HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2009.05.04 CITY G
N I
BURLINGAME
Y-IN
W-.
BURLINGAME CITY HALL
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
AGENDA
Monday, May 4, 2009
CLOSED SESSION: - 6:15 p.m. - Conference Room A
a. Conference with Labor negotiator pursuant to Government Code §54957.6(a):
City Negotiators: Deirdre Dolan, Jim Nantell, Glenn Berkheimer(IEDA)
Employee Organizations: AFSCME 829, AFSCME 2190, BAMM, Fire Administration, IAFF
2400, Police Administrators, Police Officers Association, Teamsters Local 856, and Department
Head/Unrepresented
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 April 20, 2009
5. PRESENTATION
a. National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. Public Hearing and adoption of Broadway Area Business Improvement District (BID)
assessments for Fiscal Year 2009-10
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter
within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from
acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the
door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each.
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.
8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. Introduce Ordinance for amendment to Title 25 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) to
allow up to five additional food establishments in certain portions of Subarea A of the
Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, to add a definition for"ready-to-eat food shop", and to
clarify the parking requirements for single family dwellings
b. High Speed Rail Project Update
c. Membership in the High Speed Rail Consortium
9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR
a. Adopt a Resolution dedicating the sewer user fees for repayment of State Revolving Fund (SRF)
loan for construction of the storm water retention basin at the Wastewater Treatment Plant
(WWTP)
b. Approval of Burlingame Chamber of Commerce request relative to the 2009 Art &Jazz Festival
10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS/AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Members report on committees and activities and make announcements.
11. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter
within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from
acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the
door and hand it to staff The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each.
12. OLD BUSINESS
13. NEW BUSINESS
14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Planning, April 27, 2009
b. Letter from Comcast concerning International programming change
C. Newsletter from International City Managers Association (ICMA)
15. ADJOURNMENT
Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at 650 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of
the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office,City Hall,501 Primrose Road,from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at the
meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burl in game.or--. Agendas and minutes are available at this site.
NEXT REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING—MONDAY, MAY 18, 2009
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.
4��CITikoh
BVWIIPAME
m
�Nwrco tura[O
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL
Unapproved Minutes
Regular Meeting of April 20, 2009
STUDY SESSION:
a. RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATION FOOTPRINT STUDY
DPW Murtuza addressed the Council and introduced Ron Holmes of HNTB and Olga Rodriquez of AECOM
Engineers who gave an update on the railroad grade separation footprint study. DPW Murtuza emphasized
that this was a railroad grade separation presentation and not related to high speed rail.
1. CALL TO ORDER
A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall
Council Chambers. Mayor Ann Keighran called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by Dennis Preger.
3. ROLL CALL
COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Deal, Keighran, Nagel, O'Mahony
COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Baylock
4. MINUTES
Two corrections were made to the April 6, 2009 Council meeting minutes: Item 5.b.: to add review of
Ordinance in a year; and on page 3, Item 7c to remove Councilwoman Nagel abstaining and show as voting
no. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the minutes, with noted corrections, of the April 6,
2009 regular Council meeting; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously
by voice vote 4-0-1 (Baylock absent).
5. PRESENTATION
a. PROCLAMATION RECOGNIZING WEST NILE VIRUS AND MOSQUITO VECTOR
CONTROL AWARENESS WEEK
As Burlingame's representative to the San Mateo County Mosquito Abatement District, Dennis Preger
accepted a proclamation from Mayor Keighran declaring the week of April 20 through April 26, 2009, as
West Nile Virus and Mosquito and Vector Control Awareness Week. Mr. Preger introduced Dr. Chindry
Peavy, Chief Entomologist for the District.
1
Burlingame City Council April 20,2009
Unapproved Minutes
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF AN APPLICATION FOR
DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, VARIANCE FOR
HEIGHT AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW 3 %2
STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE, ON PROPERTY AT
2843 ADELINE DRIVE,LOCATED WITHIN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-1)
ZONE
CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing on the appeal of the
application for design review, hillside area construction permit, variance for height and special permit for an
attached garage for a new 31/2 story single family dwelling on property at 2843 Adeline Drive, and consider
public testimony and analysis contained in the staff report. Action concerning the appeal should include
specific findings supporting the Council's decision, and should be affirmed by resolution of the City Council.
Mayor Keighran opened the public hearing. The following spoke: Alex Mortazavi, applicant; Mark Bender,
attorney for the appellant, 520 S. El Camino, San Mateo; Art Labrie, 2839 Adeline Drive, appellant. Mayor
Keighran closed the hearing and requested comments from the public. The following citizens spoke:
Cynthia Beck, 731 Birch Avenue, San Mateo (read a letter from Mrs. Labrie); Michael Gaul, 2838 Adeline
Drive; Gil McCoy, 1022 Bayswater, Burlingame; David Win, 2835 Adeline Drive; Justin Jarvis, 2835
Adeline Drive. Mayor Keighran closed the public comment period. Council discussion followed.
Councilman Deal made a motion to deny the appeal, and affirm the Planning Commission's approval of the
project, subject to the 19 conditions in the staff report; motion seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The
motion was approved unanimously by voice vote 4-0-1 (Baylock absent).
Councilman Deal made a motion to allow the deck, shown on the project plans adjacent to bedrooms 2 and 3,
at dimensions that are one-half the depth and one-half the width of the design shown on the project plans
approved by the Planning Commission; motion seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. Motion approved
by voice vote 3-0-1-1 (Nagel dissenting; Baylock absent).
b. 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:
(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
CDD Meeker reviewed the staff report and requested Council adopt Resolution No. 31-2009 approving
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
2
Burlingame City Council April 20,2009
Unapproved Minutes
this area; and adopt Ordinance No. 1838 amending title 25 of the municipal code to add an R-4 overlay zone
for certain C-2 zoned properties in the Carolan/Rollins Road commercial area.
Mayor Keighran opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke. Mayor Keighran
closed the public hearing.
Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 31-2009; seconded by Councilwoman
O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent). Councilwoman
Nagel made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1838-2009; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The
motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent).
Mayor Keighran requested CM Nantell (in absence of City Clerk)publish a summary of the ordinance within
fifteen days before proposed adoption.
C. APPROVAL OF FY 2009/2010 FEE SCHEDULE
FinDir Nava reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and adopt Resolution No.
32-2009 approving the 2009/2010 master fee schedule for City services. FinDir Nava stated that the
proposed fee schedule reflects adjustments to user fee based on employee costs that are part of the current
2008-2009 fiscal year.
Mayor Keighran opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke. Mayor Keighran
closed the public hearing.
Councilman Deal made a motion to adopt Resolution No. 32-2009; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony.
The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent).
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Jim Cannon, 1304 Bernal Avenue; Kris Cannon, 1304 Bernal Avenue; Katie McCormack, 1530 Meadow
Lane spoke about the possible closure on Fridays of the Easton Branch Library. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa
Avenue spoke in favor of the storm drain measure and the Easton Branch Library; Stephen Hamilton, 105
Crescent spoke on Easton Branch Library and in favor of the storm drain measure. There were no further
comments from the floor.
8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
At this time CM Nantell introduced Jim Skeels, as the new Parks & Recreation Director that the City is
sharing with the City of Brisbane.
a. APPROVAL OF NOMINEES FOR 2009 WALK OF FAME
Joleen Helley reviewed the staff report and requested Council approve the 2009 Walk of Fame nominees,
Carl Reyna, Gloria Barton and Linda White, as recommended by the Walk of Fame Committee, for their
long service and for establishing new organizations in the Burlingame community.
Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the 2009 Walk of Fame nominees, Carl Reyna, Gloria
Barton and Linda White; seconded by Councilman,Deal. The motion was approved unanimously by voice
vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent).
3
Burlingame City Council April 20,2009
Unapproved Minutes
b. CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO LIBRARY BOARD OF TRUSTEES
CM Nantell reviewed the staff report and recommended Council call for applications for one vacancy on the
Library Board of Trustees. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to call for applications to be due by
May 22, 2009; seconded by Councilwoman Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-
0-1 (Baylock absent).
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
Councilwoman Nagel made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Councilwoman
O'Mahony. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Baylock absent).
a. ADOPT RESOLUTION CERTIFYING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE ANNUAL CREEK AND CHANNEL
FACILITIES MAINTENANCE PROGRAM
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution No. 33-2009 certifying a mitigated negative declaration
and mitigation monitoring program for the annual creek and channel facilities maintenance program.
b. ADOPT RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE MITTEN PUMP STATION IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT BY GANTRY CONSTRUCTORS, INC.
DPW Murtuza requested Council adopt Resolution No 34-2009 accepting the Mitten Pump Station
Improvement Project by Gantry Constructors, Inc.
C. ADOPT RESOLUTION DESIGNATING FINANCE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEES AS
OFFICIAL SIGNATORIES ON CITY INVESTMENT AND BANKING ACCOUNTS
FinDir Nava requested Council adopt the following Resolutions: Resolution No. 35-2009 authorizing
investment of monies in the State of California local agency investment fund; Resolution No. 36-2009
authorizing signatories for City checks, drafts and other orders drawn on the Bank of America; Resolution
No. 37-2009 authorizing deposit of investment monies and bond proceeds in the State of California local
agency investment fund.
d. ADOPT A RESOLUTION TO DETERMINE HOW TO VOTE THE CITY'S STORM DRAIN
FEE BALLOTS AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO VOTE AS DIRECTED BY
THE COUNCIL
Special Counsel Abrams requested Council adopt Resolution No. 38-2009 determining how to vote the
City's Storm Drain Measure and authorizing the City Manager to vote as directed by Council.
e. APPROVE WARRANTS AND PAYROLL
FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants #38569-39209 duly audited, in the amount of
$3,029,790.97; Payroll checks No. 173858 — 174030 in the amount of$2,610,948.86 for the month of March
2009.
4
Burlingame City Council April 20, 2009
Unapproved Minutes
9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE AND ACTIVITIES REPORTS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City.
10. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke on several items. There were no further comments from the floor.
11. OLD BUSINESS
a. FEDERAL STIMULUS FUNDING
DPW Murtuza reviewed the American Recovery&Reinvestment Act of 2009 and provided information
concerning the criteria required to quality for funding.
12. NEW BUSINESS
Council agreed to suggest that the Traffic, Safety&Parking Commission look into possibly increasing the
parking fee in the parking lot at Ralston and El Camino Real.
CM Nantell provided an update on the high speed rail project and the educational forums and/or
presentations that will be available.
Councilwoman Nagel requested that information be provided on the website concerning the appeals process.
She also suggested that a phone number be placed on the parking meters to notify about a broken meter.
13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety&Parking, February 12, 2009; January 20, 2009; Parks &
Recreation, March 19, 2009; Beautification, April 2, 2009; Planning, April 13, 2009
b. Department Reports: Finance, March 2009; Building, March 2009; Fire, March 2009; Police, March
2009
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Keighran adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. in memory of Mary Figueriedo, Harry Gogarty and Lu
Davidson.
Respectfully submitted,
Mary Ellen Kearney
City Clerk
5
Burlingame City Council April 20,2009
Unapproved Minutes
■ ■ ■
Municipal
Stormwater a rm i
Matthew Fabry, Program Coordinator
San Mateo Countywide Water Pollution Prevention Program
May 4, 2009
0 hip
Municipal Regional Stormwater
Permit - Revised Draft 2/11 /09
Important Dates:
II%If
. Written comments were submitted %pril 33
. Public hearing (permit adoption) — 'Jlay V,_
Consolidates six Phase 1 municipal stormwater
permits in one regional permit (77 permittees)
Seeks a consistent level of implementation and
reporting
aSome improvements since 2007 draft permit, but
r� r"MI'm 0 w r� 0 � a
o0 O o 3
0 x O rt n C: -o O
(n -
� � %,< 3 �
3 3 _
C: CD � �
cn — . — .
n3CD n CD 3
CD
:3 M r+ M 07 mo
O CD
r--t- O zT _ O
cc cD EH CD 3
CD — . CD �'
(n �■■�
- • CD3 - .
00. � (n C: C:
CD — . MMI :3
CD 3 CD
Q O CD CD
cn
< �o �o 0 >
(n 0
O CD CD G) C
CDCD
0 �
Existing Efforts
Countywide Program and municipalities
already making significant efforts to improve
stormwater quality
Implementing new development and
construction controls, municipal maintenance
activities, business inspections, public
outreach and education, watershed
assessments, green streets program
New and expanded requirements exceed
available resources and in many cases offer
limited water quality benefit
Cost Implications
Requirements are , as before , expected to
approximately -. e.: Ae the cost to
implement the countywide stormwater
program , totaling ii extra over
five years
Difficult to evaluate local cost implications
— Menlo Park estimated 60 % increase ,
Dublin estimated 125 %
Overall Concerns with
�1
` t '
Draft Stormwater Permit
Lacks of goals and
over multiple five - year permit cycles
Contains many
Increases
that are ?,ax ,,,, e and may trigger more
requirements
Still contains many x
Shows a lack of understanding of municipalities '
i ., and
� � 0 �. 3 m
C!) Fn" O O O C: O
cn
CD
(n + O CD -MI
(n 0
coca
O cn
c� m 90
cn cn
r-+- — -� CD
° o -0
cn 3CD CD
-- X 0
o :3CD O
-` O 3 -�,
CD
,
14
'AIL.
IW
.s
. ,
Recommended Changes : Water
Quality Monitoring , Special Studies
& Pilot Projects
Reduce and Phase Monitoring and
Studies to Reduce $900KIyear
Decrease frequency and locations of
monitoring
Prioritize pollutants for emphasis now
and handle others in subsequent permit
periods
Redirect monitoring we already pay for •
through the Regional Monitoring
Program to meet permit requirements
Recommended Changes :
Trash and Litter
Reduce and Phase Trash Clean Up
Requirements to Reduce $350k/year
and Potential Liability
. Reduce number of hot spots and
focus on trash-impaired waterways
. Reduce hot spot monitoring
t
. Make clean up level a goal '
. Focus trash requirements on trash `"-
from storm drains
. Reduce amount of area requiring
use of full-capture trash removal �-
devices
J
Recommended Changes .
Conditionally Exempt Discharges
Retain requirements Water Board approved in 2004
permit amendment
Eliminate impractical and unnecessary notification,
monitoring, and reporting requirements
Pumped groundwater
Water from crawl space pumps
Retain allowance for individual
residential car washing
Eliminate burdensome monitoring
and reporting requirements for
to
storm drains
Next Steps
Stormwater Programs Meeting with Regional
Board Staff to Discuss Recommended
Changes to Permit
Developing Talking Points for Elected
Officials
Designate an Elected Official to Attend Permit
Adoption Hearing on
. Testify About Local Economic Problems
. Support Recommended Changes to Permit
0
C
m
O
z
cn
CITY 0\ STAFF REPORT
BURUNGAME AGENDA
ITEM # 6a
+ ! m MTG.
coA FwTco uuue6,90 DATE May 4, 2009_
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT
BY
DATE: May 4, 2009
APPRD 00<
FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director BY
SUBJECT: Public Hearing & Adoption of Broadway Area Business Improvement District (BID)
Assessments for FY 2009-2010
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
1 . Hold a public hearing to consider any protests to the Broadway BID assessments;
2. End the public hearing and ask the City Clerk to report out any protests filed with the city; and,
3. If protests do not represent 50% of the majority of the assessments, then adopt the resolution setting the
2009-2010 assessments.
BACKGROUND:
The City Council adopted a resolution of intention to set the 2009-2010 Broadway Area BID assessments on
April 6, 2009 and established May 4, 2009, at 7:00 p.m. as the public hearing date and time. No changes in
the boundaries, assessments or business classifications of the business district are proposed. If there is a
protest by businesses that represent a majority of the value of the assessments, then the resolution cannot be
approved. As of the time of writing this memorandum, the City had not received any protests, although
protests may be presented in writing before or at the hearing. Any y and all protests must be received by the
City Clerk at or before the time fixed for the public hearing.
BUDGET IMPACT:
Approximately $26,000 in assessments is collected annually with our business licenses. All of these funds are
forwarded to the Broadway Improvement District for improvements as authorized the BID Board of Directors.
The City of Burlingame covers the expenses associated with the renewal of the BID.
ATTACHMENTS:
1 .) Resolution Of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Establishing 2009-2010 Assessments For the
Broadway Area Business Improvement District
2.) Broadway BID Assessment Roll
S:\Business Improvement DistrictsTY 09-10 Renewal Process\Agenda Report Public Hearing & Assessment-Broadway.doc 1
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING 2009-2010 ASSESSMENTS
FOR THE BROADWAY AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
AND DETERMING THAT NO MAJORITY PROTEST HAS BEEN MADE
WHEREAS,pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et sect.,
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 this important 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, on April 6,2009,the Burlingame City Council received and approved the
BABID's annual report and adopted a Resolution of Intention to levy BABID assessments for
the 2009-2010 fiscal year; and
WHEREAS,the Burlingame City Council set a public hearing to consider its levy of
assessments on the businesses in the BABID, for May 4, 2009, at 7:00 p.m, at the Council
Chambers,Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, and said public hearing was
duly noticed as required by State law; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing held on May 4, 2009, the Burlingame City Council
received and considered all oral and written testimony from all interested persons and any and all
written protests presented by businesses within the BABID; and
WHEREAS,the current level of assessments on businesses in the BABID should be
levied for the fiscal year 2009-2010 so that improvements and programs may continue in the
BABID, and
WHEREAS,the BABID's proposed activities and improvements for the 2009-2010
fiscal year are without substantial change from those previously established for the BABID
NOW,THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve,
determine, and find as follows:
1. Written protests to assessments, improvements or activities were not received at
or before the close of the public hearing on June 2, 2008, that constituted a majority as defined in
Government Code sections 36500 and following.
2. The City Council does hereby levy an assessment for the 2009-2010 fiscal year on
businesses in the BABID as described in City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 1461, to pay for
improvements and activities of the BABID.
3. The types of improvements and activities to be funded by the levy of assessments
on businesses in the BABID are set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein.
4. The method and basis for levying the assessments on all businesses within the
BABID are set forth in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein.
5. New businesses shall not be exempt from the levy of this assessment.
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
CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA
BROADWAY BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT ROLL - FY 2009-10
LICENSE CODE FEE I EMPLOYEES NAME ADDRESS __Vote%
33210 D1 $ 450 60 MIKE HARVEY ACURA 1070 BROADWAY 1.71_%
17408 D1 $ 450 6 TUNISS COMPUTER 1124 BROADWAY
22911 D1 $ 450 8 ONCE UPON METRO 1136 BROADWAY 1.71%
18813 D1 $ 450 17 WALGREENS#06655-J JACKSON-TAX DEPT 1160 BROADWAY _ 1.71%
14722 D1 $ 450 10 PRESTON'S CANDY&ICE CREAM 1170 BROADWAY 1.71_%
17895 D1 $ 450 6 AJI YOSHI YA 1190 BROADWAY _ 1.71%
30410 D1 $ 450 19 VILLAGE HOST 1201 BROADWAY 1.71%
7979 D1 $ 450 13 YAKINIKU HOUSE JUBAN 1204 BROADWAY _ 1.71%
21407 D1 $ 450 7 RISTORANTE ROCCA 1205 BROADWAY 1.71%
7373 D1 $ 450 6 IL PICCOLO CAFFE 1219 BROADWAY 1.71%
19703 D1 $ 450 15 STARBUCKS COFFEE#6871 1230 BROADWAY 1.71%
22678 %
D1 $ 450 4 MIVAN RESTAURANT 1232 BROADWAY 1.71
22102 D1 $ 450 5 BIG JOE'S CAFE 1251 BROADWAY _1.71%
22535 D1 $ 450 8 SIWOOD INC, DBA BROADWAY PHARMACY 1300 BROADWAY 1.71%
23782 D1 $ 450 7 SUBWAY SANDWICH 1308 BROADWAY 1.71%
17948 D1 $ 450 12 BROADWAY PRIME 1316 BROADWAY _1.71%
5991 D1 $ 450 9 CAFE FIGARO 1318 BROADWAY 1.71%
10027 D1 $ 450 16 EARTHBEAM 1399 BROADWAY 1.71%
21656 D1 $ 450 4 BROADWAY GRILL 1400 BROADWAY 1.71%
13026 D1 $ 450 5 DOLAN'S WINDOWS AND DOORS 1410 BROADWAY 1.71%
20872 D2 $ 300 2 AMERICAN WOOD FLOOR CENTER 1120 BROADWAY 1.14%
23269 D2 $ 300 3 SAHAARA RESTAURANT, INC. 1130 BROADWAY 1.14%
23802 D2 $ 300 2 LE CROISSANT CAFE 1151 BROADWAY 1.14%
22670 D2 $ 300 3 ROYAL DONUT 1165 BROADWAY 1.14%
19329 D2 $ 300 2 SUTTERFIELD CONSIGNMENT 1174 BROADWAY
17378 D2 $ 300 3 WEIMAX CORPORATION 1178 BROADWAY _1.14%
20481 D2 $ 300 1 BONNE SANTE' 1184 BROADWAY 1.14%
21657 D2 $ 300 3 FAT CRAB INC/JOANIES HAPPY DAY DINER 1199 BROAWAY SUITE 2 1.14%
15708 D2 $ 300 3 GRACE GARDEN CHINESE RESTAURANT 1200 BROADWAY 1.14%
22132 D2 $ 300 1 BURLINGAME LAGUNA FLORIST 1202 BROADWAY 1.14%
23747 D2 $ 300 2 WIRELESS SOLUTIONS 1212 BROADWAY 1.14%
21932 D2 $ 300 1 CABINETS AND BEYOND DESIGN STUDIO 1233 BROADWAY _1.14%
22472 D2 $ 300 1 ART&SOUL GALLERY 1235 BROADWAY 1.14%
17712 D2 $ 300 3 BURLINGAME FOODS 1236 BROADWAY 1.14%
21990 D2 $ 300 2 LIU'S INTERNATIONAL KITCHEN 1236 BROADWAY 1.14%
11683 D2 $ 300 2 NUTS FOR CANDY 1241 BROADWAY 1.14%
15633 D2 $ 300 3 LA DOLCE VITA TILE&STONE 1247 BROADWAY 1.14%
12486 D2 $ 300 3 MR.Z'S 1301 BROADWAY 1.14%
22412 D2 $ 300 3 CAMINO COMPANY LLC 1301 BROADWAY 1.14%
22096 D2 $ 300 2 TREASURE HOUSE ANTIQUES ARTS CO 1305 BROADWAY 1.14%
35174 D2 $ 300 2 BUA THONG KITCHEN 1320 BROADWAY 1.14%
12505 D2 $ 300 1 BROADWAY HARDWARE 1326 BROADWAY 1.14%
30427 D2 $ 300 3 BEHAN'S"AN IRISH PUB" 1327 BROADWAY 1.14%
21693 D2 $ 300 1 ELIE BOUTIQUE 1352 BROADWAY 1.14%
20108 D2 $ 300 3 RESTAURANT JUN 1355 BROADWAY 1.14%
21935 D2 $ 300 1 GEM DESIGNS 1365 BROADWAY 1.14%
22031 D2 $ 300 1 LUMIERE ON BROADWAY INC DBA LUMIERE FINE LIGHTING 1405 BROADWAY 1.14%
44399 D2 $ 300 2 YOUNG'S BURLINGAME LIQUOR 1408 BROADWAY 1.14%
21081 D2 $ 300 1 BLUE SKIES ON BROADWAY 1423 BROADWAY 1.14%
16731 D2 $ 300 2 KCB&ASSOCIATES LLC 1431 BROADWAY 1.14%
21930 D2 $ 300 1 GRAFFEO 1452 BROADWAY 1.14%
42339 D2 $ 300 1 ALL THAT GLITTERS 1454 BROADWAY 1.14%
14938 D3 $ 250 4 L&S AUTO REPAIR CENTER 1100 BROADWAY _0.95%
7232 D3 $ 250 1 9 CHEVRON STATIONS INC.#1504 1101 BROADWAY _0.95%
23883 D3 $ 250 3 ANGEL DANAE LLC DBA VISITING ANGELS 1126 BROADWAY#7 0.95%
20765 D3 $ 250 18 TRENZ SALON 1211 BROADWAY 0.950o
35910 D3 $ 250 10 SUPERCUTS 1222 BROADWAY 0.95%
22569 D3 $ 250 4 TWINKLE TOES NAIL BAR 1224 BROADWAY 0.95%
22867 D3 $ 250 3 KIM'S PERFECT SKIN & NAIL DAY SPA 1360 BROADWAY 0.95%
1
22681 D3 $ 250 4 R&M BROADWAY 76 INC 1480 BROADWAY 0.95%
6003 D4 $ 150 1 GATEWAYS TO THE WORLD 1122 BROADWAY 0.57%
15975 D4 $ 150 1 NORTHERN CALIFORNIA PRACTICE SALES 1126 BROADWAY#8 0.57%
21655 D4 $ 150 1 LULU NAIL SPA 1134 BROADWAY (157%
17348 D4 $ 150 2 ON BROADWAY 1163 BROADWAY 0.57%
21324 D4 $ 150 2 BROADWAY REALTY/TRAVEL DESIGNERS 1199 BROADWAY#5 ----b.0.57%
13277 D4 $ 150 1 BROADWAY CLEANERS 1234 BROADWAY 57%
8225 D4 $ 150 1 HJS PROP. & INVEST./SECURED ASSET MGT 1243 BROADWAY 0.57%
8621 D4 $ 150 1 CHIC 1249 BROADWAY 0.57%
16449 D4 $ 150 1 BELLALUNA-AVON PRODUCTS 1310 BROADWAY 0.57%
22587 D4 $ 150 2 YOUR CLEANERS/YOUR FRENCH TAILOR 1321 BROADWAY – 0.57%
9412 D4 $ 150 1 ADAMS FINE TAILORING 1324 BROADWAY 0.57%
13318 D4 $ 150 2 RAINBOW FULL SERVICE SALON 1361 BROADWAY 0_57%
18408 D4 $ 150 1 ANNE H HINCKLE 1425 BROADWAY#2 0.57%
22626 154 $ 150 1 MARK PLANTE CONSULTING 1425 BROADWAY#3 0.57%
23462 D4 $ 150 1 ERIN PENSINGER 1425 BROADWAY#5 0.57%
12031 D4 $ 150 2 DESIRED DATA&DESIGN 1425 BROADWAY#7 0.57%
20619 D4 $ 150 1 IMMIGRATION&TRANSLATION SERVICES 1425 BROADWAY#23 _0.57%
21218 D4 $ 150 1 PAWSITIVELY GROOMED PET SALON 1427 BROADWAY –0.57%
24018 D4 $ 150 1 DYLAN SALON 1199 CHULA VISTA AVE 0.57%
14434 D5 $ 200 5 A.V.R. REALTY, INC. 1169 BROADWAY 0.76%
23953 D6 $ 150 1 SYA GROUP, INC. 1126 BROADWAY#4
17316 D6 $ 150 1 BROADWAY EYE CENTER 1159 BROADWAY 0.57%
13602 D6 $ 150 2 T C KITA, O.D. 1322 BROADWAY 0.57%
22599 D6 $ 150 1 JIM RUTHERFORD CONSULTATION 1425 BROADWAY#4 ___0.57%
17010 D6 $ 150 1 HUI LIN-HO WAI CHEUNG 1425 BROADWAY#8 0.57%
20538 D6 $ 150 1 MARTHA POLLOCK, LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER 1425 BROADWAY#14 0.57%
10050 D6 $ 150 1 CELEBRITY CONNECTION 1425 BROADWAY#19 —0.57%
119181 D6 1 $ 150 1 TRIO CONSULTING 1425 BROADWAY#20 0.57%
8831 F2 $ 500 WELLS FARGO BANK-CORP PROP GRP 99167 1145 BROADWAY 1.90%
17390 F2 $ 500 3 STERLING BANK&TRUST FSB 1210 BROADWAY 1.90%
17800 F2 $ 500 10 U.S. BANK ATTN CORP REAL ESTATE 1188 EL CAMINO REAL
Total Assessment] Percentage of Vote:, 100.00%
2
AGENDA ITEM NO: 8a
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: May 4 2009
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY:
DATE: April 28, 2009 APPROVED BY: ��
FROM: William Meeker, Community Development Director— (650) 558` 7255
SUBJECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE FOR AMENDMENT TO TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME
MUNICIPALE CODE (ZONING ORDINANCE) ALLOW UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD
ESTABLISHMENTS IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF SUBAREA A OF THE BURLINGAME
AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR "READY-TO-EAT FOOD
SHOP", AND TO CLARIFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLINGS.
INTRODUCTION:
The City Council should review the proposed ordinance to amend the Zoning Regulations as a study item;
identifying any proposed changes, if necessary; and introduce the ordinance.
The following Council actions should be taken to introduce the ordinance to amend the Zoning Regulations:
A. Introduce the ordinance, by title only, waiving further reading; and
B. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed
adoption.
If the proposal for the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance is acceptable, this item should be set for a public
hearing and consideration for adoption at the City Council meeting of May 18, 2009.
Environmental Review Status: The proposed changes to the Zoning Regulations to increase the number of
food establishments, add a definition for ready-to-eat food shop and to clarify the parking requirements for
single family homes are Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines. The proposed changes do not represent a change
to the type or intensity of use allowed within the current zoning for the area, and would be considered minor
alterations to land use limitations, which are exempt from environmental review.
Planning Commission Action: On April 27, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed the proposed
amendments to the Zoning Regulations at a public hearing. At that meeting, two business owners
commented on the proposal for adding five food establishments and for adding a definition for "ready to eat'
food shop, with one owner requesting that the opportunity for five new food establishments should be
extended to the block of Primrose Road between Burlingame Avenue and Chapin Avenue. It was also stated
that restaurants are struggling downtown, businesses are cannibalizing each other, and the ready-to eat
category would add more competition and hurt other businesses downtown.
The Commission commented on the proposed size of "ready-to-eat' food shops, and thought that a 1,200
square foot limit might be too large, and suggested that the maximum floor area should be limited to 1,000
square feet. The Commission also thought that the opportunity for additional five full service restaurants
could be extended to include properties within Subarea A on Primrose Road, between Burlingame Avenue
and Chapin Avenue. The Commission also commented on the proposal to clarify the parking requirements
INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 25(ZONING ORDINANCE) May 4,2009
for single family homes,and asked if there might be a need to require more covered parking for homes with
seven bedrooms or more. Staff indicated that we could review this concern as a separate matter in the
future, but that the current inconsistency between the City's design review policies and regulations requires
immediate clean-up.The Commission voted 6-0-1 (Commissioner Terrones was absent)to recommend the
proposed changes to the Zoning Ordinance to the City Council for action with the two suggested changes.
The proposed ordinance has been revised to reflect these changes.
BACKGROUND:
Expand the Number of Food Establishments in Subarea A: The current food establishment regulations
for Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District state that the number of food establishments
shall be limited to those existing and in business on November 1, 1998 at the locations as shown on the
Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishment by Type Tables, as approved by the
City Council on October 18, 1999(C.S.25.36.043(b),refer to attached table). The regulations further state
that when the number of total food establishments in this area drops below 40 for a period of more than
twelve consecutive months,it shall be reported to the Planning Commission and Council.
At the Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission held on March 21,2009, it was reported
that the current number of food establishments in this area has dropped to 38. The City Council and
Planning Commission directed that an ordinance amendment be drafted to allow an increase in the number
of food establishments to enhance the economic vitality of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. The
City Council and Planning Commission also directed that staff look into allowing certain small snack-type
establishments, such as yogurt shops and bakeries, to be considered as a retail use rather than a food
establishment.
The proposed ordinance amendment would allow an increase of up to five additional food establishments. It
is proposed that the five new restaurants be limited to only a full service food establishment, and limited to
tenant spaces with frontages on the following streets: Burlingame Avenue between Primrose Road and EI
Camino Real;on Primrose Road,Park Road and Lorton Avenue between Burlingame and Howard Avenues;
and on the west side of Primrose Road between Burlingame and Chapin Avenues.
As was the case when the number of food establishments was increased on Broadway,the location of the
five new food establishments would be determined by the issuance of conditional use permits for the
proposed new businesses. Once each new food establishment receives a conditional use permit and the
food establishment begins operation,the location would become fixed and added to the Food Establishment
by Type Table. The five new food establishments would be filled on a first come first served basis. Planning
staff will accept and process the applications as they are received, and once the five applications are
approved by the Planning Commission,no additional requests will be considered.
When the Food Establishment by Type Table was first established in 1999, there were 46 food
establishments in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, and there are now 38 food
establishments on the list. If all five food establishments are added, there would be a total of 43 food
establishments.
Ready-to-Eat Food Shop: At the March 21,2009 Joint Meeting,the City Council and Planning Commission
also directed that staff look into allowing certain small snack-type establishments,such as yogurt shops and
bakeries,to be considered as a retail use rather than a food establishment.
Staff is proposing that a new definition be added to the Zoning Regulations which defines a "ready-to-eat
food shop"as follows:
"Ready-to-eat Food Shop"means an establishment which sells food that is ready to eat at the time of sale to
be consumed either on the premises or off the premises,with no more than 150 square feet of seating area
-2-
INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 25 (ZONING ORDINANCE) May 4, 2009
and a gross floor area of no more than 1 ,000 square feet. Full service kitchens are not allowed in "Ready-to-
eat Food Shops". A Ready-to-eat Food Shop shall be considered a general retail use. "Ready-to-eat Food
Shops" shall include shops that sell food such as bakery items, ice cream, yogurt, beverages, and similar
items.
Once this definition is added to the code, a business that meets this definition could locate in any commercial
zone that allows retail uses by right.
Parking Requirements for Single Family Homes: During a recent code clean up of various sections of the
Municipal Code, the parking requirements for single family dwellings were inadvertently revised to require two
covered parking spaces for any new single family home regardless of the number of bedrooms. In 1998,
when the code was amended to establish design review and revise the R-1 standards to implement the
design review process, the code was amended to require one covered parking space for an existing or new
home with up to four (4) bedrooms. Two covered parking spaces are required for new homes or additions to
existing homes with five (5) or more bedrooms. The proposed ordinance amendment would revert to the
requirement that has been in place since 1998 based on the number of bedrooms in the home, regardless of
whether it is a new home or an addition to an existing home.
Attachments:
■ April 27, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes
■ Email from Kirk Syme dated April 27, 2009
■ April 27, 2009 Planning Commission Staff Report
■ April 13, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes
■ Photos — Examples of Retail Spaces Less than 1200 Square Feet
■ March 21 , 2009 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
■ Revised Food Establishment by Type Table for Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area,
Subarea A
■ Map of Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Depicting Proposed Areas
for Five Additional Food Establishments
■ Notice of Planning Commission Public Hearing (Published in the San Mateo Times & mailed to
property owners and merchants within Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area
■ Proposed Ordinance Amending Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (Zoning Code)
-3-
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION—Unapproved Minutes April 27,2009
5. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE(ZONING CODE)TO ALLOW UP
TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF SUBAREA A OF THE
BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA,TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR'READY-TO-EAT FOOD
SHOP",AND TO CLARIFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS.
Reference staff report dated April 27,2009,with attachments. Community Development Director Meeker
presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments.
Chair Cauchi opened the public hearing.
Commission comments:
• Clarified location of property at 329 Primrose Road.
Public comments:
Kirk Syme,330 Primrose Road;Riyad Salma, 1375 Burlingame Avenue;spoke:
• Would like 329 Primrose Road to be included within the area for new full-service restaurant use.
• Supports goal of enhancing the economy of the downtown.
• Restaurants are struggling downtown;businesses are cannibalizing each other,should not increase
the number of new full-service restaurants.
• Ready-to-eat category would add more competition and could hurt the other businesses downtown.
There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed.
Additional Commission Comments:
• Perhaps 1,200 square feet is too large for a"ready-to-eat'food shop;could be tempted to install a
kitchen;perhaps smaller space of 750 or 1,000 square feet is appropriate;there was consensus for
establishing a 1,000 square foot limit.
• There was consensus for adding Primrose Road,north of Burlingame Avenue into the area for new
full-service restaurants.
• Could food services occur on Safeway property? (Meeker—the application does not include any
new food service uses at this time, other than the typical uses within a modern Safeway
supermarket.)
• With respect to single-family parking;could there be a need for greater parking requirements for
homes with more bedrooms, e.g.7 or 8 bedrooms? (Meeker—encouraged recommending the
"clean-up"of the parking standards as outlined in the staff report;but could have future discussion of
need for greater parking for larger homes by subcommittee.)
Commissioner Vistica moved to recommend to the City Council adoption of the amendments, with the
following modifications:
• Reduce the"ready-to-eat"maximum floor area to 1,000 square feet.
• Include properties lying within Subarea A on Primrose Road, between Burlingame Avenue and
Chapin Avenue,within the area for an additional 5 full-service restaurants.
The motion was seconded by Commissioner Auran.
Discussion of motion:
8
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes April 27, 2009
■ Appreciated Mr. Sa/ma's expert input on this matter.
Chair Cauchi called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed 6-0-1 (Commissioner
Terrones absent). The Planning Commission's action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8.14 p.m.
9
Amendment to Title 25 of Muni Code
Agenda Item#5-04.27.09 PC Mtg.
CD/PLG-Meeker,William
From: CD/PLG-Love,Patricia
Sent: Monday,April 27,2009 1:50 PM
To: CD/PLG-Meeker,William;CD/PLG-Brooks,Maureen
Subject: food establishment changes
From:Kirk Syme[mailto:ksyme@woodstockdevelopment.comj
Sent:Monday,April 27,2009 1:30 PM
To:CD/PLG-Love,Patricia
Subject:RE:food establishment changes
Patricia,
I am the owner of a 9,000 sq ft two-story building located at 329 Primrose Rd. I would like to request that my property
be included in the amendment to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code regarding additional food establishments in
certain portions of Subarea A of the Burlingame Ave Commercial Area.
First,my building is close to ample public parking(lots A and C)which makes it a very viable location for a restaurant.
Second,there are several vacancies on our block. A restaurant would increase foot traffic on our block and help with
the other retail establishments on our block.Also,it seems somewhat arbitrary that Primrose Ave south of Burlingame
Ave is included and the North is not.
Third,the first floor,approximately 4,500 sq ft, is an ideal size for a restaurant full-service restaurant.
I would be happy to meet with you to discuss this further.
Thank You,
Kirk C.Syme
Woodstock Development,Inc
330 Primrose Rd Suite 203
Burlingame,CA 94010
650-579-1901
t
City of Burlingame
Amendment to Title 25 of the Municipal Code (Zoning Ordinance) regarding item No.
Action Calendar
Burlingame Avenue Food Establishments, Definition of"Ready-to-eat Food
Shop"and to Clarify Parking Requirements for Single Family Dwellings
Meeting Date: 4/27/09
Proposal: Amendment to Title 25 of The Burlingame Municipal Code to Allow up to Five Additional
Food Establishments in Certain Portions of Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue
Commercial Area, to Add a Definition for "Ready-to-eat Food Shop", and to Clarify the
Parking Requirements for Single Family Dwellings
Environmental Review Status: The proposed changes to the zoning code to increase the number of
food establishments, add a definition for ready-to-eat food shop and to clarify the parking requirements
for single family homes are Categorically Exempt from review pursuant to the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines. The proposed changes do not
represent a change to the type or intensity of use allowed within the current zoning for the area, and
would be considered minor alterations to land use limitations, which are exempt from environmental
review.
Planning Commission Study Meeting: On April 13, 2009, the Planning Commission reviewed the
proposals to amend the zoning code and provided comments (refer to attached 4/13/09 Planning
Commission Minutes). There were no comments regarding the correction to the parking requirements.
Regarding the proposal to add five new food establishments in portions of Subarea A, Commissioners
suggested that the code provision allowing the opportunity to revisit the number of restaurants once
the number drops below 40 be retained. The proposed ordinance has been revised to allow this
option to remain.
Commissioners had several comments regarding the proposal to add a definition for"snack shops". It
was suggested that the definition should be revised to reflect the method of delivery of the food versus
the type of food (snacks). Based on this discussion, the definition has been revised and the
classification is now proposed to be identified as "ready-to-eat food shops". The Commission also
suggested that we look at establishing a maximum total floor area for these types of businesses, not
just a maximum seating area. Staff took an informal survey of existing tenant space sizes in the
Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. There are quite a few (more than 20) smaller tenant spaces,
ranging from about 500 square feet to 1100 square feet that could accommodate a small ready-to-eat
facility. The attached photos depict three of these tenant spaces that are now for lease. It was also
noted that some of the smaller limited food establishments fall in this range, and a few of the specialty
and full service restaurants are about 1500 square feet. Based on this informal survey, staff is
proposing that the maximum tenant space size for a "ready-to-eat food shop should be 1200 square
feet of gross floor area.
Commissioners also asked about the existing food establishments on the list which might qualify as
ready-to-eat food shops, and whether being reclassified would open up more food establishment
opportunities. The existing regulations limit the location of the food establishment to the property
where they existed when the list was first created in 1998, so reclassifying a food establishment as a
ready-to-eat food shop would not necessarily open up another opportunity, unless there was a tenant
space available located on the same property. It is suggested that these food establishments remain
on the list, and if a property owner wished to pursue a reclassification based on an available tenant
space on their property, the property owner could request the reclassification.
Ordinance Amending Title 25(Zoning Code) April 27, 2009
Burlingame Avenue Food Establishments, Definition of Ready-to-eat Food Shop, and Parking Requirements for Single
Family Dwellings
BACKGROUND:
Expand the Number of Food Establishments in Subarea A: The current food establishment
regulations for Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District state that the number of food
establishments shall be limited to those existing and in business on November 1, 1998 at the locations
as shown on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishment by Type
Tables, as approved by the City Council on October 18, 1999 (C.S. 25.36.043 (b), refer to attached
table). The regulations further state that when the number of total food establishments in this area
drops below 40 for a period of more than twelve consecutive months, it shall be reported to the
Planning Commission and Council.
At the Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission held on March 21, 2009, it was
reported that the current number of food establishments in this area has dropped to 38. The City
Council and Planning Commission directed that an ordinance amendment be drafted to allow an
increase in the number of food establishments to enhance the economic vitality of the Burlingame
Avenue Commercial Area. The City Council and Planning Commission also directed that staff look
into allowing certain small snack-type establishments, such as yogurt shops and bakeries, to be
considered as a retail use rather than a food establishment.
The proposed ordinance amendment would allow an increase of up to five additional food
establishments. It is proposed that the five new restaurants be limited to only a full service food
establishment, and limited to tenant spaces with frontages on the following streets: Burlingame
Avenue between Primrose Road and EI Camino Real; and on Primrose Road, Park Road and Lorton
Avenue between Burlingame and Howard Avenues.
As was the case when the number of food establishments was increased on Broadway, the location of
the five new food establishments would be determined by the issuance of conditional use permits for
the proposed new businesses. Once each new food establishment receives a conditional use permit
and the food establishment begins operation, the location would become fixed and added to the Food
Establishment by Type Table. The five new food establishments would be filled on a first come first
served basis. Planning staff will accept and process the applications as they are received, and once
the five applications are approved by the Planning Commission, no additional requests will be
considered.
When the Food Establishment by Type Table was first established in 1999, there were 46 food
establishments in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, and there are now 37 food
establishments on the list. If all five food establishments are added, there would be a total of 43 food
establishments.
Ready-to-eat Food Shop: At the March 21, 2009 Joint Meeting, the City Council and Planning
Commission also directed that staff look into allowing certain small snack-type establishments, such
as yogurt shops and bakeries, to be considered as a retail use rather than a food establishment.
Staff is proposing that a new definition be added to the zoning code which defines 'ready-to-eat food
shop"as follows:
"Ready-to-eat Food Shop" means an establishment which sells food that is ready to eat at the time of
sale to be consumed either on the premises or off the premises, with no more than 150 square feet of
seating area and a gross floor area of no more than 1200 square feet. Full service kitchens are not
allowed in "Ready-to-eat Food Shops". A Ready-to-eat Food Shop shall be considered a general retail
use. 'Ready-to-eat Food Shops" shall include shops that sell food such as bakery items, ice cream,
yogurt, beverages, and similar items.
-2-
Ordinance Amending Title 25(Zoning Code) April 27, 2009
Burlingame Avenue Food Establishments, Definition of Ready-to-eat Food Shop, and Packing Requirements for Single
Family Dwellings
Once this definition is added to the code, a business that meets this definition could locate in any
commercial zone that allows retail uses by right.
Parking Requirements for Single Family Homes: During a recent code clean up of various sections
of the municipal code, the parking requirements for single family dwellings were inadvertently revised
to require two covered parking spaces for any new single family home regardless of the number of
bedrooms. In 1998, when the code was amended to establish design review and revise the R-1
standards to implement the design review process, the code was amended to require one covered
parking space for an existing or new home with up to four (4) bedrooms. Two covered parking spaces
are required for new homes or additions to existing homes with five (5) or more bedrooms. The
proposed ordinance amendment would revert to the requirement that has been in place since 1998
based on the number of bedrooms in the home, regardless of whether it is a new home or an addition
to an existing home.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission should conduct a public hearing and consider public testimony and the
analysis contained in the staff report. Following the public hearing the Commission may considere two
alternatives:
1. Recommend the proposed ordinance to the City Council for action; or
2. Direct staff to make adjustments to the ordinance and refer it back to the Commission for
reconsideration and action.
Maureen Brooks
Planning Manager
Attachments:
April 9, 2009 Planning Commission Minutes
March 21, 2009 Joint City Council/Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
Revised Food Establishment by Type Table for Burlingame Avenue Commercial
Area, Subarea A
Map of Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District Depicting
Proposed Areas for Five Additional Food Establishments
Notice of Public Hearing (Published in the San Mateo Times & mailed to
property owners and merchants within Subarea A of the Burlingame
Avenue Commercial Area
Proposed Ordinance Amending Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code
(Zoning Code)
S.,REPORTMCode Amendmentsl2009 Food Establishments&R-1 Parldngt4dd Food Est Burl Ave.PC Action.04.27.09.doc
-3-
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION — Unapproved Minutes April 13, 2009
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1 . 1616 ROLLINS RO , ZONED RR — APP (CATION FOR MITI ATED NEGATIVE/, PROPERTY
RATION,
CREEK ENCLOS E PERMIT AND AM DMENT TO CONDIT NAL USE PERMIT RKING IN
THE DRAINA EASEMENT (GEOF BURNS, APPLICA ; SANJAYLYN COMPA
OWNER; A LEA & BRAZE ENG( ERING INC. ENGI ER STAFF CONTACT: N HURIN
/Comniity Development Dire or Meeker presented ummary of /repoed April 13, 2009.
n comments:
■ Cammisa Hyu ai is parking at the site w; clarify if these areles and in runnin
order; there i also aboat trailer on th property.
Regarding e one-way ramps forth red-legged frog; considequires the is to
be clea d-out periodically.
■ Ther ort indicates that with res ect to habitat enhanceme the applicant may either d planting or
pay n in-lieu fee, what would e the amount of the in-lie fee? (Meeker — will rese h.)
■ W at will the applicant do f habitat enhancement? ( eeker — will research.)
Thi item was set for the regul rAction Calendar when al he information has been s
mit
and reviewed
the Planning Departme . This item concluded at 7. 12 p.m.
2. AMENDMENT TO TITLE 25 OF THE BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE (ZONING CODE) TO ALLOW UP
TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF SUBAREA A OF THE
BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA, TO ADD A DEFINITION FOR "SNACK SHOP", AND TO
CLARIFY THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS. STAFF CONTACT:
MAUREEN BROOKS
Planning Manager Brooks presented a summary of the staff report, dated April 13, 2009.
Commission comments:
■ With respect to the additional five (5) food establishments; why remove the requirement to re-visit
once the number of restaurants drops below 40? (Brooks — unlikely that it will ever drop below 40
again; but could remain in as an option.)
C1ari fly that snack shops must 'De rriaintainea an -a' operate OF as such.
■ Consider adding language to ensure that existing businesses that may qualify as a snack shop will
retain the flexibility to remain food establishments.
■ Clarified the rationale for the revising the definition for snack shops was to not impact the bona fide
food service uses.
■ Perhaps look at the method of delivery of food, versus the type of food; for example, consider
classifying such businesses as "ready to eat" food sales.
■ Consider establishing a maximum floor area for the business if staff feels it has merit.
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:26 p.m.
2
EXAMPLES OF RETAIL SPACES
LESS THAN 1200 SQUARE FEET
i
i
�a zG
3
+ b
T
i
r}
FOR LEASE
f�JfFk
q
i. a-0Aw
� Ye'
W
i
«w
363 Primrose Road
650 Square Feet
1
EXAMPLES OF RETAIL SPACES
LESS THAN 1200 SQUARE FEET
t
: x
V� m�
d
�a
1115
�r laws
_ nrs
sr, x — •. i �+moi�trtrr�r
r a
kVAJLABLE nlA %BLE
Toga Oliver rode av�
Mom Costa
IWl ke�',osta osa-aaa-taco
�a€
1411 Burlinaame Avenue
1056 Square Feet
2
��^,. °d J c � + F tf� d rE�a as. rd � .L xray r. R.. � a •,•
_<
- -
7 7 77—77
77,
777 7
77
77
77
77 - `mss.
_ -77,17
a�
Ow
a
a
I
r s.
FL • j
.. ...... ,.. Alase t"
r
'
Joint City CouncibPlanning Commission Meeting
...........
SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION
(Approved by the City Council on April 6,2009)
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 om the floor: Stephen Hamilton;Sean 'tonek;Brian and Linda Murphy;Jeff
Londer;and Pat Giorni. Corr included: make more information avail le to the community on-line;a
concern regarding lack of code enf\eet!ings
enforcement of project condi ns;the possibility of placing
recordings of the Planning Commis on the web;protect the integrity f the appeal process;consider
fines or other penalties for parties t -built"changes to projects before re iving Planning Commission
authorization for the changes;comproposed amendment to the Demolitio Ordinance regarding early
demolition;and a suggestion that athe City's parking standards be reviewe y the Traffic,Safety
a Parking Commission.ESTABL HMENT OF WORK PLES FO HE FY 2009-2010 PLANNING DIVISIO PLANNING
COMMISSI WORK PROGRAM
The following are t FY 09-10 Work Program items for the Com nity Development Department:
• Permit increase nity in new multi-residential housing.
Encourage Downtown .game Business Association to re-estab'h BID and work with downtown
property owners and busin ses for increased accountability in rega cleanliness in front of and in back
of properties. Also explore a 'Tonal fees from property owners to assis ' funding infrastructure
improvements in downtown.
Work with Planning Commission Ne'g orhood Consistency Sub Committee to c nge process to ensure
that people adding large heating/air con ''oning units on their rooftops are require provide an attractive
way of shielding them visually from neighbo .
ce the transition to the new Granicus online re rding has been up and running success lly fora six
mo hs,explore providing searchable audio copies Planning Commission meetings online Web
strea 'g and listening after meetings.
• Explore me s of assuring that projects approved by the C are built in accordance with approved ans
(e.g.through ui. ment of deposits,or other means of assu nce from the project proponent)
• Explore the creatio f greater flexibility in the City's parking stand s.
• Develop a design revie rocess for properties situated within R-2,R-3 d R-4 zoning districts.
• Develop a policy regarding the maximum percentage of impervious surface f roperties that are subject
to development or redevelopment.
5
Exhibit A
Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A, Food Establishments by Type Table
Revised April 8, 2009
Address Name of Business Category Seating Area
1100 Burlingame Ave Straits Cafe Full Service 1 ,811 SF
1101 Burlingame Ave. ; MijaRa i Full Service 1 ,187 SF
(vacant- to be replaced) I
(combined former food i
establishments at 297 & 299
. . .. California Drive)
.. ...._.._.. ................. .. -
..__...----_... _ ...._......................-- _._... ......_...... ......................_._ .__.............-----------------_.__._..............._..-..--_ _.._..---............._....—
71 1108 Burlingame Ave/ I YaYa Cuisine ': Full Service 1200 SF
303-305 California Dr. (vacant — to be replaced) + 1 ,685 patio area at
1108 Burlingame Ave.
and 735 SF at 303-305
California Dr.
i __ i Total Seatin : 3620 SF
1171 Qrlinn�me Aire i
'
249 SP
aced by Nectar {
Lounge at 270 Lorton — part of
same
------_...__..._
4 1123 Burlingame Ave. j La Corneta j Full Service— ! 729 SF —
5 1125 Burlingame Ave. Bonarda _ { Full I 875 SF
1152 B UrliRgame Ave I Noah's i (replacedaw� �e
with retail use (
6 1160 Burlingame Ave. I Starbucks Limited Food Service ( 331 SF
1205 BUFloRgame Ave. ''tea PirRata (replaced by Quickly Full Ser-vise I 895 SP
at 283 Lorton — part of same
i ro ert) ,
7 1207 Burlingame Ave. Round Table Pizza I Specialty Food Shop 1 785 SF _
8 1213 Burlingame Ave. j Min alaba Restaurant Full Service 500 SF
9 1216 Burlingame Ave. Copenhagen Bakery 1 _Full Service 980 SF
10 1219 Burlingame Ave. Cafe La Scala Full Service ! 960 SF _ —
11 1308 Burlingame Ave. I The Cakery_ _ Limited Food Service _ 138 SF
- — —
12 1309 Burlingame Ave. Peet's Coffee and Tea Limited Food Service I 187 SF
13 1310 Burlingame Ave. j Crepevine Full Service �� 1 ,269 SF
14 1318 Burlingame Ave. Mediterranean Kabob Specialty Food Shoff j _ 434 SF
15 1401 Burlingame Ave.__— Bur_qer Joint Full Service — 572 SF
16 1407 Burlingame Ave. Le Croissant Cafe Limited Food Service j _ 125 SF _
17 1408 Burlingame Ave. —? Alana's Full Service 266 SF
18 1409 Burlingame Ave. I Baskin-Robbins Limited Food Service ' 128 SF
' €�-Service 275 S
(replaced with retail) I I 5gg I
i -�
19 1425 Burlingame Ave. ttI La Boheme j Full Service _ 936 SF
I fit- re laced with retail .
i9ame 4ve. asaa replaced with retail _ F_
20 1447 Burlingame Ave. ! Sapore Italiano Ristorante i Full Service i 628 SF(floor)
216 SF (mezzanine)
Total Seating: 844. SF
21 1448 Burlingame Ave. ( HoIa! Mexican Restaurant & Full Service 2,684SF
11 Cantina _
22 1451 Burlingame Ave. Isobune Sushi Full Service —!-- 934 SF
.......... —--.........:......----.......-.--..........
..._ ----
23 1 1453 Burlingame Ave. Panda Express Seecialty Food Shop 1 ,119 SF
&TOOD REGSIUpdated TablesOurlingame.2009.doc 1
Exhibit A
Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, Subarea A, Food Establishments by Type Table
Revised April 8, 2009
Address Name of Business Category Seating Area
297:GalifGFR a DFive Limited C.,..rl Ceniire none
(replaced by restaurant at 1101
I
7QQ r`�Iifnrn o'rin�ie I 1 imifer! Cr,nlJ Coniine P
(replaced by restaurant at 1101 i
Burlingame)
........_._....----_. _......._ _._. ----._p..__ —---- .._ _
24 1215 Donnelly Ave__ ' St. Clair's Limited Food Service ! —323 SF
25 220 Lorton Ave. I.Alibi i Bar475 SF
26 246 Lorton Ave. Pads Flynn's__-- ; Bar__ ._._...__-......-.....__..-.------___._.._..475 SF __.......___._..
27 250 Lorton Ave. j Zeyno i Full Service 625 SF
28 260 Lorton Ave. House of Bagels _ 1 Limited Food Service I none
29 266 Lorton Ave. 1 Trapeze Restaurant Full Service 376 SF
30 270 Lorton Ave. ' Nectar Lounge (Replaced I Full Service 1074 SF
Sweet Treats at 1121
Burlingame Avenue—part of
i
__...--.�..._._.__.___-- ' same property_.--..___.._..._-__..____.._._'....................._.
.....................__.........................
-...._. .._.._ __.._.__....._.. _ _
31 283 Lorton Ave. Quickly Limited Food Service 50 SF
(replaced La Pinata at 1205
1 Burlingame in same_buildingy). a...—._....._....__._.......
_._—_____
32 322 Lorton Ave. I Ecco 1 Full Service 1,500 SF
_.._.._.--_....._..._...-1_
33 221 Park Rd. I Vinyl Room I Bar 611 SF
34 231 Park Rd. i Narin Thai Cuisine Full Service 338 SF
35 240 Park Rd. Sakae Sushi j Full Service i 250 SF
224 Primrose Rd. '� `:, F11
X,-mrS8FViv8 551-8F=
(replaced with retail_ — _
2`Z it D ri m rn c o A rl ._..._...._..--.........---.--�
Spec;ialty Food Shopi 562 SF (iRde9F)
(replaced with retail) 90 SF= (outdoor PGFGh)
7G:OD mrna
=vo r.rrnvCarl.�oTccr. 619 SF=
(replaced with retail j—
36 290 Primrose Rd. ' CJ's Sandwich Shop Limited Food Service 66 SF (indoor)
329 SF (roof deck)
Total Seatin 395 SF
.. --..-...-_.-.............---._.._. ----- —.._._.__.._..9._I......._...................--
37 321 Primrose Rd. Piazza Italia Cafe I Full Service 288 SF
38 347 Primrose Rd. I Barracuda
Full Service 1 921 SF
TOTALS BY TYPE OF FOOD ESTABLISHMENT
October 18 1999 March 21 2005 1 April 8, 2009
Full Service
23 1 22 23
Specialty Food Shoff — 1 5 5 ` 3 1
Limited Food Service I14 11 9
I Bar 4 3 i 3
I Total Food Establishments 1 4641
' When the total number of food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area drops below forty
(40) for a period of twelve consecutive months, the Community Development Director shall report this to the
Planning Commission and City Council.
2 Last action to replace 2 food establishments with retail—Anthropologie replaced Chicken! Chicken! And Yianni's
at 220 and 224 Primrose—building permit for retail use finaled on March 23,2007.
S:IFOOD REGSVpdated TablesOurlingame.2009.doc 2
btiy b�� Burlingame Avenue
�auauaaa-
P�� q��,pOgORO�Lomyn
mercial Distr' - Subarea A
a
` 4aaaIaaaaar
y1' pted by City Council on February 1, 2
�. Potential Loactions
�9OR for 5 new Food
Establishme s
70
•• u ame
Tra
BCitv nHaTe J�Q` 3ti ,`1 ation
Fqs�,
V dp Parkig rD,i�O ••• c N
n
'1, Lot D 3�� Ji � ti s• �` T
BuLibrary a City �'e° J ' p5 Parkin ••
Parking P '3o'5i Lot •
Lot ryb�
City (-��
a� b Parkin V �p
ati Lot
RD
A�MFR DP, ••.• '�� ♦ Lot C `.,'s � J I'O ti'L�0 DOjQj��
,J� ,Fl FJd w♦♦�' ♦ ��Do ��,�9,�,100,� �G�'� E ,r. �J, OR
c�tY PLotE9Post •�iH Asa '�o�� /C,(
Office
9
Parkin
'4y'O Lot J,3 v1� ,A� S` �/� PCltn9
x k , S
'V b � I LOt j • 1�
.o V 1{-105 7
Cit "249 N V �,� o�
Parkin ♦ 9 9
City 'mss Lot L ♦�• t�Q,� ,�'AS jr�OF
Parking J�g '
Lot K-1
0
Q REq� •�� PCity Kt K9 1420 , ps Ly V�
W A 4 P
.; Churcb 'rj
45
�Cf arking e�'P� � \P
P�
d 1�
m ivl h 1c�aist 13�tiy f��O s. therines
CITY OF BURLINGAME
t COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD `'_* -' T'65'`A3
+ BURLINGAME, CA 94010Utz- v m —z— pk v
PH: (650)558-7250 • FAX: (650)696=�79Q= _ „k _ t _
www.burlingame.org rr.; *.
Amendment to Title 25 of Municipal Code.
i1S POS T.IGE
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the following pui6f i�”-fig
hearing on MONDAY, April 27, 2009 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall
Council Chambers,501 Primrose Road,Burlingame,CA: PUBLIC HEARING
The City of Burlingame Planning Commission will hold a public hearing to NOTICE
consider an amendment to Title 25 of the Burlingame Municipal Code,the
Zoning Ordinance,to allow up to five additional food establishments in
certain portions of Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area,
to add a definition for"ready-to-eat food shop,"and to clarify the parking
requirements for single family dwellings.
The staff report for this item may be reviewed prior to the
meeting at the Community Development Department,Planning
Division at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. For
additional information,please call(650)558-1250.
Mailed: April 17,2009
(Please refer to other side)
City of Burlingame
A copy of the application and plans for this project may.be reviewed prior to
the meeting at the Community Development Department at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
If you challenge the subject application(s) in court, you may be limited to
raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing,
described in the notice or in written correspondence delivered to the city_ at or
prior to the public hearing.
Property owners who receive this notice are respcnsible for informing their
tenants about this notice.
For additional information, please call (650) 558-7250: Thank you. '
William Meeker
Community Development Director
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE
(Please refer to other side)
1 ORDINANCE NO.
z
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 25.36 OF TITLE 25 OF THE
3 BURLINGAME MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW UP TO FIVE ADDITIONAL FOOD ESTABLISHMENTS
IN CERTAIN PORTIONS OF SUBAREA A OF THE BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA,T
4 ADD A DEFINITION FOR"READY-TO-EAT FOOD SHOP"AND TO ALLOW READY-TO-EAT FOOD
SHOPS AS A RETAIL USE,AND TO AMEND CHAPTER 25.70.030 TO CLARIFY THE PARKING
5 REQUIREMENTS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS
6 The CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
7 Section 1. The current food establishment regulations for Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue
8 Commercial District state that when the number of total food establishments in this area drops below 40
9 for a period of more than twelve consecutive months,it shall be reported to the Planning Commission and
10 Council. At the Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission held on March 21,2009,it
11 was reported that the current number of food establishments in this area has dropped to 38. The City
12 Council and Planning Commission directed that an ordinance amendment be drafted to allow an increase
13 in the number of food establishments to enhance the economic vitality of the Burlingame Avenue
14 Commercial Area. The City Council and Planning Commission also directed that staff look into allowing
15 certain small snack-type establishments,such as yogurt shops and bakeries,to be considered as a retail
16 use rather than a food establishment.
17 Section 2. During a recent code clean up of various sections of the municipal code,the parking
18 requirements for single family dwellings were inadvertently revised to require two covered parking spaces
19 for any new single family home regardless of the number of bedrooms. In 1998,when the code was
20 amended to establish design review and revise the R-1 standards to implement the design review
21 process,the code was amended to require one covered parking space for an existing or new home with
22 up to four(4)bedrooms. Two covered parking spaces are required for new homes or additions to existing
23 homes with five(5)or more bedrooms. It is the purpose of this ordinance to revert to the requirement that
24 has been in place since 1998.
25 Section 3. Section 25.08.590-1 is added to read as follows:
26 25.08.590 Ready-to-eat Food Shop
27 'Ready-to-eat Food Shop"means an establishment which sells food that is ready to eat at the
28 time of sale to be consumed either on the premises or off the premises,with no more than 150 square
29 feet of seating area and a gross floor area of no more than 1000 square feet. Full service kitchens are
30 not allowed in 'Ready-to-eat Food Shops". A Ready-to-eat Food Shop shall be considered a genera
31 retail use. "Ready-to-eat Food Shops"shall include shops that sell food such as bakery items,ice cream
32 yogurt,beverages,and similar items.
-1
1 Section 4. Section 25.36.043 is amended to read as follows:
2 25.36.042 Food establishments in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area.
3 (a) Applicability. The provisions of this section shall only apply to food establishments in the
4 Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, subarea A.
5 (b) In subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area,the number of food
6 establishments shall be limited as follows:
7 (1) to those existing and in business on November 1, 1998, and at the locations as shown on
8 the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area subarea A Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by
9 the city council on October 18, 1999. A food establishment is a business as defined in Section 25.08.268
10 and shall be deemed in business if it was legally open for business as a food establishment to the public
11 on November 1, 1998; and
12 (2) Up to five (5)more food establishments in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue
13 Commercial District, limited to tenant spaces with frontages on the following streets: Burlingame Avenue
14 between Primrose Road and EI Camino Real; on Primrose Road, Park Road and Lorton Avenue between
15 Burlingame and Howard Avenues; and on the west side of Primrose Road between Burlingame and
16 Chapin Avenues, so long as any such food establishment is limited to only a full service food
17 establishment upon approval of a conditional use permit.
18 (c) Seating Area.The seating area of the food establishments described in subsection (b)of
19 this section as shown on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area subarea A Food Establishments by
20 Type Tables approved by the city council on October 18, 1999, above may be enlarged only by
21 amendment to the applicable conditional use permit for the establishment.
22 (d) Changes in Classification and Replacement.
23 (1) A food establishment use classified as a full service restaurant by the Burlingame Avenue
24 Commercial Area subarea A Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the city council on
25 October 18, 1999, may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service or bar
26 upon approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit to the establishment.
27 (2) A food establishment use classified as a limited food service by the Burlingame Avenue
28 Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the city council on
29 October 18, 1999, may change its food establishment classification only to a full service restaurant or bar
30 with approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the establishment.
31 (3) A food establishment use classified as a bar by the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area
32 subarea A Food Establishments by Type Tables approved by the city council on October 18, 1999, may
1 change its food establishment classification only to a full service restaurant or a limited food service with
2 approval of an amendment to the conditional use permit for the establishment.
3 (4) A food establishment use classified as a specialty shop by the Burlingame Avenue
4 Commercial Area subarea A Food Establishments by Type Table approved by the city council on October
5 18, 1999, shall be allowed to change to a different type of food establishment.A specialty shop may be
6 replaced by another specialty shop at the same location within the same or less square footage. If a
7 specialty shop is changed to any other classification the site shall not return to specialty shop use.
8 (5) A food establishment may be replaced by another food establishment of the same
9 classification so long as the replacement business is of the same classification as that shown for the site
10 on the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishments by Type Tables approved
11 by the city council on October 18, 1999, subject to the conditions of the existing conditional use permit,
12 and it complies with the same conditions as in the existing conditional use permit.
13 (e) Change in Location.
14 (1) No food establishment shall occupy a location not shown on the Burlingame Avenue
15 Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishments by Type Tables as approved by the city council on
16 October 18, 1999.
17 (2) Specialty shops shall not relocate to any other location on the Burlingame Avenue
18 Commercial Area Subarea A Food Establishment by Type Tables list as approved by the city council on
19 October 18, 1999.
20 (f) Review of Number of Food Establishments.When the total number of food establishments in
21 the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area drops below forty(40)for a period of more than twelve (12)
22 consecutive months, the director of community development shall report this to the planning commission
23 and city council.
24 (g) Expansion. An existing food establishment, including specialty shops, may be expanded
25 at its existing location so long as the expansion does not increase the size of the seating area.
26 (h) Loss of Use.A food establishment shall be deemed out of business when the premises is
27 occupied by another business which is not a food establishment.
28 (i) Performance Standards. All food establishments shall comply with the following:
29 (1) Provide trash receptacle(s)at location(s)and of a design selected by the city;
30 (2) Provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty(50)feet of all
31 frontages of the business;
32 (3) Apply for a conditional use permit for delivery of prepared food from the premise; and
1 (4) Food sales from a window or any opening within ten (10)feet of property line shall be
2 prohibited.
3 Section 3. Section 25.70.030 is amended to read as follows:
4 25.70.030 Requirements for single-family dwellings.
5 The following are parking requirements for single family dwellings.
6 (a) Parking Space Requirements. There shall be at least one permanently maintained
7 garage or covered carport available to park a car for each single-family dwelling with the following further
8 requirements:
9 (1) An existing single-family dwellings increased in size to three (3) or four(4) bedrooms and a new
10 single-family dwelling with up to four(4) bedrooms shall provide off-street parking spaces to current code
11 dimensions for at least two (2)vehicles, one of which must be covered by a garage or carport;
12 (2) A single-family dwelling hereafter increased in size to five(5) or more bedrooms and a
13 new single-family dwelling with five (5)or more bedrooms-shall provide off-street parking to current code
14 dimensions for at least three(3)vehicles,two(2)of which must be covered by a garage or carport;
15 (3) For the purposes of subsections (a)(1)and (2)of this section, an existing garage not less
16 than eighteen (18)feet wide and twenty(20)feet deep interior dimension shall be considered to provide
17 two (2)covered off-street parking places.
18 (b) Parking Aisles and Driveways.
19 Covered parking spaces shall have a twenty-four(24)foot back up area or be designed to be
20 entered or exited in no more than three(3) maneuvers. All spaces must allow entry in three (3)
21 maneuvers in the forward direction.
22 (c) Parking limitations:
23 (1) A vehicle shall not be parked between a structure and the front or side property line
24 except in a garage, driveway or other approved parking;
25 (2) Inoperative vehicles, vehicle parts, boats and campers (as defined by Section 243 of the
26 Vehicle Code)shall not be stored or parked in driveways or between a structure and front or side property
27 line;
28 (3) Required covered parking shall not be provided in tandem configuration;
29 (4) For an addition to an existing single-family dwelling, required uncovered spaces may be
30 provided in tandem configuration and may extend:
31 (A) In areas with sidewalks, to the inner edge of the sidewalk;
32
1 (B) In areas without sidewalks to five (5) feet from the inner edge of the curb;
2 (C) in areas without either sidewalks or curbs, to five (5) feet from the edge of pavement.
3 Section 5. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
4
5
6 Mayor
7
I, MARY ELLEN KEARNEY, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the
8 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
9 of , 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
10 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
11 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
12
13 City Clerk
14
15
16
S:2oning RevisionslFood Establishments.Snack ShopslFood Est Burlingame Ave.Ordinance.rev.5.04.09.doc
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Agenda
Item # 8b
Meeting
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: May 4, 2009
SUBMITTED Y
APPROVED BY
t .
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: April 28, 2009
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: HIGH SPEED RAIL PROJECT UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council receive presentation from
California High Speed Rail CHSRA (CHSRA) regarding the High Speed Rail project and
provide input and feedback.
BACKGROUND: In November 2008, the California voters approved Proposition 1A
calling for High Speed Rail (HSR) between San Francisco and Los Angeles. The
CHSRA proposes to utilize the existing Caltrain corridor for its alignment through the
San Francisco Peninsula.
On February 17, 2009, the CHSRA made a presentation to the Council. The
presentation included the overall purpose of HSR program and its project goals. In
Compliance with California Environmental Quality Act, the CHSRA requested input and
comments from the public and the City for developing the scoping document in
preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Environmental Impact Study
(EIS). Staff had earlier submitted initial comments and concerns regarding the project
which were subsequently revised and re-submitted to the CHSRA prior to the April 6,
2009 deadline (see attached).
Also, staff and Council members from Burlingame, San Mateo and Millbrae jointly met
with the CHSRA to express concerns and to help develop a process for public outreach
and input in the project development. Staff is also working with our adjacent cities to
coordinate the project issues between our borders as any option chosen in one
jurisdiction may likely impact the adjacent neighbor.
DISCUSSION: Currently, the CHSRA is in the process of reviewing comments
submitted by agencies and the public along the corridor between San Francisco and
San Jose which will be included in developing the project scope, alternatives studies
and environmental analysis. The CHSRA staff will make a presentation to provide an
update regarding the project progress, public outreach process and schedule.
Staff has sent notification to the residents along the railroad corridor and through the
email list serve as well as posted notice on the website.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
EXHIBITS: High Speed Rail initial and revised comments with Mayor's letter.
SAA Public Works Directory\High Speed Rail\HSR update May 4-09-Stat'CReport.doc
BUR, IV�I�I�AE
..m�`r.r r air!w.r.•
ANN KEIGHRAN,MAYOR T ge e4 y TEL: (650)558-7200
CATHY BAYLOCK,VICE MAYOR // FAX: (650)342-8386
JERRY DEAL CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD www.burlingame.org
TERRY NAGEL BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010-3997
ROSALIE O'MAHONY
April 3, 2009
Mr. Dan Leavitt
Deputy Director
California High-Speed Rail Authority
925 L Street, Suite 1425
.Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: San Francisco to San Jose section — EIR/EIS for California High-Speed Rail project
Sent: via mail and email to comments(cD-hsr.ca.gov
Dear Mr. Leavitt,
Thank you for presenting the California High-Speed Rail (CHSR) project to our City Council on
February 17, 2009. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Impact
Report/Statement—Notice of Preparation. Our City Council has reviewed the recommended alignment
for the San Francisco to San Jose section of the California High-Speed Train and submits the attached
revised comments on the proposed CHSR project.
The City of Burlingame has several significant concerns regarding the CHSR project and its impacts to
our community. A major concern is that the proposed project would create a physical divide through the
community. It is crucial that the CHSR project shall not create a barrier through the city.Any option that
involves elevated tracks using retaining walls or bridging is not acceptable to the City. A tunnel is the
preferred option for our community. Placing the rail line in a tunnel will diminish a visual and physical
barrier through the city and would not adversely affect the residents and property values. This preferred
-1 .•. 4 .. IM 6, i ,.l• rl 0,oro,I kl,i'_+h GIR/EIC (ln I�oholf of Fhc t'i}v('n�in4ril 11lmo vn�i to
Uesign option should be x641MI�rrM 61 I My_11 'y 111 611 "11 v Iv. 0'0' e ISA 11 of 4he , it a say my x v
take every possible step to avoid impacts to our community.
Please Contact Syed MurtUza, Public Works Director at 650-5508-7/2-30 'if you need 1U1 u ier if I!Ui IilcRi0;1.
Sincerely,
C21Z'7U � "
Ann Keighran
Mayor, City of Burlingame
Enc: March 27, 2009 City of Burlingame comments on California High-Speed Rail Project
C: City Council, Jim Nantell, City Manager; Syed Murtuza, Public Works Director; Bill Meeker,
Community Development Director, Mike Scanlon, CEO San Mateo County Transporation Authority
Page 1 of 5
CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMENTS April 3,2009
California High Speed Rail(CHSR) Project
Comments on the Scope of the San Francisco to San Jose Project
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
The City of Burlingame expresses major concerns regarding the potential impacts of the
CHSR project in our community and submits the following comments to be addressed
by the project:
1.CHSR Project shall not create a visual or physical divide through the
community.
The proposed corridor for the CHSR project runs north-south through the City of
Burlingame,bisecting major residential areas in the City.Homes begin just south of the
existing Millbrae Intermodal station and end at the San Mateo border. In some areas
there are residences,parks, and a school about 50 feet from the.tracks. Burlingame
High School and Washington Park are adjacent to the proposed corridor with east-west
connections across the corridor to the downtown and the Burlingame Avenue Train
Station.Essentially one-quarter of our population lives east of the rail line and the CHSR
improvements could adversely divide our city in two. The project shall not disrupt
existing services nor create a physical barrier dividing the city.
All plans shall be consistent with City zoning and General Plan requirements. The
existing General Plan and preliminary Downtown Plan encourage high-density housing
along transportation corridors. A physical barrier along the rail line will diminish the
desirability of living close to the train and decrease property values.The City requests
an economic study on the future impacts of the high speed rail service on properties in
and around the corridor.
Other impacts to be reviewed in the environmental impact report/environmental impact
statement(EIR/EIS)include but are not limited to:emergency vehicle access,aesthetic
(visual, lighting, and fencing), noise, vibration, vehicle traffic, pedestrian and bicycle
traffic,air pollution,right-of-way impacts and land takings,
2. Study all options with a preference to underground (tunnel) and/or trench
(open cut)through the City of Burlingame.
The project shall study and identify all options with impacts including:
• Underground(tunnel)
■ Trench(open cut)
■ Overhead(raised)
■ Combination(partially underground or overhead both road and/or railroad)
■ Use of an existing Caltrain modified bullet service to serve as a high speed rail
connector between San Jose and San Francisco.This option may reduce the
impacts to all the Peninsula communities and save significant costs to the
CHSR project
■ Restoration of Caltrain service at the Broadway station,which Caltrain
authorities have identified as an improvement possible with electrification
Page 2 of 5
The City prefers the rail line to be either in a tunnel or in a trench, to reduce the impacts
to the community. Placing the rail line underground will diminish a visual and physical
barrier through the city. This preferred design option should be studied thoroughly in the
EIR/EIS.
3. Protect and preserve all historic resources, including but not limited to the
Burlingame Avenue and Broadway train stations, as well as the eucalyptus grove.
There are two historic train stations listed with the National Historic Register in the City
of Burlingame. To the north is the Broadway station, currently a restaurant, and to the
south the recently improved Burlingame Avenue Train Station. In addition, there is a
historic eucalyptus grove from North Lane to beyond Oak Grove Avenue, on the west
side of the tracks (the Franchard Trust Grove). These historic resources need to be
preserved and maintained at their current locations.
If future improvements will impact any other existing landscaping elements adjacent to
the tracks, the City recommends installing replacement landscaping now to ensure
future screening. Landscaping along the corridor has been critically important to
reducing visual and aesthetic impacts from the existing rail line and should be
maintained with all future construction.
The community participated and spent more than five years in the planning, design, and
construction of the new $20.5 million improvements at the Burlingame Avenue Train
Station, while respecting the station's historic elements. It is imperative that CHSR
project preserve these improvements.
4. Avoid impacts to the downtown business districts
The project must take into account the two main commercial districts in the City of
Burlingame: Burlingame Avenue and Broadway. Both were developed adjacent to the
train tracks when the stations were built. These commercial streets are the heart of the
retail districts for the City. There shall be no impacts to these two vital areas from the
proposed project. Existing connections across the tracks to the two downtowns must be
seamless and continuous with the proposed project. Also, there shall be no impact to
the retail areas during construction.
5. All costs paid by the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA)
The CHSRA shall bear all associated project costs, regardless of options chosen by the
community, including all mitigation measure costs. This requirement includes an open
trench or tunnel option. There shall be no costs to the City of Burlingame for the design,
construction or mitigation of impacts with the CHSR project.
In addition, the EIR/EIS shall explore and implement private-public partnership
opportunities for funding a trench or underground option for the rail line.
6. CHSRA must pay for the right-of-way costs
The existing Caltrain rail corridor was purchased by SAMTRANS paid for by the public.
The CHSRA must pay the monetary value for the use of Caltrain right-of-way in terms
Page 3 of 6
acceptable to SAMTRANS and the citizens of San Mateo County.
7.Construction impacts to existing Caltrain service
The CHSRA shall demonstrate by engineering studies how the high speed rail line can
be built while maintaining and enhancing existing Caltrain service.Residents depend on
Caltrain service for transportation to and from work and other activities. This service
shall not be interrupted but maintained at all times during construction. In addition,
service at the Broadway station may be restored once the Caltrain line is electrified.
Also,the EIR/EIS shall consider how additional side tracks will be used to divert existing
rail service during construction.Where and how will temporary shoo-fly tracks be used
for phasing construction? Will there be a permanent shoo-fly line in the City of
Burlingame at completion of Caltrain and the high speed rail improvements?
8.Construction impacts to residents,schools and businesses
The project shall study, identify and mitigate all potential construction impacts to the
residents,schools,and businesses in the City. Residents,businesses and emergency
services such as Police, Fire and Medical services heavily depend on the existing
railroad crossings for emergency access. These railroad crossings must remain open to
the public throughout the project construction period.
In addition, the project shall also include in its study potential loss of revenue to the
businesses from the project construction activities and shall address such impacts.
9. Utility impacts
Major utility lines currently cross the railroad corridor throughout the city. They include
gravity storm drains and culverts,water lines,sewer mains,signal conduits,and street
lights. These lines may be in conflictwith the proposed project and shall be protected in
place or redesigned and reconstructed, if required, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer at no cost to the City.
In addition, a portion of the railroad corridor carries storm water from Burlingame,
Ralston,Terrace and Sanchez Creeks,and thus acts as a detention basin during heavy
rains and high tides. The proposed project may significantly upset the drainage capacity
of the system, and compromise flood protection to the community. The storm drain
system must be thoroughly studied and addressed by the project to avoid impacts.
10. Project coordination with other regional projects and services
The project shall not impact the proposed Broadway Interchange improvements.
With Broadway as the only access to U.S.Highway 101 in Burlingame,changes to the
Broadway rail crossing will significantly impact traffic flows to the interchange and the
freeway. There are more than 230,000 vehicles per day along the freeway at this
interchange.Roadway impacts,elevations changes,and right-of-way takings all need to
be thoroughly reviewed in conjunction with interchange plans being coordinated through
Caltrans and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority.
Page 4 of 5
Caltrain plans for electrification must be included in all options of the CHSR project. The
plans must address how the planned Caltrain improvements will be coordinated with the
final design and construction of the CHSR project. The two projects need to be reviewed
as one to comprehensively address and mitigate the cumulative impacts.
Freight service continues along the rail corridor. Will it remain with the high speed rail
plans? How will freight service, local Caltrain service and high speed rail all coexist
along the same rail corridor?
11. Coordination with adjacent communities
Any alignment in the cities of San Mateo or Millbrae may cause adverse impacts in the
City of Burlingame. The CHSRA shall include the City of Burlingame in the development
of options to the north and south of our City limits. No options shall be pursued without
City Council approval.
12. Public input and outreach
The City of Burlingame requests that the CHSRA provide a transparent process for
public input into the project development, planning, design, engineering and
construction. CHSRA shall conduct well publicized community meetings that allow time
for public comment on a regular basis during .all phases .of study, design, and
construction. A dedicated project manager shall be assigned to deal with project issues
in the City of Burlingame. The City of Burlingame requests quarterly presentations by
CHSRA to the City Council on the project progress that include time for community
feedback. These presentations shall include updates on the project schedule and
timeline for the CEQA process, mitigation measures, financing costs, engineering
design, and construction.
13. City review and approval requirements
The City Council shall review and approve all parts of the project within the City
jurisdiction. The CHSRA shall provide in a timely manner all studies, environmental
documents, and preliminary engineering plans, including 30 percent, 60 percent and 90
percent plans, and final design documents to the City for review and approval. There
shall be sufficient time allowed in the project schedule for City review and comments.
No work shall be done in City right-of-way without City approval and an encroachment
permit.
S:%A Public Works DirecloryV-tigh Speed RalhDraft HSR comments with Mayoras letter 3-27-09.doc
Page 5 of 5
CITY G
BII WNGAME STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
o'$AwTm e&... ITEM # 8c
MTG.
DATE May 4, 2009
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBMITTED
DATE: April 15, 2009 BY Jim Nantell
FROM: Jim Nantell APPROV
Tel.No.: 558-7204 By tutIS&V
SUBJECT: Membership in the High Speed Rail Consortium
RECOMMENDATION: That the Council determines whether or not to join the Peninsula
Cities Consortium that has been proposed to provide information and input on the High Speed
Rail project.
BACKGROUND: A few peninsula cities have been meeting to discuss the possible formation
of a consortium of cities on the Peninsula to work towards collective policy and procedural
positions to represent united interests shared by Peninsula cities regarding the construction of a
high speed train project through the peninsula. Councilmember Jerry Deal was invited to attend
the Friday morning meetings that have been held in south San Mateo County; and Mayor
Keighran asked Councilmember Deal to attend and keep the Council informed of the activities of
the participating cities. Recently the group drafted a Memorandum of Understanding for
consideration by peninsula cities that may want to join a proposed Peninsula Cities Consortium.
Councilmember Deal has shared the draft MOU is (see Attachment A) for Council consideration.
In addition to the "south county" discussion the Mayors of San Mateo, Millbrae, and Burlingame
convened a meeting of Mayors and staff to work with the High Speed Rail (HSR) representatives
to discuss concerns about adequate and appropriate public input in the High Speed Rail project.
As a result of the first meeting with Council and staff from all three cities and the HSR it was
agreed that the HSR staff would develop a draft of process milestones that would help inform the
public as to the process and the points for public input and that the three city staffs would
develop a recommendation as to how to conduct the public input process.
On Monday, April 6, 2009, a meeting was held with the staff from HSR and the three cities to
review the draft of the work assigned to each group. The HSR folks presented a first draft of the
process milestones (See Attachment B) and the city staff presented a draft of the public input
approach.
1
The Suggested Approach to Public Input was as follows:
1. We strongly recommend against the creation of a County wide Citizen Advisory
Committee which we believe could result in circumvent the elected leadership who are
responsible to speak on behalf of their citizenry.
2. It is important that public input be processed through the elected leadership for each city
to ensure that they shape the assumptions for each community and be the official
spokespeople for their communities.
3. Public participation and input should be hosted by each city whose staff would be
responsible to facilitate the meeting and providing the written summary; with HSR staff
providing technical information specific to each community, responsible for the public
noticing,presentation of information and responding to questions.
4. Whenever possible,public meeting should include known information relative to the
needs and interest of adjacent cities, to reinforce the need for each city to try and address
the needs of their neighboring cities.
5. At the completion of the initial individual city public meetings, if appropriate,joint city
meetings with a high-speed rail may be scheduled to work on shared interest and issues.
Staff recommends that regardless of what the Council decides at this time relative to
participation in the Peninsula Cities Consortium that you continue to support the recommended
approach for public participation presented as a draft to the HSR folks at the April 6t"meeting.
Staff feels that the draft MOU is well drafted, however, there continued to be some concerns
about the Consortium as follows:
1. That a couple of the lead cities involved are also involved in a lawsuit against High
Speed Rail project and cities are concerned joining the consortium may result in a
misconception that they are empathetic to the lawsuit.
2. The Consortium leaders are contacting groups of citizens in other cities and inviting
them to participate in the Consortium and it is unclear what role those groups would play
in the Consortium.
3. The leadership of the Consortium may end up being led/dominated by the cities involved
in its formation and is that the leadership that would be best for all concerned.
4. A Consortium of all 16 peninsula cities that the train would pass through may be too big
geographically which may result in less than full participation by city representatives
from the farther reaches of the two counties. The suggestion was to form a consortium
for each county to facilitate attendance at meetings.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Memorandum of Understanding for Peninsula Consortium
B. Draft of HSR Outreach Strategy and Schedule
C. Notes from April 6, 2009 meeting
D. Letter from Mayor Keighran to the High Speed Rail Authority
2
ATTACHMENT A
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
AMONG THE CITIES OF , AND
FOR THE PENINSULA CITIES CONSORTIUM
This Memorandum of Understanding (this "Agreement,") dated , 2009, is
among the Cities of
(collectively referred to as "Peninsula Cities").
RECITALS
THIS AGREEMENT is made with reference to the following:
A. The Peninsula Cities of collectively
have agreed to come together as a group to form the Peninsula Cities Consortium
("Consortium") for the purpose of providing information and input for the purpose of
working collaboratively with the California High-Speed Rail Authority, Caltrain, and any
other entity involved, as of the date of this agreement or in the future, in approving and
constructing the high-speed train project on the Peninsula(collectively"Rail Authority").
B. The individual Peninsula Cities have come together to form the Consortium because they
recognize that, although each individual city faces unique and location-specific
challenges with respect to the high-speed train project, all of the Peninsula Cities also
share many similar concerns and the strong underlying belief that particular care must be
taken to integrate high-speed rail into the living fabric of the Peninsula.
C. The purpose of the Consortium is to work toward collective policy and procedural
positions to represent the united interests shared by all Peninsula Cities, while also
supporting each city in achieving goals and solutions appropriate to their individualized
location and needs.
D. The Consortium desires to inform the Rail Authority of its concerns about environmental
issues including, but not limited to, comments about the Environmental Impact
Report/Environmental Impact Statement to be prepared pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act and the National Environmental Policy Act.
E. While all of the Peninsula Cities may have different points of view on some issues, this
Agreement outlines a set of objectives that are common to all Peninsula Cities. The
Consortium intends to speak as one voice on these and other issues of mutual agreement
concerning the future of the High-Speed Rail.
F. The Consortium's intent is to be the principal representative of the Peninsula Cities on all
common interests concerning High-Speed Rail as it continues up the Peninsula.
G. The Peninsula Cities continue to support Caltrain and its efforts to upgrade its rail service
on the Peninsula and intends to supplement Caltrain's role regarding high-speed train
090310 mb 0111112 1
service by providing more direct interaction with the cities potentially affected by High-
Speed Rail.
NOW, THEREFORE,the Peninsula Cities Consortium hereby agrees as follows:
1. This Agreement shall create the Peninsula Cities Consortium whose purpose shall be
furthering the Peninsula Cities' mutual interests by conveying their opinions, input and
information to the Rail Authority, while also supporting each city in achieving goals and
solutions appropriate to their individualized location and needs.
2. The members of the Peninsula Cities Consortium agree to the following objectives:
a. The Rail Authority should consult with and obtain input from the Peninsula
Cities Consortium prior to and throughout designing, analyzing and determining the final
alignment of the High-Speed Rail through the Peninsula Cities.
b. The Rail Authority should consult with the Peninsula Cities Consortium in
order to determine the range of project alternatives and mitigation measures to be evaluated in
the Environmental Impact Report.
c. The Rail Authority should consult with the Peninsula Cities Consortium in
order to determine the ultimate design of the train tracks, equipment, and technology.
d. The Rail Authority should consult with the Peninsula Cities Consortium in
order to determine where the High-Speed Rail shall be located; be it underground, in a trench or
any other design. The Rail Authority should evaluate the full range of grade options. The final
design should minimize the impacts upon local communities and incorporate best practices of
urban design ideas from rail communities around the world.
3. The Mayor of each participating City shall appoint one member and two alternates.
The alternates may attend the meeting with the voting member,but each City will have one vote.
One of the alternates may be a staff member of the City. The member and at least one alternate
shall be an elected member of the governing body of the City.
4. Voting shall be by a majority vote of all Consortium Cities eligible to vote. A
majority vote by all Cities eligible to vote is required to set the policy for the Consortium. The
Chair shall determine all tie votes. However, each individual City may choose to take a policy
position which is independent of the Consortium, and positions taken by the Consortium shall
not be binding on any City.
5. The Consortium shall be established after five cities have formally agreed to join the
Consortium. Once established, the Consortium shall select a Chair and a Vice Chair. The Chair
shall call and chair each meeting and is appointed to speak on behalf of the Consortium
consistent with the principles listed above. The Vice Chair shall serve in the event that the Chair
is unavailable. The term of the Chair and Vice Chair shall be one year from the original date of
election. The Chair and Vice Chair shall be from different cities and must be elected officials.
090310 mb 0111112 2
6. The Chair may appoint subcommittees which shall study issues and report back to the
Consortium to further additional policy positions.
7. Any City may join the Consortium at any time upon approval of this Agreement by
its City Council, and any City may withdraw from membership at any time by providing notice
to the Chair.
8. A quorum shall consist of 50% of the member cities plus one.
9. This Memorandum of Understanding ("M.O.U.") does not create a new or separate
legal entity, joint venture or Joint Powers Authority. The M.O.U. is an agreement amongst
cities to work together utilizing their own resources.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first set
forth above.
CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY OF
By: By:
Mayor Mayor
By: By:
City Manager City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney City Attorney
CITY OF CITY OF
By: By:
Mayor Mayor
By: By:
City Manager City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney City Attorney
090310 mb 0111112 3
CITY OF CITY OF
By: By:
Mayor Mayor
By: By:
City Manager City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney City Attorney
CITY OF CITY OF
By: By:
Mayor Mayor
By: By:
City Manager City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney City Attorney
CITY OF CITY OF
By: By:
Mayor Mayor
By: By:
City Manager City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney City Attorney
090310 mb 0111112 4
1 1 �
EIR/EIS O
r
p ate and
San Francisco to San Jose
High-Speed Train Project EIR/EIS
f April 2, 2009
tv
41
1 � �
Alternatives Draft Final
Analysis Environmental Environmental
Scoping -Purpose and Need Document
Document
-Alternative Definition
-Alternative Analysis
= w
SCOPING PUBLIC & PUBLIC
MEETINGS AGENCY COMMENT
OUTREACH
. i
CALIFORNIA Technical Working Group Schedule 2009-2010-
W thout ever leaving the ground.
San Francisco to San Jose TWG
May 2009 Sept.2009 Jan.2009 Apr.2010
SF County SF CountySF County SF County
City TWG y City TWG City TWG City TWG
c
Scoping Report Workshop 3 Workshop Workshop Workshop
Briefings
No. 0 No.2 No.3 No.4
Purpose and Need rn
c
SM County •y .., SM County � SM County SM County
Feedback on Initial CitiesTWG p aci CitiesTWG Cities TWG Cities TWG
Definition of Worksho Cn wP Worksho 0 Worksho w m N P p Workshop
Alternatives/ >
No.1 No.2 Q No.3 No.4
Design Options y
= N Q v
Q c
•Schedule Update SC Count a) w SC County �' O :f
County y SC County U SC County
Environmental CitiesTWG o z CitiesTWG m CitiesTWG o CitiesTWG
Methods Workshop c c Workshop Q Workshop 2 Workshop
°
No. 1 9 No.2 N No. Cn No.4
•Station Design 15 >
Criteria C —
m c
R/T* n R/T* °% R/T* R/T*
Agencies Agencies Q Agencies Agencies
TWG o TWG TWG TWG
U
Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop
*R/T-Resource Agencies No.1 No.2 No.3 No.4
Transportation Agencies
CA High Speed Train—San Francisco to San Jose Section
US. Department Technical Working Group Engagement Process
of Transportation
Federal Railroad
Page 3
Administration ,,...�
xw
' Technical Weekul
r
LIFORNIA
Without ever te&viot;voe aroond,
a pit l i.
San Francisco to San Jose TWG
Jul.2009 Sept.2010 Jan.2011 Apr.2011
SF County SF County SF County SF County
CityTWG CityTWG City TWG City TWG
Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop
No.5 No.6 No.7 No.B
SM County SM County SM County SM County
CitiesTWG m CitiesTWG Cities TWG �, Cities TWG `
cWorkshop n Workshop Workshop a .. Workshop
=1 No.5 No.6 No.7
.� w
M a
o SC County o SC County t w SC County o SC County
CitiesTWG a CitiesTWG CitiesTWG a CitiesTWG
Workshop Workshop o Workshop Workshop
� No.S No.6 No.7
No.8
C7 C7 C7
R/T* R/T* R/T* R/T*
Agencies Agencies 'A Agencies Agencies
TWG TWG TWG TWG
Workshop Workshop Workshop Workshop
*R(T-Resource Agencies No.5 No.6 No.7 No.8
Transportation Agencies
`-
CA High Speed Train—San Francisco to San Jose Section
u,s. Department Technical Working Group Engagement Process
at Transportation
Federal Railroad £.
Administration
Page 4
May 2009 — TWG Workshop #1
• Scoping Report Briefings
• Purpose and Need
• Initial Identification of Alternatives/Design Options
• Schedule Update
• Environmental Methods
• Station Design Criteria
September 2009 - TWG Workshop #2
• Conceptual Design and Analysis of Alternatives/Design Options
• Station Needs Assessment
January 2010 — TWG Workshop #3
• Alternatives Analysis (AA) Draft Report
LY +
April 2010 — TWG Workshop #4
• Station Concepts
July 2010 - TWG Workshop #5
• General Project Update
September 2010 — TWG Workshop #6
• General Project Update
January 2011 - TWG Workshop #7
• Draft EIR/EIS
April 2011 — TWG Workshop #8
• General Project Update
CALIFORNIA Agency Coordination
Without ever teaving the ground
1 • city planning
agencies
Transportation I _
Local, regional, state, • nd federal
resource agencies
U,S, men#
of Transportation w-
Federal Railroad
Administration , Page 1
..
.1 sib
t
San Francisco County
City and County
San Mateo County ,
11 cities and the County
Santa Clara County
5 cities and the County
1
a.
c
v
w
r w
• •
90 • • a"�•4
ALIFORNIA City an 'unty r%.
Mthout ever feaving leavingthe,{yrourrt9. r.
v
P a Y
1
#4�
dFY.
faU.S. Department i!1
of Transportation
Federal Railroad
Administration
Page 9
CALIFORNIA City and County Contacts
Without ever leaving the ground.
• I
•
571 0
Makfil
U.S. Department
of Transportation
Federal Railroad
Administration
Page 10
CALIFORNIA City and County ContaCts
Without ever leavtog the prouncP..
a
3
I I • •
•
U.S, Department
of Transportation
Federal Railroad
Administration Page ll
LIFORNIA Operating Partners on Caltrain Corridor
Without ever leaving the Around.
see
1
1 Ak 1
o
Department
of
of Transportation
Federal Railroad
Administration Page 12
77 w
• Bay Area Rapid Transit District
• Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Authority - Caltrain/SamTrans
• San Mateo County Transportation Authority
• Water Emergency Transit Authority (WETA)
• Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
• San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency
• San Francisco County Transportation Authority
• California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) — District 4
• San Francisco International Airport
• Port of San Francisco
• • •• • • „� tee.
� 1
• Caltrans Division of Rail
• San Francisco Transbay ,joint Powers Authority
• SF Bay Rail (Shortline)
• AC Transit
• Stanford Parking & Transportation Services (Marguerite Shuttle)
• San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni)
• Burlington Northern Santa Fe
DepartmentTransportation Ag
CALIFORNIA
Mmout ever(eaving me ground
. Transportation
Federal
AdministrationPaue14
• California Environmental Protection Agency
• State Water Quality Control Board - San Francisco Bay Region 2
Governor's Office of Planning and Research
• California Department of Transportation - District 4
• California Transportation Commission
• California Department of Fish and Game, Region 3
California Department of Conservation
• California Geologic Society
• California Public Utility Commission
• State Historic Preservation Office
Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance
I
M
i
r.
California Coastal Commission
• California Air Resources Board
• Native American Heritage Commission
• San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
• State Parks Service
Department of Toxic Substances
Association of Bay Area Governments
• Mid-peninsula Regional Open Space District
• City and County Association of Governments (C/CAG)
• Metropolitan Transportation Commission
• San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
• San Mateo countywide traffic demand management (TDM)
Agency
i
• Environmental Protection Agency
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
• Federal Highway Administration
• Federal Transit Administration
• Native American Heritage Commission
• San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission
• U.S. Forest Service (USFS)
• U.S. National Park Service
Additionfl[Outrellch N
t. LIFORNIA
vWthou
• Existing forums
• City staff and council meetings
• Transit Agency Boards/Committees
• Ad hoc forums
• Civic Organizations
• Neighborhood associations
• Traditional media
• Local media outreach
• Collateral material
• CHSRA Website
• Email blasts
Department
. Transportation .:
FederalRailroad
Administration -
ATTACHMENT C
HIGH SPEED RAIL MEETING
APRIL 6, 2009
Attendees: High Speed Rail
Dominic Spaethling,Regional Manager
Timothy W.Cobb,P.E.,Vice President HNTB Corp
City of San Mateo
Susan Loftus,City Manager
Larry Patterson,Director of Public Works
City of Burlingame
Jim Nantell,City Manager
Syed Murtuza,Director of Public Works
Jane Gomery,Project Manager
City of Millbrae
Ron Popp,Director of Public Works
Questions re:Power Point
1. Define stakeholders and technical working group(TWG)as used in the milestone
power point? Answer:Stakeholders in that context is referring to the other
agencies and governmental players. The TWG is made up of the staff
representative from each city. City staff suggested that Ian McAvoy,and Joe
Hurley from JPB/Caltrain be involved with the San Mateo County TWG.
2. Will there be public input between milestone public input meetings i.e.during
Analysis Phase? Answer: HSP does anticipate meeting with different
stakeholders in the"between"time but they don't anticipate public input
meetings.
3. Now given the MOU with JPB,do you have knowledge of their grade separation
studies? Answer:yes HSR will be getting access to that information to assist in
their planning.
Public Noticing
High Speed Rail(HSR)—would like to see collaboration with cities
o access to distribute through list serves and addresses from data bases
HSR—will maintain a master list of email address to use for e-mail blast to
interested people
HSR—will be responsible for direct mailers with cities providing addresses
Involved Transit Authority and CalTrain as HSR partners in meeting with TWG in
San Mateo County
Please keep cities aware of shifting of milestone timeline as that occurs
Allow 30 days minimum for councils to meet and provide responses to work
products
Suggest that after the 30 days City Council feedback time has lapsed HSR
should hold TWG in subsequent 30 days
Get written info to TWG in advance of TWG meetings
Conflicting direction from neighboring cities should be addressed in separate
meetings with those cities rather than group meetings.
Develop simple summary of process — HSR staff will do this.
HSR should finalize public noticing expectations (i.e. mailing to properties with in
x feet) so that they can be articulated to the public.
'••:9A•YY / 9. . A 1.,{ ATTACHMENT D
i
ANN KEIGHRAN, MAYOR 14 eu gwd4ij TEL: (650) 558-7200
CATHY BAYLOCK, VICE MAYOR FAX: (650) 342-8386
JERRY DEAL CITY HALL—501 PRIMROSE ROAD www.burlingame.org E
TERRY NAGEL BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 {
ROSALIE O'MAHONY
April 3, 2009
i
Mr. Dan Leavitt
Deputy Director e
California High-Speed Rail Authority
925 L Street, Suite 1425
Sacramento, CA 95814
Re: San Francisco to San Jose section — EIRIEIS for California High-Speed Rail project
Sent: via mail and email to comments(a)hsr.ca.gov
Dear Mr. Leavitt,
Thank you for presenting the California High-Speed Rail (CHSR) project to our City Council on
February 17, 2009. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Environmental Impact
Report/Statement— Notice of Preparation. Our City Council has reviewed the recommended alignment
i
for the San Francisco to San Jose section of the California High-Speed Train and submits the attached
revised comments on the proposed CHSR project.
The City of Burlingame has several significant concerns regarding the CHSR project and its impacts to
our community. A major concern is that the proposed projectwould create a physical divide through the
community. It is crucial that the CHSR project shall not create a barrier through the city. Any option that
involves elevated tracks using retaining walls or bridging is not acceptable to the City. A tunnel is the
preferred option for our community. Placing the rail line in a tunnel will diminish• a visual and physical
barrier through the city and would not adversely affect the residents and property values. This preferred
design option should be studied thoroughly in the EIRIEIS. On behalf of the City C^uncil, l urge y^:; t^
take every possible step to avoid impacts to our community.
3
Please contact Syed Murtuza, Public Works Director at 650-558-7230 if you Hasa further information. ,
Sincerely,
Ann Keighran f
Mayor, City of Burlingame
Enc: March 27, 2009 City of Burlingame comments on California High-Speed Rail Project
C: City Council, Jim Nantell, City Manager; Syed Murtuza, Public Works Director; Bill Meeker,
Community Development Director, Mike Scanlon, CEO San Mateo County Transporation Authority
I
Page 1 of 5
CITY OF BURLINGAME COMMENTS April 3, 2009
California High Speed Rail (CHSR) Project
Comments on the Scope of the San Francisco to San Jose Project
Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement
The City of Burlingame expresses major concerns regarding the potential impacts of the
CHSR project in our community and submits the following comments to be addressed
by the project:
1. CHSR Project shall not create a visual or physical divide through the
community.
The proposed corridor for the CHSR project runs north-south through the City of
Burlingame, bisecting major residential areas in the City. Homes begin just south of the I
existing Millbrae Intermodal station and end at the San.Mateo border. In some areas i
there are residences, parks, and a school about 50 feet from the tracks. Burlingame
High School and Washington Park are adjacent to the proposed corridor with east-west
connections across the corridor to the downtown and the Burlingame Avenue Train
Station. Essentially one-quarter of our population lives east of the rail line and the CHSR
improvements could adversely divide our city in two. The project shall not disrupt
existing services nor create a physical barrier dividing the city.
All plans shall be consistent with City zoning and General Plan requirements. The I
existing General Plan and preliminary Downtown Plan encourage high-density housing
along transportation corridors. A physical barrier along the rail line will diminish the
desirability of living close to the train and decrease property values. The City requests
an economic study on the future impacts of the high speed rail service on properties in
and around the corridor. G
Other impacts to be reviewed in the environmental impact report/environmental impact
statement(EIR/EIS)include but are not limited to: emergency vehicle access, aesthetic
(visual, lighting, and fencing), noise, vibration, vehicle traffic, pedestrian and bicycle
traffic, air pollution, right-of-way impacts and land takings,
F
{
2. Study all options with a preference to underground (tunnel) and/or trench [
(open cut) through the City of Burlingame. I
.I
The project shall study and identify ail options with impacts including:
■ Underground (tunnel)
■ Trench (open cut)
■ Overhead (raised)
® Combination (partially underground or overhead both road and/or railroad)
■ Use of an existing Caltrain modified bullet service to serve as a high speed rail
connector between San Jose and San Francisco. This option may reduce the
impacts to all the Peninsula communities and save significant costs to the
CHSR project
■ Restoration of Caltrain service at the Broadway station, which Caltrain
authorities have identified as an improvement possible with electrification
Page 2 of 5
The City prefers the rail line to be either in a tunnel or in a trench, to reduce the impacts
to the community. Placing the rail line underground will diminish a visual and physical
barrier through the city. This preferred design option should be studied thoroughly in the
EIR/EIS.
3. Protect and preserve all historic resources, including but not limited to the
Burlingame Avenue and Broadway train stations,as well as the eucalyptus grove.
There are two historic train stations listed with the National Historic Register in the City
of Burlingame. To the north is the Broadway station, currently a restaurant, and to the
south the recently improved Burlingame Avenue Train Station. In addition, there is a
historic eucalyptus grove from North Lane to beyond Oak Grove Avenue, on the west
side of the tracks (the Franchard Trust Grove). These historic resources need to be
preserved and maintained at their current locations. a
i
If future improvements will impact any other existing landscaping elements adjacent to
the tracks, the City recommends installing replacement landscaping now to ensure
future screening. Landscaping along the corridor has been critically important to
reducing visual and aesthetic impacts from theexisting rail line and should be
maintained with all future construction.
1
The community participated and spent more than five years in the planning, design, and
construction of the new $20.5 million improvements at the Burlingame Avenue Train 9
Station, while respecting the station's historic elements. It is imperative that CHSR
project preserve these improvements.
0
4. Avoid impacts to the downtown business districts
The project must take into account the two main commercial districts in the City of
Burlingame: Burlingame Avenue and Broadway. Both were developed adjacent to the
train tracks when the stations were built. These commercial streets are the heart of the
retaildistricts for the City. There shall be no impacts to these two vital areas from the
proposed project. Existing connections across the tracks to the two downtowns must be
seamless and continuous with the proposed project. Also, there shall be no impact to
the retail areas during construction.
i.
U. All costs paid by the California High Speed Rail Authority (CHSP
The CHSRA shall bear all associated project costs, regardless of options chosen by the
community, including all mitigation measure costs. This requirement includes an open
trench or tunnel option. There shall be no costs to the City of Burlingame for the design,
construction or mitigation of impacts with the CHSR project. i
In addition, the EIR/EIS shall explore and implement private-public partnership
opportunities for funding a trench or underground option for the rail line.
i
6. CHSRA must pay for the right-of-way costs
The existing Caltrain rail corridor was purchased by SANITRANS paid for by the public.
The CHSRA must pay the monetary value for the use of Caltrain right-of-way in terms
Page 3 of 5
acceptable to SAMTRANS and the citizens of San Mateo County.
7.Construction impacts to existing Caltrain service
The CHSRA shall demonstrate by engineering studies how the high speed rail line can
be built while maintaining and enhancing existing Caltrain service.Residents depend on
Caltrain service for transportation to and from work and other activities.This service
shall not be interrupted but maintained at all times during construction. In addition,
service at the Broadway station may be restored once the Caltrain line is electrified.
Also,the EIR/EIS shall consider how additional side tracks will be used to divert existing
rail service during construction.Where and how will temporary shoo-fly tracks be used
for phasing construction? Will there be a permanent shoo-fly line in the City of
Burlingame at completion of Caltrain and the high speed rail improvements?
8.Construction impacts to residents,schools and businesses
The project shall study, identify and mitigate all potential construction impacts to the
residents,schools,and businesses in the City. Residents,businesses and emergency
services such as Police, Fire and Medical services heavily depend on the existing
railroad crossings for emergency access. These railroad crossings must remain open to
the public throughout the project construction period.
In addition,the project shall also include in its study potential loss of revenue to the
businesses from the project construction activities and shall address such impacts.
9. Utility impacts
Major utility lines currently cross the railroad corridor throughout the city. They include
gravity storm drains and culverts,water lines,sewer mains,signal conduits,and street
lights. These lines may be in conflict with the proposed project and shall be protected in
place or redesigned and reconstructed, if required, to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer at no cost to the City.
In addition, a portion of the railroad corridor carries storm water from Burlingame,
Ralston,Terrace and Sanchez Creeks,and thus acts as a detention basin during heavy T
rains and high tides. The proposed project may significantly upset the drainage capacity
of the system, and compromise flood protection to the community. The storm drain
system must be thoroughly studied and addressed by the project to avoid impacts.
i
10. Project coordination with other regional projects and services
The project shall not impact the proposed Broadway Interchange improvements.
With Broadway as the only access to U.S.Highway 101 in Burlingame,changes to the
Broadway rail crossing will significantly impact traffic flows to the interchange and the
freeway. There are more than 230,000 vehicles per day along the freeway at this
interchange.Roadway impacts,elevations changes,and right-of-way takings all need to
be thoroughly reviewed in conjunction with interchange plans being coordinated through
Caltrans and the San Mateo County Transportation Authority.
I
I
Page 4 of 5
i
Caltrain plans for electrification must be included in all options of the CHSR project. The
i
plans must address how the planned Caltrain improvements will be coordinated with the
final design and construction of the CHSR project. The two projects need to be reviewed
as one to comprehensively address and mitigate the cumulative impacts.
Freight service continues along the rail corridor. Will it remain with the high speed rail
plans? How will freight service, local Caltrain service and high speed rail all coexist
along the same rail corridor?
11. Coordination with adjacent communities
Any alignment in the cities of San Mateo or Millbrae may cause adverse impacts in the
City of Burlingame. The CHSRA shall include the City of Burlingame in the development
of options to the north and south of our City limits. No options shall be pursued without
City Council approval.
I
{
i
12.. Public input and outreach I
The City of Burlingame requests that the. CHSRA provide a transparent process for I
public input into the project development, planning, design, engineering and .
construction. CHSRA shall conductwell publicized community meetings that allow time f
for public. comment on a regularbasis during . all phases .of study, design, and
construction. A dedicated project manager shall be assigned to deal with project issues '
in the City of Burlingame. The City of Burlingame requests quarterly presentations by
CHSRA to the City Council on the project progress that include time for community
feedback. These presentations shall include updates on the project schedule and
timeline for the CEQA process, mitigation measures, financing costs, engineering
design, and construction.
F
13. City review and approval requirements
The City Council shall review and approve all parts of the project within the City
jurisdiction. The CHSRA shall provide in a timely manner all studies, environmental
documents, and preliminary engineering plans, including 30 percent, 60 percent and 90
percent plans, and final design documents to the City for review and approval. There
shall be sufficient time allowed in the project schedule for City review and comments.
No work shall be done in City right-of-way without City approval and an encroachment
F
permit.
SAA Public Works Directory\High Speed Rail\Draft HSR comments with Mayor's letter 3-27-09.doc I
!
f
I
F
I
F
I
Page 5 of 5
Agenda
Item # 9a
Meeting
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: May 4, 2009
`i.
11, -CSC.
SUBMITTED B
T
APPROVED BY
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: APRIL 26, 2009
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION DEDICATING THE SEWER USER FEES FOR
REPAYMENT OF STATE REVOLVING FUND (SRF) LOAN FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF STORMWATER RETENTION BASIN AT THE
WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP), CITY PROJECT NO.
81260
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached
resolution dedicating the sewer user fees for repayment of SRF loan for the
construction of stormwater retention basin at the WWTP, City Project No. 81260.
BACKGROUND: Staff is in the process of completing the retention basin project
design and has applied for a low interest SRF loan from the State Water Resources
Control Board for project construction. The SRF loan program provides (2% to 2.5%)
low interest loans for qualifying water quality improvement projects to be repaid in
twenty years. The City has utilized this program in the past to fund improvements at
the WWTP. The resolution being approved identifies the sewer user fees as the
source of revenue for repaying the SRF loan. This resolution is a procedural
requirement to complete the application process.
BUDGET IMPACT: The SRF financing will be repaid by sewer enterprise funds.
EXHIBITS: Resolution
C: City Clerk, City Attorney
C:\Documents and Settings\jlouie\Desktop\SRF Loan Application-dedicated funds(2)(2).doc
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
ESTABLISHING A DEDICATED SOURCE OF REVENUE FOR REPAYMENT
OF THE STATE REVOLVING FUND FINANCING AGREEMENT FOR THE
PLANNING, DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN INFLUENT STORM
WATER RETENTION BASIN AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
WHEREAS,pursuant to its Regional Water Control Board Permit, its settlement
of the Baykeeper litigation and the Nolte and Associates consultant report,the City of
Burlingame intends to design and construct an influent storm water retention basin at its
Wastewater Treatment Plant; and
WHEREAS,the California Water Resources Control Board provides low-interest
financing to local agencies from the State Revolving Fund(SRF)to construct qualifying
water quality improvements; and
WHEREAS,pursuant to Resolution 9-2009, the City of Burlingame has applied
for low-interest financing from the SRF in order to construct the influent storm water
retention basin at the City's Wastewater Treatment Plant; and
WHEREAS, the State requires that the local agency comply with certain
procedural requirements including this resolution establishing a dedicated source of
revenue for repayment to the State of the funds advanced pursuant to this SRF agreement.
NOW, THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME DOES HEREBY RESOLVE, ORDER AND DETERMINE AS
FOLLOWS:
1. The City of Burlingame hereby establishes the sewer user fee as a
dedicated source of revenue for the repayment of any and all Clean Water State
Revolving Fund program financing for the planning, design and construction of the
City's influent storm water retention basin at the Waste Water Treatment Plant.
2. The City of Burlingame orders that the sewer user fees shall remain a
dedicated source of revenue for repayment of said financing throughout the term of the
refinancing, unless modification or changes of such dedication is approved in writing by
the City and the State Water Resources Control Board.
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 4th day of May, 2009, by the following vote
to wit:
AYES: Councilmembers
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
Mary Ellen Kearney, City Clerk
CITY G
BURUNGAME STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
°RATED JUNE 6
ITEM# 9b
MTG.
DATE May 4, 2009
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
SUBMITTED 41
DATE: April 29, 2009 BY
FROM: Ana Silva APPROV D
Tel.No.: 558-7204 By
SUBJECT: Burlingame Chamber of Commerce's Request Rela ' e to the 2009 Burlingame
Art&Jazz Festival
RECOMMENDATION:
Approval of the Chamber of Commerce's requests relative to the 2009 Burlingame Art & Jazz Festival.
See attached letter dated April 14, 2009.
BACKGROUND:
See attached letter dated April 14, 2009,
BUDGET IMPACT: none
ATTACHMENTS:
Chamber of Commerce April 14, 2009 letter
BURLINGAME
CHAMBER
OF
COMMERCE ATTACHMENT A
April 14, 2009
Mayor Ann Keighran
Vice Mayor Cathy Baylock
Council Members: Jerry Deal,Terry Nagel and Rosalie O'Mahony
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Mayor Keighran and Council Members:
The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce respectfully requests the City's permission for the 2009
Burlingame Art&Jazz Festival as described below.
The Chamber requests the City's permission for the
"Burlingame Art and Jazz Festival,"calendared for Saturday and Sunday,August 8 and
9, 2009, from 10:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m. each day.
The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce is in contract with Team PRO Event, of Mill
Valley, CA, based upon the Burlingame City Council's permission to allow this
community event.
Details of the production are under the auspices of Team PRO Event and include the
following elements:
A. Closure of Burlingame Avenue from California Drive to El Camino Real (up to
the driveway of the Chevron Station)from 2:00 a.m. Saturday,August 8 until
11:59 p.m., Sunday August 9.
B. Closure of Lorton Avenue between Donnelly and Howard for the full duration of
the festival, closure of Park Road between Burlingame Avenue and Howard for
the full duration of the festival and closure of Primrose Road for the full duration
of the festival(as it was in 2008). All public parking lots in the area will remain
accessible at all times during all hours of closure.
C. Festival booths set up on Burlingame Avenue(the 1100, 1200, 1300 and 1400
blocks), as well as on Lorton and Primrose Avenues will remain set up overnight
on Saturday. Team PRO Event will arrange for overnight security.
D. Team PRO Event will arrange for entertainment throughout each day of the
festival as part of this community event.
290 California Drive • Burlingame,CA 94010 • 650.344.1735 • Fax 650.344.1763
e-mail:info@burlingamechamber.org • www.burlingamechamber.org
2
E. The City of Burlingame fees in conjunction with this event will be paid directly
by the Chamber within seven(7)days after the event. Please advise if fees will
be different from last year.
F. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce respectfully requests that the City of
Burlingame allow the sale of beer,wine,margaritas and commemorative
glassware as part of the Burlingame Art and Jazz Festival on August 8 and 9,
2009. Insurance for general and liquor liability in the amount of$1 million will
be obtained and a certificate of insurance naming the City of Burlingame as
additional insured will be issued. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce
carries liquor liability insurance in addition to its general liability insurance and
will provide a certificate of insurance naming the City of Burlingame as an
additional insured. The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce will purchase the
beer,wine and margarita license.
The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce and Team Pro Event will gladly meet with City staff to
address any questions or concerns.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
C
-1
Gino Gasparini, hair Georgettlor,President/C
Burlingame Chamber of Commerce Burlingame Chamber of Commerce
-o m ca st® Comcast Cable
3443 Deer Park Drive
Stockton,CA 95219
RECEIVED
April 17,2009 APR 2 1 2009
Mr.Jesus Nava CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Finance Director/Treasurer CITY OF BURLINGAME
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Re: International Programming Change
Dear Mr. Nava,
In order to keep you informed of the services we offer our customers,we are sending this notice of
a change in our programming.
Effective on or after May 20, 2009,A la carte Jade programming currently viewed on channel 262
will be moved to channel 360. Jade will continue to offer the best in Chinese-Cantonese language
programming on channel 360 with a subscription to the a la carte Jade tier as outlined below:
ProgrammiLig Current Channel/Tier Future Channel/Tier
Jade 262/A La Carte 360/A La Carte
Customers will receive a message on the Digital Control Terminal announcing the channel change.
If you have any questions regarding this change,please contact your local Government Affairs
Director,Lee Ann Peling at (415) 715-0579.
Res ectfull
Pat Rice
Compliance Manager
1CMA
Leaders at the Core of Better Communities
1CMA Management Perspective
January 2009
Communi!y Matters
Community building speaks to the very heart of what motivates and inspires people to choose a career in local
government: a desire to serve, a desire to be a part of the solution, a desire to make a difference. But too often the
passion, energy, and idealism that draw people into government careers in the first place become lost amid the all-
too-real daily duties and responsibilities of city and county managers. Remembering community reconnects as with
our original purpose and multiplies the value and impact of our work.
In our increasingly complex 21st century world, local government managers are not only in an ideal position to take
the lead in ensuring that strong, cohesive communities are a part of our future, they must do so. If they don't make it
a priority, then it will probably not be a priority of their government.
This is the assessment of an ICMA working committee that convened over the summer to discuss why community
building is important to cities and counties and what can be done to foster leadership, accountability, and participa-
tion in this critical endeavor. "When you distance yourself from community, you distance yourself from everything."
noted Ed Everett, former city manager of Redwood City, California, and a member of the working committee. "We
are social beings who thrive on relatedness,but too often we have lost the connection and feeling of community."
The committee agreed that most be healed without bringing the
What Exactly IS
of the social problems govern- community to the table," said Jim
ments struggle with—such as Keene Jr., outgoing ICMA Western Community Budding?
poverty, crime, blighted neigh- Director and now the city man-
We've heard the term tossed
borhoods, preventable illnesses, ager of Palo Alto, California. around for so long, most of us
and high drop-out and pregnancy Some people may suggest that barely give it a second thought
rates among teens—are all in- creating community is easier in and are numb to its essence.
terrelated. These problems are jurisdictions with small popula- What does it really mean?
exacerbated when government tions,but all managers need to be On its simplest level,community
managers fail to pierce insular adept at, and comfortable with, building is the bringing together of
mindsets within various city or nurturing community, "whether people within a shared region,such
county departments or when you are a manager with respon- as a neighborhood,city,or county,
they fail to engage all stakehold- sibility to hundreds of people or around a shared interest,such as
ers whose lives are affected by a million," noted Cheryl Hilvert, education,health care,or housing.
government policies and actions. city manager of Montgomery, Community building is a process
Everyone needs to feel that they Ohio, whose insights reflect the that,when done well,creates and
belong and their voice is valued. working committee's breadth culminates in a keen sense of re-
"Nothing can be solved, nothing of career experience in city and latedness,reminding everyone that
can be addressed, nothing can county management positions. "we are all in this together."
I
And doing it well requires lead-
ership, strategies, and actions that
Jim Ley,county manager of Sarasota County, Florida,offers this obser-
are aimed at improving the well- vation: "Telling the truth is critical. Not all problems are resolved as all
I residents want them to be, but by telling the truth about the financial
being of groups of individuals In environmental, or other barriers to achieving the exact desired out-
ways that encourage engagement come,the manager shows respect for community members. In turn,
i and a sense of belonging by each when residents have a sense of belonging, of having their contributions
member of the group. In his vi-
valued,they respect the decisions and actions of the local government
sionary book Community: The because they contributed to them."
Structure of Belonging (Berrett- :. ��
f Koehler Publishers, 2008), man-
agement consultant Peter Block
suggests that the central challenge to-day management demands of organizations and institutions (in
for community builders is to their position diminish their abil- the private and public sectors)
j "transform the isolation and self- ity to use their leadership skills to and individuals for meaningful
! interest within our communities nurture community. Further, the outcomes.
into connectedness and caring for committee recognized the chal- For Peggy Merriss, city manager
the whole." lenge of not only owning commu- of Decatur, Georgia, and a member
E nity building as a core leadership of the working committee, this is
responsibility but also exercising hard work, but time well spent,
Tile City is a partnership the right behaviors for empower- because the results are better
for living well. The city ing others. when you involve the community
up front. "Community building is
Co77ieS into existence out always the first thing I have to do.
of the bare necessities
Small Changes, Big If I want to rebuild my downtown,
Results I won't be successful without first
of life, but continues in building community."
E For many managers, the first
existence for the sake of step toward creating community
I is as simple as a shift in focus. The Mana er`s Role
a good life. g
Management guru Stephen Covey
Aristotle stresses the wisdom of making There is a great deal of power and
room for long-term goals and opportunity in the way manag-
The immediate and constant not spending all of your time on ers shape acommunity-focused
challenge for local government tasks that appear to be urgent but agenda and also in how they
managers is finding the time to ultimately are not as important. implement one. Elected council or
devote to nurturing their commu- In other words, if you do noth- board members and mayors and
nities. Professional public man- ing but put out fires,you'll never board chairs are directly respon-
agement is driven by a rigorous have time to plant new forests or sive to the public. Managers serve
j attention to technical competence. nurture the saplings. as translators with the city and
Preparing and managing budgets, City and county managers will county staff—helping share the
developing long-range plans,de- always have more to do than can decisions,values, and intentions
signing effective systems,and realistically be done in the course of the elected officials and com-
constructing and maintaining infra- of a given day. They can't build munity members, which creates
structure are the daily fare of local communities alone (nor would understanding across the organi-
government managers—and,all of that be a good goal to even con- zation and on the front line.
this while being responsive to the template), and they must take the Managers champion the pub-
elected body of the community. time to reach out to employees lic decision-making process and
The ICMA working committee as well as citizens and inspire democracy itself, which is critical
acknowledged that nearly all city them to invest themselves in the in building staff and citizen com-
and county managers say that community. And managers must mitment to community building.
E community building is extremely take the time to figure out how To be sure, democracy is often
important to them, yet the day- to truly collaborate with relevant seen as a messy process,and
E
ICMA Management Perspective 2 January 2009
managers are uniquely positioned If we don't know how to listen to ourselves and
to develop understanding about
its core value. to each other, we are not going to go very far. It is
-Community building is an in- clear that you have to listen to yourself your own
vestment, not appeasement," says
Decatur's manager Peggy Merriss. suffering, your own aspirations . . . and to the people
i Managers embrace the discom- I.n the communities, to their deepest desires, their
fort of democracy and become
its steward. Managers are com- suffering. Viat kind of deep looking will bring about
mitted to community building as
Triore understanding of self and of the COTTIUIUTI-ity.
a valued process and vigilant in
allegiance to it,recognizing that Un dersta riding will make acceptance and tolerance
in a diverse society, it is the only and compassion possible . aRd] the qualitv of lifie
way for reaching solutions true to
democratic ideals. in the corninimitill will ill;inrove.
By the very nature of the job, Thich Nhat Hanh,Vietnamese Buddhist monk and social activist.
managers see the entire organiza-
Interview excerpt from In Motion Magazine,
tion, and so serve as integrators
marshalling resources across gov-
January 25,2004
ernment departments—and some-
times outside organizations—for
boundaries and deadlines, and street protests and civil disobe-
the community. The manager's celebrating successes and mourn- dience. "Managers need to be
leadership in developing and nur- ing losses. willing to let go of some of their
turing capacity both inside and Being an effective leader entails control, to be willing to show up
outside the local government orga- talents and skills that come easier in unexpected places in unex-
nization is a critical skill for creat- for some than others. But any pected roles. After all, the heart of
ing and sustaining community. manager, no matter what his or community building is the co-cre-
Further, the manager's role in her level of expertise and experi- ation of an alternative future."
community building is one of ence,can improve the chances for Just about any relationship can
convener, facilitator, and per- successful community outcomes be improved by being a strong
haps provocateur. The manager by becoming a better listener and listener. Relationships between
masters the ability to convene: to being willing to take risks. "We managers and their communities
compose the right invitation, one need to step into environments are no different. Peter Block sug-
that is compelling and worthy of where we're really not in charge," gests that the future is created
people's response, and to struc- said Keene, recalling a challeng-
one room at a time, one gath-
ture the space, time, and process ing yet positive experience lie ering at a time" and that trans-
correctly. The manager helps had as city manager of Berkeley, formations take place in small
shape the conversation and its California, working with business groups. "To build community, we
i productive unfolding by framing owners, radical groups and street seek conversations where people
and asking the right questions, activists to bring them together show up by invitation rather than
telling the truth, establishing during a tumultuous period of mandate, and experience an inti-
mate and authentic relatedness."
He believes in the power of con-
versations built around questions,
In commenting on Peter Block's book Community: The Structure of
Belonging, Michael Butler,chief of police in Longmont, Colorado, notes not answers, and in structuring
that Block's approach to working in a community"has become the cor- these conversations "so that di-
nerstone of how our police department has developed over the years. versity of thinking and dissent
What we have pleasantly discovered is that the more our capacity grows are given space, commitments are
to work in partnership with each other,the more our capacity to serve made without barter, and the gifts
our community is enhanced." of each person and our communi-
ty are acknowledged and valued."
ICMA Management Perspective 3 January 2009
4
f
ICMA's working committee also identified ownership to be accountable for the whole, creating a context of
and responsibility as critical elements in community- hospitality and collective possibility, acting to bring
building leadership. Randy Reid, manager of Alachua the gifts of those on the margin into the center—these
County, Florida, observed, "If a young person can't are some of the ways we begin to create a community
read, he or she will not graduate from of others."
j high school. And if you don't gradu- Ct7r7177t.tLTtity is the LZTIZt
ate, the probability of being involved
Next Step
in a crime increases, and then that
of Change. The on' way
young person is in our jail system." ICMA and its working committee
Reid used this scenario to illustrate lUe ;el through diffiCi.lt will continue to explore the impor-
the need for managers to reach out times together. tance of community building and
beyond the county administration the manager's leadership role in this
building to those in all sectors, em- Margaret Wheatley endeavor. As our cities and coun-
t phasizing that someone who fails to ties continue to evolve in the 21st
graduate is not alone with owning the problem. The century, it is ICMA's intent to provide the knowledge
entire community owns and pays for the problem. resources and tools that will enable managers to serve
We are all in this together, Block agrees. "Choosing as leaders within their jurisdictions.
About ICMA
ICMA is thepremier local government leadership and management organization.. Its mission is to create excel-
lence in local governance by developing and advancing professional management of local government world-
wide. ICMA provides mernber support;publications, data,and information;peer and results-oriented assistance;
and training and professional development to nearly 9,000 city, town,and county experts and other,individuals
and organizations throughout the world.
c
About the Annie E. Casey Foundation
The Annie E. Casey Foundation is a private charitable organization dedicated to helping build better futures
for disadvantaged children in the United States. It was established in 1948 by Jim Casey, one of the founders
of UPS, and his siblings, who named the foundation in honor of their mother. The primary mission of the
foundation is to foster public policies, human-service reforms, and community supports that more effective
' ly meet the needs of today's vulnerable children and families. In pursuit of this goal, the foundation makes
grants that help states, cities, and neighborhoods fashion more innovative, cost-effective responses to these
needs. For more information, visit the foundation's website at www.aecf.org.
Community Building Initiative
Many local government managers recognize that what sets one city or county apart from others is not just the '
efficiency of its services, but the vitality and engagement of its citizens. But what is the leadership role of the
city and county manager in engaging citizens and building community?ICMA and the Annie E. Casey Founda-
tion have launched an initiative to explore the manager's role, and to provide support to managers and their
organizations for community building.
This Management Perspective is a synthesis of a conversation convened.in the summer of 2008 with ten
ICMA managers around the topic of community building. It was funded by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
ICMA thanks the foundation .for its support and acknowledges thatthe observations and conclusions present-
ed in the report are those of ICMA alone and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the foundation.
ICM/.
Leaders at the Core of Better Communities
f
09-074 .
'MA Management Perspective 4 January 2009