The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2001.01.17BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA January 17, 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 Arm LeClaire. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCIL PRESENT: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI COUNCIL ABSENT: NONE At this time, Mayor Galligan placed Old Business, New Business, and Council Committee Reports on the agenda as they had been inadvertently left off. 4. MINUTES Mayor Galligan requested that the City Clerk include his attendance at the Burlingame Lions Holiday luncheon under "Council Committee Reports". Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting held on January 2, 2001; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS 5a. PUBLIC HEARING ON ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, THE BASIS FOR AND LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT FOR THE YEAR 2001, AND ESTABLISHMENT OF A DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD CA Anderson noted this was the second public hearing on the possible formation of the San Mateo County Tourism 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 proposed cities include 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 only cities that have not yet consented to the formation of the district are Brisbane, Daly City and South San Francisco. CA Anderson requested Council hold this second public hearing, but to continue the public hearing to February 5th. This will also extend the deadline to February 5th for written protests regarding the BID. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Mr. Roger Patel, Cal West Inn, stated he is concerned about the cost of the room assessment and if the procedure is fair for the smaller establishments. There were no further comments and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to continue the public hearing on the establishment of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Burlingame City Council 1 January 17, 2001 Improvement District to February 5, 2001; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 5b. RECONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE TO INSTALL TWO STOP SIGNS ON ADELINE DRIVE AT CORTEZ AVENUE CM Nantell stated there is a Council sub -committee that meets with the elementary school district, elected officials, and staff to discuss issues and opportunities the school district and the city can pursue to improve situations that both face. One of the concerns are traffic problems in and around the schools. A recent meeting was held with a committee from Lincoln Elementary School as well as residents from the area to review different issues they are facing regarding the dropping off and picking up of children. One of the items discussed was the stop sign that is scheduled to be installed at Adeline and Cortez. Kathleen Wentworth, a resident representative on the committee, had requested the Council consider postponing the public hearing for the reconsideration of this particular stop sign until the committee could pursue some of the options discussed at the meeting. Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing for anyone who was present and could not attend the meeting on February 20th. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Councilman Coffey made a motion to continue the public hearing to reconsider the ordinance to install two stop signs on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue until February 20, 2001; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 6. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no public comments. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. AUTHORIZATION FOR FUNDING HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR POSITION CM Nantell noted that since the long-time Personnel Manager retired four years ago, Dennis Argyres and staff have pursued various options in attempting to fill the position. In the last four years, the demand for the types of services the human resources staff provides has increased dramatically. On average, the City has had the need to replace approximately six positions each year. In 1999, there were 38 vacant positions and in 2000, there were 32 vacant positions. Ina competitive market, it is necessary to look at what is needed to adequately attract and retain employees. The City needs to place a high premium on the employees we currently have and to invest in training current employees to take other leadership positions and promotional opportunities that will become available in the future. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to authorize the funding for a Human Resources Director position; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Galligan removed 8f from the consent calendar for further discussion. January 17, 2001 2 Burlingame City Council a. SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR A RETAINING WALL AT 2715 MARTINEZ Assistant Director of Public Works recommended Council approve the Special Encroachment Permit for a retaining wall within the City's right-of-way at 2715 Martinez Drive. b. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A FOUR -UNIT BUILDING AT 1405 AND 1407 EL CAMINO REAL Assistant Director of Public Works Erbacher recommended Council approve the Tentative Condominium Map for a four (4) unit condominium, re -subdivision of Lot 19, Block 50, Map of Easton Addition No. 4 at 1405 & 1407 El Camino Real. C. INVESTMENT POLICY FOR 2001 Assistant City Manager Becker recommended Council approve the Investment Policy for 2001. d. RESOLUTION ACCEPTING LAGUNA PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS Assistant Director of Public Works Erbacher recommended that Council approve the Resolution accepting the Public Parking Lot Improvements at 1140 Laguna Avenue in the amount of $166,961.30 by Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. e. SERVICE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT THE BURLINGAME GOLF CENTER Director of Parks & Recreation recommended Council approve the proposal to serve alcoholic beverages as submitted by VB Golf and that Council also grant an encroachment permit for such service. 9 - RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ADOPTION OF DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM AND OVERALL ANNUAL DBE GOAL FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 Assistant Director of Public Works Erbacher recommended that the Council approve the Resolution, which establishes a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program in accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation. h. RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SIGNATORIES ON CITY CHECKS Assistant City Manager Becker recommended Council approve the Resolution authorizing signatories on City Checks. i. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL, DECEMBER 2000 Finance Director recommended approval of Warrants 73725-74165 (excluding library check numbers 74116-74165), duly audited, in the amount of $1,647,878.23, Payroll checks 132985-133819 in the amount of $1,309,817.95, and EFT's in the amount of $317,887.86 for the month of December, 2000. Burlingame City Council 3 January 17, 2001 Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve items A — E and G — I of the consent calendar; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 8f. RESOLUTION URGING SUPPORT OF SPECIAL TAX FOR THE BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT Superintendent Sonny DeMarto made a presentation regarding the parcel tax that the Board of Trustees of the Burlingame School District has placed on the March 6, 2001 ballot. The proposed special tax would replace the current parcel tax. The Board intends to use the tax revenues to attract and retain highly qualified teachers and staff, fund specialized programs and specialists needed to teach the program, create programs that integrate technology into the core curriculum, and maintain fiscal solvency. There was further discussion and questions by the Council. After discussion, a motion was made by Councilwoman Janney; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved by voice vote, 4-1, with Vice Mayor Spinelli dissenting. 9. OLD BUSINESS Vice Mayor Spinelli noted that at the City Hall tree lighting ceremony, nobody was cleaning up after the horses. He requested this be taken care of at future events. 10. NEW BUSINESS Councilwoman Janney acknowledged an editorial written in the Independent regarding the naming of the Bay Trail the "Vic Mangini Esplanade"; requested this be agendized and brought to Council in the future. An appeal hearing for 1825 Castenada Drive was set for February 5, 2001. Mayor Galligan noted that Burlingame went through a "brown out" due to the energy shortage. Police Chief Missel explained there was approximately two hours of power outage with six intersections without traffic controls; no accidents occurred at these locations due to the outage. City Planner Monroe noted that on February 24, 2001, Council has their annual joint meeting with the Planning Commission; requested Council notify her with any items they would like included on the agenda. 11. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Vice Mayor Spinelli attended Jackie Speier's public informational session regarding SFO. Councilwoman Janney attended the SamTrans Board of Director's Nominating Committee Meeting and Board Meeting, Congestion Management Air Quality special meeting, Board of Supervisor's reorganization meeting, Convention and Visitor's bureau board meeting and executive committee meeting, and a meeting regarding the childcare center being developed at 301 Airport. Councilwoman O'Mahony attended the San Mateo County Investment Advisory Board Meeting. Councilman Coffey attended the San Mateo County Shelter meeting, swearing in of Commander Brad Floyd and Sergeant Jim Ford, Burlingame Lions Holiday lunch, and a Commercial Design Review Task Force meeting. January 17, 2001 4 Burlingame City Council Mayor Galligan attended the Legal Aid Society Board of Directors meeting, Chamber Board of Director's meeting, Martin Luther King breakfast and walk, and funeral of Ellen Sawyer. All Council Members attended the swearing-in ceremony for Supervisor Mark Church and the Chamber of Commerce Annual Luncheon. 12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Planning, January 8, 2001; Library Board of Trustees, November 14, 2000 b. Department Reports: Building, December, 2001; Treasurer, December, 2000, Police, December 2000 C. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Huebner regarding basements in Burlingame d. Letter from Chris Corsetti regarding the condition of Burlingame Avenue and Public Parking lots Letter from Norma O'Connor regarding the Broadway Streetscape f. Letter from Michael Barber regarding Stop Sign at Adeline and Cortez Council met in closed session at 8:50 p.m. and returned to open session at 9:20 p.m. 13. CLOSED SESSION CA Anderson noted Council met in closed session with City Manager Jim Nantell, and the City Labor Negotiator to discuss labor negotiations and procedures concerning the following labor groups: Police/Fire Administrators; AFSCME, Locals 2190 and 829; IAFF Local 1872; Burlingame Police Officers Association; BAMM; Teamsters Local 856; Department Heads; and Unrepresented Employees. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 9:21 p.m. in memory of Ellen Sawyer, James Argyres, and Brian Cotter. Ann T. Musso City Clerk Burlingame City Council 5 January 17, 2001 W BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REGULAR MEETING — JANUARY 17, 2001 PAGE 1 OF 2 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES - Regular Meeting of January 2, 2001 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each a) Public Hearing on Establishment of the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District, the Basis for and Levy of Assessments for the District for the Year 2001, and Establishment of a District Advisory Board b) Reconsideration of ORDINANCE to Install Two Stop Signs on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS - At this time, persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits council from acting on any matter which is not on the agenda. It is the policy of council to refer such matters to staff for investigation and/or action. Speakers are requested to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Authorization for Funding Human Resources Director Position ,. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Special Encroachment Permit for a Retaining Wall at 2715 Martinez b. Tentative Condominium Map for a Four -Unit Building at 1405 and 1407 El Camino Real c. Investment Policy for 2001 d. RESOLUTION Accepting Laguna Parking Lot Improvements e. Service of Alcoholic Beverages at the Burlingame Golf Center f. RESOLUTION Urging Support of Special Tax for the Burlingame Elementary School District City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 SUGGESTED ACTION 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers Approval Hearing / Continue to February 5, 2001 Continue to February 5, 2001 Discuss/Direct Approval `. r a�`'�+i of BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REGULAR MEETING — JANUARY 179 2001 PAGE 2OF2 g. RESOLUTION to Approve Adoption of Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program and Overall Annual DBE Goal for Federal Fiscal Year 2000/2001 h. RESOLUTION Authorizing Signatories on City Checks i. Warrants and Payroll, December, 2000 9. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Reports: Planning, January 8, 2001; Library Board of Trustees, November 14, 2000 b. Department Reports: Building, December, 2001; Treasurer, December, 2000, Police, December, 2000 b. Letter from Mr. And Mrs. Hubner regarding basements in Burlingame c. Letter from Chris Corsetti regarding the condition of Burlingame Avenue and Public Parking lots d. Letter from Norma O'Connor regarding the Broadway Streetscape e. Letter from Michael Barber regarding Stop Sign at Adeline and Cortez ' 10. CLOSED SESSION a. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6: City Negotiator: Jim Nantell, Labor Organizations: Police/Fire Administrators; AFSCME, Locals 2190 and 829; IAFF Local 1872; Burlingame Police Officers Association; I BAMM; Teamsters Local 856; Department Heads; and Unrepresented Employees NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities, please contact the City Clerk at (650) 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING - February 5, 2001 -, City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 .�, v. '!} BURLINGAME, 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 Broadway 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 minutes 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 rooms 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 r 11 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 coming 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 leery 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 two 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 a 2 Burlingame City Council 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 r„ 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 comments. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS None. 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. 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. 9 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. I — ENGINEERING CONSULTING SERVICES, WATER OUALITY 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. ADJOURNMtNT Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m. in memory of Ed Bridgeman and Tommy O'Connor. Ann T. Musso City Clerk Burlingame City Council 5 January 2, 2001 o41 CITY .O BURUNGA1.ME STAFF REPORT ry, 00 'NDA ,9 �A—ED JUNE b To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL DATE: January 11, 2001 FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney AGENDA 5 a -- ITEM # /17/2001 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. Continue public hearing to February 5, 2001, and extend period to file written protests until the close of the public hearing on that date. 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 formation 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. On January 2, 2001, the City Council held the public meeting on the proposed District and assessments as required by the Brown Act. At that time, a number of questions were asked, and members of the Interim Advisory Board and City staff have met with the persons who asked the questions. The principal concerns center on the commitment of the cities to the proposed District and the value that the District will be able to provide to small hotels. The proposed assessment structure recognizes that larger, full- service hotels will probably receive more pro rata benefit from the District. As can be seen from the attached assessment list, small hotels would be assessed at approximately 15¢ to 40¢ a room night (assuming a 30% occupancy rate). The Bureau is committed to providing a full range of booking and marketing services across the range of hotels in the County. Mayor and Council Re: Proposed San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District Page 2 January 11, 2001 The following agencies have consented to the District extending to their jurisdiction: --- County of San Mateo --- Belmont --- Foster City --- Millbrae --- Redwood City --- San Bruno --- San Carlos --- San Mateo Half Moon Bay, South San Francisco, and Daly City are working with their hotel owners, and should be reaching a decision by the end of the month. Therefore, it is recommended that the Council conduct a public hearing this evening and then continue the hearing to February 5, 2001, and extend the period for filing written protests to the conclusion of that hearing on that evening. At the conclusion of the hearing on February 5, 2001, the Council will review the written objections filed to determine the acceptability of the district. Attachment Proposed Assessments Resolution of Intention adopted December 18, 2000 Draft Ordinance (w/o attachments) Distribution Anne LeClair, SMCCVB TOTAL OF CITIES Rooms Annual Assessment Per Room Belmont 542 $25,880.40 $47.75 Brisbane 210 $52,920.00 $252.00 Burlingame 3,569 $776,071.80 $217.45 County of San Mateo 348 $11,865.60 $34.10 Daly City 269 $10,168.20 $37.80 Foster City 503 $108,234.00 $215.18 Half Moon Bay 578 $64,353.60 $111.34 Millbrae 1,241 $229,735.80 $185.12 Redwood City 1,115 $131,270.40 $117.73 San Bruno 510 $40,622.40 $79.65 San Carlos 368 $18,093.66 $49.17 San Mateo 1,762 $277,101.00 $157.27 South San Francisco 2,789 $382,937.40 $137.30 TOTAL 1 13,052 $2,129,254.261 $163.14 CITIES /COUNTY SUMMARY SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS Name of Property Burlingame Embassy Suites Doubletree Hotel SFO Marriott Zone A A A Category/Assessment $ 360.00 $ 360.00 $ 360.00 # Rooms 344 390 689 ANNUAL Assessmen Monthly assessment $ 86,688.00 $ 7,224.00 $ 98,280.00 $ 8,190.00 $ 173,628.00 $ 14,469.00 Hyatt Regency SFO A $ 360.00 789 $ 198,828.00 $ 16,569.00 Sheraton Gateway A $ 360.00 404 $ 101,808.00 $ 8,484.00 Hilton Garden Inn A $ 180.00 132 $ _ 16,632.00 $ 1,386.00 Park Plaza Hotel A $ 360.00 306 $ 77,112.00 $ 6,426.00 Ramada Inn A $ 90.00 144 $ 9,072.00 $ 756.00 Red Roof Inn A $ 54.00 212 $ 8,013.60 $ 667.80 Vagabond Inn A $ 54.00 91 $ 3,439.80 $ 286.65 Burlingame Hotel A $ 54.00 41 $ 1,549.80 $ 129.15 Country House A $ 54.00 27 $ 1,020.60 $ 85.05 Room Total 3569 Total: $ 776,071.80 Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessme Monthly assessment San Mateo SM Marriott A $ 360.00 360 $ 122,976.00 $ 10,248.00 Villa Hotel A $ 360.00 285 $ 71,820.00 $ 5,985.00 Residence Inn A $ 54.00 160 $ 6,048.00 $ 504.00 Hilton Garden A $ 180.00 156 $ 19,656.00 $ 1,638.00 Homestead Village A $ 54.00 136 $ 5,140.80 $ 428.40 Holiday Inn A $ 360.00 110 $ 27,720.00 $ 2,310.00 Los Prados Inn A $ 90.00 113 $ 7,119.00 $ 593.25 Holiday Inn Express A $ 54.00 111 $ 4,195.80 $ 349.65 Hillsdale Inn A $ 54.00 90 $ 3,402.00 $ 283.50 Howard Johnson A $ 54.00 57 $ 2,154.60 $ 179.55 Super 8 A $ 54.00 53 $ 2,003.40 $ 166.95 Avalon A $ 54.00 48 $ 1,814.40 $ 151.20 Firestone Lodge A $ 54.00 46 $ 1,738.80 $ 144.90 San Mateo Motel A $ 54.00 33 $ 1,247.40 $ 103.95. Coxhead House A $ 54.00 4 $ 64.80 $ 5.40 Room Total 1762 Total: $ 277,101.00 1 of 6 1/11/01 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS Name of Property Millbrae Westin Clarion EI Rancho Inn Millwood Inn Travelodge Comfort Inn Quality Suites Millbrae Zone A A A A A A A Category/Assessment $ 360.00 $ 360.00 $ 54.00 $ 54.00 $ 54.00 $ 54.00 $ 90.00 # Rooms 390 440 219 34 58 100 80 ANNUAL Assessmen Monthly assessment $ 98,280.00 $ 8,190.00 $ 110,880.00 $ 9,240.00 $ 8,278.20 $ 689.85 $ 1,285.20 $ 107.10 $ 2,192.40 $ 182.70 $ 3,780.00 $ 315.00 $ 5,040.00 $ 420.00 Room Total 1241 Total: $ 229,735.80 Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessme Monthly assessment South San Francisco Embassy Suites A $ 360.00 312 $ 78,624.00 $ 6,552.00 Comfort Suites A $ 54.00 166 $ 6,274.80 $ 522.90 Grosvenor Airport Inn A $ 360.00 206 $ 51,912.00 $ 4,326.00 Hilton Garden Inn A $ 180.00 169 $ 21,294.00 $ 1,774.50 Holiday Inn North A $ 360.00 224 $ 56,448.00 $ 4,704.00 La Quinta Inn #659 A $ 180.00 174 $ 21,924.00 $ 1,827.00 Larkspur Landing A $ 90.00 111 $ 6,993.00 $ 582.75 Ramada Inn A $ 360.00 323 $ 81,396.00 $ 6,783.00 Residence Inn A $ 54.00 150 $ 5,670.00 $ 472.50 Travelodge A $ 54.00 197 $ 7,446.60 $ 620.55 Airport Inn A $ 54.00 34 $ 1,285.20 $ 107.10 Americana Inn Motel A $ 54.00 17 $ 275.40 $ 22.95 Courtyard by Marriott A $ 180.00 198 $ 24,948.00 $ 2,079.00 Days Inn (EI Camino) A $ 54.00 49 $ 1,852.20 $ 154.35 Days Inn (Airport BI.)) A $ 54.00 25 $ 945.00 $ 78.75 Deluxe Inn A $ 54.00 20 $ 324.00 $ 27.00 Economy Inn A $ 54.00 21 $ 793.80 $ 66.15 Hallmark House Motel A $ 54.00 13 $ 210.60 $ 17.55 Hampton Inn A $ 54.00 100 $ 3,780.00 $ 315.00 Howard Johnson/Vagabond A $ 54.00 51 $ 1,927.80 $ 160.65 Oyster Point/Marina Inn A $ 90.00 30 $ 1,890.00 $ 157.50 Quality Inn & Suites A $ 54.00 45 $ 1,701.00 $ 141.75 Royal Inn A $ 54.00 17 $ 275.40 $ 22.95 2 of 6 1/11/01 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS South San Francisco (cont'd) Foster City Name of Property _ Super 8 Lodge Travelers Inn Crowne Plaza Marriott Courtyard Zone A A A A Category/Assessment $ 54.00 $ 54.00 Room Total $ 360.00 $ 180.00 Room Total # Rooms 117 20 2789 Total: 356 147 503 ANNUAL Assessmen Monthly assessment $ 4,422.60 $ 368.55 $ 324.00 $ 27.00 $ 382,937.40 $ 89,712.00 $ 7,476.00 $ 18,522.00 $ 1,543.50 _ Total: $ 108,234.00 Half Moon Bay Name of Property Beach House Inn Ritz Carlton Zone B B Category/Assessment $ 180.00 $ 360.00 # Rooms 54 261 ANNUAL Assessme $ 4,860.00 $ 46,980.00 Monthly assessment $ 405.00 $ 3,915.00 Half Moon Bay Lodge B $ 180.00 81 $ 7,290.00 $ 607.50 Ramada Limited B $ 54.00 29 $ 783.00 $ 65.25 Holiday Inn Express B $ 54.00 52 $ 1,404.00 $ 117.00 Cameron's Inn B $ 54.00 3 $ 48.60 $ 4.05 Mill Rose Inn & Garden B $ 54.00 6 $ 97.20 $ 8.10 Miramar Lodge & Conf. Center B $ 90.00 40 $ 1,800.00 $ 150.00 Moon Dream Cottage B $ 54.00 2 $ 32.40 $ 2.70 Old Thyme Inn B $ 54.00 7 $ 113.40 $ 9.45 Plum Tree Court B $ 54.00 6 $ 97.20 $ 8.10 San Benito House B $ 54.00 12 $ 194.40 $ 16.20 The Gilchrest House B $ 54.00 2 $ 32.40 $ 2.70 Zaballa House B $ 54.00 23 $ 621.00 $ 51.75 Room Total 578 Total: $ 64,353.60 3 of 6 1/11/01 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessmen Monthly assessment Unincorporated County Best Western Exec. Suites A $ 54.00 29 $ 1,096.20 $ 91.35 Costanoa Coastal Lodge B $ 90.00 172 $ 7,740.00 $ 645.00 Cypress Inn on Miramar Beach Farallone Inn B&B Goose & Turrets B&B Harbor View Inn Harbor House Landis Shores B B B B B B $ $ $ $ $ $ 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 8 9 5 18 6 8 $ $ $ $ $ $ 129.60 145.80 81.00 291.60 97.20 129.60 $ $ $ $ $ $ 10.80 12.15 6.75 24.30 8.10 10.80 Motorville Motel A $ 54.00 30 $ 1,134.00 $ 94.50 Pacific Victorian B $ 54.00 3 $ 48.60 $ 4.05 Pillar Point Inn B $ 54.00 11 $ 178.20 $ 14.85 Princess Port B $ 54.00 4 $ 64.80 $ 5.40 Seal Cove Inn B $ 54.00 10 $ 162.00 $ 13.50 Lodge at Sky Londa B $ 54.00 16 $ 259.20 $ 21.60 Hostelling Intn'I Pt. Montara Lths B $ 54.00 7 $ 113.40 $ 9.45 Hostelling Intn'I Pillar Pt. Lths B $ 54.00 12 $ 194.40 $ 16.20 Room Total 348 Total: $ 11,865.60 4 of 6 1/11/01 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS Name of Property Redwood City Hotel Sofitel Best Western Inn Budget Inn Capri Hotel Cliff Hotel Comfort Inn Days Inn Zone A A A A A A A Category/Assessment $ 360.00 $ 54.00 $ 54.00 $ 54.00 $ 54.00 $ 54.00 $ 54.00 # Rooms 419 26 27 50 55 52 68 ANNUAL Assessmen Monthly assessment $ 105,588.00 $ 8,799.00 $ 982.80 $ 81.90 $ 1,020.60 $ 85.05 $ 1,890.00 $ 157.50 $ 2,079.00 $ 173.25 $ 1,965.60 $ 163.80 $ 2,570.40 $ 214.20 Garden Motel A $ 54.00 17 $ 275.40 $ 22.95 Good Nite Inn A $ 54.00 123 $ 4,649.40 $ 387.45 Holiday Inn Express A $ 54.00 38 $ 1,436.40 $ 119.70 Pacific Inn Hotel A $ 54.00 75 $ 2,835.00 $ 233.10 Redwood Motor Court Best Inn Sequoia Inn Super 8 Motel A A A A $ $ $ $ 54.00 54.00 54.00 54.00 12 38 22 40 $ $ $ $ 194.40 1,436.40 831.60 1,512.00 $ $ $ $ 16.20 119.70 69.30 126.00 Sequoia Hotel A $ 54.00 53 $ 2,003.40 $ 166.95 Room Total 1115 Total: $ 131,270.40 Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessme Monthly assessment San Bruno Budget Inn A $ 54.00 29 $ 1,096.20 $ 91.35 Cable Car Inn A $ 54.00 24 $ 907.20 $ 75.60 CalWest Inn A $ 54.00 54 $ 2,041.20 $ 170.10 Summerfield Suites A $ 180.00 95 $ 11,970.00 $ 997.50 Marriott Courtyard A $ 180.00 147 $ 18,522.00 $ 1,543.50 Knights Rest San Bruno Inn A A $ $ 54.00 54.00 32 58 $ _ $ _ 1,209.60 2,192.40 $ $ 100.80 182.70 Ritz Motel A $ 54.00 23 $ 869.40 $ 72.45 Days Inn A $ 54.00 48 $ 1,814.40 $ 151.20 Room Total 510 Total: $ 40,622.40 5 of 6 1/11/01 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS Belmont - _ Name of Property - - _ Bel Mateo Motel Econolodge Belmont Zone A A Category/Assessment $ 54.00 $ 54.00 # Rooms 32 23 ANNUAL Assessmen Monthly assessment $ 1,209.60 $ 100.80 $ 869.40 $ 72.45 Holiday Inn Express & Suites A $ 90.00 82 $ 5,166.00 $ 430.50 _ Motel Summerfield Suites A A $ $ 54.00 90.00 Room Total 273 132 542 $ $ 10,319.40 8,316.00 $ $ 859.95 693.00 Total: $ 25,880.40 Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessme Monthly assessment San Carlos Comfort Inn A $ 90.00 50 $ 3,150.00 $ 262.50 Days Inn A $ 54.00 29 $ 1,096.20 $ 91.35 Homestead Village Guest Stes A $ 90.00 116 $ 7,308.00 $ 609.00 Inns of America A $ 54.00 112 $ 4,233.66 $ 352.80 San Carlos Travelodge A $ 54.00 32 $ 1,209.60 $ 100.80 Travel Inn A $ 54.00 29 $ 1,096.20 $ 91.35 Room Total 368 Total: $ 18,093.66 Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment # Rooms ANNUAL Assessme Monthly assessment Brisbane Radisson Hotel A $ 360.00 210 $ 52,920.00 $ 4,410.00 Room Total 210 Total: $ 52,920.00 Daly City Name of Property Alpine Motor Inn Royal Palace Inn Days Inn Zone A A A Category/Assessment $ 54.00 $ 54.00 $ 54.00 # Rooms 35 21 35 ANNUAL Assessme $ 1,323.00 $ 793.80 $ 1,323.00 Monthly assessment $ 110.25 $ 66.15 $ 110.25 EI Camino Inn A $ 54.00 36 $ 1,360.80 $ 113.40 Hampton Inn (under const.) A $ 54.00 86 $ 3,250.80 $ 270.19 _ Geneva Motel Town Motel A A $ $ 54.00 54.00 Room Total 22 34 269 Total: $ $ $ 831.60 1,285.20 10,168.20 $ $ 69.30 107.10 6 of 6 1/11/01 RESOLUTION NO. 121-00 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 ofFoster City, City of Half Moon Bay, City ofMillbrae, City ofRedwood 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. T 12/18/2000 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 ofowners 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 forthe 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 method, 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 full quarter. 12/18/2000 2 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 maybe 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 �W 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 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. 12/18/2000 3 (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 firty 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. 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 NOES ABSENT COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE CITY CLERK D:\wp51\Files\HotelBid\resintfomi. res.wpd 12/18/2000 4 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 DISTRICT 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 3 5. EXI-IIBIT B ACTIVITIES, PROGRAI\IS AND SERVICES TO BE FUNDED BY THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVENIENT 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 INIATEO 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 opening during 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 frill quarters and 2 months of one partial quarter remaining in the fiscal year. The frill amoral 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. 12/18/2000 C-1 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 2001) $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 2001) $180/sleeping room X 50% X (District months in 200 1) and more than 1000 square 12 12 feet of meeting space and more than 20 sleeping rooms Hotel with 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 2001) 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 12/18/2000 Q C-2 EXHIBIT D 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 levy of assessments 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 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. '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 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 36500 and following). D-1 Any written protest as to the regularity or sufficiency Of tile 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. D-2 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 ORDINANCE No. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT, THE BASIS FOR AND PROCESS OF LEVY AND COLLECTION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT, AND THE DISTRICT ADVISORY BOARD The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. (a) This ordinance is adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989, as codified in California Streets and Highways Code sections 36500 and following. On December 18, 2000, the City Council of the City of Burlingame adopted its Resolution of Intention (Resolution No. 12 1 -00) declaring its intention to form a parking and business improvement area to be known as the "San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District," outlining a proposed area for the District, providing a basis for levy of an annual assessment, and requesting the consideration and consent of the County of San Mateo and various cities in the County to the formation of the District and the levy of assessments within their jurisdiction pursuant to Streets & Highways Code section 36521.5. (b) Pursuant to Streets & Highways Code sections 36523 and 36523.5, copies of the Resolution of Intention and notice pursuant to Government Code section 54954.6(c) were duly mailed to all hotels that might be assessed pursuant to the proposed ordinance, and the Resolution of Intention was duly published in newspapers of general circulation within the County of San Mateo and each of the interested cities. (c) The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo consented to the formation of the District within the unincorporated portion of San Mateo County pursuant to Board of Supervisors Resolution No. (d) The following cities consented to the formation of the District within their respective city limits as follows: 1/11/2001 Draft (i) The City of Belmont pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 8916; (ii) The City of Foster City pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2001-6; (iii) The City of Millbrae pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 00-163; 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 26 271 (iv) The City of Redwood City pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 14106; (v) The City of San Carlos pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2000-167; (vi) The City of San Mateo pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 5 (2001); (e) Pursuant to the Resolution of Intention adopted by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, the City Council held a public meeting in the Council Chambers at City Hall, Burlingame, regarding formation of the proposed District and assessments pursuant to Government Code section 54954.6(c) on January 2, 2001. Pursuant to the Resolution of Intention adopted by the City of Burlingame, the City Council held a public hearing in the Council Chambers at City Hall, Burlingame, regarding formation of the proposed District and assessments on January 17, 2001, and continued it to February 5, 2001. Following the hearings, all protests, both written and oral, were considered and were duly overruled and denied, and the City Council determined that there was no majority protest within the meaning of Streets & Highways Code section 36523. Section 2. Purpose. This District is formed as a parking and business improvement area under the Business and Improvement Area Law of 1989 to provide revenue to defray the costs of services, activities, and programs promoting tourism in the District, which will benefit hotels in the District through the promotion of scenic, recreational, cultural, hospitality, and other attractions in the San Mateo County region, and it is not intended to supplant any other existing source of revenues that may be directly applied by the individual cities or the County of San Mateo to promote tourism. The specific services, activities, and programs to be provided are listed in Exhibit B attached to this ordinance, and the services, activities, and those specific services, activities, and programs are the only uses to which the funds generated by the assessments to be levied pursuant to this ordinance shall be put. Section 3. Benefits. (a) The public convenience and necessity mandate the District established by this ordinance. Tourism is vital to the economy of all of San Mateo County. According to recent studies, the travel and hospitality industry in the County generates over $3 billion in visitor 28 11 spending. Spending on accommodations alone in the County is over $500 million. This does not 1/11/2001 Draft 2 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 include spending in hotel restaurants, stores, and associated services. The hotels in the District as defined below will benefit from the services, activities, and programs described in Exhibit B to this ordinance to sustain and enhance the continued outreach for visitors to the County. These efforts will help maintain the occupancy rates for hotels in the County and increase the revenue per room, even as new hotels and hotel rooms open for occupancy or the economy slows. Studies show that the hotel industry can continue to utilize the County's unique location and attractions to build occupancy that is not dependent on nearby San Francisco or the Silicon Valley. (b) In recognition of the fact that hotels of different sizes, or hotels offering different levels of service, or hotels providing different sizes of meeting space, or different combinations of these factors, receive different degrees of benefit from the services, activities, and programs to be provided to promote tourism by the District, this ordinance creates different levels of assessments among hotels, based upon the total number of sleeping rooms, the levels of service, and the amount of meeting space. Further, the ordinance creates two benefit zones: one along San Francisco Bay for hotels relatively near San Francisco International Airport and other meeting facilities; and another along the Pacific Coast, which is more oriented toward leisure and recreational tourists. In addition, efforts should be made in the levying of annual assessments to factor in the prior year's County -wide occupancy rates while balancing the overall budget needs of the District to accomplish its purposes. Section 4. Definitions. The following definitions govern the construction of this ordinance and resolutions adopted pursuant to this ordinance: (a) Advisory board. "Advisory board" means the advisory board appointed by the City Council of the City of Burlingame pursuant to this ordinance. (b) Assessment. "Assessment" means the levy imposed by this ordinance for the purpose of providing services, activities, and programs promoting tourism in the San Mateo County region. (c) Board of Supervisors. "Board of supervisors" means the Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo. (d) District. "District" means the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District formed by this ordinance in the geographical area designated in Exhibit A to this ordinance. 1/11/2001 Draft 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 (e) Fiscal year. "Fiscal year" means January 1 to December 31. (f) Full service. "Full service" means a hotel that offers all of the following: an on-site restaurant, meeting space, room service, bell service, and catering. (g) Hotel. "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. (h) Limited service. "Limited service" means a hotel that offers meeting space but does not necessarily have an on-site restaurant, room service, or catering. (i) Meeting space. "Meeting space" means a room or space dedicated for group and social meetings, meals, and/or functions. 0) Operator. "Operator" means the person who is the proprietor of the hotel, whether in the capacity of owner, lessee, sublessee, mortgagee in possession, licensee, or any other capacity. Where the operator performs the operator's functions through a managing agent of any type or character other than an employee, the managing agent shall also be deemed an operator for purposes of this ordinance, and shall have the same duties and liabilities as the agent's principal. Compliance with the provisions of this ordinance by either the principal or the managing agent shall, however, be considered to be compliance by both. (k) Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989. "Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989" means the provisions of California Streets & Highways Code sections 36500 to 36551, as amended. (l) Participating agency. "Participating agency" means a city government or a county government that has consented to the formation of the District as provided in this resolution within the jurisdiction of the city or the county pursuant to Streets & Highways Code section 36521.5. The participating agencies are the City of Belmont, City of Foster City, City of Millbrae, City of Redwood City, City of San Carlos, City of San Mateo, the City of , the City of and the County of San Mateo. (m) San Mateo County Hotel Council. "San Mateo County Hotel Council" means the 1/ 11/2001 Draft 4 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 California non-profit mutual benefit corporation called San Mateo County Hotel Council, Inc. (n) San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District. "San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District" means the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District formed by this ordinance in the geographical area designated in Exhibit A to this ordinance. (o) Sleeping room. "Sleeping room" means a room or suite of rooms that is rented on a transient basis as a unit for occupancy. (p) Standard service. "Standard service" means a hotel without any meeting space, and generally does not have bell service, room service, on-site restaurant, or catering. (q) Transient basis. "Transient basis" means the rental of a room or rooms for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping purposes for a period of thirty (30) consecutive days or less, counting portions of calendar days as whole days. Section 5. Establishment of District. A parking and business improvement district known as the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District is hereby established pursuant to the Parking and Business Improvement Area Law of 1989. The boundaries of the District shall be as set forth in Exhibit A attached to this ordinance. Section 6. Establishment and Basis of Assessments. (a) All hotels in the District shall pay an annual benefit assessment to the District for each fiscal year as follows: (1) In Benefit Zone A: (A) Hotels with full service and more than 20 sleeping rooms: Up to $360 per sleeping room per year. (B) Hotels with limited service and one thousand (1,000) square feet or more of meeting space and more than 20 sleeping rooms: Up to $180 per sleeping room per year. (C) Hotels with limited service and meeting space of less than one thousand (1,000) square feet of meeting space and more than 20 sleeping rooms: Up to $90 per sleeping room per year. (D) Hotels with standard service and hotels with 20 sleeping rooms or less: Up to $54 per sleeping room per year. 1/11/2001 Draft 5 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 (2) In Benefit Zone B: (A) Hotels with full service and more than 20 sleeping rooms: Up to $360 per sleeping room per year. (B) Hotels with limited service and one thousand (1,000) square feet or more of meeting space and more than 20 sleeping rooms: Up to $180 per sleeping room per year. (C) Hotels with limited service and meeting space of less than one thousand (1,000) square feet of meeting space and more than 20 sleeping rooms: Up to $90 per sleeping room per year. (D) Hotels with standard service and hotels with 20 sleeping rooms or less: Up to $54 per sleeping room per year. (b) The initial assessment shall be determined from the number of rooms, the level of service, and the amount of meeting space as of the close of the public hearing on the formation of the District, as well as the benefit zone in which the hotel is located. For subsequent years, the number of rooms, the level of service, and the amount of meeting space of existing hotels shall be determined as of September 1 of each year. For hotels that open for business after the determination date, the number of rooms, the level of service, and the amount of meeting space shall be determined for their initial assessment at the time that they open for business. (c) The number of rooms, level of service, and amount of meeting space determined in the City Council's annual levy of assessment shall be final and conclusive, and binding on the hotels to be assessed. Section 7. Use of Assessments. All funds derived from the assessments shall be used only for the services, activities, and programs described in Exhibit B to this ordinance. Section 8. Levy of Assessments. Except as to the initial assessment under this ordinance, the advisory board shall submit its annual report to the City of Burlingame no later than October 15 of each year pursuant to Streets & Highway Code sections 36530 and 36533. The annual report shall include a listing of hotels subject to the assessment and the number of rooms, level of service, and meeting space in each hotel for review of the recommended assessments for the coming year. The City of Burlingame will forward copies of the annual report together with a copy of that year's resolution of intention to each participating agency so that each participating agency can review 1/11/2001 Draft 2 1 2 3 4 51 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 the annual report and proposed assessments, services, activities, and programs as each agency deems appropriate. Section 9. Imposition of Assessments. The assessments imposed pursuant to this ordinance are levied solely upon the operators of the hotels within the District, and the operator of each hotel is solely responsible for payment of the assessments when due. The assessments levied pursuant to this ordinance are not part of the gross receipts or gross revenues of a hotel located in the City of Burlingame for purposes of calculating sales or use taxes or transient occupancy taxes. Section 10. Payment and Collection of Assessments. (a) Each participating agency shall collect the assessments due under this ordinance from hotels within their jurisdictions on the basis that is most convenient to that agency's fiscal system, but no less often than semiannually. (b) Each hotel shall pay the assessment as required by the participating agency in which the hotel is located. Section 11. Deficiencies. (a) When the City of Burlingame determines that an assessment is deficient as to the payment due, the City of Burlingame may determine the amount of the delinquency as calculated pursuant to this ordinance. After giving notice that a deficiency determination is proposed and an opportunity to file a response or provide supplemental information is provided, the City may make one or more deficiency determinations of the amount due for any reporting period based on information in the possession of the City or any participating agency. When the operation of a hotel is discontinued, a deficiency determination may be made at any time thereafter as to the liability arising out the operation of the hotel. (b) The City of Burlingame shall give notice of a proposed deficiency determination or the notice of deficiency determination by mailing a copy of the document to the operator of the hotel at the address of the hotel on file with the participating agency in which the hotel is located. The giving of notice is complete at the time of deposit in the United States mail with first-class postage fully prepaid. In lieu of mailing, a notice may be served personally by delivering it to the person apparently in charge of the hotel at the hotel or to the operator. 1/11/2001 Draft 7 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 (c) The operator of a hotel against which a deficiency determination is made may petition the City for redetermination within thirty (30) days after the service of the notice of deficiency determination. If such a petition is not filed with the City Manager within this thirty -day period, the deficiency determination shall become final. (d) A petition for redetermination shall be in writing, state the specific grounds on which it is based, and be supported by applicable records and declarations under penalty of perjury that the information is true and complete. If a petition for redetermination is filed, the City shall reconsider the deficiency determination and may meet with the petitioner or hold a hearing on the petition. The City shall issue a written decision on the petition and serve the decision on the petitioner in the same way that a notice of deficiency determination is served. (e) If the petitioner is dissatisfied with the decision on the petition for redetermination, the petitioner may file an appeal to the City Council within thirty (30) days of the service of the decision. The appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk, be in writing describing what portion of the decision the petitioner is appealing, and accompanied by an appeal fee of $250. The City Council will set the matter for public hearing within thirty (30) days of receipt of the appeal. The decision of the City Council on the appeal shall be final. Section 12. Delinquencies. If an assessment is not paid at the time set for payment pursuant to this ordinance, the operator shall pay a penalty of five percent (5%) in addition to the payment due for each thirty (30) day period in which the payment is not made. If payment is not made within one hundred and twenty (120) days of the date that payment was initially due pursuant to this ordinance, the operator shall pay interest of one percent per month or fraction thereof on the amount of the payment due, exclusive of penalties, but in addition to any penalties that may be due. Every penalty imposed and interest as it accrues under the provisions of this section shall become part of the assessment required to be paid under this ordinance. Section 13. Remedies. In addition to any other remedies that may be available to the City of Burlingame or the participating agencies, if any amount due to be paid under this ordinance is not paid, the City of Burlingame may bring an action in the Superior Court of San Mateo County to collect the amounts due. 1/ 11/2001 Draft N. 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 Section 14. Advisory Board. (a) An advisory board of nineteen (19) members is established to advise the City of Burlingame on the conduct of the District, including the level of assessments to be levied each year, the services, activities, and programs to be conducted by the District, and the progress of the District in meeting its purpose and goals. The City Council shall appoint the advisory board from a list of nominees submitted by the San Mateo Hotel Council. To be eligible to serve on the advisory board, a person shall be an owner or manager of a hotel or a property occupied by a hotel or an owner or manager of a company or business located in San Mateo County that is directly related to tourism in San Mateo County. The board shall consist of persons from the following geographical areas: (1) Four (4) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by a hotel in the City of Burlingame; and (2) Two (2) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by a hotel in the City of San Mateo; and (3) Two (2) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by a hotel in the City of Millbrae; and (4) Two (2) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by a hotel in the City of South San Francisco; and (5) One (1) owner or manager of a hotel or owner of property occupied by a hotel in the City of Foster City; and (6) One (1) owner or manager of a hotel or owner of property occupied by a hotel in the City of Half Moon Bay; and (7) In total, three (3) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by hotels in the Cities of Brisbane, Daly City, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, and the unincorporated area of San Mateo County; and (9) Four (4) owners or managers of companies or businesses located in San Mateo County and directly related to tourism in San Mateo County. (b) Terms of membership on the advisory board shall be three (3) years and until their 1/11'2001 Draft 9 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 successors are appointed and qualified. However, the initial members of the advisory board shall serve staggered terms, with six (6) members serving a one-year term, seven (7) members serving a two-year term, and six (6) members serving a three-year term. The initial length of term for each member shall be chosen by lot at the first advisory board meeting. Vacancies on the advisory board shall be filled by appointment by the City Council of the City of Burlingame upon nomination by the San Mateo County Hotel Council. Vacancies occur upon resignation of the member or when the member is no longer an owner or manager of a hotel or property occupied by a hotel or of a tourist -related company or business, whichever is applicable, in the geographical area from which the member was appointed. Section 15. Advisory board under the Political Reform Act (California Code of Regulations, title 2, section 18707.4). The members of the advisory board are appointed to represent and further the interests of the hotel and tourism industry in San Mateo County pursuant to this ordinance. Section 16. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. Mayor I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the — day of , 2000, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2000, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: U AWP5IWILMHotelBid\ordinance I .ord.wpd I 1/ 11/2001 Draft City Clerk 10 aBURLINGAME STAFF REPORT TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: December 20, 2000 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE TO INSTALL AT CORTEZ AVENUE AGENDA ITEM # 5b MTG. 1/17/01 DATE SUBMITTED BY APPROV�V�� BY TWO STOP SIGNS ON ADELINE DRIVE RECOMMENDATION: Council should hold a hearing on an ordinance to delete the installation of stop signs on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue and: a. Adopt the proposed ordinance. b. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND: Council adopted Ordinance No. 1643 to install stop signs on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue at their October 16, 2000 meeting. Council recently asked that this action be reconsidered and possible alternate measures be pursued regarding safety at this intersection. DISCUSSION: Following is the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission's (TSPC) as well as staff's position on the stop signs: TSPC - The TSPC recommends the installation of the crosswalks and stop signs. The TSPC believes that the signs are needed to improve safety for the pedestrians crossing Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue. There are stop signs at adjacent crosswalks along Adeline Drive at Balboa Avenue and Cabrillo Avenue. However, pedestrians (including elderly, adults, parents with strollers, and school age children) currently use Cortez Avenue for more direct access to Ray Park and Lincoln School. The TSPC and residents believe that the gate at the dead end of Cortez Avenue is an open invitation for pedestrians to cross Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue. The option of closing the gate at Cortez Avenue is strongly opposed by the residents. Staff - Staff determined that City warrants were not met for vehicular volume and accidents to justify the installation of stop signs. A radar survey in 1999 and recent radar samplings on Adeline Drive showed a critical speed of 33 mph with some (7 percent) vehicles exceeding 35 mph. The Adeline Drive/Cortez Avenue intersection carries less than 250 vehicles per hour (warrant requires 300 per hour) and has had no accidents in the last five years (warrant requires three per year). In addition, staff believes that the stop signs could provide a false sense of security for pedestrians using the crosswalks. Staff is concerned that, due to the number of closely spaced crosswalks/stop signs along Adeline Drive, drivers may not take them seriously and perform rolling stops which could endanger pedestrians. The attached informational item from Institute of Transportation Engineers explains this in more detail. In lieu of stop signs, Council may wish to pursue alternate actions to improve intersection safety such as greater police enforcement of traffic speeds and additional and/or larger speed limit signage. EXHIBIT: Institute of Transportation Engineers Informational Item c: City Clerk Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission Interested Parties S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Stops at Adeline&Cortez.wpd • 1 ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 13.20.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE 3 TO DELETE OF STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF ADELINE DRIVE AT CORTEZ AVENUE 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 7 Section 1. Subsection 13.20.010(a) is amended by deleting "Adeline Drive approaching 8 Cortez Avenue;". 9 10 Section 2. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 11 12 Mayor 13 14 1, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 15 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 16 of , 2000, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held 17 on the day of 200_, by the following vote: 18 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 19 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 20 21 City Clerk D:\wp51 \Files\ORDINANC\repeal 1643.ord.wpd 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 TRAFFIC INFORMATION P ROG RAM SERIES y 8TOP 8IGN8 WHY DON'T THEY PUT IN MORE STOP SIGNS? A stop sign is one of our most valuable and effective control devices when used at the right place and under the right conditions. It is intended to help drivers and pedestrians at an intersection decide who has the right-of-way. One common misuse of stop signs is to arbitrarily interrupt through traffic, either by causing it to stop, or by causing such an inconvenience as to force the traffic to use other routes. Where stop signs are installed as "nuisances" or "speed breakers," there is a high incidence of intentional violation. In those locations where vehicles do stop, the speed reduction is effective only in the immediate vicinity of the stop sign, and frequently speeds are actually higher between intersections. For these reasons, it should not be used as a speed control device. A school crossing may look dangerous for children to use, causing parents to demand a stop sign to halt traffic. Now a vehicle which had been a problem for 3 seconds while approaching and passing the intersection becomes a problem for a much longer period. A situation of indecision is created as to when to cross as a pedestrian or when to start as a motorist. Normal gaps in traffic through which crossings could be made safely no longer exist. An intersection which previously was not busy now looks like a major intersection. It really isn't — it just looks like it. It doesn't even look safer and it usually isn't. Most drivers are reasonable and prudent with no intention of maliciously violating traffic regulations; however, when an unreasonable restriction is imposed, it may result in flagrant violations. In such cases, the stop sign can create a false sense of security in a pedestrian and an attitude of contempt in a motorist. These two attitudes can and often do conflict with tragic results. Well-developed, nationally recognized guidelines help to indicate when such controls become necessary. These guidelines take into consideration, among other things, the probability of vehicle arriving at an intersection at the same time, the length of time traffic must wait to enter, and the availability of safe crossing opportunities. �� CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME DAATED JUNE 6 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: 1-10-01 FROM: Jim Nantell, City Manager SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY SUBJECT: Authorization for Funding a Human Resources Director Position RECOMMENDATION: AGENDA ITEM # 7a MTG. DATE 1-17-01 Recommend that the City Council concur with the recommendation of the City Manager and authorize the funding of a Director of Human Resources position. BACKGROUND: Over the last four years we have struggled to create adequate resources and organizational structure to provide the human resources support to the organization. At the same time the demand for proactive action to attract and retain our valuable human resources has increased dramatically because of the highly competitive employment market, which has been further exasperated by an ever increasingly more expensive housing market. This is exemplified by our past history, which typically required recruitment for six to ten employees a year, whereas in the last year we have recruited for 38 positions. As an urgency measure we have had our Assistant City Manager/Finance Director overseeing the Human Resources area along with his other varied responsibilities. The small staff we have had (2 positions) who have been directly involved in the day-to-day responsibilities have worked hard to respond to the most urgent priorities in recruitment and benefits administration and we must acknowledge their stellar efforts. However the demands and staff turnover have left us in a situation where we are unable to effectively maintain the personnel systems that are necessary to meet the increasingly complicated world of human resources management. The competitive employment market and the high cost of housing puts us in a situation where we are more and more dependent on the employees that are with us today. That means that we need to invest more in training those employees to meet our future needs to fill "supervisory and management vacancies. It also places a high premium on our ability to maintain a very desirable work environment, which emphasizes the need for managers with highly developed skills. All of which means that our future success is in many ways tied to our ability to have professional, seasoned leadership in the human resources area. That is leadership that has proven abilities to develop and maintain the appropriate HR systems, training programs, and recruitment program. Unfortunately one of the most competitive markets for hiring exists in the human resources area. Cities as well as private sector employers throughout the bay area are hard pressed to find experienced professionals. We are currently considering a couple of potential candidates. Should we determine that one or more are interested and can meet our needs we need to move quickly. Therefore I am requesting that the Council authorize the funding of an additional department head position at a salary to be determined but not to exceed the current range established for the Library Director and Parks and Recreation Director. Actual cost will be presented to the Council at a future meeting once the position is filled. Budget Impact: Not to exceed the top of range salary and benefits of the Library and Parks and Recreation Directors positions or $114,000. Attachment: Proposed Job Description — Human Resources Director CITY OF BURLINGAME JANUARY 11, 2001 JOB DESCRIPTION — PROPOSED HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR PAGE 1 OF 2 DEFINITION To plan, direct, and review the development, implementation, and administration of the City's personnel management programs; to provide highly responsible and complex administrative support to the City Manager, Department Heads, City Council and Civil Service Commission; and to do related work as required. SUPERVISION RECEIVED AND EXERCISED Receives administrative direction from the City Manager. Exercises direct supervision over management, professional, technical and clerical staff. EXAMPLES OF IMPORTANT AND ESSENTIAL DUTIES - Depending upon assignment, duties may include, but are not limited to, the following: Administer and direct a comprehensive personnel program; formulate, recommend and implement policies and procedures, goals, objectives and priorities in carrying out the program; administer all provisions of the personnel system; consult with and advise management and the City Manager. Manage the City's personnel management programs. Conduct or represent the City in appeals, hearings, and other personnel matters. Calendar items and prepare agendas for the Civil Service Commission and provide follow-up to the City departments. Plan, organize and direct major personnel management programs including classification, compensation, benefits, personnel selection, affirmative action, Workers' Compensation, safety administration, training, wellness and organizational development. Work with City management in all support of labor relations activities including grievance and contract discussions as directed by the City Manager. Direct, oversee and participate in the development of the Department's work plan; assign work activities, projects and programs; monitor work flow; review and evaluate work products, methods and procedures. Coordinate Department activities with internal customers and outside agencies and organizations; prepare and present staff reports and other necessary correspondence. Make presentations before the City Council, Civil Service Commission, and other boards, commissions, and community organizations, as required. Supervise and participate in the development and administration of the Department budget; direct and forecast of additional funds needed for staffing, equipment, materials, and supplies; monitor and approve expenditures. Plan, organize and direct the development and maintenance of the City's computerized Employee Management Information System. CITY OF BURLINGAME JANUARY 11, 2001 JOB DESCRIPTION - PROPOSED HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR Page 2 of 2 Select, train, motivate and evaluate personnel; provide or coordinate staff training; work with employees to correct deficiencies; implement discipline and termination procedures. QUALIFICATIONS Knowledge of: Principles and practices of public personnel, training, and organizational development. Applicable federal, state and local laws, regulations, ordinances and policies. Principles and practices of organization, administration and budget management. Ability to: Supervise, plan, assign, and evaluate the work of assigned staff. Deal instructively with conflict and develop a consensus. Communicate clearly and concisely, both orally and in writing; make effective public presentations. Understand, interpret and apply personnel rules and regulations. Prepare complex and accurate reports. Prepare and administer a budget. Establish effective working relationships with officials, employees, and the general public. Experience and Education Any combination equivalent to experience and education that could likely provide the required knowledge and abilities would be qualifying. A typical way to obtain the knowledge and abilities would be: Experience: Five years of progressively responsible experience in all phases of a public personnel management program, including two years in a supervisory capacity. Education: Equivalent to a Bachelor's degree from an accredited college or university with major study in public, personnel, or business administration, or a related field. ADA SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: Essential duties require the following physical abilities and work environment: Ability to work in a standard office environment. �z i BURLINGAIME REPORTSTAFF tion, � o 9 4VORGTEo , TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: January 9, 2001 FROM SUBJECT: PUBLIC WORKS SUE BY APF BY AGENDA ITEM # 8a MTG. 1/17/01 SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR A RETAINING WAL WAY AT 2715 MARTINEZ DRIVE WITHIN THE CITY'S RIGHT -OF - RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached Special Permit in accordance with the attached drawings and standard permit conditions. BACKGROUND: The attached permit and drawings have been reviewed by staff. The height of the wall ranges from 12 -inches to 28 -inches and it encroaches 4 -feet 6 -inches into the City right-of-way . Staff visited the site and found no blockage of utility access or interference with sight distance by this installation. As the wall was built without a permit after the effective date of the new encroachment ordinance the applicant was required to pay an administrative penalty. EXHIBITS: Application, Permit, Sketch, Pictures Donald T. Chang, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer c: City Clerk, Applicant S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\2715rnartinez.wpd SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT APPLICATION A.P. No. Q-)3 - 0-�o Address of Proposed Encroachment 2D(� MAL'C(Q�-:z Lot No. � Block No. �_ Subdivision A6 (, Cs �, f-� NO �l ApplicantPhone Address P.C. BOX G2 -C9 Best Time to Call Property Owner 5P\" S Li�D Phone Address Best Time to Call Describe Encroachment (Attach additional pages & sketch if applicable) T-0 2,c► H (G -H WELE t)EyoC-�.D Give Reasons for Request _PJJ�h� DEPT Date Signed Pkoperty'Owner(s) ATTACH plans or drawings to show the dimensions, locations and heights of the encroachment. PLEASE CALL (650) 558-7230 FOR INSPECTION. Below This Line is for City Use Only l l v b Security Bond $300 (Refundalale) Fee: ($25 will be refunded if the application is denied) AdggM =Bond 23¢x_ X50 Non Permanent, No Council Action (The bond or cash deposit will be $75 Permanent, Council Action returned after construction is finished) Fee & Bond Paid: 1-71S In addition, a $100 penalty fee will be added if work is completed without a permit. Inspected By: Initials Date Department By Date ❑ Parks ❑ Water XEngineering Date Council Approved Record No. Department By Date ❑ Planning ❑ Sewer ❑ Others Hutnonzation _ Date sent to City Clerk Date Record Copy to Owner REF: EFFECTIVE 9/5/00, CHAPTER 12.10 CITY CODE SAA Public Works Directory\FORMS\General Office Forms\ENCRSPCL.APP WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: CITY CLERK CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE ONLY ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 1/9/01 (Date) TO OWNER: Sam Sirhed 2715 Martinez Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 In compliance with your request of December 29. 2000 and subject to all of the terms, i conditions and restrictions set forth herein, permission is hereby granted for a retaining wall within the City's right-of-wUThe height of the wall ranges from 12 -inches to 28 -inches and encroaches 4 -feet 6 -inches into the Cid right-of-way. AT 2715 Martinez Drive Lot No. 3 Block No. 34 Subdivision - Mills Estate No. 11 Assessor's Parcel No. 025-023-030 . General Provisions 1. Definition: Revocability. The term "encroachment" is used in this permit to mean any structure or object of any kind or character which is placed in, under, or over, any portion of the right-of-way of the City of Burlingame. This permit is revocable on fifteen (15) days notice. 1 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 2. Acceptance of provisions. It is understood and agreed by the permittee that the doing of any work under this permit shall constitute an acceptance of the provisions. 3. No precedent established. This permit is granted with the understanding that this action is not to be considered as establishing any precedent on the question of the expediency of permitting any certain kind of encroachment to be erected within rights-of-way of the City of Burlingame. 4. Notice prior to starting work. Before starting work on which an inspection is required, or whenever stated on the face of this permit, the permittee shall notify the Director of Public Works or other designated employee of the City. Such notice shall be given at least three (3) days in advance of the date work is to begin. 5. Permit on premises. This permit shall be kept at the site of the work and must be shown to any representative of the City, or any law enforcement officer on demand. 6. Protection of traffic. Adequate provision shall be made for the protection of the public. All work shall be planned and carried out so that there will be the least possible inconvenience to the public. 7. Storage of material. No material shall be stored on the City right-of-way. 8. Clean up. Upon completion of the work, all brush, timber, scrap and material shall be entirely removed and the right-of-way left in as presentable a condition as before work started. 9. Standards of construction. All work shall conform to recognized standards of construction. 10. Supervision of city. All the work shall be done subject to the supervision of, and to the satisfaction of the City. 11. Future moving of installation. It is understood by the permittee that whenever construction, reconstruction or maintenance work on the right-of-way may require, the installation provided for herein shall, upon request of the City, be immediately removed by and at the sole 2 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT expense of the permittee. 12. Liability for damages. The permittee is responsible for all liability for personal injury or property damage which may arise out of work herein permitted, or which may arise out of failure on the permittee's part to perform his obligations under this permit in respect to maintenance. In the event any claim of such liability is made against the City, or any department, officer, or employee thereof, permittee shall defend, indemnify and hold them, and each of them, harmless from such claim. 13. Care of drainage. If the work herein contemplated shall interfere with the established drainage, ample provision shall be made by the permittee to provide for it as may be directed by City. 14. Location plan. Upon completion of the work under this permit, the permittee shall furnish a plan to the City showing location in detail. 15. Maintenance. The permittee agrees, by the acceptance of this permit, to exercise reasonable care to maintain properly an encroachment placed by it in the City right-of-way, and to exercise reasonable care in inspecting and immediately repairing and making good any injury to any portion of the right-of-way which occurs as a result of the maintenance of the encroachment in the right-of-way, or as a result of work done under this permit, including any and all injury to the right-of-way which would not have occurred had such work not been done or such encroachment not placed therein. Maintenance shall include any damage that may be caused by roots of City trees. 16. Commencement of work. This permit shall be void unless the work herein contemplated shall have been completed before March 31, 2001 . 17. Recording. This permit shall be recorded by the City Clerk with the County Recorder of the County of San Mateo. 3 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 18. This permit shall be binding on the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto. 19. Sketch. See attached. (Two Sketches) CITY OF BURLINGAME OWNERS By Syed Murtuza, P.E., City Engineer ATTEST: City Clerk OBTAIN NOTARIZATION: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss COUNTY OF ) Approved as to form: City Attorney On before me, a Notary Public, personally appeared known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature NOTARY PUBLIC 4 a 4Z +►,e , Gq ;17- + Z+ 13,7s� g I As � OV6QKAN6 rd - ----? -7- -T- A5 11 ............. Da AN 9aiao •-f 13,E 3 ptar- /occk PLaN . 1 r two _ ✓.=.� +�,o' s 9Y C W C CCS t� G S 1 fJ L -Q,41* L i t►s.._. .__- _--- G V MA,TIT, `� o v.! � 1^` * 1 .�NY.`.!q?',s.,Sw �:t�-Y'h. .. yb� 1: w: n+A '1 ; ,•' i� '.: ;` � +.1 i�w ar .1.:.�..0 a .N ..-+..,r i ..F • x .:.1 , M .N�. at rJ r wr,.t wrl..'.,�a . in r- N 1� 1 fi 1 E AGENDA BURLINGAMSTAFF REPORT ITEM # $b MTG. 1/17/01 TE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITT DATE: January 6, 2001 BY APPROVED, FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A FOUR (4) UNIT CON MINIUM, RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 19, BLOCK 50, MAP OF EASTON ADDITION NO. 4 - 1405 & 1407 EL CAMINO REAL, PM 00-05 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council concur with the Planning Commission and approve this map with the following conditions: Show all building setbacks on the site plan. The conditions, covenants and restrictions for this map must be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approval conditions and City codes. A City clean-out shall be installed within the sewer easement area. BACKGROUND: On January 8, 2001 the Planning Commission reviewed the attached Staff Report. The Planning Commission found that all requirements were met and recommended that Council approve the map with the above conditions. EXHIBITS: Tentative Map, Staff Report Donald T. Chang, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\pm0005.wpd P.C. 12/11/2000 Item # MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DONALD T. CHANG, P.E., SENIOR CIVIL ENGINEER DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2000 RE: TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR FOUR (4) UNITS, RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 19, BLOCK 50, MAP OF EASTON ADDITION NO. 4 - 1405 AND 1407 EL CAMINO REAL, PM 00-05 I have reviewed the Tentative map together with the Condominium Permit Plans. This application is complete and maybe forwarded to Council for approval with the following conditions: 1. Show all building setbacks on site plan. 2. The CC&R's for this map must be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approval conditions and City Codes. 3. A City clean-out shall be installed within the sewer easement area. Donald T. Chang, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer SAA Public Works Directory\Planning Dept. Correspond\1405ECR.MMO.WPD PC 12/11/2000 Item # MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: DONALD T. CHANG, P.E. DATE: DECEMBER 5, 2000 RE: CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR FOUR (4) UNITS - RESUBDIVISION OF LOT 19, BLOCK 50, MAP OF EASTON ADDITION NO. 4 - 1405 AND 1407 EL CAMINO REAL, PM 00-05 I have the following comments which need to be addressed prior to any action. I GENERAL: 1. The Architectural plan shows the rear property line dimension to be 50' 1/1611, the Tentative Map shows 49.981. The subdivision Map shows the real property line to be 501. Why are there discrepancies? 2. Since the site is below street, approval will be conditioned upon an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump system shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps, controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generator shall be so housed that they meet the City's noise requirement. Show locations of proposed dual pumps and generators. 3. State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) does not always approve pumping storm drainage back up into E1 Camino Real unless it already drains there. Confirm prior to issuance of any Building Permit that the proposed drainage system meets with their approval. 4. Provide driveway profile with 2% from top of curb (6" high minimum) to back of the sidewalk and transition to a high point, on-site or at property line, at 12" above flow line of street. Transitions at top of driveway and at bottom required to the approval of the City Engineer. 5. All curb and gutters shall be replaced with new. An encroachment permit is required for sidewalk and gutter from Caltrans. 1 II SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS: 1. Caltrans must review and approve all El Camino Real accesses. Start this process early with them. They have had major ques- tions in the past spacing between a new driveway and an adjacent property's driveway. 2. All irrigation systems and planting shall follow City's water conservation guidelines. 3. All fire system work shall conform to the City's current procedures for underground water systems. 4. All on site catch basins and drainage inlets shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction so no debris will be dumped into them. The City will provide a stencil. III PARKING: 1. Show parking slab elevations. Maximum slope in any parking space is 511. Show drainage pattern. 2. What is the clearance between the guest parking and the exterior wall of Unit A? Egress into street for all vehicles shall be in the forward direction. How does the guest parking exit onto El Camino Real? 3. The garage exit pathways may not be through a parking space. How does vehicle at Unit A exit within 3 movements? IV ARCHITECTURAL PLANS: 1. Individual unit climate controls as well as separate shutoffs for gas, electric and water are required. c: Owner, Architect F:\WP51\FILES\1405ecr.condo 2 Donald Chang, PE Senior Civil Engineer / �,. . �\ STAFF TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM # _ MTG. DATE 1/17/01 SUBMITTED J� DATE: January 9, 2001 ' APPROVED4 , FROM: Rahn Becker, Assistant City Manager/ By /� l" Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Investment Policy for 2001 RECOMMENDATION: Approve the policy for 2001. BACKGROUND: State law requires the City Council to annually review and approve the policy for investment of City funds. No changes are recommended in the policy for 2001. The predominant activity during the past year has been to maintain liquidity to meet capital projects obligations. ATTACHMENTS: Investment Policy CITY OF BURLINGAME STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY PURPOSE This statement contains guidelines for the prudent investment of the City's temporarily idle cash in accordance with Government Code sections 53600, et. seq. and 16481.2. The ultimate goal is to protect the City's pooled cash while producing a reasonable return on investments. OBJECTIVES 1) Accurately monitor and forecast expenditures and revenues to insure investment of moneys to the fullest extent. 2) Invest in a range of instruments to insure diversification of the City's portfolio. 3) As a primary objective, safeguard the principal of funds. The secondary objective will be to meet the liquidity needs of the City. The third objective is to achieve a return on the investment of funds. 4) Investments will be in compliance with governing provisions of the law. ACCEPTABLE INVESTMENT INSTRUMENTS Acceptable investments authorized for purchase by the finance director/treasurer are: U.S. Government and Agency Securities (notes, bills or bonds of the U.S. Government and its agencies.) Certificates of Deposit (deposits placed with commercial banks, savings and loan companies and/or thrift and loan companies, which meet the financial criteria established by the City.) Bankers' Acceptances Commercial Paper Demand Deposits STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY PAGE 2 Money Market Funds/Mutual Funds Repurchase Agreements Passbook Savings Accounts Negotiable Certificates of Deposit (deposits with commercial banks and/or savings and loan companies which meet the financial criteria established by the City.) Local Agency Investment Funds (State Pool) County Investment Fund (San Mateo County Pool) Guaranteed Investment Contracts (collateralized with Government Securities, physically delivered to an acceptable safekeeping account.) Corporate Medium Term Notes The State pool and San Mateo County Pool invests in additonal Government Code authorized investments that are not approved for direct purchase by the finance director/treasurer. These pools shall provide a current investment policy and monthly reports for review by the finance director/treasurer. The finance director/treasurer is authorized to invest in these pools provided they reasonably appear to be in conformance with their investment policies, which are attached for reference to this policy. REPURCHASE AGREEMENTS - TERM LIMIT AND SAFEKEEPING The City will require physical delivery of the securities backing the repurchase agreements to an acceptable safekeeping account of a third party in the City's name (as stated in Code Section 53601i.) Repurchase agreements will be used solely as short term investments not to exceed 30 days. MATURITY LIMIT State law requires that the maturity of any given instrument should not exceed five years unless specifically approved by City Council. Those over two years will be confined to U.S. Government and Agency securities. RESTRICTION ON INVESTMENT POLICIES AND CITY CONSTRAINTS Section 53600 et. seq. of the State of California Government Code outlines the collateral requirements for certain types of investments and also limits the percentage of total investments which can be placed in certain classifications. Investments must meet the time schedules as indicated by the cash flow projections of the City. Investments will ordinarily be held until maturity unless an advantageous exchange or profit can be made. In such cases, a documented analysis will be prepared and approved by the Finance Director/Treasurer. Investment decisions will not be influenced by forecasts or speculation regarding interest rates. The actual level of interest rates at any given time weighed with the soundness of the institution or investment instrument will be the primary basis of consideration. CERTIFICATES OF DEPOSIT: INSTITUTION FINANCIAL REQUIREMENTS All institutions must have a minimum of $100 million in assets. Institutions have a demonstrated history of positive earnings and must carry a minimum 3.5% equity ratio and must hold that ratio for at least one year prior to the City's investment. Institutions must also carry an "A" rating from The Financial Directory. All institutions must be located within the State of California. For collateralized or negotiable certificates of deposit, the institution must have a minimum $1 billion in assets, in addition to meeting the above criteria. The City requires physical delivery of all negotiable securities to an acceptable safekeeping account at a designated depository. DELEGATION OF INVESTMENT AUTHORITY Pursuant to Burlingame Municipal Code Section 3.13.040 and Government Code Section 53607, the Finance Director/Treasurer is authorized to invest and reinvest money of the City, to sell or exchange securities so purchased, and to deposit such securities for safekeeping in accordance with and subject to this investment policy. Approved by City Council on: ty Manager ATTEST: �� ..LITIPM Oword docs%tremurerlinvestment policy.doc � CITY O REPORTBURLINGAM gPORATED ` TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SU DATE: January 9, 2001 M AGENDA ITEM # 8d MTG. 01/17/01 neTG APPROVED 4 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING PUBLIC PARKING LOT IMPR VEMENTS AT 1140 LAGUNA AVENUE. CITY PROJECT NO. 9934 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution accepting the Public Parking Lot Improvements at 1140 Laguna Avenue in the amount of $166,961.30 by Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. BACKGROUND: On August 7, 2000, Council awarded the Public Parking Lot improvements at 1140 Laguna Avenue in the amount of $154,550. The increase of $12,411.30 was due to six contract change orders to replace additional sidewalk, additional excavation, added landscaping, additional signage and some increases as well as decreases in the bid quantities. The project is completed satisfactorily in compliance with the project plans and specifications. EXHIBITS: Resolution; Final Quantities BUDGET IMPACT: Syed Murtuza, P.E. City Engineer There are sufficient funds in the project budget account to complete the work. c: City Clerk Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\9934Accepting.sr.wpd INTERSTATE GRADING AND PAVING INC. ADDRESS: 128 SOUTH MAPLE AVE DATE: SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CA, 94000 C TELEPHONE: (650)952-7333 FAX (650) 594-0616 aaaaa r rraaaaaaaaasaaaaarraaaaaaa+asaaaaaa+aaaaaa+aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa ITEM aaaaaaaaaaara UNIT # aaaaa - ITEM DESCRIPTION aaaaa+++aaaau aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaararaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa PRICE A CONTRACT. SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER aaaaaaaaraaaa 1 : MOBILIZATION + $15,400.00 2 DEMOLITION AND PERMITS $35,000.00 3 IMPORTED FILL, GRADING AND STAKING $40.00 4 CLASS II AGGREGATE BASE $50.00 5 ASPHALTIC CONCRETE PAVEMENT $90.00 6 CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER $45.00 7 PLANTER CURB $45.00 8 CONCRETE SIDEWALK AND DRIVEWAY $7.00 9 CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER $45.00 10 STORM DRAIN SYSTEM $2,000.00 11 3.0' HIGH MASONRY WALL $48.00 12 6.0' HIGH MASONRY WALL $60.00 13 SIGNING AND STRIPING $1,000.00 14 PARKING METER POSTS IN PLACE $150.00 15 PARKING LOT LIGHTING AND ELECTRICAL $18,000.00 16 LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION SYSTEM $19,000.00 CHANGE ORDERS: $0.00 CO la EXPORT IN LIEU OF IMPORT Y ($400.x01. CO lb DELETE SEPTIC TANK REMOVAL ($1,000.00) CO lc CHANGE METER POSTS ($400.00) CO 2 ADDITIONAL VINES AND BUBBLERS $1,930.00 CO 3 : OVER EXCAVATION WEST END OF SITE $2,140.00 CO 4 : ADDITIONAL CONCRETE $1,450.00 00 5 REPLACE ADDITIONAL SIDEWALK $375.00 CO 6 araaa ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE a+aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa+raaraaaaa+aaa+.a a+aaaaaaa+aaaaaaaaara $683.00 aaaaaaaaaaaaa DATE BY: MOH'D-ASFOUR w 1-09-2001 APPROVED BY ti /- /� G CITY ENGINEER• � APPROVED BY CITY OF BURLINGAME DATE: January -09-01 PROGRESS PAYMENT 4 FOR THE MONTH OF: November -00 ONTRACT: LOT IMPROVEMENTS AT 1140 LAGUNA AVE PURCHASE ORDER # 12292 CITY PROJECT N0. a as+aaaa+aa a +aaaaaaaaa a aaaraaaaaaaaa+aa 993d a ..••••.•.... BID UNIT BID • QUANTITY aaaaaaaaaa a 8 aaaaaaaaaaraaraa AMOUNT a araaaaaaaaaaaaaa PREVIOUS • araaaaaaaaaaaaaa AMOUNT QUANTITY SIZE a aaaaaaaaaa a aaaaaaaaaa aaaa+aaaaaasa+aaa .AMOUNT a TO DATE aaaaaaaaaa a PAID aaaaaaaaaa + TO DATE aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa PAID + aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa THIS PHT. •aaaa• aaaaaaaa - 1.0 L.S. $15,400.00 1.00 100.008 $15,400.00 $15,400.00 : $0.00 1.0 SIT $35,000.00 1.00 100.008 $35,000.00 : $35,000.00 $0.00 300.0 CY $12,000.00 300.00 100.008 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $0.00 - 185.0 TONS $9,250.00 338.45 182.958 $16,922.50 $16,922.50 $0.00 100.0 TONS $9,000.00 93.12 93.128 $8,380.80 $8,380.80 $0.00 - 36.0 L.F. $1,620.00 43.00 119.448 $1,935.00 $1,935.00 $0.00 340.0 L.F. $15,300.00 340.00 100.008 $15,300.00 $15,300.00 $0.00 450.0 S. F. $3,150.00 475.00 105.568 $3,325.00 $3,325.00 $0.00 116.0 L.F. $5,220.00 118.00 101.728 $5,310.00 $5,310.00 $0.00 1.0 L.S. $2,000.00 1.00 100.008 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 20.0 L.F. $960.00 20.00 100.008 $960.00 $960.00 $0.00 95.0 L.F. $5,700.00 95.00 100.008 $5,700.00 $5,700.00 $0.00 1.0 SITE $1,000.00 1.00 100.008 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $0.00 13.0 EACH $1,950.00 13.00 100.008 $1,950.00 $1,950.00 $0.00 1.0 L.S. $18,000.00 1.00 100.008 $18,000.00 $18,000.00 $0.00 1.0 L.S. $19,000.00 1.00 100.008 $19,000.00 $19,000.00 $0.00 ORIGINAL BID $154,550.00 1 L.S. ($400.00) 1.0 100.008 ($400.00) ($400.00) $0.00 1 L.S. ($1,000.00) 1.0 100.008 ($1,000.00) ($1,000.00) $0.00 1 L.S. ($400.00) 1.0 100.008 ($400.00) ($400.00) $0.00 1 L.S. $1,930.00 1.0 100.008 $1,930.00 $1,930.00 $0.00 1 L.S. $2,140.00 1.0 100.008 $2,140.00 $2,140.00 - $0.00 1 L.S. $1,450.00 1.0 100.008 $1,450.00 $1,450.00 $0.00 - 1 L.S. $375.00 1.0 100.008 $375.00 $0.00 $375.00 1 L.S. $583.00 1.0 100.008 $683.00 $0.00 $683.00 CHANGE ORDERS a aaaaaaaaaa a aasaaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa $4,778.00 a aaaaaaaaaa a aaaaaaaaaa a+aaaaaaaaaaaaa _ SUBTOTAL + •*+......*•* + $158,270.00 aaaa••*++ ; ++•aaaa+++ - ; $166,961.30 a +aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a $165,903.30 aaraaaaaaaaaaaaa $1,058.00 LESS TEN PERCENT RETENTION +++•+*+++ +++++++++ ($16,696.13) ($16,590.33) ($105.80) *(aaa+aaaaaa a aaaaaa+.aa a a+araraaaaa..aaa SUBTOTAL WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS .aaaaaaaaaa : +**aaaa+++ :aaaaaaaaaa : ---------------- +*aaaa+++ $150,265.17 ---------------- $149,312.97 ---------------- $952.20 AMOUNT DUE FROM CONTRACTOR 'aaaaaaaaaa a aaaaaaaaa+ra aaaaaaaaa+aaaaaa • +++'•+++++ .aaaaaaaaaa : ++++++++++ .aaaaaaaaaa ---------------- $0.00 $0.00 ---------------- $0.00 ---------------- TOTAL THIS PERIOD aaaa+**+++*aaaaa aaaaaaaaa aaaaaaaaa $150,265.17 $149,312.97 $982.20 I HEARBY ACCEPT THESE QUANTITIES AS FINAL, PROECT COMPLETE, SIGNED DAT INTERSTATE GRADING AND PAVING, INC. SAA PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORY\PROJECTSl9734\Progress Payments Project No. 9934.)ds, (SHEET- PROGRESS PAYMENT NO.4) 1/9/01, 1:51 PM PAGE 1 OF i RESOLUTION NO.04- 2001 ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS - PUBLIC PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS AT 1140 LAGUNA AVENUE CITY PROJECT NO. 9934 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 INTERSTATE AND GRADING PAVING, INC. under the terms of its contract with the City dated AUGUST 7, 2000, has been completed 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. 9934. 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. "e-�—�yor 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 17TH day of JANUARY , 2001, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE C� �L ':�' "1 IL,, -WD City Clerk S:\A Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\PROJECTS\RESOLUTN.ACC.wpd �� W'60,* -, STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME �w 'Yc�R +0om q�RATW .uuc b TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: January 9, 2001 00 APPROVED FROM: Parks & Recreation Director BY SUBJECT: SERVICE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT THE AGENDA ITEM # 8 e MTG. DATE 1/17/01 URLINGAME GOLF CENTER RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the proposal to serve alcoholic beverages as submitted by VB Golf LLC and that the Council grant an encroachment permit for such service as authorized in Code Section 10.20.010c. It is further recommended that this approval be conditioned with an annual review beginning twelve (12) months after the issuance of an on -sale license by the State Alcoholic Beverage Control Department and that the Parks & Recreation Director be authorized to extend the permit annually if he finds the performance of VB Golf LLC to be satisfactory during the review period. BACKGROUND: The current Agreement for Operation of the Burlingame Golf Center by VB Golf states that "alcoholic beverages are not permitted in City parks, per City Ordinance. However, City may allow the sale of beer and wine in the snack bar area only, if Operator proposes a plan to closely monitor and control the sales and consumption of the alcoholic beverages." The proposed plan (Exhibits A, B and C) is offered by VB Golf. The proposed plan calls for restricting the sale of alcoholic beverages to the cafe located in the Golf Center building. VB Golf proposes to prohibit the removal of alcoholic beverages through the north door to the Soccer Center area or through the south door to the parking lots. Patrons would be permitted to consume alcoholic beverages anywhere on the tee line or in the short game practice area. Food and non-alcoholic beverages are currently permitted in those same areas. Many public golf facilities permit the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages from a "beer cart" on the golf course or in other course areas. VB Golf does permit to players to consume alcoholic beverages on the golf course and on the practice areas at the Mariners Point Golf Links in Foster City. Staff has confirmed with the Foster City Police Department that there have been no reported instances of problems related to the sale or consumption of alcohol to date at the Mariners Point Golf Links. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Proposal Submitted by VB Golf LLC Exhibit B - Map Describing Proposed Limits of Alcoholic Beverage Consumption Exhibit C - Proposed Location for Two Signs Restricting Alcoholic Beverage Consumption BUDGET IMPACT: Some additional revenue will come to the City of Burlingame since the City receives 2% of the gross sales derived from food and beverage sales. 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 Serve Beer and Wine on Premises Dear John: VB Golf would like the opportunity to serve beer and wine at The Burlingame Golf Center. Throughout the past several months, we have been able to observe the traffic flow of patrons at the golf and soccer center and believe we can contain the consumption of beer and wine that is purchased at the Burlingame Golf Center cafe within the golf center grounds. Through signage, current restricted fencing and strict staff supervision, we believe that this can be accomplished. We propose the sale of beer in cans and bottles, and wine by the glass, or by the bottle if uncorked. Furthermore, California Driver's licenses or Passports will be required as ID if a customer looks to be under 35 years of age. We have shown responsibility in serving alcohol at Mariners Point Golf Links and Practice Center and have not had any issues with authorities regarding the use or abuse of alcohol. Enclosed are maps denoting the restricted area and location of signs. We would like to place this matter on the Burlingame City Council agenda as soon as possible so that with approval, we can subsequently apply for license with the Alcohol Beverage Control Board. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, VBif LLCC��--�( William K. VerBrugge " cc: James Nantell Chris Aliaga bw 5j6rj _"No A t- CO 0 NAA 'TH A N CN I TE C TU R[ '7 A FOOD SERVICE AREAtn SEE EXHIBIT J -A6n=a- 0n c: �Y5 A MUM �;� I a I 4 BUILDING FLOOR PLAN BURLINGAME GOLF PRACTICE Cl co JUNE 2, 1998 'fA r -KI AJ4 lk T 0 MA WK*tAXL IL��T a < CH"ll ,= C) A3 m z $4411 = A3 Tw 3I0 -3]j -229l n. zip -]]r -tris r TJ VAJI MOM A AlSOCUTTI, 4" ��MD ..T UmlI`4 " f4411 T. sko-U3-Ol73 r.. 310-63]-t727 MUM �;� I a I 4 BUILDING FLOOR PLAN BURLINGAME GOLF PRACTICE Cl co JUNE 2, 1998 'fA r -KI AJ4 lk T r 3 'ER -n 14 fWW NORTH m 0 -n C) A3 m z m r 3 'ER -n 14 fWW NORTH m RESOLUTION NO.05-2000 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING THE PLAN PROPOSED BY VB GOLF LLC FOR THE SERVICE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES AT THE BURLINGAME GOLF CENTER AND AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT WHEREAS, pursuant to Burlingame Municipal Code Section 10.20.010c, the Burlingame City Council is empowered to issue City encroachment permits for the sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages in public places with a direct connection to a bona fide public eating place, and WHEREAS, VB Golf LLC is under contract with the City of Burlingame to maintain and operate the Burlingame Golf Center on behalf of the City, and WHEREAS, VB Golf LLC has proposed a plan for the service and control of alcoholic beverages as authorized in the contract for the maintenance and operation of the Golf Center, and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that the plan submitted for the service and control of alcoholic beverages appears to be reasonable and appropriate, and WHEREAS, the City Council believes that users of the Golf Center may, from time to time, enjoy the opportunity to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages at the Golf Center, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine and find as follows: VB Golf LLC is authorized to proceed and obtain the necessary approvals from the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control and to commence, when an encroachment permit has been issued by the City Manager, with the service of alcoholic beverages, so long as State and local law and procedures and the proposed plan are followed in every respect. 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 17 th day of JANUARY , 2001 and was adopted by the following vote: AYES COUNCILMEM 3ERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE City Clerk l� CITY 0� REPORT gURLINGAME STAFF TO: Honorable Ma yor and Council DATE: Janua 8 2001 AGENDA $f ITEM # MTG. DATE 117!2001 FROM: Lar E. Anderson Cit Attorne INGAME URGING SUPPORT OF SPECIAL TAX FOR THE BURI-- SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION: 2001, ballot to fund programs of the Adopt resolution urging support of the special tax on the March 6, Burlingame Elementary School District. DISCUSSION: The Board of Trustees of the Burlingame Elementary School District has placed a special tax before the voters for approval in the March 2001 election. o ch The proposed special tax would replace the current parcel tax. The oa aims and specialists needed to tea attract and retain highly qualified teachers and staff; fund special p $ the program; create programs that integrate technology into the core curriculum; and maintain fiscal solvency. Mayor Galligan asked that this resolution be brought to the Council for approval to demonstrate the Council's support for sustainable funding of the School District. Attachment Proposed Resolution rA, CITYfO BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable MUor and Council DATE: January 8 2001 AGENDA 8f ITEM # MTG. DATE 1/17/2001 FROM: Larry E Anderson City Attorney SUBJECT: RESOLUTION URGING SUPPORT OF SPECIAL TAX FOR THE BURLINGAME FI.F.WNTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution urging support of the special tax on the March 6, 2001, ballot to fund programs of the Burlingame Elementary School District. DISCUSSION: The Board of Trustees of the Burlingame Elementary School District has placed a special tax before the voters for approval in the March 2001 election. The proposed special tax would replace the current parcel tax. The Board intends to use the tax revenues to attract and retain highly qualified teachers and staff, fund specialized programs and specialists needed to teach the program; create programs that integrate technology into the core curriculum; and maintain fiscal solvency. Mayor Galligan asked that this resolution be brought to the Council for approval to demonstrate the Council's support for sustainable funding of the School District. Attachment Proposed Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 06-2000 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME URGING SUPPORT OF THE SPECIAL TAX PLACED BEFORE THE VOTERS ON MARCH 6, 2001, BY THE BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT WHEREAS, the Burlingame Elementary School District provides quality educational programs and services the citizens of the City; and WHEREAS, the District's current parcel tax will expire shortly; and WHEREAS, the funding difficulties posed by the State government mean that the District will be unable to adequately fund the level, quality, and scope of programs in the elementary schools that the City's citizens expect and deserve; and WHEREAS, the Board of Trustees of the Burlingame Elementary School District has placed a special tax on the ballot for March 6, 2001, to raise local, sustainable funds to operate the District; and WHEREAS, this tax is vital to the District's provision of quality education to all students, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The City Council urges citizens to vote in favor of the Special Tax Measure for the Burlingame Elementary School District. 4ayor 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 17 th day of JANUARY , 2001, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: SPINELLI ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE (171". �J L )Cum City Clerk D:\wp51\Files\RESOklistbond4.scl.wpd REPORTSTAFF 0 gPOgsTED , TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL S DATE: JANUARY 6, 2001 B A FROM: PUBLIC WORKS B' SUBJECT AGENDA ITEM # 8 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE ADOPTION OF DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM AND OVERALL ANNUAL DBE GOAL FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2000/2001 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the attached resolution be approved which establishes a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program in accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 49 CFR Part 26; "participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprise regulations in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs" and a DBE goal of 10% for the period of October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001. BACKGROUND: In April, 2000 the City approved a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) program and goal. The program is required for all federally funded construction projects. However, starting from October 1, 2000, all 's - DBE r has developed the DBE program and goal under Federal guidelines and they have been tentatively approved by the Department of Transportation, State of California. The City will need to adopt this program and goal to achieve final approval. EXHIBITS: Resolution, DBE program and goal BUDGET IMPACT: None. Donald Chang, PE Senior Civil Engineer c: City Clerk, City Attorney S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\dbe01.wpd RESOLUTION NO. 07-2001 ADOPTION OF A DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM AND GOAL OF 10% FOR PERIOD OF OCTOBER 1 2000 TO SEPTEMBER 30 2001 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, Federal law requires the City Council to establish the City's Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program; and WHEREAS, Federal law requires the City to establish goals for participation on an annual basis; and WHEREAS, a continued goal of 10 % is appropriate in the community and for the level of work expected during the coming year, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The new Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program shall be adopted. 2. The Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Goal for the period of October 1, 2000, to September 30, 2001, shall be 10%. ..may U1. 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 17TH day of JANUARY , 2001, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O"MAHONY, SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE City Clerk CIT, vp Y OF B UiRKLING,, AMx Draft DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTIRPRISE PROGRAM Submitted in conformance with Title 49 Code of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 26 Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual and Caltrans Local Programs Procedures I , . DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE PROGRAM CITY OF BURLINGAME Definitions of Terms The terms used in this Program have the meanings defined in Title 49 CFR §26.5. Objectives /Policy Statement (§§26.1, 26.23) The City of Burlingame has established a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Program in accordance with regulations of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), 49 CFR Part 26; "Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Regulations in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs". The City of Burlingame receives Federal financial assistance from the DOT, and as a condition of receiving this assistance, the City of Burlif,game will sign an assurance that it will comply with 49 CFR Part 26. 1i It is the policy of the City of Burlingame to ensure that DBEs, as defined in CFR Part 26, have an equal opportunity to receive and participate in DOT -assisted contracts. It is also our policy: • To ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts; • To create a level playing field on which DBEs can compete fairly for DOT - assisted contracts; • To ensure that the DBE Program is narrowly tailored in accordance with applicable laws; • To ensure that only firms that fully meet 49 CFR Part 26 eligibility standards are permitted to participate as DBEs; • To help remove barriers impacting the participation of DBEs in DOT -assisted contracts; and • To assist in the development of DBEs firms to enable them to compete successfully in the market place outside the DBE Program. Mr. Donald Chang has been delegated as the DBE Liaison Officer for the City of Burlingame. In this capacity, Mr. Chang is responsible for implementing all aspects of the DBE Program. Implementation of the DBE Program is accorded the same priority as compliance with all other legal obligations incurred by the City of Burlingame in its financial assistance agreements with the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 1 The City of Burlingame has disseminated this policy statement to the City of Burlingame City Council and all the components of our organization. We have distributed this statement to DBE and non -DBE business communities that perform work for us on DOT -assisted contracts. III. Nondiscrimination (§26.7) The City of Burlingame will not exclude any person from participation in, deny any person the benefits of, or otherwise discriminate against anyone in connection with the award and performance of any contract covered by Title 49 CFR Part 26 on the basis of race, color, sex, or national origin. In administering its DBE Program, the City of contractual or other arrangements, use criteria the effect of defeating or substantially impairing DBE program with respect to individuals of a origin. IV. DBE Program Updates (§26.21) Burlingame will not, directly or through or methods of administration that have accomplishment of the objectives of the particular race, color, sex, or national The City of Burlingame will continue to carry out this Program until we have established a new goal setting methodology or until significant changes to this DBE Program are adopted. The City of Burlingame will provide to Caltrans a proposed overall annual goal and goal setting methodology and other program updates by June 1 of every year. V. Quotas (§26.43) The City of Burlingame will not use quotas or set -asides in any way in the administration of this DBE Program. VI. DBE Liaison Officer (DBELO) (§26.45) The City of Burlingame has designated the following individual as the DBE Liaison Officer: Donald Chang, Senior Civil Engineer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 (650)558-7238 In this capacity, Mr. Chang is responsible for implementing all aspects of the DBE Program and ensuring that the City of Burlingame complies with all provisions of Title 49 CFR Part 26; "Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Regulations in Department of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs". This is available on the Internet at osdbuweb.dot.gov/main.cfm. Mr. Chang has direct, independent access to City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 2 the City Manager concerning DBE Program matters. An organization chart displaying the DBELO's position in the organization is found in Exhibit A to this Program. The DBE Liaison Officer is responsible for developing, implementing and monitoring the DBE Program, in coordination other appropriate officials. Duties and responsibilities include the following: `- 1. Gathers and reports statistical data and other information as required. 2. Reviews third party contracts and purchase requisitions for compliance with this Program. 3. Works with all departments to set overall annual goals for DBE participation in DOT - assisted contracts. 4. Ensures that bid notices and requests for proposals are available to DBEs in a timely manner. 5. Identifies contracts and procurements' to ensure DBE goals are included in solicitations when warranted (both race -neutral methods and rnntrart specific goals) and monitors results. 6. Analyzes the City of Burlingame's progress toward goal attainment and identifies ways to improve progress. 7. Participates in pre-bid meetings. 8. Advises the CEO/governing body on DBE matters and achievement. 9. Chairs the DBE Advisory Committee. 10. Determines contractor compliance with good faith efforts. 11. Provides DBEs with information and assistance in preparing bids, obtaining bonding and insurance. 12. Plans and participates in DBE training seminars. 13. Provides outreach to DBEs and community organizations to advise them of DOT contracting opportunities. VII. Federal Financial Assistance Agreement Assurance (§26.13) The City of Burlingame will sign the following assurance, applicable to all DOT -assisted contracts and their administration as part of the program supplement agreement for each project: City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 3 The City of Burlingame shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and performance of any DOT -assisted contract or in the administration of its DBE Program or the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26. The City of Burlingame shall take all necessary and reasonable steps under 49 CFR Part 26 to ensure nondiscrimination in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts. The City of Burlingame's DBE Program, as required by 49 CFR --Part 26 and as approved by DOT, is incorporated by reference in this agreement. Implementation of this Program is a legal obligation and failure to carry out its terms shall be treated as a violation of this agreement. Upon notification to the City of Burlingame of its failure to carry out its approved Program, the Department may impose sanctions as provided for under Part 26 and may, in appropriate cases, refer the matter for enforcement under 18 U.S.C. 1001 and/or the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act of 1986 (31 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.). VIII. DBE Financial Institutions It is the policy of the City of Burlingame to igvestigate the full extent of services offered by financial institutions owned and controlled by socially and economically disadvantaged individuals in the community, to make reasonable efforts to use these institutions, and to encourage prime contractors on DOT -assisted contracts to make use of these institutions. Information on the availability of such institutions can be obtained from the DBE Liaison Officer. The Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program may offer assistance to the DBE Liaison Officer. IX. DBE Directory (§26.31) The City of Burlingame will refer interested persons to the DBE directory available from the Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program website at www. dot.ca.gov/hg/bep. X. Overconcentration (§26.33) The City of Burlingame has not identified any types of work in DOT -assisted contracts that have an overconcentration of DBE participation. If in the future, the City of Burlingame identifies the need to address overconcentration, measures for addressing overconcentration will be submitted to the DLAE for approval. XI. Business Development Programs (§26.35) The City of Burlingame does not have a business development or Mentor -Protege Program. If the City of Burlingame identifies the need for such a program in the future, the rationale for adopting such a program and a comprehensive description of it will be submitted to the DLAE for approval. City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 4 XII. Required Contract Clauses (§§26.13, 26.29) Contract Assurance The City of Burlingame ensures that the following clause is placed in every DOT - assisted contract and subcontract: "The contractor or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The contractor shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 in the award and administration of DOT -assisted contracts. Failure by the contractor to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy as recipient deems appropriate." Prompt Payment The City of Burlingame ensures that the follgwing clauses or equivalent will be included in each DOT -assisted prime contract: Satisfactory Performance The prime contractor agrees to pay each subcontractor under this prime contract for satisfactory performance of its contract no later than 10 days from the receipt of each payment the prime contractor receives from the City of Burlingame. Any delay or postponement of payment from the above referenced time frame may occur only for good cause following written approval of the City of Burlingame. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. Release of Retainage The prime contractor agrees further to release retainage payments to each subcontractor within 30 days after the subcontractor's work is satisfactorily completed. Any delay or postponement of payment from the above referenced time frame may occur only for good cause following written approval of the City of Burlingame. This clause applies to both DBE and non -DBE subcontractors. Ongoing Compliance Monitoring It is the responsibility of the prime contractor to provide evidence of all subcontractor payments in accordance with the above stated Prompt Payment Provisions. The prime contractor shall provide access to such records at the request of the City of Burlingame.. The City of Burlingame will conduct periodic reviews as necessary to ensure full compliance. City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 5 XIII. Monitoring and Enforcement Mechanisms (§26.37) The City of Burlingame will assign a Resident Engineer (RE) or Contract Manager to monitor and track actual DBE participation through contractor and subcontractor reports of payments in accordance with the following: After Contract Award After the contract award, the City of Burlingame will review the award documents for the portion of items each DBE and first tier subcontractor will be performing and the dollar value of that work. With these documents the RE/Contract Manager will be able to determine the work to be performed by the DBEs or subcontractors listed. Pre -construction Conference A pre -construction conference will be scheduled between the RE and the prime contractor or their representative to discus�S the work each DBE subcontractor will perform. i Before work can begin on a subcontract, the City of Burlingame will require the contractor to submit a completed "Subcontracting Request," Exhibit 16-B of Caltrans' Local Assistance Program Manual (LAPM) or equivalent. When the RE receives the completed form it will be checked for agreement of the first tier subcontractors and DBEs to ensure DBE goal commitment are adhered to. The RE will not approve the request when it identifies someone other than the DBE or first tier subcontractor listed in the previously completed "Local Agency Bidder DBE Information," Exhibit 15-G of Caltrans' LAPM. The "Subcontracting Request" will not be approved until all discrepancies are resolved. If an issue cannot be resolved at that time, or there is some other concern, the RE will require the contractor to eliminate the subcontractor in question before signing the subcontracting request. A change in the DBE or first tier subcontractor may be addressed during a substitution process at a later date. Suppliers, vendors, or manufacturers listed on the "Bidder DBE Information" will be compared to those listed in the completed Exhibit 16-1 of Caltrans' LAPM or equivalent. Differences must be resolved by either making corrections or requesting a substitution. Substitutions will be subject to the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (FPA). Local agencies will require contractors to adhere to the provisions within Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act (State Law) Sections 4100-4144. FPA requires the contractor to list all subcontractors in excess of one half of one percent (0.5%) of the contractor's total bid or $10,000, whichever is greater. The statute is designed to prevent bid shopping by contractors. The FPA explains that a contractor may not substitute a subcontractor listed in the original bid except with the approval of the awarding authority. City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 6 The RE will give the contractor a blank "Final Report Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises, First Tier Subcontractors', Exhibit 17-F of Caltrans' LAPM, and will explain to them that the document will be required at the end of the project, for which payment can be withheld, in conformance with the contract. Construction Contract Monitoring The RE will ensure that the RE's staff (inspectors) know what items of work each DBE is responsible for performing. Inspectors will notify the RE immediately of apparent violations. When a firm other than the listed DBE subcontractor is found performing the work, the RE will notify the contractor of the apparent discrepancy and potential loss of payment. Based on the contractor's response, the RE will take appropriate action: The DBE Liaison Officer will perform a preliminary investigation to identify any potential issues related to the DBE subcontractor performing a commercially useful function. Any substantive issues will be forwarded to the Caltrans Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program. If the contractor fails to adequ2ltely explain why there is a discrepancy, payment for the work will be withheld and a letter will be sent to the contractor referencing the applicable specification violation and the required withholding of payment. If the contract requires, the submittal of a monthly trucking document, the contractor will be required to submit documentation to the RE showing the owner's name; California Highway Patrol CA number; and the DBE certification number of the owner of the truck for each truck used during that month for which DBE participation will be claimed. The trucks will be listed by California Highway Patrol CA number in the daily diary or on a separate piece of paper for documentation. The numbers are checked by inspectors regularly to confirm compliance. Substitution When a DBE substitution is requested, the RE/Contract Manager will request a letter from the contractor explaining why substitution is needed. The RE/Contract Manager must review the letter to be sure names and addresses are shown, dollar values are included, and reason for the request is explained. If the RE/Contract Manager agrees to the substitution and with concurrence of the substitution of the DBE Liaison Officer, the RE/Contract Manager will notify, in writing, the DBE subcontractor regarding the proposed substitution and procedure for written objection from the DBE subcontractor in accordance with the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act. If the contractor is not meeting the contract goal with this substitution, the contractor must provide the required good faith effort to the RE/Contract Manager for local agency consideration. If there is any doubt in the RE/Contract Manager's mind regarding the requested substitution, the RE/Contract Manager may contact the DLAE for assistance and direction. City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 7 Record Keeping and Final Report Utilization of Disadvantaged Business Enterprises The contractor shall maintain records showing the name and address of each first-tier subcontractor. The records shall also show: 1. The name and business address, regardless of tier, of every DBE subcontractor, DBE vendor of materials and DBE trucking company. 2. The date of payment and the total dollar figure paid to each of the firms. 3. The DBE prime contractor shall also show the date of work performed by their own forces along with the corresponding dollar value of the work claimed toward DBE goals. When a contract has been completed the contractor will provide a summary of the records stated above. The DBE utilization information will be documented on Exhibit 17-F of Caltrans' LAPM and will be submitted to the DLAE attached to the Report of Expenditures. The RE will compare the comoleted Exhibit 17-F of Caltrans' LAPM to the contractor's completed Exhibit 15-G of Caltrans' LAPM and, if applicable, to the completed Exhibit 16-B of Caltrans' LAPM. The DBEs shown on the completed Exhibit 17-F of Caltrans' LAPM should be the same as those originally listed unless an authorized substitution was allowed, or the contractor used more DBEs and they were added. The dollar amount should reflect any changes made in planned work done by the DBE. The contractor will be required to explain in writing why the names of the subcontractors, the work items or dollar figures are different from what was originally shown on the completed Exhibit 15-G of Caltrans' LAPM when: • There have been no changes made by the RE. • The contractor has not provided a sufficient explanation in the comments section of the completed Exhibit 17-F of Caltrans' LAPM. The explanation will be attached to the completed Exhibit 17-F for submittal. The RE will file this in the project records. The City of Burlingame's DBE Liaison Officer will keep track of the DBE certification status on the Internet at www.dot.ca.gov/hgfbep and keep the RE informed of changes that affect the contract. The RE will require the contractor to act in accordance with existing contractual commitments regardless of decertification. The DLAE will use the PS&E checklist to monitor City of Burlingame's commitment to require bidders list information to be submitted to the City of Burlingame from the awarded prime and subcontractors as a means to develop a bidders list. This monitoring will only take place if the bidders list information is required to be submitted as stipulated in the special provisions. City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 8 The City of Burlingame will bring to the attention of the DOT through the DLAE any false, fraudulent, or dishonest conduct in connection with the program, so that DOT can take the steps (e.g., referral to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution, referral to the DOT Inspector General, action under suspension and debarment or Program Fraud and Civil Penalties rules) provided in §26.109. The City of Burlingame also will consider similar action under our own legal authorities, including responsibility determinations in future contracts. XIV. Overall Goals (§26.45) Amount of Goal The City of Burlingame's Overall Annual Goal for the Federal fiscal year (FFY) 2000/2001 is the following: 10% of the Federal financial assistance in DOT -assisted contracts. This overall goal is broken down into 8% race -conscious and 2% race - neutral components. Methodology Projecting Federal Assisted Contract Awards/Expenditures for Federal Fiscal Year In conjunction with the preparation and adoption of the budget for each fiscal year, the DBE Liaison Officer, in consultation with the appropriate divisions and departments responsible for contracting activities, will conduct a thorough analysis of the projected number, types of work by industry disciplines and dollar amounts of contracting opportunities that will be funded, in whole or in part, by DOT federal financial assistance for that year. STEP 1: Establishing a Base Figure Once the City of Burlingame defines its DOT -assisted contracting program and relevant market areas for the fiscal year, the City of Burlingame will establish a Base Figure following one of the methodologies outlined in Title 49 CFR Part 26 and Caltrans' Local Assistance Procedures Manual. For federal fiscal year 2000/01, to determine the Base Figure of relative availability of DBEs, City of Burlingame embraced a methodology, which included a calculation and an analysis of the ratio of all available (ready, willing and able) established DBE firms as compared to all available established firms within City of Burlingame's market area. This was accomplished by utilizing the Caltrans on-line Bulletin Board System (BBS) DBE Directory of Certified Firms as its numerator and the 1998 U.S. Census Bureau County Business Patterns (CBP) Database as its denominator. Comparisons were made by corresponding zip codes within City of Burlingame's market area and by the following specified industries: City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 9 Categories: Highway & Street Construction and Concrete Work The City of Burlingame further weighted the resultant figure based on the amount of DOT -federal assistance the City of Burlingame is projected to award and/or expend on various industries in establishing the Base Figure. STEP 2: Adjusting the Base Figure As a mandatory second step, the City of Burlingame will survey other relevant market data to consider adjusting the Base Figure established. Indicators that City of Burlingame may determine to be relevant to its market, may include, but not be limited to: 1. Demonstrated evidence of DBE capacity to perform work in the City of Burlingame's federally assisted and non -federally assisted contracting program; 2. The number, types and dollar value of, pntracting opportunities projected to be financed with federal funds and to be ay6(ded during the federal fiscal year. 3. The City of Burlingame's Bidders List. 4. Other recipients' goal results in similar contracting opportunities and markets, and the reasons for the level of those results. 5. The methods used by the City of Burlingame to increase DBE participation in federally assisted contracts. 6. The demographics and business activity of the geographical area in which the City of Burlingame will solicit bids or proposals. 7. The data from statistical disparities of DBEs to obtain financing, bonding and insurance requirements. 8. The data on employment and self-employment, education and training programs, to the extent the City of Burlingame can relate it to the opportunities for DBEs to perform in the City of Burlingame's DBE Program. Breakout of Estimated Race -Neutral and Race -Conscious Participation The City of Burlingame shall achieve the overall annual goals for DBE participation through a combination of race -neutral and race -conscious measures including the use of contract -specific goals as needed to meet its overall annual DBE goal. Race -Neutral Measures The City of Burlingame intends to use race -neutral measures to the extent feasible to achieve its overall annual goal. The City of Burlingame will use the following measures as appropriate to facilitate DBE and other small business participation in the City of Burlingame's contracting program: City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 10 (a) Configuring large contracts into smaller contracts when feasible, which would make contracts more accessible to small businesses, and would not impose significant additional cost, delay or risk to the City of Burlingame; (b) Contractors will be encouraged to consider subcontractors for components of the work for which there is a known supply of ready, willing, and able subcontractors, including DBE subcontractors, in preparing their -bids; (c) Assisting in overcoming limitations in bonding and financing; (d) Providing technical assistance in orienting small businesses to public contracting procedures, use of the Internet, and facilitating introductions to the City of Burlingame's and other U.S. DOT recipients' contracting activities; and (e) Providing outreach and communications programs on contract procedures and contract opportunities to ensure the inclusion of DBEs and other small businesses. Race -Conscious Measures Goals (section 26.51) The City of Burlingame will annually consjS�r various factors to project levels of DBE participation to be met through race -conscious measures and will use race -conscious measures such as contract -specific goals to meet that portion of the overall goal which is not likely to be met utilizing race -neutral measures. The City of Burlingame shall monitor and adjust the estimated utilization of race -neutral and race -conscious measures as required in accordance with regulatory guidelines. Process Starting with the Federal fiscal year 2002, the amount of overall goal, the method to calculate the goal, and the breakout of estimated race -neutral and race -conscious participation will be required annually by June 1 in advance of the Federal fiscal year beginning October 1 for FHWA-assisted contracts. Submittals will be to the Caltrans' DLAE. An exception to this will be if FTA or FAA recipients are required by FTA or FAA to submit the annual information to them or a designee by another date. FHWA recipients will follow this process: Once the DLAE has responded with preliminary comments and the comments have been incorporated into the draft overall goal information, the City of Burlingame will publish a notice of the proposed overall goal, informing the public that the proposed goal and its rationale are available for inspection during normal business hours at the City of Burlingame's principal office for 30 days following the date of the notice, and informing the public that the City of Burlingame comments will be accepted on the goals for 45 days following the date of the notice. Advertisements in newspapers, minority focus media, trade publications, and websites will be the normal media to accomplish this effort. The notice will include addresses to which comments may be sent and addresses (including offices and websites) where the proposal may be reviewed. City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 11 The overall goal resubmission to the Caltrans DIRE, will include a summary of information and comments received during this public participation process and the City of Burlingame's responses. This will be due by September 1 to the Caltrans DIRE. The DLAE will have a month to make a final review so the City of Burlingame may begin using the overall goal on October 1 of each year. XV. Contract Goals (§26.51) The City of Burlingame will use contract goals to meet any portion of the overall goal City of Burlingame does not project being able to meet by the use of race -neutral means. Contract goals are established so that, over the period to which the overall goal applies, they will cumulatively result in meeting any portion of the overall goal that is not projected to be met through the use of race -neutral means. Contract goals will be established only on those DOT -assisted contracts that have subcontracting possibilities. Contract goals need not be established on every such contract, and the size of contract goals will adapted to the circumstances of each such contract (e.g., type and location of%York, availability of DBEs to perform the particular type of work). The contract work items will be compared with eligible DBE contractors willing to work on the project. A determination will also be made to decide which items are likely to be performed by the prime contractor and which ones are likely to be performed by the subcontractor(s). The goal will then be incorporated into the contract documents. Contract goals will be expressed as a percentage of the total amount of a DOT -assisted contract. XVI. Transit Vehicle Manufacturers (§26.49) If DOT -assisted contracts will include transit vehicle procurements, the City of Burlingame will require each transit vehicle manufacturer, as a condition of being authorized to bid or propose on transit vehicle procurements, to certify that it has complied with the requirements of 49 CFR Part 26, Section 49. The City of Burlingame will direct the transit vehicle manufacturer to the subject requirements located on the Internet at http://osdbuweb.dot.gov/programs/dbe/dbe.htm. XVII. Good Faith Efforts (§26.53) Information to be Submitted The City of Burlingame treats bidders/offerors compliance with good faith effort requirements as a matter of responsiveness. A responsive proposal is meeting all the requirements of the advertisement and solicitation. Each solicitation for which a contract goal has been established will require the bidders/offerors to submit the following information to: City of Burlingame, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010, no later than 4:00 p.m. on or before the fourth day, not including Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays, following bid opening: City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 12 I . The names and addresses of known DBE firms that will participate in the contract; 2. A description of the work that each DBE will perform: 3. The dollar amount of the participation of each DBE firm participation 4. Written and signed documentation of commitment to use a DBE subcontractor whose participation it submits to meet a contract goal; 5. Written and signed confirmation from the DBE that it is participating in the contract as provided in the prime contractor's commitment; and 6. If the contract goal is not met, evidence of good faith efforts. Demonstration of Good Faith Efforts The obligation of the bidder/offeror is to make good faith efforts. The bidder/offeror can demonstrate that it has done so either by meeting the contract goal or documenting good faith efforts. Examples of good faith efforts are found in Appendix A to Part 26, which is attached. ; ,' The following personnel is responsible for determining whether a bidder/offeror who has not met the contract goal has documented sufficient good faith efforts to be regarded as responsive: Mr. Donald Chang. The City of Burlingame will ensure that all information is complete and accurate and adequately documents the bidder/offeror's good faith efforts before a commitment to the performance of the contract by the bidder/offeror is made. Administrative Reconsideration Within 10 days of being informed by the City of Burlingame that it is not responsive because it has not documented sufficient good faith efforts, a bidder/offeror may request administrative reconsideration. Bidder/offerors should make this request in writing to the following Reconsideration Official: Mr. Syed Murtuza, City Engineer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Telephone: (650) 558-7246 E -Mail: smurtuza@bulingame.org The Reconsideration Official will not have played any role in the original determination that the bidder/offeror did not make document sufficient good faith efforts. As part of this reconsideration, the bidder/offeror will have the opportunity to provide written documentation or argument concerning the issue of whether it met the goal or made adequate good faith efforts to do so. The bidder/offeror will have the opportunity to meet in person with the Reconsideration Official to discuss the issue of whether it met City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 13 the goal or made adequate good faith efforts to do. The City of Burlingame will send the bidder/offeror a written decision on reconsideration, explaining the basis for finding that the bidder did or did not meet the goal or make adequate good faith efforts to do so. The result of the reconsideration process is not administratively appealable to Caltrans, FHWA or the DOT. Good Faith Efforts when a DBE is Replaced on a Contract The City of Burlingame will require a contractor to make good faith efforts to replace a DBE that is terminated or has otherwise failed to complete its work on a contract with another certified DBE, to the extent needed to meet the contract goal. The prime contractor is required to notify the RE immediately of the DBE's inability or unwillingness to perform and provide reasonable documentation. In this situation, the prime contractor will be required to obtain the City of Burlingame's prior approval of the substitute DBE and to provide copies of new or amended subcontracts, or documentation of good faith fforts. If the contractor fails or refuses to comply in the time specified, the City of �2'�ingame's contracting office will issue an order stopping all or part of payment/work until satisfactory action has been taken. If the contractor still fails to comply, the contracting officer may issue a termination for default proceeding. XVIII. Counting DBE Participation (§26.55) The City of Burlingame will count DBE participation toward overall and contract goals as provided in the contract specifications for the prime contractor, subcontractor, joint venture partner with prime or subcontractor, or vendor of material or supplies. See Caltrans' Sample Boiler Plate Contract Documents previously mentioned. Also, refer to XIII: "After Contract Award." XIX. Certification (§26.83(a)) The City of Burlingame ensures that only DBE firms currently certified on the Caltrans' directory will participate as DBEs in our Program. XX. Information Collection and Reporting Bidders List The City of Burlingame will create a bidders list, consisting of information about all DBE and non -DBE firms that bid or quote on its DOT -assisted contracts. The bidders list will include the name, address, DBE/non-DBE status, age of firm, type of work provided by firm and annual gross receipts of firms. City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 14 The City of Burlingame has incorporated a Bidders List form, identified as Exhibit B, into the City of Burlingame's solicitation documents, which requires that bidders/offerors provide all required information. Monitorina Pavments to DBEs Prime contractors are required to maintain records and documents of payments to DBEs for three years following the performance of the contract.. These records will be made available for inspection upon request by any authorized representative of the City of Burlingame, Caltrans or FHWA. This reporting requirement also extends to any certified DBE subcontractor. Payments to DBE subcontractors will be reviewed by the City of Burlingame to ensure that the actual amount paid to DBE subcontractors equals or exceeds the dollar amounts stated in the schedule of DBE participation. Reporting to Caltrans The City of Burlingame will report final utilization of DBE participation to the DLAE using Exhibit 17-F of the Caltrans' LAPM. Confidentiality The City of Burlingame will safeguard from disclosure to third parties information that may reasonably be regarded as confidential business information, consistent with Federal, state, and local laws. Date: Syed Murtuza, P.E. City Engineer City of Burlingame This Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program is accepted by Signature of DLAE City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 15 APPENDIX A TO PART 26 GUIDANCE CONCERNING GOOD FAITH EFFORTS I. When, as a recipient, you establish a contract goal on a DOT -assisted contract, a bidder must, in order to be responsible and/or responsive, make—good faith efforts to meet the goal. The bidder can meet this requirement in either of two ways. First, the bidder can meet the goal, documenting commitments for participation by DBE firms sufficient for this purpose. Second, even if it doesn't meet the goal, the bidder can document adequate good faith efforts. This means that the bidder must show that it took all necessary and reasonable steps to achieve a DBE goal or other requirement of this Part, which, by their scope, intensity, and appropriateness to the objective, could reasonably be expected to obtain sufficient DBE participation, even if they were not fully successful. II. In any situation in which you have established a contract goal, part 26 requires you to use the good faith efforts mechanism of this part. As a recipient, it is up to you to make a fair and reasonable jlydgment whether a bidder that did not meet the goal made adequate good faith efforts. It is important for you to consider the quality, quantity, and intensity of the different kinds of efforts that the bidder has made. The efforts employed by the bidder should be those that one could reasonably expect a bidder to take if the bidder were actively and aggressively trying to obtain DBE participation sufficient to meet the DBE contract goal. Mere pro forma efforts are not good faith efforts to meet the DBE contract requirements. We emphasize, however, that your determination concerning the sufficiency of the firm's good faith efforts is a judgment call: meeting quantitative formulas is not required. III. The Department also strongly cautions you against requiring that a bidder meet a contract goal (i.e., obtain a specified amount of DBE participation) in order to be awarded a contract, even though the bidder makes an adequate good faith efforts showing. This rule specifically prohibits you from ignoring bona fide good faith efforts. IV. The following is a list of types of actions which you should consider as part of the bidder's good faith efforts to obtain DBE participation. It is not intended to be a mandatory checklist, nor is it intended to be exclusive or exhaustive. Other factors or types of efforts may be relevant in appropriate cases. A. Soliciting through all reasonable and available means (e.g. attendance at pre-bid meetings, advertising and/or written notices) the interest of all certified DBEs who have the capability to perform the work of the contract. The bidder must solicit this interest within sufficient time to allow the DBEs to respond to the solicitation. The bidder must determine with certainty if the DBEs are interested by taking appropriate steps to follow up initial solicitations. City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 16 B. Selecting portions of the work to be performed by DBEs in order to increase the likelihood that the DBE goals will be achieved. This includes, where appropriate, breaking out contract work items into economically feasible units to facilitate DBE participation, even when the prime contractor might otherwise prefer to perform these work items -with its own forces. C. Providing interested DBEs with adequate information about the plans, specifications, and requirements of the contract in a timely manner to assist them in responding to a solicitation. D. (1) Negotiating in good faith with interested DBEs. It is the bidder's responsibility to make a portion of the work available to DBE subcontractors and suppliers and to select those portions of the work or material needs consistent with the available DBE subcontractors and suppliers, so as to facilitate,,DBE participation. Evidence of such negotiation includes the name' t, addresses, and telephone numbers of DBEs that were considered; a description of the information provided regarding the plans and specifications for the work selected for subcontracting; and evidence as to why additional agreements could not be reached for DBEs to perform the work. (2) A bidder using good business judgment would consider a number of factors in negotiating with subcontractors, including DBE subcontractors, and would take a firm's price and capabilities as well as contract goals into consideration. However, the fact that there may be some additional costs involved in finding and using DBEs is not in itself sufficient reason for a bidder's failure to meet the contract DBE goal, as long as such costs are reasonable. Also, the ability or desire of a prime contractor to perform the work of a contract with its own organization does not relieve the bidder of the responsibility to make good faith efforts. Prime contractors are not, however, required to accept higher quotes from DBEs if the price difference is excessive or unreasonable. E. Not rejecting DBEs as being unqualified without sound reasons based on a thorough investigation of their capabilities. The contractor's standing within its industry, membership in specific groups, organizations, or associations and political or social affiliations (for example union vs. non- union employee status) are not legitimate causes for the rejection or non- solicitation of bids in the contractor's efforts to meet the project goal. F. Making efforts to assist interested DBEs in obtaining bonding, lines of credit, or insurance as required by the recipient or contractor. City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 17 G. Making efforts to assist interested DBEs in obtaining necessary equipment, supplies, materials, or related assistance or services. H. Effectively using the services of available minority/women community organizations; minority/women contractors' groups; local, state, and Federal minority/women business assistance offices; -and other organizations as allowed on a case-by-case basis to provide assistance in the recruitment and placement of DBEs. V. In determining whether a bidder has made good faith efforts, you may take into account the performance of other bidders in meeting the contract. For example, when the apparent successful bidder fails to meet the contract goal, but others meet it, you may reasonably raise the question of whether, with additional reasonable efforts, the apparent successful bidder could have met the goal. If the apparent successful bidder fails to meet the goal, but meets or exceeds the average DBE participation obtained by other bidders, you may view this, in conjunction with other factors, as evidence of the apparent successful bidder having made good faith efforts. ` City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 18 CITY OF BURLINGAME DBE PROGRAM ORGANIZATIONAL CHART CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL James Nantell City ManadOr �J Syed Murtuza City Engineer Reconsideration Official Donald Chang Sr. Civil Engineer DBE Liaison Officer * For DBE Program matters only, if necessary. EXHIBIT A City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 19 EXHIBIT B CITY OF BURLINGAME BIDDERS LIST Firm Name: I? 1� Phone: {' f Address: Fax: Contact Person: No. of years in business Is the firm currently certified as a DBE under 49 CFR Part 26? YES NO Type of work/services/materials provided by firm? Less than $1 Million Less than $5 Million Less than $10 Million Less than $15 Million More than $15 Million This form can be duplicated if necessary to report all bidders (DBEs and non -DBEs) information City of Burlingame Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program Page 20 C B ,1T Y OF HU, RIL-I" N, BURNTNG,Q►Ir ME OW E&UL, ADBE, GOAL 1OR FEDERA t RSCAL YEAR 2000/2001 Submitted %n conformance with Title 4.9 Code of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 26 Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual and Caltrans Local Programs Procedures . � u S -��_ =-... •ti pV �S•Y.°tFfW � rr f i � S_`,�. 1 !+.�'}}Y xp -.. .1 CITY OF BURLINGAME DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE (DBE) PROGRAM OVERALL ANNUAL DBE GOAL AND METHODOLOGY FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR (FFY) 2000/01 I. DOT -ASSISTED CONTRACTING PROGRAM FOR FFY 2000/01 Table 1 below represents seven DOT -assisted projects the City of Burlingame considered in the overall goal -setting process for FFY 2000/01. All projects have subcontracting opportunities and are anticipated to be awarded and/or expended within the fiscal year: Table 1 US 10I/Rollins Road Signal $654,000.00 Broadway Signal Interconnect $154,000.00 Bayswater Ave. Railroad Crossing Improvement $177,500.00 North Lane Railroad Crossing Improvement $150,000.00 California & Trousdale Resurfacing $369,000.00 Peninsula Ave. Res rfacing $404,000.00 Ba shore, Cal, Rollins and S line Resurfacing $835,000.00 it II Table 2 below provides a summary of the corresponding subspecialty work grouped into two primary categories and identifies the Estimated Federal Dollar Share and the Percent of Federal Funding of each primary work category utilizing Caltrans' Work Category Codes (WCC) and comparable 1998 Census Business Patterns database North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Work Codes. Table 2 r :.. � ..... � :..•.:. ,:,._ .� . :,. � .��..,: � t �..,x 'r s#;'1Y'� a'a'�'rtic '�•�,i �t �-�..� °h -.'in City of Burlingame Overall Annual DBE Goal Page 2 II. GOAL -SETTING PROCESS: Step I. Determination of a Base Figure for the Overall Annual Goal (26.45) To begin the goal -setting process, the City of Burlingame determined the Base Figure for the relative availability of DBEs, by following one of the five examples of approaches set forth in §26.45 of the regulations. The following data sources were immediately available to the City of Burlingame: For the numerator: The City of Burlingame utilized the Caltrans Bulletin Board System (BBS) Directory of Certified DBE Firms to determine the number of ready, willing and able DBEs in the City of Burlingame' market area (further defined as San Mateo, Alameda, San Francisco and Contra Costa Counties). For the denominator: ' The City of Burlingame utilized the 1998 U.S. Census Bureau County Business Patterns (CBP) Database to determine the number of ready, willing and able businesses available in the City of Burlingame' market area (further defined as San Mateo, Alameda, San Francisco and Contra Costa Counties). The City of Burlingame made a concerted effort to ensure that: a) The scope of businesses included in the numerator is as close as possible to the scope included in the denominator. b) The NAICs codes included in the denominator is as close as possible to the Caltrans Work Category Codes (WCC) included in the numerator. This was accomplished by utilizing the conversion table between WCC and NAICs work codes provided by Caltrans. c) The geographic base included in the numerator is as close as possible to the U.S. Census Bureau County Business Patterns Database. This was accomplished by determining the corresponding zip codes' for each county, within City of Burlingame' market area. The Base Figure was further adjusted by weighting the relative availability of DBEs within each primary work category, giving more weight to the work category the City is projected to spend more DOT -assisted dollars. The Base Figure resulting from this weighted calculation is as follows: t To further ensure that DBE firms located in the "945" zip code are in the City of Burlingame's market area, the City excluded DBE firms from the total. The DBE firms excluded were located in the Napa and Solano counties, which are outside the City of Burlingame's market area. City of Burlingame Overall Annual DBE Goal Page 3 Base Figure =190%(DBEs in C1601, C1901*) + 10%(DBEs in C5110, C7301) CBPs in NAICS 23411 ** CBPs in NAICS 23571 Base Figure =.90 121 + .10 17 1914 234 Base Figure = 90(.0632) +.10(.0726) Base Figure =1.0569 +.0073)] Base Figure = (.0642) 100 = 6.42 * For detailed listing of all Caltrans Work Categories grouped in each major category, refer to Exhibit A. * * For detailed listing of all NAICS Work Codes grouped in each major category refer to Exhibit B. *** Rounded to the whole number. + Step 2: Adjusting the Base Figure Upon establishing the Base Figure, the City of Burlingame reviewed and assessed other known relevant evidence potentially impacting the relative availability of DBE within the City of Burlingame's market area in accordance with prescribed narrow tailoring provisions set forth under 49 CFR Part 26. Evidence considered in making an adjustment to the Base Figure included the City of Burlingame's Past DBE Participation Goals and Actual Attainments on Similar Projects and Bidders List. A summary of these considerations follows: A. Proven Capacity of DBEs Measured By Actual Attainments The following tables reflects the City of Burlingame's DBE attainments on similar DOT -assisted projects, utilizing the 10% adopted goal: City of Burlingame Overall Annual DBE Goal Page 4 B. City's Bidders List While a Bidders List would serve as quantifiable evidence of DBEs demonstrated interest and capacity, the City has not established a tailored Bidders List. However, the City of Burlingame will in accordance with Caltrans procedures institute program requirements to capture such information from all bidders and will utilize all relevant information in future goal -setting analysis. Resultant Base Figure After careful consideration of the above-named evidence, particularly in the City of Burlingame's DBE participation and attainments in the similar contracting program, the Base Figure of 6% was further adjusted upward by 4% to 10%. Although there were only two evidence/factors considered, the goal -setting process is a new procedure undertaken by the City of Burlingame. For future goal -setting analysis, the City of Burlingame will have the opportunity to fine tune the process each year a_-Ahe City's experience grows and relevant data available will be available, as well as current data will improve. In conclusion, after careful consideration of the above-named evidence/factors, the Overall Annual DBE Goal for the City of Burlingame for FFY 2000/01 is 10%. II. OVERALL ANNUAL GOAL AND PROJECTION OF RACE -NEUTRAL AND RACE-CONCIOUS PARTICIPATION: The Overall Annual (FFY 2000/01) DBE Goal for the City of Burlingame' DOT -assisted contracts is 10%. The overall goal is expressed as a percentage of all DOT -assisted funds that the City of Burlingame will expend in FHWA-assisted contracts in the forthcoming fiscal year. This goal further serves to identify the relative availability of DBEs based on evidence of ready, willing, and able DBEs to all comparable firms, which are known to be available to compete for and perform on the City of Burlingame' DOT -assisted contracts. The Overall Annual Goal reflects a determination of the level of DBE participation, which would be expected absent the effects of discrimination. The City of Burlingame projects to meet the 10% of the goal utilizing race—conscious measures, including utilizing contract -specific numeric goals, as necessary to achieve the overall goal. IV. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION AND FACILATION In conformance with Public Participation Regulatory Requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 and Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM), this goal analysis will be reviewed with minority, women, local business chambers, and community organizations within the City of Burlingame' geographic market area. City of Burlingame Overall Annual DBE Goal Page 5 Additionally, the City of Burlingame will publish a Public Notice in general circulation media announcing the City of Burlingame' proposed Overall Annual Goal for the FFY 2000/01 DOT - assisted contracts. Such Notice will inform the public that the proposed goal and its rationale is available for inspection at the City of Burlingame' principal office during normal business hours for 30 days following the date of the Public Notice and that the City of Burlingame will accept comments on the goal analysis for 45 days from the date of the Public Notice. 'The required public participation provisions will be fully satisfied prior to submitting the City of Burlingame' DBE Program and Overall Annual DBE Goal to Caltrans for final review and approval. EXHIBIT A CITY OF BURLINGAME DBE GOAL ANALYSIS FOR FFY 2000/2001 # OF ESTABLISHED DBE FIRMS IN SAN MATEO, ALAMEDA, CONTRA COSTA AND SAN FRANCISCO COUNTIES CONSTRUCTION: C1201 23531 Traffic Control System C5620 23411 Roadside Sign C1601 23411, 23499 Clearing & Grubbing C1901 23593 Roadway Excavation C1910 23411 Grading C1930 23412, 23593 Structure Backfill C2201 23411 Finishing Roadway C3901 23411 Asphalt Concrete C3910 23411 Paving Asphalt C8406 23411, 23521 Painted Traffic Stripe & Marking C8602 23411 Signal & Lighting HIGHWAY & STREET CONSTRUCTION CONSTRUCTION: COUNTY ZIP CODES 2 1` 2 0 1 4 1 3 1 0 1 1 1 12 5 1 25 1 1 23 1 18 1 0 1 5 1 77 4 1 13 1 1 6 1 7 1 0 1 1 1 32 COUNTY ZIP CODES 121 C5110 23571 Concrete Surface Finish 4 4 0 5 4 0 1 0 1 17 C7301 23571 Concrete Curb & Sidewalk ` a 1 CONCRETE CONTRACTORS 17 1: DATA SOURCE: Caltrans Bulletin Board System List of DBE Certified Firms * To further ensure that DBE firms located in the "945" zip code area are in the City of Burlingame's market area, the City excluded eleven (11) DBE firms from the total. The DBE firms excluded were located in the Napa (City of Napa), and Solono (Cities of Benecia, Suisun and Vallejo) counties, which are outside City of Burlingame's market area. r Y� n EXHIBIT B CITY OF BURLINGAME DBE GOAL ANALSYSIS FOR FFY 2000/01 Cj!E"tHM�TNINAT!T°' ° # OF ESTABLISHED FIRMS IN SAN MATEO, ALAMEDA, CONTRA COSTA & SAN FRANCISCO COUNTIES: CONSTRUCTION: Major San Contra San Category: 23411: Highway & Street Construction Mateo Alameda Costa Francisco Total NAICS CODE NAICS DESCRIPTION 23411 Highway & Street Construction 1 37 34 10 98 23412 Bridge & Tunnel Construction 1 1 5 3 0 9 23499 All Other Heavy Construction 37 47 17 125 23521 Painting & Wall Covering Contractors 1 62 162 208 182 156 708 23531 Electrical Contractors 187 311 189 164 851 23593 Excavation Contractors 30 401 481 51 123 a �" ",: " : TOTAL ESTABLISHED;",.FIRMS;; 421 638 503 352 1914 23571 23571: Concrete Contractors 23571 Concrete Contractors 59 76 87 12 234 TOTAL ESTABLISHED FIRMS 59 76 87 12 234 ': DATA SOURCE: U.S. Census Bureau: County Business Patterns, NAICS Work Category Codes CenStats DataWell U.S. Censu"s Bureau CoIZII Business San Business Patterns San Mateo, CA Patterns 5 & 6 -digit NAICS for NAICS 2341 Highway, Street, Bridge & Tunnel ti Construction I'd like to s" a different year ,1998 Page 1 of 2 CenStats I'd like to see a different year 1998 CgnStats DataWell Page 1 of 3 U.S. Census -Bureau .. 1998County Business Patterns CenStats County BUS1IIeSS San Mateo, CA Patterns 5 & 6 -digit NAICS for j- NAICS 2349 Other Heavy Construction I'd like to see a different year `1998 I'd like to see a different year 10 1998 NAIC]NAICS Description Number of Employees for week including March 12 ! I� 23499F All other heavy ..... « _! All other heavy construction st Warter Annual) 2,779 15,059 2,779 15,059 10/2/00 C'WnStats DataWell Page l of 2 ensus Bureau t.._ C011II Business San Business Patterns CenStats `J San Matzo, CA Patterns 5 & 6 -digit NAICS for NAICS 2357 Concrete Contractors I'd like to see a different year `1998. - I'd like to see a different year '1'c3 Data from the County Business Patterns CAROM Source: U.S. Census Bureau QmStats DataWell Page 1 of 3 CollII BuS1IIeS3 1998County Business Patterns CenStats San Mateo, CA Patterns 5 & 6 -digit NAICS for NAICS 2359 1 Other Special Trade Contractors I1A like to see a different year 1998 I'd like to see a different year 1998 NAICS LNA.ICS Description• 2359411 Wrecking & deme 235940!1 `Nrecking& & mber of Employees for ek including March 12 Payroll ($1,000) 1st --� 7-71 83 3311 64611 3,268 I nn/nn CpStats DataWell U.S: Census Bureau ;_ r County Business Patterns 1998County Business Patterns San Mateo, CA 5 & 6 -digit NAICS for NAICS 2353 Electrical Contractors 1199819 I'd like to see a different year Page 1 of 2 CenStats I'd like to see a different year 1998 Data from the County Business Patterns CD-ROM Su4me: US. Census Bureau CenStats DataWell U.S. Census Bure- County BllS1IIeSS 1998County Business Patterns Alameda, CA Patterns 5 6c 6 -digit NAICS for NAICS 2341 Highway, Street. Bridge & Tunnel Construction '1 I'd like to see a differenLyear 998 Page 1 of 2 CenStats I'd like to see a different year 198 CenStats DataWell U.S. Census Bureau` County Business Patterns 1998County Business Patterns Alameda, CA 5 &• 6 -digit 'NMCS for NAICS 2349 Other Heavy Construction I'd like to seen different year I9 Pagel of 3 CenS tats Number of Empb;yees for 1st Total FNAICS 'NAICS Description , , Fianwe including March 12 Qu-rterEst-blishments i 23491 Water, sewer & pipeline 790 8 353 150,731 31 construction Water, sewer & pipeline 7790 8,353F50,731 31 construction Pwr, communication 23492 transmsn line construe: on 100-249 0 0 6 234920 I Pwr, communiration 100-249 0 0 6 transmsn line construction Industrial nonbuilding 23493 structure-gonst-a tion 250-499 0 0 I Industrial nonbuilding 234930 structure construction 250-499 0 0 1 I'd like to see a different year '1`996 R IM Payroll (51,000) Number of Em to ees for week 1st NAICS INAICS Description including March 12 Quarter FAnual otal stablishments - All other heavy 23499 construction11 585 5,824 33,036 32 234990 ! All ether heavy I construction 585 5,824 33,036 32 CSnStats DataWell BureauU.S.-Census f. County BllS1IIeSS 1998County Business Patterns Alameda, CA Patterns 5 & 6 -digit NIUCS for NAICS 2352 Painting & Wall Covering Contractors I'd like to see a different year 1998 Page I of 2 CenS tats -------- — — - -- -- ---- ---- /� - Payroll ($1,000) Employees far week ' 1stTotal AICS IFNmber'of INAICS Description nctading March 12 'st er [A7nnual�Estahlishments i L3521 Painting &wall covering ��_-- 1,405 7,9471 2,824 2081 23521011 Painting & wall AICS11NAICS Description 23521 Painting & wall cc 11 23521011 Painting & 1,4051 7,94 Number of Establishments 100 stabs 1-4 otal 9 ,Ij 49 99 1249 I 208 139 H1 -21DDE 1208HHE21DOE 0 0 Source: U.S. Census Bureau ment-sire class 500- Fmore or 999 .. I All Ml CenStats DataWell County Business Patterns 1998County Business Patterns Alameda, CA 5 & 6 -digit NAICS for NAICS 2357 Concrete Contractors I'd like to see a different year 1998 Page l of 2 CenStats Payroll ($1,000) NAICS Number of Employees for week 1st Total NAICS Descrption including March 12 Quarter [A:nnual Establishments `EYE o` Concrete I 23571 contractors 11466 14,07780,834 76 � ` J Concrete 235710 contractors 11466 14,077 80,834 76 Number of Establishments by Em NAICS N`�ICS Total 1- r5; r1(0- 20- 50- 100- 250 oo�c��DescriptionEstabs 4 49 99 449 499 z class 1000 or more 23571 Concrete 76 38 11 7 9 7 4 0 0 0 contractors 235710 Corcrete 76 38 I1 7 9[][:]4[:0 contracto3ts t..._. n.t— -- . ,_ ..f -'-t- -- Rl-.-:1 -..- IA1110o CenStats DataWell Page 1 of 3 County BllS1IleSS 1998County Business Patterns CenStats Alameda, CA Patterns 5 & 6 -digit NAICS for NAICS 2359 – Other Special Trade Contractors I'd like to see a different year 1.998 C NAICS NAICS Description Number df Employees for week 1Qst ilincludin, March 12 u 1 ail IEsta btic hnn -ats 23591 Structural steel erection ' 1,036 9,482 4� 23 contractors L- L____] —__] 35910] Structural steel 1 con 235921 Glass & 1,036 9,48246,91 249 2,7.5513,0C 23 Glass & glazing 235920 contractors 249 2,755 13,005 36 23593 Excavation contractors 354 3,335 23,39S 40 B 235930Excavation I'd like to see a different year 1998. 3,33511 23,39 of Employees for 1st Total NAICS NAICS Descripticn1rumber _�� Annual _ k including March 12 Quarter Establishments 1 1 W 23594 Wrecking &demolition 280 2,640 14,506 12 contractors �I 12H Wrecking & demel contra {„r..•//tim? ranenc ....../,. r.i _,..yin/rho e.��re/TinMii nvP 28011 2,64011 1 CpStats DataWell Tj�s. Census- Bureau �. County BUS1IIeSS 1998County Business Patterns Alameda, CA Patterns 5 & 6 -digit NAICS for NAICS 2353 1--1-L" nc::� Electrical Contractors I'd like to see a different year '1998 Page 1 of 2, CenStats I'd like to see a different year '1998 Data from the Counry Business Patterns CD-ROM Source: U.S. Ce+isus Bureau L.._.,,.:,,-'1 - - - --- --,__.....,i„1-.. ........-,h,,...:I ...... 10/3m0 C=Stats DataWell Page 1 of 2 Ce' sits Bureah" �. ,. County Business 1998County Contra Costa,CA CenStats ta, Patterns 5 & 6 -digit rrAres for .� NAICS 2341 Highway, Street, Bridge & Tunnel Construction I'd like to see a different year '19.98 Payroll (51,000) tion Number of`Employees for week 1st Total NAICS NAICS DescripAnnual _ including March 12 _ Quarter Establishments I s— r 23411 Hi hwa & street 1,G43 �I�1,S1G 34 construction ' a 234110 Highway & street 1,043 11,510 59,053 34! construction r 23412 Bridge & tunnel95 997 6,185 3 construction111=1li 234120 Bridge & tunnel) 95 997 6,185 3 construction Number of Establishments by Employment -size class NAICS NAICS Descri t}on Total 1- fl5-1EO-t5O 100- X50- 500- 1000 or p Estabs 44 19 249 499 999 more i 23411 Highway & street l o constructier. 34 I S 6 2 0 ti 5 0 0 C � ilk (' �{ Highway & street 234110 construction I 34 151[ 6 2 0 6 5 0 0 C 23412 Bridge & tunnel l— 3 I HEO 111, construction .234120 I Bridge & tunnel IF I'd like to see a different year 1958 CenStats DataWe:I Pagel of 3 COLZII $llS1IIeSS 1998County Business Patterns CenStats `J Contra Cost,, CA Patterns 5 & 6 -digit NAILS for _ NAICS 2349 Other Heavy Construction 11d.like to see a different year '1998 LYAICS INAICS Description I � 23491 Water, sewer & pipelinenc construction P 234910 Water, sewer & pipeline construction � 23492 Pwr, communication traasmsn line construction i234920 Pwr, communication transmsn line construction, 23493 Industrial nonbuildine structuregonstructior I6 U 234930 Industrial nonbuildinc I111 I structure constructor I'd like to see a different year -`1998. E M rer of Employees for 111st includine March 12 IlQuarter 77 535 4,299 r—� 7274 2,8331 13,915 L 274 2,833 13915 1,520 12,418 20,970 1,520 12,418 1 20,970 lishments 15 15 l:en5tats llataWell U.S.-Census-Bureau C011II Bi1S1IIeSS 1998County Business Patterns �.1 Contra Costa, CA Patterns 5&6 -di;it NAILS for NAICS 2352 Painting & Wall Covering Contractors I'd like to see a different year I 199891 Page 1 of 2 CenStats NAILS NAICS Description Number of Employees for week 1st LAnn,],l Total Iincludin^,March 12 quarter Establishments Painting &wallcovering � 23521 1,015 5,713 30,939 182 i contractors i E235210 Painting & wall covering 1,015 5,713 30,939 182 contractors Number of Establishments by Employment -size class Total 5- 10- 20- 50- IQQ- E250-500- 1000 or NAICS Description Estabs 1-4 fl 19 49 99 249 S99 more � y 23521 Painting & wall covering 182HD35718 2[][:]0 0 0 contractors I Painting & wa1.1 covering 182 120 35DOD[:]O 0 OI E235210 contractors I'd like to see a different year 1998 Data from the County Business Patterns CD-ROM Source: U.S. Census Bureau CenStats DataWell U.S. Census Bu • reau ...;' County Business Patterns 1998County Business Patterns Contra Costa, CA 5 & 6 -digit NAICS for NAICS 2357 Concrete Contractors I'd like to see a different year 1998'19 Page I of 2 CenStats I'd like to see a different year 1998- Data from the County Business Patterns CD-ROM Source: U.S. Census Bureau CPnStats DataWeil Page 1 of 3 1998County Business Patterns C011IIty Business Contra Costa, CA Patterns 5 & 6 -digit NAICS for NAICS 2359 Other Special Trade Contractors I'd like to see a different year 1998 CenStats NAICS (Number of p y Em loyees for week 1st Total NAICS Description L Annual ieluding March. 12 Quarter Establishments li 23591 It uctural steel erection 337 2,921 14,732 i 16 jcontractors Stnictural steel erection 337 2,921 14,732 16 -� 235910 contractors E23592 Glass & glazing 173 1,289[6],475( 28 contractors Glsss & glazing 173 1,289 6,475 28 235920 contractors D23593( Excavation contractors 374 3,351[2:2,2o]7 48 F2359310 r. Excavatio.ontractorsIF 374 ,F22,2o7F 48 I'd like to see a different year 1998 YAICS NAICS.Description. Number of Employees for1st Annua week including March 12 Quarter 11 23594 Wrecking & demolition 68 541 2,28 contractors 235940 I Wrecking & demolition 2359401F68 CY 541 I 2,28 hments CenStats DataWell Bureau 1998County Business Patterns County Business Contra Costa, CA Patterns 5 & 6-digitNAICS for NAICS 2353 1 -LL-1 i� Electrical Contractors I'd like to see a different year 1-998 Page 1 of 2 CenStats I'd like to see a different year 1998 Data from the CounryBusiness Patterns CD-ROM Source: U.S. Census Bureau CenStats DataWell County Business Patterns 1998County Business Patterns San Francisco, CA 5 & 6 -digit NAILS for NAICS 2341 Highway, Street, Bridge & Tunnel Construction I'd like to see a different year 1998 Page 1 of 2 CenStats Payroll ($1,000) NAILS NAILS Description Number of: mployees for week Fost FAuual Total incled;ne March 12 uarter Establishments 23411 Highway & street 277 3,187 14,483 10 construction Highway & street 234110 construction 277 3,187 14,483 10 7[NAICS Description Highway & street 23411 construction 10 2 I 1 4 21:1 [:] [:1 0 Highway & street 234110 consltuction 10 2 HUDD[:1[j[1 0 I'd like to see a different year 1998 Data from the County Business Patterns CD-ROM Source: U.S. Census Bureau h" -//ti Pr% rrncnc —d—i_win/rhn nsirc/rlrtail PYP 1(1/Z:(1(1 CenStats DataWell County Business Patterns 1998County Business Patterns San Francisco, CA 5 & 5 -digit NAICS for NAICS 2349 Other Heavy Construction I'd like to see a different year 1----- NAICS Description Page 1 of 2 CenStats Payroll (51,000) ber of Employees forJ�u`arter �� Total including March 12 IAnnualI Establishments 23491 Water, sewer & pipeline 2,909 25,429I' 91,465 9 construction '234990 All other heavy construction 250-499 0 0 17 Number of Establishments by Employment -size class NAICS NAICS Description Total I- fl5-E10-R20fl-E50-100- 250- 15C0O-1000 or Estabs 4 249 499 more qr�oli,: iii �' f, Water, sewer & pipeline 23491 construction 9 11 2DE30[]o 0 0 1 234910 Water, sewer & pipeline 9 1 2 l 3 1 0 0 0 1 construction �! �� . nii'oRFF�nnF I Pwr, communication transmsn X3492 lineconstrucron 1 � 000 0 0 0 CenStats DataWell U.S. Census Bureau-�� County Business Patterns 1998County Business Patterns San Francisco, CA 5 & 6 -digit NAICS for NAICS 2352 Painting & Wall Covering Contractors I'd like to see a different year 199$: Page 1 of 2 CenStats Payroll ($1,000) ---- Number of Employees for week 1st Total NAICS NAICS Description including March 12 1 Quarter Annual lEstablishmeZI— r— Painting & wall covering NIMONIF23521 contractors 841 6,564 33,656 i 56 235210 Painting & wall covering 841 6,564 33,656 156 contractors NAICS NAICS Description Total jEstabs J 23521 Painting & wall covering Number of Establishments by Employmert-size class 1-4 re E5- R10 - E 99 249 499 999 mo 0 or ]114 19 14 7 2 0 0 0 23521011 Painting & wall covering11 1561111411 1911 1411 7 I'd like to see a different year 1998 Data from the County Business Patterns CD-ROM Source: U.S. Ceasus Bureau 1 . 'CenStats DataWell County Business Patterns 1998County Business Patterns San Francisco, CA 5 & 6 -digit NAICS for NAICS 2357 Concrete Contractors _ I'd like to see a different year 1998 Page 1 of 2 CenStats Payroll ($1,000) NAICS Number of Employees for week FQsuar7ter t Total NAICS Description including March 2 FAnnual Establishments � ' 23571 Concrete 100-249 0 0 12 contractors i 235710 Concrete 100-249 0 0 12 contractors A4 23571 Concrete 12 5 3 2 1 1 0 0 0 0 contractors SE Concrete MI 235710 contractdfs 12 5 3 2 1 I 0 0 0 0 I'd like to see a different year ::. 8 Data from the Coun . Business Patterns CD-ROM Source: U.S. Census Bureau I nn IN 'CenStats DataWell Page 1 of 3 .., x County Business 1998County Business Patterns CenStats San Francisco, CA Patterns 5 & 6 -digit NAICS for _ NAICS 2359 Other Special Trade Contractors I'd like to see a different year EEN NAILS NA[CS Description iirclud _ 7.3591 Structural steel erection contractors 235910 Structural steel erection contractors 23592 Glass & glazing contractors 235920 Glass & glazing contractors 23593 Excavation contractors 235930 I Excavation contractors I'd like to see a different year UN 1998 �An�NAICS Description :23594 L Wrecking & det cor L_ 23594T Wrecking & dei i� Payroll ($1,000 df Employees for week 1st Annu March 12 Quarter 249 E 249 1,320 6,6 Establishment 14 14 233 1,586 X10 24 mber of Employees for ek including March 12 20-99 1,000) Annual I Total Establishments 'CenStats DataWell U.S. Census Bureau.r Court Business 1998County Business Patterns "J San Francisco, CA Patterns 5 & 6 -digit NAICS for NAICS 2353 _ Electrical Contractors I'd like to see a different year 1998 to M Page 1 of 2 CenStats Payroll ($1,00Oj NAICS NAICS Number of Emplbyees for week 1st Total Description including March 12 (quarter AIInaal retahlichm—fe 23531 Electrical 2,289 25,981 115,3 i3 164 contractors 235310 Electrical 2,289 [_L5,981 115,313 164 contractors Number of Establishments by Employment -sue class NAICS Total El-E5-JE10-j2EO-JE50-100- n4909][999 500- 1000 or Description Estabs 249 more 23531 Electrical 164 93E32DD[] 4 1 0 contractors 235310 Electrical 164 9332 ]18 11 5 4 I 0 O contractdfs I'd like to see a different year 1998 Data from the County Business Patterns CD-ROM ®1" m 8s ��® • - � pry`,'}�.�i""��,,�'�':�'4'`•i.� Source: U.S. Census Bureau http://tier2.census.gov/cgi-win/cbp_naics/Detail.exe i n/ .nn t APW CITY on STAFF REPORT BtJ j" ,AME YoTxm,�-612 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUB BY DATE: January 10, 2001 FROM: Rahn Becker, Assistant City Manager/ BY Administrative Services Director SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing Signatories on City Checks RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution as presented. BACKGROUND: AGENDA MTG. DATE 1/17/01 �7 �/ With appointment of the new city manager, the city's bank requires a new resolution showing the current signatories for checks. Facsimile signatures are used for checks under $5,000. Two original signatures are required for checks over $5,000. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 08-2001 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING SIGNATORIES TO CITY OF BURLINGAME CHECKS AND DRAFTS RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the Bank of America requires the City to adopt a resolution in order to allow City funds to be deposited with the Bank of America, and this Resolution is intended to meet that requirement, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Funds of the City of Burlingame may be deposited in the Bank of America subject to the terms of the signature card, rules of the Bank, including all amendments or additions thereto, all applicable laws and regulations and practices of the Bank in force from time to time, and all service charges now or hereafter established and allowed by law. 2. The following persons are hereby authorized to sign checks, drafts, or other orders for and on behalf of the City; the signature of one of these persons shall be required for checks, drafts, or other orders under five thousand and no/00 dollars ($5,000.00); the signature of two of these persons shall be required for checks, drafts, or other orders over five thousand and no/00 dollars ($5,000.00). #1 Chris H. Rogers #5 Ann T. Musso #2 James M. Nantell #6 Linda Freitas #3 Rahn Becker 97 Linda Lee #4 Elizabeth A. Whittemore #8 Sharon L. Jackson 3. Each of these people is hereby authorized to endorse checks, drafts, and other orders for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame for deposit, encashment, or otherwise, and the Bank of America is hereby authorized to honor and pay on account any and all checks, drafts, or other orders signed and/or endorsed herewith, or if presented unendorsed for deposit to this account with the Bank of America, to supply the required endorsement. 4. The City agrees that any sum at any time in this account with the Bank of America shall be subject to right of offset for liabilities of the City of Burlingame to the Bank of America to the extent legally permissible, and agrees further to pay the Bank of America on demand the amount of overdrafts on this account and of Bank of America current schedule of account fees and rates. S. The Bank of America is authorized to hold all statements and vouchers until called for, and if not called within thirty (30) days, the Bank of America is authorized to mail statements. YOR( 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 17 day of JANUARY 2001, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE CITY CLERK 2 $1,647,878.23 Ck. No. 73725 - 74165 (Excluding Library Ck. No. 74116 - 74165) RECOMMENDED FOR PAYMENT APPROVED FOR PAYMENT D Payroll for December 2000 $1,309,817.95 Ck. No. 132985 - 133819 *EFTS for December 2000 $317,887.86 *ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS EFT'S INCLUDE: State Withholding SDI (State Disability) PERS- Health Benefits Retirement S:\FINEXCEL\MISCELLANEOUS\COUNCILCKS.XLS Agenda Item Meeting Date t't-t-OI 1 110 CITY OF BURLINGAME ` 01-05-2001 W A R R A N T REG I ST ER PAGE 6 FUND RECAP - 00-01 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 62,780.62 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 23,048.67 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 2,808.50 WATER FUND 526 11320.58 SEWER FUND 527 3,986.93 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 7,001.12 GOLF CENTER FUND 529 35,381.60 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 6,618.00 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 36.30 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 17,089.21 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 11348.17 DEBT SERVICE FUND 930 3,450.30 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $164,870.00 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 6 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 74055 THROUGH 74115 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $164,870.00, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE ® t y CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 01/05/01 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 74112 SAM SIRHED 22732 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 731 22520 74113 CATALINA ENGINEERING 22733 100.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 100.00 320 79160 120 74114 GOOD IMPRESSIONS 22734 33.00 OFFICE EXPENSE 33.00 101 64350 110 74115 WESTERN TRACTION 22735 2,976.88 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 2,976.88 527 66520 800 TOTAL $164,870.00 0 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 01/05/01 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 74097 ON CAMERA PRODUCTIONS 21177 410.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 410.00 101 64560 210 74098 UNITY BUSINESS SERVICE 21364 1,030.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,030.00 101 65300 220 74099 MISSION VALLEY FORD 21675 116.19 SUPPLIES 116.19 101 15000 74100 VB GOLF LLC 21948 35,381.60 UTILITY BILL REFUND 13,881.60 529 36710 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 21,500.00 529 68030 220 74101 PENINSULA FORD OF BURLINGAME 22160 205.48 SUPPLIES 201.11 101 15000 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 4.37 101 68020 200 2200 74102 HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES 22235 14,457.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 14,457.50 320 79211 210 74103 INDUSTRIAL SAFETY SUPPLY 22251 52.91 TRAINING EXPENSE 52.91 526 69020 260 74104 GAS TECH 22324 426.99 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 426.99 528 66600 210 74105 HACH COMPANY 22332 2,435.63 MISC. SUPPLIES 21435.63 326 79530 120 74106 CASCADE FIRE EQUIPMENT 22358 20.32 SMALL TOOLS 20.32 101 65200 130 74107 TECHNOLOGY,ENGINEERING & CONSTRU 22435 1,493.06 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 1,493.06 101 66700 200 74108 CSG CONSULTANTS 22465 9,725.00 MISCELLANEOUS 9,725.00 731 22515 74109 INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGI 22669 192.50 MISC. SUPPLIES 192.50 320 79160 120 74110 MAILERS SOFTWARE 22699 509.44 OFFICE EXPENSE 509.44 101 64250 110 74111 MARTIN AND CHAPMAN 22731 42.89 OFFICE EXPENSE 42.89 101 64200 110 YI CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 01/05/01 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 74083 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 477.02 MISC. SUPPLIES 92.24 101 66210 120 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 100.15 101 66210 140 MISC. SUPPLIES 92.24 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 92.24 527 66520 120 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 100.15 527 66520 140 74084 IMAGEMAX, INC., CALIFORNIA 19145 7,099.21 MISC. SUPPLIES 35.00 101 65300 120 MISCELLANEOUS 7,064.21 731 22518 74085 QUALITY AIR 19193 594.93 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 594.93 101 65200 200 74086 BURTON'S FIRE APPARATUS 19366 911.66 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 911.66 101 65200 203 74087 POWER WASHING SERVICE 19564 4,036.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,036.00 101 66210 210 74088 CGS PET PRODUCTS LTD 19623 358.74 MISC. SUPPLIES 358.74 101 68020 120 2200 74089 UNILAB 19772 122.75 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 122.75 101 64420 210 74090 CIUCCI CONSULTING GROUP INC 19791 1,035.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,035.00 101 65300 220 74091 MONICA OLSEN 19832 296.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 296.00 101 68010 220 1461 74092 BNY WESTERN TRUST COMPANY 20204 3,450.30 BANK TRUSTEE SERVICES 3,450.30 930 66830 763 74093 DAPPER TIRE CO., INC. 20464 336.90 SUPPLIES 336.90 101 15000 74094 GOLDEN STATE COMMUNICATIONS INC 20634 136.59 MISC. SUPPLIES 136.59 101 68020 120 2200 74095 SPRINT PCS 20724 1,597.11 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 248.94 526 69020 210 UTILITY EXPENSE 1,348.17 896 20281 74096 ,TEFF DOWD 20779 210.60 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 210.60 101 68010 220 1572 j CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 01/05/01 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 74070 SAFETY KLEEN CORP. 09168 176.25 MISC. SUPPLIES 176.25 101 66700 120 74071 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 6,618.00 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 6,618.00 618 64520 601 74072 CHIEF BILL REILLY 11568 1,758.13 OFFICE EXPENSE 0.50 101 65200 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 527.18 101 65200 120 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 87.68 101 65200 140 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 32.44 101 65200 190 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 19.95 101 65200 240 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 330.81 101 65200 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 759.57 101 65200 260 74073 PETERS-DE LAET, INC. 11589 119.24 SUPPLIES 119.24 101 15000 74074 ICBO-INT'L CONFERENCE OF 13834 121.16 MISC. SUPPLIES 121.16 101 65300 120 74075 A T & T 13940 18.43 COMMUNICATIONS 18.43 526 69020 160 74076 PARKIN SECURITY CONSULTANTS 15250 82.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 82.00 101 64420 210 74077 VALLEY OIL CO. 15764 8,671.49 SUPPLIES 8,671.49 101 15000 74078 BARKLOW'S FIRE TRUCK PARTS 15871 36.30 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 36.30 625 65213 203 74079 PRIDE PAINT 17414 22.59 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 22.59 101 68020 190 2200 74080 PENINSULA BLUEPRINT, INC 17534 372.87 SMALL TOOLS 165.67 326 79440 130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 207.20 326 75170 220 74081 URS GREINER WOODWARD CLYDE 17606 4,354.67 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,354.67 320 71170 210 74082 LABOR READY, INC. 18659 366.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 366.00 526 69020 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 01/05/01 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 74055 ACTION CLEANING SERVICE 01030 1,626.19 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 542.07 101 66210 190 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 542.06 526 69020 190 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 542.06 527 66520 190 74056 BRENTON SAFETY, INC. 01400 275.60 TRAINING EXPENSE 275.60 527 66520 260 74057 CITY OF BURLINGAME 01624 1,776.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,296.00 101 68010 120 1212 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 480.00 101 68010 220 1212 74058 JEROME F. COLEMAN 01956 170.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 170.00 101 64350 210 74059 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 95.02 MISCELLANEOUS 95.02 101 68020 192 2200 74060 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE 02174 3,944.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,944.00 320 76010 210 74061 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 222.71 MISC. SUPPLIES 222.71 101 68020 120 2200 74062 HARDING LAWSON ASSOCIATES 02365 6,574.13 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 6,574.13 528 66600 210 74063 K & W DISCOUNT LIGHTING & SUPP 02645 961.14 MISC. SUPPLIES 961.14 101 66240 120 74064 NATIONWIDE WIRE & BRUSH MFG. 03002 217.58 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 217.58 101 66210 200 74065 STEPHEN J. PICCHI 03168 280.80 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 280.80 101 68010 220 1572 74066 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONVENTION & 03431 34,394.25 CONVENTION BUREAU PMT. 34,394.25 101 64530 152 74067 SNAP ON TOOLS 03587 782.32 SMALL TOOLS 75.99 101 66700 130 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 706.33 101 66700 800 74068 HAAG N HAAG 03600 50.93 OFFICE EXPENSE 50.93 101 68020 110 2200 74069 COIT/01CONNOR 09132 210.00 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 210.00 101 64450 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME 12-29-2000 WARRANT REGI ST ER FUND RECAP - 00-01 NAME GENERAL FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND GOLF CENTER FUND SELF INSURANCE FUND TRUST AND AGENCY FUND STATE GRANTS FUND BURLINGAME TRAIN SHUTTLE PROGRAM UTILITY REVOLVING FUND TOTAL FOR APPROVAL HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: PAGE 8 FUND AMOUNT 101 75,187.31 320 31,899.02 327 5,350.00 526 150,419.92 527 5,376.01 529 850.30 618 99,350.36 731 15,018.75 734 634.78 736 93.25 896 4,348.69 $388,528.39 1 :1--1; \lc;bq--)ad VOID ag- 3g~7 r 1(z101 THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 8 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 73958 THROUGH 74054 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $388,528.39, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 12/29/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 74050 ANDREAS HILDEBRANDT 22726 500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 500.00 731 22525 74051 WENDY VERBA 22727 150.00 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00 731 22525 74052 STEPHEN NEARY 22728 6,240.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 6,240.00 731 22520 74053 DEREK PRINCE 22729 660.00 MISCELLANEOUS 310.00 101 36600 MISCELLANEOUS 350.00 731 22525 74054 PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYST 22730 200.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 200.00 101 64420 210 TOTAL $388,528.39 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 12/29/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 74034 CORPORATE EXPRESS 22258 126.70 OFFICE EXPENSE 126.70 101 65200 110 74035 OFFICER JOHN DEL MUNDO 22517 966.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 966.00 101 65100 260 74036 OFFICER NORMA BASURTO 22518 966.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 966.00 101 65100 260 74037 ERICH RASIMUS 22554 2,596.40 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 21596.40 101 68010 220 1583 74038 EXPRESS TOWING 22633 40.00 SUPPLIES 40.00 101 15000 74039 YELENA KOSS/KOSTYUKOVSKAYA M.D. 22715 645.00 MISCELLANEOUS 645.00 618 64520 038 74040 BARTH BRADER 22716 143.21 MISCELLANEOUS 143.21 526 22500 74041 DAVID GOLLNICK 22717 37,75 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 25.00 526 22501 MISCELLANEOUS 12.75 526 22500 74042 THOMAS BOESCH 22718 125.00 MISCELLANEOUS 125.00 731 22525 74043 CATHERIN SHIU 22719 500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 500.00 731 22525 74044 CARTER BICK 22720 500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 500.00 731 22525 74045 NICK'S DELI AND FINE FOODS 22721 941.78 MISC. SUPPLIES 941.78 101 65100 120 74046 BROCK AND ASSOCIATES 22722 4,000.00 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 4,000.00 101 64420 150 74047 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPO 22723 18.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 18.00 320 79160 120 74048 CLAUDIA CLARK 22724 5,350.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 5,350.00 327 78531 120 74049 NOREEN WEST 22725 1,279.51 MISCELLANEOUS 1,279.51 526 36730 ME; PAGE 5 AMOUNT 645.55 650.00 1,450.00 1,288.00 2,686.00 570.00 5,203.75 850.30 21,751.68 4,000.00 950.00 7,261.36 13,845.00 55.00 750.00 341.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R 12/29/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 74018 MICRO WAREHOUSE 20706 MISC. SUPPLIES 372.42 101 64450 120 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 273.13 101 64450 190 74019 CATHERINE J.M. NILMEYER 20801 MISCELLANEOUS 650.00 731 22525 74020 S.B.R.P.S.T.C. 20835 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,450.00 101 65100 260 74021 MMM CARPETS 20915 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 11288.00 101 64450 190 74022 SOUTH BAY REGIONAL PUBLIC 20986 TRAINING EXPENSE 2,686.00 101 65100 260 74023 RENEE RAMSEY 21136 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 570.00 101 68010 220 1346 74024 ESA ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE ASSOC 21160 DEPOSIT REFUND 51203.75 731 22590 74025 CIR 21211 MISC. SUPPLIES 850.30 529 68030 120 4300 74026 VANGUARD CONSTRUCTION 21354 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 21,751.68 320 75110 220 74027 SAN MATEO COUNTY TRAINING 21603 TRAINING EXPENSE 4,000.00 101 65200 260 74028 GARY MISSEL 21677 MISCELLANEOUS 950.00 101 65100 031 74029 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 21767 MISCELLANEOUS 7,261.36 101 37010 74030 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONTROLLERS OFF 21897 MISCELLANEOUS 13,845.00 101 37010 74031 HEALTHSOUTH MEDICAL CENTER 21923 MISCELLANEOUS 55.00 618 64520 038 74032 GOODLAND LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION, 22067 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 750.00 526 22501 74033 SOLANO PRESS BOOKS 22254 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 341.00 101 64400 240 PAGE 5 AMOUNT 645.55 650.00 1,450.00 1,288.00 2,686.00 570.00 5,203.75 850.30 21,751.68 4,000.00 950.00 7,261.36 13,845.00 55.00 750.00 341.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 12/29/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 74003 SIERRA MORENO MERCANTILE CO. 18357 544.02 SMALL TOOLS 544.02 101 68020 130 2300 74004 PLASTI-PRINT, INC 18794 541.25 MISC. SUPPLIES 541.25 527 66520 120 74005 NATURCLEAN 18830 3,472.88 MISC. SUPPLIES 3,472.88 527 66520 120 74006 BAY ALARM 18854 142.50 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 142.50 101 65400 200 74007 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 194.62 MISC. SUPPLIES 194.62 526 69020 120 74008 MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEMS 19131 589.41 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 518.93 101 65200 200 OFFICE EXPENSE 70.48 526 69020 110 74009 PRIORITY 1 19239 1,161.80 MISCELLANEOUS 1,161.80 618 64520 604 74010 BLACK MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 178.20 MISC. SUPPLIES 178.20 526 69020 120 74011 VNA & HOSPICE OF NO. CALIFORNIA 19566 528.00 MISCELLANEOUS 528.00 618 64520 038 74012 BAY AREA BUSINESS CARDS INC 19588 111.50 MISCELLANEOUS 61.70 101 68010 115 1100 MISC. SUPPLIES 49.80 101 64400 120 74013 MCCUNE AUDIO/VISUAL/VIDEO 19621 600.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 600.00 101 68010 120 1452 74014 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 380.00 COMMUNICATIONS 380.00 101 64450 160 74015 AT&T WIRELESS 20301 874.95 COMMUNICATIONS 781.70 101 65100 160 COMMUNICATIONS 93.25 736 64571 160 74016 PENINSULA HOSPITAL 20346 2,198.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,198.00 101 64420 210 74017 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 20548 579.60 MISC. SUPPLIES 579.60 101 68010 120 1220 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R 12/29/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 73988 PIP PRINTING 10620 591.05 101 65300 120 634.78 734 65190 120 711.00 618 64520 601 1,106.85 101 65400 120 4,749.39 526 69020 803 159.75 101 68010 220 1586 59.54 101 65200 110 50.35 101 65200 190 312.50 101 66210 260 350.00 527 66520 260 800.00 731 22520 21533.44 101 65100 220 320.05 101 65100 250 200.00 527 66520 260 155.25 101 68010 220 1346 43.12 101 68020 190 2200 375.00 101 65100 190 PAGE 3 AMOUNT 1,225.83 711.00 1,106.85 4,749.39 159.75 59.54 50.35 662.50 800.00 2,533.44 320.05 200.00 155.25 43.12 375.00 MISC. SUPPLIES MISC. SUPPLIES 73989 IDEAL RESTORATIVE DRYING, INC. 11352 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 73990 THE MAGIC PRESS CORP. 13759 MISC. SUPPLIES 73991 INVENSYS METERING SYSTEMS 14144 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 73992 MARK CERNY 14405 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 73993 RECHARGE'EM 14523 OFFICE EXPENSE 73994 SAN MATEO LOCK WORKS 14643 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 73995 EVERGREEN 15196 TRAINING EXPENSE TRAINING EXPENSE 73996 BENEDETTI CONCRETE 15487 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 73997 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 73998 DOUBLETREE HOTEL 16247 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 73999 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE 16629 TRAINING EXPENSE 74000 VIRGINIA WORKS 17351 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 74001 PRIDE PAINT 17414 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 74002 PACE GLASS COMPANY 17937 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 591.05 101 65300 120 634.78 734 65190 120 711.00 618 64520 601 1,106.85 101 65400 120 4,749.39 526 69020 803 159.75 101 68010 220 1586 59.54 101 65200 110 50.35 101 65200 190 312.50 101 66210 260 350.00 527 66520 260 800.00 731 22520 21533.44 101 65100 220 320.05 101 65100 250 200.00 527 66520 260 155.25 101 68010 220 1346 43.12 101 68020 190 2200 375.00 101 65100 190 PAGE 3 AMOUNT 1,225.83 711.00 1,106.85 4,749.39 159.75 59.54 50.35 662.50 800.00 2,533.44 320.05 200.00 155.25 43.12 375.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 12/29/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 73973 INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT. 03378 1,431.92 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,431.92 101 65150 220 73974 SERVICE UNLIMITED INC. 03531 885.60 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 685.60 101 65100 190 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00 101 65100 220 73975 SEQUOIA ANALYTICAL LABS 03536 390.00 MISCELLANEOUS 390.00 526 69020 233 73976 HAAG N HAAG 03600 8.60 OFFICE EXPENSE 8.60 101 68020 110 2300 73977 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY, INC. 03601 100.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 100.00 526 69020 190 73978 ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC. 03938 137.25 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 137.25 101 65200 140 73979 WISNOM'S 03982 27.63 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 27.63 101 64450 200 73980 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION 09402 96.85 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 96.85 101 64400 240 73981 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFC. 09433 4,984.00 PRISONER EXPENSE 4,984.00 101 65100 291 73982 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 255.82 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 255.82 618 64520 601 73983 BERNARD EDWARDS 09548 1,166.40 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11166.40 101 68010 220 1586 73984 SGT. ED NAKISO 09770 354.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 354.00 101 65100 260 73985 BARKER BLUE REPROGRAPHICS 09990 188.29 MISC. SUPPLIES 101.23 101 64400 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 87.06 320 76010 120 73986 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING 10101 225.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 225.00 101 65200 220 73987 AUGUST SUPPLY, INC 10256 527.39 MISC. SUPPLIES 527.39 101 65200 111 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 12/29/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 73958 * ABAG - W/C 09519 95,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 95,000.00 618 64520 038 73959 EDWARD R. BACON CO., INC. 01182 811.88 SMALL TOOLS 811.88 527 66520 130 73960 BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 01637 2,151.00 CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PMT. 20151.00 101 64530 151 73961 CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTS, INC., 01992 2,328.47 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,334.73 101 64400 800 MISCELLANEOUS 993.74 618 64520 038 73962 DULIN ADVERTISING INC. 02036 4,700.00 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 41700.00 101 64420 121 73963 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 325.75 MISCELLANEOUS 325.75 101 68020 192 2200 73964 WATER/FINANCE PETTY CASH 02184 4,348.69 MISCELLANEOUS 4,348.69 896 20282 73965 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 34.22 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 34.22 101 68020 200 2200 73966 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 547.33 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 240.92 101 66210 219 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 306.41 101 66210 226 73967 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. 02755 319.09 SUPPLIES 319.09 101 15000 73968 MANPOWER 02819 76.80 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 76.80 101 65300 210 73969 NATIONWIDE WIRE & BRUSH MFG. 03002 217.58 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 217.58 101 66210 200 73970 PITNEY BOWES INC 03169 788.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 788.00 101 65100 220 73971 PUMP REPAIR SERVICE CO. CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 03197 / ( 10,042.28 \ 10,042.28 320 79400 220 73972 SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPT. 03353 142,526.76 WATER PURCHASES 142,526.76 526 69020 171 CITY OF BURLINGAME 12-22-2000 WARRANT REG I ST ER FUND RECAP - 00-01 NAME GENERAL FUND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND WATER FUND SEWER FUND SOLID WASTE FUND GOLF CENTER FUND SELF INSURANCE FUND TRUST AND AGENCY FUND BURLINGAME TRAIN SHUTTLE PROGRAM UTILITY REVOLVING FUND TOTAL FOR APPROVAL HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: PAGE 9 FUND AMOUNT 101 124,364.65 320 235,682.11 326 8,775.51 327 86,921.55 526 3,601.94 527 1,322.91 528 2,590.00 529 14,695.70 618 79,361.83 731 13,752.36 736 8,560.00 896 741.40 $580 369.96 �-t5.5 8 > VOI Z) /c 73� <5g3.4 Z) VO I p eY-- -7 3a THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 9 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 73846 THROUGH 73957 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $580,369.96, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 12/22/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 73948 FIRE SERVICE SPECIFICATION & SUP 22705 147.22 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 147.22 101 65200 203 73949 FITALI RUSLI 22706 760.00 MISCELLANEOUS 310.00 101 36600 MISCELLANEOUS 450.00 731 22525 73950 DEREX 22707 5,731.84 MISC. SUPPLIES 5,731.84 326 79530 120 73951 CAWC WATERPROOFING AND RESTORATI 22708 3,780.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,780.00 320 73051 220 73952 JOE MCKANE 22709 225.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 225.00 101 68010 220 1580 73953 KRISTIN KELLY 22710 680.66 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 680.66 618 64520 601 73954 EDDIE SHALDONE 22711 200.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00 101 68010 220 1580 73955 JOHN TYLER 22712 100.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00 101 68010 220 1580 73956 DOMINIC MAGAGNINI 22713 225.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 225.00 101 68010 220 1580 73957 ANSE 22714 2,100.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 21100.00 320 80190 220 TOTAL $580,369.96 F� CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R 12/22/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 73932 UNISOURCE MAINT.SUPPLY SYSTEMS 22188 31.61 MISC. SUPPLIES 66210 73933 CORPORATE EXPRESS 22258 65200 OFFICE EXPENSE 688.47 73934 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPPLY 22301 13,158.87 SMALL TOOLS 22518 73935 CSG CONSULTANTS 22465 68010 MISCELLANEOUS 427.50 73936 LORAH REBAR 22477 8,560.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 64571 73937 LAMORENA AND CHANG 22480 66520 TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT SVC. 593.42 73938 PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA 22500 99,553.42 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 80080 73939 MCFARLANE AND SON, INC 22539 75110 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 739.95 73940 BAY AREA MOBILE GLASS 22572 4,575.00 SUPPLIES 66100 73941 B 1 ENTERPRISE CORP. 22660 68030 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 861.67 73942 SMITH GROUP JJR 22667 428.46 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 65200 73943 DES ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS 22675 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 73944 GHIRARDELLI ENGINEERING 22676 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 73945 TURF STAR 22682 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 73946 JIM KELLY 22703 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 73947 SAN MATEO COUNTY 22704 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 31.61 101 66210 120 230.89 101 65200 110 688.47 529 68030 130 4200 13,158.87 731 22518 449.00 101 68010 220 1583 427.50 101 64250 011 8,560.00 736 64571 220 84.00 527 66520 190 593.42 101 15000 99,553.42 320 80080 220 10,544.50 320 75110 210 739.95 320 80200 210 4,575.00 101 66100 210 266.87 529 68030 200 4300 861.67 326 78220 800 428.46 101 65200 250 PAGE 7 AMOUNT 31.61 230.89 688.47 13,158.87 449.00 427.50 8,560.00 84.00 voI 593.42 99,553.42 10,544.50 739.95 4,575.00 266.87 861.67 428.46 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 12122100 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 73916 BRIDGE WIRELESS 20633 589.96 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 589.96 526 69020 290 73917 MICRO WAREHOUSE 20706 210.66 OFFICE EXPENSE 210.66 101 65200 110 73918 HARDISON KOMATSU IVELICH & 20938 88,739.08 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 88,739.08 320 76010 210 73919 ROMAN & LOUGEE, INC. 20963 910.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 910.00 326 77150 210 73920 NILMEYER, CATHERINE J.M. 21121 200.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 200.00 320 80150 210 73921 ANN MUSSO 21178 1,112.27 OFFICE EXPENSE 556.87 101 64200 110 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 555.40 101 65200 250 73922 CIR 21211 252.86 MISC. SUPPLIES 252.86 529 68030 120 4300 73923 MCGUIRE & HESTER 21236 86,921.55 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 86,921.55 327 78531 220 73924 JONATHAN TURNER 21399 120.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 120.00 101 68010 220 1580 73925 DARRYL STELLWAY 21766 35.00 SUPPLIES 35.00 101 15000 73926 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES 21769 7,037.87 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 7,037.87 320 79080 210 73927 STEINY AND COMPANY, INC. 21927 3,710.70 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,710.70 320 79290 220 73928 A & L JANITORIAL SERVICE 21936 234.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 234.00 101 65200 220 73929 PROVIDENCE PEST TERMITE 21947 234.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 234.00 101 65200 220 73930 VB GOLF LLC 21948 12,644.21 UTILITY BILL REFUND 12,644.21 529 36710 73931 ARCH 22089 235.44 COMMUNICATIONS 235.44 101 65100 160 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 12/22/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 73900 UNITROL 18939 280.44 SUPPLIES 280.44 101 15000 73901 BILL SMITH 18963 100.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 100.00 101 68010 220 1580 73902 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 56.77 MISC. SUPPLIES 56.77 101 64450 120 73903 LIEBERT, CASSIDY & FRIERSON 19095 1,627.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,627.50 101 64350 210 73904 PRIORITY 1 19239 53.71 SUPPLIES 53.71 101 15000 73905 BURTON'S FIRE APPARATUS 19366 109.51 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 109.51 101 65200 203 73906 WILSEY & HAM 19397 12,339.71 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 12,339.71 320 78290 210 73907 POWER WASHING SERVICE 19564 1,768.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,768.00 101 66210 210 73908 TELECOMMUNICATIONS MANAGEMENT 19651 261.59 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 261.59 101 64560 210 73909 ALL FENCE COMPANY, INC. 19710 490.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 490.00 101 66210 190 73910 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINE 19821 210.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 210.00 101 66100 240 73911 DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL 19879 110.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 110.00 101 64450 190 73912 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 80.00 COMMUNICATIONS 80.00 101 64450 160 73913 AT&T WIRELESS 20301 236.15 COMMUNICATIONS 236.15 101 66100 160 73914 PENINSULA HOSPITAL 20346 121.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 121.00 101 64420 210 73915 JULIO MORAN 20564 220.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 220.00 101 68010 220 1580 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 12/22/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 73885 HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS 14750 4,150.42 MISCELLANEOUS 4,150.42 101 30400 73886 MICHAEL'S RENTALS INC. 14957 109.75 RENTS & LEASES 59.75 101 68020 180 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 50.00 526 69020 120 73887 EVERGREEN 15196 1,132.40 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 582.40 101 68010 220 1460 TRAINING EXPENSE 350.00 526 69020 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 200.00 527 66520 260 73888 CAL -PACIFIC PRODUCTS 15580 194.46 MISC. SUPPLIES 194.46 526 69020 120 73889 HITECH SYSTEMS, INC. 15712 840.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 840.00 101 65100 220 73890 SPECIALIZED COMMUNICATIONS 15787 2,851.60 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 21851.60 101 64450 190 73891 BRINK'S INC. 15813 821.10 BANKING SERVICE FEES 415.00 101 64250 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 406.10 529 68030 120 73892 TELEKEY SCADA SYSTEMS INC. 16085 1,272.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,272.00 326 79290 210 73893 SYDNEY MALKO0 16347 42.16 SMALL TOOLS 42.16 101 66700 130 73894 POPLAR RECARE 16575 433.13 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 433.13 101 66210 210 73895 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE 16629 91,59 SUPPLIES 91.59 101 15000 73896 COLORPRINT & COPY CENTER 17497 198.10 OFFICE EXPENSE 198.10 101 64100 110 73897 JEFF HIPPS 17803 340.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 340.00 101 68010 220 1580 73898 LABOR READY, INC. 18659 610.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 610.00 526 69020 210 73899 VERIZON WIRELESS MESSAGING SERVI 18763 129.30 COMMUNICATIONS 129.30 101 68020 160 2300 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 12/22/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 73872 ABAG - W/C 09519 78,681.17 MISCELLANEOUS 78,681.17 618 64520 038 73873 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 09670 1,220.96 MISC. SUPPLIES 335.29 101 66210 120 SMALL TOOLS 13.29 101 65200 130 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 280.94 101 68020 190 2200 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 72.25 101 65200 203 MISC. SUPPLIES 172.65 526 69020 120 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 86.59 526 69020 290 MISC. SUPPLIES 233.98 527 66520 120 SMALL TOOLS 25.97 529 68030 130 4200 73874 GOVT. FINANCE OFFICERS ASSN. 09884 480.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 480.00 101 64250 240 73875 TELECOMMUNICATIONS ENGINEERING 10101 520.00 UTILITY EXPENSE 520.00 896 20281 73876 ANCHOR FENCE COMPANY 10231 168.68 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 168.68 101 68020 190 2200 73877 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER 11101 1,272.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,272.00 320 76010 210 73878 COMMAIR MECHANICAL SERVICES 11773 1,221.92 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 1,221.92 101 64450 190 73879 EKCC 13757 748.35 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 748.35 101 64450 200 73880 DANKA OFFICE IMAGING CO 13758 535.36 OFFICE EXPENSE 60.62 101 66100 110 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 474.74 101 64450 200 73881 NORTH VALLEY OIL 13815 350.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 350.00 101 68020 200 2200 73882 A T & T 13940 221.40 UTILITY EXPENSE 221.40 896 20281 73883 GEORGE W. GIPE, PH.D. 13950 600.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 600.00 320 80150 210 73884 KEITH MARSHALL 14214 330.11 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 330.11 101 65200 250 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 12/22/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 73861 SEQUOIA ANALYTICAL LABS 03536 3,010.00 MISCELLANEOUS 420.00 526 69020 233 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,590.00 528 66600 210 73862 SKYLINE SUPPLY CO., INC. 03574 2,478.58 OFFICE EXPENSE 1,568.38 101 65300 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 89.99 101 66100 120 OFFICE EXPENSE 571.78 526 69020 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 248.43 527 66520 110 73863 PACIFIC WEST SECURITY, INC. 03601 1,113.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 556.50 526 69020 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 556.50 527 66520 210 73864 U S POSTAL SERVICE 03821 3,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,000.00 101 64250 114 73865 BURLINGAME REC. DEPT./PETTY CASH 03910 2,634.16 OFFICE EXPENSE 62.47 101 68010 110 1100 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,597.31 101 68010 120 1221 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 135.00 101 68010 150 1452 COMMUNICATIONS 19.35 101 68010 160 1100 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 106.51 101 68010 190 1100 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 168.00 101 64420 210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.50 101 68010 220 1344 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 40.00 101 68020 240 2300 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 234.00 101 68020 250 2200 MISCELLANEOUS 71.02 731 22534 73866 ALLSTAR FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC. 03938 9,904.88 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 4,812.80 101 65200 140 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,092.08 101 65200 800 73867 MUFFIE CALBREATH 09125 294.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 294.00 101 68010 220 1583 73868 HORIZON 09130 411.22 MISC. SUPPLIES 411.22 529 68030 120 2200 73869 SAFETY KLEEN CORP. 09168 155.23 RENTS & LEASES 155.23 101 68020 180 2300 73870 ENTERTAINMENT PUBLICATIONS,INC. 09338 480.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 480.00 101 68010 220 1212 73871 CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 09461 5,064.88 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,064.88 320 71170 210 d CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 12/22/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 73846 AMTECH ELEVATOR SERVICES 01078 417.63 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 222.43 101 64450 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 195.20 101 65400 220 73847 RAHN BECKER 01305 753.59 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 753.59 101 64250 250 73848 CITY OF BURLINGAME 01551 80.00 MISCELLANEOUS 80.00 101 32100 73849 BURLINGAME RECREATION DEPT. 01663 1,195.00 RECREATION EXPENSES 1,195.00 101 10700 73850 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 01745 4,930.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 4,930.00 101 64560 240 73851 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 01862 18,914.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 18,914.00 101 64250 220 73852 L. N. CURTIS & SONS 02027 114.11 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 114.11 101 65200 203 73853 DULIN ADVERTISING INC. 02036 3,264.40 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 3,264.40 101 64420 150 73854 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 821.44 MISC. SUPPLIES 290.30 101 68020 120 2200 MISCELLANEOUS 531.14 101 68020 192 2200 73855 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 340.13 MISC. SUPPLIES 340.13 101 68020 120 2200 73856 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 402.56 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 100.36 101 66210 219 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 302.20 101 66210 226 73857 MOTOROLA INC. 02944 163.14 SUPPLIES 163.14 101 15000 73858 PACIFIC NURSERIES 03041 72.47 MISCELLANEOUS 72.47 731 22560 73859 KPMG LLP 03109 10,000.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 10,000.00 101 64560 210 73860 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONVENTION & 03431 34,394.25 CONVENTION BUREAU PMT. 34,394.25 101 64530 152 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $524,920.16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 73725 THROUGH 73845 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $524,920.16, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME 12-15-2000 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 FUND RECAP - 00-01 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 133,951.25 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 26,310.24 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 4,418.58 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 50,834.06 WATER FUND 526 2,806.26 SEWER FUND 527 158,369.93 GOLF CENTER FUND 529 4,661.39 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 100,468.41 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 780.13 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 4,500.00 STATE GRANTS FUND 734 424.54 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 37,395.37 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $524,920.16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 10 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 73725 THROUGH 73845 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $524,920.16, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R 12/15/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL Denotes Hand Written Checks 73844 MILLBRAE FURNITURE 22701 Ew I ACCOUNT BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 413.51 101 65200 190 73845 UNION BANK 22702 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,438.00 327 79470 220 TOTAL PAGE 9 AMOUNT 413.51 4,438.00 $524,920.16 v �,y CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 12/15/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 73828 BOB GREENE 22419 7,250.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,250.00 101 68010 220 1583 73829 CALCO CONSTRUCTION 22467 2,041.11 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,041.11 320 79380 220 73830 ERICH RASIMUS 22554 2,000.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,000.00 101 68010 220 1583 73831 LAB SAFETY SUPPLY, INC. 22632 126.90 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 126.90 101 65200 203 73832 ROBERTA TAVAKE 22672 222.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 222.00 101 68010 220 1460 73833 TURF STAR 22682 18,854.38 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 16.73 101 68020 200 2200 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 18,837.65 101 68020 800 2200 73834 HOLDEN DANIELS 22687 395.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 395.00 101 65200 260 73835 GOLDSTAR PRODUCTS, INC. 22692 310.95 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 310.95 101 66210 222 73836 B -C TRAILER SALES 22693 5,398.84 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,398.84 101 66210 800 73837 FAILSAFE TESTING 22694 500.00 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 500.00 101 65200 203 73838 ROB CUNNINGHAM 22695 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 731 22525 73839 JOHN FLYGARE 22696 500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 500.00 731 22525 73840 LARRY AGNEW 22697 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 731 22520 73841 PEPSI -COLA 22698 1,572.24 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,572.24 101 68010 120 1583 73842 MAILERS SOFTWARE 22699 169.88 OFFICE EXPENSE 169.88 101 64250 110 73843 BOB CINI 22700 3,000.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 3,000.00 731 22520 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 12/15/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 73812 FILTERFRESH COFFEE EXCELLENCE 21623 275.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 275.00 101 64450 190 73813 WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES 21769 10,731.54 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 10,731.54 320 79080 210 73814 SEWER RAT 21821 150.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 150.00 731 22520 73815 MSM INC. 21856 890.09 MISC. SUPPLIES 890.09 527 66520 120 73816 A & L JANITORIAL SERVICE 21936 2,114.50 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 21114.50 101 68010 190 1102 73817 REED EQUIPMENT CO 21980 4,361.39 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 4,361.39 529 68030 800 4100 73818 IEDA 21981 2,146.96 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,146.96 101 64420 210 73819 DGBA AND ASSOCIATES 21997 7,437.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,848.00 320 79380 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 11589.00 327 79470 210 73820 COMPAQ COMPUTER CORPORATION 21999 62.79 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 62.79 101 66100 800 73821 GMAC 22006 843.44 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 843.44 101 66100 800 73822 ALL PETROLEUM RECOVERY SERVICE, 22008 154.00 GAS, OIL & GREASE 154.00 101 65200 201 73823 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPPLY 22301 90.19 SMALL TOOLS 90.19 101 68020 130 2300 73824 HIGGINS ASSOCIATES 22336 1,651.25 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,651.25 320 79160 210 73825 NORTH AMERICAN SPORTS MANAGEMENT 22382 594.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 594.00 101 68010 220 1585 73826 CUTTERS EDGE 22407 59.97 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 59.97 101 65200 203 73827 J.M. RIDGWAY CO. 22415 300.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 300.00 529 68030 220 4200 Wil: CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 12/15/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 73796 MEL JOHNSON'S METAL PRODUCTS 19375 502.28 MISC. SUPPLIES 502.28 101 65200 120 73797 JOHN CAHALAN, ASLA 19561 8,500.62 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 5,107.60 101 65100 190 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,393.02 320 78460 210 73798 ALL FENCE COMPANY, INC. 19710 2,230.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,230.00 320 79410 210 73799 SUMMIT BICYCLES, INC. 19794 352.79 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 352.79 734 65190 200 73800 EDGAR M. GARCIA 20026 500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 500.00 731 22525 73801 GE CAPITAL 20216 526.24 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 526.24 101 64250 200 73802 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 20222 30,000.00 CONTINGENCY APPROPRIATION 30,000.00 101 64560 293 73803 N.C.R.L. 20305 325.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 325.00 101 68010 120 1581 73804 SASE COMPANY, INC. 20639 83.71 MISC. SUPPLIES 83.71 101 66210 120 73805 MICRO WAREHOUSE 20706 525.47 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 525.47 101 64450 800 73806 IBS BUILDING MAINTENANCE CO. 20783 2,181.50 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 2,181.50 101 68010 190 1101 73807 ROMAN & LOUGEE, INC. 20963 4,418.58 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,418.58 326 70070 210 73808 GEORGE BAGDON 21174 560.00 MISCELLANEOUS 560.00 101 66100 031 73809 ON CAMERA PRODUCTIONS 21177 937.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 937.50 101 64560 210 73810 MCGUIRE & HESTER 21236 39,942.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 39,942.00 327 78531 220 73811 CITICORP VENDOR FINANCE, INC. 21521 66.71 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 66.71 101 65200 200 Wil: PAGE 5 AMOUNT 123.79 82.05 48.66 724.78 226.93 482.37 1,145.37 502.82 5,007.49 96.50 1,378.24 78.74 216.95 2,356.50 66.27 94.16 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R 12/15/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 73780 M D LINEN SERVICE 15827 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 123.79 101 65200 220 73781 BARKLOW'S FIRE TRUCK PARTS 15871 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 82.05 625 65213 203 73782 SYDNEY MALKOO 16347 SMALL TOOLS 48.66 101 66700 130 73783 CINTAS CORP. #464 16911 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 724.78 101 68020 140 2200 73784 GOLDEN NURSERY 17128 MISC. SUPPLIES 169.06 320 78490 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 57.87 526 69020 120 73785 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 17402 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 482.37 101 65100 200 73786 STANDARD REGISTER 17495 OFFICE EXPENSE 1,145.37 101 64250 110 73787 CENTRAL BUSINESS EQUIPMENT 18011 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 502.82 101 65100 200 73788 SELF INSURANCE PLANS 18051 MISCELLANEOUS 5,007.49 618 64520 038 73789 CRANE PEST CONTROL 18103 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 96.50 101 64450 220 73790 LABOR READY, INC. 18659 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 11378.24 526 69020 210 73791 VERIZON WIRELESS MESSAGING SERVI 18763 COMMUNICATIONS 78.74 526 69020 160 73792 BUSINESS & LEGAL REPORTS INC 18810 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 216.95 101 64420 240 73793 REGIONAL MONITORING PROGRAM 18900 OTHER AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS 2,356.50 527 66530 270 73794 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 66.27 526 69020 290 73795 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 19027 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 94.16 101 65200 220 PAGE 5 AMOUNT 123.79 82.05 48.66 724.78 226.93 482.37 1,145.37 502.82 5,007.49 96.50 1,378.24 78.74 216.95 2,356.50 66.27 94.16 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 12/15/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 73765 PETERS-DE LAET, INC. 11589 103.92 SUPPLIES 103.92 101 15000 73766 BOULDER CREEK GOLF & COUNTRY CLU 11626 4,229.23 TRAINING EXPENSE 41229.23 101 65100 260 73767 THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA 11637 390.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 390.00 101 64350 240 73768 SCHWAAB, INC. 11684 28,80 OFFICE EXPENSE 28.80 101 64250 110 73769 COMMAIR MECHANICAL SERVICES 11773 54.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 54.00 101 68010 200 1101 73770 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTEM 13689 524.65 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 68.95 101 65200 200 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 455.70 625 65213 203 73771 DANKA OFFICE IMAGING CO 13758 361.56 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 361.56 101 64450 200 73772 DAY-TIMERS, INC. 14411 25.96 MISC. SUPPLIES 25.96 101 66210 120 73773 RECHARGE'EM 14523 70.36 OFFICE EXPENSE 70.36 101 65200 110 73774 LEWIS PARTNERS 15110 3,935.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 3,935.00 101 65100 260 73775 WINTER SHELTER 15159 7,000.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,000.00 101 64560 220 73776 PARKIN SECURITY CONSULTANTS 15250 74.00 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 74.00 101 64420 121 73777 IZMIRIAN ROOFING 15573 1,475.00 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 1,475.00 101 64450 800 73778 MILLBRAE LOCK SHOP 15739 33.85 OFFICE EXPENSE 18.43 101 64450 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 15.42 101 64450 120 73779 PARK-GILMAN CLINICS, INC. 15792 350.00 PRISONER EXPENSE 350.00 101 65100 291 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 12/15/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 73751 COIT/01CONNOR 09132 210.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 210.00 101 64450 190 73752 LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS 09143 119.41 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 114.02 101 66210 219 MISC. SUPPLIES 5.39 526 69020 120 73753 UNITED TEXTILE, INC. 09156 178.61 TRAINING EXPENSE 178.61 101 66700 260 73754 RD OFFICE SOLUTIONS 09213 9.00 OFFICE EXPENSE 9.00 526 69020 110 73755 OLYMPIAN OIL COMPANY 09238 266.65 GAS, OIL & GREASE 266.65 101 65200 201 73756 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 12,125.00 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 12,125.00 618 64520 601 73757 ABAG - W/C 09519 83,335.92 MISCELLANEOUS 83,335.92 618 64520 038 73758 SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP 09560 518.29 SUPPLIES 36.87 101 15000 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 89.23 101 68020 200 2200 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 392.19 101 68020 800 2300 73759 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC 09790 1,315.90 MISC. SUPPLIES 663.58 101 68020 120 2200 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 652.32 101 66210 222 73760 PAGENET OF SAN FRANCISCO -031 09955 10.98 COMMUNICATIONS 10.98 101 68020 160 2200 73761 ALERT DOOR SERVICE, INC. 10059 100.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 100.00 526 69020 190 73762 ANCHOR FENCE COMPANY 10231 168.68 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 168.68 101 68020 190 2200 73763 CAL -STEAM 10557 593.58 MISC. SUPPLIES 330.72 526 69020 120 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 143.66 526 69020 801 MISC. SUPPLIES 119.20 527 66520 120 73764 DOROTHY O'GRADY 11020 375.90 MISC. SUPPLIES 129.90 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 246.00 526 69020 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R 12/15/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL Denotes Hand Written Checks 73738 MILLBRAE LUMBER CO. 02898 PAGE 2 ACCOUNT AMOUNT 455.66 137.10 MISC. SUPPLIES 66210 120 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 193.42 MISC. SUPPLIES 68020 73739 MOTOROLA INC. 02944 125.14 SUPPLIES 69020 73740 PACIFIC NURSERIES 03041 MISC. SUPPLIES MISC. SUPPLIES 43.40 73741 P. G. & E. 03054 GAS & ELECTRIC UTILITY EXPENSE 73742 PACIFIC BELL 03080 14.07 UTILITY EXPENSE 68020 73743 PATTERSON PARTS, INC 03106 246.26 SUPPLIES 78490 120 FIRE --SUPPLIES FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 31,126.72 73744 PERSONAL AWARDS, INC. 03145 170 MISC. SUPPLIES 73745 STEPHEN J. PICCHI 03168 MISC. SUPPLIES 73746 MARGARET PRENDERGAST 03179 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,278.88 73747 TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. 03760 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 73748 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. 03788 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 280.92 73749 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 MISC. SUPPLIES 73750 YORKSHIRE UNIFORMS & EQUIPMENT 04005 127 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 93.14 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 65200 PAGE 2 ACCOUNT AMOUNT 455.66 137.10 101 66210 120 193.42 101 68020 190 2200 125.14 526 69020 120 43.40 43.40 101 15000 260.33 14.07 101 68020 120 2200 246.26 320 78490 120 31,126.72 10.23 527 66520 170 31,116.49 896 20280 6,278.88 6,278.88 896 20281 280.92 27.48 101 15000 74.37 101 65200 127 93.14 101 65200 203 85.93 625 65213 203 415.68 415.68 101 68010 120 1580 120.00 120.00 101 68010 120 1580 137.25 137.25 101 68010 220 1460 10,151.20 10,151.20 101 68020 220 2300 7,100.00 7,100.00 101 65100 800 30.31 30.31 101 64350 120 1,850.02 1,778.27 101 65400 140 71.75 734 65190 140 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 12/15/00 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 73725 ACTION CLEANING SERVICE 01030 487.50 TEMPORARY EMPLOYMENT SVC. 487.50 101 65100 011 73726 ALPINE AWARDS, INC. 01052 23.27 OFFICE EXPENSE 23.27 527 66520 110 73727 BAYSHORE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 01236 156.45 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 156.45 625 65213 203 73728 HARBOR SAND & GRAVEL 01313 608.39 MISC. SUPPLIES 343.16 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 265.23 526 69020 120 73729 BRENTON SAFETY, INC. 01400 440.67 TRAINING EXPENSE 440.67 527 66520 260 73730 BURLINGAME AUTO SUPPLY 01507 1,207.54 SUPPLIES 929.77 101 15000 MISC. SUPPLIES 7.03 101 66700 120 SMALL TOOLS 120.77 101 66700 130 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 69.43 101 68020 200 2200 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 34.53 101 65200 203 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 46.01 527 66520 800 73731 CITY OF BURLINGAME 01624 1,449.17 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,449.17 101 68010 120 1214 73732 CRAFT PRINTERS 01842 225.70 OFFICE EXPENSE 225.70 101 66100 110 73733 US FILTER/EOS 02110 159,349.02 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,865.06 327 79480 210 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 8,095.96 527 66530 190 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 146,388.00 527 66530 220 73734 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 103.66 MISCELLANEOUS 103.66 101 68020 192 2200 73735 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 241.52 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 241.52 101 66210 226 73736 IRVINE & JACHENS INC. 02599 298.77 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 298.77 101 65200 140 73737 HOWARD JONES BATTERIES, INC. 02625 404.93 SUPPLIES 404.93 101 15000 JANUARY 15, 2001 ANN MUSSO, CITY CLERK CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 vv JAN 16 2001 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF BURLINGAME RE: 1825CASTENADA DRIVE 1 .... REMOVAL OF EXISTING RESIDENCE 2 .... HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 3 .... SPECIAL PERMIT: NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE 4 .... SPECIAL PERMIT: ATTACHED GARAGE FOR NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE. DEAR MS. MUSSO, WE WISH TO APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING THE REMOVAL OF THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 1825 CASTENADA DRIVE AND THE PERMIT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AND WINE CELLAR. ATTACHED IS OUR CHECK # 798 IN THE AMOUNT OF $250.00 TO COVER. THE APPEAL FEE AND NOTICING COSTS AS REQUIRED. SINCERELY, DR. RICHARD B. IANLEY 1821 CAS NADA DRI BURLINGAME, CA 940 (650)697-8785 LTK:Ik ENCL. HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Please schedule an appeal D.S. hearing for February 5, 2000. Ann Musso, City Clerk CITY OF BURLINGAME FINANCE DEPARTMENT CASH COLLECTIONS DIVISION 01/16/01 03:25pm REFERENCE - 12071-25-3 MISC BATCH 517 - UTILITY BATCH 516 FROM : RICHARD KELLEY ACCOUNT : 10136600 ZONING & SIGN PERMITS TOTAL PAID 10136600 CHECK 250.00 RECEIVED BY COUNTER 250.00 250.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA January 8, 2001 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the January 8, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojues, Deal, Dreiling, Osterling, Vistica and Luzuriaga Absent: Commissioner Keighran Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner,Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza III. MINUTES The minutes of the December 11, 2000 meeting regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. III. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. IV. FROM THE FLOOR V. STUDY ITEMS There were no public comments. There were no study items. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. Consent Calendar Item No. 1 f, 1405 El Camino Real, was removed from the consent calendar by a commissioner and placed on the regular action calendar before Item No. 2. CP noted a clarification to condition 3 of the project at 2303 Trousdale Drive. The condition should read: that the operation of the school classes shall follow the staggered schedule indicated by the charts in the staff report for the meeting date of January 8, 2000, as adjusted by Franklin School based on actual experience and the City should be informed about changes to this schedule." C. Bojues noted that he would abstain from voting on the project at 1108 Vancouver Avenue because he lives within the noticing area. C. Deal noted that the action on 1108 Vancouver should reflect the plate heights shown on the January 3, 2001, plans, which was a reduction of one foot on each floor from the original, not a total reduction of one foot as noted in the staff report. 1A. 1108 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN & ENG., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GARY ERNST, PROPERTY OWNER) City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2001 1B. 1704 SANCHEZ AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (VITAS VISKANTA, APPLICANT, PROPERTY OWNER AND DESIGNER) 1C. 1460 BERNAL AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR UNCOVERED SPACE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JERRY WINGES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOHN AND JENNIFER WALSH, PROPERTY OWNERS) 1D. 1328 DRAKE AVENUE - ZONED - R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (THOMAS R.B. AND TERRI C. BOESCH, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; GUMBINGER ASSOCIATES/ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) 1E. 2303 TROUSDALE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SCHOOL USE IN AN EXISTING ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (ERUDITE TECHNOLOGY GROUP, APPLICANTS; BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, PROPERTY OWNER; THE KASTROP GROUP, INC., ARCHITECT) C. Boju6s moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, including commissioners amendments and comments and with the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution, amending condition 3 of the 2303 Trousdale private school project and adding a clarification to condition one of the 1108 Vancouver project to reflect the reduced plate heights on both the first and second floors. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent) for 1704 Sanchez, 1460 Bernal, 1328 Drake, 2303 Trousdale Avenues and 6-0-1-1 (C. Boju6s abstaining, C. Keighran absent) on the project at 1108 Vancouver. Appeal procedures were advised. This item ended at 7:12 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 1F. 1405 EL CAMINO REAL - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR A RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A THREE (3) STORY, FOUR (4) UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (FRANK GONSALVES, A.I.A., APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ROMAN AND GALINA KNOP, PROPERTY OWNERS) A. CONDOMINIUM PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE B. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Frank Gonsalves, architect, 490 El Camino Real #105, Belmont, represented the project and was available to answer questions. Commissioner noted a concern with the resolution of the grading at the front of the lot, different than what was explained last time, there is an opportunity to fill in the gap between the proposed building and the Eucalyptus trees on El Camino Real, this gap is not a useable area, there might be an opportunity to add several trees in this location to match the scale of landscaping along El Camino Real rather than the shrubs shown on the plans, need to consider at what Caltrans might do in the right-of-way, suggest adding Pittosporum, Eucalyptus trees are also appropriate, city approved street tree list might offer additional appropriate 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2001 species, this is an area suitable for planting a large tree, could add a condition to place a tree in the front yard. Architect noted that he is willing to comply and would notify the property owner of these suggestions; Commissioner noted that the seven foot floor to ceiling height in the garage may not be enough room for the furnace duct work, seven feet is the minimum clear height requirement for a furnace, additional one foot increase in height at this location may change entire building and require this project to be reviewed by the Commission at a later date, wanted to bring it to the applicant's attention now. Architect noted that the owner is a mechanical contractor and that he would study this issue further. Dan Rolandson, property owner of adjacent building at 1500 Hillside Drive, noted that he was glad to see this property being redeveloped, asked what would happen legally if there is damage to his property once construction has started, CA Anderson noted that the civil code requires that the developer has an obligation to shore up the property under construction, there is no guarantee that there will not be a problem, superior court will review if damage still occurs after all has been done to prevent damage. There were no further comments from the audience and the public hearing was closed. .C. Vistica moved to approve the project and tentative map, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 21, 2000, sheets A-1, A-2, and L-1, and Tentative Parcel Map sheet 1 of 1 (date stamped December 1, 2000); 2) that lot coverage shall not exceed 50% of the lot area and any increase in the lot area shall require an amendment to the Condominium Permit and Tentative Map and a variance from the Planning Commission; 3) that two trees, which will reach large scale visually compatible with the eucalyptus on El Camino Real which species shall be determined to be appropriate by the City Arborist, shall be planted in the front yard between the structure and the front property line; 4) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 135.07 (35'-0" maximum building height) as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along El Camino Real (100.07'), and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 5) that the conditions of the City Engineer's October 14 and December 5, 2000 memos, and the Fire Marshal's June 26, 2000 memo shall be met; 6) that one (1) guest parking stall (10' x 20') shall be designated and clearly marked at the rear of the site and marked on the final map and plans, shall not be assigned to any unit or used for any kind of enclosure, but shall be owned, maintained, and kept available for guest parking by the condominium association; 7) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 8) that the developer shall provide the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof, painting, common area carpets, drapes and furniture; 9) that the minimum garage door width for each unit shall be 16-0", that the parking garages shall be designed to city standards and shall be managed and maintained by the condominium association to provide parking at no additional fee, solely for the condominium owners, and no portion of any parking area and the egress aisles shall be converted to any other use or any support activity such as storage or utilities; 10) that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 11) that if a gate system is installed across the driveway, there shall be an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to provide guest access to their site 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2001 by pushing a button inside their units; 12) that the project shall meet the requirements of the Municipal Code Chapter 15.14 Storm Water Management and Discharge Control including the Storm Water Pollution Prevention guidelines; and; 13) that this project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Discussion on the motion: The maker of the motion suggested adding a condition that two large scale trees be added in the front yard as approved by the City Arborist, Eucalyptus trees would be appropriate, suggested a scale compatible to the existing trees along El Camino Real. The second agreed with the amendment. Commissioner noted that a serious discussion regarding multifamily design review is needed Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project and recommend the Tntative map with one added condition. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 voice vote (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 2. 1610 FORESTVIEW AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A' FIRST AND, SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN HERMANNSSON, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DEAN AND TAMI RALLY, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked how the number of bedrooms was calculated, it appears that the ground floor has four potential bedrooms. Planner Hurin noted that the access to the office is only through the master bedroom, and therefore the office is not considered a bedroom, the breakfast nook is a part of the kitchen and therefore did not qualify as a potential bedroom, therefore there are two potential bedrooms on the ground floor. Commissioner noted that a condition could be added that the door location in the hall not be moved so that the potential of additional bedrooms in the future will be eliminated. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. John Hermannsson, architect, 1204 Middlefield Road, Suite E, Redwood City, represented the project and was available to answer questions. Commissioner noted that he did not see a landscape plan, asked if the architect had any plans to add planting to screen the second story addition, there is some landscaping shown along the side and rear of the property, but it is not enough to screen the second story. The applicant noted that there is minimal landscaping at the rear of the lot, the new trellis will screen the addition at the front of the house, several trees are shown on the site plan; Commissioner noted that the floor area ratio variance has been eliminated but the front setback variance for the trellis still remains, need to convince the Commission why it should be approved, trellis should be integrated into the structure better, why is the proposed trellis location the only way to solve the problem? Applicant noted that there is a front porch off the breakfast nook, enhances the front porch use, trellis provides shade and interest to the front of the house since the front entrance is towards the rear of the house, ties in to the craftsman details, rear yard is small, trying to take advantage of the front yard. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: front setback variance is for trellis, see trellis as a way to hold up vegetation, trellis is not adding bulk to the structure, trellis ties into the house, in favor of granting the variance, project has come a long way and fits into the neighborhood. C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2001 Discussion on the motion: Commission noted that there is a hallway joining the first floor office to the first floor master bedroom, suggested adding a condition that there shall be no changes to the first floor corridors or door locations; having a difficult time supporting the front setback variance, feels there are other better solutions within the code that would accomplish the same intent, lot is flat, 141' deep and has a standard width, has a large rear yard, most houses on this block are set back further than this house, agree that trellis does not add to the bulk, but sees no hardship to grant a variance. Commissioner noted that if the justification for the trellis is to add plant material, there are other ways to accomplish this, adding trees would be one example. CA Anderson suggested that condition #1 be amended so that it is clear that the front setback variance is for the trellis only. The maker of the motion and second agreed. Commissioner noted that the FAR variance has been eliminated, concern with the skylights has been addressed, trellis is a nice feature, in support of project. C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped December 27, 2000, sheets A-1 through A-9, that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit, and that this front setback variance shall only apply to the open trellis at the front of the house and that the open trellis shall not be enclosed to add living space; 2) that there shall be no changes to the first floor corridors or door locations; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 4) that the Chief Building Official's and City Engineer's June 10, 2000, memos shall be met; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with one added and one amended condition. The motion passed on a 5-1-1 roll call vote (C. Vistica dissenting, C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:46 p.m. 3. 1600 CARMELITA AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MAHMUT YUKSEL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; RICHARD FOUST, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Eight conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Richard Foust, architect, noted that he tried to revise the plans according the Commission's suggestions at the previous meeting, hope all concerns were addressed. Commission noted a concern with the window details and stucco mold, details are not representative of the new windows to be installed. Architect noted that the detail came from a Marvin catalog, but doesn't show the flashing. Commission is not interested in the flashing, detail shows stucco on the stud, not over plywood sheathing, do not agree with the details, still feel that the plans are not showing what will be built, not asking for finished drawings, need to show accurate schematic drawings, feels architect understands the objective of the details; was adamant at the previous meeting about reducing the mass and bulk of the building, this structure will be big, said at previous meeting that the porch is too tall and suggested that the porch height be reduced, architect kept the same porch roof height and raised the porch finished floor, this did not accomplish anything; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2001 Further discussion: Commission noted a discrepancy in the plate heights, some indicate 8', other places show 9', this variation is not shown on the plans, plans are much better, but are still inaccurate, did not address concerns, house is going to be very big with a 12' plate height in the living room. Applicant noted that there is an 8' and 9' plate height variation designed into the front; noted that the code allows 12' plate heights, other house in neighborhood is 5' higher than the proposed house. Commission commented that the set standards in the code won't reduce the mass and bulk, need to look at design review guidelines, can propose a house with maximum FAR, but also need to look at mass and bulk, tired of reviewing the same project over and over again, see no progress. Applicant asked the Commission for suggestions on appropriate plate heights. Commission has allowed 9' plate on the first floor and an 8' plate on the second floor, 10' plate is too tall, need to understand the scale of the building, this house will be large when placed next to another house, structure has no human scale. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: architect is trying to make changes, suggest project be referred to a design review consultant. CA noted that this project has been reviewed by consultant once. Commission suggested that the project would fit if every height and width dimension were reduced by 10%, will be more compatible and will have a more human scale, project stretches everything, project will be easier to approve if mass and bulk is reduced, sections indicate the proposed mass and bulk of the building, this is a straight box on all sides, this is the wrong attitude for design a new house in Burlingame, need to look at details, there is "too much air in the balloon", too big, cannot support project, get the idea from the architect that he has not been through the design review process in Burlingame before, maximizing the square footage of the house with a 1500 SF basement, this is a 4600 SF house on a 6000 SF lot, architect has to make more of an effort to integrate the house better into the neighborhood, this project has been to four meetings. C. Luzuriaga moved to deny the application. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Discussion on the motion: want to make it clear that this does not mean that a maximum size house can't be built, but need to keep mass and bulk down, suggested assigning a subcommittee to work with the applicant if he wishes. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 voice vote (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:14 p.m. 4. 732 LEXINGTON WAY - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING TWO-STORY RESIDENCE (SHARON AND DAVID ZOVOD, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JOHN MATTHEWS ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Jack Matthews, architect, noted that there was a minor revision to the elevations as suggested by the Commission, the front of the house is more unified and now contains consistent roof shapes. Commission noted that the left side elevation is blank and asked if a window or other element could be added to break it up. The architect noted that there was a window at this location in the previous plans which provided light for the stairway, window was removed, is set back 12' from building edge on second floor, window on front elevation now provides light and no City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2001 ventilation to the stairway, the blank wall will not be seen from the street. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: in favor of this project at previous meeting, applicant has addressed the Commission's concerns. C. Luzuriaga moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 3, 2000, sheet A-2 and December 28, 2000, sheets A-1 and A-3 with revisions to the rear roof line; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window(s), adding a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Discussion on the motion: pleased with the quality of drawings and revisions to the roof tied the roof structure together. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 voice vote (C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:21 p.m. 5. 1825 CASTENADA DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT, AND A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY RESIDENCE (G & B CONTRACTORS, APPLICANT; DEAN FANTHAM AND YVETTE GOROSTIAGUE, PROPERTY OWNERS; ROBERT A. WILLIAMS, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Yvette Gorostiague, property owner, addressed the Commission's concerns, have revised the East Elevation, provided a landscape plan, added story poles with ribbons, provided photos of story poles on house, which show how the construction is not blocking neighbors' views, hillside at rear of property is 80' high, made efforts to contact neighbors, sent out a letter to concerned neighbors and received only one response from owner at 1809 Castenada Drive, did not leave a name or phone number so she could not respond. Sam Honeo, 1812 Castenada Drive, Mrs. Richard Kelly, 1821 Castenada Drive, Bob DeVincenzi, 1809 Castenada Drive, and William and Christine Kahn, 1837 Castenada Drive spoke in opposition of the project, noted that every house on Castenada is approximately 1700-1800 square feet in size, proposed house is 4500 square feet with six bedrooms, have lived in his house for 25 years, the neighborhood is peaceful and pleasant, there is little traffic, the proposed house is a monstrosity compared to other houses in the neighborhood, spoke with the property owner and asked why such a large house is needed, owner told him that there was not one to meet their needs available; went to the County Hall of Records and found that there are several owners at this property, there is a $600,000 mortgage on the house, concerned about the financing for the house, what guarantee is there that the house will be built after it has been demolished. Commission noted that the city cannot guarantee that the house will be built. There is only one two story house on a block of 84 houses, six bedroom house will be too big, have lived in house for 43 years, submitted a letter noting her concerns with the project, her property is 450 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2001 feet long and only one which is flat, they use 300 feet of the rear yard, the subject lot is steeper, the proposed house will be an eyesore, second floor looks into their yard, will have no privacy, chimney extends out two feet and is five feet from the property line, concerned with sparks from the chimney landing on their roof, house looks nice but should be built somewhere else, husband ill am concerned with noise from demolition and construction, bought there second house in Burlingame because they wanted to stay in the city, submitted photographs taken from inside her house towards the proposed house, will loose light and get darker, house will be built closer to the street, will not see traffic when backing out of garage, east elevation shows a two story house going straight up, will loose their view from the bedroom and bathroom, adding 2300 square feet and a wine cellar, digging for the wine cellar could affect their house, did not respond to the applicant because she felt that the owner could not be convinced to revise the project; would fit in the neighborhood if the existing house were remodeled and an addition was made which was consistent with the architecture of the neighborhood, lots in the neighborhood are big enough to build a seven story hotel, would like to see an elevation which reflects the detached garage, there are none in the neighborhood, not all neighbors received the owners letter, made copies of the letter and distributed to the neighbors. Further comment: have lived in our house for 36 years, Castenada Drive is only two blocks long, half of which is in Burlingame, have no objection to the property owners themselves, they are wonderful, feel that when the owners realized that the proposed house was going to be three times as large as the other homes in the neighborhood, they thought to ask the neighbors how they felt and received objection, neighbors should have shown the project to the neighbors before submitting an application, Castenada Drive was built 40 years ago, existing houses were built to a maximum, became a community of single story houses, raised five boys in three bedrooms, existing homes can accommodate families with children, have rights as a community, house is an intrusion on the community, don't know how long owners will stay, may become a problem with the number of bedrooms and increased traffic in the future, house could be built and sold right away, could be appealing for larger families or multifamilies, feels story poles are not accurate; am a teacher who taught carpentry, this is not something we want to see, site is large but most of it is unusable, there is only one other house in the neighborhood that is two story, the neighborhood is composed of different ethnic backgrounds, many have a hard time speaking at a public hearing before the Commission, one reason why the whole block is not present tonight, there is no way one can build towards the rear of the lot, hills rises steeply at the rear, existing house was well maintained, house is expensive and it is a waste to demolish the house, there are enough alternatives, cannot ignore neighbors' wants and needs, asked if story poles represent room height or roof height. Commission clarified the neighborhood concern to be that the existing single story house is 2300 square feet and that the proposed two story house is 4500 SF, code allows 7200 square feet based on the size of the lot, the aerial shows 12-14 lots with a similar situation. Public testamony continued; noting concern with the potential the view blockage from his house at the previous meeting, have looked at the story poles and feel that there will be no loss of view,to him would like to withdraw objection; would like to make sure the proposed house does not exceed the building envelope as shown by the story poles, noted that he received a letter from the owner and did not respond because he was out of town during the holidays. The Commission's decisions at the previous meeting were thoughtful, is not against this project but does not live in this neighborhood, reviewed the story poles, can only see the story poles from his rear property line, project has no impact on his property, is concerned about throwing away the house. In response: architect for the project, noted that the proposed house has an attached garage, a licensed contractor installed the story poles which were laid out very accurately to match the proposed plan, City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2001 horizontal ribbons show the plate height and the roof ridge, not proposing house closer to the street, second story is pushed back, structure is not three times as large, Planning Dept. classifies this house as having six potential bedrooms, there is one exercise room and one hobby room without closets which were counted as bedrooms, so really have four bedrooms; property owner noted that it is their intention to live in the house for a long time, went to schools in Burlingame, family lives nearby. Commission noted that each application is based on merit. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: will vote against the project, opposed to this approach to building in Burlingame, there are plenty of ways to use the existing spaces, fit into smaller spaces, has less of an impact, has a high respect for the community, would not do something to disrupt the neighborhood, instead would buy a house, live in it for a couple of years to find out what the needs of the neighborhood are, opposed to demolishing a house in good shape; perplexed with the house to family ratio, this house fits into the neighborhood well, mass will not disrupt the fabric of the neighborhood that much, would rather see an addition to the existing house, but have right to build a new house, can support the project; resource management is important, architecture blends in well with the neighborhood, house will be larger, within the code, have to act on design review, change is inevitable, can support project. Further discussion: understand the concerns of neighborhood change, lot is wider and larger, the mass and bulk has been kept down, rooflines mitigate the mass, did a good job, this is not a popularity contest, can't take into consideration whether the house is for a developer or owner, cannot only act on neighborhood complaint, owner is entitled to a second floor, would like to see the placement of the story poles verified by a licensed surveyor, suggest that a photograph be taken at different angles before and after construction to ensure accuracy with the story poles, what if story poles are off by two feet? CA suggested that an inspection be conducted during the framing of the structure, if it is found to be off then project will have to come back to Commission; torn between was is allowed by the code and design review, this is a uniform neighborhood of single story ranch -style houses, project would change the fabric of the neighborhood, not in support of the project. C. Vistica moved to approve the application with the added conditions that the height of the story poles be verified by a licensed surveyor during the framing of the structure, that the surveyor shall also provide a photographic survey at different angles before and after construction, and that if different the project shall be reviewed by the Commission, and that project shall comply with the proposed demolition recycling ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 30, 2000, Sheets 1-4, and 6 and December 21, 2000, Sheets 5 and 7; 2) that the height of the story poles shall be verified by a licensed surveyor during the framing of each floor, second story plate line and roof ridge and be submittted to the City Engineer for verification at each step, and that the surveyor shall provide a photographic survey at different angles conducted before and after the construction, and that if either the framing or photographs are different than the approved plans the construction shall be corrected or the project shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; 3) that the project shall comply with the proposed demolition recycling ordinance recently approved by the City Council; 4) that the conditions of the City Engineer's November 6, 2000 memo shall be met; 5) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating a window(s), adding a dormers) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 6) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2001 Discussion on the motion: understand the feelings that the house will violate the neighborhood, architect has done a good job with keeping the mass and bulk down, not perceived as a monster house. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-2-1 roll call vote (Cern. Luzuriaga and Dreiling dissenting, C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m 6. 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WINDOWS WITHIN 10' OF PROPERTY LINE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (DAMIR O. RADOS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; DAVE HOWELL, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if the applicant had a permit to remove the redwood tree because it was damaging hardscape; he also noted that there are two redwood trees on this site one straddling the property line on each side of the site. The documentation is not clear which tree is addressed or whether both trees are included. The CA noted that this item could be continued until the city arborist can clarify his statement. C. Osterling noted that he lives within the noticing area of this application so will abstain from this item. He stepped down from the dais. Commissioners asked if a trees straddles a property line does the neighbor have something to say about its removal; yes, both property owners need to agree to have the tree removed. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Dave Howell, designer, 2825 Hillside Drive, represented the project. He noted that this project had been referred to, and reviewed by a design review consultant and the consultant recommended it. Commissioners noted that the City arborist needs to look at both trees, if the tree is causing damage to the existing foundation it is not relevant since this is a request for a new house, need to know if the arborist was aware of this. Applicant summarized the revisions made to the design in response to the commission's last review. Commissioners noted that by itself the design is all right however don't see how this design matches this neighborhood, it would be consistent with the Trousdale area. Applicant noted that this neighborhood is eclectic. Commissioners expressed concern about the trees, not the one to the west next to the garage as it is in decline, but the one on the east; the tree removal permit is not clear about which tree, although it does not appear to include both trees; tree to the right should be retained, could pull the foundation of a new house back and accommodate nicely, in some circumstances variances have been granted to save a tree. Applicant noted that the tree to the right is affecting the foundations of both houses. Applicant noted that he believed that the tree permit was for removal of both trees. Commissioners noted that the backdrop of trees is a big component of the character of this neighborhood and this proposal removing the two redwoods would take a big chuck of that backdrop, there is a lot of opportunity on this site to design around the trees, would like to see what is being done to respond to the neighborhood not just the site plan. Also concerned that there was not enough FAR set aside to provide for a two car garage in the future without having to get an FAR variance, don't like to be put in that position with new construction. Applicant noted he has worked with the design reviewer as directed, why is the commission reviewing it now? Commissioners noted that a project must respond to both the clients needs and uphold and reinforce the neighborhood character, in this case that was not done. Applicant noted that this is the house the client wants, on the same footprint as existing, and it is within the code requirements. CA pointed out that the design review guidelines are a part of the code as well, and the applicant needs to explain why this proposal fits them. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2001 Commissioner discussion: City Attorney and City Planner recommend that we continue this matter until we can get more information from the City Arborist on the trees; comfortable with the design, if the issue is just the tree can continue, if the issues are greater then we would need a different motion; the issue is greater than the tree, the building design is not compatible with a number of design guideline components: mass and bulk, design has no relief on either side -straight up; front of the building is boxy, windows and a lot of plain stucco, is a bit of a monster; site design is not compatible with the trees; if come back with the trees saved and a notch in the house to do it, still have to live with the house. Modifying the design to save the trees would affect the design, if item continued would get back the same design, wish to clarify the tree issue and give direction to the designer. CA noted that item could be denied without prejudice and sent back to design review study when the applicant has responded and the tree issue has been clarified. C. Boju6s moved for a denial without prejudice directing that the tree issue be clarified, direction given on the design addressed, and then returned to design review study. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: design needs to accommodate the tree, so footprint needs to be changed; concerned that the denial without prejudice will allow the applicant to use the tree permit to remove the tree, suggest a continuance to get the information needed from the city arborist then decide the action on the project, would like to know from the arborist what needs to be done to save the trees; the tree report notes that one tree is in decline but it could be 100 years before it dies. C. Boju6s suggested that the motion be amended to continue this item to the next meeting for information on the tree and clarification for the scope of the tree removal permit and the reasons for the decision by the city arborist; and suggest that the tree removal permit be suspended until the arborist could review it and report back to the commission. The second C. Vistica agreed to the amendment to the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the amended motion to continue action on this item until the next meeting , January 22, 2001, and receipt of a report from the city arborist. The motion passed on a 6- 0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. This action is not appealable. This item ended at 10:07 p.m. 7. 810 ALPINE ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION CLOSER THAN 4'-0" TO AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (RAY BRAYER, BC&D, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; MIKE AND NOELLE ENGEMANN, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Ray Brayer, 920 Morrell, represented the project noting that he would be happy to answer questions. Commissioner asked why the applicant was requesting a 6 inch separation between the main structure and the garage. Applicant noted there had been a recent addition to the family and they need to add a bedroom and play area for the children, the area they are proposing to add extends the lines of the existing building. Commissioners noted that proposed addition does not make good use of the exterior space in his experience, having 2'-11" between house and garage does not work, only way out of the rear yard is through garage or house; the house could be streatched out and adequate separation provided or the garage narrowed, the garage is wider than it technically needs to be now so there is room. Applicant noted that it is a cost issue of having to pay for the 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2001 replacement of the garage. Complimented applicant on the quality of the drawings. Suggested alternatives to arrangment by placing master bedroom within open space and play area separately with access to yard would make outdoor space "L" shaped and more useable. Applicant noted -that he would like to discuss these ideas with his client. Commissioner noted that when place a gate across a driveway , the driveway behind the gate becomes a part of the useable backyard. There were no further comments from the floor on the project and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved to continue this item to the meeting of January 22, 2001, to allow the applicant to respond to the comments made by the commission or to eliminate the need for a conditional use permit. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. This item is not appealable. This item concluded at 10:37 p.m. 8. 33 ARUNDEL ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FRONT PORCH ADDITION (JOHN SUDANO, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Two conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. C. Deal noted that he would abstain from this item because of a business relationship with the applicant. C. Vistica noted that he lived within the noticing area so he too would abstain from the item. Chairman Luzuriaga noted for the record and applicant that an action would take three votes of the four members seated. Applicant noted that he would like to go forward anyway. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. John Sudano, property owner, spoke noting house was built without a porch and the new 4 foot landing will make the exit safe, 4 homes on the block have a covered porch and they do not meet setback either; the porch will cause the house to blend in with the surrounding houses; this is a narrow lot, only 38 feet wide and the house is only 24 feet wide and there is a protected tree at the center of the lot; the house is 1000 SF with one bathroom; feel that the covered porch will be an asset to the quality of the house and will add benefit to the living space. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Bojues noted that this was only a 2 foot exception for a front porch, other houses on the street have the same exception and the commission has approved similar exceptions in similar circumstances, so would move to approve the front setback variance for the new front porch by resolution with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped December 14, 2000, Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations and that the front porch shall be kept open and never be enclosed or converted to living area that the variance shall not continue should the house be demolished; and 2) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 1998 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling who noted that he liked the porch but want to make sure that the variance being granted is for an open porch and should not continue if ther house were ever demolished and would like to add a condition to that effect; the maker of the motion agreed to the addition. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to grant the front setback variance for an open porch. The motion passed on a 4-0-2-1 (Cers. Vistica and Deal abstaining, C. Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2001 This item ended at 10:45 p.m. 9. FLOOR AREA RATIO BASEMENT ORDINANCE — EXPANSION OF FLOOR AREA RATIO TO INCLUDE SOME BASEMENT AREAS IN SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Reference staff report, 01.08.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the summary of the proposed provisions to extend FAR to basement areas in single family houses in the R-1 district and noted how past Planning Commission revisions had been incorporated. Commission asked if open stair wells or light wells would be counted in FAR. Staff responded no, only if they were enclosed or covered would they be counted. CP noted comments in two letters from the public Mr. and Mrs. Hubner and Ruth Jacobs, 2965 Arguello. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: subcommittee did a good job drafting this ordinance and closing a loop hole in the ordinance, an example of which was on tonight's agenda, good reason to approve these changes. C. Osterling moved to recommend these regulations to extend the floor area ratio to some basement areas to City Council for adoption. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. This item is not appealable, but will be forwarded to the City Council. The item ended at 10:55 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 2606 SUMMIT DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (CHRIS NGAI AND YOLANDA LEUNG, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; DAROSA & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) CP Monroe presented a summary of the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Johnny Darosa, 1299 Old Bayshore Highway, designer represented the project. He noted that he would answer any questions. Commissioners asked: difficult to tell on plans what is new and what is existing, are all the windows on the first floor and the gable window existing; the detail on the garage does not seem to match that of the house; do not understand why you want to cover up the concrete block construction with wood accents; the west elevation looks like a large wall, can this mass be broken up, can similar window detail to what exists be used; the front of the house where the stair kicks out is not represented correctly on the plans, it doesn't seem to work with the roof line, needs correction; would like the front (garage) to tie to the rest of the house; feel that he location of the mass of this addition is good; concerned about the treatment on the sides of the garage, the stucco coins, does not fit the rest of the house; feels like the angle tilt on the addition is awkward, explain; there appears to be a problem with the plans, the two sides of the second story rectangle scale with different lengths, something is wrong, 2 feet is missing from the elevation, this could have a dramatic effect since the building is too tall now; clay tile on roof should be flat; could you 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2001 build on the soft modern aesthetic of the house by adding a trellis to demarcate the entrance, use color to differentiate the design, use wood or composition shingle on the roof. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment to the floor: Leonard Borriso, 2600 Summit Drive spoke. He submitted pictures showing how this house faces into many of the rooms of his house (kitchen, living room, bedroom, bathroom, garage), the trees provide some privacy now, but not for a second story addition; would the view ordinance preclude them adding a second story at 2600 later because it would affect the view from the then existing second story on this house. CA noted that it depends upon the construction history and the proportion of the view blocked by the most recent addition. Commission noted plans show small trees on property line, could add more to screen addition, neighbors could also plant trees on their property, some shrubs grow as tall as 25 feet, these would be effective as well, could be a condition of approval. Proposed design needs to consider neighbor. CA noted process is not intended to create entitlements for those who go first. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Osterling noted that the changes discussed are sufficiently minor that this item can be put on the consent calendar with the direction that to address the neighbors concerns vegetative screening be added for the second floor addition and moved accordingly. C. Boju6s seconded the motion noting that a condition should be added to clarify that the neighbor retains the right to add a second story. The maker of the motion agreed to the amendment. Comment on the motion: the motion would work if commission was simply accepting the existing architecture, but in this case substantial work needs to be done to the front of the building and the second story wall along the side is also an issue; the neighbor does not have an absolute right to have their privacy protected, but sensitivity to the view is important, this is not a massive addition, it is placed at the center of the house. This appears to be a good candidate for design review, commission has given explicit direction, would prefer not to have on consent; direction would include manipulation of the windows on the property line to address privacy, will affect layout; given clear direction, architect agrees with changes if he executes them OK it could still be on action. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this on the consent calendar when it returns with direction to staff to also hold a space on the action calendar for this item for that meeting. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent)vote. The Planning Commissions action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:30 p.m. 11. 725 FARRINGDON LANE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT, DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (SCOTT KUEHNE, SUAREZ- KUEHNE ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MARK AND ANNE GOYETTE, PROPERTY OWNERS) CP Monroe presented a summary of the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. The project was represented by the property owners Anne and Mark Goyette. They noted in their comments that this is presently a 2 bedroom house and they have three children, they took a previous design to a design reviewer a year ago and ultimately ended up with a new architect and redesigned project; they have spoken to their neighbors and all support, one wrote a letter; the design was devised to save the existing landscaping especially the large Magnolia in the rear yard. Commissioners asked how the height proposed compared to the adjacent 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2001 houses, about the justification for an attached garage in a neighborhood where most are detached; how does an attached garage address neighborhood compatibility; where is the landscape plan, would like to see large scale shrubs to screen second story addition especially between houses; concerned with relationship of bow window on first floor at front and dormers above, discussed benefits of detached garage and useable rear yard space. Bath and closet over garage could be incorporated into second floor and garage detached; noted that proposed garage was at rear, almost far enough back to look detached, and has a lower roof line than the rest of the house, looks comfortable. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment to the floor. Robert W. Booth, former resident at 728 Ferrington spoke. Lived on the street for 78 years, Magnolia tree should be removed, it is dangerous because its roots extend above the ground and present a tripping hazard; favor this construction and should be allowed to build; house at 721 Ferrington's higher section was a part of the original construction; 728 Farrington was built in 1916. Applicant concluded family uses the rear yard, have a detached garage now and area behind it is unusable, shaded can't grow anything, dead space; have lived in house 9 years, have evaluated the use and traffic pattern, rear yard would be more useful to them with the attached garage. There were no further comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. C. Vistica have been convinced that the attached garage is all right, it will add variety to the neighborhood, and given its setback location and lower height is a good example, would not like to see this pattern take over the block because it brings the houses too close together but will make motion to bring this item back on the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues who noted that the special permit for the height should be approved because of its consistency with the design. The maker of the motion agree. Comment on the motion: would like the architect to address the relationship of the bow window and the gable to make them work better together before he returns. If going to vote for an attached garage need applicant to make findings about what is unique about this lot so others do not ask for the same; the location of the Magnolia tree in the rear yard is unique, it limits the opportunities for adding on to the house, this is a remodel not a replacement so the placement of the existing house is a given; a condition should be added so that any future remodel of this house should be reviewed by the Planning Commission . The maker and second of the motion agreed to this amendment. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that this item should be set for the consent calendar with proposed revisions on February 12, 2001, and called for a voice vote on the motion. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. The Planning Commission action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:10 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meetings of December 4, 2000, December 18, 2000 and January 4, 2001. CP Monroe reviewed briefly the actions taken by the City Council at these meetings which related to Planning items. Discussion of October letter of December 18, Kopp, letter of January Council to Grand Jury 18 and December 19, 2000, opinions of the San Mateo County Grand Jury, 2000, from San Mateo County District Attorney to the Honorable Quentin 2, 2001, from David Luzuriaga to the City Council, and response of City 15 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes January 8, 2001 CA Anderson introduced this item. He reviewed the history of the correspondence received and asked the commission to review and affirm, if they like, Chairman Luzuriaga's letter. The City Council has asked the commission for their input for a letter by the Mayor. The commission discussed the roles of the various agencies in the administration of the Ralph M. Brown Act. C. Osterling made a motion that the commission support the letter prepared by Chairman Luzuriaga. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga noted that the letter was crafted to reaffirm the District Attorney's opinion. He then called for a voice vote on the motion to affirm the letter. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Keighran absent) voice vote. The CA noted that he would send a copy of the Mayor's letter to the Planning Commission. Commission noted that they were pleased with the City Council's position and were also tired of this matter and have a lot of business to get to. - CP Monroe asked the commission if there were any items that they would like to have placed on the agenda for the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on February 24, 2001. Commisioners suggested: what to do about the General Plan/Specific Area Plan and the need to review on-site parking requirements for office buildings. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 1:15 a.m. UNAPPROVED MIN1.8 16 Respectfully submitted, Stan Vistica, Acting Secretary BURLItYGAME 1 T r I B U R L I N G A M E P U B L I C LIBRARY Burlingame Public Library Board of Trustees Minutes November 14, 2000 I. Call to Order The meeting of November 14, 2000 was called to order by President Cecile Coar at 4:30 pm. II. Roll Call Trustees Present: Trustee Absent: Staff Present: City Hall: Citizens Present: Press: Cecile Coar, Jane Dunbar, Andrew Gurthet, Mary Herman Jeff Berger Alfred Escoffier, City Librarian Sidney Poland, Recorder Larry Anderson, City Attorney Russ Cohen, Constance Cohen Joe Baylock Dwana Bain Independent Alison Hawkes Burlingame Daily III Warrants & Special Fund The Trustees unanimously agreed to approve the warrants as presented. M/S/C (Herman/Guerthet)) IV. Minutes The Trustees unanimously agreed to approve the minutes of the October 17, 2000 meeting. M/S/C (Dunbar/Herman) V. Correspondence Correspondence mailed in the packets was reviewed. VI. From the Floor (Public Comments) - Read item 9b. 4 8 0 P r i m r o s e R o a d• Burl i n g a m e• C A 9 4 0 1 0- 4 0 8 3 Phone (650) 342-1038•Fax (650) 342-1948•www.pls.Iib.ca.u's/pls/pls.html VII. Reports A. City Librarian's Report The City Librarian reviewed his report highlighting the following issues. 1. Circulation Supervisor - Amy Gettle, presently Circulation Supervisor for the Millbrae Library, has been appointed to fill the position of Circulation Supervisor at Burlingame Library. 2. Cultural Programs - Docent Kay Payne presented a slide lecture featuring "Kingdoms of Edward Hicks" November 2nd. A lecture on the Anderson Graphics will be featured November 16th 3. Building Issues Update - The Water sealing of both terraces is still in progress. 4. Personnel - Recruitment for library pages and for the 30 hour reference librarian position vacated by Brenda Chavez is in progress. B. Foundation Report - 1. Elegant Affair - Jane Dunbar was congratulated by the Board for chairing a very successful event. The event netted more than $ 15,000. 2. Election of Officers - Ballots to elect officers and board members for the coming year will be sent to present board members this week. VIII. Unfinished Business A. Easton Project - The Board accepted the proposal of Kathy Page, Library Consultant, to determine the service needs at the Easton Branch up to the amount of $3,000 00 with compensation being funded from the Duncan Trust. M/S/C (Herman/Dunbar). B. Duncan Trust - The Trustees agreed to place this item on next month's agenda. Library Board of Trustee Minutes 2 November 14, 2000 IX. New Business A. Library of California Resolution - The Trustees approved the Resolution Authorizing Burlingame Public Library to join the Golden Gateway Library Network, as part of the Library of California. M/S/C (Herman, Guerthet) The Resolution will now be sent to the City Council together with a letter from the City Librarian for the December 4, 2000 Council Meeting. B. Posting of Materials - The City Librarian introduced Larry Anderson, City Attorney, to explain the legal aspects of the Library posting policy and giveaway program. Mr. Anderson recommended that the policy include more definitive language regarding the reasoning and purpose of distributing giveaways. Russ Cohen and Constance Cohen expressed their concerns that the Library might remove The Burlingame Voice from the giveaway area. The City Librarian stated that there was no intent to remove any specific publication at this time. The City Librarian also noted that the Trustees review Library policies from time to time. Most recently the Internet Policy and the Patron Behavior Policy were reviewed. Action on this item was tabled until the next Trustees' meeting in order that the entire Board could be present. M/S/C (Herman/ Dunbar) X. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 5:30pm. M/S/C (Coax/Dunbar) Respectfully Submitted Alfred Esc f Afie City Librarian Library Board of Trustee Minutes 3 November 14, 2000 CITY OF BURLINGAME MONTHLY PERMIT ACTIVITY 1/02/01 8:49:03 DECEMBER, 2000 THIS YEAR TO DATE # Valuation 26 $7,360,917 2 $2,352,389 3 $2,010,000 279 $10,595,451 98 $10,024,695 52 $166,000 8 $98,723 41 $180,976 3 $13,100 257 $2,803,600 32 $206,195 48 $288,287 58 $893,888 BUILDING INSPECTION LAST YEAR TO DATE # Valuation 11 $2,183,424 4 $9,647,150 4 $8,579,000 314 $11,304,865 100 $10,369,237 27 $97,500 3 $61,000 31 $115,297 2 $1,390 327 $3,399,531 71 $571,430 35 $209,602 119 $1,798,721 FISCAL YEAR TO DATE # Valuation 14 $4,060,860 1 $1,859,389 0 $0 137 $4,623,519 48 $7,547,545 24 $10,000 1 $7,500 18 $105,745 1 $2,500 149 $1,640,862 18 $129,095 20 $174,530 24 $431,478 907 $36,994,221 1,048 $48,338,147 455 $20,593,023 THIS MONTH LAST MONTH SAME MONTH LAST YEAR Permit type # Valuation # Valuation # Valuation New Single Family 2 $500,000 4 $1,178,552 1 $200,000 New Multi -Family 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 New Commercial 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Alterations -Res 15 $263,800 22 $483,638 17 $727,612 Alterations-NonRes 6 $321,250 10 $4,916,415 9 $701,500 Demolition 2 $10,000 5 $0 1 $5,000 Swimming Pool 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Sign Permits 2 $16,000 2 $6,100 1 $2,800 Fences 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 Reroofing 29 $420,703 16 $137,518 16 $180,376 Repairs 2 $17,500 2 $35,000 7 $17,320 Window Repl 5 $40,089 4 $21,935 2 $15,690 Miscellaneous 5 $120,600 4 $119,700 5 $32,500 TOTALS...... 64 $1,709,942 69 $6,898,858 59 $1,882,798 1/02/01 8:49:03 DECEMBER, 2000 THIS YEAR TO DATE # Valuation 26 $7,360,917 2 $2,352,389 3 $2,010,000 279 $10,595,451 98 $10,024,695 52 $166,000 8 $98,723 41 $180,976 3 $13,100 257 $2,803,600 32 $206,195 48 $288,287 58 $893,888 BUILDING INSPECTION LAST YEAR TO DATE # Valuation 11 $2,183,424 4 $9,647,150 4 $8,579,000 314 $11,304,865 100 $10,369,237 27 $97,500 3 $61,000 31 $115,297 2 $1,390 327 $3,399,531 71 $571,430 35 $209,602 119 $1,798,721 FISCAL YEAR TO DATE # Valuation 14 $4,060,860 1 $1,859,389 0 $0 137 $4,623,519 48 $7,547,545 24 $10,000 1 $7,500 18 $105,745 1 $2,500 149 $1,640,862 18 $129,095 20 $174,530 24 $431,478 907 $36,994,221 1,048 $48,338,147 455 $20,593,023 ;4, CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary December 31, 2000 Investments Par Value Market Value Book Value % of Portfolio Term Days to Maturity YTM 360 Equiv. YTM 365 Equiv. LAIF & County Pool 14,191,162.06 14,191,162.06 14,191,162.06 38.70 1 1 6.225 6.311 CORP NOTES 3,000,000.00 2,966,250.00 3,027,780.00 8.26 1,596 941 5.929 6.011 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 19,500,000.00 19,456,865.00 19,452,808.28 53.05 1,738 982 6.159 6.244 Investments 36,691,162.06 36,614,277.06 36,671,750.34 100.00% 1,054 599 6.165 6.251 Total Earnings December 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 186,081.82 1,040,946.15 Average Daily Balance 35,409,818.02 33,282,277.86 Effective Rate of Return 6.19% 6.20% Pursuant to State law, there are sufficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure requirements for the coming 6 months. av8ilabilityrf.some of s is restricted by law (e.g. Gas Tax, Trust & Agency funds, Capital Projects, and Enterprise funds). 1-10-01 RAHN A. BECKER, FINANCE DIR./TREASURER Run Date: 01/10/2001 - 09:07 Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types, and Portfolio CITY CP PM (PRF_PM1) SymRept V5.01f CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Investments December 31, 2000 Average Purchase CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value LAIF & County Pool 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 9,919,526.80 79 S M COUNTY POOL 4,271,635.26 Subtotal and Average 12,929,229.74 14,191,162.06 CORP NOTES Page 2 Stated YTM Days to Maturity Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Date 9,919,526.80 9,919,526.80 6.510 4,271,635.26 4,271,635.26 5.850 14,191,162.06 14,191,162.06 6.510 1 5.850 1 6.311 1 073902BM9 487 BEAR STEARNS CORP 03/02/1999 2,000,000.00 1,960,000.00 1,997,500.00 6.150 6.179 1,156 03/02/2004 37042R2C5 489 GENERAL MTRS ACCEP CORP 04/20/1999 1,000,000.00 1,006,250.00 1,030,280.00 6.750 5.685 525 06/10/2002 Subtotal and Average 3,027,780.00 3,000,000.00 2,966,250.00 3,027,780.00 6.011 941 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 3133M3TS4 476 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/17/1998 1,000,000.00 996,870.00 1,000,000.00 6.020 6.020 805 03/17/2003 3133M4HM8 480 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 05/20/1998 1,000,000.00 998,440.00 1,000,000.00 6.270 6.270 869 05/20/2003 3133M5P95 482 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/24/1998 1,000,000.00 995,940.00 1,000,000.00 6.000 6.000 996 09/24/2003 3133M5T34 483 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/30/1998 1,000,000.00 993,750.00 1,000,000.00 5.800 5.800 1,002 09/30/2003 3133M5SSO 484 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 10/06/1998 1,000,000.00 990,940.00 1,000,000.00 5.590 5.590 1,008 10/06/2003 3133M7Y75 488 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/22/1999 2,000,000.00 1,989,380.00 2,000,000.00 6.000 6.000 1,176 03/22/2004 3133MA5R6 491 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 10/18/1999 2,500,000.00 2,517,175.00 2,500,000.00 7.000 7.000 1,386 10/18/2004 3134A1LB4 467 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 03/05/1997 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 6.630 6.628 388 01/24/2002 3134A3MFO 492 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 10/12/1999 1,000,000.00 991,870.00 963,683.28 5.850 6.790 1,215 04/30/2004 312902GZ6 493 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP 10/26/1999 1,000,000.00 1,001,250.00 1,000,000.00 6.760 6.760 662 10/25/2002 31364FVU2 477 FANNIE MAE 03/20/1998 2,000,000.00 1,995,000.00 2,000,000.00 6.100 6.100 808 03/20/2003 31364F4F5 481 FANNIE MAE 08/24/1998 2,000,000.00 1,992,500.00 2,003,125.00 6.000 5.963 955 08/14/2003 31364GMK2 486 FANNIE MAE 12/28/1998 1,000,000.00 996,250.00 1,000,000.00 5.290 5.290 361 12/28/2001 31364GT82 490 FANNIE MAE 06/25/1999 2,000,000.00 1,997,500.00 1,986,000.00 6.340 6.507 1,254 06/08/2004 Subtotal and Average 19,452,808.28 19,500,000.00 19,456,865.00 19,452,808.28 6.244 982 Total Investments and Average 35,409,818.02 36,691,162.06 36,614,277.06 36,671,750.34 6.251 599 Run Date: 01/10/2001 - 09:07 Portfolio CITY CP PM (PRF_PM2) SyrnRept V5.01f CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 3 Portfolio Details - Cash December 31, 2000 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Total Cash and Investments 35,409,818.02 36,691,162.06 36,614,277.06 36,671,750.34 6.251 599 Portfolio CITY Run Date: 01/10/2001 - 09:07 CP PM (PRF PM2) SymRept V5.01f Run Date: 01/10/2001 - 09:07 Portfolio CITY CP PM (PRF_PM3) SymRept V5.01f !D CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Investment Activity By Type Page 4 December 1, 2000 through December 31, 2000 Beginning Stated Transaction Purchases Sales/Maturities Ending CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Rate Date or Deposits or Withdrawals Balance LAIF & County Pool (Monthly Summary) 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 6.510 1,000,000.00 0.00 79 S M COUNTY POOL 5.850 2,368,738.72 1,000,000.00 Subtotal 11,822,423.34 3,368,738.72 1,000,000.00 14,191,162.06 CORP NOTES Subtotal 3,027,780.00 _ 3,027,780.00 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon Subtotal 19,452,808.28 19,452,808.28 Total 34,303,011.62 3,368,738.72 1,000,000.00 36,671,750.34 Run Date: 01/10/2001 - 09:07 Portfolio CITY CP PM (PRF_PM3) SymRept V5.01f CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 5 Investment Activity Summary December 1999 through December 2000 Average 18 32,401,430.11 6.100% 6.184% 6.089 Run Date: 01/10/2001 - 09:07 0 0 1,197 812 Portfolio CITY CP PM (PRF_PM4) SynnRept V5.01 f Yield to Maturity Managed Number Number Month Number of Total 360 365 Pool of Securities of Securities Average Average End Year Securities Invested Equivalent Equivalent Rate Purchased Matured / Sold Term Days to Maturity December 1999 18 30,562,385.75 5.966 6.049 5.592 0 0 1,265 988 January 2000 18 29,931,705.23 5.984 6.067 5.628 0 0 1,291 985 February 2000 18 30,022,152.42 6.009 6.092 5.734 0 0 1,287 960 March 2000 18 30,281,803.99 6.024 6.108 5.807 0 0 1,276 929 April 2000 18 33,256,054.24 6.038 6.122 5.932 0 0 1,162 826 May 2000 18 32,657,748.25 6.097 6.182 6.114 0 0 1,184 820 June 2000 18 31,174,390.44 6.152 6.237 6.300 0 0 1,240 837 July 2000 18 31,264,019.28 6.147 6.232 6.281 0 0 1,236 812 August 2000 18 33,282,731.21 6.171 6.256 6.347 0 0 1,161 742 September 2000 18 33,789,216.42 6.184 6.270 6.384 0 0 1,144 711 October 2000 18 34,021,622.21 6.174 6.260 6.352 0 0 1,136 686 November 2000 18 34,303,011.62 6.185 6.271 6.380 0 0 1,127 660 December 2000 18 36,671,750.34 6.165 6.251 6.311 0 0 1,054 599 Average 18 32,401,430.11 6.100% 6.184% 6.089 Run Date: 01/10/2001 - 09:07 0 0 1,197 812 Portfolio CITY CP PM (PRF_PM4) SynnRept V5.01 f Portfolio CITY „Run Date: 01/102001 .09:07 CP PM (PRF_PM5) SymRept V5.01f Y CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 6 Distribution of Investments By Type December 1999 through December 2000 Investment Type December January 1999 February March April May June July August September October November December Average 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 by Period LAW & County Pool 26.4 24.9 25.1 25.8 32.4 31.2 27.9 28.1 32.5 33.5 33.9 34.5 38.7 30.4% Certificates of Deposit - Bank Certificates of Deposit - S & L Certificates of Deposit -Thrift & Ln -- Negotiable CD's - Bank CORP NOTES 9.9 10.1 10.1 10.0 9.1 9.3 9.7 9.7 9.1 9.0 8.9 8.8 8.3 9.4% Bankers Acceptances Commercial Paper - Interest Bearing - Commercial Paper - Discount Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 63.7 65.0 64.8 64.2 58.5 59.6 62.4 62.2 58.5 57.6 57.2 56.7 53.1 60.3% Federal Agency Issues - Discount Treasury Securities - Coupon Treasury Securities - Discount Miscellaneous Securities - Coupon Miscellaneous Securities - Discount Non Interest Bearing Investments Mortgage Backed Securities Miscellaneous Discounts -At Cost 2 Miscellaneous Discounts -At Cost 3 Portfolio CITY „Run Date: 01/102001 .09:07 CP PM (PRF_PM5) SymRept V5.01f Earnings during Period Pass Through Securities: Interest Collected Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period Interest Earned during Period Adjusted by Premiums and Discounts Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 116,366.67 0.00 0.00 ( 0.00) ( 0.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 698,200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00) 0.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Period 0.00 0.00 Cash/Checking Accounts: Interest Collected 0.00 297,215.64 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 222,847.92 222,847.92 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 153,132.77) ( 177,317.41) Interest Earned during Period 69,715.15 342,746.15 Total Interest Earned during Period 186,081.82 1,040,946.15 Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Total Earnings during Period Run Date: 01/1012001 •09:07 186,081.82 1,040,946.15 Portfolio CITY CP PM (PRF PM6) SyrnRept V5.O1f CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 7 Interest Earnings Summary December 31, 2000 December 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date CD/Coupon/Discount Investments: Interest Collected 89,850.01 698,200.01 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 334,234.08 334,234.08 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 307,717.42) ( 334,234.09) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 116,366.67 698,200.00 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Period Pass Through Securities: Interest Collected Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period Interest Earned during Period Adjusted by Premiums and Discounts Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 116,366.67 0.00 0.00 ( 0.00) ( 0.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 698,200.00 0.00 0.00 0.00) 0.00) 0.00 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Period 0.00 0.00 Cash/Checking Accounts: Interest Collected 0.00 297,215.64 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 222,847.92 222,847.92 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 153,132.77) ( 177,317.41) Interest Earned during Period 69,715.15 342,746.15 Total Interest Earned during Period 186,081.82 1,040,946.15 Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Total Earnings during Period Run Date: 01/1012001 •09:07 186,081.82 1,040,946.15 Portfolio CITY CP PM (PRF PM6) SyrnRept V5.O1f Investments 95BD Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary December 31, 2000 Par Market Value Value Book % of Value Portfolio Term Days to YTM YTM Maturity 360 Eauiv. 365 Eauiv. Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 800,000.00 790,496.00 802,000.00 100.00 1,756 987 4.995 5.064 Investments 800,000.00 790,496.00 802,000.00 100.00% 1,756 987 4.995 5.064 Total Earnings December 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 3,416.66 20,500.00 Average Daily Balance 802,000.00 802,000.00 Effective Rate of Return 5.02% 5.07% Pursuant to State law, there are sufficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure requirements for the coming 6 months. Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types, and availability-ef-s me o,t44o fu s is restricted by law (e.g. Gas Tax, Trust & Agency funds, Capital Projects, and Enterprise funds). Rahn Becker, Finance Director/Treasurer Portfolio 95BD Run Date: 0 11101200 - 09:07 CP PM (PRF_PM1) SyrnRept V5.01f 95BD Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments December 31, 2000 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 365 Maturity Date LAIF 79 LOCAL AGENCY INV. FD. 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.707 5.707 1 Subtotal and Average 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0 Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 3133M5QB9 485 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 11/24/1998 800,000.00 790,496.00 802,000.00 5.125 5.064 987 09/15/2003 Subtotal and Average 802,000.00 800,000.00 790,496.00 802,000.00 5.064 987 Total Investments and Average 802,000.00 800,000.00 790,496.00 802,000.00 5.064 987 Portfolio 958D CP Run Dale: 01/10/2001 - 09:07 PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept VS.Ott CUSIP Investment # Issuer Total Cash and Investments Run Date: 01/10/2001 - 09:07 . t 95BD Portfolio Management Page 3 Portfolio Details - Cash December 31, 2000 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 365 Maturitv 802,000.00 800,000.00 790,496.00 802,000.00 5.064 987 Portfolio 95BD CP PM (PRF_PM2) SyrnRept V5.011' Run Date: 01/10/2001 - 09:08 Portfolio 98BD CP PM (PRF PM1) SyrnRept V5.01f 98BD Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary December 31, 2000 Par Market Book % of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. Federal Agency Coupon Securities 1,710,000.00 1,705,194.90 1,710,000.00 100.00 1,826 814 5.977 6.060 Investments 1,710,000.00 1,705,194.90 1,710,000.00 100.00% 1,826 814 5.977 6.060 Total Earnings December 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 8,874.05 52,265.73 Average Daily Balance 1,710,000.00 1,710,000.00 Effective Rate of Return 6.11% 6.06% Pursuant to State law, there are sufficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure requirements for the coming 6 months. Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types, and avatlabdity of some -of t//e funds is restricted by law (e.g. Gas Tax, Trust & Agency funds, Capital Projects, and Enterprise funds). ' l RAHN BECKER, Finance Director/Treasurer Run Date: 01/10/2001 - 09:08 Portfolio 98BD CP PM (PRF PM1) SyrnRept V5.01f 98BD Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments December 31, 2000 CUSIP Investment # Issuer Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Date Managed Pool Accounts 80 LOCAL AGENCY INVEST FUND 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.124 5.124 1 Subtotal and Average 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 0 Federal Agency Coupon Securities 3133M3XE0 478 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/26/1998 1,710,000.00 1,705,194.90 1,710,000.00 6.060 6.060 814 03/26/2003 Subtotal and Average 1,710,000.00 1,710,000.00 1,705,194.90 1,710,000.00 6.060 814 otal Investments and Average 1,710,000.00 Run Dale: 01/10/2001 - 09:08 1,710,000.00 1,705,194.90 1,710,000.00 6.060 814 Portfolio 98BD CP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRepl V5.01 f L' 98BD Portfolio Management Portfolio Details - Cash December 31, 2000 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Run Dale: 01/10/2001 - 09.08 Total Cash and Investments 1,710,000.00 1,710,000.00 1,705,194.90 1,710,000.00 6.060 814 Page 3 Portfolio 98BD CP PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept V5.01f 01-08-01 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES FOR: DECEMBER, 2000 Prev Last Act Act Crime Classification .................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... 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 77 93 1,127 1,067 ------- ------ ------ ------ 77 93 1,127 1,067 PAGE: 1 0 1 0 0 7 2 1 0 1 1 3 5 1 2 1 6 3 2 12 6 1 1 6 2 2 2 18 30 1 8 9 14 14 210 163 8 6 66 57 8 7 76 40 1 5 3 5 1 7 1 2 2 40 52 15 128 177 2 7 63 71 2 21 27 27 20 265 127 13 33 1 9 41 156 8 4 99 66 1 15 21 2 5 4 4 8 77 93 1,127 1,067 ------- ------ ------ ------ 77 93 1,127 1,067 PAGE: 1 01-08-01 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: DECEMBER, 2000 Prev Last Act Act Crime Classification .................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Arson 4 8 Other Assaults 14 14 210 163 Forgery and Counterfeiting 4 3 25 26 Check Offenses 1 16 18 Fraud 2 1 24 14 Bad checks 0 0 Credit Card Offenses 1 10 12 Impersonation 1 0 Welfare Fraud 0 0 Wire Fraud 0 0 Embezzlement 1 2 12 6 Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 1 9 Vandalism 19 25 296 300 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 2 9 4 Bomb Offense 0 0 Bomb Threat 0 2 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 Sex Offenses 5 6 Indecent Exposure 2 2 13 13 Sex Offenses against Children 1 1 Lewd Conduct 3 1 Incest 0 0 Sodomy 0 0 Statutory Rape 0 0 Drug Abuse Violations 3 11 40 52 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 1 1 Marijuana Violations 4 9 48 54 Gambling 0 0 Offenses Against Children 1 14 9 Driving Under the Influence 26 24 118 118 Driving Violations 1 14 11 Hit and Run Accidents 6 3 54 71 Suspended License 5 6 59 67 Liquor Laws 5 11 Drunkeness 6 4 69 62 Disorderly Conduct 4 1 79 56 01-08-01 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES CITY REPORT FOR: DECEMBER, 2000 Prev Last Act Act Crime Classification .................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Vagrancy 0 0 All Other Offenses 37 53 501 364 Trespassing 2 16 8 Violation of Court Order 2 3 23 23 Animal Abuse 0 0 Municipal Code Violations 2 3 57 79 Harrassing Phone Calls 5 5 89 77 Mental Health Cases 4 7 83 44 Littering 2 0 Extortion 0 0 Bribery 0 0 Kidnapping 0 0 Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 Possession of obscene literature;picture 1 0 Peeping 'Tom' 0 0 Towed Vehicles -no crime 52 34 454 246 Masseuse Applicants 1 1 Temp Restraining Orders 4 6 60 47 K9 Assists to Outside Agencies 2 2 2 Warrants - Felony 2 1 12 13 Warrants - Misd 4 56 54 Probation Violations 2 9 11 Parole Violations 0 1 Found Property 9 10 99 57 Missing Property 12 21 119 101 Missing Person 2 3 35 11 Stalking 6 1 Prowling 1 6 0 Curfew and Loitering Laws (Under 18) 1 2 Runaways (Under 18) 0 1 Truants/Incorrigible Juvs 1 2 5 Other Juvenile Offenses 8 0 Child Neglect/prot custody 3 30 18 Death Investigation 0 0 Bicycle Violations ------- ------ 1 ------ 0 ------ 232 267 2,804 2,261 PAGE: 2 01-08-01 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 CITY REPORT FOR: DECEMBER, 2000 Prev Last Act Act Crime Classification .................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... ------- ------ ------ ------ ------- ------ ------ ------ 232 267 2,804 2,261 i 01-08-01 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS CITY REPORT FOR: DECEMBER, 2000 Prev Last Act Act Crime Classification .................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD... Parking Citations Moving Citations 2,980 2,777 35,428 25,592 175 235 2,816 3,265 ------- 3,155 ------ 3,012 ------ 38,244 ------ 28,857 3,155 3,012 38,244 28,857 PAGE: 1 Officer Productivity.. Reported On: All Officers Data Type Reported on: PARKING BURLINGAME generated on 01/08/2001 at 07:38:43 AM Report Range: 12/01/2000 to 12/31/2000 Page 1 of 1 Valid % All Voids % All % Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ DAZA-QUIROZ 634 803 28.48 6 26.09 99.26 JFOX 505 370 13.12 2 8.70 99.46 KIRKPATRICK 502 280 9.93 7 30.43 97.56 MORAN 201 1104 39.15 6 26.09 99.46 ROSCOE 503 263 9.33 2 8.70 99.25 Total 2820 23 Page 1 of 1 cc CM CN Dear Planning Commissioners: January 3, 2001 9 Thank you for the notice regarding the meeting of the FAR basement ordinance. It is a shame that it has taken over 1 year and many houses later to come before the planning Commission. I hope you consider the 100 signatures asking for only a 200 square foot basement which was provided to you by Ms. Kathy Smith. In November of last year (2000) a basement was explained to me by a commissioner as for people who wanted a small wine cellar or storage, etc. So, what happened? Recently as you are aware a planning commissioner received over a 1700 square foot basement for their own home even though some of the same commissioners denied another applicant over 1200 square feet.(on Davis Drive) It does make one wonder why it took so long to do something about this issue. By allowing any square footage that is not counted toward the FAR, you will be encouraging multi -families, problems with parking, extra sewage, and utilities. Also possible drainage problems for the neighbors. We encourage you not to allow anything over 200 square feet for a basement. without counting it towards the FAR. Thank you for hearing our concerns. Sincerely. 1'A � Alt �X� CC CM RECEIVED DEC 2 9 2000 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF BURLINGAME The City of Burlingame: I was born 52 years ago in Burlingame and have lived in this area all my life. I felt that this letter would help the City of Burlingame to make some improvements in the downtown area. There are so many new upscale stores and so many people on the Avenue, it is a shame to see several areas that are dirty and unattractive. Specifically: • The comer of Lorton & Burlingame Avenue; all the garbage bins overflowing in front of Starbucks and Noah's Bagels. This is usually at night. I take classes at the Pilates Studio 2-3 times a week and I pass by these shops frequently. They are a mess on the outside. Also, why the need for Newspaper racks on the entire corner when there are many on both comers opposite of Starbucks? How many newspaper stands do you need? They are very ugly and there are too many! • The parking lot in back of Cheese Please (on California Avenue and the alley behind the bike store); has dirty walls and trash on the ground. There are no plantings and it looks like a slum area. There are many attractive parking lots in Burlingame, on Donnelly Road, El Camino and the Avenue, and Primrose behind the Cosby Commons. • There are newspaper stands popping up everywhere in Burlingame. Do we need this? They are making the downtown area look really junky! I would appreciate a response to this letter. Thank you for your time in this matter. Sincerely, Chris Corsetti 135 Country Club Hillsborough, CA 94010 rage ioii CLK-Musso, Ann From: PW/ENG-Gomery, Jane Sent: Monday, January 08, 2001 11:36 AM To: 'Norma O'Connor' ike; COUNCIL -Spinelli, Mike- Cc: PW/ENG BagdonnGeorge; PW/ENG-Monaghan, NCIL-Galliga, Joe; COUNCIL -Coffey, lPhilMusso, Ann; Philip; PW/ENG-Murtuza�, Syed Subject: RE: Broadway Streetscape web page Dear Ms. O'Connor - Thank you for your email to the Broadway Streetscape web page. Your first email was distributed to the city council at their January 2, 2001 meeting. I will forward your current email to them as well. For your information the city council meets the first and third Mondays of the month and their next meeting is January 17, 2001 at 7:00 p.m. in the City Hall Council Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame across from the Main Library. During the meetings they have a time for public comments and you are welcome to speak about any city matter at that time. In the future, if you would like to contact council members directly there are links on the city web page to each council member. Just sign on to http://www.burlingame.org/ and click on any council members name for their biography and email address and phone number. Jane Gomery Associate Engineer and Landscape Architect Public Works Depaftment ----Original Message ----- From: Norma O'Connor [mailto:normaoc@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 02, 2001 10:42 AM To: Broadway@burlingame.org Subject: Broadway Thank you for replying to my e-mail. Really nice to know that someone 'listens'. Realize that you can't please all of the people all of the time, but, hey, do you really listen to at least 1/2 the people, half of the time? With the huge, big, beige, boring boxes still going up and WALGREENS on Broadway (with Long's less than a mile away and Walgreens also less than a mile away) when we really need a grocery store there for people who don't drive and found Stanaways a haven, as well as people, on their way home from work, a real convenience, why, oh why, another drugstore , that will, most likely, put the other, neighborhood pharmacy, out of business? Was that a run-on sentence, or what? Just want to let you know (though you didn't ask), I drive...no problem. Just thinking of those who don't and what Broadway is turning into..... Did we really need Blockbuster to put the others out of business. Frankly, sometimes, progress stinks! You all are contributing to the rape of what was once an avenue of family owned stores. Shame on you. Would like to hear what the 'council' thinks. Norma O'Connor 1/8/01 1316 Palm Drive CM Burlingame, CA94010 January 6, 200101 Burlingame City Council 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Subject: Stop sign at Adeline and Cortez. Dear Burlingame City Council: I write this letter in support of a solution for the safety of children and pedestrians at the Cortez and Adeline intersection. There is clearly a problem here and the question is how do we solve it. Many local residents have requested a stop sign at this location. In response, the city's traffic engineer and the city council have expressed concerns that there are already too many stop signs on Adeline and an additional stop sign would create a false sense of security. If that is the case, I am sure the city engineer can find an alternative, safe and viable way for children and pedestrians to cross at this intersection. Stop signs are not the only solution to slowing traffic and making it safer for pedestrians. For example: • The City of San Mateo recently installed a well -marked crosswalk with lights embedded in the street located on 4h Avenue. A crossing walk button triggers the lights. • A yellow waming light that flashes when pedestrians pressed the crossing walk button. This could be similar to the light in front of the Fire Station on California Avenue. • Speed bumps could be put in place and designed so that fire trucks, with a larger wheelbase, could cross without damaging the equipment. • Traffic calming devices, like markers in the road that make your car vibrate at high speeds, or "bulb outs' that shorten the distance between the sides of the road and narrow the space provided for cars. Some of the crosswalks on Burlingame Avenue have bulb outs. I am not an expert on this topic, but I know there are solutions to issues like these. They may frustrate drivers or cost a little more money, but they will make it safer for pedestrians, particularly children at busy intersections like Adeline and Cortez. I urge the City Council to take positive action on this particular issue. Thank you for your consideration. ;9&4 Michael Barber Enclosure (1) cc: Lincoln School Site Council �y Pl l OCT R- PERSONAL HEALTH u.rx.. anning Healthier Suburbs, Where: Cars Sit Idle and People Get Moving .. By JANE E. BRODY I grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y., where the streets were my playground. Virtually ev- ery day my friends and I played outdoors, rolle .skating, bicycling, playing ball, run- ning --races and the like. As a grown-up, I re- sistgd a move to the suburbs and instead my husband and I raised our twin sons in Brook- lyn, a block from Prospect Park: 536 acres repletemith ball fields, cycling and walking patits, an ice rink, tennis courts and wooded trails. The boys, like their parents, were in the park every day. Thirty-one years later our,5ons remain physically active — and trinir ;young men who regularly play bas- ketbp•and tennis. One`son still lives in Brooklyn near the samt,park. Although he owns a car, he cy- cles td.most destinations, and he and his wife$ush their twin sons around the neigh- borl$od in a stroller. But our other son now livesim;a suburb of Los Angeles where each adulttequires a car and where children haveto be driven to nearly every activity, inclirdibg play dates. Study after study has shown that subur- ban residents walk less, bike less and are less Ohysically fit than city dwellers. Their cars are parked adjacent to their homes and typiealy driven to within a few feet of their destinations. Their neighborhoods often lack sidewalks or other paths safe for pedestri- ans and bicycles. Entertainment facilities, wort places and stores are so far from resi- denos xhat a car often must be used. Even publtransportation, where it exists, is usu- ally iW4far from home for most people to rea4,on foot. Now, however, public health officials and comnity planners throughout the coun- try ase rethinking our vehicle -friendly com- mu�nand seeking to design develop - me. d retrofit established communities to encourage outdoor physical activity. This is not new. In the 1860's and 70's, i i around pedestrian and transit -friendly con cepts," Mr. Yaro said. "We need more com- pact om pact developments, sidewalks, accessible retail and employment centers and perma- nent green reserves." LL et - Meanwhile, efforts are under way to ret- rofit et rofit some communities and make physical activity safe and accessible for more people... Dr. Dietz said Rhode Island is committed to developing walking trails in its 32 cities and ;•. towns. The River Trails Conservation As- `" " sistance Program of the National Park Service is helping communities throughout -•• k` a the country do the same. In rural southeast ,. ern Missouri where there are few sidewalks— r or shopping malls or other places to walk, walking trails have been established,and 55 >'' percent of the people who use them say they•,, y walk more as a result. ;.. " But Dr. Dietz said we don't have to wait- • for major reconstruction to encourage greater activity. He said that if stairways _ .•r 1+�,,. �. W mit -. ,a = were made brighter and more attractive, Photographs by Marty Katz for The New York. Times more people would use them. Efforts to get people to exercise include this poster, which Dr. Ross E. Andersen and fellow Johns Hopkins researchers used to get In a suburban shopping center, Johns people in a Maryland mall to use the stairs. At right is a "rails to trails" path connecting downtown Washington with Bethesda, Md. Hopkins University researchers placed signs touting the benefits of stair -walking near stairs adjacent to escalators. Stair use ,. Frederick Law Olmstead, who designed the pari; I live near, used health promotion to sell his idea for creating large parks in the heart of cities. He recognized the connection between getting people out into the fresh air and sunshine and preventing rickets and tu- berculosis, then rampant in cities. Today the goal is to engineer more physi- cal activity into American life to reduce both spreading obesity and the chronic, often lethal health problems linked to seden- tary living. Dr. William Dietz, director of the Division of Nutrition and Physical Activity for the Centers for Disease Control and Pre- vention in Atlanta, said most communities designed since World War II are unfriendly to pedestrians and cyclists. "A quarter of all trips taken by Ameri- cans are under a mile, but 75 percent of those trips are done by car," lie noted. "Only one-third of children who live less than a dren who reduced the time they spent rose from 4.8 percent to 6.9 percent among mile from school now walk to school." watching television and playing video people who saw signs declaring general In a stud done for the disease control Y games lost a significant amount of body fat g g Y health benefits and to 7.2 percent among P g agency, Dr. Lawrence D. Frank of the Geor- in just six months. people who saw signs touting weight-control ��a <. ,IV= gia Institute of Technology noted that Amer- Safety is another issue. "We can't in- benefits. icans and Canadians used their feet for far crease activity levels for most Americans Schools, too, must do their share. "Schools+" fewer trips than people in other developed unless we change the way communities are need to restore physical education pro - countries. In Italy, 54 percent of all trips and designed," said Bob Yaro, executive direc- grams and make existing programs more =. in Sweden, where it is cold and dark much of for of the Regional Plan Association of New effective," Dr. Dietz said. "We need to help the year, 49 percent of all trips are done by York. "We need more compact, pedestrian- parents identify safe routes to school and walking or bicycling, whereas in the United oriented patterns of growth. The vast ma- encourage them to walk to school with their States, the figure is only 10 percent. jority of Americans live in suburbs built children. Schools can be opened after hours People offer many excuses for their inac- since 1950. They don't have parks, side- so that all members of the community can tivity, among them a lack of time and routes walks, retail centers they can get to on foot use the gym and pool." that are not safe for pedestrians or cyclists. or by public transport, and now serious pub- Finally, Dr. Dietz said, employers should ` But if adults and children reduce&television lic health issues are an unanticipated by- provide exercise facilities or underwrite viewing by one hour a day, there would be product of this civilization we built." memberships in health clubs. Studies have ample time for physical activity. A recent The Census Bureau forecasts extensive shown that such benefits improve the bot study among 192 elementary school stu- community development by 2050. "We need tom line by preserving employee health and dents in San Jose, Calif., showed that chil- to be sure these communities are designed reducing absenteeism and turnover. 1