marco Polo Way and Davis Drive would retain
their current zoning and would stand separately from the hospital site. Davis Drive would no longer be used as a
vehicular access to the hospital site.
Comments and Concerns from the Public: The public has had several opportunities to comment on this project,
including the Planning Commission hearing on the Draft EIR on February 23, 2004, the comment period on the
Draft EIR (1/21/04 - 3/6/04), the Planning Commission hearing on the Revised Draft EIR on July 26 and the
comment period on the Revised Draft EIR(6/30/04—8/13/04). The public comment included the following areas of
concern, among others:
-3-
Joint City Council and Planning Commission Study Session Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project
Comments on the Original Draft EIR, dated 1/21/04
• Concern about the undeveloped western area which may be used by District in the future
• Fumes from parking garage could affect health of Davis Drive residents
• Is there really enough parking? Analysis does not seem adequate
• Would like to see green belt extended behind Davis Drive residences all the way to Marco Polo Way
• Will truck traffic at the loading dock entrance cause problems on El Camino Real? What about trucks for
medical office building? Impacts if hospital doesn't have warehouse? Diesel fume impacts?
• What about future increases in BART traffic? Current traffic is lower than normal because of decreases in
employment,has that been considered?
• Increased use of the alley at Burlingame Plaza could be dangerous because of trucks loading/unloading there
• What about impacts on Trousdale Drive, both on nearby intersections and further up the hill?
• Back of hospital is not appropriate for gateway to Burlingame;not enough open space along El Camino;wall
and loading dock cause visual degradation in gateway area
• Request hospital to plant trees near Davis Drive before construction to provide screening,reduce dust,noise
• Davis Drive alley entrance should be closed early in project to prevent use by construction vehicles
• Concern about overflow parking in residential areas
• Rezoning site to C-1 is inappropriate because of other uses that would potentially allow
• Would locating the helipad at the corner of El Camino and Trousdale have safety impacts?
Comments on the Revised Draft EIR, dated 6/30/04
• Traffic impacts on intersections along Trousdale and Magnolia; are there too many intersections/stop signs
too close together on Trousdale?
• Impacts on circulation at Burlingame Plaza shopping center;will there be problems with closing the left turn
into the center and rerouting traffic to enter through the back alley?
• Does the project really provide sufficient parking?
• Visual impacts of hospital massing on Davis Drive; could this be ameliorated through color or other
architectural treatments? Lack of privacy for Davis Drive residents.
• Could vegetation along Davis Drive be planted as early as possible to provide increased screening during
construction?
• Is there a connection between the project and the future use of"back parcel"to be reserved for District?
• Truck traffic--will there be limitations on trucks through residential neighborhoods? What about impacts of
trucks on El Camino at loading dock?
• Would like Davis Drive entrance closed early in process so won't be used by construction trucks
• Can the green belt behind Davis Drive homes extend up to Marco Polo Way?
• How will security work? Have been problems with parties in parking lots in past.
• What about impacts of helipad on neighbors; are there safety problems with at-grade helipad?
• Opposition to relocating the main entrance from El Camino Real to Trousdale Drive; should study traffic
impacts on whole of Trousdale Drive, and potential future BART traffic.
• Concern with visual impact of parking garage on gateway in Revised Project;need increased landscaping on
and around garage if it is located at corner of El Camino and Trousdale.
-4-
Joint Pity Council and Planning Commission Study Session Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project
• Impacts of noise from cooling towers impacts on Davis Drive neighbors; what recourse is there if noise is -
greater than expected?
The EIR consultant is analyzing and preparing responses to all of the comments received both on the Proposed
Project and the Revised Project. The comments and the responses will be set forth in the Response to Comments
document which comprises the Final EIR for the project. In some cases, a concern may not trigger a mitigation
measure under CEQA,but the City could include a condition of approval addressing the issue in the Conditional Use
Permit for the project.
Next Steps: The Final EIR,including the responses to comments,will be released on September 17. The Planning
Commission public hearing is tentatively scheduled for September 27 to consider the Final EIR and act on the
CEQA documents and the project. A draft of potential conditions of approval will be provided to the Planning
Commission in the packet for that meeting. Because the Revised Project has significant unavoidable environmental
impacts, action on the project would include adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations. For the
Commission's consideration,staff will provide a draft Statement and related findings in the packet for the Planning
Commission's September 27 meeting. Once action is taken by the Planning Commission,the project and the FEIR
will move forward to the City Council, tentatively scheduled for consideration at the Council's November 1
meeting.
Karen Kristiansson, AICP
Consulting Planner
c: Oren Reinbolt, Mills Peninsula Health Services, applicant
Maureen Dutil, Peninsula Health Care District
-5-
•
�� __ • . ._.., f �• a •. •r-_� a'� '� '• v ra
�It ��a � 9 �' r •err `�. � •�'
. 't� .•f'1�, ' 'Rc a'�.�a!'M �sJ!'4:z{q.`'fr' •, f
i �`•"`4"`l, r�i��.¢� tett. 4 1 �'•
BMW
p
•
MARCO POLO WAY
.88 ACRES i
i
i OGDEN DRIVE
t` 1
XAft
` 1
` 1
y 4.15 ACRES j
--- "" -- I
6 746 — y aR 47R
24 j
1�
N5
v '
jj Its j {
1m �
.12 ACRES...�
f I
j
53� 1
MAGNOLIA AVENUE
t HOSPITAL
71,
t'� 6 PARKING
STRUCTURE
MEDICAL= ' 1
�EMARL�Y:.:It`tj `1 IIII�I OFFICE❑
ii HHHHHH BUILDING l \-
- I _
' PEDESTRIAN \
ENTRY P ws s>w Il
41•WIDE �1
L CAMINO REAL
SOURCE:Anshen+Allen Architects,2004
PENINSULA MEDICAL CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT
REVISED PROJECT SITE PLAN
FIGURE 2
f- t n ' E t E• — �
y
MARCO POLO WAY
;a- .1 r
i
OGDEN DRIVE
------------
_
ty� �, ` I y • i I
t — EAST1NG F46SQITAL , -t t r j
4
r
is C
I a
j.. GARAGE.
'I
xl --- ------------- w _----'--- MAGNOLIA AVENUE
—�-- -
I
OFFICE BUILDING
1 HELIPAD
NEW HOSPITAL H
LE WAY
- - t•b �
t x ,
I t
i
Jar
EL CAMINO REAL
SOURCE:Anshen+Allen Architects,2004
PENINSULA MEDICAL CENTER REPLACEMENT PROJECT
ALTERNATIVE C SITE PLAN
FIGURE 3
44,
CIQ
fj•� �' A4."K _fir f y Ar�
�+¢ ` � / -h\ \✓.�� � � Q•• ' � Oar. 6
:
1
i
/
(J.� •' Iia I�i� /�z+
3.4
� �`
w t y,
I �
j
4
t
„
::"
��
:.,�`
,. `y. n '.• ,. _ T.. >' �.hAa ,'tib. W' � � � S ,l
-
y54
CITY AGENDAPr
0 ITEM# _.
BURUNGAIME STAFF REPORT DATE
MTG. � 36 �Qy,-
9Onn
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council Members __. SUBMITTED 'S
BY Jack Van Eft
DATE: Auger 13,2W4,_
_�jAPPROVED
FROM: Jack-Van BY
SUBJECT: City Council Letter Supporting the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury recommendation for
police departments to support and continue to fund the San Mateo County Narcotics Task Force.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council supports the 2003-2004 San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury's report on Narcotics
Investigations in San Mateo County, and their recommendation for all cities and police departments to
support and continue to fund the County Narcotics Task Force. The attached letter by council supports the
Civil Grand Jury's recommendations.
BACKGROUND:
The San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury made a report involving Narcotics Investigations in San Mateo
County during the 2003-2004 fiscal year. As a result of current and continuous statewide budgetary
reductions, portions of their report pertained to the necessity for local cities and police departments to
continue to provide financial and (or) personnel support; as well as exploring ways to combine resources to
support the San Mateo County Narcotics Task Force and narcotics investigations and issues in San Mateo
County.
The Burlingame Police Department has and will continue, depending on economic restraints, to fund and
support the San Mateo County Narcotics Task Force. The police department will also continue to consider
assigning police department personnel to temporary positions on the Task Force, if sufficient staffing
exists. The Burlingame Police Department has and will continue to thoroughly investigate matters involving
the possession and sale of illegal substances with the County Narcotics Task Force, in the hope of
creating a safer community.
Our police department has also long recognized to need educate our school children about the dangers of
illegal drugs and narcotics. To that end, our police department currently assigns a School Resource Officer
to both our primary and high schools in a pro-active approach to prevent the children in our community
from using drugs.
The Burlingame Police Department and other law enforcement agencies in this county have expressed
individually and collectively that they will continue to support and mutually investigate narcotics matters
with the San Mateo County Narcotics Task Force.
A� CITY 0
BURLINGAME
�HATElb
D—NE 6
ROSALIE M.O'MAHONY,MAYOR �� In�i� 9j
JOE GALLIGAN,VICE MAYOR I TEL: (650)558-7200
FAX: (650)342-8386
CATHY BAYLOCK
MIKE COFFEY CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD www.burlingame.org
TERRY NAGEL BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010-3997
August 13, 2004
Honorable Jonathan E. Karesh
Judge of the Superior Court
Department 20, Hall of Justice
400 County Center, 2nd floor
Redwood City, CA. 94063-1655
RE: Narcotics Investigation Report
Dear Judge Karesh:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to the 2003-2004 San Mateo County
Civil Grand Jury's Narcotics Investigation Report. On behalf of the City of Burlingame, I
continue to applaud the Grand Jury's effort provide recommendations and options to improve
on our past, as well as our current successes in this area.
The City of Burlingame has, and will continue to support the San Mateo County Narcotics
Task Force. In past years, the Burlingame Police Department has assigned at least two officers
from their staff to work full time on the County Narcotics Task Force. The Burlingame Police
Department will continue to consider the possibility of assigning personnel to the County
Narcotics Task Force. Our city will also, depending on the economic climate, continue to
commit funds to the Narcotics Task Force that assist in the operation of narcotics
investigations in our community and in San Mateo County. Even though the City of
Burlingame has aggressively implemented budget reduction strategies to address the downturn
in the economy, this has not impacted the City's current response of investigating narcotics
related investigations and arrests or our continued support of the County Narcotics Task
Force.
One of the recommendations suggests consolidation efforts as a way of addressing budget
issues. We concur with this recommendation, and would like to Grand Jury to know that
Burlingame has actively participated in a number of formal and informal studies designed to.
Honorable Jonathan E. Karesh
August 13, 2004
Page 2
share and (or) combine resources as ways of improving efficiency, with the ultimate goal of
reducing overall costs.
We have reviewed the attached San Mateo County Police Chiefs and Sheriff Association letter
dated July 21, 2004, and the Burlingame City Council concurs with their response to the
Grand Jury's report on Narcotics Investigations
Thank you again for allowing me to review and respond to the report prepared by the Civil
Grand Jury. Please pass on my thanks to them for the outstanding work that they perform.
Sincerely,
Mayor Rosalie O' Mahony
City of Burlingame
cc: Burlingame City Council Members
James Nantell, City Manager
Jack Van Etten, Chief of Police
SMc SA POLICE CHIEFS & SHERIFF ASSOCIATION
' OF SAN MATEO COUNTY
July 21, 2004
Honorable Jonathan E. Karesh
Judge of the Superior Court
Hall of Justice
400 County Center; 2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063-1655
Dear Judge Karesh:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to the 2004 San Mateo County Civil
Grand Jury's report on Narcotics Investigations in San Mateo County. On behalf of the
San Mateo County Police Chiefs and Sheriff Association, I appreciate the efforts of the
Grand Jury.
I recognize that all of the recommendations in the report are directed to City Councils,
The Sheriff, The Board of Supervisors, or the District Attorney, and will therefore focus
my responses primarily to the findings section of the report.
In regards to an explanation for the decrease in arrests for narcotics offenses, the San
Mateo County Police Chiefs and Sheriff Association would hope that the Grand Jury
would also consider that a factor in the reduction in the number of arrests for narcotics
offenses may be the positive work being performed by many of the law enforcement
agencies in the area of education and prevention. This would include programs such as
the Drug Abuse Resistance Education(DARE), the Police Activities League (PAL), and
the intervention in our schools by School Resource Officers and the Probation
Department's Risk Prevention Program.
Although it may be difficult to prove statistically, efforts such as these coupled with other
community based programs and prevention efforts need to be considered. Unfortunately,
these are some of the first programs impacted during challenging fiscal times.
It is certainly true that local municipalities have been dealing with reductions in funding
and have had to look at their financial resources to establish priorities. For local police
departments, our priorities must begin with the ability to respond to any emergency and
other high priority calls for service 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Other priorities for
our citizens include the investigations of crimes,the enforcement of traffic laws, and a
myriad of other essential services.
CITY AGENCIES
Atherton ♦ Belmont ♦ Brisbane ♦ Broadmoor ♦ Burlingame ♦ Colma ♦ Daly City ♦ East Palo Alto
Foster City ♦ Half Moon Bay ♦ Hillsborough ♦ Menlo Park ♦ Millbrae f Pacifica ♦ Redwood City ♦ San Bruno
San Carlos * SFPD Airport Bureau ♦ San Mateo ♦ So.San Francisco
COUNTY AGENCIES
Coroner ♦ Criminal Justice Council ♦ District Attorney ♦ Probation ♦ Sheriff
ALLIED AGENCIES :
California Highway Patrol ♦ Federal Bureau of Investigation ♦ Bay Area Rapid Transit
At a local level, the enforcement of narcotics offenses generally becomes an issue for our
residents when they affect their quality of life. Street level dealing or drug dealing in
residential areas, often results in disturbances, violence, or other nuisance related matters.
As Police Chiefs, it is our experience that our patrol personnel and other specialized units
within some of our police departments are able to effectively address those concerns.
I am certain that all Police Chiefs will continue to manage their budgets and their
priorities with the best interests of their respective communities in mind. I also believe
that they will balance this with the need to support other cost effective regional efforts
that serve to further law enforcement's mission of keeping our communities safe.
It is not clear where the perception of less prosecution of narcotics offenses originated.
The Police Chiefs and Sheriff Association has always, and continues to have, the highest
level of confidence in our District Attorney and his office.
We do not share the perception that law enforcement field personnel are less likely to
make narcotics arrests because of diversion programs and Proposition 36. Field
personnel work at the front-end of the criminal justice system and are the ones who first
contact individuals under the influence, in possession of, or involved in the sales of
narcotics. To suggest that law enforcement field personnel might turn their head in such
cases would be an abdication of their basic responsibilities and a perception that the
Chiefs and Sheriff in this County flatly refute.
We certainly agree with the Grand Jury in our high regard for the work that is done by the
County Narcotics Task Force and that it makes sense for us to combine our resources to
address narcotics issues in San Mateo County.
Thank you again for allowing us to review and respond to the report prepared by the
Grand Jury and please pass on my thanks to them for the outstanding work that they
perform.
Sincerely,
)11.U � ___
Lee G. Violett, President
San Mateo County Police Chiefs and Sheriff Association
cc: Members, San Mateo County Police Chiefs and Sheriff Association