The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2001.01.02BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA January 2, 2001 1. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Joe Galligan. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by David Barruto. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCIL PRESENT: GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI COUNCIL ABSENT: COFFEY 4. MINUTES Mayor Galligan requested the following be added to item 6c of the December 18th minutes, regarding the Appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a conditional use permit for a dry cleaning processing plant at 1360 Broadway: "Council found it was crucial to sustain the commercial and retail mix in the Brqadway commercial area and to closely examine possible parking conflicts during busy hours on Broadway, which is both shopping and a commuter avenue". Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve the minntes of the meeting held on December 18, 2000; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony; approved by voice vote, 4-0-1, with Councilman Coffey absent. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5a. PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, THE BASIS FOR AND LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT FOR THE YEAR 2001 CA Anderson noted this is the first of at least two public hearings Council will have on the formation of the proposed Business Improvement District. The idea presented by the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau and San Francisco Peninsula Hotel Council is to form a Business Improvement District encompassing a number of cities within the County as well as the unincorporated area. The cities proposed to be included in the district are Belmont, Burlingame, Brisbane, Daly City, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Millbrae, Redwood City, San Carlos, San Bruno, San Mateo, South San Francisco and the unincorporated areas of the County. The district would be divided into two zones and would encompass all hotels. Hotels are defined and include anywhere where people stay on a transient basis. One zone would be on the coast side that would pay a different levy of assessment; the second zone would be on the bay side. The purpose of the levy would be to assess each hotel based on the number of ropms they have; that money would then go toward tourism and convention promotion in the County and these funds would provide a sustainable income to the Convention Bureau. Currently, a number of the cities have consented to being included in the district; when each Burlingame City Council 1 January 2, 2001 City has consented, the Burlingame City Council will adopt an Ordinance that would form the district and the City of Burlingame would administer the district. It would be a large assessment district, with a total of assessments of approximately $2 million. The assessments proposed for the coining year are based on the level of service provided by each establishment as well as what the past occupancy rates have been. Certain types of hotels on the coast side have lower occupancy during the week than the hotels on the bayside, which is addressed in the assessment. The base line assessment is $1.00 per room per day. The process from here forward would encompass a public hearing on January 17 and a public hearing on the ordinance itself on February 5, at which time the ordinance could be adopted and the assessments levied. Mayor Galligan verified with Finance Director Becker that all monies collected from the cities will funnel through a trust account and will be immediately sent to the Convention Bureau. Mayor Galligan also noted that if a hotel in another City refused to pay the fee, it would initially be that City's issue; the administering of the district should not require a lot of Burlingame's staff time. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Peter Marshall, General Manager for the Doubletree Hotel, asked if the Resolution gives permission for the hotels to levy a tourism tax on the guests and what would Burlingame's position be if other cities within San Mateo County were to defeat the Resolution. CA Anderson explained that this is not a tax; it is an assessment that is placed on the hotel business and not on the hotel guest. Unlike the Transient Occupancy Tax, which is an obligation to be paid by the person who occupies the room, this is an assessment placed on the business. How the business chooses to collect the fee from other parties is up to the hotel. The Bureau has provided recommendations on how to pay the assessment. Consent has already been received from at least five cities in the County so Burlingame will not be alone in the district. Ann LeClaire, President of the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau, noted that the BID was reviewed by twq City Attorneys and there have been many discussions on how the assessment can be collected from the hotel guests. Mr. Marshall stated he understood that several cities have indicated they would be in favor of the BID, but that there was also a requirement that the hotels voice approval. He felt that even though the City may approve the BID, the hotel owners might not agree as a group; it doesn't seem correct to say that the Resolution is guaranteed to pass. CA Anderson explained there are two levels of political governance. One is that there has to be a protest by 50% of the assessed valuation; even if the majority of the hotels in a City didn't want to participate and filed written protest with the City of Burlingame, that would not have any effect on the final action of the Burlingame City Council. Burlingame is looking at the entire district and the overall assessment, not city by city. The key issue is the Consent Resolution from the City Councils. James Berilla, Villa Hotel, asked how the hotels are being charged for the fees and why the hotels aren't paying the same rate. Ann LeClaire noted that many options were reviewed and the best determined was the hotels with the most meeting space and level of service had the greatest number of options in terms of meetings and groups they could attract. The smaller properties could be assessed at $.15 per night and be listed in literature and receive visitor guides and maps for their guests; the larger properties would want referrals for meetings, etc. CA Anderson stated if a particular hotel feels they were misclassified, they should notify Ann LeClaire or the City. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. January 2, 2001 2 Burlingame City Council P� Council questions: Councilwoman O'Mahony asked CA Anderson if each General Manager and property owner has received a description of the different zones. He stated that each hotel and each property owner received a complete copy of the previous resolution and a formal notice, a letter from the Convention Bureau that indicated what the proposed classification was and what the calculated number of rooms that they understood existed on the property were. 5b. ADOPT ORDINANCE REDUCING MEMBERSHIP ON TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMISSION FROM SEVEN TO FIVE MEMBERS CA Anderson noted that at the last meeting, Council introduced an ordinance that would change the composition of the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission from seven members to five members. This was an idea that came to council due to the difficulty of reaching a quorum at commission meetings. This was an opportunity to reduce the members due to vacancies on the commission. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the ordinance reducing membership on the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission from seven to five members; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1, with Councilman Coffey absent. The Mayor asked the City Clerk to publish a summary of the Ordinance no later than 15 days after adoption. At this time, Mayor Galligan congratulated Dwana Bain for the award she received for her news coverage of Sunbridge Convalescent Hospital. 6. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no comipents. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS None. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS — BURLINGAME SHORELINE TRAIL — CP 9643 Director of Public Works Bagdon recommended that Council approve the Resolution accepting the Burlingame Shoreline Trail improvements in the amount of $36,303.26. Lh? Burlingame City Council 3 January 2, 2001 b. OUT OF STATE TRAVEL FOR RECREATION SUPERVISOR, TRICIA PINNEY Parks and Recreation Director Williams recommended that the City Council authorize Recreation Supervisor, Tricia Pinney, to attend the upcoming CalFest Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada on March 27-29, 2001. C. REJECT CLAIM OF EVELYN DMITROWICH FOR PERSONAL INJURY CA Anderson recommended Council reject the claim filed by Ms. Dmitrowich for personal injuries suffered on September 13, 2000. d. APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH BURLINGAME AQUATIC CLUB Recreation Superintendent Randy Schwartz recommended Council authorize the City Manager to sign the attached contract with the Burlingame Aquatic Club. e. PROPOSED PRICE CHANGE ON RANGE BALLS AT BURLINGAME GOLF CENTER Parks and Recreation Director John Williams recommended that Council approve the proposed change of price charged to range users for the large bucket of range balls at the Burlingame Golf Center from $9.00 per bucket to $10.00 per bucket. f. APPOINTMENT OF THE NEWSRACK COMMITTEE MEMBERS Recreation Superintendent Randy Schwartz recommended that Council appoint Earl Walker (Chronicle), Mark Schlemmer (San Mateo Daily Journal) and Michael Billingsley (San Francisco Bay Guardian) to the Newsrack Committee. g. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1— ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PHASE II — CP 9953 Assistant Director of Public Works Erbacher recommended that Council approve the Amendment with Roman and Lougee increasing efforts to a total of $118,175. Vice Mayor Spinelli made a motion to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1, with Councilman Coffey absent. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Councilwoman O'Mahony attended the Lions Holiday lunch for Council, Commendation presentation to Retired Police Commander Parkin, swearing in of Commander Brad Floyd and Sergeant Jim Ford. Councilwoman Janney attended the opening of the North County Emergency Winter Shelter and a meeting with Larry Teshara, along with Mayor Galligan, regarding potential sites for an ESL program. Mayor Galligan was present at the swearing in of Commander Brad Floyd and Sergeant Jim Ford, the Lions Holiday lunch, and met with the Airport regarding the runway expansion and the effects on the City of Burlingame as well as the shoreline. January 2, 2001 4 Burlingame City Council - 10. OLD BUSINESS Councilwoman O'Mahony brought up the letter from the Grand Jury. There was discussion by all Council. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to authorize Mayor Galligan to respond to the Grand Jury's letter; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1, with Councilman Coffey absent. 11. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety and Parking, December 14, 2000; Civil Service, September 25 and November 20, 2000 b. Monthly Reports: Police, November 2000; Building, November 2000 C. Letter from 2000-2001 Grand Jury regarding Report on October 18, 2000 d. Letter from Sigrun Franco regarding the proposed hospital parking structure 13. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. in memory of Ed Bridgeman and Tommy O'Connor. rH Ann T. Musso City Clerk Burlingame City Council 5 January 2, 2001 UNAPPROVED MINUTES BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA December 18, 2000 1. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER A regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Joe Galligan. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Ross Bruce. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCIL PRESENT: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI COUNCIL ABSENT: NONE 4. CEREMONIAL MATTER Fire Chief Bill Reilly presented Mayor Galligan with the League of California Cities Helen Putnam Award for Excellence and the National Council for Public/Private Partnerships 2000 Award that was awarded to the Advanced Life Support Joint Powers Authority. 5. MINUTES Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the minutes of the Special Council Meeting held on November 29, 2000; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the minutes of the Regular Council Meeting held on December 4, 2000; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5a. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO ESTABLISH SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, TO ESTABLISH THE BASIS FOR AND TO LEVY THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT FOR THE YEAR 2001, TO ESTABLISH A DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD, AND TO SET DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS. CA Anderson noted the San Mateo Hotel Council Incorporated and the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau made this proposal. In the past, it has been difficult for the Convention Bureau to find adequate and sustained funding from local agencies and businesses. The proposal of the Business Improvement District would encompass 70-80% of the county including the unincorporated area of Burlingame City Council I December 18, 2000 Unapproved Minutes U San Mateo. Burlingame would act as the lead agency and assess the businesses each year. If adopted, the Resolution of Intention would begin the process of formal noticing, which would lead to public hearings being held on January 2 and January 17, 2001, when an ordinance would be adopted to form the district. In the meantime, the cities and county would decide whether to allow Burlingame to establish this district within their jurisdiction. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Ann LeClair, President and CEO of the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau, thanked the Council for their support in the establishment of the Business Improvement District. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. Council Comments Councilwoman Janney stated the Bureau has put forth tremendous effort in this project, as well as retired City Manager Dennis Argyres; feels this is the best solution for bringing permanent funding to the Convention Bureau. The BID puts the Bureau and it's operations in the hands of the Convention Bureau in the County and out of the political arena. Vice Mayor Spinelli noted he was very proud at how everyone worked so hard to make this happen and feels everyone involved will benefit from the BID. Councilwoman O'Mahony was pleased the Convention Bureau will be freed of political gratifications and congratulated Councilwoman Janney, Ann LeClair and Gina Graf for their hard work. Mayor Galligan stated it appeared that in the past the Convention Bureau has had to spend the majority of their time trying to get cities to give them money so they could stay in business versus doing what they were designed to do. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve the Resolution of Intention 121-00 to establish the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District to establish the basis for and to levy the Assessments for the District for the Year 2001, and to establish a District Advisory Board, and to set dates for public hearings on the District and the proposed Assessments; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 6b. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSIN DETERMINATION ON THE USE OF AN EXISTING BASEMENT AREA AT 340-348 LORTON AVENUE, SUBAREA B, BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA This appeal has been withdrawn. 6e. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DRY CLEANING PROCESSING PLANT AT 1360 BROADWAY, ZONFD C-1 CP Monroe noted the applicant is requesting a conditional use permit in order to locate a fulI-service dry cleaning processing plant at 1360 Broadway. The site was previously occupied by a grocery store but is currently vacant. No major alterations to the building are proposed but the applicant will be required to make upgrades to make it compliant with public safety, environmental and disabled access requirements. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Michael Segal, agent for the applicant, Mr. Kismohandaka, was available for questions from the Council. Councilman Coffey asked Mr. Segal if the applicant would object to making the improvements that were outlined in their letter dated November 14, 2000, a part of the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Segal said the applicant would not object to this request; applicant wants to take part in the upgrading the appearance of the Broadway area. Councilwoman O'Mahony asked Mr. Segal if he was aware that the Business Improvement District on Broadway`has been working with property owners to improve facades of buildings and December 18, 2000 2 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes asked if his client has been asked to participate. Mr. Segal stated they were aware of the desire to upgrade the appearance, but that they have not been approached; he does not represent the owner of the property but represents the perspective operator of the dry cleaning plant and would not know if the owners were approached by the BID to make improvements. Vic Eldemir, co-owner of Your Cleaners, 1321 Broadway, stated he was opposing the proposed dry cleaning plant at 1360 Broadway. Mr. Eldemir, as well as the two other dry cleaning stores who also appealed this project, feels there are plenty of dry cleaners in the Broadway area; feels adding another dry cleaning plant will aggravate the current parking situation. Currently there are four family-owned dry cleaners in the area. He noted dry cleaners tend to have high volume traffic, on average of approximately 100 "in and out" customers each day. He stated the Japanese grocery store that previously occupied this space was more of a specialty store, not a regular grocery store; the fact that parking won't be adversely affected is an improper assumption. Michael Lai, owner of Broadway Cleaners, 1234 Broadway, stated he has tried to provide the best services to his customers; believes a big plant on Broadway will ruin the chances for the smaller, family-owned operations to succeed. Ron Drabkin, 1224 Capuchino, agrees there are enough dry cleaners in the area, concerned about environmental safety and use of chemicals; also noted the extremely poor condition of the building at this time. Mr. Segal returned to address the Council; stated it seemed like most of the concern was about competition; believed there was nothing that would preclude this particular use. He explained this was not a large corporate entity but rather an individual who will be operating a martinizing cleaning facility and using their expertise and state of the art equipment. Parking issues have been addressed; primary impact for traffic is morning and evening, which would mitigate high demand for parking during the prime business hours. Noted this building is located very closely to a City parking lot on Capuchino. Does not feel another dry cleaning plant in the area would impact the operators already in existence. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. Council Comments: Councilwoman O'Mahony stated she feels the Council needs to take a close look at Broadway and the fact that it is a street to serve the residents in the neighborhood. Would like to see this go back to the Planning Commission so they could provide Council with their findings and considerations of a proper balance between service and retail on Broadway. CP Monroe noted the Planning Commission based their approval of this project on the change in use, strictly on the basis of the code for this site; this would be a reduction in impact regarding parking. To conduct a study on retail mix could take from six months to one year. Councilwoman O'Mahony stated she could not support this project. Vice Mayor Spinelli noted there are 15 dry cleaners within the City of Burlingame, five of which are located on or near Broadway. Does not feel it is healthy for the area to be overloaded with one type of business; does not support this use. Councilwoman Janney was concerned about changing rules in the middle of a project, that this project was approved by the Planning Commission because it fell within the code. Agreed that there is not a need for another dry cleaner in Burlingame. CA Anderson noted that a dry cleaning plant is not a permitted use in the C-1 district, but on Broadway it is a conditional use which gives the Planning Commission and Council authority to look at its overall impact on the community. Burlingame City Council 3 December I8, 2000 Unapproved Minutes W Vice Mayor Spinelli made a motion to overturn the Planning Commission's approval of a Conditional Use Permit for a dry cleaning processing plant at 1360 Broadway; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Galligan noted that the upkeep on the building at 1360 Broadway has been terrible. The owners have been requested many times by the Broadway BID to do something about the facade and even offered to pay to help clean up the building. 6d. ORDINANCE REGARDING RECYCLING OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION DEBRIS Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the adoption of the Ordinance regarding Recycling of Construction and Demolition Debris; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 6e. AMEND ORDINANCE ON UTILITY DEPOSIT REQUIREMENTS Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman Coffey made a motion to approve the adoption of the Ordinance to amend the Utility Deposit requirements; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no public comments. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. REVISED DESIGN FOR BROADWAY STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS DPW Bagdon noted Council requested a revised streetscape master plan for Broadway between Laguna and El Camino Real that would reduce parking loss. The first design being presented encompasses the direction given by Council at the November 7`h Council Meeting. The plan minimizes parking loss, widens the traffic lines and reduces the sidewalk widths. Option B, endorsed by 42 Broadway merchants, minimizes parking loss but retains the width of the sidewalk and current travel lane width. Staff also developed a third option, Option C, which widens the travel lanes and maintains the sidewalk widths, but has a larger parking loss. DPW Bagdon noted that no one option addresses all of the features perfectly; would like Council to reaffirm staff's recommendation on the scope of the next phase of eventual construction. Bill Harris, a consultant from Smith Group JJR, noted at the last presentation Council gave the following direction: to delete the bulb outs on the side streets, reduce the sides of the intersection bulb outs, increase the width of the travel lanes to I V at the expense of the width of the sidewalks, and to retain the 28° parking angle. Noted on the plans the bulb outs were deleted at the alleys but a tree was added in order to enhance the alleys themselves. The side streets would maintain the parking and the bulb out at the intersection is smaller in size. The intersection bulb outs begin at the right-of-way line and does not wrap around the side streets. As a result, there are fewer intersection trees than there December 18, 2000 4 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes were in the previous presentation. The cross section would still have the bike racks, planter pots, and the trees would be in the bump outs along the street. Instead of having the large planters on the street corners, there are now four concrete seat walls with some plants behind them. The modular new racks have been relocated to the sidewalk instead of in the planting area. Option B is very similar to Option A, however, the sidewalk width remains at 9'. Option C was explored in an attempt to see if the flattening of the parking angle could still be done and what the impact of parking is. This would retain the sidewalks and provide an I V travel lane. The geometry of the parking angle has a dramatic impact on the number of parking stalls possible and would have a net loss of approximately 14 spots. Council comments: Councilwoman O'Mahony noted that one of the objectives initially given that this beautification project be pedestrian friendly; Plan A does not make the sidewalks pedestrian friendly by reducing the width to 8'. Mr. Harris expressed the large cut outs in the sidewalks for the Magnolia trees is a 3' square which left 6' of sidewalk. The master plan put the trees further out into the street in the bump outs to increase the width of the sidewalk. The amount of usable sidewalk increases with the removal of the Magnolia trees. Mayor Galligan felt it was important to prioritize what is most important for the project. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Ross Bruce, President of the Broadway Improvement District, noted the merchants supported Option B; does not want to see the sidewalk width reduced. George Preston, 1170 Broadway, appreciated Councils attention to the project and reiterated support for Option B. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. Council comments: The safety issue regarding the narrow travel lane is a concern for Vice Mayor Spinelli. Councilman Coffey agreed; the sidewalks will be going from 6' to either 8' or 9' and even though there isn't a solid mass of trees on Broadway, the path is basically 6% understands the merchants would rather have wider sidewalks, but need to consider the minimum reduction of parking spaces and the width of the travel lane. Mayor Galligan and Councilwoman Janney agreed the travel lane width increase should be a priority over the width of the sidewalk. DPW Bagdon noted in terms of completion of the project, incentives to complete the project as well as disincentives such as liquidated damages were taken into account. It is a matter of how long it takes to complete the plans, dc'lucated the BID on the plans, go out to bid and award the contractor. He stressed unknowns come up that can delay the process. Felt the schedule presented to Council is relatively realistic; large risk that the project may not be completed by Thanksgiving, 2001. Completing the design process earlier so the project can begin earlier is not realistic. Mr. Harris noted that not only the trees have to be removed to widen the parking lane, but also the light fixtures, parking meter poles, bicycle racks, and planter pots. DPW Bagdon stressed they will do everything they can to get the construction that impacts the businesses completed first. Councilwoman O'Mahony noted she could not support Option A; merchants have expressed their desire for Option B with wider sidewalks. Vice Mayor Spinelli felt if it was possible to restrict the size of trucks traveling on Broadway, it may not be necessary to reduce the width of the sidewalks. CA Anderson explained that a sign would need to be placed every three to four parking spaces warning drivers of the restriction. Burlingame City Council 5 December 18, 2000 Unapproved Minutes au Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Option B; motion died due to lack of second. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve Option A; seconded by Vice Mayor Spinelli, approved by voice vote, 4-1, with Councilwoman O'Mahony voting no. b. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSIONER APPOINTMENT Vice Mayor Spinelli noted that he and Mayor Galligan interviewed two qualified applicants, Bill Garcia and Rolando Pasquali, for the vacant position on the Civil Service Commission. After much discussion, they brought forth Rolando Pasquali as the new Civil Service Commissioner. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve the appointment of Rolando Pasquali; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. C. CONSIDER INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE REDUCING MEMBERSHIP OF TRAFFIC, SAFETY, AND PARKING COMMISSION CA Anderson noted at the last meeting, Council discussed the possibility of reducing the membership of the TSP Commission from seven to five; staff had expressed some concern about getting a quorum when there are seven members and that five members would be more efficient. Mayor Galligan requested the City Clerk read the title of the proposed Ordinance. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed Ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve the introduction of Ordinance reducing the membership of the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission from seven to five members; seconded by Vice Mayor Spinelli, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. d. APPROVE EXECUTION OF CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE BY CITY MANAGER OF GRANT DEED TO 1369 N. CAROLAN AVENUE, BURLINGAME, CA CA Anderson noted this is the property that is located to the north of the current corporation yard that is currently occupied`by a warehouse and office building. In June, Council authorized the filing of an eminent domain proceeding in order to acquire the property, however, negotiations have continued with the owners of the property and they have accepted the appraised value of the property of $1.4 million and are prepared to execute a deed to the City so Public Works can proceed with the expansion plans for the corporation yard. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve the Execution of Certificate of Acceptance by City Manager of Grant Deed to 1369 N. Carolan Avenue; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR a. RESOLUTION ENDORSING THE INTERIM WATER SHORTAGE PLAN DPW Bagdon recommended Council adopt Resolution 125-00endorsing the Interim Water Shortage Plan. ._ December 18, 2000 6 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes b. RESOLUTION APPROVING AGREEMENT NO. 1 FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS, CALIFORNIA/GROVE AREA, PHASE 2 DPW Bagdon recommended that Council approve Resolution 124-00 authorizing an agreement amendment in the amount of $16,997.00 with Wilsey Ham Engineers for engineering services for the California/Grove Storm Drain Improvements Project, Phase 2. C. UPDATE EMPLOYER'S CONTRIBUTION FOR EMPLOYEE PERS HEALTH BENEFIT Retired City Manager Dennis Argyres recommended Council adopt Resolution 123-00 updating the maximum employer contribution to PERS Health Benefits in accordance with approved employee agreements. d. AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS TO BE THE THIRD PARTY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE CITY'S SELF-INSURED WORKERS COMPENSATION PROGRAM CA Anderson recommended Council adopt Resolution 122-00 authoring the City Manager to negotiate and execute an agreement with Athens Administrators to be the Third Party Administrators for the City's Workers Compensation Program. e. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR HOMELESS SHELTER CONTRIBUTION ACM/ASD Rahn Becker recommended Council approve Resolution 127-00 Authorizing Transfer of Funds for Homeless *$helter Contribution. f. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL: NOVEMBER, 2000 Finance Director recommended approval of Warrants 73305-73724 (excluding library check numbers 73677-73724), duly audited, in the amount of $1,594,955.20, Payroll checks 132149-132984 in the amount of $1,351,187.78, and EFT's in the amount of $321,526.33 for the month of November, 2000. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve items 9(a), 9(c) through 9(f) of the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve item 9(b), seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved by voice vote, 4-0-1, with Vice Mayor Spinelli abstained from voting on this item due to living in the California Drive Grove Avenue area. 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 1• Councilwoman O'Mahony attended the BID discussion on the Broadway Streetscape, Hotel Security luncheon, and the OLA Mother's Club fashion show and Christmas lunch. Councilwoman Coffey attended the C.A.L.L. Primrose luncheon, County Council of Cities, City Hall tree lighting ceremony, Chamber of Commerce meeting, Carpenter's Union Moose Feed in San Francisco, and various Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes 7 December 18, 2000 Christmas open houses. Vice Mayor Spinelli attended the Airport Roundtable meeting and the City Hall tree lighting ceremony. Councilwoman Janney attended the Moose Feed luncheon in San Francisco, C.A.L.L. Primrose luncheon, Hotel Security luncheon, Chamber of Commerce Board Meeting, SAMCEDA luncheon, City Hall tree lighting ceremony, SamTrans Board meeting and luncheon. Mayor Galligan attended a number of Christmas open houses, North County County of Cities meeting, school liaison meeting, attended the City Hall tree lighting ceremony. 11. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 12. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 13. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Planning, December 11 b. Monthly Reports: Treasurer, November 2000; Police, October 2000 C. Letter from Kathleen Wentworth, 1429 Cortez, regarding stop signs at Adeline and Cortez d. Letter from Prasanna Jena, 1977 Garden Drive, regarding rent situation in Burlingame e. Letter from Marika Metcalfe, 401 Occidental, regarding IHN program g. Letter from Jim Nantell, City Manager, notifying City Council of his assumption of City Manager duties Council met in closed session at 8:25 p.m. and returned to open session at 8:54 p.m. 14. CLOSED SESSION a. Threatened litigation — Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), (3)(C)): Claim of Bill Sianis for damage to sprinkler system CA Anderson stated that in the closed session, Council discussed a pending claim regarding damage to the sprinkler system and gave direction to the City Attorney and City Manager regarding that claim. 15. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 8:55 p.m. after a moment of silence in memory Ann V. Bruce and Dixie O'Brien. Ann T. Musso City Clerk December 18, 2000 8 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes CITY 0 BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT .o. AGENDA 5A ITEM K �A4TCD JVNE� TG. ATE '/2/2001 To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBMITT BY DATE: December 22, 2000 APPROVED FRoM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney BY SUBJECT: PUBLIC HEARING ON PROPOSED SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, THE BASIS FOR AND LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT FOR THE YEAR 2001 RECOMMENDATION: Hold public hearing and receive comment on proposed Tourism Business Improvement District. DISCUSSION: The San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau and the San Mateo Hotel Council, Inc. have proposed a tourism business improvement district to properly fund and manage the promotion of San Mateo County to conventions and tourists. On December 18, 2000, the City Council adopted a resolution of intention (attached) that announced two public hearings on the proposed district. Burlingame would be the lead agency for the County and cities if they consent to the proposed district. Notice was mailed to each of the hotels in the proposed district and published in local newspapers. Hotels that wish to object to the fon-nation of the district, to object to the proposed assessments for 2001, or to object to a particular program or service that the Bureau would provide can file written objections. If more than 50% of the value of the proposed assessments object in writing to some aspect, then that aspect is stopped. The mailed notice explains how an objection can be made. At the conclusion of the hearing on January 17, 2001, the Council will review the written objections filed to determine the acceptability of the district. No action is required of the Council at the hearing on January 2, 2001, except to receive the testimony offered. Attachment Resolution of Intention adopted December 18, 2000 Distribution Anne LeClair, SMCCVB RESOLUTION NO. 12t-2000 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO ESTABLISH THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, TO ESTABLISH THE BASIS FOR AND TO LEVY THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT FOR THE YEAR 2001, AND TO ESTABLISH A DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD, AND SETTING DATES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE DISTRICT AND THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, the San Francisco Peninsula Hotel Council, Inc., the San Mateo County Convention & Visitors Bureau, and the Interim Advisory Board for the formation of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District have asked the City of Burlingame, the County of San Mateo, and other cities in the County to consider the formation of a parking and business improvement district in the County to adequately fund and serve the promotion of tourism in the County; and WHEREAS, the Hotel Council and the Convention & Visitors Bureau have asked the City of Burlingame to take the lead in the formation of the proposed district pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code sections 36500 and following; and WHEREAS, the proposed District would: A. Encompass the City of Belmont, City of Burlingame, City of Brisbane, City of Daly City, City of Foster City, City of Half Moon Bay, City of Millbrae, City of Redwood City, City of San Carlos, City of San Bruno, City of San Mateo, City of South San Francisco, and the unincorporated areas of the County of San Mateo. However, the district will only extend to a city described above if the city council of that particular city consents to the extension pursuant to Streets & Highways Code section 36521, and will only extend to the unincorporated areas of the County of San Mateo if the Board of Supervisors of San Mateo County consents to the extension to the unincorporated areas of the County. B. Levy assessments on hotels in the District on an annual basis to fund the programs described in Exhibit B to this Resolution. The assessments would be subject to annual review. Hotel is defined as; any structure, or any portion of any structure, that is rented for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes on a transient basis, and includes any hotel, motel, inn, tourist home or house, studio, bed and breakfast, lodging house, rooming house, or other similar structure or portion thereof No other business, person, occupation, or property of any kind would be subject to assessment under the district as proposed. C. Set the assessments for the 2001 year as generally described in Exhibit C hereto; and D. Establish an advisory board of owners and managers of hotels or of property occupied by hotels and owners and managers of San Mateo County businesses directly related to tourism to advise the City Council on the District's budget, assessments, and programs. WHEREAS, it appears that the San Mateo County Tourism Improvement District would provide important services in enhancing tourism in San Mateo County, including the City of Burlingame, NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine, and find as follows: 1. The Burlingame City Council intends to form the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District by adoption of an ordinance pursuant to Streets & Highways Code sections 36500 and following. The boundaries of the proposed district are generally described in Exhibit A hereto; however, the district will only include areas within those cities whose city councils consent to the formation of the District by January 17, 2001, and will only include unincorporated areas of the County of San Mateo if the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors consents to the formation of the District by January 17, 2001. In addition, the areas to be included in the District will only be those areas actually consented to. 2. The Burlingame City Council further intends to levy an assessment for the 2001 fiscal year on hotels in the District to pay for services, programs, and activities of the District. 3. The types of services, programs, and activities proposed to be funded by the levy of assessments on hotels in the District are set forth in Exhibit B, incorporated herein by reference. 4. The nnethod, basis, and amounts for levying the assessments on all hotels within the District are set forth in Exhibit C, incorporated herein by reference. The levels of assessments for the year 2001 are based in part on the levels of overall occupancy in the County of San Mateo experienced in the 1999-2000 year. 5. New hotels shall not be exempt from assessment, but they shall only be assessed on the ratio that the number of quarters remaining in the assessment year bears to the full assessment amount, with a partial quarter being counted as a frill quarter. 6. A first public hearing on formation of the proposed District and assessments for 2001 is hereby set for January 2, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council's Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 7. A second public hearing on the formation of the proposed District and assessments for 2001 is hereby set for January 17, 2001, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council's Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. 8. The Council will receive testimony and evidence at both of the public hearings, and pursuant to Streets & Highways Code § 36522, interested persons may submit written comments before or at either public hearing, or they may be sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. 9. Oral or written protests may be made at these hearings. To count in a majority protest against any aspect of the proposed District or to the proposed assessment for 2001, a protest must be in writing and submitted to the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010, at or before the close of the second public hearing on January 17, 2001. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of that second public hearing. Each written protest shall identify the hotel and its address, include the number of sleeping rooms, level of service provided, and square footage of meeting space. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of a city or the County as the owner of the hotel, then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the hotel. Any written protest as to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceeding shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made. 10. Effect of Protests. (a) If at the conclusion of the second public hearing, there are of record written protests by the owners of hotels within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total 2 assessments of the entire District, as to the proposed formation of the District, the District will not be formed. (b) If at the conclusion, of the second public hearing, there are of record written protests by the owners of hotels within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District, as to the proposed assessments for the year 2001, no assessment for the year 2001 shall occur. (c) If at the conclusion of the second public hearing there are of record written protests by the owners of hotels within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District only as to a service, activity or program proposed, then that type of service, activity, or program shall not be included in the District for the 2001 fiscal year. 11. Further information regarding the proposed District and the proposed assessments and procedures for filing a written protest may be obtained from the City Clerk at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, phone 650 - 558-7203. 12. In addition to the public hearings scheduled pursuant to this resolution in the City of Burlingame, it is anticipated that city councils of other cities in the County of San Mateo and the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors may discuss the district at their own individual meetings and determine whether to consent to the formation of the District. However, any protests made at those other meetings shall not be considered legal protests or objections to the District pursuant to this Resolution of Intention or the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Streets &Highways Code sections 36500 and following). 13. The City Clerk is instructed to provide notice of the public hearing by publishing this Resolution in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Burlingame in accordance with the requirements of the Government Code and Streets & Highways Code and mailing in accordance with those requirements as applicable. The general form of notice attached as Exhibit D is approved. 11sH MAYOR I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 18th day of December 2000, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE 3 HsH CITY CLERK EXHIBIT A DESCRIPTION OF BOUNDARIES OF SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT DISTRICT IN GENERAL The San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District shall encompass all of the incorporated and unincorporated areas in the County of San Mateo, but shall specifically exclude all areas and any hotels located within the city or town limits of the following cities and towns: Town of Atherton Town of Colma City of East Palo Alto Town of Hillsborough City of Menlo Park City of Pacifica Town of Portola Valley Town of Woodside ZONES WITHIN THE DLS TRIC Zone A Zone A shall encompass all of the area of the District except that area located within Zone B as described below. Zone B Zone B shall encompass all of the area of the District that is located south of the City of Pacifica city limits and west of State Highway 35. EXHIBIT B ACTIVITIES, PROGRAMS AND SERVICES TO BE FUNDED BY THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT 1. Increased Generation of Group Leads a. Additional Sales Staff. Increase the Bureau's sales staff from two full -times sales representatives to six (6) or more. i. One sales representative to be located on the East Coast to represent the Bureau in the Washington, D.C. area; ii. One sales representative to be located in Sacramento; iii. One sales representative to be located in Southern California to represent the Bureau in the Los Angeles Area; iv. Three sales representatives in-house. 2. Marketing Program for Meetings and Tourism a. Invest in extensive Web advertising, creating links from key travel sites; b. Host annual receptions in Sacramento; C. Add a cooperative advertising manager and create additional cooperative advertising pieces; d. Participate in additional trade shows of interest to member hotel properties; e. Enhance/update trade show booth decor and marketing materials; f. Increase memberships in organizations/attendance at meetings with key, potential target visitors; g. Enhance advertising in publications/web programs aimed at meeting planners; h. Create specialty guides/promotional pieces aimed at target market segments (e.g. golf); i. Conduct familiarization trips for meeting planners, film/ad/catalogue producers and travel writers; j. Use a part-time film commissioner to proactively recruit production crews to the area; k. Create additional collateral and marketing materials; 1. Add a part-time publications manager to write specialty pieces and articles for distribution; M. Add state -of the art software designed for convention and visitor bureaus; n. Enhance web site; 3. Program to Extend Stays a. Create collateral/promotional materials to encourage extended stays; b. Add a part-time manager of meeting services to create special packages/offers, marketing plans to encourage extended stays. 4. Consumer Reservations Program/Market to Travel Industry a. Create an on-line reservations system for travelers; b. Dedicate one new sales representative's time to the transient market; C. Develop an alliance with tour operators; d. Create an awareness of the Bureau on the part of international travelers; e. Have key brochures translated into German and Korean. EXHIBIT C ASSESSMENTS PROPOSED TO BE LEVIED ON HOTELS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT In order to roughly measure the estimated benefit to be derived from the District, the Assessment for Fiscal Year 2001 is being adjusted by the following two factors: first, the level of occupancy of hotels actually experienced county -wide in the 1999-2000 year; and second, by the actual number of months of the year 2001 remaining after the ordinance forming the District becomes effective. According to the hotel industry, the level of occupancy in Zone A for hotels was above 70% for the year 1999- 2000; in Zone B, it was above 50%. However, the small hotel segment of the industry experienced an occupancy of only about 30%. The number of months remaining in 2001 will be established upon adoption of the ordinance forming the district, so that is left as a formula in the assessment basis; in future years, this element of the formula would be eliminated. Assessment of new hotels ouenine dnrine fiscal vear: A new hotel shall be assessed for an amount equal to the ratio of the number of full quarters remaining in the fiscal year multiplied by the full annual assessment that would have been due. A partial quarter is not counted for the ratio. For example, if a hotel opens in May, there are two full quarters and 2 months of one partial quarter remaining in the fiscal year. The full annual assessment would be multiplied by 2/4 for that year's assessment for the new hotel. Definitions — Hotel means any structure, or any portion of any structure, that is rented for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes on a transient basis, and includes any hotel, motel, inn, tourist home or house, studio, bed and breakfast, lodging house, rooming house, or other similar structure or portion thereof. —Full service means a hotel that offers all of the following: an on-site restaurant, meeting space, room service, bell service, and catering. —Limited service means a hotel that offers meeting space but does not necessarily have an on-site restaurant, room service, or catering. — Standard service means a hotel without any meeting space, and generally does not have bell service, room service, on-site restaurant, or catering. —Meeting space means a room or space dedicated for group and social meetings, meals, and/or functions. — Sleeping room means a room or suite of rooms that is rented on a transient basis as a unit for sleeping or occupancy. 6 CATEGORY ZONE A — ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2001 ZONE B — ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2001 Hotel with full service $360/sleeping room X 70% X (District months in 200 1) $360/sleeping room X 50% X (District months in 200 1) and more than 20 sleeping 12 12 rooms Hotel with limited service $180/sleeping room X 70% X (District months in 200 1) $180/sleeping room X 50% X (District months in 2001) and more than 1000 square 12 12 feet of meeting space and more than 20 sleeping rooms Hotel Nvith limited service $90/sleeping room X 70% X (District months in 200 1) $90/sleeping room X 50% X (District months in 200 1) and some meeting space but 12 12 less than 1000 square feet and more than 20 sleeping rooms Hotel with standard service $54/sleeping room X 70% X (District months in 200 1) $54/sleeping room X 50% X (District months in 200 1) and more than 20 sleeping 12 12 rooms Hotel with full service, $54/sleeping room X 30% X (District months in 200 1) $54/sleeping room X 30% X (District months in 200 1) limited service, or standard 12 12 service, and 20 sleeping rooms or less NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON PROPOSED FORMATION OF SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS ON HOTELS IN THE DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 (Government Code § 54954.6(c)) PLEASE TAKE NOTICE: On January 2, 2001, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, the City Council of the City of Burlingame will hold a public hearing to consider formation of a proposed San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District and the levv of ; ssessments for fiscal year 2001 on hotels in the District as described in the enclosed Resolution. of Intention. On January 17, 2001, at 7 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, the City Council of the City of Burlingame will hold a second public hearing to consider formation of the District and the levy of assessments for fiscal year 2001 on hotels in the District.' The proposed assessments for fiscal year 2001 are contained in Exhibit B to the enclosed resolution of intention. The Council will receive testimony and evidence at both of the public hearings, and interested persons may submit written comments before or at either public hearing, or the comments may be sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010. Oral or written protests may be made at these hearings. To count in a majority protest against any aspect of the proposed District or to the proposed assessment for 2001, a protest must be in writing and submitted to the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010, at or before the close of the second public hearing on January 17, 2001. A written protest may be withdrawn in writing 'In addition to the public hearings scheduled pursuant to this resolution in the Cit}7 of Burlingame, it is anticipated that city councils of other cities in the Count}� of San Mateo and the San Mateo County Board of Superv,sors will discuss the District at their own individual meetings and determine whether to consent to the formation of the District. However, any protests made at those other meetings shall not be considered legal protests or objections to the District pursuant to this Resolution of Intention or the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989 (Streets &Highways Code sections 3600 and following). at any time before the conclusion of that second public hearing. Each written protest shall identify the hotel and its address, include the number of sleeping rooms, level of service provided, and square footage of meeting space. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the official records of a city or the County as the owner of the hotel, then the protest shall contain or be accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the hotel. Any written protest as to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceeding shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity or defect to which objection is made. If at the conclusion of the second public hearing, there are of record written protests by the owners of hotels within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District, as to the proposed formation of the District, the District will not be formed. If at the conclusion of the second public hearing, there are of record written protests by the owners of hotels within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District, as or to the proposed assessments for 2001, no assessment for 2001 shall occur. If at the conclusion of the second public hearing there are of record written protests by the owners of hotels within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total assessments of the entire District only as to a service, activity or program proposed, then that type of service, activity, or program shall not be included in the District for the 2001 fiscal year. Further information regarding the proposed District and the proposed assessments and procedures for filing a written protest may be obtained from the City Clerk at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California, phone 650 - 558-7203. Further information is also available from the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors Bureau at 650 - 348-7600. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 18, 2000, and the Ordinance was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council on 200_, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL> TEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILNIEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: D:\wp 51 \Fi les\ORD INANC\tspiimemb. pwd.wpd -2- ity Clerk AGENDA BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT ITEM # 83 MTG. 1/2/01 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: December 20, 2000 BY APPROVED FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY l SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS - BURLINGAME SHORELINE TRAIL�CITY PROJECT NO. 9643 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution accepting the Burlingame Shoreline Trail improvements in the amount of $ 36,303.26. On July 5, 2000, Council authorized a $34,000 contract with Calco Construction to build the Burlingame Shoreline Trail. All construction has been completed satisfactorily. Extra work amounting to $ 2,303.26 or 6% of the contract included additional asphalt base, paving, erosion control and shrubs. The Burlingame Shoreline Trail consists of a twelve foot wide paved path that is a continuation of the recreational trail along Airport Boulevard. The project included grading, asphalt paving, striping and signage, irrigation and landscaping for the 170 foot long trail. The trail ends with a small plaza at the edge of the drainage channel. When the adjacent, vacant parcel is developed, a new bridge will be required to provide a connection for the future trail to the north. A grant for a permanent easement for the trail has been signed and recorded with the county. Construction began this summer and was completed in December, 2000. BUDGET IMPACT: The project is being funded by a grant from the San Mateo County Transportation Authority approved in January, 1998 and revised in April, 2000. The grant requires that final acceptance for the project be approved by a resolution of the City Council. EXHIBITS: Resolution; Final Payment Quantities t Gomery sociate Engineer/Landscape Architect c: City Clerk, Calco Construction S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\9643 Final Acct.sr.wpd CONTRACTOR: CALCO CONSTRUCTION BURLINGAME SHORELINE TRAIL - 1200 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY DATE: 12/12/2000 ADDRESS: CITY OF BURLINGAME FOR THE PERIOD 8/00 to 1 1 /00 35150 Welty Road, Vernalis, CA 95385 FINAL PAYMENT PURCHASE ORDER # )1-j �[Lf TELEPHONE ( 209 ) 836-4263 FAX (209) 839-9377 CITY PROJECT # 9643 FOR Fjnal PakA mO ,tj--t- SUBTOTAL C.C.O.'s $0.00 PREPARED BY: D. Russell (Nolte) ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT I BID BID QUANTITY %AGE AMOUNT PREVIOUS AMOUNT LESS TEN PERCENT RETENTION SUBTOTAL WITH DEDUCTIONS ****** ($3,642.33) : $32,780.93 PRICE SIZE QUANTITY RELEASE OF HOLDBACK TO DATE TO DATE PAID THIS PERIOD 1 Construction Area Signs Clearing & Grubbing Trail Excavation Imported Borrow Aggregate Base (Class 2) Asphalt concrete (Type A, 1/2" Max.) Erosion control Trees, 24" Box $400.00 $1,000.00 $100.00 $40.00 $18.00 $110.00 $4,000.00 -L. $100.00 L. S. L. S. C.Y. C.Y. C.Y. TON S. EACH 1 1 8 118 38 38 1 2 $400.00 $1,000.00 $800.00 $4,720.00 $684.00 $4,180.00 $4,000.00 $200.00 1 1 8 132.6 59.6 50.3 1 2 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 112.33% 156.76% 132.37% 100.00% 0 100.00% $400.00 $1,000.00 $800.00 $5,302.00 $1,072.26 $5,533.00 $4,000.00 $200.00 $400.00 $1,000.00 $800.00 $5,302.00 $1,072.26 $5,533.00 $4,000.00 $200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Trees, 15 Gallon Shrubs, 5 gallon Shrubs, 1 gallon Mulch Hydroseed Maintenance (90 days) Soil Prep/ Finish Grading Irrigation Signs Striping (4" White - Double coated) $100.00 $20.00 $10.00 $5.00 $1.00 $1,200.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $3.00 EACH EACH EACH S. F. S. F. L. S. L. S. L. S. EACH L. F. 110 11 33 300 2,480 1 1 1 20 324 $1,100.00 $220.00 $330.00 $1,500.00 $2,480.00 $1,200.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $972.00 11 16 33 300 2480 1 1 1 2 324 100.00% 145.45% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% $1,100.00 $320.00 $330.00 $1,500.00 $2,480.00 $1,200.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $972.00 $1,100.00 $320.00 $330.00 $1,500.00 $2,480.00 $0.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $972.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,200.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00- 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 21 21 Bench with Pad &Relocate Trash Can$500.00 Metal Beam Guard Railing Roadway Mobilization $800.00 $5,914.00 L. S. L. S. L. S. 1 1 1 $500.00 $800.00 $5,914.00 1 1 1 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% $500.00 $800.00 $5,914.00 $500.00 $800.00 $5,914.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 TOTAL CONTRACT $34,000.00 $36,423.26 $35,223.26 $1,200 00 CONTRACTORS CHANGE ORDERS ADD ADD ADD C.C.O. 41 C.C.O. #2 C.C.O. #3 L. S. L.S. 1 1 $0.001 $0.00 $0.00 1 1 1 100.00% 100.00% 100.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 SUBTOTAL C.C.O.'s $0.00 PREPARED BY: D. Russell (Nolte) CHECKED BY: A. Quevedo (Nolte) SUBTOTAL ******* ****** $36,423.26 $35,223.26 APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEER: Chri u� d.(�fZ PF. / �1 . LESS TEN PERCENT RETENTION SUBTOTAL WITH DEDUCTIONS ****** ($3,642.33) : $32,780.93 ($3,522.33) $31,700.93 APPROVED BY: Nolte RELEASE OF HOLDBACK $3,522.33 CONSULTANT: CONTRACTOR: Ca Co�PAt' C. � --' TOTAL THIS PERIOD ******* ****** $36,303.26 : $31,700.93 APPROVED BY C - /Z '/4 , 6" ********* ************ * ******* * ****** atm NOTES: Previously paid = $31,700.93. Total this period = $1,200.00. Total project holdback (@10%) = $3,642.33. Total outstanding payment = $4,722.33 BurITRAILpaymentschFinal121200.xls12/12/00 3:29 PM $1,200.00 ( $120.00) $1,080.00 $120.00 $4,722.33 RESOLUTION NO.o j- 2 o a 1 ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS - BURLINGAME SHORELINE TRAIL CITY PROJECT NO. 9643 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California, and this Council does hereby find, order and determine as follows: 1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by CALCO CONSTRUCTION under the terms of its contract with the City dated JULY 5, 2000, has been com- pleted in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 9643. 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. -- C ayC I, Ann T. Musso, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2nd day of JANUARY , 2001, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 0000M, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY S:\A Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\PROJECTS\RESOLUTN.ACC.wpd �CCITY 0\^ STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME ORATED JUNE N TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: December 20, 2000 FROM: Randy Schwartz SUBMITTED BY APPROVED SUBJECT: OUT OF STATE TRAVEL FOR RECREATION AGENDA ITEM # _ MTG. DATE 01/02/01 M lvvV'ti� R, TRICIA PINNEY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize Recreation Supervisor, Tricia Pinney, to attend the upcoming CalFest Convention in Las Vegas, Nevada on March 27-29, 2001. BACKGROUND: Tricia is in charge of the City's Art in the Park and Holiday Tree Lighting ceremonies. Attending the CalFest Convention will allow her to stay in touch with the latest trends of large scale special events, make contacts to continue our ability to attract top rated artists and review marketing/publicity materials. ATTACHMENTS: None. BUDGET IMPACT: Funds for the trip are available in the Recreation Division's Travel, Conference, Meetings budget. '41, BURUNGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA 8c t qD0 [TEM # °A -TED JVNE 6, MTG. DATE 1/2/2000 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY",4 DATE: December 22, 2000 APPROVED FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney BY SUBJECT: REJECT CLAIM OF EVELYN DMITROWICH FOR PtRSONAL INJURY RECOMMENDATION: Reject Ms. Dmitrowich for personal injuries suffered on September B, 2000. DISCUSSION: Ms. Dmitovich apparently fell on the sidewalk of EI Carnino just south of Floribunda. City representative met with her and examined the area where she apparently fell. We were unable to locate a condition that would be considered dangerous under California law, and could not find an actual tripping hazard. Therefore, rejection of the claim is recommended. Attachment Ms. Dmitrowich's Claim Distribution ABAG Plan Claim Against the City of Please return to: City Clerk �( circ o* 501 Primrose Road 64JFZUPgAM.E Burlingame, CA 94010 Please type or print clearly+. Complete the following, adding additional sheets as necessary. CLAIMANT'S N,�: � _ � � f-l� �I ,lam, p l� �' � D 611 i Tr, 0 u') ; C -Burlingame r--------- (date st--------� RECEIVED 2000 i CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS: (� f % RCPT i'�rt/` :T r T PPET OR P O Bax N1 MER, CITY, STA IF, TlP) CLAIMANT'S DOME PHONE- L -i J j WORK PHONE: '�'3yr? Plus 01)vo(p'y reedwd' AMOUNT OF CLAIM: yTrACecvPlFsorBaL&tMW W) IF AMOUNT CLAIMED IS MORE THAN $10,000, INDICATE WHERE nMISDIC'TIO*I 3LE—FTS: U MUNICIPAL COURT ❑ SUPERIOR. COURT ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BE SENT, IF DIFFERENT FROM LINES 1 AND 2: DATE OF INCIDENT: (S MELT OR P o eau mil (OM sre. 2tP) esc` a-cj ' ce TIME of INCIDENT: — t=� L"0C,+ -7 -z p (Y) S 1 D j�j.0 044h a N L.ocATioN OF INCIDENT: E-- DESCRIBE THE INCIDENT OR ACCIDENT INCLUDING YOUR REASON FOR BELIEVING THAT THE CITY IS LIABLE FOR YOUR DAMAGES: See- A'14ac-`0 e2 #--( DESCRIBE ALL (DAMAGES WHICH YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE INCURRED AS RESULT OF THE INCIDENT: NAMES OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) CAUSING THE DAMAGES YOU ARE CLAD41NG: 1 hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have read the foregoing and that the sante is true to the best of my knowledge. Date:. Signature: r Any person who. with hUew to definud, presents a y false or fraudulent claim may be punished by imprisonment orfine or both. C M forPerronal hVwY or damage to Peao4d Proper* must be fiW whhu 180 days of brcldent, alt other dab= muo be JUrd w&hLq one year of btcUML See Governmew Code Stolon goo etpe Icuua:uq -MCU -(to Ll.k, Ka (S 4qel(6Tfi e-. O -V 9113V 0 0 yz J- Mi at ( or. (lis, 1019-310v 77 10) _w" �w I 611 CITY 0 BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT A �AnTEa JVNE 6• TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: December 22, 2000 APPROVED FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney BY SUBJECT: REJECT CLAIM OF PATRICIA SMITH FOR PERSO AL INJURY RECOMMENDATION: Reject Ms. Smith for personal injuries suffered on February 18, 2000. DISCUSSION: AGENnA 8d ITEM # MTP. D TE 1/2/2000 Ms. Smith apparently fell on a broken parking meter pole on California Drive. We have identified the location of her fall, but have been unable to obtain any response from her attorney as to her losses and injuries. Therefore, rejection of the claim is recommended. Distribution ABAG Plan STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM # 8 e MTG. DATE 1-2-01 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTEU-_..._. BY ;J�- .1 HATE: December 27, 2000 APPRO FROM: Randy Schwartz BY 'v SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH BURLINGbME AQUATIC CLUB RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to sign the attached contract with the Burlingame Aquatic Club. BACKGROUND: The Burlingame Aquatic Center hosts many competitive programs, including Master's Swim Program, Community Swim Team, Pre -competitive Program, Community Water Polo Team and Water Polo Camps. Similar to other local sports organizations, such as AYSO, BYBA and BGSL, staff believes the management of a non-profit organization can best serve these programs. The non-profit organization, governed by local residents, would combine the efforts of parent and participant volunteers with the expertise of paid coaches. For the past four months, a local group of interested individuals has created a non-profit group, the Burlingame Aquatic Club. Earlier this month, the Club completed its non-profit status paperwork and has reached a tentative agreement with some highly qualified local coaches who would be interested in working with the above programs. The Burlingame Aquatic Center Foundation has agreed to assist the Club with any necessary start-up funds. The terms of this contract will help to ensure the Club can begin on a successful note, while maintaining the Recreation Division's budget projections. ATTACHMENTS: Copy of the Agreement for Conduct of Aquatics Programs at the Burlingame Aquatic Center. BUDGETIMPACT: Based upon participation levels from the Summer and Fall sessions, no significant budget impact is anticipated. RESOLUTION 03-2001 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH BURLINGAME AQUATIC CLUB FOR OPERATIONS AT THE BURLINGAME AQUATIC CENTER AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN AGREEMENT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City desires to have a non-profit organization develop and operate special programs for the Burlingame Aquatic Center; and WHEREAS, the Burlingame Aquatic Club is willing to provide these services and be governed by local residents, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED: 1. The Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A is approved, and the City Manager is authorized to execute the Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 2. The City Clerk is directed to witness the Manager's signature on behalf of the City. YO I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2ndday of JANUARY ,2001, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: IDUMM GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY CITY CLERK III��+ CITY ow STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME m AS aur¢0• AGENDA ITEM # 8 f MTG. DATE 1-2-01 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED G, BY DATE: December 22, 2000 APPROVEimX" FROM: Parks &Recreation Director BY SUBJECT: Proposed Price Change on Range Balls at BurlinganW Golf Center RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposed change in the price charged to range users for a large bucket of range balls at the Burlingame Golf Center from $9.00 per bucket to $10.00 per bucket. BACKGROUND: City staff has discussed with VB Golf a proposed change in the price being charged range customers for a large bucket of range balls. As can be seen on the attached proposal from VB Golf (Exhibit A, attached), the proposed price increase will actually reduce the cost to the user per ball in a large bucket, but will greatly expedite ball purchasing and cash handling. Range ball dispensing machine cannot make change and the current $9.00 per bucket price requires that customers either get change for a $10.00 bill or be prepared to feed four (4) $1.00 bills into the machine in order to purchase a large bucket. VB Golf has found that, on a daily basis, customers misunderstand the procedure and insert a $10.00 bill into the machine. When the customer finds that he or she has "lost" $1.00, then a refund procedure must be started with the counter staff located inside the building. During busy times of the day, especially, this refund process often creates a situation whereby the staff makes an error in handling the refund and causes a shortage in the cash drawer. City staff believes that this change in the fee structure will provide better customer service, help reduce cash handling errors, and increase range revenues, while lowering the per ball price. Senior citizens and others wishing to hit balls on weekdays before 11:00 a.m. will still receive a $1.00 discount on all three sizes of buckets. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A is a written proposal from VB Golf LLC. BUDGET IMPACT: There should be no significant budget impact. This change may increase revenues slightly, while reducing staff time cost for the Operator and for the City. EXHIBIT A VB GOLF LLC 250 Anza Boulevard Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 548-2447 (650) 548-1087 (fax) December 21, 2000 Mr. John Williams City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Director 850 Burlingame Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Burlingame Golf Center Request to Change Large Bucket Range Ball Price to $10 Dear John: As per discussions, VB Golf would like to raise the price of a large bucket of range balls to $10. Currently, a large bucket costs $9. The $10 bucket would consist of 150 balls as opposed 120 balls for $9. The breakdown of cost per ball is as follows: $9 120 balls = .075 cents per ball $10 150 balls = .067 cents per ball As you can see, the price per ball will decrease. The suggested price is below market rates for comparable facilities. Furthermore, a $10 bucket would be more convenient for customers (less bills to put in ball machines) and would decrease the number of times the cash drawer is open per day to make change. We would like to place this matter on the Burlingame City Council agenda as soon as possible with your support. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, VB golf LL William K. Vere cc: James Nantell Chris Aliaga STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM # 8q MTG. DATE 1-2-01 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTER BY DATE: December 20, 2000 APPRO FROM: Randy Schwartz BY. SUBJECT: APPOINTMENT OF THE NEWSRACK COMMY]rTEE MEMBERS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council appoint the following individuals to the Newsrack Committee: Earl Walker (Chronicle) to a term ending January 1, 2004 Mark Schlemmer (San Mateo Daily Journal) to a term ending January 1, 2003 Michael Billingsley (San Francisco Bay Guardian) to a term ending January 1, 2002. BACKGROUND: City Council, at its September 18. 2000 meeting, approved a revision to the City's Newsrack Ordinance. Section 12.23.030 of the Ordinance calls for the establishment of a Newsrack Committee and defines its responsibilities. Committee members, representing three (3) publications, serve three (3) year terms, staggered and overlapped in such a manner that the terms of one (1) member expires each year. The Ordinance also requires that the committee members represent daily, weekly and monthly or other publications. Appointing the above individuals to the committee will fulfill the above requirements. Earl Walker, representing a daily publication, was the first applicant for the committee and thus chosen to receive the three-year term. Mark Schlemmer, representing an "other" publication (the Daily Journal is published six times each week), was the second applicant for the committee. Michael Billingsley would fulfill the seat representing weekly publications. ATTACHMENTS: None. BUDGET IMPACT: No major impact is foreseen. � CJTY P 'Prow„E STAFF REPORT MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: December 26, 2000 AGENDA ITEM # 8h MTG. 011 2101 DATE SUBMITT BY APPR FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT AMENDMENT O. 1 - ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PHASE II -CITY PROJECT 9953 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached Amendment with Roman and Lougee increasing efforts to a total of $118,175. BACKGROUND: The City of Burlingame is preparing for the Mid -2003 SFPUC water supply conversion to chloramination for disinfection. Consultants have modeled our distribution system in previous fiscal years. This year we are assessing the impacts of chloramination and the needs of this system to accept this change. In September, staff entered into an agreement with this consultant to perform the first phase of this in a staff approved agreement for $62,390. The efforts to date have identified Phase II efforts of $55,785 increasing the agreement to $118,175 which now requires Council action. Consultant efforts in this assessment include sampling and identifying our systems particular flow and chlorine consumption as water courses through our system. Also being analyzed are our storage tanks and their internal mixing and retention characteristics. This study will provide not only budgetary costs for modification to our system to help accept this new treatment process but also establish additional water quality sampling program for staff and consultants through the current fiscal year. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Agreement Amendment BUDGET IMPACT: This project has sufficient funds to cover this work. Erbacher, P. E. Asst. Director of Public Works c: City Clerk, Finance, Roman and Lougee S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\9953.stf.wpd RESOLUTION NO. 02-2001 AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 1 FOR PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES.WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PHASE II ROMAN AND LOUGEE CITY PROJECT NO. 9953 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in the title above. 2. The City Manager be, and he is hereby, authorized to sign said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and instructed to attest such signature. I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 2n( day of January , 2001, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: XOMMM, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, SPINELLI , O - MAHONY NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY oda� V-�U� City Clerk The City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Wednesday, December 14, 2000 Commissioners Present: Lisa De Angelis, Chair Jim McIver, Vice Chair Tim Auran Jim Evans Commissioners Absent: David Mayer Staff Present: Frank Erbacher, Assistant Director of Public Works Philip Ho, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Department Bob Ransom, Traffic Sergeant, Police Department Doris Mortensen, Administrative Secretary, Public Works Department Staff Absent: None Visitors: Antoinette Galindo, 2108 Adeline Drive, Burlingame Robert Galindo, 2108 Adeline Drive, Burlingame Rosann Fraher, RSM, 2750 Adeline Drive, Burlingame John Fraher, 1365 De Soto Avenue, Burlingame Luis Moran, 2119 Adeline Drive, Burlingame George Bullwinkel, 2101 Adeline Drive, Burlingame Cynthia Bullwinkel, 2101 Adeline Drive, Burlingame Jim Griffin, 2104 Adeline Drive, Burlingame Mary Griffin, 2104 Adeline Drive, Burlingame Pat Kinsella, 1520 Columbus, Burlingame Jim Briggs, 1442 Montero Avenue, Burlingame A. Pallels, 1456 Alvarado Avenue, Burlingame Minutes for 12-14-00 Meeting.wpd Page 1 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Wednesday, December 14, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m. by Chair De Angelis. . 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. 3. ROLL CALL. 4 of 5 Commissioners present. 4. CURRENT BUSINESS. 4.1 ACTION ITEMS. 4.1.1 Introduction of new City Manager, Jim Nantell Mr. Nantell was introduced to the commissioners and staff. He said how much he appreciated the time and effort the commissioners expend to help the City. 4.1.2 Minutes of November 8, 2000, were submitted and approved. 4.1.3 Proclamations for former TSPC Chair and Vice Chair Chairwoman De Angelis read aloud the proclamations recognizing the efforts of former Commissioners Harber and Simonetti. It was moved and seconded (Comms. Auran/Evans) to present these proclamations to the former commissioners. Unanimously approved by the Commission. 4.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS. 4.2.1 Request by City Council to investigate traffic safety on Adeline Drive (Hoover Avenue to Vancouver Avenue) Mr. Erbacher stated that the roads in this area are narrow, much like most of Burlingame's residential streets. Several speed studies were performed when cars were parked on this street which causes the road to narrow and to compound the situation, there is an obvious curve between Vancouver and Columbus. Drivers reduced speed when cars were parked. Mr. Ho advised that in the last 5 years there have been six accidents on Adeline between Hoover and Vancouver; however, none were attributed to the narrow street condition. Comm. Auran asked the time of the accidents: one at 5 p.m.; the rest, 7-10 a.m. Mr. Erbacher provided several exhibits showing the stopping site distances needed: 150 feet for vehicles traveling at 25 mph; two opposing vehicles would need 300 feet. L From the floor: Resident at 2108 Adeline stated that when no cars are parked on Adeline, drivers pick up speed. When cars are parked, they go slower; so with "No Parking" signs, cars will speed up. Resident at 2104 Adeline stated that he cannot back out of his driveway in the morning due to speeding cars, but when parked cars are present, the problem doesn't Minutes for 12-14-00 Meeting.wpd _ Page 2 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Wednesday, December 14, 2000 exist. He asked who complained about the traffic? He lives here and sees no problem with parked cars especially since they slow down the traffic. Resident at 2108 Adeline went door to door asking about this issue and no one mentioned parking as a problem, just speeding. Resident at 2101 Adeline stated that putting a Stop sign at the southwest corner of Adeline will make it impossible to exit his driveway and suggested a Stop sign be placed at the northeast corner instead. Resident at 2119 Adeline stated that some houses have single driveways so they need on -street parking. Residents extend courtesy by staggering their parked cars. Resident at 1520 Columbus suggested concreting past the curb for cars to park. Mr. Erbacher suggested adding advisory speed and curve signs since we have had no accident problem. Comm. Auran wants to visit the site for review. This will be an Action item next month. The meeting notice will be sent to residents. M 4.2.2 Request for speed limit signs and speed bumps on Alvarado Avenue (Adeline Drive to Hillside Drive) Mr. Ho advised that he received this request from Mercy High's Executive Director. Students use Adeline and Hillside. Morning traffic uses Alvarado northbound and there is parking on both sides of the street. There are no speed limit signs in this area and there are no curves. In the last five years, no accident was attributed to speed. From the floor, Sister Fraher, Mercy Principal, stated she is concerned about the school entrance in the morning when it is impossible to speed because of the traffic. She supports a safer street but speed bumps would be more useful on school property. Resident at 1456 Alvarado stated the problem is volume, not speed. Mr. Erbacher explained that speed bumps are not a recognized traffic control device. Comm. Evans suggested adding a speed limit sign. Mr. Ho stated he supports this suggestion. This will be an Action item next month. 4.2.3 Millbrae BART Station - Potential Impacts on City streets Mr. Erbacher advised that he attended a presentation by SamTrans and BART on parking controls. Since studies have been made, they will be making recommendations and conferring with local cities. Mr. Erbacher will keep the commission apprized as more information becomes available. A 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS. f. 5.1 Request for residential permit parking on Lexington Way and close off the access path from Lexington Way to Burlingame High School parking lot. Mr. Ho advised that there is spillover parking onto the streets from the high school. Minutes for 12-14-00 Meeting.wpd Page 3 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Wednesday, December 14, 2000 Mr. Erbacher advised that we need to know.what the response should be to this request. Comm. Auran suggested the high school helping. Sgt. Ransom spoke to some residents who don't want closure of the park access path. Staff will respond with a letter that there will be no action on this request without neighbors support. A copy of the letter will be sent to the Parks Department and to the high school. 6. FROM THE FLOOR. 6.1 Patrick Kinsella a resident on Columbus stated that a black pickup is always parked far from the curb on the Adeline curve and is in the way of traffic. Also, it seems no one stops at the Stop sign on Adeline. Sgt. Ransom advised that the police is monitoring the Stop signs on Adeline at Columbus and at Hoover. 7. INFORMATION ITEMS. 7.1 From Staff to TSPC 7.1.1 Size of TSP Commission Mr. Ho advised that at the last Council meeting, this commission was reduced from seven members to five; therefore, three is now a quorum. 7.1.2 Request for STOP signs on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue Mr. Erbacher advised that Council plans to rescind the ordinance for the new Stop signs. Staff's staff report was not clear enough in that the Stop signs were not warranted. Mr. Ho is preparing a Notice of Hearing for the January 17, 2001 Council meeting. Mr. Erbacher asked the commission how we can notice the public about new Stop signs such as placing a street barricade at the related intersection with an informational notice posted and the normal publishing of such notice. Commission concurred with Comm. Evans' suggestion to announce pertinent Council meeting dates to the Traffic Commission audience in attendance and follow up by sending them a notice of the Council meeting. Comm. McIver suggested that the commissioners attend Council meetings when commission issues are to be presented. 7.1.3 Traffic Engineer's Report - Nothing to report. 7.1.4 Staff Action Log. Updated. Mr. Erbacher advised that the Dwight Road markings, etc., are on hold due to the residents requesting a formal presentation to Council instead. Mr. Erbacher is the residents' liaison to Council. Minutes for 12-14-00 Meeting.wpd Page 4 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Wednesday, December 14, 2000 7.2 From TSPC to Staff 7.2.1 Reports of citizen complaints or requests from TSPC. 7.2.1.1 Comm. McIver noticed traffic congestion at the school's white zone at Broadway and Vancouver in the mornings when parents drop off students. It seems to be mostly vans that are parked there for over an hour. Sgt. Ransom advised that many schools have the same problem and will add this to their list for monitoring. 7.2.1.2 Chair De Angelis stated there is a congestion management issue at Lincoln School as reported to her by a Cortez Avenue resident who might send a letter to the commission about a drop off zone. 7.2.2 Comments and communication. Mr. Ho advised that there will be grading work done on the right of way north of Broadway by the railroad tracks. This is a Joint Powers Board project. 7.2.3 Expected absences of Commissioners at the Thursday, January 11, 2001 meeting. None. 8. INACTIVE ITEMS. 8.1 Request for two STOP signs at Palm Drive/Crossway Road and a Speed Bump on Palm Drive at Edgehill Road Mr. Ho advised that this is an Inactive Item for monitoring purposes. 8.2 Request for traffic control on Dwight Road Mr. Ho advised that this is an Inactive Item for monitoring purposes. 9. AGENDIZE FOR THE NEXT MEETING. 4.2.1 to Action 4.2.2 to Action 5.1 depends on applicant submittal c 10. ADJOURNMENT. 9:00 P.M. Minutes for 12-14-00 Meeting.wpd Page 5 City of Burlingame Civil Service Commission September 25, 2000 *Special Meeting* Minutes Call to Order and Roll Commissioner Lennon called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m., Monday September 25, 2000 in Conference Room A, Burlingame City Hall. Members Present: Commissioners Lennon, Delia, Kutner, Hipps and Richmond Members Absent: Commissioner Heffernan (on vacation) Staff Present: Bill Reilly, Larry Anderson and Lynn Scoffern Public Present: None Approval of Minutes Commissioner Lennon moved to approve the minutes from July 24, 2000. Commissioner Kutner seconded the motion and the minutes were approved on a 5-0 vote. Public Comments There were no public comments. Resolution Approving Disability Retirement for Firefighter Michael Goodermote City Attorney Larry Anderson began by giving a background on the injury sustained by Firefighter Goodermote. Commission questioned CA Anderson regarding Mr. Goodermote's age and status if not disabled. CA Anderson stated that the City agreed with the physician diagnosis that he would be unable to work as a Firefighter. A motion to approve the retirement was made by Commissioner Hipps and seconded by Commissioner Richmond. Further discussion ensued regarding the cost of such a retirement. Commissioner Lennon asked for a vote, and the resolution for disability retirement for Firefighter Michael Goodermote was approved by a 5 —0 vote. Personnel Matters Personnel Manger Scoffern requested authorization from Commissioner Lennon on an eligibility list for the position of Senior Typist Clerk. Commission discussed the oral board process on this position. Responding to Commission questions regarding Ms. Meyer, Personnel Manager answered questions. It was discussed whether a meeting would be likely next month. Personnel Manager responded that should we need to approve one of the two pending disability retirements then a meeting would be necessary, if not, then we could skip October and meet again in November. The Commission expressed interest in meeting the new City Manager. Adjournment There being no further business, Commissioner Lennon moved to have the meeting adjourned. The motion was seconded, and the meeting was adjourned at 4:27 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Lynn Scofrf�e`r Secretary City of Burlingame Civil Service Commission November 20, 2000 Unapproved Minutes Call to Order and Roll Commissioner Richmond called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. in Conference Room A, Burlingame City Hall. Members Present: Commissioners Delia, Heffernan, Hipps and Richmond. Commisioner Lennon arrived shortly after Item 4. Members Absent: Commissioner Kutner (out of town) Staff Present: Rahn Becker and Jim Nantell Public Present: None Introduction of New CitManager: Jim Nantell was present and introduced himself to commission members. Approval of Minutes Commissioner Heffernan moved to approve the minutes from September 25, 2000. Commissioner Delia seconded the motion and the minutes were approved on a 4-0 vote. Public Comments There were no public comments. Approval of Eligibility Lists for Facilities Maintenance Supervisor and Laborer Assistant City Manager Rahn Becker presented the lists, noting that the number one candidate on the Facilities Services Manager, Rob Mallick had been hired. He noted that the Laborer list was for six months, using the new continuous recruitment program, and that job offer had been tendered to the top two candidates on the list. M/S Approved 4-0. Personnel Matters Commissioner Lennon arrived at this point Becker told the commission that Lynn Scoffern, Employment & Benefits Administrator, was on disability leave, and that her doctor had advised she was to be off through December 31, 2000. The matter has been referred to the city's workers compensation adjusters for investigation and recommendation. He also advised that the Personnel Assistant position orals would be on December 7. Commissioner Lennon agreed to be on the oral board. Eight candidates have been selected for interview. In response to questions from commissioners, Becker noted that the departments were helping out with recruitment, and Glenda Freiberg, the payroll clerk, was helping out with personnel paperwork. City Manager Jim Nantell added that departments had given personnel issues a high priority, and staffing of this function was been given early attention Adjournment There being no further business, Commissioner Hipps moved to have the meeting adjourned. The motion was seconded, and the meeting was adjourned at 4:33 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, Rahn Becker Acting Secretary 12-13-00 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1 FOR: NOVEMBER, 2000 Last Crime Classification .................... Current Year. Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter Manslaughter by Negligence Rape By Force Attempt to Commit Forcible Rape Robbery Firearm Robbery Knife Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon Robbery Strong -Arm Assault - Firearm Assault - Knife Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon Assault - Hands,Fists,Feet Assault - Other (Simple) Burglary - Forcible Entry Burglary - Unlawful Entry Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry Larceny Pocket -Picking Larceny Purse -Snatching Larceny Shoplifting Larceny From Motor Vehicle Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories Larceny Bicycles Larceny From Building Larceny From Any Coin -Op Machine Larceny All Other Motor Vehicle Theft Auto Motor Vehicle Theft Bus Motor Vehicle Theft Other Arson Prev Act Act YTD... YTD... 0 1 0 0 2 1 7 2 1 0 2 4 1 1 1 6 3 1 10 6 1 1 6 2 2 16 28 7 9 15 19 196 149 6 3 58 51 9 6 68 33 1 5 2 5 1 1 7 1 1 2 38 50 9 128 162 7 61 64 2 21 25 33 10 238 107 1 13 33 0 12 40 147 6 6 91 62 1 15 20 5 2 2 4 8 ------- ------ 75 84 ------ ------ 1,050 974 ------- ------ 75 84 ------ ------ 1,050 974 12-13-00 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: NOVEMBER, 2000 Prev Last Act Act Crime Classification .................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Arson 2 4 8 Other Assaults 15 19 196 149 Forgery and Counterfeiting 3 21 23 Check Offenses 3 5 15 18 Fraud 22 13 Bad checks 0 0 Credit Card Offenses 2 2 10 11 Impersonation 1 0 Welfare Fraud 0 0 Wire Fraud 0 0 Embezzlement 11 4 Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 2 1 9 Vandalism 18 17 277 275 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 1 9 2 Bomb Offense 0 0 Bomb Threat 0 2 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 Sex Offenses 3 5 6 Indecent Exposure 2 11 11 Sex Offenses against Children 1 1 Lewd Conduct 3 1 Incest 0 0 Sodomy 0 0 Statutory Rape 0 0 Drug Abuse Violations 7 7 37 41 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 1 1 Marijuana Violations 4 4 44 45 Gambling 0 0 Offenses Against Children 13 9 Driving Under the Influence 12 9 92 94 Driving Violations 1 13 11 Hit and Run Accidents 3 6 48 68 Suspended License 2 5 54 61 Liquor Laws 1 5 11 Drunkeness 7 1 63 58 Disorderly Conduct 4 5 75 55 12-13-00 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES CITY REPORT FOR: NOVEMBER, 2000 Prev Last Act Act Crime Classification .................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Vagrancy All Other Offenses Trespassing Violation of Court Order Animal Abuse Municipal Code Violations Harrassing Phone Calls Mental Health Cases Littering Extortion Bribery Kidnapping Possession of drug paraphernalia Possession of obscene literature;picture Peeping 'Tom' Towed Vehicles -no crime Masseuse Applicants Temp Restraining Orders K9 Assists to Outside Agencies Warrants - Felony Warrants - Misd Probation Violations Parole Violations Found Property Missing Property Missing Person Stalking Prowling Curfew and Loitering Laws (Under 18) Runaways (Under 18) Truants/Incorrigible Juvs Other Juvenile Offenses Child Neglect/prot custody Death Investigation Bicycle Violations PAGE: 2 0 0 38 65 464 311 2 1 16 6 2 1 21 20 0 0 9 55 76 5 11 84 72 3 7 79 37 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 49 41 402 212 1 1 7 13 56 41 2 0 1 10 12 2 3 56 50 1 9 9 0 1 9 8 90 47 13 13 107 80 2 2 33 8 6 1 5 0 1 1 2 0 1 1 5 8 0 3 2 30 15 0 0 1 0 ------- ------ 219 267 ------ 2,572 ------ 1,994 PAGE: 2 12-13-00 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 CITY REPORT FOR: NOVEMBER, 2000 Prev Last Act Act Crime Classification .................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... ------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------ 219 267 2,572 1,994 12-13-00 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: NOVEMBER, 2000 Prev Last Act Act Crime Classification .................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Parking Citations Moving Citations 2,825 2,511 32,448 22,815 197 ------- 265 ------ 2,641 ------ 3,030 ------ 3,022 2,776 35,089 25,845 ------- ------ ------ ------ 3,022 2,776 35,089 25,845 Officer Productivity... Reported On: All Officers Data Type Reported on: PARKING BURLINGAME \ generated on 12/13/2000 at 12:15:21 PM Report Range: 11/01/2000 to 11/30/2000 Page 1 of 1 Valid % All Voids % All % Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DAZA-QUIROZ 634 649 24.11 14 23.73 97.89 JFOX 505 347 12.89 7 11.86 98.02 KIRKPATRICK 502 379 14.08 11 18.64 97.18 MORAN 201 1096 40.71 20 33.90 98.21 ROSCOE 503 221 8.21 7 11.86 96.93 Total 2692 59 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME MONTHLY PERMIT ACTIVITY NOVEMBER, 2000 COt)VG/Z. BUILDING INSPECTION Permit type # THIS MONTH valuation # LAST MONTH Valuation # SAME MONTH LAST YEAR valuation # THIS YEAR TO DATE Valuation # LAST YEAR TO DATE valuation # FISCAL YEAR TO DATE valuation New Single Family 4 $1,178,552 4 $1,202,308 3 $396,000 24 $6,860,917 10 $1,983,424 12 $3,560,860 New Multi -Family 0 $0 1 $1,859,389 1 $792;000 2 $2,352,389 4 $9,647,150 1 $1,859,389 New Commercial 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 3 $2,010,000 4 $8,579,000 0 $0 Alterations -Res 22 $483,638 24 $844,500 23 $444,800 264 $10,331,651 297 $10,577,251 122 $4,359,719 Alterations-NonRes 10 $4,916,415 8 $675,000 11 $780,500 92 $9,703,445 91 $9,667,737 42 $7,226,295 Demolition 5 $0 5 $0 6 $10,100 50 $156,000 26 $92,500 22 $0 Swimming Pool 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 8 $98,723 3 $61,000 1 $7,500 Sign Permits 2 $6,100 4 $8,645 1 $222 39 $164,976 30 $112,497 16 $89,745 Fences 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 3 $13,100 2 $1,390 1 $2,500 Reroofing 16 $137,518 26 $212,620 21 $195,335 232 $2,382,897 311 $3,219,155 124 $1,220,159 Repairs 2 $35,000 2 $17,500 6 $38,000 30 $188,695 64 $554,110 16 $111,595 Window Repl 4 $21,935 1 $700 2 $13,036 43 $248,198 33 $193,912 15 $134,441 Miscellaneous 4 $119,700 3 $22,278 10 $39,070 53 $773,288 114 $1,766,221 19 $310,878 TOTALS...... 69 $6,898,858 78 $4,842,940 84 $2,709,063 843 $35,284,279 989 $46,455,349 391 $18,883,081 BU-10ACT 12/01/00 9:27:11 Sent By: GALLIGAN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING ; 6503426392; Dec -22-00 8:49AM; Page 1/2 Sigrun I ionto 17W Davis Drive Brrunge , CA 94610 (65O) 697-3246 4 December 2000 Mayor Joe Galligan 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Proposed Hospital Parking Structure Dear Mayor Galligan, "Thank you so much for listening to my concerns. Your genuine interest and understanding is greatly appreciated. As per your suggestion in our telephone conversation on November 30, 1 am writing to you to express my concerns regarding the proposed hospital parking structure. I have several major concerns regarding the proposal. The first and foremost, of course, is the detrimental effect the proposed structure will have on my children's health 1 have a 5 year old son who has asthma and I feel that a 4 story, 750 car structure built so close to my backyard would generate serious health problems lbr all, but especially for him. Secondly, the noise that would certainly be associated with such a structure is also a concern. Where possible, structures in which car alarms can expected to go off any time off the day and night should be located away from residential properties. Thirdly, l am concerned with the obvious aesthetics of this monstrosity. It would not only instantly devalue all the properties along Davis Drive but would also cause a total loss of privacy for those homes. Top floor parking will cause headlights to be shining in our window all night. The planting of trees, as proposed by the architect, would not be elTective for a long time to come because, as we all know, trees take time to grow. We would, most likely, not be around to appreciate this solution by the time the trees grow to be tall enough to cover a four-story structure. Finally, security in this structure is also a major concern. I feel that the security is seriously lacking right now. The addition of such a structure which can be accessed by anyone off the street just exacerbates the security problem. In closing, l feel there is ample space on Trousdale Avenue for this parking structure. The properties on Trousdale Avenue are mostly commercial properties that would not find this structure to be detrimental. Given that such an ideal solution exists, it would seem to Sent By: GALLIGAN PROFESSIONAL BUILDING ; 6503426392; Dec -22-00 8:51AM; .Sigrun Franco J 700 Davis Drhv SrrGn6an.r, Gil Y4070 (650) 697-3266 me that putting it adjacent to residential properties, where such a myriad of problems will arise, is sub -optimal, un -neighborly, poor planning and unjustifiable. I realize that in your current position you have lots of issues to attend to and T am loath to add to your workload. However, 1 am sure that the residents all along Davis Drive and in Ray Park would greatly appreciate your intervention in this matter. T, personally, would be deeply grateful if you could give attention to this matter at your earliest convenience and I thank you in advance for your prompt response. Sincerely, #�� SigruUn Franco Page 2/2 2000-2001 Grand Jury Of the County of San Mateo Hall of Justice 400 County Center Redwood City, CA, 94063 (650) 599-1711 FAX (650) 363-4698 December 19, 2000 Joe Galligan, Mayor The City of Burlingame City Hall - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA. 94010-3997 Re: 2000-2001 Grand Jury Report of October 18, 2000 Dear Mayor Galligan: RECEIVED DEC 2 2 2000 QTY�V OFtRs �fFICE LINGgME The last paragraph on page one of your December 1, 2000, letter seems to question whether the letter approved by serial meetings which is the subject of the Grand Jury report falls within the concept of "subject matter jurisdiction" as that phase is used in the Brown Act at Government Code section 54952.2(a). The purpose of this letter is to affirm that indeed the content of the letter is within "subject matter jurisdiction". The Grand Jury believes that you agree the Burlingame Planning Commission is a part of the Burlingame City Council. Its members all serve at the pleasure of the Council. Whereas members of the Planning Commission composed the letter not in open session but by serial meetings, it was published in an open session and on the record at the Burlingame City Council meeting on October 18, 1999. Thus, it was a part of the business of the commission and the council. It is the Grand Jury's position that the following clearly indicates that the letter was well within " subject matter jurisdiction": 1. The letter states in part "... The Planning Commission cares deeply about design review as does Jerry Deal...". Design review is one the Planning Commission's prime concerns. 2. Also in the letter "...The commission has approved Jerry's nine projects because... ". Approving projects is the business of the commission. 3. Also in the letter "...Mike was on the commission when we crafted the design review process... ". Design review process is a subject that is within the main jurisdiction of the commission. 4. The City of Burlingame's attorney Larry E. Anderson in his memo to the Planning Commission of November 3, 1999, stated: "However, some segments of the letter address the Commission's policy of dealing with citizens outside the public meeting process, particularly with regard to the current Commission Chair. This does implicate ongoing c� CA 09 issues before the Commission and may be seen as within the jurisdiction of the Commission..." The Grand Jury agrees with this analysis. The Grand Jury reiterates that its report clearly identifies a Brown Act violation. You will undoubtedly recall that the printed spirit of the Brown Act states that public body actions are to "...be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly." The composition of this letter dealing Mth the design review business of the commission was not conducted openly. If this letter does not provide the clarification you seek, please let us know. Very truly yours, alter C. Kohn Chairman, Cities & Special Districts Committee December 18, 2000 Hon. Quentin L. Kopp Judge of the Superior Court Hall of Justice 400 County Center, 2nd Floor Redwood City CA 94063-1655 Re: Burlingame Planning Commission Brown Act Violation 2000-2001 Civil Grand Jury Interim Report dated Oct. 18, 2000 Dear Honorable Quentin L. Kopp: This office is in receipt of the San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury's Interim Report entitled "Burlingame Planning Commission Brown Act Violation." The civil grand jury has issued therein three recommendations, the last of which is that the District Attorney's Office review the incident to see if criminal prosecution for a Brown Act violation would be appropriate. After reviewing the relevant documents and statutory authority, this office concludes that no jurisdiction exists to prosecute any suspected violation, due to the lapse of the applicable statute of limitations. Further, this office finds that no violation of the Brown Act has occurred, making the question of prosecution moot on those grounds, too. First, the statute of limitations issue. Government Code §54959 states that any member of a legislative body who attends a meeting where action is taken in violation of the Brown Act, and who intends to deprive the public of information that member knows or has reason to know the public is entitled to, is in violation of this section. Such a violation is stated as being a "misdemeanor." Penal Code §19 defines a misdemeanor as being punishable by up to six months in the county jail, unless otherwise specified. Penal Code §802 states that for an offense not punishable by imprisonment in the state prison (i.e. a misdemeanor), the statute of limitations is one year. The Brown Act itself defines when this time period begins to run—i.e. when the offending meeting occurs. December 18, 2000 — Page Two The complaint by the Civil Grand Jury focuses on allegations of a serial meeting, though one cannot ascertain exactly when such an ongoing meeting took place, other than that it must have pre -dated the publication of the offending letter in the newspaper. That letter was published in the October 13, 1999 Independent Newspaper. However, even if one were to use this date of publication as the starting point of the violation (under a theory that the statute of limitations did not begin to run until discovery of the offense, pursuant to Penal Code §803(c) due to breach of a fiduciary obligation), the statute of limitations ran prior to the October 18, 2000 report by the Grand Jury Secondly, and more importantly, the main issue to be addressed is whether or not members of the Planning Commission took "action" as it is defined in the Brown Act by sending the letter to a local newspaper. Unless there is an "action taken" no Brown Act violation can occur. Government Code §54952.6 defines "action taken" to include "...a collective decision made by a majority of the members of a legislative body, a collective commitment or promise by a majority of the members of a legislative body to make a positive or negative decision, or an actual vote by a majority of members...upon a motion, proposal, resolution, order or ordinance." The City Attorney's memo to the Planning Commission, dated November 3, 1999, addressed this issue by stating that some parts of the letter alluded to Commission policy on dealing with citizens outside the public meeting process. The memo states that mentioning the Commission's policy in the letter implicates ongoing issues in front of the Commission and thus might be seen as within the Commission's jurisdiction. The city attorney appears to have been referring to allegations in the letter that a Commission member was contacting citizens outside of the public meetings. Such contact between the member of a legislative body and a non-member citizen is not regulated by the Brown Act, and we do not view simply mentioning it in the letter to be an "action taken." That also means the contact these Commission members had with one another in drafting such a letter would not constitute a serial meeting, since their collaboration was not about some action to be taken by the legislative body of which they were members. Finally, the letter sent to the newspaper by Commission members was not a motion, proposal, resolution, order, or ordinance. It was not a collective commitment or promise by a majority of members to make a positive or negative decision in regards to items under the Commission's jurisdiction. Its tone is certainly partisan, but the Brown Act does not prohibit partisan activity by legislative body members, only that official actions taken by them in their capacity December 18, 2000 — Page Three as members of that body be done openly and publicly. Members of a legislative body are individual citizens, too, and as such they can choose to endorse candidates for office, irrespective of the Brown Act. Legislative body members do not lose their first amendment rights, so long as their activities do not conflict with their official duties and they do not use public resources to advance their views. We thank the Civil Grand Jury for the referral of this matter to our office. The Brown Act is a law designed to ensure open, fair, and accessible government at all times, and we are all benefited by its mandates and protections. Your concern about this conduct is understandable, but the Brown Act itself does not prohibit that which the Commission members did in exercising their First Amendment rights. Please do not hesitate to contact this office if you wish to discuss this matter further. Very truly yours, JAMES P. FOX, DISTRICT ATTORNEY JPF:ms bl/bY/Ybbl IJ: 7b b5Ub52Jn'Jb d_ I 1 taut b2/b2 LT l LUZORIAGA TAYLOR, INC. Civil Engineers • Lend Surveyors rcm y au QM F"glKv,,.N BASEL,Mswxrliq January 2, 2001 Joe Galligan Mayor, and Members of the City Council City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 1840 EI Camino Real Burlingame, Callfornla 94010 Subject: Grand Jury Report of October 18 and December 19, 2000 Dear Mr. Mayor and Members of the City Council: Tel 650.652.9590 Fax 650.652.9596 As requested I would like to respond to the Grand Jury report and the finding by the District Attorney dated December 18, 2000. I concur with the District Attorney that in order for a Brown Act violation to take place an "action" must have occurred by the Planning Commission with regard to the letter in question. No Action taken equals no Brown Act violation. The tetter was neither a motion, proposal, resolution, order or ordinance and therefore not an action of the Planning Commission. However, the Planning Commission understands the concerns expressed by the San Mateo County Grand Jury in its opinions of October 18 and December 19, 2000. At the request of the Independent and pursuant to the Brown Act, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on the concerns on December 13, 1999, and received any input that any member of the public would like to have made regarding the letter that is the subject of the Grand Jury report. The Commission has held and will continue to regularly hold discussions with the City Attorney on the Brown Act. The Commission fully understands the definition of `meeting" contained in the Brown Act, and assures both the Council and the Grand Jury that serial meetings of the Commission on Commission business will not occur. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very TrulyZPIannin David LuzChairman, cc.: Planning Commissioners