HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2004.10.04BT]RLINGAME CITY COTJNCIL AGENDA
Regular Meeting - Monday, October 412004
Page 1of 2 REVISED
CLOSED SESSION:
(Microphone check)
I. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE O['ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
Threatened litigation (Government Code
$54956.9(b)(l),(3) (c)): Claim of Purdom
Pending Litigation (Government Code g 5a95 6.9(aX I ),(3 )
(c)) - Claim of Bier
CW of Burlingame
CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401 O
(6501 558-7200
6:30 p.m. Conference Room A
7:00 p.m. Council Chambers
Approve
Hearing/Action
Approval
Direction
Introduction
a.
b
4.
5.
MINUTES - Joint City Council/Planning Commission Study
Meeting of August 30,2004; Regular Meeting of September 20,
2004
PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes euch
a. Action on an amendment to the sign code for the C-4
Zoning Di strict (waterfront commercial ) for maximum
sign size above 24 feet
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
mafters to stafffor 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.
7. STAFF'REPORTSANDCOMMUNICATIONS
Resolution authorizing the Downtown Burlingame
Business Improvement District Administrative Agreement,
FY 2004-05
Joint Powers Board/Caltrain Broadway and Burlingame
Avenue train station improvements
Introduction of two amendments to the zoning code to
established interim zoning for the implementation of the
North BurlingamelRollins Road Specific Plan: (a)
Ordinance regarding multiple family uses on Marco Polo
Way, Trousdale, Ogden, Murchison, and Magnolia Drives
area, and auto row use on Adrian Road; and (b) Ordinance
regarding health uses on the Peninsula Hospital Block
Consider appointments to Parks & Recreation Commission
6.
a.
b.
c
d.Appoint
BTJRLINGAME CITY COIJNCIL AGENDA
Regular Meeting - Monday, October 412004
Ptge} of 2 REYISED
CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Resolution authorizing a year-end transfer of $500,000 to
the Risk Management Reserve Fund
b. Resolution approving a professional services contract with
BKF Engineers for design, public relations and
construction management services for Easton Creek sewer
rehabilitation progftrm
c. Approval of second amendment to the RCN Cable
Franchise Agreement
d. Approval to schedule a Study Session on Facilities Master
Plan and Storm Drainage
e. Special event street closure (Primrose Road) - Halloween
Safe Street
f. BeautificationCommissionapplicationperiodextension
COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
OLD BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
a.Schedule an appeal hearing for October 18,2004 or other
date for the Planning Commission's decision at 1553
Drake Avenue
b. Discussion of Council Committee Reports
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
City of Burlingame
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
CITY HALL. 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401 O
(6501 558-7200
Approve
Set Hearing
Discuss
a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety & Parking,
September 9,2004; Parks & Recreation, September 16,
2004; Planning, September 27,2004
13. ADJOTIRNMENT
NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities, please contact the City Clerk
at (650) 558-7203 atleast24 hours before the meeting. A copy ofthe Agenda Packet is
available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at
www.burlingame.orq. Agendas and minutes are available at this site.
NEXT MEETING - Monday, October 18' 2004
a
Monday, August 30,2004
Joint Study Meeting
Burlingame City Council and Burlingame Planning Commission
1. STUDY MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
A joint study meeting of the Burlingame City Council and Burlingame Planning Commission was held on
August 30,2004 at Burlingame Public Library in the Land Community Room. The meeting was called to
order at 7:05 p.m. by Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony.
2. ROLL CALL
Council Present: Baylock, Coffey, Galligan, Nagel, O'Mahony
Council Absent: None
Commissioners Present: Auran, Boju6s, Brownrigg (arrived 7:10 p.m.), Keele, Keighran, Osterling
and Vistica
Commissioners Absent: none
Staff Present: cM Nantell, cp Monroe, cA Anderson, Sp Brooks
STUDY SESSION TO REVIEW THE REVISED PROJECT FOR THE REPLACEMENT
OF PENINSULA MEDICAL CENTER AT 1783 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED
UNCLASSIFIED Al[D 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 gurug"
and a helipad
CP Monroe gave a brief description of the project. She reviewed the project issues related to
parcel mergers and rezoning of portions of the site. She noted that the now proposed project was
the preferred alternative, the Revised Project. She introduced Todd Tierney, project architect,
Oren Reinbolt, hospital project manager, and Rod Jeung, EIP, environmental consultant for the
project.
Todd Tiemey gave a presentation regarding the Revised Project, noting that one of the primary
constraints in designing a new hospital on the site is the need to keep the existing hospital open
during construction. He described the project using a three-dimensional model of the site and the
proposal, renderings of the project and samples of exterior materials. The Hetch Hetchy water line
which runs through the site along the same alignment as Magnolia Drive will be relocated to the
front perimeter of the site, leaving a 10-foot space on either side to allow for the planting of deep-
rooted screening trees along the property line adjacent to Davis Drive residences, along El Camino
Real and along Trousdale Drive. The 809-space parking garage, to be located at the Trousdale/El
Camino Real intersection, would be built in Phase One of the project, to provide parking for the
3.
City of Burlingame City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting
Approved Minutes
August 30, 2004
existing hospital during construction and addressing some of the construction parking impacts.
The relocation of the Hetch Hetchy water line would occur during Phase II.
He also noted that the Revised Project was developed to address many of the issues raised in the
Draft EIR for the Original Project, including to provide more open space along El Camino Real
and Trousdale. It would also provide for direct and comfortable pedestrian access to the main
entrance of the hospital from the bus stop on El Camino Real, which would be accessed through a
pocket park between the medical office building and the parking garage.
There would be two entrances to the hospital from Trousdale, the main entrance at Magnolia and
an entrance for staff and emergency vehicles further to the west. There would be another staff
only entrance at Marco Polo Way. The helipad is proposed near the center of the site adjacent to
the emergency department. The loading dock would be underneath the hospital building, accessed
from El Camino Real, with a landscaped buffer on either side.
Kevin Day, project architect with Anshen * Allen, described the exterior features of the project
and the thoughts that went into the architecture. The Revised Project offers more opportunity for
expression along El Camino Real, bringing the office building forward makes the project more
active along the street frontage and sets up a new street edge more compatible with the planned
street edge on the other side. The hospital building consists of two L-shaped towers, so that every
patient room will have a long-distant view and no room should look into any other. The tower
face at the main entry creates the identity for the site, with a stair tower clad in a glazedwall, and
full-length windows at the end of every corridor; sun shade supports are proposed at the parapet
level to create interest and conserve energy. Other portions of the hospital building are formed
from pre-cast concrete with varying textures and shades and strong horizontal lines. The lobby
area on the lower levels of the building would be mostly glass and would include horizontally
scored gold-colored stone elements which are also carried through to the adjoining screen wall.
The parking structure would be made of pre-cast concrete consisting of a "hybrid moment frame",
with a glazed wall at the corner to define the stair way. There would also be perforated metal
panels on the face of the structure to provide screening of parked cars and allow for ventilation.
One level of the parking structure is fully buried below grade. There would be a trellis like
structure at the corner of Trousdale and El Camino Real similar to the one on the hospital
structure.
The office building would have a two-story glass bay enclosing the dining terrace, and the base
level would be aluminum and glass, using an anodized aluminum with a bronze tone. The tower
elements of the hospital facing Davis Drive would have less glazing and would use a special glass
which is translucent with a sand blasted acid etch to block views for a sense of privacy. The glass
in the stair well will also have a silk screened pattern which would block light being emitted.
Rod Jeung and Trixie Martelino, EIP Associates, environmental consultants, gave a brief overview
of the environmental review process to date and the history of the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (ER) on the Original Project and the Revised Draft EIR which analyzed the impacts of the
Revised Project. The original project would have five significant and unavoidable impacts, while
the Revised Project would have two significant and unavoidable impacts. The impacts which
would be avoided with the Revised Project are the loss of open space character along El Camino
-2-
City of Burlingame City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting
Approved Minutes
August 30, 2004
Real, the objectionable building design along El Camino Real and the parking deficit during
construction. In the original analysis, cumulative haffic and construction noise was listed as a
significant and unavoidable impact. This was based on the cumulative impacts if the project and
the PG& E project to locate a new Jefferson Martin transmission line along Trousdale were built
at the same time. Since that time, it has been decided that the PG&E Jefferson Martin project will
not be routed along Trousdale. Therefore, there will be no significant and unavoidable cumulative
traffic and construction noise impacts. She also noted that in comparing the Original Project, the
Revised Project, Alternative C (a modification to the original project design) and the no project
alternative, the Revised Project is the preferred alternative because there are fewer significant and
unavoidable impacts.
Ms. Martelino then reviewed the public comments on the Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR.
She noted that these comments would be addressed in the Response to Comments document,
which is expected to be available for public review on September 17,2004. The comments and
responses with the Draft EIR will then be considered by the Planning Commission and City
Council at the public hearings to be held on the project and the EIR.
Mayor O'Mahony asked if there were any questions for any of the speakers. Councilmembers and
Commissioners asked the following questions:
Question: How will the lights from the hospital and offrce structures impact the homes along
Davis Drive?
Architect's Response: The glazed surfaces would have shades inside to prevent extensive light
spill, and the glass used on the stairwell tower would be translucent with a silk screened pattem
which would limit the amount of light emitted.
Question: tn making the hospital structure earthquake-proof, will there be pile driving? If so,
how many?
Architect's Response: There would be no piles driven for any of the structures. For the hospital,
the base isolated system being used to protect the structure during the earthquake is like a bathtub
below the building, similar to a concave plate with a moat, allowing the strucfure to roll during an
earthquake.
Question: With the Revised Project, the overall open space is less than in the original project,
explain why; is the undeveloped land considered as open space at this time?
EIP Respozse.' There are two calculations on open space, overall open space, which includes the
undeveloped space at the west end of the site and open space which will be landscaped as a part of
the project. The undeveloped space was larger in the Original Project, but in the Revised Project
the landscaped open space, particularly on the El Camino Real and Trousdale frontages, as well as
along Davis Drive has increased. The focus of the open space concern addressed in the EIR
analysis is the open space along El Camino Real as identified in the Open Space Element in the
General Plan.
Question: Has the future growth on the undeveloped 4.15 acres been considered for parking
impacts?
EIP Response: In the future, when a project is submitted for the 4.15 acres, it will be required to
provide its own support parking on-site and will go through both the environmental review and
-J-
City of Burlingame City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting
Approved Minutes
August 30, 2004
conditional use permit processes. Also, future use of the undeveloped space was considered in the
current Draft EIR when looking at traffic and parking impacts under cumulative conditions.
Question: How was the parking calculated to fulfill the demand in the medical office building,
were the different types of doctors and their differences in the number of patients seen in an hour
taken into account?
Fehr and Peers Response: The parking demand for the office building was calculated based on
the square footage, looked at the parking demand per square foot. Also compared the demand
number to other medical office buildings. In general, there has been an increase in patient and
staffing levels for medical office buildings, this was taken into account in determining parking as
well. However, we did not look at the mix of specialties within a particular building, because it
was assumed that the other medical office sites that were studied would have a mix of types. A
comparison was not made specifically with the Mills medical building in San Mateo.
Question: Will the parking in the garage be paid parking?
Applicant Response: The parking garage is being designed so that it can work for paid parking.
It has not yet been decided whether there will be a charge for parking. Staff noted that if the
operator were to decide to charge for parking, they would need an amendment to their conditional
use permit.
Question: We want business to thrive at BurlingamePlaza shopping center across the street, need
to make sure it will function well and that there is good accessibility in and out. The alley through
the middle of the shopping center is only 30 feet wide, with trucks, there may be no room for cars
to pass; on Magnolia, there will still be trucks loading and unloading, would congestion be
alleviated by having two separate hospital entrances on Trousdale and El Camino Real? Were the
traffic studies done when school was in session to see the cumulative impact?
Response: These specific issues will be discussed in the Response to Comments document.
Question: What additional improvements would be needed to bring the level of service (LOS) at
the intersection of Trousdale and El Camino Real from LOS E to LOS D?
Response: This item will be addressed in the project staff report.
Question: How will access change for BurlingamePlaza,will the main entrance from Trousdale
be eliminated?
Fehr and Peers Response: The main entrance will not be eliminated, but there will be no left
turns into or out of the site at Trousdale from the main entrance, access will be limited to right
turns in and out. There will continue to be access to the shopping center from the other three
sides. The North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan proposes a reorientation of the main
entry to El Camino Real by creating a central access directly off El Camino Real into the center
rather than the current frontage road access.
Question: With the pathway proposed to Davis Drive, will people be able to park on Davis Drive
and walk through to the hospital on the vacant lot if they cannot find parking on site?
Architect's Response: The concept was to allow residents in the Davis Drive area to gain
pedestrian access through the site to El Camino Real. It would be a long distance for parkers to
gain access to the main entrance of the hospital from this walkway. Parking closer to the entrance
would be available on site.
-4-
City of Burlingame City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting
Approved Minutes
August 30, 2004
Question: Has a traffic study been done regarding the Marco Polo access to the parking lot? Will
there be an impact on this street once people discover they can get access here rather than at the
main entrance?
EIP Response: The Marco Polo access is now open to anyone. With the project Marco Polo is
proposed as a staff entrance only. It is not possible to get to the parking garage from this entrance
so visitors would be discourage from using this entrance.
Question: On the site plan, it appears that most of the employee parking shown near Marco Polo
is compact, why?
Applicant Response: The layout shown on the site plan is how the existing parking lot is striped
now. Most of the spaces in that area are compact. They are revising the parking layout so that the
compact spaces will be more evenly distributed throughout the site.
Question: Is there a pedestrian walkway which will encircle the site to provide a place for visitors
and patients to exercise?
Architect's Response: Yes, there will be an interconnected pathway that encircles the hospital
building and medical office building.
Question: I understand that with the rerouting of the water line between Davis Drive and the new
hospital building, there can be no deep-rooted plants over the water line, but is there a way to use
taller landscaping in the ilreas on either side of the water easement to get better screening? Can
the trees be planted early in the process?
Architect's Response: The landscape plan shows two rows of trees on each edge of the water
easement, we are looking at planting the area near Davis Drive first, the water line will be
relocated in the second phase, so can't put lower landscaping over the line until it's moved, but will
do the landscaping as soon as the water line is put in. The trees at the front along El Camino Real
and Trousdale will be planted in a strip 9-feet wide; two species will be used, per the street tree
recommendations in the North BurlingamelRollins Road Specific Plan.
Question: With the property line change and shift of parking on the Magnolia Garden site, how
will emergency vehicles access that site.
Architect's Response: There will still be parking and access on the east side of the building, and
there will also be a new row of parking on the west side of the building, both parking areas have
adequate aisle widths to accommodate emergency vehicles.
Qaestion: What materials will be used for the parapet on the hospital building?
Architect's Response: The concrete wall of the building will extend upward and act as a parapet,
it will have a metal edge. An aluminum/steel trellis will define the top of the building.
Question: Will the helipad be raised above grade?
Architect's Response: Slightly, there is a four-foot difference in grade between the parking lot
and the helipad to insure proper aviation access. The area around the helipad will be heavily
landscaped, but with plants which won't interfere with a helicopter's flight path.
-5-
City of Burlingame City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting
Approved Minutes
August i0, 2004
Question: Is this project subject to design review?
Stalf Response: It is not subject to the formal commercial design review process, but as a part of
the conditional use permit process, one of the required findings is that it be compatible with the
surroundingarea, so design is a consideration.
Comment: Have a grave concern with the architecture being incompatible with the residential
neighborhood next to it, would like to see materials used which are more residential in nature, the
light colors proposed will stand out and darker colors generally cause an object to recede, would
like to see a parapet with a hipped roof and tiling. Also concerned about the massing of the
glazingand how much sunlight will reflect off the building, would like to see more attention to the
finish details to make it better fit the area where it is located.
Question: The water main is being rerouted along the south side of the site, which causes large
trees to be removed, why can't it be routed west through the site and rejoin at Magnolia in order to
preserve the trees?
Architect's Response: ln meeting with the San Francisco Water District, explored many
possibilities. There are some constraints. There is an existing line in El Camino Real. Required
to reroute within the site and must connect at both ends to existing pipe off-site. It was decided to
route the pipe close to the property line so it would not interfere if there ever was a need for future
expansion of the facility. This benefits open space on El Camino Real and allows the most
flexibility to leave options open in the future.
Question: The residential path proposed is a nice amenity, but there is concern it could become a
crime magnet. Will the pathway be lit and policed or would it be better to take it out of the
project?
Architect's Response: We are working with a security consultant to provide appropriate design
and enough lighting so that it is safe, without the light being obtrusive to the immediate neighbors
or patients. Also want to have an areawhere patients can walk and where neighbors can cut
across the site. Finally, there also needs to be fire access along this side of the building, the path
can be done within the water easement where a structure cannot be built or dense vegetation
planted so the path serves both pedestrian access and safety equipment purpose.
Question: Have you looked at energy consumption in the design of the facility, there is a lot of
glass proposed and shading could be added to the fagade to make it look less institutional.
Architect's Response: We are taking a very proactive approach to energy conservation, looking at
different variables, weighing the short-term costs versus the long-term savings, are incorporating
some of the items included in the green guidelines for health care and are using reflective surfaces
that don't create heat islands.
Question: Why are you not proposing a second parking structure or another level on the parking
garage to reduce the amount of paved area created?
Architect's Response: We're looking at different alternatives for paving, such as porous concrete
and lighter colors. The bulk of the parking is in the garage, which will serve the medical office
building. This location is the most convenient patient access to the facilities.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Members of the public had the following questions regarding the project.
-6-
4.
..- \
City of Burlingame City Council/Planning Commission Joint Meeting
Approved Minutes
August 30, 2004
Question: Is there an upward slope of the walkway from the bus stop on El Camino Real to the
hospital entrance or will it all be on the same level?
Architect's Response: The walkway will be nearly flat from El Camino Real to the elevator and
stairs in the parking garage which will take people to the entries of the office building and hospital
which are also flat.
Qaestion: What is the slab to slab height in the patient care areas?
Architect's Response: In the patient care areas, the height will be 15' floor to floor, there will be
17'-6" floor to floor for the surgical areas, and 19' floor to floor in the below-grade loading dock
area.
Question: Do the patient rooms overlook other patient rooms?
Architect's Response: All patient rooms look out to a distant view, there are no views from one
patient room into another. We recognize that seeing into another patient room as a problem now,
and worked hard to be sure it is not a problem in the new hospital.
Qaestion: Regarding the noise impacts from the cooling towers adjacent to residences on Davis
Drive, have you looked at any other locations for them?
Architect's Response: The cooling towers need to be next to the main power plant for security
and to reduce the length of the piping required. They will be buried. The proposed wall
surrounding the cooling towers will also act as a sound barrier for both the cooling towers and the
equipment inside the hospital.
CP Monroe reviewed the next steps in the process, noting that it is expected that the Response to
Comments document for the EIR will be released and posted on the City's website on September
17,2004. The Planning Commission hearing has been scheduled for September 27 ,2004. The
project will be reviewed by the Airport Land Use Committee to consider the project's consistency
with the San Francisco lnternational Airport Land Use Plan on September 30, 2004, followed by
consideration by C/CAG, acting as the Airport Land Use Commission on October 14,2004. The
City Council hearing and action is tentatively scheduled for November 1, 2004.
5. CONSENT CALENDAR FOR CITY COUNCIL
a. Approve letter to County Civil Grand Jury regarding Narcotics Enforcement and
authorize Mayor to sign letter
Mayor O'Mahony noted that there was an item on the Consent Calendar for action by the City
Council, a letter to the County Civil Grand Jury. Councilmember Baylock moved approval of the
consent calendar. The motion was seconded by Councilman Coffey. Mayor O'Mahony called for
a voice vote and the motion passed on a 5-0 voice vote.
6. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m.
1
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting of September 20,2004
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall
Council Chambers. Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
)PLEDGE OF ALLE CE TO THE FLAG
Led by Frank Campos.
3. ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT :
Baylock, Coffey, Galligan, Nagel, O'Mahony
None
f,.
a.
4, MINUTES
Councilwoman Baylock made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 7,2004 Council meeting;
seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
PRESENTATIONS
PRESENTATION TO SIOBAHN MICHELLE COONEY FOR IIER EFFORTS TO
PURCHASE K9 VESTS
PC Van Etten recognized Siobahn Michelle Cooney for raising funds towards the purchase of a protective
K9 vest for K9 Officer Nikko. Mayor O'Mahony presented Miss Cooney with a proclamation in appreciation
ofher efforts.
PR&D Schwartz recognized the efforts of the Burlingame Boys Baseball Association, which takes care of
many programs for boys and girls in the community. An update will be provided next spring.
c.PRESENTATION OF FUNDS RAISED FOR SCHOOL CROSSING GUARDS
Charles Yoltz,725 Vemon Way, representing Citizens for a Better Burlingame, presented Linda Lees,
Chairman of the School Board, and Dan Andersen with donations totaling $6,482 as a result of the campaign
to raise funds for the school crossing guards fund. To date, almost half of the goal of $32,000 to match
Safeway's contribution has been received for this fund. This has been a joint effort by Citizens for a Better
1
Burlingame City Council September 20,2004
Unapproved Minutes
b. BURLINGAME BOYS BASEBALL UPDATE
6.
a.
Burlingame, Safeway, Burlingame Elementary School District, the City of Burlingame, and Burlingame
residents.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
N MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARA ON AND
TO THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADOPT THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD
SPECIFIC PLAN
CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and recommended Council hold a public hearing and take action.
Affirmative action would be to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration in the North Burlingame/Rollins
Road Specific Plan as an amendment to the General Plan by Resolution No. 85-2004. She then introduced
David Early, DCE Consultant, who reviewed the Specific Plan that was developed in response to the opening
of the Millbrae Intermodal BART Station, the Mills/Peninsula Hospital reconstruction, and the 2003 update
of the Housing Element.
Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Bruce Balshone, 500 Airport Boulevard spoke in favor of
density being 50 units, reduced residential parking requirements, 60-foot height limitation and removal of the
35-foot review line for residential development. Ray Jungworth, 1730 Rollins Road, spoke against a
proposed street to connect Rollins and Adrian Roads that would divide the Prime Time parking lot. Bob
Lanzone,939 Laurel Street, San Carlos, spoke on the FAR and south Rollins Road gateway features and the
phasing of these gateway features based on Caltrans' future plans. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke
against reducing on-site residential parking spaces. Oren Reinbolt, Mills/Peninsula Hospital Project
Manager, noted an error in the intersection diagram at Trousdale Drive and El Camino Real. There were no
further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed.
Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve Resolution No. 85-2004 approving the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and finding it adequate; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved by roll call vote, 5-0.
Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve the amendment to the General Plan to adopt the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan with the following changes: in Subarea B-4 and in the portion of the
Mills Peninsula Block Subarea fronting on Marco Polo change the maximum residential density, when
residential use is not a part of a mixed development, to 50 dwelling units per acre; coffect the intersection
diagrams for Trousdale/El Camino Real (fig. 5-4) and Trousdale/Magnolia (frg.5-6) to reflect the proper lane
and sidewalk configuration; at the southem gateway to Rollins Road at Broadway allow the bonus of up to
1.0 FAR for including gateway features or lot combination, and require that new development be planned,
not phased, with any future proposed changes to the Broadway Interchange; and add direction to the
implementation section (Section 8) under Zoning Code Revisions that the relationship between zoning
review lines and aviation height limits should be considered in the residential area in the North Trousdale
Subarea; seconded by Councilwoman Baylock, approved by voice vote, 5-0.
b.ADOPT URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 1743 AMENDING TITLE 25 TO REOUIRE A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR OPERATION OF CERTAIN BUSINESSES DURING
LATE NIGHT AND EARLY MORNING HOURS AND INTRODUCE FOLLOW-ON
ORDINANCE TO REPLACE URGENCY ORDINANCE
CA Anderson reviewed the staff report recommending adoption of Urgency Ordinance No. 1743 amending
Title 25 to require a conditional use permit for operation of certain businesses during late night and early
morning hours and introduction of a follow-on ordinance to replace Urgency Ordinance No. 1743.
2
Burlingame City Council September 20,2004
Unapproved Minutes
Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was
closed.
Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen to read the title of Urgency Ordinance No. 1743 amending Title
25 to require a conditional use permit for operation of certain businesses during late night and early morning
hours. Vice Mayor Galligan waived further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman
Baylock, approved by voice vote, 5-0.
Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to adopt Urgency Ordinance No. 1743 amending Title 25 to require a
conditional use permit for operation of certain businesses during late night and early moming hours;
seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the ordinance at least 15 days after
adoption.
Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen to read the title of the proposed follow-on ordinance amending
Title 25 to require a conditional use permit for operation of certain businesses during late night and early
morning hours. Vice Mayor Galligan waived further reading of the proposed follow-on ordinance; seconded
by Councilwoman Nagel, approved by voice vote, 5-0.
Councilman Coffey made a motion to introduce the proposed follow-on ordinance; seconded by
Councilwoman Baylock, approved by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days
before proposed adoption.
7, PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dennis Zell,1800 Ashton Avenue, as Co-Chair of Concemed Residents of Burlingame thanked Council for
their unified support in adopting the EMF ordinance. Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on the
Peninsula Hospital reconstruction and Sutter Health. Dorene Campanile,1620 Howard Avenue, spoke on the
Relay for Life event. The following residents spoke in favor of a new Safeway: EllenMazzoni, 825 Walnut
Avenue; Marianne Saucedo, 925 Larkspur Drive; and Linda Humber, 119 Primrose Road.
There were no further comments from the floor. Mayor O'Mahony responded to Safeway comments
encouraging for the future the potential formation of a small committee comprised of two Council members,
two Planning Commissioners, a member of the community, and a Safeway representative to work on the
Safeway project.
STAFF REPORTS
INTRODUCTI ON OF AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN CODE FO R THE C.4 ZONING
8.
a.
DISTRICT (WATERFRONT COMMERCI ) FOR MAXIMUM SIGN SIZE ABOVE 24
FEET
CP Monroe introduced an ordinance to amend the Sign Code for the C-4 ZoningDistrict for maximum sign
size above 24 feet.
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
J
September 20,2004
Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen read the title of the proposed ordinance to amend Section
22.20.070 to increase maximum allowable single sign square footage for signs above 24 feet in height in the
Bayfront area of the C-4 District. Councilman Coffey waived further reading of the proposed ordinance;
seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved by voice vote, 5-0.
Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilman Coffey,
approved by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor O'Mahony requested CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five
days before proposed adoption.
b. YEAR END FINANCIAL PRESENTATION
FinDir Nava provided a presentation of the City's financial report for year ending June 30, 2004, including
comparisons to year ending June 30, 2003.
c.DISCUSS POSSIBLE AMENDMENT TO TITLE 25 TO ESTABLISH PROCEDURES
WHEN A TIE VOTE OR LESS THAN RITY OF COUNCIL VOTE OCCURS ON A
9.
a.
PLANNING APPEAL
CA Anderson provided possible alternatives to Council procedures when a tie vote or a vote of less than a
majority of the Council occurs on a planning appeal and requested Council to direct staff with regard to
possible Code changes.
After discussion, Council agreed to leave the existing process as is. CA Anderson stated that at a future date
a proposed ordinance clarifying the existing process would be presented to Council.
CONSENT CALENDAR
RESOLUTION NO.86.2004 AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF WITHIN THE ET
FinDir Nava recommended Council approve Resolution No. 86-2004 authoizing transfer of funds within the
FY 2003-04 budget.
b. WARRANTS & PAYROLL
FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants #97041-97500 duly audited, in the amount of
$3,028,634.22 (excbding library checks 97160-97178), Payroll checks #159524-159843 in the amount of
$2,374,035.08 for the month of August 2004.
Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilman Coffey,
approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
10.COUNCIL C E REPORTS
Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City
11. OLD BUSINESS
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
4
September 20,2004
2OO3-04 BUDGET
c
There was no old business.
12. NEW BUSINESS
There was no new business.
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Beautification, September 2,2004; Planning, September 13,2004
b. Department Reports: Finance, August 2004
c. Letter from Comcast conceming programming adjustment
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. in memory of former Traffic Commissioner Aldo
Simonetti and retired Police Department Meter Repairman Jerry Taylor.
Respectfully submitted,
Doris J. Mortensen
City Clerk
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
5
September 20,2004
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 10.04.04
5a
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
BY
DArE: SEPTEMBER 23' 2004
FROM: CITY PLANNER BY
SUBJECT: ACTION ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN FOR THE C-4 ZONING DISTRICT
(WATERFRONT COMMERCTAL) FOR MAXTMUM SIGN SIZE ABOVE 24 FEET.
Introduction:
City Council should hold a public hearing to amend Chapter 22,the Sign Code, to amend the recently adopted
sign regulations in the C-4 zone (waterfront commercial), to increase the maximum size of a permitted sign
above 24 feet from 250 sSF Tto 300 SF per building face. Action altematives are: either to approve or
disapprove the requested sign code amendment.
This amendment also requires that notice be published in a newspaper of general circulation at least five days
in advance of the public hearing and Council's action. Finally, if the amendment is approved it will not
become effective for 30 days, November 4,2004.
Planning Commission Action
The scheduling of the original amendment to the sign code for the C-4 district was discussed with the Chair of
the Planning Commission. He agreed that since this proposed legislation provides a correction to an existing
problem in the city's sign code created by recent court rulings and since the change in square footage and
number of signs proposed is based on the existing signage which has been allowed previously in the C-4
district; the original sign code amendment should be brought forward directly to City Council. The purpose
of this legislation is to make the sign code more equitable and to facilitate processing of sign applications.
Given the minor nature of the change to the maximum size of an allowed sign over 24 feet, the City Council
directed that the amendment to the recently approved signage regulations for the C-4 district also be brought
back directly to Council.
BACKGROUND:
Request:
At the City Council meeting on September 6,2004, following the public hearing, the City Council members
suggested that, in order to facilitate visibility of hotel identification signs from the landing path to San
Francisco International Airport, parapet signs should be allowed to have a maximum size of 300 SF rather
than 250 SF.
Since the public notice for the Council action had included250 SF as the maximum size for a single parapet
sign, it was determined that this proposed change would be subject to a public hearing. After adopting the
proposed sign code amendment for the C-4 zone, Council directed staff to bring back an amendment to
consider increasing the maximum size for a parapet sign from 250 SF to 300 SF.
ACTION ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN FORTHEC-4 ZONING DISTRICT OTATERFRONT
COMMERCIAL) FOR MAXIMUM SIGN SIZE ABOYE 24 FEET. October 4,2004
In this discussion it was noted that the additional 50 SF would probably not affect the "night glow" impact on
the Bay Trail since most of the structures along the trail were 60 feet or taller; that an additional 50 SF could
affect the visibility of such signs from landing airplane; that these signs could not be seen by Burlingame
residents in the hills because they would generally face the bay; and that one purpose of the sign code
amendments was to make the sign code more administrative (e.g. do more signage by counter permit), so the
additional square footage would increase the flexibility of the applicant and limit Planning Commission
reviews for variances to single parapet signs which were over 300 SF which are more likely to have an impact
on shoreline usage.
History
At the City Council meeting on September 6,2004, the Council adopted new signage regulations for the area
of the city zoned C-4 (Bayfront subareas Shoreline, Anza, atd AnzaPoint). These new regulations divide
signage on each site to that allowed below 24 feet from grade and signage allowed above 24 feet from grade.
The newly adopted sign regulations allow the following signage on a site:
Below 24 feet in height on the site:
CS 22.20.070 (b): Ground signs (no higher than24 feet), 100 SF of signage for the first 100
feet of primary parcel frontage with an additional one square foot of signage for each additional
one foot of primary parcel frontage up to a maximum of 350 SF of signage.
Ground signs must conform to the following:
o No single sign larger than 200 SF
o No limit on the number or location of signs placed on the site so long as they are less
than24 feet in height.
a
CS 22.20.070 (c): Parapet/Wall signs (higher than24 feet), each building frontage is allowed
300 square feet.
ParapetAVall signs must conform to the following:
o No single sign shall be larger than 250 SF;
o Only wall signs are allowed;
o No more than 3 walls signs are allowed on any single building frontage;
o No building shall have more than four building frontages
oCS 22.20.070 (d ): Prohibited signs in the C-4 district shall include
o Roof signs and pole signs;
o Off premise advertising (CS 22.48.040)
o All forms of illumination are permitted (Note: flashing and running lights are prohibited for
public safety reasons)
a
o
2
Over 24 feet in height on tlte site:
ACTION ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN FORTHEC-4 ZONING DISTRICT (IYATERFRONT
COMMERCIAL) FOR MAXIMaM SIGN SIZE ABOVE 24 FEET. October 4,2004
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Section 22.20.070 to lncrease Maximum Allowable Single
Sign Square Footage for Signs above 24Feet in Height in the Bayfront Area of the C-4 District.
Adopted Ordinance, September 7,2004, Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 22 to Update
the Sign Regulations Goveming the Bayfront Area of the C-4 District to which the proposed changes
would be made.
Table: Existing Hotel Signage: Ground (24' or Less) and Parapet (Over 24'), Auglst2004
Hotel Sign Survey, August 2004
C-4 Zoning District Shoreline and Anza Subareas, Annotated Sign Code Amendments to Implement Bayfront
Specific Plan lncluding Annotations fo Council Amendments September 2004, revised September 23,
2004
Notice of Public Hearing,Published
U:\CCStaffRepts\CCSR2004\ActionAmendAnzaSignCodeAmend 9.23.04.doc
aJ
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1l
12
13
t4
15
16
t7
18
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27\-.
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION2Z.ZO.O7O
TO INCREASE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SINGLE SIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE
FOR SIGNS ABOVE 24 FEET IN HEIGHT IN THE BATT'RONT AREA OF THE
C.4 DISTRICT
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as
follows:
Section l. The sign code regulations for the Shoreline and Arza Subareas of the
Bayfront planning area were recently amended to bring the Sign Code up-to-date for the
current C-4 zoningdistrict and to be responsive to implementation of the 2004 Bayfront
Specific Plan. One additional change to allow clearer signage is appropriate to allow
property owners flexibility to determine how best to arrange their permitted signage by
increasing the maximum square footage of a single sign that is above 24 feet on a building
from 250 to 300 square feet. This will be consistent with existing signage in the area and
has been approved by the City in the past through an exception process.
Section 2. Section 22.20.070(c) is amended to read as follows:
(c) Srgrrs at a height above twenty-four (24) feet.
(l) The only sig:rs allowed above a height of twenty-four feet are wall signs.
(2) A maximum of 300 square feet of signage at a height above twenty-four (24) feet
is allowed on each building frontage.
(3) No more than three (3) signs above a height of twenty-four feet are allowed on
any building frontage.
(4) No single sign shall be larger than 300 square feet.
(5) For purposes of this subsection, no building shall be considered to have more
than four (4) building frontages regardless of the building's design or parcel.
a
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l1
t2
13
t4
t5
t6
t7
18
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
Mayor
I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certifr
that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
the 20th day of September, 2X04,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City
Council held on the _ day of 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
City Clerk
C :\FILES\ORDINANC\S IGNREVS2004-2.ORD. wpd
-2-
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
t2
t3
t4
l5
t6
t7
18
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27\-,
Section 2. A new Section 22.20.070 is added to read as follows:
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINAI\CE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 22TO
UPDATE THE SIGN REGT]LATIONS GOVERNING THE BAYFRONT ARE,A OF
THE C-4 DISTRICT
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as
follows
Section 1. There is a need to revise the sign code regulations for the Shoreline and
Awa Subareas of the Bayfront planning area to bring the Sign Code up-to-date for the
current C-4 zonngdistrict and to be responsive to implementation of the 2004 Bayfront
Specific PIan. These changes will allow future signage in these two Bayfront subareas to
match the existing signage approved in these areas between 1981 and2004. During this
period, sign exceptions for size and amount of signage were regularly allowed. Recent
revisions to the City's Sign Code prohibit variances to the total amount (square footage) of
signage on a site. The current Sign Code adopted in 1978 would allow substantially less
signage than currently exists because ofpast exceptions granted to square footage . This
means that property owners in this area today are allowed substantially less signage on their
properties than their neighbors. The changes to the Sign Code are founded in the amounts
and types of signage granted in the Shoreline and Arua Subareas between l98l and 2004.
These new regulations will allow the property owler or tenant to decide how to distribute
the signage around the site in most instances, rather than seeking Planning Commission
review for particular variances. These changes will continue to emphasize the safety and
aesthetic concerns ofthe community in an area of the City that has been both a social and
economic resource because of its orderly development.
I
2
aJ
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1l
t2
l3
l4
l5
t6
t7
l8
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
22.20.070 Permitted signage in the Shoreline and Anza Subareas of the Baliont zoned C-4.
Instead of the regulations contained in the other sections of this chapter, the
following signage regulations apply only in the Shoreline yd Anza subareas as defined in
the Bayfront Specific Plan adopted by the council:
(a) Except as prohibited in this section, any type of sign permitted by this title is
permiued so long as it conforms to this section.
(b) Srgzs at a height of no more than twenty-four (24) feet.
(l) The maximum total square footage of signage at a height of twenty-four (24) feet
or less on any parcel shall be based on the length of the primary parcel frontage. Each parcel
is entitled to one hundred square feet of such signage, and for each additional foot ofprimary
parcel frontage more than 100 feet, one additional square foot of such signage shall be
allowed, except that no more than a total of 350 square feet of signage at a height of
twenty-forn (24) feet or less shall be allowed on any parcel. As an example:
Primary Parcel Frontage Maximum Signage Area
Length (feet) above 24 feet in hpight (square feet)
100 or less 100
150 lso
250 250
350 or more 350
ln addition, up to six (6) signs not to exceed three (3) feet in height and no larger than ttree
(3) square feet shall be exempt from the total square footage calculation.
(2) Subject to safety regulations, signage at a height of twenty-four (2a) feet or less
may be placed anywhere on a pmcel or building.
(3) No single sign may be larger than two hundred (200) square feet.
(4) There is no limitation on the number of signs that may be placed at a height of
twenty-four (24) feet or less.
(c) Srgru at a height above twenty-four (24)feet.
(l) The only signs allowed above a height of twenty-four feet are wall signs.
-2-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
ll
t2
l3
t4
15
l6
t7
l8
l9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27\-
-3-
(2) A mildmum of 300 square feet of signage at a height above twenty-four (24) feet
is allowed on each building frontage.
(3) No more than three (3) signs above a height of twenty-four feet are allowed on
any building frontage.
(4) No single sign shall be larger than 250 square feet.
(5) For purposes of this subsection, no building shall be considered to have more
than four (4) building frontages regardless of the building's design or parcel.
(d) Roof signs and pole signs are prohibited.
(e) All forms of illumination are permitted.
Section 3. Section 22.48.040 is amended to read as follows:
22.48.040 Oflpremisesadvertising.
Signs carrying the advertising of a person, product, or service other than that of the
occupant of the parcel on which the sign is placed are prohibited; signs are permitted only to
the actual occupant of the parcel upon which the sign is displayed during the period of
occupancy.
Section 4. A new Section 22.04.165 is added to read as follows:
22.04.165 Height.
"Height" as applied'to a sign for purposes of this title means the distance between the
very topmost point of the sign and the established grade directly below the sign.
Section 5. Section 22.04.500 is amended to read as follows:
22.04.500 Wall sign.
"Wall sign" is any sign, which is placed flat against the exterior wall of any building
or any sign, motif, symbol, figure, word, words, or object painted directly on the surface of
the exterior wall of any building.
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
il
12
l3
t4
l5
l6
t7
l8
l9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
Section 6. Section 22.04.460 is deleted.
Section 7. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certiff that the
foregoing ordinance.was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 16n
day of August,2004, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
the _ day of
-
2004, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
C :\FILES\ORDINANC\SICNREVS2004. ORD. \rpd
4
EXISTING HOTEL SIGNAGE:
GROUND (24' OR LESS) AND PARAPET (OVER 24')
Hotel Name
rown Plaza Hotel
GROUND SIGNS
(sites with ground signag6)
Average Size: 215.5 sf
Range in size: 90-620 sf
Number:
Average: 3.72
Range: 1-6
PARAPET SIGNS
(sites with paapet/\lta signs)
Average Size: 470 sf
Range in size: 137-1 168 sf
mber:
Average: 3.2
Range: 24
GROUND PARAPET
TOTAL SITE
SIGNAGE
SF #SF #SF #
Hilton Gardens
90 2 138
(46)
3 227 6
Embassy Suites
620 b 716
(358)
2 1137 B
Double Tree
96 1 354
(1 1B)
3 451 4
Hyatt
126 4 300
(150)
2 426 7
Marriot
193 4 561
(187)
3 755 7
Sheraton
173 4 1168
(1 @ 160)
(1 @ 1008)
2 1341 7
Ramada
52 4 756
(2 @216)
(2 @.540\
4 BOB 5
Red Roof lnn
200 4 291
(97)
3 493 7
504 768
(384)
2 't272 10
Bay Landinq
108 1 108 1
Hampton
224.7
(74.9\
3 224.7 J
Vagabon lnn
208 2 208 2
TOTAL SIGNS ON PARCEL
Average Signage:
AmUSite:
Range in size:
Number of signs: 6
Range (#): 1-10
638 sf
103 - 1341 sf
:Sign surveys/hotel signage.xls
HotelSign Suruey
Bay Landing 1500 Bayshore Hwy
Frontage
1.3 ac
Location Height SF Size
primary monument 20'108 6'x I'
Crown Plaza Hotel 1177 Airport Blvd 4.967 ac
Fron Location ht SLe
pnmary
primary
primary/double face
secondary/double face
wall
wall
pole
pole
wall
120'
120'.
20'
20'
20'
3U
384
2 x 112 = 224
?x1'12=224
56
48' x 8'
48' x 8'
14' x 8'
14' x 8'
14' x 4'seconda ble face
DoubleTree Hotel 835 Airport Blvd 4.77 ac
F Localion SF Size
primary
primary
primary
seconda
parapet
parapet
ground
u'
83'
5'6"
83',
232.5
83.5
96
83.5
Embassy Suites
Sign Belonging to:
150 Anza Blvd
Frontage
8.885 ac
Location Height SF Size
Crown Sterling Suites
Bobby McGee's
Crown Sterling Suites
Bobby McGee's
Bobby McGee's
Crown Sterling Suites
primary/double face
primary/double face
primary
primary
primary
secondary
144 x2 -- 288
144x2=288
4U
6
38
283
12' x.8'
'12' x 4'
32' 6" x 32'
5'6'xl'1'
8'6'x4'6"
49' x 7' 9"
pole
pole
wall
awning
awning
wall
24'
24'
84'
14'
14'
98',
Hampton lnn 1255 Bayshore Hwy .65 ac
F Location SF Size
pnmary
seoondary
wall
wall
r/rall
34',-7'
44'.-tr
44',-5"
5'-6" x 14'-3'
5'6'x 14'-3"
5'{'x 14'-3"
Hilton Garden lnn 765 Arport Bhyd 2.038 ac
F Location SF
primary/double face
secondary
secondary
secondary
ground
wall
wall
wall
wall
42x2--U
45.6
45.6
45.6
5.8
56'
56',
61'
14',
Size
August 2OO4
SF
74.9
74,9
74.9
1
Hotel Sign Survey
Hyatt Regency Hotel
Sign Belonginq to:
1333 Bayshore Hwy
Fronlage
9.14 ac
Location Height SF Size
Scalini restaurant
Hyatt
Hyatt
Knuckles Bar
Hyatt
pnmary
primary/double face
primary
primary
secondary/double face
15
2x36=72
20.5
18
150x2=300
canopy
monumenl
wall
canopy
wall
5'x 3'
6'x 6'
20' 5" x 1'
8'x2'3"
50' x 3'
1z',
7'5"
12'
12',
109',
Marriot Hotel 1800 Bayshore Hwy 9.35 ac
F Location SF Size
primary.
primary
primary
primary
secondary
secondary
ground
porte cochere
ground
ground
100
20
64
I
129
129
304second
99',
99'
109'38' x 8'
Ramada
Sign Belonging to:
1250 Bayshore lhvy
Frontage
3.51 ac
Location Heisht SF Size
Max's
Ramada
Max's
Max's
primary/double face
primary/double face
primary
primary
primary
secondary
pole
pole
awning
window
porte cochere
1O8 x2 = 216
27Ox2=54O
6
3x2=6
25.5
't4
'16' x 6' 9"
30' x 9'
3'x2'
1'x3'
12' 9" x2'
primary/double face
primary
primary
secondary/double face
secondary
ground
wall
wall
pole
wall
12'
39'
13' 6',
6'
39'
39',
2 x73.6 = 147 .2
97.5
41
6x2=12
97.5
97.5
Red Roof n
Location SF SZe
7' 7' x9'I 1A
F
6'8"x6'2"
3'x2'
777 Airport Blvd 3.08 ac
August 2004 2
Hotel Siqn Survev
primary/double face
primary
primary
primary/double face
primary/double face
monument
wall
porte cochere
ground
ground
13'
141',
20'
z', 8"
2',8"
14't',
143
1008
12
9.2
9.2
160
4.7 ac
Location SF Size
1' 10"/5' 10'x 9'4'
F
3'x 4'
1'8'x 2' 9"
1'8'x 2' 9"
5'x 31' 11'
Sheraton Gateway 600 Airport
Vagabond lnn
F
primary
Location SF Size
20'-6"
10'
1640 Bayshore Hwy 1.25 ac
pole
reader bd.
160
48
16' x 10'
16' x 3'6"
3August 2004
C-4 Zoning District Shoreline and Anza Subareas
Annotated Sign Code Amendments to Implement Bayfront Specific Plan
Including Annotations of Council Amendments September 2004
To bring the sign code up to date for the current. C-4 zoning
distri.ct and to be responsi-we t.o implementaEion of the Bayfront
Specific P1an, there is a need to revise t.he sign code
regulations for the Shoreline and Anza Subareas of the Bayfront
planning area. These changes wouLd a1low fut.ure amounts of
signage in these tvro Bayfront subareas t.o match the existing
signage approved in t.hese areas bet.ween 1981 and 2004. During
this period sign exceptions for size and amounE of signage
al"Lowed on a sit.e were common. Recent revisions to Ehe city's
sign code prohibit variances to the Eotal amount (square
foot.age) of signage on a si!e. The current. sign code, adopted
in 1978, would al1ow substantsially less signage t.han currently
exists because of pasL exceptions granted to square footage
This means that properEy orrners in this area today are allowed
substantially less signage on Eheir properties than their
neighbors. The proposed changes to the sign code below are
based on the amounts and t)rpes of sj-gnage granted in the
ShoreLine and Anza Subareas between L981 and 2004.
In addition iE has become commoD practice in adminisE.ering the
sign code to al,low property owners or projecL developers to
combine the t.otal- signage al-l-owed for eaeh fronEage and
disE.ribute it on t.he site as they wish. With the present codethis ean be done with a v4riance, so long as the t.otal amount of
signage is not increased. Because of this pracEice and in theint.erest of el,imj.nating the need t,o go to the Commission for
something LhaE probably will be granted, these proposed changes
are based on total siEe signage. Administ.ratively these new
requirements would aflow t.he property owner or tenant Eo decide
how t.o distsrj-bute the signage around the site.
In this proposal for the overlay, E.he amount. of signage for each
site is divided with one amount. of sguare footage for the part
of the building Less than 24 feeL in height and one amount of
square footage for the part. of the building over 24 feeL. fnour present code there is a formul,a which delermines t.he
percent.age of the aflowed signage on a frontage which can beplaced L2 feet off tshe ground, 36 feet off Ehe ground etc.. i,rith
no signage over 48 feet off the ground. In the Shoreline and
Anza areas where smaller fooEprint, ta1ler buildings are
encouraged, and parapet. signs are necessary for customers orclients to find their way around, this height formufa has not.
Annotations to AmendSign Codefor C-4 Sign Code Regulotions with Council Requested Changes
September 2i,2004
work well-. Or rather the height formula result.s in every project
requiring a height variance and a t,rip to the Planning
Commissj-on. One objective of these amendments Lo the sign code
is to t.ailor our regulations closer to the needs of geographic
areas and make them consistent with the development policies
of each geographical area so that more sign programs can be
approved without having to go to the Planning Commission. Or so
that only those which are most "out of the ordinary" are
required to go to the Planning Commission.
Fina11y, it should be noted that, with t.hese requi-rements, while
a varj-ance may be consj-dered for height of sign, number of
signs and placement of signs; a variance may not be considered
or grant,ed f or amount of si-gnage allowed on each s j-te. As a
result the equity for all properties of the base number of
square feet alloured becomes very important.
At the City Council meet.ing on September 20, the City Council
discussed the request made at the Council m!:g!ing where the C-4
sign allowed over 24 feet above grade from 250 SF to 300 SF.
The reason for consideration of this reguest was
purpose of Lhis sj-gn code amendment is to make siqnaqe requests
in the C-4 zone more administrative, that for the sides of
buiLdings facing San Francisco Bay and additional 50 SF could
make a substantial difference in visibility, and that because
the great majorit.y of t.he buildings which are taIler Lhan 24
feet in the C-4 zoning district are much taller (60 feet plus)
and at that h
difference in night glow aI the Bay Trail. The proposed
change is shown in the annotations below in underlj-ned italics
Amendment to the sign regulations for the C-4 Zone CS 22.20
22.20.070 Permitted signage in the Shoreline and Anza Subareas of the Bayfront zonedC-4.
Instead of the regulations contained in the other sections of this chapter, the following
signage regulations apply only inthe Shoreline and Anza subareas as defined in the Bayfront
Specific Plan adopted by the council:
1
2
sign code amendments were acted on, to change the maximum size
Annotations to Amendsign Code for C-4 Sign Code Regulations with Council Requested Charrges
September 23, 2004
Annotation:
The present. sign code regulalions are based on zoning district.
The proposed amendmenE. creates an 'roverlay,' signage provision
within the C-4 zoning district. The rroverlay" would apply only
to signage in Ehe Shoreline and Anza Subareas as t.hey are
defined in the 2004 Bayfront Specific Plan/General PLan.
(a) Except as prohibited in this section, any type of sign permitted by this title is
permitted so long as it conforms to this section.
Annotat ion :
This provision allows any E14)e of signage permitted elsewhere in
the sign code to be instsaIled in this overlay area as long asj-ts instalfation conforms to the requirements below. ALso it
should be noted that the overlay regulations t.ake a different
approach to sign regulation from the current sign code. In thepresent code t.he amounL or square footage of signage is
regulated by E.he Length of t.he building's fronuage, primary andsecondary. In this proposal signage is regulated by height,
wit.h one aLlocat.ion of square footage Eo the 'tstreeE level-" (24
feeE or Less off the ground) and a second allocation to theparapet or upper portion of the building (greater Ehan 24 feet.off the ground). A second divergence from our current sign code
approach is that a maximum square footage and number of signs is
designated for the ground 1evel and the upper level of Ehebuilding, but it is up Eo the propert.y owner and tenant to
decide the sides of t.he building they wish to use for signage.
This new approach grows out of Lhe current practice of
applicants adding all allocated signage tso the designatedprimary and secondary frontages together and asking for a sign
wariance to distribute it around the building in a manner
different that aLlowed in the code. The PLanning Commission and
Councif almost always grants these requests. For this reason it
seemed reasonabLe to aI1ow the applicant this distributionlatitude from the start.
The focus in reviewing this approach becomes what should be theproper lota1 amount of signage Eo a11ov, on a site, at. st.reet/pedestrian level and on the upper portions of t.he building. The
numbers proposed here for street/pedest.rian 1evel and the upperport.ion of the building are based on the amount. of signagegranted Eo major projects in the Shoreline and Anza Areas
J
Annotations to AmendSign Codefor C-4 Sign Code Regulations with Council Requested Changes
Septenber 23,2004
beLween 1981 and the court decisions in 2000 which resulted in
the city no longer being able to grant an increase in the amount
of signage beyond what was stated in the sign code for a given
site.
(b) ,Srgns at a height of no more than twenty-four (24) feet,
(1) The maximum square footage of signage at a height oftwenty-fow Q$ feet or less
on any parcel shall be based on the length of the primary parcel frontage. Each parcel is
entitled to one hundred square feet ofsuch signage, and for each additional foot of
primary parcel frontage more than 100 feet, one additional square foot of such signage
shall be allowed, except that no more than a total of 350 square feet of signage at a height
of twenty-fow Q$ feet or less shall be allowed on anyparcel. As an example:
Primary Parcel Frontage
Length (feeD
Maximum Signage Area
above 24 feet in height (square feet)
100 or less 100
150 150
250 250
350 or more 350
In addition, up to six (6) signs not to exceed three (j) feet in height and no larger than
three (3) squarefeet shall be exemptfrom the total squarefootage calculation.
(2) Subject to safety regulations, signage at a height of twenty-fow Q$ feet or less
may be placed anywhere on a parcel or building,'
(3) No single sign may be larger than two hundred (200) square feet.
(4) There is no limitation on the number of signs that may be placed at a height of
twenty-four (24) feet or less.
Annotation:
Ground signage or signage that is primarily visible and directed
toward the street level- or pedestrians is proposed to be
regulated based on the entire sj-te. Ground signage is defined
as being:
. no more Lhan 24 feet above grade
o each site, dt this 1eve1, ffidy have a minimum of 1-00 SF
plus one additional- foot for each lineal foot of primary
sLreet frontage over l-00 feet up to a maximum of 350 SF of
signage,'
4
Annotations to Amen$ign Code for C-4 Sign Code Regulations with Council Requested Changes
Septemb* 23, 2004
the applicant may choose where on Ehe building less than 24
feet off the ground to place this signage;
in addition t.o the permitEed ground signage. each siEe
would be allowed up to 6, 3 SF no more E.han 3 feet taLL,
signs which cou1d be used to direcE Lraffic on-site, meet
requj.remenEs for Bay Trail access and parking
identification, and marking t'he Location of hotel services
such as airport shuttle loadj.ng;
the distribution of Ehe ground signage square fooE.age among
Ehe number of signs is up to the applicant, e.g. there is
no l-imits on the number of ground signs;
no single ground side sha11 exceed 200 square feet. It
should be noted Ehats double faced signs hawe been counted
as t$ro signs; so one could have a monumenE sign \,/ith two
175 SF faces under this regulation if the site were
eligible for the maximum square footage and if iE. were all
put in one double faced sign, e.g. no other signage would
be al]owed on the site less E]:.ar. 24 feet off the ground.
Should directional signs be exempt from the total amount
signage on site? If Ehey continue Eo be exempt is the 3
and 3 feet in height. the appropriate dimensions?
of
(c)Signs at a height above t\t)enty-four (24) feet.
a
a
a
a
o
5
This secE.ion al"so includes an exempt.ion for directional signs.
Currently we allow an excepEion for developments on large sites
to provide interiorly lit directional signs ('tenter',. ,,exit,,,
eEc.) in their parking loEs and on pedest.rian walkways which are
not counted in Ehe Eotal site square fooEage of signage or in
the nuhber of signs on site. The exemption proposed here wouldput the exception for this type of signage in E.he code.
Currently we do not a1low the name or logo of the business on
the direct.ional sj.gn, the City Attorney maintaj,ns that we no
longer can limit what is put on these signs in terms of logos
eLc. but we can 1imit. their size and height.
Annotat ion :
This secEion applies Eo a1l- signage placed on t.he building at. aheight greater than 24 feet above grade. This signage is
allowed in addit.ion to Ehe ground signage. Like ground signage,
Annotations to AmendSign Codefor C-4 Sign Code Regulations with Council Requested Changes
September 23,2004
the wal1 signage allowed above 24 feet may be placed wherever
the property owner/applicant wish t.o put it, and may be divided
into only three or fewer signs. Signage above 24 feet may not
be placed on, or anchored to, the roof (see below).
(1) The only signs allowed above a height of twenty-four feet are wall signs.
(2) Amaximum of 300 square feet of signage at a height above twenty-four (24) feet is
allowed on each building frontage.
(3) No more than three (3) signs above a height of twenty-four feet are allowed on any
building frontage.
(4) No single sign shall be larger than 25+ 300 square feet.
(5)For purposes of this subsection, no building shall be considered to have more than
four (a) building frontages regardless of the building's design or parcel.
Annotation:
The requirements for signage above 24 feet include:
o only waI1 signs;
. a 25.e 300 square foot maxi-mum for a single sign;
o a maximum of 300 SF per building frontage, and building
frontages are limited to four per building;
. only 3 signs are allowed per frontage e.g. so it would be
possible to put one 250 SF sign and one 50 SF or three 100
SF signs, the choice is up to the property owner and his
tenants.
Based on the comblnation of ground and above 24 feet. signage the
maximum signage allowed on a multi-story st.ructure (over 24 feet
in height) would be 350 SF ground Ieve1 visible from the street
plus 1-200 SF for identification at a distance; or a total of
1500 SF. However the maximum on a single frontage, should
anyone have a 350 foot primary street frontage and choose to put
all the ground signage on one frontage, would be 550 SF which is
less than half the present Sheraton wa11 sign.
At the City Council action meeting (September 5, 2OO4) on the
amendment to create a signage program for the C-4zoning
district, the Council decided to reconsider the maximum sign
a
size which could be placed on the portion of t.he building over
6
Annotatiotts to Amendsign Codefor C-4 Sign Code Regulafions with Council Requested Changes
Septembet 23, 2004
24 feeL in heiqht. They expressed concern that a 250 SF slqn
may not be Larqe enough Lo be seen from landing airplanes,
dependinq upon the lenqth of a hoteLrs name. Also t.hat the
int.ention was L.o make t.he siqn code as admini st.rat. ive (counter
permit) oriented as possible,so more property owners couLd get
their signage programs approved quickly. The suggestion was
t.hat the maximum sign over 24 feet be increased in size to 300
SF. Given the heiqht of buiLdinqs in t.he area this woul-d be
sma11 enouqh Eo reduce concerns about "night glow"impact on Ehe
adjacent Bay Trail and better meet the need t.o have siqns
visible from airplanes landing at SFIA.
Attached is a copy of a survey of the currently approved signage
on existing hotel-s. The analysis was based on hotel signage
because that is tshe use which predominaEes in the Shoreline and
Anza area and for rrhich the most exceptions have been grant.ed.
Since all uses in a district. musL have Ehe same signage
opportunities, the baseline for t.he area is set using hotel-s. A
second objective in arriving at the amount of signage is as much
as possible of Lhe "reasonable" existing signage becomes
conforming. This w11L a11ow flexibility for future Eenants andgive t.hem the ability tso have equitable amount.s of signage in
sign programs Ehat. best meet their corporatse needs, rat.her than
having Eo "jerry rig'I t.o fit into a nonconforming situat.ion as
Crou/ne Plaza did on the o1d Sheraton site on Bayshore at
Airport..
The signs documenE.ed in the sign survey were, in mosE. cases,
approved before tshe sign code was amended to prohibit variances
for t.he amount of signage al-l,owed on a site, The analysis
prepared shows t.hat of the existing approved sj.gnage on a hoeel
the average signage over 24 feet on a siEe is 47O SF and t.he
average number of signs over 24 feet per site is 2.5 or an
average parapet sign of 180 SF. The range of existing parapet
sign size is 584 SF (Sheraton) to 46 SF (Hilton Gardens). (The
Sheraton wa11 sign, which is in addition to the parapet signs isover 1000 SF) Finally it should be noted that, based on
experience, some signs have been proven not. Eo ,he1p, g5u
character of the area; these signs have been regulated outeither by limitations on maximum amount of signage or location
on the strucEure. The ones that come to mind as examples of
7
Annotations to AmendSign Code for C-4 Sign Code Regulotions with Council Requested Changes
September 23, 2004
(d) Roof signs and pole signs are prohibited.
Annotat ion :
Roof signs hawe been prohibiEed in Burlingame's sign code since
tshe firsE sign code was adopted in 1978. The prohibition has
worked wel,L Eo keep our skyfine cLear of cLutter. ParapeE signs,
which are allowed as a matter of right. in Ehis code revision,
fulf il-l- the need for "locaters" for Ehe uninitiated looking for
a hoteL or office destinati-on in the Shoreline and Anza areas.
Pole signs have long been an issue in the Bayfront area,
especially Ehe Anza Area, because they can be oriented to the
freeway and used for corporate advertising. Since parapet and
waII signs are alLowed in these proposed regulations to be
located as chosen by the propert.y owners, a franchise uses can
choose t.o place a parapet sign on the face of his building
oriented Eoward the freeway or bay. The need for a difficult to
regulat.e, ower-sized, hard to maintain and ewentually dated
looking pole sign is nullified.
(e) All forms of illumination are permitted.
Annotat ion :
Presently we al1ow all kinds of lighEing for signs in all
signage districts. There seems to be no reason to alter this
requirement in the overlay area. The city's il,lumination
requiremenEs still must be met, e,g. the cone of light musts be
contained on lhe siEe and cert.ainly musE not create a traffic
}:.azard, e.g. blinking, flashing, etc.
Section 22,48.040 is added to read:
8
22.48.040 Off-premisesadvertising.
this are the walI sign on the Sheraton Hotel", the roof sign on
the Crowne Plaza Hotel, and the pole sign on the Ramada Inn.
None of Ehese would be allowed under the regulatsions proposed.
They will become nonconforming and. event.ual1y, wiLL be removed.
However. Ehere will be less desire Eo retain the nonconforming
signs if there is a more equi.table a]location of signage to each
site.
Annotations to AmendSign Codefor C-4 Sign Code Regulations with Council Requested Changes
September 23,2004
Signs er+tn*ehrre$carrying the advertising of a person, product, or service other than that
of the occupant of the parcelleetd on which t* the sign is placed@
a#ashe&are prohibited; signs are permitted only to the actual occupant of the parcel bnilding-er
prep€tr1.upon which the sign is displayed during the period of Hs occupancy.
Annotation:
This change is a clarification/clean up of t.he current wording.
Off premises signage is not alLowed in any district at this
time. This section applies to all- districts includj-ng the
proposed overlay, so off-premise signage would not be allowed in
the proposed overlay for the Shoreline and Anza areas. This has
been the formal, stated city policy since L978.
Add Definition for Height
CS 22.04.165 Height
"Height" for purposes of this title means the distance between the very topmost point of the sign and
the established grade directly below the sign.
Annotation:
In the current code each t.ime height was referred to the means of
establishing it was written the text. This definition is based on
the description'tfrom the top of the sign to the adjaeent grade below
the sign" used throughout the present code. One advantage of this
definition is it. makes it very clear that. the top of a sign is its
highest point. This wil-l- reduce arguments at the counter.
Revise Definitions
C522.04.500 Wall Sign.
"Wall sign" is any sign, of solid face construction or individual letters, which is placed flat
against the exterior wall or any building €r€tru€tur€, any sign, motif, symbol, figure, word, words or
object painted directly on the surface of the exterior wall of any building er*h*efire.
Annotation:
The word strucLure is removed from this definition to avoid the
argument thaL a monument/ground sign (which is a structure) might be
9\-"
Annotations to AmendSign Coilefor C-4 Sigt, Code Regulations with Council Requested Changes
Septemher 23, 2004
caIled a walI sign. There j-s an existing section (Chapter 22.56) in
the sign code which addresses waII signs. This section defines the
varj-ous tlrpes of wall- signs, how they can be mounted, and how far
they can exLend from the surface of the waII. The changes proposed to
t.he def inition do not af f ect Chapter 22.56.
Delete Definition
"Sign painted en wall" is any sign; metif; syurbeFfigrre; werd; werds er ehieet -ainted direetly
Annotation:
"Sign painted on wa1ltr is covered in the definition of "waI1 sign"
and in Chapter 22.56 which regulates waII signs. For these reasons
it is no longer necessary.
Draft:
July 30, 2004
August 6,2004
August 10,2004
August 11,2004
September 23,2004 (add council amendment request)
10
CITY OF BURLINGAME
SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TO
AMEND THE CITY SIGN CODE - TITLE22, WITH REGARD TO THE BAYFRONT
AREA OF THE CITY
NOTICE lS HEREBY GIVEN thoi the City Council of the City of Burlingome
will consider odoption of o proposed ordinonce on Mondoy, Oclober 4,
2OO4 ol o public meeling ot 7:00 p.m. in the City Holl Council Chombers
locoted ot 501 Primrose Rood, Burlingome Colifornio, thot would omend
Iiile 22, the City Sign Code, with regord to the signoge regulotions in the
Boyfront Areo of the City. The proposed omendments oddress chonging
the moximum size of o sign ollowed over 24 feet obove grode from 250
squore feet 1o 300 squore feet. The City Council will receive iestimony on
the proposed ordinonce chonge from oll inleresled persons who oppeor
of the Council meeting. To receive odditionol informotion obout ihe
proposed ordinonce omendment ond o complele copy of the proposed
ordinonce omendmenl, or to provide written comments, interesled
person moy conloct the City Clerk, locoled ot 501 Primrose Rood,
Burlingome, CA 94010, phone (650) 558-7203. A complete copy of the
ordinonce is ovoiloble for review ot lhe City Plonning Deportment, 510
Primrose Rood, Burlingome, CA.
Published Seplember 28, 2004
STAFF REPORT
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 4,2004
AGENDA
ITEM # 7a
MTG.
DATE October 4. 2004
TOr
DATE
SUBMITTED
BY
FRoM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director
558-7222
SUBJECT: DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
ADMINISTRATIVE AGREEMENT _ F"T 2OO4.O5
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve the Administrative Agreement Between the City of Burlingame and the
Downtown Burlingame Business Improvement District (DBBID) for FY 2004-05.
BACKGROUND
The City Council created the Downtown Burlingame Business Improvement District on May 3, 2004 with
the adoption of Ordinance No. 1735. The proposed Administrative Agreement sets forth the procedures by
which the City of Burlingame will remit collected assessment fees over to the DBBID to carry out the
purposes of the District.
Mr. Sam Malouf, representative for the Downtown Burlingame BID has reviewed the proposed
Administrative Agreement and has been designated as the DBBID official for receipt of paynents and
notices regarding the DBBID.
A copy of the Proposed DBBID Budget for FY 04-05 is enclosed for Council review and consideration
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Enter Into An Agreement Between The City Of Burlingame
And The Downtown Burlingame Improvement District
Administrative Agreement Between The City Of Burlingame And The Downtown Burlingame
Improvement District
Downtown Burlingame Improvement District Proposed Budget - FY 04-05
R.ESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RATIFYING
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AND DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME BID,INC.
FOR PERFORMANCE OF SERVICES AND ACTIVITIES OF
THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS, the City has formed the Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement
District pursuant to Streets & Highways Code sections 36500 and following ; and
WHEREAS, Downtown Burlingame BlD, [nc. is willing and able to provide the services
and activities required by the District,
NOW, THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED:
l. The Agreement between the City and Downtown Burlingame BID, Inc. as contained in
Exhibit A is approved and the City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the Agreement by
and on behalf of the City of Burlingame.
MAYOR
I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing
resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the of_
2004,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COLINCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
A.
B.
C
101412004
ADMINISTRATIVE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND
THE DOW}[TOW}[ BURLINGAME BID, INC.
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this 8th day of October 2004, by and between the
City of Burlingame, State of California (the City), and the Downtown Burlingame BID, Inc.
(DBBID, Inc.), a California nonprofit mutual benefit corporation.
RECITALS
At the request of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area merchants and business
owners and the Interim Advisory Board of the Burlingame Avenue Area Business
Improvement District, the City of Burlingame formed the "District."
Pursuant to the terms of the District as found in Burlingame Ordinance No. 1735, the
City of Burlingame has levied and may continue to levy fees on businesses located within
the District pursuant to the provisions of the California Streets & Highway Code.
This Agreement is intended to set forth the procedure by which the City will remit
collected fees over to the DBBID, Inc. to carry out the purposes of the District and by
which DBBID, Inc. will carry out those purposes.
AGREEMENT
1. During the first quarter of the fiscal year, the City shall remit business improvement
assessments that are collected from businesses within the District on a monthly basis.
Payment will be made to the DBBID, Inc. no later than the 15th of the following *onttl.
Thereafter, payments will be made to the DBBID, Inc. on a quarterly basis.
The monthly payments will include a statement showing the amount paid and the balance of
assessments due the DBBID, Inc. The balance due amount will be based on the number of
businesses that have not paid the assessment. However, the City will not incur any financial
obligation or liability to the DBBID, Inc. for any assessments not paid by District businesses.
2. Any business that has not paid their annual assessment as of the end of July 3 l't of any year
will be assessed a penalty. The penalty is an additional 25Yo of the assessment due. The City
and DBBID, Inc. will split any penalties collected on a 50-50 basis. Businesses that have not
paid their annual assessment by October I't of any year will be turned over to a collection
agency.
3. The DBBID, Inc. shall use these monies for the services and activities of the District as
described in Burlingame Ordinance No. 1735 and as approved by the City Council pursuant
to the assessments process under California Streets and Highway Code. The DBBID, Inc.
C:\FILES\BIDBGAMEAV\Adminitrative Agreement 2004.doc
1
r01412004
services and activities funded by these monies shall be for the benefit of the businesses
within the District.
4. The City shall invoice the DBBID, Inc. for the costs of forming and administering the
District as described in Burlingame Resolution No. 25-2004. For FY 2004-05, the amount of
the City of Burlingame invoice shall not exceed $8,000. In future fiscal years, the City will
provide the DBBID, Inc. an estimate of the costs of forming and administering the District.
These costs will be included in future Council Resolutions imposing annual assessments.
5. The DBBID, Inc. shall maintain detailed records showing how the monies from the District
have been spent. The DBBID, Inc. shall report these expenses, services, and activities to the
District Advisory Board in the form required by the Board and shall assist the Board in
preparing the annual report of services and activities pursuant to the District ordinance,
including the proposed budget for the coming year and recommended assessments.
6. The DBBID, Inc. shall assist the City in the preparation of all District notices, shall provide
the City mailing lists and pre-addressed envelopes for District mailings as directed by the
City, and shall work with each business in the District to address questions and concerns.
7. Payments and notices shall be given as follows:
To DBBID,Inc.:Mr. Sam Malouf
Malouf s of Burlingame
1426 Burlingame Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
To Burlingame:Finance Director
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
8. The DBBID, Inc. and the City shall maintain records showing payment, billing and collection
for not less than three (3) years following completion of this Agreement. The requested party
shall make these records available to authorized personnel of the other party at the requested
party's offices during business hours upon written request of the other party.
9. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate
as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder, nor does waiver of a
breach or default under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach
of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
10. The parties shall have the right to terminate this Agreement for collection of monies, with or
without cause, by giving not less than one hundred eighty (180) days' written notice of
termination.
C :\FILES\BIDBGAM EAV\Adm initrative Agreement 2004.doc
2
101412004
I l. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment to this Agreement is effective
unless made in writing and signed by both parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date written on
page 1 of this Agreement.
DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME BID, INC.CITY OF BURLINGAME
By
Sam Malouf,
Attest:
C:\FILES\BIDBGAMEAV\Adminitrative Agreement 2004.doc
Jim Nantell, City Manager
By
By
Attest
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
J
Downtown Burlingame lmprovement District
Budgeted Comparitive Statement of Activities
For the Fiscal Years ending June 30, 2005 and 2006
2004-2005
lncome
$ 141,000.00
$25,000.00$ 3,300.00
Aproximate Dates 6.05.2004-6.05.2005
Annual Receipts: aproximate
Art & Jazz Festival lncome September
Funds Tranferred from Previous Association
't5% Uncollectable BID Fees; Doubtful Accounts
LEGAL OBLIGATIONS TO REINSTATE BID 2005.2006
Gity of Burlingame: Annual Cost of Collection
Annual Gost to renew DBID (legal notice 5 days in paper)
Outside Bookeeper
Reduction in Next Years assesments
ANNUAL PROGRAMS
Shuttle Service: Annual
2003 Remaining Balance due on Shuttle
ANNUAL EVENTS
Holiday Open House December 22-25,000
(Not inclusive of tree lighting)
ANNUAL ADVERTISING PROGRAMS
Explorer Magazine:(Hard bound books in hotels)
Bi-Annual Sidewalk Sale April
Bi-Annual Sidewalk Sale August
Advertising For Fall 2004 Spring 2005 (Media)
Advertising on Side of Shuftle
First Time Start Up Costs
Phase 1 : Development of DBID Association lntegrated Design System
Phase 2: Development of Consumer Website for
Downtownburlingame.com
Annual maintanince of Assocition website
annual maintance of Consumber website
Future Projects: Funds to be set aside
Downtown Streetscape lmprovements
Holiday Decoration Fund: Decorations for Downtown
One Year Tdal Program:
Adopt A Planter 'l year irrigation of 32 street planters
Business Neighborhood Watch Program:
Shared Employee w/ Chamber
Concierge Program: Work with hotels to send customers
to Downtown to shop
Total lncome
Tatal Expenses
2004-2005
Expenses
$ 20,000.00
$ 8,000.00
$1,000.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 25,000.00
$ 2,000.00
$2,000.00
$2,000.00
$ 25,000.00
$3,000.00
$ 30,000.00
$ 15,000.00
$ g.oo
$3,000.00
$3,000.00
$ 168,009.00
2005-2006
lncome
$ 141,000.00
$ 25,000.00
2005-2006
Expenses
$ 20,000.00
$6,000
$5,000$ 1,000.00
$ 10,000.00
$5,000
$ 25,000.00
$ 2,000.00
$ 1,500.00
$ 1,500.00
$ 25,000.00
$ 3,000.00
$
$
$ 1,000.00
$ 2,000.00
$ 28,000.00
$ 15,000.00
$ 9,000.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 3,000.00
$ 166,000.00
$ 169,300.00 $ 166,000.00
This is intended for management purposes only. This statement is unauditied and not for external use
$10,000.00
$12,000
STAFF REPORT
ro: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: September21,2004
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE
7b
10t04t04
SUBMITTED
BY
APPROVED
BY
SUBJECT: JOINT POWERS BOARD / CALTRAIN BROADWAY AND BU
STATION IMPROVEMENTS
INGAME AVENUE TRAIN
Citv Proiect No. 9608
RECOMMENDATION: At the conclusion of a presentation by Caltrains regarding the public feedback on
the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway train station platforms project, staff requests direction from Council
to:. work with Caltrains on finalizing the project design.. proceed with the closure of South Lane.. negotiate a lease with Mike Harvey for use of a portion of West Lane right-of-way.
DISCUS$ION: JPB/Caltrains representatives held two public meetings to present proposed platform
improvements for the Broadway and Burlingame Avenue stations. Issues that arose at the public meetings
included parking, station location alternatives, pedestrian crossings, future third rail options and connections
to the downtown. Caltrain will review these issues at the Council meeting during their presentation.
Caltrain staff also met with Mike Harvey, who has a lease to store vehicles along Caltrain right-of-way at both
stations. Based on meetings with Mike Harvey, Caltrains has indicated that they would provide the same
square footage of vehicle storage in a reconfigured area at the Burlingame station. In order to accommodate
the vehicle storage, a portion of the City street will be required along West Lane. Based on Council direction,
staff would negotiate a lease with Mike Harvey for the use of this right-of-way under terms similar to other
City auto dealership leases. The details of the storage area will be presented at the Council meeting.
c:City Clerk, City Manager, City Planner
Al Fung and Brian Fitzpatrick of Caltrain - San Mateo Transportation Authority
Mike Harvey - Mike Harvey Honda, 200 California Drive
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 station improvements plan 10-04-04.sr.wpd
Proposed Broadway & Burl ingame
Station & Grade Grossing
lmprovements
Presentation to:
Burlingame City Council October 4,2004
nrCal
,
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
(PCJPB)
Capital Project [tlanagement
ir a
Projects' Pri mary Goals
Broadway & Burlingame
o Enhance safety
o Eliminate hold-out rule
o Reduce traffic
congestion
Ip I;
Broadway Avenue sample crossing photo
I::
Iri:--
I
ryil'Jf:lry=3
*
Secondary Goals
o lmprove platforms &
amenities
o N/ake stations ADA
compatible
o Grade crossing
improvements
o Improve track & ballast
o lmprove drainage
sample photo
)l a
lr
il
il
{.
(r
Broadway
o Staggered outside
boarding platform
lncreases safety with
center fence and
gates/warning devices
Eliminates hold-out rule
Reduces vehicular gate
down time by 50% (63 to
31 minutes)
a
II
I
3
+
n
I
5
/-- *;;-,
-,,(--.o.*;'m-'
\....-...........................*i
Broadway: Existing & Proposed
Looking north from Broadway
Existing Proposed
It
Broadway: Existing & Proposed
Looking south from Broadway
Existing Proposed
t
1
,!,
-!
4 B.:l
t
fii)
;,itl
I
Broadway Pros/Gons
o Pros
Enhances safety
Eliminates hold-out rule
Reduces vehicular gate
down time
lmproves platform &
amenities
ADA compatible
o Cons
Slightly longer walk to
platform on one leg of a
roundtrip
Need to cross Broadway
Ave.
Broadway Proposed Mitigation
o Pathways will be enhanced with the City of
Burlingame streetscape design (colored &
d istinctly scored concrete)
o Crosswalks will be clearly marked and will
have railroad pedestrian crossing arms and
gates to provide a safe environment
Burl ingame
o Outside boarding
platform
lncreases safety with
center fence and
gates lwarning devices
Eliminates hold-out rule
Reduces vehicular gate
down time by 32o/o (125 to
69 minutes at North Lane;
95 to 67 minutes at
Howard Ave)
ffig]lffiffi
a
" -...fY*"
.-,* **"-J g:"
c^rE (m,)
$
I
lt
-- .--- --'-u
r- n'fup$ ) \P^rncLL$I (m)r*..---\(...............-/3
J
5d
Bur ngame: Existing & Proposedti
Looking south from North Lane
Existing Proposed
CaI
a
tr
(r
Existing
ngame: Existing & Proposed
Looking north from Howard Ave.
Proposed
l
I
(r
Burl ingame Pros/Gons
o Pros
Enhances safety
Eliminates hold-out rule
Reduces vehicular gate
down time
lmproves the platform &
amenities
Provides additional
parking at the platforms
ADA compatible
Closure of South Lane
o Cons
Redirection of existing
pedestrian path to
Burlingame Ave
t\4od ification of leases
Closure of South Lane
Burl ingame Mitigation
o Pathways will be distinctly marked with the
City of Burlingame streetscape design
indicating the proper route to cross the
tracks.
o The JPB will continue to work with tenants to
coordinate lease modifications.
Existing Leases
MIKE HARVTY HONOA
e6tof
i t'n"*,'".,,-,E^srlmEffi FH'Rf;i,r;,n /--€ otun'- // wffilfr11 A\eell l qrF(rL/' i ,", - {i1
,i
i
;try
<-_{;,
Cal,
''l
*d
fum,*
6 {u* r&&
CAUFONMA DRI!€
^Fr ,;m,
n.nl.
wEsl
,re*a:l
l
MIKE HAR!€Y HONDA
il .,. ti
,,d1
f,t'
; tt{
t
Proposed Modified Leases
-:y
urxr uenyev roNt'r
[AS'T LA{I
MIKE HARVEY HONDA
t:l -.
rl
Public Ouestions Summ ary
1 ??1111111111111?1?11 11ttlttllll0tlllllllllllt
1) What was the public notification process regarding the
projects and potential lease modification and I or
terminations?
The initial City Council presentation and the two
public meetings (July 29 and Aug 3) were set up
to gather public input. [Vlail, newspaper
announcements, and flyers were distributed area
wide. The forums were designed to provide equal
access to all and to elicit comments from the
public. If there are any particular issues, the JPB
will work with any individuals or businesses.
The JPB has followed up with additional meetings
with those concerned.
? t!
2l Gould diagonal parking be provided on both sides of
East and West Lanes?
We have looked into it and the existing widths of the streets
would not allow diagonal parking on both sides.
18
t'l
3)Could the platforms be moved north of either North Lane
or South Lane or perhaps the stations be consolidated
(Broadway & Burlingame) at Oak Grove?
Current location best serves Caltrain riders, the public and merchants
o lncreases safety. Relieves traffic congestion
o Maintains focal point of the historic depot and decreases transit time
[\4oving the platforms north:
o Location would lncrease congestion (traffic and parking) with Burlingame High
School
o Environmental concerns (flood control channel, wetlands) causing delays and
significant costs. Grade would need to be changed; set-out track would be eliminated
o Significant increased costs in building two new platforms with associated
amenities
o Additional PUC crossing at north end
Consolidation of the two train stations would not best serve the merchants
and the public.
4l Could a pathway be provided through South Lane or to
the existing crosswalk near Burlingame Ave?
It is the JPB's policy only to have crossings at the ends of
platforms. A middle crossing would decrease safety and
would involve significant added costs (additional signaling,
ADA requirements, etc.). lt would also mean an additional
crossing which we are trying to minimize. As part of the
design, we will be emphasizing the pathways in and around
the area.
The crossing at North Lane adds about 180 feet of
additional distan ce (240 ft to 420 ft) or about 40 seconds of
additional time
,x\lrt :Jlr3 i Nr:
i r::,N.) { ,t
I
Revised Pathway l9rossi ng
I
-- :1 . -------11-------- 41-----
ca@
l
I
e I
5)Could the plaza in front of the historic depot be
enhanced?
We are looking into providing upgraded streetscape paths
leading to and around the plaza area. This would also
assist in guiding people to North Lane.
t
6)What is being done with the crosswalks and access to
the platforms?
The crosswalks will be distinctly marked and guide patrons
to the platforms. They will also be approximately ten feet
wide to accommodate wheelchairs, strollers, etc. We will be
following the City of Burlingame streetscape guidelines.
l)
)
7) What amenities are being provided?
Shelters will be provided on both platforms
(custom at Burlingame to tie in with the historic
depot); bike racks; Iighting; visual message signs,
public address system, benches, etc. Colors will
be chosen to be compatible and enhance the
existing stations. The historic depot will not be
changed.
lt
I ,, D
Burl ingame Shelter Design
I/
===z=
--lf--
,/
.///
SIDE ELEVATION
FRONT ELEVATION
-++ft
I /
.ar)
8)What impact will these projects have with 3rd/4th track
options or the Broadway grade separation proposal?
These projects address the current and near future needs.
Any Srdl4th track options will likely require grade separation.
It will not deter any future projects such as the grade
separation.
j.)
Summary
Platform configurations best serve:
Caltrain (eliminates hold-out rule & enhances safety)
Street traffic (reduces vehicular gate down time improving circulation)
Merchants (location of stations best serves the public)
Enhancements:
Upgrade of platforms & amenities with ADA compatibility
Follows City of Burlingame streetscape designs for beautification
Provides focal point for the historic station (Burlingame depot)
Provides upgraded track & ballast for train operations
lmproves drainage throughout the area
Resurfaces grade crossings (North Lane & Bayswater)
t\florrell Ave pedestrian crossing is ADA compatible and gated/signalized
Future actions
Proceed with design
Proceed with closure of South Lane
Negotiate leases
o
a
a
STAFF REPORT
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SEPTMBERZ4.2OO4
AGENDA 7cITEM #
MTG.
DATE 10.4.02
TO:SUBMITTED
DATEI
BY
BY
APPROVED
FROM: CITY PLANNER
suBJECT: Introduction of Two Amendments to the ZoningCode to Interim Zoningfor the
Implementation of the North BurlingamelRollins Road Specific Plan
a. Ordinance regarding Multiple Family Uses on Marco Polo, Trousdale, Ogden, Murchison,
and Magnolia Drives areao and Auto Row Use on Adrian Road
b. Ordinance regarding health uses on the Peninsula Hospital Block
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council should introduce two ordinances to begin implementation of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road
Specific Plan adopted September 20,2004.
a. Introduction of ordinance regarding Multiple Family/Auto Row Uses requires the following council
actions.
A. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance.
B. Waive further reading of the ordinance.
C. Introduce the proposed ordinance.
D. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed
adoption (October l8).
b. Introduction of ordinance regarding Health Service Uses requires the following council actions.
E. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance.
F. Waive further reading of the ordinance.
G. Introduce the proposed ordinance.
H. Direct the city clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed
adoption (at a future meeting, probably when Hospital Project comes forward to City Council).
Planning Commission Action
In their review of the implementation section of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the
Planning Commission acknowledged that interim zoning would need to be put into place until the staff and
commission could revise the zoning requirements for the entire planning area. Commission was also aware
that, inorder to comply with state law, staff would bring interim zoning changes, based on existing zoning
districts, directly to the City Council for action.
Introduction of an Amendment to the Zoning Code to Established Interim Zoning for the Implementation of the North
BarlingamdRollins Road SpeciJic Plan October 4' 2004
BACKGROUND:
On September 20,2}O4,the City Council adopted the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and
amended it to the City's General Plan. In the Specific Plan there were a number of land use changes which
added uses to the land areas affected.
Califomia planning law requires that there be consistency between the General Plan and zoning. Most simply
what this means is that a plan cannot promise a use that the zoning denies. For this reason, and to implement
city policies to encourage these new land uses in these areas, it is necessary to add zoning to these areas which
allows the uses promoted in the Specific Plan.
In the long term (next 12 to 18 months) the Planning Commission will develop new zoning districts and
regulations to fully implement the Specific Plan. However, in the interim to encourage developers to
undertake projects supported in the plan, we are suggesting "overlay" zoning using the closest existing zoning
district.
Summary of the ZoningDesignation and Text Changes
North of Trousdale Subarea (84)
Currently zoned C-3 which prohibits residential uses. Proposed change: a conditional use permit to allow R-4
Multiple family residential on the block bounded by Trousdale-Ogden-Murchison-Magnolia.
Adrian Road Auto Row District Subarea (A-4)
The entire Adrian Road Auto Row District is currently zoned M-l Light Industrial. Auto sales are allowed in
the M-l zone but only if wholly contained including auto display within a structure. That is not the concept of
an auto row, with outdoor display which is being promoted in the proposed Rollins Road auto row area. For
that reason the zoning for the Adrian Road Auto Row District needs to be amended to allow outdoor display
of cars for sale and other activities and requirements contmon to an auto row.
Mills-P eninsula Block Subarea (B 3)
Marco Polo frontage is currently zoned C-3 which prohibits residential uses. Proposed change: a conditional
use permit to allow R-4 Multiple Family Residential on the properties fronting on Marco Polo, except the
corner of Trousdale/ Marco Polo which is intended in the plan to remain office use consistent with the C-3
zoning on the property.
On the El Camino Real frontage of the hospital site, place all properties owned by Mills Peninsula Health
Services (private non-profit owner) into the C-1 Retail Sales and Service district until the properties are
acquired by a public agency, when they will be rezoned to Unclassified.
Amend the C-1 zoning district regulations to allow medical office buildings to match those across El Camino
Real on parcels zoned C-1 on the west side of El Camino Real between Trousdale and the properties zoned
R-l to the south.
2
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S DERTERMINATION THAT THE SECOND UNIT WAS NOT BAILT BEFORE
Ig54 AT 826 ALPINE AVENT]E, ZONED R-[ SEPTEMBER 16, 2OO2
ATTACHMENTS:
Annotated Intermediate ZoningChanges to Implement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan
Adopted September 20,2004, dated September 28,2004
Draft Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending the Zoning Code to Establish Intermediate Zoning to
Implement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan of the General Plan
Draft Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending the ZoningCode to Establish Office Zoningto
Implement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan of the General Plan
U:\CCStaffRepts\IntroNoBgmRRZoning Interim 1 0.4.04.doc
J
September 28,2004
Annotated Intermediate Zonrng Changes to Implement the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Adopted September 20,20A4
At the time of the public hearing, staff noted to the City Council that because this plan adds land uses
in some subareas of the Planning Area which are currently prohibited, it would be necessary to follow
up approval action with the imposition of intermediate zoning. This zoning would be a place holder
until the Planning Commission can develop new zoningrequirements to implement the Specific Plan
in these subareas.
Below are the proposed changes to the zonrngcode. Each annotation explains what the change will
accomplish.
Chapter 25.40 C-3 District Regulations
Add Code Section 25.40.035
25.40.35 Additional conditional uses in certain areas.
In addition to the conditional uses set fort in Section 25.40.025, the following areas shall have
additional conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit as described:
a. Trousdale-Ogden-Murchison-Magnolia. In the area bounded by Trousdale Drive,
Ogden Drive, Murchison Drive and Magnolia Drive, the conditional uses allowed under
section 24.34.030, and multiple family residential uses developed under the standards of
chapter 25.34.
b. Marco Polo. On any parcel with sheet frontage on Marco Polo Drive except the
parcels located at the corner of Marco Polo Drive and Trousdale Drive, the conditional
uses allowed under section 25.34.030, and multiple family residential uses developed
under the standards of chapter 25.34.
Annotation:
This change would allow multiple family residential development to
occur on the properties in the 84 North of Trousdale Subarea and on
the properties which front. on Marco Polo as shown in the Mil-l-s
Peninsula Block Subarea (B3) which are presently zoned C-3 and on
which housing is currently prohibit.ed. This change, ds proposed,
would a1low these properties all the benefits of R-4 zoning
including setbacks, heighL Ij-mit.ations (review line at 35 feet,
maximum height. 75 feet.) etc. and allowance of other uses determined
to be consistent with R-4 zoning e.g. convalescent homes, apartment
and residential hot.eIs, churches as well as l-ess dense resident.ial\-,
fnturmediate Zoning Changes tu fmpkment the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Speciftc Plan Adopted
September 28,2004
development. Staff anticipates that t.his overl-ay zoning will be inplace about a year to 18 months. By that time the planning
commission will be proposing new regulations more specificalrytailored t.o the plan and these areas. rn the interim, all projectswill be reviewed and presented in the context of the adopted p1an,
and consistency with the directives of the Specific Plan may be
taken into consideratj-on in granting any required varj-ances or other
code exceptions for plan compliance.
ZoningCorrection in Mills Peninsula Block Subarea
The attached map shows the location of the second ?.oringcorrection for the Mills Peninsula Block
subarea inorder to facilitate the implementation of the Norttr Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan.
The map shows that the parcels on the El Camino Real frontage which are presently zoned C-3 and
Unclassified will be rezoned C-l (see map attached). This zoning change is necessary because these
parcels are not currently owned by a public agency. Common zoning is required because there is a
request to merge these parcels and it is not possible to merge properties across zoning boundaries. C-l
has been chosen for the zoning designation because:. C-l zoning is consistent with the existing adjacent zorungand development (across the
street);
. C-l zonrng allows the uses which are designated for the Mills Peninsula Block in the
Specific Plan: Hospital, office buildings, pafting garages.
Add (3) to Code Section 25.36.035
(changes in italics)
25.36.30 Additional conditional uses in certain areas.
In addition to the conditional uses set forth in Section 25.36.030, the following areas shall have
additional conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit as described:
a) Hatch Lane. Uses permitted in Section 25.38.020, except section I ,in the area bounded by
California Drive, Highland Avenue , Howard Avenue, Hatch Lane and City Parking Lot
,,M'.
b) Murchison Drive-Califurnia Drive. Multiple family residential uses developed to the
standards of Chapter 25.34 and uses permitted in Section 25.34.030, in the area bounded by
El Camino Real, Murchison Drive, California Drive and the northerly (rear) property line of
all parcels fronting on Dufferin Avenue.
c) El Camino Real-Trousdale. Between Trousdale Drive and the northerly property line of the
Ray Park Subdivision, health servtces on parcels withfrontage on El Camino Real.
Arrrrotation:
This code amendment would establish a third 'roverlay[ area in the
)
Intermediate Zoning Changes to Implement the Nonh Bu ingamdRollins Rottl Specifrc Plan Adopted
September 28, 2004
C-1 zoning district. It would a11ow medical office uses as a
conditional- use in the portion of the Mills Peninsula BLock Subarea
which front.s on El Camino Real- aE Ehe corner of TrousdaLe from the
wesLern edge of Ehe SF Water l-ine extsending east to EI Camino Real .
This area is shown in t.he Nort.h Burl ingame/nol1ins Road Specific
PIan for institutional uses. The Peninsula Hospital Care Distrj.ct
proposes to put a hospital , medical office building, and parking
garage to support. the hospj-tal , partially on this area proposed to
be rezoned to C-1. Since the ownership of this fronE area must be in
public ownership inorder Eo be zoned UncLassified, all E.he parcels
wiEhin this front area musE be rezoned into a common zoning before a
building permits can be issued. Ne\,, const.rucEi.on cannot cross
propertsy l-ines or zoning boundari.es e.g. cannoE have t.wo zonings on
a single parcel . Since the hospital would like to commence
construction on Ehe Trousdale entrance closesE to EI Camino Real
and the parking garage before the land exchange can be completed, it
is necessary to rezone Ehe front portion of the site to C-1. When
this part of the propert.y j-s transferred int,o public ownership, the
C-1 zoning will be required by law Eo be changed to Unclassified.
Zoning Changes to Implemetrt Auto Row in the Light Industrial Zone (M-1)
Add a new code section CS 25.44.035
25.44.035 Additional conditional uses in certain areas.
In addition to the conditional uses set fort in Section 25.44.030, the following areas shall have
additional conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit as described:
a) Adrian Court, Adrian Road and Edwards Court. On any parcel with frontage on
Adrian Court, Adrian Road, or Edwards Court, wes related to automobiles sales and
seryice, and automobile storage directly related to automobile sales.
Arrnotation:
One of E.he objectives of the North Burl ingame/Ro11ins Road Specific
PLan was to provide a place for aut.o sales and service businesses toexpand. The Adrian Road Auto Row District Subarea (A 4) was
created in Ehe plan Eo accomplish this goa1, it. is shown on Fig. 4-1attached. In time the Planning Commission will develop st.andardsfor this area which reflect t.he design and other criteria of tsheSpecific P1an. However, in the interim, to encourage those autosales businesses which may be int.erested immediately, it seemsappropriate !o change the M-l- zoning to allow auto sal-es, service
and storage uses in Ehis area as a condit.ionaL use. presently theseuses require a conditional use and all display and storage ofvehieles must. be inside of a building. This indoor sEorage
J
fnturmediate Zoning Changes to Implement the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Speciftc Plan Adopted
September 28, 2004
requirement would not meet the display needs of current auto
dealers.
Draft:
September 28,2004
9.28.A4.doc
U :Voninglssues\I{oB gmRolsRd Zoning\CClntroAnnotation IntefuZng
4
\-.
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
l3
t4
15
l6
t7
l8
r9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
\-,
9/25/2004
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OT'BURLINGAME AMENDING THE ZONING
CODE TO ESTABLISH INTERMEDIATE ZONING TO IMPLEMENT THE
NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIX'IC PLAN OF THE GENERAL
PLAN
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. In September 2004,the City Council adopted the North Burlingame/Rollins
Road Specific Plan as an amendment to the City General Plan. The Specific Plan establishes
new locations for possible use for multiple family developments and for auto row uses as
conditional uses. This ordinance is important to begin the implementation of the goals and
policies of the Specific Plan.
Section 2. Section 25.40.035 is added to read as follows:
25.40.035 Additional conditional uses in certain areas.
In addition to the conditional uses set forth in Section 25.40.025, the following areas
shall have additional conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit as described:
(a) Trousdale, Ogden, Murchison, and Magnolia Drives. tn the area bounded by
Trousdale, Ogden, Murchison, and Magnolia Drives, the conditional uses allowed under section
25.34.030,andmultiple familyresidentialusesdevelopedunderthestandardsofchapter25.34.
(b) Marco Polo. On any parcel with frontage on Marco Polo Drive except the parcels
located on the corner of Marco Polo and Trousdale Drive, the conditional uses allowed under
section 25.34.030, andmultiple familyresidential uses developedunderthe standards ofchapter
25.34.
Section 3. A new Section 25.44.035 is added to read as follows:
25.44.035 Additional conditional uses in certain areas.
In addition to the conditional uses set forth in Section 25.44.030, the following areas
shall have additional conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit as described:
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
ll
t2
l3
t4
l5
t6
t7
l8
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(a) Adrian Court, Adrian Road, and Edwards Court.. On any parcel with frontage on
Adrian Court, Adrian Road, or Edwards Court, uses related to automobile sales and service, and
automobile storage directly related to automobile sales.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall take effect
thirty (30) days after its adoption.
Mayor
I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certi$r that
the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
_ day of 2A04, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City
Council held on the _ day of by the following vote
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
9/25/2004 -2-
l
\-
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l1
12
13
t4
l5
16
t7
18
79
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
\-
9/28/2004
ORDINAI\CE NO.
ORDINAI{CE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE ZONING
CODE TO ESTABLISH OFFICE ZOMNG TO IMPLEMENT THE NORTH
BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAI\ OF THE GEI\ERAE PLAI\
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does herebyordain as follows:
Section l. In September2004,the CityCouncil adoptedtheNorthBurlingame/Rollins
Road Specific Plan as an amendment to the City General Plan. The Specific Plan establishes
uses for the Peninsula Hospital site as conditional uses. This ordinance is important to begin
the implementation of the goals and policies of the Specific Plan.
Section 2. Section 25.36.035 is added to read as follows:
25.36.035 Additional conditional uses in certain areas.
In addition to the conditional uses set forth in Section 25.36.030, the following areas
shall have additional conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit as described:
ffi. ttatch Lane. Uses permitted in Section 25.38.020, except section 1, in the area
bounded by California Drive, Highland Avenue, Howard Avenue, Hatch Lane and CityParking
Lot "M".
'ffi. Murchison Drive-Califtrnia Drive. Multiple familyresidential uses developed to
the standards of Chapter 25.34 anduses permitted in Section 25.34.030,inthe areaboundedby
El Camino Real, Murchison Drive, California Drive anrtffi northerly (rear) property line of all
parcels facing Dufferin Avenue.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall take effect
thirty (30) days after its adoption.
Mayor
I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City ofBurlingame, do hereby certify that
I
2
aJ
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
l3
l4
t5
t6
t7
18
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the 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 _ day of by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEIMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
9/28/2004 -2-
PREP,RECEIVED
ocT 4 2004
CIIY CLERK'S OFFICE
CITY OF BURLIIIGAI\4E
PACIFIC RESOURCES ENGINEERING & PLANNING^
October 4,2004
Burlingame Mayor and City Council
c/o City Clerk
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re Interim Residential Zoningfor the North of Trousdale Subarea to Implement the
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan
Dear Mayor O'Mahony, Vice Mayor Galligan, and Councilmembers:
On behalf of Burlingame Hills Manor LLC, we submit the following comments with
regard to the proposed interim residential zoningfor the North of Trousdale Subarea of the North
Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, which would add a new section 25.40.035 to the
Burlingame Municipal Code.
Burlingame Hills Manor agrees that the City should use the R-4 residential district as an
interim overlay zoning for the North of Trousdale Subarea ("B4 Subarea"). However, the
proposed section 25 .40 .035 is slightly unclear and possibly inconsistent with the Council' s and
ihe Planning Staffls intentions. In particular, it is unclear whether the Council intends to require
a conditional use permit for all multi-family residential projects in the 84 Subarea, even if the
project would not need a conditional use permit under the regular R-4 zoning provisions. On one
hand, the proposed section 25.40.035 suggests that a conditional use permit would be required
for all multi-family residential projects in the 84 Subarea, regardless of size. On the other hand,
the explanatory annotation following the proposed section 25.40.035 indicates that the City
intends to require a conditional use permit only for projects that would require a conditional use
per:mit under the regular R-4 provisions (e.g., for projects without affordable housing that exceed
the 35-foot review line).
We encourage the Council to revise the proposed section 25.40.035 to require a
conditional use permit for multi-family residential projects only where a conditional use permit
would be required under the regular R-4 zoning provisions and the inclusionary housing zoning
provisions. We believe that this is consistent with the Council's intent in implementing the
North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. If the City were instead to require a conditional
use permit for all multi-family residential projects in the B4 Subarea, the City would
inadvertently eliminate one of the incentives for affordable housing offered under section
25.63.030 of the Municipal Code. Moreover, given the specific development standards
established by the City in the Specific Plan and the R-4 zoning provisions, we see no need for
additional review beyond what is ordinarily required in the R-4 district.
100, BURLINGAME, CA 94010-1980 . (650) 343-2525 FAX (650) 343-8998 . e-moil: pocificresources@pocificresources.org
www. pocificresources.org
pa-924672 v2
500
a
Page2
We recommend that the Council revise the proposed section 25.40.035 to read as follows:
25.40.035 Additional Uses in Certain Areas.
ln addition to the uses set forth in Sections 25.40.020 and25.40.025,the following uses
in the following areas are permitted or conditional uses:
a. Trousdale-Ogden-Murchison-Magnolia. ln the area bounded by Trousdale
Drive, Ogden Drive, Murchison Drive and Magnolia Drive, multiple family
residential uses permitted under section 25.34.020 and developed in
accordance with Chapt er 25.34 are permitted uses, and the conditional uses set
forth in Section 25.34.030 are conditional uses requiring a conditional use
permit.
b. Marco Polo. On any parcel with street frontage on Marco Polo Drive except
the parcels located at the corner of Marco Polo Drive and Trousdale Drive,
multiple family residential uses permitted under section 25.34.020 and
developed in accordance with Chapter 25.34 are permitted uses, and the
conditional uses set forth in Section 25.34.030 are conditional uses requiring a
conditional use permit.
We would be happy to discuss our recommendation with the Council and the Planning
Staff.
Sincerely,T*
Bruce Balshone
Pacific Resources
cc:Meg Monroe, Burlingame City Planner
Larry Anderson, Burlingame City Attorney
Alex Novell, Burlingame Manor
Thomas B. Ruby, Morrison and Foerster
John Hickey, Morrison and Foerster
P B tHr***,
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE
7d
STAFF REPORT Octoher 4. 2004
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BY
DATE: September 29, 2004
APPROVED
FROM: Netie Shinday (558-72041 BY
SUBJECT: Consider Appointments to Parks and Recreation Gommission
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider appointment recommendations of interview committee and make appointments, or take
other action.
BACKGROUND:
Three commission positions are due for appointment because of term expiration
The positions were advertised and five applications were received. The interview committee
interviewed the applicants on September 21,2004 and will make their recommendation at the
Council meeting on October 4,2004.
The terms will be for three years each, ending in October 2007.
I.k^ nP
ROSALIE M. O,MAHONY, MAYOR
JOE GALLIGAN, VICE MAYOR
CATHY BAYLOCK
MIKE COFFEY
TERRY NAGEL
aTl, V,,n7 r/ % *,1r,/.-,"TEL: (650) 5s8-7200
FAX: (650) 342-8386
www. burlingame.orgCITY HALL _ 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401 0-3997
We interviewed five candidates for Park & Recreation Commission on September 21.
We recommend Karen Dittman
Ed Larios
Carol Muller
Councilman Mike Coffey
Mayor Rosalie M. O'Mahony
STAFF REPORT
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
September 28,2004
AGENDA
ITEM # 8a
MTG.
DArE t rOl4l04
TO:
DATE:
BY
FRoM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director
558-7222
SUBJECT: YEAR-END TRANSFER OF $5OO,OOO TO THE RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the year-end transfer of $500,000 from the
CalPERs Reserve to the Risk Management Fund Reserve.
BACKGROUND:
The Risk Management Fund accounts for the annual administration and settlement of claims pertaining to the
City's General Liability and Workers' Compensation Programs. In addition to budgeting the annual costs of
these programs, the Risk Management Fund maintains a monetary reserve as a margin against potential claim
losses. The reserve serves to buffer the city against unexpected financial losses that may be incurred as a
result of extraordinary high claim payouts in future years.
The City recently completed an actuarial study of the Workers' Compensation Program. The study
recommended that the City consider achieving al5oh funding margin (of outstanding claims) as a reserve.
The report suggests that the City achievethisT5o/o funding margin level over five fiscal years. In FY 04-05,
the recommended contribution to the reserye is $554,000.
The City also is in the process of conducting an actuarial analysis of the general liability program to assess the
possible funding margin level for that program.
Ultimately the amount of the Risk Management reserve (margin) is a matter of long-term financial and
budgetary policy based on the probability that a given level of funding will be enough to pay expected as well
as unexpected claims. A high funding margin provides greater financial stability when unexpected losses are
experienced. But, any funding decisions must take into account the City's other budgetary constraints as well
as the level of risk that is believed fiscally prudent to assume.
The FY 04-50 budget projects a Risk Management Fund ending balance of $4.3 million. The additional
transfer of $500,000 from the CaIPERS reserve will increase the estimated year-end amount (June 30, 2005) to
$4.8 million, approximately 600/o of the estimated outstanding liabilities of $8 million.
ATTACHMENTS:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COLTNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING A YEAR-
END TRANSFER OF $5OO,OOO TO THE RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FLIND
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AUTHORTZTNG TRANSFER OF $s00,000 FROM THE CALPERS RESERVE FUND TO
THE RISK MANAGEMENT RESERVE FUND
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS, the City maintains a Risk Management Fund to support its self-insured
workers compensation and liability programs; and
WHEREAS, an actuarial study has recommended that the City gradually inuease its
funding of the Risk Management Fund to a75Yo confidence level over the next 5 years; and
WHEREAS, there is sufficient funding in the CALPERS Reserve Fund to allow a transfer
of $500,000 to the Risk Management Fund,
NOW, THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED:
1. A transfer of $500,000 from the CALPERS Reserve Fund to the Risk Management Fund
is hereby authorized and directed.
MAYOR
I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certift that the foregoing
resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the of_
2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
1
STAFF REPORT
RABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
AGENDA
rrEM # 8b
MrG. 10104104
DATE
TO:
DATE:
FROM
September 29,2004 BY
APP
BYPUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL S CONTRACT WITH BKF ENGINEERS FOR
DESIGN, PUBLIC RELATIONS AND CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR EASTON
CREEK SEWER REHABILITATION PROGRAM - CITY PROJECT 81150
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution for a professional services
contract with BKF Engineers in the amount of $340,583 for pre-design investigation, design, public relations and
construction management of the Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation Program.
BACKGROLTND: Staff received eight proposals on August 31, 2004 for both design and construction management
services for the Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation Project. Five firms were selected for interviews and BKF Engineers
received the highest rating. BKF has more than 20 years of design and construction management experience with similar
projects. Their past work with the City has been satisfactory.
DISCUSSION: The Easton Creek sewer replacement is complicated as the upper portion of the sewer main runs under
the creek bed and the lower portion runs through Easton Drive. The sewer main receives flow from Hillsborough, the
County of San Mateo and the City. The project requires permits from the Department of Fish and Game and Corp of
Engineers. Access to the creek portion of the main is very limited and there are substantial tree root issues to deal with
along Easton Drive.
BKF Engineers will provide all of the design service and full-time construction management service. They will also
perform the public-outreach program in a manner similar to the Broadway Streetscape program and the current water
CIP project. The total fee includes $95,104 for pre-design investigation, $82,533 for design services, $ll2,4ll for
construction management services and $50,535 for public relation services. The cost of each service as a percentage
of the estimated $1,300,000 construction cost is within industry standards.
The design will begin in October 2004 and the construction is estimated to start in June 2005.
EXHIBITS: Resolution, Agreement and Fee Schedule
BUDGET IMPACT:
Pre-Design Investigatio n (7 3%)
Design Services (6.3%)
Public Relations (3 .9%)
Construction Management (8.6%)
Total (26%)
s 95,104
$ 82,533
$ 50,535
$ 112.411
$ 340,583
There are sufficient funds available in the 200412005 Sewer Capital Improvement Budget.
P.E
Senior Civil Engineer
(650) ss8-7230
c: City Clerk
S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\81 l50.constmana.wpd
RESOLUTION NO.
AGREEMENT FOR PROFES SIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BKF ENGINEERS
EASTON CREEK SEWER REHABILITATION PROGRAM
CITY PROJECT NO. 81150
RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this
Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS:
1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in
the title above.
2. The City Manager be, and he is hereby, atrthorized to sign said agreement for and
on behalf of the City of Burlingame.
3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and instructed to attest such signature.
Mayor
I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_
_ day of 2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
A.
B.
C.
AGREEMENT FOR PROTESSIONAL DESIGN ENGII\IEERING SERVICES
EASTON CREEK SEWER REHABILITATION
CITY PROJECT NO. 81150
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of
,2004, by and between the City of Burlingame, State of
California, herein called the "City", and BKF ENGIIYEERS engaged in providing
?ROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING consulting services herein called the
"Consultant".
RECITALS
The City is considering undertaking activities for the Easton Creek Sewer
Rehabilitation (CP 81150) as described in Exhibit A.
The City desires to engage a professional consultant to provide
engineering design services, because of Consultant's experience and
qualifications to perform the desired work.
The Consultant represents and affirms ttrat it is qualified and willing to
perform the desired work pursuant to this Agreement.
AGREEMENTS
NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS:
I Scope of Services. The Consultant shall provide all services as set forth in
Exhibit A of this agreement.
Time of Performance. The services of the Consultant are to commence
upon the execution of this Agreement with completion of the program by
December 2OO4.
Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable
laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations of governing federal, state and
local laws. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all
licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which
are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant
represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and
expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this
Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally required
Revised: July 18,2003 Page 1 of 8
S:\A Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\8l I S0\consultantagreementnew.wpd
2
J
)
4
5
7
8
6
for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City
of Burlingame business license.
Sole Responsibilitv. Consultant shall be responsible for employing or
engaging all persons necessary to perform the services under this
Agreement.
Information/Report Handling. All documents furnished to Consultant by
the City and all reports and supportive data prepared by ttre Consultant
under this Agreement are the City's property and shall be delivered to the
City upon the completion of Consultant's services or at ttre City's written
request. All reports, information, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled
by Consultant in connection with the perforrnance of its services pursuant
to this Agreement are confidential until released by the City to the public,
and the Consultant shall not make any of the these documents or
information available to any individual or organization not employed by
the Consultant or the City without the written consent of the City before
such release. The City acknowledges that the reports to be prepared by the
Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are for the purpose of evaluating a
defrned project, and City's use of the information contained in the reports
prepared by the Consultant in connection with other projects shall be
solely at City's risk, unless Consultant expressly consents to such use in
writing. City further agrees that it will not appropriate arry methodology
or technique of Consultant which is and has been confirmed in writing by
Consultant to be a trade secret of Consultant.
Compensation. Compensation for Consultant's professional services shall
not exceed $340.583.00 and payment shall be based upon City approval of
each task.
Billing shall be accompanied by a detailed explanation of the work
performed by whom at what rate and on what date. Also, plans,
specifications, documents or other pertinent materials shall be submitted
for City review, even if only in partial or draft form.
Availability of Records. Consultant shall maintain the records supporting
this billing for not less than three (3) years following completion of the
work under this Agreement. Consultant shall make these records available
to authorized personnel of the City at the Consultant's offices during
business hours upon written request of the City.
Project Manaeer. The Project Manager for the Consultant for the work
under this Agreement shall be David Evans. P.E.
Revised: July 18,20A3 Page 2 of 8
S :\A Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\8 I I SO\consultantagreementnew.wpd
9 Assigrrability and Subcontractine. The services to be performed under this
Agreement are unique and personal to the Consultant. No portion of these
services shall be assigned or subcontracted without the written consent of
the City.
10 Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and
properly given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to:
To City:Donald Chang/Sr. Civil Engineer
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94OlO
To Consultant:BKF Engineers
540 Price Street
Redwood City, CA 94063-14ll
Tel: 650-482-6300
Fax: 650-482-6399
or personally delivered to Consultant to such address or such other address
as Consultant designates in writing to City.
11. Independent Contractor. It is understood that the Consultant, 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 the
City. As an independent contractor he/she shall not obtain any rights to
retirement benefrts or other benefits which accrue to City employee(s).
With prior written consent, the Consultant may perforrn some obligations
under this Agreement by subcontracting, but may not delegate ultimate
responsibility for performErnce or assign or transfer interests under this
Agreement.
Consultant agrees to testiff in any litigation brought regarding the subject
of the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall be
compensated for its costs and expenses in preparing for, traveling to, and
testiffing in such matters at its then current hourly rates of compensation,
unless such litigation is brought by Consultant or is based on allegations of
Consultant's negligent performrulce or wrongdoing.
12. Conflict of Interest. Consultant understands that its professional
responsibilities is solely to the City. The Consultant has and shall not
obtain any holding or interest within the City of Burlingame. Consultant
has no business holdings or agreements with any individual member of the
Revised: July 18,2OO3 Page 3 of 8
S:\A Public Wo*s Directory\PROJECTS\8I l5O\consultantagreementnew.wpd
Staff or management of the City or its representatives nor shall it enter into
any such holdings or agreements. In addition, Consultant warrants that it
does not presently and shall not acquire any direct or indirect interest
adverse to those of the City in the subject of this Agreement, and it shall
immediately disassociate itself from such an interest should it discover it
has done so and shall, at the City's sole discretion, divest itself of such
interest. Consultant shall not knowingly and shall take reasonable steps to
ensure that it does not employ a person having such an interest in this
performance of this Agreement. If after employment of a person,
Consultant discovers it has employed a person with a direct or indirect
interest that would conflict with its performance of this Agreement,
Consultant shall promptly notit/ City of this employment relationship, and
shall, at the Crty's sole discretion, sever any such employment
relationship.
13. Equal Employment Opportunitv. Consultant wa:rants that it is an equal
opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations
governing equal employment opportunity. Neither Consultant nor its
subcontractors do and neither shall discriminate against persons employed
or seeking emfiloyment with them on the basis of age, sex, color, race,
marital status, sexual orientation, ancestry, physical or mental disability,
national origin, religion, or medical condition, unless based upon a bona
fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment
& Housing Act.
14. Insurance.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance:
Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the
contract, General Liabitity insurance policies insuring him./trer
and hislher firm to an amount not less than: one million
dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occrurence for
bodily injury, personal injury and propert5r damage in a forme
at least as broad as ISO "Occurrence" Form CG OO0l.
ii.Consultant agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the
contract, an Automobile Liability insurance policy ensuring
him/trer and his/her staff to an amount not less than one
million dollars ($I,O0O,0OO) combined single limit per
accident for bodily injury and properqr damage.
Revised: July 18,2003 Page 4 of 8
S:\A Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\8l I s0\consultantagreementnew.wpd
l.
iii.
lv.
Revised: July 18,2OO3 Page 5 of 8
S :\A Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\8 I 1 s0\consultantagreementnew.wpd
Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the
contract, professional liability insurance in amounts not less
than one million dollars ($1,000,000) suffrcient to insure
Consultant for professional errors or omissions in the
performance of the particular scope of work under this
agreement.
Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to
and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either:
the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-
insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a
bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related
investi gations, claim administration, and defense expenses.
B. General and Automobile Liability Policies:
I The City, its offrcers, officials, employees and volunteers are
to be covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of
activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant;
products and completed operations of Consultant, premises
owned or used by the Consultant. The endorsement
providing ttris additional insured coverage shall be equal to or
broader than ISO Form CG 20 l0 I I 85 and must cover joint
negligence, completed operations, and the acts of
subcontractors. This requirement does not apply to the
professional liability insurance required for professional
errors and omissions.
ll.The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be endorsed to be
primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials,
employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurances
maintained by the City, its ofEcers, officials, employees or
volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and
shall not contribute wittr it.
Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the
policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its
officers, offrcials, employees or volunteers.
The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each
insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought,
except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
lll
lv
C In addition to these policies, Consultant shall have and maintain
Workers' Compensation insurance as required by California law.
Further, Consultant shall ensure that all subcontractors employed by
Consultant provide the required Workers' Compensation insurance
for their respective employees.
D All Coverages: Each insurance policy required in this item shall be
endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided,
canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30)
days' prior wriffen notice by certified mail, return receipt requested,
has been given to the City. Current certification of such insurance
shall be kept on file at all times during the term of this agreement
with the City Clerk.
Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers
with a Best's rating of no less than A-:VII and authonzed to do
business in the State of California.
Verification of Coverage. Upon execution of this Agreement,
Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and
with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this
clause. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy
are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind
coverage on its behalf. The certificates and endorsements are to be
on forms approved by the City. All certificates and endorsements
are to be received and approved by the City before any work
commences. The City reserves the right to require complete,
certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time.
15. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, he Consultant
shall save, keep and hold harmless indemniff and defend the City, its
officers, agent, employees and volunteers from all damages, liabilities,
penalties, costs, or expenses in law or equity, including but not limited to
attorneys' fees, that may at any time arise, result from, relate to, or be set
up because of damages to property or personal injury received by reason
of or in the course of performing work which may be occasioned by a
willful or negligent act or omissions of ttre Consultant, or any of the
Consultant's officers, employees, or agents or any subconsultant. This
provision shall not apply if the damage or injury is caused by the sole
negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its offrcers, agents,
employees, or volunteers.
Revised: July 18,2003 Page 6 of 8
S:\A Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\8 I Is0\consultantagreementnew.wpd
E
F
16. Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or
remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy
that party may have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default
under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent
breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
17. Governing Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be
governed by and construed 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 or Santa Clara.
18.Termination of Agreement. The City and the Consultant shall have the
right to terminate this agreement with or without cause by giving not less
than frfteen (15) days written notice of termination. In the event of
termination, the Consultant shall deliver to the City all plans, files,
documents, reports, performed to date by the Consultant. In the event of
such termination, City shall pay Consultant an amount that bears the same
ratio to the maximum contract price as the work delivered to the City bears
to completed services contemplated under this Agreement, unless such
termination is made for cause, in which event, compensation, if any, shall
be adjusted in light of the particular facts and circumstances involved in
such termination-
19. Amendment. No modifrcation, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment
of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the
City and the Consultant.
20. Disputes. In any dispute over zrny aspect of this Agreement, the prevailing
party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, as well as costs not to
exceed $7,500 in total.
21.Entire Asreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive
statement of the Agreement between the City and Consultant. No terms,
conditions, understandings or agreements purlrorting to modiff or vary
this Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the party
to be bound, shall be binding on either party.
Revised: July 18,2OO3 Page 7 of 8
S:\A Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\8 I I s0\consultantagreementrew.wpd
Bv
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this
Agreement as of the date indicated on page one (1).
City of Burlingame
City Manager
Print Name
Title
ATTEST:Approved as to form:
City Clerk City Attorney
Revised: July 18,2AA3 Page 8 of 8
S :\A Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\8 I I S0\coasultaratagreementnew.wpd
Easton Greek Sewer Rehabilitation.
Gltv Proiect No. 81150
Estimated Work Effort bv Task for Deslon Phase Services (Studv & Constuction Documents)
BKF Engineers
540 Pdce Ave
Rodwood Ctty C.94063
IteN shadsd ln outsldo
TA8KS/WORKACOPE
TOTAL
HOURs
Prihoiprl 8.nk PE,
lllm!.t
XE
Eneinaa
tv
HE
EnelD.t
HB
I
HE
EngiEt Engim.r
I
HB
Sumycr
HrG
!cmy
Cw
HE
Outrld.
8arylot Ph.s.
3140.00 $122.00 $s9.00 sa7.00 $0s.00 3198.00
PHA8E I. DAIA OATHERIilG A PROJECT AYUDY
T[k I . Suly mrl PJ!l,.ot ma.Ea]tdlnr
I -Ol M.etlM wlh CIto *fB of Mmm- hun& I HhIffih b &fna mH
21 2 6 16 s2.5S6
gubtehl 321 10 22 54 0 21 4 0 0 $t8.700
t!3,202
31.7r0
335.9t2
Tr8l 2,
autndll 385 '12 21 51 0 2a u s21 3a0
I
I 33A-AE2
sl.ts3
3t0-a93
ctudY asHotrd 6Eo 22 ,43 105 0 48 88 0 0 338.0/a0 376.607
Burllng.m E .ton sffi . F.- F.!a. 2OO,fOt2l Jdr6tudy & D-l0n 1ol 5 012'lo4
il
h
Euryaycr Sumy
Cnw
HB
Out H.
&Me.Ph.x
Tdlr
T 8KS,IYORKTCOPE
TOTAL
HOURE
Pr{nolpd
HT
a.nld PEI
il.ryot
HI
tv
HI
Enilh-t
il
Hr
EngiF.r
lt
HI
Englmr
I
HE
Englmr
sa7.00 30s.00 3108.00
ffiilon hat 6.gr-qiilitf.o
...,'.,.:;]4
following hc
i innqwq..'4i
tlirlile.bal
rli€d nry l,
3 03 Utk hE'&rIh
36I I 1I 32I I I
-
t3.272ffi
s1.880
a2 1 r6 20 t4,576
3.07 Plen Bub.nitt l to the CItu lor BUil 0 2 1 s5s2
12 1 a sl.700
Subtotal 352 8 12 58 0 0 72 5A 58 s0,000
T.!l a a0% O.slor Ph.r.
tal,s66
3-0i ln@mmle CIlv 6mmnb 't0 2 8 $840
m 20 20 fi.232
3.(x Coodlnate & mrrlltlm wllh sfle.led eo6nds 32 8 18 I 33.464
D 2 1 I 32 am
3.07 Mo€( wnh Cty !t f to BvLvr oLN .rd E6lE mnt!12 1 1 1 $r.700
t0 2 I 4 3t-37a
SuUohl ta v s2 o s
Tal 5
l20,t at
3.01 lndffi. Clv dlmnb 12 1 8 s1.25a
71 2 1 20 8 20 20 s7,v2
40 1 16 20 J1.752
3.04 Coodlnale with ,fld6d ,oscies 11 1 8 2n 1 8 34.867
3.06 Subnlt DhN .nd outlh€ src to Citv fq DVil t4 2 1 8 $1.48.r
3.07 Moot wflt Ctv Btrft to Dvldr DLB lnd l@hE @ltmnl$'t2 1 1 1 s1.700
3.08 Admhbtmtbn rnd rcmrtlm Mulmmnls t OC ched(20 12 1 1 ti].004
SuHoIel 20
Trrt 3 looq brha Ph-
t27,t00
3.01 lnmto anY CilY @lrmnt!2 4 05s2
2a 2 I 12 s2.au
20 1A sl am
3.(x AdmlnbtElbn lnd E@rtim @uiDmnls $r.s74
Subtotal 60 6 12 E 0 32 0 0 30
$s.0@ 36.t10
33a.Jt4
3a.tl6
832 38 88 200 7A ,i0 208 50 56 30.000 3t0t.ts0
i sta 60 111 305 16 88 206 56 56 t47,040 3t77,6!'
BKF Enginoers
54{l Prlce Ave
Rodwood Clty C.94063
Lhc ltm shldcd h N tNts outrHo ol typh.l B.dc Sor{a for dGhn.
I W f,rp"afn *l t" Filqmd by Col9cfbn sFbG
b. t lotdtodre hlE eumld tEt thg Ctyrrl do tE n@.ry dgrni l0. A@$ wU nood to ba ow pdEto popoity to du6to tho
bo bw mough to .llry tor tho lho to bo tolevisod. lf the plpolho
\rr,b hlE NUEEd that tho Cty wil ob(6h aU no€dod oilry dohts.
3 orD pclb{ity lb. rtdudrc lh. !d.co tlo.rhg h th. !6thg E lto ryr h 0E sEk h to @nslruct . bypa$ th.t
To do thk I wld b. n@ry to b@ .nd Fd . H mh urldu th! htoBodoo ol EGton lrld MortoD Aw. tfle I
wuu dhfft lho iolr im
p.opo$ Bfr0 BAG lo do 3
4 Mllcr phollno wlf polhol€ uulty c@trC! tq d6L.nino ohElbN. li& hrw .$EEd 12-15 polholo! wil bo n .d€d, whidr wU bk 2{.y! d 12500 p.rdry.
Notee :
Burling.m E{ton SN . Fc R.!a. 2O04Oe2l .fiFtudy & D-lgn 2ot 5
HlIr Std Dlilrld to.n Eaton Drt\f, th't wld p.Ellol lho @k.
eplM
d6 lo th6 g)
I
qu 8;;6 iiikrim inriih d.ir}&r .;nift b;;riiae,racurc 2 irnvr l3
.,' ;_'..:i ga,gQo.t i (X:4t
r,r:i:,r !tstuo...i
3 OA tumhhlnthh .d hmdlM lmrilmlmnl.
1nl P..lM. da.hn nh l^rClv irhh.l
R.lmhrrH. Budd
F
Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilltation.
Cltv Proiect No. 81150
Estimated Work Effort bv Task for Additional Services
BKF Englneers
5,40 Prlc. Av.
R.dtvood Clfy C.04063
COtagTRUCfrr|{ EEiVICEa - TASKITWORX aCOPE wl p.rtcmd by iKt TOTAL
HOUiA
Fff.lP.l
HI
t{.m9.,
HI
seant
tv
Ha
Englml
I
Hr
EntlDr
I
HE
Ph.r
fd.b
48 16 $s,Es6
T.sl 2 lBEds.3.lfiltsk
b. C@rdlnete @Ntrudlon sleUm
d. O@mnt tho rcl6d wilh Dhotc and $d@
$0
T.sI 3
1
1 1 '12
2
tcbact l S60 11 12 5,t9 305 56 $t0,207
12'204
3112-a11
Bq{rE.m Eoton Sffi . F- Raz.2ooaoe2liryCoilt^&tbn S.rylc 9ol 5 el21rc4
!LLi
Easton Greek Sewer Rehabllitation.
Citv Proiect No. 81150
Estimated Work Effort bv Task for Additional Services
BKF Englneers
3{0 Prlco Avo
R.du,ood Ctty C. et063
PUBUC OUIREACH - TAIKUWORI( ACOPE wtk p.rffi ry P l TOTAL
HOUiA
Prlnoiprl
l{B
8.nlo. PEJ
a,Lmg.l
HB
A.r616
]lB
:ordln tq
l{E
Onphlca
Ph.t.Tdh
T.cl t
3?to m sis m so oo s5m 375 m
l Ot Codhdhklhs '13 1 a a 31.5m
1.02 M.[tE Llst
5.t E ,40 6 t4.790
Subto16l
I
1
E
l5
't5 20
350.536
/lssup'rrofls
(llOEgtdl&.d. bffibElwrc€!d
f4c[bh..*Fdr&,dbtd..rdffigdlo€.!ffi; PMbFffidtrho.ryEtROEffiffirilmhd.ffib.ryy{rmrt Pil
aFlhl?dE! Ela hqh l*h ht*
O)ffied.SbdetOttd NOTffid. Wi F,.dtb b.hHb Clt Sm
BqllTrom. E{ton SN - Fd W.. 2cW,1 )d/P ublo R.LtbE 4ol g enl1o..
I 03 lnfo,rmihn I h. ($t uD lmhfi.dm lhdhdl
Totrl Publlo R.latlona
BKF Enaln .r.
540 F1lo.Avr
R.dFod Clty C. ta03l
Toarl Pmloct Budg.t
PEfrtEry Elttrrt. of PEb.blo Coostru.iloo Cct
O6ion Phaso
F*s fur Brslo Osslgn SoNl@
Addltlonll S€.rl6s . Dslgn:
Study
ErstlnO @ndl(lom iNpoctlon
FlwlMltorlllo
Flold sumy
Gootochnlc.l hEthrtlon
tXtity pot-holkE
SuHotrl
RomoMH.orgem
Suuold orAtudy.rld Fh.l DaCon 86n e.
Addlloral s.Nlq. Publc RC.Im
Sotlot l ot^l S{rlq tllrhg D65n
Construailon Phe
F@ for Constudlon Perlod SeM@
RolmblEoblo o@Ns
SuUolal ol Englno.dng Support Dudng Constndion
Sublotll ol All Sool6 Durhg C$lrudlon
Tolrl Ammt b( Al CoH[rnti
Brxloot Romhlng lor C[y Ad.!*rHntion
Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation.
Citv Proiect No. 81150
Fee Analvsls
$7'1,07{
,l,iaEE
5-078
95.1oia
E359
3t77,637
16.280
3193,917
110207
-_J4_
112,111
v.255
144.664
tt,9(x),000
fi,3m,0q)
CommnF
025,708
1E,il06
22,30E
18,096
5.7?6 of @nstrudlon 6st
t2t0,0.6
50.535
22.316 of @Gtnrdbr Gt
3.9* olmdndbn ct
t3,40,56:l 26.46 ot @Ntrudloo 6t
Builrlgrm Eobn Sffi. F- Rd2- irog{r(l2l.rl/f- Arly.b 5ol 3 EPl/0.
f .ii96 ot @Nlrudlon 6t
7.3'rgvf @Etrudlon ost-
5.016 oldoCgn lB
1.3% of @Etrudbn @t
1,1.C* ol@Etrudloo 6t
8.596 ol @nstrudlon @st
2,096 of @Ntrudlon p€riod ,es
2.8% ot @nstrudion ct
3250,,11 7 20.0% of onstru.{oo @t
STAFF REPORT
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
October 4,2004
Jesus Nava, Finance Director
558-7222
AGENDA 8cITEM #
MTG.
DATE October 4.2004
TO:
DATE:
BY
.hw
FROM
SUBJECT: SECOND AMENDMENT TO RCN CABLE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council approve the second amendment to the Cable System Franchise Agreement Between The
City of Burlingame and RCN Telecom Services, Incorporated.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Burlingame approved the current cable television franchise agreement in August 2000. The term
of the franchise is eleven (11) years. The franchise is currently in its fourth year. The franchise required RCN
to complete a build-out of the cable system in six years. To date, RCN has activated 32 nodes within the
Burlingame service area. Each node services approximately 143 homes.
In July 2003, RCN informed the city that they would be unable to continue the system build-out because of the
unavailability of funds through the capital markets. RCN requested a delay in their construction obligations
and on February 12,2004, the City Council approved Amendment No. 1, which granted RCN a three-year
suspension of the construction schedule.
In May 2004, RCN informed the city that their parent company was undergoing a formal financial
restructuring and that the company would again require an amendment to the construction requirements
contained in the franchise agreement. City staff began discussions with RCN on possible alternatives and
consulted with the other Peninsula cities that have franchise agreements with RCN.
After several months of discussions and negotiations, RCN has reached agreements with the cities of Belmont,
San Carlos, Millbrae, Daly City, San Mateo and Redwood City on its construction obligations. The proposed
Amendment No. 2 represents RCN's settlement agreement with the City of Burlingame. The amendment
provides the following:
A requirement that RCN deposit $50,000 in cash or an irrevocable letter of credit in a local bank. The City
of Burlingame will withdraw $10,000 per year for each year that RCN fails to construct and activate 20
new nodes. The first $10,000 withdrawal will occur on or after November 9,2004. The maximum of
$50,000 will be withdrawn if RCN fails to construct and activate a minimum of 20 nodes over the
succeeding five years.
o
a
RCN will finance and construct a multi-jurisdictional optic fiber network connecting the cities of Belmont,
Burlingame, Millbrae, Redwood City and San Carlos (referred to as the Participating Cities). The network
will be installed no later than nine (9) months after the effective date of this amendment and will be leased
to the Participating Cities for $1 per year for a term of 25 years. SAMCAT will act as trustee for the
Participating Cities and will work with the Participating Cities to determine uses for the network.
The City of Burlingame and SAMCAT may use the network for any data, public-education-govemment
(PEG) video, or other communication services between and among Burlingame, SAMCAT, San Mateo
County, and the other participating cities, and for goverrrmental communications relating to public health,
safety and welfare. Upon written notice to RCN, the City of Burlingame, or any city-designated entity,
may use the network for any other lawful municipal or public purpose; provided, however, that the city
shall not use or permit the use of the network to provide any services that are in competition with services
provided by RCN over its network or facilities.
A reduction in the term of the franchise if construction of the cable system is not completed by August 7,
2001. The remaining term of the franchise shall be reduced by one (1) month for each month after August
7,2007 that the cable system construction has not been completed. The potential reduction of the
franchise terms is illustrated below:
o
Construction
Completion Date
August 7,2007
February 7,2008
August 7,2008
August 7,2009
Franchise Term Reduction
6 months
12 months
24 months
New
Expiration Date
August 7,2011
February 7,2011
August 7,2010
August 7,2009
0
Note that if by February 7,2008, no additional significant cable system construction has occurred, RCN will
be in the thirty-six (36) month "renewal negotiation window" provided in 47 U.S.C.546, given that the
Franchise would then expire on February 7,2011.
ATTACHMENTS:
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CABLE SYSTEM FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF BURLINGAME AND RCN TELECOM SERVICES, INCORPORATED
SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CABLE SYSTEM FRANCHISE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY
OF BURLINGAME AND RCN TELECOM SERVICES, INCORPORATED (Final Draft - September 29,
2004)
2
o The City of Burlingame will connect to the network at City Hall. RCN will be responsible for the cost and
installation of equipment needed to make the f,rber network fully operational for the City of Burlingame.
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING AMENDMENT NO.2 TO CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AND RCN TELECOM SERVICES,INC.
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS, RCN Telecom Service of California,Inc. (RCN of California) was granted a
franchise to operate a cable television franchise pursuant to Chapter 6.48 of the Burlingame
Municipal Code in 1999, which was assumed by its successor, RCN Telecom Services, Inc. (RCN);
and
WHEREAS, in Resolution No. 5-2004 adopted on January 5, 2004, the City Council
approved amendments to the Franchise Agreement in Amendment No. 1 to allow RCN to seek
additional financing and extend the build-out period; and
WHEREAS, RCN has not yet been able to obtain the capital funding commitments to
continue build out in the City and has again asked to City to extend its obligations to complete the
system; and
WHEREAS, RCN is willing to pay an annual penalty to the City to demonstrate its
continued commitment, to install a fiber optic network serving nearby cities, and to suffer a
reduction in its franchise term should construction not recommence; and
WHEREAS, RCN continues to be an important part of providing a choice in
telecommunications services to residents of Burlingame,
NOW, THEREFORE,IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:
1. The amendments to the cable television franchise agreement with RCN contained in
Exhibit A hereto is approved.
2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the Agreement by and on
behalf of the City, and the City Clerk is authorized and directed to witness the signature of the City
Manager.
Mayor
I
I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certifu that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
-
day
2004, and was adopted thereafter by the following voteof
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COLINCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
C :\FILES\RESO\rcnfranchiseamend2. fi n.wpd
City Clerk
2
1
FINAL DRAFT _ SEPTEMBER 29, 2OO4
SECOND AMENDMENT TO CABLE SYSTEM FRANCHISE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND
RCN TELECOM SERVICES, INC.
The Cable System Franchise Agreement, dated August 7, 2000 (the
"Franchise Agreement"), as amended February 12,2004 ("Ftst
Amendment"), between the City of Burlingame, California (the "City" or
"Grantor") and RCN Telecom Services, lnc., formerly RCN Telecom
Services of California, lnc. ("Grantee"), is hereby amended as follows:
This Second Amendment shall become effective on the day that the last of
the Cities of Belmont, Burlingame, Millbrae, Redwood City and San Carlos
have executed similar Franchise amendments with Grantee ("Effective
Date of the Second Amendment").
3. Section 3.6(a) is deleted and replaced by the following:
Grantee shall indemnify, hold harmless, release and defend Grantor, its
officers, employees and agents from and against any and all actions,
claims, demands, damages, disability, losses, expenses including
attorney's fees and other defense costs or liabilities of any nature that may
be asserted by any person or entity, including Grantee, from any cause
whatsoever arising from the granting or amending of the Franchise, or
from the activities of Grantee, its subcontractors, employees and agents
hereunder. Grantee shall be solely responsible and hold Grantor
harmless from all matters relative to payment of Grantee's employees
including, but not limited to, compliance with Social Security withholding.
Sections 3.7(a) and 3.7(b) ("Security Fund") are deleted and replaced by
the following:
(a) As of the Effective Date of the Second Amendment, Grantee shall
establish to the account of Grantor either an irrevocable letter of
credit, acceptable to Grantor's City Attorney, or a cash deposit in a
local bank, in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) (the
"lncentive Fund").
(b) For each year, starting as of November 9,2004, during which
Grantee fails to complete Significant Cable System Construction,
Grantor may withdraw Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000) from the
2
4
Page 'l of 10
lncentive Fund. Thereafter, on or after November g of each year
during which Grantee fails to complete Significant Cable System
Construction, Grantor may withdraw Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000) from the lncentive Fund. For example, if Grantee has
failed to complete Significant Cable System Construction by
November 9,2004, Grantor may immediately withdraw Ten
Thousand Dollars ($10,000) from the lncentive Fund. lf Grantee
has not completed Significant Cable System Construction before
November 9, 2005, Grantor may withdraw Ten Thousand Dollars
($10,000) from the lncentive Fund; and so on. lf the lncentive Fund
is in the form of a letter of credit, Grantee shall not oppose such
withdrawal. At such time as Grantee completes Significant Cable
System Construction Grantee shall, upon written notice to Grantor,
be entitled to withdraw the balance remaining in the lncentive Fund
as of that time; provided, however, that the Grantor shall be entitled
to withdraw any remaining balance in the lncentive Fund if
Significant Cable System Construction is not completed prior to the
expiration of the Franchise. For the purposes of this Section,
"Significant Cable System Construction" shall mean the activation
of at least twenty (20) new, or previously not activated, nodes
during said year.
(c) On or before the Effective Date of the Second Amendment,
Grantee shall also establish a security fund (the "Security Fund") as
security for the faithful performance by Grantee of all material
provisions of this Agreement. Such Security Fund shall be in the
form of an irrevocable letter of credit established to the account of
Grantor in the amount of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000), and
shall be maintained throughout the Term of this Agreement;
provided that, at intervals of three (3) years, Grantor shall have the
right to require that this amount be increased to reflect changes in
the San Francisco Metropolitan Consumer Price lndex during the
prior three year period.
(d) ln the event that Grantee intends to commence Significant Cable
System Construction, no later than ninety (90) days prior to the
start of such construction the Grantee also shall obtain and provide
proof of a performance bond (the "Construction Performance
Bond") from a surety admitted in the State of California in favor of
the Grantor in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars
($250,000) to be maintained by Grantee until the completion of
such Significant Cable System Construction, at which time the
Construction Performance Bond shall be released upon written
notice by Grantee to the Grantor, provided there are then no
outstanding material violations of this Agreement.
Page 2 of '10
5. Section 3.8 (d) is deleted and replaced by the following:
(d) (1)ln the event the Council finds that a material violation exists and
that Grantee has not corrected the same in a satisfactory manner
or has not diligently commenced correction of such violation, the
Council may impose liquidated damages, assessable from the
security fund, of up to Two Hundred Dollars ($200) per day or per
incident for all violations of this Agreement other than any
unexcused violations of the System construction schedule set forth
in Section 5.1 (a) herein (which shall be enforceable solely as
provided in Section 3.8(e), as amended), provided that all violations
of a similar nature occurring at the same time shall be considered
one (1) incident.
(2) lf the Grantor assesses liquidated damages pursuant to this
Agreement, then such assessment shall constitute Grantor's
exclusive remedy for a period of one hundred twenty (120) days
from the date of the first imposition of any damages. Thereafter, if
the Grantee remains in non-compliance with the requirements of
this Agreement, the Grantor may pursue any other available
remedy, provided, however, that Grantor may institute revocation
proceedings against Grantee only after declaration of default on the
grounds set forth in Section 3.9 herein.
6. Section 3.8 is amended by adding a new Section 3.8(e) as follows:
(e) Unexcused violations of the System construction schedule provided
in Section 5.1(a) shall automatically trigger the provisions of
Section 5.1(c) of this Agreement, as amended.
7. Section 5.1(c) is deleted and replaced by the following:
(c) lf construction of the Cable System is not completed by August 7,
2007, as required by Section 5.1(a) above, the remaining term of
the Franchise shall be reduced by one (1) month for each month
afterAugust 7,2007 thatthe Cable System construction has not
been completed. By way of example, the potential reduction of the
franchise terms is illustrated below:
Page 3 of 10
Construction
Completion Date
August 7, 2007
February 7,2008
August 7, 2008
August 7, 2009
New
Expiration Date
August 7, 2011
February 7,2011
August 7,2010
August 7, 2009
By way of example, if by February 7 ,2008, no additional Significant
Cable System Construction has occurred, Grantee will be in the
thirty-six (36) month "renewal window" provided in 47 U.S.C. 546,
since the Franchise Term would then expire on February 7,2011.
B. Exhibit B (2) ("Construction Schedule") is deleted and replaced by
It is agreed by Grantor and Grantee that as of the Effective Date of the
Second Amendment, Grantee has completed and activated thirty-two (32)
residential nodes. This number shall serve as the starting point for
counting and crediting future nodes to be activated.
9. Exhibit D is added as follows:
Grantor and Grantee agree that, in consideration of the mutual covenants,
terms and conditions set forth in the Second Amendment, and in
conjunction with similar agreements reached between Grantee and the
Cities of Belmont, Burlingame, Millbrae, Redwood City and San Carlos
(the "Participating Cities"), Grantee shall provide the following Multi-
Jurisdictional Fiber Network (the "MJF Network"):
A. Grantee shall utilize Grantee's optical fiber, previously installed under
El Camino Real, and shall provide the following MJF Network at no
cost to any of the Participating Cities:
(1) One installed and operational SONET Ring Fiber Network consisting
of two (2) strands of optical fiber and, as described in Subsection B,
appropriate terminal and activation equipment, to a designated
connection location in each of the Participating Cities, as well as San
Mateo County, as indicated in Figure 1. Optical fiber shall be
connected to San Bruno Cable, as indicated in Figure 1, but Grantee
shall not be responsible for terminal and activation equipment at that
location. The SONET Ring Fiber Network shall include lateral
Page 4 of 10
Franchise Term
Reduction
0
6 months
12 months
24 months
Multi-Jurisdictional Fiber Network
connections to the Cities of Belmont, Millbrae and San Carlos where
no construction has commenced, provided, however that:
(i) The Grantee shall only be required to provide one (1) OC-12
installation at whichever of the two (2) San Carlos connection
locations set forth in Figure 1 the City of San Carlos may
designate.
(ii) By separate agreement, Grantee shall obtain access from the
City of San Carlos to the following City-owned conduit and fiber
for the installation of Grantee's fiber optic facilities and
connectivity between the locations (1 ) conduit located between
its City-owned handhole located west of El Camino Real on
Holly Street and 501 Laurel Street (Fire Station No. 13); (2)fiber
located between 501 Laurel Street (Fire Station No. 13) and
1250 San Carlos Avenue (SAMTRANS Building); and (3) fiber
located between 501 Laurel Street (Fire Station No. 13) and 600
Elm Street (San Carlos City Hall); and
(iii) By separate agreement, Grantee shall obtain access from the
City of Redwood City to City-owned conduit for the installation of
Grantee's fiber optic facilities and connectivity between 1017
Middlefield Road (City Hall) and 400 County Center (Hall of
Justice).
B. The SONET Fiber Ring Network shall also include an initial OC-12
bandwidth capacity of six hundred (600) MBS (upgradeable to an OC-
48 ring with a capacity of 2.4 GBS). Each site shall include OC-12
terminal and activation equipment, with OS-1 voice capability and
10/100 MBS Ethernet poinlto-point data capability. By way of
illustration, Figure 2 indicates the type of terminal and activation
equipment that may be utilized. ln any event, however, it shall be
Grantee's responsibility to design the SONET Ring Fiber Network and
supervise its installation as provided in Subsection C below.
C. Grantor shall be responsible for the purchase and ongoing
maintenance of all terminal and activation equipment used to provide
communications services using the SONET Ring Fiber Network
Page 5 of 10
(2) Two (2) additional Dark Fiber strands following the same path as the
network in section (1) above, as a possible Homeland
Security/Emergency Communications network. These Dark Fibers
shall be leased by Grantee to the San Mateo County
Telecommunications Authority ("SAIt/CAT") and the Participating
Cities for twenty-five (25) years at a lease cost of one dollar ($1.00)
per year.
constructed by Grantee pursuant to this Exhibit; provided, however that
(1) Grantee shall recommend the appropriate terminal and activation
equipment; (2) Grantee shall negotiate with vendors to obtain a firm
price quote for the purchase and installation of equipment specified in
this Exhibit and shall pay to SAMCAT, as trustee for the Participating
Cities and coordinator of the operation of the IVJF Network, the amount
of such quote, which funds shall be used by SAMCAT for the purchase
and installation of such equipment; (3) Grantee shall assist SAMCAT
and equipment vendors to coordinate the installation of such
equipment at all of the locations specified in Section A(1) of this Exhibit
D; and (4) Grantee shall test and validate the MJF Network
performance prior to Grantor acceptance.
D. The MJF Network shall be installed to all participating municipalities
and be fully operational by no later than nine (9) months from the
Effective Date of the Second Amendment. Grantee's failure to meet
this deadline shall be deemed to be a material breach of this
Agreement and subject Grantee to all available remedies, including
termination of the Franchise.
E. Grantee shall lease the optical fiber used forthe MJF Network to
SAMCAT and the Participating Cities for a period of twenty-five (25)
years from the date of activation ofthe entire network, at a lease cost
of one dollar ($1.00) per year.
F. Grantee shall maintain all portions of the MJF Network external to the
connected public buildings, at no cost, for the term of the lease.
G. No later than ten (10) days after the Effective Date of this Amendment,
Grantee shall provide one ('1) construction performance bond (the
"[vlJF Performance Bond") in the amount of Two Hundred Fifty
Thousand Dollars ($250,000) to insure the installation and activation of
the MJF Network referenced in A and B of this Exhibit. The MJF
Performance Bond shall be issued to SAMCAT, as trustee for those
jurisdictions to be connected to the MJF Network, and shall be in a
form acceptable to SAMCAT legal counsel. The MJF Performance
Bond may be released after written acceptance of the MJF Network by
each of the Participating Cities, providing that there are then no
outstanding material violations of this Exhibit.
H. Within thirty (30) days after the Effective Date of the Second
Amendment, Grantee shall provide to SAMCAT, with a copy to Grantor
a written detailed design and installation plan for the MJF Network,
including details of terminal equipment, installation locations and
implementation schedules.
Page 6 of 10
Within one hundred twenty (120) days after the Effective Date of the
Second Amendment, Grantee shall provide Grantor with a written
status report on the IVIJF Network installation, including progress to
date and estimated completion date.
J. The Grantor and SAMCAT may use the il/JF Network for any data,
PEG video, or other communications services between and among
Grantor, SAMCAT, San Mateo County, and the other Participating
Cities, for governmental communications relating to the public health,
safety and welfare. Upon reasonable written notice to Grantee, the
Grantor, or any Grantor-designated entity, may use the MJF Network
for any other lawful municipal or public purpose; provided, however,
that the Grantor shall not use or permit the use of the MJF Network to
provide any services that are in competition with services provided by
Grantee over its network or facilities. The Grantor may solicit bids to
provide services using the MJF Network, and Grantee shall be invited
to respond to any such solicitation.
K. Section 8.2 ("Force lr/ajeure") of the Franchise Agreement shall be
applicable to Grantee's obligations to construct the MJF Network
pursuant to this Exhibit, and Grantee's inability to obtain and
incorporate into the IVIJF Network the Redwood City and San Carlos
conduit and fiber described in Section A(1) of this Exhibit or to obtain
from the Participating Cities or San Mateo County any of the
authorizations, permits or other right-of-way or building access
permissions necessary to construct the MJF Network shall be
considered to be a cause or event beyond the Grantee's reasonable
control.
Page 7 of 10
10. This Second Amendment represents a settlement between Grantor and
Grantee of certain disputes and potential disputes arising out of Grantee's
inability to meet the Cable System construction requirements of 5.1(a) of
the Franchise Agreement. As a settlement, Grantor agrees not to utilize
Grantee's failure to meet the construction requirements as a criterion to
deny franchise renewal. ln any renewal proceedings, Grantor may
consider other applicable criteria including, but not limited to, Grantee
financial capability and compliance with non-construction schedule
obligations of the Franchise.
11. Grantee reserves all of its rights under applicable law to seek certification
as an Open Video System provider upon the expiration or termination of
the Franchise Agreement, and neither Grantee's inability to complete
construction nor any reduction in the Franchise term resulting therefrom
shall be considered in connection with or prejudice the conversion of the
Cable System to an Open Video System. ln any application from Grantee
to Grantor for an Open Video System agreement, Grantor may consider
other applicable criteria including, but not limited to, Grantee financial
capability and compliance with non-construction schedule obligations of
the Franchise.
12 ln the event of early termination of this Franchise, other than by mutual
agreement, Grantor shall retain all cash deposits, rights of withdrawal
under any letter of credit and demand rights under performance bonds as
may be allowed under the Franchise or its amendments.
Jesus Nava
Finance Director/Treasu rer
City of Burlingame
SEAL
Douglas Schulz
Vice PresidenVGeneral Manager
RCN Telecom Services, lnc.
Date Date
Page 8 of 10
lN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City of Burlingame and RCN Telecom Services,
lnc. have executed this Second Amendment to the Franchise Agreement.
FIGURE 1
NETWORK GONNEGTION LOGATIONS
Optical Fiber shall be connected to San Bruno Cable at this address, but Grantee shall not be
responsible for termination equipment at this location.
Municipality Connection Locations
Belmont City Hall, 1070 Sixth Avenue
Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road
tt/illbrae City Hall, 621 tMagnolia Avenue
Redwood City City Hall, 1017 Middlefield Road
San Carlos City Hall, 600 Elm Street and
SATUTRANS Building,
1250 San Carlos Avenue
San Mateo County Hall of Justice, 400 County Center
San Bruno*San Bruno Cable, 398 El Camino Real
Page 9 of 10
FIGURE 2
SONET RING FIBER NETWORK
TERMINAL AND ACTIVATION EQUIPMENT
ITEM UNIT DESCRIPTION FNC PART NO Quantitv
Per tocation
11MPA1.CPU2 oc3l12CPU FC96B1 CPU2
2 LUA1.C2D1
OC-12 LR 1310 nm Line Card
(sc)FC9681 C2D1 2
3 IFAl-D1V1 14-port DS1 unit FC9681D1V1 1
4 IFAl-EVT1 4-port 1 0/1 00BaseT (VT-mapped)FC9681 EVTI 1
5 FW4100 Shelf 4100 Large Shelf (12 l/O slots)FC96B1SFL1-t04 ,l
o FW Lg. Shelf Cover FW 4100 Large Shelf Cover FC9681 FCLl 1
7 Fan Fan Unit (Extended Temp Only)FC9681 FAN3 1
8 Filter Fan Filter FC9681 FLTI 1
I Heat Baffle Upper Heat Baffle
HA158-0001-
8268 1
10 Filler Panel Filler Panel (lnterface slots)FC9681FIL1 10
11 Power Cable Power Harness 22-515-015 1
12 DS-1 Cable DS-1 Cable 21-441-070 2
13 Clock Cable*Clock Cable, Pri ,Sec*21 -601 -1 00.1*
14 Alarm Cable*Alarm Cable*22-605-050.1rt
15 NE Software"R3.lGenerics*FC9681CR03.t01.1*
'16 RTU FW41OO CPU3.1 RTU RTU4100AR03.1 1
17 FLEXR GT*FLEXR GT R4.5-SPFLXGTO4.I05-1*
1B Documents*CD-ROtvl Documents*
FNC-UNt-0104-
01 0*1*
*Equipment required for only one location within the MJF Network.
9169942v1 Page 10 of 10
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE t0l4t04
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
BY
DATE:September 28,2004
APPROVED
FRoM: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk
650-558-7203
suBJECr: Approval to schedule Study Session on Facilities Master Plan and Storm Drainage
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council schedule a Study Session on the Facilities Master Plan and Storm Drainage for October 26,2004,
at 6:00 p.m. in Conference Room A at City Hall.
BACKGROUND:
The Director of Public Works requested a study session to discuss the Facilities Master Plan and Storm
Drainage. As part of the 2003-04 CIP program, staff has completed the Master Plan study of the citywide
building facilities and has developed alternatives with costs. Staff would like to present the findings of the
study to obtain feedback and direction regarding the next steps from the Council. In addition, staff would also
like to highlight the storm drainage needs and other general fund needs of the City.
By
8d
AGENDA
ITEIM #
MTG.
DATE
8e
10lo4lo4
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND GITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BY
DATE: September 27,2004
APPROVED
FROM: Netie Shinday (558-7204)BY
SUBJECT: Specia! Event Street Glosure (Primrose Road) - Hall Safe Street
REGOMMENDATION
To authorize the closure of Primrose Road between Burlingame Avenue and Donnelly Avenue as the
site for the community Halloween Safe Street program on Sunday, October 31,2004.
BACKGROUND
For the eighth year, the Burlingame Rotary Club, in cooperation with various local merchants and the
Police and Fire departments, wish to conduct a Halloween Safe Street program on Sunday, October
31,2004, from 4:30PM to 8:30PM. The program is the same as last year where they will close a
portion of Primrose Road so that they can have supervised activities for young children and their
parents. Steve Karp will be contacting the merchants in the affected area.
Based on the success of previous events, I recommend that the Council approve the street closure
subject to the usual insurance requirements, and approve police and fire participation in the event.
STAFF REPORT
t
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 10l04lo4
8f
STAFF REPORT
a
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: September 23,2004
FROM: Netie Shinday (558-7204)
SUBJEGT: Gommission Application Period Extension
SUBMITTED
BY
APPROVED
BY
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council extend the application period for the Beautification Commission to
October 29,2004. We only received two applications bythe September 17,2004 filing deadline. ln
consultation with the Council selection committee, it was suggested that we approach the Council
with a recommendation to extend the application period to allow other candidates apply and be
considered for a position the Beautification Commission.
BACKGROUND
ln order to encourage a greater number of applications, we will implement a more concerted outreach
plan with bulletin postings, press releases, announcements in local papers, and a link on the City of
Burlingame website. We anticipate that this will garner more applications from a wider range of
citizens and foster participation in the civic process.
Q- s->, oY
a6, h 6 t$u*t%o,,1,,8
&
(l L 4
I annt N75 Cownn^55 t t14,,lYctst i,t
q- B-o+
r
-tf'a
I J^.
lgo t
be
b{b
6*,^^ / )^u--, Soroo .
Ezoltt )#-
L G q..{o) .,
(1[Ut tZll dl-r^s t a-.t n,
T- 6u3+ - ph *
b1a-4t4-2-- t y.
A**,8 ,taU('S tO-t
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
Please schedule an appeal
hearing for 1553 Drake Avenue
to be heard at the October 1 B,
2004 Council meeting.
City Clerk
t Q-rt ,dq
-o/
Artu--a.--
RICIIVTD
sEP z 2 2l/0t
ElXjIil{#,lffil?Ef
1553 sz*)<e-
RECEIVED
SEP 21 200tr
8,'#8F'ffif',$[[tqE
Date
To:
From:
September 28,2004
City of Burlingame
Mr. and Mrs. Jay A. Garcia
1553 Drake AvenueRe:
In reference to our request for an appeal on September 22,2004, pertaining to 1553
Drake Avenue, we hereby request as extension to November 1,2004, as a result of time
needed for expert and legal research and advice.
CLK-Mortensen Doris
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
CLK-Mortensen, Doris
Thursday, September 30, 2004 4:00 PM
GRP-Council
PLG-Monroe, Meg
Setting Appeal Hearing Date
This is regarding the October 4 Council Agenda, ltem 11.a. request to set an appeal hearing date for 1553 Drake Avenue:
The Garcias rearranged eveMhing in order to have the appeal heard as early as possible; therefore, they request the
appeal date be set for October 18,2004.
1
The City of Burlingame
CITY HALL.5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD
cALtFORNtA 940'10-3997
www.burlingame.org
TRAFFIG, SAFETY AND PARKING GOMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, September 9, 2404
Commissioners Present: Russ Cohen, Chair
Stephen Warden, Vice Chair
Eugene Condon
Victor James
Jim Mclver
CommissionersAbsent: None
Staff Present
Staff Absent
Visitors
Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works
Maureen Brooks, Senior Planner, Planning
Officer Witt, Police Department
Doris Mortensen, Administrative Secretary, Public Works
None
Anthony Paz,7A6 Carolan Avenue, Burlingame
Scott Parsons, 706 Carolan Avenue, Burlingame
Frank Souder, 704 Carolan Avenue, Burlingame
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame
Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue, Burlingame
Isabelle Spano, ll24 Lincoln Avenue, Burlingame
Jerome Soliman, 1120 Lincoln Avenue, Burlingame
Mike Nee, 1123 Lincoln Avenue, Burlingame
Michael Nee, 1408 Lincoln Avenue, Burlingame
Paige Hedges, 1212 Mills Avenue, Burlingame
Barbara Moher, 1216 Mills Avenue, Burlingame
Al Lovotti, Sr., 1588 Gilbreth Road, Burlingame
Al Lovotti, Jr., 1588 Gilbreth Road, Burlingame
Rick Ferrando, 1315 Lincoln Avenue, Burlingame
Bill Sharer, bsharer@enterprises.corn
Jeanine Langdon, 1128 Lincoln Avenue, Burlingame
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, September 9, 2004
1 CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL. 5 of 5 Commissioners present.
4. CURRENT BUSINESS
4.1 ACTION ITEMS
4.1.1 Approval of Minutes for August 12,2004
It was moved and seconded (Comms. Condon/Mclver) to approve the August 12,2004 minutes;
approved unanimously by the Commission.
4.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS
4.2.1 Request for 4-way stop signs at Lincoln Avenue and Laguna Avenue
Mr. Chou reported that there were no accidents in the last five years and the traffic counts were
too low for this site to qualify for 4-way stop signs. Staff recommended keeping the existing 2-
way stop signs and facilitating away to slow traffic. Vice Chair Warden asked for the accident
report and traffic counts for Lincoln Avenue and Paloma Avenue; however, Mr. Chou advised that
the data was not complete.
From the floor, Mike Nee stated that traffic from El Camino Real travel at 40+mph. Pat Giorni
spoke on the visibility problems due to parked cars at the corners. Jeanine Langdon spoke on
speeding traffic. Jerome Soliman spoke on speeding traffic and heavy pedestrian traffic. Also,
there is no 25 mph sign posted on Lincoln Avenue. Rick Ferrando spoke on the need to slow
traffic down.
Officer Witt stated that the speed trailer had been posted on Lincoln Avenue and will continue
to be. Also, selective enforcement will continue. Chair Cohen suggested residents place portable
safety markers, such as "Sammy" to help remind traffic that it is a residential street and
encouraged the residents to submit aResidential Traffic Calming Program application to be added
to the waiting list - which awaits funding.
This will be a Discussion Item next month.
4.2.2 Request for 75-foot green zone at 706 Carolan Avenue
Mr. Chou stated this site is at the corner of Oak Grove Avenue across from Burlingame High
School. He and Officer Witt met with the school recently to discuss parking in the entire area
which is less of a problem than anticipated.
From the floor, Anthony Paz said the problem is long term and event parking on the Carolan
Avenue side. He would be satisfied with a 2-hour parking zone. Frank Souder said he has elderly
The City of Bulingame Page 2
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, September 9, 2004
customers who must carry weighty paintings from his gallery but are unable to park nearby. Scott
Parsons stated that event parking is the biggest problem.
It was moved and seconded (Comms. Warden/Condon) to make this an Action Item immediately.
It was then moved and seconded (Comms. Warden/Condon) to approve this request for a green
zone for four parking spaces. Both motions unanimously approved by the Commission.
4.2.3 Evaluate limited{ime parking at 818-826 Mahler Road
From the floor, Al Lovotti stated that since last month's meeting, three trucks have been stored
on the street. He requests No Overnight Parking signs be installed to alleviate this continuing
problem on Mahler Road.
Mr. Chou stated that the Code Enforcement Officer (CEO) has been working with some of the
limo service businesses, and notices were sent to all businesses on this skeet. Chair Cohen
suggested holding this item until the CEO has responded on the status. Vice Chair Warden
suggested the petitioner call the police to report offenders and stated that business license
applications should include off-street parking requirements. Senior Planner Brooks stated that the
ZoningCode already includes the requirement for off-street parking, but enforcement is a problem
unless incidents are reported to the police.
Mr. Chou advised that this will be a Discussion Item next month, and he will invite the CEO to
the meeting.
5" ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS. None.
6. FROM THE FLOOR.
6.1 Pat Giorni requested placing the next meeting date at the end of the agenda. She also requested
overnight parking requirements be enforced to encourage parking in the driveways. Jennifer Pfaff
spoke on rules not being enforced regarding SUV's, RV's, boats, etc., which are being parked on the
street overnight in her neighborhood.
7. INFORMATION ITEMS.
7.1 Bicycle Safety Issues in Burlingame
7.1.1 Bicycle Transportation Plan
Chair Cohen advised that no action will be taken tonight and opened the public hearing
From the floor, Jennifer Pfaff suggested adding traffic lights for bike traffic on existing traffic
light poles and painting the bike lanes in a color other than white to be more conspicuous for
driver awareness. She also suggested educating the public with a Bike Day and close some streets
to car traffic that day to introduce the new plan. Bill Sharer suggested a safe place to cross 101.
Pat Giorni stated education is important and the League of American Cyclists provides bike safety
lessons. She checked cameras on El Camino Real which seem to work but the lights don't give
The City of Burlingame Page 3
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, Septemb er 9, 2004
enough time to cross. Also, the state's vehicle manual should add bike safety rules.
Chair Cohen stated that the plan will include installing signage that Burlingame is a bicycle
friendly community.
7.2 From Staff to Commission
7.2.1 Traffic Engineer's Report
7.2.1.1 Trousdale Drive widening due to MillslPeninsula Hospital construction
Mr. Chou provided a drawing of Mills/Peninsula Hospital 's reconstruction ofthe main entrance
opposite Magnolia Avenue at the traffic signal on Trousdale Drive. The new driveway will
include left turn lanes for staff and ambulance accesses causing some on-street parking on the
south side of Trousdale to be eliminated along with some of the existing buildings.
From the floor, Pat Giorni said the ambulance entrance should be on El Camino Real and
suggested polling the ambulance drivers on this item.
Chair Cohen will refer this suggestion to the traffic consultants
7.2.2 Traffrc Sergeant's Report
7.3 From Commission to Staff
7.3.1 Reports of citizen complaints or requests
Mr. Chou stated that the parking signs on Occidental Avenue have been removed. He also advised
that Engineering and Police staffs will be meeting with Our Lady of Angels school next week.
Also, he has received calls from the day care school about the plan. The curb painting will be done
soon and expects improvement of the sifuation next week.
7.3.2 Comments and Communication
Chair Cohen asked about grants from the Office of Traffic Safety. Officer Witt will check on grant
availabilitybutcautionedthat sometimes therules requirethe costofmanyman-hoursbythe City.
Vice Chair Warden spoke to the BID president to contact Il Fornaio and Ecco regarding valet
parking. Mr. Chou stated he will contact I1 Fornaio about their perception of how the valet parking
evolved at this site.
Chair Cohen congratulated Doris Mortensen, secretary to the Commission, for her appointment
as the new City Clerk.
7.3.3 Expected absences of Commissioners at the Thursday, October L4,2004 meeting - None.
8. INACTIVE ITEMS. None
The City of Burlingame Page 4
'a
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING GOMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, September 9, 2004
9. AGENDIZE FOR THE NEXT MEETING.
4.2.1 to Discussion Item
4.2.3 to Discussion Item
10. ADJOURNMENT. 9:15 p.m.
The City of Burlingame Page 5
C, )-J Clere/Cound I
MEETING MINUTES
Regular Meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission
Thursday, September 16, 2004
The regular meeting of the Burlingame Parks & Recreation Commission was called to order by
Chairman Larios at7:00 pm at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road.
ROLL CALL
Commissioners Present:
Commissioners Absent:
StaffPresent:
Others Present:
Dittman, Erickson, Kahn, Larios, Muller
Heathcote, Lawson
Parks & Recreation Director Schwartz
None
MINUTES
The minutes of the August 19,2004 Commission meeting were approved as submitted.
OLD BUSINESS
A. Pershing Park Playground Rehabilitation - Director Schwartz reported that the
Playground Committee has met with the vendors and is working on the design for
the playground. In response to a question from Commissioner Kahn, Schwartz
stated that, other than Pershing, Cuernavaca Park's playground is the only one
that still needs to be brought up to ADA and playground safety standards.
Public Art Committee - Schwartz reported that the City Council formed a
Committee to draft a policy regarding the potential placement of art in public
places. Commissioners Kahn and Lawson will represent the Parks & Recreation
Commission on the Committee. The first meeting is tentatively scheduled for
September 27ft.
PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
I\-EW BUSIII-ESSA. Field Use Policy - Director Schwartz introduced the item stating staff is
requesting feedback and direction regarding field use by non-profit groups. A
:-''*H;??ii;","tT,l:"ffi ;'#:*".1f"1H*-ia',Xfi ampsthatcompete
with Parks & Recreation Department offerings
- Non-profit $oups who extend their programs to year-round offerings
- Assigrung field space for new non-profit groups
B
Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes
September 16, 2004 - page 2
Schwartz suggested that the Commission discuss the issues involved in drafting
such a policy and then invite reprosentatives of the non-profit organizations to the
next meeting to give their input. The Commissioners then discussed several
different sides of the issue, including philosophy, field usage, and prioritizatron.
This input will be compiled into a draft document for the next meeting. Staff was
asked to provide a schedule of the current amount of field usage and the rates
each group pays to use the different facilities.
REPORTS
Director Schwartz reported that (1) staff is making progress towards a web-based
registration system for recreation classes; (2) the landscaping project otr
California Drive to visually block the BART trains is scheduled for completion in
early October; (3) staff is improving the pathways at Bayside Park and will be
planting new fiees so they can become established before a proposed widening of
Airport Blvd in the next six to twenty years; (4) staff is in the process of renewing
the contract with the Burlingame Aquatic Club to operate the competitive
programs at the Burlingame Aquatic Center.
Commissioner Muller reported that dogs are still running offJeash in Washington
Park from 6:00 to 7:00am.
Commissioner Dittman stated that the yellow lines on the BHS Football field need
repainting.
Commissioner Larios asked about the progress of the Bayside Park resfroom
project. Staff stated that the City Council will be discussing the Crty's General
Fund budget at their next meeting.
NEXT MEETING
The next meeting of the Parks & Recreation Commission will be held on Thursday, October 21,
ZA04 at 7:00 p.m. at Burlingame City Hall.
There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at
8:14 pm.
Respectfully submitted,
0
Randy Schwartz
Director ofParks & Recreation
A.
B.
C.
D.
ry.
v.
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
September 27,2004
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Osterling called the September 27, 2004, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
Present: Commissioners Auran, Boju6s, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele,
Osterling and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
StaffPresent: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin;
Contract Planner Karen Kristiansson, City Attomey, Larry Anderson; City
Engineer Syed Murtuza
III. MINUTES The minutes of the September 13, 2004 regular meeting of the Plaruring
Commission were approved as mailed.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA Commission discussed the agenda and polled the audience regarding the
number of people wishing to speak, and decided to move item 3 Public
Hearing and Action on the Bicycle Transportation Plan before item 2 the :r
public hearing on the Hospital Replacement. Staff also noted that in the
interest of time, any consent item removed from the calendar this evening
would be placed on the October lz,2}}4,meeting agenda for public hearing
and action.
FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
YI. ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - hems on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. Thqt 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.
1A. 754 WALNUT AYEI\ITIE, ZONED R.l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROBERT MEDAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MARK AND
IIELEN GRANCOLAS, PROPERTY OWNERS) (74 NOTICED) PROIECT PLANNER: CATHERINE
BARBER
18.2108 STIMMTT DRr\rE, ZONED R-l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMTT FOR r{ETGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDmON (ROBERT O'CONNOR,
APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; GARY STRAWTHER, DESIGNER) (41 NOTICED)
1420 BEMTO AvENlrE, ZONED R-l - APPLTCATION FOR DESIGN REVTEW FOR A SECOND
STORY ADDITION (PHIL FIYLAND, APPLICANT AND DESIGN; CAREY AND BRYAN WELSH,
PROPERTY OWNERS) (64 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER
. lc.
II. ROLL CALL
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 27, 2004
I D. 21 7 DWrGrrT ROAD, ZOI\ED R-l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT
FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDMION (ELLIS 1
SCHOICIIET, ARCHITECT AND APPLICANT; HOWARD AND ELISE CLOWES, PROPERTY
OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:ERICA STROHMEIER
lE. l4l7ll4l9 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZOI\IED R-2 - APPLTCATION FOR SETBACK VARIANCES AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXSTING
DUPLEX AND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO-STORY ACCESSORY STRUCTURE
(RAYMOND BRAYER, APPLICANT, DESIGNER AND PROPERTY OWNER) (98 NOTICED)
PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN I{T]RIN
1F.l844EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED C-l - APPLTCATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
REAL ESTATE USE (FABIO SILVA, APPLICANT; JEFFREY SUN, PROPERTY OWNER) (12
NOTICED) PROJECT CATHERINE BARBER
Chair Osterling asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission*wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. There were no requests.
C. Auran moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staffreport and by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it
passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised.
VII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN - PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON FINAL DRAT'T
BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN, AN AMENDMENT TO TI{E GENERAL PLAN CIRCULATION
ELEMENT, FOR RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL (NEWSPAPER NOTICE) PROJECT
PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS
Reference staffreport September 27,2A04, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staffreport
summarizing the plan, noting that the action was to approve the plan and to recommend to City Council that
the Plan be amended to the circulation element of the General Plan. Commission asked: looking at route
map there seem to be a couple of destinations missed, Ray Park, Roosevelt School, McKinley school; was
there a reason the subcommittee did not include these destinations? C. Brownrigg, Bicycle Subcommittee
member noted that there was a lot of discussion about the various routes to include, could not stripe every
street, made an effort to balance recreational and commuter usage, felt that the Ray Park residelrts were
pretty careful; also noted that this plan is a beginning not an end, will evaluate how people use the routes in
the future and can add lanes/routes as needed
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue; commented that she had
attended the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission meetings on the plan aid had a couple of ideas:
cuilently there is not enough time at the bicycle actuated signal at ECR to walk bicycles across the street,
mayte this actuation could be coordinated with the "walking man" ; the regional plan does not reflect bicycle
routes through Hillsborough, perhaps that could be added to the final regional map; the Traffic, Safety andr,
Parking commission did incorporate the intersection near Ray Park, the school and Ray Drive. There werc
no further questions from the floor. The public hearing was closed
I
3.
2
I
2
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 27, 2004
Commission cofllments: this is a document which will grow, it will be the basis for the city's permanent
plan.
C. Vistica noted that this is a great piece of work which is long overdue and moved to recommend the plan
by resolution to the City Council for amendment to the Circulation Element ofthe General Plan. The motion
was seconded by C. Boju6s.
Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the plan and recommend to City Council
that it be amended to the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote.
Staff was directed to place this item on the City Council agenda for action. The item concluded at7:20 p.m.
1783 EL CAMINO REAL, ZONED UNCLASSIFIED AI\D C-3 - APPLICATION FOR
E}N/IRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMM, PARCEL MERGER,
ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT AND CHANGE IN ZONING FROM R-3 TO UNCLASSIFIED AND
UNCLASSIFIED TO C- 1 FOR HOSPITAL AND RELATED USES FOR A PROJECT TO REPLACE THE
E)ilSTING PENINSULA HOSPITAL WTTII A NEW SD( TO SEVEN-STORY HOSPMAL BUILDING, A
FOUR TO FME-STORY OFFICE BUILDING FOR HOSPTTAL SUPPORT SPACE AND MEDICAL
OFFICES, A PARKING GARAGE AND A HELIPAD. (239 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNERS:
MAUREEN BROOKS/KAREN KRISTIANSSON
Chair Osterling began by explaining the procedure for public comments. CP Monroe presented the staff
report, focusing on the process and actions required, since the applicant would be presenting the project. She .l
reviewed the required applications and the process to date; explained that the Commissioners had amemo at
their desks responding to a request at the August 30 meeting for a comparison with parking supply at the
Mills medical campus; discussed the findings and statement of overriding considerations; reviewed
substantive changes to the conditions of approval; and in response to a question from the Compission, want
over the general outline of the meeting.
Todd Tierney, project architect, represented by Oren Reinholt, project manager, Antonio Bava, project
landscape architect and Trixie Martelino and Rod Jeung, EP Associates, responded to questions on the final
EIR with Jamie Hicks of Fehr and Peers on traffic.
Chair Osterling opened the public hearing. The applicant began bypresenting the project. Keypoints made
during the applicants'presentation were: the project has been ongoing for 3+ years, has involved 20Gr
design professionals, and is now finishing the design development phase. Hospital believes that the present
project is a great design and a great project for the community. The project began with objectives to be
accomplished in replacing the medical center: meeting the state mandate for seismic safety; existing hospital
is 50 years old and functionally obsolete; this is a district-owned site dedicated for medical use; providing a
clinically safe environment incorporating features such as all private rooms and no recycled air; providing a
hospital that is patient and family centered with a place in every room for a family member to sleep;
designing a flexible project that will last about 70 years, so they are including 70 beds of shelled space; an
efficient hospital with 35-bed units for optimal staffing service in nursin! units; sensitivity to the
neighborhood with no pile driving in project and placing the parking garage away from Ray Park; current
hospital remaining fully functional through construction with no reduction in services or access; providing
an integrated medical office building (MOB) that is connected to the hospital on all floors; improving site
access by eliminating the dangerous El Camino Real entance and providing three separate entrances; and
improving the Emergency Deparhnent with increased patient capability, adjacent parking, a tauma capable
departrnent, and a helipad near the entrance.
3
\-,
a
I
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 27, 2004
They continued: the project is different from the original project changes include: the hospital rotated 9Ca
degrees, the main entrance at Magnolia, MOB facing El Camino with direct pedestrian access from EI
Camino, rerouting the water line, and increasing landscaping; this revised project was based on the
conclusions of the DEIR, study sessions and examination of a variety of alternatives, and with this project,
the preferred alternative in the EIR, theywere able to reduce major environmental impacts from 6 to 2. For
Davis Drive residents, most of the hospital is significantly screened by trees, it is 117' away atthe closest
point, the narrowest end of the tower faces Davis Drive and has only four patient rooms facing Davis Drive
on each floor of the tower; design of rooms places beds in center to provide distant views, and couches for
family members by windows so they must stand back from window to look out and would sit with their
backs to the windows; the structure steps back from Davis Drive, with the widest and closest part to Davis
Drive at the lowest floors being significantly screened by vegetation; design team worked to reduce floor
plate and have minimum of functions facing Davis Drive; have more solid surfaces on Davis Drive side of
building to minimize light spillage; most patient rooms look away from Davis Drive.
Commissioners asked questions ofthe applicant, the EIR consultant, and staff: How does the height of the
eucalyptus kees at Albemarle compare with the heigbt ofthe trees being proposed? Redwoods should grow
to same height as existing trees, but have to be located between fence and water line easement. There are a
mix of trees proposed with varying heights because a solid wall of trees would block light. CP Monroe
noted that the Commission could impose a condition requiring landscaping to be adjusted to provide tall
trees where there are existing tall trees. Why are heights oftees on plans so short? There is mix of small,
medium and tallertrees, with alayer of redwoods in front oftower. What is the status ofthe visual impact
on Davis Drive? Could it be mitigated with color palette, landscaping, design, etc.? Alternative C was-
mitigated.
Visual impact is still significant and unavoidable. Since impact is based on blockage of sky views, the
impact can be lessened but can't be mitigated to less-than-significant. Alternative C was mitigated through
required step back ofthe upper floors ofthe office building, but applicant has stated that those step backs are
not feasible so Alternative C would have same significant visual impact to Davis Drive. The applicant
responded that the reasons are that the MOB couldn't change its shape to provide the floor area that would be
lost in a different location, and without that floor are4 there would not be enough space. Also, the Revised
Project has less visual impacts in some ways because it is nirrower than the MOB and further away from
Davis Drive.
Council questions of applicant continued: In Table 2-8, the table and the footnote don't appear consislent-
is there a significant impact? The text on page 2-45 indicates that there is a significant impact before
mitigation, but that impact can be reduced to less-than-significant through mitigation. The footnote is an
error. Why don't the plans show more detail on the MOB? The MOB is on a separate hack since the
hospital needs to go through the approval process at the Office of Statewide Health Planning and
Development (OSIIPD). The plans are at an early stage ofthe design, with elevations just showing massing.
Is it possible to hold back part of the application, like the design review for the office building or
landscaping plans? Could bring office building back for design review, and coul4 have condition that before
issuance of a permit, the landscaping would need to come back to the Commisiion.
Chair Osterling asked for public comment on the project included comments from the following people:
Keith Duncan, Vice-Chief of the medical staff at Peninsula Medical Center; Celeste Chavez, Burlingam.-.
resident and nurse at Mills-Peninsula; Leonie Wohl, 1608 Davis Drive; Victor Richmond, 1653 Balbo.
Avenue; Steven Dambrosio,1604 Davis Drive; Mrs. Dambrosio, 1604 Davis Drive; Dave Matterelli, one of
the owners of the BurlingamePlaza; Grace Chen, 1860 Magnolia Drive; Steve Purdue, 1601 Davis Drive;
4
\-.
a
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 27, 2004
Tim Vinelli, address not provided; Nancy Fras e\ 1645 Albemarle Way; Teresa Post, I 617 Coronado Way;
Pat Nicholson, 1652 Balboa Avenue; Terr), Huebner, 1708 Davis Drive; Luchan Pincer, nurse at hospital;
Kevin Nelson, 1652 Albemarle Way; Evelyn Clayton, 2950 Trousdale Drive; Sigrun Franco, 1700 Davis
Drive; Andrea Mettas, surgeon and resident ofMarco Polo Way; Vince Muzzi, resident ofHillsborough and
owner of 1766 El Camino Real and 1100 Trousdale; Dan Andersen, 728 Vernon Way; John Root, 1407
Montero Avenue; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; George De Sivestri, Jr., attorney for Lunardi's Markets;
Igor Yagolnitser, 1501 Davis prive; Robert Bruening, 1645 Albemarle Way; Russ Cofuen, 605 Lexington
Way. Needs of Doctors and Hospital Staff. Medical staffhas been involved with design of project and
supports it; want to meet earthquake standards; the MOB is a critical part of the project to allow timely
access to patients; medical staff wants best medical facility; nursing staffcould use more space; hospital
needs to be built; MOB is essential part of project for providing good care. Project Alternatives. Consider
placing hospital on El Camino side; consider altematives submitted in public comments; please come up
with altemative that doesn't have negative impact on Davis Drive; believe there could be a better plan with
hospital closer to Trousdale; has Commission considered keeping existing structure/footprint; if hospital
were told they needed to provide an option with no impact on Ray Park, they would do it; could the MOB be
put on top of the parking g?nage so that you could move the whole project-over towards Trousdale; need to
find altemative with least impact on Ray Park and most positive impact on city's gateway. Location of
cooling towers. Towers are further away from the utility plant in Alternative C, why can't they be moved
further away in the revised project? Cooling towers are a nuisance now, can hear them at night and they are
about twice as far away. Noise. Problerns with trucks and people partying in parking lot; hospital needs to
post hours at loading dock. Privacyfor Davis Drive Residents. Difficult forpeople to live under 6-story
building; have lived in house for over 20 years and now feel house is being taken because will not have i
privacy, etc. Yisual Impact on Davis Drive Residents and Nearby. Impact affects sight lines from Balboa
and Albemarle as well as Davis Drive residents; currently have views of grass, trees & sky and have light
into house, but all that will change; height and setback ofproject is out of scale with neighborhood character,
project is disrespectful and an abomination; hospital has visually affected people at other end ofDavis Drive
for years and this project may not be as bad as everyone thinks; having large parkin g garage on corner with
few trees seems like it would be an impact; architectural character is too stark and modem for what's
appropriate inBurlingame; was toldbyarchitectthat second storyadditionto homeonDavisDrivewouldn't
be approved because out of scale with neighborhood, but now there will be a 7-story building across the
skeet; old hospital is at angle, but new hospital is parallel and like a wall; push architects to do more to make
structure stand out or blend in.
Public comments continued; Impact on Property l/alues. Concerned about impact ofproject onproperty
values; probablyimpossible to sell nowbecausewill have depressedprice; tookeverythingtobuyhouse and
don't know what they'd do if value was reduced. Replacement Landscaprhg. Revised project would remove
old-growth trees and replace with immature landscaping; could apptcant replace first row ofparking (about
20') behind upper Davis Drive homes with landscaping strip for trees; how many deciduous trees compared
with evergreen in trees proposed. Changes.4ffecting Burlingame Plaza. Concerns about traIfic at shopping
center and removal of left-tum enhance from Trousdale; no study done of street running through the center
@laza Lane); what about trucks in alley, where are they going to park to make deliveries; concern about
impacts on customer access. Trafic Impacts. Concerned that increased trbflic on Trousdale and at
intersection with Magnolia will affect attendance at College of India; concerned about traffic on Davis
Drive; why do conditions of approval allow traffic to double; why is the existing El Camino eirtance unsafe
but the loading dock entrance safe; what about trucks making left tums onto El Camino; has the traffic that
would be generated by the shelled space been considered in the haffic and parking calculations; don't want
entrance moved from El Camino to Trousdale; concemed about hammerhead intersections on Trousdale,
could have drivewaybut not intersection no left turn; haven't addressed increase in traffic from new condo
5
v
a
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 27, 2004
project or from increases in BART traffic or increased densities due to North Burlingame/Rollins Road _
Specific Plan; concerned that Magnolia would be used for emergency entrance or that the level of servic, I
would be affected, but understand that's not the case. Adequaqt of Parking. Don't know how this project
can happen without parking impacts; need to get mitigations to parking first; BART parking garage has lots
of extra space, could use that during construction; residents would prefer parking impact to visual impact;
what if parking garage is full, how do cars get to other parking areas on site; must be a parking deficit,
because with I 5 04 ernployees and I 486 spaces, where are visitors and patients going to park; would there be
paid parking, shouldn't be paid parking at hospital; people don't obeyposted speed limit so whywould they
obeypaper requirement not to park in residential area; parking will end up on sfieets. Davis Drive Entrance.
Hospital is supposed to monitor use of entrance, but they're supposed to monitor it now and it hasn't been
effective; need to close entrance to vehicles before construction or sell hospital enfrance property on Davis
Drive. Project Processing. Need to take more time to look at this; meetings were in summer when fewer
people could come; need to have more meetings and opportunity to meet and interact with applicant,
presenting signatures of people who would like to get involved; still time to make better decision; don't
yield to pressure to make decision quicklywhen communitywould need to live with it; shouldn't act on this
until it's ready. Helipad. Hospital building currently blocks sound, noise friil be big impact at new location;
requiring no more than four trips per month is ridiculous because if you need trips, you need them. Other
Comments. Hospital can become research center and needs to put people, children, care and the environment
first; meeting should be recorded for community on television; office building competes with private office
buildings owned by residents; oxygen tank location on El Camino doesn't fit area and would be security
target; has been lots of noticing for this project and chances for people to become involved; applicant has
been very cooperative and receptive; need to work closely with community, having more open public i
engagement will result in better project.
Chair Osterling recognized the applicant who responded to the public's comments and addressed at
Commissions request some of the constraints affecting the placement of the structures on the site. Potnts
regarding constraints on the site. Grades on site are issue; lot of clay on site so water level is not very deep,
constrains how deep buildings can go; water line/easement location and use is constraint need to keep
existing hospital operating without changing the existing power plant location; problem with El Camino
enhance, it's OK for right turns but not left and with the single present enhance it's confusing how to get to
the Emergency Departrnent; and timing constraint in state legislation, already have to apply for extension
and slim chance may not get it, but there's only one extension possible, must be done by 2013;
Applicant also noted about the issues raised by the public: the project as now proposed provides all on site
parking required during construction; the entries at the hospital, medical office building and parking gdrage
are now level; kept l0' on each side of water easement to plant deep rooted trees since cannot plant in
easement; compressed building along Davis Drive side; have buried proposed cooling towers into part of
hill and provided sound wall; stepped building back from Davis Drive so tallest tower farttrest away, closest
portion is two stories; today CalTrans requires any entrance on El Camino to be fbrttrer away from
Trousdale; will opened warehouse for trucks to reduce number of deliveries and have thern made by
smaller trucks; reduced number of loading docks and loading dock area, put ap far from Davis as could;
have looked at seven alternatives, and EIR found that all other alternatives had niore impacts, are proposing
the environmentallypreferred alternative; don't agreewith all conditions, believe Davis Drive entrance is
needed until completion ofproject because during time they're taking down existing hoqpital theyll need the
Davis Drive entrance for staff; can conhol construction access from Davis Drive because have singl,l
contractor and have clout of progress payments, can require in contract that contractor physicallymonitor
Davis enhance during construction if there is a problern; and have not rushed process, redid Master Plan,
submitted plan two years ago, then as a result of EIR developed another plan.
6
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 27, 2004
Commissioners asked a number of questions of the applicant, the EIR consultants and city staff, Can
applicant sit down with community, having heard these concerns, and try to come together? Want to be
good neighbor, but can't redesigp hospital; believe can work with neighborhood better than have done about
mitigations. Have impression that having cooling towers in current location actually makes things quieter,
and moving them would increase noise. Is that true? If removed cooling towers, there would be an exposed
wall of the hospital with open louvers facing Davis Drive with the power plant behind it; there is mitigation
that if there is a noise problem in excess of community standard, they will fix i! will do what it takes to
solve any noise problem. Oxygen tank bunker on El Camino is unfortunate, have you looked at altematives?
Tanks need access at loading dock and can't be located on easement, also don't want to push it back closer to
Davis Drive residents; have sized tanks so more horizontal with minimal height and with bollards around
sides. Existing cooling towers cycle on & off, will new ones do that? If coolenough, won't go on at all; will
run varying numbers of chillers depending on the temperature, so ifheard, will sound more like increasing
speed on fan. Could the existing water line be pulled closer to the hospital on the Davis Drive side to
provide more room for trees next to residences? Need to check; that would result in less landscaping on
hospital side, curre,nt proposal is to balance tall landscaping on both sides. How many delivery trucls now?
How long is warehouse lease? What will be the frequency of nucks and timing of deliveries? Is left turn
out of loading dock safe, and if so, why not for cars? Truck haffic numbers are in EIR; lease is l0-years
with optionto extend; will improve situationbecause thentruckers arriving from long-distancehaulswill go
to warehouse to unload and it will be hospital employees driving smaller trucks to hospital, so hospital will
have more conhol. Timing of deliveries would be controlled by Condition 87 in revised conditions. Current
El Camino entrance doesn't work because of grades; CalTrans wants entrance separated as far from +
Trousdale intersection as possible; will have smaller trucks because ofwarehouse, and will add acceleration
pocket to El Camino Real for left-tums by trucks. What is proposed for site security? Concerned about
increased calls to Police Departnent. There will be cameras that will project to guards; security staff 24-
hours per day, with three to five people per shift; security office on garage is placed so can see all entrances;
guards will make rounds, there will be monitor cirmeras. Will Marco Polo Waybe used mostlyby staf{?
Could there be a gate there to limit access to staff?
Will be staffentrance, would consider gate there at future date. How will use of the Davis Drive entance be
monitored? Could there be z gate to prevent use by construction vehicles? The Davis Drive enhance is
currently used by patients and neighbors as well as staff; in early phases, don't expect that pattern to change,
but when use Marco Polo Way for construction access will need to have additional staffaccess at Davis
Drive.
I
\-,
Commission discussion with applicant continued: Commission is familiar with the project, think it's a good
project, but it would be good to have community involved more; need to figure out how. Then about
exterior design: Why so much surface parking when another smaller garage would leave more undeveloped
space? Would like to see that as possibility. Surface parking gives flexibility for site use in future; What's
been done to blend the building in? Trying to make building a feature, ifs not a residential building, not
hiding it; use warm colors: precaste concrete with river rock aggregate,granite down low, metal panels with
lightbronze color; modernhightechmaterialsbut wann andwill varycolors to give impression likebricks;
glass on stairways to include both hanslucent and clear panels, excqtt for Davis Drive side which won't have
clear glass; will have sunshades for privacy in each room; parking structure will be pre-cast concrete with
glass panels at corner and metal at stairs; heavily landscaped around garage; want apre-assembled look, not
a tristoricized' look. Will this look dated in 20 years? Client don't think so because trellises are simple
enough they won't become dated; it's a SO-year building but want to build it to last 100 years. Doesn't fiellis
emphasize the height on Davis Drive side? Can't hide the building so need to make it look good; eye will
follow up vertical features, trellis gives eye a place to rest rather than just going off. What if project were
7
\-,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 27, 2004
continued? What about looking at less high tech designs? Looked at and exhausted alternatives; stopping
process isn't in best interests of applicant or community; if could stay on schedule, would engage in dialog a
with community; delay costs at least $45,000 per day, also funding has to compete with other Sutterprojects
and now are first in line, and then have state deadline of 2Dt3;replacement hospital is currently projected to
open in 2010 ifno delays with construction.; OSIIPD approval process will take 12-18 months andmayget
longer as more applications for other hospitals required to be replaced come in. Are comfortable with
design, haven't heard anyprobl.ems with that? What are the dimensions on the face ofthe building towards
Davis Drive? Tower is about 90 feet wide. Where is shell space (empty for future use) located? Is it
possible to remove the top floor of the tower on the Davis Drive side and maybe build it later if needed?
Top floor of tower towards Davis Drive and second to top floor of other tower-whole fifth floor. short
term the shelled area is slated to be the fitness center; then if obstetrics service needs to expand, it could go
there, some forecasts show hospital desperately needing more obstetrics others don't; if don't build now,
would need to go back to OSIIPD in futrure for approval to add on to building, which is complicated so want
to avoid that.
Discussion continued: Is it necessary to analyze flow of haffic in the?lley off Magnolia at the Plaza
Shopping Center; any thought to studying it; drive through daily and it's a mess? Observed but haven't
quantified as level of service; peak is about one car per minute; alley can accommodate two way flows;
would be more cars entering but not more exiting because still have right turn out of Trousdale driveway.
BurlingamePlazaalley is privately owned; what if the center changed? That would affect all taffic going in
and out, not just traffic affected by this project; traffic study would be needed; would come before
Commission for review as a part of any proposed shopping center change. There is parking on one side in r
the alley (Plua Lane) as well which increases congestion and makes it difficult to tum in because need to 1
make a wider tum; was that considered? Lane is wide enough for parking and two lanes of haffic, problem
would be illegal dorrble-parking, which is an existing issue that needs to be addressed. Would applicant be
open to idea ofpublic at a sculpfure at corner of El Camino Real and Trousdale Drive, and if so, how would
you engage the City? Haven't given that adequate attention, but it's a wonderful opportunity. What if could
shift water line and deed an additional I 0 feet of land to residences? Land belongs to District, but would talk
about that if it solved everyone's problems. A member of the public noted such a shift would put utility
poles and PG&E visits in Davis Drive backyards. There were no further comments and the public hearing
was closed.
The Commission discussed the project and provided additional comments on the following topics: Dialog
with community. Applicant needs to engage community in dialog; urge meeting with community, need to
discuss problems; would have been good to see this crowd earlier inprocess. Alternatives. In discussions
with applicant overlast eightmonths, because convinced there are few options thatwillworlg andtherewill
be a big building facing Davis Drive, think Revised Proj ect would have less impact than Altern anve C; EIR.
The EIR is excellent, one of best Commission has seen; don't want to approve yet because want to leave
open tool of mitigation measures in case dialog with communityresults in additional mitigation measures;
want to look for more creative solutions to reduce impacts flrther; does provide adequate disclosure;
Landscape plan. TlnLe landscaping plan needs close attention, especially with a view towards creating a
permanent massing on Davis Drive side; there is room for improvement; requ-est meeting with staff and
appiicant to discuss; Design of buildings. Would like to see other renderings considered; think it looks too
high-tech and another design might fit better. Timing of actions. Commission can act on some items tonight
and hold others, but all should go to City Council as a package; could take directive actions tonight to send 1
signal about what is acceptable and to help focus future discussion; good to look at project as a whole rather
than piece by piece; if continued actions, would then probably come back to Commission at its October 25
8
a
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 27, 2004
meeting, would need to discuss potential City Council meeting date with City Manager and Council; acting
on zoning recornmendation tonight would allow introduction of zoning at October 4 City Council meeting.
Commissioner Keighran moved to recommend approval of the conceptual lot line adjushnent and the
tentative parcel map, the zoning text amendment, and the rezoning, as described in the staff report. The
motion was seconded by Commissioner Boju6s. Chair Osterling called for a voice vote on the motion to
approve. The motion passed 7.-0-0 on a voice vote. Since this project will go forward to the City Council
there is no appeal period required.
Following comments by a number of commissioners regarding the good quality of the Final EIR and the
positive effect of the extensive revisions made by the applicant to the project since its submittal and their
support of the applicant's submittal of the preferred alternative with the fewest significant and unavoidable
impacts, as well as noting that since manyofthe neighbors were new to the process, the consensus was that
there would be benefit for the applicant to meet with the neighbors and discuss these issues as they relate to
their properties.
Commissioner Boju6s moved to continue consideration of the EIR, CUP and design review to the October
25 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Auran seconded the motion. Chair Osterling called for a
voice vote on the motion to continue the action on the Final EIR, conditional use permit and design review
to October 25,2004, so that the applicant could meet with the neighbors and better inform them about the
limitations caused by the site constraints, the reduction in significant unavoidable effects caused by
choosing the preferred altemative, and to discuss specific mitigations related to Davis Drive properties. r
The motion passed 7-0-0 on a voice vote. This item concluded at l1:50 p.m.
\- X. PLANNER REPORTS
- There were no Planners Reports.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chair Osterling adjourned the meeting at l1:50 p.m.
Respectfu lly submitted,
Michael Brownrigg, Secretary
U:\PCMinutesV004\09.27 unapproved min.doc
9
\-,
I