Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2009.04.06
BURLINGAME W o a°e BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Monday,April 6, 2009 STUDY SESSION - 6:15 p.m., Burlingame Library,Lane Room Council and Community Insight Team Reception 1. CALL TO ORDER—7:00 p.m. —Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—Regular Council Meeting of March 16, 2009 and Joint Planning& City Council Meeting of March 21, 2009 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. Resolution of Intention to levy Broadway Avenue Business Improvement District assessments for Fiscal Year 2009-10 and set Public Hearing for May 4, 2009 b. Public Hearing to consider adoption of an Ordinance amending Section 18.07.065 of the Municipal Code to add Subsection(C) to allow issuance of a demolition permit apart from issuance of a building permit for certain projects under specified circumstances 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 that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. General Plan Amendment and Zone Change creating the opportunity for multiple family residential development on properties situated at 1008-1028 Carolan Avenue and 1007-1025 Rollins Road: 1 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. (i) Adopt a Resolution approving an amendment to the text of the land use section of the general plan to add a description of the Carolan/Rollins Road commercial area and to add multiple family residential development as an alternative land use within the area; and (ii) Introduction of an Ordinance amending Title 25 of the Municipal Code to add an R-4 overlay for certain C-2 zoned properties in the Carolan/Rollins Road commercial area to allow multiple family residential uses as a Conditional Use b. Financial Status Update c. Consider two appointments to the Planning Commission d. Consider appointment to the Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission 8. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approve recommendation to adopt the Peninsula Partnership Leadership Council's Bill of Rights for the children and youth of San Mateo County b. Adopt Resolution authorizing adjustment increase in parking fines and increasing commonly used Vehicle Code parking fines to match the Municipal Code parking fines c. Adopt a Resolution approving a Joint Powers Agreement establishing the San Mateo County Pre- Hospital Emergency Medical Services Group as revised at the February 9, 2009 ALS/JPA meeting d. Adopt a Resolution to amend language in the Joint Powers Agreement establishing the Central County Fire Department to clarify the disbursement of revenues e. Approve tentative and final parcel map for lot combination of Lots 8 and northerly half of Lot 9, Block 60, Easton Addition No. 7 Subdivision, 1365 Columbus Avenue f. Approve tentative and final parcel map for lot combination of a portion of Lots 24, 25, 26, 27 and 28, Block 6, Millsdale Industrial Park No. 3 Subdivision, 1625-1633 Adrian Road g. Approve a Resolution ordering and calling a General Municipal Election to be held November 3, 2009 h. Approve Environmental Purchasing Policy i. Adopt a Resolution approving a contract with the City of Brisbane for Parks and Recreation Director services 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council Members report on committees and activities and make announcements. 2 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. 10. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 11. OLD BUSINESS 12. NEW BUSINESS a. Set Appeal Hearing for 2843 Adeline Drive 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Civil Service, January 20, 2009; Library, February 17, 2009; Beautification, March 5, 2009; Planning, March 9 &March 23, 2009 b. Department Reports: Police, February 2009 C. Letters from Comcast concerning programming adjustments d. Letter from Astound concerning price adjustments 14. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at 650 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office,City Hall,501 Primrose Road,from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.or . Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—MONDAY, APRIL 20, 2009 3 Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the Water Office Counter at City Hall located at 501 Primrose Road during normal business hours. Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting UNAPPROVED MINUTES BURLINGAME Saturday, March 21, 2009— 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Burlingame Public Library—Lane Community Room 480 Primrose Road— Burlingame, California CALL TO ORDER Mayor Ann Keighran called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. ROLL CALL City Council: Present: Mayor Keighran, Vice-Mayor Baylock, Council Members O'Mahony, Nagel and Deal Absent: None Planning Commission: Present: Vice-Chair Terrones, Commissioners Vistica, Brownrigg, Auran, Yie and Lindstrom Absent: Chair Cauchi Staff Members Present: City Manager James Nantell, City Attorney Gus Guinan, Community Development Director William Meeker, Planning Manager Maureen Brooks, and Economic Development Specialist Patricia Love. MEETING OVERVIEW Community Development Director Meeker reviewed the agenda for the meeting, noting that the Community Development Department is seeking direction related to its work program for FY 09-10. STATUS OF CITY COUNCIL WORK PROGRAM ITEMS FOR PLANNING DIVISION/PLANNING COMMISSION (FY 2008-2009) Community Development Director Meeker reviewed the department's progress on work program items for FY 08- 09. The following work program items were reviewed, and a status update was provided: ■ Work with the new part-time Economic Development Specialist position to develop an economic development program;research and recommend incentives to promote economic development. ■ Encourage and facilitate movement on a new Safeway proposal. • Create below-market rate housing options for citizens who are not well served by current available housing stock, such as seniors who want to downsize, younger residents who want to buy their first home, safety personnel and teachers. ■ Review the current policies and regulations applying to infill development and develop a policy and proposed regulations to ensure 'no net loss'of residential units when new projects are proposed, and explore ways to incentivize development of additional units. ■ Look for ways to encourage public art as part of new development. 1 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting BURLINGAME UNAPPROVED MINUTES Saturday, March 21, 2009—9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ■ Look at options for better use of City parking lots;e.g. structured parking, business buy-in to public parking. ■ Include community education forums as part of major planning initiatives. ■ Re-visit the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and explore creation of more below market-rate options. • Update the condominium regulations. REVIEW OF DRAFT CITY COUNCIL GOALS RELATED TO PLANNING/ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT FOR FY 2009-2010 The City Council and Planning Commission reviewed the draft City Council goals for FY 09-10, discussed at the January 31, 2009 City Council goal setting session: ■ Permit increased density in new multi-family housing. With respect to encouraging increased residential densities, the concept of"average unit size"was discussed. Community Development Director Meeker noted that this concept has been raised in the draft Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan, and is used by the City of Palo Alto. Staff was encouraged to also look at revisions to parking standards as a means of encouraging greater residential densities, and also to consider a"median" unit size in lieu of an average unit size. It was also suggested that staff contact the City of Palo Alto to determine if the effectiveness of its program. Staff was also encouraged to discuss these concepts with the development community in an effort to determine if implementation of such changes would, in fact, spur new development. It was also noted that the City needs to implement the State Density Bonus Law, as well as pursue enhancements to the City's existing Inclusionary Housing Regulations as a means of encouraging the development of more affordable housing units. It was suggested that consideration be given to allowing differing amenities for affordable units as a means of reducing costs to developers. Implementation of State regulations regarding "second units"was also discussed; the City must come into conformance with these regulations as well. It was suggested that staff consult with the Town of Hillsborough regarding its method of implementing the regulations. ■ Encourage the Downtown Burlingame Business Association to re-establish the business improvement district(BID) and work with downtown property owners and businesses for increased accountability in regard to cleanliness in front of, and in back of properties/explore additional fees from property owners to assist in funding infrastructure improvements downtown. Economic Development Specialist briefly updated the group regarding the Downtown Burlingame Business Improvement District (DBID). ■ Change the process to ensure that people adding large heating/air conditioning units on rooftops are required to provide an attractive way of shielding them visually from neighbors/ask the Planning Commission's Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee to look at how green building issues mesh with design issues and how to strike a balance between these two goals. 2 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting 9DSaturday, MINUTES Saturday, March 21, 2009—9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. A discussion ensued regarding screening of mechanical equipment (particularly heating and ventilation equipment)on the rooftops of homes; upgrades to these systems for homes of particular architectural styles (e.g. "Eichler'-style homes)can negatively impact the design of the structure, and adversely impact the neighborhood character. This discussion is one that could be referred to the Planning Commission's Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee. In discussing the potential impact of"green building"design elements upon architecture and neighborhood character; it was decided that"green"design homes would be reviewed on a case-by-case basis for neighborhood compatibility. ■ Provide searchable audio copies of Planning Commission meetings online for web streaming and listening after meetings. Following a group discussion, it was determined that the provision of searchable audio copies of the proceedings of the Planning Commission would be investigated after the Granicus system is found to be reliable. ■ Create below-market housing options for citizens who are not well served by current available housing stock, such as seniors who want to downsize, younger residents who want to buy their first home, safety personnel and teachers. It was also suggested that staff explore opportunities for community forums focused on housing issues confronting the City. • Encourage and facilitate movement on the new Safeway proposal. The group continued to encourage forward movement on the Safeway proposal. • Work with the Economic Development Specialist to develop an economic development program, and research and recommend incentives to promote economic development. Economic Development Specialist Love's efforts during her tenure were praised; the group encouraged continued work with the business community in the upcoming year in an effort to strengthen the City's business climate. ■ Look for ways to encourage public art as part of new development. Community Development Director Meeker noted that the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan will contain policies regarding public art that can likely be applied City-wide. ■ Research and recommend options for better use of City-owned parking lots. Community Development Director Meeker indicated that a discussion of better use of City parking facilities will be addressed in the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. 3 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting BURLIN(.AME UNAPPROVED MINUTES Saturday, March 21, 2009 — 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ADDITIONAL SUGGESTED WORK PROGRAM ITEMS The following additional suggested work program items were discussed: ■ Consider creating greater flexibility in the City's parking standards. Staff indicated that work on the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan has prompted a review of the City's parking standards, as has the recent update to the City's Housing Element. Work will continue on this item in the upcoming year. ■ Consider requiring design review for properties lying within R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts. There was consensus that staff and the Planning Commission should proceed to work toward the creation of design review guidelines for R-2, R-3 and R-4 properties. Some guidance may be drawn from the City's current guidelines for R-1 properties, and from the design guidelines that will be included in the Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan. OTHER DISCUSSION TOPICS The following additional topics were discussed by the City Council and Planning Commission: ■ The Role of Planning Commissioners when They Disagree with City Council Decisions ■ The Appeal Process, including Planning Commissioner Appeals of Commission Decisions The City Council and Planning discussed the two items in tandem. It was clarified that when an appeal is before the City Council, the Council is conducting a "de novo" public hearing, and is granted full authority to consider any new information submitted at that hearing; and may ultimately make a decision that differs from the Planning Commission decision. However, it was noted that staff research reveals that the concurrence rate between Commission actions and Council actions on appeal is very high (86%). ■ Exhibits Provided to the City Council for Appeals of Planning Commission Decisions It was determined that appellants will be required to present that same plans to the City Council on appeal as were presented to the Planning Commission for consideration; though minor changes may be accepted by the City Council. Any significant changes will likely be cause for the project to be referred back to the Planning Commission for review. ■ Specification of Architectural Styles for Neighborhoods Projects will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis with respect to their compatibility with neighborhood character. 4 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting •uRLINCTAME UNAPPROVED MINUTES Saturday, March 21, 2009—9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ■ Food Service Uses within the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A Staff was directed to proceed with its suggestion to amend the Zoning Regulations regarding establishments that serve"snack"type items rather than full meals, and also to proceed with an amendment that would create the opportunity for up to five (5) additional full-service restaurant spaces on Lorton Avenue, Park Road and Primrose Road, between Burlingame Avenue and Howard Avenue; and also on Burlingame Avenue, west of Primrose Road and east of EI Camino Real. FROM THE FLOOR The following individuals spoke from the floor: Stephen Hamilton; Sean Pitonek; Brian and Linda Murphy; Jeff Londer; and Pat Giorni. Comments included: make more information available to the community on-line; a concern regarding lack of code enforcement and enforcement of project conditions; the possibility of placing recordings of the Planning Commission meetings on the web; protect the integrity of the appeal process; consider fines or other penalties for parties that make"as-built' changes to projects before receiving Planning Commission authorization for the changes; comments on the proposed amendment to the Demolition Ordinance regarding early demolition; and a suggestion that any changes to the City's parking standards be reviewed by the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. ESTABLISHMENT OF WORK PLAN PRIORITIES FOR THE FY 2009-2010 PLANNING DIVISION/PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM The following are the FY 09-10 Work Program items for the Community Development Department: ■ Permit increased density in new multi-residential housing. • Encourage Downtown Burlingame Business Association to re-establish BID and work with downtown property owners and businesses for increased accountability in regard to cleanliness in front of and in back of properties. Also explore additional fees from property owners to assist in funding infrastructure improvements in downtown. ■ Work with Planning Commission Neighborhood Consistency Sub Committee to change process to ensure that people adding large heating/air conditioning units on their rooftops are required to provide an attractive way of shielding them visually from neighbors. ■ Once the transition to the new Granicus online recording has been up and running successfully for a six months, explore providing searchable audio copies of Planning Commission meetings online for Web streaming and listening after meetings. ■ Explore means of assuring that projects approved by the City are built in accordance with approved plans (e.g. through requirement of deposits, or other means of assurance from the project proponent) • Explore the creation of greater flexibility in the City's parking standards. ■ Develop a design review process for properties situated within R-2, R-3 and R-4 zoning districts. ■ Develop a policy regarding the maximum percentage of impervious surface for properties that are subject to development or redevelopment. 5 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting B4IRLINGAME UNAPPROVED MINUTES Saturday, March 21, 2009 — 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. ■ Encourage development of below-market housing options for citizens who are not well served by current available housing stock, such as seniors who want to downsize, younger residents who want to buy their first home, safety personnel and teachers; and create public awareness of these options through public outreach efforts. • Encourage and facilitate movement on a new Safeway proposal. ■ Work with new part-time Economic Development Specialist position to develop an economic development program research and recommend incentives to promote economic development. ■ Look for ways to encourage public art as part of new development. ■ Look at options for better use of city parking lots (e.g., structured parking, business buy-in to public parking). ADJOURNMENT Mayor Keighran adjourned the meeting at 12:20 p.m. 6 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 5a ITEM# MTG. HCD QDAATED JYME 610 DATE April 6,2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITtSO BY DATE: April 6, 2009 APPR -0ji FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director BY 7� SUBJECT: Resolution of Intention to Levy Broadway Avenue Business Improvement District Assessments for Fiscal Year 2009-10 and Setting Public Hearing for May 4, 2009 RECOMMENDATION That the City Council: (1) Approve the Broadway Avenue Business Improvement District Annual Report for FY08-09; (2) Adopt a Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessments for Fiscal Year 2009-10; and, (3) Set a public hearing for Monday, May 4, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. BACKGROUND The Broadway Avenue Business Improvement District submitted its annual report on March 11, 2009. A review of their FY 2008-09 budget is included as part of the report. There are no recommended changes in the boundaries, assessments or classifications of businesses within the improvement district. The Resolution of Intention to Levy Assessments notifies all businesses within the district of the City Council's intention to levy and collect fees. The public hearing gives the businesses an opportunity to voice their opinions, comments, suggestions and concerns directly to the City Council. The recommended hearing date is May 4, 2009 at 7:00 p.m. BUDGET IMPACT Approximately$26,000 in assessments is collected annually with our business licenses. The funds are forwarded to the Broadway Business Improvement District for expenditures as authorized by the BID Board of Directors. The City of Burlingame covers the expenses associated with the renewal of the BID. Those expenses are approximately$2,000. ATTACHMENTS: Broadway Business Improvement District Annual Report for FY 2008-09 Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Burlingame Approving The 2008-2009 Broadway Area Business Improvement District Annual Report And Declaring The Intention To Establish 2009-2010 Assessments For The Broadway Area Business Improvement District Notice Of Proposed Assessments And Public Hearing For The Broadway Area Business Improvement District For 2009-2010 March 9, 2009 City Manager City of Burlingame c/o Broadway Burlingame Business Improvement District 1399 Broadway Burlingame, CA 94010-3422 Dear City Manager: RE: BID Annual Report and 2008-2009 Budget The BID proposes no changes in boundaries or assessments. Budget outline for fiscal 2009-2010 activities (in percent of total revenue): A) Advertising & BID Events 30% B) Burlingame Shuttle 30% C) Streetscape Beautification 40% Detail of Funds as of January 31 . 2009 (Funds on Hand) Income Received Interest Income $ 20.06 Bid Assessment Collected 26,124.50 Other Income - refunds and donations 1 .000.00 Total Income Received $ 27.144.56 Expenditures Advertising & BID Events $ 5,334.11 Shuttle Contribution - see note below 10,000.00 Streetscape Beautification 4,880.12 Miscellaneous 1.370.00 Total Expenditures $ 21.584.23 The Business Improvement District made shuttle contributions in March 2008 and December 2008 for the periods 2007-2008 and 2008- 2009 respectively. Status of Funds as of January 31. 2009 (Funds on Handl Checking Account $ 4,306.64 Savings Account 37,193.20 Total $ 41.499.84 If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at A.V.R. Realty, Inc. (650) 342-2073. Sincer Ross Bru e President, BID 03/25/2009 12:26 6503420428 A V R PAGE 01/01 Post-It"Fax Note7671 Dere 3 2,yl vaeaes � ToAfvj f,�/n Fmm yj f n,C Co,!Dept. Co. Phone 9 Phono n Fax# 3 Z_ g 3 Pax j i Z- v 2 2- 5 BOARD OF DIRECTORS I. SIDNEY WU, BROADWAY PHARMACY 2. PEGGY SUTTERFIELD,SUTTERFIELD CONSIGNMENT 3. DENISE GROEBNER,GATEWAYS TO THE WORD 4. ROSS BRUCE, AVR REALTY S. DAVID HINCKLE,EARTHBEAM FOODS 6. DR, ANDREW SOSS, BROADWAY EYE CENTER 7. GEROLD WEIZEL,WEIMAX LIQUORS S. LEE POREBSKI,DESIRED DATA 9. CITIZEN LIASON, BARBARA ZUKOWSKI 10. LANDLORD LIASON, TOM KOROS 11. JOHN KEVRANIAN,NUTS FOR CANDY RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE 2008-2009 BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ANNUAL REPORT AND DECLARING THE INTENTION TO ESTABLISH 2009-2010 ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et seq., the City Council of the City of Burlingame established the Broadway Area Business Improvement District (`RABID") for the purpose of promoting economic revitalization and physical maintenance of said business district, and WHEREAS, the BABID Advisory Board has filed its 2008-2009 annual report with the City Clerk and has requested the Burlingame City Council to set and levy the BABID assessments for the 2009-2010 fiscal year; and WHEREAS, the BABID has provided important services in enhancing the Broadway business area, its businesses and properties; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, DETERMINE, AND FIND AS FOLLOWS: 1 . The City Council accepts and approves the 2008-2009 annual report of the Broadway Area Business Improvement District. 2. The Burlingame City Council intends to levy an assessment for the 2009-2010 fiscal year on businesses in the BABID, as the BABID is described in Ordinance No. 1461 , to pay for improvements and activities of the BABID. 3. The types of improvements and activities proposed to be funded by the levy of assessments on businesses in the BABID are set forth in Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference; these activities and improvements are without substantial change from those previously established for the BABID. 4. The method and basis of levying the assessments on the businesses in the BABID and the amounts of those assessments are set forth in Exhibit "B", incorporated herein by reference; the method, basis and amounts of the BABID assessments will remain the same as those levied in the previous fiscal year. 1 5. New businesses shall not be exempt from assessment. 6. The annual report of the BABID is on file and available at the Office of the City Clerk at 510 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, and is available for review during regular business hours, 8 am to 5pm, Monday through Friday. 7. The City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby schedules a public hearing on the proposed BABID assessments for 2009-2010 for Monday, May 4, 2009, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 8. At the public hearing, the City Council will receive testimony and evidence, and interested persons may submit written comments before or at the public hearing, or they may be sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. 9. At the public hearing, any and all persons may make oral or written protests of this proposed assessment. In order for a person's protest to be counted in the majority protest against the proposed assessments or programs and services for 2009-2010, the individual must submit the protest in writing to the City Clerk at or before the close of the public hearing on May 4, 2009. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of the public hearing. Each written protest shall identify the business and its address, include a description of the business and state the number of employees of the business. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of the City of Burlingame as the owner of the business,then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the business. Any written protest as to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceeding shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made. 10. At the conclusion of the public hearing, if the City Council determines that there are of record written protests by the owners of businesses within the BABID which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire BABID, as to the proposed assessments for 2009-2010, the City Council shall not levy any assessment for 2009-2010. At the conclusion of the public hearing, if the City Council determines that there are of record written protests by the owners of businesses within the BABID which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District only as to a particular improvement or activity proposed, then that particular improvement or activity shall not be included in the District for the 2009-2010 fiscal year. 11. Further information regarding the proposed assessments and changes and procedures for filing a written protest may be obtained from the City Clerk, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, 650-558-7203. 2 12. The City Council directs the City Clerk to provide notice of the May 4, 2009 public hearing by publishing notice as well as this Resolution in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Burlingame in accordance with the requirements of the Government and Streets & Highways Codes and mailing them in accordance with those requirements as applicable. Ann Keighran, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, 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 4th day of May,2009, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk 3 EXHIBIT A TYPES OF IMPROVEMENTS AND ACTIVITIES PROPOSED TO BE FUNDED BY THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS 1) Streetscape Beautification, Seasonal Decorations, and Public Arts Programs a. Seasonal street plantings of flowers. b. Seasonal flags and banners. f. Sidewalk enhancement and maintenance. 2) Business Recruitment and Retention a. Matching funds for storefront improvement incentive b. Develop strategy to fill commercial vacancies. C. Small business assistance workshops. 3) Commercial Marketing, Public Relations, and Advertising a. Organize special events throughout the year. 4) Shuttle Establish a people mover system between the area and the hotel district, to be funded on a cooperative cost sharing basis. 4 EXHIBIT B BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT BASIS* BUSINESS TYPE NO. OF STAFF ** ANNUAL ASSESSMENT RETAIL & 4+ $450 ----------------------------------------- RESTAURANT 1 - 3 $300 SERVICE3+- ------- $250 ------- ------- - --------- 1 - 2 $150 PROFESSIONAL ------- 3+ $200 -- ------- - - ------- - -------- 1 - 2 $150 FINANCIAL NA $500 * ----- Amount shown is annual total ** --- Staff means any persons working (full time or full time equivalency)including owners,partners,managers, employees, family members, etc. Business Definitions (Burlingame Municipal Code § 6.52.010): Retail ❑ Businesses that buy and resell goods. Examples are clothing stores, shoe stores, office supplies, etc. Restaurant ❑ Selling prepared food and drink. Service ❑ Businesses that sell services. Examples are beauty and barber shops, repair shops that do not sell goods, contractors, auto shops, etc. Professional ❑ Includes engineering firms, architects, attorneys, dentists, optometrists, physicians, realtors, insurance offices, etc. Financial ❑ Banks, savings and loans,household finance companies, etc. 5 JOB URLINGAME oq� NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR 2009-2010 AND TO DETERMINE WHETHER A MAJORITY PROTEST HAS BEEN MADE PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 4,2009, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, the City Council of the City of Burlingame will conduct a public hearing to consider the following: 1. The adoption of a Resolution imposing proposed assessments on businesses in the Broadway Area Business Improvement District for the 2009-2010 fiscal year, the amounts of those assessments, the types of improvements and activities proposed to be funded by the assessments, and the method and basis of levying the assessments. 2. Any and all written protests against said assessments. 3. Whether there are written protests to the proposed assessments by the owners of businesses within the Broadway Area Business Improvement District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District. 4. Whether there are written protests to a particular District improvement or activity by the owners of businesses within the Broadway Area Business Improvement District which will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District. The proposed basis for the 2009-2010 assessment is the same as that used for the 2008-2009 fiscal year. The purposes, programs and activities to be supported by the proposed assessments are described in Exhibit A of the Resolution of Intention which is enclosed. The public hearing on the proposed Broadway Area Business Improvement District programs and the assessments for the 2009-2010 fiscal year is set for May 4, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, in the Council's Chambers, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. At that time, the Council will hear from any interested person who wishes to submit written or oral testimony regarding the proposed assessments. Oral or written protests may be made before or at that hearing but no later than the close of the public hearing. See the attached Resolution of Intention for information on how protests are made and what effect protests have. Further information regarding the proposed assessments may be obtained from the City Clerk at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010 (650-558-7203). Written comments and/or written protests may be directed to the City Council, Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. U:\FILES\BIDBRDWY\notice2007.bid.wpd AGENDA ITEM NO: 5b BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 6,2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY: DATE: March 31, 2009 APPROVED BY: 73& �. FROM: William Meeker, Community Development Director—(650) 558-7255 SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 18.07.065 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD SUBSECTION (C) TO ALLOW ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT APART FROM ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR CERTAIN PROJECTS UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES RECOMMENDATION The City Council should: ■ Conduct a public hearing and consider all information contained in the staff report, and any written and oral testimony; after conclusion of the public hearing; and ■ Adopt the ordinance, by title only, waiving further reading. BACKGROUND On December 4, 2006, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1795 (attached) amending Chapter 18.07 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to specify requirements for issuance of demolition permits, to clarify civil penalties for construction work undertaken without appropriate construction permits, and clarifying the fee schedule for construction permits (see attached November 7, 2006 City Council staff report that provides full background regarding the ordinance). A significant element of the ordinance was the creation of a "link" between demolition permits and building permits; specifically, the establishment of a restriction requiring the issuance of demolition permits concurrent with the issuance of building permits for new construction on a property. As adopted, Ordinance 1795 created two (2) exception categories that were determined to be cause for breaking the "link" between demolition permits and building permits. An exception may be granted if: a. a property owner does not intend to construct anything on the property following demolition in the foreseeable future; the property owner shall file a declaration under penalty of perjury to that effect, and the Building Official may issue the demolition permit on the condition that the property where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped; or b. the City has ordered the demolition of the structure because it is an imminent danger to the public health or safety, the Building Official may issue the demolition permit on the condition that the property where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped even though the property owner has not applied for any construction permits. AGENDA ITEM NO: BURLINGAM6 STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 6,2009 The current regulations do not permit City Council or staff consideration of any other type of exception, other than those described above. DISCUSSION Recently, staff was approached by the applicant for the Walgreens project at 260 El Camino Real. The applicant indicates that the current City regulation creates a delay for the commencement of construction due to details of the agreement between the current property owner, Walgreen's and the prior property owner (Chevron) regarding demolition of the existing improvements that are present on the property (the former Chevron service station). Specifically, pursuant to the terms of the agreement, Chevron is responsible for demolition and removal of all improvements on the property, as well as additional site work (soil compaction) in advance of commencement of construction of the new building on the property. In this economic climate there is often a desire to reduce the number of obstacles for new commercial development that will enhance our City's commercial districts; therefore, in response to the discussions related to the Walgreens project, staff has crafted a proposed amendment to the Chapter 18.07 of the Municipal Code that would provide a limited opportunity to deviate from current regulations, and could help streamline the construction process for commercial projects that will benefit our business districts. The proposed amendment to the Municipal Code that, if adopted, would amend Section 18.07.065 of the Municipal Code to permit the Community Development Director to grant exceptions to the requirement to concurrently grant demolition permits with building permits for a new non-residential project, based upon demonstration by the applicant that special circumstances exist to warrant early demolition, as well as a commitment to submit the new project for issuance of a building permit within a specified time period following issuance of a demolition permit. The proposed amendment would, if adopted, add subsection "c" as an exception category, as described below. The amendment was introduced by the City Council on March 16, 2009. On March 23, 2009, the proposed amendment was reviewed by the Planning Commission (see attached minutes reflecting all comments of the Commission and members of the public who spoke regarding the item). The following draft of the amendment incorporates changes suggested by the City Council and Planning Commission, and minor adjustments made by staff; all revisions are highlighted in bold type: C. If a property owner of a non-residential project, 1) has been granted all project approvals required under Title 25 of this code and under the California Environmental Quality Act; and 2) produces evidence, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, that special circumstances exist to warrant early demolition; and 3) produces evidence, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, that he/she is preparing or is having prepared, plans for the project for which the demolition is intended, and 2of3 BURL AGENDA ITEM NO: STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 6,2009 4) declares under penalty of perjury that he/she will submit said plans together with a building permit application for the project to the City's building division no later than ninety(90) days after obtaining a demolition permit; then the Community Development Director may authorize the Building Official to issue the demolition permit with appropriate terms and conditions to ensure safety, security and cleanliness of the property. In the event the property owner fails to obtain a building permit for the project within sixty (60) days of submitting a building permit application to the buildin_g division, pursuant to item cA, the property owner shall, within thirty (30) days remove all debris from the site, permanently secure the property and install landscaping to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. A decision to deny such a request for early demolition may be appealed to the City Council within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Community Development Director's decision. In addition to comments received during the Planning Commission's review of the proposed ordinance, the attached e-mail (dated March 22, 2009) from Jennifer Pfaff was received for consideration by the City Council in advance of ordinance adoption. Assuming adoption of the ordinance amendment on April 6, 2009, the amendment will become effective on May 6, 2009. FISCAL IMPACT None. Attachments: ■ Draft Ordinance Amendment ■ March 23, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes ■ March 22, 2009 E-Mail from Jennifer Pfaff ■ Ordinance No. 1795 ■ November 7, 2006 City Council Staff Report re: Ordinance No. 1795 3of3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 18.07.065 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD SUBSECTION (C) TO ALLOW ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT APART FROM ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR CERTAIN NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS UNDER SPECIFIED CIRCUMSTANCES The City Council of the City of Burlingame finds as follows: Section 1. Factual background In the past year, the economic condition of the country, the State,the region and the City of Burlingame, has deteriorated significantly. Unemployment has increased, commercial and retail establishments and companies have closed and development of business and commercial properties has dwindled. The stagnant economy has had a direct effect on the ability of the City to raise revenue through sales and occupancy taxes to fully fund the delivery of municipal services to the citizens of Burlingame. Consequently, wherever regulations can reasonably be modified to make commercial development more feasible while not endangering the environment or the quality of life, the City will consider making such modifications. Put another way, in this economic climate it is often advantageous to reduce the number of obstacles for new commercial development which might be able to enhance our City's commercial districts and reinvigorate the local economy. It is in this context that the City Council desires to amend Municipal Code section 18.07.065. By this amendment, it is the goal of the Council to stimulate the local economy by providing some flexibility to commercial non-residential developers in the issuance of demolition permits. NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Burlingame does ordain as follows: Section 2. Amendment to Burlingame Municipal Code section 18.07.065 A new sub section"(c)" is hereby added to section 18.07.065 of the Burlingame Municipal Code,to reads as follows: "c. If a property owner of a non-residential project, 1) has been granted all project approvals required under Title 25 of this code and under the California Environmental Quality Act; and 2) produces evidence,to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, that special circumstances exist to warrant early demolition; and 3) produces evidence, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director, that he/she is preparing or is having prepared, plans for the project for which the demolition is intended, and 4) declares under penalty of perjury that he/she will submit said plans together with a building permit application for the project to the City's building division no later than ninety (90) days after obtaining a demolition permit, then the Community Development Director may authorize the Building Official to issue the demolition permit with appropriate terms and conditions to ensure safety, security and cleanliness of the property. In the event the property owner fails to obtain a building permit for the project within sixty (60) days of submitting a building permit application to the building division, pursuant to item c.4), the property owner shall, within thirty (30) days remove all debris from the site, permanently secure the property and install landscaping to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. A decision to deny such a request for early demolition may be appealed to the City Council within ten (10) calendar days of the date of the Community Development Director's decision." Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. Ann Keighran, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, 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 16th day of March, 2009, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Unapproved Minutes March 23,2009 Associate Planner Whitman presented a summary of the staff report,dated March 23,2009. Commission comments: • Why is the Variance not for 8 spaces,rather than 4 spaces(Whitman—a Variance w granted in 1999 for the first 4 spaces,now requesting 4 additional spaces for the intensification use. Meeker— noted that the approach is similar to providing a credit for parking for a non- nforming use, but requiring a Variance for an incremental increase). • A bit uncomfortable about the inconsistency in the collection of in-Wu fees; is there a way to differentiate businesses required to pay the fee,basedupon reve or make the payment of an in- lieu fee payable over a number of years(Meeker—will discu is with the City Attorney. Perhaps look at the"pedestrian character"of the business). • The need for the additional 4 spaces seems to be erated by the number of seats;can this be adjusted? • What would be required as a food establish t versus as a retail use;and how would a distinction be made by the Health Department? • The applicant is correct;much of the business will come from shoppers already in the area and will not result in increased traffic to the area;the Variance is appropriate for this reason. • Has the applicant considered that the rear area could be used for team parties after events;could reach out to the community to enhance the success of the business;though this would also have to be considered a greater intensification and be included in the Variance request. • Can support the request. • A yogurt shop generates more activity than an art gallery. • Staff sPpuld consider developing a definition for a"destination"business. • Lo at creating a policy distinction for waiver of the Parking In-Lieu Fee. TMs item was set for the regular Action Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. 2. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 18.07.065 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO PERMIT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO GRANT CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE REQUIREMENT TO CONCURRENTLY GRANT DEMOLITION PERMITS WITH BUILDING PERMITS FOR A NEW NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECT STAFF CONTACT: WILLIAM MEEKER Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report,dated March 23,2009. Commission comments: • Include a requirement that the applicant for a priority demolition permit provide the Burlingame Historic Society two weeks to provide a report on the property's potential significance, prior to authorizing demolition. • If building permit is not pulled for new project,the demolition permit fee should be forfeited. • Clarified that Planning entitlements would be required before consideration of the demolition permit could be considered. • Concerned that the Historic Society requirement could be an undue delay, given that all other entitlements have been received(Meeker—clarified that,pursuant to CEQA,where applicable,the historic assessment would have been conducted prior to entitlements. CEQA does not apply to ministerial projects). • Regarding"under penalty of perjury';what is meant,what are the ramifications(Guinan—a greater penalty;can lead to prosecution by the City;could be a maximum fine levied). 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 23, 2009 ■ Obtaining a building permit within 60-days maybe"tight"; perhaps more time is required, particularly for larger projects. • Disconnect between item c4 and the later language requiring the site to be cleaned, secured and landscaped; look at the language and modify as necessary for consistency. • Are there instances where something could fall through the cracks (Meeker— explained that he could not immediately think of an example; CEQA is applicable to discretionary projects;compliance with any permitting processes required by the Zoning Ordinance is required in advance of making a request for the demolition permit). The Commission's comments will be forwarded to the City Council for the April 6, 2009 public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed amendment. This item concluded at 7:33 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar- Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. Commissioner Brownrigg indicated that he would abstain from votZFORD4E,,,sGN e he lives within 500- feet of the subject property Chair Cauchi asked for individual motions on each of the Consen 4a. 1350 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATIREVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND HOLLY ROGERS AND RICHARD SCHOUSTRA PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Brownrigg moved approval of Item 4a, based on the facts in the staff report Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff repojt, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by mmissioner Yie. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. 4b. 1531 COLUMBUS AVEN, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE FORA FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ROBERT MEDAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND KONRAD AND CHRISTINA HABELT, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Terrones moved approval of Item 4b, based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Chair Cauchi called fora voice vote on them ron and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg abstaining). ppeal procedures were advised, This item concluded at 7:34 p.m- 3 CD/PLG-Meeker, William From: Jennifer Pfaff Wpf@pacbell.net] Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 11:41 PM To: GRP-Council Cc: CD/PLG-Meeker, William Subject: Demolition amendment Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Flagged Dear Mayor Keighran, dear honorable Councilmembers: Although I was unable to attend the Council meeting earlier this week, I want to make sure to register my concerns over what could become an amendment to the current demolition ordinance. I realize there may be a particularly unusual and bothersome issue with regard to the Walgreens'site and the sequencing of demolition on the old gas station grounds, but hope with all my heart that this city does not get into the business of making rules to fit ongoing projects, rather than the other way around. Though times are tough economically, our ordinances should be crafted(whenever possible)to be independent of current markets and trends. The emphasis here should remain with the strength,purpose and credibility of the original ordinance, which was finely crafted after much work, rather than somehow linking it to resolution of problems associated with a general economic downturn. Remember that we have seen very good and very bad times in Burlingame, and ideally our ordinances should fit both these situations adequately so that we aren't constantly redoing and amending them according to an issue that has surfaced with this or that project. I am particularly concerned that this ordinance amendment could potentially leave the city with empty parcels on its hands, even if it "requires"the project's be approved or within completion by 90 days, (as I believe is stated in the material to be considered). Often enough, both in residential and in commercial development, it only becomes clear AFTER plans are drawn up, or more prevalently AFTER bids have been submitted to the client that this or that project(approved or not,)is simply is not feasible to build. Most of the time, but not always, this is for economic reasons. If we allow structures to be demolished, on the promise that they will be replaced with something, I think we open ourselves up to all kinds of potential abuse. We have seen periods in the not so distant past where parcels have been barren for years for various reasons, and it has been a very sorry sight.Attempting to mandate their beautification is not really a solution. There is a reason why the demo ordinance was created in the first place,it is because there had been a fair amount of abuse. Currently we are seeing that numerous projects around this state, including some locally that have been in the works for years, are being put on hold. In the SM Times from March 18,for example, the developers of the former Bay Meadows Racetrack property have announced their project will be put on hold, and in this case they do have approved plans! In the meanwhile, the entire property, which was still in use as both a racetrack, and rental space for the various public functions, has been demolished and is completely useless to anyone. It should also be pointed out that sometimes, when one project becomes infeasible for its intended use, the former structure may turn out to be reusable for another purpose or for another owner with a different concept. If a structure has already been torn down, there is no retrieval possible. In addition, there is unspoken, though omnipresent pressure on a council body to make sure empty parcels are developed as they become eyesores very quickly. Could this unintended consequence inadvertately cause insufficient, or hurried vetting of a future project if the parcel has been empty for 1 many months or years?1 don't know, but certainly these are the issues that should be carefully examined as you consider changes. Rather than creating an amendment, the effort instead be spent on making sure that the Planning Dept. staff inform all applicants of these and other rules when clients first pay a visit to them, (though 1 suspect this is probably already being done with great care.) While acknowledging that this is a very unusal and time consuming circumstance for those involved in the Walgreens project I hope you nonetheless leave this ordinance unchanged as the circumstances will likely not occur again. I believe the current policy has served us quite well as a city. Thank you for your continued good work. Yours sincerely, Jennifer Pfaff 2 1 ORDINANCE NO. 1795 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 18.07 TO SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT, TO 3 CLARIFY CIVIL PENALTIES FOR WORK WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, AND TO CLARIFY FEE SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS 4 5 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS 6 FOLLOWS: 7 8 Section 1. 9 (a) It is important that buildings in the City not be demolished unless proper safeguards are 10 taken to ensure environmental review is conducted, property values are preserved in the 11 neighborhood, and unlawful construction is prevented. In addition, unlawful construction or 12 demolition adversely affects neighborhoods, endangers public safety, wastes public resources, and 13 imposes an unnecessary burden on the community. Civil penalties should be in place that discourage 14 such practices and compensate the community in case of such violations. This ordinance is intended 15 to address these concerns. This ordinance also clarifies that the fees for construction permits are set 16 by Council action. 17 (b) The City Council hereby finds and declares that this amendment to Chapter 18, Uniform 18 Administrative Code, promotes and implements the original policy of the Chapter and the Code, and 19 does not significantly broaden its scope of application. In addition, this ordinance is intended to and 20 does protect public health and safety. 21 22 Section 2. A new Section 18.07.065 is added to read as follows: 23 18.07.065 Section 3 03. 1 amended — Issuance 24 A fourth paragraph is added to Section 3 03. 1 to read as follows: 25 Demolition permits will only be issued after all approvals required by title 25 of this code and 26 the California Environmental Quality Act are granted for the overall project for which the demolition 27 is intended, and in any event, will only be issued simultaneously with the construction permits for 28 the project. 12/4/2006 1 1 Exceptions: 2 a. If a property owner does not intend to construct anything on the property following 3 demolition in the foreseeable future,the property owner shall file a declaration under penalty of 4 perjury to that effect, and the building official may issue the demolition permit on the condition that 5 the property where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped. 6 b. If the city has ordered the demolition of the structure because it is an imminent danger to 7 public health or safety, the building official may issue the demolition permit on the condition that the 8 property where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped even though the 9 property owner has not applied for any construction permits. 10 11 Section 3. Subsection 18.07.080(a) is amended to read as follows: 12 (a) The first sentence of the first paragraph of Section 304.2 is amended to read as follows: 13 The fee for each permit shall be as established by resolution or ordinance adopted by the city council, 14 plus any additional fees which may be established or mandated by state or federal law or city 15 ordinance. 16 17 Section 4. Section 18.07.090 is amended to read as follows: 18 18.07.090 Section 304.3 amended—Plan review fees. 19 Section 304.3 is amended by adding a new second and third paragraphs: 20 When the submittal documents require review for compliance with State access regulations, an 21 access plan review fee shall also be paid at the time of submittal. This fee shall be as established by 22 resolution or ordinance adopted by the city council. 23 When the submittal documents require review for compliance with State energy regulations, an 24 energy plan review shall also be paid at the time of submittal. This fee shall be as established by 25 resolution or ordinance adopted by the city council. 26 27 Section 5. Section 18.07.100 is amended to read as follows: 28 18.07.100 Section 304.5 amended-Investigation Fees: Work without a Permit. 12/4/2006 2 1 (a) The first sentence of Section 304.5.1 is amended to read as follows: 2 304.5.1 Investigation. Whenever construction or work for which a permit is required by this code, 3 or any other code adopted or incorporated by reference as a part of this code,has been commenced 4 without first obtaining a permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued 5 for the work. Demolition of all or any part of a structure without a required permit shall be subject 6 to the investigation and fees imposed by this section. 7 (b) Section 304.5.2 is amended to read as follows: 8 304.5.2 Fee. An investigation fee, in addition,to the permit fee, shall be collected as a civil penalty, 9 whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be up to ten times 10 the building permit fee. The investigation fee shall be determined by the building official and shall 11 be based on the staff time reasonably required to resolve all of the issues related to the work that has 12 been performed without a permit. No construction permit shall be issued until the investigation fee 13 has been paid in full. 14 Any person assessed such a fee may file an appeal with the city clerk within ten(10) days 15 after written notice to such person of the assessment. A hearing upon such appeal shall thereafter be 16 held by the city council; its decisions thereon shall be final. 17 Nothing in this section shall relieve any persons from fully complying with the requirements 18 of this code, or with any codes incorporated by reference and made a part of this code in the 19 execution of the work, or from any other fees or penalties prescribed by law. 20 21 Section 6. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 22 23 ::a 1 v 24 Mayor 25 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Cleric of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 26 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6`h day of 27 November, 2006, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 4th day 28 of December, 2006, by the following vote: 12/4/2006 3 I AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: BAYLOCK, COHEN,KEIGHRAN,NAGEL, O'MAHONY 2 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:NONE 3 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE 4 5 e p r City Clerk 6 U:\FILES\ORDrNANC\uac2OD6.bld.doc 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 12/412006 4 Agenda Item # Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: December 4, 2006 1 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR ISSUING A DEMOLITION PERMIT AND CLARIFICATION OF PENALTIES FOR WORK DONE WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council hold a public hearing to 1. Adopt the proposed ordinance. 2. Direct City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 30 days of Council action. If approved this ordinance will become effective on January 4, 2007. BACKGROUND: Recently staff has investigated, and issued stop work orders at a number of small projects where work was commenced without first obtaining a building permit. These small building projects have consisted of window replacements, storage racks, owner-built garage conversions, demolished buildings, and minor plumbing, electrical or mechanical work. Although a project is small and has a low value of construction, staff can spend many hours resolving the issues surrounding the stop work order. The current ordinance allows for doubling fees when a stop work order is issued. Often the fees assessed do not cover the City's staff costs for achieving code compliance and are not a sufficient deterrent for preventing non-permitted work. In the past demolition permits were issued separately from the building permit. With this ordinance amendment demolition permits will not be issued without the simultaneous issuance of the building permit. Therefore, penalties will be based on the value of the building permit. The new penalty for work without permits, including demolition, will be up to ten times the building permit fee based on the actual cost of City staff time to investigate and resolve the issues surrounding the work done without permits. (See memo attached for example.) DISCUSSION: Staff met with the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee of the Planning Commission to develop recommendations for demolition and other work done without a permit. The options explored included: 1) keep the penalty for work C:\Documents and Settings\jcyr\Desktop\edited Penalties for Work Done without a Building Permit Adopt.doc without a permit at double the permit fee; 2) increase the penalty to five times the permit fee; 3) increase the penalty to ten times the permit fee; 4) increase the penalty up to ten times the permit fee but provide some discretion to allow for adjustment of the penalty depending on the amount of staff time required to resolve the issues related to the work without permits. z As part of their review the subcommittee discussed the policy regarding demolition permits. They discussed linking the Planning permit process to the demolition permit thereby reducing the impact of construction on the neighborhood. This policy will allow a thorough review of buildings of community importance before issuing a building permit and safeguarding the health and safety concerns of the community. In addition to Building, Planning, Engineering, and Fire Department the City's Recycling Specialist, Stormwater and Wasterwater Specialists, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District review projects for compliance with their specific regulations before a building permit is issued. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The recommendations from the Subcommittee meetings were presented to the Planning Commission on October 10, 2006. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended Option 4 Which includes raising the fees for work without a permit up to ten times the building permit fee and the amendment requiring demolition permits to be issued simultaneously with the building permit. BUDGET IMPACT: None EXHIBITS: Proposed Ordinance Memo dated November 8, 2006 Staff report for Introduction with attachments c: City Clerk, City.Manager, City Attorney, Public Works Director, Asst. Public Director, City Planner Joe C , CBO, fief B ding Official CADocuments and Settings\JcyADesktop\edited Penalties for Work Done without a Building Permit Adopt.doc I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 18.07 TO SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT,TO 3 CLARIFY CIVIL PENALTIES FOR WORK WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, AND TO CLARIFY FEE SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS 4 5 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS 6 FOLLOWS: 7 8 Section 1. 9 (a) It is important that buildings in the City not be demolished unless proper safeguards are 10 taken to ensure environmental review is conducted,property values are preserved in the 11 neighborhood, and unlawful construction is prevented. In addition, unlawful construction or 12 demolition adversely affects neighborhoods, endangers public safety,wastes public resources,and 13 imposes an unnecessary burden on the community. Civil penalties should be in place that discourage 14 such practices and compensate the community in case of such violations. This ordinance is intended 15 to address these concerns. This ordinance also clarifies that the fees for construction permits are set 16 by Council action. 17 (b)The City Council hereby finds and declares that this amendment to Chapter 18,Uniform 18 Administrative Code,promotes and implements the original policy of the Chapter and the Code, and 19 does not significantly broaden its scope of application. In addition,this ordinance is intended to and 20 does protect public health and safety. 21 22 Section 2. A new Section 18.07.065 is added to read as follows: 23 18.07.065 Section 3 03.1 amended—Issuance 24 A fourth paragraph is added to Section 303.1 to read as follows: 25 Demolition permits will only be issued after all approvals required by title 25 of this code and 26 the California Environmental Quality Act are granted for the overall project for which the demolition 27 is intended, and in any event,will only be issued simultaneously with the construction permits for 28 the project. 11/8/2006 1 I Exceptions: 2 a. If a property owner does not intend to construct anything on the property following 3 demolition in the foreseeable future,the property owner shall file a declaration under penalty of 4- perjury to that effect, and the building official may issue the demolition permit on the condition that 5 the property where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped. 6 b. If the city has ordered the demolition of the structure because it is an imminent danger to 7 public health or safety,the building official may issue the demolition permit on the condition that the 8 property where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped even though the 9 property owner has not applied for any construction permits. 10. 11 Section 3. Subsection 18.07.080(a)is amended to read as follows: 12 (a) The first sentence of the first paragraph of Section 304.2 is amended to read as follows: 13 The fee for each permit shall be as established by resolution or ordinance adopted by the city council, 14 plus any additional fees which may be established or mandated by state or federal law or city 15 ordinance. 16 17 Section 4. Section 18.07.090 is amended to read as follows: 18 18.07.090 Section 304.3 amended—Plan review fees. 19 Section 304.3 is amended by adding a new second and third paragraphs: 20 When the submittal documents require review for compliance with State access regulations, an 21 access plan review fee shall also be paid at the time of submittal. This fee shall be as established by 22 resolution or ordinance adopted by the city council. 23 When the submittal documents require review for compliance with State energy regulations, an 24 energy plan review shall also be paid at the time of submittal. This fee shall be as established by 25 resolution or ordinance adopted by the city council. 26 27 Section 5. Section 18.07.100 is amended to read as follows: 28 18.07.100 Section 304.5 amended-Investigation Fees: Work without a Permit. 11/812006 2 1 (a) The first sentence of Section 304.5.1 is amended to read as follows: 2 304.5.1 Investigation. Whenever construction or work for which a permit is required by this code, 3 or any other code adopted or incorporated by reference as a part of this code,has been commenced 4 without first obtaining a permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued 5 for the work. Demolition of all or any part of a structure without a required permit shall be subject 6 to the investigation and fees imposed by this section. 7 (b) Section 304.5.2 is amended to read as follows: 8 304.5.2 Fee. An investigation fee, in addition,to the permit fee, shall be collected as a civil penalty, 9 whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be up to ten times 10 the building permit fee. The investigation fee shall be determined by the building official and shall 11 be based on the staff time reasonably required to resolve all of the issues related to the work that has 12 been performed without a permit. No construction permit shall be issued until the investigation fee 13 has been paid in full. 14 Any person assessed such a fee may file an appeal with the city clerk within ten(1 O)days 15 after written notice to such person of the assessment. A hearing upon such appeal shall thereafter be 16 held by the city council; its decisions thereon shall be final. 17 Nothing in this section shall relieve any persons from fully complying with the requirements 18 of this code, or with any codes incorporated by reference and made a part of this code in the 19 execution of the work, or from any other fees or penalties prescribed by law. 20 21 Section 6. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 22 23 Mayor 24 25 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 26 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6'day of 27 November,2006, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 28 day of , 2006, by the following vote: 11/8/2006 3 I AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 2 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 3 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 4 5 City Clerk 6 U:\FILES\ORDINANC\uar2OO6.bld.wpd 7 8 9. 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11/8/2006 4 BURLINGAME R N rl TO: City Council FROM: Joe Cyr, CBO DATE: November 8, 2006 SUBJECT: Clarification of current penalty fees and proposed penalty fees The recent demolition of a single family home without permit on Hillside Drive resulted in a penalty of$188. This amount would not be enough to recover the administrative costs that were necessitated by the stop work order.However, by linking the demolition permit with the building permit as proposed the City would be able to recover all of the administrative costs caused by the violation. The building permit for the new home was $9,751. Therefore the maximum penalty in the new code could be$97, 510. Between the Building Division, Planning Department, and the City Attorney's office the City spent approximately $10,000 of City time on enforcement of the Hillside demolition without a permit. By linking the demolition permit to the Building permit and increasing the penalties for work without a permit the City will be able to adjust the size of the penalty in order to ensure full cost recovery. Agenda Item Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: November 6, 2006 l SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR ISSUING A DEMOLITION PERMIT AND CLARIFICATION OF PENALTIES FOR WORK DONE WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council begin adoption of the attached ordinance to amend the Municipal Code for issuing a demotion permit and clarifying penalties for work done without a building permit, 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: Recently staff has investigated, and issued stop work orders at a number of small projects where work was commenced without first obtaining a building permit. These small building projects have consisted of window replacements, storage racks, owner-built garage conversions, demolished buildings, and minor plumbing, electrical or mechanical work. Although a project is small and has a low value of construction, staff can spend many hours resolving the issues surrounding the stop work order. The current ordinance allows for doubling fees when a stop work order is issued. Often the fees assessed do not cover the City's staff costs for achieving code compliance and are not a sufficient deterrent for preventing non-permitted work. In addition, the demolition permit is issued separately from the building permit and the neighborhood effectively experiences two construction projects. The first project takes place when the buildings are demolished; then the site remains dormant for weeks or months. The second project begins after the permit is issued and reconstruction of the site begins. If a demolition permit is issued before the building permit there is also the potential for a building of community importance to be removed without proper review. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Penalties for Work Done without a Building Permit.doc DISCUSSION: Staff met with the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee of the Planning Commission to develop recommendations for demolition and other work done without a permit. The options explored included: 1) keep the penalty for work without a permit at double the permit fee; 2) increase the penalty to five times the permit fee; 3) increase the penalty to ten times the permit fee; 4) increase the penalty up to ten times the permit fee but provide some discretion to allow for adjustment of the penalty depending on the amount of staff time required to resolve the issues related to the work without permits. In addition the subcommittee reviewed the policy regarding demolition permits. They discussed linking the Planning permit process to the demolition permit thereby reducing the impact of construction on the neighborhood, allowing a thorough review of buildings of community importance, and safeguarding the health and safety concerns of the community. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The recommendations from those meetings were presented to the Planning Commission on October 10, 2006. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended Option 4 which includes raising the fees for work without a permit up to ten times the building permit fee and the amendment requiring demolition permits to be issued simultaneously with the building permit. BUDGET IMPACT: None EXHIBITS: Proposed Ordinance Planning Department Memo date August 25, 2006 Annotated changes and additions to the Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning Commission Staff Report, October 10, 2006 Planning Commission minutes, October 10, 2006 c: City Clerk, City Manager, City Attorney, Public Works Director, Asst. Public Director, City Planner .Joe , Chief uildin fficial SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Penalties for Work Done without a Building Permit.doc I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME. AMENDING CHAPTER 18.07 TO SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT,TO 3 CLARIFY CIVIL PENALTIES FOR WORK WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, AND TO CLARIFY FEE SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS 4 5 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY-OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS 6 FOLLOWS: 7 8 Section 1. 9 (a) It is important that buildings in the City not be demolished unless proper safeguards are 10 taken to ensure environmental review is conducted,property values are preserved in the 11 neighborhood, and unlawful construction is prevented. In addition,unlawful construction or 12 demolition adversely affects neighborhoods, endangers public safety,wastes public resources, and 13 imposes an unnecessary burden on the community. Civil penalties should be in place that discourage 14 such practices and compensate the community in case of such violations. This ordinance is intended 15 to address these concerns. This ordinance also clarifies that the fees for construction permits are set 16 by Council action. 17 (b) The City Council hereby finds and declares that this amendment to Chapter 18,Uniform 18 Administrative Code,promotes and implements the original policy of the Chapter and the Code, and 19 does not significantly broaden its scope of application. In addition,this ordinance is intended to and 20 does protect public health and safety. 21 22 Section 2. A new Section 18.07.065 is added to read as follows: 23 18.07.065 Section 303.1 amended—Issuance 24 A fourth paragraph is added to Section 303.1 to read as follows: 25 Demolition permits will only be issued after all approvals required by title 25 of this code and 26 the California Environmental Quality Act are granted for the overall project for which the demolition 27 is intended, and in any event,will only be issued simultaneously with the construction permits for 28 the project. 10/26/2006 1 I Exceptions: 2 a. If a property owner does not intend to construct anything on the property following 3 demolition in the foreseeable future, the property owner shall file a declaration under penalty of . 4 perjury to that effect, and the building official may issue the demolition permit on the condition that 5 the property where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped. 6 b. If the city has ordered the demolition of the structure because it is an imminent danger to 7 public health or safety,the building official may issue the demolition permit on the condition that the 8 property where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped even though the 9 property owner has not applied for any construction permits. 10 11 Section 3. Subsection 18.07.080(a)is amended to read as follows: 12 (a) The first sentence of the first paragraph of Section 304.2 is amended to read as follows: 13 The fee for each permit shall be as . 14 set fbrth in Tables 3-A3-11 plus any additional fees which may be established or mandated 15 by state or federal law or city ordinance. 16 17 Section 4. Section 18.07.090 is amended to read as follows: 18 18.07.090 Section 304.3 amended—Plan review fees. 19 Section 304.3 is amended by adding a new second and third paragraphs: 20 When the submittal documents require review for compliance with State access regulations, an 21 access plan review fee shall also be paid at the time of submittal.This fee shall be 22 BEIM 35 percent of the building permit fee as sho,mi 23 in Tabf e No. 3- 24 When the submittal documents require review for compliance with State energy regulations, an 25 energy plan review shall also be paid at the time of submittal. This fee shall be 26 IMMUNEM s - F25 percent of the building permit fee as shown in 27 Table No. 3--A. 28 10/26/2006 2 1 Section S. Section 18.07.100 is amended to read as follows: 2 18.07.100 Section 304.5 amended-Investigation Fees:Work without a Permit. 3 (a) The first sentence of Section 304.5.1 is amended to read as follows: 4 304.5.1 Investigation. Whenever construction or work for which a permit is required by this code, 5 or any other code adopted or incorporated by reference as a part of this code,has been commenced 6 without first obtaining a0,I ,�,' :coi _' 8FTR 5IM �kFsS."1'} n �eS '. 9 (b) Section 304.5.2 is amended to read as follows: 10cl~ 5 h Tees: 11 r �Lf'!Rl The mirtilimm investigation fee shall be ...� 12 7 T-10 um 13 14 MW equal to the fee set fbith 16 , 17 Any person assessed such I fee may file an appeal with the city clerk within ten(1 O)days 18 after written notice to such person of the assessment. A hearing upon such appeal shall thereafter be 19 held by the city council; its decisions thereon shall be final. 20 Nothing in this section shall relieve any persons from fully complying with the requirements 21 of this code, or with any codes incorporated by reference and made a part ofthis code in the 22 execution of the work,or from any other fees or penalties prescribed by law. 23 24 Section 6. 11iis ordinance shall be published as required by law. 25 26 27 Mayor 28 1,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 10126/2006 3 I foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2 ,2006,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3 day of , 2006, by the following vote: 4 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 5 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 6 ABSENT: : COUNCILMEMBERS: 7 8 City Clerk 9 U:\I-MES\ORDINANC\uac2006.bld.wpd 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1012612006 4 PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO BUIiUNGAME . DATE: August 25;2006 TO: City Council: Mayor Cathy Baylock Vice-Mayor Terry Nagel Russ Cohen Ann Keighran , Rosalie O'Mahony FROM: Margaret Monroe, City PIanh'e ISE: Status of Review of Demolition Permit and Associated Fees We recently had a house demolished on Hillside without,a permit. In fact the demolition occurred the week-end before the design review project was to be heard by the Planning Commission. Both the City Council and Planning Commissioners expressed concern about the action and the consequences-for the action currently outlined in the city's building'code. For FY 2006=2007 the Chair of the Planning "Commission has appointed a number of subcommittees of the commission to assist staff'with completing the FY 2006-07 Work Program agreed to at the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting.held this Spring. The Permit and Processing Subcommittee, composed of Cers. Cauchi, Deal and Terrones, seemed to be the appropriate body to review and make recommendations regarding the current demolition permit policies and associated fees (including penalty fees for undertaking demolition without a permit). Planning-staff has scheduled a meeting of this subcommittee on September 8,2006,with the objective of reviewing the current policy regarding demolition permits,fees and penalties and making a recommendation to the Commission regarding any proposed changes to the Municipal Code and fee schedule. Joe Cyr,ChiefBuilding Official representing Public.Works, and City Attorney,Larry Anderson, will work with the Subcommittee and City Planner,to formulate a recommendation. Adoption of new Municipal Code provisions, and fee schedule will include a public hearing before the Planning Commission-with-a recommendation to City Council. Presently staff anticipates that the Subcommittee will meet twice on this matter and then report out to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission action will require study and action. Based on Memorandum: Status of Review of Demolition Permit andAssoeiated Fees August 25,2006 Page.2 this time table a recommendation regarding demolition permit compliance should come to the City Council in late October or November,2006. A second item which has been discussed with staff,is what fees should be charged for'work done without a peimit This goes beyond demolition permits, to include any work which would require a building permit. Staff is proposing.that this issue be discussed separately from demolition permits. The Subcommittee can begin work on the.'work without apermit' fee issue while the Planning Commission is reviewing the demolition permit issue.-Taking the . two issues to the Subcommittee at the same time would delay the resolution of both. In addition the direction followed for demolition permits and appropriate fees,could help frame the solutions for'building without-a.permif enforcement. Please let me know if you would like to take a different approach to these issues. I can be reached at(650)558-7255. If I do not hear from you I will proceed with the demolition permit issue on September 8, and leave the'work without a permit issue'to subsequent action. cc. Jim Nantell; City Manager Larry Anderson, City.Attorney George Bagdon,Public Works Director Joe',Cyr, Chief Building Official U:\CCmemo'sTo\20061Mmo Status Rev Demo Permit and fee 8.22.06.doc Draft: Base draft September 15, 2006 From September 8, 2006 Permit Processing Subcommittee Meeting Annotated Changes and Additions to the Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapter 18 18.07.065 Section 303.1 amended -Issuance A fourth paragraph is added to Section 303.1 to read as follows: Demolition permits will only be issued after all approvals required by title 25 of this code and the California Environmental Quality Act are granted for the overall project for which the demolition is intended, and in any event, will only be issued simultaneously with the construction permits for the project. Exceptions: a. If a property owner does not intend to construct anything on the propertyfollowing demolition in the foreseeable future, the property owner shall file a declaration under penalty of perjury to the effect, and the building official may issue the demolition permit on the condition that the property where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped. b. If the city has ordered the demolition of the structure because it is an imminent danger to public health or safety, the building official may issue the demolition permit on condition that the property where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped even though the property owner has not applied for any construction permits. Annotation: The Subcommittee wanted it to be clear for all builders and developers when a demolition permit will be issued. Demolition performed prior to construction presents some significant problems to the community. There are two basic sets of customers during a construction project: 1)the builder and 2)the neighbors who must live with and during the construction. In the past buildings have been demolished months before plans were approved and the actual new construction began. Neighbors see this as living through two construction projects. The site is left vacant and fenced, often resulting in soil erosion and other neighborhood nuisances. Trash accumulates and the site is basically ignored until construction begins. Neighbors have been vocal about the visual condition of the site and express fear for the safety of their children. In addition, allowing demolition prior to the issuance of building permit could mean that the proposed project is never constructed. When this happens the City and neighbors are forced to tolerate a vacant lot until some future project is proposed and built. For these reasons the Subcommittee thought that it is prudent to require that the demolition permit is issued simultaneously with the building permit and after all Planning approvals. This will allow public comment on most projects before a demolition permit is issued. Section 3. Subsection 18.07.100 is amended to read as follows: 18.07.100 Section 304.5 amended-Investigation Fees.Work without a Permit. (a) The first sentence of Section 304.5.1 is amended to read as follows: 304.5.1 Investigation. Whenever construction or work for which a permit is required by this code,or any other code adopted of incorporated by reference as a part of this code,has been commenced without first obtaining a permit,a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for the work. Demolition of all or anypart ofa structure without a requiredpermit shall be subject to the investigation and fees imposed by this section. (b) The third sentence of Section 304.5.2 is amended to read as follows: 304.5.2 Fee. An investigation fee,in addition to the permit fee,shall be collected as a civil penalty, whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued.Theamaut investigation fee shall be up to ten times the building permit fee.The investigation fee shall be determined by the building official and shall be based on the staff time reasonably required to resolve all of the issues related to the work that has been performed without a permit.No construction permit shall be issued until the investigation fee has been paid in full.equal to the fee set forth in Tables 3 n .i•....ugh o v, a n1inimum of Q 100.00-, whichever is greater-. Any person assessed such fee may file an appeal with the city clerk within ten(10)days after written notice to such person of the assessment.A hearing upon such appeal shall thereafter be held by the city council;its decisions thereon shall be final. Nothing in this section shall relieve any persons from fully complying with the requirements of this code,or with any codes incorporated by reference and made a part of this code in the execution of the work,or from any other fees or penalties prescribed by law. Annotation: The Subcommittee was presented with a number of options for assessing fees for work performed without a permit.The current penalty for work without a permit is a flat fee equal to the cost of the building permit fee.For most violations this fee does not begin to cover the costs of City staff time to investigate and resolve the issues surrounding work done without a permit.The Subcommittee recognized that there needs to be a correlation between the fees charged and the administrative costs to the City.This amendment to the Ordinance also gives the Building Official some discretion in adjusting the fees to match the staff time required to gain compliance with City requirements.This section will also clarify the requirements that demolition without a permit will follow the same procedures and carry the same penalties as any other work performed without a building permit. Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. City of Burlingame item # Action on Proposed Amendment to the Municipal (!ode.- Requirements Action Calendar for Issuing a Demolition Permit and Clarify Penalties for Work Done without a Construction Permit Meeting Date: 10.10.06 Planning Commission Action: Commissioners should review the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code to address demolition permits and penajties for doing construction work without a permit, including demolition and other work which would normally require a building permit. The reasons for the Commission's action should be clearly stated for the record. Action in the case of Municipal Code changes is a recommendation to City Council. This item was noticed as required by law in the San Mateo Times on Saturday, September 30, 2006. CEQA Compliance: CEQA Code Section 15308 Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment, Class $: consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption. General Plan Compliance: The General Plan is implemented by the zoning code and the building and fire codes. Because the California Building Code and California Fire Codes are based on protection of life and public safety, they are determined to be consistent with the city's development policy and therefore the city's General Plan. These code amendments clarify the intended protection of life and the public's safety in the City of Burlingame. History: A demolition permit is a permit which a contractor applies for and is issued by the City before removing any portion or all of an existing structure. To protect the safety of the community and environment, there are a number of clearances which must be obtained before the city will issue a demolition permit. These include a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board, approval of a demolition materials recycling plan, termination of utilities, erosion control plan, and approval of proposed demolition by the Building Department. Under the present Municipal Code provisions the City's penalty for demolishing without a demolition permit is twice the value of the building demolition permit. For a single family house the demolition permit runs about $200.00. There are also separate penalties for failing to have an air quality permit and a completed construction and demolition recycling plan. The monetary penalties for the air quality permit and recycling permit are substantially more than the current penalty for the City's demolition permit (two times the permit fee). Recently a single family house was demolished without applying for and receiving a demolition permit. The code enforcement activity which followed underscored two things. First, the penalty for failing to get the demolition permit from the building department was more of an aggravation than a deterrent to the contractor. Second, the $300 penalty did not begin to cover the cost of the City staff Action on Proposed Amendment to the Municipal Code.. Requirements for Issuing a Demolition Permit and Clarify Penalties for Work Done without a Construction Permit October 10,2006 time involved in inv6stigating and obtaining correction of the violation. Moreover,in this case the contractor had obtained permits or partial permits which would reduce the penalties from other agencies whose penalty fees were high enough to be "real". Another indication that the City's fees were too low. With this experience in mind and with the encouragement of the City Council,a Subcommittee of the .Planning Commission met with the Chief Building Oficial, City Planner and City Attorney,to discuss how Burlingamd might better express the City's policy regarding demolition without a permit and develop meaningful,realistic Burlingame fees for those who do work not only without a demolition permit,but also without a building permit. The policy which is recommended ties the Planning permit process to the demolition permit and Building permit process in a continuum. It also centers on the community concern that the impact of construction,should be kept to the shortest time frame, and thus have the least possible impact on the neighbors. Several key conununity concerns were identified: ■ Separation between demolition and construction results in the neighbors'experiencing the impacts of two Construction projects resulting in only one developed site. ■ Structures which may be important to the Community's culture and history may be removed without proper community review. ■ Public health issues can be created such as air pollution e.g. asbestos removal and dust; public utility impacts e.g. erosion}impacting storm drain capacity causing flooding and damage to street surfaces;noise; and traffic. ■ Vacant sites which sit after demolition while plans are processed through Planning and Building review are rarely maintained and often become a neighborhood nuisance and public safety issue;and can sit for years without attention if the resulting project is not approved or the financing is no longer available. The Subcommittee also felt that the City's General Fund should not subsidize developers who do work without a permit. City fees and fines should be based on reimbursing the City for the cost of doing the enforcement. However,the Subcommittee did not feel that arbitrary penalties such as prohibition from building on the site for a given period or a flat fee based on a percentage of the value of the construction were appropriate at this time. Many of the miscreants in the case of demolition without a permit are homeowners with small projects who anticipate work on their houses without realizing that they need a demolition permit. The fairer approach appeared to be one that inctuded flexibility based on the scale of the error and the willingness of the homeowner or contractor to take corrective action. Based con this,the suggestion was that the fee be based on a maximum amount to be drawn down by the cost(number of hours)of the staff time to obtain correction. There is a real difference between the homeowner who comes in immediately upon being ordered to stop wdrk, submits plans and pulls a building permit and the developer who the City ends up having to take to court in order to get compliance. 2 Action on Proposed Amendment to the Municipal Code. Requirements for Issuing a Demolition Permit and Clarify Penalties for Fork Done without a Construction Permit October 10,2006 Summary of Proposed Municipal Code Amendments: CS 18.07.065: Demolition permits will only be issued after CEQA review,Planning approvals are complete and a Building permit has been issued. CS 18.07.100 (a) Demolition without a permit shall be subject to an investigation fee which will be paid by the property owner. CS 18.07.100 (b) The fee for demolition without a permit and for work without a building permit shall be up to ten(10)times the value of the building(or demolition)permit. The fee paid shall be based on the actual staff time reasonably required to resolve all of the issues related to the work done without a permit. It is important to note that these code sections amend the Uniform Building Administrative Code which was adopted by the City a number of years ago. In the Administrative Code.it states that a building permit will not be issued until all of the investigation fees have been paid. So there is a guarantee that the fees accrued by staff to enforce work done without a permit will be paid,if not voluntarily so that the project can go forward,then by an order from the court. Attachments: Annotated Changes and Additions to the Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapter 18 Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Chapter 18.07 to Specify Requirements for Issuance of a Demolition Permit and to Clarify Civil Penalties for Work without Construction Permits. Public Notice,San Mateo Times,Tiablished Saturday, September 30,2006. 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10,2006 Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions.The motion passed on a 6-0-1(C.Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUING A DEMOLITION -- PERMIT AND TO CLARIFY PENALTIES FOR WORK DONE WITHOUT A CONSTRUCTION PERMIT(PUBLISHED IN SAN MATEO TRYIES)PROJECT PLANNER:MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report October 11,2006,with attacYrments. CP Monroe and CBO Cyr presented the staff report noting that this amendment was not to the zoning code but the process proposed would tie the implementation of the CEQA review, zoning/design rwiew and the building permit together and hold demolition permits until all these approvals had been completed. Second the ordinance addresses the issue of penalties for doing work without a permit setting a ten times fee limit based on the hours of staff time used to attain compliance with the code. CP noted that he Commission had reviewed the Subcommittee's suggestions for this ordinance at the September 25,2006,meeting,so it is being brought forward for public hearing and action this evening. Commissioner's comment: Chair Brownrigg thanked the Subcommittee of Cers. Cauchi, Deal and Terrones, for their quick action on this recommendation; commissioner asked how this would affect fast tracking major projects; CBO noted that this proposal is consistent with the current industry standards for review of large projects,if there is something unusual about a given project it would be considered at that time;clarified that a demolition permit is a type of building permit. CP noted that current provisions of the Building Code require all penalties be paid before a Building Permit can be issued Chair$rownrigg opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved that the Planning Commission recommend the proposed ordinance changes to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C.Terrones. Comment on the motion: CA noted two technical changes that should be made before the ordinance would go forward to the City.Council. Chair Brownrigg called for a-voice vote on the motion to recommend the proposed ordinance changes addressing demolition permits and civil penalties for work without apermit to the CityCouncil for approval. The motion passed or}a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). . This item-concluded at 8:35 pm. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 1557 DRAKE AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW,TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;JAY AND JANET GARCIA,PROPERTY OWNERS) (48 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project'description. Commission asked if the decision for designating the front yard,rear yard and side yards was made by staff and if it was open to change by the.Commission. Staff 10 AGENDA ITEM NO: 7a BURL[ GAME STAFF REPORT MEETING DATE: April 6, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY: DATE: March 24, 2009 APPROVED BY: AA FROM : William Meeker, Community Development Director — (650) 558-7255 SUBJECT: 1008 — 1028 CAROLAN AVENUE & 1007-1025 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED C-2 — REVIEW AND DISCUSSION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADD A DESCRIPTION OF THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS COMMERCIAL AREA AND TO ADD MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE LAND USE, AND INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD AN R-4 OVERLAY FOR CERTAIN C-2 ZONED PROPERTIES IN THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS ROAD COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AS A CONDITIONAL USE INTRODUCTION The City Council should review the proposed resolution to amend the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and review the ordinance to amend the Zoning Ordinance to add an R-4 overlay for certain properties in the C-2 zone district to allow multi-family residential uses as a conditional use. Council should review the resolution and ordinance as a study item and suggest any changes, if necessary; and introduce the ordinance. The following Council actions should be taken to introduce the ordinance to amend Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code: A. Request City Clerk to read title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. If the proposal for the amendment to the Zoning Code is clear, this item should be set for a second reading and public hearing at the Council meeting of April 20, 2009. Environmental Review Status: This project was reviewed as a part of the 2002 Housing Element update as an implementation program. The potential environmental impacts of implementation of the 2002 Housing Element Update was reviewed in Negative Declaration No. ND-520-P. This document determined that no adverse environmental impacts would result from implementation of the programs outlined in the 2002 Housing Element, and was approved by the City Council on July 1 , 2002. There is no new information or significant development which has occurred in this area since the approval of the Negative Declaration which would result in a change in this determination . Planning Commission Action : On February 23, 2009, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposal to amend the text of the Land Use Element of the General Plan and to amend Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to add an R-4 overlay for certain C-2 zoned properties. At that meeting , the Commission discussed the proposed requirements for setback and height limitations along the property line adjacent to single family residences. Amendment to the Text of the General Plan and Creation of an R-4 Overlay Zone to allow Residential Uses on certain C-2 zoned properties along Caro/an Avenue and Rollins Road April 6,2009 The Commission asked that the proposal be modified to clarify that the primary use of the 20-foot setback area would be a landscape screen, but to provide some flexibility should a developer propose some circulation areas within this setback area (refer to 2/23/09 Planning Commission minutes). The public hearing was continued to the Commission's March 9, 2009 meeting. The suggested changes were incorporated into the proposed Ordinance. At the March 9, 2009 meeting,the Commission, by a 7-0 vote, recommended to the City Council adoption of the proposed general plan text amendment and zoning overlay (refer to 3/9/09 Planning Commission minutes). BACKGROUND As a part of the 2002 Housing Element update, this site, consisting of four properties, was identified as a potential housing site as part of the program to meet Burlingame's projected housing needs. To implement this program,the zoning which allows housing is required to be in place so that the site is readily available should the opportunity for residential development arise. This site was selected as a potential housing site because it is located between two existing residential areas: North Park Apartments to the north, and the single family residential neighborhood along Toyon Avenue and to the south. The site continues to be identified as a Housing Opportunity site in the 2009-2014 Housing Element update which has been sent to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for review and certification. In 2006,a new law went into effect that requires that any housing site identified in the last housing element cycle must have its zoning in place so that it is readily available during the current planning cycle. The deadline for complying with this new law is June 30,2009. If the zoning is not in place by this date,then the number of housing units which could be accommodated on the site would be added to the 650 units which are now required to be accommodated in the 2009-2014 Housing Element. Amendment to the Text of the General Plan: This area is now designated by the General Plan for Commercial Uses—Services and Special Sales. It is proposed that the commercial use of the site could still be retained,but that an overlay be added to allow for the conversion of some or all of the area to residential use. In order to accomplish this,an explanation of the potential residential use would be included in the text of the General Plan. The Land Use Section of the General Plan regarding Commercial Uses now contains descriptions of the Burlingame Plaza Area, the Broadway Center, the Burlingame Avenue-Park Road Center, and the Waterfront Commercial Area in the Bayfront area. It is proposed that the following language be added to the Commercial Uses section of the Land Use Element of the General Plan to describe the Carolan/Rollins Commercial Area (refer to attached Draft City Council Resolution): Carolan/Rollins Commercial Area. When the General Plan was first adopted in 1969, the entire area south of Broadway to Toyon, between Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road was designated for service and special sales uses,and was zoned M-1. In 1963,the site of North Park Apartments(south of Cadillac Way) was rezoned to the R-4 zone district, and in 1972, North Park Apartments were built. This left a pocket of M-1 zoned property between North Park Apartments and the residential area along Toyon Drive. In 1992, this property was rezoned from M-1 to the C-2 zone district. The uses at the time were similar to those which exist today(automobile dealers and repair facilities). These uses are permitted in the C-2 zone district, and it was felt that C-2 zoning would allow uses which were more compatible with the surrounding residential areas. Since this area is surrounded by residential uses, it would also be appropriate for residential development. In order to provide a transition between the higher density residential area to the north and the single family residential development along Toyon Dlive, special setback and height standards should be considered adjacent to the single family homes. -2- Amendment to the Text of the General Plan and Creation of an R-4 Overlay Zone to allow Residential Uses on certain C-2 zoned properties along Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road April 6, 2009 R4 Overlay Zone: In addition to the amendment to the text of the General Plan, it is proposed that an R-4 overlay zone be created for the Carolan/Rollins Commercial area, which would allow for multi-family residential uses by conditional use permit in addition to the uses now allowed in the C-2 zone. Because the area is adjacent to a single family neighborhood, it is also proposed that there be additional height and setback standards that would apply to the portion of the property adjacent to the Toyon Drive properties. A twenty-foot building setback would be required along the southerly property line. The 20-foot setback would consist of a landscape screen containing large scale trees. However, a special permit could be obtained to allow for A 30 foot height limit would be required within 100 feet of this southerly property line, with the opportunity to apply for a special permit for a height between 30 and 36 feet. The attached map outlines the area where the setback and height limit would apply. Following is the text to be added to the C-2 zone district regulations: 25.38.034 Carolan/Rollins Commercial Area— R-4 Overlay Zone In addition to the permitted uses specified in Section 25.38.020 and the conditional uses specified in Section 25.38.030, multiple family residential uses are conditional uses within the Carolan/Rollins Road Commercial Area as shown on the map attached to this Ordinance, subject to the regulations and restrictions of the R-4 zone district, and subject to the following additional standards: (a) Height of structures within 100 feet of southerly property line adjacent to R-1 and R-3 zoned properties shall not exceed two and one-half stories or thirty (30) feet in height, whichever is less, as measured from average top of curb taken from the corners of the lot extended, except as follows: (1) A structure between thirty (30) and thirty-six (36) feet upon approval of a special permit under the provisions of Chapter 25.54. Findings for the granting of a special permit for height shall be based as defined in Chapter 25.54, and shall particularly focus on providing articulation in the building design to mitigate the impact of the taller structure on neighboring properties. (2) A structure of thirty-six (36)feet or taller upon approval of a variance under Chapter 25.54. (b) The minimum setback from the southerly property line adjacent to R-1 and R-3 zoned properties shall be twenty (20) feet. This setback shall consist of a landscape screen containing large scale trees selected from the Community Development Department Tree List for Private Property Planting. (1) Vehicular circulation and/or parking may be considered within this setback upon approval of a special permit under the provisions of Chapter 25.54. Findings for the granting of a special permit for vehicular circulation and/or parking shall be based as defined in Chapter 25.54, and shall include a determination that a landscape buffer is provided and other measures are incorporated into the design to minimize the impact on the adjoining properties. Property Owner Contact: On December 10, 2008, a letter was sent to the property owners within the area to be rezoned with an R-4 overlay (see attached letter). Staff has not received comments from any of the property owners within the proposal area. ATTACHMENTS March 9, 2009 and February 23, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes Letter to Property Owners Negative Declaration No. ND-520-P -3- Amendment to the Text of the General Plan and Creation of an R-4 Overlay Zone to allow Residential Uses on certain C-2 zoned properties along Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road April 6, 2009 Council Resolution Approving Amendment to the Text of the Land Use Section of the General Plan to Add a Description of the Carolan/Rollins Commercial Area and to add Multiple Family Residential Development as an Alternative Land Use within this Area (Proposed) Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to Add an R-4 Overlay Zone for Certain C-2 zoned properties in the Carolan/Rollins Commercial Area to allow Multiple Family Residential Uses as a Conditional Use (Proposed) Map of Proposed R-4 Overlay Zone S:IHousing Element ImplementationlCarolan ZoninglCouncil Reportsllntro Carolan Zoning.04.06.09.doc -4- CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 9, 2009 ■ The site pla shows the existing buildi corner as originally shown. ■ Clarify t t fence shall be built at t existing location, unless a rvey shows otherwise, which cas , It shall be placed on the perty line. Chai auchi called for a voice to on the motion to approv . The motion passX6- 1 (Commissioner Br wnrigg abstained). App procedures were advised his item concluded a .m. 5. 1008 — 1028 CAROLAN AVENUE & 1007-1025 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED C-2 - PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADD A DESCRIPTION OF THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS COMMERCIAL AREA AND TO ADD MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE LAND USE, AND TO AMEND TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD AN R-4 OVERLAY FOR CERTAIN C-2 ZONED PROPERTIES IN THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS ROAD COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AS A CONDITIONAL USE (HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION) (92 NOTICED AND NEWSPAPER NOTICE — SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES 2/13/09) STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 23 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated March 9, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: ■ None. Public comments: ■ None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to recommend adoption of the amendments to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend adoption of the amendments to the City Council. The motion passed 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. Commissioner Brownrigg recused himself from participating with respect to Item 6 (1531 Columbus bus Avenue), since he lives within 500-feet of the site. He left the Council Chambers. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes February 23, 2009 4. 1008—1028 CAROLAN AVENUE& 1007-1025 ROLLINS ROAD,ZONED C-2 -PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADD A DESCRIPTION OF THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS COMMERCIAL AREA AND TO ADD MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE LAND USE, AND TO AMEND TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD AN R-4 OVERLAY FOR CERTAIN C-2 ZONED PROPERTIES IN THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS ROAD COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AS A CONDITIONAL USE (HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION) STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report dated February 23,2009,with attachments. Planning Manager Brooks presented the report. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: ■ Propose a 20'setback along the southern property line; should be landscaping, but perhaps exclude parking within the area against the property line; it would be good to have a substantial landscape area (20'-25') with no driveways and no parking. ■ If we ever want to see housing on this property; the more restrictions placed on the site, the more difficult it will be to promote housing; too much detail may unduly restrict and prevent housing development. ■ Clarified that property includes only four(4) legal lots;future subdivision would require Commission review. Public comments: Brian McGinn, 1112 Palm Drive; spoke: ■ Be fair to the owners of the R-1 properties to the south; could have a discussion of the concerns now or in the future with a development proposal. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Concerned that none of the property owners within the proposed overlay zone have commented (Brooks — noted a conversation with one adjacent property owner that appreciated the greater flexibility for residential use). ■ The restriction from 35' to 30' will likely only apply to the southernmost property (Brooks — only affects the one property on the south). ■ There should be a landscaped buffer with no driveways and parking along the southern 20' of the area. ■ Sensitivity to the property owners on Toyon Drive should be noted in the General Plan language; (Meeker— noted the potential to allow non-landscaping within the area subject to approval of the Planning Commission. Brooks— perhaps indicate a minimum depth for landscaping). ■ Provide revised language before going to City Council. Ensure that revised language is clear as to intent for buffer area. Commissioner Vistica moved to continue the matter until March 9, 2009, with direction to revise theproposal based upon the Commission's comments. 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes February 23, 2009 The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: ■ Asked that when the item is brought back, staff clarify the landscape requirement for R-4 zoned properties. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Lindstrom absent). This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:23 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 1241 BURLIN/C0ENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBARE A—APPLICATION FOR COMICIAL DESIGN REVIEW ANONAL USE PERMIT AME MENT FOR A FOOD ESTA'rLISHMENT (JEFF .HAYWOOD, FFEE AND TEA,APPLIC T;TYBABB PARTNERS LLC, OPERTY OWNER; AND THE CHERR GROUP ARCHI CT STAFF CONTACT: ERI A STROHMEIER /enff report dated February 23, 009, with attachments. Com nity Development Director presented the project des iption. There were no question of staff. pened the public com ent period. d that Sakae rest rant must be closed to permit P et's to open. or an explanati why there is a limitation to on restaurant on this site (Meeker/Brook — explained that there rictions on properties containin restaurants were set when Sub-Area as created). Jeff Haywood, 1400 ark Avenue, Emeryville; and erry Horn, 405 Primrose Road; re esented the applicant. ■ Indica d that Peet's is trying to minimi changes to the building fagade. Commiss' n comments: ■ Asked about the difference in a size of the seating area betwee a Sakae restaurant space and / the proposed Peet's (Hayes od — roughly an increase of 100 s are feet). 3/ What will be done with tr receptacles(Haywood—trash a a will beat rear of property withithe purview of the property wrier; at the same location as th area used by Sakae). 7 ■ Asked if people will rive at the corner entry and leav out the side door (Haywood — at is the design intent). ■ People may wa to enter from the side given th location of the parking lot; per ps provide a treatment abo a the side door to make it more ' viting, consider repeating the tr tment from the main entry. ■ Consider window on the Park Road fara e. ■ Outdo seating is good idea, has nice posure to the sun; will be popu r ■ Inst enough electrical outlets for cc puter users within the tenant sp ce. ■ As ed if there is room for an additi al tree along Park Road (Hayes od —there are a lot of 5>ther ms along the sidewalk in the a; may be difficult to achieve; nt to keep the corner ear to provide view of signage). ■ Will the existing soffit under a awning be attractive and mai ainable (Haywood — pears to be workable; intend to resto it as original feature). 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BURL® Planning Division City Hall —501 Primrose Road PH: (650)558-7250 Burlingame, California 94010-3997 FAX: (650)696-3790 December 10, 2008 Re: Potential Change to Zoning — 1008 Carolan &935 Rollins Road Dear Property Owner, The City of Burlingame is in the process of updating its Housing Element, a part of the General Plan which identifies potential housing sites and develops strategies for meeting the community's housing needs. During the last Housing Element Update in 2002, the area between North Park Apartments and Toyon Drive was identified as having potential as a future housing opportunity (refer to attached map). This area is now zoned C-2 and allows for a variety of commercial uses. We are now proposing that the zoning be amended so that it would also allow for residential uses. An overlay zone would be created which would allow multiple family residential uses, similar to what is now developed on the North Park Apartments property. Because the area is adjacent to a single family neighborhood, it is also proposed that there be some additional height and setback standards which would apply to that portion of the property which is adjacent to the Toyon Drive properties. A twenty-foot building setback would be required along the southerly property line, and a 35-foot height limit would apply within 100 feet of this property line. This proposal to add an overlay zone would not take away any of the existing uses that are allowed on the site, but would provide an additional opportunity for residential use at the owner's discretion. This proposal will be submitted to the Planning Commission and City Council for review and consideration early next year. If you would like to comment on this proposal or have any suggestions for implementation, please call me at (650) 558-7253, or by email at mbrooks(a-burlingame.org. Sincerely, —Na2&,f_ Maureen Brooks Planning Manager Enclosure: Map Depicting Proposed R-4 Overlay Zone 120 Register online for the City of Burlingame list serve at www.burlingame.org pN RECEI " L '- BURLINGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME NEGATIVE DECLARATION FEB e 4 2002 CITY OF BURLINGAMF PLANNING DEPT File No. ND-520-P, General Plan Amendment to Update the Housing Element The City of Burlingame by Margaret Monroe on January 9 ,2002, completed a review of the proposed project and determined that: (XX) It will not have a significant effect on the environment (XX) No Environmental Impact Report is required. Project Description: The project consists of the update of the City of Burlingame's Housing Element, a mandated element of the General Plan. The document includes programs and policies which address the housing needs of the community. The policies and programs include recommendations for changes in the land use regulations pertaining to residential development near transit stations, and recommends the use of overlay zones to provide for housing opportunities on sites now zoned primarily for commercial use. Any future changes in regulations, zoning changes and development of housing will be subject to environmental review per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and subject to public review and hearings prior to implementation. The specific recommendations for implementation of the goals and policies are outlined in the Draft Housing Element. There are no major changes proposed to the goals and policies of the current 1994 Housing Element. Since the Housing Element update is an amendment to the General Plan, the analysis of environmental impacts is being done on a broad scale. Many of the programs and policies can be implemented through the zoning code now in place. Analysis of the housing element update will assume development will occur under the existing code as well as the recommended code revisions, although these revisions are not being implemented at this time.. Reasons for Conclusion: The City of Burlingame is a mature community with very little vacant land available for development. Most of the sites selected for housing are infill sites which are now underdeveloped and would be reused. The Housing Element update assures that sufficient, properly zoned land is available to meet the housing needs of all income levels. Referring to the initial study for all other facts supporting findings,it is found that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. City Planner �1 al Signati&e of Processing Official Title Date Negative Declaration Housing Element Update Unless appealed within 20 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final. Date posted: i LVU (01200?1 Declaration of Posting I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council Chambers. Executed at Burlingame, California on VAM. a , 2002. Appealed: ( )Yes ( )No ANN MUS O, CITY CLERK CITY OF BURLINGAME -2- INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 1. Project Title: General Plan Amendment to update the Housing Element 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Department 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Margaret Monroe, City Planner (650) 558-7250 4. Project Location: City-wide 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of Burlingame 6. General Plan Designation: Various 7. Zoning: Various 8. Description of the Project: The project consists of the update of the City of Burlingame's Housing Element, a mandated element of the General Plan. The document includes programs and policies which address the housing needs of the community. The policies and programs include recommendations for changes in the land use regulations pertaining to residential development near transit stations, and recommends the use of overlay zones to provide for housing opportunities on sites now zoned primarily for commercial use. Any future changes in regulations, zoning changes and development of housing will be subject to environmental review per the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, and will require public review and hearings prior to implementation. The specific recommendations for implementation of the goals and policies are outlined in the Draft Housing Element. There are no major changes proposed to the goals and policies of the current 1994 Housing Element. The City of Burlingame is a mature community with very lithe vacant land available for ,_& e yt,ent. most f the sites selected for housing are mtl'll sites which are now underdeveloped and would be reused. Since the Housing Element update is an amendment to the General Plan, the analysis of environmental impacts is being done on a broad scale Many of the programs and policies can be implemented through the zoning code now in place. Analysis of the housing element update will assume development will occur under the existing code as well as the recommended code revisions, although these revisions are not being implemented at this time. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: The Housing Element update involves the entire City of Burlingame, a community with a population of 28,128 located about 16-miles south of San Francisco in San Mateo County. The City is bordered by the City of Millbrae to the north, the Town of Hillsborough to the west, the City of San Mateo to the south, and the San Francisco Bay to the east. A major freeway, U.S. 101, and a State Highway, S.R. 82 (El Camino Real) run north/south through the City of Burlingame. Interstate 280 runs along the western border of the City of Burlingame. The topography of Burlingame ranges from steep hillsides on the western side of the City to relatively flat parcels to the east. Two square miles of the city are under the waters of San Francisco Bay. Several creeks traverse the City, and geologic constraints are not uncommon in the hillside areas. There is one active minor thrust fault, the Serra Fault, which runs through the northwestern corner of Burlingame and is considered to have common roots with the San Andreas Fault. The San Andreas Fault is located west of Burlingame, running along San Andreas Lake and Crystal Springs reservoir, less than'/z mile from Burlingame's boundary along Skyline Boulevard. Therefore, hazards associated with earthquakes can occur in Burlingame. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). Because it is an amendment to the general plan, the Housing Element 2S req„fired to be reviewed by the City/County ASSorlat:on of Governments 1n its role as Airport Land Use Commission for San Mateo County. -2- ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Im act" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages . Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Mineral Resources Cultural Resources Geology and Soils Hazards & Hazardous Recreation Materials Hydrology & Water Noise Agricultural Resources Quality Air Quality Public Services Mandatory Findings of Significance Transportation/Traffic Utilities and Service Systems DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) . On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ETR or NEGATIt.'E DECLARATION, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Y " ff-, ��� � -Z� Margaret onroe, City Planner l5ate Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1,2,3 X b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, 1,2,3 X local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or 1,19 X natural community conservation plan? 2. POPULATION AI:TD HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for e,.ample, by proposing new homes and businesses)or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 1,3,9 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing 1,3,9 X elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the 1,3,9 X construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse 6,7,8 X effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the 6,7,8 X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seis—; ground shaking? 6,7,8 X iii)Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 6,8,8 X iv) Landslides? 6,8 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil? 1,6,8 c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that 1,6,8 would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of 6,8 X the Uniform Building Code(1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of 1,6 X septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge 1 X requirements? -4- Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Issues and Supporting Information Sources Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing 1 , 15 X nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? 1 ,6, 15 X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, inc;uding through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount 1 ,6, 15 X of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems 1 , 15 X or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1, 15 X g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped 15 X on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which 15 X would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a 1 , 15 X result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,6 X 5. AIR QUALFFY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflici with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air ( 1 , 16 X quat�ty pla^? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or 1 , 16 X projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any 1 , 16 X criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant 1 , 16 X concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of 1 , 16 X people? -5- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Signir1c2nt Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to 1,14 X the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? 6,18 X c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in 1,17 X substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g. 2 X sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 12 X f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 2,9 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting 1,9 X alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1,19 X b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California- Department aliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 1,19 c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, 1,19 X etc.)through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or 1,19 X resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting 1 X biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? -6- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potential y Potc.tiany Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat I X Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? g. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource 1,6 X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general 1,6 X plan,specific plan or other land use plan? 9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? 1,9 X b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions 20 X involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter 1,20 X mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code20 X Section 65962.5 and,as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted,within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project result 1,17 X in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project udthin the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or 1 X working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation 1,12 X plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires,including where 1,12 X wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 10. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess 1 X of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,or applicable standards of other agencies? -7- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources rotentiany Potentially Less Than No Significant significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive 1,9 X groundbome vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in 1 X the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise 1,9 X levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, 17 X where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 1 f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would 1 X the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? 1,12 X b) Police protection? I X G) Schools? 1 X d) Parks? 1 X e) Other public facilities? 1 X 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable 1,10 X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b).Require or result in the construction of new water or = 1,10 X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the 1,10 X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project 1,10 X from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment 1,10 X provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to 1,10 X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? -8- Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potent ally Potentially Less Than No Significant significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations 1,10 X related to solid waste? 13. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1 X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not X limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality 1,9 X of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which woulti 1,9 X adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a 1,9 X historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 1,9 X archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological 1,9 X resource or site or unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside 1,9 X of formal cemeteries? 15. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood 1,9 X and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the 1,9 X construction or expansion of recreational facilities which — might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (199 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or Farmland of 1 X Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a 1 X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of 1 X Farmland, to non-agricultural use? -9- Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 1 X b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but 1 X cumulatively co-:-"ei able? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 1 X -10- 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 The City of Burlingame General Plan,Burlingame,California,1985 and 1984 amendments. 2 City of Burlingame,Municipal Code,Title 25-Zoning,Burlingame,California,1995 edition. 3 City of Burlingame City Council,Housing Element,City of Burlingame,Burlingame,California,1994. 4 Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan,adopted by the Burlingame City Council on May 4,1981. 5 1990,2000 Census 6 Department of the Interior,U.S.Geological Survey,San Francisco Bay Region,Sheet 3,1:125,000,Revised 1981. 7 E.Brabb,E.Pampeyan,and M.Bonilla,Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County,San Mateo County, California,1972. 8 Perkins,Jeanne,Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking,U.S.G.S. Map MF,San Mateo County:California,1987. 9 Draft Housing Element,City of Burlingame,November 2001. 10. Ci LJ$ngineer. 11 Chief Building Official. 12 City Fire Department. 13 j Public Access Guidelines for the Anza Area,adopted by the Bay Conservation and Development Commission on January 21,1982. 14 Burlingame Tra,fftc Analyzer,1988 Edition 15 Map of Approximate Locations of 100 year Flood Areas,from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance Maps,September 16,1981 16 BAAQMD CEQA GUIDELINES,Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans,December,1995 17 San Mateo County Comprehensive airport Land Use Plan,San Francisco International Airport,December, 1994 18 San Mateo County Congestion Management Program,1997 19 Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance,San Francisco and San Mateo Counties,California,State Department of Fish and Game 20 State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List,April 1998 U.-LH..-,g MA .t H=.g Ei.M 1.0W&udy.Zo _11_ Land Use and Planning Sutnmary: The Burlingame General Plan designates a certain portion of the community for residential use, and anticipates new residential growth within these areas. The existing Housing Element adopted in 1994 proposed the addition of 1244 housing units to Burlingame's housing stock. Since the adoption of the 1994 Housing Element, 117 new units have been built. The 2001 Housing Element update proposes to accommodate 565 housing units. This is well within the growth anticipated by the General Plan, and is below what was anticipated in the 1994 Housing Element. The 2000 Census indicates that there are now 12,869 housing units in Burlingame. The addition of 565 housing units, which would represent an increase of approximately 4.4%, is not considered to be substantial. The Housing Element update proposes to change the zoning on some sites, and to add an overlay zone on other sites to allow residential uses in areas that are now primarily office commercial. The Housing Element update also proposes changes to the zoning code regulations for housing development near transit hubs. Some of these individual changes will require amendments to the land use element of the general plan, and all will require additional environmental review when they are considc::.d for adoption, as will any projects proposed in the future as a result of changes in zoning. The General Plan, in addition to designating the land uses allowed in particular areas, includes goals and policies for Burlingame. The general plan goals which relate to the need for housing are as follows: Goal: To assure that Burlingame will continue to be a "well-rounded" City with residences, schools, business, industry, and space and facilities for social, recreational and cultural facilities. Implementing Objectives: ❑ Maintain or increase the variety in uses of land in the City; ❑ Encourage assembly of small lots in suitable locations to provide larger sites for apartments, office buildings and commercial enterprises; ❑ Keep codes and standards free of arbitrary or obsolete provisions that would tend tr ^'Mbit construction of sound buildings in suitable locations to house a variety of uses. Goal: To maintain and enhance the identity of the City and encourage a maximum sense o L QJL identii�eation by residents with t awe f.iy. Implementing Objectives: ❑ Maintain and enhance rational relationships among functional parts of the City (residential areas, business districts, industrial areas, public areas, transportation, etc.). Goal: To encourage mixed commercial uses to provide a transition between districts fully commercial or residential and to provide housing opportunities for those dependent on transit and desiring a pedestrian-oriented living environment. Population and Housing Summary: According to the 2000 Census, the population of Burlingame is 28,158. The Association of Bay Area Governments projects that the population of Burlingame will increase by about 1500 people by the year 2005. Based on an average household size of 2.6 persons, Initial Study Summary Housing Element Update 2001 the 565 additional units proposed in the Housing Element would be needed to accommodate the anticipated population growth. The Housing Element update would serve to meet the projected unmet need and reduce the impacts associated with a lack of housing. Therefore the project would not substantially affect population growth or exceed regional population projections. There would be no displacement of existing housing as a result of implementation of the Housing Element. Geologic Summary: Some areas of the City of Burlingame are impacted by geological constraints such as expansive soils and susceptibility to landslide. However, the areas proposed for new housing in the Housing Element update are primarily areas which are on level land and have previously been subdivided and developed with urban uses. Any new construction will be required to comply with the California Building Code and meet any geological and earthquake standards of the current code. Water Summary: There are seven creeks running through Burlingame, which provide drainage from the hillside areas to San Francisco Bay. Water quality in these waterways is potentially threatened by common urban pollutants in stormwater runoff. The revised zoning code provisions anticipated by the Housing Element update will not alter the quality or quantity of that runoff. Any new development would be subject to National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards. Air Quality Summary: Increased density can result in increased traffic and consequent impacts on air quality. However, the areas proposed for higher density development are all within one-half mile of a major transit hub (Caltrain or BART). It is expected that the increase in density will be offset by the increased use of transit, thus reducing any potential impact on air quality. Transportation/Circulation Summary: There is adequate capacity in Burlingame's transportation/circulation system to accommodate the additional housing units proposed by the Housing Element update. As noted above, the potential increase in traffic from new development will be offset by an increased use of transit since all of the proposed housing sites are located within one-half mile of a major transit hub. • ! a �l V A�S9 n^ 4S'--mmar : PurliIlgatne i- a fully dove o-Pe 7lrban comrrj��nity with very little L1010glcal lveso Lan- as il,I i u as a.a native plant and animal life. There is no record of any rare, unique or endangered species of plants or animals in the areas on the sites proposed for housing development in the updated Housing Element. There is no farmland in Burlingame. Because these areas have already been disturbed through urban development, no significant changes are anticipated in the diversity or number of species of plants or animals, or in the deterioration of existing wild life habitat. Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: The increase in energy use attributed to the new housing units is expected to be within the capacities of the existing sources and is not anticipated that development of new energy sources would be required. Hazards Summary: Any new housing built as a result of the Housing Element update is not expected to expose people to health hazards, nor is it expected to create a health hazard. -13- Initial Study Summary Housing Element Update 2001 Noise Summary: Increased density may result in increased traffic and consequent impacts to noise levels. Additionally, development of new housing along the rail corridor may expose new residents to increased noise and vibration levels. Any new development would have to comply with California Building Code insulation standards and will need to be designed to keep interior noise levels at 45 dba. Increases in traffic are not expected to be significant since the sites identified for housing are located near transit hubs, and it is expected that many new residents will use the transit services available for some of their transportation needs. Some of the sites identified for new development in the northern portions of Burlingame are within the 65 CNEL noise impacted areas in the vicinity of the San Francisco International Airport. The San Mateo County comprehensive land use plan for San Francisco International Airport states that residential uses are conditionally compatible when located within the 65 CNEL noise contour. New construction is required to incorporate noise insulation features into the design, and an analysis of noise reduction requirements is also required. Public Services Summary: The project is not expec -,',to have a significant impact on the provision of other public services, as this is an urbanized area with existing public facilities in place. Utilities and Service Systems Summary: The proposed project will be served by existing utilities in place in the area, or will be required to connect to these systems. The City of Burlingame is almost built out and public facilities in place are adequate to serve existing and proposed development in the Housing Element. There are two public improvement projects which have been completed in the last 10 years which have removed any constraints to new residential development,particularly at the north end of the city. Most of the sites identified are located in the northern portion of the City. Sewer Treatment Plant Improvements: In 1994,major improvements were made to the City's wastewater treatment plant facilities. As a result of these upgrades,the capacity of the plant was increased to accommodate the ultimate population anticipated in the City's General Plan. According to estimates made by the Association of Bay Area Governments,Burlingame's General Plan buildout would accommodate an additional 817 housing units above what is shown to exist Burlingame by Census 2000. Therefore, there is adequate capacity at the wastewater treatment to-handle the projected 565 units proposed. Sewer Interceptor Project: In 1998, the Public Works Department completed a major sewer interceptor project which included installation of new sewer collection ruin along California Drive froiiz the City's north boM an,to the Wastewater Treatment Plant. This project improved the capacity of the sewer collection system and provided sufficient capacity for development in the north end of Burlingame, including all the sites selected north of Peninsula Hospital. Aesthetics Summary: The adoption of the Housing Element update will have no impact on aesthetics. Any future housing development will be required to comply with the zoning code requirements regulating mass, bulk and height of buildings, and therefore would be compatible with the areas in which they would be developed. Cultural Resources Summary: Since any sites proposed for development have already been disturbed, it is not expected that future projects would have an impact on prehistoric or historic archeological resources. -14- Initial Study Summary Housing Element Update 2001 Recreation Summary: It is expected that the increase in population from any new housing units can be accommodated by the existing park and recreation facilities in Burlingame. None of the proposed housing sites would displace any recreation facilities. U.(Housing ElementlHousing Element Initial Study.doc -15- RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AMENDMENT TO THE TEXT OF THE LAND USE SECTION OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADD A DESCRIPTION OF THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS COMMERCIAL AREA AND TO ADD MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE LAND USE WITHIN THIS AREA RESOLVED,BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT: WHEREAS, as a part of the 2002 update of the Housing Element of the General Plan, properties between Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road south of Broadway were identified as potential housing opportunity sites;and WHEREAS, the 2002 Housing Element Update identified the need to amend the zoning on these sites to facilitate potential future residential development;and WHEREAS, on February 23, 2009, and March 9, 2009, the Planning Commission held public hearings and reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented to the Commission regarding this amendment to the text of the general plan and proposed zoning overlay district;and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission made a recommendation to the City Council that the text of the General Plan be amended to describe the Carolan/Rollins Commercial area and to allow for the residential use of these properties. The Planning Commission also recommended to the City Council adoption of an R-4 overlay zone with special standards for this area. NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND DETERMINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL THAT: 1. The City Council hereby approves the following amendment to the text of the General Plan to add the following description to the Commercial Uses Section of the Land Use Element: Carolan/Rollins Commercial Area. When the General Plan was first adopted in 1969, the entire area south of Broadway to Toyon Drive,between Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road was designated for service and special sales uses, and was zoned M-1. In 1963, the site of North Park Apartments (south of Cadillac Way) was rezoned to the R-4 zone district, and in 1972, North Park Apartments were built. This left a pocket of M-1 zoned property between North Park Apartments and the residential area along Toyon Drive. In 1992,this property was rezoned from M-1 to the C-2 zone district. The uses at the time were similar to those which exist today(automobile dealers and repair facilities). These uses are permitted in the C-2 zone district, and it was felt that C-2 zoning would allow uses which were more compatible with the surrounding residential areas. Since this area is surrounded by residential uses, it would also be appropriate for residential development. In order to provide a transition between the higher density residential area to the north and the single family residential development along Toyon Drive, special setback and height standards should be considered adjacent to the single family homes. Council Resolution—Amendment to the Text of the General Plan Land Use Section to Add a Description of the Carolan/Rollins Commercial Area to the Commercial Land Use Section and to Add Multiple Family Residential as an Alternative Land Use Within This Area Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the _day of , 2009 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk S:V-lousing Element ImplementationlCarolan ZoninglGPA.CC Reso.doc 2 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME 3 MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD AN R-4 OVERLAY ZONE FOR CERTAIN C-2 ZONED PROPERTIES IN THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL 4 USES AS A CONDITIONAL USE s The CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 Section 1. This ordinance is intended to implement the 2002 Housing Element update of the 7 Burlingame General Plan to allow an opportunity for multiple family residential uses in a C-2 zoned area 8 between Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road south of Broadway. 9 Section 2. A new Section 25.38.034 is added to read as follows: 10 25.38.034 Carolan/Rollins Commercial Area— R-4 Overlay Zone 11 In addition to the permitted uses specified in Section 25.38.020 and the conditional uses specified 12 in Section 25.38.030, multiple family residential uses are conditional uses within the Carolan/Rollins Road 13 Commercial Area as shown on the map attached to this Ordinance, subject to the regulations and 14 restrictions of the R-4 zone district, and subject to the following additional standards: is (a) Height of structures within 100 feet of southerly property line adjacent to R-1 and R-3 16 zoned properties shall not exceed two and one-half stories or thirty(30)feet in height, whichever is less, 17 as measured from average top of curb taken from the corners of the lot extended, except as follows: 18 (1) A structure between thirty(30)and thirty-six(36)feet upon approval of a special 19 permit under the provisions of Chapter 25.54. Findings for the granting of a special permit for height shall 20 be based as defined in Chapter 25.54, and shall particularly focus on providing articulation in the building 21 design to mitigate the impact of the taller structure on neighboring properties. 22 (2) A structure of thirty-six(36)feet or taller upon approval of a variance under 23 Chapter 25.54. 24 (b) The minimum setback from the southerly property line adjacent to R-1 and R-3 zoned 25 properties shall be twenty(20)feet. This setback shall consist of a landscape screen containing large 26 scale trees selected from the Community Development Department Tree List for Private Property 27 Planting. 28 (1) Vehicular circulation and/or parking may be considered within this setback upon 29 approval of a special permit under the provisions of Chapter 25.54. Findings for the granting of a special 30 permit for vehicular circulation and/or parking shall be based as defined in Chapter 25.54, and shall 31 include a determination that a landscape buffer is provided and other measures are incorporated into the 32 design to minimize the impact on the adjoining properties. - 1 i 1 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 2 3 Mayor 4 5 I, MARY ELLEN KEARNEY, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 6 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2009 and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 7 of , 2009, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 8 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 9 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 10 11 City Clerk 12 13 S:IHousing Element ImplementationlCarolan ZoninglCaro/an Rollins Overlay.Ordinance.doc 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 EXHIBIT"A" ORDINANCE NO. ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON � s, k :A 0t �. 025 F 30 foot . rr height 1'Q07 ht limit within 100 feet " of southerly FIS property line; up to 36 feet with L7y �-L Special Permit fr —T7 d A 20 foot setback from I� ' ry southerly 104 property line 1028" i 1016 ; N PROPOSED R-4 OVERLAY ZONE For NroNertles Zoned C-2 on Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road " W AouIU alloVV I I UILII.JIe lai 1 Illy I eJlUel lMal II ices with additional standard,, to provide a transition to adjacent A neighborhood 16� � STAFF REPORT MAPAMGAME AGENDA ITEM # MTG. DATE 4/ 6/09 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: April 2, 2009 APPROVE FROM: Jim Nantell 558-7205 BY / / SUBJECT: Financial Status Update RECOMMENDATION: Review and discuss City's current financial condition, recommended budget reductions and potential ramifications of an unsuccessful storm drainage ballot measure. BACKGROUND: Since the Council Budget Study session of February 25th staff has continued to monitor revenues and expenses in preparation for the 2009-2010 fiscal year budget. Based on a continuation of declining hotel taxes, which for the last four months have been trending down by 11 % when compared to the same months last year, we have had to reduce our projection for 2009-2010 by an additional $500,000. We are continuing to project a 15% decline in sales tax revenues and based on the sales tax information from the last calendar quarter of 2008 it seems to be holding at that level. As the Council will recall from our February meeting staff presented $3.2 million in budget reductions to balance the operating budget for the news fiscal year. This additional decline in revenues has resulted in the need to cut an additional $500,000 in operating expenses to achieve a balanced operating 2009-2010 budget. Capital Improvements The capital needs of the city require a minimum $4 million investment each year. At the Council's February 25'h study session staff identified $3.4 in priority CIP needs for 2009-2010. However because of inadequate funds we recommended funding only $1 ,070,000 of projects. (See Attachment B). In order to fund those necessary CIP items we would need to reduce the budget by an additional $ 1 ,070,000. ($770,000 for two storm drainage projects and $300,000 for non storm drainage projects) Given the further declining revenues in order to fund the operating budget and the minimum CIP it would now require an additional $ 1 ,570,000 in reductions to the operating budget. However, if the storm drainage measure is successful the $770,000 for the two storm drainage projects would be funded by those revenues which would reduce the additional amount that is necessary to cut to $800,000 ($500,000 for additional loss in TOT and $300,000 for non storm drainage CIP). Staff Recommendation As the Council may recall from your February budget study session, in an effort to fund the $ 1 ,070,000 CIP program for 2009-2010 we had developed Tier 6/ Alternate reduction list. Unfortunately given the need to cut an additional $800,000 we have had to move some items off the Tier 6/Alternate list on to our Tier 5 list, such that Tier 4 and 5 Reductions total $3.479 million and the Tier 6/Alternate Reductions now total $814,000. Absent any other ways to reduce our costs we would need to go forward and implement all of the Tier 6/Alternate reductions to come up with the additional $800,000 to balance Fiscal Year 2009-2010. This would bring our total budget reductions to $4.279 million. Employee Options Over the past few weeks we have been talking with our employees and labor representatives about the possibility of agreeing to implementation of some employee budget reduction options. Specifically we have requested that they consider agreeing to waive their next contractually agreed upon salary increase($561,373 in savings city wide) and agree to pay for 10%of their monthly health care costs($259,792 in savings city wide). This is similar to what our department heads have already agreed to, which is to forego the next salary increase and pay a portion of their monthly health care costs, as well as forego their annual professional development contribution of$2500. Our labor groups are conducting discussions with their membership to determine what they would propose as employee budget reduction options that they could support, and we expect some decisions hopefully by the end of this month. Absent any agreements with the labor groups we would need to proceed with including the reductions listed on Tier 6/Alternates in the 2009-2010 Budget that will be presented to the Council in May. What if Storm Drainage Measure Fails? It is important that we have some discussion about what would happen if the property owners do not approve the storm drainage measure. If that happens,the Council will be faced with the need to fund $39,000,000 of improvements out of existing revenues. Unless the Council is willing to ignore those storm drainage needs, it will require minimally$2,000,000 in further reductions from the operating budget. Unfortunately ignoring the storm drainage need is not a realistic option. In the last three months alone we have experienced two separate storm drain line failures where the corroded corrugated metal pipe has caved in and blocked the storm drain line. With an 80 year old system we can only expect more of those failures both in the hills and flat portions of our community. Unfortunately those failures do not come to our attention until we have a rain storm and then the back up flood that occurs in the neighborhood is an emergency. Obviously we will pay a lot more for emergency work that it would cost to do the work in the dry season. The Department Head Team has worked to developed a list of the another level (Tier 7)of reductions/operational changes that would be necessary to provide $2 million a year for storm drainage needs. Attachment C is a list impacts that would be the ramifications of an additional $2,000,000 in reductions. Those impacts are very serious and given the $4 million we have already had to reduce they are more significant than people probably expected. When you look at what has already been cut to balance next fiscal year, they are the very real options the Council will be forced to consider if we are to repair an aging storm drainage infrastructure. ATTACHMENTS: A. Tier 4, 5, and 6 Reductions to balance 2009-2010. B. Capital Improvement Project Needs for 2009-2010 C. Additional Reduction that Would be Necessary to Fund Storm Drain Projects D. Budget Model as of April 1, 2009 E. 2009-10 Budget Reductions—Personnel Impacts Tiers 4, 5, 6 (Alternates) Reductions April 1, 2009 City Attorney ATTACHMENT A Tier 6 Description On-going One-Time FTE Reductions 2009-10 Tier 4 Tier 5 Item Title Impacts Impacts F PPT PTS Total 2008-09 Impact Recommend (Alternates) - 1 Regular Salaries Salary&benefits savings between former 10,000 0.00 10,000 attorney and new attorney 2 Part-Time Salaries Savings from part-time salaries 0.00 4.879 4,879 0.00 - 14,000 3 Professional and Special Services 4,879 14,000 SUBTOTAL - 10,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,000 4,879 City Clerk Tier 6 tion On-going One-Time FTE Reductions 2009-10 Description Tier 4 Tier 5 Item Title P Impacts Impacts F PPT PTS Total 2008-09 Impact Recommend (Alternates) 4 Downgrade vacant Administrative Six months savings from downgrade of 20,000 0.00 10,000 20,000 20,000 Secretary to Office Assistant I classification. Administrative Secretary appointed City Clerk 5 City Clerk Salary reduction of City clerk position due to 8,526 0.00 8,526 appointment at lower Salary Step due to current City Clerk retiring in December 2008. 20,000 - SUBTOTAL 20,000 8,526 18,526 20,000 City Council Tier 6 Description On-going One-Time FTE Reductions 2009-10 Tier 4 Tier 5 Item Title Impacts Impacts F PPT PTS Total 2008-09 1m act Recommend 75 (Alternates) 6 Cut Travel,conferences and meetings by Cut Travel,conferences and meetings by 2,875 0.00 2,875 50% 50% 7 Cut Travel,conferences and meetings by Cut Travel,conferences and meetings by an 1,000 0.00 1,000 1,000 an additional 1000 for 1875% additional 1000 for a total of$1875 8 Reduce increased funding for This would cut$3,000 of additional funding 3,000 0.00 3,000 Commissioners dinner by$3,000 that was transferred from other budgets to 3,000 provide more funding for Commissioners dinner that was becoming hard to manage wih in budget. 9 Cut Council Office Expenses by 50% Cut Council Office Expenses by 50% 1,250 0.00 1,250 1,250 1,250 Cut an another$1000 from Council special Reduces the funding for the Commissioners 1,000 0.00 10 1,000 department expenses Dinner by another$1000 11 Cut an additional$1000 of Special Reduces the funding for the Commissioners 1,000 0.00 ' 1,000 department expense Dinner by another$1000%. EEF 12 Cut all of the Special department expense Eliminate all funding for special department 2,000 0.00 2,000 funding expense 13 Budget does not fund the tree lighting City needs to secure an additional$3000 to 0.00 Funds for - ceremony.Direct costs for 2003 were $4000 to fully cover expenses. In addition Tree Lighting $9,000.City received$3,000 in we currently have parking enforcement staff are not sponsorships. Council and community adjust their schedules and therefore lose currently should be aware that the budget does not about$2600 in parking citations that would budgeted from include funds to cover the gap. otherwise be collected. So to really cover any one the event's costs we would need to double account this year's donations. 14 $ 1,250 $ 6,875 $ 4,000 SUBTOTAL 12,125 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 1,250 $ 8,125 4/1/20099:52 AM 09-10 Budget Actions-March 31 2009-1015 pm.xlsBudget Reductions 1 Tiers 4, 5, 6 (Alternates) Reductions April 1, 2009 City Manager Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier 6 Item Title Description On-going One-Time FTE Reductions 2009-10 (Alternates) Impacts Impacts F PPT PTS Total 2008-09Im act Recommend 15 Reduce intern funding by 66% Cut 66%of part time funds 20,000 0.00 10,000 20,000 20,000 16 Eliminate all part time funds in CM office Reduce part time funds to 0 10,000 0.00 5,000 5,000 5,000 17 Eliminate travel and conferences funding cut$600 from$2000 budget item 600 0.00 600 600 18 Eliminate any funding for dues and 1,020 0.00 - 1,020 membership 19 Reduce Office supplies by 25% Cut office supplies by from 3978 to 2978 1,000 0.00 1,000 1,000 $20,000 $6,600 $6,020 SUBTOTAL 32,620 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,000 26,600 Community Development On-goingter One-Time FTE Reductions 2009-10 I Tier 4 Tier 5 Item Title Description Impacts Impacts F PPT PTS Total 2008-09 Impact Recommend rna PO Partially fund Planning Division staff Upon creation of the"Building Inspections 72,000 0.00 72,000 72,000 salaries and benefits,including the Fund"by the Finance Department;fund 10% Community Development Director of the Community Director,10%of the position,from"Building Inspections Fund". Planning Manager,5%of the Senior Planner, 5%each of the two Associate Planners and 72,000 5%of the Administrative Secretary positions, including salary and benefits,from this fund. 100%of the positions are currently funded from the Planning Division's budget. 21 Eliminate"Overtime"payment to Planning In lieu of payment of overtime to personnel 8,600 0.00 9.847 Personnel for attendance at meetings attending the twice monthly Planning outside of the normal work day. Commission meetings,and other meetings 9,847 as needed,staffs work schedules could be adjusted to compensate for those times where work outside of normal business hours occurs. 22 Reduce Planning Division's"Office The Planning Division is utilizing somewhat 8,000 0.00 4,000 8,000 Expenses" less of this fund than anticipated. 8,000 Maintenance of the existing expenditure level will result in cost savings. 23 Reduce Planning Division's"Printing The Planning Division is utilizing somewhat 12,000 0.00 3,000 12,000 Charges" less of this fund than anticipated. 12,000 Maintenance of the existing expenditure level will result in cost savings. 24 Reduce Planning Division's"Special This fund is intended to be utilized for 7,000 0.00 7,000 7,000 DP_partmentE_xpsnse__ __ software and hardware purchases,as need; and for maintenance of existing software. 7,000 $5,000 will be needed to cover the expense of ArcView software maintenance. 09-10 Budget Actions-March 31 2009-1015 pm.xlsBudget Reductions 2 411120099:52 AM Tiers 4, 5, 6 (Alternates) Reductions April 1, 2009 25 Reduce Planning Division's"Travel, This fund has not been used yet during FY 2,000 0.00 2,000 2,000 2,000 Conferences&Meetings" 08-09. Retention of$1,000 in this account will permit for limited training opporunities. 26 Eliminate"Commissioners Travel" This fund has not been used during FY 08- 2,000 0.00 2,000 2,000 2,000 09,and historically has been minimally used. 27 Eliminate"Commissioners Education" This fund has not been used during FY 08- 2,000 0.00 2,000 2,000 2,000 09,and historically has been minimally used. 28 Eliminate part-time Code Enforcement The Planning Division funds a part-time 28,000 0.25 0.25 28,000 position in the Planning Division. position(roughly 10 hours/week)to 28,000 investigate violations of the Zoning Ordinance. 29 Shift the cost for the Building Tech position Currently,the Building Division employes two 87,516 1.00 1.00 87,516 to the new Bldg enterprise fund. Building Permit Technicians that are responsible for issuance of all permits, collection of fees,recordkeeping,and other 87,516 public counter customer service operations of the Division. Adequate funding for both positions should be available in the newly created Building Enterprise fund for fiscal year 2009-2010. 95,992 30 Reduce staffing in Planning Division- Currently,the Building Division employes a 95,992 1.00 1.00 Eliminate one Planner Position Planning Manager,a Senior Planner,and two Assistant/Associate Planners. The Planning Division's workload has not significantly decreased in the past two fiscal years. 31 1051000 125,363 95,992 SUBTOTAL 325,108 - 2.00 0.25 0.00 2.25 92,000 230,363 Department Heads Tier Tiers Tier 6 Item Title Description On-going One-Time FTE Reductions 2009-10 (Alternates) Impacts Impacts F PPT TPTS Total 2008-091m act Recommend 32 DH salary freeze for 1 year(no catchup) DH salary freeze estimated to be$55K for 1 55,000 0.00 55,000 55,000 year 33 Suspend professional development Suspend professional development 22,000 0.00 22,000 22,000 contribution to the DH for 1 year contribution to the DH for 1 year 34 Employee pickup 10%of medical Consider reduction of medical contribution by 12,000 0.00 12,000 12,000 contribution premium 10% $ $ 89,000 $ SUBTOTAL 67,000 22,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 - 89,000 Finance Department rer On-going One-Time FTE Reductions 2009-10 Tier 4 Tier 5 AlItem Title Description Impacts Impacts F PPT PTS Total 2008-091m act Recommend 35 Transfer of additional 15%of Finance A total of 25%of the Finance Director's 35,000 0.00 35,000 35,000 Director's Employee Costs to Waste Employee Costs will be charged to the 35,000 Management Fund for total of 25% Waste Management Fund. Currenity 10%is being charged. 36 Downgrade vacant Administrative Twelve months savings from downgrade of 20,000 0.00 10,000 20,000 Secretary to Office Assistant I classification. Administrative Secretary 20,000 appointed City Clerk 09-10 Budget Actions-March 31 2009-1015 pm.xlsBudget Reductions 3 4/1/20099:52 AM Tiers 4, 5, 6 (Alternates) Reductions April 1, 2009 37 CaINET-2 Telephone Service Repricing Reviewed all telephone services and 20,292 0.00 10,000 20,292 renegotiated reduced telephone service 20,292 prices under new CaINET-2 Agreement. Savings total$20,292 annually. 38 Fiscal Agent Services for San Mateo REVENUE:City currently acts as fiscal agent 4,000 0.00 4,000 County/Silicon Valley Conventions and for CVB 4,000 Visitors Bureau 39 0.00 - $ 75,292 $ 4,000 $ SUBTOTAL 79,292 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 55,000 $ 79,292 Fire and Disaster Preparedness On-going One-Time FTE Reductions 2009-10 Tier 4 Tier 5 ler Item Title Description Impacts Impacts F PPT PTS Total 2008-09 Im act Recommend Alternate 40 Brown out Engine 35 or 36 for 300 days Eliminate an engine company whenever 729,000 0.00 116,724 729,000 there are 3 or more personnel on leave. We would reduce our overtime costs to maintain reduced level of in-service companies. This 267,150 461,850 would move from five engines and one truck company to minimum staffing of four engines and one truck company. 41 Brown out 2nd Engine for a total of 54 Eliminate an engine company whenever 133,164 0.00 days per year(Summer months) there are 3 or more personnel on leave. We would reduce our overtime costs to maintain 133,164 reduced level of in-service companies. This would move from five engines and one truck company to minimum staffing of four engines and one truck company. 42 Reduce operational expenses by 5% Decrease in operational spending. Reduce 21,954 0.00 21,954 21,954 21,954 training,travel,membership dues, maintenance expenses 43 Reclassify 1 Firefighter to Float Captain Promote one firefighter to Float Captain who 12,600 0.00 12,600 12,600 12,600 will cover long term disability leave for Captains. 44 Reduce work hours for Disaster Prep Cut Disaster Prep Coordinator's hours by 4,000 0.00 4,000 4,000 4,000 Coordinator by 10%. 126 hrs to achieve 5%reduction 45 Reduce operational expenses by an Decrease in operational spending by a total 21,954 0.00 21,954 21,954 additional 5% of 10%. 46 $305,704 $483,804 $133,164 SUBTOTAL 922,672 - 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 �155,27 Human Resources ler On-going One-Time FTE Reductions 2009-10 Tier 4 Tier 5 Alter s Item Title Description Impacts Impacts F PPT PTS Total 2008-09 impact Recommend 47 City-Wide Training 40%reduction in City-wide training budget 10,000 0.00 10,000 10,000 48 Other Expense Reduction in office supplies 1,500 0.00 1,500 1,500 - - - ----4300 --- ---- - - 49 Advertising egal Publications 40%reduction in recruitment advertising 2,000 0.00 2,000 2,000 2,000 50 Professional Services 13.5%reduction in consultants and outside 10,000 0.00 10,000 10,000 legal services 09-10 Budget Actions-March 31 2009-1015 pm.xlsBudget Reductions 4 4/1120099:52 AM Tiers 4, 5, 6 (Alternates) Reductions April 1, 2009 51 Personnel Examinations 33%reduction in budget for pre-employment 5,000 0.00 4,000 5,000 5,000 physicals,first aid workers comp, fingerprints,background checks 52 Travel,Conferences,Meetings 50%reduction in conference and meeting 1,500 0.00 1,000 1,500 1,500 budget 53 Permanent Salaries Vacancy in Human Resources Specialist for 30,000 0.00 30,000 - 5 months during 2008-09 54 City-Wide Training Additional 40%reduction in City-wide training 10,000 0.00 10,000 55 Professional Services 27%reduction in professional services 10,000 0.00 - 10,000 budget 56 Training and Safety 50%reduction in Du-All Safety services; 9,000 0.00 9,000 9,000 50%reduction in HR staff training 57 Dues and Subscriptions Eliminate professional association dues 500 0.00 500 500 58 Other Expense Reduction in office supplies 500 0.00 500 500 59 0.00 - $ 10,000 $ 30,000 $ 20,000 SUBTOTAL 60,000 30,000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 38,500 $ 40,000 Internal Services Allocations ter On-going One-Time FTE Reductions 2009-10 Tier 4 Tier 5 (Alternates) Item Title Description Impacts Impacts F PPT PTS Total 2008-09 Impact Recommend 60 Postpone contributions to PC Replacment Postpone all departmental contributions to 110,000 0.00 110,000 Fund for one fiscal year the PC Replacement Fund for FY09-10. 110,000 General Fund savings: $110,000;Other Funds savings: $16,000 61 New Janitorial Contract New Janitorial contract provides$54k 54,728 0.00 54,728 54,728 54,728 savings this year(Facilities) 62 Estimated savings in the Fleet budget Estimated savings in the Fleet budget 45,500 0.00 TBD through negotiated purchases and through negotiated purchases and purchasing smaller vehicles purchasing smaller vehicles 63 Savings from Retrofiting of fuel dispensers Savings from Retrofiting of fuel dispensors 33,000 TBD project project 64 Delay purchase of a police motorcycle to Delay purchase of a police motorcycle to 29,000 TBD next year next year 65 Delay purchase of a public works dump Delay purchase of a public works dump truck 75,000 - TBD truck to next year to next year 66 Purchasing of a Fire Command vehicle Purchase of a smaller,less expensive Fire 15,000 15,000 15,000 Command vehicle will result in cost savings of$15,000 67 Reduce OT by 20%in facilities Reduce OT by 20%in facilities maintenance 2,800 2,800 2,800 TBD maintenance 68 Reduce parts&supplies and pump repair Reduce supplies and pump repair parts for 15,000 TBD parts for facilities facilities 09-10 Budget Actions-March 31 2009-1015 pm.xlsBudget Reductions 5 4/1/20099:52 AM Tiers 4, 5, 6 (Alternates) Reductions April 1, 2009 69 Reduce janitorial services by 25% Reduce janitorial services by 25% 37,728 0.00 37,728 37,728 TBD $ 95,256 $ 125,000 $ SUBTOTAL 110,256 307,500 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $ 54,728 1 $ 220,256 Library Tier 6On- oin One-Time FTE Reductions 2009-10 Tier 4 Tier 5 Alternates Item Title Description Impacts Impacts F PPT PTS Total 2008-09 Impact Recommend 70 Close Main Library Friday Evenings Reduce public hours by 2 per week at Main 24,808 0.38 0.38 24,808 24,808 24,808 Library 71 Move toward Single Staffing service desks Single staff desks in evening;move toward 298,000 10.00 10.00 74,000 298,000 298,000 self service with roving staff 72 Combine Reference and Circulation desks PPT Librarians are reduced from 30 to 25 35,000 0.50 0.50 35,000 hours per week(reduced reference service) and two permanent part time library 35,000 assistants are reduced from 30 to 25 hours. 73 Close Easton Branch Fridays Would close Easton 3 hours on Friday,from 11,000 0.20 0.20 11,000 11,000 2 PM-5 PM 74 Cut Operating Budget:supplies, Eliminates all binding;limits supplies; 37,000 0.00 37,000 37,000 maintenance of equipment,etc.Reduce eliminates all training budget binding and backruns of magazines 75 Reduce PPT Cataloger,Librarian II;PPT All permanent part time will be reduced to 25 25,000 0.25 0.25 25,000 25,000 Library Assistant,from 30 hours to 25 hours to save jobs hours 76 Close extra days around Holiday closures Holiday closures would go from one day to 3- 11,000 0.20 0.20 10,000 10,000 4 days;limiting access to facilties/materials 77 Reduce Book/Print Budget by 60%or Print budget reduced to$80,000 from 98,000 0.00 98,000 $98,000. $185,000 0.00 78 $ 24,808 $ 416,000 $ 98,000 SUBTOTAL 539,808 - 0.00 0.75 10.78 11.53 $ 98,808 $ 440,808 Non-Departmental Tier On-going6 One-Time FTE Reductions 2009-10 Tier 4 Tier 5 (Alternates) Item Title Description Impacts Impacts F PPT PTS Total 2008-09 Im act Recommend 79 Cut Non Dept.Professional Services Reduce the professional services by$35,000 35,000 0.00 35,000 35,000 35,000 80 Reduce Community Group Funding by Cut 26,000 out of Community group funding 26,000 0.00 26,000 26,000 50% 81 1 $ 35,000 $ 26,000 $ SUBTOTAL 61,000 0.00 0.00 0.00�0 $ $ 61,000 09-10 Budget Actions-March 31 2009-1015 pm.xisBudget Reductions 6 4/1/20099:52 AM Tiers 4, 5, 6 (Alternates) Reductions April 1, 2009 Parks & Recreation Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier 6 Item Title Description On-going One-Time FTE Reductions 2009-10 (Alternates) Impacts Impacts F PPT PTS Total 2008-091m act Recommend 82 Special Program Expenses Decreases in available funds for program t- 5,000 0.00 5,000 5,000 5,000 shirts&uniforms in preschool,youth, aquatics,sports 83 Uniforms&Equipment Decreases in available funds for program t- 4,000 0.00 4,000 4,000 shirts&uniforms in preschool,youth, aquatics,sports. Already purchased for 2008-09. 800 84 Office Expenses-Recreation Division Decrease in allocation for Recreation 800 0.00 800 800 Division's Office Supplies 7,000 85 Special Program Expenses Additional misc expenses 7,000 0.00 7.000 7,000 86 Part-Time Recreation Leaders Elimination of seasonal employees for senior 15,000 0.30 0.30 2,000 2,000 citizens and summer camp programs 2,000 3,000 87 Travel&Training Decrease in allocation for Recreation 3,000 0.00 3,000 Division's Travel&Training Budget 88 Part-time Salaries-Recreation Division Elimination of 500 hours of a Part-Time 10,000 0.25 0.25 10,000 10,000 Office Assistant I position for the Recreation Division 89 Part-time Salaries-Parks Division Elimination of the Part-Time Office Assistant 12,000 0.20 0.20 12,000 12,000 1 position for the Parks Division 90,000 90 Regular Salaries-Parks Division Elimination of a Parks Maintenance Worker 90,000 1.00 1.00 90,000 position 91 Regular Salaries-Recreation Division Elimination of a Recreation Supervisor 130,000 1.00 1.00 130,000 130,000 position 1,000 92 Office Expenses-Parks Division Decrease in allocation for Parks Division's 1,000 0.00 1,000 Office Supplies 800 93 Office Expenses-Recreation Division Additional decrease of Recreation Division's 800 0.00 800 Office Supplies 94 Contractual Services Recreation Contract Instructors 15,000 0.00 - 95 Part-Time Seasonal-Parks Division Part-Time Arborist 12,000 0.00 0.00 - 96 Part-Time Seasonal-Parks Division Seasonal Maintenance Worker 8,000 0.30 0.30 8,000 8,000 97 Regular Salaries-Parks Division Elimination of a 2nd Parks Maintenance 90,000 1.00 1.00 90,000 90,000 Worker 98 Eliminate 50%of Park&Recreation Reduces Director's position to 50%. 104,036 0.50 0.50 104,036 104,036 Director Position 09-10 Budget Actions-March 31 2009-1015 pm.xlsBudget Reductions 7 4/1/20099:52 AM Tiers 4, 5, 6 (Alternates) Reductions April 1, 2009 99 Eliminate 40%of Park's Superintendent Reduces Park's Superintendent position to 55,120 0.40 0.40 55,120 55,120 Position 60 70,000 100 Regular Salaries-Recreation Division Reduction of a Recreation Coordinator to a 1.00 -0.20 0.80 - $70,000 art-time Recreation Specialist 101 Regular Salaries-Parks Division 95,000 Tree Maintenance Worker 1.00 1.00 TBD 13,000 102 Contract tree work Reduce the amount of tree work performed 0.00 - by outside contractor $ 14,800 $ 507,956 $ 83,000 SUBTOTAL 562,756 5.90 0.00 0.85 6.75 $ 14,800 $ 522,756 Police and Police Communications Tier 4 Tier 5 Tier 6 Item Title Description On-going One-Time FTE Reductions 2009-10 (Alternates) Impacts Impacts F PPT PTS Total 2008-09Impact Recommend 48,000 103 Eliminate support and involvement in our Eliminate Monetary Contribution 48,000 0.00 - County Narcotics Task Force 10,500 104 Eliminate Contribution to School RPP Eliminate Monetary Support of having a 10,500 0.00 10,500 program Probation Officer P/T at BHS 105 Reduce Crime Lab Fees Reduce the amount of Evidence being 8,000 0.00 8,000 8,000 examined by the County Crime Lab 14,462 106 Reduction in PIT Police and related Scale back on existing P/T salaries currently 14,462 0.50 0.50 14,462 Salaries budgeted 107 Reduction of Jail/Prisoner Expenses Reduction of current expenses by 15% 5,681 0.00 5,681 5,681 108 Eliminate Programs Eliminate Hitech Conference,Cora,PCRC 11,800 0.00 11,800 11,800 (TIC)Contributions 109 - 110 Eliminate an Officer Position(reduce from Swom Officer Position from Patrol,Traffic, 166,000 1.00 1.00 83,000 166,000 41 to 40). 2008-09 reduction is for two SRO or Detectives-In the previous round of months-May and June,2008. cuts we had to cut five police officers and two 166,000 years later the Council authorized the hiring of one of those five positions. This would reverse the reinstatement of this position four years ago. 34,755 111 Reduction of Police Orr by 15% Reduce existing Police OT Budget by 15% 34,755 0.00 34,755 112 Eliminate a 2nd Officer Position(reduce Swom Officer Position from Patrol,Traffic, 166,000 1.00 1.00 166,000 166,000 from 40 to 39) SRO or Detectives 166,000 113 Eliminate a 3rd Officer Position(reduce Swom Officer Position from Patrol,Traffic, 166,000 1.00 1.00 - from 39 to 38) SRO or Detectives 92,000 114 Eliminate a Records Clerk Position Records Clerk Front Counter,Public 92,000 1.00 1.00 92,000 (reduce from 4 to 3) Assistance and Office Support 112,000 115 Eliminate a Dispatcher Position(reduce Call Taker and Dispatcher duties;after 112,000 1.00 1.00 - from 7 to 6) hours,weekend,holiday PMI's duties 116 Eliminate the promotion to a Sergeant Supervisor and Manager of a Patrol Team of 24,201 0.00 - 241201 Position the Traffic Bureau would be eliminated 117 Eliminate Travel,Conferences and 1,082 0.00 1,082 1,082 Meetings from Communications Budget 09-10 Budget Actions-March 31 2009-1015 pm.xlsBudget Reductions 8 4/1/20099:52 AM Tiers 4, 5, 6 (Alternates) Reductions April 1, 2009 118 Eliminate Travel,Conferences and 73,247 0.00 3,247 3,247 Meetings from the Police Department Budget 119 0.00 - $ 166,000 $ 347,527 $ 350,201 SUBTOTAL , 5.00 0.00 0.50 5.50 $ 83,000 $ 513,527 Public Works On-going One-Time FTE Reductions 2009-10 Tier 4 Tier 5 ter Item Title Description Impact Impacts F PPT PTS Total 2008-09 Im act Recommend 120 North Burlingame Shuttle Transfer City share of North Burlingame 35,000 0.00 35,000 35,000 35,000 shuttle costs to Mills Peninsula Hospital and Sisters of Mercy 121 Full-Time Salaries Transfer 1/2 Corp Yard secretary salary to 44,012 0.50 0.50 22,006 44,012 44,012 Water&Sewer funds(Streets Division) 122 Delay digital imaging of'Engineering Delay digital imaging of'Engineering 20,000 0.00 20,000 Records'to one more year Records'to one more year(Engineering 123 Reduce Conference and classes by 30% ReduceConference and Travel(Engineering 1,500 0.00 1,500 1,500 Division) 124 Use one-time grant to fund in-house staff Use one-time grant to fund in-house staff to 35,000 0.00 35,000 - to design'Green Project design'Green Project'(Engineering Division) 125 Eliminate Engineering intern position Eliminate Engineering intern position 10,000 0.00 10,000 10,000 126 Reduce traffic signal maintenance by 20% Reduce traffic signal maintenance by 20% 13,000 0.00 13,000 13,000 127 Delay purchase of GBA Sign&Right of Delay purchase of GBA Sign&Right of Way 8,500 0.00 8,500 Way module module 128 delay purchasing of cutoff saw delay purchasing of cutoff saw 4,500 0.00 4,500 - 129 Eliminate Burlingame Trolley Eliminate Burlingame Trolley(Engineering 110,000 0.00 110,000 110,000 Division) 130 Reduce engineering staff by 1.0 FTE Reduce engineering staff by 1.0 FTE 104,000 1.00 1.00 104,000 104,000 131 Replace GIS Coordinator with an Assistant 24,000 0.00 24,000 24,000 Engineer Position 132 Freeze or delay filling the currently vacant Freeze or delay the recruitment of currently 92,000 1.00 1.00 92,000 92,000 maintenance worker position vacant maintenance worker position 133 0.00 - 79,012 354,500 SUBTOTAL 419,012 82,500 2.5 - - 2.5 125,006 433,512 Tier 4 Tier 5 1er On-going One-Time L FTE Reductions 2008-09 2009-10 (Alternates) Reduction Summary Impacts Impacts F PPT PTS Total Reductions Recommend $ 952,122 $ 2,527,504 $ 804,377 $4,075,377 $460,526 1 15.4 1.0 1 12.1 28.5 $791,896 $3,479,626 Reduction Levels Totals Tier $ 952,122 Tier 5 $ 2,527,504 Subtotal Reductions $ 3,479,626 Tier 6(Alternates) $ 804,377 Totals Reductions $ 4,284,003 09-10 Budget Actions-March 312009-1015 pm.xlsBudget Reductions 9 4/1/20099:52 AM ATTACHMENT B Recommended 2009-10 CIP Projects Projects Budget arsten storm drainage outfall pipeline $550,000 (if storm drain measure doesn't ass) Easton Creek box culvert $220,000 (if storm drain measure doesn't ass) DA Ramps $100,000 Pedestrian safety at Broadway Overpass $70,000 (City required local match) Street Reforestation $5,000 City required local match) Parks pathways $40,000 Police Dept. Data Centers emergency power $85,000 supply upgrade Total $1,070,000 2009-10 General Fund Capital Improvements Needs Project Budget Notes ... . .... . .............. . ------ ............. ...... ............. ... ........................ .... X:x. X.,....................... ....................... ... Storm Drainage Marsten Pump Station Outfall Pipeline $550,000 Deleted from FY2008-09 budget, project needs to be funded in the event the storm drain measure does not pass Easton Creek Box Culvert $220,000 Deleted from FY2008-09 budget, project needs to be funded in the event the storm drain measure does not pass City-wide local storm drainage $600,000 Replace broken and corroded pipelines to improve drainage at Improvements several locations in the City Storm Drainage Sub-total: $1,370,000 ............. ........ . .. ... . ....... ......... ...... ........ ................... .............. ...................... . . ......... ............. ......................... ....................... ... ........... ........ ...... ....... * .......... ...... ........ ........................ . .... .... .............. ........................... .......................%..... ......... ..............�� ....... ...... Street Right-of Way ADA Curb Ramps $100,000 Required as part. of ADA transition plan (non pavement) Sidewalk replacement $500,000 This is to address sidewalk tripping hazards. There is an estimated $10 million backlog of sidewalk work. TDA Grant - Pedestrian Safety City has applied for TDA grant in the amount of $143,000 and a Improvements at Broadway overpass $70,000 local matching fund in the amount of $70,000 is required from the (City required matching funds) city. — Street Lighting $200,000 This is to address antiquated street lighting system circuitry and fixture in Howard Ave. and Primrose Rd. area. City has 35 bridges and culverts that were constructed over 50 Bridge Repairs $200,000 years ago. Many of them are in need of safety Improvements as the structures are eroding and steel reforcement is being exposed causing corrosion.__ Street Right of Way Sub-total: $1,070,000 .......................... .... .................................................... M". ........................... ............ ......... ....................... . ................................ ....................... ........... Energy Management System is 10 years old and needs to be Facilities Library Energy Management System $70,000 upgrade to function efficiently in providing required lighting and HVAC needs. Village Park Daycare Center Painting $5,000 Repainting of structure will extend longitivity of facility and reduce exterior damage. City Hall ADA $40,000 Not completed in 2007-08 due to City Hall Council Chambers upgrade. FS 34/Recreation Center Roof Repairs $15,000 Roof repair is needed in order to elongate the life of the current roof Main Library Carpet $170,000 This was deleted from FY2008-09 budget. The project involves re lacin original carpet on Main Level and Lane Room Recreation Center Stage $50,000 Project.involves expanding of the existing stage opening in Auditorium area FS 35 Plumbing upgrade $15,000 This project involves installation of new plumbing system needed to hookup washer and dryer Rec Center Air Conditioning $10,000 Install air conditioning in Admin Office area (5 ton unit) Easton Library Air Conditioning $25,000 Install air conditioning for building (7 ton unit) Facilities Sub-total: $400,000 2009-10 General Fund Capital Improvements Needs Project Budget Notes ................ .............. ......... .................................. ....... ..................................... ...................................::::.............................. x... ............. ................................ X ....................... ... ......... .............:..:....................................... .................................. ..... ...................... ........ ............. ............ .................................................... .. .............. ........................ ..................... ...... ............. ... ......... ............................................. ................................................... ............ ... ............. Street Reforestation Plan $5,000 This project involves tree replacement and needs to funded as Parks there is grant funds are associated with it Parks Corp Yard Gate $20,000 Install automatic gate at front and rear(security issue) Pershing Park Court Resurfacing $45,000 Basketball court resurfacing Laguna Park Tennis Courts $50,000 Court Reconstruction and resurfacing Park Pathways $55,000 Miscellaneous City-wide park pathway repairs This project was deleted from FY2008-09 budget. The budget Bayside Park Astro-turf project $150,000 request covers the soils investigation and development of project design, specifications and cost estimate. Village Park Playground $300,000 New play structure and surface Parks Sub-total: $625,000 .......... ........... ........ ................ .......... ,:;* X ........ .................. ............................. . . ............ ......... ............................ ......... . .. .... ..... ....................................................... ........ ........................... Current antennas are old and needs to be upgraded to meet Police Radio Antenna Tower Replacement $45,000 federal requirments (currently there is 12 to 18 months compliance time is allowed). A two year funding of$45,000 each would facilitate this project. Data Centers emergency backup power A review of the police department data centers security identified system upgrade $85,000 that there is inadequate protection of data during emergency loss of power and an upgrade to the backup power supply is needed. Police sub-total $130,000 . ......... ............................................................... ...... ........ .................................................................... ...... ....................................................................................................... ....... ....................................................................... ......... ...................................................... ...... ............................... ........ .... .............................%%.............................................................................................................................................�..�..���.........�........................................................................... ............................................................................................... ... ......... Total: $3,595,000 ATTACHMENT C Impacts of Additional $2,000,000 in Reductions to Fund Storm Drainage Improvements if the Ballot Measure is Not Approved If the storm drainage measure is unsuccessful it will not only result in continued flooding, slower emergency response and higher repair cost for many years to come, but in order to provide a minimum funding($2 million/year)to make the improvements over the next 30 years the Council would have to consider further reductions as illustrated below. 1. Furlough City non emergency employees for 24 days per year and close city hall and other facilities one day a week. This would provide the largest savings of over$1 million but would equate to a 9%loss in wages; and would reduce public access to service one day a week. 2. Close a fire station and take a second engine company out of service. The budget balancing actions for fiscal year 2009-2010 have necessitated the "browning out" or closure of the Engine Company stationed in our California Drive fire station. Another S%cut to the fire department would require the closure of either the Rollins Road station or the Hillside Drive station. Closure of a second engine company would impact timely response to the area east of California Drive or the properties that are served by the Hillside station north of Broadway between Skyline and El Camino Real.. 3. Discontinue School Resource Police Officer and eliminate the traffic bureau. The budget balancing actions for fiscal year 2009-2010 have necessitated the reduction of two Police officer positions. An additional S%reduction to the Police Department would require the reduction of additional two or three police officers, which would result in the discontinuation of the School Resource Officer and the traffic bureau. 4. Close the Easton Branch Library Given the need to close a second fire station and discontinue the Police Department Traffic Bureau we would not be in a position to continue the operation of this branch Library when the Main Library is 1.S miles away. The $124,000 annual expense would need to be diverted back to help mitigate more severe reduction in library hours at that facility. 5. Close Village Park Preschool Programs and lease facility or increase preschool registration fees by 30%. The budget balancing actions for fiscal year 2009-2010 have necessitated the elimination of 5 positions (38116) in Parks and Recreation. The loss of additional positions would require the discontinuation of the preschool programs or significant increase in fees to continue the program. 6. Discontinue after school sports programs for elementary and middle school students. The budget balancing actions for fiscal year 2009-2010 have necessitated the elimination of 5 positions (38%) in Parks and Recreation. The loss of additional positions would require the discontinuation of these partially subsidized programs. 7. Charge field use fees at$5/hr for youth groups vs. current $15 per season per player. The budget balancing actions for fiscal year 2009-2010 have necessitated the elimination of 5 positions (38%) in Parks and Recreation. In order to maintain sport facilities to an adequate safe level we would have to shift from season nominal fee for field use to at least$5/hour. At the $51hour figure it would increase field use revenues from youth groups from $64,000/year to over$200,000. 8. Make reductions to Planning Department Staff An additional 5%reduction in the Planning Department will mean the loss of one to two positions, which will delay the processing of planning applications and will jeopardize our ability to meet the permit streamlining requirements imposed by State law. Additionally, a reduction in planning staff would necessitate reductions in public counter services, as well as, limits in remaining staff's ability to undertake work associated with work priorities established by the City Council. 9. Cut positions in Public Works street maintenance The loss ofpositions in this area will result in further degradation to our street conditions and will seriously jeopardize our ability to comply with the clean water act requirements prevent non point discharge into our street storm water collection system. CITY OF BURLINGAME GENERAL FUND BUDGET MODEL FOR FY09 & FY10 (4-1-2009) with Cuts (Showing No Revenue Growth in FYI 0; 3% in FYI and 3% Expenditure Growth in FYI and in FYI 1) FY07-08 FY08-09 FY08-09 FY 09-010 FY 10-11 Actuals Adopted Year-End Est Budget Forecast Beginning Unreserved Fund Balance: 2.58 2.24 2.24 -0.52 -0.77 Annual Revenues: 43.37 44.24 41.43 40.88 42.11 m New Revenue: 0.00 0.00 0.43 0.00 0.00 Z Transfers In: 0.61 0.65 0.65 0.65 0.65 z Annual Ongoing Revenue: 43.98 44.89 42.51 41.53 42.76 v Total Available Financing: $46.56 $47.13 $44.75 $41.01 $41.98 Operating Expenditures: 37.53 40.95 40.16 41.36 42.60 Transfers from the General Fund Shuttle Bus Fund: 0.14 0.17 0.11 0.11 0.11 Debt Service Fund: 4.11 3.60 3.60 3.52 3.52 Operating Budget Reductions: -3.479 -3.479 Total Operating Expenditures: $41.78 $44.72 $43.87 $41.51 $42.76 Ending Fund Balance (Before CIP Contribution): $4.78 $2.41 General Fund Contribution to CIP: $2.54 $2.50 Total G.F. Expenditures (Operating & Capital): $44.32 $47.22 $45.27 $42.58 $45.26 Alternative Cuts: 0.80 -$0.80 Ending Fund Balance (After CIP Contribution): $2.24 -$0.09 Annual Ongoing Revenue Operating Expenditures Only: $2.20 $0.17 $1 .36 $0.02 $0.00 Surplus (+) or Shortfall (-): If we funded CIP at $4 M Minimum CIP Contribution: $1 .80 -$3.83 -$5.36 -$3.98 -$4.00 Designated General Fund Reserve Balance: $7.30 $7.30 $7.30 $7.30 $7.30 Total Fund Balance: $9.54 $7.21 $6.78 $6.53 $4.83 Economic Stability $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 5 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Catastrophic $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 CalPERS Reserve $ 2,800,000 $ 2,800,000 $ 2,800,000 $ 2,800,000 $ 2,800,000 Contingency $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 Total General Fund Reserves: $ 7,300,000 $ 7,300,000 5 7,300,000 $ 7,300,000 $ 7,300,000 Budget Model-FY09 FY10(4-1-09).xls No Growth 4/12009 12.48 PM ATTACHMENT E 2009-10 Budget Reductions Personnel Impacts Permanent Employees Item # Dept. Position Recommended Alternate Cost Reductions 30 CDD Planner X $ 95,992 72 LIB Part-time Librarians X $ 3500 reduce hours 75 LIB Part-time Librarian or Assistant X $ 25,000 reduce hours 91 PR Recreation Super-visor X $ 130,000 90 PR Parks Maintenance Worker 1 X $ 90,000 97 PR Parks Maintenance Worker 2 X $ 90,000 100 PR Recreation Coordinator X $ 70,000 101 PR Tree Maintenance Worker X $ 95,000 98 PR Parks and Rec Director (50%) X $ 104,036 99 PR Parks Superintendent 40% X $ 55, 120 110 PD Police Officer 1 X $ 166,000 112 PD Police Officer 2 X $ 1661000 113 PD Police Officer 3 X $ 166,000 114 PD Police Records Clerk X $ 92,000 115 PD Police Dispatcher X $ 1121000 144 PW Engineering Tech X $ 1041000 132 PW Street and Sewer Maintenance Worker X $927000 TOTAL $19149,156 $538,992 $1,6889148 3/31/2009 CITY 0 BURUNGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA HCD�DRATED JUNED9D� ITEM# 7c MTG. DATE April 6,2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: March 30, 2009 By FROM: Ana Silva APPROVED Tel. No.: 558-7204 By G` av SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMISSIO RECOMMENDATION: Make appointments to fill two terms or take other action. BACKGROUND: Two Commission positions are due for appointment due to term expiration. The positions were publicized and notification letters were sent to past commission applicants. Five applications were received as of the deadline of March 16, 2009. The following applicants were interviewed by the full Council on March 23, 2009: Tim Auran (incumbent); David Cauchi (incumbent); Sean Pitonak; Jeff Panek; and Stephen Hamilton. The appointee terms will be for four years, ending in April 2013. m/ CITY G BtJRLINGAME STAFF REPORT ti EE m AGENDA ITEM # 7d cod Ao 0FATEO JUNE 4 MTG. DATE April 6, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTE2Z,-CAZ DATE: March 30, 2009 By �1 FROM: Ana Silva APPROVED Tel . No. : 558-7204 By SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO TRAFFIC SAFETY PA ING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Make appointment to fill one term or take other action. BACKGROUND: One Commission position is due for appointment due to Dan Conway's resignation. The position was publicized and notification letters were sent to past commission applicants. Two applications (one withdrawal) were received as of the deadline of March 16, 2009. Caroline Serrato was interviewed by the full Council on March 23, 2009. The appointee will fill Dan Conway's unexpired term to November 6, 2010. CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA Sa - ITEM # pcoq `9oe MTG. 4/6/09 /igTEO JUNE 6 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED ; 1 BY 1i3�3�i--J DATE: April 6, 2009 APPROVED FROM: Stacey Poncia, Recreation Supervisor BY 558-7312 SUBJECT: Recommendation to adopt the Peninsula Partnership Leadership Council's Bill of Rights for the Children and Youth of San Mateo County. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution supporting the Peninsula Partnership Leadership Council' s Bill of Rights for the children and youth of San Mateo County. It is recommended that the City establish a committee to address the possible fiscal and staffing impacts to implement and sustain the San Mateo County Youth Commission policy-level recommendations outlined in attachment "B". BACKGROUND: The Peninsula Partnership Leadership Council, established in 1994, as an advisory body to the Peninsula Partnership for Children, Youth and Families. The council is made up of leaders from multiple disciplines who work to formulate policies that address the needs and development of children, youth and families in San Mateo County. In the fall of 2008, the Peninsula Partnership Leadership Council developed a Bill of Rights for the Children and Youth of San Mateo County. The bill supports the belief that all children and youth, regardless of where they live, their race, ethnicity, or income level, deserve to have the same rights. It serves as an important tool for local leaders and officials who want to take the needs of children and youth into account when policy decisions are made. The Burlingame Youth Advisory Committee has been asked to review the Bill of Rights and submit a recommendation to the City Council pertaining to its adoption by the City. The Youth Advisory Committee currently supports many aspects of the Bill of Rights, however expresses concern on the possible fiscal impacts of the San Mateo County Youth Commission's Policy —Level recommendations related to the Bill of Rights. ATTACHMENTS: A: Copy of the Peninsula Partnership Leadership Council's Bill of Rights for the Children and Youth of San Mateo County. B: San Mateo County Youth Commission Policy Level Recommendations for the Peninsula Partnership Leadership Council Bill of Rights for the Children and Youth of San Mateo County BUDGET IMPACT: UNKNOWN F Peninsula Partnership Leadership Council PIPeninsulaersshhip g Partnership Bill of Rights for Children and Youth Leadership Council of San Mateo County We resolve to invest in all children and youth so that: . They have a healthy mind, body and spirit that enables them to maximize their potential. . They develop a healthy attachment to a parent, guardian, or caregiver and an ongoing relationship with a caring and supportive adult. . Their essential needs are met - nutritious food, shelter, clothing, health care, and accessible transportation. . They have a safe and healthy environment, including homes, schools, neighborhoods and communities. . They have access to a 21st century education that promotes success in life, in future careers and a love of life-long learning. • They have training in life skills that will prepare them to live independently, be self-sufficient and contribute to their community. • They have employment opportunities with protections from unfair labor practices. . They have freedom from mistreatment, abuse and neglect. . They have a voice in matters that affect them. . They have a sense of hope for their future. Leaders in .Action for Children, Youth, and Families �4 Youth Commission Policy-Level Recommendations for Peninsula Partnership Leadership Council Bill of Rights for the Children and Youth of San Mateo County The San Mateo County Youth Commission" is a group of young people ages 14 to 21 who reside or attend school in San Mateo County. They come together to exchange ideas, work on policy projects, research, advocate youth issues and advise County officials on issues impacting youth. The Youth Commission works to ensure that voices of all youth are represented in San Mateo County. Youth Commissioners attend monthly trainings, Youth Commission public meetings and their County board/commission meetings. The Youth Commissioners developed the following recommendations to support the articles detailed in the Bill of Rights: Ensure all Children/Youth have a healthy mind, body and spirit that enable them to maximize their potential by: ❑ providing youth mental health education and intervention at school sites or adequate access to community resources' ❑ directing resources to increase artistic outlets in schools and the community' ❑ augmenting mental health services to youth dealing particularly with self harm, sexual abuse and suicidal ideation' ❑ providing comprehensive and easily accessible sex education services` LJ instituting annual education on alcohol, tobacco and other drugs, starting in 4th grade" ❑ increasing funding for youth who require residential and outpatient substance abuse treatment` Focus on developing life skills training that will prepare Children/Youth to live independently, be self-sufficient and contribute to their community by: ❑ making literacy a community priority ❑ mandating participation in courses on financial management that include discussions on debt and credit cards ❑ providing opportunities for the development of leadership skills ❑ increasing opportunities for the development of youth-adult partnerships so youth can have positive role models and mentors ❑ making Independent Living Classes (ILP) classes available for all ❑ providing subsidized Drivers Education classes at all schools ❑ providing time management classes that discuss balancing school, social and extra curricular activities Ensure all Children/Youth have access to a 21st century education that promotes success in life in future careers and a love of lifelong learning by: ❑ creating modern libraries in all communities/neighborhoods ❑ making vocational training accessible for youth not on a college track ❑ providing access to up-to-date computers that have necessary tools and software ❑ creating more after-school programs that expose children/youth to different career possibilities ❑ encouraging schools to create more elective options that focus on technology and career development ❑ making scholarships and funding opportunities available for schools to have funding to purchase up-to-date technology ❑ hiring and retaining qualified teachers Develop employment opportunities for Children/Youth that include protections from unfair labor practices by: ❑ providing a consistent standard for youth treatment in the workforce that all companies employing youth must adopt ❑ retaining a County employee to conduct random inspections to ensure that companies are enforcing child labor laws ❑ ensuring jobs frequently held by young people pay a living wage, not just minimum wage ❑ developing and disseminating a best-practice vocational training model to support young people in their efforts to secure employment l��I Ensure that Children/Youth have a voice in matters that affect them by: ❑ informing young people at schools about laws that impact them ❑ creating opportunities for youth to genuinely participate in community-based groups that focus on generating solutions to community issues ❑ holding frequent youth-lead conferences, fishbowls and discussion groups to solicit youth input ❑ making opportunities available for youth to interface with those who have decision-making power including elected officials and community leaders ❑ supporting youth in their efforts to express their political views,from petition writing to meeting with elected officials to political demonstrations Ensure Children/Youth have freedom from mistreatment, abuse and neglect by: ❑ providing parents/guardians/caregivers adequate financial support so they can care for their children appropriately ❑ increasing awareness of child abuse, sexual assault and crisis hotlines ❑ providing competent and accessible school-based counseling and guidance staff that can act as resources and assist in providing appropriate interventions ❑ holding parents/guardians/caregivers accountable for their own actions in the criminal justice system Guarantee that all Children/Youth's needs are met including access to nutritious foods, shelter, clothing, health care and accessible transportation by: ❑ encouraging schools to adopt healthy, affordable and enticing lunch menus that include nutritious food options and alternatives to sugary fruit juices ❑ making public transportation more accessible by providing more bus routes with less frequent stops, more transfers and expanded scheduling routes during the evenings and weekends ❑ subsidizing healthier foods so children/youth have an incentive to purchase them ❑ creating opportunities to increase physical activity should be available to school-age children to reduce the number of overweight and obese children` ❑ providing financial assistance to help families with healthcare costs Provide a safe and healthy environment, including homes, schools, neighborhoods and communities by: ❑ offering after-school programs that are engaging and welcoming ❑ ensuring youth have supportive adults in their lives including parents, mentors, teachers and others in the community ❑ consistently enforcing school rules so all students feel safe ❑ developing and implementing youth-run student safety commissions that help school officials enforce rules at school functions such as dances and sporting events. ❑ providing clean school campuses, especially school bathrooms Facilitate the ongoing relationships with caring, trusting and supportive adults by: ❑ encouraging agencies that work with volunteer mentors to adequately screen adults to ensure they are genuinely interested ❑ providing comprehensive training on how to work with young people ❑ creating opportunities and incentives for adults to mentor young people such as workplace internship programs and more flexible work schedules to allow for employees to mentor during school hours *Denotes recommendations from the 2007 Adolescent Report created by the Youth Commission available at: www.smhealth.org/smc/department/home/0„1954_5352214_1250847180,00.html **Sonia Chaudhry and Jose Cela are Youth Commission members of the Peninsula Partnership.They were assisted by their colleagues in the Youth Commission,especially Kristin Erickson,James Pollack and John Ha to provide these recommendations. For further information contact: SaraT L.Mayer, Director of Health Policy and Planning for the San Mateo County Health Department at 650-573-2104 or smayer@co.sanmateo.ca.us CITY AGENDA 0�� 0 ITEM # 8b MAG. BURUNGAME STAFF REPORT DATE: April 6, 2009 m 9pe TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED n /� BY: Jack Van Etten, Chief of Polic DATE: March 25, 2009 APPROVED FROM: Jack Van Etten, Chief of Police BY: Jim Nantell, City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Adjustment Increase in Municipal Code Parking Fines and increasing commonly used Vehicle Code parking fines to match the Municipal Code Parking Fines RECOMMENDATION 1 ) Recommend that the Burlingame City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing a $5.00 adjustment increase to existing Municipal Code parking violation fines. 2) Recommend that the Burlingame City Council adopt a resolution to increase commonly used California Vehicle Code parking fines to match our Municipal Code parking fines. BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION On December 1 , 2008, the City Council approved the Police Chief's proposed staff report to increase Municipal Code parking fines to $35. 00. In that staff report it was indicated that the parking fine increase was being introduced due to a number of factors, which include but are not limited to the following points: • Burlingame Municipal code parking fines haven't been increased for approximately 6 years • Our parking fine increase compares favorably to other municipalities who have or are increasing their fines • Low cost parking fines don't discourage illegal parking behavior, which adversely impacts both the business and residential areas in our community In recent months following that increase, it was learned that the State of California has imposed an added a surcharge fee of $4.50 to parking citations in all cities. The added surcharge fee is for a "State Court Facilities Construction Fund", which will be taken out of the fine revenue that is returned to the City of Burlingame (and other municipalities). Intent of SB 1407 Reading the first two pages of SB 1407, it appears the intent of this bill is to redirect allocation of courthouse funding and not to change current obligations. (1 ) The Trial Court Facilities Act of 2002 establishes the State Court Facilities Construction Fund and provides that moneys in that fund may be used to acquire, rehabilitate, construct, or finance court facilities, as defined , and to implement trial court projects in designated counties, as specified . This bill would extend the purposes for which moneys in that fund may be used to include the planning , design, construction, rehabilitation, replacement, leasing , or acquisition of court facilities. Specific Parking Impact of SB 1407 "(b) In addition to the penalty provided by subdivision (a), for every parking offense where a parking penalty, fine, or forfeiture is imposed, an added state court construction penalty of four dollars and fifty cents ($4.50) shall be included in the total penalty, fine, or forfeiture. These moneys shall be taken from fines and forfeitures deposited with the county treasurer prior to any division pursuant to Section 1462.3 or 1463.009 of the Penal Code. In those cities, districts, or other issuing agencies which elect to accept parking penalties, and otherwise process parking violations pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 40200) of Chapter 1 of Division 17 of the Vehicle Code, that city, district, or issuing agency shall observe the increased bail amounts as established by the court reflecting the added penalty provided for by this subdivision. Each agency that elects to process parking violations shall pay to the county treasurer four dollars and fifty cents ($4.50) for the parking penalty imposed by this subdivision for each violation that is not filed in court. Those payments to the county treasurer shall be made monthly, and the county treasurer shall transmit these sums as provided in paragraph (2) of subdivision (f)." Additional Issues 1 . Increasing the fine to include the added surcharge of $4.50 would need to be rounded up to $5.00 since DMV will not accept less than whole dollars while communicating DMV hold records. 2. If fees are required to be paid out for these surcharges effective January 1 , 2009, the increases would not have been added to the fines collected, which would be an unexpected loss of revenue. Based on this assessment, Burlingame would lose approximately $180,000 in annual revenue that supports our general fund and our community. As mentioned in the previous staff report, it is important to note that this recommendation does not increase the existing rates our shoppers or visitors pay for parking. Additionally, staff believes that this recommendation will not have an adverse impact on businesses in the Burlingame, Broadway and surrounding Shopping Area Districts. The recommended increase will only affect those persons who violate our Municipal and California Vehicle Code parking regulations, which in-turn adversely affects our community. BUDGETIMPACT Adoption of this resolution would increase parking fine revenue by $5.00 per citation only to recover the added costs that the State of California has imposed upon our city. The anticipated revenue recovery is approximately $180,000.00 annually to the City of Burlingame ATTACHMENTS 1 ) Resolution 2) Exhibit "A" — Proposed Parking Fine Schedule (Municipal Codes, Current and Proposed New Fines) 3) Exhibit "B" - Proposed Parking Fine Schedule (Common California Vehicle Code, Current and Proposed New Fines) BURLINGAME POLICE DEPARTMENT (EXHIBIT 'W') PARKING FINE TABLE CODE SECTION DESCRIPTION CURRENT FINE PROPOSED FINE 13.08.050 CO ERASING CHALK MARKS $35.00 $40.00 13.08.090(c) PARKED IN POSTED CONSTRUCTION ZONE $25.00 $40.00 13.32.015 CO REPEAT VIOLATION $35.00 $40.00 10.32.020 CO OBSTRUCT FREE PASSAGE $35.00 $40.00 13.32.040 CO NO PARKING AREA RED ZONE $35.00 $40.00 13.32.040 F POSTED NO PARKING 24 HR. IN ADVANCE $35.00 $40.00 13.32.050 CO USE OF STREETNEHICLE STORAGE/72 HRS. $35.00 $40.00 13.32.060 CO PARKING VEHICLE FOR DEMOTOR SALE $35.00 $40.00 13.32.100 CO PARKING ON GRADES $35.00 $40.00 13.32.140 CO MOVING VEHICLE TO AVOID PARKING TIME LIMIT $35.00 $40.00 13.32.150 CO REPAIR/GREASE VEHICLE PUBLIC STREET $35.00 $40.00 13.32.170 CO VEHICLE OVER 20 FT. NOT PARKED/MUNI LOT $35.00 $40.00 13.32.180 CO REC VEHICLE/TRAILER PARKED 1900-0700 HRS. $35.00 $40.00 13.32.190 CO LIVING IN VEHICLE/CAMPER ETC. $35.00 $40.00 13.36.010 CO NO PARKING ANYTIME $35.00 $40.00 13.36.020 CO NO PARKING DURING SPECIFIED HRS. $35.00 $40.00 13.36.030 CO ONE HOUR PARKING $35.00 $40.00 13.36.040 CO TWO HOUR PARKING $35.00 $40.00 13.36.042 CO FOUR HOUR PARKING $35.00 $40.00 13.36.043 CO TEN HOUR PARKING $35.00 $40.00 13.36.044 CO PARKING PARALLEL ON ONE-WAY STREET $35.00 $40.00 13.36.045 CO DIAGONAL PARKING $35.00 $40.00 13.36.046 CO PARKING WITHIN SPACE MARKINGS $35.00 $40.00 13.36.047 CO VISION SAFETY ZONE $35.00 $40.00 13.36.048 CO MOTORCYCLE ONLY PARKING $35.00 $40.00 13.36.049 CO MUNI LOTSMOT MOVING OVER 1/10TH MILE $35.00 $40.00 13.36.050 CO OVERTIME PARKING IN MUNI LOTS $35.00 $40.00 13.36.052 BACKING INTO A PARKING SPACE $10.00 $40.00 13.36.065 CO PARKING HVY VEH IN RESIDENT AREA & LOTS F&H $35.00 $40.00 13.38.020 CO CURB MARKINGS $35.00 $40.00 13.38.040 CO UNLAWFUL STOPPING IN YELLOW ZONE $35.00 $40.00 13.38.050 CO STOPPING IN WHITE(PASSENGER)ZONE $35.00 $40.00 13.38.065 CO LIMITED PARKING/GREEN ZONE $35.00 $40.00 13.40.060 CO UNLAWFUL TO EXTEND TIME LIMIT/FEED METER $35.00 $40.00 13.40.070 CO IMPROPER USE OF METERS/SLUGS ETC. $35.00 $40.00 13.40.080 CO UNAUTHORIZED PERSON FEEDING METER $35.00 $40.00 13.40.100 CO METER VIOLATION/TIME PERIOD $35.00 $40.00 13.44.010 CO PARK ON PRIVATE PROPERTY W/OUT CONSENT 1 $35.00 $40.00 BURLINGAME POLICE DEPARTMENT (EXHIBIT 'S") PARKING FINE TABLE CA VEHICLE DESCRIPTION CURRENT FINE PROPOSED FINE CODE SECTION 21113(a) Parking on Public Grounds wlo Permission of Governing Body $35.00 $40.00 22500(a) Parkinq Win an Intersection $25.00 $40.00 22500(b) Parking w/in a Crosswalk $25.00 $40.00 22500(c) Parking Min a Safety Zone $25.00 $40.00 22500(d) Park Min 15' of Fire Station Driveway $25.00 $40.00 22500(e) Blocking a Driveway $25.00 $40.00 22500 Parking on Sidewalk $25.00 $40.00 22500(g) Park Along Highway Excavation and Obstruct Traffic $25.00 $40.00 22500(h) Double Parking $25.00 $40.00 22500.1 Parking in a Fire Lane $35.00 $40.00 22502 Park Win 18" of Curb or Wrong Side of Street $22.00 $40.00 22504(c) Parking at School Bus Stop $25.00 $40.00 22514 Parked w/in 15' of a Fire Hydrant $25.00 $40.00 22515 Unattended Vehicle $20.00 $40.00 22521 Parking on RxR Tracks $20.00 $40.00 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADJUSTING FINES FOR MUNICIPAL CODE AND STATE VEHICLE CODE PARKING FINES WHEREAS, both the California Vehicle Code and Title 13 of the Burlingame Municipal Code regulate the parking of vehicles on City streets and other areas; WHEREAS, California Vehicle Code Section 40203.5 authorizes the City Council to establish penalties for parking violations; and WHEREAS, immediately after City Council adjusted parking fines in December of 2008, the State of California, in a little-noticed legislation (SB 1407), appropriated an additional $4.50 from every City parking fine for court facility construction purposes, resulting in a significant monetary loss to the City; and WHEREAS, in order to restore those lost funds to the City's budget and to bring City parking fines in parity with surrounding municipalities, the City Council desires to adjust parking penalties. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1 . The City Council finds all of the above-recited facts and those stated in the accompanying staff report, to be true and correct. 2. The City Council hereby adjusts the California Vehicle Code and Burlingame Municipal Code parking violation penalties in accord with the schedule attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 3. The City Council orders that the revised schedule of parking penalties shall be effective upon adoption. Ann Keighran, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th day of April, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk CITY o� STAFF REPORT BUMJNGAME AGENDA 8C ITEM# M TG. iY`,o4 ' 900 q�NATED JYNE6 DATE April 6.2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY Don Dornell DATE: March 18,2009 APPROVE ��g FROM: Central County Fire Department BY SUBJECT: Approval of the Joint Powers Agreement Establishi the San Mateo County Pre- Hospital Emergency Medical Services Group as revised at the February 9, 2009 ALS/JPA meeting. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the San Mateo County Pre- Hospital Emergency Medical Services Group as revised at the February 9,2009 ALS/JPA meeting. BACKGROUND: The San Mateo County Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical Services Group(ALS/JPA)was formed to provide a joint powers authority capable of providing through employees of the Parties,or through contract with a third party,first responder pre-hospital emergency Medical services in San Mateo County. The County of San Mateo negotiated a new contract agreement with American Medical Response(AMR)to provide ambulance transport in San Mateo County. Parties to the Agreement receive reimbursement for first responder pre-hospital emergency medical services provided by their employees. On February 9,2009 at a regular ALS/JPA Board meeting the existing ALS/JPA agreement was amended by a vote of the Board. The approved agreement was amended to define "quorum"(III-G),Membership on the Board (VII-B),voting(VII-D),Meetings of the Board (VII-F-1,VII-F-7),and Disposition of Property and Funds Upon Termination of the Group(XII-A,B,C,D). The significant change is to Membership on the Board (VII-B) that now includes San Mateo County Fire as a Party to the agreement,and the separation of Belmont and San Carlos to give each Party voting rights. ATTACHMENTS: Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the San Mateo County Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical Services Group(revised February 9,2009). Resolution Approving Revised Joint Powers Agreement BUDGET IMPACT: None RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A REVISED JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE SAN MATEO COUNTY PRE- HOSPITAL EMERGENCY SERVICES PROVIDERS GROUP WHEREAS, the municipalities and fire districts in San Mateo County have formed a joint powers agreement establishing an Emergency Services Providers Group (hereinafter "JPA") for the provision of pre-hospital emergency medical services to the citizens of the participating agencies; and, WHEREAS, the members of the JPA desire to revised the JPA agreement in order to permit San Carlos and Belmont to each have a separate vote, to revise the definitions of quorum, membership on the board and voting, and to clarify the provisions related to the disposition of property in the event that the JPA is dissolved; and WHEREAS, all of the other terms and provisions of the JPA agreement remain unchanged; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby approves and authorizes the Mayor to execute the revised "Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the San Mateo County Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical Services Group", in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein. Ann Keighran, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, Clerk of the City of Burlingame, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on the 6t' day of April, 2009, by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the San Mateo County Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical Services Group I. Background to Agreement A. The San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, acting through its Emergency Medical Services Agency, is legally responsible for the provision of Advanced Life Support ("ALS") services within the county including paramedic first-responder service and ambulance transport service. B. Each of the Parties to this Agreement shall provide pre-hospital emergency medical services through its employees in order to improve the quality and level of emergency medical services within their communities as part of the emergency medical service response network within San Mateo County. C. The first response services provided by the Parties to this Agreement are necessary for the efficient functioning of an integrated system of pre-hospital emergency medical services. D. The Parties to this Agreement would like to work cooperatively and collaboratively to achieve the purposes of this Agreement as outlined in Section II. E. The similarity of pre-hospital emergency medical services provided by the Parties, their shared interest in improving quality of care and achieving economic savings in the delivery of services has led to the Parties to jointly exercise powers to provide these services and achieve these objectives. II. Purposes of this Agreement The purposes of this Agreement are: A. To establish the San Mateo County Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical Services Group ("JPA"), a joint powers authority capable of providing through employees of the Parties, or through a contract with a third party, first responder pre-hospital emergency medical services in San Mateo County. B. To provide a mechanism to monitor and improve the quality of advanced life support services throughout San Mateo County. C. To provide a means of monitoring the effectiveness of the public/private partnership to be established between the JPA and the Countywide ambulance provider under contract with San Mateo County. 1 D. To provide in agreement with the County and/or Countywide ambulance provider, pre-hospital emergency medical services. E. To devise and administer mechanisms to receive and share revenues through the cooperative provision of pre-hospital emergency medical services in San Mateo County. F. To establish a uniform level of service for ALS first response in San Mateo County. G. To develop and maintain operational deployment plans to carry out the purpose of this Agreement while maintaining ongoing fire suppression activities. H. To implement operational changes as deemed appropriate. I. To devise and administer cooperative mechanisms to efficiently provide fire protection and suppression services within San Mateo County. III. Definitions Certain words as used in this Agreement shall be defined as follows: A. "Advanced life support" ("ALS") shall be as defined in California Health & Safety Code section 1797.52. B. "Board" shall mean the governing board established pursuant to this Agreement to administer and implement this JPA Agreement. C. "JPA" shall mean the San Mateo County Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical Services Group. D. "JPA Management Committee" shall mean six voting and one non-voting ex officio member as more specifically described in Section VIII(A). E. "Parties" shall mean the entities who are signatories to this Agreement, all of which provide first responder medical services. F. "Pre-hospital emergency medical services" shall mean basic life support, advanced life support emergency medical service performed prior to the patient's transport to the medical facility. G. Quorum. A majority of the members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. 2 IV. Creation of the San Mateo County Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical Services Group There is hereby created the San Mateo County Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical Services Group ("JPA")to exercise in the manner set forth in this Agreement the powers common to each of the Parties. The JPA shall be a public entity separate from the Parties. V. Powers of the JPA The JPA shall have the following powers and duties: A. To provide for the delivery of pre-hospital emergency medical services by employees of the Parties or through a contract with San Mateo County or a third party; B. To make and enter into contracts; C. To develop and implement an annual apportionment among the Parties of the revenues received from sources other than the Parties for pre-hospital emergency medical services. D. To solicit and accept grants, advances, and contributions from all sources, public and private; E. To negotiate for, acquire, hold, manage, maintain, control, or dispose of real and personal property; F. To employ or contract for the services of agents, administrative employees, consultants and such other persons or firms as it deems necessary; G. To sue and be sued in its own name; H. To incur debts, liabilities or obligations in accordance with duly approved budgets; 1. To levy and collect fees and charges, including administrative and operating costs, as provided in this Agreement or by law; J. To invest any surplus funds not required for the immediate necessities of the JPA as the Board determines is advisable, in the same manner and upon the same conditions as local agencies pursuant to Government Code section 53601 ; K. To enforce all provisions of this Agreement. L. To support or cause delivery of efficient fire protection and suppression services, as approved by the Board, that enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of fire services on behalf of the Parties to this JPA. VI. Operating Principles 3 The Parties adopt the following operating principles which shall both guide the actions of the Board established pursuant to Paragraph VII, and help to resolve issues not anticipated at the time this Agreement was executed: A. The JPA shall be governed by the Board established by Paragraph VII. This is a delegation of authority, not responsibility. Therefore the Board, in carrying out this delegation, shall be accountable to the Parties. B. The work of the JPA is of vital public interest. Therefore, the Parties strongly support the principles of maximum public access and input. Questions, suggestions, comments and concerns about the JPA's operations shall be encouraged by the Board. C. The Parties shall have free and thorough access to the Board and to the JPA Management Committee established pursuant to Paragraph IX. D. The Parties agree that the JPA shall have the exclusive right and obligation to negotiate an agreement with San Mateo County or the Countywide ambulance provider to provide, through the Parties' employees or through contract with a third party, pre-hospital emergency medical services in San Mateo County. None of the Parties shall negotiate or enter into any agreement with the County or Countywide ambulance provider to provide pre-hospital emergency medical services in San Mateo County except as defined in VI (E), (F) & (G). E. The Parties may negotiate and enter into independent contracts to provide ambulance transport for the current San Mateo County ambulance provider. F. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the City of South San Francisco, one of the Parties to this agreement, maintains certain legal rights and responsibilities pursuant to California Health & Safety Code § 1797.201 ("201 Rights"). It is not the intent of this Agreement, nor any action taken thereunder, nor the City of South San Francisco in joining the JPA, to modify, change or in any way interfere with the 201 Rights of the City of South San Francisco. G. Not withstanding any of the provisions of this Section VI, given South San Francisco's unique position due to its historical provision of ambulance and paramedic services, no policy, practice, regulation, or agreement shall be adopted by the group, or any committee or subcommittee thereof, including but not limited to the JPA Management Committee, that affects or amends in any way South San Francisco's delivery of pre-hospital ambulance services or paramedic pre-hospital emergency medical services without the prior written consent of South San Francisco. VII. Governing Board A. Creation of Governing Board. There is hereby created a governing board ("Board") to govern the JPA. The Board shall exercise all powers and authority on behalf of the Parties and may do any and all things necessary to carry out this Agreement. 4 B. Membership on the Board. The Board shall be constituted of one elected representative from the governing body of each of the Parties. Each Party shall select one representative and one alternate to serve on the Board. The alternate will have voting privileges when attending in place of the primary Board member. • Belmont • Brisbane • Burlingame • Coastside Fire Protection District • Colma Fire Protection District • Daly City • Foster City • Hillsborough • Menlo Park Fire Protection District • Millbrae • Pacifica • Redwood City • San Bruno • San Carlos • San Mateo • San Mateo County Fire • South San Francisco • Woodside Fire Protection District C. Terms: Each Board member shall serve as appointed by their respective parties. D. Voting: Each member of the Board shall have one vote. The affirmative vote of the majority of the Board shall be required to take action. D.1. When the Board is considering agreements which, if approved, would result in an additional financial obligation being imposed on the Parties,these special voting procedures should be used. For those agreements, a two-step voting process shall be required. The Board shall first allow each Party to indicate whether it wishes to be a party to the agreement under consideration. Those Parties wishing to be a party to the agreement shall then vote on the item. Parties which have opted out of participation in the proposed agreement shall not vote. A simple majority of those who have not opted out shall be required for approval. E. Special Voting Procedures: Each member of the Board shall have one vote. The affirmative vote of a simple majority of the members present shall be required to take action unless any Party requests the Board to vote on a particular action item by using"special voting procedures."Requests for"special voting procedures"must be made prior to the vote. If"special voting procedures" are requested, then taking action using"special voting procedures" shall require the affirmative vote of a simple majority of the Parties to this Agreement that represent a majority of the population of the Parties to this Agreement. 5 F. Meetings of the Board. 1. Regular Meetings. The Board shall hold at least three meetings each year. One meeting will be held to include approval of the budget and revenue allocation plans. A second meeting will be held to include a mid-year status report from staff. Meetings will be held on the third Wednesday of May, September, and January. Cancellation of a Board meeting will require discussion between the Executive Director and the Board Chair. 2. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board may be called in accordance with Government Code §54956 (the Brown Act). Upon the request of at least four Parties, the Chairman of the Board of the JPA shall call a special meeting of the Board. 3. Notice of Meetings. All meetings of the Board shall be held subject to the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act(Government Code sections §54950 and following), and other applicable laws of the State of California requiring notice of meetings of public bodies. 4. Minutes. The Board shall cause minutes of all open meeting to be kept and shall, as soon as possible after each meeting, cause a copy of the minutes to be forwarded to each member of the Board. 5. Agenda Items. Any member of the Board can request that a specific agenda item be included for review by the Board at an upcoming meeting. The request should be provided to the JPA Executive Director who will then include the item in the agenda consistent with notification requirements required by the Ralph M. Brown Act 7. Rules and regulations for the conduct of the Board's affairs. The Board shall adopt from time to time such rules or regulations for the conduct of its affairs as may be required. 8. Notice to Secretary of State. The Board shall cause to be filed within 30 days of the effective date of this Agreement, or any amendment to this Agreement, notices of this Agreement or any amendment to this Agreement with the office of the Secretary of State pursuant to Government Code §6503.5. VIII. JPA Management Committee A. There is hereby created a JPA Management Committee composed of six voting and one non-voting ex-officio members. The voting members shall include: The Board Chair or his or her designee and, five individuals who are either city managers, fire chiefs or special district administrators, each selected from and representing one of the five zones created by the Board. The non-voting ex-officio member shall be the President of the San Mateo County Fire Chiefs Association or his or her designee. With the exception of the representative from the Fire Chiefs Association,the members of the JPA Management Committee shall be selected by the Board as follows: The Board shall select the members of the JPA Management Committee (a) by asking members of the Board within each zone to make a recommendation to the Board for that zone's representative on the JPA Management Committee and then(b)by adopting those 6 recommendations as the JPA Management Committee. The JPA Management Committee will appoint one voting member as the Chair of the Committee. 1. The JPA Management Committee shall have all those powers necessary and proper to carry out the Purposes of the JPA(defined in Section II)in accordance with the Operating Principles (defined in Section VI) except the power: (a)to enter into a contract with San Mateo County or a Countywide ambulance provider; (b)to adopt a budget and(c)to determine the apportionment between the Parties of revenues from that contract 2. All meetings of the JPA Management Committee shall be held subject to the provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act(Government Code §54950 and following), and other applicable laws of the State of California requiring notice of meetings of public bodies. IX. Staffing The JPA Management Committee may appoint and retain staff as may be provided for in the JPA's adopted budget to fulfill its powers, duties and responsibilities under this Agreement, including,but not limited to, appointment of temporary or permanent staff, contracting with technical experts, legal counsel, and other consultants, or contracting with any of the Parties. X. Funds and Budget A. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year for the JPA shall be July 1 through June 30. B. Annual Budget and Long Range Forecast. Not later than 30 days before the end of each fiscal year,the Board shall adopt by resolution a budget for the following fiscal year setting forth all anticipated administrative, operational, and capital expenses and sources of funds for the JPA. In conjunction with its annual budget,the Board may adopt by separate resolution a long- range budget forecast estimating all anticipated administrative, operations and capital expenses and sources of funds for the JPA for the next five years. C. Revenue Allocation Plan. The Board shall adopt, and as may be required from time to time thereafter shall amend, a plan for the equitable allocation of revenues received annually by the JPA. XI. Audit and Accounting Services A. Depository. The Board shall designate the Treasurer of one of the Parties to be depository with custody of all JPA funds from whatever source and to perform all functions to fulfill the requirements of Government Code section 6505.5. The Board shall set the amount of the bond required for the Treasurer. 7 B. Auditor: The Board shall designate the Auditor of one of the Parties to perform the functions of Auditor for the JPA. There shall be strict accountability of all funds. The Auditor shall either make or contract for an audit of the accounts and records of the JPA at least annually as prescribed by section 6505 of the Government Code. The minimum requirements of the audit shall be those prescribed by the State Controller for special districts by Government Code section 26909. XII. Disposition of Property and Funds Upon Termination of the Group A. Complete Transfer to Successor Entity. In the event of termination of the JPA where there is a successor public entity which will carry on the activities of the JPA and assume its obligations, all real and personal property owned by the JPA and all JPA funds including interest on deposits,remaining upon termination of the JPA, after payment of all obligations shall be transferred to the successor public entity. B. Partial Transfer to Successor Entity. If there is a successor public entity which would undertake some of the functions of the JPA and assume some of its obligations, all real and personal property owned by the JPA and JPA funds, including any interest earned on deposits, remaining upon termination of the JPA, and after payment of all obligations, shall be allocated by the Board between the successor public entity and the Parties,with that property and those funds returned to the Parties being distributed in proportion to the contribution of each Party during the term of this Agreement. C. Transfer to Parties. In the event of termination of the JPA,when there is no successor public entity which will carry out the activities of the JPA, all real and personal property owned by the JPA and all JPA funds, including interest on deposits,remaining upon termination of the JPA, after payment of all obligations, shall be distributed to the Parties in proportion to the contribution of each Party during the term of this Agreement. D. A Party that does not contribute funds to the acquisition of real and personal property owned by the JPA or to the accumulative of funds owned by the JPA shall not have an ownership interest in such real and personal property or funds or any entitlement to a distribution of such real and personal property or funds upon termination pursuant to this section XII. A Party shall only have an ownership interest in such real and personal property or funds and an entitlement to a distribution of such real and personal property or funds upon termination pursuant to this Section XII, if the Party has contributed to their acquisition and/or accumulation. XIII. Liability A. Except as specifically provided in this section XIIIC, no debt, liability, or obligation of the JPA shall constitute a debt, liability or obligation of any Party. B. Except as expressly authorized by the Board and by Section XIV of this Agreement, no Party shall be responsible for the acts and omissions of another Party's officers or employees 8 nor shall a Party incur any liabilities arising out of the services and activities of another Party's officers of employees. C. The JPA may maintain such public liability and other insurance as deemed appropriate. D. To the fullest extent permitted by law, the JPA agrees to save, indemnify, defend and hold harmless each Party from any liability, claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses,expenses or costs of any kind,whether actual, alleged or threatened, including attorneys fees and costs, court costs, interest, defense costs, and expert witness fees,where the same arise out of, or are in any way attributable in whole or in part, to negligent acts or omissions of the JPA or its employees, officers or agents; or the employees, officers or agents of any Party while acting within the course and scope of an agency relationship with the JPA. XIV. Maintenance of Membership A. The requirement to maintain membership is essential to the proper functioning of the JPA because the JPA will enter into a contract with San Mateo County or the Countywide ambulance provider(as indicated in Section IID)to provide defined pre-hospital emergency medical services. The continued participation of each of the Parties in the work of the JPA is required to fulfill the obligations and duties described in that contract. By executing this Agreement, each Party is giving its explicit consent to the JPA to provide services within the consenting Party's jurisdiction and to remain as a member of the JPA, subject to the right to withdraw from the JPA as provided in Section XIV(C). B. In the event that a Party to this Agreement fails to maintain its membership in the JPA, or otherwise fails to abide by its duties and obligation as outlined in the contract referred to in Section XIV(A),the Board may determine that Party to be in default("Defaulting Party"). The Board shall provide thirty (30) days written notice to the Defaulting Party of its determination that the party is in default and thereafter cause the Defaulting Party's duties and obligations to be performed by another Party to this Agreement and charge the Defaulting Parry for the cost of providing those duties and obligations during the remaining period of the contract with the Countywide ambulance provider plus fifteen percent(15%). C. Each Party to this Agreement shall have the opportunity to provide written notice to the Board that it will withdraw as a member of the JPA; provided that said notice is given no later than forty-five (45) days prior to the date a contract between the County of San Mateo and a potential Countywide ambulance provider is presented to the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors for its approval. For the purposes of this Section XIV(C),the "date the contract is presented to the Board"shall be the date the agenda of the Board is posted pursuant to Government Code §54954.2 or§54956. D. Unless notice is provided in compliance with the terms of Section XIV(C), each Party to the Agreement shall remain a party to this Agreement and a member of the Group for the entire term of the contract between the County of San Mateo and the Countywide ambulance 9 provider, as that term may be amended. The obligation to remain a party in the JPA shall apply to any successor, reconfigured or consolidated entity of any such Party. XV. Term,Amendments and Termination A. This Agreement shall take effect on the date by which a total of any combination of ten cities and fire districts have executed this Agreement. B. This Agreement may be amended or terminated by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the Board. However,this Agreement may not be terminated during the term of the contract between the JPA and the Countywide ambulance provider, as that term may be amended. XVI. Dispute Resolution When a dispute arises between the JPA and a Party,the following procedures shall be followed: A. The Executive Director shall attempt to resolve the matter with the Party. B. If a satisfactory resolution is not reached with the Executive Director,the Party may forward the dispute to the JPA Management Committee for resolution. The recommendation of the JPA Management Committee shall be forwarded to the JPA Board of Directors. The JPA Board's decision shall be final. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the below public agency has caused its name to be included among those parties comprising the members this Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the San Mateo County Pre-Hospital Emergency Medical Services s Group, and confirms adoption of a resolution or other action by the governing board or legislative body of that entity to that effect. DATE: CITY OF a Municipal Corporation ATTEST: CITY CLERK 10 CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8d ,104 s MTG. RATED JUNE 6 DATE April 6,2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY Don Dornell DATE: March 23,2009 APPROVED FROM: Central County Fire Department BY SUBJECT: Adopt resolution to amend language in the Joint Powers A reement Establishing the Central County Fire Department to clarify the disbursement of revenues. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the resolution to amend language in the Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Central County Fire Department to clarify the disbursement of revenues. BACKGROUND: At the December 2,2008 Central County Fire Board meeting Burlingame's Finance Director,Jesus Nava,presented the Treasurer's report. He stated that the JPA was silent on the disbursement of revenues. The intent is to memorialize the current distribution of revenues practice where user fees go to the respective city,while fire service reimbursements are shared on a 60/40 basis. He recommended to the Board that language be added in Section 14-Maintenance and Operation Costs: Cost Allocation. The language proposed was as follows: ,,The Treasurer,in disbursing revenues, shall remit all user fees to the Member Agency in whose jurisdiction the service was provided, and such fees shall thereupon become the property of such Member Agency. Reimbursements for fire service shall be allocated using the same formula as the allocation of expenses." The Fire Board agreed that Chief Dornell should take this back to the respective Councils for approval. ATTACHMENTS: Draft minutes of the December 2, 2008 Central County Fire Board meeting Treasurer's report for the December 2,2008 Central County Fire Board meeting Amendment No. 2 to the Joint Powers Agreement Establishing the Central County Fire Department. Resolution Approving Amendment No. 2 to the JPA establishing the CCFD. BUDGET IMPACT: None RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AND AMENDMENT TO THE CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO CLARIFY THE DISBURSEMENT OF REVENUES WHEREAS, on April 20, 2004, the City of Burlingame and the Town of Hillsborough formed a joint powers authority, the Central County Fire Department, to provide fire protection, suppression and emergency medical services in their respective jurisdictions;and WHEREAS,the CCFD provides that the Treasurer of the Department shall act as Controller and shall perform all such financial functions such as disbursements of revenues, payment of outstanding obligations of the Department and other similar functions;and WHEREAS, in December of 2008, the governing Board of the CCFD determined and recommended to the parties to the CCFD that the joint powers agreement be amended to reflect the manner in which revenue received by CCFD was being and is disbursed;and WHEREAS, specifically, CCFD desires to memorialize within the joint powers agreement the current practice of revenue distribution,namely that user fees collected by CCFD are remitted to the city in which they were collected and that fire service reimbursements collected by CCFD are shared by the two cities on a 60/40 basis; NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: The City Council hereby approves and authorizes the Mayor to execute an amendment to the Central County Fire Department Joint Powers Agreement to reflect the manner in which revenue received by CCFD is disbursed between the City and Hillborough, namely that user fees collected by CCFD are remitted to the city in which they were collected and that fire service reimbursements collected by CCFD are shared by the two cities on a 60/40 basis. Ann Keighran,Mayor I,Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th day of April, 2009, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Mary Ellen Kearney,City Clerk r , AMENDMENT NO.2 TO THE CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT JOINT POWERS AGREEMENT TO CLARIFY THE DISBURSEMENT OF REVENUES WHEREAS, on April 20, 2004, the City of Burlingame and the Town of Hillsborough formed a joint powers authority, the Central County Fire Department, to provide fire protection, suppression and emergency medical services in their respective jurisdictions;and WHEREAS, the CCFD provides that the Treasurer of the Department shall act as Controller and shall perform all such financial functions such as disbursements of revenues, payment of outstanding obligations of the Department and other similar functions;and WHEREAS, in December of 2008, the governing Board of the CCFD determined and recommended to the parties to the CCFD that the joint powers agreement be amended to reflect the manner in which revenue received by CCFD was being and is disbursed;and WHEREAS, specifically, CCFD desires to memorialize within the joint powers agreement the current practice of revenue distribution,namely that user fees collected by CCFD are remitted to the city in which they were collected and that fire service reimbursements collected by CCFD are shared by the two cities on a 60/40 basis; NOW,THEREFORE,THE PARTIES AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Section 14 of the CCFD JPA is hereby amended by adding a new subparagraph F to read as follows: "The Treasurer,in disbursing revenues,shall remit all user fees to the Member Agency in whose jurisdiction the service was provided and such user fees shall thereupon become the property of such Member Agency. Reimbursements for fire service shall be allocated between the Member Agencies using the same formula as the allocation of expenses." 2. Subject to the foregoing Amendment,all other terms and conditions of the Joint Powers Agreement remain in full force and effect. In witness whereof,the parties have entered into this Amendment No. 2 as of the date first above written. Town of Hillsborough By: Christine Krolik Mayor City of Burlingame By: Ann Keighran Mayor CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT Joint Powers Authority 1399 Rollins Road 1600 Floribunda Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 Hillsborough, CA 94010 CENTRAL COUNTY /r HIRE BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING MINUTES December 2, 2008 4:30 p.m. Board Meeting Burlingame City Hall Conference Room A Meeting was called to order by Chairperson Cathryn Baylock at 4:33 p.m. Board Members present: Cathryn Baylock Catherine Mullooly Terry Nagel Board Member absent: Paul Regan Review of Minutes from June 4, 2008 Board Member Nagel motions to approve minutes, Mullooly seconds motion. Approved as submitted. Reports: Chief Administrator Before giving his report, CAO Tony Constantouros suggested each person present introduce themselves. In attendance at the meeting were: Cathryn Baylock, Vice-Mayor of Burlingame and Chairperson of the Board Terry Nagel, Burlingame Council Member Jesus Nava, Finance Director of Burlingame and Treasurer for JPA Jay Benton, soon-to-be sworn in member of Hillsborough Council Mark Ladas, Deputy Chief of Central County Fire Anita Killeen, Administrative Support Officer for CCFD and Board Secretary Don Dornell, Fire Chief Jim Nantell, City Manager of Burlingame Norm Book, Legal Counsel of Hillsborough and for the JPA Tony Constantouros, City Manager of Hillsborough and JPA Chief Administrator Catherine Mullooly, soon-to-be former mayor of Hillsborough and Board Member Central County Fire Department Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors Meeting Minutes December 2, 2008 Page 2 of 7 Bill Reilly, Emergency Services Coordinator for Hillsborough John Kammeyer,EMS Division Chief of Central County Fire Rocque Yballa, Fire Marshal of Central County Fire CAO Constantouros reported on the meeting held on November 25 in Millbrae with four City Managers and two Fire Chiefs to discuss the Matrix report concerning the merging or sharing of some operations of fire service to the cities. It was a"brief but interesting" discussion which identified some of the complex issues involved which play a role in considering this major study. Some of these issues included Station relocation concept—both Millbrae and Burlingame would each close a station and open a new one in Burlingame. This was seen as being the main cause of the savings potential. Also discussed was San Bruno. San Bruno is represented by the Teamsters Union and also as part of the Teamsters,participates in the Teamsters Retiree Health Program. To unwind the Teamsters is far more complicated than simply switching to another bargaining unit. Also discussed was Millbrae's Fire Assessment which raises more than$1 million per year and is a key revenue source for the Fire Department. The assessment expires June 2009. It is their intent to place this assessment back on the ballot—the earliest date to do this would be November 2009. The campaign to gain support from the community will being in January. It is unclear as to what kind of ballot measure this will be—the current one had a 5 year sunset,the next one it is yet unclear as to whether it will be 5 year, permanent or some other type. All things weigh in the consideration of this merger. Millbrae will also be getting a new City Manager to be announced shortly. It is unknown whether the new Manager will be supportive of this idea. It became clear that to coordinate all these many issues, it would be recommended to have a Project Manager to oversee this undertaking. Ralph Jaeck, soon-to-be former City Manager of Millbrae,was suggested as a possible candidate having had ample experience with such matters. No specifics pertaining to the position were discussed,just the concept. The concept of doing an Administrative merger, not a full merger was also discussed. This would be something that perhaps the Project Manager could work on to see it if would be feasible and acceptable to all cities involved. Sharing Administration would not have the same significant savings but there would be some savings involved. There is not enough known at this time to draw any conclusions. The Managers were to report back to their respective City Councils that they thought sharing Administration was worth considering as was the idea of appointing a Project Manager to help with these issues. Chairperson Baylock questioned how the approved Council funding for this Matrix study played into this meeting. Chief Dornell explained they were seeking approval to go to the next step— and out of this meeting,the idea of appointing of a Project Manager,they felt, is the next best step to take. Centra!County Fire Department Joint Powers Authority CENTRAL COVNTY Board of Directors Meeting Minutes AV December 2, 2008 Page 3 of 7 Board Member Nagel inquired if the other City would be able to afford the purchase of the Burlingame land to be used as the location for the new fire station. Jim Nantell explained that this is the determining of the values—how Millbrae and Burlingame deal with the sale of their current properties to fund the proposed station. He explained the need for the Project Manager as being the one to determine values and work through the many complicated issues involved, to lead us through these matters. Treasurer Jesus Nava distributed a Memorandum to the Board regarding Fire Service Revenues. This was a follow-up to the prior Board meeting to address the issue of the collection of fire revenues. Attached is a copy of the memorandum recommending the memorializing of the current practice of accounting for fire service revenues with recommended wording for an amendment to the JPA agreement, if so desired. The budget from the prior fiscal year was revisited,reviewing the actual expenditures and the reconciliation of funds which takes place at the closing of the year. A copy of this information was attached to the memorandum and is also copied to these minutes. The City of Burlingame did undertake a Workers Compensation study, with hopes of getting back some recommendations from the consultant to assist in lowering compensation claim costs that are being incurred. Workers Comp claims have, for the last couple of years,been a very costly issue. Chief Dorrell said the Workers Comp issues were the impetus for the department's reorganization this past fiscal year to attempt to offset the added overtime costs. It was projected this reorganization will save approximately $400,000 in costs. Fire Chief Chief Dornell distributed a memorandum to the Board to update on Operations beginning this fiscal year. A copy of the Chief s memorandum is attached to these minutes. There was additional discussion on the following topics presented: Wildland Deployments: 9 deployments since May. Reimbursement request submitted thus far on 7 of the 9 deployments. Reimbursements are based on a formula submitted to the State prior to the beginning of the fire season. Formula is calculated as a"true"hourly wage without incentives calculated in. We are paid by "positions" filled—not by individual person. Other reimbursements are combined in the package—personnel costs will be reimbursed to respective budgets, apparatus and miscellaneous costs are more difficult to determine. Comingled resources are used for these coverage periods. What department would like to do is deposit these funds to the operational accounts used for the expenses incurred which are subject to the 60/40 split per the JPA agreement. Chairperson Baylock inquired as to how these expenses and revenues show on the budgets due to the time lag between incurred cost and reimbursement from the State. Her concern was that the budget could be viewed as being over-budgeted expenses or under-stated revenue. Chief Dornell Central County Fire Department Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors Meeting Minutes December 2, 2008 Page 4 of 7 said he could show at the end of the year how much overtime expense was due to deployments, this offset by the reimbursement of costs received. Community Involvement: Department is very active in community involvement. Deputy Chief Ladas and Community Involvement Committee continue to work to find better ways to distribute information to the public during events. This year the firefighters, instead of Council members, were the judges for the Fire Prevention posters submitted by students due to time constraints. It worked well and the crew enjoyed it. Chairperson Baylock suggested it might be good to have the firefighters continue to be the judges for future contests. Chief Dornell will arrange for that to take place. Public Education: EMS Division Chief John Kammeyer described the mass CPR class (200—250 attendees)which took place during the Disaster Preparation Day event in the San Mateo Expo Center. EMS: AMR proposal of providing 4-STAR cars. Questions from Fire Chiefs are What is in it for us?What are the expectations? As a placeholder only, Chief Dornell said CCFD is interested, and then we would work out details. EMS Division Chief Kammeyer spoke briefly about the STAR cars. They are being provided to augment the current ambulance system. A benefit in the event of a disaster is that the department would have its own method of patient transport. The department would have it available for training, and for the use by the Tactical medics. The current SWAT ambulance is for medic transport to the incident only,not for patient transport. This may be beneficial for the department; however,this proposal is being discussed and no definite details have been finalized. New Business 6a. The date and time of the next JPA meeting was set for: Wednesday,June 3,2009 at 4:00 p.m. at Hillsborough Town Hall. Discussion Items: 7a. Budget cuts in Burlingame—Jim Nantell Based on the information from the last couple of quarters, it is expected that sales tax revenue will be down 10% in Burlingame, an approximate $700,000. loss. Half of the sales tax revenue comes from auto dealers and their portion is expected to be more than 10%. The hotel tax is currently strong; however future bookings may be down by 15% Central County Fire Department Joint Powers Authority Board of Directors Meeting Minutes December 2, 2008 Page S of 7 Burlingame is looking at a projected $1 million shortfall for this year. There will likely be no revenue to contribute to Capital Improvements. Problems are already anticipated for next year. Departments have been asked for reduction options to deal with 5 and 10%budget cuts. These plans have been shared with all departments, staff and labor unions and are being discussed. It is anticipated that finalized recommendations will be brought to the Council in January. In the case of the Fire department, something that has been done before when the overtime budget is significantly exceeded, as it has this year, is to staff the Truck at 3 personnel instead of 4. Annually,this represents about a$450,000 savings. If this is implemented in January,half way through this budget year,the savings would be about$225,000. Hillsborough would save 40%, Burlingame 60%. 7b. Insurance Services Office Survey Project—Rocque Yballa All Fire departments in the US are rated by ISO and this rating helps determine fire insurance costs. Burlingame's rating was reconfigured due to the merge. During this time,Burlingame was offered the opportunity to have businesses save money in asking us to go into the study with ISO by going into every business building and inquiring as to the status of their sprinkler system. Since Burlingame has a sprinkler ordinance, we have been able to increase sprinkler coverage throughout the City. Out of about 500 businesses, there were only about 40 liabilities—the approximate 500 business will receive a credit in their insurance premiums. The Chamber of Commerce will be notified of this study and findings to let them know. The Fire Marshal's office will go back and look at the 40 un-sprinklered businesses to work with and improve them so they can get the discount. Proud that we were almost a pilot program with ISO and happy that we were able to save local businesses money. 7c. Alternate Legal Counsel—Norm Book Resolution 08-01 recommending Mark Hudak as alternate legal counsel presented. Board Member Mullooly moved to approve the resolution, Board Member Nagel seconds motion. Resolution approved and signed by Chairperson Baylock. 7d. Rotation of JPA Board Members—Norm Book Amendment No. I to the JPA agreement, signed by Hillsborough Mayor Catherine Mullooly and Burlingame Mayor Ann Keighran was presented. The two-year term to the Board will commence at the December meetings. 7e. Reclassification of Firefighter position to Float Captain—Don Dorrell Deputy Chief Mark Ladas described this cost saving concept which was prompted by a recent Workers Comp meeting where it was stated that a Captain currently Central County Fire Department Joint Powers Authority CENTRAL COUNTY Board of Directors Meeting Minutes December 2, 2008 Page 6 of 7 out on disability is expected to be out until October 2009. Realizing this is a long term situation,the costs of hiring someone overtime as opposed to promoting someone to a Captains position was studied more closely. Cost for an over-time Captain would be about$30,000 annually,the cost of a promotion would be a annual savings of$21,066. Chief Dornell added that there are two other things this proposal offers— 1) Continuity and consistency of a Captain responsible for a Company that has been lacking for some time, and 2) if we were fully staffed again, that person would be able to provide vacation coverage on his own shift—realizing savings of that overtime. Labor would view this as another opportunity for advancement. This concept was brought up to notify the Board—the actual reclassification of the position will be brought before the Council by whom the promoted employee is covered. Action Item: Chief Dornell will make this presentation to Council. Board Member Mullooly commended the department's creativity and way of thinking in helping to realize cost savings efforts. CAO Constantouros commended this self-initiated approach. 7f. CERT Program—Terry Nagel There seems to be a growing interest in Burlingame in getting prepared for emergencies. There was a recent program in Burlingame funded by the Silicon Valley Community Foundation to organize neighborhoods to be self-sufficient in the event of an emergency. There are cities throughout the County doing the same things. She wanted to discuss how we are going about to recruit people for CERT training and keep them motivated to keep their skill levels up. San Mateo has an annual picnic, grant funded, and they have about 500 people involved. Questioned that in a real emergency,how are CERT members deployed? Fire Marshal Yballa responded that prior to organizing the citizens of the communities,the local government members need to be organized. We are developing a stronger Emergency Operations Center which knows how to communicate with the CERT members. The liaison officer would be in contact with CERT members out in the field advising where they would go. Deployment factors would depend on the type of emergency; however,the EOC needs to organize first. Emergency Preparedness Coordinator, Bill Reilly responded that there is a structure to contact CERT members but that City staff members must be contacted and organized first. ICS-700 and ICS-402 courses are required for Council members. A course ICS-100 and 700 combined will be given on December 16`h. A future date will be scheduled for the ICS-402 course for Council Members. The expectation of the CERT membership is that they be self-activated within their own neighborhoods, and then,if able to be available to assist elsewhere. Board Member Nagel presented emergency preparedness flyers which were made available through a grant for neighborhood distribution. Central County Fire Department Joint Powers Authority i Board of Directors Meeting Minutes December 2, 2008 Page 7 of 7 7g. Revenue reporting—Jesus Nava The memo presented during the Treasurer's report contains details of the revenue reporting with recommended wording for a JPA amendment. The intent is to memorialize that reimbursements will be split 60/40 and the user fees will go to the respective cities. This amendment would have to be approved by each city. Action Item: ChiefDornell will make this presentation to Councils for their approval. Chairperson Baylock thanked Board Member Mullooly for all of her years of service to the Fire Board. The meeting was adjourned by Chairperson Baylock at 6:00 p.m. The next scheduled meeting will be held on Wednesday, June 3, 2009 at 4:00 p.m. at Hillsborough Town Hall. CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT ITEMS PERTAINING TO TREASURER'S REPORT DECEMBER 2, 2008 CITY O BURLINGAME tw m ��NA'TEO -r 6' 10 The City of Burlingame City Hall—501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 DATE: October 19, 2008 TO: Central County Fire Board of Directors y� FROM: Jesus Nava, Treasurer, Central County Fir SUBJECT: City of Burlingame and Town of Hill sboroug e Service Revenues The Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) is silent on the subject of city revenues. The purpose of this memorandum is to recommend that we memorialize the current practice of accounting for fire service related revenues if the Board feels that it is necessary to do so. The City of Burlingame is the fiscal agent for Central County Fire and provides that service at no cost to the Town of Hillsborough. The Burlingame Finance Department collects and accounts _ for all revenue derived from Central County Fire. There are two basic types of revenues: user fees and direct cost reimbursements. User fees belong to their respective cities. In 2008 the City of Burlingame completed a comprehensive user fee study that set the current user fee structure for fire services. Invoices are coded to indicate the city in which the services are provided. Direct cost reimbursements are split 60/40. Revenues are reported in the following manner to the Central County Fire Board: City of BurlinIzame Revenues These are user fees that are recorded as City of Burlingame general fund revenues. The fees are for services provided within the Burlingame city limits. They include: Special Fire Services (user fee) Fire Plan Check and Inspection Fees (user fee) Fire Permit Fees (user fee) Town of HWsborou14h Revenues These are revenues that are collected on behalf of the Town of Hillsborough and remitted to the Town at the closing of the fiscal year. The Town traditionally requests that we use their revenue to offset the amount that is owed to the City of Burlingame at the end of the fiscal year. They include: www.burlingame.org 650.558.7222(office) jnava@burlingame.org Fire Plan Check and Inspection Fees (user fee) Fire Permit Fees (user fee) False Alarms (penalty/fine) Shared Revenues (60/40) Theses are revenues derived for services that are provided to other fire agencies on a reimbursement basis. Paramedic Services Reimbursement EMS Training.and Supervision Fire Inspector Shared Services (inactive) Recommended Amendment to the JPA (in needed and desired) "The Treasurer, in disbursing revenues, shall remit all user fees to the respective member agency in which the service was provided. All user fees are property of the respective member agency. Reimbursements for fire service shall be allocated using the same formula as the allocation of expenses." Currently the formula is 60% to the City of Burlingame and 40% to the Town of Hillsborough. Attachment I provides of breakdown of fire services related revenue. www.burlingame.org 650.558.7222 (office) jnava@burlingame.org Attachment I FIRE DEPARTMENT RELATED REVENUE FY05-06 FY06-07 FY07-08 FY07-08 FY08-09 Burlingame Revenues: Actual Actual Estimate Actual Budget Special Fire Services(Burlingame Hills) $ 34,827 $ 95,499 $ 2,058 $ 3,952 $ Fire Plan Check and Inspection Fees $ 49,788 $ 56,629 $ 50,481 $ 46,926 $ 51,996 Fire Permit Fees $ 112,053 $ 119,934 $ 96,145 $ 85,281 $ 99,029 Totals: $ 196,668 $ 272,062 $ 148,684 $ 136,159 $ 151,025 Shared Revenues(60140): Mutual Aid from Forest Svc JOH$4,154 COB$6,510) $ - $ - $ - $ 10,664 $ 10,664 Paramedic Services Reimbursement $ 195,334 $ 264,771 $ 203,940 $ 284,066 $ 206,472 EMS Training &Supervision $ 210,525 $ 218,195 $ 175,733 $ 189,113 $ 129,494 Fire Inspector Shared Services w/San Mateo $ 88,534 $ - $ - $ - $ - Totals: $ 494,393 $ 482,966 $ 379,673 $ 483,843 $ 346,630 Hillsborough Revenues: Fire Plan Check&Inspection Fees $ 7,797 $ 13,256 $ 6,960 $ 16,577 $ 7,169 Fire Permit Fees $ 18,622 $ 25,000 $ 19,688 $ 28,894 $ 20,279 Special Fire Services $ 1,969 $ - $ - $ - False Alarms $ 1,017 $ 4,100 $ 1,200 $ 3,034 $ 1,236 Totals: $ 29,405 $ 42,356 $ 27,848 $ 48,505 $ 28,683 Grand Totals: $ 720,466 $ 797,384 $ 556,205 $ 668,507 $ 526,338 Combined Fire Budget $ 15,490,037 $ 16,572,493 $ 15,895,847 $ 16,000,572 $ 17,291,972 Revenue as Percentage of Combined Budget 4.65% 4.81% 3.50% 4.18% 3.04% Collected On Behalf of Town of Hillsborough Shared Revenue(40%) $ 189,272 Mutual Aid Reimbursement $ 4,154 Hillsborough Revenue $ 48,505 Due Town of Hillsborough: $ 241,931 i Central County Fire Fiscal Year 2007-2008 Year end Reconciliaton Total Burlingame Hillsborough Expenditures Expenditures $ 8, 181 ,390.00 $ 5,382,427.00 $ 1315633817.00 60/40 split 811387290.20 5,425,526.80 Amount due From TOH/(Due to COB) 43, 100 (43, 100) Revenues collected by Burlingame for TOH 2411929.98 Revenues collected by TOH for CCFD - Amount due to TOH 241 ,929.98 Amounts due to COB 431100.00 Net amount due to TOH for Fiscal Year 07-08 $ 198,829.98 f Central County Fire Revenues Fiscal Year 2007-2008 2007-2008 Total Allocation Budget Revenue Hillsborough Burlingame Program revenues collected in Burlingame to be allocated 60/40 ALS JPA $ 223,722 $ 284,066.00 $113,626.40 $170,439.60 Paramedic Training/Supervision 269,160 189,113.00 75,645.20 113,467.80 Mutual Aid Reimbursement from Forest Service 10,664.02 4,153.67 6,510.35 Inspection fees collected by Burlingame to be allocated 100%to each Hillsborough Inspection Fees 48,504.71 48,504.71 - Burlingame Inspection Fees 120,966 136,159.17 - 136,159.17 $ 668,506.90 $241,929.98 $426,576.92 I i Agenda 8e Item # BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: April 6, 2009 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: March 25, 2009 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF LOT 8 AND NORTHERLY HALF OF LOT 9, BLOCK 60, EASTON ADDITION NO. 7 SUBDIVISION, 1365 COLUMBUS AVENUE, PM 09-01 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council concur with the Planning Commission action of March 9, 2009 and approve the proposed tentative and final parcel map subject to the following conditions: • The final parcel map shall be filed by the applicant within the two year time period allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's subdivision ordinance. • 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 Columbus Avenue, Hillside Drive and Easton Drive, including the centerline of the right-of-way, bearings and distance of the centerline and any existing monuments in the roadway. • All damaged/displaced sidewalk shall be replaced with new. BACKGROUND: The tentative and final parcel map was approved by Planning Commission on March 9, 2009. Staff has reviewed the map and recommends approval of the map as tentative and final parcel map subject to the above conditions. The parcel map should be considered as both the tentative and final parcel map to facilitate processing. Staff will ensure that the proper map is recorded. EXHIBITS: Tentative Parcel Map, Staff Memorandum, March 9, 2009 Planning C n Minutes k, Planning Division, Applicant gEngine. r SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Repo rts\09-01.doc j> lite A/4-I • BURLINGAME MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING DATE: MARCH 3, 2009 RE: TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF LOTS 8 & NORTHERLY HALF OF LOT 9, BLOCK 60, EASTON ADDITION NO. 7 SUBDIVISION, 1365 COLUMBUS AVENUE, PM 09-01 This application is to combine two (2) existing lots into one (1) lot at 1365 Columbus Avenue. 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 Fire Department and Community Development Department. There will be no new easements created by this map. The map application is complete and therefore may be recommended to the City Council for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A final parcel map for lot merger must be filed by the applicant within the time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Action on this map should be considered as both the tentative and final map to facilitate processing. 2. All property corners shall be set and shown on the final parcel map. 3. The final map shall show the widths of the right-of-way for Columbus Avenue, Hillside Drive and Easton Drive, including the centerline of right-of-way, bearing and distance of centerline and any existing monuments in the roadway. 4. All damaged sidewalk, curb and gutters shall be replaced with new. Exhibit: Tentative Map &Assessor's Map V Voon n Ass. ciate E ineer U:\VICTOR\Projects\Private\PM09.0l.wpd CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 9, 2009 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1 . 3008 RIVERA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FORA SINGLE STORYADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (UNA KINSELLA, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JOHN AND FRIEDA RADZYMINSKI , PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated March 9, 2009. Commission comments: ■ Applicant should consider relocating the garage to eliminate the need for the front setback Variance; the concern is that the garage will be too prominent, as opposed to the house; perhaps the garage could be relocated to the south side of the house. ■ Not certain that the findings for a Variance can be made. ■ List the setbacks across the street from the property, particularly for 3005 Rivera Drive; since the frame of reference is difficult. ■ Provide a calculation regarding the reduction in hardscape; proposed versus existing; the relocation of the garage results in a significant reduction in impervious surface due to the re-orientation. ■ Doesn't have a problem with the location of the garage; are adding a lot of landscaping. ■ It is a neighborhood pattern to have the garage in the front. ■ The design seems to preserve the rear yard and eliminate a lot of hardscape. This item was set for the regularAction Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at T:11 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Brownrigg pulled Item 2a. Commissioner Vistica indicated that he would abstain from voting on Item 2b since he resides within 500-feet of the property. 2b. 108 ARUNDEL ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JO ANN GANN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND BEN AND VICKY HSIA, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN 2c. 1365 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION PURPOSES OF LOT 8 AND NORTHERLY HALF OF LOT 9, BLOCK 60 EASTON ADDITION NO. 7 SUBDIVISION, PM 09-01 (BGT LAND SURVEYING, APPLICANT; AND CHRIS AND SANDRA KNIGHTLY, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: VICTOR VOONG 2d. 1625-1633 ADRIAN ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION PURPOSES OF PORTION OF LOTS 24, 25, 26, 27 AND 28, BLOCK 6, MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO 3 SUBDIVISION, PM 09-02 (MORAN ENGINEERING, INC. , APPLICANT; AND WILLIAM SPENCER COMPANY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: VICTOR VOONG 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Approved Minutes March 9, 2009 Commissioner Auran moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0 for Items 2c and 2d; and 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica abstaining) for Item 2b. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:13 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2a. 1241 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1 , SUBAREA A— APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (JEFF HAYWOOD, PEETS COFFEE AND TEA, APPLICANT; TYBABB PARTNERS LLC, PROPERTY OWNER; AND THE CHARLES DOERR GROUP, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 9, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-three (23) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Jeff Haywood, 1400 Park Avenue, Emeryville; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ This is an important retail space for Burlingame Avenue. ■ Have dressed up the side entry; what was the thinking for not turning it into a more generous door (Haywood — the wall is a structural/sheer wall; the structural engineer suggested infilling the small window on that side before opening the door on the side; opening it up more would be problematic; the small window will be filled in). ■ Suggested swinging the door the other way to open up more into the restaurant (Haywood — will consider as long as ADA clearance is provided). ■ Clarified that the "in" swinging door is permissible due to the occupancy; no second exit is required. ■ Encouraged applicant to become familiar with the sign regulations (Haywood — are considering a blade sign). ■ Would it be possible to repeat the fluted metal that is over the main entry over the second entry (Haywood — yes, this is possible). Public comments: ■ None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1 . that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 25, 2009, sheets CS-1 , SP-1 , SP-2 and P-1 through P-5; 3 Agenda 8f Item # BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: April 6, 2009 SUBMITTED BY tlaC. APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: March 25, 2009 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF TWO PARCELS WHICH ARE A PORTION OF LOTS 24, 25, 26, 27 AND 28, BLOCK 6, MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 3 SUBDIVISION, 1625-1633 ADRIAN ROAD, PM 09-02 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council concur with the Planning Commission action of March 9, 2009 and approve the proposed tentative and final parcel map subject to the following conditions: • The final parcel map shall be filed by the applicant within the two year time period allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's subdivision ordinance. • 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 Adrian Road and David Road, including the centerline of the right-of-way, bearings and distance of the centerline and any existing monuments in the roadway. • All damaged/displaced sidewalk shall be replaced with new. BACKGROUND: The tentative and final parcel map was approved by Planning Commission on March 9, 2009. Staff has reviewed the map and recommends approval of the map as tentative and final parcel map subject to the above conditions. The parcel map should be considered as both the tentative and final parcel map to facilitate processing. Staff will ensure that the proper map is recorded. EXHIBITS: Tentative Parcel Map, Staff Memorandum, March 9, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes c: City Clerk, Planning Division, Applicant Victo o y_.-Associat, En ineer SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Repo rts\09-02.doc j a BURLINGAME MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PUBLIC WORKS - ENGINEERING DATE: MARCH 3, 2009 RE: TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF A PORTION OF LOTS 24, 25, 26, 27 AND 28, BLOCK 6, MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO. 3 SUBDIVISION, 1625-1633 ADRIAN ROAD, PM 09-02 This application is to combine two (2) existing lots into one (1) lot at 1625-1633 Adrian Road. 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 Fire Department and Community Development Department. There will be no new easements created by this map. The map application is complete and therefore may be recommended to the City Council for approval subject to the following conditions: 1. A final parcel map for lot merger must be filed by the applicant within the time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. Action on this map should be considered as both the tentative and final map to facilitate processing. 2. All property corners shall be set and shown on the final parcel map. 3. The final map shall show the widths of the right-of-way for Adrian Road and David Road, including the centerline of right-of-way, bearing and distance of centerline and any existing monuments in the roadway. 4. All damaged sidewalk, curb and gutters shall be replaced with new. Exhibit: Tentative Map & Assessor's Map Kvi, orV Vg Associ e E gineer U:\VICTOR\Projects\Private\PM09.02.wpd CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes March 9,2009 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 3008 RIVERA DRIVE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FORA SINGLE STORYADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING(UNA KINSELLA,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;AND JOHN AND FRIEDA RADZYMINSKI, PROPERTY OWNERS)STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report,dated March 9,2009. Commission comments: • Applicant should consider relocating the garage to eliminate the need for the front setback Variance; the concern is that the garage will be too prominent,as opposed to the house;perhaps the garage could be relocated to the south side of the house. • Not certain that the findings for a Variance can be made. List the setbacks across the street from the property, particularly for 3005 Rivera Drive;since the frame of reference is difficult. Provide a calculation regarding the reduction in hardscape;proposed versus existing;the relocation of the garage results in a significant reduction in impervious surface due to the re-orientation. • Doesn't have a problem with the location of the garage;are adding a lot of landscaping. It is a neighborhood pattern to have the garage in the front. The design seems to preserve the rear yard and eliminate a lot of hardscape. This item was set for the regularAction Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:11 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar-Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant,a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Cauchi asked ifanyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item offthe Consent Calendar. Commissioner Brownrigg pulled Item 2a. Commissioner Vistica indicated that he would abstain from voting on Item 2b since he resides within 500-feet of the property. 2b. 108 ARUNDEL ROAD,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING(JO ANN GANN,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;AND BEN AND VICKY HSIA,PROPERTY OWNERS)STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN 2c. 1365 COLUMBUS AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION PURPOSES OF LOT 8 AND NORTHERLY HALF OF LOT 9,BLOCK 60 EASTON ADDITION NO.7 SUBDIVISION,PM 09-01(BGT LAND SURVEYING,APPLICANT;AND CHRIS AND SANDRA KNIGHTLY PROPERTY OWNERS)STAFF CONTACT:VICTOR VOONG 2d. 1625-1633 ADRIAN ROAD,ZONED RR—APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION PURPOSES OF PORTION OF LOTS 24,25, 26,27 AND 28, BLOCK 6, MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO 3 SUBDIVISION,PM 09-02(MORAN ENGINEERING,INC., APPLICANT;AND WILLIAM SPENCER COMPANY,PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: VICTOR VOONG CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Approved Minutes March 9, 2009 Commissioner Auran moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0 for Items 2c and 2d;and 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica abstaining) for Item 2b. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:13 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2a. 1241 BURLINGAME AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (JEFF HAYWOOD, PEETS COFFEE AND TEA,APPLICANT;TYBABB PARTNERS LLC, PROPERTY OWNER; AND THE CHARLES DOERR GROUP, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 9, 2009,with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-three (23) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Jeff Haywood, 1400 Park Avenue, Emeryville; represented the applicant. Commission comments: • This is an important retail space for Burlingame Avenue. • Have dressed up the side entry; what was the thinking for not turning it into a more generous door (Haywood —the wall is a structural/sheer wall; the structural engineer suggested infilling the small window on that side before opening the door on the side; opening it up more would be problematic; the small window will be filled in). Suggested swinging the door the other way to open up more into the restaurant (Haywood — will consider as long as ADA clearance is provided). Clarified that the"in"swinging door is permissible due to the occupancy; no second exit is required. Encouraged applicant to become familiar with the sign regulations (Haywood —are considering a blade sign). Would it be possible to repeat the fluted metal that is over the main entry over the second entry (Haywood —yes, this is possible). Public comments: • None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 25, 2009, sheets CS-1, SP-1, SP-2 and P-1 through P-5; 3 ,11 CITY G, STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM # 8g MTG. ,�CaA%AT..JYNld,9Oe DATE 4/6/09 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTE BY DATE: March 30, 2009 APPROVED FROM: Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk By 650-558-7203 SUBJECT: Resolution Ordering and Calling a General Municipal Election to be held November 3, 2009 RECOMMENDATION: To approve the attached resolution ordering and calling a general municipal election to be held in the City of Burlingame on November 3, 2009, requesting the services of the Registrar of Voters, requesting consolidation of elections, and specifying certain procedures for the consolidated election, requiring payment of prorated costs of candidates' statements, and providing for giving notice of election. BACKGROUND: In November of odd-numbered years the City of Burlingame holds an election. This year three council terms expire in November. The incumbents are Mayor Keighran, Vice Mayor Baylock, Councilwoman O'Mahony and Interim City Clerk Kearney. The filing period for nomination papers and candidate statements is from July 13 to August 7, 2009, The City Manager intends to approach the Council concerning placing an additional measure on the ballot to make the City Clerk position appointed rather than elected; and to increase the transient occupancy tax by 2%. Those items are anticipated for separate action at your June 15, 2009 meeting. EXHIBIT: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: As of March 10, 2009, there are 16,184 registered voters in the City of Burlingame. Since the November 3, 2009 election is consolidated with other jurisdictions, the San Mateo County Election Office has recommended a cost estimate of $2 per registered voter. Total budget impact is estimated at $405000 - $459000. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ORDERING AND CALLING A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ON NOVEMBER 3,2009; REQUESTING THE SERVICES OF THE REGISTRAR OF VOTERS, REQUESTING CONSOLIDATION OF ELECTIONS,AND SPECIFYING CERTAIN PROCEDURES FOR THE CONSOLIDATED ELECTION; REQUIRING PAYMENT OF PRORATED COSTS OF CANDIDATES' STATEMENTS; AND PROVIDING FOR GIVING NOTICE OF ELECTION WHEREAS, Burlingame Ordinance No. 1219 provides that the general municipal election for the City of Burlingame shall be held on the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November of each odd-numbered year; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Part 3 of Division 10 of the California Elections Code, a general municipal election may be consolidated with an election in another public district; and WHEREAS, elections in public districts will be held in San Mateo County on November 3, 2009, NOW, THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. A general municipal election is hereby called to be held in and for the City of Burlingame on Tuesday, November 3, 2009: a) to elect three (3) Council Members, each for a full term of four(4) years, b) to elect a City Clerk for a full term of(4) years, and c) to submit one or more City measures to the voters. 2. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10002, the City Council hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo to make available the services of the County Clerk as County Elections Official for the purpose of performing the usual and customary services necessary in the conduct of the consolidated general municipal election, including the provision of election supplies and voters' pamphlets. 3. Pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10400 and following, the City Council hereby requests the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo to order the consolidation of the general municipal election to be conducted within the boundaries of the City of Burlingame on November 3, 2009, with respect to which the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo has the power to order a consolidation. The City Council further consents to and orders the consolidation of the general municipal election hereby called with the elections in public districts to be held the same day. Upon consolidation, the consolidated election shall be held and conducted, election officers M, appointed, voting precincts designated, ballots printed, polls opened at 7:00 a.m. and closed at 8:00 p.m., ballots counted and returned, returns canvassed, and all other proceedings in connection with the election shall be regulated and done by the County Clerk of the County of San Mateo in accordance with the provisions of law regulating the elections so consolidated. 4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to publish a notice of the general municipal election within the time and in the manner specified in California Elections Code Section 12101. The City Clerk is further authorized and directed to perform any and all actions required by law to hold the general municipal election above provided. 5. Pursuant to California Elections Code section 13307, the City Council hereby determines to levy against each candidate availing himself or herself of the service of including a candidate's statement not to exceed two hundred (200)words in length in the voters' pamphlets, the actual prorated costs of printing, handling, and translating the candidates statement incurred by the City of Burlingame. The City Clerk shall provide written notice to such effect with each set of nomination papers issued and shall require payment of the estimated pro rated share at the time the candidate statement is filed. 6. Pursuant to California Elections Code section 10228 and Burlingame Municipal Code section 2.20.020,the filing fee for the City's cost of processing of the nomination papers is $25.00. 7. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution and to transmit a certified copy to the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo and to the County Clerk of the County of San Mateo. Ann Keighran, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of sixth day of April,2009, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk �� CITY G BURUNGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA MC0 0 ATEDJUNE�10 ITEM # 8h MTG. DATE April 6, 2009 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: March 31, 2009 BY FROM: Kathleen Gallagher APPROVED Green Ribbon Task Force Consultant BY SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL PURCHASING POLICY RECOMMENDATION: Concur with the recommendation of the Green Ribbon Task Force to adopt the Environmental Purchasing Policy. BACKGROUND Rationale for Recommendation The City's purchasing practices can impact conservation of natural resources and an effective Environmental Purchasing Policy can minimize the City's contributions to global warming. The purpose of the Environmental Purchasing Policy is to provide a voluntary method to encourage staff to consider purchasing products that minimize their environmental impacts and consider purchasing materials with recycled content, have no or low toxicity (found in janitorial products) and conserve energy and water . By reducing energy and water consumption, the City also reduces their contributions to greenhouse gas emissions. The Policy does not require staff to purchase more environmental preferable products and only encourages staff to consider alternative products that conserve energy, water and natural resources where practical and cost effective, without reducing safety or quality. For example, the Policy encourages staff to purchase office paper and office products with recycled content or purchase park benches made with recycling content instead of virgin plastic whenever practical. Availability of materials made with recycled content are readily available and resources and tools have been developed to assist staff in finding and purchasing environmental preferable products. Additional resources are being developed for city staff to find and purchase environmental preferable products. Brief meetings with staff are under development by Public Works and the City intern, Brian Eli, to assist staff to learn where to find cost effective environmental preferable products. The Policy recommends that staff purchase environmentally preferable products that are reasonable in price and not exceed a 5% premium over less environmental preferable materials that contain virgin content, are less durable or which have increased toxicity. By adopting the Policy,the City can lead by example and creates a model for purchasing environmentally preferable products that can encourage the business and residential community to adopt similar goals. Many Peninsula cities have Environmental Purchasing Policies including Hillsborough,Foster City, San Mateo and Redwood City. The policy requests that staff consider purchasing materials that have fewer toxins such as janitorial cleaners or purchase interior/exterior paints with no volatile organic compounds,known as VOCs,that contains carcinogens. By taking these actions,the policy can help eliminate or reduce toxics that create hazards to workers and the community. The policy can help the city save water by encouraging the purchase of water-saving products such as low-flow faucets or toilets and upgraded high efficiency irrigation systems.The Policy encourages landscaping practices that can save water and resources and encourages sustainable landscape management techniques. The policy also encourages that the city consider purchasing city vehicles that are less-polluting alternatives such as vehicles that use compressed natural gas,bio-based fuels or the purchase of hybrids when replacing city vehicles. BUDGETIMPACT There are minimal costs anticipated to implement this policy due to the fact that the policy only encourages the purchase of environmental preferable products where practical and reasonable. There will be minimal staff time in learning about where to find and purchase environmental preferable products. Reduced costs can occur by implementation of this policy,for example,implementing double-sided copying can significantly reduces paper purchases and additional cost savings occur with energy and water efficient product purchases. Life-cycle cost factors such as energy and water use,maintenance, replacement and disposal can provide economic and environmental benefits to the City. ATTACHMENTS: Environmental Purchasing Policy 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME'S ENVIRONMENTAL PURCHASING POLICY 1 .0 STATEMENT OF POLICY It is the policy of THE CITY OF BURLINGAME to : • Purchase products that minimize environmental impacts and hazards to worker and community safety to the greatest extent practical, • Institute practices that reduce waste by increasing product efficiency and effectiveness, • Purchase products that include recycled content, are durable, conserve energy and water and reduce greenhouse gas emissions whenever practical and reasonable. 2.0 PURPOSE This Policy is adopted in order to: • Conserve energy, water, natural resources and minimize environmental impacts whenever practical and cost-effective without reducing safety or quality. • Eliminate or reduce toxics that create hazards to workers and our community. • Reduce materials that are landfilled and support markets for recycled content materials. • Minimize the City's contributions to global warming. 3.0 SPECIFICATIONS 3. 1 Source Reduction 3. 1 . 1 The City of Burlingame shall institute practices that reduce waste and result in the purchase of fewer products whenever practical and cost-effective without reducing safety or quality. 3. 1 .2 The City of Burlingame shall purchase remanufactured products such as toner cartridges, tires, furniture, equipment and automotive parts whenever practical without reducing safety or quality. 3. 1 . 3 Documents shall be printed and copied on both sides to reduce the use and purchase of paper whenever practical. Page 1 3.2 Recycled Content Products 3.2.1 The City of Burlingame will purchase products such as office paper, janitorial paper, construction, landscaping, parks and recreation equipment and non-paper office products with the highest post-consumer content whenever practical and reasonable. 3.2.2 When specifying asphalt concrete, aggregate base or Portland cement concrete for road construction projects, the City of Burlingame shall use recycled, reusable or reground materials whenever practical and reasonable. 3.3 Energy and Water Savings 3.3.1 Equipment shall be purchased with the most current energy efficiency functions whenever practical and cost-effective without reducing safety or quality. Products purchased by the City and for which the U. S. EPA 'Energy Star' certification is available shall meet 'Energy Star' certification, when practical. 3.3.2 Inefficient exterior lighting such as street lighting and traffic signal lights will be replaced with energy-efficient equipment whenever practical and cost effective. 3.3.3 The City of Burlingame shall purchase water-saving products whenever practical. This includes, but is not limited to, high-performance fixtures like toilets, low-flow faucets and aerators, and upgraded high efficiency irrigation systems. 3.4 Landscaping 3.4.1 Landscape renovations, construction and maintenance performed by the City, including workers and contractors providing landscaping services, shall employ sustainable landscape management techniques or Bay Friendly Landscaping guidelines for design, construction and maintenance whenever possible, including, but not limited to, grasscycling, drip irrigation and composting. 3.4.2 Plants should be selected to minimize waste by choosing species for purchase that are appropriate to the microclimate. Native and drought-tolerant plants that require no or minimal watering once established should be purchased where practical and feasible. 3.4.3. The amount of impervious surfaces in the landscape should be limited wherever practical. Permeable substitutes, such as permeable asphalt or pavers, are encouraged for walkways, patios and driveways wherever practical. Page 2 3.6 Toxics and Pollution 3.6.1 The City should, whenever practical, request that janitorial contractors purchase and supply institutional cleaning products that meet Green Seal certification standards for environmental preferability and performance. 3.6.2 When maintaining buildings, the City shall use products with the lowest amount of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), highest recycled content, and low or no formaldehyde when practicable when purchasing materials such as paint, carpeting, adhesives, furniture and casework. The City shall purchase products and equipment with no lead or mercury whenever possible. 3.6.3 When replacing vehicles, The City of Burlingame shall consider and purchase less-polluting alternatives such as compressed natural gas, bio-based fuels, hybrids, electric batteries, and fuel cells whenever practical and reasonable. 4.0 PRIORITIES 4.1 The health and safety of workers and citizens of the City of Burlingame is of utmost importance and takes precedence over all other policies. 4.2 Nothing contained in this policy shall be construed as requiring a department, purchaser or contractor to procure products that do not perform adequately for their intended use or are not available at a reasonable price in a reasonable period of time. 4.3 Nothing contained in this policy shall be construed as requiring The City of Burlingame, department, purchaser or contractor to take any action that conflict with local, state or federal requirements. 5.0 IMPLEMENTATION 5.1 The Public Works Director and or their designee shall implement this policy in coordination with other appropriate City of Burlingame personnel. 6.0 PROGRAM EVALUATION 6.1 The Director of Public Works and or their designee shall periodically evaluate the success of this policy's implementation. 7.0 EFFECTIVE DATE 7.1 This policy shall become effective on May 1, 2009. Page 3 8.0 DEFINITIONS 8.1 "Bay-Friendly Landscaping" means working with the natural ecosystems of the San Francisco Bay Area to foster soil health, to reduce runoff and pollution, prevent and reuse plant waste, conserve water and other natural resources. Bay-Friendly Landscaping practices are described in the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines. 8.2 "Buyer" means anyone authorized to purchase or contract for purchases on behalf of The City of Burlingame or its subdivisions. 8.3 "Compostable plastic" means plastic that is biodegradable during composting to yield carbon dioxide, water and inorganic compounds and biomass, at a rate consistent with other known compostable materials and leaves no visually distinguishable or toxic residues. 8.4 "Contractor" means any person, group of persons, business, consultant, designing architect, association, partnership, corporation, supplier, vendor or other entity that has a contract with The City of Burlingame or serves in a subcontracting capacity with an entity having a contract with The City of Burlingame for the provision of goods or services. 8.5 'Degradable plastic" means plastic that undergoes significant changes in its chemical structure under specific environmental conditions. 8.6 "Energy Star" means the U.S. EPA's energy efficiency product labeling program. 8.7 "Federal Energy Management Program" is a program of the Department of Energy that issues a series of Product Energy Efficiency Recommendations that identify recommended efficiency levels for energy-using products. 8.8 The "Forest Stewardship Council" is a global organization that certifies responsible, on-the-ground forest management according to rigorous standards developed by a broad variety of stakeholder groups. 8.9 "Postconsumer Material" means a finished material which would normally be disposed of as a solid waste, having reached its intended end-use and completed its life cycle as a consumer item, and does not include manufacturing or converting wastes. 8.10 "Practical" and "Practicable" means whenever possible and compatible with local, state and federal law, without reducing safety, quality, or effectiveness and where the product or service is available at a reasonable cost in a reasonable period of time. 8.11 "Reasonable" means that the purchase price of recycled content materials, non-toxic or less toxic materials, more durable materials, energy efficient and water Page 4 conservation materials shall not exceed a 5% premium over materials with virgin content, higher toxicity and less energy efficient and water efficient products. 8.12 "Recycled Content" means the percentage of recovered material, including preconsumer and postconsumer materials, in a product. "Recycled Content Standard" is the minimum level of recovered material and/or postconsumer material necessary for products to qualify as "recycled products." 8.13 "Remanufactured Product" means any product diverted from the supply of discarded materials by refurbishing and marketing said product without substantial change to its original form. 8.14 "Source Reduction" refers to products that result in a net reduction in the generation of waste compared to their previous or alternate version and includes durable, reusable and remanufactured products; products with no, or reduced, toxic constituents; and products marketed with no, or reduced, packaging. Page 5 14 AiRT � STAFFREPORT BURUNOAME AGENDA ITEM# 8i *+� MTG. Aril 6,2009 ted. DATE P TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY C /G DATE: March 31,2009 APPROVLD FROM: Jim Nantell 558-7205 BY SUBJECT: Contract for Park and Recreation Director Services RECOMMENDATION: Concur with City Manager recommendation to contract with the City of Brisbane to provide a half time Park and Recreation Director. BACKGROUND: Given our unprecedented financial situation we have been forced to make significant reductions in all departments. Most of the reductions have unfortunately been made at the delivery level of our departments. In order to prevent more reductions of line staff in Parks and Recreation we have reduced the Directors position to '/2 time and the Superintendent of Parks to a .60 position which is estimated to save $200,000 annually. The proposed contract with the City of Brisbane would provide half time services from their Parks and Recreation Director Jim Skeels. If approved he would begin on Wednesday April 15, 2009. The contract would be on a month to month basis with a 30 day termination clause. We would anticipate using this arrangement for at least the remainder of the current year and at that time reassess how well it is working and then continue the arrangement or make modifications that may be deemed appropriate based on other possible personnel changes. ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed contract between City of Brisbane and City of Burlingame B. Resolution AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BRISBANE AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FOR SHARING OF PARKS AND RECREATION DIRECTOR SERVICES THIS AGREEMENT, effective as of April 15, 2009, by and between the CITY OF BRISBANE ("Brisbane") and the CITY OF BURLINGAME ("Burlingame"), is made with reference to the following facts: A. Burlingame desires to obtain the services of a parks and recreation director. B. Brisbane is willing to provide such services by sharing with Burlingame the position of Director of Parks and Recreation, now occupied by Brisbane employee Jim Skeels, as hereinafter set forth. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Sharing of Services. Jim Skeels shall act as the Director of Parks and Recreation for both Brisbane and Burlingame, with approximately half of his total working time being devoted to each agency. Jim Skeels has been designated by Brisbane and accepted by Burlingame as the person to provide the services to Burlingame under this Agreement. Brisbane shall not assign any other person to provide those services without the prior written consent of Burlingame. 2. Employment of Jim Skeels by Brisbane. Jim Skeels shall at all times during the term of this Agreement remain a full-time employee of Brisbane and shall continue to receive all of his salary, health insurance, and other employment benefits from Brisbane. Brisbane shall maintain Workers' Compensation coverage for Jim Skeels as required by California law. During the course of this Agreement, it is expected that Jim Skeels will take time off from employment for eligible leaves as provided under Brisbane's applicable personnel rules and regulations. Burlingame agrees that such leaves will not constitute a breach of this Agreement, and Brisbane agrees that it will provide reasonable notice of all scheduled leaves as well as prompt notice of all unscheduled leaves. It is understood that Jim Skeels may elect to leave the employment of Brisbane at any time. In such event, Brisbane shall provide prompt notice of such departure to Burlingame and either city may elect to terminate this Agreement upon the departure of Jim Skeels from Brisbane employment. 3. Services for Burlingame. Jim Skeels shall perform the customary and usual duties of Director of Parks and Recreation for Burlingame and shall report directly to the Burlingame City Manager. His duties shall also include: (a) Evaluate the organization and operation of the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Department and provide recommendations to the City Manager. Such evaluations and recommendations shall include departmental organization, job responsibilities, program content, cost recovery, and staff inter-personal relationships. -1- (b) Attend regular and special meetings of the Burlingame Parks and Recreation Commission. Brisbane and Burlingame shall make every effort to schedule meetings of their respective commissions in a manner that will avoid conflicting dates. (c) Supervise personnel staffing the Youth Advisory Council and the Beautification Commission and attend meetings of such groups when required. (d) Such other responsibilities as may be assigned to him from time to time by the Burlingame City Manager, consistent with his position as Director of Parks and Recreation. 4. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall commence on April 15, 2009, and shall continue on a month to month basis until terminated by either party giving thirty (30) days written notice to the other. 5. Pam. Burlingame agrees to pay Brisbane one half of the costs of Jim Skeel's total salary and benefit package. As of the effective date of this Agreement, Burlingame's financial obligation to Brisbane for services provided by Jim Skeels pursuant to this Agreement would be $ on an annual basis, and shall be payable in arrears in monthly installments in response to invoices from Brisbane showing the amount due for the preceding month. In the event an invoice covers only a portion of the month, the amount shall be pro-rated based upon the actual number of days in that month. Invoices shall be paid by Burlingame within 30 days after receipt. Any proposed adjustment by Brisbane to this financial obligation during the term of this Agreement shall be submitted to Burlingame for prior approval at least 60 days prior to the effective date of the adjustment. 6. Independent Contractor. It is understood that Brisbane and its employees, in the performance of the services agreed to be performed hereunder, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of Burlingame. As an independent contractor, no employee of Brisbane shall obtain any rights to retirement benefits, medical benefits, leave, or any other benefits that accrue to Burlingame employees. Brisbane agrees to make its employees available to testify in any litigation brought regarding the subject of the work performed for Burlingame under this Agreement. Should such need arise following the termination of this Agreement, Brisbane shall be compensated for its employees' costs and expenses in preparing for, traveling to, and testifying in such matters at its then current hourly rates of compensation, unless such litigation is brought by Brisbane or is based on allegations of Brisbane's negligent performance or wrongdoing. 7. Indemnification. Except as expressly authorized by the parties, neither party shall be responsible for the acts and omissions of another party's officers or employees nor shall a party incur any liabilities arising out of the services and activities of another party's officers or employees. 8. Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have -2- hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 9. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo. 10. Disputes. In the event legal action shall become necessary in order to enforce or interpret this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees and costs. 11. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between Brisbane and Burlingame and supersedes and cancels any prior agreement or understanding, whether written or verbal. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by Brisbane and Burlingame. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement effective as of the day and year first above written. CITY OF BRISBANE CITY OF BURLINGAME By: By: Clay Holstine, City Manager Jim Nantell, City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Harold Toppel, City Attorney Gus Guinan, City Attorney -3- RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF BRISBANE FOR THE SERVICES OF A DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATION WHEREAS, as a result of the retirement of its Director of Parks and Recreation, the City of Burlingame requires the services of a Director of parks and recreation; and WHEREAS, in order to provide said Park and Recreation Director services and concurrently to reduce overall City expenditures, the City is interested in sharing the services of a Director of Park and recreation with another city; and WHEREAS, the City of Brisbane is willing to share with, and provide to, the City of Burlingame, the services of Brisbane's Director of Park and Recreation on a fifty-fifty time share basis. NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLVES AND ORDERS AS FOLLOWS: 1. The City Council approves the agreement with the City of Brisbane for its provision of Park and Recreation Director services to the City of Burlingame. 2. The City Council authorizes the Mayor to execute an agreement for such services with the City of Brisbane, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit"A"and incorporated herein. Ann Keighran, Mayor I, Mary Ellen Kearney, Clerk of the City of Burlingame, hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council held on the 6th day of April, 2009,by the following vote to wit: AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk City of Burlingame Civil Service Commission January 20, 2009 Approved Minutes Call to order and roll The meeting was called to order at 4:35 pm in Conference Room A, Burlingame City Hall Members Present: Commissioners Clowes, Delia, Griffith, Hamilton Members Absent: Germaine Staff Present: Deirdre Dolan(HR Director), Gus Guinan(City Attorney) Approval of Minutes: Commissioner Hamilton moved to approve the minutes of the November 10, 2008 meeting. Commissioner Clowes seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously. Public Present: none Public Comment: none Approval of Eligibility Lists Street Sweeper, Secretary, Water Quality &Maintenance Technician Discussion of Role of Civil Service Commission The Commission is evaluating the role, purpose, and value of the Civil Service Commission. The City Attorney will conduct research into the application of other existing Civil Service Commissions in the local area and the State, and report back with findings to the Commission, Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:01 pm. Respectfully submitted: Deirdre Dolan/Human Resources Director BURL i MAN[ Library Board of Trustees Minutes February 17,2009 I. Call to Order President Brock called the meeting to order at 5:30pm. II. Roll Call Trustees Present: Nancy Brock,Deborah Griffith, Sandy Towle Trustees Absent: Katie McCormack, Pat Toft Staff Present: Al Escoffier, City Librarian Sidney Poland,Recorder III. Minutes of the January 20 2009 Trustee Meeting The Trustees unanimously approved the January 20,2009 minutes. M/S/C (Griffith/Brock) IV. Correspondence and Attachments The Trustees reviewed the quarterly statements from the Trustees Fund and the Revolving Account. Library use statistics for January 2009 reflect a 8.15%increase at the main library and a 1.64%at the Easton Branch from January of 2008. V. From the Floor-No one from the public attended. VI. Reports A. City Librarian's Report-Highlights 1. Main Service Desk-Planning for the Main Service Desk is underway. Cross training is taking place with reference and circulation staff.The official`opening day"for the Main Service Desk is scheduled for April 15th. A"Change"workshop will be given for staff by Ruth Barefoot of the San Jose Way(San Jose Public Library). Ms.Barefoot will focus her program on how to implement an effective Main Service Desk and give us direction on other ways to use service desks and move shelving to make materials more accessible to our patrons. 48o Primrose Road•Burlingame•California 94010-4o83 Phone(650)558-7474'Fax(65o)342-6295•www.burlingame.org/library 2. Library and Foundation Newsletter The joint newsletter is being mailed to approximately 8,000 residents in Burlingame the 2nd week of March. The focus will be to inform and explain the changes in Library services and staff that have resulted from the budget reductions. The Foundation's upcoming fundraising events will be a featured item. The Trustees suggested that the publication be put on the Library Website. 3. Requests to Foundation for 2009 - The City Librarian advised the Trustees of the specific funding requests he will make to the Foundation for 2009. The total amount requested is $110,000 and will be allocated to collections and programs. Library Collections (Print) $ 80,000 Summer High School Enrichment $ 3,000 Children's & Adult Media $ 14,000 Children's/Adult Programs $ 113,000 Total Requests $ 110,000 B. Foundation Report Al Escoffier 1. New Board Members - Bryan Blythe, CPA; Don Roberts, retired attorney and former President of the Foundation; and Amber Ellis Senguine, graphic artist have been nominated to join the Foundation for a two year term. Their nominations will be approved at the February 19th Annual Foundation Board Meeting. 2. Advisory Board- Kris and Jim Cannon will host an evening get together of the Advisory Board to inform them of current board activities and enlist their support for the coming. year. VII. Unfinished Business A. Library Budget Matrix February 19, 2009 The City Librarian reviewed the Matrix with the Trustees. Library reductions already made are reducing hourly staff 50% and closing Friday night at 5:00pm instead of 7:00pm. B. Employee Achievement Award Event The Trustees agreed to table discussion of this topic until all the Trustees are present. C. Wayne Willert Trust Fund Expenditures At the request of President Brock, the Trustees agreed to table discussion of this topic until all the Trustees are present. Library Board of Trustee Minutes February 17,2009 2 D. Internet Reservations Discontinued Barry Mills Barry presented a visual to the Trustees and explained the rationale of discontinuing Internet reservations at the lower level terminals. The reservation procedure worked well when the time limit was for an hour. When the time frame was increased to 2 hours the system began to have problems such as shutting down after 1 hour for privacy reasons and causing patrons to lose his work and loss of reservations. Barry worked with the software company but issue could not be resolved. County libraries are still taking reservations for an hour; city libraries have discontinued reservations. VIII. New Business The City Librarian discussed the proposed reductions to the library budget some of which have been implemented and some which are a work in progress. The reductions total a savings of $ 420,808 and are categorized as follows: 1) reduction in hours for both Main and Easton; 2) reorganization of service desks, and the addition of another self check; and 3) reduction in collections and children and adult programming. IX. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:45pm. M/S/C (Brock/Griffith) The next meeting of the Library Trustees will be held March 17, 2009 at 5:30pm in the Library Conference room. Z ctfully Sub 'tted, H. Esc6ff1 City Librarian Library Board of Trustee Minutes February 17, 2009 3 BURLih6AMf City Librarian's Report to the Board of Tn March 17, 2009 Library Budget Reductions At the City Council budget session held on Wednesday, February 25th, reductions were considered for a number of city service areas. Among the library areas mentioned were: a) Reduce main library hours b) Reduce materials budget_ by 50% or $ 98,000 c) Close Sundays d) Limit children's and adult programming e) Close more days around holidays fl Close the Easton Branch Library The City Librarian was asked to compile statistics on use of the main library, both in- library traffic and circulation of materials; he was also asked to compile statistics on the use of the Easton Branch library by days of the week arld by circulation. An analysis of the cost to run the Easton Branch was also requested. Statements by Council included concerns that the branch library was not sufficiently used to maintain operations. Community Survey Staff just completed a community survey on library use. We used the library website and paper surveys in the library. With such a brief amount of time it was difficult to do something more elaborate. Survey results are attached. Staff is particularly gratified by the many positive comments about the library, the services and the staff. It is indeed a wonderful thing to work in such a supportive community. One Stop Shopping for Patrons Work on the joint service desk is continuing rapidly. Two major timeline dates have been established. Express (self-service) hold pick up will be implemented on March 17th. Patrons will be able to pick up thein own holds and check them out on the self- check machines. This will save time for both patrons and staff. The implementation of the Main Information Desk will be April 15th. Various staff has been assigned to implement various portions of the move: weeding of materials, arrangement of computers behind the desk, etc. In the meantime, reference staff is being trained in circulation function$ and the circulation staff is being trained in reference functions, so that they can work as a team on the service desk. 1 48o Primrose Road•Burlingame•California 940io-4o83 Phone (650) 558-7474 'Fax (650) 342-6295•www.burlingame.org/library 1 Se{f Check Machines The location of the self-check machines has been moved to the lobby to make a great impact on the public. We are planning to order another self check machine to be housed in the lobby as well. Our current self check use is about 70%; we are hoping to raise that to 85% in the coming year. Online Catalog Computers in Lobby Two online catalog computers will be added to the lobby of the main library. These can be used for quick checks of what is available.in the library and in the Peninsula- Library System. They can also be used for patrons to pay fines and fees. Library Newsletter Mailed .A newsletter was mailed to the 94010 zip code regarding library use, programs and proposed reductions in service. Foundation Report The Foundation held their annual meeting in February and approved gifts to the Library for collections and programming for calendar year 2009. The Foundation will also be looking at fundraising issues for their three major programs this year: 3rd Annual Author's Luncheon, Spring Book Sale and Garden Party Tour (August). All events will be focused on raising funds during this difficult year. Sponsorship letters have been mailed to over 300 potential event sponsors to underwrite the Author's Luncheon. - The Foundation Advisory Board met together recently to bring them up to date on what is going on with the Foundation and the Library and to enlist their support in fundraising during this difficult year. Former Foundation board members will play an important role in fundraising. Foundation Book Sale- The aleThe semi-annual Foundation Book Sale will be held in the Lane Community Room, April 23rd-April 26th. The sale kicks off on Thursday, April 23rd, 4 PM-7 PM; Friday, 4 PM- 7 PM; Saturday, 10 AM-4PM; Sunday, 1 PM-4 PM. The book sale raises as much as $,25,000 a year for library programs and collections. Upcoming Events • March 12, Foundation Board Meeting, 5:30 PM • March 13, Commissioner's Dinner, Rocca's, Broadway • March 17, Library Board Meeting, 5:30 PM • April 12-18, National Library Week • April 21, Library Board, 5:30 PM • April 25, Library Issues Breakfast, featuring Joe Simitian, • April 23-26, Foundation Spring Book Sale • May 5, Storm Drain Measure final date • May 9, Third Annual Author Luncheon, Dominic's at Popular Creek, 11:30 AM • 'May 19, Library Board, 5:30 PM 2 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION MARCH 512009 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Lahey. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Lahey, Cominissioners Carney, Dittman, Hunt, McQuaide (left @ 7:00 p.m.), and Wright Absent: Commissioner Benson Staff Interim Parks Superintendent Foell and Admin. Secretary Harvey MINUTES — Minutes were approved as corrected, under OLD BUSINESS/Street Tree Fundraising (paragraph 2) to read: "Chairperson Lahey and Commissioner McQuaide volunteered to serve on the Street Tree Fundraising Committee . . . " CORRESPONDENCE Letter to Sharon O'Byrne (1533 Meadow Lane) informing her of the Commissions decision to uphold the appeal of Erin Stannard (1528 Westmoor Road) and denied the approval to remove the private Redwood tree at her address; but that, the Commission would reconsider the application after receiving further_ information from an independent arborist. Letter to David & Patricia Mayer, 1600 Easton Drive, (copied to surrounding properties) informing them of the scheduled removal of the City-owned Eucalyptus, in front of their address, due to trunk decay and compromised structural integrity; and that, the tree would be replaced with a Eucalyptus citriodora in the spring. FROM THE FLOOR There was no business `From the Floor'. OLD BUSINESS Arbor Day/Saturday, March 7, 2009 (a, 9:00 A.M. — Bayside Park Superintendent Foell reported that everything is in place for Arbor Day; the crews would have the planting sites prepared, Jimi Scheid from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CALFire) would be in attendance and say a few words, and Assemblymember Jerry Hill would also.be in attendance, and would present the Tree City USA flag to Mayor Ann Keighran, in recognition of the City of Burlingame receiving of the award for the 30th year. Business Landscape Award 2009 — Committee Report Commissioner Wright stated that she had promoted the award to the merchants on Broadway and Commissioners Benson and Lahey had made contact with the merchants on Burlingame Avenue; that the deadline is April 1st, and the Committee would review the applications and make recommendation to the Commission soon thereafter. Commissioner Wright also stated that Dale Perkins had again agreed to provide a water color rendering for the winning business. The Commission agreed to discuss at a future meeting, a suggestion that it consider offering `Honorable Mention' for other businesses. Networking with Realtors Regarding Community Tree Information Superintendent Foell reviewed the minor changes to the letter to the realtors. Commissioner McQuaide noted that she would go to a general meeting of the San Mateo County Board of Realtors and would provide the newly developed flyer `Trees — What 's the Big Deal? ' along with the letter, in hopes that the flyer would be circulated to new or potential homeowners in the City. Commissioner Hunt volunteered to ,include approximately 180 flyers in a mailer to be sent out by the Burlingame/Hillsborough Newcomers Club to new homeowners in the Burlingame/Hillsborough area. 1 OLD BUSINESS-Networking with Realtors Regarding Community Tree Information—Contd. Superintendent Foell noted that the same flyers used for networking with the realtors would be used for Arbor Day in promoting the fundraising campaign to purchase new street trees, but would also include an insert for individuals wishing to make donations. Street Tree Fundraising The Commission discussed the fundraising campaign and suggested the "flyers" be made available in the Planning Department, Water office, and Libraries as well as including flyers in a summer water bill mailing and the fall recreation brochure. Commissioner Wright suggested that the school PTA's might also be able to help promote interest. Chairperson Lahey suggested that any further promotion of the fundraising be held off until after the storm drain ballot measure so as not to confuse the two issues. NEW BUSINESS Beautification Commission Meeting"Start Time" Commissioner McQuaide stated she asked this item be placed on the agenda and explained that at one time, the Commission meeting began at 5:30 pm but had changed to 6:00 p.m. to accommodate a past Commissioner. Since two new Commissioners had been seated, she asked that the "start time" be reconsidered. The Commission discussed changing the"start time" of the Commission meetings. After a brief discussion, it was the general consensus of the Commission that the "start time" of the meetings should remain at 6:00 p.m. because it better accommodated the working public and their ability to attend meetings after work. REPORTS Superintendent Foell 1) Letters were sent to the property owners at 1600 Easton Drive (and surrounding neighbors), regarding the removal of the City-owned Eucalyptus tree due to decay in the trunk and a compromised structure. The tree would be removed in April and replaced with a Eucalyptus citriodora. 2) Supervisor Disco recently is working with a young Boy Scout who would be rebuilding steps in the Mills Canyon as a project towards his Eagle Scout. 3) Commissioner's Dinner would be held at the Rocca's Restaurant on March 13`h. 4) Superintendent Foell informed the Commission that, following the approval from Parks staff and the subsequent removal of the planter in front of the Rocca's Restaurant on Broadway, it was reported that the Public Works staff had previously denied the same request [from the owner of the restaurant], because the planter had been found by the City Attorney and the Public Works staff to be ADA compliant. Superintendent Foell noted that similar items or requests from the business districts would now be referred to the Public Works department for review and consideration. Commissioner McQuaide left the meeting at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Wright Commissioner Wright reported that she had been approached several times by the owner of Rocca's Restaurant regarding the request to move the planter, and that she had also received requests from merchants regarding the pruning of trees on Broadway. Chairperson Lahey commented that she too had been approached by the Broadway merchants regarding trimming the trees but tried to communicate City policy. Secretary Harvey responded that merchants could be referred to her at the Parks office for assistance or referral to the appropriate department. Commissioner Carney Commissioner Carney asked that the Oak tree (planted in Washington Park honoring Tim Richmond) be inspected because it looked sick. 2 REPORTS—Contd. Commissioner Hunt Commissioner Hunt reported that she had completed the monitoring of the grant tree planting on Rollins Road, and noted that one the of trees had been planted under the overhang of a private Pine tree There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Kar Harvey Recording Secretary 43 (BURLINGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES City Council Chambers 501 Primrose Road - Burlingame, California March 9, 2009 - 7:00 p.m. I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cauchi called the March 9, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg (arrived at 7:10 p.m.), Cauchi, Lindstrom, Terrones,Vistica and Yie. Absent: None. Staff Present: Community Development Director,William Meeker;Associate Planner, Erica Strohmeier;and City Attorney, Gus Guinan. III. MINUTES Commissioner A uran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the February 23, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following change: ■ Page 7, Item 2 (1452 Drake Avenue), last bullet under "Discussion of Motion",, revise to read: "Restrict the size of the waste line to prevent the connection of a toilet"and add a corresponding condition of approval. Motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg absent). IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke regarding the FYI related to 1324 Montero Avenue: ■ Requested that the matter be brought back for hearing. ■ Noted that there is a for-sale sign on the property before the final inspection has occurred. ■ Noted that a full-glass window has been installed where a true divided light window was required; the window was to match the two other leaded glass windows in the room; it does not fit with the design of other windows. ■ Felt the letter to the Commission was disrespectful. 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 9, 2009 VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 3008 RIVERA DRIVE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FORA SINGLE STORYADDITION TOAN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (UNA KINSELLA, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JOHN AND FRIEDA RADZYMINSKI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT- LISA WHITMAN Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated March 9, 2009. Commission comments: ■ Applicant should consider relocating the garage to eliminate the need for the front setback Variance; the concern is that the garage will be too prominent, as opposed to the house; perhaps the garage could be relocated to the south side of the house. ■ Not certain that the findings for a Variance can be made. ■ List the setbacks across the street from the property, particularly for 3005 Rivera Drive; since the frame of reference is difficult. ■ Provide a calculation regarding the reduction in hardscape; proposed versus existing;the relocation of the garage results in a significant reduction in impervious surface due to the re-orientation. ■ Doesn't have a problem with the location of the garage; are adding a lot of landscaping. ■ It is a neighborhood pattern to have the garage in the front. ■ The design seems to preserve the rear yard and eliminate a lot of hardscape. This item was set for the regularAction Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:11 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar- Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Brownrigg pulled Item 2a. Commissioner Vistica indicated that he would abstain from voting on Item 2b since he resides within 500-feet of the property. 2b. 108 ARUNDEL ROAD, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JO ANN GANN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;AND BEN AND VICKY HSIA, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN 2c. 1365 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION PURPOSES OF LOT 8 AND NORTHERLY HALF OF LOT 9, BLOCK 60 EASTON ADDITION NO. 7 SUBDIVISION, PM 09-01 (BGT LAND SURVEYING,APPLICANT;AND CHRIS AND SANDRA KNIGHTLY PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: VICTOR VOONG 2d. 1625-1633 ADRIAN ROAD,ZONED RR—APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION PURPOSES OF PORTION OF LOTS 24, 25, 26, 27 AND 28, BLOCK 6, MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK NO 3 SUBDIVISION, PM 09-02 (MORAN ENGINEERING, INC., APPLICANT; AND WILLIAM SPENCER COMPANY, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT- VICTOR VOONG ., 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 9, 2009 Commissioner Auran moved approval of the Consent Calendar based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff reports, with recommended conditions in the staff reports and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Chair Cauchi called fora voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0 for Items 2c and 2d, and 6-0-1 (Commissioner Vistica abstaining) for Item 2b. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:13 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2a. 1241 BURLINGAME AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT FOR A FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (JEFF HAYWOOD, PEETS COFFEE AND TEA,APPLICANT; TYBABB PARTNERS LLC, PROPERTY OWNER; AND THE CHARLES DOERR GROUP, ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 9, 2009,with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty-three (23) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Jeff Haywood, 1400 Park Avenue, Emeryville; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ This is an important retail space for Burlingame Avenue. ■ Have dressed up the side entry; what was the thinking for not turning it into a more generous door (Haywood —the wall is a structural/sheer wall; the structural engineer suggested infilling the small window on that side before opening the door on the side; opening it up more would be problematic; the small window will be filled in). ■ Suggested swinging the door the other way to open up more into the restaurant (Haywood — will consider as long as ADA clearance is provided). ■ Clarified that the"in"swinging door is permissible due to the occupancy; no second exit is required. ■ Encouraged applicant to become familiar with the sign regulations (Haywood — are considering a blade sign). ■ Would it be possible to repeat the fluted metal that is over the main entry over the second entry (Haywood — yes, this is possible). Public comments: ■ None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped February 25, 2009, sheets CS-1, SP-1, SP-2 and P-1 through P-5; 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 9, 2009 2. that the canopy over the Park Road entry to the space shall be designed to included the "fluting" feature that is a feature on the canopy over the primary entry at the corner of the space; additionally, the door at this location (on Park Road) shall be reversed to swing into the space in a manner that permits customers to easy enter the main area of the space, if allowed per the Building Code. 3. that this business location occupied by a limited food service, with 360 SF of on-site seating may change its food establishment classification only to a full service restaurant or bar upon approval of a Conditional Use Permit Amendment for the establishment change; the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; 4. that the 360 SF area of on-site seating of the limited food service shall only be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space by an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; 5. that any changes to the size or envelope of building, which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, shall require an amendment to this permit; 6. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 7. that this limited food service may be open seven days a week, from 5:30 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., with a maximum of 12 employees on site at any one time, including the business owner and manager; 8. that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacles as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacles at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; 9. that the business shall provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty (50) feet of all frontages of the business; 10. that an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; 11. that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening within 10' of the property line; 12. that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use this Conditional Use Permit shall become void and a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site; 13. that seating on the sidewalk outside the food establishment shall require an encroachment permit and shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; 14. that any changes to the floor area, use, hours of operation, or number of employees which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this Conditional Use Permit; 15. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's January 30, 2009, memo, the City Engineer's February 10, 2009, memo, the CityArborist's February 11, 2009 memo,the Fire Marshal's February 9, 2009, memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's February 3, 2009, memo shall be met; 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 9, 2009 16. that automatic irrigation shall be provided to all proposed street trees in the City's right of way along Park Road; 17. that all proposed planters located within the public right-of-way shall be revised to meet Public Works standards, shall require an encroachment permit from the Public Works Engineering Division, shall be maintained by the business owner, and shall be able to be moved inside the store at the end of each business day so that they do not create a safety and liability issue for pedestrians using the sidewalk; 18. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 19. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 20. that the project shall complywith the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 21. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 22. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 23. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; and 24. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: ■ None. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 9, 2009 Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 7-0. Appeal procedure, were advised. This item concluded at 7:24 p.m. 3. 2843 ADELINE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FORA NEW, 3'/STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (ROBERT VAN DALE, EDI ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND DENHAM LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 9, 2009,with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen (16) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Alex Mortazavi, 20 Vista Lane; represented the applicant: ■ Have self-imposed a setback of over 23-feet from the side property line due to trees along the fence line; the trees will reduce the appearance of bulk and mass of the building. ■ Noted that the trees will be California Laurel along the side of the residence; will be staggered in a manner to totally block the view of the residence at the fence line. ■ Brought a window sample for the Commission to view. ■ Submitted a manufacturer's cut-sheet for the bi-fold doors and windows. Commission comments: ■ Noted that lines of sight were drawn from several locations; was the 131.5'elevation the elevation c the patio on the adjacent property(Mortazavi—has no idea what the patio elevation is; believes it is at roughly 127' or 128'). ■ Might there be more information regarding views toward the project from the southern end of the adjacent yard on the right-hand side (Mortazavi — the right side is not affected; he owns the lot above). ■ What is the growth potential for the trees (Mortazavi — up to 20-feet tall and 25-feet wide). ■ Clarified that the thought process is to move the trees to the fence line to block the view of the house from the adjacent property; was there any thought to keeping the trees at the building itself (Mortazavi—having the tree next to the building doesn't help as much, but will be offsetting some of the trees. It is his interest to retain as much landscaping as possible; but lose the use of 4,000 square feet of property by doing so. There will be portions of the property that are visible. The eight, 24-inch trees are significant landscape features). ■ Could the residence be camouflaged more by doing more planting; is there any way to clad the elevator with wood rather than stucco (Mortazavi —the tower is further in from the property line by around 14'). ■ What is the best view from the residence(Mortazavi—one of the best views is towards Highway 92; though under County development standards, something could be built to block the view). ■ Consider eliminating or reducing the deck off of the bedroom; it is substantial in size (Mortazavi — that is the only sunny deck on the house; because of the other difficulties with the site. Will not be a heavily used area. Placing it a few feet back will not help the neighbor). The Commission tries to limit exposure of neighbors to decks overlooking a neighboring yard; due to the size of the deck, there is the potential for greater activity. There is another deck on a lower level. 6 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Unapproved Minutes March 9,2009 Public comments: Art and Kaelani LaBrie,2839 Adeline Drive;Mike Ghaul,2838 Adeline Drive;Gil McCoy,1022 Bayswater Avenue;Steve Ehrlich,2833 Adeline Drive;George Chrissman,2848 Adeline Drive;Eileen Shefsky,24 Vista Lane;Pat Giorni,1445 Balboa Avenue;spoke: • The bedroom deck is larger than either of the two bedrooms;the elevator shaft leads directly to the deck;suggested that the owners of the home would use the deck more frequently,impacting privacy of the adjacent property to the left. • Is a beautiful house,but it belongs on a 5-acre lot nearer to Los Angeles;doesn't belong in the Burlingame Hills;the story poles confirmed the height of the proposed structure above the property to the left. • Felt that the findings for the requested height Variance cannot be made; reviewed the findings. There are other alternatives to the site and project design. • Will decrease the value of the property to the left by$150,000-$400,000. • Cited the significant difference in the size of the home versus the existing homes within the area. • A smaller version of the house would be a more marketable project. • Requested that the applicant explore other design alternatives. • The configuration of the property makes it difficult to develop;this is not the fault of the developer; how can the problem be best resolved. • The prior design was too forced on the lot;it was suggested at that time that the design follow the form of the lot. • Feels it is a good design. • The only problem in meeting the zoning requirements is the height;there is no good solution,but the current proposal is the best solution. Landscape screening will minimize impacts on the neighbor. • There is a large old Oak tree in front of Gall's property;should be protected during construction. • Suggested a smaller home to be more marketable and to reduce impacts. • The design impacts privacy of the neighbors,even three(3)properties away from the site. • This is more than double the maximum height allowed. Looks like a high-rise building;there is a huge potential to impact the privacy of neighbors. • The design is out of character with the neighborhood. Shefsky's property is two(2)stories;no Variances were requested. • The applicant is agreeable to providing screening on the right side. • Also open to providing a green roof system. • Sooner or later,something will likely be built on the property;should the neighbors decide to appeal the Planning Commission's approval;would the City Council be bound to use the same rules applied to properties lying within the City of Burlingame? • The Planning Commission is sensitive to privacy issues;some of the issues raised by the neighbors are overblown. Applicant rebuttal by Alex Mortazavi: • Is not an office building;the Variance is caused by the method of measuring height in Burlingame; the measurement is taken from the curb line;the house follows the terrain of the lot. • Has owned the property for 20-years. • The solar panels on adjacent properties are irrelevant;they lie to the south of the property and will not be impacted by the new home. • The access to the deck from the elevator can be eliminated,if desired. • The style of architecture in the neighborhood is mixed. The prior proposal was presented a year ago;current project is less visible. CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes March 9, 2009 ■ Real estate agents have their own opinions regarding impacts upon property values. ■ The design of the house steps up the hill and adds to the cost of the construction due to the amoun, of circulation space necessary within the residence. ■ Were surprised that the neighbor encroaches upon the property with retaining walls and gates. ■ The hardship is that the lot contains one-half acre; are preserving the trees on the property; this is only a two-story building. ■ The block's average setback also creates a hardship. ■ Have minimized impacts upon the neighbors; every adjustment affects one of the neighbors; there must be a compromise; the project can't be made invisible. ■ Having a $3 million home next to a property will increase the value of the adjacent properties. ■ The Commission is aware of the efforts that have been made by the applicant. Additional Commission comments: ■ Concerned that bedrooms 2 and 3 are problematic elements in the design; there is a certain realty that has to be accepted; the Commission is responsible for finding compromises. Has the applicant looked at shifting the mass of the bedroom to the other side of the building (Mortazavi — has looked at this alternative. Considered flipping the floor plan, but ends up impacting mature trees, particularly due to the driveway location. Would also disturb the Shefsky property even more. Can't cantilever the bedrooms; would need to expand the family room and add to the bulk of the property and impact trees. Have communicated with the neighbors and made attempts to address neighbors' interests). ■ Regarding the screening on the south side; how tall are the trees (Mortazavi — drawn at 14-feet, but will grow to 25-feet). The tree will work better as a screen if it is taller (Mortazavi — staggering the trees will also help to screen). ■ Continuing the mass on the south side would have a greater impact than the current design. ■ Noted that a cool, concrete color will help to disguise the mass. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further Commission comments: ■ The applicant has taken the direction of the Planning Commission well; is a good design. ■ The trees being installed on the property will provide a lot of screening. ■ Has demonstrated that the house will be well screened from Adeline Drive. Commissioner Auran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: Reduce deck to 8-foot depth from the front facade. Tree protection for Oak across the street. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: ■ Concern is more with the width of the deck as it impacts the neighbor to the left, consider reducing the width rather than the depth. ■ Consider revising the motion to reduce width of deck by 50% instead of 8-foot depth reduction. ■ Clarified that the Commission never voted on the prior application. -� ■ The challenges created on the property are due to the topography. 8 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 9, 2009 ■ There was always an acknowledgement that there would be a Variance of some sort required for development of the property. ■ The story poles have demonstrated the potential impacts; the home is in excess of 6,000 square feet; the design is nearly acceptable, but not yet; the impacts of the bedrooms can be mitigated by placing them on the first floor. ■ Commissioner Brownrigg indicated that he couldn't support the current project as designed, without mitigating the mass more; there is no need for the deck off of the bedroom. ■ Applicant commended on the design of the building;moved in this direction at the suggestion of the Planning Commission;has addressed the concerns of the neighbors to a large degree;though there is still some impact on the LaBrie property. ■ Would like the deck off of the bedroom eliminated. ■ Hard to touch rooms to the ground with this type of design; the decks are an important element of the design and the livability of the house. ■ The screening proposed by the applicant should work to address neighbor impacts; there are actually few windows on the left wall of the residence. ■ The house is already set back quite a distance from the left property line. ■ The design in general is well worked out; has been studied by the applicant. ■ Maker of motion indicated a willingness to eliminate the deck off of the bedroom; agreed to by the second of the motion. ■ Planting plan for trees along the left side of the property should return to the Commission as an FYI. 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Division date stamped January 27, 2009, sheets A02 through A09, and date stamped December 2, 2008, sheets A00 through A01 c, A10 through A16 and Preliminary Grading and Drainage Plan; 2. that the deck lying adjacent to bedrooms 2 and 3 shall be eliminated from the design; 3. that tree protection measures shall be implemented for the Oak tree across the street from the property(near 2838 Adeline Drive)during project construction;to the satisfaction of the City Arborist; 4. that the planting plan for the trees to be located along the left side of the structure shall be presented to the Planning Commission as an FYI, prior to issuance of a Building Permit; 5. that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes,windows, architectural features, roof height or pitch, and amount or type of hardscape materials shall be subject to Planning Division or Planning Commission review (FYI or amendment to be determined by Planning staff); 6. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), shall require an amendment to this permit; 7. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the Special Permit and Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 8. that the property owner shall be responsible for implementing and maintaining all tree protection measures as defined in the arborist report by Peninsula Tree Care Inc. and date stamped by the Planning Department on June 30, 2008; 9. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's July 2, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's July 22, 2008 memo,the Fire Marshal's July 7, 2008 memo, the City Arborist's July 30, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's July 7, 2008 memo shall be met; 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 9, 2009 10. that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the sitrl shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required t(- comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 11. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 12. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 13. 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; 14. that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance, to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 15. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 16. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection, a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building footprint and certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s)based on the elevation at the top of the form boards per the approved plans; this survey shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 17. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer,or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 18. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and 19. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. 10 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 9, 2009 Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-1 (Commissioner _ Brownrigg dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8.42 p.m. 4. 3105 MARGARITA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MAIN AND LOWER LEVEL ADDITION (MIKE KERWIN AND AMY PENTICOFF-KERWIN, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; AND JOHN MANISCALCO, ARCHITECT) PROJECT PLANNER: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated March 9, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen (13) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi noted that this agenda report was not in his packet; he was not able to review the report and visit the site. Commissioner Brownrigg indicated that he would abstain from voting since he sits on the Green Ribbon Task Force with the applicant. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Kelton Dissel, 1501 Waller Street; represented the applicant. ■ The proposed amendment affects the downhill side of the property. ■ Homeowner decided to retain the existing wall and footing on the left side of the property; affected the side setbacks by a few inches. Commission comments: ■ None. Public comments: Frank Sulgit, 1560 Los Montes Drive; Brian Murphy, 3101 Margarita Drive; Helaine Darling, 3100 Margarita Drive; and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; spoke: ■ Questioned the credibility of the Building Inspections Division; what else may be missed in the construction? ■ Two signs are present on the property, this is over the limit of what is allowed; is this due to the applicant's membership on the Green Ribbon Task Force(Brownrigg—the signage on the property has nothing to do with his membership on the Green Ribbon Task Force. Terrones—feels that the Building Division staff takes every measure to ensure that projects are built according to plans; appears that the existing wall was perfectly good to use). ■ Requested two conditions of approval that should be tightened up. Would like to make sure that there are significant retaining walls between the properties that should remain in place; the existing fence should be repaired/replaced in exactly the same position. ■ On the left side setback Variance; took away a significant portion of the existing bedroom; measures very close to what it should be; there is a significant difference at the rear; appears to be 4' 6"; as part of Condition 11, require a survey of the property; need to have the true setbacks reflected (Lindstrom/Terrones —feel a survey should be required. Auran — if survey demonstrates that the fence is not on the property line, would not be comfortable with proposed change to Condition 3). ■ Feels that the wall defining the bedroom on the lower level has"crept"closer to the left property line. Clarified that Murphy(property owner to left)wishes to have fence installed in the same location as 11 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 9, 2009 existing fence (Terrones — clarified that survey would run the risk of causing relocation of thr retaining wall and fence closer to the Murphy property). ■ With respect to the basement steps; were demolished and relocated to within 6-inches to 1-foot of the property line; are not located where they are shown on the plans. ■ Provided photos to the Planning Commission showing signs present on the property that are the source of some neighbor objections; signs exceed limits(Meeker—will pass the information along to the Code Enforcement Officer for investigation). ■ Not supportive of applicants that build aspects of a project that require changes; though this project was contentious. ■ Why were changes made and built well in advance of requesting approval of the changes? The applicant had a responsibility to apply for the changes in advance of making the changes. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ The applicant is executing the original intent of the design; caught by a set of circumstances where a couple of inches create a violation of the original approval. ■ Agrees with requiring the fence to be located on the property line, regardless of where it is currently situated. • With respect to Condition 11; not supportive of requiring a survey. Commissioner Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions.- 1. onditions:1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department dat stamped February 24, 2009 (Sheets A2.1, A2.3, A3.1, and A3.3) and March 28, 2008 (Sheets A1.0, Al.1, A2.0, A2.2, A2.4, A2.5, and A3.2) (date stamped "Augur z007)and Sheets A1.0, °!T,r r°2.3 A2..5, A3— , A3.3 (date stamped OGtsber1',2007�-and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit. 2. that the fence on the left side of the property, adjacent to the neighbor, shall be repaired or replaced at the same location it currently exists, unless a survey is prepared that demonstrates that it is not located on the property line, in which case, it shall be located on the property line; 3. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's August 22, 2007 memo, the City Engineer's March 26, 2007 memo, the Fire Marshal's March 27, 2007 memo, the City Arborist's October 16, 2007 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's March 23, 2007 memo shall be met; 4. that the fence between 3101 Margarita Avenue and 3105 Margarita Avenue shall be repaired; that the applicant shall prepare plans for the repair and/or replacement of the downhill neighbor's fence; and shall submit these plans as an FYI to the Planning Commission; 5. that the applicant and neighbors work with the City Arborist to identify the appropriate species and optimal location for the three (3) replacement trees to be planted on the property to ensure that the trees do not grow to a height greater than 15-feet and that they are placed anywhere on the property that will not adversely impact views from the uphill property; 12 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 9, 2009 6. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date the front and side setback �. variances, as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here, will become void; 7. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 8. that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 9. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 10. 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; 11. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET DURING THE BUILDING INSPECTION PROCESS PRIOR TO THE INSPECTIONS NOTED IN EACH CONDITION 12. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection the project architect or residential designer,or another architect or residential design professional, shall provide an architectural certification that the architectural details shown in the approved design which should be evident at framing, such as window locations and bays, are built as shown on the approved plans; architectural certification documenting framing compliance with approved design shall be submitted to the Building Division before the final framing inspection shall be scheduled; 13. that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; and 14. that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials, window type, etc.) to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: ■ Minor dimensional discrepancies have occurred; this is not uncommon when working with an existing structure. ■ If there are additional revisions to the landscape plan they will need to be brought back to the Planning Commission for approval. ■ Can support rebuilding the fence in the existing location. ■ Maker of the motion clarified that fence should be rebuilt in the existing location;seconder of motion expressed concern with this addition. 13 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 9, 2009 ■ The site plan shows the existing building corner as originally shown. — ■ Clarify that fence shall be built at the existing location, unless a survey shows otherwise, in whict, case, it shall be placed on the property line. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg abstained). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9.16 p.m. 5. 1008—1028 CAROLAN AVENUE&1007-1025 ROLLINS ROAD,ZONED C-2-PROPOSAL TO AMEND THE TEXT OF THE GENERAL PLAN TO ADD A DESCRIPTION OF THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS COMMERCIAL AREA AND TO ADD MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AS AN ALTERNATIVE LAND USE, AND TO AMEND TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD AN R-4 OVERLAY FOR CERTAIN C-2 ZONED PROPERTIES IN THE CAROLAN/ROLLINS ROAD COMMERCIAL AREA TO ALLOW MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL USES AS A CONDITIONAL USE (HOUSING ELEMENT IMPLEMENTATION) (92 NOTICED AND NEWSPAPER NOTICE—SAN MATEO COUNTY TIMES 2/13/09) STAFF CONTACT: MAUREEN BROOKS (CONTINUED FROMFEBRUARY 23, 2009 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) Reference staff report dated March 9, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: ■ None. — Public comments: ■ None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Auran moved to recommend adoption of the amendments to the City Council. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Vistica. Discussion of motion: ■ None. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend adoption of the amendments to the City Council. The motion passed 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. Commissioner Brownrigg recused himself from participating with respect to Item 6 (1531 Columbus Avenue), since he lives within 500-feet of the site. He left the Council Chambers. 14 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 9, 2009 'X. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 6. 1531 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ROBERT MEDAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND KONRAD AND CHRISTINA HABELT, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report dated March 9, 2009, with attachments. Associate Planner Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Commission comments: ■ Clarified the exemption from lot coverage (Strohmeier—24-inch encroachment is allowed). Christina Habelt, 1509 Balboa Avenue; and Robert Medan, 1936 Los Altos Drive, San Mateo; represented the applicant. Additional Commission comments: ■ Asked if the chimney will be stuccoed (Medan —yes). ■ Clarified that either simulated true divided light windows, or true divided light windows will be required (Medan —will be simulated true divided light windows). ■ A roof over the rear doors would be a good addition (Medan — agreed to change). ■ Complemented the design. ■ Call out the materials, e.g. spark arrestor and attic vent. ■ Accepted deletion of rail on rear if the Building Official agrees to the change. ■ It would be helpful to have additional windows on the wall of the kitchen (Habelt—noted that light will be coming from the dining room. Lindstrom —will be difficult to provide windows at that location; could add other architectural features to break up the wall; otherwise will affect ability to provide cabinets). ■ With respect to the light well; have steps to yard been considered (Medan — doesn't expect to be walking into the area). ■ May wish to identify on the landscape plan that there is a planting area around the light well. Public comments: ■ None. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Vistica made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion.- None. otion.None. 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION- Unapproved Minutes March 9, 2009 Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans havc been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg recused). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:34 p.m. Commissioner Brownrigg returned to the dais. 7. 1350 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 -APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND HOLLY ROGERS AND RICHARD SCHOUSTRA, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 9, 2009, with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Cauchi opened the public comment period. Randy Grange, 205 Park Road; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ On right elevation, clarified that area below deck will be covered with wood paneling and there will be access windows under the deck. ■ Asked for description of the painted wood vent in the gable end (Grange-the tree small slots are the actual vent pieces, with a piece of trim across the top). - ■ Nice application. ■ Will the driveway be replaced (Grange - not now, but will do landscaping enhancements in the future). Public comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke: ■ Likes that it a remodel of an existing house; architect did a good job with the design. ■ The driveway is useable, except for large vehicles. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner Brownrigg made a motion to place the item on the Consent Calendar when complete. This motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: ■ Applauded keeping the wood shake roof. Chair Cauchi called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the Consent Calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:42 p.m. 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 9, 2009 Y. COMMISSIONERS' REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports. Xl. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ Community Development Director Meeker requested Commission direction regarding an upcoming discussion of an amendment to the City's demolition ordinance. The Commission directed that the discussion be placed on the March 23, 2009 agenda. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of March 2, 2009: ■ None. FYI: 1800 Davis Drive— changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Accepted. FYI: 1324 Montero Avenue— as built changes to a previously approved Design Review project: Accepted. FYI: Peninsula Hospital Complaint Log — February 2009: N Accepted. FYI: 2009-2014 Draft Housing Element— changes to the draft document based on Commission and public comment: 0 Accepted. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stanley Vistica, Secretary 17 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 'URLI NGAME Monday, March 23, 2009 — 7:00 P.M . City Council Chambers — 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California i. CALL TO ORDER Chair Cauchi called the March 23, 2009, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p. m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg , Cauchi , Lindstrom , Terrones, Vistica and Yie Absent: None Staff Present: Community Development Director, William Meeker; Associate Planner Lisa Whitman; and City Attorney, Gus Guinan III. MINUTES Commissioner Auran moved, seconded by Commissioner Terrones to approve the minutes of the March 9, 2009 regular meeting of the Planning Commission, with the following changes: ■ Page 7, second bullet under "Applicant rebuttal by Alex Mortazavi';. change "20-years" to "10-years". ■ Page 16, Item 7, first bullet under "Commission Comments" replace "windows" with "doors". Motion passed 7-0. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Community Development Director Meeker noted a correction to an entry on the Agenda; under Item 4, fourth line following "Whitman" delete "owners; and John Maniscalco, architect" . There were no other changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke: ■ Noted construction project across street from her home; the property owner placed the dumpster on his property to prevent neighborhood impacts. Whenever possible, require the placement of the dumpster for projects on the property rather than on the street to reduce neighborhood impacts and prevent street damage. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1 . 1212 DONNELLY AVENUE, ZONED C-19 SUBAREA B-1 , BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL DISTRICT — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITAND PARKING VARIANCE FORA FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (FRANK KIM, APPLICANT; DAY FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP, ET AL. , PROPERTY OWNER AND BRIAN MILFORD ARCHITECT) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 23, 2009 Associate Planner Whitman presented a summary of the staff report, dated March 23, 2009. Commission comments: ■ Why is the Variance not for 8 spaces, rather than 4 spaces (Whitman — a Variance was granted in 1999 for the first 4 spaces, now requesting 4 additional spaces for the intensification of use. Meeker— noted that the approach is similar to providing a credit for parking for a non-conforming use, but requiring a Variance for an incremental increase). ■ A bit uncomfortable about the inconsistency in the collection of in-lieu fees; is there a way to differentiate businesses required to pay the fee, based upon revenue, or make the payment of an in- lieu fee payable over a number of years (Meeker—will discuss this with the City Attorney. Perhaps look at the "pedestrian character" of the business). ■ The need for the additional 4 spaces seems to be generated by the number of seats; can this be adjusted? ■ What would be required as a food establishment versus as a retail use; and how would a distinction be made by the Health Department? ■ The applicant is correct; much of the business will come from shoppers already in the area and will not result in increased traffic to the area; the Variance is appropriate for this reason. ■ Has the applicant considered that the rear area could be used for team parties after events; could reach out to the community to enhance the success of the business; though this would also have to be considered a greater intensification and be included in the Variance request. ■ Can support the request. ■ A yogurt shop generates more activity than an art gallery. ■ Staff should consider developing a definition for a "destination" business. ■ Look at creating a policy distinction for waiver of the Parking In-Lieu Fee. _ This item was set for the regularAction Calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7.-15 p.m. 2. PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO SECTION 18.07.065 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO PERMIT THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR TO GRANT CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE REQUIREMENT TO CONCURRENTLY GRANT DEMOLITION PERMITS WITH BUILDING PERMITS FOR A NEW NON-RESIDENTIAL PROJECT STAFF CONTACT: WILLIAM MEEKER Community Development Director Meeker presented a summary of the staff report, dated March 23, 2009. Commission comments: ■ Include a requirement that the applicant for a priority demolition permit provide the Burlingame Historic Society two weeks to provide a report on the property's potential significance, prior to authorizing demolition. ■ If building permit is not pulled for new project, the demolition permit fee should be forfeited. ■ Clarified that Planning entitlements would be required before consideration of the demolition permit could be considered. ■ Concerned that the Historic Society requirement could be an undue delay, given that all other entitlements have been received (Meeker—clarified that, pursuant to CEQA, where applicable, the historic assessment would have been conducted prior to entitlements. CEQA does not apply to ministerial projects). ■ Regarding "under penalty of perjury"; what is meant, what are the ramifications (Guinan—a greater penalty; can lead to prosecution by the City; could be a maximum fine levied). _ 2 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 23, 2009 ■ Obtaining a building permit within 60-days may be"tight"; perhaps more time is required, particularly for larger projects. ■ Disconnect between item c4 and the later language requiring the site to be cleaned, secured and landscaped; look at the language and modify as necessary for consistency. ■ Are there instances where something could fall through the cracks (Meeker— explained that he could not immediately think of an example; CEQA is applicable to discretionary projects; compliance with any permitting processes required by the Zoning Ordinance is required in advance of making a request for the demolition permit). The Commission's comments will be forwarded to the City Council for the April 6, 2009 public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed amendment. This item concluded at 7:33 p.m. VI1. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar- Items on the Consent Calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a Commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Cauchi asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. Commissioner Brownrigg indicated that he would abstain from voting on Item 4b, since he lives within 500- feet of the subject property Chair Cauchi asked for individual motions on each of the Consent Calendar items. 4a. 1350 COLUMBUS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPEAND PARKING VARIANCES FORA FIRSTAND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND HOLLY ROGERS AND RICHARD SCHOUSTRA PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Brownrigg moved approval of Item 4a, based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Yie. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. 4b. 1531 COLUMBUS AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING ATTACHED GARAGE FORA FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (ROBERT MEDAN, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; AND KONRAD AND CHRISTINA HABELT, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: ERICA STROHMEIER Commissioner Terrones moved approval of Item 4b, based on the facts in the staff report, Commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report, with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Lindstrom. Chair Cauchi called fora voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner Brownrigg abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:34 p.m. 3 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 23, 2009 VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 5. 3008 RIVERA DRIVE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SINGLE STORYADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (UNA KINSELLA, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; AND JOHN AND FRIEDA RADZYMINSKI, PROPERTY OWNERS) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated March 23, 2009,with attachments. Associate Planner Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eight (8) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. John and Frieda Radzyminski, 3008 Rivera Drive; and Una Kinsella, 1033 Paloma Avenue; represented the applicant. Commission comments: ■ Commended applicants on the design and the increase in permeable surfaces. ■ Concern regarding the Variance; what will be seen at the most prominent location is cars in the driveway; will be a visual impact on the neighborhood; garage could be located on the other side of the lot; would work fine as a plan (Kinsella—position of garage is ideal for the setting of the house, prevents having to re-build a garage; the garage is located further back from the curb than other similarly designed properties in the area; location makes fagade more interesting. Three distinct garden areas are created by the design, decreasing impervious surfaces. Encourages off-street _ parking. Design promotes more privacy for the bedrooms and better light and ventilation. F Radzyminski—there is a lot of traffic on the street; cars don't see them when they are backing out of the current driveway; the redesign, as shown, will be more visible). ■ Proposed garage location works well; is shielded from corner by new landscaping. ■ Like the garage location; is a better use of the site. ■ Likes the comparison of pervious versus impervious surfaces; can this be a requirement for new projects. ■ The fact that a Variance is required shows that the garage is too close to the street. ■ Seems that it might be more helpful to look at the setback in relation to the setback across the street because of the curve. Public comments: ■ None There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: ■ Likes the application; should be a Special Permit, not a Variance. ■ There is a better place to site the garage. ■ Thinks that the manner of placement of the garage and driveway is typical for the neighborhood, compelled by the applicant's argument. ■ Concerned about having a garage located remotely from the front door; having the garage off to the other side would promote more parking on the street. ■ Unique conditions exist for the property; in addition to the existing pattern of the neighborhood. 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 23, 2009 ■ There is also a financial hardship to relocating the entire garage; the current design is fairly easy to implement. Commissioner Lindstrom moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 25, 2009, sheets CS and A-1 through A-4, and that any changes to footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's September 12, 2008 memo, the City Engineer's September 15, 2008 memo, the Fire Marshal's September 16, 2008 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's September 15, 2008 memo shall be met; 3. that if the structure is demolished or the envelope changed at a later date, the Hillside Area Construction Permit and Front Setback Variance as well as any other exceptions to the code granted here will become void; 4. that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5. that prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of the project, the project construction plans shall be modified to include a cover sheet listing all conditions of approval adopted by the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; which shall remain a part of all sets of approved plans throughout the construction process. Compliance with all conditions of approval is required; the conditions of approval shall not be modified or changed without the approval of the Planning Commission, or City Council on appeal; 6. that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7. that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial orfull demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; and 8. that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2007 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran. Discussion of motion: ■ None Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-1 (Commissioner Vistica dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:50 p.m. 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION— Unapproved Minutes March 23, 2009 6. 3202 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW ANI:' _ HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR CHANGES TOA PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MAIN ANL LOWER LEVEL ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (FARIBA MOKHHTARI KARCHGANI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND NGHI THANH LE, DESIGNER) STAFF CONTACT: LISA WHITMAN Reference staff report dated March 23, 2009,with attachments. Associate Planner Whitman presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen (15) conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Raymond Babaoghli; represented the applicant. ■ Brought a sample of the cultured stone installed on the property; the design approved by the Commission was too busy. Change of stone is the only major change proposed. ■ Felt that the window grids were making the house too "congested" and not pleasing. ■ Felt that matching the column treatment would be more pleasing and would prevent the wood columns from rotting. Commission comments: ■ Will the finished grade be brought up to the level of the bottom of the cultured stone (Babaoghli — the stone meets the ground now, and the area has been landscaped). ■ Is the stone installation finished (Babaoghli —thought that they could choose from a selection in a catalog; the approved design showed grout lines that would show the underlayment). ■ Indicated that the stone to be installed on the lower level has not been installed (Babaoghli—will b( installed). ■ The design eliminates the capital and base on the columns; liked the detail of the original design.As built, the columns don't have a start and a stop; taper design of the previously approved columns looked better. ■ The elimination of the mullions from the windows is acceptable. ■ Disappointed by the changes proposed; the rear elevation really suffers. ■ The shift in the type of stone is acceptable; however, the water table has been brought up to the window sill, not as shown on the plans; this appears too heavy. The water table has become a wainscot. ■ Must acknowledge on the proposed plans the change in the stone work, and also the change in the location of the window near the garage that is now tucked up under the eave. ■ Asked if the front door has also changed (Babaoghli — yes, changed from single door to double door. Installed what was approved but it made the front hall very dark). ■ On the original approved plans, there was wood trim over the windows (Babaoghli—was suggested to use stucco foam). Public comments: ■ None. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Additional Commission comments: 6 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION-Unapproved Minutes March 23,2009 • Recalled that the project has always been a struggle;we directed applicant away from stucco foam �- trim on the windows;no problem with elimination of muntins on the windows;but concerned with the timing of the changes that have been made. • Not offended by the cultured stone that has been presented. • It likely the best that the project will get. • There is no reason that bases and capitals could not be provided on columns. • The water table should be lowered and embellished with a top piece. • The entry doors are glass,not wood as shown. • The location of the window near the garage has been changed. • Need drawings that accurately reflect what has been done,and showing additional changes that are requested. • Concerned about the applicant making changes,then asking for forgiveness;the applicant has a contract with the City to build what has been approved. • Cultured stone sills should remain. Commissioner Cauchi moved to continue the item with direction to the applicant to make changes to the plans as indicated during the Commission's discussion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Terrones. Discussion of motion: • None Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0. The Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:14 p.m. 7. 1150 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA -APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN INCREASE TO SEATING AREA,HOURS OF OPERATION AND EMPLOYEES FOR REPLACEMENT OF AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (DICKSON CONSULTING GROUP,APPLICANTAND DESIGNER;AND KJ NICKMEG LLC,PROPERTY OWNER) STAFF CONTACT: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report dated March 23,2009,with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen(15)conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing. Commission comments: • What are the hours of operation of other restaurants in the area? • Why was the item brought forward without study(Meeker-is considered to be an amendment to an existing Conditional Use Permit). • How will garbage pickup be accomplished? • Will deliveries come through the front or rear? • Where will employees take breaks;this has been a problem in the past? • There is a lot of storage in the alley;if this is a fire exit,could be a problem. • How is fire exiting handled;review this with the Fire Department. • What type of leverage does the City have to require the property to be clean,and to maintain alley access? 7 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes March 23, 2009 ■ Concerned about 350 people per day at the location given the limited parking in the area. ■ Is there any way to see if there have been complaints regarding noise from the prior restaurant; thy. restaurant is placed further into the residential neighborhood; could be a problem. ■ Concerned about proposed hours of operation because of location in a more residential area. ■ Observed that much of the prior restaurant's customers were brought in by tour buses; this impacted the neighborhood. John Lau, 5616 Geary Boulevard, San Francisco and Jim Ma; represented the applicant. Additional Commission comments: ■ Where will employees take their breaks (Lau — in employee locker room)? ■ Concerned about placing employee breaks at the rear of the property. Public comments: Richard Graham, 1137 Paloma Avenue and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke: ■ He (Graham) is the president of the local home owners' association; he is concerned about the hours of operation. ■ Is a unique property because it is surrounded by housing. ■ Concerned about the restaurant being open until 11 p.m.; residential uses exist on three sides and could be impacted by the business. ■ Concerned about the impact of tour buses upon the neighborhood; can anything be done to prevent them; they block the street while loading and unloading; also causes noise issue as cars honk in _ effort to pass. ■ Patrons associated with tours visiting the prior restaurant would enter private properties and smoke and litter; had to call the police on numerous occasions. ■ Parking is also a significant problem; people constantly double-park and block driveways (Lau — don't intend to allow tour buses; want to appeal to local residents; tour buses be prohibited as a condition of approval. Can re-consider hours of operation. Can work with the homeowners' association). ■ Regarding breaks and break rooms; generally, there are no breaks during busy times; breaks are whenever they can be accommodated; staff will step outside of the restaurant, not in a break room. ■ Staff takes meals in the kitchen or in the dining room; floor space is set aside for business, not for employees. ■ Will not get a break room, unless demanded; but will create a hardship for the business owner. ■ Questioned having 350 persons after 5 p.m. The floor space is extraordinarily large; and will accommodate a large amount of people. ■ Look closely at the business plan for the new restaurant. Further Commission comments: ■ Are owners willing to consider more restrictive hours on weekdays and Sundays? ■ Are they willing to prohibit tour buses (Ma — yes). ■ Where will employees take breaks (Ma — in the locker room). ■ On Sheet A1 .3, in the middle of the VIP room, it looks like there is a steel column in the middle of the room; shouldn't there be a more aesthetic solution to the design of the room; concerned about lack of detail on the application. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 8 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION-Unapproved Minutes March 23,2009 �- More Commission comments: • Restrict or prohibit tour buses. • Modify the hours of operation;have applicant consider changes,in light of the comments of the neighbor and proximity to residential properties. • Look at a means of addressing employee breaks. • How will deliveries be handled? • Look at fire exiting through the gate to the alley;the area is also used as a seating area for II Piccolo,though it is a public property. • How will garbage removal be handled? • The applicant needs to be certain that the alley is weed and vegetation free on his property;Code Enforcement and the Fire Department need to review this. • There should be some sort of area for the employees to smoke(and to discard waste)and provide something at the front of the building as well. • The applicant has pulled the rear exit away from the alley,consider placing receptacles in that area. • Consider kitchen odors and impact on the neighbors;look at the general quality of the area around and within the restaurant;consider venting. • Suggested that the applicant reach out to the neighborhood prior to returning to the Commission. Commissioner We moved to continue the item with direction to the applicant to make changes to the plans as indicated during the Commission's discussion. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Brownrigg. Discussion of motion: • Appreciated the work that has been put into the application;the new business will likely be a better neighbor that the prior restaurant. Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed 7-0. The Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. X. COMMISSIONERS'REPORTS Commissioner Brownrigg provided an overview of the selection process regarding public art for the Mills- Peninsula Hospital project;including an overview of concepts presented by artists identified as finalists in the selection process. Public comment: Pat Giorni,1445 Balboa Avenue and Stephen Hamilton,105 Crescent Avenue,spoke: • Likes the Camozzi trees, but also likes the Hatcher landscape sculpture; also likes the Douwe seagulls. Use the Library display and e-newsletter to elicit public input. • Asked about the public involvement process;what opportunities will the public have to provide commentary(Brownrigg-still working on the best way to engage the public). Commission comments: t 9 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes March 23, 2009 ■ Commissioners noted a preference for the designs by Douwe and Camozzi; with some support fo _ the Powell and Hatcher designs. ■ Expressed concern about ensuring that the final design is vandal-proof. ■ Be certain to provide dramatic lighting. ■ The preferred designs promote public interaction with the piece. XI. DIRECTOR'S REPORT Commission Communications: ■ Project at 2843 Adeline Drive has been appealed; a public hearing will likely be scheduled for April 20, 2009. ■ Thanked Commissioners for attending the March 21 , 2009 annual Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting. Actions from Regular City Council meeting of March 16, 2009: ■ Amendment to the Demolition Ordinance was introduced, and a public hearing scheduled forApril 6, 2009. ■ Reviewed the draft 2009 Housing Element; and authorized its submission to the California Department of Housing and Community Development for review in advance of City adoption. Other discussion: ■ Discussed the Commission's and staff's workload during the upcoming year; specifically discusse the variety of long-range planning projects on the work program and how the work would be accomplished. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Cauchi adjourned the meeting at 9: 14 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Stanley Vistica, Secretary POLICE DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME City of Burlingame Jack L.Van Etten Chief of Police March 18,2009 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Police Department statistics and highlights for the month of February, 2009 DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS: -One new recruit officer was hired and a position reduction is being funded with the state COPS grant -Two new officers are currently in the FTO Program(14 weeks) -Two officers failed to meet probationary standards and have left the department -One sworn officer(17 months)remains out on long-term leave;a dispatcher(29 months)is returning to duty -Neighborhood Watch presentations continue(upon community request) -Citizen crime identification system"Crimereports.com"is in place;RapidNotify(a reverse 911 notification system)is currently in use by the police department, CCFD and PW -BPD continues it involvement with the County Gang Task Force which is currently in maintenance mode throughout the winter/spring months -Reported Part 1 crimes in Burlingame in 2009 are down(13 7)compared to(174)the same time last year; while Part 2 crimes in 2009 are down slightly(354)compared to the same time last year(358). Our community should NEVER take safety for granted. We have seen a decrease in reported crimes for the past several years, due to the diligence of our police department. However,with the downturn in the economy and unemployment,crime will certainly be on the rise at some point in time in all communities,as well as ours TRAFFIC MATTERS: -Moving citations continue to increase(1,085)this year over the same period last year(804). This is due to specialized traffic motorcycle officer enforcement, selective enforcement of problem areas by patrol officers and new officers; all of which are committed to our community's safety -Parking citation totals have increased by approximately(6,634)for this year,compared to the same time period for last year(6,045) -Red Light photo enforcement is in the testing phase and has been installed at ECR and Broadway -The pilot daytime parking permit program continues without any major problems or issues MONTHLY STATISTICS: -Please remember that the monthly police department report is displayed in both numbers and percentages. When reviewing the police department report remember to consider the actual numbers of various crime categories in conjunction with the percentages. Kindly feel frentact me if you have any questions. ief J Van Etten ` Burlingame Police Department 1111 Trousdale Drive-Post Office Box 551 -Burlingame,California 94011-0551 -(650)777-4100-Fax(650)697-8130 03-18-09 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1 FOR: FEBRUARY, 2009 - Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change % Change Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 Manslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 Rape By Force 0 1 1 2 -1 -50.00 Attempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery Firearm 0 0 3 1 2 200.00 Robbery Knife 1 1 1 1 0 0.00 Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery Strong-Arm 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Assault - Firearm 0 0 0 0 0 Assault - Knife 0 0 0 0 0 Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 4 1 8 2 6 300.00 Assault - Hands,Fists,Feet 2 0 2 2 0 0.00 Assault - Other (Simple) 6 10 17 19 -2 -10.53 Burglary - Forcible Entry 1 8 5 15 -10 -66.67 Burglary - Unlawful Entry 2 4 8 17 -9 -52.94 Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 1 0 1 3 -2 -66.67 Larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Purse-Snatching 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Larceny Shoplifting 5 0 9 4 5 125.00 Larceny From Motor Vehicle 17 12 37 43 -6 -13.95 Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 5 9 10 21 -11 -52.38 Larceny Bicycles 3 2 3 4 -1 -25.00 Larceny From Building 5 6 15 13 2 15.38 Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny All Other 5 2 11 8 3 37.50 Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 5 3 6 9 -3 -33.33 Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 0 5 0 6 -6 -100.00 Motor Vehicle Theft Other 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 ------- ------ ------ ------ 62 65 137 174 ------- ------ ------ ------ 62 65 137 174 03-18-09 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: FEBRUARY, 2009 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change Change All Other Offenses 39 24 80 61 19 31.15 Animal Abuse 0 0 0 0 0 Animal Nuisance 0 0 0 0 0 Arson 0 0 0 4 -4 -100.00 Assists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Bigamy 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Offense 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Threat 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Bribery 0 0 0 0 0 Check Offenses 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Child Neglect/prot custody 4 2 7 8 -1 -12.50 Computer Crime 0 0 0 0 0 Conspiracy 0 0 0 0 0 Credit Card Offenses 2 1 4 1 3 300.00 Cruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 0 0 0 Curfew and Loitering Laws 1 0 1 0 1 Death Investigation 4 4 6 6 0 0.00 Disorderly Conduct 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Driver's License Violations 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Driving Under the Influence 6 15 16 21 -5 -23.81 Drug Abuse Violations 0 2 6 3 3 100.00 Drug/Sex Registrants/Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Drunkeness 1 2 2 4 -2 -50.00 Embezzlement 1 1 2 1 1 100.00 Escape 0 0 0 0 0 Extortion 0 0 0 0 0 False Police Reports 0 0 0 0 0 False Reports of Emergency 0 0 0 0 0 Fish and Game Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Forgery and Counterfeiting 4 5 7 8 -1 -12.50 Found Property 6 8 9 16 -7 -43.75 Fraud 1 2 2 3 -1 -33.33 Gambling 0 0 0 0 0 Harrassing Phone Calls 1 0 2 1 1 100.00 03-18-09 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: FEBRUARY, 2009 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change & Change Hit and Run Accidents 2 3 3 4 -1 -25.00 Impersonation 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Incest 0 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 0 0 0 0 0 Intimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 Lewd Conduct 0 0 0 0 0 Liquor Laws 10 0 11 0 11 Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 Marijuana Violations 3 1 5 3 2 66.67 Mental Health Cases 8 6 21 13 8 61.54 Missing Person 0 2 4 3 1 33.33 Missing Property 3 5 9 11 -2 -18.18 Municipal Code Violations 4 5 6 10 -4 -40.00 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Offenses Against Children 0 1 1 1 0 0.00 Other Assaults 6 10 17 19 -2 -10.53 Other Juvenile Offenses 1 2 1 4 -3 -75.00 Other Police Service 1 5 2 8 -6 -75.00 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 0 0 1 2 -1 -50.00 Perjury 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of Burglary Tools 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0 Probation Violations 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 0 0 0 Prowling 1 0 3 0 3 Resisting Arrest 0 2 0 2 -2 -100.00 Restraining Orders 0 0 0 0 0 Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0 Sex Offenses 0 0 0 0 0 Sex Offenses against Children 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 Stalking 0 0 0 0 0 03-18-09 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 CITY REPORT FOR: FEBRUARY, 2009 Prev Last Act Act YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Change Change Statutory Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 0 1 0 1 -1 -100.00 Suspended License 6 9 15 10 5 50.00 Tax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 i Terrorist Threats 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Towed Vehicle 18 26 56 60 -4 -6.67 Trespassing 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Truants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 0 0 0 0 US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 Vandalism 8 12 30 31 -1 -3.23 Vehicle Code Violations 4 1 6 6 0 0.00 Violation of Court Order 2 5 4 5 -1 -20.00 Warrants - Felony 0 2 1 3 -2 -66.67 Warrants - Misd 9 6 12 13 -1 -7.69 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 2 1 2 1 1 100.00 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 ------- ------ ------ ------ 158 175 354 358 158 175 354 358 03-18-09 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : CITY REPORT FOR: FEBRUARY, 2009 Prev Last Act Act Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . . YTD. . . Parking Citations 2845 3 , 116 6, 634 6, 045 Moving Citations 527 399 1, 085 804 ------- ------ ------ ------ 3372 3 , 515 7, 719 6, 849 ------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------ 3372 3 , 515 7, 719 6, 849 BURLINGAME Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 03/18/2009 at 09 : 13 : 57 AM Reported On: All Officers Report Range: 02/01/2009 to 02/28/2009 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Valid % All Voids % All % Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ALVISO 355 641 26.16 7 14.58 98.92 DOTSON 509 569 23.22 11 22.92 98.10 MACDEVITT 511 576 23.51 8 16.67 98.63 SERRANO 510 531 21.67 18 37.50 96.72 SMITH 654 133 5.43 4 8.33 97.08 Total 2450 48 Page 1 of 1 Comcast Cable co m ca st 3443 Deer Park Drive Stockton,CA 95219 March 12,2009 REcEIVED MAR 16 2009 Mr.Jesus Nava CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Finance Director/Treasurer CITY OF BURLINGAMF City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 Re: Programming Addition Dear Mr. Nava, In order to keep you informed of the services we offer our customers,we are notifying you of the following programming addition to our digital lineup, effective on or after March 31, 2009: Programming Previous Channel/Tier New Channel/Tier Retirement Living TV N/A 205/Digital Classic Retirement Living TV is the only cable network dedicated to serving the needs of 50+ adults with information and entertainment that inspires and changes the perception of aging. Customers who subscribe to the Digital Classic tier of service will receive this programming with no additional cost and will be notified of the new channel by way of a message on the Digital Control Terminal. If you have any questions regarding this change,please contact your local Government Affairs Director,Lee Ann Peling at (415) 715-0579. Sincerely, 0�v� Pat Rice Compliance Manager co m ca st® Comcast Cable d�F— �D Stockton,CA 9523443 Deer Park 19 e MAR 3 a 2009 CITY CLERK'S®FFICF CITU 01=RURLINGAML' March 26,2009 Mr.Jesus Nava Finance Director/Treasurer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: NFL Network Carriage Dear Mr. Nava, I am writing to advise you of the status of our carriage of the NFL Network,which is one of the channels contained in our sports Entertainment Package. Comcast's signal carriage agreement with the NFL Network (cable channels 180,417 and 730) expires shortly. We are currently negotiating with the National Football League to reach a fair agreement for all concerned parties, especially our customers. By law, Comcast is not allowed to continue to carry the station without its owner's permission. If, despite our best efforts,we are unable to reach a reasonable agreement and our right to carry the NFL network (cable channels 180,417 and 730) ends, Comcast may be required by law to suspend carriage of the signal as early as May 1. Please know that we will keep you informed of the status of the NFL Network,but feel free to call your local GA Director,Lee Ann Peling at (415) 715-0579 with any questions. Respectfully, Pat Rice Compliance Manager EIVE Ccomcast, �q A© Comcast Cable f°IAI� e� (� 2009 3443 Deer Park Drive Stockton,CA 95219 CITY CLERK'S CFFICE CITY OF RURLINGAME March 26, 2009 Mr.Jesus Nava Finance Director/Treasurer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Programming Changes Dear Mr. Nava, In order to keep you informed of the services we offer our customers,we are sending you this notice of programming changes. Effective on or after April 27,2009,the following changes will occur in our Digital and High Definition programming: Programming Current Channel/Tier New Channel/Tier KGO Plus 194/ Drop Living Well HD N/A 715/High Definition Customers are being notified of these changes by way of a message on their Digital Control Terminal and pricing is not affected. If you have any questions regarding the above,please contact your local Government Affairs Director,Lee Ann Peling at (415) 715-0579. Res ectfially, Pat Rice Compliance Manager Comcast Comcast Cable r �� 3443 Deer Park Dr�CLNLD Stockton,CA 95219 APR 1 - 2009 CITY CLERKS OFFICE CITY OF RUP INGAMF March 27, 2009 Mr.Jesus Nava Finance Director/Treasurer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Digital Programming Change Dear Mr. Nava, In an effort to keep you informed of the services we offer our customers,we are sending you notice of a change in programming. Effective on or after April 30,2009,MoviePlex programming will be repositioned from the Digital Starter tier of service to the Digital Classic tier. Customers are being notified of this change by way of a Digital Control Terminal message and pricing will not be affected. If you have any questions regarding this change,please contact your local Government Affairs Director Lee Ann Peling at (415) 715-0579. Sincerely, Qa�'Qx� Pat Rice Compliance Manager Comcast Cablecomcastc 3443 Deer Park Drive Stockton,CA 95219 March 30, 2009 Mr.Jesus Nava Finance Director/Treasurer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Digital Programming Re-tier Dear Mr. Nava, In an effort to keep you informed of the services we offer our customers,we are sending notice of changes to our Digital programming, effective on or after April 8,2009. Biography Channel and History Channel International will be repositioned from the Digital Classic tier of service to the Digital Starter tier as outlined below: Programming Current Channel/Tier New Channel/Tier Biography Channel 275/Digital Classic 275/Digital Starter History Channel International 276/Digital Classic 276/Digital Starter These changes will allow subscribers of the Digital Starter tier to view the channels above with no additional cost;Digital Classic subscribers will continue to receive the programming as before. Customers are being advised of these changes by way of a Digital Control Terminal message. If you have any questions or concerns,please contact your local Government Affairs Director,Lee Ann Peling at (415) 715-0579. tfull Pat Rice Compliance Manager cable I internet I phone RECEIVED astound M rS%%=000;1 MAR 2 5 2009 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF BURLINGAMIE March 20,2009 City of Burlingame Jesus Nava,Finance Director 501 Primrose Road Burlingame CA 94010 Dear Mr.Nava: Astound was founded over five(5)years ago by a team of west coast cable industry veterans with a strong belief that customers deserve a better experience.Our business practice has been to offer a wide variety of products at a fair price.We succeed by providing customers a good value and by limiting price increases for these products.True to this commitment,Astound has never raised prices on our internet or phone services,while continuing to improve these services year after year.In the last six months, Astound has become the fastest internet provider in the Bay Area by providing an 18 Mbps downstream Internet service.In addition,Astound is the only telephone provider offering an unlimited calling plan covering the greater Bay Area. Unfortunately,the escalating cost of video service is out of our control. Astound must pay monthly fees on a per customer basis to the cable networks we make available on our system.Many cable programming networks require cable operators to carry their channels on our basic service levels and require carriage of additional networks as a condition of receiving the most popular channels.This forced carriage of less desirable channels creates a situation where customers may be paying for channels they do not want. While Astound continues to make every effort to reduce these video programming fees,the programming networks are again this year significantly increasing their monthly per customer fees.As a result,we will be increasing our video service rates as of April 20,2009 to offset a portion of these costs. • Expanded Basic Cable will increase by$2.00 from$49.95 to$51.95 • Digital Basic will increase by$2.00 from$8.00 to$10.00 • Digital Variety,Digital Sports,Spanish Pack,HBO and Cinemax will increase by$1.00 each • Showtime Premium Movie Pack will increase by$4.00 • Digital Packages will increase by$2.00 to$6.67 215 Mason Circle,Concord,CA 94520 1-800-4-ASTOUND(1-800-427-8686) fax 925-459-1102 www.astound.net cable I internet I phone astound.,. For the first time this year local broadcasters are charging a monthly fee per cable customer as compensation for the carriage of their stations. In previous years the broadcasters would receive non- monetary compensation.As a consequence,these new costs are being passed through to our customers and their bills reflect a$1.47 charge in addition to the monthly cable television rate. Astound recognizes that these are challenging economic times for everyone. Keeping this economic climate in mind,the rate increases to our customers do not cover the full amount of increases that programmers and local broadcasters have imposed on Astound.Also,as mentioned above,Astound has not increased the cost for internet or phone services.We look forward to continuing to provide the residents of the City of Burlingame with a choice for their cable television, internet and telephone services. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you have any questions. Sincerely, Tim Peters Vice President Astound Broadband 215 Mason Circle,Concord,CA 94520 1-800-4-ASTOUND(1-800-427-8686) fax 925-459-1102 www.astound.net