HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2002.05.06BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Rrcur,ln MnBtrNc - MotrmnY, MIY 6, 2W2
PAGE 1 oF3
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO TIIE FLAG
3. ROLL CALL
4. MII{UTES - Regular meeting of April 15, 2OO2
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit spea*erc ta three minutes each
a. Reintroduction of an Ordinance for a zoning code amendment
for new construction building size in the Burlingame Avenue
and Broadway coflrmercial areas and change to zoning action
expiration
b. Broadway Area Business Improvement District - Setting
2N212003 Assessments
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS - At this time, persons in the audience may speak on
any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council.
The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits
council from acting on any matter which is not on the agenda. It is the policy of
council to refer such matters to staff for investigation and/or action. Speakers are
requested to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and
hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each.
7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. Future use of the property at 301 Airport Boulevard
b. Introduce Ordinance to amend the contract for Police
Employees with the California Public Employees' Retirement
System (CaIPERS) and the City of Burlingame
c. Introduce an Ordinance to install a stop sign on Sebastian Drive
at Arguello Drive to provide a three-way stop Intersection
d. Introduce Ordinance deleting one-hour parking and establishing
two hour parking, east side of Carolan Avenue from Cadillac
Way to Broadway
e. Consider request to revise Massage Permit Ordinance regarding
posting of permit bond
f. Amendment to Leaf Blower Ordinance for use in public areas
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Special event requests for 2002 - Burlingame Chamber of
Commerce for Burlingame Avenue Sidewalk Sale, Art & Jazz
Festival, Holiday Decorations and Holiday Open House
City of Burlingame
CITY HALL - 5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401 O
(650) 558-7200
SAGGESTED ACTION
7:00 p.m., Council Charnbers
Approval
Hearing/Action
Hearing/Action
Presentation
Introduce
Introduce
Introduce
Discussion
Approval
\
BI'RLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Rncur,ln Mmrmc - MoNoLy, MAY 6, 2(Nl2
PAGE 2 oF 3
b. Special event permit for use of Pershing Park, Saturday, July
13,2002 for Avon Breast Cancer 3-Day Walk Aid Station
c. Tentative & Final Parcel Map for lot combination, Lots 18 thru
20, Block 14, Burlingame Grove Subdivision, 1160 Broadway
d. Adoption of Resolution fixing the Employer's Contribution
under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act for
Police Officers' Association
e. Resolution to approve lease modification for Federal Aviation
Administration, Windshear Alert System, 1775 Gilbreth Road
f. Resolution approving the applicant to apply for grant funds for
the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Urban Open Space and Recreation
Program under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water,
Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000
g. Resolution accepting California/Grove Storm Drain
Improvement Project, Phase 2
h. Resolution accepting completion of Trenton Play Area
Renovation by Lone Star Landscape, Inc.
i. Resolution approving contract with Design, Community and
Environment for Consulting Services to prepare a Planning
Study and Specific Area Plan for the north end of Burlingame
j. Appointment of System Advisory Board Member to the
Peninsula Library System
k. Request to serve alcohol at Library Foundation function
l. Approval of City Investment Policy for 2002
m. Authorize City Attorney to join in Amicus Curiae Brief in City
of Carlsbad vs. Baker, case no. D0391L2, at no cost to City
n. Authorize City Attorney to join in Amicus Curiae Brief in
Metropolitan Water District vs. Superior Court (Cargill), case
no. 8148446, at no cost to City
9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
10. OLD BUSII\ESS
11. NEW BUSINESS
12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
City of Burlingame
CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401 O
(650) 558-7200
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Rnculan MprcrrNc - Moxoa.y, MAy 6, 2002
PlcB 3 or 3
a. Commission Minutes: Library Board of Trustees, March 19,
2OO2;' Traffic, Safety & Parking, April 11,2002; Planning,
April 22,2002
b. Department Reports: Police, March,2002
c. Letter from Patricia Gray concerning affordable housing in
Burlingame
d. Letter of April ll, 2002 from N. Carol Davis, Wichita, Kansas
to Rahn Becker thanking him for assisting with transportation to
hotel
e. Letter of April 12, 2002 from AT&T Broadband concerning
programming changes
f. Memorandum from Director of Public Works concerning sewer
and water infrastructure program press conference on May 13,
2002
13. ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities, please contact the City Clerk at (650)
558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy ofthe Agenda Packet is available for public review
at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 50I 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.l)urlinqanre.org. Agendas and minutes are
available at this site.
NEXT MEETING -20,2002
City of Burlingame
CITY HALL. 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401 O
(650) 558-7200
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED MINUTES
Regular Meeting of April 15,2002
1. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council
Chambers. The meeting was called to order at7:00 p.m. by Mayor Mary Janney.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEG TO THE FLAG
Led by Mary Hunt.
3. ROLL CALL
Council Present:
Council Absent:
Baylock, Coffey, Galligan, Janney, O'Mahony
None
4. MINUTES
Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the minutes of the Budget Meeting of March 28,2002
and regular Council meeting of April 1,2002; seconded by Councilman Galligan approved by voice vote,4-
0-1, with Mayor Janney abstaining due to being absent for the April I't meeting.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were no public hearings
6. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Dan Anderson, 728 Vemon Way, spoke regarding the need to reappoint Ann Keighran and Stan Vistica to
the Planning Commission.
7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a.Presentation on League of California Cities Grassroots Network
Rebecca Elliot from the League had not yet arrived. CM Nantell requested Council go onto next itern, 7b
b. Authorize Retention of Advocation. Inc. to Provide Lobbyins Services Regardine AB 680 on
Behalf of the Ci(v of Burlingame and Other Peninsula Cities
IBurlingame City Council April 15,2002
ACM Becker defined the proposal to join with neighboring cities to retain the lobbying firm of Advocation,
Inc. to assist in the defeat of or amendment to Assembly 680 which could redirect all of the growth in the
sales tax if it were implemented on a statewide basis.
Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the agreement with Advocation, Inc.; seconded by
Councilwoman Baylock, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
c.Appoint Planninq Commissioners
Councilman Galligan and Councilwoman Baylock spoke regarding the interviews conducted for two
Planning Commission vacancies. Councilman Galligan stated that if at some time a commissioner feels they
can no longer work professionally with the Council or commission and respect differences of opinion, then
that commissioner should resign or expect the City Council to suggest that they step down. Councilman
Galligan stated his support of any commissioner would be in belief that he would have the full support of the
council if a commissioner is not respectful of differences of opinion. Councilman Galligan made a motion to
approve the reappointment of Ann Keighran and Stan Vistica to continue to serve on the Planning
Commission; seconded by Vice Mayor Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
a.Presentation on League of California Cities Grassroots Network
Rebecca Elliot spoke on behalf of the League of California Grassroots Network. The Network, which is 104
years old and represents 475 cities and city governments, provides legislative advocacy, education and
training. The goal of the Grassroots Network is to focus on major issues of concern to the cities. The first
and primary goal is the protection of local revenues, followed closely by the protection of local control. The
Grassroots Network is an organization that assists in taking the City's message out to the community and to
help the City reach their constituents and inform them about the services they receive from their city.
CM Nantell addressed the need for support from the citizens of the local community in these issues and he
and Rebecca Elliot urged citizens to join them on May l5th for State Legislators Day
in Sacramento.
8.
a.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Purchase by Burlingame Fire Department for a New Fire Engine from Pierce Manufacturing
Fire Chief Reilly requested approval to purchase a new fire engine from Pierce Fire Apparatus in the amount
of $364,959.46.
b. Request for Full Time Parkinq Entorcement Officer (PEO
Police Chief Missel requested approval of a full time Parking Enforcement Officer position for the Police
Department.
c.
2
April 15,2002 Burlingame City Council
Resolution Regulating Parking at CiO Licensed Property at the Corner of Marsten Road &
Rollins Road and Authorizins the Towins of Unauthorized Vehicle
DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution # 40-2002 regulating parking at City licensed property
at the comer of Marsten Road and Rollins Road and authorizing the towing of non-authoized vehicles.
Finance Director Becker requested approval for payment of Warrants #81663-82190, duly audited, in the
amount of $2,545,202.20 (excluding library checks 81663-81707), Payroll checks 146635-147834 in the
amount of $2,162,128.34, and EFT's in the amount of $490,399.86 for the month of March, 2002.
Councilman Galligan made a motion to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilwoman
O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
9, COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Council reported on various events and committee meetings they each attended on behalf of the City.
IO. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
11. NEW BUSINESS
Councilwoman O'Mahony spoke regarding the recent ticketing of cars parked ovemight on Balboa; staff
noted this issue will be brought to the TSP committee.
12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Library Board of Trustees Minutes of February 19,2002;Traffic, Safety &
Parking Commission minutes of March 14,2002; Planning Commission of April 8,2002
b. Department Reports: Building, March 2002; Finance, March2002
c. Letters from residents conceming Safeway expansion
d. Email from Jane Gomery concerning Broadway Streetscape
e. Email from Broadway Auto Body & reply from Frank Erbacher concerning parking at 1305 No. Carolan
f. 2001 Pomeroy Award from the Califomia Water Environment Association Award to Phil Scott
g. Memorandum from Public Works Director concerning recent 301 Airport Blvd. site activities
After recognizing Fire Chief Reilly's birthday, Mayor Janney adjoumed the meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Ann T. Musso
City Clerk
3Burlingame City Council April 15,2002
d. Warrants & Payroll
STAFF REPORT
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE
5a
05.06.02
TO:HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
APRIL24.2OO2
APPROVED
FROM:CITY PLANNER
SUBIECT: REINTRODUCTION OI'All ORDINAITCE FOR A ZONING FORNEW
CONSTRUCTION BUILDING SIZE IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AI\[D BRON)WAY COMMERCIAL
AREAS AND CHANGE TO Z,ONINGACTION DPIRATION.
ACTION:
Because of direction that health service uses in the Broadway commercial areabe considered along with how
the new provisions of Health and Beauty Spa and Graphic Arts and Design Retail Business wouldiffect the
Broadway commercial arca, staffhas redirected that iart of the previous'iy introduced ordinance back to the
Planning Commission. What is included in this ordinance are the provisions requiring a conditional use
permit for new construction first floor footprints over a certain size in the Burlingarr" Auerue and Broadway
commercial areas and a change to the provisions making a zoningaction approval valid for two years, with no
extension. Removing part of the original ordinance requires reintroduction of the remainder of the ordinance.
To introduce this ordinance the Council should:
A. Request the city clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance.
B. Waive further reading of the ordinance.
C. Introduce the proposed ordinance.
D. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least 5 days before proposed
adoption.
Planning Commission Recommendation
The Planning Commission recommended by individual vote that: (1), the zoning code provisions in Subarea A
and B of the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway commercial areas be amended to require a conditional use
permit for all new construction with footprints of greater than 6000 GSF in Subareas A and B and greater than
5000 GSF on Broadway by avoice vote of 6-0-1 (C Bojues absent), and (2),that the zoningcode not be
amended to change the current regulation which allows approval under the zoning code to be valid for one
year with a one year extension, approved by a roll call vote 5-1-1 (C. Auran dissenting, C. Bojues absent).
At their meeting, after a public hearing, and prior to their vote, the commissioners discussed several issues
relating to the proposed ordinance changes. The discussion included:
o Concern that adding conditional use review for building size might create misunderstanding for a
developer when the use proposed for the new structure is permitted;o Noted that one year after a planning approval is plenty of time for even a major project to get a
building permit if the developer is serious.o One commissioner commented that a two year approval without extension is needed by some complex
projects when approvals by other agencies are required.
SIIBIIIITTED
DATE:
BY
BY
I tI
AGENDA
REINTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE FORA ZONING CODE AMENDMENT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION
BUILDING SIZE IN THE BURLINGAT'IE AWNW AND BROADWAY COMMERCAL AREAS AND CHANGE TO
ZONING ACTION EXPIRATION May 6, 2(M2
BACKGROUND:
After the introduction of this ordinance on March 18, 2002, at the meeting on April 15,2002, Council
suggested that it was not clear how the Graphics Arts and Design Retail Business and Health and Beauty Spa
uses proposed would be treated in the Broadway commercial area and in the more general C-1 zoning district.
It was also noted when discussing the proposed changes with several property owners and tenant in the
Broadway commercial area that they would like to change health service uses from prohibited to being
allowed on the second floor of buildings in the Broadway commercial area.
On the basis of these comments the proposed ordinance was modified by removing the portions which address
health and beauty spas and graphics art and design retail businesses. What remains in the ordinance to be
considered is the conditional use permit for new construction for first floor footprints in the Burlingame
Avenue and Broadway commercial areas and the extension of the time limit on planning approvalsl pursuant
to State law the definition items will be returned to the Planning Commission foi furttrei consideration. The
staffreport on the now proposed ordinance addresses only the two items. new construction size in the two
commercial areas and the time limit for planning commission approvals.
Council Questions at Introduction
At the March 18,2002, review Council members asked if this proposed change to review the building
footprint for new construction in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadwuy rorn*".cial areas had been discussed
with the merchants- How would the merchants be informed of the requirement to request review? Could staff
provide information on the number of buildings with existing first floor footprints in iach area which exceed
the proposed square footage? How will this public hearing be noticed to be sure that the affected public is
aware of the proposed ordinance?
Staffwould note the following
o Merchant discussion: since the proposal will establish a "review line" for new construction on all
properties in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway commercial areas the public outreach has
been in the Chamber bulletin and public notices in a newspaper of general circulation (San Mateo
Times and Independent). Planning Commission also held a itudy sission and public hearing on the
proposed regulations.
How would affected property owners be made aware of the regulation: Any developer wishing to
build a new building or reconstruct an existing building by removing more
-than
50o/o of the
structure's value generally would be in discussion with the Planning Department well before he
commenced preparing plans. A developer would thus be notified at his first contact with the city,
especially with commercial design review now in place in both of the affected commercial areas.If for some reason the developer did not contact the city early on, he would be informed of the
requirement when he submitted his project to the Planning Department for design review. If a
conditional use permit for size was required it would be carried with the commJrcial design review
permit and would not extend the review time for the developer.
o Number of existing buildings in each commercial areawhich exceed the "review line,,:- On Burlingame Avenue there are 46 existing structures. Of these 13 have a first floor
o
f;I
REINTRODACTIONQF AN.ORDINANCE FORA ZONING CODE AMENDMENT FOR NEW CONSTRACTION
BUILDING STZE IN THE BARLINGAME AVENAE AND BROADWAY COMMERCAL AR&45 AND CHANGE TO
ZONING ACTION EXPIRATION May 6, 2002
footprint which is over 6000 GSF. This represents 28Yo of the total structures. (See aerial
for location of buildings on Burlingame Avenue.)
In the Broadway commercial areathere are 43 structures. Of these, t have a first
floor footprint which is larger than 5000 GSF. This represents 2lYo of thetotal structures
(See aerial for location of buildings in the Broadway commercial area.
o The public hearing for the second reading of this proposed, revised ordinance, will be noticed in
a newspaper of general circulation (San Mateo Times). The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce
will also be informed for their newsletter. Finally, if the Council wishes staffcan send a notice
to all property owners in the Burlingame Avenue commercial area Subareas A and B, and in the
Broadway commercial area.
Summary of Proposed Zoning Changes
The following changes are proposed to be made to the zoningcode to address the issues identified.
Protect "Pedestrian Orientation" of Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Commerical oreas
l. Require review of new large footprint buildings in the Burlingame Avenue and Broadway commercial
areas to insure that the General Plan's objective to retain the present scale and pedestrian trientation of
these commercial areas is maintained.
a. Require a conditional use permit for any new structure in Subareas A and B of the Burlingame
Avenue commercial areawhich has a first floor gross square footage of 6000 SF or more;b. Require a conditional use permit for any new structure in the Broadway Commerical Area
which has a first floor gross square footage of 5000 SF or more.
Two Year Term on Planning Approvals, No Extensions
2- Remove the one year approval with one year extension provision, and replace it establishing that
planning approvals are valid for two (2) years from date of city action. No extensions beyond thi two
years will be allowed.
The Proposed Changes to Zoning Regulations Report, March 4, 2OO2 draft (auached), shows the specific
wording of each proposed change and includes an annotation for each change. The annotation describes thethinking and documentation for each proposed revision and the issues u5*iut.d with each change. Also
included at the end of the report are tables and maps (aerials) which show current structures in each
commercial area which exceed the proposed "review line" size and a table which documents how the proposed
maximum size for review line were determined.
ATTACHMENTS:
Proposed Changes to ZoningRegulations: Size of Retail Buildings, Add Conditional Uses to Subarea A andB, Change Time Limits for planning Actions, Draft March 4, ZOO}
Table. Properties Fronting Burlingame Avenue - First Floor Footprint over 6,000 GSF, March 2OOz
Aerial: Burlingame Avenue - First Floor Footprint over 6000 SF
Table: Broadway-First Floor Footprint over 5000 GSF (2002), March 2002.
Aerial: Broadway-First Floor Footprint over 5000 SF
I r\i i,
REINTRODUCTION OFAN ORDINANCE FORAZONING CODEAMENDMENT FORNEWCONSTRUCTION
BUILDING SIZE IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AND BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREAS AND CHANGE TO
Z)NING ACTI1N EYPIRATION May 6' 2002
Table: Analysis of Single and Multiple Tenant Space Occupancy and First Floor Footprint of All structures
Except Banks on Burlingame Avenue and in the Broadway Commercial Area, January 2002.
City Council Minutes, March 19,2002
Planning Commission Minutes, February 25,2002
Planning Commission Minutes, January 28,2002
Planning Commission Minutes, January 14,2002
Correspondence to Planning Commission on Change in Zoning Regulations:
Karen Scheikowitz, Owner of Pilates Studio, I110 Burlingame Avenue
W. Gregory Mendell, Kerns of Burlingame,235 Park Road, with attachment
Ordinance
I
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
t2
13
t4
l5
16
t7
18
r9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
l
281
ORDINANCE No.
AMENDrN""oH"olilfl3%"'TJ$.'&1'L3rBKfi '[%"#$"oREeurREA
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FIRST FLOOR OCCUPAIYCIES CNN.q.TNN
THAN A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SQUARE I'EET IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUEAIID BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREAS AND TO PROVIDE A TWO-YEAR
PERIOD FOR PLAI\INING APPROVALS WITH NO EXTENSIONS
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does herebyordain as follows:
Section 1.
A. The Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Commercial Areas are the core retail centers
of the city. The city is concerned that their vitality, small-town feel, and inviting pedestrian
nature could be jeopardized if large retail uses consume street frontage. This ordinance sets first
floor, square-footage review lines to ensure that any larger proposal will serve the pedestrian
ambiance of the Areas and will not worsen the traffic and parking issues in the Areas. The
ordinance shall not be used against a particular occupant from locating its business in the Areas,
but shall only be used to evaluate and limit the size and intensity of the proposed use.
B. The ordinance also eliminates the one-year extension process for planning approvals.
Instead, planning approvals will require that they be put to use within two years. There are no
extensions of the approvals beyond the two years.
Section 2. Subsection 25.16.130(a) is amended to read as follows:
(a) Where a use is conditional upon the granting of a variance or the issuance of a
conditional use permit or special permit, such use shall be commenced within a period of two (2)
years from the date of the granting of the variance or the issuance of the conditional use permit or
special permit. In the event that such use shall not have been so commenced within such period,
there shall be no further extensions and such variance or permit shall become null and void.
Section 3. Section 25.36.030 is amended to read as follows:
25.36.030 Conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit.
4/2412002 Page 1
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
t1
t2
13
t4
15
16
17
l8
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit:
(a) All permitted uses and all uses allowed with a conditional use permit in the R-1, R-2,
R-3, and R-4 districts, and subject to the same regulations and restrictions applying to those uses
in theirrespective districts, and subject to the building restrictions prescribed in sections 25.36.060
and 25.04.080;
(b) Public garages;
(c) Gasoline service stations, subject to regulations prescribed in chapter 25.74;
(d) Transportation terminal, depot, station ticket offices and anybuilding or structure used
for the accommodation of passengers;
(e) Parking lots, subject to the regulations prescribed herein;
(f) Mortuaries;
(g) Financial institutions;
(h) DrV cleaning processing plants;
(i) AnV structure that is more than thirty-five feet in height;
0 C-2 uses in the block described in section 25.36.035;
(k) Certain grocery, drug and department stores as described in section 25.36.036;
(l) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted uses;
(m) Real estate;
(n) In association with a church or other religious or nonprofit institution, provision of
temporary shelter for homeless individuals or families, provided that the facility is located within
a transportation corridor and the use does not occur continuously at any one location for more than
six months of any twelve month period.
(o) Tanning facilities;
(p) Classes.
(q) Other uses similar in character to those enumerated in this section or section 25.36.020
which will not be obnoxious or detrimental to the neighborhood in which they are located.
Section 4. Section 25.36.040 is amended to read as follows:
4124/2002 Page2
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1l
t2
13
l4
15
t6
t7
18
l9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25.36.040 Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and Broadway Commercial Area.
(a) Permitted uses in the Burlingame Commercial Area. Only the following uses are
permitted in subareas A and B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area :
(1) Subarea A:
(A) Retail uses which achieve contiguous, pedestrian-oriented, retail frontage such as drug,
liquor, variety stores, paint and hardware, apparel, accessory stationery florists, household
fumishings, and furniture.
@) Personal services, such as barber and beauty shops, photographic studios, shoe repair,
(C) Above the first floor only: hotels; offices except health services, real estate and
financial institutions;
(2) Subarea B:
(A) All uses permitted in Subarea A,
(B) Nurseries,
(C) Auto supply,
(D) Offrces except health service, and except as provided in subsection (b)(2)(E) below,
(E) Computer programming and software equipment rental,
(F) Schools, above the first floor only,
(G) Floor covering,
(H) Household appliances.
(b) Conditional uses in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. The following uses are
the onlyconditional uses allowed in subareas A and B ofthe Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area
and shall require a conditional use permit:
(1) Subarea A:
(A) Instructional classes incidental to retail or service use,
(B) Grocery stores and markets,
(C) Gasoline service stations,
(D) Schools, above the first floor only, which operate outside of retail hours,
(E) Real estate and financial institutions above the first floor only,
4/24/2002 Page 3
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
l4
15
t6
t7
l8
19
20
2T
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
it
(F) Public utility and public service buildings and facilities,
(G) Laundry and dry cleaning agencies and processing plants,
(H) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted uses,
(I) Food establishments;
(J) A first floor of anybuilding or structure that has more than 6,000 gross square feet;
(2) Subarea B:
(A) All uses requiring a conditional use permit in Subarea A, except financial and real
estate,
(B) Pool halls, bowling alleys and other amusement uses,
(C) Health services,
(D) Residences above the first floor,
(E) Real estate or financial institutions with frontage on Chapin Avenue, primrose Road,
Donnelly Avenue or the west side of Lorton north of Donnelly Avenue,
(F) Tanning facilities;
(G) Food establishments;
(c) Nonconforming uses in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Notwithstanding
any contrary provisions of Chapter 25.50 of this code, nonconforming uses in the Burlingame
Avenue Commercial Area shall terminate only upon the vacation of the premises by the use
occupying said premises on October I , 198 I ; provided, however, such existing nonconforming uses
shall be allowed to continue despite destruction by catastrophe or natural disaster of the existing
structure, so long as the use occupying the space at the time of the catastrophe or nafural disaster
is the use retuming into the new structure. New uses in such structures must conform to the
permitted and conditional uses for the appropriate subarea.
(d) Vehicle parking in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Notwithstanding any
other provision of this code, the following shall apply to vehicle parking requirements in the
subareas A and B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area:
(1) Uses permitted and existing on October l, 1981, shall be exempt from the parking
requirements of this code.
4/24t2002 Page 4
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l1
t2
13
t4
t5
16
l7
l8
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
l
281
(2) Businesses whose use becomes nonconforming as a result of the creation of this area
shall be exempt from parking requirements until the vacation of the premises by the use occupying
the premises on October 1, 1981.
(3) Anynewdevelopment,exceptreconstructionbecauseofcatastropheornafuraldisaster,
shall provide on-site parking, except that the first floor ofsuch new development in subarea A shall
be exempt from parking requirements if the first floor is used for retail or personal service uses.
(4) Buildings reconstructed after catastrophe ornatural disaster shall be required to provide
parking only for the square footage over and above the square footage existing at the time of the
disaster. This parking shall be provided on site.
(e) Conditional uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. In addition to the conditional uses
allowed in C-l districts, the following uses are only allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area
pursuant to a conditional use permit:
(l) A first floor of a building or structure that contains more than 5,000 gross square feet;
(2) A food establishment.
(f) Prohibiteduses in the Broadway Commercial Area. In addition to the uses prohibited
in C-1 districts, the following uses are prohibited in the Broadway Commercial Area:
(l) Financial institutions;
(2) Health service and real estate; and
(3) All other offices on the first floor.
(4) Psychic services.
(g) Food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A and
Broadway Commercial Area. The provisions of this subsection shall only apply to food
establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A, and the Broadway
Commercial Area.
(1) h Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, the number of food
establishments shall be limited to those existing and in business on November l, 1998, and at the
locations as shown on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishments
by Tlpe Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, lggg. A food establishment is a
4/24/2002 Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
tl
t2
l3
t4
15
t6
17
18
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
281
business as defined in Section 25 .08.268 and shall be deemed in business if it was legally open for
business as a food establishment to the public on November 1, 1998.
(2) In the Broadway Commercial Area, the number of food establishments shall be limited
to those existing and in business on November 1, 1998, and at the locations as shown on the
Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City Council
onOctober18, 1999. AfoodestablishmentisabusinessasdefinedinSection25.08.263andshall
be deemed in business if it was legally open for business as a food establishment to the public on
November l, 1998.
(3) The seating area of the food establishments described in subsections (1) and (2) above
as shown on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area
Food Establishments by Tlpe Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, above
maybe enlarged onlyby amendment to the applicable conditional use permit for the establishment.
(4) A food establishment use classified as a full service restaurant by the Burlingame
Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by
Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 1 8, 1999, may change its food establishment
classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of an amendment to the
conditional use permit to the establishment.
(5) A food establishment use classified as a limited food service by the Burlingame Avenue
Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Tlpe
Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, may change its food establishment
classification only to a full service restaurant or bar with approval of an amendment to the
conditional use permit for the establishment.
(6) A food establishment use classified as a bar by the Burlingame Avenue Commercial
Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type Tables approved
by the City Council on October 1 8, 1999, may change its food establishment classification only to
a full service restaurant ora limited food service with approval ofan amendment to the conditional
use permit for the establishment.
(7) A food establishment use classified as a specialty shop by the Burlingame Avenue
412412002 Page 6
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1t
t2
13
t4
t5
16
17
18
19
20
2t
22
231
24
25
26
27
Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Food Establishments by Tlpe Table
approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, shall be allowed to change to a different type
of food establishment. A specialty shop may be replaced by another specialty shop at the same
location within the same or less square footage. If a specialty shop is changed to any other
classification the site shall not return to specialty shop use.
(8) A food establishment may be replaced by another food establishment of the same
classification so long as the replacement business is ofthe same classification as that shown for the
siteontheBurlingameAvenueCommercialAreaSubareaAandBroadwayCommercialAreaFood
Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, subject to the
conditions of the existing conditional use permit, and it complies with the same conditions as in
the existing conditional use permit.
(9) No food establishment shall occupy a location not shown on the Burlingame Avenue
Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type
Tables as approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999.
(A) Specialty shops shall not relocate to any other location on the Burlingame Avenue
Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishment by Type Tables
list as approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999.
(B) When the total number of food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial
Area drops below fotty (a0) for a period of more than twelve (12) consecutive months, the City
Planner shall report this to the Planning commission and city council.
(C) When the total number of food establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area
drops below twenty-three (23) for a period of more than twelve consecutive months, the City
Planner shall report this to the Planning commission and city council.
(10)An existing food establishment, including specialty shops, may be expanded at its
existing location so long as the expansion does not increase the size of the seating area.
(1 l) A food establishment shall be deemed out ofbusiness when the premises is occupied
by another business which is not a food establishment.
(12) All food establishments shall comply with the following:28
412412002 PageT
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
l4
l5
16
T7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(A) provide trash receptacle(s) at location(s) and of a design selected by the city;
(B) provide liffer control along all frontages ofthe business and within frfty (50) feet of all
frontages of the business;
(C) apply for a conditional use permit for delivery ofprepared food from the premise; and
(D) food sales from a window or any opening within ten (10) feet of property line shall be
prohibited.
Section 5. This ordinance shall be published as required by law
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_ day
2002, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the city council held on
the _ day of _,2002, by the following vote:
AYES: COI.]NCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
C:\FILES\ORDINANC\condltusesb92.pln.wpd
4124/2002 Page 8
Draft: March 4,2002
(with P. C. Revisrons)
Proposed Annotated Changes to Zoning Regulations
Size of Retail Buildings: Burlingame Avenue Commerical Area
Subareas A and B and Broadway Commerical Area
Add Conditional Uses to Subarea A and B: Graphic Arts and Design
Retail Business and Health and Beauty Spa
Change Time Limits for Planning Actions
Below are proposed amendments to the text ofthe zoning chapter ofthe Municipal Code
which would address size ofretail businesses in Subareas A and B ofthe Burlingame
Avenue and Broadway Commerical Areas; the addition of two conditional uses in
Subarea A and B ofthe Burlingame Avenue Commerical Area; and a change to the
length oftime a planning approval is valid before a building permit is issued. Included
are annotations explaining the reasoning behind each change and, where pertinent, how
numerical standards were determined. Planning Commission recommendation is noted lre
italics al the end of each section.
Size of Retail Buildings in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area
Amend CS. 25.36.040 Burlingame Avenue commercial area and Broadway commercial
areas
Add to:(b) conditional uses (l) Subarea A
(J) Maximum gross square footage for the first floor of any building or structure
of 6,000 GSF.
Annololion:
Over the post yeor concern hos been expressed obout lorge retoilers toking over
Budingome Avenue (Suboreo A) ond chonging the pedestrion-orienled, "smoll shop"
chorocler of lhe Avenue by creoling o more outo orienled regionol shopping center
ombience. This chonge in orientolion increoses lhe demond for longer lerm porking
in lhe oreo ond mqkes the downlown less supportive of the locol service community
needs. The purpose of lhis review of buildings with first floor footprint over 6,O00
GSF is not to discouroge retoilers, but to protecl lhe "community shopping" pedeslrion
chorocter of lhe oreo. lt is suggested thol o review line be estoblished for first floor
footprint in Suboreo A. By moking this footprinl o conditionol use, ony property owner
or developer moy request o condilionol use permil with Plonning Commission review
for o lorger footprint. As proposed this review line would olso extend io oll new
construction in Suboreo B. Study of the exisling building footprink for properties
hoposed Changes to Zoning Reguldions:Comercial Conditional (lses April16,2002
fronling on Burlingome Avenue showed lhot the present flrsl floor building footprints
|.ong" {'ro. 1,,l25 GSF SF to l9,BO5 GSF with the medion building size being 7;288
GSF. However, the doto collected olso reveoled thol single lenonl buildings were
substonliolly smoller. (See ottoched toble) Review of existing buildings occyq':d^qy-
,lngt" t"nont showei the ronge in lerms of size being 1 ,125 GSF to I0' 717 GSF '
*iti thu ,"dion size being 6,226 GSf . Becouse the overoge lenont spoce in.*he
,rftiff" tenont buildings is obout 2,2O4 GSf , il oppeored thot buildings less lhon
i,OOb OSf could be e}ectively used by either multiple or single lenonts. Mueh .
srJL, thon 6,000 GSF mighi be too reslrictive in lerms of long lerm {le1b]li! oi:-s.e
i"r" UrifJi"g. in Suboreo i, such os 1420 B*r.lingome Avenue (obout 7,000 GSF)
hove been usld ot differenl times by multiple tenonts (3) ond lqler by o single lenont
iAb"r.ro.bi" ond Fitch). Bosed on these numbers using d000 GSF os o review line
ior r."ploc".ent building firsl floor foo4#nls seemed opProPriole'
ltshouldbepointedoutthotbecouseollconditionolusesinSuboreoAoreolso
.""riJ"i"Jti be conditionol uses in Suboreo B, o new building with o first floor
iootorlnt qreoter lhon 6,000 GSF in Suboreo B would olso require o conditionol use
;;ii, ;G ii t tr"t"a otherwise in lhe code' Suboreo B is on importont plover in
!.-1o;ii,;.''t; th; sense of moss ond scole in the downtown oreo, even though in
Suboreo B new construclion would hove lo provide porking to code on. site.which
;;"1; ,"*" to moderote the size of the buildings. For these reosons, the Plonning
t".ri*i"" f"ft lhot extending the review line ior building footprint should be
exiended lo Suboreo B os well.
Plonning Commission Recommendofion: oPprove o conditionol use permit for new
ilil;;g"t *itt' o tiot Roo. {ootfrnt of 6,000 bsF or greoter in Suboreos A ond B.o{
the Buriingome Avenue commerciol oreo'
Size of Retail Buildings in the Broadway Commercial Area
CS 25.36.030 Conditional Uses requiring a conditional use permit'
Add section:
79. Muimum gross square ftntage /or the fint Jloor of any buitding or structure-et
5,000 GSF-in the Broadway Commercial Area'
Renumber to 20, section 19. Other uses similar
Annololion:
ii',t i, J..i-Uf" to review the size of new first floor building footprints in lhe Broodwoy
Commerciol Areo in order to protect the neighborhood service shopping orienlotion of
the oreo, then the moximum tuilding footprint of this oreo should olso be subiect too
.onJlri"nof use permit. Study showed lhol lhe prese-nt first floor building footprints in
trr" a;a;ry tlrr"rciol Ar"o ,.ong" from 9d0 GsF to 9'950 GSF' consideroblv
lmoller thon on Burlingome Arenue.- The mediqn existing first floor building size wos
2
boposed Chaages to Zoning Reguldions:Conerciol Conditional Uses April 16 ,2002
Change Time limits for Planning Actions
CS 25.16.130 Time limits for exercise ofvariance, conditional use permit, special
permit, or condominium permit
Presently Reads:
(a) Where a use is conditional upon the granting of a variance or the issuance sf a
conditional use permit or special permit, zuch use shall be commenced within a
period of one year from the date ofgranting ofthe variance or the issuanceof{he
conditional use permit or special permit, and in the event that such use shall not have
been so commenced within such period, such variance or permit shall become null
and void. The commission is authorized to grant an extension, or extensitr s, for a
period not exceeding one year upon application.
Should Read:
(a) Where a use is conditional upon the granting of a variance or the issuance of a
conditional use permit or special permit, such use shall be commenced within a
period of two yeors from the date ofgranting ofthe variance or the issuance ofthe
conditional use permit or special permit. In the eventthat such use shall not have
been so commenced within such period, lhere shall be no extensions qnd $)ch
variance or permit shall become null and void.
Annolotion:
This chonge would meon lhot oll zoning oclions, excepl condominium mops, would be
good for two yeors from the dote of oclion. There would be no extensions gronted.
J
3,600 GSF. However, the fint floor spoces of single tenont buildings ronged from
I ,350 GSF to 7 ,8O6 GSF; wi+ho medicn*izeof 4,992 GSF. (See toble otloched)
Since the overoge lenonl spoce in multiple lenont buildings wos oboul 600 SF, it
seems oppropriote lo bose the review line on lhe single tenonl medion size. This woy o
building with o first floor footprint of less thon 5,000 GSF could be used by eiiher o
single lenont gr+nul+iple tencn*s. Based sn +hese numbers 5,OOO GSF for o review of
o first floor fooprinl seemed oppropriote.
At study ihe Plonning commission delermined thot buildings over o cerloin size in lhe
Broodwoy Commericol oreo shocld be revie\ryed for lhe some reoson *hey should.be ln
Suboreos A ond B, to promote voriety ond o good mix of pedeslrion orienled retoil
soles opportunities. The commission felt thot the premise for meosuremenl olso
should be the some, the first floor {ootprln+ of *he proposed building.
Plonning Commission Recommendolion: opprove o condilionol use permi' fi ,r new
buildings with o firsl floor footprint of 5,OOO GSF or greoter in the Broodwoy
commerciol oreo.
hoposedChottges@Coriitiondrlses APi' t6,"on1
The opplicont will hove two yeors, following the lost city oction on the proiec3, within
which to submit plons ond get o building permit. lf o building permit. is not issued for
the proiect within two yeorslthe City's plonning opprovol oction would be voided' To
Lrifi tn" proiect-offer cxfrirntinrl the nf'f,lirnnt wnulrl-$s. rel' 'ired-fogp1hrough Jhe
plonning opprovol Process ogoin'
One of the reosons thot Plonning opprovols expire is thot developers hove the right to
build under the Coiifornio-Bui.ld-iig,Co.l.r..l,,i..-"nt"ja effectoljfis tirna Jhoy€pPly
for o Plonning permit. With this [roposed .hongu the opplicotion would be
"frondforh"rJi" underthe Colifoinio Building ond Fire code lor2yeors from city
oction, but no odditionol exlension would be-possible' Moreover, this eliminotes the
.hon." thot the "npii"nor -"y;ffi 1s. rrndent.lndjhorrhey musropplyJor qn e-Jonsion
before the end of ti'r" flrst yeor ofter oction. This requirement seems to be o porticulor
pr"Lf", for hom"o*n"" i'"ndling their own permits. Second opprovol octions on
proiects, "ren moiolon"r, usuolly-g,, foirly quickly since.in most coses the
environmentol worlcios beendone; the fsc*ls of second review'is generclly on
chonges to the p-i"J t"quired by chonges in the Colifornio Building ond Fire
CoJ""r, ond other proiect chonges suggested by the opplicont'
A Finol note on the subiect of time limits. ln september 2000, cs 25'16'.l30 (b)
wos omended lo exiend condominium permiiopprovols so thot they exprrerArilhJhe
t"niotir" mop. This wos done becouse the Stote chonged the durotion of Tentotive
Mops ond it.wos p-.uir.lly cumbersome to review o condominium proiect when
the tentotive mop wos still ,oiid. Tentotive mops run for three yeors becouse they
connot be reploced with o Finol Mop until the proiect is built' Since most
condominium proiects toke obout o yeor to buitd io the point ot which o finol mop con
be prepored ond iiled, the timing on expirotion of -the condominium permit will be
consistenl with fhe proposed twi yeor expirotion{or oll other plonning per+ni{s'
Plonning Commission Recommen.i-'ion: thot the one yeor time limit on zoning
opprovols not be;-onn;. ii" C"*rissioners felt thot one yeor wos sufficient time
for o motiv"t"d ";;il'o"rn, "r"n with o moior proiect, to complete the requirements for
receiving o building Permit'
U:Voninglssues\CcsRrctailsize,permittimelimit4' I 6'02'doc
4
I
Table: Properties Fronting Burlingame Avenue - First Floor Footprint
over 61000 GSF, March 2002
Source: Burlingame Planning Department, March 2002
U:\Zoninglssues\TableFirstFloorFootprintBurlingameAve 3.02.doc
Total Structures ftonting on Burlingame Avenue'. 46
First FloorFootprints over 6000 SF: 13 (28%)
Address Use (2002)First Floor Footprint
(Square Feet)
Burlingame Avenue
1234 Retail (J Crew)8.300
1294 Retail (Gap)6.360
1300 Retail (Wine Stop)7,500
1420 Retail (Abercrombie andT)7,700
1425 Food Estab. (Gau Pong)6,219
1426 Retail (Maiouffs)8,750
t462 Retail (Talbot's)10,717
llll-1125 Retail (3) Fd. Estab. (3)10,500
l 108-l I l6 Fd. Estab(F&A), retail 14,040
1323-1327 Retail (2)6,918
t375 Retail (Crosby Com 13)19,805
t4t9 Retail (Fox Mall 30)12,500
t4t0-1414 Retail (2)7,100
t
I
f
ji-l..
.,
!'4,
,'{ t':'
N
N{
t
t.!
t ,:\
n0 f
i:"."..s
\.\
.$
I
I
I
t
!
A
;1'{d\
!-r'.
.':
Table: Broadway- First Floor Footprints over 5000 GSF (2002), Mafch-2002
Source: Burlingame Planning Department, I0ldar ch 2002
U:\Zonin glssues\TableFirstFl oorFootprintBroadway3.02.doc
Total structures in the Broadway Commerical Are,a: 43
First Floor Footprint over 5000 SF: 9 Ql%)
Address Land Use First Floor Building
Size
(Square Feet)
Broadway
l160 Retail 7,806
tt70lt174 Fd. Estab./Retail 5,830 ,'l
123011232112341123
6
3 Fd. Estab/Retail 9)850
1408/1410 Retail 5,049
tt99 Retail 6,575
140s11423114271
1431/1433
Fd. Estab/Retail 7 ,J 97
Chula Vista
tt27 Retail 5. 000
El Camino Real
I 188 Financial Institution 6,168
Paloma
I 150 Fd. Estab.5,635
\
TeHe Analysis o1' Singte ad Multifle T€nant Space Ooorparcy aod' firstFbor
fooryint of AII Strucfires B(@ Baoks on hnlingame Avenre aod in the
Broadway Commerial Are4 laortaty2UI2
Source:Peputment Iaanry2O02,
BurlingancAvcnuc
StrcetFrontegc
Bnoedrrey Commcrcirl
Arca
ArceTolds
First FtoorR€fail 295,154 tffi,5?8
Number of Structures 6 4t
llzt- 19,805 qn-9,850
Size 6At6 3,91't
Median Size 7288 3,600
fftmber 9l 86
3243.4 r--
Tcnant
of Stnrcturcs 26 l3
Range-Size 125 I t7 1,350-7,806
4,141Size
Size 6,?6 4,W2
Tcnant
I{rmber of Struetures 20 (4t/o)2E
72
325 2-57
RangeSize ofBldg(SL
s9.53Size?,1il-4
Median 8,290 -a:
-
s95Ave. Size 2,2U
t
a
1-867Tenant
4-695
65No. Terrants i" U-fe".g!@-
l-7fti
t
l.:''
6. PUBLTC COMNIENTS
The following spoke regarding the reappointment of Planning Commissioner's Ann Keighran and StanVisitica:
Charlie Dreschler, 225 Banqoft, Constance Cohen, 605 Lexington, Ann Keighran, l53l Vancouver,
Terry Nagel, 2337 Poppv Drive, Ken Castle,l4ll Drake, Sue Fuller, 2ZlOpoppybrive, Joe Donohue,
1527 McAllister, San Francisco, Anna Marie Holland Daniels, 515 Howard, vaterie Chung, l50lMagnolia, Donna Sloat, l256Lagwa,LizO'Connor, 1232 Cabillo, Joan Busby, 1224 Cakllo, BrianAdler, 2407 Hale Drive, Diane Condon Wirgler, 1536 Cypress, Russ Cohen, 605 Lexington, JohnHunter, 810 Crossway Road, Tony Herrera,l0T Grand glrO, South San Francisco. Don Corey, g33
Alpine spoke regarding developing in Burlingame, solicitation signs in his neighborhood and tearingdown buildings to be replaced with used car lots in Burlingam". Lrs Cohen,Z05 Lexington, spokeregarding the historical properties listing, and Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline, spoke regarding the parkingIot being built acioss the street from heihome.
7.
tl-
4 a. Ilrtrgduction.of Ordinance forZonins Code A.mendment for Buildins Size in the,
Burlingame Avenue Commercial Are
CP Monroe reviewed her staffreport dated March l8,2}02,and requested Council indicate whetherthey wished to introduce the proposed changes for amendment to thl zoning code.
After some discussion regarding the zoning code amendment, Mayor Janney requested CC Musso readthe title of the proposed ordinance. Councilwoman o'Mahrry *"d" u 11otion to waiver furtherreading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by vice {ayor ioffey, ,pfrou.a by voice vote,4-0-1,with councilman Galligan absent. councilwoman Baylock made u *otion to introduce the proposedordinance; seconded by vice Mayor Coffey, approvedby voice vote, 4-0-l with councilman Galliganabsent' Mayor Janney requested the City Cleif publish a summary ortrr" proposed ordinance at leastfive days before proposed adoption.
b' Resolution #2612g124dgPtine cqo:peratlns Poliev/Phitosophv behryeen tne City.fBurlineame and the Burlineame EIi
CM Nantell reyr-ey-{ his staff report dated March 13,zoo2,and recommended Council adoptResolution #26-2002 approving th9 cgo3gration Policy/Philosophy between the city of Burlingameand the Burlingame Elementary school Dist ict.
Councilwoman o'Mahony made a mo-tion to approve Resolution #26-zo02adopting cooperatingpolicy/philosophy between the City of Burlingame and the Burlingame niementary School Dishict;seconded by Vice Mayor Coffey, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1, *ith Councilman Galligan absent.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
city Attorney Anderson noted that item 8f) Budget Study Meeting has been postponed to Thursday,March 28, 2002 at 5:00 p.m. AIso, cA Andersoi noted it
"
poti.J officers Assotiated voted to accept
Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes 3 March 18,20ft2
I
City of Bwlingane PluuingConmission MilMes Febntay2S,2002
shall finishedorconveriedtolidngaredofanytype. ThermimFov.edueashallbewatlodofffiom
the basement area and shall be throughadoorno 5' x 3j rvtosedgrign meets
betrneen two oEsrryncies,
7. 1204
requirements of the C-alifomia and Ffue Codes for
and storage; and 5) that the shallmeetallthe ofthe Califomia Building and Fire
Codes, 1998 edition- as amended the City ofBurlingame.motion was seconded by C.
Commerrt on the did a lot of this projest the first time through
rcview process; this iq of a house wit['a the addition really does fit thea
architectrne on the goodjob.
Chainnan for avoice vote on to approve the design review to alter
wenethewindowsThemotionon a G0-l (C. Bojuds absenQ.
advisd.item concluded at 8:07
AVENTIE-ZONED R-l APPLICATIONFORDEStrGNREVIEWAL{ENDMETiIT
REQT EST FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR IIEIGIIT A}ID DECLINING HEIGTIT EI-IVEIOPE
FOR A ilTEW TWO.STORY HOUSE WIIH A DETACTIED GARAGE (MIKE'MLSON, APPLICAI{T
AI.IDPROPERTYOWNER; JAMES CHII,CHUDESIGN &ENGR,INC.,DESIGNER) (61NOTICED)
,ONTI{ERINE
.k
PLA}INER:
This item was continged rmtil the applicant submits.additional ryquircd information requested by the
Planrring fleparhent, staffreviewed the information and public notice will be sent.
SIZE IN BT]RLINGAME AVENTIE AI\ID
COMMERCIAL AREAS,NEW CONDMONAL USES IN THE BURI,INGAME
AVENI]E COMMERCIAL AREA" A}ID CHANGE TO ZONING ACTION H(PIRATION (NOTICED BY
Reference staffrepor! OZ.Z5.O2,with attachments. CP Monrcre presented the repor! reviewed the proposd
code changes and changes suggested by the Commission at study.
Chair!ry!\Vistica opened the pubtic hearing. There were no comments from the Bublic on this item and the
prblic [etjting was closed
Commission comments and discussion noted:
. Code does not currently have a squarc footage limitation on permitted uses, fear that by adding
language regarding rq.rur" foot g" limits on conditional uses will create an ambiguity in tbe code- if a
p"*ir,"a* gootin, butit is overthema:rimum squarcfootage allowe4 would itneedreview?
TIre code changefor size wuld only qply to new buildbtgs with afirstlloor gross squoefoonge of
6,\U)SF o, *iri inthe.Bwlingome Avemte commercialoeattdS,(XN gross squoefeet ormore in
it " lrooanoy Commercial Area Any new building more than tluse squoe footages would be
required to appty for a conditionol usl permit, regrdless of the use. A new bailding vanld olso be
reqaired to go- ttyough the Commerciol D*ign Review process. No utrbiguity is created because the
prip"t" oflonainorrattxesB to identifytlrc.useswhichwithr*iitw, eonbe allovedinthezone-This
requirement ryplies to new * t uaio, only, ttot a change in tenont or use in an *lsting building
6
NEWSPAPER)PROJECTPLA}.INER: MEGMONROE ,
City of BuliAane Platming Conmixsion Mirutes Febrwy 25, 2N2
o Concerned with limiting semi-private group class€s to 6 people witL retail compon€nt, espocially in
areas below the frst floor, where the only concem is pa*ing; are we micro-managing businesses; in
Pilates caso there are only a few people in each class and th-ere is no real impact in [a*ing; does :
people per class include the instructor.
A group it struction use in Subareas A and B atd on Broadway row requies a conditional use permit
ond must be incidental to retail actiity (not more thon 25ok ofthe business reverue). Iftte identified
Heakh and Beau4r Spas as a personal seruice retail use and allowed spa tha *irci to hove gTottp
iwruction to applyfor a conditional use permit it would ctorifythe definifion Presently ttu definttXn
as written exempts Heahh and Beauty Spos from conforming to the definition of groirp t*t*"noo
This could create a code adninistration problem in the futwe. But nfung the einption out would
eliminate yoga closs, for exompre, as a Hearth and Beauty spa personar-semice ie, ince lnga isprimarily a group octivity ,tot incidental to a primay retail we.
''. 'l$tice that health and beauty spa definition*satesthat there should be a retail sales component wfiichincldcs *substantial" taxable sales, why is this not included as part ofthe defnitionior gr4hic arts
and design business?
City Council looked at the deJinition ofa graphic mts ond design retail business and determined that' these businesses alrea$t pay a substantial tax.. Their concei in defning Graphic Ai,rts ond Design
Businesses as retoil wasfoctsed on these businesses having a retait oppeiorion the streetfrontage.
Commission noted that lo be determined to be retail the Crryhix )r* and Design Business would
htive to have at least 2594 ofthe area olthefrstJloor not onlyvisiblefrom the streZt bu also devotedto retail sales.
r Do not agree with changing planhing Commission approvals to two years without extension; if
someone is serious about a project of Yfar is enoughtime for an applicant to get builrring permit
issued; should keep one year approval with option ofone year extension.
r Agree with need
^for
two year approval, someprbjects are ver5r complex and need that time to put theproject together for submittal-
To clariff the recommendations to Comcil, the action on the zoning amendment recornmendations we.esplit up and three separate vot€s were tak6n.
Graphic Arts and Design Retail businesses and Health and Beauty spa definition//class size
Chairman Vistica moved to recommend the zoning code amendment to City Cormcil, to add the defnitionof Graphic Arts and Desip Retail business which would be a new *naitiooa use in Subarea B anprohibited in Subalea A and; to establish a new personal service use, Health ana neauty spa as apedeshianoriented use belowthe first floor only iu Subarea A ofthe Burlingame Avenpe *--Lii-"* and uft€rthe business has substantial retail taxable sales aod a busine-ss need for gl; i""h;n require anaccompanying conditional use pemrit for a group instruction. The motion "i" "i.-"al ty C. Keighran.
7
Citi 6 hrlhgone Plaming Comnisrion Mitata Fetruoy25,2{n2
Chai,rman Vistica called for a voice vote o[ the motion to recomrcnd to City e-ouncil addition of a Dew
personal service use, Heafth and Beauty Ea, which could include gFurp insm|cdon with a conditional
use permit. The motion passed on a il)-l (C. Bojuds abseil) voice vote.
'Ctairman Vistica moved to recommend to City Corrncil tbat tte provisions for exrending planning
commission actions as presently defined in the zoni4g code remain ucharyed and that the Plaming
Cor.rmission approval t€rm of orc year, with the applicant option of requesting a ore year extension be
rctaircd. Tb rrotion was secoffi by C. Keig[ran.
Chairman Vistica called for a roll call on the motiolr to recoqmeDd to City Corcil tbat the provisions
for exteding plamiag commission actions as presently defrod intbe zodng code remainmchaoged.
The rnotion passed on a 5-1-l (C. Alran disseming, C. Boiu€s absent) voice vote-
Building Fooryrint in tfu Burlinganu Ateme bwnercial Area ond thc Broa@ futtmercial Area
Chairman Vistica moved. to .Oor."m the zoning code arcndmem j9 City C6trncil to require a
conditioml use permit for any rew structrre in S-Xb Areas A and B of the Burliogamc Avenue
Commercial Area which has a first floor gross floor area of 6,flD SF or morc and require a coditional
use permit for any new struchre in tbe Broadway Commercial Area which has a first floor a gross
square footage of 5,0fi) SF or more. Tbe motion was secoded by C. Keighran.
Ctairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the zoning code ame,lrdrnent
requiring a conditional use permit for buildings over a given size in the Burlingame Avenue andiBroadway
*.-61ii6 .n"* to City Council. The motion passed on a 6-0-l (C. Bojuds absent) voice vote. Appeal
procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:38 p.m.
X. DESIGNREVIEWSTT]DYITEMS
9. 1236P
ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AI.ID SECOND'{F'IORY ADDnON
, APPLICA}.IT A}.ID ASTILEY MCNEELY A].ID
ODABASHIAN,owNERS (76 PROJECT PI.ANNER: CAIIIERINE
Planner Kelon pre,sented the project There were no questions of
Chairman opened the public comment.Odabasliian, property 1236 Avenue,
AVEIYTIE_ ZONED R-I_APPLICATION FORDESIGN REVIEV'I AND SPECIAL
FORDECLINING
DEAL, JD & ASS
and Jerry
the floor
The
pmject designer, 1226 were preseirt There no other from
the public hearing was
had the following comments and concems to be
8
plans:
by apptcant
Plaming Approval Term
ive
(
an(
There were comments from the Commission.
This was set for the regular calendar when all the
Jamoy 28, 2002
work completed the information has been and reviewed
Department. This item at 7:30 p.m.t BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREAS , NEW CONDMONAL USES IN THE BI,]RLINGAME AVENT]E
2-ZONING CODE AMENDME}.IT FOR BI.,tr-DING SITF N{ BURLINGAME AVENUE AND
C
document has beencomplag(
by the Pl4#ng
TOZONING ACTION TON.
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staffreport. commissioners asked: how is "substantial taxable
sales"defined for Graphic Arts and Design Businesses, and since this is to be located in a pedeskian
oriented area shouldn't the use title include the term .tetail,, since most graphic desigp businesses have no
retail componen! suggest add requirement 1o 6"61i1isn rhat 25% ofthe floor area be devoted to retail sales
YII. ACTIONITEMS
CO - ITEIqB ON CONSENTCALWDARARE CONSTDERED TO BE ROWNE MEYAREACI'ED ON
AND CHAN GE
space- Concemed about review oflarge fooprint buildings; for health and beauty spas, three people for an
1ns[uction group is not big enough to be an economic unit, should be 6 people maximum; text on limitation
for sizc of Iirst floor space on Broadway should.be the same GSF of nrst floor as in Subarea A, Commission
discussed whether the review line for size in Subareas A and B and on Broadway should be approved with a*sunset". Conclusion was that development would occur slowly enough and the sunset be so long as aresult, that it did not make sense to have a sunset requirement. There were no fryther comments on theproposed zoning regulation changes.
Chairman Vistica noted that this item should be set for public hearing on the next available agenda when theCommission had time for the item. This item concluded at Z:40 p.m.
TE
A MEWER
TO ADOPT.
PUBUC OR A
All calendar items moved to the
CNON IS REQUFSTYD BY THE AP P UCANT,
PRIORTO THE TE E COMMISSI O N YATFS ON THE ITON ON
{,fZESS
Calendar.
GULARACII
3 2OOODAVISD -zoI\tEDR-l-TIONFORDESIGN ANDLOTCOVERAGEVARIANCEAFIRSTANDSTORYADDMONDEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES,APPLI DESIGNE&TO SUSANBOWEN,PR owNERS) (52NOrICED)
staffreport 1.28.02,attachments. Planner the repor! reviewed and
Five were zuggested for
Vistica the public hearing. Susan Tom Bowen, property pr€sentCommissionerthis item was moved offof consent calendar to the regular calendar toallow the owner explain the variarrce reques!
_
Dot undestand the unique of thisproperty that a vanance-Applicant stated house has a courtyard which limits wherethey could add-on. Proposed porch adds character
3
to the fronL When you enter at th fron! you have to walk
City $ Rurlingone Plamrhg Comnission Appraed Minutes
act ron
ne
vIII.
City of hrlingante PlamingCommission Minutes Jorury 14,2(n2
. Provide building heights and frnishd
and right ofthe subject ho.use);.
elevations of the adjacent (trno houses to the left
This was secondedby C. Bojuds.
Commenton this is a well-handled design given viewisblockedbywhdis nowrdue
to the smail lot in Burlingame the Commission privacy nor does address
privacy, feel that will be minimal.
Chairman Vistica called voice vote onthe motionto placethis the regular action calelrdar
the requested information provided. The motion passed on vote 7-0. The Planning
Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded l:40 p.m
}L PLAI\II\TERREPORTS
Review of regular January 7,2N2"
CP Monroe the planning coverd atthe Council meeting.
Review of Special Commission Study on Housing Element of
December l9,2}0l,and City Council Review-
There were no comments on this item-
)+
xr.
Discussion of Amendments to Zoning Regulations to C-l Subarea A, Tenant Size, Definitions and
Timing on Permit Expiration.
Commission and Cp Monroe discussed draft ofproposed zoning changes. After some discussion the
commission suggested that this item be brought back to the commission at study for additional
review. CP Monroe said she would try to get this item with the comments noted on the next
commission agenda.
the at 12:20 um.Chairman
nespectfully zubmitted,
Joe Boju€s, Secretary
rrm,nrrrSl.14
l6
t,
Pc lleeting - 2l25l|z
.
, m$iluN'c.ATtoN RECEIVEE
To ttre Members ol the Planning Commission: trrE!' mEPABAnoN
OF$IAFFREFON'T'
Thank you for making the minutes of the Januarv 18fi and 28th 2ffi."-'-*'
meetings of the City of Burlingame Planning Coirmission available to me.
I appreciate your proposed addition to the iiefinition section (CS
25.08.336a) Health ahd Beaury Spa, that "l-leatth and Beautrspa means apepgnal service business focused on fitness analrrsis and tiainino for
individuals and semi-priv?te qroups". Atthouqh. reqardino the initiitproposed limitation ol groups to two or srree-cli-ent-s, I definitelv aqree with
the concems raised in the minutes of January 2gth, that'for hriafifi andbeauty spas, thrce people for an instruction 'group'li not Uiq e-n6uqh to be$ qg.ongmiqunit, stroutd be 6 people maximlm., lbetieve]howeier, thatme tntent of the,ofiginal wording on January 19, proposinq ihat .All sirchousrnesses shafl haw gr_ggps oJ two (2) to threeiS)-clienE, sctreduled no
.9o^Tr$.t?lgJ9y_.f f teen(ts)minuresicanb_eacliirived6iifiiii;ilioups
to srx, Dut scheduting goups no closer than thirtv (30) miriutes. Tiidtmodittcation woutd satisfy the needs of my businebs bn the lower level of1110 Burlingame Avenuti, without increasing tre oemano ioipa*ind.
since there is virtually no 'foot traffic" on the basement lerael of 1110g,Ulgfle- fygl_ug, and stricflyretait businesses have had an extremetygrmcm rme qgtng gu.lvrvr--ng in this location, I harre had very limited sucoess
I.qlpllgllg.r.lg reFlt sates porrio_n of my business. (Revtinue from myrerar product-tane which indudes fitness inachines, eiuioment. and agPlhtng line, as significanfly less than the income generated fr6m personal
nuless lrilnrng, and curenfly represents a small percentage of overallr9p1l9):^t amJherefore concemed about the wording eipressgd in the\rapuary 1E,2w2 4irqtqs that a Health and Beautv spa traitae .a'retiail
sales @mponent wlilch inc{udes substantial ta:<abfe s'ales,. since th-epnBse-substantiat taxable sales" is yague and subjective, wouldn't ii bepreferable to make rhe requiremenr6a[sucn bGht]G;ge,ieri'iciaxauresales?
I believ.e that approval Dy the clty of Burlingame of the reclassiftcation ofmy Dusrness as a heatth-spa with a conditional use permit for classes notto exceed 6.peoptg, on ttui basement teve! of suGrbiAl wili ptrmi'imair
Dusrnesses take mine tqco-elst *is lhe larg-er hrsiness6s on street bGi,while maintaining the character and charm diBurringa#A;;ii;:-''
Ap an upd.ata, I am cunently a very active member of the Budinqame Lion'suruD ano t'm soon to become an actirre board member. I also 60ntinue toparticipate in other phiranrhropic enoeavers torihl City oi Brirti6;#.
Karen Scheikowitz, ownerof the pitates Studio RECEIVED
FEB 2 0 2002
CITY OT BURLII{GA]iIE
PLANNING DEPT.
%,_
,.J
FINE JE EI,RY
-Iannary 15,2Ux2
tvft* Meg Momoe
Burlingame Cityllall
fl)l Primose
- .. *tjr* Burlingarc' Cfl 94010
DearMeg:
I am sending you a copy ofa ktter to the editor whfoh got hded aftgr S€pt,erser I l.
Actuafty, f *nA a copy ofthis letter to the Plaooing Conrmilssbn hS tbey hS it. Today I
havermdeanaddendumastbesituationinBurlingamebgettingworse,notbetter. I
hopeyouandthePlanningConrmissbnwillseribustyconsilermyitleas. Havingbeenin
h$iness bre for ahost 30 years (Iuy is the date!), ['ve seen it all
g€rt wiso forabeafthy, trappyand perceful2Uif2,
W. GregoryMendell
hopietor
'o:", Ce Burliryame Plaoning Commlssion
RabhOstarling
,aS -g -"*r) V =.,tt',g i -tr"q s:€
S"-
ZllpilkRoa4 Brnlingarrc, C-aliforniag40lo . Plpne (650) 343-7557 . Fai (6flrm&57"?,4 . Ermit kernsinc@aol-com
@
' j. .,
Seetemner 7,2(J{J1
To The Editor:
As ahrsiness owDer indonmtorrnBurli4game I wasverydistressed to read about the
City Cormcit uantiog to timit the size of hrsircs- Unforumatefy r& hry; .*tmdlorbuildirg prft:es' the oH mm-and-pop seores camot atrord to oorne L"f toBuliaga,e at thfu time. would e4pty stlrcfronts be preferred?
I do, horrevtr, belierc tht hftstory will once again rcpeat itselfh the pars to come. Domyofthe Cormcil merilers reder Lcvy Bmthas ad Itfiodgomery 1thrd"i TIIgsEnqte ttvo giant stores at their tirc ufiich rrrere errema[y dividj,e t tn" *o*.ttimurcrcrigfu.
'Phas,IdPs mt haw'morc govurrrrerlt intem'enrSonlimO dO.rmo*nUunnmes,. I sti11 .
believirBralingarc 1an excepti<mat ptaoe to shop. The $rrdr- ; rffffi*thouehthc ocomnry has definit€ly stourcd a uar, Budfu;mc is stil'tho b* 6"il *"
Ifthe Citycomcil Iry b he$ the hrsirc economy vftydon't theypgt rcnt contnolon all buiHiry used'6r retail *s I think that rvould U" iurn -or"'#i"i fioev€ryone.
W- CrrcgoryMendell
Kerns Fine Jeryeky
Ianuary 15, 2002 Addendum
Asyouoursse, the first htterwas qlttelryember 7,2OOl. Sinoe September ll,2m, orn hrsiness hs sloqred consft&ratrty. And as ofianuary t4,z6i,;harrc heard' mthirybr$'rbgative corprnents about the rar.3 An*r*g rates- Nore.pfthir.is good fortheeoonomy or the hrsines irn Burringpme- pba; ryti a" ,Hi]fr"fiiil'r..,t"
$foess peopre inBurliagame. We r*a ru city to he$ promote ttre economyhere, not! ' dfttdc lvho ttey tl* snouU be kept out. - -
Elcry neq/i'acaDcyrnearcfewer$oppers,drinkas,andeatersinBurlingame. NottorMion poople usng seryi@s srch a;6anks, travel ffi etc. We havr-boen very hrckyto hive been a destination crty in the past [rt's trJr to koep it that rvay.
ORDINAIYCE No.
ORDINAI\ICE OF TIIE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE TO REQLIRE A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FIRST FI,OOR OCCUPATICIES GREATER
THAII A CERTAIN NI,]MBER OF SQUARE FEET IN THE BURLINGAME AVENTIE
AI\ID BROADWAY COMMERCIAL ARBAS AND TO PRO\TIDE A TWO.YEAR
PERIOD FOR PLAI\IIING APPROVALS WITII NO EXTENSIONS
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
Section l.
A. The Burlingame Avenue and Bro-A(way.Commercial Areas are the core retail centers
of the City. The City is concemed that their vitality, small-town feel, and inviting pedestrian
nature could be j eopardi zed if large retail uses consume street frontage. This ordinance sets first
floor, square-footage review lines to ensure that any larger proposal will serve the pedestrian
ambiance of the Areas and will not worsen the traffic and parking issues in the Areas. The
ordinance shall not be used against a particular occupant from locating its business in the Areas,
but shall only be used to evaluate and limit the size and intensity of the proposed use-
B. The ordinance also eliminates the one-year extension process for planning approvals'
Instead, planning approvals will require that they be put to use within two years. There are no
extensions of the approvals beyond the two years.
Section 2. Subsection 25.16.130(a) is amended to read as follows:
(a) Where a use is conditional upon the granting of a variance or the issuance of a
conditional use permit or special permit, such use shall be cofitmenced within a period of two (2)
years from the date of the granting of the variance or the issuance of the conditional use permit or
special permit. In the event that such use shall not have been so commenced within such period,
there shall be no further extensions and such variance or permit shall become null and void.
Section 3. Section 25.36.030 is amended to read as follows:
25.36.030 Conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit.
4t2412002 Page 1
I
_t
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l1
t2
l3
t4
l5
16
t7
l8
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit:
(a) All permitted uses and all uses allowed with a conditional use permit in the R-l, R-2,
R-3, and R-4 districts, and subject to the same regulations and resfrictions applying to those uses
in their respective districts, and subject to the building restrictions prescribed in sections 25.36.060
and 25.04.080;
(b) Public garages;
(c) Gasoline service stations, subject to regulations prescribed in chapter 25.74;
(d) Transportation terminal, depot, station ticket ofEces and anybuilding or skucture used
fer the accommodation of passengers; \
(e) Parking lots, subject to the regulations prescribed herein;
(f) Mortuaries;
(g) Financial institutions;
(h) Dry cleaning processing plants;
(i) AnV structure that is more than thirty-five feet in height;
(i C-2 uses in the block described in section 25.36.035;
(k) Certain grocery, drug and department stores as described in section 25.36.036;
(l) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted uses;
(m) Real estate;
(n) h association with a church or other religious or nonprofit institution, provision of
temporary shelter for homeless individuals or families, provided that the facility is located.within
a transportation corridor and the use does not occur continuously at any one location for more than
six months of any twelve month period.
(o) Tanning facilities;
(p) Classes.
(q) Other uses similar in characterto those enumerated in this section or section 25.36.020
which will not be obnoxious or detrimental to the neighborhood in which they are located.
Section 4. Section 25.36.040 is amended to read as follows:
4124/2002 PageZ
I
25.36.040 Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and Broadway Commercial Area.
(a) Permitted uses in the Burlingame Commercial Area. Only the following uses are
permified in subareas A and B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area:
(1) Subarea A:
(A) Retail useswhich achieve contiguous, pedestrian-oriented, retail frontage such as drug,
liquor, variety stores, paint and hardware, apparel, accessory stationery, florists, household
furnishings, and fumiture.
@) Personal services, such as barber and beauty shops, photographic sfudios, shoe re'pair,
(C) Above the first floor only: hotels; offices except health services, real estate and
fi nancial institutions ;
(2) Subarea B:
(A) All uses permitted in Subarea A,
@) Nurseries,
(C) Auto suPPlY,
(D) Offices except health service, and except as provided in subsection (bX2XE) below,
(E) Computerprogramming and software equipment rental,
(F) Schools, above the first floor only,
(G) Floor covering,
(H) Household aPPliances.
(b) Conditional uses in the Burltngame Avenue Commercial Area. The following uses are
the only conditional uses allowed in subareas A and B ofthe Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area
and shall require a conditional use permit:
(l) Subarea A:
(A) Instructional classes incidental to retail or service use,
@) Grocery stores and markets,
(C) Gasoline service stations,
(D) Schools, above the first floor only, which operate outside of retail hours,
(E) Real estate and financial institutions above the first floor only,
4/2412002 Page 3
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1l
t2
t3
t4
l5
16
l7
18
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
281
(F) Public utility and public service buildings and facilities,
(G) Laundry and dry cleaning agencies and processing plants,
(H) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted uses,
(t) Food establishments;
(J) A first floor of any building or strucfure that has more than 6,000 gross square feet;
(2) Subarea B:
(A) All uses requiring a conditional use permit in Subarea A, except financial and real
estate,
1,,, (B) Pool halls, bowling alleyq_and other amusement uses,
(C) Health services,
(D) Residences above the first floor,
(E) Real estate or financial institutions with frontage on Chapin Avenue, primrose Road,
DonnellyAvenue orthe west side of Lorton north ofDonnellyAvenue,
(F) Tanning facilities;
(G) Food establishments;
(c) Nonconforming uses in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Notwithstanding
any contrary provisions of Chapter 25.50 of this code, nonconforming uses in the Burlingame
Avenue Commercial Area shall terminate only upon the vacation of the premises by the use
occupying said premises on October TJEB'I ; provided, however, such existing nonconforming uses
shall be allowed to continue despite destruction by catastrophe or natural disaster of the existing
strucfure, so long as the use occupying the space at the time of the catastrophe or natural disaster
is the use refurning into the new strrcture. New uses in such structures must conform to the
permitted and conditional uses for the appropriate subarea.
(d) Vehicle parking in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Notwithstanding any
other provision of this code, the following shall apply to vehicle parking requirements in the
subareas A and B of the Burlingame Avenue commercial Area:
(l) Uses permitted and existing on October 1, 1981, shall be exempt from the parking
requirements of this code.
4/24/2002 Page 4
1
2
3
4
5
6l
7
8
9
10
11
t2
l3
L4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
l_
(2) Businesses whose use becomes nonconforming as a result of the creation of this area
shallbe exempt fromparkingrequirements until thevacationofthepremises bytheuseoccupying
the premises on October l, 1981.
(3) Any new development, except reconstruction because ofcatastrophe or natural disaster,
shall provide on-site parking, except that the first floor of such new development in subarea A shall
be exempt from parking requirements if the first floor is used for retail or personal service uses.
(4) Buildings reconstructed after catastrophe or natural disaster shall be required to provide
parking only for the square footage over and above the square footage existing at the time of the
disaster. This parking shall be provided on site-
(e) Conditional uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. In addition to the conditional uses
allowed in C-l districts, the following uses are only allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area
pursuant to a conditional use permit:
(l) A first floor of a building or structure that contains more than 5,000 gross square feet;
(2) A food establishment.
(f) prohtbited uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. In addition to the uses prohibited
in C-l districts, the following uses are prohibited in the Broadway Commercial Area:
(1) Financial institutions;
(2) Health service and real estate; and
(3) All other offices on the first floor.
(4) Psychic services-
(g) Food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A and
Broadway Commercial Area. The provisions of this subsection shall only apply to food
establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A, and the Broadway
Commercial Area.
(1) In Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, the number of food
establishments shall be limited to those existing and in business on November 1, 1998, and at the
locations as shown on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishments
by Tlpe Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999. A food establishment is a
4l24l2oo2 Page 5
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
lt
t2
l3
t4
15
t6
t7
18
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
,r
business as defined in Section 25.08.268 and shall be deemed in business if it was legally open for
business as a food establishment to the public on November 1, 1998.
(2) h the Broadway Commercial Area, the number of food establishments shall be limited
to those existing and in business on November 1, 1998, and at the locations as shown on the
Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Tlpe Tables approved by the City Council
on October 18, 1999. A food establishment is abusiness as defined in Section 25.08.268 and shall
be deemed in business if it was legally open for business as a food establishment to the public on
November 1, 1998.
(3) The seating area of the food estahlishments described in subgections (l) and (2) above
as shown on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area
Food Establishments by Tpe Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, above
maybe enlarged onlyby amendment to the applicable conditional usepermit forthe establishment.
(4) A food establishment use classified as a full service restaurant by the Burlingame
Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by
Type Tables approved by the City Council on October l8,l999,may change its food establishment
classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of an amendment to the
conditional use permit to the establishment.
(5) A food establishment use classified as a limited food service by the Burlingame Avenue
Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Conmercial Area Food Effiilishments by Tlpe
Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, may change its food establishment
classification only to a full service restaurant or bar with approval of an amendment to the
conditional use permit for the establishment.
(6) A food establishment use classified as a bar by the Burlingame Avenue Commercial
Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Tlpe Tables approved
by the City Council on October 18, 1999, may change its food establishment classification only to
a full service restaurant or a limited food service with approval ofan amendment to the conditional
use permit for the establishment.
(7) A food establishment use classified as a specialty shop by the Burlingame Avenue
4/24t2002 Page 6
1
2
3
4l
l
l
5
6
7
8
9
t0
ll
12
l3
l4
15
16
t7
18
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Food Establishments by Tlpe Table
approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, shall be allowed to change to a different type
of food establishment. A specialty shop may be replaced by another specialty shop at the same
location within the same or less square footage. If a specialty shop is changed to any other
classification the site shall not retum to specialty shop use.
(8) A food establishment may be replaced by another food establishment of the same
classification so long as the replacement business is of the same classification as that shown for the
siteontheBurlingameAvenueCommercialAreaSubareaAandBroadwayCommercialAreaFood
Establishnients by Type Tables approved by the City Council on October I 8, 1999, subject to the
conditions of the existing conditional use permit, and it complies with the same conditions as in
the existing conditional use permit.
(9) No food establishment shall occupy a location not shown on the Burlingame Avenue
Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Tlpe
Tables as approvedbythe CityCouncil on October 18, 1999.
(A) Specialty shops shall not relocate to any other location on the Burlingame Avenue
CommercialAreaSubareaAandBroadwayCommercialAreaFoodEstablishmentbyTypeTables
list as approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999.
@) When the total number of food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial
Area drops below forty (40) for a period of more than twelve (12) consecutive months, the City
Planner shall report this to the Planning Commission and City Council.
(C) When the total number of food establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area
drops below twenty-thre e (23) for a period of more than twelve consecutive months, the City
Planner shall report this to the Planning Commission and City Council.
(10)An existing food establishment, including specialty shops, may be expanded at its
existing location so long as the expansion does not increase the size of the seating area.
(l l) A food establishment shall be deemed out ofbusiness when the premises is occupied
by another business which is not a food establishment.
(12) All food establishments shall complywith the following:
4t2412002 PageT
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t4
15
t6
17
18
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
t?
(A) provide trash receptacle(s) at location(s) and of a design selected by the city;
@) provide littercontrol along all frontages ofthe business and within fifty (50) feet ofall
frontages of the business;
(C) apply for a conditional use permit for delivery of prepared food from the premise; and
(D) food sales from a window or any opening within ten (10) feet ofproperty line shall be
prohibited.
Section 5. 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- day
ot-,2002,andadoptedthereafterataregularmeetingoftheCityCouncilheldon
the _ day of
-,2002,
bythe following vote:
AYES: COt]NCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
C :\FILES\ORDINANC\condltusesb 92.pln.wpd
t,i
412412002 Page 8
a
ORDINANCE No.
ORDINAI\CE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING VARIOUS PROYISIONS OF THE ZONING CODE TO REQUIRE A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR FIRST FLOOR OCCUPAI\CIES GREATER
THAI\ A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET IN THE BURLINGAME AVENUE
AI{D BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREAS AND TO PROVIDE A TWO.YEAR
PERIOD FOR PLAI\NING APPROVALS WITH NO EXTENSIONS
The CITY COLTNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
Section l.
A. The Burlingame Avenue and Broadway Commercial Areas are the core retail centers
of the City. The City is concerned that their vitality, small-town feel, and inviting pedestrian
nature could be jeopardizedif large retail uses consume street frontage. This ordinance sets first
floor, square-footage review lines to ensure that any larger proposal will serve the pedestrian
ambiance of the Areas and will not worsen the traffic and parking issues in the Areas. The
ordinance shall not be used against a particular occupant from locating its business in the Areas,
but shall only be used to evaluate and limit the size and intensity of the proposed use.
B. The ordinance also eliminates the one-year extension process for planning approvals.
Instead, planning approvals will require that they be put to use within two years. There are no
extensions of the approvals beyond the two years.
Section 2. Subsection 25.16.130(a) is amended to read as follows:
(a) Where a use is conditional upon the granting of a variance or the issuance of a
conditional use permit or special permit, such use shall be commenced within a period of two (2)
years from the date of the granting of the variance or the issuance of the conditional use permit or
special permit. In the event that such use shall not have been so commenced within such period,
there shall be no further extensions and such variance or permit shall become null and void.
Section 3. Section 25.36.030 is amended to read as follows:
25.36.030 conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit.
4124t2002 Page 1
The following are conditional uses requiring a conditional use permit:
(a) All permitted uses and all uses allowed with a conditional use permit in the R-1, R-2,
R-3, and R-4 districts, and subject to the same regulations and restrictions applying to those uses
in their respective districts, and subj ect to the building restrictions prescribed in sections 25 .36.060
and 25.04.080;
(b) Public garages;
(c) Gasoline service stations, subject to regulations prescribed in chapter 25.74;
(d) Transportation terminal, depot, station ticket offices and anybuilding or structure used
for the accommodation of passengers;
(e) Parking lots, subject to the regulations prescribed herein;
(f) Mortuaries;
(g) Financial institutions;
(h) Dry cleaning processing plants;
(i) AnV structure that is more than thirty-five feet in height;
0 C-2 uses in the block described in section 25.36.035;
(k) Certain grocery drug and department stores as described in section 25.36.036;
(l) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted uses;
(m) Real estate;
(n) In association with a church or other religious or nonprofit institution, provision of
temporary shelter for homeless individuals or families, provided that the facility is located within
a transportation corridor and the use does not occur continuously at any one location for more than
six months of any twelve month period.
(o) Tanning facilities;
(p) Classes.
(q) Other uses similar in character to those enumerated in this section or section 25 .36.020
which will not be obnoxious or detrimental to the neighborhood in which they are located.
Section 4. Section 25.36.040 is amended to read as follows
412412002 Page 2
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
t6
t7
l8
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
25.36.040 Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and Broadway Commercial Area.
(a) Permitted uses in the Burlingame Commercial Area. Only the following uses are
permitted in subareas A and B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area :
(1) Subarea A:
(A) Retail uses which achieve contiguous, pedestrian-oriented, retail frontage such as drug,
liquor, variety stores, paint and hardware, apparel, accessory stationery, florists, household
fumishings, and furniture.
(B) Personal services, such as barber and beauty shops, photographic studios, shoe repair,
(C) Above the first floor only: hotels; offices except health services, real estate and
financial institutions;
(2) Subarea B:
(A) All uses permitted in Subarea A,
(B) Nurseries,
(C) Auto supply,
(D) Offices except health service, and except as provided in subsection (b)(2)(E) below,
(E) Computer programming and software equipment rental,
(F) Schools, above the first floor only,
(G) Floor covering,
(H) Household appliances.
(b\ Conditional uses in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. The following uses are
the onlyconditionaluses allowedin subareasA andB oftheBurlingameAvenue Commercial Area
and shall require a conditional use permit:
(1) Subarea A:
(A) Instructional classes incidental to retail or service use,
(B) Grocery stores and markets,
(C) Gasoline service stations,
(D) Schools, above the first floor only, which operate outside of retail hours,
(E) Real estate and financial institutions above the first floor only,
4124/2002 Page 3
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
I2
l3
t4
15
T6
I7
18
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(F) Public utility and public service buildings and facilities,
(G) Laundry and dry cleaning agencies and processing plants,
(H) Drive-in services or take-out services associated with permitted uses,
(I) Food establishments;
(J) A first floor of anybuilding or structure that has more than 6,000 gross square feet;
(2) Subarea B:
(A) All uses requiring a conditional use permit in Subarea A, except financial and real
estate,
(B) Pool halls, bowling alleys and other amusement uses,
(C) Health services,
(D) Residences above the first floor,
(E) Real estate or financial institutions with frontage on Chapin Avenue, primrose Road,
Donnelly Avenue or the west side of Lorton north of Donnelly Avenue,
(F) Tanning facilities;
(G) Food establishments;
(c) Nonconforming uses in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Notwithstanding
any contrary provisions of Chapter 25.50 of this code, nonconforming uses in the Burlingame
Avenue Commercial Area shall terminate only upon the vacation of the premises by the use
occupf ng said premises on October I , I 981 ; provided, however, such existing nonconforming uses
shall be allowed to continue despite destruction by catastrophe or natural disaster of the existing
structure, so long as the use occupying the space at the time of the catastrophe or natural disaster
is the use retuming into the new structure. New uses in such structures must conform to the
permitted and conditional uses for the appropriate subarea.
(d) Vehicle parktng tn the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Notwithstanding any
other provision of this code, the following shall apply to vehicle parking requirements in the
subareas A and B of the Burlingame Avenue commercial Area:
(1) Uses permitted and existing on October l, 1981, shall be exempt from the parking
requirements of this code.
4/24t2002 Page 4
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
t0
11
t2
13
l4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
.
(2) Businesses whose use becomes nonconforming as a result of the creation of this area
shall be exempt from parking requirements until the vacation ofthe premises by the use occupying
the premises on October 1, 1981.
(3) Any new development, except reconstruction because of catastrophe or natural disaster,
shall provide on-site parking, except that the first floor of such new development in subarea A shall
be exempt from parking requirements if the first floor is used for retail or personal service uses.
(4) Buildings reconstructed after catastrophe or natural disaster shall be required to provide
parking only for the square footage over and above the square footage existing at the time of the
disaster. This parking shall be provided on site.
(e) Conditional uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. In addition to the conditional uses
allowed in C-1 districts, the following uses are only allowed in the Broadway Commercial Area
pursuant to a conditional use permit:
(1) A first floor of a building or structure that contains more than 5,000 gross square feet;
(2) A food establishment.
(f) Prohibited uses in the Broadway Commercial Area. In additionto the uses prohibited
in C-l districts, the following uses are prohibited in the Broadway Commercial Area:
(1) Financial institutions;
(2) Health service and real estate; and
(3) A1l other offices on the first floor.
(4) Psychic services.
(g) Food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A and
Broadway Commercial Area. The provisions of this subsection shall only apply to food
establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A, and the Broadway
Commercial Area.
(1) In Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, the number of food
establishments shall be limited to those existing and in business on November 1, 1998, and at the
locations as shown on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishments
by Tlpe Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999. A food establishment is a
4124t2002 Page 5
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1l
t2
13
t4
l5
t6
t7
t8
r9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 1
3
business as defined in Section 25.08.268 and shall be deemed in business if it was legally open for
business as a food establishment to the public on November l, 1998.
(2) In the Broadway Commercial Area, the number of food establishments shall be limited
to those existing and in business on November 1, 1998, and at the locations as shown on the
Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Tlpe Tables approved by the City Council
onOctober18,1999. AfoodestablishmentisabusinessasdefinedinSection25.0s.26Sandshall
be deemed in business if it was legally open for business as a food establishment to the public on
November l, 1998.
(3) The seating area of the food establishments described in subsections (l) and (2) above
as shown on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area
Food Establishments by Tlpe Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, above
may be enlarged only by amendment to the applicable conditional use permit for the establishment.
(4) A food establishment use classified as a full service restaurant by the Burlingame
Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by
Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, l999,may change its food establishment
classification only to a limited food service or bar upon approval of an amendment to the
conditional use permit to the establishment.
(5) A food establishment use classified as a limited food service bythe Burlingame Avenue
Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type
Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, may change its food establishment
classification only to a full service restaurant or bar with approval of an amendment to the
conditional use permit for the establishment.
(6) A food establishment use classified as a bar by the Burlingame Avenue Commercial
Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Tlpe Tables approved
bythe CityCouncil on October 18, 1999,may change its food establishment classification onlyto
a full service restaurant or a limited food service with approval of an amendment to the conditional
use permit for the establishment.
(7) A food establishment use classified as a specialty shop by the Burlingame Avenue
4t24t2002 Page 6
tirr
1
2
aJ
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
t6
t7
18
t9
20
2I
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Food Establishments by Tlpe Table
approved by the City Council on October 1 8, 1999, shall be allowed to change to a different type
of food establishment. A specialty shop may be replaced by another specialty shop at the same
location within the same or less square footage. If a specialty shop is changed to any other
classification the site shall not retum to specialty shop use.
(8) A food establishment may be replaced by another food establishment of the same
classification so long as the replacement business is ofthe same classification as that shown for the
site on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food
Establishments by Type Tables approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999, subject to the
conditions of the existing conditional use permit, and it complies with the same conditions as in
the existing conditional use permit.
(9) No food establishment shall occupy a location not shown on the Burlingame Avenue
Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishments by Type
Tables as approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999.
(A) Specialty shops shall not relocate to any other location on the Burlingame Avenue
Commercial Area Subarea A and Broadway Commercial Area Food Establishment by Type Tables
list as approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999.
(B) When the total number of food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial
Area drops below forty (40) for a period of more than twelve (12) consecutive months, the City
Planner shall report this to the Planning Commission and City Council.
(C) When the total number of food establishments in the Broadway Commercial Area
drops below twentythree (23) for a period of more than twelve consecutive months, the City
Planner shall report this to the Planning Commission and City Council.
(10)An existing food establishment, including specialty shops, may be expanded at its
existing location so long as the expansion does not increase the size of the seating area.
(11) A food establishment shall be deemed out ofbusiness when the premises is occupied
by another business which is not a food establishment.
(12) All food establishments shall comply with the following:
4t2412002 PageT
lii
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
t1
l2
l3
t4
15
16
l7
l8
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(A) provide trash receptacle(s) at location(s) and of a design selected by the city;
(B) provide litter control along all frontages ofthe business and within fifty (50) feet of all
frontages of the business;
(C) apply for a conditional use permit for delivery ofprepared food from the premise; and
(D) food sales from a window or any opening within ten ( I 0) feet of property line shall be
prohibited.
Section 5. 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_ day
of--,2002,andadoptedthereafterataregularmeetingoftheCityCouncilhe1don
the _ day of _,2002, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
C :\FILES\ORDINANC\cond ltusesb92.pln.wpd
4124t2002 Page 8
STAFF REPORT
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COLINCIL
NI.ay 1,2002
Rahn Becker, Assistant City Manager
AGENDA
ITEM # 5b
MTG.
DATE .t u a
TO:
BY
BY
A,.Ae4/L,
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT: Broadway Area Business Improvement District - Setting 2002-2003 Assessments
RECOMMENDATION: Hold hearing and consider resolution setting 20OZ-03 assessments.
BACKGROUND:
At your April l't meeting, you adopted a resolution of intention to set 2002-03 Broadw ay arcaBusiness
Improvement District assessments, setting the May 6th meeting as the public hearing date. There are no
changes proposed in boundaries, assessments or classifications. If therl is a protest Ly a majority of the value
of the assessments to any of these items, the resolution cannot be approved. At the time of writing ttris
memorandum, we have received no protests, although they may be presented in writing at the hearing.
BUDGET IMPACT: Approximately $25,000 in assessments are collected annually with our business
licenses. All of these funds are forwarded to the Broadway Improvement District foi improvements as
authorized the BID Board of Directors.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution
Exhibit A
Exhibit B
Annual Report and Budget
e
---).
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME E STABLI SHING 2OO2.2OO3 AS SESSMENT S
FOR THE BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq., the
Broadway Area Business Improvement District has been established for the purpose of promoting
economic revitalization and physical maintenance of said business districts; and
WHEREAS, the Broadway Area Business Improvement District Advisory Board has
requested the Burlingame City Council to establish 2002-2003 assessments for the improvement
district; and
WHEREAS, on April 1,2002,the City Council received and approved the annual report of
the Broadway Area Business Improvement District Advisory Board; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on the proposed assessments was duly noticed for May 6,
2002, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council Chambers at
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, as required by State law; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing held at that place and time, the City Council recbived and
considered all oral and written testimony from all interested persons; and
WHEREAS, it appears that the
"uo"rr,
assessments should continue so that improvements
and programs may continue in the District, and the activities and improvements are without
substantial change from those previously established for the District.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Cityof Burlingame does herebyresolve, determine, and find as
follows:
1
1 . Written protests to assessments, improvements or activities were not received at those
public hearings that constituted a majority as defined in Government Code sections 36500 and
following.
2. The City Council does hereby levy an assessment for the 2002-2003 fiscal year on
businesses in the District as described in City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 1461, to pay for
improvements and activities of the District.
3. The types of improvements and activities to be funded bythe levy of assessments on
businesses in the District are set forth in Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference
4. The method and basis for lelying the assessments on all businesses within the District
are set forth in Exhibit "B", incorporated herein by reference.
5. New businesses shall not be exempt from assessment.
MAYOR
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of
2002, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COLINCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
2
C :\FILES\BIDBRDWY\BIDBDWYres22002.RE2.wpd
TO:
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
ITEM # 74
MTG.
DATE 05.06.02
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBlVtrTTED
DATE:15.2002
APPROVED
FROM:CITY
SIIBIECT:FUTURE USE OT THE PROPERTY AT 301 AIRPORT
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council should consider the following alternatives and direct staff:
a. Confirm present city policy and zoning and inform the property owner that a submittal
requesting a land use not allowed by the present Bayfront/Anza Specific Area Plan is contrary to
curent city policy; and would not be entertained at this time. Moreover, the current land use
policy already allows a variety of land use choices on this site which gives the developer more
than one opportunity to develop the site and still achieve the city's planning goals and benefits
from the site and area.
b. Have staffundertake studies to update the Bayfront Specific Area Plan, telling the applicant that
it is welcome to participate in the update process and is welcome to apply for a project
consistent with the amended plan after that process has been substantially completed; or
c. Direct the applicant, at its expense, it may make application for a project which is inconsistent
with the city policy as expressed in the General Plan and with the current zoning; however, the
applicant wili need to fund preparation of an Bayfront/Anza SAP amendment and environmental
doiument which would encompass entire Bayfront Specific Area Plan planning area and
applicable zoning. While this plan amendment would include a land use not presently allowed
within the Bayfront Specific Area Planning area, Council should note clearly in the record that
preparation of this environmental document, amendment and proposed rezoning, even when
brr"rr.., by city staff, does not bind the Planning Commission or Council's future action on the
proposed Plan amendment, rezoning or any project design.
BACKGROUND:
In August zOOO,the city approved a proposal for a 488,000 SF office project at 301 Airport Blvd. The
proposed use and its density were consistent with the BayfrontlAnza Area Specific Area Plan. The planning
appiovals for the proposed development, including a day care center to serve area employees and residents
oflne region with children with special needs, were granted an extension to August 7,2002. The applicant
has given staffthe impression that the office project will not be built in part because of the present high
uur-"y rate of existing class A office space in the county. If that is the case, then the planning approval will
BY
BY
FUTT]RE USE OF THE PROPERTYAT 3Ol AIRPORT BOULEVARD MAY 6' 2OO2
expire on August T, zoozand development of that particular project in the future will be through the Planning
review process as a new Project.
The Bayfro ntlAnzaArea Specific Area Plan allows the 16 acre site at 301 Airport to be developed in a variety
of uses: hotel at a maximum density of 65 rooms to the acre; restaurant (.15 FAR); commercial recreation;
and offrce uses (.9 FAR) With the plan the applicant may build one or a combination of these uses on this
site so long as the densiiy per acre oith. portion of the site designated for each use meets the requirement of
the plan. ihe plan *6 d"rigned with thii flexibility of more than one use per site to enable developers to take
advantage of the developme,irt cycles of various land uses and still comply with the city's development policy
and revenue generation needs.
In 1980 some uses were never envisioned to occur on the east side of 101 in Burlingame. Two key ones were
retail sales uses (such as a shopping center or big box) and housing. Although revenue generating, major retail
sales sites were thought to be inappropriate east of USl0l because of the volume of traffic such a use
generates. Since access to the area is limited, such major traflic generators would make existing
warehouse/offrce and uses less viable and could possibly devalue these properties.
Residential land uses were prohibited east of US 101 for a variety of reasons:
- residential development does not generate revenue to the city equal to the cost of providing services,
infrastructure and their maintenance over time e.g. sewer, water, storm drain systems, sidewalks,
streets, traffic signals, fire station, library, recreation, policing;
- residential uses are not compatible with warehouse, warehouse office uses, light industrial (such a
biotech and manufacturing) and destination uses such as large restaurants with bars and late evening
hours and hotels which have periodically major events which exceed their on-site parking; and
- residents in this area would be isolated from the "Burlingame community", its schools, downtown,
civic center and its sense of place.
Finally the Bayfront area was the only area of the city in 1981 that had large vacant parcels well separated
from the more suburban oriented, neighborhood residential interests of the rest of the city. For this reason,
east of US 101 was the prime place to look to build a future, enduring revenue base to support the aging
residential and commercial areas which needed an infusion of capital support for continuation of their quality
of life and neighborhood identity. East of US 101 provided a location where higher density non-residential
uses with their traffrc, noise, vibration and trucks would not conflict with the day to day lives of the city's
residents. Where each development would not raise aflag of dispute. Also where the close proximity of
residential uses would not constrain the activities of businesses e.g. preclude the use of some hazardous
materials necessary in certain types of businesses, restrict operating hours, noise and lighting levels, and
signage.
Expansion of the Bayfront/Anza Area Land Use Designations
The BayfrontlAnza Area Specific Area Plan was adopted in 1981. Three aspects ofthe plan were unique.
First the selection of land uses was based heavily on the area's potential as a revenue generator to support the
existing quality of life in the rest of the city. Second, land use densities was based on the capacities of four
critical roadway intersections serving this area of limited access. Third, there was no completion date
anticipated for the plan. Rather the land uses were put in place with the expectation that at build out,
whenever the market dictated that would occur, the community benefits would be achieved. A "he who waits
gets the best" approach.
2
FUTARE USE OF THE PROPERTYAT 301 AIRPORT BOULEVARD May 6,2002
At the time the Bayfront/Anzaplanwas adopted the warehouse/offrce area between Bayshore Highway and
US 101 was about lo-so%built out, the sanitary landfill was still receiving refuse and most of the Anza area
was vacant land. Today the warehouse/office aiea is fully built out, the landfill has been closed and turned
into a community.."r#io, and park facility and there are about 25 vacant acres and 13 developed but
underused acres remaining to be ieveloped in the Bayfront/Anza SAP area. This acreage represents the only
major vacant and underused parcels in the city'
An underlying policy of the Bayfront/Anza Plan was that "development should yield a high revenue-to-cost
ratio,,. With the deciine in property tax (Prop. 13), transient occupancy tax (on hotel rooms) has become the
foremost revenue generatoifoithecity's general fund. Anticipating this in 1980, the plan proposed a holding
capacrty for hotel ioo*, of 5,000. In 198b there were about 1200 rooms in the Bayfront/Arua Area. Since
the adoption of the plan, eight hotels, with a total of 2500 rooms have been added. The city is at 76% of its
planned 5000 hotel ioom holdin g capacity. There is enough vacant land reserved in the present plan to fill out
ih. totul rooms to 5,000 because the plan includes incentives to hotel development (including an ample rooms
per acre allowance) which have encouraged the development of hotel rooms in the northern Bayfront portion
bf tn. area as well as in the Arza area. These incentives to hotel development in the SAP included: (1),
guaranteeing that there would always be uncongested auto access; (2) , proximity and good access to the
airport and iegional transportation (vastly expanded by the then unexpected extension of BART); (3),
preservation o1 unobstructed views of and improved access along the San Francisco bay shoreline; (4), the
pr.r.n.. of destination restaurants and offices to support an expanding hotel market; (5), proximity to an
international airport without overflight noise and other physical impacts of the airport and alternate off-
freeway access io insure eflicient guest pick-up and drop-off; and (6), careful management of land uses which
could create conflicts with hotel uses.
The substantial development and recent collapse of the office market which has caused a shift from demand
from office oriented dot.com users to offrce/lab biotech users, raises the questionin2002 whether we should
review the BayfrontlArza Specific Area Plan. In the mid-1980's, to encourage uses which generated less
p.m. peak hour traflic to free up internal circulation, the BayfrontlAnza SAP was revised to allow a greater
lfroi". among the designated uses on all the sites except those designated for hotel use. In the 1990's as the
built out area between US 101 and Bayshore Highway began to redevelop in hotel and restaurant uses, we
became aware that the design guidelines developed for bayfront properties didn't work so well for the
landlocked locations between Bayshore Highway and US 101. In 2002 it looks like the building cycle for
office will be very extended, a temporarily down economy is taking a toll on hotel occupancy and dot.com
occupied warehouse/office buildings (class B and C office space) are vacant waiting new tenants. In this
current climate, the "hot" development cycle is housing. Now the question arises again, what is best for
Burlingame and what role does the Bayfro ntlAnza area play in that "best future" for the entire community.
Options
Staffrecommends that the answer to the question "what is best for Burlingame" should be addressed by
Burlingame; it should not be forced on the city by a developer but directed by the city in the same way the
decisiJn to promote hotel development of the 1980's and 1990's was considered and directed. The question
is "how best to direct the future opportunity". There are some choices:
Option A.: In 1980 the City undertook the planning, approved the BayfrontlAt:za SAP and has "stuck" to
thi community principles (goals and policies) for twenty years. Perhaps those community principles have
not changed. Ilthis is the case all developers east of US l0l should be directed to comply with the plan in
place or ieek opportunities for their development elsewhere in the city where it is allowed by the General
3
FUTURE USE OF THE PROPERTYAT 30l AIRPORT BOULEVARD Mav 6' 2002
Plan. In Burlingame opportunities for all land uses exist. Based on our current Bayfront/Anza SAP, in most
cases, developers and property owners have the choice of developing more than one use on their property.
Moreover, as past development has proven, the densities allowed for each use are not only competitive but
profitable. Therefore, land use east of US l0l is not constrained to the cycle of a single use. This option
would have no fiscal impact or impact on applicant project processing time. Typical project processing time
for a project consistent with the Bayfront/Anza Specific Area Plan is about 9 to 12 months.
Option B: A second choice would be for the city to undertake immediately economic and traffic studies for
the area east ofUS 101 to determine if there are some additional land uses which could be added to the
BayfrontlAnza areawhich would be consistent with the guiding policies of the existing plan and which would
also achieve the long term objectives of the City. Such an evaluation would involve a thorough existing land
use study, review of the plan document including policies and objectives, economic and traflic studies,
preparation of an updated project EI\ and a series of public meetings involving local property owners,
tenants, Planning Commission and City Council members. The result would be amended to the general plan
and the zoningin the area would be revised to fit the new policy guidelines and any added land uses. This
option would cost the city money for consultants to assist staffand the SAP amendment would take about one
year to complete. Following city approval of the amendment, processing a project which conforms to the plan
would take 6 to 8 months, assuming no unique environmental issues.
Option C: The third choice would be to indicate to developers and landowners east of US 101 that the city is
aware that given the time that has passed and changes to the environment there may be reasons to review the
current Bayfront/Anza SAP so that the city might entertain possible changes to the land uses and premises of
the plan. If so encouraged, and developers applied for a project, they would be required to apply for an SAP/
general plan amendment and, if necessary a rezoning, for their property. The developers would, with city
supervision and at the developers expense, pay to prepare general plan amendment and an environmental
document on the amendment and project. At the conclusion of the planning worlq the general plan
amendment, any necessary zoning changes, and the project would be presented together to the Planning
Commission and Council for action. Local property owners, tenants and other affect"ileople would not be
involved until the planning work was completed and presented as a part of the proposed project. Since the
proposed changes may or may not be consistent with the community's objectives, they may or may not be
approved by the city. Certainly the Planning Commission and City Council would not be bound in any way.
This option would take stafftime but there would be no additional direct costs to the city. Project processing
would be more complication and would probably take 12 to 18 months; that time could be extended by a
controversial public hearing process.
Conclusion
It should be noted that the city has the obligation to provide property owners with the opportunity to use their
land. This is accomplished through the general plan and zoning. The city does not have the right to preclude
property owners from using their land through conflicting planning and zoning which obscures their rights.
In the case of the Anza areathe allowed uses are very clear and, in most cases, the city has provided the
property owners with the flexibility of more than one viable use of their property. The city does not have a
obligation to make it possible for a property owner to build, at any point in time, what is in the property
owners opinion "the highest and best use", e.g. most profitable use. Planning came about to manage these
conflicting views between community need and the property owner/developer's maximum economic benefit.
In fact city undertook the Bayfront/Anza area Specific Area Plan originally because then property
owner/developer thought that the "best use" of the filled land was more tilt-up warehouse office buildings like
those along Lang and Beach Roads and in the Bayshore-US 101 area. The City Council and residents at the
4
FUTURE USE OF THE PROPERTYAT 3Ol AIRPORT BOULEVARD MAY 6' 2002
time saw this new fill area as the last opportunity for growth in the city. Their conclusion was to plan to
ensure that the future use of the u..u *ould compliment the existing land use in the city and would bring
substantially more revenue into the city than it would cost to maintain the area and, atthe same time, expand
the city,s economic base without impact on the existing residential neighborhoods and character.
Fiscal Implications
Option,4: supporting the existing Bayfront/Anza Specific Area Plan has no fiscal impact'
OptionB: preiaration of background studies leading to a public review and possible amendment of the
existing Bayfront/Anza Specific Area Plan would cost about $100,000 for consultant fees and use one staff
plannei (fuli time equivalent) to prepare. Stafftime assumes SAP amendment only, project processing would
follow separately.
OptionC. Developer prepared BayfronVAnza SAP amendment with environmental report and project
piocessing would cause no capital outlay by the city and would take one staffplanner (full time equivalent) to
prepare.
Attachments:
Goals and Policy Section of the Bayfront/Anza Specific Area Plan, l98l
5
Fayn,b.lzN g,ac- hgEAeAll AREA PII\NJN€-6tsr frffi26815 PI-ANNINc coNSTDERATIoNS
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
This section identifies the factors that inlluence planning for the Bayfront. These factors include
the city's goals for the are4 proposed development policies, jurisdictional and ownership
constraints, as well as rmique opportunities for conservation and development. Other sigpificant
factors- General Plan desipations, existing zoning regulations with Special permit
requirements, and curent land use- are described in the Environmentat settiag section.
GOALS f,'OR TIIE BAYTRONT
Five major goals for the Ba5&ont were approved by the city council on Deceniber 6, r 97g.
These goals evolved fiom the assumptions that development ofthe Bayftont in generaiand theAnza Area in particular should ernphasize tlose uses which best promote public-access and useof the shdrelinq that new development should be consistent with,the capaiitities ortne
transportation and utility systems to provide an acceptable level ofservice to the waterfront areaand the rerraining portion of the city, and that Ba1&ont development should produce themaximum benefit ofrevenue to cost ratio to the city ofBurfnjarre. rh" go"l, th"i"r"lr"a
from these assumptions are:
l. Develo,pment shan be consistent with the capacity of the a jacent road syst€nt.
2. A specific pran shourd be selected which maximizes public access to the
shoreline.
3. Development should yield a bigh revenue-to.cost ratio.
4- Guidelines and regulations should be adopted which will insure good quality
development
' -- 5. Development should be visually attractive, pteasingu6th to those who work andvisit the areq and also to those who use the area for recreation.
Two additional goals are proposd by this report:
6- Land uses in the Bayfront shourd be environmentalry consistent with, and
supportive of, Burlingarne,s main function as a residential commrmity, and
7- Land uses in the Bayfront shourd reflect the special rocationar varue ofthe area:proximity to regional freeway and to the san irancisco Intemati<mal-a*p..t.
City of Borlingam€sAP-17 Gc'lcrd Plan
SPECIFIC AR.EA PI.JIN
I
PI-ANNING CONSIDERATIONS
Shoreline Access
Reserve sites closest to the shoreline for land uses which draw a large number of
visitors (i.e., hotels aad restaurants).
ProvideacontinuousuetwortofatEactiveandsafepedestrianandbicycleaccess
along the shoreline and through the interior of the Anza Area'
EncourageirnplementationoftheBurlingameZoningor,dinancerequir€,mentfora
is-foot_iide snoretine stip; corsistent with the Bay Area Conservation and
O"r"fop*."t Co.-ission@CDC) requirements for the provision of public
access to the shoreline-
Road System
Included within the goals that the city council adopted for the Bayfront are a series of
development policies. These policies are standards or principles which are to serve as a guide for
development of the BaYfront.
The Anza Aree and Anza Area Extension
I
2
3
))
I Establish a desirable level ofservice for transportation facilities: a balairge
u"r*oot.urr",olumesandroadcapacities.AdiscussionoflevelsofServiceis
contained in Appendix A Traffc Analysis'
Encourage low intensity developme'lrt or no dwelopment if transportation
facilities-are not available for higher intensity land uses'
2.Identify 4propriate sites for developments which generate high volumes of trafrc
at peak hours.
3 * Identif, improvements to increase road capacities to qT ve he uses proposed in
the SAP.
4.Create a fiscal mechanism for sharing the costs of transportatior improveme'nB by
private develoPers.
5
Revenues and Costs
Brrlingameresidentshavebee,lrconcernedaboutthebalancebetweenrevenuesandcosts
r",suttiig to_ devetop-eot ofthe Bayfront. since the Bayfront is relatively isolated
m- tfrl rot of tn" City, it is possibte to iaentiry Uese costs and rsv€nues' The fiscal
policies adopted by the City Council in 1979 for the Bayfront are:)
City ofBudinganc SAP-I8 Gcntral Plan
DEVELOPMENT POLICTES
)
SPECIflC AREA PINN
I
2
PLANNING CONSIDERATTONS
Establish a high priority for development ofhotels and restaurants which would
generate substantial revenues to the Citlr from room and sales taxes.
Actively encourage major restaurant chains to locate in the area. Establish site
standards for atbactive public improvanents to accompany hotel and restaurant
constnrction.
Reserve prime hotel md restaurant sites and preserve them from earty
development for other land uses through the Specific Are4 plan land use
designations.
Visual Character
The Anza Area
l. Establish height and setback regulations for new developments.
2. Encourige site designs that improve the ap,pearance ofparking areas.
3. Encourageinte,nsivelandscaping.
4. Provide view corridors for views of the Bay and the Anza Lagoon both from
within and outside the area.
since the Bayfront is highty visible arom the Bayshore Freeway, it contn-butes to the
region's image of the city ofBurlingarne. Because of the commercial importance ofvisibility, recent development has been constructed.in a wide variety ofarchitectural
styles. The design ofdevelopments must be coordinated to protect the visual
atEactiveness of the area and create a harmonious visual envirorment consistent with the
image of the Burlingame community. The policies to achieve these aims are:
The Northern Bavfront
I Maintain existing buildings in present uses rmtil redevelopment is feasible.
knprove some sheets to improve traffic flow in the area and to accommodate
anticipated eaffic generated from firture dwelopment.
Allow intenm low intensity land uses on avairable sites until regionar demand for
high intensity uses grows.
2.
3
City ofBudinguac sAP-19 Gereal Plan
3.
i
SPECITIC AREA PI.AN
PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS
ACCESSIBILITY
The Bayfront is strategically located in the mid-Peninsula area only 2 miles south of San
Francisco Intemational Airport and adjacent to the Bayshore Freeway (u.S. Highway l0l), a
major north-south connector. In addition, the arnenity ofthe adjacent Bay shoreline increases the
desirability ofthe site particularly for hotels and restaurants. Altogether these locational
characteristics suggest that the Bayfront will generate continuing development interest,
particularly as a result of airport and ancillary facilities' expansion
At the sarne time, as discussed in the Environmental Setting Section, Circulation, the Bayfront is
severely constrained by lack ofdirect access to the Bayshore Freeway. Existing access is
conftsing, particularly at the Broadway/Bayshore Freeway interchange. Moreover, although
existing iltersections may provide acceptable levels ofservice, they would not provide sufficient
capaci[ for fhe new development in the area that is being proposed by The Specific Area Plan,
Section IV.
NATURALAMEMTIES
The Baytont's most striking amenity is iS location next to San Francisco Bay. In addition to
,i"*r, tt
"
rhor"line offers opportunities for recreational enjoyment of the Bay. views of the
Bay from Airport Boulevard and Bayshore Highway, however, are limited by the flat
ffigrany. the pote,ntial for pedestrian and bicycle access near the water has already been
,;;;iAas evidenced by thi inclusion in the General Plan open Space Element and"in the C-
4 zoiing desigrations ofa requirement for all private developers to provide an open space
easement along the shoreline-
EASEMENTS
A pacific Gas and Electic company rightof-way, approximately l'4*feet widQ, n{s parallel and
adjacent to the Bayshore Freeway in the Inner Lagool and_tidal slough. A series of pytons
cabing nigh tension power lines is located in this right-of-way. (Exhibit E, Site Opportudties
fld Comtraints.)
JT'RISDICTIONAL CONSTRAINTS
while the mtuat amenities at the Bayfront's edge and the Anza Lagoon represent opportunities,
they alm involve constraints for the type and extent of developmelrt to be allowed by th1 larce
,umter ofregufating agencies with jurisdiction in the area. The Bayfront's location next to the
shoreline is a particular concem of multiple jurisdictions which regulate shoreline activities in
and along san Francisco Bay. Reviewing agencies which review city plans for conformance
with theii own plans and regulations for the Bay include the following Federal, State, and
regional agencies:
)
City ofBurlingamc sAP-20 Gcneral Plan
l
Federal U.S. Departnent of the Army, Corps of Engineers
U.S. Coast Guard
National Marine Fisheries Service
State Bay Conservation Development Commission @CDC)
Califomia Departrnent of Fish & Game
Califomia Departnent of Transportation (Caltrans)
State Lands Commission
State Water Quality Conhol Board
Regional Association of Bay Area Govemments (ABAG)
Bay Area Air Quality Management District @AAQMD)
San Francisco Airports Commission
U.S. Department of the Army Corps' of Engheers
Under the 1972 Fed€ral Water Pollution Contol Act, the Corps of F.ngineers was assiped
permit authority over all dredging and filling operations in all waters ofthe United States. This
definition includes the San Francisco Bay up to the mean higher high water rnark and adjacent
wetlands, swamFs- marshes, bogs, and similar areas. The Corps' principal concems are the
impacts that dredging or filling would have on water quality and marhe life, €rosion potential,
and water supplies.
U.S. Coast Guard
The U.S. Coast Guard has law enforcement authority for all navigable federal waters. This
authority includes San Francisco Bay.
National Marine Fisheries Service
The Service, part of the U,S. Deputnent of Commercg rwiews development that requires a
Corps of Engineers' permit to determine if such developme,lrt would be damaging to fish
habitats.
Bay Conservation Development Commission (BCDC)
Of all the agencies with jurisdiction in the area, the agency with the greatest inlluence over the
nature of the development il the waterfront area is the BCDC. Any development wirhin lfi) feet
of the slroreline is within BCDC's juridiction For the Bayfront planning area this restriction
represeirts approximately 30 percent of the land on the bay side of the freeway. One of BCDC's
main concerns about any shoreline development is that it provide 'haximnrn feasible public
aci:ess" to the shoreline. .The BCDC plm shows I l0 acres of the Bayfront reserved for'lriority
shoreline uses". Such areas may include water-orimted commercial recreation and supporting
activities such as restaurants and shops,. Another concern ofequal importance is the prohibition
of fill in the Bay except for water-oriented activities. @xhibit F, Major Public and Private
Ownership and Jurisdictions.)
City of Burlingamc SAP-2I
SPECIFIC ARDA PIJIN
PLANNING CONSIDERATTONS
I
i
Gacral Plan
ffiiii,,irpiir,
a.
.tl
G&
=!
I
t" _'t l. rr xifr?us ;,J,I f, arl
rl ll
-I
T
PARTNERS,BURLI MESI.i"
I
T
l
suite H
I I
m2
aa
U
L
I
''i
'a
I
i
-Jrr
I,
tr ,
,{
i
,!t
lt
'.. I
LorOaloE,
I I rrot' No ,ro?rir3
I
ft
--:f
c:)AIRPORT BLVD (--r (:-f c.=:)
CONCEPTUAL SITE PLAN
BURLINGAME SHORES
Burlingame, C alifornia
,rL.rs.T,gY. I Ro u.r:. il"cru .i.;* : n *tt^'-:'.:,if.*
*;.::r'.+!
>.
tr
o
Ut)
Uz
&tr
a
,.1
F]zz
o
N
t4
Uz
a
. 3-4 STORY OVER(I)LEVELPARKING
STRfICTURE
- 3 STORY MOTORCOURT
PRODUCT
EMERGENCYACCESS
DII(-- HOLISING PARTNERS. INC.
I 4 I 9l Winchester Bvld . Suile H
LosGalos CA 9501?
KTCY NO 2002073
a -\
May 6,200?n tJ
STAFF REPORT
TOI HONORABLEMAYORAIIDCITYCOT]NCIL
DArE: Anril28. 2002
FROM:Robert Iluman Resources
AGENDA
rTEM#
MTG.
I'ATE
7b
5-6-O2
APPROVEI'
BY
S[IEJECT: Introduce Ordinatrce to AmGtrd the Contract for Police Employe€s wlth the California Pubflc
Employees' Retirement System (CaIPERS) and thc City of Burlingame
RECOMMEIT'DATION:
Staff recornrnends that the Council approve the Resolution of Intention to Approve an Amendment to the
contract with the Califomia Public Enployees Retirement System. Staff also reconmends that the Council
review the proposed Ordinance to amend the City of Burlingame's contract with the Califomia Public
Errployees' Retirement System (CaIPERS). Both the Resolution of Intention and the proposed ordinance
would amend the contract to provide Police enployees with the following benefrt enhancements:
r Section 2 I 36 L7 - 3o/o @ 55 Formular Section 21024 - Milnary Service Credit for public Service.
PuGuant to CaIPERS requirernents, the City Council must ryprove the Resolution of Intention and review the
proposed ordinance that will be introduced for public hearing and adopion at the regular City Council meeting
ofJune 3,2002.
BACKGROUIT{D:
r
These enhancements were negotiated with the Police Officers' Association (POA) in this year's collective
bargaining process. The labor agreement securing these benefit enhancements for the police Ofticers was
approved by the City Council at the regular council meeting of March I g, 2002.
The 3Yo @ 55 benefit enhancement is the same benefit awarded to the Fire unit in last year's negotiations.
Th9 credit for military service was also awarded to Fire and miscellaneous enployees last yiar. This
enhancement allows employees who have served in the military to "purchase" their military service creditwith CaIPERS and increase their years of service used in calculating their CaIPERS retir€ment. The cost to
purchase the military credit is paid for by enrployees ard paid directly to CalpERS.
l4rFJlg$rE
i crrY
SUBN{ITTED
BY
EUDSE-EEAEI:
The change in the present value of benefits that the 3% @ 55 betrefit enhancement re.presents is $2,310,915.
The increase in actuarial value of assets is $0.00. The change in the unfirnded accrued liability is $2,301,473.
The change in the toal enployer rd,e is 7 .956Yo.
Resolution
Sample Ordinance
Exhibit - Amendment to Contract
SAEEMENTS:
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION OT TI{E CITY COUNCIL
OF TIIE CTTY OF BURLINGAMB
APPROVINGA}I AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN
TIM BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CALTFORNIA
PTJBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
A}ID TIIE CITY OF BIJRLINGAME
WEEREAS, the Public Employees' Retirement Law permits the participation of
public agencies and their employees in the Public Employees' Retirement System by the
execution of a contracf, and sets forth the procedure by which said public agencies may
elect to subject thenrselves and their enployees to amendments to said Iaw; and
Wffi,REAS, one of the stepe in the procedures to arrend this contract is the
adop,tion by the governing body of the public agency of a resolution grving notice of its
intention to approve an anendment to said contracL which resolution shall contain a
swrlnary ofthe change proposed in said contracq, and
WIDREAS, the following is a statement of the proposed charrge:
To provide Scstion 21363.1(3%@ 55 Full Fornmla); and Section 21024
(Military Service Credit as Public Service) for local police nrembers.
NOW, TffiREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED that the governing body of the above
agency does hereby give notice of intention to aprprove an anrendment to the contract
between said public agency andthe Board of Administration of the Public Employees'
Retirement Systerq a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, as an "Exhibit" and
by this reference made a part hereof.
MAYOR
I, AI.IN MUSSO, City Clerk ofthe City ofBurlinganrc, do hereby c€rtirythat the
foregoing resolution was introduced * a regulr mecting of the City Council held on
day of May 2002, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COIJNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS
CITY CLERK
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
t4
15
16
t7
18
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINAI\CE NO.
ORDINAITCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO
CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND
THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CALPERS)
TO PROVIDE 3VO AT AGE 55 FORMULA AI\D MILITARY SERVICE CREDIT FOR
LOCAL SAFETY OFFICER EMPLOYEE/}IEMBERS (POLICE)
The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows:
Section 1. Pursuant to the California Government Code and the Contract between the City
of Burlingame and the California Public Employees Retirement System (CALPERS), the City
wishes to amend its contract to provide for a 3o/o at age 55 formula (Gov't Code $ 21361.1) and
military service credit (Gov't Code $ 21024) for local safety officer employees/members (Police).
On May 6,2oo2,the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to consider this amendment
at a duly noticed public hearing, and notice of that public hearing has been properly provided.
Written comments and oral testimony of all interested persons have been considered.
Section 2. The Amendment to Contract between the City of Burlingame and the Board of
Administration, California Public Employees Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy of
this amendment is attached to this ordinance, marked Exhibit, and by such reference is made apart
hereof as though herein set out in full.
Section 3. The Mayor of the City of Burlingame is hereby authorized, empowered, and
directed to execute this amendment for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame.
Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall take effect thirty
days after its adoption.
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk ofthe City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _ day
of _, 2002, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _
day of _,2002, by the following vote:
1
1
2
aJ
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
T2
13
l4
15
16
T1
18
t9
20
2l
22
z3
24
25
26
27
28
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COLINCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
C :\FILES\ORDINANC\calpersemn2.per.wpd
City Clerk
2
CaIPERS
EXHIBIT
California
Public Employees' Retirement System
*
ANITENDNITENT TO CONTRACT
Be'tween the
Boardl of Adlnministration
Canilfornia trurhnic JEmpfloyees' R.etirement Systema
andl the
Ciry Councin
Ciry of tsurningarmet
The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter
referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency, hereinafter referred to
as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective July 1 , 1942, and witnessed July 6,
1942, and as amended effective February 1,1954, July 1, 1956, April 1, 1963, March 1,1964,
April 1, 1965, March 16, 1967, November 1,1968, September 1, 1970, April 1,1973, May 1,
1974, November 1, 1974, February 20, 1975, July 1, 1976, August 16, 1976, May 1, 1979,
December 1 , 1985, December 6, 1989, November 15, 1990, May 26, 1997 , December 12, 2000,
November 1,2001 and December 30, 2001 which provides for participation of Public Agency in
said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows:
A.Paragraphs 1 through 13 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective
December 30, 2001, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1
through 12 inclusive:
1 All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees'
Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless othenryise
specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 55 for local
miscellaneous members and age 55 for local safety members.
Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from
and after July 1 , 1942 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of
said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law
except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not
provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except
those, which by express provisions thereof, apply only on the election of a
contracting agency.
2
3 Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of
said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or
this agreement:
Local Fire Fighters (herein referred to as local safety members);
Local Police Officers (herein referred to as localsafety members);
Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as
miscellaneous members).
local
ln addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said
Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of
said Retirement System:
PLAYGROUND LEADERS WHO ARE PAID ON AN HOURLY BASIS;
POLICE CADETS, AND LIBRARY PAGES HIRED ON OR AFTER
MARCH 16, 1967; AND
b FIRE CADETS AND CROSSING GUARDS HIRED ON OR AFTER MAY 1,
1974.
5
The percentage of llnal compensation to be provided for each year of credited
prior and current service as a local safety member shall be determined in
accordance with Section 2'1363.1 of said Retirement Law (3% at age 55 Full).
7. Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following optional provisions:
Section 21573 (Third Level of 1959 Survivor Benerlts) for local
miscellaneous members only.
Section 21222.1 (One-Time 5% lncrease - 1970). Legislation repealed said
Section effective January 1, 1980.
Section 21222.2 (One-Time 5% lncrease - 197'l). Legislation repealed said
Section effective January 1, 1980.
a
b
c
4
a
6
Sections 21624, 21626 and 21628 (PoslRetirement Survivor Allowance)
The percentage of flnal compensation to be provided for each year of credited
prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member shall be determined in
accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 55 Full).
Section 20425 ("Local Police Officef' shall include employees of a police
department who were employed to perform identification or communication
duties on August 4, 1972 and who elected to be local safety members).
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
Section 21319 (One-Time 15% lncrease for Local Miscellaneous Members
Who Retired or Died Prior to July 1, 1971). Legislation repealed said
Section effective Ja nuary 'l , 2002.
Section 206'14, Statutes of 1978, (Reduction of Normal Member
Contribution Rate). From May 1, 1979 and until December 1, 1985, the
normal local miscellaneous member contribution rate shall be 3.5% and
local safety member contribution rate shall be 4.5%. Legislation repealed
said Section effective September 29, '1980.
Section 20690, Statutes of 1980, (To Prospectively Revoke Section 20614,
Statutes of 1978).
Section 20042 (One-Year Final Compensation)
Section 21574 (Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits) for local safety
members only.
Section 20965 (Credit for Unused Sick Leave) for local miscellaneous
members only.
L Section 21024 (Military Service Credit as Public Service), Statutes of 1976
Public Agency, in accordance with Government Code Section 20790, ceased to be
an "employer" for purposes of Section 20834 effective on August '16, 1976.
Accumulated contributions of Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as
provided in Government Code Section 20834, and accumulated contributions
thereafter shall be held by the Board as provided in Government Code Section
20434.
Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions
determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect
to local miscellaneous members and local safety members of said Retirement
System.
10. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows
Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959
Survivor Benefits provided under Section 2'1573 of said Retirement Law.
(Subject to annual change.) ln addition, all assets and liabilities of Public
Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on
term insurance rates, for survivors of all local miscellaneous members.
f
s
h
k.
a
b Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959
Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21574 of said Retirement Law.
(Subject to annual change.) ln addition, all assets and liabilities of Public
Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on
term insurance rates, for survivors of all local safety members.
8.
c.A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment
within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said
System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the
costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations
required by law.
A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as
the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of
employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and
valuations required by law.
Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to
adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees'
Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System
as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said
Retirement Law.
Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public
Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to
which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. lf
more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper
adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances.
Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may
be made by direct payments between the employee and the Board.
B. This amendment shall be effective on the _ day of
d
11.
12.
BY BY
KENNETH W. MARZION, CHIEF PRESIDING OFFICER
ACTUARIAL & EMPLOYER SERVICES DIVISION
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Witness Date
Attest
AMENDMENT
PERS-CON-702A (Rev. 8\96)
Clerk
BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION CIry COUNCIL
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM CIry OF BURLINGAME
STAFF REPORT
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 24, 2OO2
PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE
7c
5t6to2
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
SUBMITTED
BY
APPROVED
BY
SUBJECT: INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE TO TNSTALL A STOP SIG ON SEBASTIAN DRIVE AT
ARGUELLO DRIVE TO PROVIDE A THREE-WAY STOP INTERSECTION
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council take the following actions for adopting an ordinance to
install a stop sign on Sebastian Drive at Arguello Drive:
1. Request the City Clerk to read the title of the attached ordinance.
2. Waive further reading of the proposed ordinance.
3. Introduce the proposed ordinance.
4. Direct the City Clerk to publish a sunmary ofthe proposed ordinance at least five days before its proposed
adoption.
BACKGROUND: At their March l4,andApril I 1,2002 meetings, the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission
(TSPC) considered apetition from local residents requesting that stop signs be installed on all three legs ofthe tee
intersection at Sebastian Drive and Arguello Drive. There was a concern by the residents that the crest on Arguello
Drive near the intersection created sight distance problems for eastbound drivers. At their April 1 1, 2002meeting,
the TSPC passed a motion recommending the installation of three-way stop signs at this tee intersection. Meeting
notices were posted on barricade-mounted signs at the intersection, and the adjacent neighborhood was notified.
There were no objections expressed at these meetings.
STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff examined the intersection and determined that stop sign warrants were not met based
on vehicular right of way, speed and accidents. However, due to a sharp cresting of Arguello Drive immediately
east and adjacent to the intersection, the required stopping sight distance is not met for seeing smaller objects in
the roadway at the 25 mph or the prima facie speed limit. As a result, staffrecommends that these stop signs be
installed to improve safety.
Although the existing ordinance already includes stop signs on the two Arguello Drive legs ofthe intersection, the
signage was never installed since the area was developed. With Council approval of this amended ordinance, staff
will be able to install signage at all three legs.
BUDGET IMPACT: The cost of installing the three stop signs is estimated to be $500. There are sufficient funds
available in the City's current maintenance budget for this work.
EXHIBITS: Ordinance; Location map; Aerial Photographs; Public Notice to applicant and residents
Petition and Letters from local residents; TSPC Minutes for Marchl4 and April I I,2002
Frank C. Erbacher, P.E.
Asst. Public Works Director
650-558-7230
c: City Clerk, Police Department, Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission
S:\A Public Works Directory\StaffReports\SebastianDr@ArguelloDr.3WayStopStaffi.pt.wpd
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
t2
t3
t4
l5
t6
17
l8
t9
20
2t
22
Z)
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE No.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING SECTION 13.20.010 FOR
INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGN AT THE INTERSECTION OF
SEBASTIAN DRIVE AT ARGUELLO DRIYE
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
Section l. The City has received a petition from residents of the Arguello Drive
neighborhood seeking the placement of a stop sign at Sebastian Drive approaching Arguello Drive.
The City Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission considered the petition and received testimony
regarding the pedestrian needs and traffic problems in the area and recommended placement of a
stop sign at this approach to the intersection.
Section 2. Subsection 13.20.010(s) is amended to read as follows
(s) SanchezAvenue approachingCortezAvenue;
Sebastian Drive approaching Arguello Drive;
Sebastian Drive approaching Frontera Way;
Sebastian Drive approaching Mariposa Drive;
Sebastian Drive approaching Trousdale Drive;
Sequoia Avenue approaching Murchison Drive;
Sequoia Avenue approaching Trousdale Drive;
Skyline Boulevard approaching Trousdale Drive;
S$view Drive approaching Skyline Boulevard;
Stanton Road approaching Gilbreth Road;
Summit Drive approaching El Prado Road;
Summit Drive approaching Hillside Circle.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
Mayor
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
11
t2
13
t4
15
T6
t7
18
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _
day of 2002, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council
held on the_ day oL,2002, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COT]NCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
C :\FILES\ORDINANC\stopsi gn20025.pwd.wpd
a1gi1l't. ?.
at.at?1
b
\s -- grl
tsoL
\n
9t./,
lVERA
NN
firu
7 R
+
6\
,'t.t,
p
t!
rol
o
w
t
LLOL
I
a
?PI
I
"il
A
,/DR lvE
T I B U R ON
A RGUE
SEfglsnA,N PP.t /E Ar
ABAUEUUo e"t{€
Z I
no;8(fl
')
)o
APbh
f
Noi
11.l
aa,, t
@
(o
a.
@I s
ta
,o
tt
'ad
t.
a.
6o&
aa
sfAtL 1:trgFJ€tflAt '{o?
It,ou
@
o
INtoI
32
.r'tl5
lO
v55
)t ut
&o
U
' Sholt'n
non?l' ' ,r,t'5D.bi
R:.:r';:ll,,ri.j
rU_e
(l1 a
Na-N
(0(l
-rBn
65
,-
No
TUtoo
0r.4
5 co
Ne
aa
NN
Euo
N$(\)(orI
N
NNoS
oB$o
rs8{BBBo
tl
iu
NYOI{ PARr }
t
I
(
I
SEEASI./HN PFryE ^rAReuer.uo peryt
rtt *7r' t-
{l a l,€
1
The City of Burlingame
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Tel:(65O1 558-7230
Fax:(650) 685-931O
CITY HALL. 5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 9401 G,3997
CORPORATION YARD
Tel:(65O1 558-7670
www
TRAFFIC SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION MEETING
7:00 p.m., Thursday, April 11,2002
City Hall, Conference Room A, 501 Primrose Road
The City of Burlingame received a request for 3-way stop signs at the intersection of
Arguello Drive and Sebastian Drive.
This item will be acknowledged at the next Traffic Commission meeting on April lI ,2002,
at7:00 p.m. in Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, lst Floor, Conference Room A.
You are welcome to attend this meeting. At the meeting, attendees will have an
opportunity to speak and comment on their concerns. Your attendance, however, is not
required for the Commission to consider this matter. The Commission may choose to
discuss and/or act on this request at this meeting. If you are unable to attend this meeting,
you may submit your written comments to Traffic. Safetv and Parking Commission. 501
Primrose Road. Burlingame. CA 94010. Your written comments will be submitted to the
Commission.
If you have any questions or need additional information about this notice, please call
Frank Erbacher at 650-558-7230.
{
,5
NOTICE
PUBLIC MEETING
TO DISGUSS INSTALLATION OF
3-WAY STOP SIGNS AT INTERSECTION
OF ARGUELLO DRIVE AND SEBASTIAN DRIVE
Arguello Drive Stop Sign Petition
H
E
E
. Reduce danger from trlind spots and provide better visibili{y to
drivers and pedestrians on Arguello AltD Sebastian Drives
. Reduce danger to children playmg in sffeets near this intersection
o Allow safer home driveway entranc,e and exit near intersection
On March 14, 2002, the Burlingame
Trffic Commission will meet to discuss
traffic concerns at the intersection of
Arguello & Sebastian Drives
PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND!
Please sign below to indicate your support for a stop sign
at the intersection of Arguello and Sebastian Drives!
Signature Name
Toka,, f. fonro.,r
r&</7blZ<i3&'-iP<zj
Qlct
Address
oP,
t)
/2B
>9
rra
e-r-.
t(
il
L
a
/,,Ll,
Stop Sign Needed To:
2t77 fl,,qu,-ll, L..
Arguello Drive stop Sign Petition .:
Please sign below to indicate your support for a stop sign
at the intersection of Arguello and Sebastian Drives!
2a 9Eh
ol
t\
Address
l
P-O. Po{ t(X,
Budhgtsme. CA 94011
February 25,2002
Hornayoun Barekat
Traffic/Associate Engineer
The Crty of Budingarne
501 Primrme Road
Burlingame, CA94010
Dear Mr. Barekat
On behalf of Burlingame residents, ny wtfe and myself, please accept this tefrer as a request ficr a
haffic review athe lntersedftxt of Arguello ard Sebastian Drive in Budingane. As resirJentsrrvtro live
near this intersectftrn, we believe hat a 3ryay stop sQn b required due to significant blind spob that
exist
Our rnain conem is the fad that here are rrc stop signs at this intersectirrn. The danger of an accident
b irrcreasing re the number of cftildten playtng in frre sheet increases. Drivers enbr the intemedinn
wffioti the attifity to see orer the crest of tre hi[ on Argueflo Ddve. Drivers also wtrip around he coner
on Sebastian Drtve wittout rE ard for someone crossing frE sfreet Additionally, since the baffic has
increased on Argueflo Drivg it b rnore dangeror.rs than ever to pull out of our drivalays due b the blind
spots coming orerthe hill on Arguetlo Drive.
We are also requesting that broken refletrrdots be replaoed on Arguelb Drive.
Please advise if here is a fcrm orpeffiion b be completed brhis request I plan to atend he haffic
commission rneeting on March 14" and speakon behalf of the concemed neighbors. I can be
contacted at (650) 697-5461.
Respectftrlly,
John E Roman
)4 7,
March 10,2002
TRAFFIC SAFETY A}.TD PARKING COMMISSION MEE-II}.IG
City llall
Con&renccRoom A
Prirnos Rood
Burlingarr, CA
REGARDING NOTICE FOR 3.WAY STOP SIGN AT INTERSECTION
OF ARGT'ELLO DRIVE AND SEBA.STIAT.I DRIVE
THIS STOP SIGN IS LONG OVER DI,.IE- WE HAVE SMALL CHILDREN IN TTIE AREA WHO CON}.IOT
GO OUTSIDE TO PLAY. I LIVE ON T}IE CORNER OF SEBASTIA}.I A}.ID ARGT,,ELLO DRJVE A}.ID
I HAVE TO BE VERY VERY CAREFI,.IL BACKING OUT OF MY GARAGE OR PULIJNG INTO MY
GARAGE FOR TEAROF BEI}.iG HIT FROM I,IPWARDAND DOWNWARD ARGI,ELLO TRAIIFIC.
LATELY THIS IIAS BECOME ASPEEDIYAY_ESPECIALLY FRIDAYNIGHTS.
ALSO, IIIE TEMPLE ACROSS THE STREET HAS A DAY SCH@L AND ARELIGIOUS SCHOOL
WHICH THE CHILDREN EITHER WALKTO OR. GO OUT SIDE FOR ACIIWIIES.
WE ALSO TIAVE A SEMOR FOPI,'LATION WTIO ENJOY WALKING WITH THEIR DOGS. TIIIS
TOO IIAS BECOiVIE VERY RISKY FOR TIIEM AtrID THE AI.IIMALS.
PLEASE CONSIDER OtiR REQt EST. OUR FEAR IS WHEN BART BECOMES PART OF OUR
COMMI,]MTY,THIS SITUATION, ASWELLASTROUSDALE,WILLBECOME VERY
SERIOUS FORALL OF US.
SINCERELY,
ANN.MA&I&[&,AI.ID
I@.$EBASTIANDRIVE
BTB,LINGAME, CA 9,IOIO
-,-61N92-3s6t'
"=i.aiiland @yahoo.come'-
PS I am tte original owrerand rcsidc htre-
t,r"1
IIAR 1 4 m02
EVIEGE
DEPT. OI
cnv 0t
My name is Mary Cotter. I live at 2847 Arguello Drive. My home is right
at the intersection of Arguello & Sebastian. This location is on the crest
of a hill. Sometimes people drive right through @ speeds of 45 to 5O
miles per hour with little no clear view ahead of them. Kids play in the
neighborhood. They ride their bikes and rollerblade in the streets. It is
entirely possible that some child could be seriously injured or possible
die because of unsafe drivers. A three way stop sign is needed at this
intersection for our safety and the safety of our children.
4v,t (
TRAFFIG, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, March 14, 2002
driveway with a good view of cross traffic which tends to move at over 35 mph. Also, a second red
zone needs repainting.
Officer Tamura advised that Rollins Road is now on selective enforcement due to this request
Mr. Erbacher advised that the City will notice the neighborhood of this request for the next meeting.
5.2 L3O9 North Carolan Avenue - Request for Red Zone
The petitioner was not present.
5.3 Arguello Drive and Sebastian Drive - Request for 3-Way Stop Signs
Mr. Roman submitted a signed petition for this request. He stated that there are numerous blind spots
for drivers accessing this intersection which is a hazard for the neighborhood children and for cars
backing out of their driveways at this site. Also, there has been an increase in school traffic for the
Franklin School. Ms. Cotter stated her home is at this intersection which is on the crest of a hill; and
with the police upping their enforcement on Trousdale, more drivers are using Arguello now.
Accessing her driveway is becoming more hazardous.
Mr. Barekat advised that the centerline needs to be replaced and he will request it. Comm. Cohen
asked if the increased traffic is due to the temple nearby. Mr. Roman stated no, it's due to avoidance
now of Trousdale and increased school traffic.
5.4 Dwight Road at kxington Way - Request for Stop Sign
Ms. Castello complained of speeders on Dwight Road. One driver went so fast, she crashed into her
front yard tree to avoid hitting an on-coming car. She feels a stop sign would slow down drivers. Mr.
Barekat advised that there are existing Yield signs at this intersection.
5.5 Petition from Bayswater & Howard residents requesting a traffic study of the area to determine
whether traffic-cahning measures are warranted
Officer Tamura submitted their Selective Enforcement resllts which showed 15 citations issued and
three warnings.
5.6 Howard Avenue - Speed and Trucks (e-mail)
5.7 1300 Block of Vancouver Avenue - Speed Concerns (petition)
Mr. Mufloz stated he lives on the 1400 block where the number of parked cars allows only one driving
lane so drivers go slow. Chair Mclver stated that construction ffucks are a problem, too.
The City of Budingame Page 5
TRAFFIC, SAFEW AND PARKING COIUTISSIOTT
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, Apnl11,2OO2
@,petitioner, Mr. Roman,
with increased traffic from
hazardous intersection.
4.2.5 Arguello D:ive and Sebastian Drive - Request for 3-Way Stop Signs : . ,
reiterated thal thery are ntimerous blind spots atthiS inte tion; and
Trousdale Drive and elementary sfidents walfqng,tO schobl, it is a
Mr. Erbacher adrrised that a bush at the conpr of fhe temple.properfy needs
-Lmming
and he will
follow up on getting that done. He recomm.qids approval of this request bwause of a site distance
problem atthis intersection. Sgt. Cutler stated she agrees wittrthis recommendation. It was moved
.ar{ secooded (Comms. Evans/Ivlayer) to recommed to C-ourcil to install a 3-way Stop srgq at
intersection. Unanimously approved by the Commission. Mr. Erbacher advised that staff
notice the neighborhood iot tU" Courrcit actionmeeting. i ' ""
4-2.6 Dwight Road at kxington Way - R"qUert for Stop Sign , , , ,i
Mr. Erbacter advised that the percentile speed is at 30 mph, some of ttre traffic was at 3J-38.ryh.
He stated that he will be working with the petitioner lookiqg at trafEc-calming techniques to slow
down the traffic. He also recommended adding qpeed limit signage. Officer lr/itt waq.present and
stated that the accident at this site was a freak accident and that most of the traffic travels at just
this
will
under 30 mph. E-nforcement is dfficult srrye it is not inctuded in thg Speed Survey.
iecommended enforcement and education. Mr. Erbachiir adiised thit he is mCeting with
petitioner tomorrow. This item will remain as an Acknowledgment Item.
4.2.7 2415 Adeline Drive - I-etter regarding Traffic Concerns related to Sisters of Mercy Locale';i i
The reSident stated drivers are straddling the ceriterline and is conceined about.safety since there
have been several accidents and many near-acciients. Offrcer.Witt advised'th"t''*h"r.'the road
bends it is somewhat deceptive and the lane appears narrower. He also stated that,drivers who
straddle centerlines are citable if it occurswithin 100 feet of an intersection Comi'..Mayer skted
that this is a police issue, and they have been advised. Mr. Erbacher stated fie would tnot tl"
Vehicle Code for sections that do allow citations.
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS.
5.1 Increased Traffic on Trousdale Drive due to Millbrae BART Statiol Openi"E
Mf , Erbacher advised that this petitioner is just sharing his thoughts on thc sqbject. No action required.
5.2 Request to change 2-Hour Parking Spaces to 20-Minute Spaces on East Side of 1800 Block of. Magnolia Avenue
The petitioner stated that since the yoga site opened, yoga students use the 11 parking spaces in front
of their stores for two hours at a time. The small businesses on this block'live and die by their
customer's ability to park close to the business; so they are asking that the time limi[ for the 11 parking .
The City of Burtugame Page 5
He
the
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
ITEM #
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
7d,
MTG.
DATE
5t6to2
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BYApril 24, 2OO2
APPROVED
PUBLIC WORKS BY
INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE DELETING ONE-HOUR PARKING AND ESTABLISHING TWO-
HOUR PARKING, THE EAST SIDE OF CAROLAN AVENUE FROM CADILLAC WAY TO
BROADWAY
RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that the Council take the following actions for adopting an
ordinance to establish two-hour parking (8 a.m. to 6 p.m. on any day except Sundays and holidays) on the east side
of Carolan Avenue from Cadillac Way to Broadway and deleting the existing one-hour parking ordinance at this
location by
1. Requesting the City Clerk to read the title of the attached ordinance.2. Waiving further reading of the proposed ordinance.3. Introducing the proposed ordinance.4. Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before its
proposed adoption.
BACKGROUND: AttheirmeetingsofMarch14andAprilll,2002,theTraffic,SafetyandParkingCommission
(TSPC) considered a request from Mr. Mike Harvey to place two hour parking on Carolan Avenue adjacent to his
business at 1 100 Carolan Avenue. At their April I l, 2002meeting, the TSPC passed a motion recommending that
2-hour parking signs be placed at this location. A public notice of the TSPC meetings was sent to the adjaceniauto
businesses, and no objections were received.
DISCUSSION:
Mr. Harvey stated that his business has the need for curb-enforced tumover curb parking every two hours. He hasjust completed reworking a portion of the frontage allowing for two added parking spaces due to driveway
closures. The area is posted in error for two-hour parking, as the existing ordinance states one hour.
BUDGET IMPACT: The cost of installing additional new Two-Hour Parking signs and replacing one existing
sign is estimated to be $500. There are sufficient funds available in the City's current maintenance budget for thii
work.
EXHIBITS: Ordinance; Location Map; Aerial Photo; Copy ofNotice Sent
TSPC Minutes for March 14 and April I1,2002
C. Erbacher, P.E.
Asst. Public Works Director
6s0-558-7230
cc: City Clerk, Police Department, Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission
Mr. Mike Harvey
S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Carolan ave 2-Hr Parking Cadillac to Broadway 5-6-02.wpd
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
l0
l1
t2
13
t4
15
l6
t7
18
t9
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE No.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
CHANGING THE PARKING LIMIT ON
NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE BETWEEN CADILLAC WAY AND BROADWAY
FROM ONE HOUR TO TWO HOURS
The CITY COLTNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
Section I . The business and property owner adjacent to the area on North Carolan Avenue
between Cadillac Way and Broadway has requested that the time limit be changed from one hour
to two hours to better accommodate business uses in the area. The Traffic, Safety and Parking
Commission has recommended approval of this change.
Section 2. Section 13.36.030 is amended to read as follows:
13.36.030 One-hourparking.
Except where prohibited or otherwise designated for shorter term time periods, it is
unlawful for any person to park a vehicle for a period longer than one hour between the hours of
eight a.m. and six p.m. on any day, excepting Sundays and holidays, upon any part of the following
streets or portions of streets:
(1) Broadway from El Camino Real to California Drive;
(2) Burlingame Avenue, from California Drive to El Camino Real;
(3) Califomia Drive, west side, from Douglas to Bellevue Avenue and from Carmelita
Avenue to Broadway;
(a)
----<5) Ingold Road, north side, 48 feet west from the curb return of Rollins Road to 128 feet
west from that same curb return.
Section 2. Section 13.36.040 is amended to read as follows:
13.36.040 Two-hourparking.
It is unlawful for the driver of any vehicle to park such vehicle, unless elsewhere in this title
otherwise provided, for a longer period than two hours between the hours designated any day,
1
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
16
t7
18
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
excepting Sundays and holidays, upon any part of the following streets, or portions of streets:
(a) Eight a.m. to six P.m.:
(1) Adrian Road, west side, one hundred fifty-five feet southerly from the southeast end of
the curb return of David Road.
(2) Anita Road, west side, from Peninsula Avenue one hundred and forty-five feet north
toward Bayswater Avenue;
(3) Bayswater Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Road; south side, from California
Drive to the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way;
(4) Bellevue Avenue, except the south side from Primrose Road to Almer Road;
(5) Burlingame Avenue, from Myrtle to Carolan Avenue; south side from Occidental to El
Camino Real;
(6) California Drive, west side, from Carmelita Avenue to three hundred feet south of
Sanchez Avenue; from Burlingame Avenue to Peninsula Avenue; from Oak Grove Avenue 400
feet northwards to 755 California Drive, except areas designated for thirty minute parking;
(7) Capuchino Avenue from four hundred feet southerly to four hundred ninety-five feet
northerly of the centerline of Broadway;
(8) Carmelita Avenue, south side, from El Camino Real to Chula Vista Avenue;
(9) Carolan Avenue, west side, from Oak Grove Avenue to Burlingame Avenue; east side,
from one hundred feet northerly of Toyon Drive to four hundred sixty feet northerly of Toyon
Drive; and east side, from Cadillac Way to Broadway;
(10) Chapin Avenue, from Chapin Lane to El Camino Real;
( 1 1 ) Chula Vista Avenue from the centerline ofBroadway to four hundred ten feet southerly
of the centerline of Broadway;
(12) Douglas Avenue;
(13) East Lane, east side, from Burlingame Avenue to Howard Avenue;
(14) El Camino Real service road between Dufferin Avenue and Murchison Drive;
(15) Howard Avenue, south side, from Crescent Avenue to El Camino Real and from
Primrose Road to the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way; north side from Primrose Road to
2
I
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
t4
l5
16
t7
18
t9
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Highland Avenue;
(16) Laguna Avenue from two hundred eighty feet southerly to five hundred ten feet
northerly of the centerline of Broadway;
( 1 7) Lorton Avenue, west side, from Bayswater Avenue to Howard Avenue; east side, from
Howard Avenue one hundred twenty feet south toward Bayswater and forty feet north toward
Burlingame Avenue;
(18) Magnolia, west side, from Trousdale Drive toPlazalane;
(19) Occidental Avenue, from El Camino Real to Ralston Avenue;
(20) Paloma Avenue from three hundred ten feet southerly to one hundred thirty feet
northerly of the centerline of Broadway;
(21) Park Road, except the west side, from Howard Avenue to Bayswater Avenue;
(22)Pnmrose Road, west side, from Howard Avenue to El Camino Real;
(23) Ralston Avenue, from Occidental Avenue to El Camino Real;
(24) Rollins Road from ninety feet northerly of Toyon Drive to four hundred sixty feet
northerly of Toyon Drive;
(25) South Lane, both sides;
(26) Trousdale Drive, north side, from the curb return of Trousdale Drive and California
Drive to ninety feet west of said curb return.
(b) Nine a.m. and four p.m.:
(1) Carmelita Avenue, north side, between Chula Vista Avenue and El Camino Real;
(2) Magnolia Avenue, east side.
Section 4 This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk ofthe City ofBurlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _ day
3
1
2
aJ
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
16
t7
18
19
20
2t
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
of_,2002, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
the-day of--,2002, bythe following vote:
AYES: COLTNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, O,MAHONY, SPINELLI
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JANNEY
City Clerk
4
C :\FILES\ORDINANC\PARI(ZON5.wpd
ar* o.
3 ,ac,
8Ay SHORE
/r&sl s.
Y.too.? 5
t.s9,<,.
Pn yorg
?G,,
PAn
d
N
N
loro.F
-t
$Fr{t
d\'It\
t@
?AR T
Pnvct.
?G L'
o.n-rc p@/s./J
Io
//oo
s s$s
d€Ac.
o.76 ac.
,od s
togl
io
oE
%
lo'rtOPARCEL'
P u yol.tt, Ft,
l.)
2N.+ ---\
Bo L Ll rt9
'26
{o.tzz k)
Pra yol.ltrt?ta
FARCEL :
loll caotllAc/ /a/1,ROLLIilS RD.
lO,// Ctott*<
6o'
=
(,
Jo
(,
N
fo25 Cao,..e.
lo$ A4..a.
toro
/o&
lo,
C AROLA N
SOUTHERX P rFl RAI
CITY A COUNTY OF S
CALIFORNIA
T
Eb fi-3
\
I
L
(
s a2'2a'E
6tl5 90
(o.st
R06
&)
'op50
o.2t Ac.
l
I
€
The City of Barltngame
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Tel:(65O) 558-7230
Fax:(65O1 685-931O
CITY HALL - 5O1 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME. CALIFORNIA 9401 0-3997
CORPORATION YARD
Tel:(65O) 558-7670
www.
The City of Burlingame received a request for 2-hour parking spaces along the new curbing
at 1100 Carolan Avenue.
This item will be a Discussion Item at the next Traffic Commission meeting on April I l,
2002, at 7:00 p.m. in Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, lst Floor, Conference
Room A.
You are welcome to attend this meeting. At the meeting, attendees will have an
opportunity to speak and comment on their concerns. Your attendance, however, is not
required for the Commission to consider this matter. The Commission may choose to
discuss and/or act on this request at this meeting. If you are unable to attend this meeting,
you may submit your written comments to Traffic. Safety and Parking Commission. 501
Primrose Road. Burlingame. CA 94010. Your wriffen comments will be submiued to the
Commission.
If you have any questions or need additional information about this notice, please call
Frank Erbacher at 650-558-7230.
L
NOTICE
PUBLIC MEETING
TO DISCUSS INSTALLATION OF
2-HOUR PARKING AT {1OO CAROLAN AVENUE
+,1-
TRAFFIC SAFEW AND PARKING COMMISSION MEETING
7:00 p.m., Thursday, April 11,2002
City Hall, Gonference Room A, 501 Primrose Road
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, March 14, 2002
Mr. Peters observed lot use and number of drop offs on various days:2115, 7 cars in the lot, 49
cars dropped off; 2118,7 cars in the lot, 3 on Peninsult; 2119, 44 carc dropped off, 4 on
Peninsula; 2120, M cars picked up, 5 cars on Peninsula, spaces available in lot. Believes owner
should asphalt dirt area in lot and re-stripe making 12 spaces. This would make a green zone on
Bloomfield unnecessary. At 5:15 p.m. there are cars parking on westbound Peninsula across from
the restaurants a few blocks eastward, and there's no safety issue there. Even with a green zone
on Bloomfield, people will park on Peninsula. Parking in the evening on the San Mateo side is
available. Ms. Richardson measured the school's lot which is 32' wide by 50' long; and with
space needed for cars to back up, no more spaces can be added. The owner stated that there is no
need to asphalt the dirt area because parents already use that area anyway. She has 68 kids in
school being dropped offand picked up everyday. Ms. McCleary asked if traffic safety overrides
school safety. She has noticed that traffic on Peninsula has increased in the last 10 years; and
feels, we must compromise. She likes the green zone on Bloomfield with time limitation. Even
though cars will stop and wait to circle for space on Bloomfield, residents should use their own
driveways and garages rather than the City street for parking. Ms. Abbey stated the residents have
a right to have parking spaces available on their sffeet for visitors.
Mr. Erbacher advised that if a green zone is installed on Bloomfield, it would be timed for the
peak period. The centerline on Peninsula may be able to be moved by making the curb lane 12 feet
wide and the other lane 10 feet wide. Mr. Barekat suggested the possibility of a special meeting
for this issue be held before the regular April meeting since we have no quorum this evening.
4.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS.
4.2.1 l24A Paloma Avenue - ktter regarding Blue Handicapped Zone
The petitioner was present and stated that they have a two-car garage for their two cars; but her
husband's work truck is too long for the driveway. He is permanenfly disabled, so they're asking
for a blue zone close to their house so he doesn't have to walk far after work every night. They
noticed that there is a blue zone also on the 1300 block of Paloma.
4.2.2 1100 Carolan - l.etter regarding maintaining existing 2-hour parking and adding 2-hour
parking along new curbing
Petitioner was not present.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS.
Joe Cowan of the SFPUC stated that an employee at another site was killed when struck by a car while
exiting that site's driveway. This site was surveyed and they determined that they need an extension
of one existing red zone to eliminate parking near the driveway which would facilitate exiting the
5
5.1 1657 Rollins Road - Request for Red Zone Extension
The City of Builingame Page 4
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, April 11, 2OA:2
1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m. by Chair Mclver.
2. PLEDGE OF ATIEGTANCE TO THE FI-AG:
3. ROLL CALL: 5 of 5 Cornmissioners present.
4. CI]RRENTBUSINESS.
4.1 ACTION ITEMS. i , "
.a
4 . I . I Minutes for February 14 , zC/|)z,were submitted and approved. Minutes for March 14 , Z0O2
'were submitted for record purposes only since there was no quorum for this meeting.
4.1.2 l7l0 Trousdale Drive - Red Cross requests Relocation of Existing Green Zane
Mr. Erbacher advised that the petitioner had changed their request ftom a red zone torelocation
of 'the green zone which has been completed.
4,1.3 Installation of a'Green Zone on'Bloomfietrd Road north of Peninsula Avenue
Tlre preschool owner obtained a copy of a blueprint of the property which indicates that the
property next door at 710 Peninsula Avenue is part of their parking area; and since the residents
will be moving out in a month, the preschool will not need a green zone at all and withdrew this
request.
4.2 DISCUSSION MEMS.
4.2.1 1240 Paloma Avenue - lrtter regarding BIue Handicapped Zrrre
Mr. Erbacher had measured:the site,ad there"is {imited parking in the driveway. The resident
could drive to his parked tnrck or modiry fire garage to accommodate more space. Comm. Mayer
zuggested the resident could park his truck crosswise in the driveway, too.,This will be continued
to next month since the eetili:y *ur oT present to submit testimony.
4.2.2 ll00 Carolan' Irtter regarding maintaining existing 2-hour parking and adding 2-hour
parking along new curbing ,i i
Petitioner, Mike Harvey, stated,2-hour prirking signage exists now but it is unenforced; ad local
ernployees park dl da5r there. They need parking availability for theircustomers. New curbing
has been added with the new construction which allows more parking spaoes, especially if Carolan
Aveme northbound lanes were narrowed just south of Broadway. Sgt. Cutler advised that the
parking limit is not properly signed so they cannot iszue tickets. Mr. Erbacher advistid that two
parking spaces could be added; and it should be a two-hour limit, but an ordinance is reded to
effect the 2-hour limit. It was moved and seconded (Comms. MayerlEvans) to move this to an
Aetion item immediately. Unanimously approved by the Commission. It was then moved ad
The City d Builingame Page 3
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISS]ON
Meeting Minutes - UnaPProved
Thursday, April 11, 2042
seconded (Comms. Mayer/Evans) to recommend to Council to effect a 2-hour parking limit ard
install proper signage. Unanimously approvd by the Commission; Mr.'Erbacher advised that the
ordinance will be introduced at the May 6e Council meeting-
petitioner, Mr. Cowan, stated they have 30 vehicles, and cars parked to the left of their driv.eways
block their site when exiting. Their health and safety organization evaluated the site and requested
. the existing red zones be extendd the full length of the block, especially since Rollins,Road traffic
moves faster than ttre prosted 35 mph. Mr. Cowan requestd that their healttl and safety
organization tre able to affend the meeting next month to make a formal presentation.
. :,.
Mr. Erbacher advised that most driveways along Pollins Road have a 7O-foot red zone on the left
side enabling good visibility in exiting. This site doesn't have a continuous red zone. he south
driveway nur tt" biggest problem when trucks p.ark to,the left and somc e'venuse the red zone to
park. It was moved and seconded (Comms. Evans/Mayer) to move this item to an Action item
immediately. Unanimously approved by the Cornmission- This will be an Action Item next month.
4.2.4 1309 North Carolan.Avenue - Request for Red or,Yrcllow Zone at Rear of 1305 and 1309
Rollins Road
The petitioner, Mr. Wong, stated there is an alley betrreen 13@ and 1313 Rollins ard he has
trucft/trailers 63 feet long which have trouble turning into tlre il"y; so adding a yellow zone
would make it easier for them to pull in and out. From the floor,,ffiznxgs1of 1309 Rollins Road
stated he has six spaces for his customers so his six employees park elsewhere. He disagrees with
removal of parking spaces. tlanager of 1307 Rotlins Road sta.ted they need spaces for employee
parking. Manager of 1331 Rollins Road submitted a written note disagreeing with adding a red
or yek* zone. The original. developer of tbe prolffiy, 1305-1331 Rollitrs Road, explaid that
Arcre are six businesses sharing this.site with 381rarki4g spaoes on site aud an average of 25-30
employees. He estimates that there are,100 customers a day, He fels that a red ol yellow zone
causing the loss of three or four spaces would be very bad ard r,wommends denial of request.
Manager of 1335 Rollins Road stated parkiog is a problem now and to eliminate spaces to
accopmodate semi-s is wrong. Mr. Wong stated he neds two spaces ard that tlvo gars tave been
left parked there for a long time.
..., Comm. Evans wants to visit the,site beforc he discusses the reqrrgst'. This will be a Discussion
It€m next month. Mr. Erbacher advised thatstaffwill re-noJice the rreighborhood for next month's
meeting.
Tlle Cityof Burfingame Page 4
4.2.3 1657 Rollins Road - @uest for Red Zore Extensions, ircluding Fronting 1663 aod 1675
Rollins Road and Relocation of Rd Curb Opposite 1660 and,1634 Ro[im,Road
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE
7e
STAFF REPORT
TO:Honorahle Mavor and cil
DATE:Aoril26.2002 APPRO
FROM : Larrv E. Anderson. Citv ttornev
CONSIDER REQUEST TO REVISE MASSAGE PERMIT ORDINAI\CE REGARDING
POSTING OF PERMIT BOND
BY
BY
ST]BJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider request of Elizabeth Graham to revise massage permit ordinance with regard to bond requirements and
direct staff.
DISCUSSION:
The current massage permit regulations were adopted in 1993 to address the problem of illicit and disorderly
operators who were preying on residents and tourists. Those regulations have been very successful in ridding
the City of those operators.
Meanwhile, a number of legitimate massage practitioners and therapists have met the terms of the regulations
and provided important additions to the health services in the community. Among them is Elizabeth Graham,
owner of Body Mandala, which has been located on Lorton Avenue for the past 2-3 years.
Because this is a small business, it depends on the health of the owner, and for a period of time, Ms. Graham
was unable to operate the business. She would like to get started again, but she faces the problem that the
regulations require the posting of a surety or permit bond to guarantee the integrity of the business:
Every applicant for an operator's permit shall post with the city clerk, a surety in the principal sum
amount of ten thousand either in cash or executed as surety by a good and sufficient corporate surety
authorized to do a surety business in the state of California and as principal by the applicant. The form
of the bond shall have been approved by the city attorney and shall provide that should the applicant be
issued a permit under this chapter which is subsequently suspended or revoked, the city shall be
reimbursed from said bond for all costs of said any investigation or other proceedings related to said
suspension or revocation.
Section 6.40.115.
She has asked for relief from this requirement until she can get the business going again. The ordinance does
not allow any discretion to staff, so the ordinance would have to be amended to allow this temporary relief.
Mayor and Council
Re: Consider Request to Revise Massage Permit Ordinance Regarding Posting of Permit Bond
April26,2002
Page2
There are possible approaches:
1) Provide that followtng a certain period of successful operation, the bond requirement will be dropped,
much like a security deposit for utility service; that period should be a matter of years, rather than months.
2) Allow the Chief of Police to waive the requirement for a surety bond for limited period of time under
limited circumstances, such as: a) documented inability to afford the bond; and b) demonstrated ability and
experience to meet the requirements of the regulations. This could include a required deposit in lieu of the bond
for an amount determined from the financial statement.
3) Reduce the amount of bond required by the ordinance. This may have a very small benefit, because
the base price of the bond, no matter the amount, is often the largest charge.
The bond requirement provides a number of important protections to the community:
1) An applicant who is able to obtain a bond has demonstrated a commitment to the profession, an
ability to satisfy the financial requirements of surety company, and a willingness to stand behind the business;
2) The community has assurance that there is a fund available in case of malpractice or misfeasance; and
30 The City's taxpayers have recourse to a fund for enforcement actions.
Staff is extremely reluctant to recommend any changes to the current regulations. Ten years ago, Burlingame
faced a wave of organized crime, sexual abuse, and thievery because of illicit massage operations. That
problem has shifted down the Peninsula because the tough regulations that cities like Burlingame and San
Mateo adopted and enforced. This has protected and elevated the legitimate massage practitioners.
Therefore, staff recommends that a bonding requirement must be retained, but requests policy direction as to the
appropriate limits on that requirement.
Attachment
Letter dated March 23,2002, from Elizabeth Graham
Distribution
Chief of Police
Elizabeth Graham
Gina La Rocca
Cc
C /v1
4.O Elizobeth Grohom
Body Mondolo
340 Lorton, #214
Burlingome, CA 940i0
Phone {6501 685-9697 x2
Ahyin 12860@cs.com
Morch 23,20ct2
RECEIVED
MAR 2 7 20r,2
8j#sFffifli,,$sitfiF
City Council
City of Burlingome
501 Primrose Rood
Burlingome, CA 94010
RE: Resumption of business of 340 Lorton, #21 4, Body Mondolo
Enclosed you willfind o short series of conespondence between myself, Liz Grohom ond
Lorry Anderson, Burlingome City Attorney, regording my voluntory suspension of business.
ln Jonuory, I broke my orn snowboording. My orms ore my lools ond with them lmoke
my livelihood- Since thot time I hove been unoble to work os o theropist. Becouse I hod
no disobility or unemployment insuronce, I wos left with no other option thon to suspend
business ond withdrow the $5,m0 CD which served os colloterolfor my bond - requireQ
for me to do business in Burlingome.
lom writing to inquire os to o solution which would ollow me to return to work of my
cunent locotion, 340 Lorton, #214, in order thot I con resume moking o living. Becouse I
om self-employed ond hod this unfortunote occident,lom focing mounting medicolbills
ond om unoble to post $5,000 in cosh for bond colloterol. lom heovily invested in my
proctice os o theropist ond heolth educotor in our immediote community ond lhe Boy
Areo- The only option left forme would cosl me more money ldon't cunenlly hove, in
order to move my office outside of Burlingome or into onother business where these
fequirements would become null ond void. However, I did not work to estoblish myself to
end up tucked into someone elses hoir.solon.
ls it possible thot lcould secure o lemporory (5 month) suspension of this requirement of
the bond os required by the business license? I hove lived in Burlingome for 9 yeors, hove
no cloims ogoinst my business ond never expect to. And, I hove held on office ond
procticeherefor3yeors. lhoveinvested 13yeorsof mylifetothisworkondif lcould
come up with onother woy, I would nol osk for your considerotion.
The requirements for o free-stonding mossoge lheropy business in Burlingome ore quile
difficult to fulfill ond os such. there ore only o hondful of us- Most mossoge theropists work
out of other businesses ond therefore ore not required to so much os secure o business
license,let olone o $l0,0OO bond. lhove undergone bockground check, fingerprinting,
posting of o lorge bond lll2in cosh) ond conduct my business on o refenolonly bosis-
Mony of my clients ore longlime residenls ond business owners in Burlingome. I think my
funcrton in the communily hos been duly estoblished ond my repulolion ond credibilily
con be vedfied by o number of sources. Your help ond support in this mottef wll moke il
possible lo continue to serve my well-estoblished clientele. provide for my son ond
otherwise cony on with my work. Pleose lel me know whot con be done. Thonk you'
Eizobelh Grohom
Body Mondolo
Pleose send conespondence to my home:
122 Dwight Rd.
Burlingome, CA 94010
cc: Lorry Anderson, City AltorneY
Shenie Jones, Lou Jones ond Associotes
BY FACSIMILE AND FIRST-CI-./ISS MAIL
January 17,2002
Lou Jones & Associates
P.O. Box 41375
7470 N. Figueroa Street
[,os Angeles, CA 90041
Mr. Ruben 7-amora
Borel Bank & Trust Co.
160 Bovet Road
San Mateo, CA9M02
License and Perrrit Bond-No. 3SM 955 987 00
CD - Borel Account # 80445641 for the Benefit of Lou Jones & Associates
Dear Sirs or Mesdames:
Elizabeth A. Graham of Body Mandala, 340 Lorton Avenue, Burlingame, CA, has informed the
City of Burlingame that she wishes to suspend operations of her business for a period oftime.
This letter is to confirm that the City of Burlingame does not crutently have nor is the City aware
of any claims against the License and Permit Bond provided to the City by Ms. Graham.
Therefore, the City has no objection to Ms. Graham's cancellation or suspension of the license
and permit bond during the time that she is not operating her business. When she wishes to
resume the business, the City would require the reinstatement of the bond or the issuance of a
replacement bond.
Sincerely
LARRY E. ANDERSON
City Attorney
Re:
cc: Elizabeth Graham
,
Sut{: Fwd: Llcenee Bond for Gity of Budingame
Date: 3l5lA2
fo: lAnderson@Burlingame. org
Hi Latry, Attrcled pkase find tetter from StBnie prc,s at Lou hrus ard Assuiates. I am rut sure wlBn or if I will reum
iiiirt'rt ,rv iff"". liiiiw t^," a de,ciston soo4 lowever, my wfist ard tad is takirg a lory tirrc, to teal
W wld tte ctty corsitkr postporiry nry bord requirefiplt if I tetum to ttB offrce. t am barely larytrg on fimrchlly ad
iiutd rued to wo* to fuke-tle ,*ny to poterial$ rcirctate tle CD to brck ttB bord-
Let ne kruw if ttis is possible. t lwe beena Budiryare. res.iktt !9v.eag) afl buliruss ovrrrul.(alnost 3.yearc) intle
;;rr- r;i 1t*t firyourtine and corside,rotbn- Liz Gmtnn Body Mardala, 340 Lonon #214, Burlirryrc, Ca 94010
S*rday, tarcft 23,2Oo2 Cmpuserv.: Anyfrrr286o Page: I
Sut{: Fwd: License Bond for Gity of BurlingameHe: 3l8l02
To: l-Anderson@Burlingame.org
Larry - Canyou please ermil tlB lettertlnt you seft to Borel Ba* regardiry ttz rekme of tle CD. Tlere seent to be
sone crossed wires. Borel reh,ased it to ne,, but Lou Jorcs rceds to ka t ttat tle,rc arc to npries due - wlichtle,rc aretot. lf you futlt tave tle ofigird letter, could yau please setd ore to Sleftie Jorcs ASAP. Tln*s. Liz Gmlnm Body
Mardah, 3tlo Lortoq #214 Burliryanc,.
Sa&r.day, f,arch 23,21t02 Compusere: Ahyh1286o Pag€: I
Subj: Body tiandala - Bond and future rcsrmption of budness
Date: 3l17l02
fo: lAnderson@Budingame.org
Hi Larry,
tto* iiru for your corres por*rce regardiry tte cottaterat for tle bord. My questbn is tlis . . - can I petitbn tle phriry
Littti,i6, oi tte ctty 1or a suspercbn of itz Ood rcquirenc,tt for a firite period, in orfu,r to carry on 14/ busirBss atd
rmke tle ftorcy tpcessary to fud a rcw botd-
Secotdty, p4y, wtnt is tle rcasodrg fortte requircnett of a tl0,OOO bod inorderto b nV busircss inBurlirgane'?
Do otler busitcsses in Burtirryne lane to post a 10,000 bord in orde.r to b busircss?
Hanr is is tlat tle city cotsi&ts itself liabh, forary rcsult of my busircss?
pte,ase tetp rye to get softE atlwers to tlese quest'tott as I rced to rmke sotte, critkal fuckbts teggrdiry tle offke I
*- po1 io, aA a6* use. My arm is teatiry ad t ited to tetum to wo* at sone p9itt. k you ktow I iwested tinP, atd
npiyin'a cotditiomt use petmit ard'do rpiwarx to ttpve my busitBss at tlis poirx if I canavoid it.
Ttar*you,
Lh Gmlnm
ffiffiS"*n2&alo2 cqnr.s€re:Ahttul28flr ]f,hlw
STAFF REPORT
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April25,2002
Randy Schwartz (558-7307)
*txoufifiM-
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 5-6-O2
7f
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
BY
us{rltPuBt,rc AREAsAMENDMENT TO LEAF'BLOWER ORDINANCE F'OR
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council amend Ordinance #1681, adopted March 4,2A02 Hmiting the
hours of operation of leaf blowers to allow City employees to operate leafblowers within city parks
and facilities at an earlier hour by:
A. Requesting Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance
B. Waiving further reading of the proposed ordinance.
C. Introducing the proposed ordinance and requesting the City Clerk to publish a summary of the
proposed ordinance at least 5 days before its proposed adoption.
BACKGROUND:
The leaf blower is an important tool in the maintenance of our parks. Not only is it used to blow
paths, but to removs leaf debris in the sandboxes and fibar surfaces under the play equipment.
Getting in and out of public parks quickly and effectively is extremely important. The ability to use
the blowers during the 8:00 to 9:00am hour helps ensure that our crews will be able to complete their
tasks before the park users are on site.
Areas that are impacted by the Ordinance include several parks (Pershing, Village, Ray &
Washington) and City facilities (City Hall and both libraries). These are high traffic areas that Parks
crews try to target as early as possible to perform the necessary maintenance tasks before the public
arrives. Targeting the maintenance of these areas early in the day greatly enhances the recreational
experience of the parks' users and allows residents to do business with the City, while reducing the
potential safety risks to the public.
Funds have been placed in the Parks Division's 2002-03 budget to purchase new blowers to comply
with the noise reduction section of the ordinance.
ATTACIIMENTS:
Amended Ordinance ofMunicipal Code Section 10.40.38
BUDGET IMPACT:
None.
1
2
aJ
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
t2
13
t4
15
I6
t7
18
t9
20
27
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE No._
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 10.40.38 TO ALLOW USE OF
LEAFBLOWERS rN CITY FACILTTIES FROM 8 A.M. TO 9 A.M., MONDAY
THROUGH FRTDAY, AI\D 8 A.M. TO 12 NOON ON SUNDAYS AND HOLTDAYS
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows
Section 1. In order to meet the needs of the community in using the City's park
facilities, City crews must clean parks and other City facilities before citizens arrive. Leafblowers
are an important part of maintaining the parks and other public facilities while efficiently using the
personnel available to the City. Therefore, allowing authorized City employees to use leafblowers
at a shortly earlier time than elsewhere in the residential area is an important element of keeping
the parks and facilities usable.
Section 2. A new subsection 10.40.038(d) is added as follows:
(d) Notwithstanding other provisions in this section and in addition to the hours of
operation in this chapter, authorized City employees may operate leafblowers within city
the hours of 8 a.m. and 9 a.m., Monday through Saturday, and 8 a.m. and 12 noon
on Sundays and holidays, so long as the leafblowers comply with the noise levels established by
subsections (a) and (c) above.
Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_ day
of-,2002,andadoptedthereafterataregularmeetingoftheCityCouncilhe1d
1
on the _ day of 2002, by the following vote:
1
2
J
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
l1
t2
13
t4
15
t6
t7
18
t9
20
2l
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
AYES: COLINCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COTINCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COLINCILMEMBERS
C :\FILES\ORDINANC\leaiblowers2.cdf.wpd
City Clerk
z
i t
AGENDA
ITEM #
I\ilTG.
DATE 5-6-02
8a
STAFF REPORT
Honorable Mayor & City Council
April 12,2002
City Manager's Office (558-7204)
TO:SUBMITTED
BY
DATE:
FROM
APPROVED
BY
SUBJECT: SPECIAL EVENT REQUESTS FOR 2OO2_ CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
RECOMMENDATION: That the council approve the following requests subject to meeting the police
department conditions and providing insurance coverage approved by the city attorney.
1. Burlingame Avenue Merchants Association Sidewalk Sale - August 23 & 24. 2002. No
special requirements; the event follows the format of past years.
2 Rrrrlinrrarna Arf anrl -l Eaelirra Ifrrrrnarlrr Ar{ an fha Awanrra}
-
Sa nfarnhor 14&44 'nn
Police conditions per prior years, including hiring of 2 to 4 officers for security. Police and public
works to review and revise street closures on Park and Howard as necessary. Same event as past
few years including request to allow sale of beer and wine. The Chamber will contract with Team
PRO Event of Mill Valley to coordinate event details including responsibility for all barricades,
entertainment, clean up, toilet facilities, and overnight security. ln accordance with Section E of the
attached letter, Chamber of Commerce shall directly pay the City within seven (7) days after the event
all applicable fees in conjunction with this event.
3. Holiday Decorations. Same as prior years. City absorbs staff time costs
4. Burlingame Avenue Area Holiday Open House - December 6. 2002. This event is in
conjunction with the City's annual tree lighting ceremony. Request closure of Burlingame Avenue
between California Drive and El Camino Real. Details of activities need to be worked out. ln prior
years, we have had heavy foot and vehicle traffic.
V 1O:VUy Documents\MANAGERS\CHAMBERI
Attachment
c: Georgette Naylor, Chamber of Commerce
Fire Chief
Parks & Recreation Director
Police Chief
Public Works Director
I
April 11,2002
Mayor Mary Janney
Vice Mayor Mike Coffey
Council Members: Cathy Baylock, Joe Galligan and Rosalie O'Mahony
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Mayor Janney and Council Members
On behalf of the Burlingame Avenue Association, the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce
respectfully requests the City's permission for the following 2002 events:
SIDEWALK SALES on Burlingame Avenue
The Chamber requests the City's permission for two sidewalk sales in 2002. The
merchants have chosen Friday and Saturday, April 26 and27 andFriday and Saturday,
August 23 and24. T\e event will follow the format of past years.
2. BURLINGAME ART N:{D JAZZ
The Chamber requests the City's permission for "Burlingame Art andJazzFestival,"
calendared for Saturday and Sunday, september 14 and 15,2002, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. each day.
The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce on behalflof the Burlingame Avenue Merchants
Association is entering into a contract with Team PRO Event, of Mill Valley, CA, based
upon the Burlingame City Council's permission to allow this community event.
Details of the production are under the auspices of Team PRO Event, and include the
following elements:
A. Closure of Burlingame Avenue from California Drive to El Camino Real (up to
the driveway of the Chewon Station) from 2:00 a.m. Saturday, September 14
until I l:59 p.m., Sunday September 15.
B. Closure of Lorton Avenue between Donnelly and Howard for the full duration of
the festival, closure of Park Road between Burlingame Avenue and Howard for
the full duration of the festival and closure of Primrose Road for the full duration
of the festival (as it was in 2001). All public parking lots in the area will remain
accessible at all times during all hours of closure.
c. Festival booths set up on Burlingame Avenue (the 1100, 1200, 1300 and 1400
blocks), as well as on Lorton Avenue will remain set up overnight on Sahrday.
Team PRO Event will arrange for overnight security.
D. Team PRo Event will arrange for entertainment throughout each day of the
festival as part of this community event.
E. The City of Burlingame fees in conjunction with this event will be paid directly
by the Chamber within seven (7) days after the event. Please advise if fees will
be different from last year.
F. The Burlingame chamber of commerce respectfully requests that the city of
Burlingame allow the sale of beer, wine, margueritas and commemorative
glassware as part of the Burlingame Art andJazzFestival on September 14 and
APR 1 1 2002
15,2002. Insurance for general and liquor liability in the amount of $1 million
will be obtained and certificates of insurance naming the City of Burlingame, as
well as the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce and the Burlingame Avenue
Association as additional insureds will be issued. The Burlingame Chamber of
Commerce carries liquor liability insurance in addition to its general liability
insurance and will provide a certificate of insurance naming the City of
Burlingame as an additional insured. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce
will purchase the beer, wine and marguerita license on behalf of the Burlingame
Avenue Merchants Association.
3. IIOLIDAYDECORATIONS
The Chamber respectfully requests the City's permission for City public works staff to
put up the red and gold bell holiday decorations and the garland piece from Barrango (to
be hung at the banner-hanging area on Burlingame Avenue at California Drive). These
decorations are stored in the basement of the Bank of rhe west, 149 Park Road.
The Chamber respectfully requests the City's permission to place five green wreaths with
red bows (which belong to the Broadway Merchants Association and are also stored at
the Bank of The West) on the old-fashioned light standards that surround the Burlingame
Avenue Train Station. The Holiday Decorations are requested for the period before
Thanksgiving, through the holiday season.
4. HOLIDAY OPEN HOUSE
The Chamber respectfully requests that the Holiday Open House be scheduled Friday,
December 6,2002, in conjunction with the city's Annual Tree Lighting ceremony. The
Burlingame Avenue Merchants Association requests that Burlingame Avenue be closed
from El Camino Real to Califomia Drive for the duration of the event.
The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce, the Burlingame Avenue Merchants Association, and
Team PRO Event will gladly meet with City staff to address any questions or concerns.
Thank you.
Burlingame Chamber of
Russ Caplan, Co-Chair
Burlingame Avenue Merchants Association
Co-Chair
Avenue
I
AGENDA
ITEM #8b
STAFF REPORT MTG.
DATE
TO HONORA F TUAYOR AND CITY oUNCil SUBMITTED
.!-
DATE:APRil ?9 ?OO2
APPROVED
FROM:CITY IVI AGFR'S OFFICF {558.7
SUBJECT: Special Event Permit - Use of Pershing Park, Saturd aY,July 13, 2OO2 -
Avon Breast Cancer 3-Day Walk Aid Station
RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the attached special event application for use of
Pershing Park as an aid station for the Avon Breast Cancer 3-Day Walk on Saturday, July 13,
from 7 a.m. to 1 p.m. ln last year's event, approximately 3,000 people participated in the walk
along El Camino Real from San Jose to San Francisco.
BACKGROUND
Attached is the special event application for the use of Pershing Park as an aid station for the
above-noted event. The use of Pershing Park will include three 2O'x2O' canopy shelters, four
to five vehicles, and up to 30 portable toilets. This event was held last year with no negative
impact on city facilities and only one complaint from residents (early a.m. hour delivery of
portable toilets created noisy disruption to neighboring residents). The police, public works,
and parks & recreation departments have reviewed the application; their comments are
attached. To minimize the impact of street parking in the neighboring residential area, the use
of City parking lot 'H' at Ralston and El Camino Real will, again, be used as an alternative. The
organizers have also provided the City with their Certificate of lnsurance which has been
reviewed by the City Attorney.
This year's suggested conditions of approval are as follows:
1 . That the portable toilets be brought in on the preceding Friday between the hours of 9 a.m.
and 7 p.m. and be removed not later than the following Sunday;
2. That notification (in the form of flyers) be provided to neighboring residents in the Pershing
Park area alerting them of event; and
3. All trash shall be removed from the site upon departure.
V ID:\My Documents\MANAGERS\Cancer walk staff report.wpd]
Attachments
c: Jennifer Crowell (Event Coordinator, Pallotta TeamWorks, 785 Market Street #550, San Francisco, 94103)
Parks and Recreation
Police
Public Works
lL
5-6-02
|'4.,-,
CITY HALL _ 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 940183997
TEL: (650) 55*7204
FAX: (650) 55&9281
SPECIAL EVENT PERMIT APPLIGATION
FOR ANY TEMPORARY CLOSING OF ANY CITY STREET OR USE OF CITY SIDEWALK OR PROPERW.
(Please type or pintcleartv.)
APPLICANT INFORMATION
Company/Agency Name:Daytrme Phone: ?t(- l\t- 0'/[0 (tU OD
FAX#: 4tGltt-0,10tcontact Person: t6nn;/, t (to-e//
Address:7trf //1
Representing:
lnsurance Carrier:Limits:d /, ooo_ or "
EVENT INFORMATION
Date(s):-t Staging Time:6 arn Starting Time:l arrt
dvl q /3/A - /flrau6 I &ur/thname-Ending Time:
Event Purpose:/c
/
Any Hazardous Activity? (lf so, desaib.),//fl
Number of Participant r, 40/)A Type (acfors, crew, pafticipants)'.Do //t /,f
Number of Equipment:Type:
De-staging Time:atn
e
Parking Permit(s) Requested:
Pol ice Service(s) Req u i red ($45 pe r officar pe r hour)'.
///n Location:
ATTACHMENTS
Please attach the following information with this application:
- Letter of intent (detailed description of event);
- Map of street(s)/area to be closed;
- Petition of property owner(s) affected by evenUclosure;* Barricade plan (if appropriate); and
- Certificate of insurance.
I agree to hold harmless the City of Burlingame, its officers and employees, whether elected or appointed, from any and all
liability arising from the event planned and described above. Further, I understand that prior to the issuance of any permit as described
above, I shall file a certificate of insurance with the City Manager naming the City, its officers and employees, whether elected or
appointed, as additional insured, and that I must pay all City costs prior to the issuance of this permit.
Date:Applicanfs Signature:
flil,
qftr
fo z
luly I ?,2002 DAY 2 CUT SHEETS
\t\\\S\
\
Mile
Marker Direction Route/Street Special lnstructions/Notes Jurisdiction
5.72 0.02 LEFT lOn North El Camino ReaU HwY 82 MOTO SAFETY NEEDED San Mato
6.00 0.28 cRoss West Sana lnez Ave.San Mateo
6.17 0.t 2 cRoss Engle Rd.San Mateo
6.t 5 0.03 LEFT West Poplar Ave.San Mateo
6. t5 0.00 cRoss Engle Rd.San Mateo
6.30 0.t5 CONTINUE St aiSht on Poplar Ave.San Mateo
6.50 0.20 RIGHT Crescent Ave.San Mateo
6.60 0.t 0 cRoss 1 /est Bellevue Ave-San Mateo
6.75 0.r 5 CROSS Clark Dr,San Mateo
6.80 0.05 cRoss Sycamore Ave.San Mateo
6.92 0.r2 CROSS Wara Rd.San Mateo
7.Ot 0.09 cRoss Bmoilhet Ave.San Matm
7.t0 0.09 cRoss Newlands Ave.Burlingame
7.t 5 0.05 RIGHT lnto Pit Stop 2 (Pershing Prk)Burlingame
7.ts 0.00 LEFT Exit Pit Stop, onto Newland Ave.Eurlingame
7.8 0.r 0 LEFT On El Camino ReaU Hwy 82 Burlingame
7.30 0,05 cRoss Homrd Ave.Eurlingame
7.35 0.05 cRoss Ralston Ave.Burlingame
7.40 0.05 CROSS Burlingame Ave.Burlingame
7.50 0.10 cRoss Chapin Ave.Burlngame
7.60 0.t 0 cRoss Belhvue Ave.Burlingame
7.80 0.20 CROSS Floribunda Ave-Burlingame
7.90 0.t 0 CROSS Willow Ave.Burlingame
8.0r 0.r I cRoss Arc Way Burlingme
8.1 5 0.t 4 cRoss Forest View Ave.Budingme
8.20 0.05 CROSS Sanchiz Ave Burlingame
8.,10 0.20 cRoss Carmelia Ave.Burlingame
8.5 r 0.t I cRoss Broadway Burlingame
8.60 0.0,FORWARD Through Gnb-n-Go C (Irinity Luthmn Church)Burlingame
8.65 0.05 cRoss Sherman Ave.Burlingame
8.70 0.05 cRoss Easton Dr.Budingame
8.92 0.22 cRoss Hillside Dr.Burlingame
9.r 2 0.22 cRoss Adeline Dr.Burlingame
9.30 0.t8 CROSS Ray Dr,Burlingame
9.64 0.34 CROSS Mills Peninsuh Medical Bld8. driveway Burlingame
9.70 0.06 LEFT On Trousdale Dr.Burlingame
9.80 0.t0 cRoss Magnolia Ave.Burlingame
9.80 0.00 RIGHT On Magnolia Ave.Budingame
r0.02 0.22 cRoss Murchison Dr,Budingame
r0.25 0.23 LEFT Onto Spur Trail Millbrae
r 0.30 0.05 LEFT lnto Lunch Stop (Mills High School softball{ield)Millbrae
r0.70 0.40 LEFT Oxto Spur Trail, xit Lunch Stop Millbme
t0.80 0. t0 RIGHT On Ashton Ave.Millbne
t0.90 0. r0 cRoss Millbrae Ave.Millbrae
r 0.95 0.05 cRoss Chadboume Ave.Millbrae
I t_00 0.05 cRoss Hillcrest Blvd.Millbrae
I t.00 0.00 LEFT On Hillcrst Blvd-Millbrae
il.r0 0.t0 CROSS El Paseo Millbme
I t.20 0. t0 CROSS Minorca Way Millbrae
I t.30 0. r0 CROSS Corte Dorado Millbrae
I t.40 0.t 0 cRoss El Bonib Way Millbrae
I r.45 0.05 cRoss Corte Princesa Millbrae
I t.50 0.05 cRoss El Bonito Way Millbrae
I t.60 0. r0 cRoss Visa Grande Millbrae
I t.70 0. r0 CROSS Colorados Dr Millbme
r t.90 0.20 CROSS Linda Vista Millbme
12.00 0.r0 cRoss Del Centro Millbme
| 2.05 0.05 CROSS La Prenda Millbme
r2.r0 0.05 cRoss Skyline Blvd.Millbrae
t2.t5 0.05 RIGHT On Skyline Blvd.Millbrae
rrn fodftedr Vl5l02
Pogc 2 lUOll lreost Conter 3-Dcy, Son fta<isco
Paltotta TeamWorks. I ltrposstHe dreanrs"
April 15, 2002
The City of Burlingame
Attn: Vi Weber
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing to request permission for the Avon Breosl Concer 3.Day to pass through
the jurisdiction oi Burlingame, CA. The Avon Breosl (oncer 3.Doy takes place irom
July l2h to July 14h,2002. Participants walk for three days, 60 miles, from Santa Clara
to San Francisco. In its third year, the event will be following the same route which
will take our participants through your jurisdiction on |uly l3'h,2002. We will be
requesting use of Pershing Park and Trinity Lutheran Church, for rest stops along the
way, again this year.
The Avon Breosl Concer 3oDoy is an exciting and inspiring event that has been executed
successfully all across the country for the past four years. The Walks alwap generate
significant media interest in the communities through which they pass. Most
importantly, this past year,Bay Area walkers'efforts returned six million dollars to
breast cancer early detection, treatment and research.
After reviewing our request, please call or write me with your reply. If I can answer
questions you may have about our event please phone me at 415-908-0400 (x609) or
email at jcrowell@pallottateamworks.com
Thank you very much for your consideration,
Ur,'r/L
r Crowell
Event Coordinator, Western Region
<)
APR I 7 2002
285 Market street, suite 5oo, san Francisco, cA 94to3 | 415.9o8.o4oo I fax 415.9o8.o4or I BeThepeople.com
Patlotta TeamWorks. I PnpossraHe dm"
February 19,2002
Mr. Bob Disco
Pershing Park
501 Primrose Avenue
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Mr. Bob Disco:
In July of last year over 3,000 people walked from Santa Clara to San Francisco to raise
$6 million dollars in the fight against breast cancer. The Bay Area's second Avon Breost
(oncer 3-Doy was a huge success and we are looking forward to yet another wonderful
event luly l2-L4,20021
Our ability to use Pershing Park as a Pit Stop for our walkers was crucial to the success
of our event last year, and will be again this year. We appreciate your continued
support.
We would like to request the use of Pershiug Park on July 13, 2002. We would occupy
the space from approximately 7:00am-1:00pm on that day. During that time frame,
approximately 3000 participants will walk through Pershing Park. We would erect
three 20' X 20' canopy shelters for our staff and volunteers who will offer food, drink
and medical attention to the walkers who elect to stop. Nothingwill be sold on site. In
addition, we would place several portable toilets on the premises.
I have enclosed our Site Use Agreement form. After reviewing our request, please sign
the form and fax it back to me at 415-908-0401. If I may answer any questions for you,
please call me at 415-908-0400 (x609). My email address is:
ic rorvell@oallo tta tearnwo rks.co m
I look forward to working with you again this year!
Thank very much for your support,
0*,u
Crowell
Event Coordinator, Westem Region
<)
FEB 2 1 2002
785 Market street, suite 5oo, San Francisco, cA 94ro3 | 415.9o8.o4oo I fax 4r5.9o8.o4or I BeThepeople.com
Pallotta TeamWorks" I l"tposdHe drems-
January 16,2002
Ms. Vi Weber
Burlingarne City Manager's Office
501 Primrose Rd.
Burlingarne, CA 94010
Dear Ms. Wel-.ert
In fuly of last year over 3,000 people walked frorn San Jose to San Francisco to raise over five
rnillion dollars in the fight against breast cancer. The Bay Area's AYon Brcosl Cuncer 3oDoys
have been such a huge success that we are looking forward to yet another arnazing event irr
2002.
Your cooperation, as our route passed through your jurisdiction, was critical to the success of
or. "u"rr[
last year. We hope we can continue to couut on your support. The route will rernain
the sarne for this year's event. OnJuly L3,2OOZ approxirnately 3,000 walkers will be passing
through your jurisdiction. I have enclosed a portion of our route rnap and directiorx to refresh
your lnelnory.
As always, the safety of our walkers is the nurnber one priority of the Avon Breost (ancer 3.DoY.
All of our walkers, volunteer crew mernbers, and paid staffwatch a rnandatory Safety Video the
day before the event begins. At no tirne will we block or direct trafftc in any rnanner
whatsoever, nor will we require any street closures. Participants walk on sidewalks, shoulders
and in bike lanes.
Enclosed is our Event Notification Form for your signature. We carry this with us at all tirnes
during the event. In the unlikely event of an emergency, we will coutact you, or your chosen
ernissary, irnrnediately.
you for your continued support,
0*,//
Crowell
Event Coordinator, Westem Region
Avon Brcosl Comer 3.Dcy
<)
JAN 2 Z 2002
T85MarketStreet,Suite5oo,SanFrancisco,CAg4lo3l4r5.goS.o4oolfax4r5.go8.o4orlBeThePeople.com
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
PARKS/REC-Schwartz, Randy
Thursday, April 18, 2002 11:41 AM
MGR-Weber, Viola; PARKS-Richmond, Tim
PARKS-Disco, Bob
RE: Breast Cancer WalkSubject:
The complaint I received did not specify which day the portapotties came. They might have been
delivered on the Friday. The complaint was the time of delivery. Please have them deliver the
portapotties between 9:00 am and 7:00pm.
Thanks,
RS
M Viola
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cutler, Dawn [cutler@police.ci.burlingame.ca.us]
Wednesday, April 24, 2002 12:17 PM
ViWeber (E-mail)
Breast Cancer Walk
Vi,
ljust responded to some questions Frank had regarding this walk. As far
AS
the P.D. goes, we have not had any problems in the past and don't see
any-in
reading the packet you sent.
Franks issues were along the line of sidewalks and making sure they were
in
good shape.
lf you have any questions 777-4151
Thanks,
Dawn
1
From
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
PW/ENG-Erbacher, Frank
Thursday, April 25, 2002 9:43 AM
MGR-Weber, Viola
PW/ENG-M urtuza, Syed; POLICE-Cutler, Dawn ; PW/YARDADM lN-Scott, Phil ;
PW/S&S-Falzon, Vince; PW/ENG-Lowrie, Bill; PW/ENG-Lowrie, Mikkel; PW/ENG-
Chang, Donald; lcrowell@pallottateamworks.com'
RE: Avon Breast Cancer 3 Day Walk- Saturday, July 13th, 2002
Route: Crescent to Pershing Park as a Rest Stop; Newlands to ECR; ECR to Trinity Lutheran
Church as Rest Stop; ECR to Trousdale; Trousdale to Magnolia; Magnolia to Murchison (Route
not clear at that Point on Murchison).
I have polled the Police Department and the Streets Division and they indicated that previous
events have presented no problems. From their comments it appears that pedestrians are
distributed sufficiently that they do not spill onto the street area nor do they affect the Plaza
Shopping Center.
I assume that the Applicant has notified the State for coordination with any of their work or
permits on El Camino Real. lf not then this should be a condition of their permit from us.
The Street Division noted that they will be checking and patching all the sidewalks as may be
needed. They were forwarded the routing information packet from the application.
The Public Works lnspectors will be asked to check the route at least a week ahead and the week
of the event to insure that any private sidewalk work is ready for the walkers to safely pass.
Frank Erbacher
STAFF REPORT
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 25,2002
PUBLIC WORKS
SUBMITTED
BY
APPROVED
BY
COMBINATI , LOTS 18 THROUGH 20,
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE
t06l02
8c
TO:
DATE:
FROMr
SUBJECT.TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT
BLOCK 14, BURLINGAME GROVE, 1 160 BROA]DWAY, PM O2-O4
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council concur with the Planning Commission and approve this
,""pJhtr .rt." should be considered as approving both the Tentative and Final Map to facilitate processing.
Following are the conditions:
o I Final Map for a lot merger shall be filed by the applicant within the time period allowed by the Subdivision
Map Act and the City's subdivision ordinance.
o The Final Map shall be recorded by the San Mateo County office before the building is finaled.
. All property corners shall be set and shown on the Final Parcel Map'
The Final Map shall show the width of the right-of-way for Broadway, including the centerline of the right-of-
way, bearings and distance of the centerline and any existing monuments in the roadway.
All existing easements shall be retained
All damaged sidewalk, curb and gutter shall be replaced with new
BACKGROUND : On April 22, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed the attached staff report and the Tentative
and Final Parcel Map. The Planning Commission found that all requirements were met and recommended that
Council approve the map with the above conditions.
EXHIBITS: Tentative and Final Map, Planning Staff Report
Donald T. Chang, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
c:City Clerk, Applicant
Bonarual Lamb Partners Ltd.
Spear Design Association
a
o
a
S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\02-04.STF.wpd
f1t-*7+
MEMORANDI]M
PI,'BLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TO: PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: ENGINEERING
DATE: MARCH 27,2002
RE:TENTATTVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION, LOTS 18
THROUGH 20, BLOCK 14, BURLINGAME GROVE, I 160 BROADWAY, PM 02-04
This application is to combine three (3) existing lots into one (1) lot at 1160 Broadway. The
applicant is proposing an on-site improvement which will require a lot combination in order to
meet the zoning code.
There are no comments from the Building Departrnent and Planning Department.
The map application is complete and therefore may be recommended to the City Council for
approval subject to the following conditions:
1. A final pmcel map for lot merger must be filed by the applicant within the time period as
allowed by the SuMivision Map Act and the Crty's Subdivision Ordinance. Action on this
map should be considered as both the tentative and final map to facilitate processing.
2. The final map must be accepted by the San Mateo Comty office before a Building Permit can
be issued.
3. All property c,orners shall be set and shown on the final parcel map.
4. The final map shall show the width of the right-of-way for Broadway, racluding the centerline
right-of-way, bearing and distance of centerline and anyexisting monuments in the roa<I.vay.
5. All existing easements shall be retained except as noted.
6. All damaged sidewalk, curb and gutter shall be replaced with new.
Exhibit: Tentative Parcel Map & Assessor's Map
Donald T. Chang
Senior Civil Engineer
U 1vlCTOR\Projecis\Private\PM02.O4.wpd
lttt
$ JUANITA
8 RIIINETT€A
AYE. 3
5a
-ta
AVE 9,
AI/E h
ltltO Ofoa'Aoay AVE T
mSrA tvE.
PARCEL TW4P VOL 7,
\
\\
\\
=s.(/)
*'
s\
@
t3
b'
@
t2
\\
\
\\
oQl/l
u
=.<<ttL
l_ * _t_ _
I
o)
(
6()\{tri:\
q,
Rq
si
o
bJl*
\
=.I
\\
\\
E\\
\\
tl.o
,a
\l-
=5o(.,
G6
@
\\
\\
a,
=totLf,
6
r?o'
?9
s(?
\{
to
7t
o
,1(
-50.10
*lPAtrEL ,TAP VOL
o;l:
32
50.tt'
o
96
@
l3
@
l0
@
t2
5
1
,o'45 ?r.t5'
6@@@@
D'
I I 7
t t'1.
il
092
o
tl
@
9O
t5
@
t7
@
,o'
l6
r?r'
3t8l920
9 2
I
19 IE ty.ot'
5O'
@
t2 lt
@ @
l0
09l
50'
l3
@
t4
@
t7
@
15'
2
I
lrc.a5
llc.T1
PARCEL A
13
@ @
7
Er.12
1
t4t.
6
5-=-98-.i!.-
o93
3 l0t-
I
lrl.90'
22
o
9A.tl'
2lI
EI
-t I
I
s
t6 l7 te 20
6-r.1t
,/,
16RSHBURLINCAUE GROVE
ON)DIT
4
o
@
o
@
o
)
@
@
@
@
315-
@
t6
@
i
I
I
I
loor
It&-
.., "l
@
_ _ v7,11'
2(ilot.?t\-,
@
t9 I
@o
;.
il
-lo;
i
TO:
STAFF REPORT
HONORABLE MAYORAND CITY COUNCIL SUBIVIITTED
DATE:Anril28.2002
AGENDA 8dITEM#
MTG.
I}A,TE 5-6-02
BY
APPROVED
FROM:Bob BelL I{uman Dlreclor BY
suBJEcr: Adoption of Resolution Fixing the Employer's
Medical and Hospital Care Act
Under the Public Employees'
RECOMMEtTpATTON:
Staff recommends that the Counoil approve the attached resolution increasing the City's contribution towards
medical premiums effective January 1,2002 for employees and annuitants covered by the Msmoraldum of
Understanding between the City ofBurlingame and the Police Offtcers' Association (POA).
BACKGROUIITD:
Negotiations w€re recently conpleted with the POA. In that confiacI, the monthly health care contribution
provided by the City was increased to $580 per month, which is the same amount given to the other labor
group$ within the City. The City contracts with the California Public Employees' Retirement System
(CaIPERS) to provide medical care coverage to City employees per the terms of the Public Employees'
Medical and Hospital Care Act (PEMHCA). In order to adjust the rnonthly pranium to higher amounts
granted in the Memorandum of Understandrngs, CaIPERS requires the attached resolution be adopted by the
City Council.
BU,DGET IMPACT:
Based on the number of employees covered by the Broup, the cost for the increase in the City's contribution
for this fiscal year is $5,000.
^A.TTA.CIIMENTS:
Resolution
ileffi
26,-? -?
RESOLUTION NO
RESOLUTION OF TIM CTTY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF BURLINGAI\{E FD(NG TTM EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION UNDER TTIE
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'MEDICAL Al'lD HOSPITAL CARE ACT
RESOL\/ED, bythe City Council ofthe City of Burlingame:
WffiREAS, Government Code Section 22825.6p'rovides that alocal agency
contracting under the Public Employees' Medical and Hospital Care Act shall fix the
amount ofthe employer's contribution at an amount not less than the amount required
under Section 22825 ofthe Act; and
WffiRSAS, the City ofBurlingarne, hereinafterreferredto as Public Agency, is
a local ageney contracting under the Act for participation by members of the Police
Officere Association, therefore be it
RESOLVED, ttrat the employer's oontribution for each employee or annuitant
shall be the anpunt nec€ssa{y to pay the full cost of his/her enrollmerrt, including the
eilrollment of his/her family members in a health benefits plan up to a rnaximum of $580
pEr month; Plus administrative fees and Contingeircy Reserrre Fund Assessments.
MAYOR
I, AI.IN MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingarrre, do hereby cefiiry thar the
foregoing resolution was introduced at aregular meeting of the City Council held on
day of May, 2002, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COIJNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
STAFF REPORT
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
April 15, 2OO2 BY
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE
5l6lo2
8e
TO:
DATE:
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS
APPROVED
BY
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO APPROVE LEASE MODIFICATION FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION - WINDSHEAR ALERT SYSTEM - 1775 GILBRETH ROAD
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that Council approve the attached lease modification by resolution with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) for the Windshear Alert System.
BACKGROUND:
In 1999 the Council approved a lease agreement with FAA for installing an 80-foot tall Wind Shear Alen
System at 1775 Gilbreth Road. The location of the installation was slightly different from the original proposal.
Recently, the City received a request from FAA to modiff the legal description and plot to reflect the true
location of this installation (Exhibit A).
Staffhas reviewed the revised legal description and plot and found them to match the field location. Therefore,
staff recommends Council approve this modification.
EXHIBITS: Lease Modification/Supplement (Exhibit A), Original lrase Agreement and Resolution
T. Chang, P.E.
Senior Civil Engineer
c City Clerk, City Attorney
s : \A Public works Directory\staf f Reports\Fr{A Lease-windshear-dtc. wpd
RESOLUTION
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COTJNCIL OF THE CITY OF'BT]RLINGAME APPROVING
LEASE MODIFICATION R-EGARDING 1775 GILBRETH ROAD WITH THE F'EDERAL
AYIATION ADMIMSTRATION FOR INSTALLATION OF' WINDSHEAR ALERT
SYSTEM, AI\ID AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE TITE
MODIF'ICATION AGREEMENT ON BEHALf,'OF THE CITY
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS, in Resolution No. 53-lggg on May 17, lggg,the City Council approved a lease
agreement allowing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to install and maintain a windshear alert
system on the site to serve San Francisco Intemational Airport; and
WHEREAS, this windshear alert system will greatly improve the safety of operations at the
Airport, which in turn will make the community safer; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed lease and found that it was
consistent with the City's General Plan pursuant to Government Code $ 65402; and
WHEREAS, the proposed installation had been reviewed by the FAA pursuant to the National
Environmental Protection Act and is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act;
and
WI{EREAS, the FAA has determined that the description of the area needs to be slightly
modified to better fit the installation into the property; and
WHEREAS, a modification to the Lease Agreement is in the best interest of the public,
NOW, THEREFORE,IT IS ORDERED:
l The Lease Modification attached hereto as Exhibit A is approved, and the City Manager is
authorized to execute the Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame.
2. The City Clerk is directed to witness the Manager's signature on behalf of the City.
1
MAYOR
(
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certiff that the foregoing
resolutionwasintroducedataregularmeetingoftheCityCouncilheldonthedayo|-
,2002, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
CITY CLERK
2
t LEASE MODI F!CATION/SUPPLEM ENT
Mod ificatio n/S u ppl e me nt No.
Lessor
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 9401 0-3997
THIS AGREEMENT IS ENTERED INTO PURSUANT TO THE
Effective Date
Accounting & Appropriation Data
oF 4s usc 40110 (B).
Lease Contract No.
Desciption of Modification/Supplement
The purpose of this modification is to revise the legal description for the Low Level Wind Shear Alert
System (LLWAS), Site No. 8 for the above-referenced lease. Therefore, a revised Exhibit "A" dated
August 20,2001wi|| replace the previous Exhibit "A" to reflect the new legal description and plot.
The following is attached to the above-referenced lease:
Exhibit "A'- Legal Description and Plot
ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE LEASE
AND REMAIN THE SAME.
ARE HEREBY RATIFIED AND EXCEPTED AS AMENDED HEREIN ABOVE, SHALL BE
! Lessor is not required to sign this document Fl Lessor is required to sign this document return the
original and 3 copies to the Government.
Lessor:
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Government:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMI NISTRATION
B
I/T/ei Contractino Officer, Real Estate & Utilities Team. AWP-S4B
Date:
By:
Title:
Date:
WP Form 4660-14 (3/80)
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA 8f
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 5-6-O2
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: April 17,2002
FRoM: Randy Schwartz (55&7307)
SI.IBJECT:
7
APPROVING THE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE
ROBERTI.Z'BERG-HARRIS URBAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM
UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEAN WATE& CLEAN AIR, ANI)
COASTAL PROTECTION BOND ACT OF 2OOO.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the application for Roberti-
Z'Berg-Harris funds under the Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 2000.
BACKGROUND:
The Califomia State Legislature placed Proposition 12 onthe March 7,2000 ballot where it was passed by the
voters. The proposition, "Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air and Coastal Protection Bond Act
of 2000", set aside $388 million per capita grant funds, $200 million Roberti-Z'berg-Harris grants, $100
million in grants to low income neighborhoods and $8 million for playground safety.
The City of Burlingame has been allocated approximately $268,000 of the 2000 Park Bond Act and an
additional $85,000 of the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Block Grant. The funds must be encumbered by June 30,
2003 and the proposed project must be completed by 2008. The City has already applied for the per capita
portion of the funds. This resolution is for the remaining $85,000.
In the City's Capital Improvement Plan, these funds have been designated to complete the upgrade of
Cuernavaca Park. The components of the Park's remodel include bringing the play structure and restroom up
to standards of the Americans with Disabilities Act and completion of the landscaping by adding picnic tables
and an ornamental trellis.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution Number
BUDGET IMPACT:
The City anticipates receiving approximately $85,000 in funds from the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris Block Grant.
tr"Yfr LW
BY
RESOLUTTON NO._
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING TIIE APPLICANT TO APPLY FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE
ROBERTI-Z'BERC-IIARRIS URBAN OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION PROGRAM
UNDER THE SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS, CLEAN WATER, CLEAN AIR, AI\ID
COASTAL PROTECTION BOI\D ACT OF 2MO.
WIIEREAS, the people of the State of California have enacted the Safe Neighborhood
Parks, Clean Water, Clean Air, and Coasal Protection Bond Act of 2000 which provides
funds for the Roberti-Z'Berg-Haris open space and Recreation Program; and
WIIEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has enacted the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris
Open Space and Recreation Prograng which provides funds to certain political subdivisions of the State of
California for acquiring lands and for developing facilities to meet urban recreational needs; and
WHEREAS, the California Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the
responsibility for the adminishation of the grant program, setting up necessary procedures; and
WHEREAS, said procedures established by the California Departnent of Parks and
Recreation require the Applicant's Governing Body to certify by resolution the approval of the
Applicant to apply for the Roberti-Z'Berg-Harris allocation; and
WIIEREAS, the Applicant will enter into a Contract with the State of California;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED thatthe CITY OF BURLINGAME hereby:
l. Approves the filing of an Application for local assistance funds from the Roberti-ZrBerg-Harris
Urban Open Space and Recreation Program under the Safe Neighborhood Parks, Clean Water,
Clean Air, and Coastal Protection Bond Act of 20fi); and
2. Certifies that dre Applicant has or will have sufficient funds to operate and maintain the
project(s); and
3. Certifies that the Applicant has reviewed, understands and agrees to the General Provisions
contained in the Contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and
4. Appoints the Director of Parks & Recreation as agent to conduct all negotiations, execute
and submit all documents including but not limited to, Applications, agreements, payment
requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the hoject(s).
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certifo that the foregoing
Resolution was infioduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of
,2002 and was adopted by the following vote:
AYES COLINCILMEMBERS:NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COTINCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
April 25,2002
PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DA 5/06/02
8e
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
SUBMITTED
BY
BY
SUBJECT: RESOLUTTON ACCEPTING CALTFORNTA/GROVE STORM D
PHASE 2 - CITY PROJECT NO. 9829
IN IMPROVEMENT PROJECT,
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council accept the California/Grove Storm Drain Improvement
Project, Phase 2, in the arnount of $868,027.82.
BACKGROUND: On May 8, 2001, Council awarded the California/Grove Storm Drain Improvement Project to
Shaw Pipeline Company in the :Lmount of $757,135.00.
The total construction cost of the project was $868,027.82. The additional $110,892.82 was primarily due to
conffact change orders for unforseen conflicting gas, telephone, sewer and water pipeline relocations, as well as for
paving Mills Avenue and planting trees along the railroad tracks. The total amount of change order repre sents 14 .7 %
of the original conffact price, which is very reasonable for a project of this size and complexity.
The project construction is completed in compliance with project drawings and specifications.
EXHIBITS: Resolution, Final Progress Payment
BUDGET IMPACT
Total estimated construction costs are:
Construction
Construction Management, Inspection, Testing
and Construction Engineering Services
Staff Engineering and Administration
$ 868,027.82
$ 132,586.00
$ 7.500.00
$ 1,008, 1 14.00
There are sufficient funds available in the storm drainage budget to complete the project.
Douglas Bell
Senior Civil
(6s0) s58-7230
c: City Clerk, Finance, Shaw construction
ct
s:\apublicworks\staffreporu\9829-4-l I {2.wpd
APPBOVED
RESOI,IITT NO.
ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS - CALIFORNIA/GROVE STORM DRAIN
RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingare, Catifomia, and this Couril
does hereby find, order and determirc as follows:
l. The Director of Public Works of said Crty has certified the work done by Shaw pipelirc
Inc. under the terms of its contract with the City dated May 8, 2001, has been completed
in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the city courcil and to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public works.
2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 9829
3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted.
Mayor
I, Ann Musso, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was introduc€d at a regular nreeting of the City Council he ld on the day of
2N2, ad was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
City Clerk
Shaw Plpellno lna.
6244 Mls.lon Stroot
San Franclsco, CA 941l2
415.337.0190 t l/ 6245 fax
SPI Job # 223
Contflct Bld lta a
irotlllr.too
CITY OF BURLINGAME
PROGRESS PAYMENT NO. 6 FINAL
Califomla,/ Grovo SD lmprovoment
Hllllldo/EcR to Ulllr Cltok
Clty Project # 9829, Phase 2
DATE: 9.{pr{2
For th. monlfi of: Oc.t . Noy, 200,1crt Po *: t2558
I
2
3
5
6
7
8
I
10
ll
13
11
15
16
17
18
t9
Fumbh A llrlt tt 2,16, RCBor Cutln
Fumhh a hlrllSrt RC6or Culwt
Fulr .h &lntlrll15'Dla. SO RCP. Cttlt
Fuinl.h A hrtdlzl2' Ol.. SO RCP, Ct ttt
Fumlfi & h.Ull48 Ola. SO RCP, C[ll
Frml.h & ln.t I3ror. sDRcP, c
Plp. Jlcthg, 3af Dla, SO RCP, CtV
R.{ocrtr Endng af Oa.l4itr€r Plp.ttn.
Raloa.t Weitr S€^dc.!. Mlll. Av..u.
Fuml.n a tn.rrtt Sa.t d Con.r!t. Slopo
PrcLa{on wlh Conarltc Aprcal
Fumllh & lnlt tl 1!l Oh. Ftsp Od.!
TOTAL ORIOINAL COIITRACT
20
AC Parlmanl .t .1. et c.obnh r Mnh
Sp.clrl 8D M.nhol., Typ. I ,2.1 a 4
S€r t ay sau.a Mlnhol6
orlltl lnLt., Typ! Go
S.filEry S.r,.r Plp., 6a PVC
Smlt ry SaN.r Plp., 1C lrvC
ln.tsll clty Fufilrh.d a€, Rcaor cukn
Cn.n . Ord.l!
Rcmova bsd.d cdlclrta, Crllf, Dr
fi.pl.c. ...ld b.ddlnC wttl icd(
habfl S.w.r l.tarel-1408 Mlll!
P.m CdIn wdl
R.loc.t w!trrmdo, Cdtt Dr.
R.loc.h box Grtv.n @ Pac 86I
ContDt
Ptrndn!rc.tit odv.
Rdnov. CMP Mat€d.tat Eodng Atgn
1
2
3
4
6
1
I
10
1l
ITEM DESCRIPTION
UNIT
PRICE
Bto
Q'IY
UNIT
st2E
AlD
AMOUNT
QUANIITY
TO DATE PAID
AIrIOUNT
TO OAIE
PREVIOUSLY
PAIO
AMOUNI
TIIIS PAYMENT
a
I
i
$
t
s
t
I
a
$
t
t
t
t
3
0
a
$
I
I
28,000.00
25,000.00
6.OO
4,000.00
1,500.00
3,500.(r0
&.(J0
150.00
300.00
300.00
400.00
100,00
285.00
286,00
150.00
460.00
4,000.m
1,000.00
10,000.00
500.00
tt
$
$
I
3
786.A7
4,624.86
11,779.00
650.00
2,03E,17
3,293.00
s
s
3
68.044.00
2,892.63
2,1@.m
1
1
r0@
s
2
LS
LS
SF
EA
EA
EA
LF
LF
t-F
LF
LF
LF
LF
IF
LF
LF
LS
EA
ts
6
12
108
522
78
509
7B
1
17
I
3
LS
LS
l"s
LS
LS
LS
LS
I
!
I
t
a
t
t
3
I
a
3
I
$
a
I
s
$
a
E
28,m0.@
25,000.00
11,a00.00
36.000.00
3,0oo.m
10,500.00
11,070.00
1,200.00
3,600.m
32,a00.00
208,800.m
7,8m.00
14',005.00
1,16,,t90.00
19.350,m
3.{.S80.00
4,000.00
'17,000.m
10,000.00
1.@
1.00
19A3.@
11.00
2.00
3.m
123.@
6.00
1
100%
105%
122%
1m*
100%
rm%
10096
,|
1 100%
100%
100'/6
't0096
100%
t02*
100%
1009(
1009a
100%
78.00
500.00
5.t4.00
131.00
76.00
1.00
18.00
1
1,500.00 3.00 10096
,767,,t3t.00 101.30%
t
3
$
It
$
t
$t
f46.67
1,621.8
11,709.00
650.m
2,035.1?
3,293.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
100.00%
100.0.6
100.00*
1m.0096
100.m%
100*
68,0,{4.00
2,892.63
2,100.00
't.o?
1.00
1.00
'107%
100%
100%
3
t
t
I
3
t
a
5
I
I
a
,
t
I
t
a
t
tI
28.0@_OO
25,000.00
11.954.00
44,000.m
3,000.00
10,500.00
11.070.m
1:00.00
3,600.00
32.400.00
mE.800.00
7.8@.00
t45,005.00
146.,t90.00
19.650.00
34.9m,m
,1,000.00
18,000.00
10,0@.00
I 1
t 76t,tt!.00
I
s
at
It
I
$
c
7*.A7
4,824.86
11,709.@
650.00
2,035.17
3,2$.00
72,853,19
2,492.43
, 100.00
3
I
I
0
a
t
I
a
t
I
I
t
t
t
I
s
t
I
a
26.000.00
25.000.00
11.95a.@
4.t,000.m
3.000.00
10.500.00
rlo70.m
1,200,@
3,600.@
t2.a00.m
208,600.00
7.E00.00
1as,(xl!.00
1L.490.00
19,860.00
34.9€O.00
4,000.00
18,000.00
10,000.00
t 1
t 744,093.00
aIt
IIt
t
$
$
7e6.67
4,421.8
t 1,7S0.m
650.m
2,033.17
3,293.00
72,453.19
t
s
I
t
I
t
I
a
3
I
3
$
I
t
t
I
$
t
t
t
,
$
$
$
2,492.43
2.100.00
86,225.!3a 100%$.01,03/1.82 I 9t,042.10 I 4,992.e3
]OTAL CHANGE OROERS
Page 1 of 2
TOTAL CON?RACT
TOTAL CHANGE OROERS
COiITRACT 1OTAL
LESS O I( RETENTION
SUBTOTAL WTHOUT OEDUCTIONS
0
10'l
o%
AMOUNT OUE
TOTAL TIIIS
PREPARED
APPROr'ED BY
APPROVED BY
CHARGED TO FUiIO 320 210
4caqz.6, /a P.a.
d *q sd /.2/ l"?'d .
(=ra- 7?5so' 2ro)
(t7o-7ar-r"-nr)
a
4
'r ,/27Jia
* / t.s--rB
I 14 / t/4'3 7 A:7 /o P
,/=r,/a2-
I
a 7c!,t93.00 3
86,12!,33,0G,oa2.1cI $4,sr2.83tt5!,360.33 $ t6!,027.E2 I 1t3,036.19 $4,9t2.8!
t t (a3,$r.7G)l3,r&,7GIt853,3a0.a!I !1t,!ata3
$$
$r53,1t0.33
aaap27 t2
aat,o27.a2
,
i
a
s t !19,!!313 4r,t{,4.3c--
-
-
-
Page 2 of 2
ll
Lr 7!7,'t!!.oo
a 4!,ra,r3r
o
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATf,5-6-O2
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DArE: Api126,2002
tr'RoM: Randy Schwartz (650) 558-7307
Director of Parks & Recreation
SUBJECT:Trenton Play Area Renovation - City Project # 80140
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached resolution accepting as complete the
work done by Lone Star Landscape, Inc. at the Trenton Play Area.
BACKGROUND:
The Trenton Play Area Renovation project was completed on March 21,2002 in accordance with
the plans and specifications approved by Council for this project and to the satisfaction of the
Dept. staffand our project architect.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution accepting completion of the Trenton Play Area Renovation project.
8h
aBY
BY
BUDGET IMPACT:
Original contract amount:
Change orders (drainage issues):
$158,623.00
t0^0t0.27
Total contract amount:$168,633.27
Amount paid to date: 156.27l.g3
Final payment: $12,361.44
Final payment of the contract will be paid upon approval of this resolution. Suffrcient funds are
available to complete this project.
RESOLUTION ACCEPTING COMPLETION OF
TRENTON PII\Y AREA RENOVATION
CITY PROJECT NO. EOT4O
RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, Califomia and this Council
does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE as follows:
1 . The Parks & Recreation Director of said City has certified that the work doneby LONE STAR
L,/INDSCAPE, INC. under the terms of its contract with the City ofBurlingame dated
Seotember 5. 2001. has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications
approved by this Council therefor and to the satisfaction of the Parks & Recreation Director.
2. Said work is particularly described as #80140 TRENTON PLAY AREA RENOVATION.
3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted.
4. The city engineer is directed to execute and file for record with the County Recorder notice
of the completion thereof as required by law.
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, 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 & dav of Mav 2002. and
was adopted thereafter by the following vote.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
COUNCILMEMBERS
COLINCILMEMBERS
City Clerk
RESOLUTION NO.
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA 8iITEM#
MTG.
DATE _05.06.02_
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBIVIITTED
DATE 2002
APPROVED
tr.ROM:CITY PLANNER
SI'BIECT: APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH DESIGN,AND ENVIRONMENT FOR
CONSULTING SERYICES TO PREPARE A PLANNING STUDY AND SPECIF'IC AREA
PLAN FOR THE NORTH END OF BURLINGAME
BY
BY
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Adopt resolution approving agreement for preparation of a specific area plan for the north end of
Burlingame with Design, Community and Environment (DCE); and
2) Adopt resolution authorizing transfer of funds
BACKGROUND:
At the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting in February 2002, it was agreed that the planning
issue of the highest priority in the city was how we were going to plan at the northern end of the city for the
impacts anticipated with the opening of the BART station in Millbrae. Following the meeting staffprepared
and distributed to some 80 firms a request for proposal (PJP) to do a planning study of the north end of the
city (Rollins Road industrial area and the portion of El Camino Real north of Dufferin extended to Davis
Roads). Seven firms responded to the RFP and four were selected for an oral interview. The interview team
was made up of Cathy Baylock, Stan Vistica, Jim Nantell, Meg Monroe, and Maureen Brooks, the project
manager foithe city. The team selected the firm Design, Community and Environment (DCE) located in
Berkeley.
DCE is a planning consulting firm with in house expertise in urban design and environmental analysis. They
will coordinate thl work of idditional consultants in the areas of traffic and circulation, economics, visual
imaging, biological analysis, and specialized environmental studies including noise. The affached Work
Scof,e una p-j.rt Schedule outlini the range of tasks and the time line of the work program. The work is
anticipated to iake 18 months and will include 5 community workshops. The first four workshops will be
between September 2002 andJanuary 2003. The fifth workshop is scheduled for May 2003. The consultant
cost is not to exceed $247, 400.
One of the workshops proposed was to involve the stakeholders, residents and interested parties in a design
charette for the planning area. The San Mateo County AIA expressed an interest through the Burlingame
Chamber of Commerce in doing a design charette for the area as an AIA scholarship/operating funding fund
raiser. The estimated fee for the AIA charette is $5,000 to $10,000. DCE indicated that they have experience
with involving community members in design workshops and would include one as a part of their bid. The
proposed bid does not include an AIA sponsored charette. If Council would like to have the AIA direct a
thui.tt" for the planning area, the cost would be outside of this contract. In that case, DCE would assist with
information, but the AIA would run the workshop.
APRft.25.
nrr*oin, oF xINTRACT wrrr DEsrGN, xnMMUNITrAND ENWRnNMENT FoR coNSwrING \ERWCE| ro
PREPARE A PI,,ANNING STWY AND SPECIFIC AREA PLAN FOR THE NORTH END OF BURLINGAME MAY 6' 2OO2
City staffwill support the specific area planning program by identifuing data sources and noticing public
meetings and woikshops, including making all documents available on the Planning Department's web page.
The additional costs of materials includingprinting for this activity is reflected in the Planning Department's
budget professional Services line item. Stafftime spent supporting the work including research,
admlnistrative and participation hours will be absorbed as a part of our regular workload. Staffestimates the
direct costs for ruppo.t of the SAP will not exceed $7,500. The Planning Commission will also support this
planning activity by appointing a Subcommittee which will be available to assist the consultant throughout
the project.
Fiscal Impact:
The cost of this contract is $247,400. If approved these funds will be transferred from the contingency
reserves and the funds will be budgeted in FY 2001-2002.
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution Authorizing Transfer of Funds
Resolution Approving Agreement
Agreement foiplanning Consultant Services between the City of Burlingame and Design, Community &
Environment, with attachments work Scope and Project Schedule.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROPRIATION TRANSFER REQUEST
DATE: April 23, 2002
1 R EQUE T TRANS FE R OF APPROP R AT I ON AS LISTED BELOW:I
AMTOBJTPROJFUND
247,&026115101
rofessional and alizedPlann210247,&01016zl4o0
FROM
TO
DATE:BY
Justification (Aftach Memo if Necessary)
Balance in Reserve after transfer: 237,600
DEPARTMENT HEAD
DATEBY
COUNCIL ACTION NOT REQUIRED
FINANCE DIRECTOR
2.COUNCIL ACTION
REQUIRED
Remarks:
DATEBY
DISAPPROVEAPPROVE AS REVISED
CITY MANAGER
3.APPROVE AS REOUESTED
Remarks
@
RESOLUTION-
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 200142
RESOLVED, by the city Council of the City of Burlingame, that
WHEREAS, the Department hereinabove named in the Request for Appropriation, Allotment or Transfer of Funds has
requested the transfer of certain funds as described in said Request and
WHEREAS, the Finance Director has approved said Request as to accounting and available balances, and the City Manager
has recommended the transfer of funds as set forth hereinabove:
NOW, THEREFORE, lT tS HEREBY ORDERED AND DETERMINED that the recommendations of the city Manager be
approved and that the transfer of funds as set forth in said Request be effected.
MAYOR
l, ANN T.Musso, City Clerk of the city of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced
and was adopted thereafter by theat a regular meeting ofthe City Council held on the day of
following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS
NoES: couNcILMEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
CITY CLERK
L:\Forms & Templates\Transfer Request.doc
OEPARTMENT Planning
OESCRIPTION
Reserve for Contingencies
I
I
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH DESIGN, COMMUNITY & ENVIRONMENT
TO PREPARE A SPECIFIC AREA PLAI\ FOR TIIE NORTH END OF BURLINGAME
AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MAI\IAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
ON BEHALF OF'THE CITY
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS, the City wishes to develop a specific area plan for the north end of the City;
and
WHEREAS, the City issued a request for proposals to some 80 qualified firms and received
proposals from seven; and
WHEREAS, following interviews, the City interview team recommended the selection of
Design, Community & Environment as the firm best suited to develop the plan; and
NOW, THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDEREDI
l. The Agreement between the City and Design, Community & Environment contained in
Exhibit A hereto is approved, and the City Manager is authorized anddireoted to execute the
Agreement on behalf of the City of Burlingame.
2. The Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the Manager.
MAYOR
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
foresoins resorution wasrintroducellT""#f,
il::itr : rffi:Hf ffi illd
on the
-dav
of
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COLTNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS
CITY CLERK
STAFF REPORT
Burlingame Public Library
AGENDA trrm * 8j
MEETINGDATE: 5-6-02
L
April17,2002
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTED BY
FROM: Alfred Escoffier, City Librarian APPROVED BY:
SUBJECT: Appointment of System Advisory Board Member
Recommendation: Appoint Jane Dunbar, as Burlingame's representative to the Peninsula
Library System, System Advisory Board for a two-year tenn, serving from July 1 ,2002
to June 30,2004.
Background: The Peninsula Library System Advisory Board is a citizen advisory board,
which offers input to the System Board of Directors on system policy, patron needs and
other issues related to the cooperative library system. System Board members are chosen
by City Councils of the home library city (or the Board of Supervisors for County
Branches) to serve a two-year term. Outgoing SAB member, Mary Lou Morton, will
complete her term on the SAB June 30, 2002 and is not seeking reappointment.
Jane Dunbar has served the City in various capacities, including serving as a Library
Trustee for 3 terms. She was a Trustee during the planning and construction of the new
Main Llbrary, and was Chair of the Library Long Range Planning Committee in 1998.
Jane will be completing her third term on the Board of Trustees June 30,2002 and does
not intend to reapply for a Trustee position at this time. Jane is currently President of the
Burlingame Library Foundation Board.
The Library Board of Trustees unanimously endorsed Jane Dunbar for this position on
the System Advisory Board.
The Cify Council is requested to consider Jane Dunbar's appointment to the SAB Board,
effective July 1,2002.
STAFF REPORT
Burlingame Public Library
AGENDATTEM# 8k
MEETINGpaIB3 5-6-02
April17,2002
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTED BY:
FROM: Alfred Escoffier, City Librarian APPROVED BY:/
SUBJECT: Request to Serve Alcohol at Library Foundation Function
Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council allow for the serving of
alcoholic beverages at the Burlingame Library Foundation fundraiser to be held in the
public areas of the Main Library on Saturday, October 19, 2002 from 6 PM to 10 PM.
Background: The Burlingame Library Foundation has raised over $ 300,000 for the
benefit of the city libraries in recent years. The Foundation has now turned its attention to
funding the furnishing of the Easton Branch Library following its renovation next year. I
have asked the Foundation to support $ 100,000 of the cost of funding the interior of the
renovated building.
The event will be promoted as: "The Elegant Affair Branches Out!" and all proceeds will
go only toward the Easton project. The event will be by prepaid invitation only.
The Foundation organizers intend to have cocktails, wine and substantial hors d'oeuvres
for the event. It will include a silent auction and feature a well-known children's author.
Books will be available for "purchase" by prospective donors to help build the collections
at the Easton Library.
This is the first of several fundraisers to be held for Easton. A second targeted fundraising
by Foundation Board members will be focused on the Burlingame and Hillsborough
communities beginning this summer.
The Board of Trustees fully endorse this project and voted at their April 16th meeting to
close the library two hours early that day to allow for preparations for the event.
STAFF REPORT
ro: IIONORABLE MAYORAI\D CITY COUNCIL
DArE: Aprit 19r2002
FRoM: Rahn Becker, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Investment Policy Ior2N2
AGENDA 81ITEM#
MTG.
DATE 5-6-O2
SUBMITTED
BY
BY
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the policy for 2002.
BACKGROUND: State law requires the City Council to annually review and approve the policy for
investment of City flrnds.
No changes are recommended in the policy for 2002. The predominant activity during the past year has been
to maintain liquidity to meet capital projects obligations. In recent months, the economic downturn has also
suggested more liquidrty, given the drawdowns on our cash balances.
ATTACHMENTS: Investment Policy
CITY OF BURLINGAME
STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY
This statement contains guidelines for the prudent investnrent of the City's temporarily
idle cash in accordance with Governrnent Code sections 53600, et. seq. and 16/,81.2.
The ultimate goal is to protect the City's pooled cash while producing a reasonable
return on investrnents.
OBJECTIVES
1)Accurately monitor and forecast expenditures and revenues to insure
investnrent of rnoneys to the fullest extent.
2)lnvest in a range of instruments to insure diversification of the City's
portfolio.
ACCE TNVESTMENT UMENTS
Acceptable investrnents authorized for purchase by the finance directorftreasurer are:
U.S. Government and Agency Securities (notes, bills or bonds of the U.S. Government
and its agencies.)
Certificates of Deposit (deposits placed with comnercial banks, savings and loan
companies and/or thrift and loan companies, which neet the financial criteria
established by the City.)
Bankers' Acceptances
Comrnercial Paper
Demand Deposits
PURPOSE
3) As a primary objective, safeguard the principal of funds. The secondary
objective will be to meet the liquidity needs of the city. The third objective is to
achieve a return on the investment of funds.
4l lnvestments will be in compliance with governing provisions of the law.
STATETENT OF INVESTTENT POLICY
PAGE 2
Money Market Funds/Mutual Funds
Repurchase Agreenrents
Passbook Savings Accounts
Negotiable Certificates of Deposit (deposits with commercial banks and/or
savings and loan companies which meet the financial criteria established by the
city.)
Local Agency lnvestment Funds (State Pool)
County lnvestment Fund (San Mateo County Pool)
Guaranteed lnvesfrnent Contracls (collateralized with Government Securities,
physically delivered to an acceptable safekeeping account.)
Corporate Medium Term Notes
The State pool and San Mateo County Pool invests in additonal Government Code
authorized investments that are not approved lor direct purchase by the finance
director/treasurer. These pools shall provide a cunent investment policy and monthly
reports for review by the finance director/treasurer. The finance directorltreasurer is
authorized to invest in these pools provided they reasonably appear to be in
conformance with their investrnent policies, which are attached for reference to this
policy.
REPURCHASE AGREETUIENTS - TERM LIMIT AND SAFEKEEPING
State law requires that the maturity of any given instrurnent should not exceed five
years unless specifically approved by City Council. Those over two years will be
confined to U.S. Government and Agency securities.
The City will require physical delivery of the securities backing the repurchase
agreements to an acceptable safekeeping account of a third party in the City's nane
(as stated in Code Section 53601i.) Repurchase agreernents will be used solely as
short term investrnents not to exceed 30 days.
MATURITY LIMIT
RESTRICTION ON INVESTME NT POLICIES AND CITY CONSTRAINTS
Section 53600 et. seq. of the State of California Government Code ouflines the
collateral requirements for certain types of investrnents and also limits the percentage
of total investments which can be placed in certain classifications. lnvestrnents must
rneet the time schedules as indicated by the cash flow proiections of the City.
lnvestnents will ordinarily be held until maturity unless an advantageous exchange or
profit can be made. ln such cases, a documented analysis will be prepared and
approved by the Finance Director/Treasurer. lnvestnent decisions will not be
influenced by forecasts or speculation regarding interest rates. The actual level of
interest rates at any given time weighed with the soundness of the institution or
investment instrument will be the primary basis of consideration.
CERTIF ICATES OF : INSTITUTION FINANCIAL REOUT REMENTS
The city requires physical delivery of all negotiable securities to an acceptable
safekeeping account at a designated depository.
DELEGATION OF INVESTTENT AUTHORITY
Pursuant to Burlingame Municipal code sec'tion 3.13.040 and Government code
section 53607, the Finance Director/Treasurer is authorized to invest and reinvest
noney ofthe City, to sell or exchange securities so purchased, and to deposit such
securities for safekeeping in accordance with and subject to this investment policy.
All institutions must have a minimum of $100 million in assets. lnstitutions have a
demonstrated history of positive earnings and must carry a minimum 3.5olo equity ratio
and must hold that ratio for at least one year prior to the City's investment. lnstifutions
must also carry an '.A' rating from The Financial Directorv. All institutions must be
located within the State of California. For collateralized or negotiable certificates of
deposit, the institution must have a minimum 91 billion in assets, in addition to meeting
the above criteria.
Approved by City Council on:
ATTEST:
{l*wr/ 7Tbaaa
cityalerk"
, a'15-b-Ut-
Manager
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 5t6t2002
8m
STAFF REPORT
TO:Honorable Mavor and /
BY
DATE Aoril23.2O02
Larru E A Citv Attornev
AUTHORIZE CITY ATTORNEY TO JOIN IN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN CITY OF
CARLSBAD VS. BAKER, CASE NO. D0391 12, AT NO COST TO CITY
BY
FROM:
SLIBJECT:
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize joinder in amicus curiae brief at no cost to the City in City of Carlsbad vs. Baker, which is now
pending before the California Court of Appeal.
DISCUSSION:
An ongoing issue for all public agencies is the measurement of compensation that an agency is liable for when it
seeks to acquire property through eminent domain. Recent cases have interpreted both the governing statutes
and the Federal and State Constitutions on time of valuation and weight given to owner's estimation of value.
The cases involved in this matter concern the valuation to be given to business that is being affected by a
property acquisition. The two business tenants involved successfully argued that they should receive more than
$1 million because the City of Carlsbad's road improvement project would probably diminish the life
expectancy of their businesses. There was no actual taking of their businesses nor their assets, nor was any of
the property actually occupied by the businesses to be taken. The actual property owners only received some
$350,000 in total.
The cases were an odd mix of public nuisance, inverse condemnation, and eminent domain. The appeal seeks to
refocus on the actual property taken and to argue that nearby property cannot seek compensation foiproperty
not directly involved in the project.
Attachment
April 9, 2002,letter from City of Carlsbad
BONALD B. BALL
CITY ATTOBNEY
JANE MOBALDI
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
CINDIE K. McMAHON
DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
JULIA L. COLEMAN
DEPUTY CITY ATTOFINEY
2
CITY OF CARLSBAD
12OO CARLSBAD VILLAGE DRIVE
CABLSBAD. CALIFOHNIA 92008.1 989
(760) 434-2891
FAX: (760) 434-8367
RANDEE HARLIB
SECRETARY TO CITY ATTORNEY
ARDIS SEIDEL
LEGAL SECRETAFIY,PAFALEGAL
April 9, 2002
TO: CALIFORNIA CITY ATTORNEYS
FROM: RONALD R. BALL, CITY ATTORNEY OF CARLSBAD
clrY oF CARLSBAp V. BAKER. ET AL. (SAN DTEGO SUPER|OR COURT CASE NO.
N-78249-1, COURT OF APPEAL NO. D039112, COURT OF APPEAL FOURTH
APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE)
MEMORANDUM ON WHY THIS CASE MERITS YOUR ATTENTION
ISSUES:
1 Can anticipated growth and urbanization from a roadway improvement project
be a basis for severance damage claim? (This is the broadest statement of
the issue.)
Are economic damages to tangible business assets, not physically taken or
damaged, caused by the accelerated groMh and development of the area
due to a roadway improvement project compensable?
BRIEFING HEDULE
The City of Carlsbad filed a notice of appeal with the superior court on November 15,
2001. The Reporter's Transcript on Appeal was fired March r,2oo2 and is
approximately 2,500 pages. The City filed a Request to Extend Time for Filing Opening
Brief to 90 days (to and including June 5, 2002) on April 3,2002, however, the Court
has not yet acted on this request.
FACTUAL OVERVIEW
Two eminent domain cases brought by the City of Carlsbad were consolidated for trial.ln Citv of Carlsbad v. Baker, Baker owned approximately 7 acres of largely undevelopedland. Pam Koide dba Bird Rock Tropicals was a tenant on a small portlon of the Bakerproperty' Koide operated a commercial nursery business on the leased portion of theBaker property and an adjacent parcel. The City sought to acquire approxima tely 2.3acres of the Baker property, none of which was occufied or used by koide.
I
@
ln Citv of Carlsb d v. Rudvalis , Rudvalis owned approximately 5 acres of real property.
Rudvalis operated a commercial nursery business on most of the Rudvalis property.
The City sought to acquire approximately .05 acres of the Rudvalis property, none of
which was occupied or used by the Rudvalis business.
The City settled with the owners of the real property with respect to their claims for the
fair market value of the property taken and the severance damages, resulting from the
physical severance of the part taken from the larger parcel. Both businesses waived
compensation for loss of business goodwill. Koide and Rudvalis proceeded to trial on
their claims for strictly economic damages to their tangible business assets, including
their improvements pertaining to realty, personal property, and business inventories
(flowers).
The settlements with the property owners for their real estate interests were in the sums
of $5,000 for Rudvalis and $325,000 for Baker. The compensation awarded by the jury
to the business owners for damages to their tangible business assets were in the sums
of$1,503.791 forRudvalis,and$1,108,275forKoide. Theamountsawardedtothe
businesses had no relation to the real property rights being acquired and, under
Defendants' theory of the case and the theory'allowed by the court, would have been
allowed even without a taking of real property, the business just being in the vicinity of
the property.
The City unsuccessfully argued that much of the business owners' evidence should be
excluded as speculation. ln addition, the City unsuccessfully argued that such damages
were not compensable as a matter of law.
il.
THE ISSUES
The business owners obtained a substantial judgment in their favor awarding them
compensation for, among other things, diminution in value to: 1) their personal property
and inventory located on the remainder parcels; 2) their improvements located on the
remainder parcels; and 3 their personal property, inventory, and improvements located
on an adjacent property that is located in close proximity to the project.
Historically, case law does not allow compensation to businesses along a commercial
highway through town when the state creates a new highway project diverting traffic
2
I The business owners'claims were based on economic theory. The business owners
introduced testimony that, as a result of the construction of the project, the "economic
life" of their business, and therefore their tangible business assets, had been shortened
from B to 10 years for Rudvalis and 6 to 8 years for Koide to 0 to 2 years. The business
owners argued they were entitled to compensation for the diminution in value of their
tangible business assets resulting from the intangible effects of the project (the
accelerated urbanization under the Califomia Constitution and the Eminent Domain
Law.
around the town. Defendants' theory of the case is a variation on this theme, and if the
judgment were to be afiirmed, would result in a reversal of this historical rule.
Established case law recognizes that, as a general rule, economic injury to unaffixed,
moveable personal property located on the property to be taken is not compensable. lf
the judgment were to be affirmed, this case would recognize a dangerous exception that
would eventually lead to the demise of the general rule.
Older case law recognizes that economic damage to improvements located on the
remainder parcel resulting from the intangible effects of a project is not compensable as
severance damages. lf the judgment were affirmed, this case would represent a clear
departure from former law that would radically expand the circumstances under which a
property owner is entitled to an award of severance damages.
Case law recognizes that the owner of property located on propsrty in close proximity to
a public improvement is not entitled to compensation for the diminution in value to his or
her property resulting from the intangible effects ofthe project absent "actual physical
injury" or a "physical intrusion." lf judgment were to be affirmed, this case would open
the floodgates for claims for strictly economic damages resulting from a project by
owners of property in close proximity to a project.
, ilt.
SIGNIFICANCE TO CITIES IN GENERAL
The State of California continues to increase its population, which is accompanied by
groMh. The City of Carlsbad is one of the fastest growing communities in California.
There is a general need to construct new infrastructure, including roadway projects,
throughout the state. The need is particularly keen in the Southern California region.
lf the judgment is affirmed, the costs to government to acquire property for its needs,
and of constructing public improvements will skyrocket with a potentially chilling effect
on the public's ability to construct its infrastructure or acquire property for any purpose.
Not only can cities expect the owners of businesses located on remainder parcels to
aggressively pursue claims for compensation for economic damages to their business
assets that were heretofore deemed noncompensable, cities may expect the owners of
businesses located on property in close proximity to a project to file inverse
condemnation claims.
tv.
COMMON INTEREST
The law of condemnation is said to be crafted out of a balance between the rights of
owners to compensation for property that is taken or damaged for a public use and the
right of the government to take private property to facilitate a public improvement. This
case distorts the balance in favor of the owners of private property to the detriment of
the public. lf lefl unchallenged, this case would heighten the costs of obtaining the land
necessary to construct public projects so much that, in some cases, the public projects
would never be built. Public policy dictates that the balance be restored.
J
I
I
v.
HOW AN AMICUS BRIEF COULD HELP
lf a number of cities joined in an amicus brief addressing one or more of the issues set
forth above, the Court of Appeal may recognize the significant public policies involved.
Strong support for the City's position would not only underscore the serious financial
impact this case could have on local municipalities, but the chilling effect it would have
on the public's ability to pursue public improvement projects.
vt.
FILING SCHEDULE
As a general rule, the Appellant's Opening Brief will be due to be filed by the City within
40 days of the preparation of the record on appeal.
The Legal Advocacy Committee has unanimously urged California cities to join in the
amicus brief. (See attached). Richard Rypinski, of McDonough, Holland & Allen, an
acknowledged expert in the field of condemnation law and previously chief counsel to
CalTrans, is the brief writer.
vil.
CONCLUSION
This case is unique in that it represents a three pronged assault on existing case law,
which holds that cities are not required to compensate property owners for stricfly
economic damages resulting from a public project. First, it would allow business
owners to recover compensation for alleged economic losses to their unaffixed,
moveable personal property located on remainder parcels even though they remain in
business and there was no physical taking of any business assets or a portion of the
business premises. second, it would allow business owners'to claim severance
damages to improvements located on remainder parcels even though there was no
physical damage to the improvements as a result of the severance of the remainder
from the larger parcel or from the construction or use of the project. Thirds, itwould
aiiow ousiness owners in close vicinity to the project to claim eionomic damages to
their business even though no part of the real property upon which the busineis is
located was taken for the project and even though there was no "physical touching" or"physical invasion" of their businesses occasioned by the project. Rnytning less than
total reversal on all three issues on appeal will have a serioui and poientially
devastating financial impact on the ability of cities to obtain the land necessiry to
construct public projects. Accordingly, the city respectfully requests your support in the
form of an amicus brief.
4
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE
8n
STAFF REPORT
TO:Honorable Mavor and SUBMITTED
DATE:Ani127 ?,OO)
BY
BY
FROM Larrv E. Anderson- Ciw
SUBJECT:
AUTHORIZE CITY ATTORNEY TO JOIN IN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF IN
METROPOLITAII WATER DISTRTCT VS. SUPERTOR COITRT (CARGILL), CASE NO.
8148446,AT NO COST TO CITY
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize joinder in amicus curiae brief at no cost to the City in Metropolitan Water District vs. Superior Court
(Cargill), which is now pending before the Califomia Supreme Court.
DISCUSSION:
This case involves the determination of how an employee of private contractor can become a member of the
California Public Employees Retirement System through application of common law principles rather than any
statutory authority. The Metropolitan Water District had the practice of using private contractors to provide
temporary labor or specialized services to meet their project and operational needs.
The lower courts have determined that when those private employees become "common law employees" of the
public agency through the nature of their interactions, they then become members of the CALPERS system, and
the public agency is liable for all retirement benefits and contributions over the interaction with the private
employee.
The lower courts have articulated a very loose, subjective rule that will be open to a greatdeal of comrption and
manipulation. The appeal to the Supreme Court seeks to restore a statutory, bright line to when a person is
eligible for CALPERS and when a person is not.
Attachment
April 16, 2002,letter from Meyers, Nave, et al.
meyers
April 16, 2002
n o v e ribock silver & wilson
prolesrlonol low torPorotion
Arthur A. Hartinger
Terry Roemer
Attorney at Law
510.351,4300It,:tiE'ii*D
n -': 1 \J i."','
l|... r. "
-*,,,,n.,1.8
cl,?irli;':'' -;t
Dear Colleague:
Re: Request for Participation in Friends of the Court Brief
Metropotitan Water District of Southern California, et al, v, Superior Court of California
(Dewayne Cargill, et al, RealParties in lnterest)
As many of you know, Meyers Nave is working with the League of California Cities to prepare a Supreme Court
amicus curiie brief on behalf of California agencies that could be adversely impacted by the court of appeal's
decision in Cargittv, Metropotitan Water District of Southern California, Art Hartinger and Terry Roemer of the
Meyers Nave - Labor and Employment Group are preparing the brief, Dozens of agencies have already
authorized their name to appear on the brief.
Meyers Nave is preparing lhe Cargillbrief as a,public service on behalf of its clients, olher California agencies and
the League of California Cities. Your agency will not incur attorneys' fees or other Costs by participating in this
project
Unless overturned by the Supreme Court, the Cargilldecision will require all CaIPERS contracting agencies to
enroll workers who meet the "common law employee" definition in CaIPERS - even if those workers are paid and
employed by private companies. By a 7-0 vote, the California Supreme Court granted review on January 23,
2002,
The court of appeal's underlying decision at issue could likely impose significant unexpected operational, financial
and administrative burdens on local public agencies throughout the state. For example,
The ruling severely limits agencies' operational flexibility by limiting agencies' ability to use
temporary labor for legitimate purposes such as capital improvement projects and various
professional services.
a
The ruling imposes significant unexpected financial burdens on local public agencies. Most
agencies have not factored into their budgets the cost of providing CaIPERS benefits to workers
provided by private staffing and consulting firms. Because the court of appeal's ruling involved
an issue of first impression, and CaIPERS has never promulgated regulations defining eligible
employees to include these types of workers, the requirement comes as an unexpected surprise,
with an unbudgeted fiscal impact.
North Boy 0ffke
Sonto Roso. (olifornio
o
Eosl Boy Oflke
(entrol Volley Oflice
777 Dovis Street, Suite 300 . Son Leondro, (olifornio 945i7 . Telephone 5l 0.351 .4300 . Fox 51 0.351 .4481 o wr,/w.meyersnove.(om Slockton, (olifornio
Public Agency
April 16,2002
Page 2
The ruling also imposes signiflcant adminiskative burdens on local public agencies including
determining the employment stalus of the worker and proper calculation of CaIPERS benelits for
the worker. Determining whether a worker meets the definition of "common law employee," and
thus is eligible for CaIPERS enrollment, involves consideralion of numerous factors dependent on
the specific circumstances of the individual's working relationship with the agency, Because the
worker is employed by a private company, the public agency must depend on the company to
provide accurate reporting regarding the individual's compensation for purposes of determining
CaIPERS contributions.
The requirement of enrolling such individuals in CaIPERS will result in mandatory deductions
from the individuals' paychecks for CaIPERS contributions, which may dissuade skilled workers
who possess skills in great demand from offering their services to public agencies, Even though
these individuals did not intend to become employees of the public agency, they will not be able
to opt out of CaIPERS.
a
Our effort at Meyers Nave is supported by the League of California Cities and we anticipate that it will be
supported by other public agency advocacy groups as well. We hope your agency will support this effort too,
Please authorize us to add your agency to the long list of public agencies that will appear in the Supreme Court as
an amici. Again, joining this effort involves no cost to your agency and only minimal effort, All you must do is
obtain appropriate approval from your agency and complete and return the authorization form enclosed with this
letter,
We ask you to return the enclosed authorization by facsimile as soon as possible but no later than
May 10, 2002.
Thank you for considering this request. We look fonvard to receiving your authorization form. If you need further
information, please call Terry Roemer or Art Hartinger at 5'10-351-4300 or email either of them.
Very truly yours,
MEYERS NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER & WILSON
^rn*l'r",,
Arthur A. H rtinger
Terry Roemer
Enclosure
EURLINGAME
PUBLIC
LIBRARY
Burlingame Public Library
Board of Trustees
Minutes
March l9r 2OO2
I. Call to Order
The meeting of March L9,2oo2 was called to order by president
Mary Herman at 4:30 pm.
II Roll Call
Trustees Present:
Staff Present:
Cecile Coar, Jane Dunbar,
Andrew Gurthet, Mary Herman,
Catherine McCormack
Alfred Escoffier, City Librarian
Sidney Poland, Recorder
Lalry Anderson, City Attorney
Kris Cannon
t
City Representation:
Guest:
.III
IV
Illarrants and Special Funds
Trustees unanimously agreed to approve the warrants as
presented. M/S/C (McCormack/Gurthet)
Minutes
The Trustees unanimously agreed to approve the minutes of the
February 19,2OO2 meeting. M/S/C (Dunbar/Coar)
Correspondence
Correspondence mailed in the packets was reviewed
VI.From the Floor
There were not any comments from the Floor.
Primrose Rood.Burlingomer,CA g4o ro 4og 3
( 6 5 0 | 3 42 - I 0 3 8 o,F o,x ( 6 5 0 ) 3A2- 1 9 49. www.p r s.l i b. c o.us / p I s / R I s. h tm I
V
480
Phone
VII. Reports
A. City Librarian's Report - Al Escoffier, the City Librarian,
reviewed his report highlighting the following issues.
1. Budget 2OO2- Each operating department will
decrease current year expenditures by at least 57o.
Specifically, the Library will reduce its expenditures $46,000.
In addition, fewer databases will be purchased but present
subscriptions will be continued, half of the public computers
will sti[ be replaced, and on-call hours for emergency fill-in
staff will be limited.
2. Budget 2OOg - Negotiated personnel salaries will
remain in place, capital projects will be limited and operating
budgets will be trimmed to meet the budgeted amount for
the Library. Easton renovation plans will continue as most
of this project is being funded by the Marshall Trust.3. Easton Branch Project Status - The results of the
public survey have been compiled and are available. Future
steps in the development process are for the architect to
produce a conceptual drawing; City Staff and the Library
Project Team will contract with an architect for the project,
and hire a construction manager to oversee the project.4. System Advisory Board Representatlon- Mary Lou
Morton does not wish to be reappointed to the System
Advisory Board when her term ends June 30, 2002. The
Trustees need to recommend a candidate to City Council
before this time.
B. Foundatlon Report - To be discussed under Old Business
C. Duncan Trust - (attachment c)
The City Librarian prepared a compilation of the Duncan
Trust for the year 1997 -2OOl for the Trustees. He noted that
approximately $555,584 of the endowment cannot be touched.
Interest from the endowment can be used for Library projects
subject to recommendation by the Library Board of Trustees and
approved by the Peninsula Community Foundation.
Library Board of Trustee Minutes
March 19, 2002 2
vu.Unflnished Business
A. Patriot Act - Larry Anderson
1. The Trustees revisited the two major privacy issues of
the Patriot Act, which would affect Library procedures. One,
should the Library post signage informing patrons that
material selected and viewed on the Internet/e-mail could be
monitored by a government agency and two should the
Library continue to have patrons make reservations to use
the Internet/ e-mail?
2. The City Librarian noted that the Library staff found
keeping manual records of patron Internet reservations to
presently be the most eflicient way to manage patron usage.
These records must be kept for two years in accordance with
State Law and are also subject to government review or
seizure.
3. Trustee Dunbar inquired if the Library should post a
sign regarding possible Internet/e-mail monitoring by a
government agency. The City Attorney felt that it was a good
policy to let people know that the material viewed on the
Internet/e-mail can be subject to government review or
seizure. He also noted that the Library is not required to post
a sign; one sign is satisfactory.
4. Trustee McCormack suggested that a fact sheet of the
Patriot Act be made available to the public.
5. The City Librarian will inform other libraries in the
PLS system how Burlingame Library has addressed the
privacy issue.
6. Trustee McCormack made a motion that the Library
post a simple sign at the Internet stations advising patrons
that what they view on the Internet/e-mail may be subject to
monitoring by a government agency and that a fact sheet is
available for those who want more information about the
Patriot Act. M/S/C (McCormick/Dunbar)
7. Trustee Dunbar made a motion that the Library will
continue to take and maintain Internet reservations for 2
years. M/S/C (Dunbar/Gurthet)
B. Foundation Report - Dunbar
Elegant Aflair 2OO2
The Foundation Board will meet Thursday, March 21"t and set a
date for this event. Based on a recent circulation and traffic report
for a regular Friday and Saturday, it appears that Saturday would
be a better day to close early. There is a concern that the Jewel
Bail to be held on October 19th may conflict with the Elegant Affair.
Jane Dunbar felt this matter should be brought to the attention of
the Foundation Board.
Library Board of Trustee Minutes
March 19,2002
3
IX. New Business
A. SAB Appointments
Trustee Dunbar whose term as a Library Trustee expires
June 30, 2002 expressed a possible interest in this position but
could not give a lirm commitment at this time. The Board agreed
to table this matter until the Apnl 2OO2 meeting.
B. Joint Board/Council Meeting Agenda - This meeting has
been postponed until further notice.
X. Announcements
A. There will be a budget study session on March 28th in the
Lane Room. Part Harding will represent the Library.
B. The Friends April book sale has been postponed. The on-
going book sale has been so successful that there are not enough
books for a two-day sale.
C. The merger of the Friends and Foundation is presently on
hold until the Friends resolve their tax situation with the IRS.
XI. Adiournment
The meeting was adjourned at 5:30pm. M/S/C (McCormack/ Coar)
The next meeting of the Library Board of Trustees is scheduled for
Aprit 16, 2OO2 at 4:30pm in the Library Conference Room.
Respectfully Submitted
Alfred H. Esco
City Librarian
Library Board of Trustee Minutes
N.4arch 19, 2002
er
4
The City of Burlingame
CITY HALL. 5O1 PBIMBOSE ROAD
CALTFORNTA 9401G.3997
www. burlingame.org
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, April 1 1,2002
Commissioners Present: Jim Mclver, Chair
Jim Evans, Vice Chair
Russ Cohen
Lisa De Angelis
David Mayer
Commissioners Absent None
Staff Present:
Staff Absent
Visitors:
Frank Erbacher, Assistant Director of Public Works
Dawn Cutler, Traffic Sergeant, Police Department
Doris Mortensen, Administrative Secretary, Public Works
None
Corine Hubsher, 9 Dwight Road, Burlingame
James Peters, 18 Bloomfield Road, Burlingame
Sonya Peters, l8 Bloomfield Road, Burlingame
A. Aulf, 22 Bloomfield, Burlingame
Robin Richardson, 460 E.196 Ave. #6, San Mateo
Joe Cowan,1657 Rollins Road, Burlingame
Mark Wong, 1309 N. Carolan Avenue, Burlingame
Grycuk Ryslard, 1309 Rollins Road, Burlingame
Mo Kimdazi,1307 Rollins Road, Burlingame
W. Ostertag, 1305 Rollins Road, Burlingame
Mike Harvey, I100 Carolan Avenue, Burlingame
Kevin Washburn, 1100 Carolan Avenue, Burlingame
John Roman,2839 Arguello Drive, Burlingame
Danielle Roman, 283 9 Arguello Drive, Burlingame
Dean Zluabaysh, 2843 Arguello Drive, Burlingame
Frank Merrill, 1808 Magnolia Avenue, Burlingame
Esfie Portyarsky, 1810 Magnolia Avenue, Burlingame
John Morch, 1800 Magnolia Avenue, Burlingame
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING GOMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, April 1 1,2002
Visitors (cont'd)Anng Koujacjhk, 1812 Magnolia Avenue, Burlingame
Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive, Burlingame
Christopher Mufloz, 1428 Vancouver Avenue, Burlingame
The City of Burtingame Page2
I
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, April 1 1, 2002
1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m. by Chair Mclver.
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 Minutes for February 14,2002, were submitted and approved. Minutes for March 14,2C[Jl2
were submitted for record purposes only since there was no quorum for this meeting.
4.1.2 1710 Trousdale Drive - Red Cross requests Relocation of Existing Green Zone
Mr. Erbacher advised that the petitioner had changed their request from a red zone to relocation
of the green zone which has been completed.
4.1.3 Installation of a Green Znne on Bloomfield Road north of Peninsula Avenue
The preschool owner obtained a copy of a blueprint of the property which indicates that the
property next door at7l0 Peninsula Avenue is part of their parking area; and since the residents
will be moving out in a month, the preschool will not need a green zone at all and withdrew this
request.
4.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS.
4.2.1 1240 Paloma Avenue - lrtter regarding Blue Handicapped Zone
Mr. Erbacher had measured the site and there is limited parking in the driveway. fire .esident
could drive to his parked truck or modiff the garage to accommodate more space. Comm. Mayer
suggested the resident could park his truck crosswise in the driveway, too. This will be continued
to next month since the petitioner was not present to submit testimony.
4.2.2 1100 Carolan - Letter regarding maintaining existing 2-hour parking and adding 2-hour
parking along new curbing
Petitioner, Mike Harvey, stated 2-hour parking signage exists now but it is unenforced; and local
employees park all day there. They need parking availability for their customers. New curbing
has been added with the new construction which allows more parking spaces, especially if Carolan
Avenue northbound lanes were narrowed just south of Broadway. Sgt. Cutler advised that the
parking limit is not properly signed so they cannot issue tickets. Mr. Erbacher advised that two
parking spaces could be added; and it should be a two-hour limit, but an ordinance is needed to
effect the 2-hour limit. It was moved and seconded (Comms. Mayer/Evans) to move this to an
Action item immediately. Unanimously approved by the Commission. It was then moved and
The City of Burlingame Page 3
TRAFFIG, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, April 1 1,2002
seconded (Comms. Mayer/Evans) to recommend to Council to effect a 2-hour parking limit and
install proper signage. Unanimously approved by the Commission. Mr. Erbacher advised that the
ordinance will be introduced at the May 6fr Council meeting.
4.2.3 1657 Rollins Road - Request for Red Zone Extensions, including Fronting 1663 and 1675
Rollins Road and Relocation of Red Curb Opposite 1660 and 1634 Rollins Road
Petitioner, Mr. Cowan, stated they have 30 vehicles, and cars parked to the left of their driveways
block their site when exiting. Their health and safety organization evaluated the site and requested
the existing red zones be extended the fulI length of the block, especially since Rollins Road traffic
moves faster than the posted 35 mph. Mr. Cowan requested that their health and safety
organization be able to attend the meeting next month to make a formal presentation.
Mr. Erbacher advised that most driveways along Rollins Road have a 7O-foot red zone on the left
side enabling good visibility in exiting. This site doesn't have a continuous red zone. The south
driveway has the biggest problem when trucks park to the left and some even use the red zone to
park. It was moved and seconded (Comms. Evans/Mayer) to move this item to an Action item
immediately. Unanimously approved by the Commission. This will be an Action Item next month.
4.2.4 1309 North Carolan Avenue - Request for Red or Yellow Zone at Rear of 1305 and 1309
Rollins Road
The petitioner, Mr. Wong, stated there is an alley between 1309 and 1313 Rollins and he has
truch/trailers 63 feet long which have trouble turning into the alley; so adding a yellow zone
would make it easier for them to pull in and out. From the floor, Manager of 1309 Rollins Road
stated he has six spaces for his customers so his six employees park elsewhere. He disagrees with
removal of parking spaces. Manager of 1307 Rollins Road stated they need spaces for employee
parking. Manager of 1331 Rollins Road submitted a written note disagreeing with adding a red
or yellow zone. The original developer of the property, LJ05-1331 Rollins Road, explained that
there are six businesses sharing this site with 38 parking spaces on site and an average of 25-30
employees. He estimates that there are 100 customers a day. He feels that a red or yellow zone
causing the loss of three or four spaces would be very bad and recommends denial of request.
Manager of 1335 Rollins Road stated parking is a problem now and to eliminate spaces to
accommodate semis is wrong. Mr. Wong stated he needs two spaces and that two cars have been
left parked there for a long time.
Comm. Evans wants to visit the site before he discusses the request. This will be a Discussion
Item next month. Mr. Erbacher advised that staff will re-notice the neighborhood for next month's
meeting.
The City of Burlingame Page 4
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, April I 1, 2OO2
4.2.5 Arguello Drive and Sebastian Drive - Request for 3-Way Stop Signs
The petitioner, Mr. Roman, reiterated that there are numerous blind spots at this intersection; and
with increased traffic from Trousdale Drive and elementary students walking to school, it is a
hazardous intersection.
Mr. Erbacher advised that a bush at the corner of the temple property needs trimming and he will
follow up on getting that done. He recommends approval of this request because ofa site distance
problem at this intersection. Sgt. Cutler stated she agrees with this recommendation. It was moved
and seconded (Comms. Evans/Mayer) to recommend to Council to install a 3-way Stop sign at this
intersection. Unanimously approved by the Commission. Mr. Erbacher advised that staff will
notice the neighborhood for the Council action meeting.
4.2.6 Dwight Road at lrxington Way - Request for i.op Sign
Mr. Erbacher advised that the percenfile speed is at 30 mph, some of the traffic was at 37-38 mph.
He stated that he will be working with the petitioner looking at traffic-calming techniques to slow
down the traffic. He also recommended adding speed limit signage. Officer Witt was present and
stated that the accident at this site was a freak accident and that most of the traffic travels at just
under 30 mph. Enforcement is difficult since it is not included in the Speed Survey. He
recommended enforcement and education. Mr. Erbacher advised that he is meeting with the
petitioner tomorrow. This item will remain as an Acknowledgment Item.
4.2.7 2415 Adeline Drive - Letter regarding Traffic Concerns related to Sisters of Mercy Locale
The resident stated drivers are straddling the centerline and is concerned about safety since there
have been several accidents and many near-accidents. Officer Witt advised that where the road
bends it is somewhat deceptive and the lane appears narrower. He also stated that drivers who
straddle centerlines are citable if it occurs within 100 feet of an intersection. Comm. Mayer stated
that this is a police issue, and they have been lidvised. Mr. Erbacher stated he would check the
Vehicle Code for sections that do allow citations.
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS.
5.1 Increased Traffic on Trousdale Drive due to Millbrae BART Station Opening
Mr. Erbacher advised that this petitioner isjust sharing his thoughts on the subject. No action required.
5.2 Request to change 2-Hour Parking Spaces to 20-Minute Spaces on East Side of 1800 Block of
Magnolia Avenue
The petitioner stated that since the yoga site opened, yoga students use the 11 parking spaces in front
of their stores for two hours at a time. The small businesses on this block live and die by their
customer's ability to park close to the business; so they are asking that the time limit for the 1l parking
The CW of Budingame Page 5
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, April 1 1, 2OO2
spaces be changed from two hours to 20 minutes. Many of the their customers are elderly who are just
dropping off or picking up so are only there 15 to 20 minutes. They have asked the yoga instructor to
ask her students to park in the parking lot, but to no avail. One store manager stated his business has
dropped 50% since the yoga site opened. Customers go elsewhere if they can't find convenient
parking. Comm. Evans advised they will view the site to discuss at the next meeting.
5.3 Petition from Bayswater & Howard residents requesting a traffrc study of the area to determine
whether trafhc-calming measures are warranted
Sgt. Cutler submitted their Selective Enforcement resrlts which showed that 8 citations on Bayswater
and 16 citations on Howard were issued. Mr. Erbacher advised that this item is awaiting the
Residential Traffic Calming Program to take effect.
5.4 Howard Avenue - Speed and Trucks (e-mail)
Mr. Erbacher advised that this item is awaiting the Residential Traffic Calming Program to take effect.
5.5 1300 Block of Vancouver Avenue - Speed Concerns (petition)
Mr. Erbacher advised that this item is awaiting the Residential Traffic Calming Program to take effect.
6. FROMTHEFLOOR
6.1 Mr. Mufloz stated that the curb cut at Peninsula Hospital on El Camino Real looks like a used
car lot since the 'No Parking" sign was removed (the pole is still there). Mr. Erbacher advised that
he will find out if this is a Caltrans issue.
7. INFORMATION ITEMS.
7.1 From Staff to Commission
7 .1.2 Traffic Engineer's Report
Mr. Erbacher advised that the preconstnrction meeting for Carmelita and Morrell signals was held
so construction should start soon.
Mr. Erbacher remarked on the Timeline and Agenda & Procedures schedules distributed last
month which show how staff will work on expediting traffic requests through the Commission.
7 . I . 3 Staff Action Log submitted .
7.2 From Commission to Staff
7.2.1 Reports of citizen complaints or requests - None.
The City of Bulingame Page 6
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, April 1 1, 2002
7.2.2 Comments and communication
Chair Mclver and Mr. Erbacher attended a City of Millbrae meeting to discuss BART impacts,
a venue where both cities address mutual concerns. Chair Mclver will arrange for a BART tour
of the Millbrae facility for commissioners and staff.
7 .2.3 Expected absences of Commissioners at the Thwsday, May 9, 2002 meeting
Comm. Mayer advised that he will be out of town on vacation next month.
8. INACTIVE ITEMS.
8.1 Request for traffic control on Dwight Road
8.2 Millbrae BART Station - Potential Impacts on City streets
8.3 Request for speed limit and truck weight limit enforcement, a traffic signal on Trousdale Drive
at Skyline Boulevard, STOP sign on Trousdale Drive at Loyola Drive and STOP sign on
Trousdale at Quesada Way. Results of Traffrc Data Gathering - Speed limits
Sgt. Cutler submitted their Selective Enforcemenl results which showed tllu;t 49 citations and 17
warnings were issued.
9. AGENDIZE FOR THE NEXT MEETING
4.2.1 continued as Discussion Item
4.2.3 to Action Item
4.2.4 to Discussion Item
4.2.6 continued as Ack-nowledgment Item
5.2 to Discussion Item
Chula Vista Letter to Acknowledgment Item
10. ADJOLJRNMENT. 8:40 p.m.
The City of Budingame Page 7
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
Monday, April22,2002
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Vistica called the Monday, April 22,2002,regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at7:02 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Boju6s, Brownrigg, Keighran, Keele,
Osterling and Vistica
Absent: Commissioners: None
StaffPresent: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen
Brooks; City Attorn ey, Larry Anderson
MINUTES The minutes of the April 8, 2002 meeting regular of the Planning
Commission were approved as mailed.
APPROVAL Of,'AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda.
FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
STUDY ITEMS
2303 TROUSDALE DRIVE - ZONED R.l _ APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
AMENDMENT FOR A PRIVATE NON-PROFIT SCHOOL ON AN EXISTING SCHOOL SITE
(ERUDITE-HOPE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, APPLICANT; I(ASTROP GROUP, INC., ARCHITECT;
BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER:
ERIKA LEWIT
CP Monroe presented a swnmary of the staffreport.
Commissioners asked: what time in the morning do the various classes at Franklin Elementary begin in the
morning? If the new class is to be held in the computer lab, where will the lab be relocatei, witl it be within
the leased area? How will the traffic generated by the change compare to the current traffic generated by this
use and the school; how does the additional traffic affect the congestion experienced at Franklin at the start
of the school day now? Does the proposed 9:15 a.m. start conflict with the Franklin classes that begin at
9:30 a.m.? Has the principal at Franklin been consulted about the change in start time? Have there been any
complaints about the current student drop off/pick-up practices? There were no further questions.
This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the
Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:10 p.m.
2. AMEND REGULATIONS TO EXTEND SECOND []NIT AMNESTY PROGRAM
PROJF,CT PI,A : MARGARET IVIONROtr
CP Monroe presented a sunmary of the staff report, noting that this request was just to extend the present
program so that the momentum created will continue. After the Housing Element is updated, the Second
Unit program will be reviewed more completely and more extensive revisions to the program will be
considered.
III.
vI.
IV.
v.
1.
\-.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 22, 2002
Commissioners asked: could the extension be for 2 years rather than the 5 years proposed? How are we
promoting this program? Want to extend program in order to support and encourage it, but also want to be :
clear that still intend to review and consider modifications to make it better.
Chairman Vistica set this item for action at the next Planning Commission meeting, May 13,2002.
This item concluded at7:16 p.m.
vII.ACTION ITEMS
Consent Calendar - Itums on the consent cqlendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless
separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the
Commission votes on the motion to adopt.
Chairman Vistica asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the
consent calendar. There were no requests.
3A. 330 CLARENDON ROAD _ ZONED R.I _ APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN STEWART, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT; JERRY AND JORDANA PEIL, PROPERTY OWNERS) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT
PLANNER: CATHERNE KEYI,ON
38. 1320 SKYVIEW DRIVE _ ZONED R.l - APPLICATION FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF AN
APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A
FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (SAMUEL AND ELAINE WONG, APPLICANTS AND
PROPERTY OWNERS; JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) (44 NOTICED) PROJECT -PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN
C. Osterling moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it
passed 7-0-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m.
VIIL REGULAR ACTION ITEM
4. 1540 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED R-l _ APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST
AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN STEWART, STEWART AND ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT
AND ARCHITECT; EARL GUSTAFSON, PROPERTY OWNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
SEAN O
Reference staff report,04.22.02, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners had no questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Earl Gustafson, 1540 Howard, property owner represented the
project. He noted that in working on the design they extended the rear wall 2 feet inorder to be able to
include an oversized bath tub. They also increased the dormer to break up the wall along the driveway and
added knee braces; relocated the bedroom window to allow for the larger dormer. There were no other
comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
2
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 22, 2002
C. Boju6s moved to approve the application based on the finding that the applicant had met the requirements
of the design review criteria by resolution with the conditions in the staffreport: l)that the project shall be
built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 1 1,2002, sheets Al -
,{6, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building during construction or following this
construction shall require an amendment to this permit;2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the
basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing
windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review;3)
that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's, Chief Building Official's and City Engineer's March 18,
2002, memos shall be met;4) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris
Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit
a Waste Reduction PIan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,
interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of
the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame.
The motion was seconded by C. Keighran.
Discussion on the Motion: Want to thank the a-pplicant for being so responsive to the commission's
concems.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review. The motion passed on
a7-0-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:22p.m.
5. 1534 MEADOW LANE _ ZONED R.l _APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND SIDE
SETBACK VARIANCES, AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANDARD COVERED PARKING
SPACE LENGTH FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (BRIAN LILES, MICHAEL
STANTON ARCHITECTURE;APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; STEVE ALMS, PROPERTY OWNER)
(62 NOTICED) PR PLANNER: SEAN O,ROURKE
Reference staff report,04.22.02, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner noted that the staffreport
includes a variance for the second floor setback but it seemed in the presentation that the excepion had been
eliminated, could you clariff. Staffnoted that the second floor setback at the front ofthe house was reduced
with the changes to the design from the originai submittal, but not eliminated. There were no further
questions of staff from the commissioners.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Steve Alms, 1534 Meadow, and Michael Stanton, architect,
represented the project. They reviewed the changes made to the design, noting them on some exhibits
prepared which demonstrated the relationship ofthe house and its placement relative to the required setbacks
existing trapezoidal lot, and curved street frontage. They noted how they changed the east fagade to break up
the continuous wall and relocated the second story back to break up the massing on the east and south sides
of the house. Since there never was a fireplace with chimney, which is a typical residential feature, they
created the same by collecting the vents in a single chimney like structure. Felt that working with the design
review consultant was constructive.
Commissioners asked: concerned about the hardship on the property for the second story front setback
exception; applicant noted that the existing two story houses on the block either have no second story
setback or canteliver over the first story the proposed massing is a close as can get to required setback and
meet the desirable interior use, the proposed setback meets or exceeds that of the other houses on the block,
the shape of the lot presents a problem of how to get the stairs to the second floor on the interior.
aJ
\-,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 22, 2002
Commissioner noted that this is new construction, a lot of house to build over, why can't the second floor
front setback be met? Did not want to demolish the back part ofthe house, so using the existing open court -.yard at the right of the entrance for the expansion on the first floor, moving the addition back would require
framing throughthe middle ofthe existing house instead ofusingthe existing livingroomwall, also removal
ofthe new furnace and all the new ducting installed about a year ago, would add to the cost of construction
to point of demolition of the house, client would not stay in the neighborhood. Commissioner noted that
economic issues do not constitute a hardship for a variance, findings should be based on physical attributes
of the property. Applicant noted that the trapizodal shape of the lot affected the size of the side setbacks
making them greater than required of other houses on the street, although from the front the lot appeared to
be the same width as others on the block. Commissioner noted that the decidious Japanese maple suggested
for the front did not have a substantial enough growth pattem to screen the second satory addition from the
street, would the applicant consider a small to medium scale evergreen tree? Yes. Commissioner noted that
the plans have a "freehand" look to them. Architect noted that they were comfortable that they can deliver
what is shown on the plans, they are not schematic; it was noted for example that while all the windows
would be replaced they would be double hung without divided lights as drawn, on the east side the windows
were replaced to fit the scale of the structure as suggested. Commissioner noted concem about the mass of
the house at the front, when there was a lot of area at the rear to build over, also would eliminate the front
setback variances. Architect noted that the addition as proposed would stabilize the house, use post-beam
construction, in filled area would be tied to existing house to reinforce it as well, moving mass to the center
would caste shadow on rear yard, as is proposed roof would caste shadow on itself. Mr. Alms noted that
when on site with design reviewer noted that if move second story to further back would line the windows
up with the neighbor's bedroom and bathroom, having a greater impact on the neighbor. He submitted
letters of support from the neighbors. Commissioner asked ifwould consider adding a window in the second
floor closet at the front to balance the window pattern on the front fagade. Architect noted that that *as a -
good idea, and could add as a condition if commission wished. There were no further comments from the
floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: this is an unusual shaped lot and the applicant has done a good job of fitting the
house in within the setbacks, would like to see the second floor front setback go away, Meadow Lane is a
tight street with a small cul-de-sac radius, design reviewer seems to have gone over this application
thoroughly. Think can find for the variances because of the shape of the lot and its location on the cul-de-
sac, expiains why the design is as it is, other two story houses on the block are flush with the first story with
no second floor setback, could find for this variance. Variances for existing garage, side setbacks see
justification based on the lot and other lots, problem is the second floor setback request.
C. Keighran noted house is consistent with the neighborhood but the second floor makes the cul-de-sac seem
closed in, seems there are options to meet the second floor setback, so moved to deny the project without
prejudice because there are no findings for the second floor setback variance. The motion was seconded by
C. Bojuds.
Comment on the motion: odd shaped lot justifies other setbacks but not clear about the new second floor,
however am concemed about the impact of the second floor on the neighbor if it is moved back, on the first
floor front setback encroachment is post of front porch, would not want to have porch removed because of
impact on design. Feel that the shape of the property addresses the findings for granting avariance, would
note that one finding is unreasonable property loss, and that seems to address the second floorlocation since
it is related to the shape of the lot and the existing neighbor. Feel can support because of the shape of the lot ,
and the curve at the front, the alternatives considered for the second floor, and the design resolution, as welJ
as continuity of the rest of the neighborhood, nice massing and articulation of the design. Feel that with
4
\-,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 22, 2002
articulation the corner that intrudes will have a minimal impact, variance is not so bad because of lot shape
and front articulation provided.
Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the motion to deny without prejudice. The motion failed on a
2-5-0 (Cers. Auran, Brownrigg, Keele, Osterling and Vistica dissenting ). CA Anderson noted that an action
could be conditioned so that the two front setback variances run with this house, and would not carry to a
replacement of this house or any other future addition.
C. Osterling moved approval for the reasons stated in the record by resolution with three additional
conditions: that the landscape plan be amended to replace the Japanese maple in the front yard with a
small to medium sized evergreen chosen from the planning department tree list; that a window, in
proportion to the other windows on the second floor, be added in the closet at the front to add balance to
the front fagade; and that the two front setback variances on the first and second floor shall apply only to
this addition and shall expire if further additions are made to the front of the house or the house is ever
demolished; and the conditions included in the staff report: l) that the project shall be built as shown
on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped April 8, 2002, sheets.Al.l - A3.4
including all the finish materials as shown on the plans, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area
of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; that a window, in proportion with the proposed
second floor windows, shall be added on the second floor front fagade to balance the window pattern;
and that the landscape plan shall be amended to replace the Japanese Maple tree in the front yard with a
small to medium sized evergreen tree to be selected from the Planning Departrnent tree list; 2) that any
changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, which would include adding or
enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height
or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Chief Building
Official's, and Recycling Specialist's January 14,2002, memos shall be met; 4) that two 24-nchbox size
landscape trees shall be planted on the property; 5) that the project shall comply with the Construction and
Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and
alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full
demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 6) that the two front
setback variances on the first and second floor shall apply only to this addition and shall expire if further
additions are made to the front of the house or the house is ever demolished; andT) that the project shall
meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 19g8 edition, as
amended by the City of Burlingame. The.motion was seconded by c. Auran.
Chairman Vistica called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with added conditions. The motion
passed on a 5-2 vote (Cers. Bojues and Keighran ). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded
at 8:04 p.m.
6.1205 BURLINGAME AVENUE - ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A _ APPLICATION FOR COMMERCTAL
DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCE FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS AND SIGN HEIGHT (SEPHORA
PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, APPLICANT; THOMAS BOND, THOMAS BOND & ASSOCIATES,
ARCHITECT; KARP FAMILY TRUST, PROPERTY OWNER) (43 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER:
KEYLON
Reference staff report,04.22.02,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners noted
that there is some confusion as to which blade signs count on each frontage. CP Monroe clarified that both
5
\-,
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April22, 2002
sides of the Sephora blade sign located at the comer of Burlingame and Lorton Avenues count toward the
secondary frontage on Lorton even though one side can be seen from Burlingame Avenue.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. Tom Bond,14471 Chambers Road, Tustin, CA, project
architect, presented an old photograph of the building and a rendering of the proposal for commission's
review, and noted that the current proposal looks remarkably like the original building. Commissioners
asked: what do the projecting light fixtures at each letter look like; regarding the two projecting light
fixtures proposed at the two arches along Lorton, could they be lowered to the center of the horizontal
feature of the arches, would match focus of arch at the hotel entrance; in the photo of the original building,
the arches are recessed, will they be recessed now; elaborate on the hardship for the variance requested for
the number of signs.
The project architect noted that the light fixtures to illuminate the lettering consist of a stem one inch in
diameter that is l8 inches long with a light fixture at the end; at the height proposed the fixtures will be
almost invisible; the location of the light fixtures on the arches is arbitrary, but he felt it would be better if it
were higher than eight feet so it would be less of a temptation for kids to jump up ol throw things over; a
nine foot height is proposed, the idea is to illuminate the plaque sign below; the arches will be recessed by
almost a foot; regarding the hardships on the property, the hotel gobbled up a large portion of the allowed
signage, there is reduced visibility at this corner because of the street trees and foliage; visibility is limited
for pedestrians, there is no ability for pedestrians to locate the tenant without the use of the blade signs; the
logos on the arches on Lorton are there to provide a visual element to the archways.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran moved to approve the
application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the -
plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped March 25,2002, site plan, floor plans and
April 17, 2002 building elevations; 2) that there shall be 5 signs along the Burlingame Avenue (primary)
frontage: l) 29.16 SF wall sign above entry; 2) 3.7 5 SF awning sign above entry; 3&4) blade sign, (each
side counted as one 6 SF sign), 12 SF total; and 5) existing 14.66 SF hotel blade sign (one side only, double
sided sign, one side is counted toward each frontage); 3) that there shall be 6 signs along the Lorton Avenue
(secondary) frontage: l) 3 SF window sign; 2) new 3 SF window sign; 3) new 7.56 SF wall sign;4 &5) new
blade sign, each side counted as one 6 SF sign, l2 SF total; and 6) existing 14.66 SF hotel blade sign;4) that
the basement area shall not be accessible from the Sephora tenant space and shall bc-actbssible only from an
exterior door at the rear of the property, the basement area shall be used for storage for on-site businesses
only; 5) that the conditions of the Recycling Specialist's memo dated March 19,2002 and Fire Marshal's
memo dated March 18,2002 shall be met; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the
Califomia Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The
motion was seconded by C. Boju6s.
Commissioners noted that the hardship was well articulated by the applicant, there are already signs for the
hotel, building is shared by two tenants so signage is shared; the signs as presented are nicely balanced,
simple yet elegant; the amount (SF) of signage is below the limit, would like to thank fellow commissioners
for asking that the existing windows be retained and thank the applicant for revising the project accordingly;
applicant did a good job on the project, the signs are elegant and the project will add a touch of class to the
corner; hardships for the sign variance are that due to the corner building, the foliage along the street
obstructs signs; placement and visibility is an issue because of historic value of the building, the proposed .
signage fits the fagade and adds to the character to the area.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0-0 vote.
6
\-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 22, 2002
Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:25 p.m.
7 1160 BROADWAY _ ZONED C.1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA _ APPLICATION FOR
TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION (RAYMOND LEE, SPEAR
DESIGN ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT; BONANZA/LAMB PARTNERS LP, PROPERTY OWNER) (64
NOTICED) PR ENGINEER: VICTOR V
Reference staff report,04.22.02, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
comments. She noted that since the remodeling of the building is now in progress, there should be an
amendment to Condition No. 2 to read "that the final map shall be recorded with San Mateo County prior to
issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project." Commissioners asked if Walgreens leaves the site,
with the lots merged, could a larger building be built. CP Monroe noted that a larger building could not be
built because the on-site parking is required for the building. Commissioners noted that there is an P.U.E.
easement on two of the lots but not the third; the City Engineer had noted that it is not a concern because it is
not a City easement, and does not contain city facilities. It is a utility easement for Pacific Telephone and
Pacific Gas aldBlectric only.
Chairman Vistica opened the public hearing. The applicant Raymond Lee, Spear Design Associates was
available for questions. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Keighran
moved to recommend approval of tentative and final parcel map application to City Council, with the
amended conditions as noted. The motion was seconded by c. Keele.
Chairman Vistica called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval. The motion passed on a 7-
0-0 vote. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
8. 2304 EASTON DRIVE _ ZONED R-l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS RUFFAT, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND
ARCHITECT;JOSE L. AND MARIA R. REALWASQUEZ, PROPERTY OWNERS) (53 NOTICED)
PROJECT : CATHERINE
r< ry'
Commissioner Osterling recused himself from the discussion because he lives within 500 feet ofthe project.
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Vistica
opened the public comment. John Stewart 1351 Laurel, San Carlos, project architect, noted that they are
taking a charming house that didn't function well and adding to the back to tie into original design. Lou
Realyvasquez,2304 Easton Drive, property owner, presented a petition signed by neighboring residents
noting that they reviewed the plans and had no objections.
Commissioners noted that the applicant did an excellent job, this is a great design, what is the size of the
wood used in the bracketing and timbers; concern with the roof at the rear elevation, can the area where it is
shown flat be peaked, it would enhance the architecture, and might help the design ifyou sawmore roof, can
consider special permit for added height if it enhances the architecttre; did you consider putting windows on
the second floor front elevation; design is elegant, nice to see the front changing a little even though the
majority of the work is on the back; why is wrought iron being trim bolted on atthe front window; half-
timbering only on the front works well.
7
\-.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 22, 2002
The applicant noted that the wooden bracketing would probably be 6" x 8" or 8" x 8", which will fit with the
scale of the house; there wasn't room to add windows on the second floor front elevation, they would have to :
be tiny, think it would look odd; wrought iron was added at the front window because they didn't want e.
balcony that you could walk onto, but wanted to soften the look. There were no other comments from the
floor and the public comment was closed.
C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following
revisions have been made and plan checked:
o Look at the railing in the front, might be nice to eliminate it;
o Look at the roof with the flat portion at the rear elevation, might want to continue the pitch to a peak.
This motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on motion: the changes are minor, but since the
change to the roof may require a special permit would like to see the project brought back on the regular
action calendar for review; note the comment from the ChiefBuilding Official regarding measurement ofthe
heights during construction as the addition proceeds, this is important.
Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans
had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-l (Cmsr. Osterling abstained). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m.
9. 1323 CARLOS AVENUE _ ZONED R.l _ APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
TWO-CAR GARAGE (BRIAN ROCHE, APPLICANTAND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHLI l
DESIGN & ENGR.. INC.. DESIGNER) (63 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: SEAN O'ROURI(E
C. Osterling recused himself from the discussion because he lives within 500 feet of the property. C. Auran
recused himself because he owns a property nearby and has a business relationship with the applicant. CP
Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. James Chu, project engineer noted that this is a demolition-
replacement the plan is straight forward, there ar6.details in the design on all facades, the special permit for
height is required because of the lot slope, the difference betweenthe front and the back ofthe lot is about 9
feet; the height will be the same as the house on the right, and lower than the house on left; will exceed the
height limit by less than 3 feet and only at the ridge.
Commissioners asked: project is nicely designed, initially concerned with height but see it is needed for the
design; concern there is not enough window area in general, can see a lot of shingle space, the windows on
the rear elevation seem appropriate, but on the side and front elevations, the number of windows seems
small; concerned with massiveness, but applicant is not asking for any variances to lot coverage or FAR, it is
near the maximum allowed; concem with landscaping, seems it is too ambitious to have two trees so close
together at the front, is one of them a street tree.
The applicant noted that they had looked at different roof pitches, had originally considered al2ll2 pitch,
reduced it to 10/12, if it is reduced further would affect the design and roof angles; tried to minimize the
window on the sides to protect neighbor privacy, but can look at enlarging a couple of the window "\
assuming the neighbors won't object; some of the elements that contribute to the Floor Area Ratio are the
8
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 22, 2002
large porch and the tall foyer, and the setbacks at the side are generous; would be happy to look at the
location of the trees, the trees will soften the look of the house from the street.
10.
There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. Commissioners noted
that this is nicely designed with a lot of good detail, like the front porch feature, this area it is counted in the
FAR. C. Keighran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the following
revisions have been made and plan checked:
o Look at the trees proposed in the front yard and the street tree in the planter strip; should the two trees
be further apart;
o Look at the windows on the front and sides and see if any can be enlarged.
This motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. There were no comments on the motion. Chairman Vistica called
for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed.
The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cmsrs. Osterling and Auran abstained). The planning
Commission's action is advisory and not ap$alabl9,.This item concluded at 8:55 p.m.
1128 JUAIIITA AVENUE _ ZONED R-l _ APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A NEW
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (CURT WALKER, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY O WNER) (73
NOTICED)PI-ANNER:LEWIT
SP Brooks briefly presented the project description. Commissioners asked staff to research if there have
been any other applications for brand new accessory structures other than garages and pool houses in the last
three years; would like to see the outline of the old garage on the drawings as a part of the record, to show
conditions before construction. There were no other questions of staff. Chairman Vistica opened the public
comment. Curt Walker,ll2S Juanita Avenue, property owner, noted that they had got ahead ofthemselves
in the construction, went in the wrong direction, now is here to turn it around and get the issues resolved,
welcome commissioners to come and look at the back yard.
Commissioners asked: would you be comfortable converting the accessory structure to a storage area and
removing the windows; seems to need storage siace"garage appears to be usedSrlhatpurpose: inthe giuage
there are shelves shown on both sides, can a car fit in the remaining space; would like to see shelves
removed to be sure that a vehicle can fit in space; if applicant decides to do an addition to the house in the
future, the accessory structure will count towards the FAR calculation; explain the circumstances with the
corner of the yard where the strucfure is located; is there a water connection to the accessory structure;
explain about the damage from the tree which fell down last winter; what is the process after Planning
Commission action on the project.
The applicant noted that he would like to keep the windows in the accessory structure and use it as an office,
but if the commission wants them taken out, he will do so; understands accessory structure will be counted
in FAR; there are accessory structures on two neighbor's properties next to where his accessory structure is
built, want to block that view; there is no water connection to the accessory structure, installed waste line for
toilet but did not hook it up; tree fell in the back yard last winter, it covered the whole yard, and damaged the
hand rails on the deck. Staff noted that once this project is acted on by the Planning Commissiin, the
applicant will need to apply for building permits, pay penalty fees, then the constructio; will be inspected,
some areas may have to be opened up for inspection, any corrections will have to be made and then the
9
\-
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 22, 2002
applicant can call for a final inspection. There were no other comments from the floor and the public
hearing was closed
Commissioners noted that the construction doesn't look as bad as how the drawing make it appear; the
drawings don't have enough detail, there are no heights, no roof pitches, no details on the trim, these
drawings don't represent an approvable project, would like to see better definition on the drawings. C.
Bojuds made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following
revisions have been made and plan checked:
Would like to see more refined plans which show the trim details, height dimensions, roof pitch and
proper dimensions;
Clarit/ in conditions that there shall not be a water or sewer connection to the accessory structure.
Waste line should be removed.
The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: one of the issues is the nature of the
accessory stiucture use, sympathize with having windows but would like to see a stipulation that there not be
running water so that it does not become a living uni! should we consider sending this project to a design
reviewer to help clariff the drawings; don't know that it is that complicated, would like to see refined plans
but don't need design reviewer to accomplish that , the applicant is in the construction business and is aware
of the types of trim and detail needed.
Chairman Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans
had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is
advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:15 p.m
Cers. Osterling and Auran returned to he dais.
11.2501 HAYWARD DRIYE - ZONED R.l - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE
AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (SCOTT
KUEHNE, AIA, SUAREZ-KUEHNE ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DAVID AND
LAURA ET MORE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (4I NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE
KEYLON
C. Keele recused himself from the discussion because he lives within 500 feet of the project. SP Brooks
briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Vistica opened the public comment. David Elmore,250l Hayward Drive, property owner, and
Scott Kuehn e,241214ft Aventre, San Francisco, project architect were available for questions. The project
architect noted that they looked at a number of options, this is a slightly unusual lot with a slope up to the
rear, had considered building over the garage,but decided that the best solution was to nestle the addition
over the existing house towards the up slope of the lot, this will have the least impact on the topography and
will protect the primary view corridor which is over the pool and the garage roof, the intent is to keep that
open.
Commissioners asked: at the front ofthe house there is a Japanese feel with divided windows, do you intend a
to continue withthat style, will the existing windows remain; pretty good job on design, this is aranch style
house and the addition emulates that, elements continue from the first to second floor, not a layer cake look,
it won't affect the character of the street, the massing of the addition is good; explain the west elevation, at
l0
a
a
\-
x.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapprwed Minutes April 22, 2002
the second story the chimney appears to be attached to a small piece of wood siding, looks awkward; on the
north elevation, the way the roof is vented with the arched vent is not consistent with this style of house, can
the vents be rerouted structurally so that they are more hidden, encourage that approach, try to find
something that matches better; how tall is the plate line on the upper floor.
The project architect noted that all the windows will be replaced with casement windows, regarding the
chimney on the west elevation, if you look at the perspective drawing, the massing is shown better, that wall
was brought over to engage the chimney and tie it together otherwise it appeared free standing, the vents are
proposed as shown because they are on the house now and there are structural reasons for routing them that
way; the plate height on the upper floor is ten feet, the intent is to keep the existing framing in place, the
existing ceiling will not be raised. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was
closed.
C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the following
revisions have been made and plan checked:
. Look into the design of the vents on the north elevation; do some structural r"rd#hto determine if
there is a way that they can be more hidden;. The applicant shall erect story poles to make sure there are no concerns with impacts on views from
neighboring properties; ando Would like to see an arborist's report with a tree protection plan for the existing trees which might be
impacted by construction.
This motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on motion: erection of story poles is appropriate because there may be a visual impact since this is
in the hillside area; upper side has tree screening, may not need story poles because the existing trees
partially screen house; in any application for Hillside Area Construction Permit there should be story poles
erected to clearly address issues regarding views, don't want any surprises although overall the applicant has
done a good job with the design.
Chaimrar. Vistica called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans
had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-l (Cmsr. Keele abstained). The
Planning Commission'action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m.
PLANNER REPORTS
Review of City Council regular meeting of April 15,2002.
CP Monroe reviewed the planning related items from the April 15,2002, Council meeting noting
that Cers. Vistica and Keighmn were appointed to another four year term unanimously. She also
noted that as required by the Commission's Bylaws, at the May 13, z\\2,meeting the officers would
rotate and the new Chair would need to make subcommittee appointments. Initially there will need
to be three subcommittees ofthe Commission: Neighborhood Consistency (a standing committee),
Subcommittee for the North End Specific Area Plan and a Subcommittee for working on the 2002-
2003 Housing Element annual work program and modernizing the multiple family zones. CP
Monroe also asked the commissioners to pick a date for a Special Study meeting for the presentation
of the proposed project at 1450 Howard Avenue by representatives of Safeway. All but one
commissioner was able to attend a special meeting on May 9; the one who was unable to make it said
l1
\-.
a
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 22, 2002
he would try to rearrange his schedule and get back to staffshortly. In the event that he was not able
to make the May 9 meeting all the commissioners could attend a special meeting on May 23,2002. n,
CP Monroe indicted that she would confirm the meeting date by e-mail shortly.
Discuss Changes to CommercialZonrngRegulations - C-l Zone.
CP Monroe reviewed briefly the Planners Report noting that Council had raised a question about
how the suggested two new retail uses would affect the Broadway commercial area and whether
commission should look at them again in light of how they should be incorporated into the CJ and
C-2 district regulations. In addition, Council suggested, in response to inquiries by local merchants
and property owners, that commission review whether health service uses should be allowed above
the first floor in the Broadway commercial area. Commission directed that staffput together the
appropriate code amendments for them to evaluate these changes and bring them back to the
commission at action for a public hearing since they had already studied much of this change earlier.
FYI - Minor changes to an approved design review project at 1653 Lassen Wa,
The Commissioner's reviewed the request for minor changes and noted that they had no issue with
this proposal. It was noted that this type of review appeared to be efflective and efficient.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Vistica adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m
Respectfu lly submitted,
Joe Boju6s, Secretary
IJNAPPROVEDMINUTES4.22
t2
04 -18 - 02 PAGE: 1
Crime Classification
Murder and Nonnegl-igent Manslaughter
Manslaughter by Negligence
Rape By Force
Attempt to Commj-t. Forcible Rape
Robbery Firearm
Robbery Knife
Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon
Robbery Strong-Arm
Assault - Firearm
Assault - Knife
Assaul-t. - Other Dang'erous Weapon
Assault - Hands, Fists, Feet
Assault - Other (Simple)
Burglary - Forcibl-e Entry
Burglary - Unlawful- Entry
Burglary - At.tempted Forcible Entry
Larceny Pocket -PickingLarceny Purse - Snatchi-ng
Larceny Shoplj-ft.ing
Larceny From Motor Vehicle
Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories
Larceny Bicycles
Larceny From Building
Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine
Larceny A11 Other
Motor Vehicle Theft Auto
Motor Vehicle Theft Bus
Motor Vehicle Theft Other
SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES
FOR: MARCH, 2002
Last
Current Year
1
1
Act
YTD
Prev
Act.
YTD.
31
4
6
1
2
15
t4
1
0
1
0
3
0
0
1
0
5
5
aZ
50
1,2
18
0
0
0
1
1
1
a
6
1B
'7
3
96
z
9
4a
1
1
7
a
9
s0
27
1
0
9
1
1
z
3
8
z
1
31
1
5
4
0
0
3
0
1
0
U
5
1
1
1
0
44
36
22
3
77
3
I
3
4
L6
4
11
40
21,
94 101 273 3U2
94 101 273 302
04-18-02 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO
CITY REPORT FOR: MARCH,
OFFENSES
2002
PAGE: 1
Last
Current Year..
Act
YTD
Prev
Act
YTD.Crime Classi-f icat.ion. .
AII Other Offenses
Animal Abuse
Animal- Nuisance
Arson
Assists to Outside Agencies
Bicycle Violations
Bigamy
Bomb Offense
Bomb Threat
Bribery
Check Offenses
Child Neglect /proL custody
Computer Crj-me
Conspiracy
Credit Card Offenses
Cruelty to Dependent Adult
Curfew and Loitering Laws
Death Investigation
Disorderly Conduct
Driver's License Viol-ations
Driving Under the Influence
Drug Abuse Vio1ations
Drug/Sex Registrants
Drunkeness
Embezzl-ement
Escape
Extortion
FaIse Police Reports
False Reports of EmergencyFish and Game Violations
Forgery and Counterfeiting
Found Property
Fraud
Gambling
Harrassing Phone Calls
Hit and Run Accidents
Impersonati-on
Incest
fndecent Exposure
Intimidating a Witness
Kidnapping
Lewd Conduct
Liquor Laws
Littering/Oumping
Marijuana Violations
Mental- Heal-th CasesMissing Person
Missing Property
Municipal Code Violations
Narcotics Sales/Manufacture
Offenses Against Children
)
1
31 3l
6
1
5
5
L6
4
6
U
0
A+
0
0
0
0
1
0
7
4
n
1
4
1
1
10
.)
3
89
0
0
0
0
0
0
U
0
U
7
0
0
z
1
0
2
l2
a
1,9
11
10)
B
4
5
I
2
B
5
1
1
8
3
5
5
1
6
aZ
23
11
tl
22
T4
Z
0
3
0
0
0
1
1
11
2L
7
34
11
0
Z
t9
t4
1
2'7
15
1
1,6
4
0
U
0
1
0
7
9
4
0
15
7
0
0
4
0
U
0
1
0
7
L7
7
37
9
0
z
0
18
1
0
0
0
1
0
7
10
4
5
3
5
z
)
4
7
z
t6
z
1 I
04-L8-02 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO
CITY REPORT FOR: MARCH,
OFFENSES
2002
PAGE: 2
Last
Current Year
31 15
)].'7
3
B 5
2
6
52
1
5
z
52
I
Act
YTD
Prev
Act
YTD.Crime Classification. . .
Other Assaults
Other Juvenile Offenses
Other Police Service
Pandering for immoral purposes
Parole Violations
Perj ury
Possession of Burglary Tools
Possession of drug paraphernalia
Possession of obscene literature;pict.ure
Probation Violations
Prostltution and Commercial- Vice
Prowl ing
Resisting Arrest
Runaways (Under 18)
Sex Offenses
Sex Offenses against Children
Sodomy
Stalking
Statutory Rape
Stolen Property; Buying ; Receiving; Possess
Suspended License
Tax Evasion
Temp Restraining Orders
Terrorist Threats
Towed Vehicle
Trespassing
Truant s / Incorrigible .fuvs
US MaiI Crimes
Vagrancy
Vandalism
Vehicl-e Code Violations
Violation of Court OrderWarrants - Felony
Warrants - Misd
Weapons ; Carrying, Posses singWelfare Fraud
I
tt
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
B)
0
1
0
1
Z
0
1
0
1
aZ
0
5
4
4
1
1
0
0
3
4
11
4
0
5
13
5
0
0
0
65
9
7
1
13
5
0
1
20
7
2
Z
3
50
z
L7
0
1
0
n
0
0
2
0
5
1
o
1
0
0
0
0
1
t2
0
L2
13
l.29
44
65
13
z
Z
1
1
31
J
5
6
3
282 263 694 732
282 253 694 '732
04-18-02
Crime Classification
Parking Citations
Moving Citations
MONTHLY SUMMARY OF C]TATIONS
C]TY REPORT
FOR: MARCH, 2002
Current
Last
Year
PAGE: 1
Act
YTD
Prev
Act
YTD.
2,3'78
200
3 ,295
267
7 ,405
577
I ,42'7
621
2,5'78 3,556 7,992 9,054
2,578 3,556 '7,992 9,054
..
Officer Productj-vitY. . . .
Reported On: A11 Officers
Data Type Reported on: PARKING
04/L9/2002 at t0:21:29 AM'
Range: 03/01/2002 to 03/3L/2002
BURLINGAME
generated on
Report
va]-id
Cnt
T AlI
valid
voids
Cnt
t A11
voids vaLid
*
Officer:ID:
DAZA-QUIROZ
GARRETT
HARRISON
JFOX
KIRKPATRICK
MORAN
ROSCOE
634
501
506
s05
502
201
503
388
134
491
A\)
L11
95
29 .63
24.01
14.81
24.0'7
1.85
3.70
96.04
98.26
oa l)
o"7 )i
oo co
99.11
91.94
15.40
29.L4
10 ??
94
I6
13
I
13
1
1
2
L1
9
4
3
61
11
.41
Total 2sL9 54
Page 1 of 1
RECEIVED
Dear MayorJantrey, APR 2 5 2002
I applied for a position on the planning.commisriT Htrffiffi,ffiEconcern about the changing economic face of our city. Eacfi'dij, e5'T"riif,llf
the neighborhood, I see new construction. On every block there are
demolitions or remodeling that greatly increase the size and the price of
the home. This trend has been going on for about a decade.
The cities and towns of the peninsula are under mandate to meet the
housing needs of all economic levels of our population. We are not
doinq this. There is nearly no housing for low income families, a decrease
in housing for the middle income families, and an increase in housing for
the wealthy.
We must take action to stop this deterioration of our housing
diversity. I suggest a moratorium on demolitions, while we investigate just
what is going on. I mentioned this ir, -y interviews for the planning
commission. I was met with the response that owners of property have the
right to get a maximum profit on the sale of their house. I countered that
anyone who owns a house in Burlingame (even for fifteen minutes) will
make a profit on the sale of the house. This is a question of community
values versus individual values. We, as a community, need housing for
diverse economic level families. When a house is remodeled or
demolished, the replacement is a home for a wealthy family. Homes for a
mid level families (teachers, librarians, city employees, building trade
workers police officers and firefighters) are being removed from the
housing market by demolition and remodeling.
Along with a moratorium on demolition, we should require that a
family live in their home for five years before th.y can get a permit to
enlarge the home. What is going on now is housing speculation. A
developer buys a home with the prior intent to enlarge the home, provide
more housing for the wealthy, and maximize his profit
Our city is changing its character from a community of all levels of
income families, to a ghetto for the rich. I don't think this is what
Burlingame should be. My suggestions are a possible way to maintain a
city of diversity. I hope that the City Council and Planning Commission
will discuss this matter.
Sincerely,Qru
April 11,2002
N. Carol Davtr
30 N. rfleet Partway
lilichita, Kanrar 67206
f,co ao,,@
WLOI,'
Rahn B€cker
Assirtant Clty Manager
501 Primrose R.oeil
Burlingame, Califoraia
Dear Mr. Becker
I just ran acnocr your card and remembered ttrat I hed never wr{tten as I had Intended to
thark you for somethlng you dld for me alnost e year ago.
lYhlle waiting for a chuttle to tgke me back to my hotel, you walked by after nodclng that I
(along with 2 other women) had been wal"-'g qulte a long ttne for one. I thlnk your office
must have Iooked out over where we were sltffng. Anyway, you apologizcd for the rchedule
not belng clear and paid for a t--l to take uo back ae we evldently had mbsed the lagt run
of the shuttle"
f was so irapreseed by you and your obvlous cotrcem for perfect sbangers that I wanted
you to know how much I eppreciated iL I wlll alwayr remember Burlingame ac a
genulnd ftlendly, charoing town...one that I will vtrtt again tf I am snywhere in the area.
Very sincereln
.7 hzil a a24"
N. Carpl Davls
l
/
P.S. Our Mayor, lVIr. Bob Knlght who b gettlng ready to run for Governor of Kansae is a
penonsl ftlend. Next tlne I cee hirn, I am golng to tell him about Ore lncredtbly klnd and
genenour C'lfy lfianager t met ln a llttle town ln Callfornh.
_-
Er<ATsil Broadband
-t
-r7-7
PO. Box 5147
San Ramon, CA 94583
April72,2002
Mr, Rahn Becker
Assistant City Manager
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA. 94010
Via US Mail
Re: Proorammino Chanoes
Dear Mr. Becker:
Please be advised that, effective May L5,2002, the following programming changes will occur to
AT&T Broadband's current programming in the City of Burlingame:
. Good Life- Channel 123. Ovation- Channel 182. CNNSI- Channel 413 will no longer be offered in the digital channel lineup.
We are also notifying our digital customers of these programming changes.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact Kathi Noe at (650) 631-0191
extension #375.
Very truly yours.
U o
Mitzi Givens for
Kathi Noe
AT&T Broadband
Director of Government Affairs and Franchising
Peninsula Area
KN/mg
-Vv^GP Recyctea Paper
TO
MEMORANDUM
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
DATE: MAY 2,2002
SEWER AND WATER INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM PRESS
CONFERENCE
There will be a press conference held on May 13, 2002, at2;00 p.m. to present and discuss the
accelerated sewer and water infrastructure program. This coincides with the mailing of the
public notice to citizens and businesses regarding the hearing for the proposed 2002-03 sewer
and water rates.
The press conference will be held in Conference Room A if you are in attending.
cc: Jim Nantell
S:\A Public Works Directory\Stafi ReportsWemo - SerirerWtr press Conf.wpd
RE: