HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2001.02.20BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
February 20, 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 7:01 p.m. by Mayor Joe Galligan.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
Led by David Barruto.
3. ROLL CALL
COUNCIL PRESENT: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI
COUNCIL ABSENT: NONE
At this time, Mayor Galligan noted a Closed Session item would be discussed at the end of the meeting
in regards to the real estate negotiations for 1369 North Carolan Avenue.
4. MINUTES
Vice Mayor Spinelli noted a correction to the minutes of January 27, 2001; page three should be
CalTrain instead of CalTrans. With this correction, Councilman Spinelli made a motion to approve
the minutes of January 27, 2001; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice
vote, 5-0.
Vice Mayor Spinelli noted an addition to the minutes of February 5, 2001; Page 2, after Mayor
Galligan opened the public hearing, it should be noted that there were no comments from the floor and
the hearing was closed. Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve the minutes of February 5,
2001; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
5. PUBLIC HEARINGS
5a. PUBLIC HEARING WHETHER TO RESCIND ORDINANCE #1643 TO ADD STOP
SIGNS ON ADELINE DRIVE AT CORTEZ AVENUE
DPW Bagdon noted Council made a decision in October to reconsider the Ordinance #1643 that was
adopted to install stop signs at Adeline and Cortez and requested staff review possible alternatives to
increase safety for pedestrians crossing Adeline. City staff met with residents of the area and
discussed options. Summary of concerns and issues raised by the residents was included in the staff
report. The preferred options by the residents all include a crosswalk and better signage, together with
either a stop sign or a warning light, crossing guard or more predominant pavement markings. Staff
continues to have concerns with respect to the crosswalks and signage; believes that having three sets
of stop signs within 600 feet on a collector street increases the probability that drivers will not take
them seriously and may not come to a full stop. Staff suggested more intensified traffic enforcement,
possibly closing one of the public accesses at either Cortez or Cabrillo and put the stop signs in the
Burlingame City Council I February 20, 2001
location where the opening still existed, or having a crossing guard and improved signage at that
location.
CM Nantell noted staff appreciated the opportunity to be able to meet with the neighborhood
representatives to review the issues. One of the difficulties is the issue that centers around traffic in the
community. All five elementary schools have concerns about traffic and how it impacts the safety of
the children near the schools. Important to recognize standards to be used to address traffic issues.
The standard that is in place at this location is pedestrians can gain access to cross Adeline at a
controlled intersection with pedestrian markings by walking one block to the right or one block to the
left and cross the street safely. Feels the standard in place is an appropriate balance between these
competing interests; safe access across the street for pedestrians as well as flowing traffic. Staff looks
at stop signs as also becoming a traffic diversion vehicle, which pushes traffic from one street to
another street. Continuing to add more stop signs will divert traffic to Hillside, which is already
carrying the bulk of the east/west traffic.
Council Questions: Vice Mayor Spinelli asked if there was any formal count done on how many
children enter the gates at Cabrillo and Cortez. DPW stated there was no formal count done, but that
the Traffic Engineer was there during one school session; at Cortez he counted approximately 12
pedestrians, but can't say that is representative of how many pedestrians are actually going across the
street in those locations. CM Nantell noted that dismissal from school is spread out over a period of
time and that the Traffic Engineer was only counting during one brief interval.
DPW Bagdon noted having the stop signs further apart rather than closer will cause drivers to gain
speed between the stop signs and perhaps go faster. Mayor Galligan asked if the issues are worse
when Mercy High School is in session, which would warrant locking the gate at Cortez to the entrance
to the park during this time frame. CM Nantell stated this could be done if necessary. Noted the City
picks up the expense for the crossing guard. The estimate would be approximately $3,000 per year for
crossing guard on Adeline Drive and Cortez.
Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. The following spoke in favor of the stop signs:
Sue Pelequin, Cortez, stated she would like Council to look at the bigger picture; there is a major
problem at Lincoln School with traffic on Devereaux; Lincoln School does not have a parking lot so
cars back up; PTA is trying to educate parents to drop off their children at alternate locations in an
attempt to increase flow around the school; need to try to decrease the number of cars parked in front
of Lincoln School; would like to have a yellow crosswalk and stop sign to designate it as a school
crossing. Shirley Lee, resident of Cortez, stated their family utilizes the entrance at Cortez two to
four times per day; noted not just the families from Lincoln utilize that entrance; residents during the
day also use that entrance; would like Burlingame to promote a more pedestrian -friendly city. Janice
McGee, resident of Cortez and Adeline, stated she has had three cars hit due to speeding cars; supports
installation of stop sign. Julia Winslow, parent at Lincoln School and PTA President, noted even the
children's parents don't drive safely in the school zone; cars speed through the stop sign at Balboa and
Adeline; feels if a stop sign at Cortez will slow down cars, it might help the problem and possibly save
lives; agreed it is inconvenient to have to keep stopping. Demitri Wentworth, 1429 Cortez, and Jill
Young, a resident on Cortez, also support the crosswalk and stop sign on Adeline at Cortez.
Kathleen Wentworth, 1429 Cortez, acknowledged and thanked City Manager Nantell for chairing the
committee regarding this subject. She noted that even though the residents spoke of various options,
February 20, 2001 2 Burlingame City Council
they still favor the stop sign as the best option and secondary options were provided as discussion
items. Noted Adeline and Cortez has a lot of heavy pedestrian traffic, not just children going to
Lincoln School or people visiting Ray Park. Some children cut through Ray Park to reach OLA as
well as children cutting through to reach BIS. Feels drivers in the past were more courteous and
respectful of pedestrians; some drivers do not pay attention to pedestrians that are crossing in an
unmarked crosswalk. Does not feel closing the gate is a good solution; need to decompress
Devereaux and using the Cabrillo and Cortez entrance could help. Mrs. Wentworth does not believe
leaving things as they are and encouraging the children to walk to Balboa or Cabrillo will work; more
traffic enforcement is a good idea but probably not a permanent solution. She does not advocate
closing Cabrillo; wants it available for a drop off/pick up point for school. Would like to have the
City be more pedestrian friendly and make the parks more accessible to people. Feels a crossing
guard is a good idea, but with the inclusion of a marked crosswalk so it would also be safe on the
weekend.
Those in opposition of the stop sign: Metra Sonico, resident on Adeline, does not believe more stop
signs are needed. David Taylor, resident at Drake and Taylor, stated he taught his daughter to stop,
look and listen; parents should be teaching their children how to cross the streets; does not want or
believe more stop signs are needed on Adeline; a possible solution could be closing the gate at
Adeline and Cortez. Roy Christensen, resident on Carlos, does not believe another stop sign is needed
and possibly stronger police enforcement is necessary.
There were no additional comments and the hearing was closed.
Council Comments: Mayor Galligan noted that at the time the stop sign ordinance for Adeline at
Cortez was approved, comments were made at the hearing that led Council to believe that staff was
recommending the installation of these stop signs. Consequently, staff distributed a memo to Council
explaining they did not recommend the installation of the stop signs. Noted school safety is a priority
to everyone; something schools have faced for many years; installing stop signs at Cortez could cause
accidents; would like to take small steps before installing these stop signs. Noted there are no stop
signs warning drivers there is a school in the area; signs stating there is a school in the area is
necessary. Need more police enforcement; would like to have a police officer dedicated every
morning and afternoon at one of the schools. Would like an ordinance adopted to make talking on cell
phones while driving in a school zone illegal, whether dropping off a child or not; putting in a
crosswalk without a sign would be a death warrant; a child will think a car is going to stop, which is
not necessarily the case. Would like to rescind this stop sign ordinance, install school zone signs,
assign a police officer in the morning and afternoon at Cortez and Adeline, and leave both openings at
Cortez and Adeline open. Councilwoman O'Mahony noted she received many calls from residents
against the installation of the stop sign. Noted there is only 100 yards between each stop sign; afraid
an additional sign would encourage rolling stops. Appreciated the efforts being made by the residents
in attempt to keep the children safe. Feels installing these stop signs would create an unfair standard
for the traffic demands on Adeline and would shift the burden to Hillside Drive. Councilwoman
Janney noted she also misunderstood the original staff report and that staff was recommending the stop
sign; likes the idea of having a designated officer at all of the schools twice a day and in making this a
priority; supportive of an ordinance regarding the use of cell phones in a school zone. Vice Mayor
Spinelli stated that school zone signs are important on Adeline; feels the entrance on Cortez magnifies
the problem; supports closing the Cortez entrance to force people to use the Cabrillo entrance.
Councilman Coffey noted the focus should be on the safety of the children; does not support closing
the entrance to Cortez; this is a safe entrance and is used by a number of people, not just children;
Burlingame City Council 3 February 20, 2001
noted the park is used for many different events and programs; feels the stop signs at Adeline and
Cortez are necessary and does not support rescinding the ordinance. Mayor Galligan directed staff to
research the history of when the Cortez opening was installed; does not want to close the entrance until
other possibilities are researched; would like staff to come up with a plan to redesign the Cabrillo
entrance; improve signage and have a greater police presence at all the schools in the City.
Councilwoman Janney made a motion to adopt Ordinance #1651 which would rescind Ordinance
#1643 to Add Stop Signs on Adeline Drive at Cortez; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony,
approved by voice vote, 4-1, with Councilman Coffey dissenting.
5b. ORDINANCE #1650 TO EXTEND INDEFINITELY THE CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW
PROCESS WHICH ALLOWS STUDY OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES SUBJECT TO
DESIGN REVIEW AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS
CP Monroe noted that at the meeting of February 5, 2001, an ordinance was introduced to extend
indefinitely the current design review process. In April 2000, a revision was adopted to the process
which streamlined the process and brought applicants before the Planning Commission for a public
comment meeting before it was determined to put the application on the consent calendar, action
calendar, or refer it to a design reviewer. The process had a sunset clause written in at time of adoption
and now it is at the period of expiration. Should the process expire, the Planning Commission would
go back to the previous process which requires every application go to a design reviewer before going
to the Planning Commission. The comments received from the public on the new process have been
positive.
Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the hearing
was closed.
Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the adoption of Ordinance #1650 to extend
indefinitely the current design review process which allows study of a single family house subject to
design review at the beginning of the design review process; seconded by Councilwoman Janney,
approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
5c. ADOPT ORDINANCE #1649 TO INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
BASEMENT AREAS IN FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS
CP Monroe noted that at the meeting of February 5, 2001, an ordinance was introduced to include
single family residential basement areas in floor area ratio calculations; noted in the current code,
basement areas in single family houses are not included in the floor area ratio (FAR) calculation; there
have been concerns expressed about the way basements are defined as well as the exclusion of the
basement area. The Planning Commission recommends on this proposed ordinance in an attempt to
redefine the way basements are addressed when calculating FAR for single-family residences. The
proposed ordinance would include basement areas in single-family houses in the FAR calculation with
some exceptions and prohibit full bathrooms and bedrooms in such basement areas
Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the hearing
was closed.
Councilman Coffey made a motion to adopt Ordinance # 1649 which includes single-family residential
basement areas in floor area ratio calculations; seconded by Vice Mayor Spinelli, approved
February 20, 2001 4 Burlingame City Council
unanimously by voice vote. Mayor Galligan requested the City Clerk to publish a summary of the
ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
Sue Lindenberg, 865 Linden, requested the City of Burlingame research the over -parking on Rollins
Road, Larkspur Drive, and Linden Avenue; states taxis and limousines are major offenders; feels
parking and traffic ordinances are being enforced selectively; offenders are not being punished;
commercial and unsightly vehicles are parked in the area daily.
7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
None.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
• Adopt ORDINANCE #1648 establishing 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
• Adopt RESOLUTION #13-20012001 Assessments and Programs for the San Mateo County
Tourism Business Improvement District and Broadway Area Business Improvement District
CA Anderson recommended 1) adopt ORDINANCE #1648 establishing the San Mateo County
Tourism Business Improvement District, establishing basis for and levy of assessments, and
establishing the District advisory board; 2) Adopt RESOLUTION #13-2001 imposing assessments
for Year 2001 and the programs for the year.
b. LEASE OF CITY OF BURLINGAME RIGHT OF WAY TO RECTOR MOTOR CAR
COMPANY — RESOLUTION #14-2001
CA Anderson recommends approval of lease agreement with Rector Motor Car Company for a term of
five years.
C. TENTATIVE AGREEMENT: ASSOCIATION OF POLICE AND FIRE
ADMINISTRATORS — RESOLUTION # 15-2001
Retired City Manager Argyres recommended Council adopt RESOLUTION #15-2001 approving the
labor agreement with the Association of Police and Fire Administrators. This group represents the
Police Sergeants, Police Commanders, Assistant Fire Chiefs, and Fire Marshal.
d. PURCHASE NEW FIRE ENGINE FOR $364,375.63
FC Reilly recommended approval to purchase a new fire engine from Golden State Fire Apparatus for
$364,375.63.
Burlingame City Council 5 February 20, 2001
e. ADOPT RESOLUTION #16-2001 OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN
EXPENDITURES FROM PROCEEDS OF INDEBTEDNESS (CORPORATION YARD
RECONSTRUCTION)
CA Anderson recommended adopting RESOLUTION #16-2001 that will make it possible to reimburse
the City's General Fund for expenditures made in preparing and acquiring property for the
reconstruction of the City's Corporation Yard on North Carolan Avenue.
f. RESOLUTION 917-2001 APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND CONCEPTUAL PLANS FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE
CORPORATION YARD AT 1361 N. CAROLAN AVENUE
DPW Bagdon recommended Council approve RESOLUTION #17-2001 approving a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Conceptual Plans for the reconstruction of the Corporation Yard.
9.
RESOLUTION #18-2001 APPROVING STOP SIGN NOTICING PROCEDURES
DPW Bagdon recommended Council approve RESOLUTION #18-2001 for Stop Sign noticing
procedures for Council hearings on Stop Sign Ordinances.
h. REJECT CLAIM OF METRO FURNITURE FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE ON JUNE 21
2000, AND NOVEMBER 2, 2000
CA Anderson recommended rejecting claim for damage to business operations occurring on June 21,
2000 and November 2, 2000, at Metro Furniture.
i. REJECT CLAIM OF WERNER BERTRAM (CSAA) FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE ON
NOVEMBER 8, 2000
CA Anderson recommended rejecting claim for damage to automobile occurring on November 8,
2000.
j. WARRANT AND PAYROLL, JANUARY, 2001
Finance Director recommended approval of Warrants 74166-74745 (excluding library check numbers
74705-74745), duly audited, in the amount of $3,148,992.16, Payroll checks 133820-134607 in the
amount of $1,363.241.65, and EFT's in the amount of $338,512.46 for the month of January, 2001.
Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the consent calendar; seconded by
Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Vice Mayor Spinelli attended an Airport Roundtable Sub -Committee meeting. Councilwoman Janney
attended the San Mateo/Hillsborough/Burlingame/Foster City Leadership Auction, BCE Dinner
Dance, Rotary Dinner Dance, Taste of the Town, Burlingame School District Strategic Long Term
Planning meeting, Poplar ReCare regarding childcare issues at 301 Airport. Councilwoman
O'Mahony attended the downtown parking study forum, Parks and Recreation Meeting regarding the
February 20, 2001 6 Burlingame City Council
proposed youth center, C/CAG meeting, and Taste of the Town. Councilman Coffey attended the
Rotary Dinner Dance, BCE Dinner Dance, Taste of the Town, Burlingame Chamber Board meeting,
and Burlingame Committee on Commercial Design Review. Mayor Galligan met with Tom Huening
regarding the Bay Trail, Burlingame Methodist Church, attended Bob Mark's show that featured the
driving range, Leadership auction, speaker for Government Day for Leadership, met with
representatives from Safeway, judged speech contents for Founders Day at the Lions Club, breakfast
meeting with Mark Church, Roosevelt Founder's Day event, Taste of the Town, and the BCE Dinner
Dance.
10. OLD BUSINESS
There was no old business.
11. NEW BUSINESS
An appeal hearing was scheduled for 2405 Hillside Drive for March 5, 2001, and an appeal hearing
scheduled for 1209 Bellevue for April 2, 2001.
12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Library Board of Trustees, December 19, 2000; Parks & Recreation,
January 18, 2001; Planning, January 22, 2001; Traffic, Safety and Parking, January 25, 2001;
b. Department Reports: Finance, January 31,21001; Building, January 2001; Police, January
2001
c. Memo from Director of Parks & Recreation regarding Proposed Skateboard Park
d. Memo from Director of Parks & Recreation regarding Energy Conservation at Bayside Park
e. Letter from Sue Lindenberg, 855 Linden Avenue, regarding parking problems on Rollins
Road, Larkspur, and Linden Avenue
f. Letter from Lorenz & Louisa Zee Kao, 1110 Burlingame Avenue, regarding illegal use of
building
g. Letter from Jennifer and Juergen Pfaff, 625 Bayswater Avenue, regarding traffic on Dwight
Road and Bayswater Avenue
h. Letter from Mr. Butler, 1519 Forestview Avenue, regarding AT&T Cable rate increases
i. Letter from Pat Moore, P.O. Box 465, regarding Howard/East Lane sidewalk cracks
i. Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Kahn, Helmet Altherr, and Dr. and Mrs. Kelly regarding project at
1825 Castenada
k. Letter from Mr. and Mrs. Siddons, 208 Burlingame Avenue, opposing possible destruction of
Lions Hall and Burlingame Recreation Dept.
Council met in closed session at 8:45 p.m. and returned to open session at 8:55 p.m.
Burlingame City Council 7 February 20, 2001
13. CLOSED SESSION
Pending Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(a)) and Real Estate Negotiations (Government Code
§ 54956.8) - public hearing on property acquisition itself was held on May 1, 2000.
City of Burlingame vs. Hurt, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 412951; 1347 N. Carolan Avenue -
City Negotiators: Mike Nave, Larry Anderson, Jim Nantell; Property Owner Representatives - Dorritt
Hurt, Bill Turner.
Council approved a tentative settlement with Mrs. Hurt in the amount of $806,000.
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 8:56 p.m.
Ann T. Musso
City Clerk
February 20, 2001 8 Burlingame City Council
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame
BURLINGAME
CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
a' REGULAR MEETING - TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 20, 2001 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010
(650) 558-7200
PAGE 3 OF 3
g. Letter from Jennifer and Juergen Pfaff, 625 Bayswater
Avenue, regarding traffic on Dwight Road and Bayswater
Avenue
h. Letter from Mr. Butler, 1519 Forestview Avenue, regarding
AT&T Cable rate increases
i. Letter from Pat Moore, P.O. Box 465, regarding
Howard/East Lane sidewalk cracks
j. Letter from Mr. & Mrs. Kahn, Helmet Altherr, and Dr. and
Mrs. Kelly regarding project at 1825 Castenada
k. Letter from Mr.and Mrs. Siddons, 208 Burlingame Avenue,
opposing possible destruction of Lions Hall and Burlingame
Recreation Dept.
13. ADJOURNMENT
NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities, please contact the City Clerk at (650)
558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy 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 - March 5, 2001
BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame
CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
REGULAR MEETING - TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 209 2001 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010
(650) 558-7200
PAGE 1 OF 1
SUGGESTED ACTION
ADDENDUM TO AGENDA
14. CLOSED SESSION:
Pending Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(a)) and Real Estate
Negotiations (Government Code § 54956.8) - public hearing on property
acquisition itself was held on May 1, 2000
City of Burlingame vs. Hurt, San Mateo Superior Court Case No.
412951; 1347 N. Carolan Avenue - City Negotiators: Mike Nave, Larry
Anderson, Jim Nantell; Property Owner Representatives - Dorritt Hurt,
Bill Turner
CITY OF BURLINGAME
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
SATURDAY, JANUARY 27, 2001
BURLINGAME MAIN LIBRARY — LANE COMMUNITY ROOM
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. ROLL CALL: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI
STAFF PRESENT: Larry Anderson, Rahn Becker, Frank Erbacher, Al Escoffier, Gary
Missel, Meg Monroe, Ann Musso, Jim Nantell, Bill Reilly, Randy Schwartz, John Williams
OTHERS PRESENT: Tim Auran, Cecile Coar, Ken Musso, Georgette Naylor, John Root,
Carolyn Root
Mayor Galligan convened the annual work program and goals study session of the City
Council and Department Heads on the above date in the Lane Community Room at 9:00 a.m.
3. REVIEW 2000
City Manager Jim Nantell noted that the purpose of this meeting is to review the past year and
look ahead at the big picture as well as allow council to comment on the work program for
2001. 2000, like the previous year, proved to be very busy for most departments. He
reviewed each department's 2000 New Year's Resolutions and what was accomplished.
4. REVIEW CURRENT YEAR BUDGET OUTLOOK AND PRELIMINARY
2001-02 GENERAL FUND BUDGET PLAN
Finance Director Rahn Becker noted the City is on target for the second consecutive year with
double-digit revenue increases from the three major revenue sources: hotel tax, sales tax and
property tax. Noted there are clouds on the horizon; starting to see softening of local
economy; feels it is important to begin the coming year with a much more conservative look
on revenues. All major bargaining unit contracts are up for renegotiation. There is a zero
PERS rate, but an increase of 10% is possible due to rising health costs. Capital Improvement
Program transfer may need to be phased over two years. Water rates will increase based on
San Francisco rate increases and sewer rates increases will be needed for required capital
improvements. Overall, the City is in a sound financial position to move into 2001.
Mayor Galligan asked if there was anew hotel online for the entire year of 2001. FD Becker
stated Hilton Gardens was open for part of the year, as well as the additional building at the
Doubletree. CP Monroe noted there are two hotels approved for the bay front area, with one
possibly opening at the end of the next fiscal year. Mayor Galligan inquired if any actuarials
were done regarding "3% at 50" for safety employees. CM Nantell stated the figures are
approximately 13-17% of payroll, or at least $1 million per year.
City of Burlingame 1 City Council Study Minutes
January 27, 2001 Unapproved Minutes
5. REVIEW COUNCIL DRAFT 2001 GOALS
Significant Issues for Council Review and Action:
Complete the site analysis portion of the Youth Center and present project alternatives to
the City Council.
CM Nantell noted the Parks & Recreation Director has been meeting with the Park and
Recreation Commission and the community to review various alternatives, one of which is
looking at the park in a more holistic way as opposed to just accommodating the youth center.
Feels it is important that any additional improvements made to the park are thoroughly
planned. The next meeting regarding this project will be held on February 151H
Review and act on proposed financing plan for the construction of a parking structure on
parking lot J.
Public Works met with the community to discuss the issues associated with the parking
structure and the possibility of changing the cost and duration of parking times. Noted there
wasn't as much sensitivity in changing the cost of the parking. One hour parking outside the
boundaries of Burlingame Avenue is too short. Some reluctance about changing the open
feeling of Lot J.
Work with Staff and Planning Commission to determine timeline for secondary unit
amnesty, housing element and specific plan updates.
CM Nantell noted there is the likelihood that developers will be approaching the City in the
near future with very difficult types of development east of Bayshore between the train tracks
and Rollins Road. Planning and Council may want to take a look at some specific plans in
those areas to determine what, if any changes to the current general plan are desired. The
City Council and Planning Commission need to discuss what the priorities are for 2001.
Council comments: Vice Mayor Spinelli would like to extend the Bay Front Development
Plan to the Broadway Interchange area to help fund that project. Councilwoman O'Mahony
would like an independent company to develop a vision of a commercial area between the
train tracks and the bay front. This would give the Planning Commission some added scope
and additional ideas. CP Monroe does not feel staff has the capacity to conduct a Specific
Area Plan without hiring a consultant. Councilwoman Janney would like a childcare
component built into commercial development requirements. Mayor Galligan felt with the
addition of BART at Millbrae Avenue, the picture of Rollins Road could change; feels it is
important for the City to have some vision of what the area might look like.
Review and act -on recommended Commercial Design Review Process.
City of Burlingame City Council Study Minutes
January 27, 2001 Unapproved Minutes
The Planning Commission is working with the members of the Community who helped
provide some input into the commercial design review process. Councilman Coffey noted
the meetings have been very positive and that there is a good relationship between the task
force and the Planning Commission.
Broadway Interchange Design —Depends n Ca :s eeting ti line.
CM Nantell noted he was not sur if CalTrans 1 in ine, but if they do move
forward as indicated, this could be o the -1. Assistant Public Works Director
Erbacher noted that currently, the plan is to move the platform only.
Peninsula Hospital Master Plan — Depends on hospital timeline.
Council has met with Peninsula Hospital staff to review the plan. CP Monroe noted that the
District is conducting a master plan; if they have a private developer build the hospital which
might require reorienting access to the site, they would need a conditional use permit as the
site is zoned unclassified; Council approval of the permit would be needed.
Review Airport Runway EIR — Depends on Airport meeting timeline.
CM Nantell noted the EIR for this and how impacts associated with Burlingame have been
addressed could possibly come to Council this year. Mayor Galligan noted he was concerned
about the possibility of the runway being moved south and the issue regarding building
heights. He suggested we may want to get San Mateo to help fight runway relocation. CP
Monroe noted this is an issue for Peninsula Hospital, as well as a big factor when the Marriott
was built. Building heights needs to be addressed in their environmental document.
Councilman Spinelli suggested we need to get baseline noise studies along the bay front and
down further.
Other Issues
Other issues that were discussed that could affect Council are Measure B and traffic issues
around the schools. Councilwoman Janney noted she was astonished by the increase in
traffic and the congestion in the area of Trousdale, especially in the morning. Noted she has
been appointed to the Strategic Long Term Planning Committee for the schools and may have
a way of fitting the traffic problem into the long term plan. Chief of Police Missel noted that
traffic signals will eventually be needed on Trousdale, especially when BART in Millbrae
opens. CM Nantell talked about a desire to find ways to enhance civic involvement around
community issues. We need to encourage "civic engagement" throughout a process, not just
at the end.
Council also noted they. would like to have a Facility Master Plan for all City buildings
performed in the next two to three years. Councilman Spinelli suggested that City Hall be
included and we should consider starting from scratch.
City of Burlingame 3 City Council Study Minutes
January 27, 2001 Unapproved Minutes
6. DEPARTMENT HEAD "NEW YEAR RESOLUTIONS" — COUNCIL
QUESTIONS
Each department head reviewed their New Year Resolutions and addressed questions raised
by the City Council
7. PUBLIC COMMENTS
Carolyn Root, 1407 Montero, commended Council and staff for the wonderful job being
done; appreciates the Council wanting the citizens input and ideas. John Root, 1407
Montero, pleased to see how pro -active the Council is and welcomed new City Manager Jim
Nantell. Cecile Coar, 1224 Drake, commended Librarian Escoffier for his leadership of the
library. Ken Musso, 1401 Grove, asked for more information on BART be given to the
residents in northern Burlingame.
8. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Galligari adjourned the meeting at 11:30 a. m.
Ann T. Musso
City Clerk
City of Burlingame 4 City Council Study Minutes
January 27, 2001 Unapproved Minutes
UNAPPROVED MINUTES
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA
February 5, 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 City Clerk Ann Musso.
3. ROLL CALL
COUNCIL PRESENT: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI
COUNCIL ABSENT: NONE
4. CLOSED SESSION
a. Pending Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(a)) and Real Estate Negotiations
(Government Code § 54956.8) — public hearing on property acquisition itself was held on
May 1, 2000. City of Burlingame vs. Hurt, San Mateo Superior Court Case No. 412951,
1347 N. Carolan Avenue — City Negotiators: Mike Nave, Larry Anderson, Jim Nantell,
Property Owner Representatives — Dorritt Hurt, Bill Turner
CA Anderson stated this lawsuit is to acquire title to the property at 1347 N. Carolan; lawsuit is
pending trial in San Mateo Superior Court. Council instructed the City negotiators with regard to
settlement negotiations.
b. Threatened Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), (3)(C)), Jennifer King, Warren
King, and Terri King for violation of civil rights and personal injury.
Council instructed City Attorney Anderson to deny this claim.
C. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6: City
Negotiator: Jim Nantell, Labor Organization: Police/Fire Administrators
Council instructed City Manager regarding these negotiations.
d. Real Estate Negotiations (Government Code § 54956.8) existing lease property subject to
renewal or revision. City property (approximately 5,450 square feet) fronting Rollins Road
adjacent to 1010 Cadillac Way, Burlingame, CA 94010. City Negotiators: Dennis Argyres,
Larry Anderson, Jim Nantell, Property Owner Representatives — James Hannay, Rector
Cadillac
Council instructed City Negotiators with regard to negotiations of a new lease with Rector
Cadillac.
Burlingame City Council 1 February 5, 2001
Unapproved Minutes
5. MINUTES
Mayor Galligan noted an error on page 5, first paragraph, that he attended the funeral of Ellen Sawyer,
not Alan Sawyer. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the minutes of the meeting
held on January 17, 2001; seconded by Vice Mayor Spinelli, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
6. PUBLIC HEARINGS
a. SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
i. Following public hearing, close public hearing on formation of district, services,
programs, and activities to be provided by the district, and assessments for year 2001.
ii. Consider and overrule protests to formation of district, services, programs, and activities
to be provided by district, and assessments for year 2001.
iii. Introduce ordinance 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.
CA Anderson noted this was the third 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 cities that have consented to join include Belmont, Burlingame, Daly City, Foster City, Half
Moon Bay, Millbrae, San Carlos, San Bruno, San Mateo, South San Francisco, Redwood City and the
unincorporated areas of the County. The City of South San Francisco has asked that its participation
be postponed until January, 2002, in order to accommodate its hotels' request to include it in their
budgets. They would be required to notify the district no later than September 30, 2001, whether the
City had any reservations about participating in 2002. Daly City has requested to be moved into Zone
B due to the low occupancy rates in that city. To date, only one protest has been received, which was
Embassy Suites in South San Francisco. This protest only applies to the formation of the district and
would not apply to the impositions of assessments for this year as South San Francisco is not
proposing to be included in the district for 2001.
Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Councilman Coffey made a motion to formally close the
public hearing process; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony, approved unanimously by voice vote,
5-0. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion overruling protests to the formation of the district;
seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Galligan
requested the City Clerk read the title of the proposed ordinance. Councilwoman Janney made a
motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilman Coffey, approved
unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilman Coffey made a motion to introduce the proposed
ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
February 5, 2001 2 Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
5b. APPEAL HEARING FOR CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND DESIGN REVIEW.
SPECIAL PERMIT, AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR 1825
CASTENADA
CP Monroe explained the applicant is requesting design review with a special permit for an attached
garage as well as a Hillside Area Construction permit in order to demolish an existing 2,322 square
foot one story house with an attached two car garage and replace it with a 4,500 square foot two story
house with an attached two car garage. Noted: this is an unusually large lot; current FAR on this site
is 11 % and the proposed FAR would be 21 %. The new house will have six bedrooms with two
covered parking spaces as required by code. The proposal also includes a 232 square foot wine cellar,
which meets the definition of a basement and is not included in the FAR calculation. At a preliminary
design review study of this item on December 11, 2000, the Planning Commission instructed the
applicant to have story poles installed and in place at the time of the Planning Commission's hearing.
Since that time, the story poles have been augmented to attempt to show the footprint of the new
house. When the Planning Commission voted to approve the request they required the location of the
story poles be verified by a licensed surveyor before they were removed to ensure that the new
construction would be within the envelope shown.
Mayor Galligan opened the public hearing. Mr. Jean Gorostiague, 1536 Alturas Drive, the contractor
for the project and Mr. Bob Williams, the project Architect were available to answer questions. Mr.
Gorostiague stated he feels this is a good project and follows are requirements set by the Planning
Commission.
The following people came forward to speak in opposition of the project: Bill & Christine Kahn, 1837
Castenada, Lillian Kelly, 1825 Castenada, Helmet Alter, 1838 Castenada, Charlene Chin, 1800
Castanada, Pat Tjader, Castenada, Millbrae, Leon Levy, 1816 Castenada. Comments: neighbors
stated they felt the house's too large for the neighborhood; the majority of lot is unbuildable; only one
two story home in this neighborhood that was built 30 years ago; project takes away privacy of
neighbor on the east; new house will obstruct view; concerned about chimney being too close to her
home; demolishing old house to build "monster" house is a waste; large house does not fit into the
character of neighborhood; urged Council to overturn Planning Commission's decision.
Mr. Williams, the architect for the project, stated he has followed all the Planning Commission's
requirements and installed the story poles; these story poles were verified by a licensed surveyor.
Explained that the neighbor on the east feels the front of the house is going to block her view from one
of her windows, which sits behind a fence. Recently the contractor installed a corner pole on that side
of the house. Noted the proposed project is not 2 '/2 times larger; the current house is 2,000 square
feet and the proposed house is 4,000 square feet with a 500 square foot garage. The Planning
Commission stated the bulk, mass and materials was compatible to the street and the rest of the
neighborhood. Feels keeping the existing house and building a second story will have a larger impact
than building the proposed house. One of the neighbor's concerns were the windows on the east
side. Mr. Williams noted in his original plan, windows were not proposed on the east side. Adding
these windows was a condition of approval made by the Planning Commission as they felt that part of
the house showed no articulation.
There were no additional comments from the floor and the hearing was closed.
Burlingame City Council 3 February 5, 2001
Unapproved Minutes
Council comments: Vice. Mayor Spinelli stated he visited the neighborhood; noted the front setback is
2 -Meet further back off the street than the current house. Feels the architect has done a very good job
designing this house and feels it will fit into the neighborhood well. Councilwoman O'Mahony noted
that the proposed building is 4,500 square feet, but the owners are entitled to build a house that is 7,829
square feet. Vice Mayor Spinelli made a motion to support the Planning Commission's approval of a
categorical exemption and design review, special permit, and hillside area construction permit for 1825
Castanada; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved by voice vote, 4-1 with Mayor Galligan
abstaining.
At this time, Mayor Galligan pulled item 12h from Acknowledgements the petition from citizens
regarding traffic concerns on and near Trousdale Avenue. He noted that at the City Council Study
Session held on January 27, the traffic on Trousdale was a major concern of the Police Chief's as well
as the entire City Council.' Council has requested stronger enforcement from the Police Department as
well as requesting the Traffic, Safety and Parking commission to look at ways to slow down traffic,
including potential stoplights. Mayor Galligan explained the traffic problem in this area is something
Council feels very strongly about.
6. PUBLIC COMMENT
The following people came forward to express their concern about the traffic problems on and near
Trousdale Avenue: Iry Amstrup, 2708 Trousdale, Bruno Cadona, 2100 Trousdale, Evelyn Clayton,
2950 Trousdale, Lois Durham, 2156 Trousdale, Angela Chung, 2613 Trousdale, Luther Smith, 1818
Loyola Drive. Comments: Cars speed down Trousdale and run stop signs; three schools in this area,
children are going to get hurt; concerned when Peninsula Hospital is rebuilt, will traffic be allowed to
exit onto Trousdale; BART will bring more traffic to the street; would like to see a traffic signal
installed; need more police presence in this area issuing tickets.
Chief Missel noted that there is a weight limit in place on Trousdale that is controlled by the vehicle
code. Research would need to be conducted to see the weight limit could be restricted further.
7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS
a. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 25 TO REVISE THE
INCLUSION OF BASEMENTS IN FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATION
CP Monroe noted in the current code, basement areas in single family houses are not included in the
floor area ratio (FAR) calculation; there have been concerns expressed about the way basements are
defined as well as the exclusion of the basement area. The Planning Commission has been working
on this proposed ordinance in an attempt to refine the way basements are addressed when calculating
FAR for single family residences. The definition of basement has been defined as "in the ground";
only two feet can extend out of the ground, 600 square feet would be exempt; the remainder of a
basement area would be included in calculating the FAR unless the basement area was used for
parking, in which case the entire basement would be included in the FAR. Crawl spaces would not be
counted in the FAR; 100 square feet of any area below the first floor would be exempt because often
older homes have utility areas in the lower area. Prohibited uses in basement areas in the R-1 zone
include bathtubs, shower stalls, and bedrooms.
February 5, 2001 4 Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
Councilwoman O'Mahony stated she felt 25 square feet for a toilet and sink seemed very small. CP
Monroe explained that the Planning Commission's reason for this small area was to discourage
basement areas from being used for bedroom areas.
Mayor Galligan requested the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. Councilwoman
O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman
Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to introduce
the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Spinelli, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor Galligan requested the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days
before proposed adoption.
b. INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE ADOPTING AMENDMENT TO SECTION
25.57.030 AMENDING THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS TO PROVIDE FOR
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS
CP Monroe noted that in April, 1998, a residential design review process began for single-family
homes. In April, 2000, a revision was adopted to the process, which streamlined the process and
brought applicants before the Planning Commission for a public comment meeting before the
application was determined to be put on the consent calendar, action calendar, or referred to a design
reviewer. The process had a sunset clause written in at time of adoption and now it is at the period of
expiration. Should the process expire, the Planning Commission would go back to the old process of
requiring every application go to a design reviewer before going to the Planning Commission. The
comments received from the public on the new process have been positive.
Mayor Galligan requested the City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. Councilwoman
Janney made a motion to waive further reading of the ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Spinelli,
approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to introduce the
proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Spinelli, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
Mayor Galligan requested the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days
before proposed adoption.
C. REQUEST FORA TENTATIVE TRAFFIC ALLOCATION FOR A PROPOSED HOTEL
PROJECT AT 620 AIRPORT BOULEVARD LOCATED WITHIN THE BAY FRONT
SPECIFIC AREA PLAN JURISDICTION
Mayor Galligan noted he had spoken to the applicant, Manager and Staff regarding this issue. He also
noted some of the information arrived late and suggested that a decision on this item be deferred until
after the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting on February 24 when the Planning program
and Bay Front Specific Area Plan will be discussed. The applicant has agreed. The Mayor suggested
that this item be placed back on the Council agenda for the March 19 or April 9 Council meeting.
8. CONSENT CALENDAR
a. RESOLUTIONS #11-2001 AND #12-2001 AUTHORIZING SIGNATURE ON
AGREEMENTS FOR (1) FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND (2) BOND COUNSEL IN
CONNECTION WITH CORPORATION YARD RECONSTRUCTION FINANCING
Burlingame City Council 5 February 5, 2001
Unapproved Minutes
Finance Director Becker recommended approval of Resolution #11-2001 and #12-2001 authorizing
signatures on agreements with Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP as bond counsel, and Kelling,
Northcross & Nobriga as financial advisor for Corporation Yard Reconstruction Project financing.
b. RESOLUTION 49-2001 AUTHORIZING AGREEMENT WITH MAZE AND
ASSOCIATES TO ASSIST WITH IMPLEMENTATION OF NEW ACCOUNTING
STANDARD
Finance Director Becker recommended approval of Resolution #9-2001 authorizing City Manager to
sign agreement with Maze. and Associates to assist with the implementation of new accounting
standard.
C. REVISED JOB DESCRIPTION: ASSISTANT ENGINEER
Finance Director recommended approval of the revised job description for Assistant Engineer.
d. SPECIAL EVENT APPLICATION — BICYCLE RACE IN BURLINGAME AVENUE
AREA — SUNDAY, JUNE 24, 2001
Executive Assistant Weber recommended approval of Special Event Application for a bicycle race in
the Burlingame Avenue area on June 24, 2001 being conducted by Peninsula Velo Cycling Club.
e. REJECT CLAIM OF RICHARD FAZIOLA FOR PARKING LOT DAMAGE
City Attorney Anderson recommended rejecting claim of Richard Faziola for parking lot damage that
allegedly occurred on November 7, 2000 at 901/903 California Drive.
i. REJECT CLAIM OF PAMELA IRELAND FOR PERSONAL INJURY
City Attorney Anderson recommended rejecting claim of Pamela Ireland for personal injury from a
slip and fall occurring on November 16, 1999.
Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman
Coffey, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0.
9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS
Councilwoman O'Mahony attended C/CAG, County Council of Cities meeting, and the North County
Council of Cities meeting. Councilman Coffey attended the OLA Crab Bash fundraiser. Vice Mayor
Spinelli attended the County Emergency Services Council Meeting and the North County Council of
Cities meeting. Councilwoman Janney attended Burlingame School District strategic long term
planning meeting, the committee meeting for the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement
District, attended meetings with Glenborough regarding the child care facility at the future 301 Airport
site, Colma Crab and Polenta Feed, C/MAC meeting, PalCare function at SFO, committee meeting of
the Burlingame Aquatic Center Foundation, North County Council of Cities, and a PARCA dinner.
Mayor Galligan attended meetings regarding the parcel tax, attended the Judy Gladysz court case,
OLA Crab Bash fundraiser, visited a homeless family staying at First Presbyterian Church, County
Council of Cities meeting, and the North County Council of Cities meeting, Board of Supervisors
February 5, 2001 6 Burlingame City Council
Unapproved Minutes
Board Meeting, participated on the Rudy Benton show, and presented a Burlingame High School
student with a commendation for saving an infant who was submerged under water. All Council
members attended the City Council Study Session.
9. OLD BUSINESS
Councilwoman O'Mahony asked Parks & Recreation Director Williams if the pool employees were
kept employed when the pool was out of commission for five weeks. He stated the City does not have
full time employees assigned to the pool. The part time employees were out of work during that time.
10. NEW BUSINESS
a. SET APPEAL HEARING FOR 1228 BERNAL FOR FEBRUARY 20, 2001
Mayor Galligan stated the garage issue was misunderstood at the Planning Commission level and the
Chairman asked that this project go back to the Planning Commission for review; requested the
$250.00 be returned -to the applicant and the hearing was cancelled.
11. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
a. Commission Minutes: Library Board of Trustees, December 19, 2000; Parks & Recreation,
January 18, 2001; Planning, January 22, 2001; Traffic, Safety and Parking, January 25, 2001;
Senior, January 18, 2001
b. Department Reports: Parks & Recreation Quarterly Report, 2000-01
C. Adeline Drive and Vancouver/Hoover Traffic Safety Review
d. Letter from Mr. John Hornblower regarding building of more apartment buildings in Burlingame
e. Letter from Rob Cunningham, 112 Bayswater, regarding design review process and water
draining problem on neighbor's property; Response letter from Building Official Fred Cullum
f. Letter from concerned neighbor on Balboa Avenue expressing opinion that no stop signs are
needed on Adeline and Cortez
g. Letter from June Bitter, 2673 Martinez, regarding project at 2669 Martinez
h. Letter from Howard G. Page, 111 Central Avenue, regarding current situation with PG&E
i. Petition from citizens regarding traffic concerns on and near Trousdale Avenue
14. ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Galligan adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.
Burlingame City Council
Ann T. Musso
City Clerk
7
February 5, 2001
Unapproved Minutes
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: February 14, 2001
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS
AGENDA
ITEM # 5a
MTG. 2/20/01
DATE
SUBMITTED
BY
BY
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Whether to Rescind Ordinance 1643 to Add St,(p Signs on Adeline Drive
at Cortez
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Council hold a public hearing on whether to rescind Ordinance 1643 to add stop signs on
Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue and
1. adopt an ordinance to rescind;
2. or uphold a previous decision to place stop signs at this location;
3. or direct staff to pursue another option.
BACKGROUND:
Council adopted Ordinance 1643 to install stop signs on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue at their October 16, 2000
meeting. Based on a clarification of staff's position with respect to the stop signs installation, Council requested
that this action be reconsidered and directed that staff pursue possible alternate measures regarding safety at this
intersection.
DISCUSSION:
Staff from the Police and Public Works Departments as well as the City Manager met with Kathleen Wentworth
and other neighborhood representatives including Susan Peloquin, Shirley Lee, and Joan Bugler from the 1400
block of Cortez Avenue. The group identified the various interests and options to enhance the safety of people
seeking to cross Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue.
Following is a summary of concerns raised by the residents:
• Traffic on Adeline Drive does not recognize the pedestrian's need to cross and often fails to yield to
pedestrians.
• Despite being only one block from a stop sign, vehicles are often going fast as they approach Cortez Avenue.
• There are multiple users of the Cortez Avenue Ray Park entrance at peaks including children destined to both
Lincoln and OLA schools.
• There are also mid-day and weekend users accessing Ray Park as well general circulation in the neighborhood.
• The effects of enforcement actions last for only about three weeks.
• The most significant problem is at the peak times caused by Mercy and other school related traffic.
Following is staff's summary of the interests that the group discussed relative to the issue:
• Provide for the safety of pedestrians at the Cortez/Adeline intersection where a number of children and adults
are crossing Adeline Drive.
• Do not reduce the effectiveness of the existing stop signs and cross walks as a way to provide a safe crossing
for pedestrians using those intersections.
• Effectively reduce the speed so that children can safely cross Adeline Drive.
• Provide a solution that addresses the need to successfully move traffic through the area without adversely
impacting other areas in the neighborhood.
• Be cost effective.
• Increase the awareness of drivers of the need to yield to pedestrians.
1
Page 2
Ten options were developed and are shown in the following table.
OPTIONS
Neighborhood
Ranking
Staff
Ranking
1. Leave as is and encourage pedestrians to cross at
#1
Cabrillo Avenue or Balboa Avenue.
2. Install stop signs and cross walks as previously
approved.
#1
3. Install cross walks and an activated warning yellow light
#2
that would alert drivers approaching an uncontrolled
school cross walk.
4. Use a crossing guard during school pedestrian peaks as
well as install improved signage and cross walks.
#3
5. Use a crossing guard during school pedestrian peaks
#4
without marked cross walks as well as install improved
signage.
6. Install cross walks with predominant marking (diagonal
striping) and day glow school/ playground signage.
#4
7. Install cross walks with embedded lights (i.e.3' St. in
San Mateo.)
8. Install speed bumps between Cabrillo Avenue and
Balboa Avenue.
9. Provide more intensive traffic enforcement
#2
10. Close the entrance to Ray Park and Lincoln school at
#3
either Cortez Avenue or Cabrillo Avenue and place stop
signs at the intersection with the open access.
Although staff continues to disagree with the residents' preference to install additional stop signs at Cortez
Avenue, the group did identify other options that address the interests surrounding this issue. The basis of the
disagreement centers around staff's concern that having three sets of stop signs located in such a short span
will frustrate the movement of traffic through the area to the extent that drivers will be more inclined to roll
through one or more of the stop signs thus increasing the risks to pedestrians in the cross walks. The residents
understand that the traffic research tends to support this conclusion but feel that the vast majority of drivers
will honor the stop signs or at least slow down enough to improve the safety of pedestrians crossing at Cortez
Avenue.
EXHIBITS:
A. Brief Explanation of Residents and Staff's Rank Ordering of the Options
B. Options/Interests Matrix (to assist the Council's analysis of the options)
C. The original staff report on the stop sign at Cortez.
c: City Clerk; Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission; Kathy Wentworth
S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Cortez Stop Sign.sr.wpd
Exhibit A
Brief explanation for the residents' ordering of the options:
#1 Crosswalks and stop signs because it will control the vast majority of cars, slow down the
traffic in the area, and be a solution that is always there to protect pedestrians whether school is
in session or not.
#2 Marked crosswalk and flashing light - although it would not provide a stop at Cortez, it would
always be in place for the pedestrian and would appreciably improve the safety of pedestrians
crossing at Cortez. It also would not be as expensive as the ongoing cost of a crossing guard.
#3 Marked crosswalk with a crossing guard would maximize the protection for kids to and from
school and would provide a marked crosswalk during other times of the day and year when
school is not in session. Would not require the cost of flashing lights.
#4 Visibly enhanced marked crosswalk would be better than no crosswalk because it would
heighten the driver's attention to expect pedestrians.
Brief explanation for the staffs ordering of the options:
#1 Leave as is and encourage pedestrians to cross at Cabrillo or Balboa. Aside from the research
that indicates you increase the probability that drivers will ignore the controlled intersection if
you over populate the number of stop signs, we also feel the need to balance safe pedestrian
access and the need to flow traffic through the area. There are two controlled intersections within
a short block either way of Cortez on Adeline. To create a standard that will allow stop signs as
close as these would be ignoring the equally important need to flow traffic through a collector
street such as Adeline Drive.
#2 Intensify traffic enforcement to occur a multiple of times monthly - greater police presence on
a repeat basis will increase driver control and caution. As part of the new budget process and the
deployment of the additional police officer to be funded by the State grant, we can have the
Police Chief look at the possibility to increase enforcement time in this area.
#3 Close the public access at either Cortez or Cabrillo and locate stop sign accordingly. We could
reduce the desire to cross at all three corners (Cortez, Balboa, and Cabrillo) by closing the access
at either Cabrillo or Cortez.
#4 Crossing guard without crosswalk and with improved signage. Although it would require
additional money for a crossing guard, it would maximize the safety for students and not create a
false sense of safety that is associated with crosswalks when a crossing guard is not there.
SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Cortez Exhibit A.wpd
Exhibit B
This is provided as a tool to help theas
council look at the different options
s
k
as
against the different interests that have
c
identified. You can look at each
'S4-4
do
`•"
been
-rn
`}
o
option and indicate how well you think
o
o
v
GO
it addresses the different interests.
¢, •�
°�
Particularly the interests that seems
o 0
>
;�
4
most important.
?
0"
as
0
�•�
�3„
��a'
�
ice'
a�
a�
.• > ..•
c
�
ani
Q
U
as N 0
V
y
0
N .�
�
0,
�,
> o
'�
-o
o
a
.� o
>
O N
�•
�+ ..,
>
>
O
OU
0
C
N
�+ bA
'>,
1. Leave as is and encourage pedestrians
to cross at Cabrillo or Balboa.
2. Install stop signs and paint the cross
walks as previously approved.
3. Paint a cross walk and install an
activated warning yellow light that
would alert drivers they are
approaching an uncontrolled school
cross walk.
4. Crossing Guard with cross walk and
signing which would address the school
pedestrian peaks.
5. Crossing guard without marked cross
walk with improved signage.
6. Cross walks with predominant marking
(diagonal striping) and day glow
school/playground signs.
7. Cross walk with embedded lights
(i.e.3`d St. in San Mateo.)
8. Speed bumps between Cabrillo and
Balboa
9. Intensive traffic enforcement to occur
for multiple days every three weeks.
10. Close the entrance to Ray Park and
Lincoln school at either Cortez or
Cabrillo and place the stop sign at
Adeline and the street with the open
access to the park and school.
CATEMP\Adeline Draft AR 2 .doc
Exhibit A
Brief explanation for the residents' ordering of the options:
#1 Crosswalks and stop signs because it will control the vast majority of cars, slow down the
traffic in the area, and be a solution that is always there to protect pedestrians whether school is
in session or not.
#2 Marked crosswalk and flashing light - although it would not provide a stop at Cortez, it would
always be in place for the pedestrian and would appreciably improve the safety of pedestrians
crossing at Cortez. It also would not be as expensive as the ongoing cost of a crossing guard.
#3 Marked crosswalk with a crossing guard would maximize the protection for kids to and from
school and would provide a marked crosswalk during other times of the day and year when
school is not in session. Would not require the cost of flashing lights.
#4 Visibly enhanced marked crosswalk would be better than no crosswalk because it would
heighten the driver's attention to expect pedestrians.
Brief explanation for the staffs ordering of the options:
#1 Leave as is and encourage pedestrians to cross at Cabrillo or Balboa. Aside from the research
that indicates you increase the probability that drivers will ignore the controlled intersection if
you over populate the number of stop signs, we also feel the need to balance safe pedestrian
access and the need to flow traffic through the area. There are two controlled intersections within
a short block either way of Cortez on Adeline. To create a standard that will allow stop signs as
close as these would be ignoring the equally important need to flow traffic through a collector
street such as Adeline Drive.
#2 Intensify traffic enforcement to occur a multiple of times monthly - greater police presence on
a repeat basis will increase driver control and caution. As part of the new budget process and the
deployment of the additional police officer to be funded by the State grant, we can have the
Police Chief look at the possibility to increase enforcement time in this area.
#3 Close the public access at either Cortez or Cabrillo and locate stop sign accordingly. We could
reduce the desire to cross at all three corners (Cortez, Balboa, and Cabrillo) by closing the access
at either Cabrillo or Cortez.
#4 Crossing guard without crosswalk and with improved signage. Although it would require
additional money for a crossing guard, it would maximize the safety for students and not create a
false sense of safety that is associated with crosswalks when a crossing guard is not there.
SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Cortez Exhibit A.wpd
Exhibit B
This is provided as a tool to help the
on
�
council look at the different options
+C�
x
against the different interests that have
0
been identified. You can look at each
Y
+C�
;
2
O
option and indicate how well you think
0 o
0 '
U
�.
it addresses the different interests.
¢, .°
;
In
Particularly the interests that seems
o a
>
most important.
M
M
a
°
o
o
rt"
U
.�
Z3
>
—s
,
O
>
CZ
-0
°
o
o
> V
N
.fl
L1 0_ bA
OU
O U
E°U
E°�
w
E°°3
m
x>�
1. Leave as is and encourage pedestrians
to cross at Cabrillo or Balboa.
2. Install stop signs and paint the cross
walks as previously approved.
3. Paint a cross walk and install an
activated warning yellow light that
would alert drivers they are
approaching an uncontrolled school
cross walk.
4. Crossing Guard with cross walk and
signing which would address the school
pedestrian peaks.
5. Crossing guard without marked cross
walk with improved signage.
6. Cross walks with predominant marking
(diagonal striping) and day glow
school/playground signs.
7. Cross walk with embedded lights
(i.e.3Id St. in San Mateo.)
8. Speed bumps between Cabrillo and
Balboa
9. Intensive traffic enforcement to occur
for multiple days every three weeks.
10. Close the entrance to Ray Park and
Lincoln school at either Cortez or
Cabrillo and place the stop sign at
Adeline and the street with the open
access to the park and school.
CATEMP\Adeline Draft AR 2 .doc
a
STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
DATE: December 20, 2000
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS
EXHIBIT C
AGENDA
ITEM #
MAG. 1 /1
DATE
SUBMITTED
OF
BY
APPROVED
BY
SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE TO INSTALL TWO STOP SIGNS ON ADELINE DRIVE
AT CORTEZ AVENUE
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:W Public Works DifcmrYlStaff Reporu%,stops at Adeliue&Cottez.*pd
t
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
ORDINANCE No.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING SECTION 13.20.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
TO DELETE OF STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF
ADELINE DRIVE AT CORTEZ AVENUE
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Subsection 13.20.010(a)is amended by deleting "Adeline Drive approaching
Cortez Avenue;"
Section 2. 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 , 200by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
D.\wp5 I\Files\ORDINANC\repeal I643.ord.wpd
City Clerk
1
TRAFFIC
INFORMATION
PROGRAM 8TOP
8IGN(S
SERIES
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 iehicic:: arriving at an intersection at the same time, the length of time
traffic must wait to enter, and the availabilityof safe crossing opportunities.
��� T{A ARL
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
ORDINANCE No. 1651
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING SECTION 13.20.010 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE
TO DELETE OF STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF
ADELINE DRIVE AT CORTEZ AVENUE
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. Subsection 13.20.010(a) is amended by deleting "Adeline Drive approaching
Cortez Avenue;".
Section 2. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
I, ANN T. MUS SO, 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 4th day of
December, 2000, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th
day of February, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GALLIGAN, JANNEY, OWAHONY, SPINELLI
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
City Clerk
D:\wp51 \Files\ORDINANC\repeal 1643. ord.wpd
1
��� CITY ,^ STAFF REPORT
BURLINGAME AGENDA
ITEM # 5B
•� MTG.
oRwT[n �u�69 DATE 2.20.01
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
r!�`-���
BY
DATE: JANUARY 23, 2001
APPROVE
FRoM: CITY PLANNER BY
SUBJECT: SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE
CURRENT RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS INDEFINITELY
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on the proposed ordinance to extend indefinitely
the current residential design review process.
BACKGROUND:
At the meeting on February 5, 2001, the City Council introduced the proposed ordinance to extend
indefinitely the current residential design review procedure. This procedure all residential design review
applications go first to the Planning Commission for review before they are assigned to the Consent Calendar,
Action Calendar or to a Design Reviewer. Council asked no questions about this ordinance at introduction.
The reason the ordinance is before Council at this time is that when this new procedure was approved in April
2000, it included a sunset clause which mandated review of the effectiveness of the process.
Planning Commission Recommendation
At their meeting on January 22, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and discussed extending
the current design review process which requires a preliminary design review study meeting. The
commissioners agreed that the current process was working well, that applicants appeared to prefer it, and the
design reviewers felt it was working better for them. For these reasons the commission recommended by
resolution that the City Council extend indefinitely the current design review process.
Summary of the Proposed Ordinance from the Staff Report for Introduction
In April 1998 the City Council adopted regulations which established design review for single family houses
in the R-1 zoning district. A part of these regulations was creating a design review process that required each
application for design review to be looked at by a design review consultant for consistency with the design
guidelines before going to the Planning Commission for study. Applicants expressed concern about the time
this took and the occasional difference of interpretation of the design criteria between the design review
consultants and the Planning Commission. So in April 2000, the Council adopted a new design review
procedure. In this revised procedure all applications submitted for design review go immediately to the
Planning Commission for a noticed design review study. At this preliminary study meeting the applicant and
commission discuss together the design issues raised by the project. The neighbors are also noticed and have
an opportunity to express their concerns about the design. At the end of this public comment the commission
has three options for directing the project: to a consent action calendar, to the regular action calendar or to a
design reviewer for further work on the design.
SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING ON ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL
DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS INDEFINITELY FEBRUARY20, 2001
When the revised process was adopted in April 2000, a sunset clause was placed on it to insure that its
effectiveness would be evaluated and reviewed before it became permanent. The current process will expire
on March 31, 2001 unless it is extended by ordinance before that date. Since ordinances require 30 days
before they become effective, the ordinance extending the current process indefinitely must be adopted before
March 1, 2001. If the provisions of the current process are not extended, the original process will takeover.
All projects subject to design review will go first to a design reviewer, then to the Planning Commission for
study.
Comparative Evaluation of the Original and New Process
From April 1998, when single family residential design review was initiated to May 2000, when the new
process was adopted, the city processed 128 single family residential design review projects ( an average of
5.12 projects per month). All of these were reviewed by design review consultants. The range of days for
final action on these projects was 22 days to 214 days with 76.5 days being the average. One of the things
staff recognized was a problem in the original process is that the City does not control the entire process.
After talking with a design review consultant an applicant may take several weeks to discuss with his clients
and revise plans for resubmittal. During the 1998 to May 2000 time period architects became increasingly
busy, and the "out -of -Planning -Department- time" seemed to increase.
Since the new process has been implemented in May 2000, there have been 92 design review projects
submitted (an average of 8 projects per month). Of these, processing has been completed on 61 projects. (The
Department has another 31 currently in processing.) Of the 61 completed 39% were referred to design review
consultants. The range of days to process was 32 to 264. The average days to process was 91.3 (about 3
months). The longer processing time can be accounted for in three ways. First the architects and designers
preparing plans are even busier than they were in the earlier days of design review (note the increase in
average monthly submittals). Second, the large volume of projects occasionally has caused Planning
Commission's agendas to fill up, so scheduling for preliminary design review or scheduling for action after
revision can be delayed two weeks. Third, the major delay continues to be on the applicant's side with
resubmittals. Between May and December 2000 we carried a back log of as many as 30 projects which had
been in active since before May. One of these projects dated back to 1998.
While the data may not indicate that the new process is faster than the old for average projects, the applicants
have indicated to staff that they prefer the opportunity to talk to the Planning Commission first and exchange
ideas. The design review consultants have noted that early Planning Commission input has helped a lot in
working with the applicants to "zero in" on the essential design issues and brings the consultants
recommendations into closer alignment with the Commission. The Design Review consultants have observed
that now they seem to be seeing only the projects with the more thorny, challenging design issues. Since only
39% of the applicants are being referred to the design reviewers, the cost of the new process is also less for
the 61% of the applicants who do not have to consult as design review consultant.
ATTACHMENTS:
- Ordinance No. 1626, Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Adopting an Interim Change to Section
25.57/030 Amending the Design Review Process to Provide for Planning Commission Study at the
Beginning of the Process, April 3, 2000.
- Chapter 25.57 Design Review of Construction or Additions to any Residential Structure in any R-1
District.
- Planning Commission Resolution Recommending a Change to Zoning Regulations
- Planning Commission Minutes, January 22, 2001
- Planning Commission Staff Report, January 22, 2001
- Notice of Public Hearing
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 1
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 25.57.030
AMENDING THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS TO PROVIDE FOR
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. The design review process for construction in the R-1 Districts of the City
is evolving over time. In Ordinance No. 1626, the City Council adopted an interim procedure
to expedite design review applications. In order to provide early input by the Planning
Commission and to minimize costs for projects that meet design review standards, that
ordinance provided for study by the Planning Commission at the beginning of the process, so
that the Commission could provide comments, discuss the project with the applicant and
neighbors, and have the option of referring the application directly to public hearing rather than
putting it through the detailed design review process prior to a formal public hearing. That
ordinance has worked well, and this ordinance is intended to continue that process until changed
by a future ordinance.
Section 2. Section 3 of Ordinance No. 1626 is repealed
Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that
the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
day of , 2001, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City
Council held on the day of , 2001, by the following vote:
I
Fa
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
IRE
20
21
22
23
24
25
PT91
27
28
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 25.57.030
AMENDING THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS TO PROVIDE FOR
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. The design review process for construction in the R-1 Districts of the City
is evolving over time. In Ordinance No. 1626, the City Council adopted an interim procedure
to expedite design review applications. In order to provide early input by the Planning
Commission and to minimize costs for projects that meet design review standards, that
ordinance provided for study by the Planning Commission at the beginning of the process, so
that the Commission could provide comments, discuss the project with the applicant and
neighbors, and have the option of referring the application directly to public hearing rather than
putting it through the detailed design review process prior to a formal public hearing. That
ordinance has worked well, and this ordinance is intended to continue that process until changed
by a future ordinance.
Section 2. Section 3 of Ordinance No. 1626 is repealed
Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
Mayor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that
the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
day of , 2001, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City
Council held on the day of , 2001, by the following vote:
City of Burlingame
Chapter 25.57
DESIGN REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION OF
OR ADDITIONS TO ANY RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE IN ANY R-1 DISTRICT
25.57.010 Design review required.
25.57.020 Design review panel.
25.57.030 Design review process.
25.57.040 Exemptions.
25.57.010 Design review required.
Unless the proposed project has been reviewed
pursuant to this chapter, no building or construction
permit shall be issued in any R -I district for the
following:
(a) Substantial construction as defined in this title
of or to a single family dwelling; or
(b) A single family dwelling addition having a plate
height greater than nine (9) feet above finished floor; or
(c) An increase to the height of the existing plate
line of a single family dwelling; or
(d) Construction of a garage attached to a single
family dwelling; or
(e) Addition to or construction of a second story or
higher.
(1620 § 2, Amended, 10/18/1999; 1602 § 2 (part). Added,
09/23/1998)
25.57.020 Design review panel.
With the approval ofthe planning commission, the
city planner shall appoint one or more design
professionals to advise the city planner and the planning
commission on applications made under this ordinance.
The panel appointees shall be persons in the business of
residential design who have practiced their design
profession involving residential designs in the city and
who are willing to contract with the city to provide
advisory services under this chapter. On a random
basis, the city planner shall assign each application
under this chapter to a panel appointee for review and
comment under this ordinance.
(1620 § 2, Amended, 10/18/1999; 1602 § 2 (part), Added,
09123/1998)
25.57.030 Design review process.
(a) Any person seeking approval of construction to
be reviewed under this chapter shall submit an
application for design review to the City Planner in the
same form and containing the same signatures as
provided in section 25.16.040 of this title. The
schematic design plans submitted with the application
shall demonstrate the architectural details of the
proposal, and in the case of an addition, of the existing
structure and the addition.
(b) Upon completion of the application, the
schematic design plans and the application shall be
referred to the planning commission for study. The
study meeting shall be noticed in accordance with the
provisions for notice in this title. If at the study
meeting, the planning commission determines that
formal design review is not required for the application
or that only minor changes are needed, the planning
commission may order that the application not be
subject to subsection (c) below and will proceed
directly to hearing under subsection (e).
(c) Ifthe commission instead refers the application
for further design review, the plans submitted shall be
referred to the appointee professional described above
for review and comment. The appointee's analysis shall
be forwarded to the planning commission.
(d) No prior mailed notice of the appointee's
review is necessary. However, notice of the
commission's review ofand hearing on each application
under this chapter shall be given as provided in section
25.16.050.
(e) The application shall then be reviewed by the
planning commission for the following considerations:
(1) Compatibility of the architectural style with
that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
(2) Respect for the parking and garage patterns in
the neighborhood;
(3) Architectural style and consistency and mass
and bulk of structures, including accessory structures;
(4) Interface of the proposed structure with the
structures on adjacent properties;
(5) Landscaping and its proportion to mass and
bulk of structural components; and
(6) In the case of an addition, compatibility with
the architectural style and character of the existing
structure as remodeled
(f) The applicant shall bear the burden of
demonstrating to the satisfaction of the planning
commission that the applicant's design and project
comply with the design criteria set forth in subsection
(e) above. The commission may deny, deny without
prejudice, approve, or approve with conditions any
application under this chapter.
(g) Decisions of the planning commission under
this chapter shall be subject to appeal to the city council
and the effectiveness as provided in Sections 25.16.070
through 25.16.130, except that the determination of the
commission shall become final and conclusive in seven
(7) days from the date of the commission decision if no
appeal is filed with the city clerk.
(1626 § 2, Amended, 04/03/2000; 1620 § 2, Amended,
10/18/1999; 1602 § 2 (pan), Added, 09/23/1998)
25.57.040 Exemptions.
The following applications are exempt from the
chapter.
(a) Applications for building permits or planning
approvals filed before March 17; 1998 and certain
(25.57)1
July 2000
City of Burlingame
amendments to those applications or permits as
specifically provided in Ordinance No. 1602.
(b) Applications for building pen -nits or planning
approvals filed before 5:00 p.m. on November 18.
1999, and certain amendments to those applications or
permits as specifically provided in Ordinance No. 1620.
(1620 § 2, Amended, 10/18/1999; 1602 § 2 (part),
Added, 09/23/1998)
July 2000 (25.57) 2
RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING
A CHANGE TO ZONING REGULATIONS
RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that:
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission shall consider an indefinite extension of the current design
review process (Ordinance 1626) which allows Planning Commission study of single family houses subject to
design review at the beginning of the design review process;
WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on
January 22. 2001, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and
testimony presented at said hearing;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that:
1. On the basis of the information in the staff report, the testimony at the public hearing,
documents submitted and the experience of the Planning Commission;
2. The Planning Commission recommends to the City Council approval of the Ordinance
extending indefinitely the design review process which allows the Planning Commission to study single family
house projects in the R-1 zone subject to design review at the beginning of the design review process.
I, Ann Keighran , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify
that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held
on the 22 day of Janua , 2001 , by the following vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMNIISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMNIISSIONERS:
SECRETARY
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
January 22, 2001
Building Department; 36) that an automatic fire sprinkler system shall be required in the addition as well as in
the restaurant. A new fire alarm system shall also be required. The automatic sprinkler- -system and the fire
alarm system shall be required to be monitored by an approved central station; 3DAlfat the proposed project
shall comply with Ordinance 1477 limiting exterior illumination; 38) that sh d any prehistoric or historic
archaeological relics be discovered during construction, all work shall be ted until the finding can be fully
investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by ualified cultural resources consultant
acceptable to the City, can be implemented; all removal or rest tation work shall be supervised by qualified
professionals approved by the City Planner. Project perso shall not collect cultural resources. Prehistoric
resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile poi , mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing
shell and bone dietary debris, heat -affected rock, o uman burials. Historic resources include stone or adobe
foundations or walls; structures and remains 'th square nails; and refuse deposits, often in old wells and
privies. Any identified cultural resources sh be recorded on forms DPR 422 (archaeological sites) and/or DPR
,523 (historic properties) or similar fo s; 39) that approval of the Bay Conservation and Development
Commission (BCDC) shall be obt ' ed for the proposed public access improvements, parking and parking
layout construction within BCD jurisdiction, and a BCDC permit shall be obtained prior to issuance of a
building permit; and 40) th urlingame and BCDC shall approve public access improvement plans; the
developer shall be respon ' e for the construction and maintenance of all public access improvements and shall
be liable for any dam e caused to the public for failure to maintain these facilities to a safe standard. The
motion was second by C. Bojues.
Discussion o PAe motion: is shrub # 22 large enough to screen; yes, although landscape rendering does reflect
this, shrub an grow up to 20'-0" and is wind resistant. Suggestion made earlier concerning pedestrian
walkwa is direction only, no revision needs to be submitted for review.
ChXrman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the negative declaration and project. The
otion passed on a 5-0-2 voice vote (Cers. Dreiling and Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
This item concluded at 8:12 p.m.
7. EXTEND CURRENT DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS - ALLOW PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY OF
A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES SUBJECT TO DESIGN REVIEW AT THE BEGINNING OF THE DESIGN
REVIEW PROCESS
Reference staff report, 1.22.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the report noting that when the
residential design review process was amended in April 2000, a sunset clause was included so that the process
would be required to be evaluated in six months. In order to continue the current review process without
interruption it is necessary for the commission to act tonight on a recommendation for continuation of the
process to City Council. Commission asked staff: this suggests an indefinite extension of the process, do we
need another sunset. Staff responded that the current process seems to be more effective than the previous one,
staff would prefer if they were directed to return to the commission in 18 months with another evaluation of how
the process is working rather than having to tell everyone to process another ordinance.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor and the public hearing
was closed.
C. Vistica moved to recommend by resolution to City Council that the present residential design review process
be continued indefinitely. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice
7
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
January 22, 2001
vote on the motion to recommend Council extend the current process. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers.
Dreiling, Keighran absent) voice vote. The item will be place on the Council's next agenda. This item
concluded at 8:22 p.m.
IX. DESIGN RE
8. 1636 CORONAD
STORY ADDITI
GERTSVOLF. PI
STUDY ITEMS
VENUE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND
(ROLANDO NORIEGA, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; VADIM AND ZOYA
ZT Lewit presented a summary des iption of the project. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public mment. Vadim Gert volf , property owner, represented the project
noting he would respond to questions. Vommissioners noted th t lot coverage calculation on the plans is
incorrect. There were no other comments from the floor and the pubkc comment was closed.
C. Deal made a motion to refer this item
Vt he consent calendar, applican as done all the commission has
asked, reduced the FAR and setback thefof the second floor. The motio11
as seconded by C. Vistica.
Comment on the motion: the applicant sho Id be complimented on his response to the suggestions made.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote the motion to place the item on the consent calendar for the
February 12, 2001 meeting. The motion passe n a 5-0-2 (Cers. Dreiling ,Keighran absent) voice vote. This
item concluded at 8:28 p.m.
9. 266 ARTINEZ DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICA ON FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT SETBACK
F=%Q,_
ND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION IT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY
rGA
NY DaROSA, DaROSA AND ASSOCIAT , APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; LARRY
I PROPERTY OWNERS RE UEST TO ONTINUE APPROVED
CP Monroe noted thhVhere was a tree issue on this site which will nee o be reviewed by the Beautification
Commission so this iteiNwill be continued until that information is availab e.
10. 120 COSTA RICA AVEN - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIG REVIEW AN VARIANCES
FOR PARKING, FLOOR AREA TIO, AND HEIGHT FOR AN ADDITION T THE MAIN FLOOR AND
A NEW UPPER FLOOR (AL LIN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; T Y AND TROY OTUS,
CP Monroe presented a summary of the PIRiect description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Allan Olin, architect, and Troy and Tracy Otus, property
owners, represented the project noting they were there to answer questions.
Commissioners noted: this is a nice old house which is elevated over a basement area, is property owner aware
that when demolition for this proposed addition is complete most of the house will be removed (roof, ceiling
joists), as proposed the house is very tall (37') and big (exceeds FAR) because of the raised basement area, have
City of Burlingame Item No.
Extend Current Design Review Process ACTION
Meeting Date: 1/ 22/01
Request: Public Hearing on an indefinite extension of the current design review process (Ordinance 1626)
which allows Planning Commission study of single family houses subject to design review at the beginning of
the design review process.
General Plan: Request is consistent with the provisions of the General Plan as they apply to the R-1 zoning
district.
CEQA Status: CEQA Code Section 15305 Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations, Class 5 consists of
minor alterations in land use limitations in areas with an average slope of less than 20%, which do not result in
any changes in land use or density.
Background:
In April 1998, the City Council adopted regulations which established design review for single family houses
in the R-1 zoning district. Under the initial zoning requirements adopted, a review process was established
which required that all applications subject to residential design review be submitted to, and reviewed, by a
design review consultant before being sent to the Planning Commission for action. This turned out to be a
time consuming process for the applicant and sometimes resulted in additional revisions when the Planning
Commission's understanding of the design guidelines differed from that of the design review consultant.
On April 3, 2000, the City Council adopted a revision to'the residential design review process. This revision,
encompassed in Ordinance 1626, changed the design review process requiring all applications for residential
design review be submitted first for a Planning Commission design review study session and then set by the
Commission for one of three actions: a consent action calendar, the regular action calendar or referred to a
design review consultant with the comments by the Planning Commission. Because of the need for flexibility
in evolving the residential design review process a sunset clause was placed in Ordinance 1626. The sunset
date is March 31, 2001. If the process is not extended by the City Council, the provisions directing this
manner of processing shall expire.
Evaluation of Current Process
To evaluate the effectiveness of the preliminary study design review process Planning staff reviewed the
processing time for residential design review projects under the original process and the process used since
May of 2000. From April 1998 to May 2000 the city processed and acted on 128 residential design review
projects. Because of the processing requirements, all of these projects went to the design review consultants.
Since May of 2000 the city has processed or is currently processing 92 projects. Of the 61 projects for which
design review has been completed, 24 or 39% were referred to the design review consultant after preliminary
study by the Planning Commission.
The range of days for final action under the initial processing was 22 to 214 days with the average being 76.5
days (about 2.5 months). The range of days for final action for the projects reviewed under the revised process
was 32 to 264 days, with the average number of days being 91.3 days (about 3 months). In comparing the
cycle time for each of the two processes two factors should be noted. First, that when a project is referred to a
design reviewer or to regular action with revisions as suggested by the Planning Commission , the timing of
the project's resubmittal up to the applicant. Busy architects and designers often cannot make revisions with
their clients and return to the commission in the most timely manner. Second, because of the volume of
Extend Current Design Review Process January 22, 2001
business Planning Commission agendas have filled up, and applicants who have delayed in their revisions
must sometimes wait for an opening on the commission agenda. It should be noted that the total number of
applications which require Planning Commission actions were unusually high in 2000. The Planning
Commission reviewed 388 staff reports in 2000, this was a 33% increase over 1999. In the past 5 years the
number of staff reports reviewed by the Planning Commission has increased 203%. Since design review was
initiated in 1998 the number of staff reports reviewed has increased by 67%.
The conclusion of the time analysis is that while the preliminary design review process may not have speeded
up the design review process by reducing the average number of days for processing an application, in part
because the process is driven by the applicant making timely revisions, the revised process has (1) improved
the process for the applicant by getting the Planning Commission's input earlier, thus improving the
consistency between the design reviewer's recommendations and what the Planning Commission can accept;
and (2) the number of projects being referred to the design reviewer is about 60% less than under the old
process, saving the applicant both money and time. In terms of the total volume of Planning Commission
business, there is little staff or the commission can do about the single family residential building/remodel
boom and the good economy, but weather it.
Amended Wording:
With this action the following sections would continue in zoning Code Section 25.57.030 (b). If approved this
section shall continue to read:
"(b) Upon completion of the application, the schematic design plans and the application shall be
referred to the planning commission for study. The study meeting shall be noticed in accordance with
the provisions for notice in this title. If at the study meeting, the planning commission determines that
formal design review is not required for the application or that only minor changes are needed, the
planning commission may order that the application not be subject to subsection (c) below and will
proceed directly to hearing under subsection (e).
(c) If the commission instead refers the application for further design review, the plans submitted shall
referred to the appointee professional described above for review and comment. The appointee's
analysis shall be forwarded to the planning commission...."
The following existing text in the code is included to assist in understanding the change. This section to
remain unchanged is CS 25.57.030 (e):
"(e) The application shall then be reviewed by the planning commission for the following considerations
(1) Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
(2) Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood;
(3) Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory
structures;
(4) Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties;
(5) Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components, and
(6) In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the
existing structure as remodeled."
Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing on extending the
preliminary design review study process as a part of the residential design review requirements. Affirmative
action should be a recommendation to the City Council made by resolution. This matter is being brought to
commission directly for action because the process has been effective and it is necessary for council to act on
this item before the end of February so that the residential design review process will not temporarily revert to
2
Extend Current Design Review Process ✓anuary 22, 2001
the process used initially with all applications being referred first to the design reviewers. This has been
noticed in a newspaper of general circulation.
Margaret Monroe
City Planner
Attachments:
- Ordinance , Amendment to Section 25.57.030 Amending the Design Review Process to Provide for
Planning Commission Study at the Beginning of the Process, proposed
- Ordinance 1626, Change to Section 25.57.030 Amending the Design Review Process to Provide for
Planning Commission Study at the Beginning of the Process, adopted April 3, 2000.
- Zoning Code Section, Chapter 25.57
- Resolution
I ORDINANCE NO. 1626
2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING AN INTERIM
CHANGE TO SECTION 25.57.030
3 AMENDING THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS TO PROVIDE FOR
4 PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS
5 The CITY COUNCIL ofthe CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
6
7 Section 1. The design review process for construction in the R-1 Districts of the City
8 is evolving over time. In order to provide early input by the Planning Commission and to
i
9 minimize costs for projects that meet design review standards, this ordinance will provide for
10 study by the Planning Commission at the beginning of the process, so that the Commission can
i
11 provide comments, discuss the project with the applicant and neighbors, and have the option of
i
12 referring the application directly to public hearing rather than putting it through the detailed
13 design review process prior to a formal public hearing.
14
15 Section 2. The provisions of Subsections 25.57.030(b), (c), and (d) are amended as
16 follows:
17 (b) Upon completion of the application, the schematic design plans and the application
18 shall be referred to the planning commission for study. The study meeting shall be noticed in
19 accordance with the provisions for notice in this title. If at the study meeting, the planning
20 commission determines that formal design review is not required for the application or that only
21 minor changes are needed, the planning commission may order that the application not be subject
22 to subsection (c) below and will proceed directly to hearing under subsection (e).
23 (c) If the commission instead refers the application for further design review, the plans
24 submitted shall be referred to the appointee professional described above for review and
25 comment. The appointee's analysis shall be forwarded to the planning commission.
26 (d) No prior mailed notice of the appointee's review is necessary. However, notice of
27 the commission's review of and hearing on each application under this chapter shall be given as
28 provided in section 25.16.050.
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 3. This ordinance shall be effective until March 31, 2001, unless earlier repealed,
and shall have no further force and effect beyond that date. If the ordinance ceases to be
effective, the provisions of Section 25.57.030 in effect when this ordinance was adopted shall
be reinstated unless otherwise provided by an ordinance subsequent to this one.
Section 4. 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 20th
day of March , 2000, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the
3rd day of April , 2000, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
C:\WP51'&MES\ORDINANC\designrev.pin.wpd
-2-
d Ll��
City Clerk
City of Burlingame
Chapter 25.57
DESIGN REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION OF
OR ADDITIONS TO ANY RESIDENTIAL
STRUCTURE IN ANY R-1 DISTRICT
25.57.010
Design review required.
25.57.020
Design review panel.
25.57.030
Design review process.
25.57.040
Exemptions.
25.57.010 Design review required.
Unless the proposed project has been reviewed
pursuant to this chapter, no building or construction
permit shall be issued in any R-1 district for the
following:
(a) Substantial construction as defined in this title
of or to a single family dwelling; or
(b) A single family dwelling addition having a plate
height greaterthan nine (9) feet above finished floor; or
(c) An increase to the height of the existing plate
line of a single family dwelling; or
(d) Construction of a garage attached to a single
family dwelling; or
(e) Addition to or construction of a second story or
higher.
(1620 § 2, Amended, 10/18/1999; 1602 § 2 (part), Added,
09/23/1998)
25.57.020 Design review panel.
With the approval of the planning commission, the
city planner shall appoint one or more design
professionals to advise the city planner and the planning
commission on applications made under this ordinance.
The panel appointees shall be persons in the business of
residential design who have practiced their design
profession involving residential designs in the city and
who are willing to contract with the city to provide
advisory services under this chapter. On a random
basis, the city planner shall assign each application
under this chapter to a panel appointee for review and
comment under this ordinance.
(1620 § 2, Amended, 10/18/1999; 1602 § 2 (part), Added,
09/23/1998)
25.57.030 Design review process.
(a) Any person seeking approval of construction to
be reviewed under this chapter shall submit an
application for design review to the City Planner in the
same form and containing the same signatures as
provided in section 25.16.040 of this title. The
schematic design plans submitted with the application
shall demonstrate the architectural details of the
proposal, and in the case of an addition, of the existing
structure and the addition.
(b) Upon completion of the application, the
schematic design plans and the application shall be
referred to the planning commission for study. The
study meeting shall be noticed in accordance with the
provisions for notice in this title. If at the study
meeting, the planning commission determines that
formal design review is not required for the application
or that only minor changes are needed, the planning
commission may order that the application not be
subject to subsection (c) below and will proceed
directly to hearing under subsection (e).
(c) If the commission instead refers the application
for further design review, the plans submitted shall be
referred to the appointee professional described above
forreview and comment. The appointee's analysis shall
be forwarded to the planning commission.
(d) No prior mailed notice of the appointee's
review is necessary. However, notice of the
commission's review ofand hearing on each application
under this chapter shall be given as provided in section
25.16.050.
(e) The application shall then be reviewed by the
planning commission for the following considerations:
(1) Compatibility of the architectural style with
that of the existing character of the neighborhood;
(2) Respect for the parking and garage patterns in
the neighborhood;
(3) Architectural style and consistency and mass
and bulk of structures, including accessory structures;
(4) Interface of the proposed sticture with the
structures on adjacent properties;
(5) Landscaping and its proportion to mass and
bulk of structural components; and
(6) In the case of an addition, compatibility with
the architectural style and character of the existing
structure as remodeled
(f) The applicant shall bear the burden of
demonstrating to the satisfaction of the planning
commission that the applicant's design and project
comply with the design criteria set forth in subsection
(e) above. The commission may deny, deny without
prejudice, approve, or approve with conditions any
application under this chapter.
(g) Decisions of the planning commission under
this chapter shall be subject to appeal to the city council
and the effectiveness as provided in Sections 25.16.070
through 25.16.130, except that the determination of the
commission shall become final and conclusive in seven
(7) days from the date of the commission decision if no
appeal is filed with the city clerk.
(1626 § 2, Amended, 04/03/2000; 1620 § 2, Amended,
10/18/1999;1602 § 2 (part), Added, 09/23/1998)
25.57.040 Exemptions.
The following applications are exempt from the
chapter.
(a) Applications for building permits or planning
approvals filed before March 17, 1998 and certain
(25.57)1
July 2000
City of Burlingame
amendments to those applications or permits as
specifically provided in Ordinance No. 1602.
(b) Applications for building pen -nits or planning
approvals filed before 5:00 p.m. on November 18.
1999, and certain amendments to those applications or
permits as specifically provided in Ordinance No. 1620.
(1620 § 2, Amended, 10/18/1999; 1602 § 2 (part),
Added, 09/23/1998)
July 2000
(25.57) 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
ORDINANCE NO. 1650
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING
AMENDMENT TO SECTION 25.57.030
AMENDING THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS TO PROVIDE FOR
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. The design review process for construction in the R-1 Districts of the City
is evolving over time. In Ordinance No. 1626, the City Council adopted an interim procedure
to expedite design review applications. In order to provide early input by the Planning
Commission and to minimize costs for projects that meet design review standards, that ordinance
provided for study by the Planning Commission at the beginning of the process, so that the
Commission could provide comments, discuss the project with the applicant and neighbors, and
have the option of referring the application directly to public hearing rather than putting it
through the detailed design review process prior to a formal public hearing. That ordinance has
worked well, and this ordinance is intended to continue that process until changed by a future
ordinance.
Section 2. Section 3 of Ordinance No. 1626 is repealed
Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
ayor
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 5TH
day of February, 2001, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
the 2011' day of February, 2001, by the following vote:
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
AYES: COUNCILMEM 3ERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
D:\wp51\Files\ORDINANC\designrevproc.pin.wpd
-2-
/2i w/m - V • !7
City Clerk
A� CITY oZ STAFF REPORT
BURLINGAME AGENDA
Item #
MTG.
DATE 2.20.01
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
BY 1'
DATE:. JANUARY 25.2001
APPROV
FROM. CITY PLANNER BY
SUBJECT: SECOND READING AND PUBLIC HEARING N AN ORDINANCE TO
INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BASEMENT AREAS IN FLOOR
AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on the proposed ordinance. If action is
affirmative the ordinance will become effective on March 20, 2001.
Planning Commission Action
At their meeting on January 8, 2001, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 6-0-1
(C. Keighren absent) to recommend the ordinance extending the single family residential floor area
ratio calculation to basement areas. Commissioners noted in their action that it was appropriate to
close this loop hole in the FAR requirements and they have seen a number of projects which will be
benefited by this new regulation as will the adjacent neighborhoods.
BACKGROUND:
Council at their meeting on February 5, 2001, introduced the proposed ordinance to include in floor
area ratios calculations basement areas in single family houses. At introduction Council members
asked why bathroom areas in basements were limited to 25 SF. Staff noted that the Planning
Commission felt that restricting the size of bathroom areas in basements would discourage use of a
basement area for sleeping purposes. The 25 SF size was chosen because it is not enough room to put
in a shower later. Council then set the proposed ordinance for public hearing and action at the meeting
of February 21, 2001.
Summary of the Propose Ordinance from the Staff Report for Introduction
Histo
In the current zoning code basement areas (areas whose walls are more than 50% below grade) are
not included in the floor area ratio calculation. Last Spring the Planning Commission reviewed a new
single family project in Ray Park area which had a full basement with interior and exterior access.
Because the basement walls were more than 50% below grade none of the proposed basement area
counted in the floor area ratio. Since the two-story portion of the structure above the basement met the
city's maximum FAR for a single family house with an attached garage, the basement FAR exemption
allowed a substantial increase in FAR on the site. The neighbors expressed concern about the impact
SECOND READING OFAN ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BASEMENT AREAS IN
FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS
Febmary 20, 2001
on the neighborhood of such a large house, the number of people who could live in it and the number
of cars to be parked that the use would generate. They asked that the Planning Commission consider
including some or all of basement areas in the FAR calculation for single family houses. The
commission gave the task over to a subcommittee which reported out to the commission as a whole for
study in October 2000. The commission had some suggestions and directed staff to include them.
The item was returned to the Planning Commission for further study and comment on November 27,
2000; and was referred to the full commission for additional consideration at their meeting on
December 11, 2000. Two more issues were discuss and the draft ordinance was referred back to staff
and set for public hearing and action on January 8, 2001.
Summary of Provisions of Proposed Ordinance
This ordinance includes the following provisions:
1. Provides a new definition of basement which allows only 2 feet of the walls as
measured from existing grade to the surface of the floor above to be exposed, in order to be
called a basement area. Otherwise the area is a story (see 2 below).
2. Revises the definition of "story" to include both attic areas and, in houses in hillside
areas, living areas built below the first floor.
3. Amends the provisions for single family residential floor area (CS 25.08.265) to
include:
a. in calculation of FAR all basements with a ceiling height of six feet or more
will be included with the exception of up to 600 SF.
b. no basement area will be deducted from the FAR calculation if any portion of
the basement is used for parking.
c. crawl spaces under the house shall not be counted in FAR,
d. A maximum of 100 SF of space below the first floor, even if it does not
qualify as a basement as defined in the new ordinance shall be exempted to
accommodate existing utility areas in older houses.
4. Requires a Special Permit review for:
a. a basement area with any interior ceiling height of 6 1/2 feet or greater;
b. a basement area with a door directly to the outside (light wells with
emergency exiting area allowed);
c. a bathroom (toilet and sink) exceeding 25 SF in a basement.
5. The prohibited uses in the R-1 zone are amended to:
a. prohibit bathtubs and shower stalls in basement areas
b. prohibit bedrooms in basement areas.
6. Adds a variety of definitions to make the provisions work including: ceiling height,
adjacent grade, existing grade, and natural grade.
F]
SECOND READING OFAN ORDINANCE TO INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL BASEMENT AREAS IN
FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATIONS
February 20, 2001
ATTACHMENTS:
Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Title 25 to Revise the Inclusion of Basements in
Floor Area Ratio Calculation.
Annotated Proposed Changes to the Zoning Code to Implement Including Basement Areas in
FAR Calculations
Planning Commission Minutes, January 8, 2001
Planning Commission Minutes, November 27, 2001
Mr. And Mrs. Hubner letter January 3, 2001 to Planning Commission
Ruth Jacobs letter January 4, 2001 to Planning Commission
Notice of Public Hearing
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
ORDINANCE No.
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING TITLE 25 TO REVISE THE INCLUSION OF BASEMENTS IN
FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATION
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. The high cost of real property in the City of Burlingame compels property
owners to seek the greatest return in living space within the limits of their property. This has led
to a number of applications involving conversion or creation of large, intensively -used basement
areas. This ordinance is intended to guide and limit the size, impact, and use of basement areas in
residential uses.
Section 2. Section 25.08.120 is amended to read as follows:
25.08.120 Basement.
"Basement" means the portion of a building between floor and ceiling that is wholly or
partially underground. Where more than two (2) feet of any portion of the basement's height
is above the existing grade next to the basement, a basement shall be counted as a story.
Section 3. A new section 25.08.182 is added to read as follows:
25.08.182 Ceiling height.
"Ceiling height" means the distance between the floor and the lowest ceiling joist, pipe, or
similar construction above the floor.
Section 4. Section 25.08.265 is amended to read as follows:
25.08.265 Floor area ratio (FAR).
(a) "Floor area Ratio" or "FAR" means the ratio of the gross square footage of the floor
area of a building or buildings to the lot on which the building or buildings are located. FAR for
any lot includes new structures to be built and those remaining.
21
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
(b) Single family residential.
(1) In calculating FAR on a lot, the measurement shall include the gross floor areas of the
primary dwelling, attached garages, and all accessory structures on foundations, and shall include
all basements with a ceiling height of six (6) feet or greater, . Open spaces within the structure that
are higher than twelve (12) feet shall be counted as two (2) floors.
(2) Up to six hundred (600) square feet of basement with a ceiling height of six (6) feet or
greater shall be deducted from the floor area measurement for FAR under subsection (b)(1) above
if it meets both of the following standards:
(A) The top of the finished floor above the basement is less than two (2) feet above existing
grade; and
(B) No part of the basement is intended or used for parking.
(3) Deducted from the floor area computation for single family residences are:
(A) Covered porches or decks on the first floor totaling one hundred (100) square feet or
less. An area under a balcony shall be considered a covered porch if the balcony is over an exterior
exit from the building; and
(B) Uncovered balconies and decks on the second floor; and
(C) Existing attic areas that are retained or reduced, but not extended in new construction.
In all other cases, habitable attic areas shall be counted as floor area in calculating FAR; and
(D) Accessible space between the surface of the ground and the bottom of the first floor
joists that measures less than six (6) feet in height shall not be counted as floor area in calculating
FAR; and
(E) Lower floor or basement of one hundred (100) square feet or less, even if the lower
floor or basement extends more than two (2) feet above existing grade.
Section 5. A new section 25.08.312 is added to read as follows:
25.08.312 Grade, adjacent.
"Adjacent grade" means the level of the soil immediately next to a structure or proposed
structure.
0
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
126
27
28
Section 6. A new section 25.08.321 is added to read as follows:
25.08. 321 Grade, existing.
"Existing grade" means the grade on a site prior to any grading or movement of soil for
additional construction.
Section 7. A new section 25.08.322 is added to read as follows:
25.08.322 Grade, natural.
"Natural grade" means the elevation of the ground surface in its natural state or as
determined by the city engineer who may refer to original subdivision and subdivision grading
plans if available.
Section 8. Section 25.08.610 is amended to read as follows:
25.08.610 Story, attic half.
"Attic half story" means a story with at least two of its opposite walls situated in a sloping
roof, and the floor area of which does not exceed two-thirds (2/3) of the floor area of the story
immediately below it.
Section 9. A new section 25.08.614 is added to read as follows:
25.08.614 Story, lower level half.
"Lower level half story" means a story in which the area enclosed by walls does not exceed
two-thirds (2/3) of the floor area of the story immediately above it.
Section 10. Section 25.28.035 is amended to read as follows:
25.28.035 Uses allowed with a special permit.
The following are uses allowed in the district with a Special Permit:
(a) Attached garages for single family dwelling units.
(b) Reduction in the number of parking spaces existing on site.
(c) Construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope.
3
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
(d) A detached garage exempt from setback restrictions located within the rear forty (40)
percent of the lot.
(e) An accessory structure that is in the rear of the lot and that is more than twenty-eight
(28) feet in width or depth.
(f) A basement with any interior ceiling height of six and one-half (6-1/2) feet or greater.
(g) A direct exit from a basement to the exterior of the structure that is anything other than
a light or window well.
(h) A bathroom (toilet and sink) exceeding twenty (25) square feet located in a basement.
Section 11. A new section 25.28.037 is added to read as follows:
25.28.037 Prohibited uses.
The following uses are specifically prohibited in the R-1 districts:
(a) Bathtubs and shower stalls in basements; and
(b) Bedrooms in basements.
Section 12. 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 5th day
of February, 2001, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_
day of , 20, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
D:\wp5 I \Files\ORDINANC\basementfar I .ord.wpd
City Clerk
0
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
ORDINANCE No. 1649
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
AMENDING TITLE 25 TO REVISE THE INCLUSION OF BASEMENTS IN
FLOOR AREA RATIO CALCULATION
The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows:
Section 1. The high cost of real property in the City of Burlingame compels property
owners to seek the greatest return in living space within the limits of their property. This has led
to a number of applications involving conversion or creation of large, intensively -used basement
areas. This ordinance is intended to guide and limit the size, impact, and use of basement areas in
residential uses.
Section 2. Section 25.08.120 is amended to read as follows:
25.08.120 Basement.
"Basement" means the portion of a building between floor and ceiling that is wholly or
partially underground. Where more than two (2) feet of any portion of the basement's height
is above the existing grade next to the basement, a basement shall be counted as a story.
Section 3. A new section 25.08.182 is added to read as follows:
25.08.182 Ceiling height.
"Ceiling height" means the distance between the floor and the lowest ceiling joist, pipe, or
similar construction above the floor.
Section 4. Section 25.08.265 is amended to read as follows:
25.08.265 Floor area ratio (FAR).
(a) "Floor area Ratio" or "FAR' means the ratio of the gross square footage of the floor
area of a building or buildings to the lot on which the building or buildings are located. FAR for
any lot includes new structures to be built and those remaining.
I
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
(b) Single family residential.
(1) In calculating FAR on a lot, the measurement shall include the gross floor areas of the
primary dwelling, attached garages, and all accessory structures on foundations, and shall include
all basements with a ceiling height of six (6) feet or greater, . Open spaces within the structure that
are higher than twelve (12) feet shall be counted as two (2) floors.
(2) Up to six hundred (600) square feet of basement with a ceiling height of six (6) feet or
greater shall be deducted from the floor area measurement for FAR under subsection (b)(1) above
if it meets both of the following standards:
(A) The top of the finished floor above the basement is less than two (2) feet above existing
grade; and
(B) No part of the basement is intended or used for parking.
(3) Deducted from the floor area computation for single family residences are:
(A) Covered porches or decks on the first floor totaling one hundred (100) square feet or
less. An area under a balcony shall be considered a covered porch if the balcony is over an exterior
exit from the building; and
(B) Uncovered balconies and decks on the second floor; and
(C) Existing attic areas that are retained or reduced, but not extended in new construction.
In all other cases, habitable attic areas shall be counted as floor area in calculating FAR; and
(D) Accessible space between the surface of the ground and the bottom of the first floor
joists that measures less than six (6) feet in height shall not be counted as floor area in calculating
FAR; and
(E) Lower floor or basement of one hundred (100) square feet or less, even if the lower
floor or basement extends more than two (2) feet above existing grade.
Section 5. A new section 25.08.312 is added to read as follows:
25.08.312 Grade, adjacent.
"Adjacent grade" means the level of the soil immediately next to a structure or proposed
I structure.
2
11
2
3
4
5
31
71
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
126
27
28
Section 6. A new section 25.08.321 is added to read as follows:
25.08. 321 Grade, existing.
"Existing grade" means the grade on a site prior to any grading or movement of soil for
additional construction.
Section 7. A new section 25.08.322 is added to read as follows:
25.08.322 Grade, natural.
"Natural grade" means the elevation of the ground surface in its natural state or as
determined by the city engineer who may refer to original subdivision and subdivision grading plans
if available.
Section 8. Section 25.08.610 is amended to read as follows:
25.08.610 Story, attic half.
"Attic half story" means a story with at least two of its opposite walls situated in a sloping
roof, .and the floor area of which does not exceed two-thirds (2/3) of the floor area of the story
immediately below it.
Section 9. A new section 25.08.614 is added to read as follows:
25.08.614 Story, lower level half.
"Lower level half story" means a story in which the area enclosed by walls does not exceed
two-thirds (2/3) of the floor area of the story immediately above it.
Section 10. Section 25.28.035 is amended to read as follows:
25.28.035 Uses allowed with a special permit.
The following are uses allowed in the district with a Special Permit:
(a) Attached garages for single family dwelling units.
(b) Reduction in the number of parking spaces existing on site.
(c) Construction exceeding the limits of the declining height envelope.
3
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
(d) A detached garage exempt from setback restrictions located within the rear forty (40)
percent of the lot.
(e) An accessory structure that is in the rear of the lot and that is more than twenty-eight
(28) feet in width or depth.
(f) A basement with any interior ceiling height of six and one-half (6-1/2) feet or greater.
(g) A direct exit from a basement to the exterior of the structure that is anything other than
a light or window well.
(h) A bathroom (toilet and sink) exceeding twenty (25) square feet located in a basement.
Section 11. A new section 25.28.037 is added to read as follows:
25.28.037 Prohibited uses.
The following uses are specifically prohibited in the R-1 districts:
(a) Bathtubs and shower stalls in basements; and
(b) Bedrooms in basements.
Section 12. This ordinance shall be published as required by law,
a r
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 5th day of
February, 2001, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th
day of February, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI
NOES: COUNCILNIEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COLNCILMEMEERS: NONE n
City Clerk
DAp51\Files\ORDINANC\bas -ifa l.o d.wpd
4
A CITY
e.E STAFF REPORT
°nnreo +wrt e.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED
BY
DATE: February 14, 2001 APPR
BY
FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney
SUBJECT:
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 2/20/2001
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt ordinance establishing the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District,
establishing basis for and levy of assessments, and establishing the District advisory board.
2. Adopt resolution imposing assessments for Year 2001 and the programs for the year.
3. Direct Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption.
DISCUSSION
On December 18, 2000, the City Council adopted a resolution of intention (attached) that announced
two public hearings on the propose8 tourism business improvement 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 wished 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 objected in writing to some
aspect, then that aspect is stopped. The mailed notice explained how an objection could 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 met with the persons who asked the
questions. On January 17, 2001, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed District and
assessments, and then continued the public hearing to February 5.
On February 5, 2001, the City Council held the continued public hearing. No one appeared at that
hearing. The Council then closed the public hearing. At that time only one protest substantially
conforming to the statutory and noticed requirements had been received. It was from the Embassy
N4ayor and Council
Re: San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District
February 14, 2001
Page 2
Suites Hotel in South San Francisco, representing approximately 3.7% of the proposed assessments.
The Council overruled the protest, and it was less than 50% of the proposed assessments. No further
public hearing is required.
Summary of District
The proposed district would encompass all of the cities and the County that have significant hotel
facilities. Through this assessment process, hotels would contribute approximately $1.3 million
dollars in 2001 to fund the district's services and lay the groundwork for a fully funded 2002.
The assessments for the year 2001 are at three-fourths of the annual assessment (April through
December).
Consenting Agencies
Of the 14 local agencies invited to join the Business Improvement District, only two declined
(Menlo Park and Pacifica) and one was not responsive (Brisbane). The twelve participating agencies
will be:
City of Belmont
City of Burlingame
City of Daly City
City of Foster City
City of Half Moon Bay
City of Millbrae
City of Redwood City
City of San Bruno
City of San Carlos
City of San Mateo
County of San Mateo
City of South San Francisco
In responding to concerns from its hotel operators, South San Francisco has asked that its
participation in the district be postponed until January 1, 2002. This is due to hotel objections that
the additional assessment on top of the existing convention center tax needs to be phased in. The
delay of 9 months in assessments in South San Francisco will meet those demands while bringing
this important hotel city into the district in 2002.
Neither the City of South San Francisco nor its hotels will participate in the district in 2001 nor will
they derive any benefits or services.
The City of Half Moon Bay unfortunately has asked that it remove 1.5% of its assessments to pay for
its administrative costs. This would amount to about $940 a year. Because this unilateral action
jeopardizes the entire district, City staff recommend that the City of Burlingame work with Half
Moon Bay to have either Burlingame or the Convention Bureau pay this amount directly through
agreement rather than to take the money from Half Moon Bay's hotels.
Mayor and Council
Re: San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District
February 14, 2001
Page 3
Changes in Zones, Bases, and Assessments
Daly City's hotels have been placed in Benefit Zone B because of the distance of the hotels from the
Airport and the low occupancy rates that the hotels have experienced. This will also includes the
Motorville Motel at 7500 Mission Street in the unincorporated area, which is in the neighborhood of
the Daly City hotels and has a Daly City address.
Next Steps
Following adoption of the ordinance and resolution, staff will work on agreements between the City
of Burlingame and the participating agencies regarding collection and payments of assessments, and
an agreement between the City of Burlingame and the Convention and Visitors Bureau for program
administration. The advisory board will also be appointed next month.
Attachments:
Proposed Ordinance
Proposed Resolution and Assessments for 2001
Resolution of Intention
Distribution
Anne LeClair, SMCCVB
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
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. 121-00) 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. 64168.
(d) The following cities consented to the formation of the District within their respective
city limits as follows:
2/14/2001
(i) The City of Belmont pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 8916;
(ii) The City of Daly City pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 01-34;
(iii) The City of Foster City pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2001-6;
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
(iv) The City of Half Moon Bay pursuant to City Council Resolution No. C-03-01;
(v) The City of Millbrae pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 00-163;
(vi) The City of Redwood City pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 14106;
(vii) The City of San Bruno pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2001-4;
(viii) The City of San Carlos pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2000-167;
(ix) The City of San Mateo pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 5 (2001); and
(x) The City of South San Francisco pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 156-
2000 as amended by action of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco on
January 24, 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
2/14/2001
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
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
spending. Spending on accommodations alone in the County is over $500 million. This does not
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 and the northernmost part of the County, 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.
2/14/2001
3
21
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
(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
I ordinance.
(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.
2/14/2001 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
(1) 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 Daly City, City of Foster City, City of
Half Moon Bay, City of Millbrae, City of Redwood City, City of San Bruno, City of San Carlos,
City of San Mateo, the City of South San Francisco, and the County of San Mateo. However, the
City of South San Francisco shall not be a participating agency until January 1, 2002.
(m) San Mateo County Hotel Council. "San Mateo County Hotel Council" means the
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 and
its benefit zones 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:
2/14/2001
(1) In Benefit Zone A:
5
considered all oral and written testimony from all interested persons and continued the public
hearing to February 5, 2001, at the same location and time; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing held at that place and time, the City Council received and
considered all oral and written testimony from all interested persons, and closed the public hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council received only one protest from a hotel that was not going to
be assessed for the Year 2001, and therefore overruled all protests received; and
WHEREAS, the proposed assessments appear reasonable and consistent with the ordinance
establishing the District and the underlying State law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed services, programs, and activities of the District are consistent
with the ordinance establishing the District,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine, and find as
follows:
1. Written protests to assessments, improvements or activities were not received at those
public hearings that constituted a majority as defined in Government Code sections 36500 and
following.
2. The City Council does hereby levy an assessment for the Year 2001 on hotels in the
District as described in City of Burlingame Ordinance No. , to pay for services, programs, and
activities of the District.
3. The basis for assessments for the Year 2001 on all hotels within the District are set
forth in Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference.
4. The types of services, programs, and activities to be funded by the levy of
2 2001 Assessment Resolution
11
(A) Hotels with full service and more than 20 sleeping rooms: Up to $360 per sleeping
2 11 room per year.
31
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
(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.
(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 the year preceding the year for which the assessment is imposed.
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.
2/14/2001 6
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 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 report shall also contain a recommendation on the assessment levels of 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
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
2/14/2001
7
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
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.
(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
2/14/2001
21
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
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.
Section 14. Advisory Board.
(a) An advisory board of seventeen (17) 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) One (1) owner or manager of a hotel or owner of property occupied by a hotel in the
City of Foster City; and
2/14/2001
601
FA
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
(5) One (1) owner or manager of a hotel or owner of property occupied by a hotel in the
City of Half Moon Bay; and
(6) In total, three (3) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by
hotels in the Cities of Daly City, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, and the unincorporated
area of San Mateo County; and
(7) Four (4) owners or managers of companies or businesses located in San Mateo County
and directly related to tourism in San Mateo County.
(b) On January 1, 2002, the membership on the advisory board shall be increased to
nineteen (19) by the addition of two (2) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property
occupied by a hotel in the City of South San Francisco; and
(c) Terms of membership on the advisory board shall be three (3) years and until their
successors are appointed and qualified. However, the initial members of the advisory board shall
be staggered terms, with five (5) members serving a one-year term, six (6) members serving a two-
year term, and six (6) members serving a three-year term. Initial terms under this section shall be
run from May 1, 2001. The initial length of term for each member shall be chosen by lot at the
first advisory board meeting. As to the two (2) members representing the City of South San
Francisco, one shall serve an initial length of term to May 1, 2003, and the other an initial length
of term to May 1, 2004; the initial length of term for each such South San Francisco member shall
be chosen by lot at the first advisory board meeting in the year 2002.
(d) 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.
2/14/2001
10
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 16. With regard to the participation of the City of South San Francisco, the City
of South San Francisco shall have until September 30, 2001, to determine whether it wishes to
withdraw its consent to be a participating agency under this ordinance. If the City of South San
Francisco does not withdraw its consent by that time, then it shall become a participating agency
and its hotels shall be assessed pursuant to this ordinance, and it shall have representative
membership on the advisory board.
Section 17. 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 5th day
of February, 2001, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the_
day of , 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
D:\wpi 1\Files\HotelBid\ordinancefinal.ord.wpd
2/14/2001
City Clerk
EXHIBIT A
DESCRIPTION OF BOUNDARIES OF
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
DISTRICT IN GENERAL
The San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District shall encompass all of the
incorporated and unincorporated areas in the County of San Mateo, but shall specifically exclude
all incorporated areas and any hotels located within the incorporated areas of the city or town
limits of the following cities and towns:
Town of Atherton
City of Brisbane
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:
1) All of the area of the District that is located south of the City of Pacifica city limits and
west of State Highway 35; and
2) All of the area within the City of Daly City and within all unincorporated areas
immediately adjacent to, or surrounded by, the city limits of the City of Daly City.
EXHIBIT B
ACTIVITIES, PROGRAMS AND SERVICES TO BE FUNDED BY THE
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
1. Increased Generation of Group Leads
a. Additional Sales Staff. Increase the Bureau's sales staff from two full -times sales
representatives to six (6) or more.
i. One sales representative to be located on the East Coast to represent the
Bureau in the Washington, D.C. area;
ii. One sales representative to be located in Sacramento;
iii. One sales representative to be located in Southern California to represent
the Bureau in the Los Angeles Area;
iv. Three sales representatives in-house.
2. Marketing Program for Meetings and Tourism
a. Invest in extensive Web advertising, creating links from key travel sites;
b. Host annual receptions in Sacramento;
C. Add a cooperative advertising manager and create additional cooperative
advertising pieces;
d. Participate in additional trade shows of interest to member hotel properties;
e. Enhance/update trade show booth decor and marketing materials;
f. Increase memberships in organizations/attendance at meetings with key, potential
target visitors;
g. Enhance advertising in publications/web programs aimed at meeting planners;
h. Create specialty guides/promotional pieces aimed at target market segments (e.g.
golf);
i. Conduct familiarization trips for meeting planners, film/ad/catalogue producers
and travel writers;
j. Use a part-time film commissioner to proactively recruit production crews to the
area;
k. Create additional collateral and marketing materials;
1. Add a part-time publications manager to write specialty pieces and articles for
distribution;
M. Add state -of the art software designed for convention and visitor bureaus;
n. Enhance web site;
3. Program to Extend Stays
a. Create collateral/promotional materials to encourage extended stays;
b. Add a part-time manager of meeting services to create special packages/offers,
marketing plans to encourage extended stays.
4. Consumer Reservations Program/Market to Travel Industry
a. Create an on-line reservations system for travelers;
b. Dedicate one new sales representative's time to the transient market;
C. Develop an alliance with tour operators;
d. Create an awareness of the Bureau on the part of international travelers;
e. Have key brochures translated into German and Korean.
RESOLUTION OF
INTENTION
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 ofHalf Moon Bay, City ofMillbrae, City ofRedwood City, City ofSan
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
12/18/2000 1
No other business, person, occupation, or property ofany land 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 advisoryboard ofowners and managers ofhotels 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. TheBurlingame City Council intends to form the San Mateo County Tourism Business
Improvement District by adoption of an ordinance pursuant to Streets & Highways Code sections
36500 and following. The boundaries of the proposed district are generally described in Exhibit A
hereto; however, the district will only include areas within those cities whose city councils consent
to the formation of the District by January 17, 2001, and will only include unincorporated areas of
the County of San Mateo if the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors consents to the formation
of the District by January 17, 2001. In addition, the areas to be included in the District will only be
those areas actually consented to.
2. The Burlingame City Council further intends to levy an assessment for the 2001 fiscal
year on hotels in the District to pay for services, programs, and activities of the District.
3. The types of services, programs, and activities proposed to be funded by the Ievy 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.
C4
12/18/2000 2
6. A first public hearing on formation oft tie proposed District and assess mentsfor 200I
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 maybe sent by mail or delivered to the City Clerk at 501
Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010.
9. Oral or written protests may be made at these hearings. To count in a majority protest
against any aspect of the proposed District or to the proposed assessment for 2001, a protest must
be in writing and submitted to the City Clerk at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California 94010,
at or before the close of the second public hearing on January 17, 2001. A written protest may be
withdrawn in writing at any time before the conclusion of that second public hearing. Each written
protest shall identify the hotel and its address, include the number of sleeping rooms, level of service
provided, and square footage of meeting space. If the person signing the protest is not shown on the
official records of a city or the County as the owner of the hotel, then the protest shall contain or be
accompanied by written evidence that the person is the owner of the hotel. Any written protest as
to the regularity or sufficiency of the proceeding shall be in writing and clearly state the irregularity
or defect to which objection is made.
10. Effect of Protests.
(a) If at the conclusion of the second public hearing, there are of record written protests by
the owners of hotels within the District that will pay fifty percent (50%) or more of the total
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 (501/o) or more of the total
assessments of the entire District, as to the proposed assessments for the year 2001, no assessment
1, for the year 2001 shall occur.
e
12/18/2000 3
R
(c) lfat the conclusion of the second public hearm,') there are of record 1�. ritten protests by
the owners of hotels %within the District that will pay fifty percent (50910) 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: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE -A
o
CITY CLERK
D.\wp51\Files\HotelBidlresintform.res wpd
12/18/2000
2
Ch,
E\1-111311, 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 35.
EXHIBIT B
.ACTIVITIES, PROGR.1,n1S AND SERVICES TO BE FUNDED BY THE
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
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.
&I
ENIIIBIT C
ASSESSMENTS PROPOSED TO BE LEVIED ON MOTELS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 FOR
SAN MATEO COLJNT17 TOURISM BUSINESS INIPROVEI\IENT 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 full quarters and 2 months of one partial quarter
remaining in the fiscal year. The full aruival 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, beH
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
12/18/2000
C-2
CATEGORY
ZONE A — ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2001
ZONE B — ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2001
Hotel with full service
and more than 20 sleeping
$360/sleeping room X 70% X (District months in 2001)
$360/sleeping room X 50% X (District months in 2001)
rooms
12
12
Hotel with limited service
and more than 1000 square
$180/sleeping room X 70% X (District months in 200 1)
$180/sleeping room X 50% X (District months in 2001)
feet of meeting space
12
12
and more than 20 sleeping
rooms
Hotel with limited service
and some meeting space but
$90/sleeping room X 70% X (District months in 200 11
$90/sleeping room X 50% X (District months in 2001)
less than 1000 square feet
12
12
and more than 20 sleeping
rooms
Hotel with standard service
and more than 20 sleeping
$54/sleeping room X 70% X (_District months in 2001)
$54/sleeping room X 50% X (District months in 200 1)
rooms
12
12
Hotel with full service,
limited service, or standard
$54/sleeping room X 30% X (District months in 200 1)
$54/sleeping room X 30% X (District months in 2001 >
service, and
12
12
20 sleeping rooms or less
12/18/2000
C-2
EVIIIBIT 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 Lav of 1989 (Streets &Highways Code sections 36500 and following).
D-1
any written protest as to thereularit� or sufficiency ofthe proceeding shall be in writing and
clearly state the irreulanty 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
16
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. 1648
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. 121-00) 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 ofthe
District within the unincorporated portion of San Mateo County pursuant to Board of Supervisors
Resolution No. 64168.
(d) The following cities consented to the formation of the District within their respective city
limits as follows:
2/14/2001
(i) The City of Belmont pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 8916;
(ii) The City of Daly City pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 01-34;
(iii) The City of Foster City pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2001-6;
1
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
(iv) The City of Half Moon Bay pursuant to City Council Resolution No. C-03-01;
(v) The City of Millbrae pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 00-163,
(vi) The City of Redwood City pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 14106;
(vii) The City of San Bruno pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2001-4;
(viii) The City of San Carlos pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2000-167,
(ix) The City of San Mateo pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 5 (2001); and
(x) The City of South San Francisco pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 156-
2000 as amended by action of the City Council of the City of South San Francisco on
January 24, 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 ofthe 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 ofBurlingame, the City Council held a public hearing in the Council Chambers at City Hall,
Burlingame, regarding formation ofthe 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.
2/14/2001 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
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 spending. Spending on
accommodations alone in the County is over $500 million. This does not 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 and the northernmost part of the County, 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 ofthis 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.
2/14/2001
(b) Assessment. "Assessment" means the levy imposed by this ordinance for the purpose
i3
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
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.
(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.
Q) 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.
(1) 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
2/14/2001
4
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
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 Daly City, City of Foster City, City of
Half Moon Bay, City of Millbrae, City of Redwood City, City of San Bruno, City of San Carlos,
City of San Mateo, the City of South San Francisco, and the County of San Mateo. However, the
City of South San Francisco shall not be a participating agency until January 1, 2002.
(m) San Mateo County Hotel Council. "San Mateo County Hotel Council' means the
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 f6r 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. Aparking 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 and
its benefit zones 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.
2/14/2001
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
(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.
(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 the year preceding the year for which the assessment is imposed.
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.
2/14/2001
C
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 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 report shall also contain a recommendation on the assessment levels of 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 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 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 ofa hotel
2/14/2001
7
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
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.
(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
2/14/2001
8
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
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.
Section 14. Advisory Board.
(a) An advisory board of seventeen (17) 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) One (1) owner or manager of a hotel or owner of property occupied by a hotel in the
City of Foster City; and
(5) One (1) owner or manager of a hotel or owner of property occupied by a hotel in the
City of Half Moon Bay; and
2/14/2001
i7
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
(6) In total, three (3) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by
hotels in the Cities of Daly City, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, and the unincorporated
area of San Mateo County; and
(7) Four (4) owners or managers of companies or businesses located in San Mateo County
and directly related to tourism in San Mateo County.
(b) On January 1, 2002, the membership on the advisory board shall be increased to nineteen
(19) by the addition of two (2) owners or managers of hotels or owners of property occupied by
a hotel in the City of South San Francisco; and
(c) Terms of membership on the advisory board shall be three (3) years and until their
successors are appointed and qualified. However, the initial members of the advisory board shall
be staggered terms, with five (5) members serving a one-year tern, six (6) members serving a two-
year term, and six (6) members serving a three-year term. Initial terms under this section shall be
run from May 1, 2001. The initial length of term for each member shall be chosen by lot at the first
advisory board meeting. As to the two (2) members representing the City of South San Francisco,
one shall serve an initial length of term to May 1, 2003, and the other an initial length of term to
May 1, 2004; the initial length of term for each such South San Francisco member shall be chosen
by lot at the first advisory board meeting in the year 2002.
(d) Vacancies on the advisory board shall be filled by appointment by the City Council of
the City ofBurlingame 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 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.
2/14/2001
Section 16. With regard to the participation of the City of South San Francisco, the City
10
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
of South San Francisco shall have until September 30, 2001, to determine whether it wishes to
withdraw its consent to be a participating agency under this ordinance. If the City of South San
Francisco does not withdraw its consent by that time, then it shall become a participating agency
and its hotels shall be assessed pursuant to this ordinance, and it shall have representative
membership on the advisory board.
Section 17. This ordinance shall be published as required by law.
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 5th day
ofFebruarv, 2001, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20°i
day of February, 2001, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
D:\wp5I Files\HotelBidtordinancefinal.ord.wpd
2/14/2001
0"�y W46ao
City Clerk
11
RESOLUTION NO. 13-2001
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING YEAR 2001 ASSESSMENTS FOR
THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et sea., the
San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District been established for the purpose of
promoting tourism in the district; and
WHEREAS, the Interim Advisory Board has requested the Burlingame City Council to
establish Year 2001 assessments for the improvement district; and
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2000, the City Council adopted a resolution of intention
(Resolution No. 121-00) declaring its intention to impose assessments for the Year 2001 within the
assessment district, and the setting public hearings on the proposed district and assessments; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 54954.6(c), a public meeting on the
proposed assessments was duly noticed for January 5, 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; and
WHEREAS, at the public meeting held at that place and time, the City Council received and
considered all oral and written testimony from all interested persons; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Govermnent Code section 54954.6(c) and the Streets & Highways
Code, a public hearing on the proposed assessments was duly noticed 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; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing held at that place and time, the City Council received and
1 2001 Assessment Resolution
considered all oral and written testimony from all interested persons and continued the public
hearing to February 5, 2001, at the same location and time; and
WHEREAS, at the public hearing held at that place and time, the City Council received and
considered all oral and written testimony from all interested persons, and closed the public hearing;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council received only one protest from a hotel that was not going to
be assessed for the Year 2001, and therefore overruled all protests received; and
WHEREAS, the proposed assessments appear reasonable and consistent with the ordinance
establishing the District and the underlying State law; and
WHEREAS, the proposed services, programs, and activities of the District are consistent
with the ordinance establishing the District,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine, and find as
follows:
1. Written protests to assessments, improvements or activities were not received at those
public hearings that constituted a majority as defined in Government Code sections 36500 and
following.
2. The City Council does hereby levy an assessment for the Year 2001 on hotels in the
District as described in City of Burlingame Ordinance No. 1648, to pay for services, programs, and
activities of the District.
3. The basis for assessments for the Year 2001 on all hotels within the District are set
forth in Exhibit "A", incorporated herein by reference. Because of the effective date of the District
ordinance, the assessments shall be calculated from April 1, 2001.
2 2001 Assessment Resolution
4. The types of services, programs, and activities to be funded by the levy of
assessments on businesses in the District are set forth in Exhibit "B", incorporated herein by
reference.
5. The assessments for the Year 2001 on hotels within the District as of April 1, 2001,
are set forth in Exhibit "C," incorporated by reference.
6. New businesses shall not be exempt from assessment as provided in Exhibit "A."
MA R
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 20th day
of FEBRUARY ,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
D:\wp51\Files\HotelBid\AssessmentRes200l .res.wpd
3 2001 Assessment Resolution
EXHIBIT A
ASSESSMENTS LEVIED ON HOTELS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2001 FOR SAN MATEO
COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
In order to roughly measure the estimated benefit to be derived from the District, the Assessment for Fiscal Year
2001 is being adjusted by the following two factors: first, the level of occupancy of hotels actually experienced
county -wide in the 1999-2000 year; and second, by the actual number of months of the year 2001 remaining after
the ordinance forming the District becomes effective.
According to the hotel industry, the level of occupancy in Zone A for hotels was above 70% for the year 1999-
2000; in Zone B, it was above 50%. However, the small hotel segment of the industry experienced an occupancy
of only about 30%.
The number of months remaining in 2001 are nine: April through December; in future years, this element of the
formula would be eliminated.
Assessment of new hotels opening during fiscal year:
A new hotel shall be assessed for an amount equal to the ratio of the number of full quarters remaining in the
fiscal year multiplied by the full annual assessment that would have been due. A partial quarter is not counted for
the ratio. For example, if a hotel opens in May, there are two full quarters and 2 months of one partial quarter
remaining in the fiscal year. The full annual assessment would be multiplied by 2/4 for that year's assessment for
the new hotel.
Definitions
— Hotel means any structure, or any portion of any structure, that is rented for dwelling, lodging, or sleeping
purposes on a transient basis, and includes any hotel, motel, inn, tourist home or house, studio, bed and breakfast,
lodging house, rooming house, or other similar structure or portion thereof.
—Full service means a hotel that offers all of the following: an on-site restaurant, meeting space, room service,
bell service, and catering.
—Limited service means a hotel that offers meeting space but does not necessarily have an on-site restaurant,
room service, or catering.
— Standard service means a hotel without any meeting space, and generally does not have bell service, room
service, on-site restaurant, or catering.
— Meeting space means a room or space dedicated for group and social meetings, meals, and/or functions.
— Sleeping room means a room or suite of rooms that is rented on a transient basis as a unit for sleeping or
occupancy.
2/14/2001 A-1
CATEGORY
ZONE A — ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2001
ZONE B — ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2001
Hotel with full service
$360/sleeping room X 70% X (9 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 (9 District months in 2001)
$180/sleeping room X 50% X (District months in 2001)
and more than 1000 square
12
12
feet of meeting space
and more than 20 sleeping
rooms
Hotel with limited service
$90/sleeping room X 70% X (9 District months in 2001)
$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 (9 District months in 2001)
$54/sleeping room X 50% X (District months in 200 1)
and more than 20 sleeping
12
12
rooms
Hotel with full service,
$54/sleeping room X 30% X (9 District months in 2001)
$54/sleeping room X 30% X (District months in 20011
limited service, or standard
12
12
service, and
20 sleeping rooms or less
2/14/2001 A_2
EXHIBIT B
ACTIVITIES, PROGRAMS AND SERVICES TO BE FUNDED BY THE
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT
1. Increased Generation of Group Leads
a. Additional Sales Staff. Increase the Bureau's sales staff from two full -times sales
representatives to six (6) or more.
i. One sales representative to be located on the East Coast to represent the
Bureau in the Washington, D.C. area;
ii. One sales representative to be located in Sacramento;
iii. One sales representative to be located in Southern California to represent
the Bureau in the Los Angeles Area;
iv. Three sales representatives in-house.
2. Marketing Program for Meetings and Tourism
a. Invest in extensive Web advertising, creating links from key travel sites;
b. Host annual receptions in Sacramento;
C. Add a cooperative advertising manager and create additional cooperative
advertising pieces;
d. Participate in additional trade shows of interest to member hotel properties;
e. Enhance/update trade show booth decor and marketing materials;
f. Increase memberships in organizations/attendance at meetings with key, potential
target visitors;
g. Enhance advertising in publications/web programs aimed at meeting planners;
h. Create specialty guides/promotional pieces aimed at target market segments (e.g.
golf);
i. Conduct familiarization trips for meeting planners, film/ad/cataIogue 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.
h:�Ciil��a1
TOTAL OF CITIES
Rooms
2001 Assessment
Per Room
Belmont
542
$19,410.30
$35.81
Burlingame
3,569
$582,053.8_5_
$_1_63.09
County of San Mateo
329
$8,425.35 ;
_
$25.61
Daly City
269;
$5,447.25
--- $20.25
_ Foster City
-
503'
-- --;-
$81,175.50,
---
$161.38
_-_ Half Moon Bay - _-i
5 8
_
$48,265.20
$83.50
Millbrae
1,321
$172,301.85;
_
Redwood City
1,115-1
$98,452.80 !
_ _$130.43
$88.30
San Bruno
---- ,_
510
$30,466.801 -------
__— _
$59.74
_ _ __ __.
San Carlos --_ -- _
368;
- - - -- - $13,570.20
$36.88
San Mateo
11,82111
$194,784.751
$106.97
TOTAL
10,925'
$1,254,353.85
$114.81
EXHIBIT C CITIES /COUNTY 2001 ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS --- YEAR 2001 EXHIBIT C
_ Name of Property
Burlingame
Zone
Category/Assessment
# Rooms
2001 Assessment
Monthly assessment
_ Embassy Suites
A
$
360.00
344
$
65,016.00
_$
7,224.00
Doubletree Hotel
A
$
360.00
390
$
73,710.00
$__
8,190.00
SFO Marriott
A
$
360.00
689
$
130,221.00
$
14,469.00
_ Hyatt Regency SFO
A
$
360.00
789
$
149,121.00
$
16,569.00
Sheraton Gateway
A
$
360.00
404
$
76,356.00
$
_
8,484.00
Hilton Garden Inn
A
$
180.00
132
$
12,474.00
$
1,386.00
Park Plaza Hotel
A
$
360.00
306
$
57,834.00
$
6,426.00
Ramada Inn
A
$
90.00
144
$
6,804.00
$
756.00
Red Roof Inn
A
$
54.00
212
$
6,010.20
$
667.80
_ Vagabond Inn
A
$
54.00
91
$
2,579.85
$286.65
_ Burlingame Hotel
A
$
54.00
41
$
1,162.35
$
129.15
Country House
A
$
54.00
27
$
765.45
$
_
85.05
Room Total
3569
Total:
$
582,053.85
Name of Property
San Mateo
Zone
Category/Assessment
# Rooms
2001 Assessment
Monthly assessment
- -- -
SM Marriott
A
$
360.00
476
$
89,964.00
$
9,996.00
Villa Hotel
A
$
360.00
228
$
43,092.00
$
4,788.00
Residence Inn
A
$
54.00
160
$
4,536.00
$
504.00
Hilton Garden
A
$
180.00
156
$
14,742.00
$
1,638.00
- Homestead Village
A__54.00
54.00
136
$
3,855.60
$
428.40
Holiday Inn
A
$
360.00
110
$
20,790.00
$
2,310.00
-------Los Prados Inn
A
$
90.00
_113-$
5,339.25
$
593.25
Holiday Inn Express
A
$
54.00
111
$
3,146.85
$
_
349.65
Hillsdale Inn
A
$
54.00
90
$
2,551.50
$
283.50
_ Howard Johnson
A
$
54.00
57
$
1,615.95
$
179.55
Super
A
$
54.00
_53___t__
1,502.55
$
166.95
Avalon
A
$
54.00
48
$
1,360.80
$
151.20
Firestone Lodge
A
$
54.00
46
$
1,304.10
$
144.90
San Mateo Motel
A
$
54.00
33
$
935.55
$
103.95
Coxhead House
A
$
54.00
4
$
48.60
$
5,_40
Room Total
1821
Total:
$
194,784.75
1
T
C-1 of 5 2/14/2001
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS --- YEAR 2001 EXHIBIT C
Name of Property
Zone
ICategory/Assessment
# Rooms
2001 Assessment
Monthly assessment
Millbrae
I-
-
Westin
A
$
360.00
390
$
73,710.00
$
8,190.00
Clarion
A
$
360.00
440
$
83,160.00
$
9,240.00
EI Rancho Inn
A
$
54.00
219
$
6,208.65
$
689.85
Millwood Inn
A
$
54.00
34
$
963.90
$
107.10
Travelodge
A
$
54.00
58
$
1,644.30
$
_
182.70
Comfort Inn
A
$
54.00
100
$
2,835.00
$
315.00
Quality Suites Millbrae
A
$
90.00
80
$
3,780.00
$
426.00--
20.00Room
RoomTotal
1321
Total:
$
172,301.85
--- Name of Property
__ - -
Zone
Category/Assessment
# Rooms
2001 Assessment
Monthly assessment
F_o_ster City--
---- - _
Crowne Plaza _ _ _
A
$
360.00
356
$
67,284.00
$
7,476.00
_ Marriott Courtyard
A
$
_
180.00
147
$
13,891.50
_
1,543.50
_
Room Total
503
_$
Total:
$
81,175.50
Name of Property
Zone
Category/Assessment
# Rooms
2001 Assessment
Monthly assessment
Half Moon Bay
Beach House Inn _
B
$
180.00
54
$
,3,645.00
$
405.00
Ritz Carlton
B
$
360.00
261
$
35,235.00
$
31915.00
_ Half Moon Bay Lodge
B
$
180.00
81
$
5,467.50
$
607.50
Ramada Limited
B
$
54.00
29
$
587.25
$
65.25
Holiday Inn Express
B
$
54.00
52
$
1,053.00
$
117.00
Cameron's Inn_
B
$
54.00
3
$
36.45
$
4.05
Mill Rose Inn & Garden
B
$
54.00
6
$
72.90
_
$
_ _
8.10
Miramar Lodge & Conf. Center
B
$
90.00
40
$
1,350.00
$
150.00
Moon Dream Cottage
B
$
54.00
2
$
24.30
_
$
2.70
Old Thyme Inn
B
$
54.00
7
$
85.05
_
$
_
9.45
Plum Tree Court
B
$
54.00
6
$
72.90
$
8.10
San Benito House
B
$
54.00
12
$
145.80
$
_ 16.20
The Gilchrest House
B
$
54.00
2
$
24.30
$
2.70
Zaballa House
B
$
54.00
23
$
465.75
$
Room Total
578
__51.75
Total:
$
48,265.20
l:-[ OT 5
2/1412UU1
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS --- YEAR 2001 EXHIBIT C
Name of Property
Zone
Category/Assessment
# Rooms
2001 Assessment
Monthly assessment
Unincorporated County
Best Western Exec. Suites
A
$
54.00
29
$
822.15
$
91.35
Costanoa Coastal Lodge
B
$
90.00
172
$
5,805.00
$
645.00
_ Cypress Inn on Miramar Beach
B
$
54.00
8
$
97.20
$
10.80
Farallone Inn B&B
B
$
54.00
-9-$
109.35
_
$
12.15
Goose & Turrets B&B
B
$
54.00
5
$
60.75
$
_
6.75
Harbor View Inn
- - - -- - ---_ --
B
$
54.00
18
$
218.70
$
24.30
Harbor House
B
$
54.00
6
$
72.90
$
8.10
Landis Shores
B
$
54.00
8
$
97.20
$
10.80
Motorville Motel
B
$
54.00
30
$
607.50
_
$
67.50
Pacific Victorian
B
$
54.00
3
$
36.45
$
4.05
Pillar Point Inn
B
$
54.00
11
$
133.65
$
14.85
Princess Port
B
$
54.00
4
$
48.60
$
5.40
Seal Cove Inn
B
$
54.00
10
$
121.50
$
13.50
Lodge at Sky Londa
B
$
54.00
16
$
194.40
Room Total
329
Total:
$
8,425.35
C-3 of 5 2/14/2001
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS --- YEAR 2001 EXHIBIT C
Name of Property
Zone
Category/Assessment
# Rooms
2001 Assessment
Monthly assessment
Redwood City
Hotel Sofitel -
- ._._.._.---------- - --
A
$
360.00
419
$
79,191.00
$
8,799.0_0
Best Western Inn-
A -
$
- 54.00
-�- 26
$
- 737.10
$
- 81.90
_ Budget Inn
A
$
54.00
27
$
765.45
$
85.05
_ Capri Hotel
A
$
54.00
50
$
1,417.50
_
$
157.50
Cliff Hotel
A
$
54.00
55
$
1,559.25
$
173.25
Comfort Inn
A
$
54.00
52
$
1,474.20
$
163.80
Days Inn
A
$
54.00
68
$
1,927.80
$
214.20
Garden Motel
A
$
54.00
17
$
206.55
$
_
22.95
Good Nite Inn
A
$
54.00
123
$
3,487.05
$
387.45
Holiday Inn Express
A
$
54.00
38
$
1,077.30
$
_
119.70
Pacific Inn Hotel
A
$
54.00
75
$
2,126.25
$
236.25
_ Redwood Motor Court
A
$
54.00
12
$
145.80
$
16.20
Best Inn
A
$
54.00
38
$
1,077.30
_
$
119.70
Sequoia Inn
A
$
54.00
22
$
623.70
_
$
69.30
Super Motel
Sequoia Hotel
A
A
$
$
_ 5_4.00
54.00
40
53
$
$
1,134.00
1,502.55
$
$
126.00
166.95
--------- ---
Room Total
1115
- -
_
Total:
$
98,452.80
Name of Property
Zone
Category/Assessment
# Rooms
2001 Assessment
Monthly assessment
San Bruno
Budget Inn
A
$
54.00
29
$
822.15
$
91.35
Cable Car Inn
A
$
54.00
24
$
680.40
$
75.60
CalWest Inn
A
$
54.00
54
$
1,530.90
$
170.10
Summerfield Suites
A
$
180.00
95
$
8,977.50
$
997.50
Marriott Courtyard
A
$
180.00
147
$
13,891.50
$
1,543.50
Knights Rest
A
$
54.00
32
$
907.20
$
100.80
San Bruno Inn. _
Ritz Motel
_ A
A
$
$
54.00
54.00
58
23
$
$
1,644.30
652.05
$
$
182.70
72.45
_ _
Days Inn^
A
$
54.00
48
$
1,360.80
$
151.20
Room Total
510
Total:
$
30,466.80
C-4 of 5 2/14/2001
SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS --- YEAR 2001 EXHIBIT C
.A
Name of Property
Zone
Category/Assessment
1# Rooms
2001 Assessment
Monthly assessment
Belmont ---
------- - --
---- - -- - -
Bel Mateo Motel
A
$
54.00
32
$
907.20
$
100.80
Econolodge Belmont
A
$
54.00
23
$
652.05
$
72.45
_
Holiday Inn Express & Suites
A
$
90.00
82
$
3,874.50
$
_
430.50
Motel
A
$
54.00
273
$
7,739.55
$
859.95
Summerfield Suites
A
$
90.00
132
$
6,237.00
$
693.00
Room Total
542
Total:
$
19,410.30
_
Name of Property
Zone
Category/Assessment
# Rooms
2001
Assessment
Monthly_
assessment
------------
San - Carlos
Comfort Inn
A
$
90.00
50
$
2,362.50
_
$
262.50
Days Inn
A
$
54.00
29
$
822.15
$
91.35
Homestead Village Guest Stes
A
$
90.00
116
$
5,481.00
$
609.00
Inns of America
A
$
54.00
112
$
3,175.20
$
352.80
San Carlos Travelodge
A
$
54.00
32
$
907.20
$
100.80
Travel Inn
A
$
54.00
29
$
822.15
$
91.35
Room Total
368
Total:
$
13,570.20
_
Name of Property
Zone
Category/Assessment
# Rooms
2001 Assessment
Monthly assessment
Daly City -- -- - -
Alpine Motor inn
B
$
_
54.00
35
$
708.75
$
78.75
_
Royal Palace Inn
------ -----------------
Days Inn
B
B
$
$
54.00
54.00
21
35
$
$
425.25
708.75
$
$
47.25
78.75.
EI Camino Inn
B
$
54.00
36
$
729.00
$
81.00
Hampton Inn (under const.)
B
$
54.00
86
$
1,741.50
$
193.50
Geneva Motel
B
$
54.00
22
$
445.50
$
49.50
Town Motel
B
$
54.00
34
$
688.50
$
__7_6.50
Room Total
269
Total:
$
5,447.25
C-5 of 5 2/14/2001
CITY
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED
BY
AGENDA
ITEM #
8 b
MTG.
DATE 2/20/2001
DATE: February 14, 2001 APPROVC
BY— IIW*
FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney
SUBJECT:
LEASE AGREEMENT WITH RECTOR MOTOR CAR COMPANY FOR RIGHT OF WAY
AT INTERSECTION OF ROLLINS ROAD AND BROADWAY
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve lease agreement with Rector Motor Car Company for a term of 5 years.
DISCUSSION:
In 1997, the City lease approximately 5,450 square feet of right-of-way at the intersection of Rollins and
Broadway for Rector's use to display vehicles and provide landscaping. The lease payments were about 11 ¢ a
square foot.
When the lease term ended, the two parties worked together for clearer language regarding the property and a
lease payment that was closer to the market value.
The proposed lease agreement would be for a term of 5 years, subject to year-to-year extensions. In addition,
the lease could be terminated by either party on 6 months' notice. This will give both parties flexibility if
circumstances change. The lease payment would be approximately 25¢ per square foot; this is below market
rate for fee -owned property. However, because the property is right-of-way and is subject to a short
cancellation notice, as well as Rector's longstanding commitment to the community, this appears to be a
reasonable return on the property.
Attachment
Resolution and Proposed Lease Agreement
LEASE OF CITY OF BURLINGAME RIGHT OF WAY
TO RECTOR MOTOR CAR COMPANY
This agreement is made this day of , 2001, between the City of
Burlingame, [hereinafter "City"], and Rector Motor Car Company [hereinafter "Rector"]
RECITALS
A. Rector desires to lease approximately 5,450 square feet of right-of-way controlled by
the City as generally shown on Exhibit A hereto [hereinafter "Property"].
B. City is willing to lease the Property on the terms and conditions contained in this
Agreement and believe that, while the lease price is below current market value in recognition of
Rector's commitment to the community and the short term of this Agreement, those terms and
conditions are consistent with those being offered for other similar rights-of-way.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows:
1. The City agrees to lease to Rector and the Rector agrees to lease from the City the
Property located at the intersection of Broadway and Rollins Road, as more specifically described
in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, for the purpose of display and sale of new and used vehicles.
2. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall be for the term of five (5) years
commencing January 1, 2001, and ending on December 31, 2006.
3. Renewal of Agreement. This Agreement shall thereafter be automatically renewed
from year to year on each anniversary beginning on January 1, 2006, unless either party gives notice
of non -renewal at least ninety (90) days before January 1 of the upcoming year.
4. Initial Payment. The lease payment shall be $1,365 per month, payable upon the first
of each month. This lease payment shall be due and payable on the first day of each month during
the term of this Agreement.
5. Adjustment of Payment. On January 1 of each year, the lease payment shall be
increased by the percentage change in the Consumer Price Index — All Urban Consumers/All Items
(CPI -U, 1982-84=100) for the San Francisco -Oakland -San Jose, CA Metropolitan Area between
2/6/2001 1
October 2000 and October of the year immediately preceding the anniversary date. In no event
however, shall the rental be less than the rental paid for the immediately preceding year.
6. Use of Property. Rector agrees to use the Property only for the purpose of displaying
motor vehicles for sale or lease. Rector shall be responsible for maintaining the pavement upon the
rented area. Rector shall not construct any structures or make any other alterations to the Property
without prior City approval and shall keep the Property in a safe and sanitary condition. Rector may
maintain the existing light poles and light fixtures on the Property, so long as Rector shall at all times
insure and properly maintain that equipment. Rector may also construct additional or replacement
light poles and lighting fixtures on the Property, provided that Rector shall at all times insure and
maintain such lighting equipment and obtain all necessary permits; any such light poles and fixtures
shall be placed at locations agreed to in writing by Rector and the City's Director of Public Works.
Upon request of the City for Rector to relocate or remove a light pole or light fixture in order for the
City to perform work pursuant to Paragraph 7 below, Rector shall remove or relocate the light pole
or light fixture at Rector's own expense within the thirty (30) day period provided in Paragraph 7.
Upon termination of this Agreement, Rector, at the sole election of City, shall remove all
improvements designated for removal by the City at the cost of Rector.
7. City facilities on Property. The rights of Rector hereunder are specifically subject
to the maintenance and repair of existing City facilities upon the Property. Upon thirty (30) days
written notice to Rector, City shall have the right to install new lighting, traffic control devices or
any other such facilities or utilities on the Property or to use a portion of the Property for street
widening purposes; the parties may agree to an appropriate adjustment to the rent hereunder based
upon the square footage occupied by or lost to the new City facility or street encroachment.
8. Termination ofAgreement. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement,
either party may at any time terminate this Agreement on six (6) months' written notice to the other
ply -
2/6/2001
9. No Warranties. City makes no warranties or representations of any kind regarding
the suitability, fitness, or usability of the Property for any use of any kind, and it is solely Rector's
responsibility to make those determinations. Rector has occupied the Property for approximately
five (5) years and has had the opportunity to inspect and evaluate the Property.
10. Sublease or Assignment. Rector shall not sub -let the Property or assign its rights
under this Agreement without prior written approval from City, which approval shall not be
unreasonably withheld. However, in no event shall the Property be subleased or assigned for any
purpose not directly related to the adjacent display and sale of vehicles at 1010 Cadillac Way,
Burlingame, California.
11. Hold Harmless by City. City shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify Rector, its
officers and employees from any and all claims for injuries or damage to persons and/or property,
which arise out of the terms and conditions of this agreement and which result from the negligent
acts or omissions of City, its officers, and/or employees.
12. Hold Harmless by Rector. Rector shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify City,
its officers and employees, from any and all claims for injuries or damage to persons and/or property,
which arise out of the terms and conditions of this agreement and which result from the negligent
acts or omissions of Rector, its officers, and/or employees.
13. Joint Liability. In the event of concurrent negligence of City, its officers and/or
employees, and Rector, its officers, and/or employees, the liability for any and all claims for injuries
or damages to persons and/or property which arise out of such concurrent negligence shall be
apportioned according to the California theory of comparative negligence.
14. Insurance. Rector shall take out and maintain during the life of this agreement such
public liability and property damage insurance as shall protect City, its elective and appointive
boards, officers, agents and employees and Rector for damages for personal injury, including death,
as well as from claims for property damage which may arise from Rector's use and occupation of
the Property, and the amounts of such insurance shall be as follows:
2/6/2001 3
a. Public Liability Insurance. In an amount not less than $300,000 for injuries,
including, but not limited to death to any one person and, subject to the same limit for each person,
in an amount not less than $1,000,000 on account of any one occurrence.
b. Property Damage Insurance. In an amount of not less than $50,000 for damage
to property of each person on account of any one occurrence.
c. Rector shall furnish satisfactory proof of carriage of the insurance required to City
concurrently with the execution hereof. Each policy shall provide for at least ten (10) days prior
written notice to City of the cancellation of any policy during the period of this contract. All liability
insurance shall provide that Rector's coverage shall be primary and shall name City as an additional
insured.
15. Utilities. Rector shall be solely responsible for any utility service that it provides to
the Property, such as water or electricity.
16. Liens. Rector shall ensure that no mechanics liens of any kind are filed against the
Property or against Rector's lease in the Property because of any labor or materials furnished to the
Property at Rector's request. If any such lien is filed against the Property, Rector shall ensure that
the lien is discharged of record either by payment of the underlying claim or by posting and
recording a bond as provided in Civil Code section 3143 within twenty (20) days after demand by
City. Rector shall indemnify, hold harmless, and defend City from and against any such liens.
17. Compliance with Law. Rector shall, at Rector's sole expense, comply with all
applicable laws, regulations, rules, and orders regarding Rector's use of the Property. Should any
discharge, leakage, spillage, emission, or pollution of any kind occur upon or from the Property
because of Rector's use of the Property, Rector, at Rector's sole expense, shall clean all property
affected thereby to the satisfaction of City and any governmental agency having jurisdiction
thereover. Rector shall defend, hold harmless, and indemnify City, its officers and employees,
from any and all claims for injuries or damage to persons and/or property, including without
limitation, any fines, penalties, judgments, litigation costs, attorney fees, and consulting and
2/6/2001 4
engineering and construction costs, incurred by the City, it officers and employees, as a result of
Rector's breach under this section, or as a result of the presence, disposal, storage, generation or
release on or across the Property of any "hazardous materials," "hazardous substances," "hazardous
wastes," or toxic substances" as those terms may be defined in any federal, state, or local legislation,
regardless of whether that liability, cost or expenses arises during or after the term of this
Agreement.
18. Condemnation. If all or part of the Property is acquired by someone other than the
City by eminent domain or by purchase in lieu thereof, Rector shall have no claim to any
compensation for the taking of the Property or any portion thereof, including Rector's leasehold
interest therein, or to any compensation paid as severance damages, or for loss of or damage to
Rector's improvements, if any.
19. Responsibility for Taxes. Rector agrees to pay any taxes, City, County or otherwise,
as may become due and assessed against the Property, and City shall have no responsibility for the
payment of any taxes whatsoever upon the Property. Pursuant to Revenue & Taxation Code section
107.6, Rector recognizes and understands that the property interest created in this Agreement may
be subject to property taxation, and that Rector may be subject to the payment of property taxes
levied on the interest.
20. Default.
a. The occurrence of any of the following events shall constitute a material breach and
default of this Agreement by Rector:
(i) Any failure by Rector to pay when due any of the rent or other charges, fees, or
taxes payable by Rector when that failure continues for twenty (20) days after the rent,
charge, fee, or tax is due.
(ii) Any failure by Rector to observe and perform any other provision of this
Agreement to be observed or performed by Rector when that failure continues for more than
2/6/2001 5
a reasonable period of time, but in no event to exceed twenty (20) days after written notice
from City.
(iii) The abandonment or vacation of the Property by Rector for a period of more than
fifteen (15) days.
(iv) The happening of any of the following:
(A) The filing or institution by Rector of any proceeding under the
Bankruptcy Act and any amendment to the Act, or any other federal or state act now
or hereafter relating to bankruptcy, insolvency, arrangement, reorganization, or other
form of debtor relief by Rector; or
(B) The institution or filing of any of involuntary proceeding against Rector
under any of the laws mentioned in subsection (A) above unless that proceeding is
dismissed within thirty (30) days of institution or filing; or
(C) An adjudication of bankruptcy or finding or judgment of insolvency of
Rector; or
(D) An assignment for the benefit of creditors of Rector; or
(E) The levy of a writ of execution of the business of Rector or the assets of
Rector located on the Property that is not discharged within ten (10) days after the
date of that levy; or
(F) The appointment of a receiver to take possession of any property of
Rector.
b. In the event of any default under subsection (a) above and in addition to any and all other
remedies available to City at law and in equity, City shall have the right to declare this Agreement
terminated and to re-enter the Property and take possession of the Property and remove all persons
therefrom, and Rector shall have no further claim to the Property or under this Agreement. In
addition, City shall be entitled to recover from Rector (i) any amounts owed by Rector for damage
to the Property; and (ii) any other amount necessary to compensate City for all the detriment
2/6/2001 6
proximately caused by Rector's failure to perform its obligations under this Agreement, or which
in the ordinary course of things would be likely to result therefrom including, but not limited to any
costs or expenses incurred by City in maintaining, securing, or preserving the Property after the
default.
(c) Termination of this Agreement under this section or for any reason whatsoever shall not
release either party from any liability or obligation under this Agreement resulting from an event that
may have occurred before termination, including but not limited to payment of all rent due but
unpaid as of the date of termination, or thereafter in case by the term of this Agreement, it is
provided that certain things are to be done after termination of the Agreement.
21. Applicable Law and Venue. The applicable law for any legal disputes arising out of
this contract shall be the law of the State of California, and the forum and venue for such disputes
shall be the Superior Court in and for San Mateo County.
22. Binding on Successors. This agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit
of the heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns of both Rector and City.
23. Notices. All notices herein provided to be given, or which may be given by either
party to the other, shall be deemed to have been fully given when made in writing and deposited in
the United States mail certified and postage pre -paid and addressed as follows:
To the City of Burlingame:
City Manager
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
To Rector:
Rector Motor Car Company
1010 Cadillac Way
Burlingame, California 94010
2/6/2001 7
The addresses to which the notice shall be or may be mailed as aforesaid to either party shall or may
be changed by written notice given by such party to the other as hereinbefore provided, but nothing
herein contained shall preclude the giving of any such notice by personal service.
24. Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy
hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder, nor
does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of a
subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
25. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement
of the Agreement between the City and Consultant. No terms, conditions, understandings or
agreements purporting to modify or vary this Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and
signed by the party to be bound, shall be binding on either party.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have caused this agreement to be executed as
of the day first hereinabove written.
CITY OF BURLINGAME RECTOR MOTOR COMPANY
By By
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
City Attorney
2/6/2001 8
RESOLUTION 14-2001
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING LEASE AGREEMENT WITH RECTOR MOTOR CAR COMPANY
REGARDING CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY
AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROLLINS ROAD AND BROADWAY
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame owns approximately 5,450 square feet of currently
excess right-of-way ["Property'] at the intersection of Rollins Road and Broadway; and
WHEREAS, the Property has been leased in the past to Rector Motor Car Company
["Rector"] for use as vehicle display and landscaping; and
WHEREAS, Rector wishes to continue to lease the Property; and
WHEREAS, the Lease Agreement attached hereto would allow Rector to continue to use
the Property while ensuring its availability for future public needs; and
WHEREAS, the Lease Agreement is below full market price because of the short term of
the Agreement and the commitment of Rector to the community,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Lease Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A is approved, and the City Manager is
authorized to execute the Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame.
2. The City Clerk is directed to witness the Manager's signature on behalf of the City.
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 20thday of
FEBRUARY ,2001, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
,s1
CITY CLERK
AGENDA ITEM # 8 c
MEETING DATE: 2-20-01
CITY OF BURLINGAME
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: February 12, 2001
FROM: "Old" City Manager
SUBJECT: Tentative Agreement: Association of Police and Fire Administrators
RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the attached resolution approving the
labor agreement with the Association of Police and Fire Administrators. This group
represents the Police Sergeants, Commanders and Assistant Fire Chiefs and Fire
Marshal.
BACKGROUND The Association labor agreement expired June 30, 2000. Over the
past seven months a series of meetings with the Association representatives and
both the "old and new" city manager have occurred. The City Council has also met
in closed sessions to discuss the negotiations and authorize city settlement offers.
Based on these meetings and City Council authorizations we have reached tentative
agreement on a new two year agreement.
Salary and benefit increases are outlined in the attached agreement. Funds are
budgeted in the 2000-2001 budget to cover the increases.
Both Jim Nantell and I recommend approval.
Dennis Argyres
Approved:
Jim Nantell
RESOLUTION NO. 15-2001
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING CHANGES TO THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN
THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND THE BURLINGAME ASSOCIATION OF
POLICE/FIRE ADMINISTRATORS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE THE MEMORANDUM ON BEHALF OF THE CITY
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame and the Burlingame Association of Police/Fire
Administrators have met and conferred in good faith on the terms and conditions of employment as
provided by State law; and
WHEREAS, the City and the Association have reached agreement on certain changes to be
made to the existing terms and conditions of employment and memorandum of understanding
between the City and the Association; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes are fair and in the best interests of the public and the
employees represented by the Association,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED:
1. The changes in existing salary and benefits of the employees represented by the
Association of Police/Fire Administrators as contained in Exhibit A hereto are approved.
2. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the memorandum contained in
Exhibit A hereto by and on behalf of the City.
I, ANN 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 20thday of February,
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
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT
To: Honorable Mayor and City Council
Date: 2/8/01
From: Fire Department
Subject: Purchase of New Fire Engine
Recommendation:
Agenda 8D
Item #
Mtg.
Date 2/20/01
Submitted _
By:
Approved
By:
It is recommended that the City and Council approve placing the order to purchase a new fire
engine. We have an opportunity to "piggy -back" on a City of Napa bid for a Pierce fire
engine if we place an order before a scheduled price increase in April.
Background:
The City of Napa bid was $338,515.63, we are requesting an additional $25,860.00 for
radios, specialized equipment and modifications to meet our ALS response needs. (The total
cost is $364,375.63. If we make a chassis payment of $160,914.00 approximately 90 — 100
days prior to delivery, we will receive a $4,827.00 discount.) It takes about seven months
from date of order to build the fire engine.
Our current fire apparatus consists of the following:
One (1) 1998 Pierce, 1,500 gallon per minute fire engine
Three (3) 1987 Pierce, 1,500 gallon per minute fire engines
One (1) 1995 Pierce Quint, 1,500 gallon per minute pump with 105' aerial ladder
One (1) 1985 International Rescue Unit
Our fleet of fire apparatus is in reasonable shape but we are starting to see some wear
problems with the 1987 Pierce engines. The engines are our workhorses, they respond to
the majority of our calls for service. Years aqo it was common to get twenty or more years
of service out of a fire engine. Today due to increased call volume, this is no longer the
case. To ensure reliable service, twelve to fifteen years is a more reasonable service life for
a fire engine. Our 1987 Pierce engines have served us well. Having purchased three of
them at the same time means that they will most likely all start having problems at the same
time.
I am requesting this first replacement while there still is a resale value for a 1987 engine,
and recommend replacing a second one in two years. This would ensure a reliable fleet of
fire apparatus for the years to come. The third 1987 engine would serve well as a reserve
engine for another five or six years.
BUDGET IMPACT:
We are requesting $365,000 as a capital improvement for the 2001/02 fiscal year. If we
choose to take advantage of the discount option, we may need to make a chassis payment of
$160,914 in June.
EXHIBITS:
Bid proposal from Golden State Fire Apparatus, Inc.
Bid results from City of Napa
Cc: City Clerk
City Attorney
MEMORANDUM
To: Chief Reilly
From: A/C Musso
RE: Apparatus Bids
Attached are the bids from Golden State Fire Apparatus. Note that there
are two bids representing the design of both the Pierce Quantum and the Pierce
Dash. I will have a decision on the preferred design by the end of the month.
There are some additions to these bids as well and these expenses are
normal "add-ons" that would normally be expected with the purchase of new
apparatus.
1. Radio and related equipment
$6000 + tax =
$6,480.00
2. Cad, computer, etc.
$7000 + tax =
$7,560.00
3. Firefighter communications
$4,000 + tax =
$4,320.00
4. Engine change =
$2,000.00
5. 2% for change order modifications =
$5,500.00
Tota I
Pierce Dash (w/o discounts)
Add-ons
Less chassis discount
Total
$338,515.63
25,860.00
$364,375.63
(4,827.00)
$359,548.63
$25,860.00
GOLDEN STAT
1301 Doker Dr., Bldg. A
Modesto, CA 95351
January 5, 2001
Assistant Fire Chief Ken Musso
Burlingame Fire Department
1399 Rollins Road
Burlingame, California 94010
F-1
E FIRE APPARATUS, INC.
Office: (209) 522-0422
Fax: (209) 522-0464
Dear Assistant Chief Musso,
Our Dave Murphy has asked that
send
tis h 2001. mation to you so Enclosed you willthat find biwdill be
Monday in your possession no later than y January 8
results from both the City of Napa and the City of Red Bluff.
Both of these purchases were the result of competitive bids and both of these bids
were awarded to Pierce Manufacturing, Inc. The City of Napa purchased three Pierce
Dash pumpers and Red Bluff purchased one Dash pumper.
Should you have any questions regarding the purchases that either community has
consummated, please contact Assistant Fire Chief Doug Smith at Red Bluff FD, his # is
530-527-1126 or Fire Chief Joe Perry at City of Napa, his # is 707-257-9593.
We trust that this information is sufficient for your present needs. We remain.
Most Cordially Yours,
GOLDEN STATE FIRE APPARATUS, INC.
r -j w k;el 1�4
Bill Wright
President
"Your satisfaction is our commitment."
Burlingame Fire Department
1399 Rollins Road
Burlingame, California 94010
W 2001
PROPOSAL
FOR FURNISHING
0 FIRE APPARATUS
The undersigned is prepared to manufacture for you, upon an order being placed by you, for final acceptance by
Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., at its home office in Appleton, Wisconsin, the apparatus and equipment herein named and
for the following prices:
One Pierce Dash Triple Combination Pumper per the enclosed $
proposal.
OPTION• Should the Burlingame FD choose to pay for the
chassis at time of manufacture and pay the full amount of
$160,914.00 approximately 90 - 100 days Prior to delivery
of the completed apparatus to Burlingame FD a discount_
(pre-tax) of $4,827.00 will be applied to the final
invoice.
8.00Z statg G Californiaales tax
313,440.40
Total $ 318,S15-63
Said apparatus and equipment are to be built and shipped in accordance with the specifications hereto attached,
delays due to strikes, war or international conflict, failures to obtain chassis, materials, or other causes beyond our
195-225 callend r
control not preventing, within about mntRiag�ays after receipt of this order and the acceptance thereof
at our office at Appleton, Wisconsin, and to be delivered to you at
Burlingame, California
The specifications herein contained shall form a part of the final contract, and are subject to changes desired by the
purchaser, provided such alterations are interlined prior to the acceptance by the company of the order to purchase, and
provided such alterations do not materially affect the cost of the construction of the apparatus.
The proposal for fire apparatus conforms with all Federal Department of Transportation (DOT) rules and regu-
lations in effect at the time of bid, and with all National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Guidelines for Automotive
Fire Apparatus as published at the time of bid, except as modified by customer specifications. Any increased costs
incurred by first party because of future changes in or additions to said DOT or NFPA standards will be passed along
to the customers as an addition to the price set forth above.
Unless accepted within 30 days from date, the right is reserved to withdraw this proposition.
PIERCE MANUFACTURING, INC.
By: �>w- Av4mf aw
SALES REPRESENTATIVE
Dave Murphy by Bill Wright
/7LPJ2'Ce.
and
CONTRACT
THIS AGREEMENT, made by and between Pierce Manufacturing, Inc., Appleton, WI, first party,
The Burlingame Fire Department by its authorized representative, second party
WITNESSETH:
First. The said first party hereby agrees to furnish the apparatus and equipment according to the
specifications hereto attached and made a part of this contract, and to deliver the same as hereinafter
provided.
Second. The first party agrees that all material and workmanship in and about said apparatus and
equipment shall comply with said specifications. In the event there is any conflict between Customer
Specifications and the Pierce Proposal, the Pierce Proposal will prevail. The standard Pierce Warranty
will apply.
Third. This contract for fire apparatus conforms with all Federal Department of Transportation
(DOT) rules and regulations in effect at the time of contract signing, and with all National Fire Protec-
tion Association (NFPA) Guidelines for Automotive Fire Apparatus as published at the time of contract
signing, except as modified by customer specifications. Any increased costs incurred by first party be-
cause of future changes in or additions to said DOT or NFPA standards will be passed along to the cus-
tomer as an addition to the price set forth below.
Fourth. The said apparatus and equipment shall be ready for delivery from Appleton, Wisconsin,
within about 195-225 calendar days after the receipt and acceptance of this contract at
the first party's office at Appleton, Wisconsin, delays due to strikes, failures to obtain chassis, materials,
or other causes beyond its control not preventing, and shall be delivered to said party of the second part
at Burlingame Fire Department
Fifth. A competent serviceman shall upon request, be furnished by first party to demonstrate said
apparatus for second party and to give its employees the necessary instructions in the operation and
handling of said apparatus.
Sixth. The second party hereby purchases and agrees to pay for said apparatus and equipment, the
sum of Three hundred thirty eight thousand five hundred fifteen dollars & 63/100
Dollars($ 338-515.63 1
A One Pierce Dash pumper till 440 40
B 8.00% State of California sales tax 25,075-23
C Total purchase price fob Burling Calif $339-515-61
Napa City Fire Department
Fire Engine Bid Results
RUSSET POWER SYSTEMS & FIRE EQUIP.
The bid shall be broken down and submitted in a manner
that indicates the cost of apparatus specified as noted
below. The price of apparatus shall include all equipment
specified, and tax.
The price of two (2) apparatus: $ 335.606.00
tax rate: 7.75% tax: $26.009.47
total cost: $ 361.615.47
The price of three (3) apparatus: $ 332. 606.00
tax: $25.776.97
total cost: S 358. 382.97
It is understood that the purchaser may select either of the
above. The bid price is not to include the optional items
listed in section 12. Any of the optional equipment items
may be added by the purchaser when accepting the bid.
Number of days to delivery once bid is awarded: 300 days
PIERCE
The bid shall be broken down and submitted in a manner
that indicates the cost of apparatus specified as noted
below. The price of apparatus shall include all equipment
specified, and tax.
The price of two (2) apparatus: $ 325.398.00
tax rate: 7.75% tax: $25.218 35
total cost: $ 350.616.35
The price of three (3) apparatus: S 323.877.00
tax rate: 7.75% tax: $25.100.47
total cost: $ 348.977.47
It is understood that the purchaser may select either of the
above. The bid price is not to include the optional items
listed in section 12. Any of the optional equipment items
may be added by the purchaser when accepting the bid.
Number of days to delivery once bid is awarded: 195 - 225
days
Dealer Name Golden State Fire
Sales Rep. Name Dan Collins _
Customer Name Red Bluff FD
City Red Bluff
Bid date December 4. 2000
Status of award Pending
Bodv T rhe
place an 'x" under the correct body type
place an "x" under the correct body type
Size
MANUFACTURER
E -One
PIERCE
Ferrara
S,446?2A1rf
Pumper Tanker
X
...
PRICE EACH
$335,293.53
$3409528.40
$3441069.80
/V0 ,ori
pyo i
Bid Tabulation Form
(Pierce Manufacturing, Inc.
No. of Units
State ICA County I Tehama
Spec Favored which Manf. Pierce
AerialI HDR j Responder Suburban
PAL SNKL
EXTENSION STATUS
LOW BID
+59234.87
+ 81776.27_
COMMENTS: P;"ices above includes State sales tax. RBFD has up to 45 d
from bid
HDRP I Sizzler 1 10-33
TSQT
CHASSIS
Dash
ina to make award.
Hawk
Other
DELIVERY
�� CITY G
BURLJNOAME STAFF REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council
DATE: February 14, 2001
FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney
SUBJECT:
SUBMITTED
BY
APPROV
BY
AGENDA
ITEM # 8 e
MTG.
DATE 2/20/2001
ADOPT RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN
EXPENDITURES FROM PROCEEDS OF INDEBTEDNESS [CORPORATION YARD
RECONSTRUCTION]
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt proposed resolution that will make it possible to reimburse the City's General Fund for expenditures
made in preparing and acquiring property for the reconstruction of the City's Corporation Yard on North
Carolan Avenue.
DISCUSSION:
Federal law determines what the proceeds of a municipal debt issue can be used for. If in the process of
preparing a project that will involve issuance of debt, a city declares an intention to reimburse expenditures
from that debt issue, then the proceeds of the debt issue can repay some or all of those expenditures.
During the past few months, the City has been working on plans and purchasing property to make the
reconstruction of the Corporation Yard possible. Adoption of this resolution will allow the City greater
flexibility in structuring a debt issue that most effectively uses that process to benefit the City.
Attachment
Proposed Resolution
EXHIBIT "A"
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES TO BE AMENDED TO THE BUILDING PERMIT
• The project design shall conform to the requirements of the latest edition of the 1998 California Building
Code and California Fire Code; the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Engineer and shall be
approved by the City Engineer. All applicable requirements of NPDES and demolition recycling shall be
adhered to in the design, demolition and construction.
• All runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards.
• All on-site drainage inlets in paved areas and service bays shall include a petroleum absorbent system for
treating all drainage flows from these parking and circulation areas; the petroleum absorbent system shall
be regularly maintained by the Public Works Department.
• The project shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and
Discharge Control Ordinance.
• Demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to
comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and recycling of
demolished materials.
• The site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction.
Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District.
• There shall be a minimum of 20 parking spaces provided for employees in the new corporation yard site until the new parking
lot is available in 2005.
• All construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the Uniform Building Code as amended
by the City of Burlingame, and all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the
City of Burlingame Municipal Code.
• On-site illumination shall be shielded and directed only on to the site in compliance with the City's
lighting ordinance.
• Should any cultural, archaeological or anthropological resources be discovered during construction, work
shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the
City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City.
RESOLUTION NO. 16-2001
RESOLUTION OF OFFICIAL INTENT OF
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
TO REIMBURSE CERTAIN EXPENDITURES FROM
PROCEEDS OF INDEBTEDNESS
[CORPORATION YARD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT]
WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame (the "City") intends to acquire and construct
a corporation yard in the City (the "Project");
WHEREAS, the City expects to pay certain expenditures (the "Reimbursement
Expenditures") in connection with the Project prior to the issuance of indebtedness for the
purpose of financing costs associated with the Project on a long-term basis;
WHEREAS, the City reasonably expects that debt obligations in an amount not
expected to exceed $15,000,000 will be issued and that certain of the proceeds of such debt
obligations will be used to reimburse the Reimbursement Expenditures; and
WHEREAS, Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury Regulations requires the City to
declare its reasonable official intent to reimburse prior expenditures for the Project with proceeds
of a subsequent borrowing;
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby
resolve as follows:
1. The City finds and determines that the foregoing recitals are true and correct.
2. This resolution is made for purposes of establishing compliance with the
requirements of Section 1.150-2 of the Treasury Regulations. This resolution does not bind the
City to make any expenditure, incur any indebtedness, or proceed with the Project.
3. The City hereby declares its official intent to use proceeds of indebtedness to
reimburse itself for Reimbursement Expenditures.
4. This resolution shall take effect from and after its adoption.
M yor
I, ANN T. MUSSO, hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of a
resolution duly passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Burlingame at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 20th day of February, 2001, by the following vote of the members
thereof:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ATTEST: �W Gc�
City Clerk
2
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT
AGENDA
ITEM # 8f
MTG. 119101
DATE
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
DATE: February 13, 2001 BY
APPROVED°
FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLAR40N AND CONCEPTUAL PLANS
FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE CORPORATION YARD AT 1361 N. CAROLAN AVENUE
-CITY PROJECT 9601 -
RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution approving a Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Conceptual Plans for the reconstruction of the Corporation Yard.
BACKGROUND: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a preliminary review of all projects
to determine what effect, if any, they will have on the environment.
This project involves the replacement of an existing Corporation Yard facility. Based on the initial study, it is found
that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
The primary issue identified as potentially significant relates to the on-site employee parking. Currently the site has
20 on-site spaces available for employee parking. Typically there are 34 employee vehicles requiring a place to park,
so 14 are now parked on the street. With the new construction, a 53 stall parking lot will be provided to accommodate
all employee parking on-site. However, the new lot will not be constructed until late 2005 when the lease on this site
expires. For the interim, 20 spaces will be available on-site for employee parking and the remaining employee
vehicles will continue to park on the street. This will insure that the parking situation will not be any different than
it presently exists.
EXHIBITS: Resolution, Exhibit A (Summary of Mitigation Measures to be Amended to the Building Permit),
Negative Declaration, Public Hearing Notice, Conceptual Plans.
S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\NEGDECSTF.WPD
CITY OF BURLINGAME
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
File No. ND- 513 PW, 1347 — 1369 North Carolan and 1399 Rollins Road
The City of Burlingame by Margaret Monroe on December 21 , 2000, completed a review of the
proposed project and determined that:
(XX) It will not have a significant effect on the environment
(XX) No Environmental Impact Report is required.
Project Description: The City of Burlingame is proposing to demolish the existing buildings at the
corporation yard and in phases construct a new corporation yard facility. The City Corporation yard now
occupies property at 1347 and 1361 North Carolan Avenue. As a part of reconstruction the City has
acquired the property at 1369 Rollins Road. The buildings on these sites will be demolished as a part of
the project. All of the structures on the current corporation yard will be also be demolished and new
structures and a parking lot will be built on the combined properties. The property at 1369 North Carolan
Avenue now contains a warehouse building. The building is being leased until the year 2005. Once the
lease expires, the City intends to demolish this building and construct a 53 -space parking lot for employees
of the corporation yard. The City owned property across the street at 1399 Rollins Road is now developed
with a fire station and a paved open storage area used by the corporation yard. On this site where the open
storage area is now, a new storage and vehicle wash building will be built. The fire station will remain.
The existing corporation yard is now developed with a total of 37,320 SF of building area, and the new
buildings on this site will total 39,602 SF. The new structures will include a two-story building for
administrative offices and shops, a one-story vehicle maintenance building, a one-story receiving and
storage building and a covered parking/storage area for 36 cars. These spaces will meet employee and
vehicle storage needs until 2005 when the 53 -space parking lot is added on the north side of the site.
Reasons for Conclusion: The project involves a replacement of an existing corporation yard facility. The
increase in the square footage of the structures on the site is about 2300 SF over what is on the site now;
and 53 additional parking spaces will be provided. There will be no increase in the number of employees
as a result of the reconstruction of the corporation yard. Referring to the initial study for facts for
supporting findings, it is found that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant
effect on the environment.
Signature of Processing Official Title Date Signed
Unless appealed within 10 days hereof the date posted, the determination shall be final.
Date posted:2 ��
Negative Declaration 1347 —1369 North Carolan
Page 2 1399 Rollins Road
Declaration of Posting
I declare under penalty of perjury that I am City Clerk of the City of Burlingame and that I posted a true
copy of the above Negative Declaration at the City Hall of said City near the doors to the Council
Chambers.
Executed at Burlingame, California on , 2000.
Appealed: ( ) Yes ( ) No
(, 4q,A, Jk-14UU40
ANN MUSSO, CITY CLERK, CITY OF BURLINGAME
INITIAL STUDY SUMMARY - ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
1. Project Title: Reconstruction of and addition of parking to the City's corporation yard located at
1347 - 1369 North Carolan Avenue and 1399 Rollins Road
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Burlingame, Planning Department
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Margaret Monroe, City Planner
(650) 558-7250
4. Project Location: Parcels with addresses of 1347 - 1369 North Carolan Avenue and 1399 Rollins
Road, Burlingame, California
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Phil Monaghan, Senior Engineer
City of Burlingame, Public Works Department
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
6. General Plan Designation: Industrial & Office Use
7. Zoning: M-1 APN: 026-121-050, -060 & -070; 026-122-010
8. Description of the Project: The City of Burlingame is proposing to demolish the existing buildings at
the corporation yard and in phases construct a new corporation yard facility. The City Corporation yard
now occupies property at 1347 and 1361 North Carolan Avenue. As a part of reconstruction the City has
acquired the property at 1369 Rollins Road. The buildings on these sites will be demolished as a part of
the project. All of the structures on the current corporation yard will be also be demolished and new
structures and a parking lot will be built on the combined properties. The property at 1369 North Carolan
Avenue now contains a warehouse building. The building is being leased until the year 2005. Once the
lease expires, the City intends to demolish this building and construct a 53 -space parking lot for
employees of the corporation yard. The City owned property across the street at 1399 Rollins Road is
now developed with a fire station and a paved open storage area used by the corporation yard. On this
site where the open storage area is now, a new storage and vehicle wash building will be built. The fire
station will remain. The existing corporation yard is now developed with a total of 37,320 SF of building
area, and the new buildings on this site will total 39,602 SF. The new structures will include a two-story
building for administrative offices and shops, a one-story vehicle maintenance building, a one-story
receiving and storage building and a covered parking/storage area for 36 cars. These spaces will meet
employee and vehicle storage needs until 2005 when the 53 -space parking lot is added on the north side
of the site.
Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The site is in a developed industrial area and is surrounded by
automotive, manufacturing and warehouse uses. Easton Creek borders the fire station site to the north
but is one lot removed from the new corporation yard site. The open storage area next to the fire station
is on the south side of the property and the fire station building lies between it and Easton Creek. The
surrounding area is planned for industrial and office use and is zoned M-1 (light manufacturing).
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: The project requires a building permit from the
Public Works Department, Building Division and a tree removal permit from the Parks Department. A
permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District is required for demolition of the existing
buildings and demolished materials will be recycled to reduce the solid waste stream to the County
landfill site.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one
impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
Land Use and Planning
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Biological Resources
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
Aesthetics
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the
Population and Housing
project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
Mineral Resources
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
Cultural Resources
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
Geology and Soils
X
Hazards & Hazardous
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
Recreation
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
Materials
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
X
Hydrology & Water
potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
Noise
DECLARATION, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier FIR or NEGATIVE
Agricultural Resources
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
Quality
nothing further is required.
Air Quality
Public Services
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
X
Transportation/Traffic
Utilities and Service
Systems
DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not
be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the
project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact' or "potentially significant unless
mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based
on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all
potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier FIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,
nothing further is required.
co�bC 2g ZM1
Margarei Monroe, City Planner Date
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
Issues
Unless
Impact
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
1,2
Mitigation
X
Program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community?
1,2
X
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
1,2
X
Program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
1,14
X
community conservation plan?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
1,3
X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
1,3
X
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
1,3
X
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
3. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
5,6,7
X
effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
5,6,7
X
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by
the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
5,6,7
X
iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction?
5,6,7
X
iv) Landslides?
6
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil?
1,6,8
X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
1,6,8
X
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
6,7,8
X
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
1,5
X
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
4. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
1
X
requirements?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
Issues
Unless
Impact
groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
1,10
Mitigation
X
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
Incorporated
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing
1,10
X
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site?
1,5,8
X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or
river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
1,5,8
X
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-
site?
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
1,8
X
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
1,8
X
g) Place housing within a 100 -year flood hazard area as mapped on
8,10
X
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
h) Place within a 100 -year flood hazard area structures which
8,10
X
would impede or redirect flood flows?
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
1,8,10
X
failure of a levee or dam?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
1,5
X
5. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable au quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
1,11
X
quality plan?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or
1,11
X
projected air quality violation?
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
1,11
X
pollutant for which the project region is non -attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
1,11
X
concentrations?
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
1,11
X
people?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
no
X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
Issues
Unless
Impact
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
Mitigation
intersections)?
Incorporated
6. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the
1,8
X
existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result
in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the
volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service
standard established by the county congestion management
agency for designated roads or highways?
13
X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
1,12
X
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g. sharp
2,8
X
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g,
farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access?
8
X
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity?
2,8
X
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting
1,8
X
alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1,14
X
b) Have a substantial or adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
1,14
X
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but
1114
X
not limited to, marsh, veinal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native or
1,14
X
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established
native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use
of native wildlife nursery sites?
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
1
X
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
1
X
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
X
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
state?
Issues
Unless
Impact
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
Mitigation
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
1,5
Incorporated
8. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
1,5
X
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific
1,5
X
plan or other land use plan?
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
1,8
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
8
X
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
1,8
X
mile of an existing or proposed school?
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
15
X
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
1112
X
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in
1
X
the project area?
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted
1
X
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
1
X
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
10. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
1
X
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
1,8
X
vibration or groundbome noise levels?
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
1
X
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
1,8
X
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
LessThanNo
X
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
12
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
Issues
Unless
Impact
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Mitigation
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
1
Incorporated
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
X
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
12
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
1
X
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result insubstantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or
physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
1
X
b) Police protection?
1
X
c) Schools?
1
X
d) Parks?
1
X
e) Other public facilities?
1
X
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
1
X
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater
1
X
treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
1
X
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from
1
X
existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed?
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
1
X
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to
the provider's existing commitments?
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
1
X
accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs?
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
1
X
related to solid waste?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
I
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited
1
X
to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state
scenic highway?
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
1,8
X
the site and its surroundings?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Souree:
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
Issues
Unless
Impact
X
historical resource as defined in'15064.5?
Mitigation
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
1,8
Incorporated
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
I'S
X
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Create a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
1,8
X
historical resource as defined in'15064.5?
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
1,8
X
archaeological resource pursuant to '15064.5?
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
1,8
X
or site or unique geological feature?
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
1 8
formal cemeteries?
X
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
1,8
X
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial
physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
1,8
X
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
16. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental
effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the
California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the
project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Familand or Farmland of
1
X
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural
use?
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
1
X
Williamson Act contract?
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
1
X
to non-agricultural use?
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
No
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
Significant
Significant
Significant
Impact
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
Issues
Unless
Impact
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
Mitigation
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
Incorporated
17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California history or prehistory?
1
X
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
1
X
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which wilt cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
1
X
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1
The City ofBurlingaune General Plan, Burlingame, California, 1985 and 1984 amendments.
2
City of Burlingame, Municipal Code, Title 25 — Zoning, Burlingame, California, 1995 edition.
3
City of Burlingame City Council, Housing Element, City of Burlingame, Burlingame, California, 1994.
4
1990 Census
5
Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, San Francisco Bay Region, Sheet 3, 1:125,000, Revised 1981.
6
E. Brabb, E. Pampeyan, and M. Bonilla, Landslide Susceptibility in San Mateo County, San Mateo County, California,
1972.
7
Perkins, Jeanne, Maps Showing Cumulative Damage Potential from Earthquake Ground Shaking, U.S.G.S. Map MF, San
Mateo County: California, 1987.
8
Plans date stamped September 8, 2000, Site Plan, Floor Plans and Elevations.
9
Burlingame Trajjic Analyzer, 2000 Edition
10
Map of Approximate Locations of 100 year Flood Areas, from the National Flood Insurance Program Flood Insurance
Maps, September 16, 1981
11
BAA QMD CEQA GUIDELINES, Assessing the Air Quality Impacts of Projects and Plans, December, 1995
12
San Mateo County Comprehensive Airport Land Use Plan, San Francisco International Airport, December, 1994
13
San Mateo County Congestion Management Program, 1997
14
Map of Areas of Special Biological Importance, San Francisco and San Mateo Counties, California, State Department of
Fish and Game
15
State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List, April 1998
10
Initial Study Summary 1347 - 1369 North Carolan Avenue; 1399 Rollins Road
Land use and Planning Summary: The General Plan designates these sites for industrial and office use and
they are zoned M-1 which is consistent with the general plan designation. The General Plan land use element
indicates that the areas designated for industrial uses are intended to continue the existing pattern of use with
occupancy by wholesale outlets, professional and administrative offices, and light manufacturing plants.
The M-1 district is the zone assigned to implement the "industrial and office use" General Plan designation. The
M-1 zone district permits service businesses, such as janitorial and contractors, warehouse uses, and outdoor
storage of materials so long as the area is paved, screened from view of the street and provides adequate off street
parking for equipment and employees. The proposed reconstruction of the corporation yard fits within the
definition of the uses that are permitted in the M-1 zone district, and will meet all the zoning criteria for that use.
Population and Housing Summary: This site and the surrounding area are planned for industrial and office use.
The proposed development conforms to the City of Burlingame General Plan and Zoning Code regulations and
does not represent any alteration to the planned land use in the area. The project is consistent with the City's
Housing Element, since the area is not planned for residential use. The project will be to reconstruct an existing
facility and after construction will not generate additional jobs. Therefore, the project will not increase the
demand for housing in the area.
Geologic Summary: The site is flat and located in an urban setting which has been developed with industrial
and office uses for about fifty years. There will be less seismic exposure to people and equipment than at
present, since the reconstruction of the corporation yard will comply with current California Building Code
seismic standards. The site is approximately two miles from the San Andreas Fault.
Mitigation:
• The project design shall conform to the requirements of the latest edition of the 1998 California Building
Code and California Fire Code; the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Engineer and shall be
approved by the City Engineer. All applicable requirements of NPDES and demolition recycling shall be
adhered to in the design, demolition and construction of the facilities.
Water Summary: This is an in -fill development project. The project site lies on both sides of North Carolan
Avenue. The open storage area is south of the fire station. The fire station site is located adjacent to Easton
Creek, which is a waterway that drains from the coastal hills to the San Francisco Bay. However, the
construction will occur on the south side of the fire station, away from Easton Creek. The existing fire station
lies between Easton Creek and the proposed construction.
The site is tied into existing water main and storm water collection distribution lines which have adequate
capacity for the corporation yard. All of the surface water will be required to drain to the street. With the
reconstruction, there will be more landscaping on the site than there is now. This added pervious surface will
cause a slight decrease in storm water runoff. Since the site is less than 5 acres, the project is not subject to the
state -mandated water conservation program, although water conservation measures as required by the City will
be met.
Mitigation:
• All runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site will be required to meet National
11
Initial Study Summary 1347 - 1369 North Carolan Avenue; 1399 Rollins Road
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards.
• All on-site drainage inlets in paved areas and service bays shall include a petroleum absorbent system for
treating all drainage flows from these parking and circulation areas. The petroleum absorbent system shall
be regularly maintained by the Public Works Department.
12
Initial Study Summary 1347 - 1369 North Carolan Avenue; 1399 Rollins Road
• The project shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and
Discharge Control Ordinance.
Air Quality Summary: The project is a reconstruction of an existing corporation yard, and will not result in an
increase in the number of employees at the site. Therefore, there will be no increase in equipment or vehicle trips
to and from the site. Any change in emissions generated as compared to emissions generated by all development
in Burlingame is insignificant. The site is within easy walking distance of countywide bus and rail service. This
parcel is zoned for industrial and office use and the proposed project will not create any deterioration in the air
quality or climate, locally or regionally. No objectionable odors or alteration in air movement, moisture,
temperature or change in local or regional climate is anticipated to occur as a result of this proposal.
Mitigation:
• Demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply
with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and recycling of demolished
materials.
• The site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction.
Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District.
Transportation/Circulation Summary: Since the proposed reconstruction of the corporation yard will serve
the existing employees, it is not expected that there will be an increase in the number of vehicle trips generated
by the use. There are 40 employees now based at the existing corporation yard, and there will continue to be 40
employees once the new site is operational. Therefore, the reconstruction is not expected to create a substantial
increase in the traffic generated in the area. All arterial, collector, and local roadway systems have the capacity
to accommodate the traffic produced by this project.
The existing corporation yard now contains parking for City equipment and 20 on site parking spaces for
employees. Public Works Department staff indicates that approximately 40 employee are assigned here. On a
typical work day there are 34 employee vehicles needing a place to park. Twenty employee vehicles are
accommodated on site. The remaining 14 employee vehicles are now parked on the street. With the
reconstruction of the corporation yard, a total of 89 parking spaces will be provided and will accommodate all
employee parking on site. The reconstruction will result in an improved parking situation for employees.
However, the new 53 -space parking lot will be constructed at the end of the project, which is expected to take
place in 2005, when the existing lease on that property expires. In the interim, after reconstruction there will be
20 spaces available for employees to use within the corporation yard site, the remaining employee vehicles will
have to continue to be parked on the street until the new lot is completed in 2005. After 2005, there will be 53
parking spaces available for use by the 40 employees.
Mitigation:
• there shall be a minimum of 20 parking spaces provided for employees in the new corporation yard site until
the new parking lot is available in 2005.
13
Initial Study Swnmmy 1347 - 1369 North Carolan Avenue; 1399 Rollins Road
Biological Resources Summary: This project is reconstruction of a site that is now primarily paved or covered
with buildings. No existing animal habitats in the area will be altered because there are none. There are no
records of rare or endangered plant or animal species for this developed urban site. No native plant life exists
on site. Any plant species located on this property have been introduced by previous uses. This proposal meets
the requirements of the M-1 zoning to landscape 10% of the lot area and 60% of the front setback area. The
project is subject to the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1992
as amended in 1993. New trees required by the Parks Department will not alter the diversity or number of
species of plant life in the area. There is no farmland in Burlingame. Biotic resources on the site are very limited.
There is no record of any rare, unique or endangered species of plants or animals on the project site. There is
no farmland in Burlingame.
Energy and Mineral Resources Summary: All gas and electric services are in place with adequate capacity
to handle the expansion of these facilities. The incremental use of energy is insignificant; the new structures will
comply with Title 24 requirements, while the structures removed were built before these requirements.
Hazards Summary: This project has been proposed within all applicable zoning regulations. This project will
not be releasing any hazardous materials into the environment and will not interfere with any emergency
response or evacuation plans the City of Burlingame may need to implement. The Fire Department has no record
of any hazardous or flammable materials stored at the site. The Uniform Building and Fire Codes as amended
by the City of Burlingame will ensure that people in the new structure are not exposed to health hazards or
potential health hazards. The project is required to comply with NPDES standards for storm water runoff to
ensure that runoff from the site does not contribute to pollution of adjacent waterways.
The site at 1369 North Carolan Avenue, where the employee parking lot will be located, is listed on the County's
leaking underground storage tank list. The site was occupied by Pacific Construction, and the leaking tank was
identified in 1989. The site has been remediated and the County issued a certificate of closure in 1997.
Noise Summary: The project is adjacent to the main line commute Caltrain railroad tracks. Portions of the new
buildings will be constructed on the side of the property closest to these tracks. The new proposal will not
expose people to high noise levels from the trains because it will be built in compliance with current construction
standards which includes modem noise abatement standards. All construction must abide by the construction
hours established in the municipal code.
Mitigation:
• All construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the Uniform Building Code as amended by
the City of Burlingame, and all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the City of
Burlingame Municipal Code.
Public Services Summary: All existing public and governmental services in the area have capacities that can
accommodate the reconstruction of the corporation yard.
Utilities and Service Systems Summary: All new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected
by the development will be installed to meet current code standards and diameters; sewer laterals will be checked
as required by the Municipal Code and replaced if necessary.
Initial Study Summary 1347 - 1369 North Carolan Avenue; 1399 Rollins Road
Aesthetics Summary: The proposed project is reconstruction of an existing facility, and complies with the
setback, height and lot coverage regulations of the M-1 district. One of the buildings, the administration and
shop building, will be two stories, while the remainder of the buildings will be one-story. In this particular
location the land is flat and the area fully developed. By complying with the same requirements as applied to
other structures in the area this building has been designed in a manner that is consistent with the size and mass
of the area. The existing buildings adjacent to the site are one and two-story structures of similar height and
scale. The site is bordered on the west by the CalTrain railroad tracks, and California Drive is west of the
railroad tracks, approximately 200' from the site's rear property line. There is also a row of mature eucalyptus
trees more than 50' tall along California Drive, which form a visual barrier from California Drive. Other
buildings along North Carolan Avenue and Rollins Road are typically one and two story industrial and office
buildings. All on-site illumination will be required to be focused on to the site using shielded lighting fixtures.
Mitigation:
• On-site illumination shall be shielded and directed only on to the site in compliance with the City lighting
ordinance.
Cultural Resources Summary: The site involved in this project has been developed in the same use since the
1940's. Any archeological or historic, cultural, or ethnic sites that may have been in or near these locations were
disturbed or destroyed by previous development proposal. Should any cultural resources be discovered during
construction, work will be halted until they are fully investigated and addressed.
Mitigation:
• Should any cultural, archaeological or anthropological resources be discovered during construction, work shall
be halted until the finding can be fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner
and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City.
Recreation Summary: The proposed project does not replace or destroy any existing recreational facilities, nor
does it displace any proposed or planned recreational opportunities for the City of Burlingame. The site involved
in this project is not zoned or used for recreational uses.
SUMMARY OF MITIGATION MEASURES TO BE AMENDED TO THE BUILDING PERMIT
• The project design shall conform to the requirements of the latest edition of the 1998 California Building
Code and California Fire Code; the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Engineer and shall be
approved by the City Engineer. All applicable requirements of NPDES and demolition recycling shall be
adhered to in the design, demolition and construction.
• All runoff created during construction and fixture discharge from the site will be required to meet National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) standards.
• All on-site drainage inlets in paved areas and service bays shall include a petroleum absorbent system for
treating all drainage flows from these parking and circulation areas; the petroleum absorbent system shall be
regularly maintained by the Public Works Department.
15
Initial Study Sunimmy
1347 - 1369 North Carolan Avenue; 1399 Rollins Road
• The project shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and
Discharge Control Ordinance.
• Demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to comply
with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and recycling of demolished
materials.
• The site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction.
Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District.
• There shall be a minimum of 20 parking spaces provided for employees in the new corporation yard site until
the new parking lot is available in 2005.
• All construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the Uniform Building Code as amended by
the City of Burlingame, and all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the City of
Burlingame Municipal Code.
• On-site illumination shall be shielded and directed only on to the site in compliance with the City's lighting
ordinance.
• Should any cultural, archaeological or anthropological resources be discovered during construction, work shall
be halted until the fmding can be fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner
and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City.
16
CITY o�
CITY OF BURLINGAME
�r41
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
BURIJN�iAME
501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
TEL: (650) 558-7250
1347-1369 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE AND 1399
ROLLINS ROAD
Application for conceptual plans and negative PUBLIC HEARING
declaration for reconstruction of the
existing City of Burlingame corporation yard NOTICE
to include a new parking lot at 1347-1369
North Carolan Avenue and 1399 Rollins Road,
zoned M-1. (APNs: 026-121-050, 026-121-060,
026-121-070 and 026-122-010)
The City of Burlingame City Council announces
the following public hearing on Tuesday,
February 20, 2001 at 7:00 P.M. in the City
Hall Council Chambers located at 501 Primrose
Road, Burlingame, California.
Ma led February 9 2001
(Pease refer to other side)
CITY OF BURLINGAME
A copy of the application and1ans�ai this protect may be reviewed prior
to the meeting at. the; Planing Dbpartment at 501 Primrose Road,
Burlingame, California;
n
_
If you challenge the sut6) irz curt,`you maybe limited to
raising only thosd issues�c r e else raised at the, 6-il c hearing,
described in tho otic man -written correspondence delivered to the city
at or prior to tlr t bli0 m i .
Property ovt� iers �io regi 1i s`e respons ole or its%rming their
tenants abort this -noti . o` d I -- o al information, please call (650)
558-7250. hank fou a
Margaret Monroe
City Planner _
_
�
PUBLhC L�4RING�N(TICE
(Please refer to other side)
RESOLUTION NO. 17-2001
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND CONCEPT PLANS FOR
CORPORATION YARD RECONSTRUCTION — CITY PROJECT NO. 9601
(1347 -1361 -1369 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE)
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame:
WHEREAS, after review of the conceptual plan of the reconstruction of the City
Corporation Yard and the need for phasing of the project, a mitigated negative declaration pursuant
to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) has been prepared; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and determined that it
conforms to the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the initial study and negative declaration for the project have been properly
prepared pursuant to CEQA; and
WHEREAS, it does not appear that there will be any significant adverse impact on the
environment from the proposed reconstruction project; and
WHEREAS, the proposed project is in the public interest and would greatly benefit the
community,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED:
1. The negative declaration prepared for the Corporation Yard Reconstruction is approved.
2. The conceptual plan for the Corporation Yard Reconstruction is approved.
3. The Director of Public Work is directed to implement the mitigation monitoring plan
provided in the negative declaration.
4. Notice of adoption of this negative declaration shall be given to the County Recorder's
Off ce.
O
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 20th day of
FEBRUARY , 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
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT
TO:
DATE:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
AGENDA
ITEM # 8G
MAG. 02/20/01
DATE
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED
February 12, 2001 BY
APPROVED
PUBLIC WORKS BY /r
RESOLUTION APPROVING STOP SIGN NOTICING PROCEDURES
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution for STOP Sign
Noticing Procedures for Council hearings on STOP SIGN Ordinances.
BACKGROUND: In Fall 2000, Council requested staff to develop procedures for noticing the public on STOP
Sign hearings. As a result, staff met with the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) in December
2000 and February 2001 and discussed establishing new public noticing procedures for STOP sign requests.
DISCUSSION: Methods of noticing are listed in the attached procedures and include: [1] announcing future
Council meeting dates to the public during a TSPC meeting, [2] following up by sending the public a notice of
the Council meeting, and [3] setting street signage at the intersection to notify passing motorists and pedestrians.
At the February 2001 meeting, TSPC approved the STOP Sign Noticing Procedure.
EXHIBITS: Resolution
STOP Sign Noticing Procedures
TSPC Meeting Minutes
Example of Street Sign
Photographs of STOP SIGN MEETING street signs at Adeline/Cortez
Notice sent to Schools, Residents, Petitioners and Other Parties on a Public Hearing to
reconsider a STOP sign ordinance at Adeline/Cortez. (This Notice was also posted in the
affected area.)
BUDGET IMPACT: There are sufficient funds in the Public Works Department to perform this effort.
Philip Ho, T.E.
Traffic Engineer
c City Clerk
Police Department, Parks Department
Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission
SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Stop Sign Noticing Procedures 2-20-01.wpd
•
=,
,.
;...
��� ��
"� �� � x�\i .'
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
BURLINGAME STOP SIGN NOTICING PROCEDURES
DRAFT February 9, 2001
For Council meeting on a stop sign ordinance, the following actions are recommended to be
taken two weeks prior to the Council Hearing date:
1. Send a meeting notice to all TSP Commissioners.
2. Send a meeting notice to all property owners or residents within the affected area, which
is generally defined as one city block or 500 feet of the intersection, whichever is greater.
3. Send a meeting notice to all petitioners if the City had received a petition.
4. Send a meeting notice to other affected parties, e.g., businesses, schools, hospital, Chamber
of Commerce, Business Improvement District, Homeowners Association, Police
Department, Fire Department, Parks Department.
5. Provide meeting notice information to four newspapers for possible news articles. These
include Burlingame Daily News, the Independent, San Mateo County Times, and San
Mateo Daily Journal.
6. Place the meeting notice as an ad in one newspaper.
7. Post the meeting notice on the City of Burlingame web site.
8. Post a meeting notice at the Main Library, Easton Branch Library and Recreation Center.
9. Post meeting notices on poles on streets within the affected area.
10. Set up "Stop Sign Meeting" street signs at the intersection to face passing motorists and
pedestrians. See attached example of street signs.
11. Send an information memo (with attachment of all distributed materials) to Council
members notifying them of the above when actions (Nos. 1 to 10) have been implemented.
12. After the meeting, remove the meeting notices from the City web site and poles as well as
remove "stop sign meeting" street signs.
For TSP Commission meeting on a stop sign request, the following actions are recommended
to be taken two weeks prior to the Commission Discussion meeting date:
1. Send a meeting notice to all TSP Commissioners as a part of the agenda packet.
2. Send a meeting notice to all property owners or residents within the affected area, which
is generally defined as one city block or 500 feet of the intersection, whichever is greater.
3. Send a meeting notice to all petitioners if the City had received a petition.
4. Send a meeting notice to other affected parties, eg. businesses, schools, hospital, Chamber
of Commerce, Business Improvement District, Homeowners Association, Police
Department, Fire Department, Parks Department.
5. Post a meeting notice at the Main Library, Easton Branch Library and Recreation Center.
6. Post meeting notices on poles on streets within the affected area.
7. The above noticing and posting are intended for the first Discussion meeting. Future TSPC
meetings scheduled for Discussion and Action will be announced during the first
Discussion meeting. Street signs can, however, remain posted for each meeting with the
new meeting date updated as appropriate.
S:\A Public Works Directory\TSP Commission\Stop Sign Noticing Procedures\Stop Sign Noticing Procedures.wpd
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Portion of Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, February 8, 2001
1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m. by Chair De Angelis.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
3. ROLL CALL. 4 of 5 Commissioners present.
4. CURRENT BUSINESS.
4.1 ACTION ITEMS.
4.1.1 Minutes for January 11, 2001, were submitted and approved.
4.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS
4.2.1 Millbrae BART Station - Potential Impacts on City streets - No updates.
4.2.2 STOP Sign Noticing Procedures
Mr. Ho presented a draft of new Stop sign noticing procedures based on previous discussions
with the Commission. Procedures include posting on the City's web site. He said there are
two different meetings involved, TSPC and Council. Comm. Auran suggested posting
notices two weeks prior to the meeting. Mr. Erbacher said it is possible to post for each
meeting but posting should be mainly for the action meeting. After TSPC makes their
recommendation, the item goes to Council for approval of the ordinance. The first Council
meeting is to set a hearing date with the hearing at a subsequent meeting. Comm. Auran said
noticing should also occur when the item goes to discussion at the TSPC meeting. Mr.
Erbacher said the sign could remain posted for each meeting with only the meeting date
changing. It was moved and seconded (Comms. Evans/Mayer) to approve the noticing
procedures as amended. Unanimously approved by the Commission.
SAA Public Works Directory\TSP CommissionVNinutesNinutes for 02-08-01 Meeting.wpd Page 2
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Wednesday, December 14, 2000
Mr. Erbacher advised that we need to know what the response should be to this request.
Comm. Auran suggested the high school helping. Sgt. Ransom spoke to some residents who
don't want closure of the park access path. Staff will respond with a letter that there will be
no action on this request without neighbors support. A copy of the letter will be sent to the
Parks Department and to the high school.
6. FROM THE FLOOR.
6.1 Patrick Kinsella a resident on Columbus stated that a black pickup is always parked far from the curb
on the Adeline curve and is in the way of traffic. Also, it seems no one stops at the Stop sign on
Adeline. Sgt. Ransom advised that the police is monitoring the Stop signs on Adeline at Columbus
and at Hoover.
7. INFORMATION ITEMS.
7.1 From Staff to TSPC
7. 1.1 Size of TSP Commission
Mr. Ho advised that at the last Council meeting, this commission was reduced from seven
members to five; therefore, three is now a quorum.
7.1.2 Request for STOP signs on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue
Mr. Erbacher advised that Council plans to rescind the ordinance for the new Stop signs.
Staff s staff report was not clear enough in that the Stop signs were not warranted. Mr. Ho is
preparing a Notice of Hearing for the January 17, 2001 Council meeting.
Mr. Erbacher asked the commission how we can notice the public about new Stop signs such
as placing a street barricade at the related intersection with an informational notice posted and
the normal publishing of such notice. Commission concurred with Comm. Evans' suggestion
to announce pertinent Council meeting dates to the Traffic Commission audience in
attendance and follow up by sending them a notice of the Council meeting. Comm. McIver
suggested that the commissioners attend Council meetings when commission issues are to be
presented.
7.1.3 Traffic Engineer's Report - Nothing to report.
7.1.4 Staff Action Log. Updated.
Mr. Erbacher advised that the Dwight Road markings, etc., are on hold due to the residents
requesting a formal presentation to Council instead. Mr. Erbacher is the residents' liaison to
Council.
Minutes for 12-14-00 Meeting.wpd Page 4
Example of Street Sign
STOP SIGN
MEETING
JAN 17 7 PM
CITY HALL
MEETING CONTINUES
TO FEB 20 7 PM
S Public Works Directory\TSP Commission\Stop Sign Noticing Procedures\Stop Sign Meeting Notice 2.wpd
ADELINE DRIVE AT CORTEZ
FACING EAST
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Tel:(650) 558-7230
Fax:(650) 685-9310
The City of Burlingame
CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997
NO T/ CE
PUBLIC HEARING
RECONSIDERATION OF
A STOP SIGN ORDINANCE
TO INSTALL
TWO STOP SIGNS ON ADELINE DRIVE
AT CORTEZ AVENUE
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
7:00 p.m., Wednesday, January 17, 2001
City Hall, Council Chamber, 501 Primrose Road
Agenda
Council to reconsider an Ordinance and possible alternate measures
regarding pedestrian safety on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue.
If you are unable to attend this meeting,
you may submit your written comments to:
City Council, c/o Ann Musso, City Hall,
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010.
For more information,
call Ann Musso 650 558-7203 or Philip Ho 650 558-7236.
CORPORATION YARD
Tel:(650) 558-7670
SAA Public Works Directory\Street File\School\Lincoln School\Adeline Dr @ Cortez Ave\Adeline @ Cortez - Public Notice 3.wpd
RESOLUTION NO.I8-2001
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME
APPROVING E PLACEMENT CING OOF STOP SIGNS
URES
REGARDING TH
RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame considers a number of
WHEREAS, the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) Council for
re uests for stop signs and many of those requests are then forwarded to the City
q
consideration; and
AS the Commission has recommended that the City Council establish the noticing
WHEREAS,
attached hereto as Exhibit A for consideration of these requests, so that citizens will
procedures a
on the requested placement of stop sig
s; andhave a fair opportunity to consider and comment dures should result in more meaningful and timely
WHEREAS, the proposed noticing proce
input for citizens,
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED:approved, and the
1. The Stop Sign Noticing Procedures attached hereto as Exhibit A are pp
Director of Public Works is directed to implement the procedures.
AY R
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 20TH day of
FEBRUAKYLOOI, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE LM
a%!i/�l, V`� • /
CITY CLERK
CITT
BURIJNGAME STAFF REPORT
�at YN[ 6
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council
DATE: February 14, 2001
FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney
SUBJECT:
AGENDA 8 h
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 2/20/2001
SUBMITTED
BY
APPROVE ,
BY—
REJECT
Y
REJECT CLAIM OF METRO FURNITURE FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE ON JUNE
21, 2000 AND NOVEMBER 2, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
Reject claim for damage to business operations occurring on June 21, 2000 and November 2, 2000.
DISCUSSION:
On June 21, crews working for Williams Communications installing a fiber optics system struck the City water
main along Rollins Road. Water service to businesses along the area was affected for about 20 hours. City
crews worked over night to restore service by about 4 a.m.
On November 1, 2000, a water leak in a bonnet valve was discovered. USA was contacted to mark utility lines
in the area, and crews geared up to repair system on November 2. City personnel notified businesses of
shutdown. Water was secured at about 10:30 a.m., and crews had water service restored by 7 p.m.
Metro Furniture claims that they had to close their factory for both June 21 and November 2 because of this
water disruption. Metro Furniture sent all their employees home and want the City to pay wages for all their
employees for the 2 days. Neither leak was the fault of the City; one shutdown occurred after 4 p.m., and the
other shutdown had to be accomplished to prevent loss of any more than the 40,000 gallons or more of water
already lost.
Therefore, rejection of the claim is recommended.
Attachment
Claim of Metro Furniture
Distribution
ABAG Plan
11/17/00 16:00 Z650 697 2818 METRO 2001
NOU-07-2000 10:13 C I TY OF BURL I NUPu7t --- ----
Claim Against, the City of Burlingame
Please return Yo: City Clerk
So I Pri=ccc Road Ry q&'ME
Burlingame, CA 94010
0:
.pre='e or aniy dr v. G I -I Y 0 F C.-
corVtere shejWIo"rsg, ad&nS addidor-41 siwcz CS necessary.
c NXNG.
CLAU4A)rr's ADWMSSt: 11a35- allins Q6( . bur( a!e 1-4 D 10
I \j
g"Mr MP 0 AM)A&MM CHH, SrA7X 27P)
CLkWANT'S HQNM PHOtM (L7S0-&S'2.2-ZS(,p
Amougr OF CLAju: S_521 (q pf=cffcwMcWAML&=WM)
IF AMOMM CLAWW MIMORE THAN $10,000, WV=ATE VM3=2 nMMICnON VMM: ti Cood -
MUMI=PAL COMT 0 Supmost COURT
ADDRY= TO wmm Narwxs ARE To BE sENT. w DwFmEbrr FRom LvEs I AND 2--
MMUT at p 0 sac Aww"
Tam of 3>,icwEm-. anon r)
LOCATMN CW DIC=Pf r. 2-OU'laa P-4(- 12211141Z2QQa�L-
u
DE= Tax nccwzwr cit AccwEwr vmunwa YouR Rimom Pox zazvwa THAT 'm c= is Ltaix Sax
YOZM IMALUAGM. Wade,- --60 4& box Vdrj ux's 11tigr-up-&d cw 2 o ccs i drt S w"
{arced a SA-d&cWn 10161 tf and ampIvyees we'.:e kre
t, 7 ' duciim
k asked 4kaf 4'U- daWY, Aappe4 OfU,�. hex-fs- V4.- 'Oro
6U� �t Vy6L� /tzlf 1p6s-s'-.b
r -
DP-SCWM A= D&MAGM WMM YOU MLOVE YOU MANE
We are a-S0113 P" rclln6WSevZGqi lwaFex-d�or
,e4y(oYees hfc�zi;qOL 7'6eS
NAIM Of Ma"aw cAUSWQ 'tom DAMAGZSz A= CXASRWG:
I AvvbY Avc1mr, wider pmaky of po:fwy, Slott I hdve rmd Ac AMolng and that rhe same fy &w to the
berr of MY )M0w&v4'L
(��4t4e
/-�1100
Date
Agypawx uA0, "h JAkw w4~ pmrawmyja4v orJ3ardsrt nrdain
b#Juw Wawa ow'Year oiscutAL Stt C47cnqncpw cwr SM&x "a
11/17/00 16:00 $650 697 2518 METRO 0002
I7%efro �-u
COMPANY SHUTDOWN EXPENSE I
hours
bumper of dti P11 yees
paid by Cornanyi Amount paid by
due to the water shut Comany due to the
down water shut down
Qppyttrnent works on t1. 0
11000 on 11102100
39 600
CNC 13
Laminate 12
36 538
Machining &Assembly 16
Mill 8
48 755
24 402 .
Wood Finishing 24
72 1,094
Wood Sandin 15
Wood Assembl 20
Upholstery 46
45 689
60 953
138 2,278
60 1,157
36 459
Metal 20
Metal Finishing 12
Materials 13
39 577
M aintenanca 3
9 301
Shi pingNVrappinglJanitorial 14
42 607
Metal Outsource 6
16 264
PIC 13
40 872
3 62
56 2,161
24 697
Quality Assurance 1
Manufacturing 14
Purchasin 6
Engineering 11
Customer Service 4
44 1,165:
16 366
Order Entry-. 6
Design 5
Sales Burlin ame 4
Marketing 6
Office 13
Total 305
24 510
20 852
16 415
24 788'
52 1,927
985 520,490
Total amount paid by
Metro on 06/21 and
11/02100
$21,641
i
i .
I i
of 1
nd I C,ompany_Shut Down - claim
i 1
i
i 1
t
I
CITY 0.
BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT
��sr .IwO °,000
TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED
I: 1
DATE: FebruM 14, 2001 APPROVED
BY
FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney
SUBJECT:
REJECT CLAIM OF WERNER BERTRAM (CSAR) FOR PROPERTY DAMAGE ON
AGENDA
ITEM #
MTG.
DATE 2/20/2001
NOVEMBER 8, 2000
RECOMMENDATION:
Reject claim for damage to automobile occurring on November 8, 2000.
DISCUSSION:
On November 8, 2000, a tree branch from an elm tree located at 411 Primrose Road broke and fell on a fence
and a vehicle parked on Primrose Road. The owner of the vehicle and the owner's insurance company
submitted a claim for the damage.
The elm tree had been trimmed in 1997 and is on a 4 year trimming cycle. This is a standard period for elm
trees, which do not pose a high risk of breakage.
Therefore, rejection of the claim is recommended.
Attachment
Claims of Werner Bertram and CSAA
Distribution
ABAG Plan
Claim Against the City of-nurlingame
-------------------------�
Please return to: City Clerk
i
501 Primrose Road B41RLlN�,AME ; i
Burlingame, CA 94010 It N O 2 i 2 e '
r
Please type or print clearly. ; CITY CLEKK'S JFFICP
:TYOIR�� �RLINGRME
Complete the following, adding additional sheets as necessary. L-----------------------
CLAIMANT'S NAME:
CLAIMANT'S ADDRESS:
(STREET OR P O Box , CTZY STATE, 71p)
CLAuAANT'S HOME PHONE: * � , 5+ WORK PHONE:
AMOUNT OF CLAIM: $ ��' G (ATrAcm copms of Buls/Emn► 7w)
IF AMOUNT CLAIMED IS MORE THAN $10,000, INDICATE WHERE JURISDICTION RESTS:
0 MUNICIPAL COURT 0 SUPERIOR COURT
ADDRESS TO WHICH NOTICES ARE TO BESENT, IF DIFFERENT FROM LINES 1 AND 2:
(SntE T OR P O BOx�`'' )
0 rile' LC= lac`
/-t (CrM STATE, Z[P)
..DATE OF INCIDENT:..»...»......»...».»»�...,....�..�� C./` G�»...»...»».....».»..»»....»...».».
TIME OF INCIDENT:
LOCATION OF INCIDENT:
DESCRIBE THE INCIDENT OR ACCIDENT INCLUDING YOUR REASON FOR BELIEVING THAT THE CITY IS LIABLE FOR
YOUR DAMAGES:
L>"41-
cYe r7 i� ,
n �v.
DESCRIBE ALL DAMAGES WHICH YOU BELIEVE YOU HAVE INCURRED AS RESULT OF THE INCIDENT:
77 Ile/ t:E'
NAMES OF PUBLIC EMPLOYEE(S) CAUSING THE DAMAGES YOU ARE CLAIMING:
I hereby declare, under penalty of perjury, that I have read thq foregoing and that the same is true to the
best of my knowledge.
Date- / i r 7 - C-r Signature:74'
/LC..
Any person who, with intent todcfraud, presents arty false or fraudulent claim may be punished by imprisonment or fine or both.
Claims for personal in jury or damage to personal property must be Jiled within 180 days of incident, all other dabnr must
be frkd within one year of Incident. See Government Code Section 900 et Seo.
December 26, 2000
City Clerk
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
RE: Your Insured:
Your Clain, No.
Our Insured:
Our Claim No.:
Date of Loss:
Dear SIR/MADAM:
DEC 9 7 2000
iTY CLERK'S OFFICE
tTv OF �t,RLlNGAMF.
City of Burlingame
N/A
WERNER BERTRAM
17-816489-9
11/08/2000
�-� California State
Automobile Association
Inter -Insurance Bureau
PO. Box 920
Suisun City, CA 94585-0920
�s
This will confirm our subrogation interest arising from this loss. We have settled the claim with our insured and based
on the following facts, request payment directly to California State Automobile Association Inter -Insurance Bureau
(CSAA-IIB):
Documentation to support our claim is enclosed. Please issue payment of $1879.72 for the following expenses:
Repair Bill
$1,879.72
Loss of Use
$0.00
Tow/Storage
$0.00
Miscellaneous
$0.00
TOTAL $1,879.72
Sincerely,
Subrogation Specialist
1-888-222-1839 extension 5061
Enclosure
F268 (Aug 1998)
FROM : ALPINE INN
;1 GES $ULIECT TO FINAL AUDIT
UCENSEE' l
^?T1t:tI<. 1�t9 C1aseIE>AP, 16119 _
KRT" {ERWR
X15 i:[I1 M'SIi)E CR
M609
.RF
rf,;i,
,-,I�lt 1q&TFR: Mane
x
FAX NO. 6503475733 �.. Jul. 11 1999 02:41AM P1
LA IV
cit o� f X99
� t�15'F IyQz343;�n
t �9pT�0 Grp g44g,J
Q"s: *, @t (65G)347�5433
:�5%' 34?54.a.1
T!ESE?VfrT1Qt-4 w: W-22476 -
Car To Be Returned To Above Unless Stated Ren ' "^'res On
WHO
.,
RTS OUT: 050 03 SF 1 9 Q►t��
RA I N : tt� ;f2t3 3 SF I I 1
Vehicle Information _
TIpiF C>}ff iir>r IV
VEIi. iE: 'f$ li: t3?�1 9:ia7 t1;26.9ei 5;�,
US -3.4: 1AF442 STALLtt: Per' JA
131
CHP I L 1i S Ger Hour
Fuel utA bi$ milfaye r Davrya'i£t
Fuel in F'ti Mile+ye fn [KtGer Ween
Pet- 11nth
e'
i1B1 -put
i
.59.'S
y �...� —
!�?1_E:; tlRI'�Eh1z 131
- N-i—tarid that if I dprline fiIV,I as eestroTttiWe f;•r 31
=-eaal'oless of fa+il;. ;Jnl1 3r, euthohred reffter sai+ Ci: Ext~ este: 343 Ed: V)
ttie ar,_RateS a+e syn tQ: a. it the %-r-h-.cle AuthM 01363-1 Alt: 397.14 1
?c r'Et.u-nert -dt' itAted ,-ba?e. 'iai?'iwbni dvl Meatal (ISM! R1391i Amt: M. A) I
)k' f+?i the lE 6?vatioT& l,Rvlded to Y+su to L'srrrtectipr, Ste: Its 20
-•h;s r*ntal ;, true.
'e Now, read and spree to me terms and conditions; both panted aha wri@en:indtaf v Physical oanwoe waiver, fMet appear
,al Stater ad no an the separafe,r mW jacket tj the intwumitim provided by Me Is tm, I M" th8t It I de6me Vw option PDW. I am resMftsible for
mW19" of faith. t AtIINORt7,I THRWN TO MWW OR PEW A CHARGE TO MY CRFMT. = f oR mtWE CARD FOR THE UTML 7ED
GES FOR Tm ,UPDN NY M. so B STRTEMW AND FOR ALL ADDMONAL CHARGES UPDR Rffmm OF THE YEf WLW,
RENTER SIGNATURE
'Ole
ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZED RENTER
0
Ft. RT
Sales Tax P. em ,14 7
VU 1.07 per da-.,
LBS MID, DEPOSITS * 397.14
AL as 3a".14�f=A4
( WNINWRECEIVING CIT
c
1 •
V
CHECK NO.: 702 L970150 -3—R
DATE: 12-13-2000
NAME AND ADDRESS INFORMATION:
WERNER H BERTRAM „ OR HEDY
3215 COUNTRYSIDE DR
SAN MATEO CA 94403
— INSURED: BERTRAM,WERNER,H;OR HEDY
DATE OF LOSS: 11-08-00
CLAIM NO: 17-816489-9
CLAIMANT: BERTRAM,WERNER,H;OR HEDY
PAYEE: WERNER H BERTRAM „ OR HEDY
AMOUNT: $1,878'72
IN PAYMENT OF: FULL AND FINAL REPAIRS -RENTAL
ADJUSTER: JACQUELINE MCMILLEN
ADJUSTER NO: 32995
KIND OF LOSS: CPR
16610799
PAYMENT INFORMATION/DESCRIPTION:
REIMBURSEMENT FOR REPAIRS
$1,711.72
REIMBURSEMENT FOR MAX ALLOWABLE
RENTAL $168.00
DEDUCTIBLE WAIVED NON—FAULT
DETACH AND RETAIN FOR YOUR RECORDS
No. 702 L970150 -3 -
DATE OF LOSS CLAIMINSURED'S NAME DATE
11-08-00 17-816489-9 BERTRAM,WERNER,H;OR HEDY 12-13-200
POLICY TYPE KIND OF LOSS SUFFIX CLAIMANT'S NAME PAY
AUTO CPR 01S BERTRAM,WERNER,H;OR HEDY $1,878.72
D.O. ADJUSTER NO. IN PAYMENT OF a Cr AME'C
SEP 32996 FULL AND FINAL REPAIRS—RENTAL c•mm.r=i.InlmNrwm.n^==••K
No,MOreok, IL
PAY *ONE THOUSAND EIGHT HUNDRED SEVENTY NINE 72/100*
This check must be properly endorsed on the reverse side by all F
WERNER H BERTRAM „ OR HEDY
THE
ORDER
OF
Dec 08 00 05:44p
.NY
radway Ruto Body '50)343-0208 p.2
cvsr DESCRIPTION_&_PARTS NO.
A Atlennatket N=New U=Used R=Rebuilt
I
i 1
i l
BROADWAY . A
AMouNr The Peri UTO
� g�DY�y
Peninsula Leading Specialist In Auto,nob %
Body & Pamt... Since 1957
1305 N. Carolan Avenue • Burfingame, California 94010=24
Phone (650) 343-2723 • FAX # (650) 343-0208
Na
Date
Address
Home Phone Business Phone
3
Year Make Mode! Color
License Odometer In*
3.;1_0 3
• YIN t @ 3 4 r 6 7 9 9 10 11 12 19 14 15 IA f7 S
W -2Q A -� 1 413 3 Odometer W
Ins. Co. !7
ins. Phohe
OPER INSTRUCTIONS HOURS77777777--
��°�
T k.
Repair as Per Estimate Form 1
Total Parts : rt _--
Used Pas
-y - _ t...� Retum 1. 1 Discard - --
-
NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY PERSONAL ITEMS LEFT IN VEHICLE PAR, s —
Sublet I hereby authorize the above repair work to be done alongB(
with the neces-
LA_ H—
sary materials. You and your employees may operate the above vehicle for
�.._...... _. purposes Of testing, Inspection or delivery at my risk. An express meChan- FfiAh1L'
rc's lien Is acknowledged on the above vehicle to secure the amount of
repairs thereto. You VAR t be held nsibie for loss or damage to vehi- P`*
cle or amides left in veh a in case ft then, accident or any other cause 1101 1Y MAI
-
geyyppnd Your control. 71DRAG WILL BE CHARGED FORTY-EIGHT
HOURS AFTER RE IRS AR COMPLIN THE EVENT LEGAL To,
— AC71ON IS NECE A Y TO R E S CONTRACT, i WILL PAY
f REASONABLE 3TS.—
SIGNEDX �- -- -- -- —
- su 'IFT _LR
bitten ey Terme STRI SH Unless Arratt —
$@mePttS Made. SUR "ro'r.i `
ecerved AM
�L7 e; O PM
mmised Aryl TAX
PM
—__ --_ EPA i
ared AM wASTEOISPOSAL t
Gc d PM
a
Gw�ND rorAL l •7��
r 71t� t t 10E/A inc- Or* bDA-JA Way. Caldweir• ID 83605.8902 • CALL TOLL FritE 1-tu sNi35.92g1 • Itern N, FR 103
:,a:r
1-1\ --N
Dec
08 00
05:44p
adway Auto Hody
uwaividw
rexswn.
.o.UU4
— All Rights Reserved
BROADWAY AUTO BODY
1305 NORTH CAROLAN AVE BURLINGAME , CA 94010
(650)343-2723
Fax: (650) 343-0208
BAR #: A6145265
Damage Assessed By: SCOTT THOMPSON
Deductible: UNKNOWN
Owner WERNER BERTRAM
Address: 401 PRIMROSE RD, BURLINGAME, CA 94010
Telephone: Work Phone: (650) 3475733 Home Phone: (650) 341-2834
Description: 1997 Mercedes Benz 5320
Body Style: 4D Sed
VIN: WD8GA33G0VA341937
Line
Entry
Labor
11/21/00 11:00 AM
Item
Number
Type
Operation
1
600980
BOY
REMOVEJREPLACE
2
931004
BOY
REPAIR
3
931068
BOY
REPAIR
4
931062
BDY
REPAIR
5
931076
BOY
REPAIR
6
900500
BOY *
ADD'L LABOR OP
7
624870
BOY
REMOVE]INSTALL
8
936012
ADD'L COST
9
933017
REF
ADO'L OPR
* - Judgement Item
Mitchell Service: 916285
501343-0208
Part Type/
Date:
11/21/00 11:00 AM
Estimate ID:
2481
Estimate Version:
0
Preliminary
Existing
Profile ID:
Mitchell
Drive Train: 3.2L Inj 6 Cyl 5A
License: 3TTS597 CA
Line Item
Part Type/
Description
Part Number
R REAR DOOR BELT MOULDING
140 690 04 81
HOOD
Existing
ROOF
Existing
RIGHT FENDER PANEL
Existing
RIGHT REAR DOOR ASSY
Existing
HAND WAX & DETAIL OUTSIDE
Sublet
ROOF INTERIOR LAMP
Existing
HAZARDOUS WASTE DISPOSAL
COLOR SAND & BUFF
Remarks
ALL SCRATCHES WERE REMOVED BY COLOR SANDING AND POLiSHING,PAINTLESS
DENT REMOVAL TECHNIQUE WAS USED FOR BODY REPAIR.NO REFINISHING WAS
NEEDED.THIS SAVED ABOUT $2.000 FROM ORIG EST.
L Labor Subtotals
Body
Refinish
Labor Summary
Add'I
Labor
Units Rate Amount
10.6 50.00 0.00
10.0 60.00 25.00
Non -Taxable Labor
20.6
ESTIMATE RECALL NUMBER: 1112110010:45:40 2491
Sublet
Amount Totals
300.00 936.00
0.00 625.00
It. Part Replacement Summary
Taxable Parts
Sales Tax
1,561.00 Total Replacement Parts Amount
1,561.00
Dollar
Amount
Labor
Units
136.00
0.3
4.0*
3.0*
1.5*
1.5*
300.00 *
0.0*
0.3*
3.50 *
26.00 *
10.0*
p.3
136.00
8.260% 11.22
147.22
Dec 08 00 O5:44p adwatj Auto Body 50)343-0208 p.4
01. Additional Costs
Non -Taxable Costs
Total Additional Costs
Date: 11/21/0011:00 AM
Estbnate 00: 2481
Estimate Version: 0
Preliminary
Profile ID: Mitchell
Amount W. Adjustments Amount
3.50 Customer Responsibility 0.00
3.50
I. Total tabor. 1,561.00
U. Total Replacement Parts: 147.22
III. Total Additional Costs: 3.50
Gross Total: 1,711.72.
IV. Total Adjustments: 0.00
Net Total: 1,711.72
This is a preliminary estimate.
Addiltonal changes to the estimate may be required for the actual repair.
r A
$3,148,992.16
Ck. No. 74166 - 74745
(Excluding Library Checks 74705 - 74745)
RECOMMENDED FOR PAYMENT APPROVED FOR PAYMENT
Payroll for January 2001
$1,363,241.65
Ck. No. 133820 - 134607
*EFTS for January 2001
$338,512.46
*ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS
EFT'S INCLUDE: State Withholding
SDI (State Disability)
PERS- Health Benefits
Retirement
S:\FINEXCEL\MISCELLANEOUS\COUNCILCKS.XLS
CITY OF BURLINGAME
02-13-2001 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E RPAGE 4
R1
f
FUND RECAP 00-01 r s, ,�� r,rJ 9 aJ
.' .yfI4J"l�v h � r ✓''`�i,��d�r rld??�< nfj rr
N1
NAME f err
FUND AMOUNT
i 7 f k: Jlf r + [ TT r ( Sn
4 r�ilt+Y }: ! f' "rJ r� �rf{,}f%�r'r7'R if di { N r �2��.+,�e r $Yfo� R 6Yyr
,d t /' h r /� F r! 'N J r Ar r , r rl': A''.i `�Y(r r 4n '>(i/r/e W P
GENERAL FUNDyar' "Tr'
P dpi a '�'�+?:ug � +f-�. Y.jp ,.f,✓ t'
,° ' M,I y .e,, 101 45,654.13 �f H'rs,JJ
TRUST AND AGENCY FUND ?
y ,r rv;rf�r r; 731 2,906.75
f rM' Kfr."r
TOTAL FOR APPROVAL �f,�k� /�fr jF'z^u Ffyry5 r $481560.88
l ver' rrir'F ¢f rr fr r', ¢y {1fE'/grr, JF�r+} �.rrlrJi :l T%,+J,fir`
C ri a'ry.'Trr/
/ r 1l , ✓ a` rt n r.fr s �i z / d r
dvr irr�
rci)Li;'
�} � f a f� 6 fJ�.K.9� / Jr1 � •F3 ��rry�i,f} F sT I
J J �....
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:
'11 � /J ff/ r42 Ji��'-r"r'"rFu� m!If,�:d� ,'J ` ':� rl J4s�. rJFFfi.7� f'''K✓i >±y G4 nx
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 4�.
INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 74705 THROUGH 74745 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $48,560.88, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER x`�k"'
OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN}%'�%�:� ✓s, „rte,:
ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE` AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON;
➢ TF 3' r?w. r r�..,4r rr-,: r.N^ 1 •Gy" rrr r v r d G r{
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
a � Sw' r . � s' pH� r e7 j J,,. ��r�l f��1y3 rrf' l rt r� Il r:+ ('✓7C�'r��7��, �`r,SAbr ��! ff'� r r f
.✓. }�r /7t )y / r r.' rte+' r 7r� r t ; r � r< {'T� � �w k r� f �!st, ,.- fr
J✓ :?�jj . � � '✓ r i �" ..EVrI�I-� f/t' r�� t s f ' ri( �-r ]r! r l f� � r 1 "J r
� � s / � ",�lJ J y�;'a i rte' /! r{'/+` i ., •y.,< r j r + f -JXJ f S ��rtlr/yIJ 1�/`� � f�
- o��� xMr. v nf,y'yJy r`�r�i �' i= 1x'r �i. y7��ysfdrjOJ.r fj'/,un rr>n,'.,... ✓r
J r rz CWf%''r r Y'`J.Il.: /3 -7rfi' ,% ✓ rmFt:%� J'r /� %r .
....................................
FINANCE DIRECTOR aF f1 r%r'^. J f#t7?Jr iye�;Id7rrs j'dr r
��'."-.l '"1vy :rJ ro`iZ�S 4,3#"r "?,,.rlv r Jr rr lF �r��._J•'� .����! /� .r•r :r t%r �.
' r r J.r'�J� F Ir / lr..-+,y ,�/jr/. - .( :r^. rl'.." ir2 r; 'i'.e' i'^'I �� Alaf• /f/x r .
APPROVED FOR AYMEN
✓
P
T � 1> �._..�'�, r' � � 'G , .,.u'= :, / ,. _ ;. � eek r- ,;:=..; �•��-�,''
.,'�-?^7i,�!:!'p}fdr r F' ...r ! e%ilrr w.'it'•:'i: �,.i.•=�'.:. r- i .p'r ,%�.•?rlr/�i�st.�.4�,;.M1.'•s .�"1,.�, +Xt�y,, I:.. ..,Sx i r . _r r J �:y r
,r v �f/)F.r� � rl../.. rrfSSr..r- �, .sr',1i•-. ri i.: ,. - ��Ptr .vy♦ 't Jr•�r nr.+ � i � (
i ,l -s r A :+/ ,rrry.G1-r' -) /yrs✓' ��f �Yl:<�„y'�r >-a 'f / . y
r
/�f .' � rel' I xi�� ,.''•r,., -. r ' rhj fs T^rlil�' F ? fr( ..f, r r
f
................. ... ....N✓!'�rr T 'r
COUNCIL
DATE Y'. /Jn r' ✓.y fly�ll a�/§ %✓F.J.Y. t / f
sar' r Jr r./:.e JrS ?�l�.zy>•i: r. rr,. ! 5 F y i��).,��h �f',i?��; �rrt�� ' r i�rf`��r''! ,✓' /_
�T r• '` A �% JJf F�lr �� �'ry�' �.. �>,r .r"'i t,ys X' ?..lir,t�^�;% .; r r yr ' r . r�jk 1�� ��Kr�? r.,,l�' � ^.E .J z/::" /n' I' 1 tlr. _
.rypr� ��r71: , ,, yJJ �.:r:..A'i%'�-�.'�''f?i�,>i/:.: ',-,l,',, :. Jfr'�%T'�.rrr✓.f'Tu�'Jr�%('l1 s .Y .. � J 'T
r-�2�ry' r ssf!.:riiy��rs.�Ye!e,('J'�/tiff?�1�5i:�f�:Ern^•,+,...':i �' r ..! '!r-(,+fr a�C-.r ri�>,'^�^.� if �. Ji :. r f !. }. � �
1`.L;, �,..sy. r, < 1f . rr'r• ` s � .. 'r : '+' -l' n . r' �,r E �%spa+ e����J :/_. �.>'
.ir .'g, n�y� iY'.efil:�Xi°�_sD'f:w�'�i; ��u>ry ?r^.,..R. rlt��rr�S:e,-i`/�%rk. 1. ,•� .w �-� r ''
!'r'J.af:.' ,r.r.{.✓^i-,.ry sr%r-<f�.•�=-��.s.f 4.j' - r .s t._p. ,.kr'G•!v�{..i.•.. yi'l.Ykf sr' r LLl, s J r
ssM l J�PY.ri "•r- !f r�%;l•`�3 r r -r L:%. / J /? r,✓,gr�,-'t.�r fi. J� .. f'
'.i".qf: r!%'1i'?j:'�,, ^�; •.j.y���: � a ;�r �` 'moi' - r r r 1'f"i� .-fr'� F •:r v •'. P ,; r
T r y'. r...:P,.r: P'.vn i/'/ 'ii r �1 ",%l.•Jrf �. :.,
w:r/P`--'r .''�_"r�f � �.v� r-..�1,,�/�"i�f'"'i ;'EBr��r,-^x �r ....rr,'� i�. �i ✓�. � '���lir. ..i 3r r3 - s r F. F r _
r : 'r•' `w'!:?-�rr/t /'. P!'�IJ/he'%/Cf��1y �;t :.ih"� / y.: 'r M��G'M�frs ..rs r{r r., f - - _
2,. '✓i" ,R:-,+"� ;S'ff � 1/ _ �f„-.yujr�+�11J., iG'Xr,4l."n.r� ' _,i . - / / j � �. e r
-
..... .. r, / .,, ...%. ..Tf ✓;-..gym.% i:'- Y r.. ., tr.:N r
.�.+%1'-�$a���vJ ✓i�r v.: . A� ..�., �,-l/i,;/. ..rll'.Ja r F T.I/r ,rJla_ J� f . % / r `$'.Fi+'X r�.
7-7 _1r+��3
. r.' f s�+l'.:., j,2„ u✓ ,;,trs �•rrk,Jr,;.":. n .,' .:%'.' e :' '�'. 7 "grr, '= �:. /' - -
're. '�%��,f�:' Jr . '�' ! -./ r:,�'=',;,. /;; r-s?u'_• � � Jr �lii`J' / tri /- a .''� }` _,y ' r r _
':� '� K�-r^ .� '� J ✓.d: �r * r !/ . r r J ' r r 'r /•' f 1 + _ 1 r '>rt ,yi .' --
-l��.: P � � ✓��r lir rr:f� .:P sJ r.,��;^,':• i:•... .: rJf it -/F r. Ji. If r t ''-.r .r Jr / / - _
�2r11,J'� rYr .•. r i ro'. ,v. . �r� r. ryr ,P.1� yr. s ..3 f
t ���ll` �.3k3 ..h � -!r rl F f ✓ r ja .i ��+!'Y/.k sN } r f r
tir� .r`' �•Yyy�. f ! r . r - /!' / ' v . rrr % � ri'�.r r'J !_-`✓/ X4rf� r v r _ f
.'.. ;��:.: �/���_.j��r }. _ r J.. r'� Si � /, `� t.. ir•>r .,4/�:r��/: �',J,f,•'�9 i r :,, a ,•'fr - 1�.
:.,: . fN. r l r /.t_4-....,,r.'.,�._.J•o. r:�Jb::%-..':. '!wl:,: y,s -. v� 1' ? r `✓.. �;
.�+,� J.,rf�yl� ,n l/r• %. ,.7;r,r ,9.=,`•'fir., •,'...I,:..f;.H,.rr :'P,t'./, 1 ': �.�%,: I,s r. , ,�, r � r„ :'ir.. ,.,fis ':.^.e' -£r !:
r R 7 { /Y/ ..r .ml 1,n./. r"f.: - N.J y.11y.3: y'�r✓.,�fy�,? �dif-,Z," f r' t / /•
If AJ6 ,�,. �F✓ i:_l /..rrf y.. •.l': _''�`%r.•'.,+��r/:n�`r7' Y,..(��'' A J 'O:£ i -.�-!r «•...;Gr;'
✓. ' r [f r rlr' r
' yy
w!t' ). r S' v�+ /, /r rr�Y'�! aJ/�fir.+T�g':�t'.J•P'.:: 6:; H. 'n. z�� �4 r, +y/r� � x,
..� :,.s ,• if r -fir ., ,%.''� 1 r/s':..,, .ii%�i!rnr.'. �: /jai �a r �3- '�irFr ,'
✓ r l:.
Y '• '-"!' �ri`r Y L r/ i .r'/:�'F ;_C.J.Z,,. i�eyJ�s�.rr?: l�:� y ✓�.' yr r F� lr '' r• A i �'. I .J _,1• y Yi^"
•� -J�ssy.'�r'�':+f l r: lJ ..yi �'i%. `=.v a. rt rrrr''r.. ,..�., .!fis ��t. i r ..rri::s�.,.
.;:C�=r+ y... n.,....tY'l:ns 1r� ? f lsrn.fr. r •.; :'.Sr ' /., �Y`:.rF�'+� / /�_ .F "a1; -t= 'J; vs -
.;rY:; "� R"t,J/. ,.ln r.Y' :r�. - ,r ^n„ _.f,.g,Y���.1���j j�/:j iSFf�'"r5 r.YJ : JYt`r. i' r r "%ivr• rJ ', .r
-F,_ �'. ..?fk". _ r., > ,f-ft� a P{!•i`f #f..�; "v J J - ��%�?/.';r r �� .�'
yn .r ;;. :✓ * r•v ,. yfr �;y rl 1 [- "''{ � Fr :. � � J:g!„r ,5'ri
..'. ... r' _,_ .�,,� _, .. r�� �l�x� "!� '� � tet, �" ��f' ���•i'�'�`-_ � �s ,�' J �
TOTAL
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
WARRANT
REG I ST
ER
PAGE 3'
02/13/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
*� Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74731
MICRO WAREHOUSE
20706
$3.98
MISCELLANEOUS
53.98
101
67500 702
74732
LEXIS LAW PUBLISHING
20813
121.43
LIBRARY --BOOKS AND MAPS
121.43
101
67500 129
74733
HOTEL & TRAVEL INDEX
20962
180.00
LIBRARY --PERIODICALS
180.00
101'67500,122
74734
AUTOMATIC DOOR SYSTEMS, INC.
21141
175.80
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
` 175.80
101
67500 190 "
74735
THYSSEN ELEVATOR CORP.
21240
479.00
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT
479.00
101
67500 190
74736
AUTOMATIC CONTROLS
21336
76,50
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
'76.50
101
67500 190
74737
UNISOURCE MAINT SUPPLY SYSTEMS
21481'
1,212.OQ
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
888.00
101
67500 190
LIBRARY EXPENSES
324.00
731
22531-
74738
CINGULAR WIRELESS
21747'
154.47
COMMUNICATIONSs
154.47
101
67500 160
74739
THE LITTLE BOOKWORM
22095` -
75.13
LIBRARY --BOOKS AND MAPS
75.13
101
67500 129
74740
BAKER & TAYLOR
22244'
257.28
LIBRARY --BOOKS AND MAPS
257.28
101
67500 129
74741
TIME -LIFE EDUCATIONAL, INC.
22689
45.3$
LIBRARY --BOOKS AND MAPS
45.38
101`67500
129
74742
MASUNE COMPANY
22744
34.25
MISC. SUPPLIES
34.25
101
67500 120
74743
AMY GETTLE
22$14"'
6.21
TRAVEL & MEETINGS
6.21
_101
67500 250
74744
KATHRYN PAGE ASSOCIATES
22815
1,547.00
LIBRARY EXPENSES
1,547.00
731.22531
74745
INPOWR SERVICES
22816
3,076.65
MISCELLANEOUS
3,076.65
' 101
67500 702
TOTAL
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R
PAGE 2
02/13/01`trs�rxr��`s3r„
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT" AMOUNT
Denotes Hand Written Checks
it
74718 BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY 09490,s��l 1 "" ,,j, 582.59
OFFICE EXPENSE 3.42 101 67500 110 /t;
MISC. SUPPLIES 1rT�' 280.31 101 67500 120
LIBRARY --PERIODICALS wr ��
�g IRAN,29.00 101 67500 122
LIBRARY -BOOKS AND MAPS
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
TRAVEL & MEETINGS 1
74719 COMMAIR MECHANICAL SERVICES
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
74720 EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES
LIBRARY --PERIODICALS
74721 BLACKWELL NORTH AMERICA
LIBRARY --BOOKS AND MAPS
74722 TANGENT COMPUTER
MISCELLANEOUS
74723 HIGHSMITH COMPANY, INC.
MISC. SUPPLIES
74724 VITAL SPEECHES OF THE DAY
LIBRARY --BOOK BINDING
74725 SAN MATEO CREDIT UNION
MISC. SUPPLIES
LIBRARY --RECORDS AND CASSETT
LIBRARY --BOOKS AND MAPS_
COMMUNICATIONS
74726 LISA DUNSETH
TRAVEL & MEETINGS
74727 CITY ELECTRIC SUPPLY
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
74728 WORLD BOOK SCHOOL & LIBRARY
LIBRARY --BOOKS AND MAPS
74729 RELIABLE
OFFICE EXPENSE
MISCELLANEOUS
74730 AMERICA PRINTING
MISC. SUPPLIES
�a
11773
13765-1
14153
14977
15117
15276
17428
IN.,
17814��,.
l
18280
30.22 101 67500 129 jegt
114.64 101 67500 190 a`tz /r r
125.00 101 67500 252 ' """ _
941.70
446.26
3,173.77
8,091.32
83.82
63.45 101 67500 250
875.45 101 67500 190
19166
2,432.38 101 67500 129
19258
372.68
1,579.46
19430
416.88 101 67500 120
;n
875.45
32.00
941.70
101 67500 123
101 67500 190r
f'r
t `
446.26
,n�3
108.92
101 67500 120
101 67500 122',
444.85
101 67500 125
ANTE
p
/
443.52
101 67500 129
3,173.77
101 67500 129
101 67500 160
r
7
8,091.32
101 67500 702
ry��t�` ..
rK�✓l('m-?%J�f.%3"tjei'.Yner.Ti.'"Gt l.✓..
z
83-82
101 67500 120
63.45 101 67500 250
875.45 101 67500 190
19166
2,432.38 101 67500 129
19258
372.68
1,579.46
19430
416.88 101 67500 120
;n
875.45
32.00
32.00
101 67500 123
t `
1,,009.39
,n�3
108.92
101 67500 120
y
444.85
101 67500 125
ANTE
p
/
443.52
101 67500 129
12.10
101 67500 160
63.45 101 67500 250
875.45 101 67500 190
19166
2,432.38 101 67500 129
19258
372.68
1,579.46
19430
416.88 101 67500 120
;n
875.45
2,432.38
t `
1,952.14
,n�3
,7
416.88
I
r
7
ry��t�` ..
rK�✓l('m-?%J�f.%3"tjei'.Yner.Ti.'"Gt l.✓..
510.80
1,035.00
692.47
1,605.89
22.24
408,42
L16KAKT--BUUK5 AND MAPS
5,576.58
101
67500
129
74707
BURLINGAME STATIONERS
01676
OFFICE EXPENSE
86.50
101
67500
110
MISC. SUPPLIES
274.48
101
67500
120
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
149.82
101
67500
190
74708
CALIFORNIA LIBRARY ASSOCIATION
01790
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
1,035.00
101
67500
240
74709
DEMCO EDUCATIONAL PRODUCTS
02043
MISC. SUPPLIES
692.47
101
67500
120
74710
GALE RESEARCH CO.
02193
LIBRARY --BOOKS AND MAPS
1,605.89
101
67500
129
74711
MILLBRAE LUMBER CO.
02$9$",
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
22.24
101
67500
190
74712
OCLC,INC.
03,033
LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE.
2,014.60
101
67500
124
74713
VALLEY BINDERY COMPANY
0387,5' -
LIBRARY --BOOK BINDING
$9.86
101
67500
123
74714
WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR.
03964 -
LIBRARY --BOOKS AND MAPS -:,617.57
101
67500
129
74715
XEROX CORPORATION
04003
MISC. SUPPLIES
96.75
101
67500
120
LIBRARY EXPENSES
1,035.75
731
22531
74716
NOLO PRESS
09312
LIBRARY --BOOKS AND MAPS
40$.42
101
67500
129
74717
STANDARD & POORS CORP.
09374`
LIBRARY--PERIODICALS60675.72
101
67506
122
�_
510.80
1,035.00
692.47
1,605.89
22.24
408,42
Pi
CITY OF BURLINGAME
02-09-2001 WARRANT REGI ST ER
PAGE 8
FUND RECAP - 00-01
NAME
FUND
AMOUNT
GENERAL FUND
101
85,761.57
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
320
52,626.05
WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND
326
23,480.86
SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND
327
2,460.00
WATER FUND
526
12,460.66
SEWER FUND
527
1,877.90
SOLID WASTE FUND
528
426.99
GOLF CENTER FUND
529
28,747.93
SELF INSURANCE FUND
618
3,723.71
FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND
625
41.84
TRUST AND AGENCY FUND
731
4,535.00
STATE GRANTS FUND
734
2,390.00
UTILITY REVOLVING FUND
896
63.99
TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $218,596.50
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 8
INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 74608 THROUGH 74704 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $218,596.50, 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
02/09/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74693
JOHN TYLER
22712
80.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
80.00
101
68010
220 1580
74694
BROCK AND ASSOCIATES
22722
4,000.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
4,000.00
101
64420
210
74695
APPLIED MATERIALS AND ENGINEERIN
22742
2,840.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,840.00
320
80190
220
74696
CHRIS MILANO
22769
105.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
105.00
101
68010
220 1580
74697
JAMES YARBOROUGH
22793
240.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
240.00
101
68010
220 1580
74698
THOMAS & MEANS, LLP
22795
750.00
TRAINING EXPENSE
750.00
101
65100
260
74699
BAYLEY CONSTRUCTION
22796
1,000.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS
1,000.00
731
22520
74700
ZEBRA AWNING COMPANY, INC.
22797
300.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS
300.00
731
22520
74701
H & H ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION,
22798
1,000.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS
1,000.00
731
22520
74702
WILKINSON CONSTRUCTION
22799
1,935.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS
1,935.00
731
22520
74703
SHODORF TRUCK BODY
22800
3,626.00
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
3,626.00
101
68020
800 2300
74704
JAMES BALEIX
22801
1,312.93
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,312.93
320
79372
220
TOTAL
$218,596.50
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 6
02/09/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
Denotes
Nand Written
Checks
74678
VB GOLF LLC
21948
28,747.93
MISCELLANEOUS
7,247.93
529
36711
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
21,500.00
529
68030
220
74679
IEDA
21981
2,146.96
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
2,146.96
101
64420
210
74680
DGBA AND ASSOCIATES
21997
7,827.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
5,367.00
320
79380
210
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
2,460.00
327
78531
210
74681
GMAC
22006
841.49
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
841.49
101
66100
800
74682
DONALD SIMON
22026
46.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
46.00
101
68010
220 1580
74683
PENINSULA FORD OF BURLINGAME
22160
5.62
SUPPLIES
5.62
101
15000
74684
COVERALL ENGINEERING AND CONSTRU
22214
2,267.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
2,267.00
320
79340
210
74685
INDUSTRIAL SAFETY SUPPLY
22251
43.76
TRAINING EXPENSE
43.76
526
69020
260
74686
GAS TECH
22324
426.99
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
426.99
528
66600
210
74687
AMERICAN BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS
22339
330.48
PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING
330.48
101
68010
150 1450
74688
SGT. DONALD SHEPLEY
22375
2,390.00
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
2,390.00
734
65195
800
74689
INDUSTRIAL EMERGENCY COUNCIL
22550
495.00
TRAINING EXPENSE
495.00
101
65200
260
74690
VALENTINA CIRASOLA
22568
136.50
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
136.50
101
68010
220 1345
74691
PITNEY BOWES RESERVE ACCOUNT
22624
5,000.00
MISCELLANEOUS
5,000.00
101
15500
74692
EDDIE SHALDONE
22711
100.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
100.00
101
68010
220 1580
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 5
02/09/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
Denotes
Hand Written Checks
74664
ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY
18990
290.67
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT
145.33
101
66210
140
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT
145.34
527
66520
140
74665
WILSEY & HAM
19397
1,376.10
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
1,376.10
320
78290
210
74666
BAKER'S CHEM -DRY
19431
395.00
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
395.00
101
68010
190 1101
74667
OFFICE DEPOT
19583
803.11
OFFICE EXPENSE
803.11
101
68010
110 1100
74668
AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS
20246
974.64
COMMUNICATIONS
400.00
101
64450
160
MISCELLANEOUS
574.64
618
64520
038
74669
PENINSULA HOSPITAL
20346
765.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
765.00
101
64420
210
74670
NOLTE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
20376
5,821.84
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
5,821.84
326
79440
210
74671
DAPPER TIRE CO., INC.
20464
216.93
SUPPLIES
216.93
101
15000
74672
JULIO MORAN
20564
200.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
200.00
101
68010
220 1580
74673
MICRO WAREHOUSE
20706
1,319.05
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
344.82
101
64450
800
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
974.23
320
80150
800
74674
IBS BUILDING MAINTENANCE CO.
20783
2,181.50
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
2,181.50
101
68010
190 1101
74675
ROMAN & LOUGEE, INC.
20963
17,659.02
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
17,659.02
326
79530
210
74676
JONATHAN TURNER
21399
385.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
385.00
101
68010
220 1580
74677
UNIVERSAL FLEET SUPPLY INC.
21543
32.12
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT.
32.12
101
65200
203
°
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
02/09/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74650
DRAIN PATROL
14436
DEPOSIT REFUNDS
300.00
731
22520
74651
AIR EXCHANGE, INC
15625
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
65.00
101
65200
190
74652
MILLBRAE LOCK SHOP
15739
OFFICE EXPENSE
22.68
101
65100
110
MISC. SUPPLIES
63.04
101
66210
120
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
37.80
101
64450
190
VEHICLE MAINT.
22.52
101
65200
202
74653
VALLEY OIL CO.
15764
SUPPLIES
8,853.47
101
15000
74654
ACTION SPORTS
16167
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
548.00
101
68010
220 1581
74655
MOSS RUBBER & EQUIPMENT CORP.
16225
TRAINING EXPENSE
388.70
527
66520
260
74656
SYDNEY MALK00
16347
SMALL TOOLS
43.09
101
66700
130
74657
CUMMINS WEST, INC.
16414
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
477.14
101
65200
200
74658
LASON INC.
17158
MISC. SUPPLIES
108.25
101
65300
120
74659
VIRGINIA WORKS
17351
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
76.00
101
68010
220 1344
74660
STANDARD REGISTER
17495
OFFICE EXPENSE
1,140.34
101
64250
110
74661
PENINSULA BLUEPRINT, INC
17534
MISC. SUPPLIES
165.62
320
75110
120
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
190.12
320
76110
210
MISC. SUPPLIES
441.80
527
66520
120
74662
VERIZON WIRELESS MESSAGING SERVI
18763
COMMUNICATIONS
13.12
101
66210
160
COMMUNICATIONS
13.13
526
69020
160
COMMUNICATIONS
13.12
527
66520
160
74663
UNITROL
18939
SUPPLIES
537.34
101
15000
PAGE 4
AMOUNT
300.00
65.00
146.04
8,853.47
548.00
388.70
43.09
477.14
108.25
76.00
1,140.34
797.54
39.37
537.34
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
WARRANT
REG I ST
ER
PAGE
02/09/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74635
POM INC.
09248
1,705.88
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
1,705.88
101
65400
200
74636
TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT CO.
09319
141.72
SUPPLIES
112.14
101
15000
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
29.58
101
68020
200 2200
74637
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES
09461
2,201.19
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
2,201.19
320
71170
210
74638
ABAG - LIABILITY
09518
3,149.07
CLAIMS PAYMENTS
3,149.07
618
64520
601
74639
SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP
09560
91.22
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
91.22
101
68020
200 2200
74640
OLE'S
09626
41.84
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT.
41.84
625
65213
203
74641
TAB PRODUCTS CO.
09677
414.02
OFFICE EXPENSE
414.02
101
64250
110
74642
SEQUOIA UNION HIGH SCHOOL
09720
1,080.95
OFFICE EXPENSE
1,080.95
101
64450
110
74643
CAL -STEAM
10557
608.87
SUPPLIES
10.30
101
15000
TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS
41.37
101
66210
222
MISC. SUPPLIES
557.20
527
66520
120
74644
GOODYEAR COMMERCIAL TIRE
11316
1,005.51
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT.
1,005.51
101
65200
203
74645
IDEAL RESTORATIVE DRYING, INC.
11352
2,131.75
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
2,131.75
526
69020
801
74646
THE ADAM -HILL COMPANY
11571
7.56
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT.
7.56
101
65200
203
74647
BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT
11695
350.00
MISC. SUPPLIES
350.00
101
68010
120 1452
74648
COMMAIR MECHANICAL SERVICES
11773
636.44
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
53.17
101
68010
200 1101
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
583.27
320
80150
220
74649
THE MAGIC PRESS CORP.
13759
452.52
OFFICE EXPENSE
452.52
101
68010
110 1100
CITY OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R
02/09/01
NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL
Denotes Hand Written Checks
74621 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248
PAGE 2
ACCOUNT AMOUNT
152.81
54.26 101 68020 120 2200
98.55 526 69020 260
934.74 101 66210 226
79.30 101 15000
214.10 527 66520 200
6,271.59 526 69020 120
184.76 526 69020 803
5.88 101 66210 120
267.50 101 68020 190 2200
3.21 101 68020 192 2200
120.58 101 66210 219
99.86 101 15000
144.72 101 66210 200
63.99 896 20280
34,394.25 101 64530 152
321.00 101 65100 190
400.51 101 65100 200
3,691.00 526 69020 233
202.62 101 66700 130
3,428.34 101 64450 200
19.40 527 66520 110
934.74
293.40
6,456.35
397.17
99.86
144.72
63.99
34,394.25
721.51
3,691.00
202.62
3,428.34
19.40
MISC. SUPPLIES
TRAINING EXPENSE
74622
GRANITE ROCK COMPANY
02261
STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE
74623
LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC.
02755
SUPPLIES
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
74624
US FILTER
02880
MISC. SUPPLIES
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
74625
MILLBRAE LUMBER CO.
02898
MISC. SUPPLIES
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
MISCELLANEOUS
SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE
74626
MOTOROLA INC.
02944
SUPPLIES
74627
NATIONWIDE WIRE & BRUSH MFG.
03002
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
74628
P. G. & E.
03054
UTILITY EXPENSE
74629
SAN MATEO COUNTY CONVENTION $
03431
CONVENTION BUREAU PMT.
74630
SERVICE UNLIMITED INC.
03531
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
74631
SEQUOIA ANALYTICAL LABS
03536
MISCELLANEOUS
74632
SNAP ON TOOLS
03587
SMALL TOOLS
74633
WISNOM'S
03982
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE
74634
RD OFFICE SOLUTIONS
09213
OFFICE EXPENSE
PAGE 2
ACCOUNT AMOUNT
152.81
54.26 101 68020 120 2200
98.55 526 69020 260
934.74 101 66210 226
79.30 101 15000
214.10 527 66520 200
6,271.59 526 69020 120
184.76 526 69020 803
5.88 101 66210 120
267.50 101 68020 190 2200
3.21 101 68020 192 2200
120.58 101 66210 219
99.86 101 15000
144.72 101 66210 200
63.99 896 20280
34,394.25 101 64530 152
321.00 101 65100 190
400.51 101 65100 200
3,691.00 526 69020 233
202.62 101 66700 130
3,428.34 101 64450 200
19.40 527 66520 110
934.74
293.40
6,456.35
397.17
99.86
144.72
63.99
34,394.25
721.51
3,691.00
202.62
3,428.34
19.40
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 1
02/09/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
Denotes
Nand Written
Checks
74608
GRAY'S PAINT, BURLINGAME
01025
9.70
TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS
9.70
101
66210
222
74609
ACE HARDWARE
01027
163.44
OFFICE EXPENSE
1.94
101
65100
110
MISC. SUPPLIES
29.95
101
66210
120
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
1.87
101
65200
190
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
23.27
101
65400
200
VEHICLE MAINT.
19.05
101
65200
202
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT.
4.22
101
65200
203
PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR
9.21
101
66210
230
MISC. SUPPLIES
26.12
526
69020
120
MISC. SUPPLIES
32.03
527
66520
120
SMALL TOOLS
15.78
527
66520
130
74610
ACTION CLEANING SERVICE
01030
2,340.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,340.00
320
80150
220
74611
AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS ASSOCIATIO
01074
110.00
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
110.00
101
66100
240
74612
WHITE CAP
01250
221.59
SMALL TOOLS
221.59
101
66210
130
74613
BRENTON SAFETY, INC.
01400
93.56
TRAINING EXPENSE
43.13
101
66210
260
TRAINING EXPENSE
50.43
527
66520
260
74614
BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
01637
2,151.00
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE PMT.
2,151.00
101
64530
151
74615
BURLINGAME RECREATION DEPT.
01663
1,148.00
RECREATION EXPENSES
1,148.00
101
10700
74616
BURLINGAME STATIONERS
01676
279.85
OFFICE EXPENSE
279.85
101
64400
110
74617
CITY OF REDWOOD CITY
01862
7,799 82
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
7,799.82
320
80150
800
74618
CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTS, INC.,
01992
25,208.77
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
25,208.77
320
80150
800
74619
L. N. CURTIS & SONS
02027
40.67
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT.
40.67
101
65200
203
74620
EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS
02157
77.48
MISCELLANEOUS
77.48
101
68020
192 2200
i
CITY OF BURLINGAME
02-02.2001 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9
FUND RECAP - 00-01
NAME
FUND AMOUNT
GENERAL FUND
101
156,537.32
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
320
533,852.82
WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND
326
118,085.00
WATER FUND
526
144,656.23
SEWER FUND
527
36,354.05
SOLID WASTE FUND
528
381.00
SELF INSURANCE FUND
618
14,869.27
FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND
625
566.36
TRUST AND AGENCY FUND
731
5,324.42
BURLINGAME TRAIN SHUTTLE PROGRAM
736
300.00
DEBT SERVICE FUND
930
1,000.00
TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $1,011,926.47
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 9
INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 74495 THROUGH 74607 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $1,011,926.47, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER
OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
.................................... .../.../...
FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE
APPROVED FOR PAYMENT
.................................... .../.../...
COUNCIL DATE
nzrY
OF mmLIwo8mc
A«xxxwT
xsu1oT
Em
PAGE
02$mYn1
wumocn
NAME
xcwonU
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
Amouw7
Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74592
KEITH mxxTzw
22777
323.98
puuLIcxTznwu u «ovsnTInIwu
323.98
526
69020
150
74593
ow|vsxniT, OF vsnmowT
22778
275'00
TxxvsL u wssTzwoy
275'00
101
66100
250
74594
swv/nouxoup
22779
700.00
pxorsxo/nwxL m opEcIxLIzco o
350.00
Jzo
80150
210
cowrnxxruwL osxv/csu
350'00
szo
80150
zzo
74595
wm«
aorao
495'00
ooEs u yuoxoxIpTznwn
4*5.00
101
65200
240
745*6
MATTHEW A. HALL
22781
1,500'00
uepooIT xspuwnn
1,500.00
731
225e0
74597
LUIS xnsxxln
22782
150'00
ospooIT xcruwoo
150.00
731
22520
74598
cxeuwxox CORP
22784
359'0*
w/oc. SUPPLIES
359'09
101
68010
120 1100
74599
n/cxL«wno xsoxpxrzow cswrsx
22785
315,00
m/xc. aonpLzso
315'00
101
68010
120 15e3
74600
uxx,zco cowoTxucTzow
22786
50'467'00
oomTnxnTuxL osnvz:so
50'467'00
320
80150
230
74601
CALIFORNIA osvxnx nscrInw, xww«
22787
25'00
ooss & ouuooxzpTznws
25.00
101
66100
240
74602
cxnIo rxsmsn
22788
405'00
oowmxxroxL xsnvIcsu
405.00
101
68010
ZZo 1581
74603
Jxmca SUTTER
22789
135'00
cowrxxcTuxL sEnvznex
155'00
101
68010
220 1581
74604
DENNIS ws
22790
990'00
cuwmxnTuxL nsxv/ocx
990,00
101
68010
ZZV 1581
74605
xxuown pmmaIwu
22791
300'00
ospooIr ocFuwox
300.00
731
zzszo
74606
cswrxxL onwrnx coarx xxw/rxx, DI
azrvz
ao'oo
rnxIwzwo cxpswns
80.00
101
66100
260
74607
xTxrs OF CALIFORNIA
22794
772.75
m/xc. ounpLzss
772'75
320
77190
120
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 7
02/02/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
Denotes
Hand Written Checks
74576
PACIFIC UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION
21967
118,085.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
118,085.00
326
79440
220
74577
GOODLAND LANDSCAPE CONSTRUCTION,
22067
67,455.45
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
67,455.45
320
71170
210
74578
AT&T
22138
10.95
COMMUNICATIONS
10.95
526
69020
160
74579
AUTOMATIC DUST PREVENTION
22218
75.00
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE
75.00
101
64450
200
74580
CORPORATE EXPRESS
22258
69.45
OFFICE EXPENSE
69.45
101
65200
110
74581
J.M. RIDGWAY CO.
22415
300.00
OFFICE EXPENSE
300.00
736
64570
110
74582
JOHN DEL MUNDO
22517
644.00
TRAINING EXPENSE
644.00
101
65100
260
74583
NORMA BASURTO
22518
644.00
TRAINING EXPENSE
644.00
101
65100
260
74584
UC REGENTS
22549
1,180.00
TRAVEL & MEETINGS
1,180.00
101
64400
250
74585
ERICH RASIMUS
22554
133.20
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
133.20
101
68010
220 1583
74586
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
22620
11,989.50
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
11,989.50
101
65200
220
74587
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGI
22669
120.00
MISC. SUPPLIES
120.00
320
79160
120
74588
BURLINGAME FAMILY PET HOSPITAL
22773
386.47
MISC. SUPPLIES
386.47
101
65100
120
74589
UCSF MEDICAL CENTER
22774
524.00
PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS
524.00
101
64420
121
74590
ADC
22775
79.35
TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS
79.35
101
66210
222
74591
PROMAXIMA MANUFACTURING
22776
6,608.00
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
6,608.00
101
65200
800
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 6
02/02/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74560
HARDISON KOMATSU IVELICH &
20938
40,081.25
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
40,081.25
320
76010
210
74561
NILMEYER, CATHERINE J.M.
21121
367.50
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
367.50
320
80150
210
74562
ON CAMERA PRODUCTIONS
21177
345.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
345.00
101
64560
210
74563
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
21209
1,431.92
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,431.92
101
65150
220
74564
WESTLAW
21212
244.76
MISC. SUPPLIES
244.76
101
64350
120
74565
ROY SCOTT
21233
180.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
180.00
101
68010
220
1581
74566
PEEK TRAFFIC
21317
69.38
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
69.38
101
66240
210
74567
FRANK WEBER
21344
765.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
765.00
101
68010
220
1581
74568
UNISOURCE MAINT SUPPLY SYSTEMS
21481
143.46
MISC. SUPPLIES
143.46
101
66210
120
74569
PHIL MASELLI
21568
246.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
246.00
101
68010
220
1347
74570
FILTERFRESH COFFEE EXCELLENCE
21623
275.00
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
275.00
101
64450
190
74571
ENFORCEMENT TECHNOLOGY, INC.
21749
323.96
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT
323.96
101
65400
140
74572
TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC.
21767
6,412.60
MISCELLANEOUS
6,412.60
101
37010
74573
CORPORATE EXPRESS OF THE WEST, I
21819
368.31
OFFICE EXPENSE
368.31
101
64250
110
74574
EILEEN P. GOLDENBERG
21846
175.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
175.00
101
68010
220
1346
74575
SAN MATEO COUNTY CONTROLLERS OFF
21897
15,203.40
MISCELLANEOUS
15,203.40
101
37010
"
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 5
02/02/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
*� Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74545
BAY ALARM
18854
2,481.00
COMMUNICATIONS
504.00
101
68020
160 2200
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
315.00
101
68010
220 1101
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE
1,662.00
101
64450
220
74546
BILL SMITH
18963
652.50
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
652.50
101
68010
220 1581
74547
ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY
18990
397.35
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT
397.35
101
66210
140
74548
MINOLTA BUSINESS SYSTEMS
19131
517.73
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
517.73
101
65200
200
74549
BURTON'S FIRE APPARATUS
19366
15.98
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT.
15.98
101
65200
203
74550
WILSEY & HAM
19397
506.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
506.00
320
78290
210
74551
CIUCCI CONSULTING GROUP INC
19791
202.50
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
202.50
101
65300
220
74552
LITTLE TIKES
19833
322.96
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
322.96
101
68020
190 2200
74553
BELL & HOWELL
20233
8,218.27
LIBRARY --BOOK BINDING
8,218.27
101
67500
123
74554
AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS
20246
160.00
COMMUNICATIONS
160.00
101
64450
160
74555
PENINSULA HOSPITAL
20346
59.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
59.00
101
64420
210
74556
ING CLASSIFIEDS
20383
165.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
165.00
320
79080
210
74557
EIP ASSOCIATES
20526
3,174.26
DEPOSIT REFUND
3,174.26
731
22590
74558
BOLLINGER FOWLER CO.
20553
1,000.00
MISC. SUPPLIES
1,000.00
101
68010
120 1587
74559
SPRINT PCS
20724
601.37
COMMUNICATIONS
253.75
101
66210
160
COMMUNICATIONS
93.86
526
69020
160
COMMUNICATIONS
253.76
527
66520
160
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G 1 9
T E R
PAGE 4
02/02/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74531
CHIEF BILL REILLY
11568
2,895.63
MISCELLANEOUS
158.16
101
65200
030
OFFICE EXPENSE
20.71
101
65500
110
MISC. SUPPLIES
617.75
101
65200
120
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT
87.68
101
65200
140
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
86.33
101
65200
190
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
100.00
101
65200
240
TRAINING EXPENSE
1,576.00
101
65500
260
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT.
249.00
625
65213
203
74532
SGT. DON SHEPLEY
11639
888.09
MISCELLANEOUS
888.09
101
65100
048
74533
CMDR. JACK VAN ETTEN
14042
439.23
POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE
439.23
101
65100
292
74534
NIGHTINGALE CONANT
14753
45.90
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
45.90
101
66210
240
74535
ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC
14855
210.82
MISC. SUPPLIES
210.82
101
66240
120
74536
ROCKY POINT @ YUR DESIGN
15109
64.26
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT
64.26
101
68020
140 2200
74537
CAL-PACIFIC PRODUCTS
15580
259.28
MISC. SUPPLIES
259.28
526
69020
120
74538
UPTIME RESOURCES
16015
280.76
MISC. SUPPLIES
280.76
101
64400
120
74539
ACTION SPORTS
16167
2,604.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,604.00
101
68010
220 1581
74540
MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE
16629
46.18
SUPPLIES
46.18
101
15000
74541
ORRICK HERRINGTON & SUTCLIFFE
16814
1,000.00
OTHER DEBT EXPENSES
1,000.00
930
66830
764
74542
METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
17402
148.10
RADIO MAINT.
148.10
101
65200
205
74543
SAN MATEO RENTALS
18767
95.00
RENTS & LEASES
95.00
101
68020
180 2200
74544
PLASTI-PRINT, INC
18794
15.16
MISC. SUPPLIES
15.16
101
68020
120 2200
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 3
02/02/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74518
BURLINGAME REC. DEPT./PETTY CASH
03910
4,787,29
OFFICE EXPENSE
225.17
101
68010
110
1100
MISC. SUPPLIES
563.61
101
68010
120
1583
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT
179.01
101
68020
140
2300
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
6.95
101
68010
190
1100
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
84.00
101
64420
210
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,848.49
101
68010
220
1100
TRAVEL & MEETINGS
385.00
101
68010
250
1100
TRAINING EXPENSE
64.00
101
68020
260
2300
MISC. SUPPLIES
230.90
320
71170
120
MISCELLANEOUS
200.16
731
22545
74519
WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR.
03964
617.57
MISC. SUPPLIES
617.57
101
64350
120
74520
B.E.I. ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES
09072
408.22
MISC. SUPPLIES
408.22
101
65200
111
74521
C01T/01CONNOR
09132
210.00
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE
210.00
101
64450
220
74522
SAFETY KLEEN CORP.
09168
154.87
RENTS & LEASES
154.87
101
68020
180
2200
74523
RD OFFICE SOLUTIONS
09213
32.95
MISC. SUPPLIES
32.95
101
66210
120
74524
SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFC.
09433
3,026.00
PRISONER EXPENSE
3,026.00
101
65100
291
74525
CALLANDER ASSOCIATES
09461
5,366.39
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
5,366.39
320
71170
210
74526
ABAG - LIABILITY
09518
14,869.27
CLAIMS PAYMENTS
14,869.27
618
64520
601
74527
OLE'S
09626
317.36
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT.
317.36
625
65213
203
74528
ANCHOR FENCE COMPANY
10231
412.50
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
412.50
101
68020
190
2200
74529
PIP PRINTING
10620
290.52
MISC. SUPPLIES
290.52
101
65300
120
74530
LEE STAMBOLIS
11361
1,012.50
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,012.50
101
68010
220
1581
R
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 2
02/02/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
'•' Denotes
Hand Written Checks
74509
SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPT.
03353
143,344.62
WATER PURCHASES
143,344.62
526
69020
171
74510
CITY OF SAN MATEO
03366
2,101.38
MISCELLANEOUS
2,101.38
101
66240
172
74511
SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL
03380
381.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
381.00
528
66600
210
74512
SAN MATEO UNION HIGH
03471
37,770.15
BLDG. 8 GROUNDS MAINT.
37,770.15
101
68010
190 1583
74513
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
03483
35,551.75
OTHER AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS
35,551.75
527
66530
270
74514
SERVICE UNLIMITED INC.
03531
33,746.02
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
33,746.02
320
78330
800
74515
SNAP ON TOOLS
03587
422.48
SMALL TOOLS
422.48
101
66700
130
74516
PACIFIC WEST SECURITY, INC.
03601
75.00
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
75.00
526
69020
190
74517
TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC.
03760
4,446.72
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,446.72
101
68020
220 2300
w
�r
•
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 1
02/02/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
'*' Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74495
ACTION CLEANING SERVICE
01030
12,513.80
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
11296.08
101
64450
190
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
589.00
101
65400
200
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE
4,754.14
101
64450
220
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,777.50
320
80150
220
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
548.54
526
69020
190
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
548.54
527
66520
190
74496
ALLRED COMMUNICATIONS
01055
848.02
COMMUNICATIONS
848.02
101
65150
160
74497
BAUER COMPRESSORS
01309
103,082.15
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
103,082.15
320
80210
800
74498
G. BORTOLOTTO & CO., INC.
01358
2261014.91
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
226,014.91
320
79212
220
74499
BRENTON SAFETY, INC.
01400
79.47
TRAINING EXPENSE
79.47
101
65300
260
74500
CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTS, INC.,
01992
2,849.93
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
2,849.93
101
64400
800
74501
EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS
02157
104.54
MISCELLANEOUS
104.54
101
68020
192 2200
74502
FEDERAL EXPRESS
02160
16.90
MISC. SUPPLIES
16.90
101
64420
120
74503
BRADLEY D. FLOYD
02171
355.00
TRAINING EXPENSE
355.00
101
65100
260
74504
HAINES & COMPANY, INC.
02326
10082.71
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
11082.71
101
65150
200
74505
NATIONWIDE WIRE & BRUSH MFG.
03002
144.72
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
144.72
101
66700
200
74506
P. G. & E.
03054
14,783.70
GAS & ELECTRIC
14,783.70
101
66240
170
74507
PITNEY BOWES INC
03169
788.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
788.00
101
65100
220
74508
DON PLAGMANN
03172
242.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
242.00
101
68010
220 1581
PC,
CITY OF BURLINGAME
01-26-2001 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R
PAGE 8
FUND RECAP - 00-01
NAME
FUND
AMOUNT
GENERAL FUND
101
139,367.03
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
320
44,003.03
WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND
326
6,300.00
SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND
327
8,809.82
WATER FUND
526
999.60
SEWER FUND
527
147,850.92
GOLF CENTER FUND
529
9,888.34
SELF INSURANCE FUND
618
2,618.82
TRUST AND AGENCY FUND
731
85,778.16
STATE GRANTS FUND
734
1,404.00
BURLINGAME TRAIN SHUTTLE PROGRAM
736
8,668.18
UTILITY REVOLVING FUND
896
7,024.20
TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $462,712.10
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 8
INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 74398 THROUGH 74494 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $462,712.10, 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
F
'
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 7
01/26/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74483
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA MSA WORKS 22761
450.00
TRAINING EXPENSE
450.00
527
66520 260
74484
JIM NANTELL
22762
406.34
MISCELLANEOUS
406.34
101
64150 031
74485
SMELLY MEL'S PLUMBING
22763
150.00
DEPOSIT REFUNDS
150.00
731
22520
74486
VITAS VISKANTA
22764
500.00
MISCELLANEOUS
500.00
731
22525
74487
DEAN RALLY
22765
300.00
MISCELLANEOUS
300.00
731
22525
74488
SHARON ZOVOD
22766
500.00
MISCELLANEOUS
500.00
731
22525
74489
JOHN WALSH
22767
500.00
MISCELLANEOUS
500.00
731
22525
74490
ERUDITE TECHNOLOGY
22768
100.00
MISCELLANEOUS
100.00
101
36600
74491
CHRIS MILANO
22769
105.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
105.00
101
68010 220 1580
74492
JONATHAN SAKTI
22770
105.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
105.00
101
68010 220 1580
74493
MICHAEL VERDUCCI
22771
208.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
208.00
101
68010 220 1580
74494
ENVIRONMENTAL ARCHITECTURAL AND
22772
2,423.56
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
2,423.56
529
68030 800 4200
TOTAL
$462,712.10
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 6
01/26/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74467
PROVIDENCE PEST TERMITE
21947
117.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
117.00
101
65200
220
74468
VB GOLF LLC
21948
7,424.78
UTILITY BILL REFUND
7,424.78
529
36710
74469
DONALD SIMON
22026
161.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
161.00
101
68010
220 1580
74470
TOWNE FORD SALES, INC.
22146
92,952.92
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
92,952.92
101
65100
800
74471
HARRIS AND ASSOCIATES
22235
10,339.50
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
10,339.50
320
79211
210
74472
CORPORATE EXPRESS
22258
118.12
OFFICE EXPENSE
118.12
101
65200
110
74473
UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION MANAGER 22305
11,595.61
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
7,825.79
320
74030
210
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
31769.82
327
78532
210
74474
CSG CONSULTANTS
22465
5,200.00
MISCELLANEOUS
5,200.00
731
22515
74475
CALCO CONSTRUCTION
22467
9,396.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
9,396.00
320
78510
220
74476
DKS ASSOCIATES
22468
715.28
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
715.28
320
79100
210
74477
PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA
22500
8,496.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
8,496.00
736
64570
220
74478
BAY AREA MOBILE GLASS
22572
412.30
SUPPLIES
412.30
101
15000
74479
DES ARCHITECTS ENGINEERS
22675
2,734.27
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
2,734.27
320
80200
210
74480
EDDIE SHALDONE
22711
60.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
60.00
101
68010
220 1580
74481
SAN MATEO REGIONAL NETWORK, INC.
22759
520.00
UTILITY EXPENSE
520.00
896
20281
74482
ALEXANDRIA
22760
3,645.68
MISCELLANEOUS
3,645.68
101
31510
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 5
01/26/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74452
WILSEY & HAM
19397
5,040.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
5,040.00
327
79470
210
74453
BAKER'S CHEM -DRY
19431
555.00
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
555.00
101
68010
190 1103
74454
REDWOOD CITY -SAN MATEO COUNTY
19698
480.00
TRAVEL & MEETINGS
480.00
101
64150
250
74455
CREATIVE INTERCONNECT
19768
228.36
COMMUNICATIONS
228.36
101
65200
160
74456
AT&T WIRELESS
20301
1,125.81
COMMUNICATIONS
953.63
101
65100
160
COMMUNICATIONS
172.18
736
64571
160
74457
LYNX TECHNOLOGIES
20501
6,300.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
6,300.00
326
75170
210
74458
JULIO MORAN
20564
400.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
400.00
101
68010
220 1580
74459
UNITED RENTALS
20570
189.00
SUPPLIES
189.00
101
15000
74460
MICRO WAREHOUSE
20706
1,082.01
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
644.10
101
64450
190
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
128.81
101
64250
200
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
208.95
101
64400
800
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
100.15
320
80150
190
74461
SPRINT PCS
20724
1,463.95
UTILITY EXPENSE
1,463.95
896
20281
74462
DELL MARKETING L.P.
20900
2,233.65
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
2,233.65
101
64450
800
74463
ARBOR CARE
21316
4,935.00
SPECIAL PROMOTIONS
4,935.00
101
64530
153
74464
JONATHAN TURNER
21399
297.50
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
297.50
101
68010
220 1580
74465
UNISOURCE MAINT SUPPLY SYSTEMS
21481
107.85
MISC. SUPPLIES
107.85
101
66210
120
74466
MISSION VALLEY FORD
21675
63.76
SUPPLIES
63.76
101
15000
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 4
01/26/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74437
STANDARD REGISTER
17495
27.20
OFFICE EXPENSE
27.20
101
64250
110
74438
URS GREINER WOODWARD CLYDE
17606
6,865.74
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
6,865.74
320
71170
210
74439
GORDON E. MC CLINTOCK
17702
2,578.78
CLAIMS PAYMENTS
2,578.78
618
64520
601
74440
SPRING DOWN EQUESTRIAN
17872
208.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
208.00
101
68010
220 1462
74441
GEORGE MASTALIR
18088
75.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
75.00
101
68010
220 1589
74442
CALIFORNIA BUSINESS MACHINES
18323
1,404.00
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
1,404.00
734
65195
800
74443
SAN FRANCISCO BAY CONSERVATION
18630
100.00
MISC. SUPPLIES
100.00
320
77190
120
74444
CALK TRAINING INSTITUTE
18697
325.00
TRAVEL & MEETINGS
325.00
101
65300
250
74445
VERIZON WIRELESS MESSAGING SERVI
18763
115.25
COMMUNICATIONS
115.25
101
68020
160 2300
74446
ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY
18990
182.41
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT
56.19
101
65200
140
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT
126.22
527
66520
140
74447
PREFERRED ALLIANCE
19025
304.80
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
304.80
101
64420
210
74448
GOETZ BROTHERS
19045
739.37
MISC. SUPPLIES
739.37
101
68010
120 1588
74449
ANG NEWSPAPERS
19083
564.02
PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING
564.02
101
64200
150
74450
LIEBERT, CASSIDY & FRIERSON
19095
362.55
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
362.55
101
64350
210
74451
BURTON'S FIRE APPARATUS
19366
99.05
FIRE APPARATUS MAINT.
99.05
101
65200
203
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 3
01/26/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
*� Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74423
COMMAIR MECHANICAL SERVICES
11773
512.38
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
203.00
101
65200
190
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE
106.38
101
64450
200
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
203.00
320
80150
220
74424
DANKA OFFICE IMAGING CO
13758
671.96
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE
671.96
101
64450
200
74425
ICBO-INT'L CONFERENCE OF
13834
293.69
MISC. SUPPLIES
293.69
101
65300
120
74426
A T & T
13940
187.95
UTILITY EXPENSE
187.95
896
20281
74427
THE PAIGE COMPANY, INC.
14138
521.78
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
521.78
101
64450
190
74428
ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC
14855
126.58
MISC. SUPPLIES
126.58
101
66240
120
74429
CAL -PACIFIC PRODUCTS
15580
405.00
MISC. SUPPLIES
405.00
526
69020
120
74430
VALLEY OIL CO.
15764
3,375.42
SUPPLIES
2,814.25
101
15000
CITY HALL MAINTENANCE
101.01
101
64450
200
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
310.05
526
69020
200
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
150.11
527
66520
200
74431
MOSS RUBBER & EQUIPMENT CORP.
16225
69.98
TRAINING EXPENSE
69.98
527
66520
260
74432
POPLAR RECARE
16575
247.50
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
247.50
101
66210
210
74433
LINHART PETERSEN POWERS ASSOC.
16599
10,057.66
MISCELLANEOUS
10,057.66
731
22515
74434
MIKE SMITH
16637
75.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
75.00
101
68010
220 1589
74435
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16919
16.17
GAS & ELECTRIC
16.17
101
65200
170
74436
METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
17402
310.98
RADIO MAINT.
310.98
101
65200
205
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 2
01/26/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
*� Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74413
SKYLINE SUPPLY CO., INC.
03574
2,491.09
OFFICE EXPENSE
957.56
101
64150
110
MISC. SUPPLIES
471.66
101
65300
120
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
777.32
101
64450
800
OFFICE EXPENSE
106.69
526
69020
110
MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE
177.86
526
69020
290
74414
TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC.
03760
7,503.84
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
7,503.84
101
68020
220
2300
74415
BURLINGAME REC. DEPT./PETTY CASH 03910
5,736.73
OFFICE EXPENSE
326.36
101
68010
110
1100
MISC. SUPPLIES
953.52
101
68010
120
1220
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT
183.38
101
68020
140
2200
COMMUNICATIONS
20.18
101
68010
160
1100
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
1,034.35
101
68010
190
1101
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,187.09
101
68010
220
1344
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
458.00
101
68010
240
1100
TRAVEL & MEETINGS
265.00
101
68020
250
2100
MISC. SUPPLIES
43.30
320
71170
120
MISC. SUPPLIES
40.00
529
68030
120
4200
MISCELLANEOUS
225.55
731
22534
74416
HORIZON
09130
133.92
MISC. SUPPLIES
133.92
101
68020
120
2200
74417
RD OFFICE SOLUTIONS
09213
5.77
OFFICE EXPENSE
5.77
527
66520
110
74418
TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT CO.
09319
225.50
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
225.50
101
68020
200
2200
74419
ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE
09670
44.67
MISC. SUPPLIES
2.11
101
65200
120
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
42.56
101
65200
190
74420
LEONA MORIARTY
09979
1,836.75
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,836.75
101
68010
220
1344
74421
3 T EQUIPMENT CO.
10077
606.65
MISC. SUPPLIES
606.65
527
66520
120
74422
DARYL D. JONES, INC.
10101
225.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
225.00
101
65200
220
*r
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 1
01/26/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74398 *
ITRON
16913
734.35
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
734.35
101
64250
200
74399
ACTION CLEANING SERVICE
01030
5,680.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
5,680.00
320
80150
220
74400
BRENTON SAFETY, INC.
01400
512.13
TRAINING EXPENSE
512.13
101
66210
260
74401
BURLINGAME ELEM. SCHOOL DIST.
01500
41,006.97
SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT FEE
41,006.97
731
22563
74402
CITY OF BURLINGAME
01551
80.00
MISCELLANEOUS
80.00
101
32100
74403
BURLINGAME RECREATION DEPT.
01663
545.00
RECREATION EXPENSES
545.00
101
10700
74404
CALIFORNIA LIBRARY ASSOCIATION
01790
30.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
30.00
101
64420
210
74405
DULIN ADVERTISING INC.
02036
355.00
PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS
355.00
101
64420
121
74406
US FILTER/EOS
02110
146,388.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
146,388.00
527
66530
220
74407
WATER/FINANCE PETTY CASH
02184
4,852.30
UTILITY EXPENSE
4,852.30
896
20281
74408
W.W. GRAINGER, INC.
02248
610.04
MISC. SUPPLIES
36.48
101
66240
120
SMALL TOOLS
519.37
101
66240
130
MISC. SUPPLIES
54.19
527
66520
120
74409
GRANITE ROCK COMPANY
02261
697.17
SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE
241.92
101
66210
219
STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE
455.25
101
66210
226
74410
MOTOROLA INC.
02944
71.73
SUPPLIES
71.73
101
15000
74411
HEALTHSOUTH MEDICAL CLINIC
03238
40.04
MISCELLANEOUS
40.04
618
64520
038
74412
SAN MATEO UNION HIGH
03471
27,337.98
SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT FEE
27,337.98
731
22562
CITY OF BURLINGAME
01-19-2001 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11
FUND RECAP - 00-01
NAME
FUND AMOUNT
GENERAL FUND
101
151,695.15
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND
320
170,690.45
WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND
326
19,507.96
SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND
327
306,624.45
WATER FUND
526
23,893.80
SEWER FUND
527
3,080.25
GOLF CENTER FUND
529
485.17
SELF INSURANCE FUND
618
25.00
TRUST AND AGENCY FUND
731
2,339.12
STATE GRANTS FUND
734
2,032.49
UTILITY REVOLVING FUND
896
38,752.05
TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $719,125.89
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 11
INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 74256 THROUGH 74397 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN
THE AMOUNT OF $719,125.89, 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
�_uA
.
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 10
01/19/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74388
RACHEL REED
22749
500.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500.00
101
68010
220 1581
74389
VAILLANCOURT'S WELDING
22750
454.84
TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS
454.84
101
66210
222
74390
MILLS PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES
22751
25.00
MISCELLANEOUS
25.00
618
64520
038
74391
INFORMIX SOFTWARE, INC.
22752
2,338.20
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
2,338.20
101
64250
200
74392
MAPLE VALLEY TRAVEL
22753
328.50
TRAINING EXPENSE
328.50
101
65200
260
74393
LYON VENTURES, INC
22754
1,744.08
MISCELLANEOUS
1,744.08
101
31510
74394
DATABASE TECHNOLOGIES
22755
249.00
POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE
249.00
101
65100
292
74395
PACIFIC PETROCHEMICAL
22756
895.50
GAS, OIL & GREASE
895.50
101
65100
201
74396
CARL T. WOODWARD
22757
325.00
MISCELLANEOUS
325.00
101
37010
74397
JOAQUIN PONS
22758
500.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500.00
101
68010
220 1581
TOTAL
$719,125.89
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 9
01/19/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
'*' Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74372
A & L JANITORIAL SERVICE
21936
1,498.25
BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT.
1,264.25
101
68010
190
1583
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
234.00
101
65200
220
74373
JIM STOCKWELL
22048
1,200.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,200.00
101
68010
220
1581
74374
MARK MEYERS
22051
550.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
550.00
101
68010
220
1581
74375
BOB ROUSE
22053
500.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500.00
101
68010
220
1581
74376
ARCH
22089
226.51
COMMUNICATIONS
226.51
101
65100
160
74377
PENINSULA FORD OF BURLINGAME
22160
24,235.21
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
24,235.21
101
65200
800
74378
CORPORATE EXPRESS
22258
36.78
OFFICE EXPENSE
36.78
101
65200
110
74379
DAVID WEDEKING
22262
400.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
400.00
101
68010
220
1581
74380
TOTAL ENERGY PRODUCTS
22388
10,264.99
GAS, OIL & GREASE
10,264.99
101
65100
201
74381
LIBERTY INDUSTRIES
22512
549.75
STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE
549.75
101
66210
226
74382
ERICH RASIMUS
22554
2,000.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,000.00
101
68010
220
1583
74383
MIKE GIUSTI
22609
500.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500.00
101
68010
220
1581
74384
ROBERTA TAVAKE
22672
222.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
222.00
101
68010
220
1460
74385
UNION BANK
22702
29,588.99
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
29,588.99
327
79470
220
74386
MICHAEL LAZARUS
22747
450.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
450.00
101
68010
220
1581
74387
MATT LENNON
22748
500.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500.00
101
68010
220
1581
0
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 8
01/19/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74357
RICK KALBHENN
21426
600.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
600.00
101
68010
220
1581
74358
FRISCO DEL ROSARIO
21442
1,288.88
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,288.88
101
68010
220
1347
74359
OLEN SIMON
21477
500.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500.00
101
68010
220
1581
74360
CITICORP VENDOR FINANCE, INC.
21521
66.56
EQUIPMENT MAINT.
66.56
101
65200
200
74361
PHIL MASELLI
21568
1,216.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,216.00
101
68010
220
1345
74362
MY SECRETARY
21617
395.00
POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE
395.00
101
65100
292
74363
MONICA EHLERS
21627
314.50
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
314.50
101
68010
220
1461
74364
MISSION VALLEY FORD
21675
96.54
SUPPLIES
96.54
101
15000
74365
BOB BOSCH
21708
500.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500.00
101
68010
220
1581
74366
LISA COFFARO
21713
715.75
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
715.75
101
68010
220
1346
74367
PACIFIC BELL WIRELESS
21747
92.26
COMMUNICATIONS
92.26
526
69020
160
74368
INTERSTATE GRADING & PAVING
21790
952.20
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
952.20
320
79340
220
74369
MONTEREY MARRIOTT
21820
1,176.00
TRAVEL & MEETINGS
1,176.00
101
64400
250
74370
GREG BARNES
21885
1,100.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,100.00
101
68010
220
1581
74371
STEINY AND COMPANY, INC.
21927
4,721.40
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
4,721.40
320
79290
220
w ,
5
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 7
01/19/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74341
NOLTE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
20376
19,614.96
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
107.00
320
76430
210
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
19,507.96
326
79440
210
74342
1NG CLASSIFIEDS
20383
100.00
PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING
100.00
101
64200
150
74343
KAWANN SUMMERVILLE
20502
1,000.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
1,000.00
101
68010
220
1581
74344
ARLETTE PETERSON
20547
401.25
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
401.25
101
68010
220
1347
74345
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO
20548
616.86
MISC. SUPPLIES
616.86
101
68010
120
1220
74346
DENNIS HASKETT
20654
450.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
450.00
101
68010
220
1581
74347
LEXIS LAW PUBLISHING
20813
58.87
MISC. SUPPLIES
58.87
101
64350
120
74348
GUMBINGER ASSOCIATES, INC.
20936
450.00
MISCELLANEOUS
450.00
731
22525
74349
HARDISON KOMATSU IVELICH &
20938
70,516.65
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
70,516.65
320
76010
210
74350
FRANCOTYP-POSTALIA, INC.
20967
108.78
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
108.78
101
65100
220
74351
RGW CONSTRUCTION CO., INC.
21129
63,955.27
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
63,955.27
320
78290
220
74352
MELANIE MARANI
21132
266.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
266.00
101
68010
220
1342
74353
SHIRLEY HEIMAN
21204
180.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
180.00
101
68010
220
1345
74354
MCGUIRE & HESTER
21236
266,300.94
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
266,300.94
327
79470
220
74355
PHILIP HO
21280
9.72
MISC. SUPPLIES
9.72
320
79080
120
74356
COMPUTER BUSINESS & PRINTING
21413
698.01
MISC. SUPPLIES
698.01
101
65400
120
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
W A R R A N
T R E G I S
T E R
PAGE 6
01/19/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
*� Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74326
ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY
18990
541.46
SMALL TOOLS
456.73
101
65300
130
UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT
68.53
101
66210
140
MISC. SUPPLIES
16.20
526
69020
120
74327
PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY
19027
117.70
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
117.70
101
65200
220
74328
PEGGY GUARALDI
19044
333.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
333.00
101
68010
220 1461
74329
ANG NEWSPAPERS
19083
1,145.60
MISC. SUPPLIES
383.73
101
66210
120
PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING
714.34
101
64200
150
MISC. SUPPLIES
47.53
320
80230
120
74330
WILSEY & HAM
19397
498.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
498.00
327
79470
210
74331
POWER WASHING SERVICE
19564
1,768.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
1,768.00
101
66210
210
74332
OFFICE DEPOT
19583
666.53
OFFICE EXPENSE
666.53
101
68010
110 1100
74333
THOMAS EISEMAN
19657
189.04
MISCELLANEOUS
189.04
526
22500
74334
REDWOOD CITY -SAN MATEO COUNTY
19698
1,170.00
TRAVEL & MEETINGS
1,170.00
101
64100
250
74335
JOHN KENNEDY
19751
593.99
CAPITAL EQUIPMENT
593.99
101
65200
800
74336
CALTAC
19958
108.00
LIBRARY EXPENSES
108.00
731
22531
74337
GE CAPITAL
20216
526.24
EQUIPMENT MA1NT.
526.24
101
64250
200
74338
AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS
20246
2,240.00
COMMUNICATIONS
2,240.00
101
64450
160
74339
RACQUET SMITH
20339
2,419.20
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
2,419.20
101
68010
220 1582
74340
PENINSULA HOSPITAL
20346
166.00
PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S
166.00
101
64420
210
rp]
CITY
OF BURLINGAME
WARRANT
REGISTER
PAGE
01/19/01
NUMBER
NAME
VENDOR
DETAIL
ACCOUNT
AMOUNT
Denotes
Hand Written
Checks
74311
INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER GROUP
16914
7,872.25
OFFICE EXPENSE
323.25
101
66210
110
PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING
7,549.00
101
68010
150
1210
74312
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
16919
1,544.76
SUPPLIES
1,544.76
101
15000
74313
LASON INC.
17158
233.39
MISC. SUPPLIES
233.39
101
65300
120
74314
COLORPRINT & COPY CENTER
17497
98.82
MISC. SUPPLIES
98.82
527
66520
120
74315
STEVE GOLDBERG
17577
700.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
700.00
101
68010
220
1581
74316
ROBYN MCNAMARA
17588
510.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
510.00
101
68010
220
1461
74317
SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA WATER
17764
9,916.00
DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS
9,916.00
526
69020
240
74318
KATHLEEN N. LENNON
17889
500.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500.00
101
68010
220
74319
SHAW PIPELINE INC
17959
27,008.81
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
27,008.81
320
79390
220
74320
RICKER MACHINERY COMPANY
18378
19.77
SUPPLIES
19.77
101
15000
74321
TONY'S UPHOLSTERY
18473
206.46
SUPPLIES
206.46
101
15000
74322
LYNNE FIRESTONE
18746
830.25
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
830.25
101
68010
220
1342
74323
MIKE HURLEY
18956
550.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
550.00
101
68010
220
1581
74324
STEVEN BAUM
18959
500.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
500.00
101
68010
220
1581
74325
SEAN DUGONI
18960
700.00
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES
700.00
101
68010
220
1581
City of Burlingame
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, Ca 94010
February 16, 2001
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL:
PLEASE SCHEDULE AN APPEAL HEARING
FOR MARCH 5, 2000 COUNCIL MEETING.
THANK YOU, ANN T. MUSSO, CITY CLERK
RECEIVED
FER i ; ?(11
CITY CLtkt;'S
CITY OF :Pc,+',
We are respectfully requesting an appeal to the decision of the Planning Commission dated
February 12, and regarding the application to build a new residence at 2405 Hillside Drive, in
Burlingame.
We will appreciate an inclusion to the City Council agenda for Tuesday, February 20th.
Thank you.
i
Dan Rados
2405 Hillside Drive
Burlingame, Ca 94010
(650) 342-3918
0 a
CTI
()I
CIO
PLANNING DEPARTMENT - FEES RECEIPT(ACCT. 101-36600) (//84)
Subject Address: Li OS 11 S 4L. rJ41 , Date:
Received for:
_ Application to Planning Commission for:
_ Variance
$
_ Conditional Use/Special Permit
$
_ Condominium Permit
$
_ Fence/Sign Exception
$
Use Determination/Ambiguity Hearing
$
_ Antenna Exception
$ 25.00
Hillside Area Construction Permit/Minor Modification
✓
P14..
Appeal Fee
250.00
_ Title 25 - Zoning Code (+ $3.00 postage)
$ 10.00_
Title 22 - Signs
$ 2.00
General Plan (+ $5.00 postage)
p p,10
$ 25.00
Specific Area Plan (+ $3.00 postage)
1 6 20��
$ 10.00
Zoning Map
FES.
„SAME
$ 1.50
_ Sign Permit Fees
�
$
Photocopies
$
_ Postage
$
Total:
$
ft—f— (,-*,d 9/30/98)
CITY OF BURLINGAME
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
CASH COLLECTIONS DIVISION
02/16/01 02:35pm REFERENCE - 12105-25-3
MISC BATCH 659 - UTILITY BATCH 658
FROM : DAMIR RADOS
ACCOUNT : 10136600
ZONING & SIGN PERMITS
TOTAL PAID
10136600
CHECK 250.00 RECEIVED BY COUNTER
250.00
250.00
Fi
ITA UREALTY,INC ........................ .
COMPLETE REAL ESTATE SERVICE . . . REALTORS
SINCE 1944 1169 BROADWAY BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA ... 94010
Area Code 650, 342-2073
Fax 650, 342-0428
HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
February 16, 2001 PLEASE SET APPEAL HEARING FOR 1209
BELLEVUE APRIL 2ND PER OWNERS REQUEST.
THANK YOU, ANN MUSSO, CITY CLERK
City Clerk
Burlingame City Hall
501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010
Regarding the action of the Burlingame Planning Commsion, denying the application for
a parking variance at 1209 Bellevue ( Regular Action Item #7, February 12, 2001
meeting of the City of Burlingame Planning Commision), we wish to appeal this action to
the Burlingame City Council. Our appeal fee of $250.00 is enclosed.
We request that this item be placed on the City Council Calendar no earlier than April 2,
2001, as the owner will be unavailable due to medical surgery.
You consideration of this matter is appreciated.
Thank you,
Thomas G. Lunkley
Property Manager
AVR Realty, Inc.
stee Coldwell
Owner
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS
INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES
HOMES RANCHES INSURANCE RENTALS
16945
BANK OF AMERICA
A.V.R. REALTY, INC. BURLINGAME BRANCH 0116 (650) 615-4700
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT TRUST ACCOUNT 400 EL CAMINO REAL
1169 BROADWAY PH. 650-342-2073 BURLINGAME, CA 94010
BURLINGAME CALIFORNIA 94010-0970 11-35-1210
a
PAY �,� c i L 4 yy /if ��✓ i,, i/ t
TO THE DATE ,`" i;� AMOUNL
ORDER OF L'
v
VOID AFTE SIX MONTHS
o ■ / AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
11®0 1694 511' 1: 1 2 1000 3 Sanaa 0 0116 2 0L, 3 1611.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT - FEES RECEIPT (ACCT. 101-36600) (#84)
Subject Address: ����� �� Vve, Date: 2 D
Received for:
_ Application to Planning Commission for:
_ Variance
$
_ Conditional Use/Special Permit
$
Condominium Permit
$
Fence/Sign Exception
$
_ Use Determination/Ambiguity Hearing
$
_ Antenna Exception
$ 25.00
Nillside Area Construction Permit/Minor Modification
$ 2.
--!!!,Appeal Fee
250.00
— Title 25 - Zoning Code (+ $3.00 postage)
. 0
_ Title 22 - Signs
$ 2.00
General Plan (+ $5.00 postage)
$ 25.00
- Specific Area Plan (+ $3.00 postage)
$ 10.00
Zoning Map
$ 1.50
Sign Permit Fees
$
_ Photocopies
$
Postage
Total:
$
$ —
fees;fim (revised 9/30/98)
CITY OF BURLINGAME
FINANCE DEPARTMENT
CASH COLLECTIONS DIVISION
02/20/01 10:59am REFERENCE - 12106-7-3
MISC BATCH 665 - UTILITY BATCH 664
FROM AVR REALTY INC
ACCOUNT 10136600
ZONING & SIGN PERMITS 10136600 250.00
TOTAL PAID 250.00
CHECK 250.00 RECEIVED BY COUNTER
PLANNING DEPARTMENT -FLEES RECEIPT (ACCT. 101-36600) (X84)
Subject Address: I ZD� 1" I IL �� Date: D I
Received for:
_ Application to Planning Commission for:
Variance
$
_ Conditional Use/Special Permit
$
_ Condominium Permit
$
Fence/Sign Exception
$
Use Determination/Ambiguity Hearing
$
_ Antenna Exception
$ 25.00
'illside Area Construction Permit/Minor Modification
$ 2
Appeal Fee
250.00
Title 25 - Zoning Code (+ $3.00 postage)
0
Title 22 - Signs
$ 2.00
_ General Plan (+ $5.00 postage)
$ 25.00
Specific Area Plan (+ $3.00 postage)
$ 10.00
Zoning Map
$ 1.50
_ Sign Permit Fees��
$$
Photocopies
Postage FEB 2 0 2001
$
Total:
$�O6
—
f fi. (e.isea 9130198) t APSE
CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES
501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA
February 12, 2001
7:00 P.M.
Council Chambers
I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the February 12, 2001, regular meeting of the
Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m.
II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Deal, Dreiling, Osterling (in @ 7:58), Vistica and
Luzuriaga
Absent: Commissioners Keighran and Bojues
Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Keylon;
City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza
III. MINUTES The minutes of the January 22, 2001 meeting regular of the Planning
Commission were approved as mailed.
IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA CP Monroe noted that the applicant at 2627 Easton Drive has requested to be
continued to the next agenda with space. There were no other changes to the
agenda.
V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments.
VI. STUDY ITEMS
1. 1201 MILLS AVENUE - R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN OFFICE
USE IN AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AND FOR THE LOCATION OF A WINDOW
WITHIN TEN FEET OF A PROPERTY LINE (GRACE HEXTRUM, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY
OWNER)
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: are the drawings and plans in
our packet the complete submittal, yes; need more accurate and extensive plans including a floor plan of
the accessory structure, site plan to scale and all dimensions on all plans; is a special permit required when
one reduces the number of existing parking spaces on a single family residential site; how will the building
issues such as vapor barrier in the slab, title 24 light and ventilation, hearing be met, it seems possible that
this structure will need to be removed and replaced in order to conform, are we then approving a new
building with all these exceptions, the applicant should investigate this further with the Building Department
and a contractor before returning to the commission. This item was set for the regular action calendar when
all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at
7:07 p.m.
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
February 12, 2001
2. 999 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED C-2 - APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A NEW THREE-STORY OFFICE BUILDING (JESSE MORGAN, HOWARD
MYRTLE STORAGE LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; NILES TANAKATSUBO, TSH
ARCHITECTS ARCHITECT)
CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked staff about the process for
reviewing this item; CA noted that the purpose of tonight's meeting is to give the applicant and
environmental consultant an opportunity to respond to the Commission's concerns. There were no further
questions of staff.
Commissioners noted: On sheet Al the north and south elevations are mislabeled; at scoping talked about
creating tenant spaces with the opportunity to be accessible from the street if the tenant wants in order to
enhance the urban experience and encourage pedestrian activity, this does not seem to have been done,
would the applicant respond; the design should create opportunities for the tenants to use the space between
the building and the sidewalk, they are now filled with landscaping so the building looks like a suburban
office building; should create the ability of the tenants to use the exterior spaces along the street by reducing
landscaping and increasing paving; the entire site presently encourages access by auto, design should be
shifted to focus on transit users and residential access, the main entry should be oriented toward the corner
or downtown not to the parking lot. The size and scale of the project are going in the right direction, but the
project is still oriented toward the railroad tracks; the present architectural design breaks up the pedestrian
scale at the street level, the door on Myrtle is a token. The parking study may say that there is plenty of
parking, but when this open office area is filled with modular offices there will not be enough parking on
site, on street parking at this location is really impacted all day long, why should the applicant use a parking
ratio of 1 space per 300 GSF? Architectural design looks like Pleasanton, needs to look as if it belongs in
Burlingame, replace flat roof with pitched roof, add character, if height becomes a problem would support
an exception to increase the architectural character. Comfortable with use, nothing in the Negative
Declaration indicates that it is too large; would like to find a way to bring the project back to a Commission
session to consider the building. CA noted that the applicant could agree to meet with a subcommittee of
the commission as was successful with a couple of hotels or could be asked to come back to a design review
study session.
Cers Deal, Vistica, and Dreiling were appointed by the chairman to serve on a subcommittee if the applicant
wished. The Chairman suggested himself as an alternate if any of the three were unable to meet at a
convenient time. Chairman Luzuriaga set this item for design review study on February 26, 2001, or to
review by a subcommittee of the commission and then return to the commission at the applicant's choice.
Further comment: Do not think the things that commission would suggest would be hard to accomplish;
a subcommittee might offer a clearer message than discussion at a public comment meeting. CA noted that
there did not seem to be any questions regarding the traffic analysis as presented in the Negative Declaration,
only on site parking demand.
C. Vistica moved to continue the item to design review study on February 26 or to a subcommittee of the
commission depending upon the applicant's choice. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. It was noted
that the design review study would be noticed to the public. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on
the motion giving direction. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Boju6s, Keighran, Osterling absent) This
item concluded at 7:30 p.m.
OA
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
VII. ACTION ITEMS
February 12, 2001
CONSENT CALENDAR -ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE. THEYARE
ACTED ON SIMULTANEOUSLY UNLESS SEPARATE DISCUSSIONAND/OR ACTION IS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, A
MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC OR A COMMISSIONER PRIOR TO THE TIME THE COMMISSION VOTES ON THE MOTION TO
ADOPT.
Chairman Luzuriaga asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent
calendar. There were no requests.
3A. 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)
3B. 1636 CORONADO AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A
SECOND STORY ADDITION (ROLANDO NORIEGA, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; VADIM AND
ZOYA GERTSVOLF PROPERTY OWNERS)
3C. 1404 HILLSIDE CIRCLE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL
PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND
STORY ADDITION (RICHARD HARMON, ALFONSO AND HARMON ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT
AND ARCHITECT• ANDREW COTTON AND HEIDI NIELSEN, PROPERTY OWNERS)
C. Vistica moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report, commissioners
comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in the staff report and by
resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed
4-0-3 (Cers. Bojues, Keighran and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised.
VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM
4. 1228 BALBOA AVENUE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR
A FRONT PORCH ADDITION (KENNETH ROBY, APPLICANT; DAWOOD JAMSHIDNEJAD,
PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 2.12.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and
comments. Four conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Kenneth Roby of Aladdin Homes represented the project.
He explained that he was brought on to this project after the project was approved and the porch was
already built. Commission asked what the cost would be to take the project back to the way it was
originally approved. The applicant responded that it would cost between $4,000 and $5,000. Commission
noted that the there is a process and procedures required to build things and that it is not fair to the
neighborhood to build without following this process. What justification is there for keeping the porch?
The applicant responded that the porch as approved was plain, and the existing porch adds detail to the
3
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
February 12, 2001
very plain frontage. Commission asked what hardship to justify this variance? The applicant responded
that the appearance of the existing house is the hardship since many homes in the area have large porches.
An uncovered porch particularly in this orientation provides no protection from the weather and elements.
It was noted by the Commission that the existing porch looks better than the approved, but the person
that was handling this project before the applicant took over intentionally went around the Commission.
The applicant noted that on the previous approval the stairs protruded out uncovered as they do now, now
they are just covered. Commission asked CA Anderson whether or not the Commission could levy fines.
CA Anderson said that they could only recommend that fines be levied by the Building Department. CP
Monroe noted that economics are not a hardship consideration for variance findings. Commission noted
that the existing house needs something at the front and asked if the rest of the house can be designed to
match the front porch. Commission felt that this design is not good for the block and that the porch
proposal could have come before the Commission where they could have helped with overall design, there
is no hardship and the porch should be removed. Commission felt that this is a large house with a lot of
opportunity, needs to go through design review, may need to demolish portion of the front of the house
to correct the porch, but the neighborhood should not be made to suffer because the porch was built
without permit.
C. Deal moved for a continuance to Design Review Study, but noted that drawings of entire exterior are
needed. CA Anderson noted that the applicant can remove the porch or go to Design Review Study. C.
Dreiling seconded the motion. Commission noted that building needs work if the applicant is going to
pursue a variance.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to move this item to Design Review Study. The
motion passed on a 4-0-3 voice vote (Cers. Keighran, Bojues and Osterling absent). This item concluded
at 7:48p.m.
5. 810 ALPINE AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION CLOSER THAN 4'-0" TO AN EXISTING
DETACHED GARAGE, AND SIDE SETBACK AND PARKING VARIANCES TO ALTER AN
EXISTING NONCONFORMING DETACHED GARAGE (RAY BRAYER, BC&D, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER• MIKE AND NOELLE ENGEMANN PROPERTY OWNERS)
Reference staff report, 2.12.01, with attachments. City Planner presented 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. Ray Brayer, 920 Morell, applicant, addressed the
Commission noting that the garage was pulled back 2'-6", the distance between the walls is 5'-6" and 3the
distance between the eaves is 3', which gives better access to the yard. He is trying to keep the garage the
same size, could remove the eave or pull back another foot to get 4' separation, but prefers not too.
Commission asked if the layout of the addition changed. The applicant stated that they did not change the
layout of the house in order to preserve the backyard space. If they shift the playroom to the rear it creates
a large hallway that is not useful, and if they push the garage back, it creates a long driveway that will be
difficult to use with two teenagers driving soon. Commission noted that the eaves on the other side (right
side) of the garage may need to be removed since they are encroaching into the side setback; so they might
consider taking the eaves off on both sides. Commission noted that trees were labeled incorrectly, 30"
diameter tree? This should be corrected on the next set of plans. Commission asked if the applicant at least
4
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
February 12, 2001
tried to rearrange layout? Applicant stated that the owners lifestyle would not work with the courtyard
design suggested at the last meeting, they need a floor plan that works for everyday functions with their
children, they have 2 teenage daughter and a 20 month old son. Commission noted that they can see where
altering the detached garage structures is difficult and creates problems. Commission commented that this
approach may be going at it the hard way though, and asked how you get from the garage to the house. The
applicant stated that they go from the rear to the front of the house through the gate, but usually keep the
gate closed so they can have animals. The hallway is now open and is a major path of travel. Commission
noted that there are a lot of options with this project that were not explored, and they encourage the owners
to explore better use of the interior of the house. Even though they have small children now, they grow up,
look at how the space can be used better.
C. Osterling arrived at 7:58 p.m..
Owner, Michael Engemann addressed the Commission explaining that they want to keep their backyard as
large as possible, since they have 2 teenage daughters and a 20 month old son. They plan on living in the
house for a long time. When they first started this project they consider moving into a larger house, but then
agreed to make their existing house larger. They have a large family on both sides and they like to have
family gatherings, so the courtyard design doesn't work for them. Keeping the big backyard won't interfere
with their neighbors, who garden a lot, but the suggested L-shaped addition approach would extend beyond
their garage and would block light to their neighbor's yard. The garage looking asymmetrical is a moot
point, there is only a small angle from the street where you could see the garage cutback. They heard the
concerns raised about the safety issues regarding access from the back yard and the separation, so they
cutback the garage. The hallway effect of the family room does not bother them, since all of the existing
public rooms in the house are laid out this way already and it does not bother them. He hopes that the
Planning Commission will understand the reason they designed the proposal as they did, they want a large
backyard and a family room, please look at the perspective of the homeowner.
There were further comments from the floor. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing.
Commission discussion: Not disturbed with conditional use request for 4' separation, since if they alter
existing detached non -conforming structure they kick up a number of variances. Commission asked CA
Anderson, can they grant the conditional use, but state that the variance is not needed because the
conditional use creates variance, or can the Commission condition the approval so that a rebuild of the
detached structure would not be allowed? Exceptions with a condition, that any future change to the house
would require Commission review, CA Anderson responded, yes.
C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions, and the added
condition that if either of the existing structures are replaced or rebuilt, that the project would have to come
back to the Planning Commission for review: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans
submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped January 12, 2001, sheets Al -A8; 2) that the
Planning Commission shall review at a public meeting any changes (remodel, reconstruction or
modification) to any structures on this property in the future; 3) that the requirements of the City Engineer's
and Chief Building Official's November 6, 2000 memos and the Fire Marshal's November 7, 2000 memo
shall be met; and 4) 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. C. Osterling seconded the
motion.
5
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
February 12, 2001
Commission discussion on the motion: Why not make the conditional use permit and variance void if the
structures are removed? CA Anderson noted motion would allow review if non -conforming garage changed
more, even if not demolished. Commission noted hardship as justification for the variance was the odd
configuration of the buildings on the lot, but this hardship goes away when the structures are removed; can't
support, feels that there are good design solutions to meet the owners needs which would eliminate the need
for a conditional use and variance; can support if variance goes away; have faith that other Commissions
will handle review appropriately if brought back before the Planning Commission; it should be handled
appropriately now.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with added condition that the
Planning Commission should review any change to this property in the future. The motion passed on a
3-2-2 (Cers. Dreiling, Vistica dissenting; Cers. Boju6s, Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were
advised. This item concluded at 8:22 p.m.
6. 2405 HILLSIDE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WINDOWS WITHIN 10 FEET OF
PROPERTY LINE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED
GARAGE (DAMIR O. RADOS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; DAVE HOWELL,
DESIGNER) (CONTINUED FROM JANUARY 8, 2001 MEETING)
C. Osterling stated that he would be abstaining from this item since he resides within 300 feet of the
property, and left the dais. CA Anderson noted that 3 affirmative votes are required to act on this item.
Reference staff report, 2.12.01, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and
comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. The owner, Dan Rados presented the project to the
Commission and noted that he gave 3 pages of comments with 34-35 attachments to them for their review.
He reviewed and answered the Planning Commission comments. He has reviewed his proposal with his
neighbors and spent anywhere from 20 minutes to 2 hours with them. He presented a document to the
Commission signed by neighbors in support of the project which states that they understand that the
redwood tree would be removed on the subject property as well as the redwood tree shared with the adjacent
property at 2409 Hillside Drive. This document was signed by both of the adjacent neighbors , neighbors
on both sides of the block, as well as the neighbor at the rear. There were no further comments from the
floor and the public hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: a lot of information was presented to the Commission from the owners, feel that
this house does not belong in this neighborhood, it is a box on top of a box; square footage of 1" and 2nd
floor is almost the same, this should be a red flag warning, there is extreme front loading of the design of
this project, on this basis voting for denial; special permit for accessory structure to be closer to the property
line- would go along with that, but should try to keep window 10' away , need to have stipulation that
accessory structure will not be used as a pool house, should be used for automobiles as it was designed; site
planning is bothersome, losing traditional single story house and two great trees in Easton addition; even
with arborist report have a hard time believing the trees should be removed, agree that the house has a
layered cake look, concerned with loss of parking, can't support architecture; there are a lot of applicants
working with the same square footage that are trying to make their projects compatible with this Burlingame
neighborhoods character, does not see this attempted here, skeptical about arborist report, trees benefit
I
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
February 12, 2001
entire community, not just home owner; rear garage appears to be intended to be used as a pool house with
double french doors opening into the backyard, architecture of the house doesn't meet intention of design
guidelines, can't support, have seen a lot of houses at the maximum square footage that have responded to
the neighborhood character and made the structure look not so big.
C. Vistica moved to deny the application. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C.
Osterling abstaining and Cers. Boju6s, Keighran absent,). Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 8:43 p.m.
7. 1209 BELLEVUE AVENUE - ZONED R-4 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE TO
CONVERT AN EXISTING STORAGE ROOM TO A STUDIO UNIT (TOM LUNKLEY, AVR REALTY,
APPLICANT• WILLIAM VAN HOUSEN, ARCHITECT, ESTEE COLDWELL, PROPERTY OWNER)
C. Vistica stated that he would be abstaining from this item since he owns property within 300 feet of
1209 Bellevue Avenue.
Reference staff report, 2.12.01, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and
staff comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked for wording in
Condition #2 to be changed from "issuance" to "applied for".
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Tom Lunkley of 1169 Broadway represented the owner
of the subject property and was available to answer questions. Commission asked if there is a kitchen in
the room in question? Applicant stated that there is a gas line, faucet, and kitchen cabinets. Commission
asked if there were appliances in place now. The applicant responded that that there are no appliances.
The Commission asked what the rent for the existing units on the site is. The applicant stated that the
studios rent for as low as $995 and the one bedroom rents for $1275. Commission asked when the
property was built; applicant did not know. CP Monroe responded that at least as early as 1960, since
it shows up on the Sanborn Map.
The owner, Estee Coldwell addressed the Commission, stating that she has owned the property for the last
26 years and has never rented the space as a studio. The lady that was storing furniture there has her own
unit on the property. She took out permit in 1983 for pluming and electrical, and to change the sliding glass
door to a solid door in order to comply with the Fire Code in order to upgrade the laundry area. When she
purchased the building it was a laundry room and already had a toilet and gas dryer. She has used the space
in the past to store furniture and appliances for her other properties. It was only rented out as a storage unit
recently. No one could even live in the space since there is no heat. Commission questioned why would
you want to make it into a unit now when it was never rented before as a living unit? The owner responded
that she doesn't need it for storage anymore and wants to provide low income housing to address the housing
problems in the area. She could rent it to someone without a vehicle, perhaps an elderly person. She could
document yearly to the City that it was a low-income unit, that was rented to someone without a car. She
explained that she would promise to this. There were no further comments from the floor and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: currently the site is non -conforming in regards to off-street parking, the burden
shouldn't be put back on the City to increase a non -conforming situation, space was originally used and
7
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
February 12, 2001
designed as storage, parking is a problem in this area, photo in the staff report and site visit shows that
there is frequently double parking in the driveway, hardship is to the property not the City; unit could be
made livable, but agrees if it was rented to a person without a car we could take advantage of spaces like
this space, maybe we could include something like this in the amnesty program, would not grant a
variance for this space for a $995 rent, but if $600 month rent with a maximum of a 2 % increase per year
it could be a solution.; would like to see more people living downtown without cars, would like to look
into this in the future.
Chairman Luzuriaga moved to deny the application by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that
demolition permits shall be obtained from the Burlingame Building Department to remove the toilet, shower,
sink, and all plumbing and gas connections from the storage unit; 2) that these demolition permits shall be
applied for within 15 days of the effective date of this action and all work shall be inspected and finaled by
the CBO within 30 days of the issuing of a permit; 3) that the storage unit shall only be used for storage
purposes for tenants on site, defined as: the safekeeping of goods in a warehouse or other depository;
California Building Code limits the occupancy of the storage room to infrequent usage. No person may
occupy the unit for longer than one hour while engaged in the task of retrieving articles from the unit or
storing articles in the room; 4) It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the
official records of the County of San Mateo.
There was no discussion on the motion.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C.
Vistica abstaining and Cers. Bojues, Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item
concluded at 9:07 p.m.
8. 1205 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE
AMENDMENT TO EXTEND THE DAYS OF OPERATION FOR AN EXISTING BUSINESS
(ROBERTA OSWALD APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)
Reference staff report, 2.12.01, with attachments. Planner Keylon presented the report, reviewed criteria
and Planning Department comments. Six conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked
how the weekday visitor number was 25 and the weekend visitor number was 40, but there are suppose to
be no more than 35 people on-site at one time? Planner Keylon and CP Monroe explained that the tea room
will be operating while the retail store is open to shoppers, so the number of patrons in the store will vary
depending on the retail activity.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Property owner and applicant Roberta Oswald stated that
there would be special seating for tea at 11:00, 2:00, and 4:00, with the shopping open at these times as
well. She wants the tea portion of the business open Sundays and Mondays to keep the business going.
Commission asked what is served during tea time. The owner explained that scones, sandwiches and
sweets would be served, but that they close at 5:30 so they would not be serving full meals. There were
no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the food
establishment on this premise shall conform to the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date
stamped January 24, 1991, that the food establishment shall not exceed 475 SF including kitchen and seating
area although the 320 SF seating area with eight tables may move within the retail area, the second floor
E
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
February 12, 2001
shall only be used for storage related to the business on the first floor, and there shall be no office use on
the second floor; 2) that there shall be no more than two employees on site working in the food
establishment portion of the business; 3) that the food establishment portion of the business may not be open
for business except during the hours of 11:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., seven days a week; 4) that the use and any
improvements for the use shall meet all California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 Edition as amended by
the City of Burlingame; 5) that any expansion of the seating area, kitchen, food preparation area and service
area, change in the number of employees in the food establishment or upgrading of the kitchen area shall
require an amendment to this permit; and 6) that this permit shall be reviewed for compliance with its
conditions in one year (February, 2002) and upon complaint thereafter.
The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. It was noted that this is a limited use, a nice building, and that
two additional days of business would not be detrimental to the neighborhood, this is a low impact use.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers.
Bojues, Keighran absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:14 p.m.
The commission took a break and reconvened at 9:30 p.m.
IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS
9. 2627 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SIDE SETBACK AND
PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION (MARTIN DREILING, CSS
ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; TRICIA GODOWSKI, PROPERTY OWNER)
The applicant request that this item be continued to the February 26, 2001 design review study meeting.
10. 120 COSTA RICA AVENUE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FLOOR AREA
RATIO VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR AN ADDITION TO THE
BASEMENT LEVEL, MAIN FLOOR AND A NEW UPPER FLOOR (ALAN OLIN, APPLICANT AND
DESIGNER; TRACY AND TROY OTUS, PROPERTY OWNERS)
Planner Keylon briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Alan Olin, the applicant and architect, represented the
project. Commission asked the applicant to go through the changes in the square footage. The applicant
explained that since the last meeting he has revised the project, including removing 358 square feet from
the attic and building in the basement area below the new addition and under part of the existing house. He
is reclaiming a portion of the existing basement, 468 square feet of existing basement would be used as
habitable space with 452 square feet added to the rear of the existing basement under the new addition.
Commission asked applicant to clarify how much existing basement is counted toward FAR but not
habitable? The applicant replied that 1,209 square feet is existing as basement but is not habitable.
Commission asked about the access to the basement area through the exterior side door along the driveway.
The applicant said that this door is a major source of water intrusion into the existing basement, and the door
would be removed. Commission asked if there would be a door connecting the habitable portion of the
basement to the existing unfinished portion of the basement. The applicant explained that there would be
one step up to a 3' by 5.5' access door in to the existing basement area. The new basement would be 2'
lower than the existing basement. Commission noted that the existing basement area is 1,674 square feet,
G]
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
February 12, 2001
and asked the amount of the requested FAR variance. CP Monroe stated that the FAR variance request is
for 1,492 square feet. The applicant explained that he designed the revised project to eliminate the mass and
square footage from the upper level, and put some of the square footage into the basement. Commission
noted that existing basement area that is left is 1,209 square feet, when the variance request for 1,492 square
feet, why is the new area being counted? The applicant stated that he designed the new basement area to
be 50% below grade, therefore it should not count toward FAR and the FAR variance is really only for 579
square feet. CP Monroe explained that to be excluded from FAR the entire exterior wall of the structure
must have 50% of the lower wall below the dirt (grade), the proposed excavated rear basement portion is
below but the front portion is above, cannot just take new portion, must look at the entire area. Commission
wants to avoid a variance for more square footage than previous proposal. The applicant gave an example,
stating that in Burlingame a deck 30" or higher counts towards lot coverage, but if you have part of the deck
below the 30" it does not count toward lot coverage. In an effort to keep the bulk and mass limited, part of
the existing basement was lowered and the crawlspace was used since it doesn't add to bulk and mass. So
this new basement area that is more than 50% below grade should not be counted toward FAR. The
applicant stated that the basement definition doesn't define the percentage of the basement required to be
50% below grade. If the new basement is not counted it would reduce the FAR variance request by more
than half.
Commission asked if the applicant was being penalized 1,209 square feet due to the Code definition of
basement? CA Anderson responded that the issue before the Commission is design review, not the variance.
Commission noted that this is an extreme FAR variance and asked that it be reduced. Commission clarified
with staff that if more than 50% of the perimeter of the building is below grade then it is defined as a
basement. CP Monroe concurred and noting that this definition will change in about 45 days. The applicant
stated that the existing house can be used to justify the variance, if the basement didn't count they would
not need a variance, the exiting house is forcing the variance request. The variance is requested because they
are trying to retain the existing architecture. The applicant stated that the redesign has eliminated two of
the variances, removed the stairs, and this is a compromise the Commission asked for, the question is should
the new basement count towards FAR. Commission asked if the area under the lower floor is used. The
applicant answered that area under the first floor addition is now developed, it was crawl space before
(previous proposal).
Owner, Tracy Otus addressed the Commission. She explained that this redesign is not the floor plan they
want, their boys will share a bedroom, they don't have a master suite, they wanted to be on the same floor
as their kids, they need to have a guest room. They are not trying to tear down the building like so many
people want to do these days. They have special circumstances, they also have the support of their neighbors
and have letters of support. She feels that they are being penalized for the basement area that is not
habitable, they need an office for her husband to work out of at night, they just can't remove any other space.
Owner, Troy Otus addressed the Commission. He explained that their hardship is the existence of the
house. They put some of the mass from the top into the basement, but these are rooms that aren't used daily.
If the basement isn't counted they are below the requirement. They have compromised.
Commission stated can not be sympathetic, there are many large rooms in this house that can be reduced
so that the house without the existing basement does not exceed the maximum FAR for this site.
Commission is concerned with bulk of this project under design review, not number of bedrooms.
Commission believes design is good, but rear is still large. New proposal is cleaned -up and calmer, looks
well, but mass and size is too large. CA Anderson stated that the Commission needs to address design
concerns. Commission is concerned with square footage, bulk is moving within the structure, where is the
10
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
February 12, 2001
square footage going? Commission asked for the applicant to show floor area, floor by floor, so they could
understand the changes from the existing to proposed. Commission noted that variance is larger.
Commission instructed applicant to reduce mass and bulk. Applicant stated that he feels this comes down
to basement definition and asked if filling-in the existing basement to reduce the FAR by 1,209 square feet
would make sense to the Commission? Commission responded that this suggestion would do nothing to
reduce the mass and bulk.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment to the floor: Ed Bonert, 124 Costa Rica, Mary Ann
Nickels, 116 Costa Rica, Jean Marie Buckley, 113 Costa Rica: they support project, saw the proposed plans
and have no problem, feel that this house is a charm, just because it is large doesn't mean it is unsightly,
looks large from outside but house is small inside, addition to rear will give good balance, deep lot can
handle large rear addition, this house is the beauty of the block. There were no other comments from the
floor and Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing.
Chairman Luzuriaga instructed the Commission to give clear concise direction to the applicant. He noted
that this property has a unique situation with approximately 1,700 square feet of unusable basement, needs
more consideration and direction from Commission. Commission feels that project is going in the right
direction, but there is a problem with granting such a large FAR variance, would like to vote on a project
they can stand by and justify alone, but filling-in basement will still result in a large FAR. Commission
asked staff to report on a project in the last block of Chapin that was approved last summer that had a similar
situation. Commission noted that this is a large lot and shouldn't need an FAR variance, the existing north
elevation has a nice consistent fabric, the new south elevation is larger and plainer, and proposed north
elevation has a large mass of windows, the same problem seen on monster houses; not generally
unapprovable but nothing to link elements together, fragmented parts, may result in not having a 1,000
square foot family room. Commission acknowledged that sending proposal to design review consultant may
not be appropriate since the architect knows what he is doing.
C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the February 26, 2001 regular action calendar or on the
next available calendar at a time when all the information has been submitted to the Planning Department
and reviewed. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling.
Comment on motion: Commission asked if the new basement area would count toward FAR under the new
ordinance, CP Monroe replied that the entire basement would count towards FAR under the new ordinance.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar
when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Bojues, Keighran absent).
The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:30 p.m.
11. 2621 ADELINE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SECOND FLOOR
SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE, AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A SECOND STORY
ADDITION (AMY HALL, GORDON HALL & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JUSTIN
AND ALEXANDRA KROMELOW, PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Applicant and architect, Amy Gordon Hall presented the
project and noted that a study model of the original proposal and changes to the second was created for
11
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
February 12, 2001
reference. She made the changes required to comply with the FAR and declining height envelope, but could
not adjust the setback due to the curve of the street. She looked hard at the roof change, the second floor over
the vaulted ceiling needs to have a gable end. Commission referenced sheet 2A7 noting that the section
drawing shows that the frame over the existing 8'-4" ceiling adds 18" of height to the front and asked if
applicant thought about a different framing arrangement, perhaps dropping the framing. The applicant
replied that they are planning on taking out the ceiling in the living room, used to have 6' plate height due
to the roof, now they are going to have a 7' plate due to the new hipped roof. Also need to raise plate height
since they are adding round -top windows and with a 6' plate height a 6' person would not be able to look
out the window. Commission commented that the piece at the front of the house is quite tall, l'-10"
between floors, look for a way to get 1' reduction, sheet A5 shows the ceiling line and second floor with 1%
10" between them. Commission encouraged applicant to reduce height, make ceiling as low as possible,
maybe use engineered wood to reduce the space between the floors. The applicant noted that they have a
high roof pitch because they are trying to keep it consistent with the existing. Commission noted they like
the height, but questioned why little gable chunk at the rear is still there, why can't that be made part of the
hip roof style. Applicant said she that could be worked out. Commissioned asked if the windows in the
shed dormer at the rear are changing? The applicant replied that since the second dormer is no longer
proposed they are not changing existing windows if they don't have to. Commission sees a very tall
structure, with the addition taller than the neighbors, roof over the entry is better, but asked the gable to be
cut off and asked that the height be lowered 1'40" or l'-6". Something needs to be done with the height,
reduced ceiling heights from 9'-9" to 9'-6", reduce plate 4". There were no other comments from the floor
and the public hearing was closed. Commission complimented applicant on removing FAR variance, great
job except for a few tweaks.
Chairman Luzuriaga made a motion place this item on the February 26, 2001, consent calendar or on a
consent calendar when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked.
Comment on motion: Can make findings for second floor setback because of lot size and shape on corner,
location needs architectural variety and the proposed height is consistent with the architectural integrity
of the neighborhood. Second floor side setback variance findings- 1) lot substandard since lot area is less
than 5,000 feet, 2) encourages architectural variety, special permit for height. 3)keeps the architectural
integrity of the structure and neighborhood.
This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place
this item on the consent calendar when plans have been revised and submitted as directed. The motion
passed on a 5-0-2 (Cern. Bojues, Keighran absent) . The Planning Commission's action is advisory and
not appealable. This item concluded at 10:48 p.m..
12. 341 DWIGHT ROAD - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND FRONT
SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, AND SPECIAL
PERMIT FOR AN ATTACHED GARAGE (DORON KLEIN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; NICK
SOLINGER PROPERTY OWNER)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Doran Klein, the applicant, introduced himself to the
Commission and said that he was available for questions.
12
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
February 12, 2001
Commission noted that front setback variance was o.k., no problem with that, and that the special permit
for the garage location was minor and was also o.k.. The building design has improved over the last
proposal, however concern is with the mass and bulk, this is a very big building. Needs human scale, there
is a lot of mass on the upper portion, needs more articulation, are the cedar shingles stained? Commission
suggested looking around at stains on shingles in town, it may be hard to keep the natural look on the
shingles. Basic problem is second floor massing, looks as if didn't know how to bring everything together
at the rear. Applicant noted that he tried to have a minimal upper floor to keep the sides away from the
neighbors. Commission questioned why the architecture of the new design changed from the original
Spanish style? The applicant stated that he got the feeling from the Commission before, that he should go
back to the drawing board with the design. Commission commented that the plans looked like it would be
a Spanish revival, but now it is a craftsman type style. Applicant stated that the Spanish style with a lot of
stucco and tile attracted attention to itself, he felt the new shingled fagade would have less of a visual impact
on the street. Commission stated that the north elevation lacks articulation, second floor gable is odd,
uneven pattern, some physical articulation is needed, trim to break up the shingles, perhaps rows of
windows. Commission feels that there is huge mass on second floor, then first floor wrinkles, but there is
no cohesiveness between the floors, no balance. Commission was o.k. with the proposed square footage,
but need to articulate the mass. Commission noted that on sheet A3, there is a long straight wall, the plan
is asking for a pattern of windows in bathroom. There were no other comments from the floor and the public
hearing was closed.
Commission discussion: gave good direction to the applicant, can come back on the regular action calendar,
variance and special permit o.k. due to the odd shape of the lot, this proposal is a huge improvement.
C. Deal made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar for February 26, 2001 or at a time
when the following revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C.
Osterling.
Chairman Luzuriaga called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar for
February 26, 2001, or when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 voice vote
(Cers. Bojues, Keighran absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This
item concluded at 11: 04 p.m.
13. 735 ACACIA DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND
SECOND STORY ADDITION (RANDY GRANGE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; KEITH AND
BETH TAYLOR, PROPERTY OWNERS)
CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff.
Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Randy Grange, architect, 205 Park Road #203,
represented the project with the property owner Keith Taylor. Applicant stated that the project before the
Commission last year was another design. A year ago it was referred to a design reviewer, and when it came
back to the Commission you were still unhappy with the project. Although, the project was approved it was
suggested that the owner look into a different design due to the narrow width of the lot, perhaps talk with
a local architect. The applicant was pleased he followed Commission's advice, and now has a new project
he likes better. Commission commented that this design is much better than the previous design. The
applicant explained that the style was designed to fit in with the neighborhood. Commission said it is
refreshing to see nice design that meets the Code, wonderful job. Commission said that the porch
13
City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes
February 12, 2001
articulation, the main beam with the gable is subtle, but adds character, please make sure that detail gets
built. This is a perfect example of what the design guidelines are intended to accomplish. There were no
other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed.
Chairman Luzuriaga made a motion to set this item for the February 26, 2001 consent calendar. The motion
was seconded by C. Dreiling. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item
on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Boju6s , Keighran absent). The
Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:12 p.m..
X. PLANNER REPORTS
Review of City Council regular meeting of February 5, 2001.
CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of January 17, 2001.
Review Open Space Element of the General Plan.
Commission pointed out that there was an error in the copying of the Open Space Element distributed. Staff
noted that a corrected copy would be put in the commission's packet for the next meeting.
CP Monroe reminded the Commission that Steve Porter, the City Arborist, would attend the next meeting
in response to their request to discuss the criteria he uses in evaluating protected trees for removal. She
noted that he was pleased to be asked and appreciated the commission's interest and support.
XI. ADJOURNMENT
Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 11: 35 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Joe Boju6s, Acting Secretary
UNAPPROV EDMINUTES2.12
14
BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 1, 2001
The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by
Acting Chair Rossi.
ROLL CALL
Present: Acting Chair Rossi, Commissioners Ellis, Hesselgren, Lauder, McGowan, Webb
Absent: Chairperson Locke
Staff: Director Williams, Superintendent Richmond, Administrative Secretary Harvey
Guests: City Manager Nantell
MINUTES - The minutes of the October 5, 2001 meeting were approved as submitted.
CORRESPONDENCE
Memo from Director Williams regarding demonstration of the new small street sweeper for Burlingame
Avenue and Broadway.
Copy of the revised Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection Ordinance.
Letter from Chairperson Locke to Mariko Roberts, Senior Landscape Architect (CalTrans) regarding
clarification of CalTrans' commitment to renovate the landscaping at the 101/Broadway interchange
following recent staff changes.
Letter from Vincent & Doreen Cauchi, 131 Loma Vista Dr., requesting removal of a City Pine tree, located
in the rear of his property, at an adjacent address.
Letter from Chairperson Locke to Vincent & Doreen Cauchi, 131 Loma Vista Dr., referring them to the
Parks Division for evaluation and inspection of the Pine tree by City Arborist Porter.
Letter from Superintendent Richmond to Vincent & Doreen Cauchi, 131 Loma Vista Dr., reminding them
of the pruning that occurred on the Pine tree in April of 1999, and that the City Arborist has currently found
the Pine tree to be in better health than when pruned in 1999 and would not approve removal at this time.
Copy of memo from City Attorney, to Superintendent Richmond and Arborist Porter (dated December
1998), regarding Height of Trees above Roadway.
Copy of Downtown Trash Receptacles, noting completed placement of new trash receptacles as requested
by Beautification Commission in the Burlingame Avenue area.
Request, denial, and appeal for the removal ofall Eucalyptus trees in the backyard of 2669 Martinez Drive.
Letter from Mrs. Stanley Cox, 2532 Valdivia Drive, requesting the Beautification Commission grant
approval of the removal of all Eucalyptus trees in the backyard of 2669 Martinez Drive, because the trees
are 100 feet tall, tower over her house, and the wind blows them toward her house.
Email from Chairperson Locke updating the Commission on the local group requesting permission to
cleanup litter along El Camino Real and referral to appropriate personnel at CalTrans.
FROM THE FLOOR
Acting Chair Rossi recognized the new City Manager, Jim Nantell. City Manager Nantell introduced
himself to the Commission. Stated he has served in the public sector for 25 years and empathizes with the
energy spent protecting trees. Has lived in Burlingame for 25 years and is familiar with many of the issues
the Commission faces. He added that he is looking forward to working with Commission volunteers in the
City of Burlingame.
OLD BUSINESS
Arbor Dav - March 7`' - Washington Park - Superintendent Richmond reported that the ceremony will
begin at 10:00 a.m. The trees (three Coast Redwoods, two Elms, one Carpinus, and one Chitalpa) will be
planted in the back of Washington Park behind the Recreation Center in anticipation of the removal of large
trees in that area of the park over the next 10 years. Acting Chair Rossi stated that this is a very nice event
and encouraged all the Commissioner's participation.
Spring Garden Seminar - March 24"' - Speaker William McGowan - Acting Chair Rossi requested that
Chairperson Locke announce the seminar at the Commissioner's Dinner of March 23`d. He reminded the
Commissioners that it has been a tradition that they provide cookies or finger desserts for the seminar.
Commissioner McGowan stated that his presentation will be on 'Designing the Small Garden'.
Commissioner Lauder stated she would arrange for any changes on the banner and schedule the hanging
of the banner.
Director Williams noted that the grand opening of the new ballfield and the dog park at Bayside Park will
be on March 24d'; the same day as the seminar.
NEW BUSINESS
San Francisco Airport Runway Expansion Mitigation - Superintendent Richmond stated this item was
placed on the agenda at the request of Chairperson Locke following her discussions with Commissioner
Webb and his concerns with Shoreline improvements and possible mitigation with the airport runway
expansion. Superintendent Richmond reported that information he obtained form City Planner Monroe,
indicates that the Council has asked the City's Planning Department to attend runway expansion meetings,
monitor, and report back to the Council. Currently, the airport's planning staff is in the data information
gathering process.
Commissioner Webb stressed his concern that proper data be developed so that the EIR would address
creek deposits in the bay, bay trail impacts, and the flow. He suggested that the mud be tested for toxic
levels and that guidelines be developed to assure clean water quality. Director Williams stated that the
Mayor has been insistent that the City of Burlingame being included in the airport runway expansion
mitigation.
REPORTS
Richmond -
1) Superintendent Richmond reported that the City Attorney has indicated that shop owners have no
obligation to sweep the sidewalks in front of their establishments.
2) Vince Falzon, from the Street and Sewer Department was responsible for getting the spoils (left by the
contractor) cleaned up in the drainage channel near the railroad tracks.
3) The City Council will meet with the Beautification Commission on Monday, March 5`'' at 6:30 p.m.
4) Tree pruning contractor has trimmed the Eucalyptus on Skyline Boulevard, South of Trousdale, and
will soon be trimming the Eucalyptus on Burlingame Avenue.
5) Street trees have been ordered for the March tree planting; approximately 40 trees will be planted.
OA
REPORTS - (Cont'd.)
Lauder -
Commissioner Lauder stated that she recently spoke with Mariko Roberts, Sr. Landscape Architect of
CalTrans. Ms!Roberts reported to Commissioner Lauder that three to four dozen Ballerina roses have been
ordered for the 101/Broadway interchange planting and that the irrigation will be serviced prior to planting.
Webb -
Commissioner Webb reported that the Shoreline is being eroded along the South end where the large
broken concrete (rip rap) has been placed; sink holes have been created and a 4' hole covered with rusty
steel is very dangerous and could pose a liability to the City. Commissioner Webb stated that since the
BCDC has indicated that the Shoreline is a City problem, the City should make the property owners
adjacent to the Shoreline responsible for the repairs or perhaps, make the repairs as part of the mitigation
with the airport runway expansion. Commissioner Webb continued that a plan for the bay front would
improve the City and suggested that a beach for wind surfers get built on the land owned by the State Lands
Commission.
City Manager Nantell responded that the state lands will probably be an option in the mitigation process.
He indicated that the City needs to be careful to not be enticed by attractive amenities before an adequate
drainage system is addressed. He stated that he will be asking Public Works staff to look at the items
mentioned by Commissioner Webb.
The Commission discussed the relevancy of the Shoreline to their scope of responsibilities. It was decided
that the issue would be agendized for the next meeting so the Commission could determine what, if
anything, would be included in the Joint Commission/Council meeting in March.
Acting Chair Rossi also asked the Joint Commission/Council meeti
meeting. ng be placed on the next agenda so the
Commissioners can prepare discussion items they may want to share with the Council at the March 5`"
There being no further business, Acting Chair Rossi adjourned the meeting at 6:30 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
U1
Karlene Harvey
Recording Secretary
The City of Burlingame
CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
CALIFORNIA 94010-3997
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, February 8, 2001
Commissioners Present: Lisa De Angelis, Chair
Tim Auran
Jim Evans
David Mayer
Commissioners Absent: Jim McIver, Vice Chair
Staff Present: Frank Erbacher, Assistant Director of Public Works
Philip Ho, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Department
Bob Ransom, Traffic Sergeant, Police Department
Doris Mortensen, Administrative Secretary, Public Works Department
Staff Absent: None
Visitors: Irving Amstrup, 2708 Trousdale, Burlingame
Alwin Chan, 2940 Trousdale, Burlingame
Angela Cheong, 2613 Trousdale, Burlingame
Fran Chilcoat, 2804 Trousdale, Burlingame
Aaron Chilcoat, 2804 Trousdale, Burlingame
Kathy Chen, 2813 Trousdale, Burlingame
(Falalon), 2621 Trousdale, Burlingame
Evelyn Clayton, 2950 Trousdale, Burlingame
R.D. McGovern, 1812 Hunt Drive, Burlingame
SAA Public Works Directory\TSP CommissionWlinutesWlinutes for 02-08-01 Meeting.wpd Page 1
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, February 8, 2001
1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m. by Chair De Angelis.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG.
3. ROLL CALL. 4 of 5 Commissioners present.
4. CURRENT BUSINESS.
4.1 ACTION ITEMS.
4.1.1 Minutes for January 11, 2001, were submitted and approved.
4.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS
4.2.1 Millbrae BART Station - Potential Impacts on City streets - No updates.
4.2.2 STOP Sign Noticing Procedures
Mr. Ho presented a draft of new Stop sign noticing procedures based on previous discussions
with the Commission. Procedures include posting on the City's web site. He said there are
two different meetings involved, TSPC and Council. Comm. Auran suggested posting
notices two weeks prior to the meeting. Mr. Erbacher said it is possible to post for each
meeting but posting should be mainly for the action meeting. After TSPC makes their
recommendation, the item goes to Council for approval of the ordinance. The first Council
meeting is to set a hearing date with the hearing at a subsequent meeting. Comm. Auran said
noticing should also occur when the item goes to discussion at the TSPC meeting. Mr.
Erbacher said the sign could remain posted for each meeting with only the meeting date
changing. It was moved and seconded (Comms. Evans/Mayer) to approve the noticing
procedures as amended. Unanimously approved by the Commission.
5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS
5.1 Request for evening parking restrictions at City lot K-1 at Burlingame Avenue/El Camino Real
Sgt. Ransom was approached by the Watch Commander who advised they receive three to four
complaints each weekend night about teenagers congregating at this site for loud radios, fighting,
and general public nuisances. The police recommend restricting parking at off hours and weekends.
Comm. Evans monitored this site with the police and found that when the police arrive, the
teenagers calm down; but after the police leave, they continue acting up. Also, with the weather
improving, the situation could get worse. Since during the week there are legitimate parking lot
users, suggested restricting parking after 9 P.M. Then the police would have leverage in removing
the teenagers. Comm. Auran recommended a 3 -month parking restriction to break the habit of
congregating here. Mr. Erbacher advised that we should notice the first blocks of Chapin Avenue
SAA Public Works Directory\TSP CommissionWlinutes\Minutes for 02-08-01 Meeting.wpd Page 2
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, February 8, 2001
and Burlingame Avenue and gather parking usage data before making any recommendation.
Mr. Ho advised that to make a recommendation to Council at this time is without having any
benefit of research or public input. It was moved and seconded (Comms. Auran/Mayer) to move
this to an Action Item immediately. It was then moved and seconded (Comms. Auran/Mayer) to
recommend to City Council to take temporary action by imposing installation of a "No Parking
between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. on Weekends and Holidays" sign for a 3 -month period. Unanimously
approved by the Commission. Comm. Auran further stated that this recommendation to Council
is with the understanding that in the 3 -month period, enough data should be gathered to substantiate
a permanent arrangement.
5.2 Request for speed limit and truck weight limit enforcement, a traffic signal on Trousdale Drive at
Skyline Boulevard, and a Stop sign on Trousdale Drive at Loyola Drive
Mr. Ho advised that Council received a petition for this request at their February 5th meeting and
referred it to this Commission.
From the floor: Evelyn Clayton presented a letter requesting installation of speed dips on Trousdale
and a left turn signal at Quesada. Irving Amstrup stated they are worried about children from the
schools being exposed to speeders on Trousdale. Also there are huge trucks using Trousdale, and
the hospital will eventually be directing their traffic to Trousdale instead of El Camino Real. Also,
eventual BART traffic will only add to the problems. Fran Chilcoat stated that the restricted truck
sign is too small and should be relocated for more awareness. Also, more police enforcement is
needed. Residents on Loyola have trouble making a left onto Trousdale, a 25 mph limit would
alleviate that problem. Angela Cheong stated that the volume of traffic is getting heavier and some
drivers ignore Stop signs and some speed. She has noticed more enforcement lately. Also, truck
weight limit sign is too small to be noticed. Feels speeders are a result of Trousdale being too wide.
Suggests reducing four lanes to two to slow down traffic. Kathy Chen stated a friend's car was
totaled while parked on Trousdale outside her home. Now they're afraid to park on Trousdale. It
was difficult opening the driver's door when parked there due to speeding traffic. Trousdale has a
steep slope between Loyola and Sebastian so 25 mph limit needs to be enforced there especially.
Mr. Erbacher advised that even though this is a residential area, the speed is 25 mph only if no other
speed is posted and when children are present at the school. Upper Trousdale is 25 mph while the
lower flat part is 35 mph. Staff will do traffic count studies and radar counts to provide the
Commission updated data and will ask the police to enforce the upper part of Trousdale. The
studies will indicate if Stop signs are warranted and what the speed limit should be for both the
upper and lower part of Trousdale. Chair De Angelis stated that staff has a lot of data to collect and
with the petitioners' input, they will make a recommendation at a future meeting. Mr. Erbacher
advised that they expect the data should be available for the April meeting and all petitioners will
be notified of that meeting date.
6. FROM THE FLOOR -None.
SAA Public Works Directory\TSP CommissionWinutesNinutes for 02-08-01 Meeting.wpd Page 3
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, February 8, 2001
7. INFORMATION ITEMS
7.1 From Staff to Commission
7.1.1 City Council Meeting, 7:00 p.m., Tuesday, February 20, 2001. Public Hearing on
Reconsideration of Ordinance to install two STOP signs on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue
Mr. Erbacher advised that a staff report is being prepared on the various concerns between
staff recommendations and community wants.
7.1.2 A newspaper article titled "Stop Sign Yield Discord," San Mateo Daily Journal, December
16-17, 2000.
Comm. Auran stated he was misquoted in this article. He stated that the Commission makes
decisions based on testimony received.
7.1.3 ITE Fact Sheet on Pedestrian Crosswalk by ITE District 10, Florida Section, 1994.
Mr. Ho advised this is an "FYI" article which contains statistics on the number of accidents
which occur at crosswalks as opposed to no crosswalks. Comm. Auran asked about flashing
yellow lights at crosswalks. Mr. Erbacher advised that these are not for control. Pedestrians
tend to misconstrue the lights as a safety zone; however, it is not a traffic signal. Staff is
pricing these for Cortez, they are fairly expensive. Mr. Ho advised that one was tested and
they found that the number of vehicles stopping is significantly higher and the federal
government has approved their use. Comm. Auran suggested these lights for Bayshore
Highway at the Hyatt Regency and for California Drive by Stack's Restaurant. Mr. Erbacher
advised that a traffic signal is planned for the California Drive site.
7.1.4 Traffic Engineer's Report
Mr. Ho advised that a speed sign was added facing northbound traffic on Carolan so that there
will be two signs. Also, on Alpine Road, botts dots will be added to slow traffic.
7.1.5 Staff Action Log
Mr. Ho reviewed this report.
7.2 From Commission to Staff
7.2.1 Reports of citizen complaints or requests - None.
SAA Public Works Directory\TSP CommissionWlinutesWlinutes for 02-08-01 Meeting.wpd Page 4
TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION
Meeting Minutes - Unapproved
Thursday, February 8, 2001
7.2.2 Comments and communication
Comm. Evans suggested parking old/unused police cars in strategic spots to deter speeding,
e.g., on Trousdale Drive. The cars could be moved daily to appear active. Sgt. Ransom said
he would advise Chief Missel of this idea; although it would be a cost item.
7.2.3 Expected absences of Commissioners at the Thursday, March 8, 2001 meeting - None.
8. INACTIVE ITEMS.
8.1 Request for two STOP signs at Palm Drive/Crossway Road and a Speed Bump on Palm Drive at
Edgehill Road
Nothing to report.
8.2 Request for traffic control on Dwight Road
Mr. Erbacher advised that the residents do not have plans ready yet.
8.3 Request for more police enforcement, new white zone signs, convert Devereux to a one-way street,
install a STOP sign and a crosswalk on Adeline at Cortez, and install informational signs on streets
leading to Lincoln School.
Mr. Erbacher advised that a second meeting was to be held yesterday, but it was postponed. The
City will be the facilitator for a meeting with the school.
8.4 Request for residential permit parking on Lexington Way and close off the access path from
Lexington Way to Burlingame High School parking lot.
Mr. Erbacher advised that a letter was sent from the Parks Department to the Zovods. The Parks
Department does not want to close this access. Also, the Aquatic Center will be adding a parking
lot.
9. AGENDIZE FOR THE NEXT MEETING
4.2.1 - Discussion
5.2 - Discussion
10. ADJOURNMENT. 8:50 p.m.
SAA Public Works Directory\TSP CommissionNinutesWlinutes for 02-08-01 Meeting.wpd Page 5
r• r
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
January 31, 2001
Par Market Book % of Days to YTM YTM
Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv.
LAIF & County Pool
13,924,618.00 13,924,618.00 13,924,618.00
39.33 1 1 6.046 6.130
CORP NOTES
3,000,000.00 3,010,000.00 3,027,780.00
8.55 1,596 910 5.929 6.011
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
18,500,000.00 18,546,095.00 18,452,808.28
52.12 1,736 983 6.138 6.223
Investments
35,424,618.00 35,480,713.00 35,405,206.28
100.00% 1,041 591 6.084 6.169
Total Earnings
January 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date
Current Year
190,577.28 1,231,523.43
Average Daily Balance
36,303,922.73 33,717,956.88
Effective Rate of Return
6.18% 6.20%
Pursuant to State law, there
ie sufficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure requirements for the coming 6 months.
Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types, and
thes
unds is restricted by law (e.g. Gas Tax, Trust & Agency funds, Capital Projects, and Enterprise funds).
t
Z_q-o r
RAHN A. BECKER INANCE DIR./TREASURER
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 02/09/2001 -10:16 PM (PRF_PM1) SymRepl V5.01(
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Investments
January 31, 2001
Average Purchase
CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value
LAW & County Pool
77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD.
79 S M COUNTY POOL
Subtotal and Average 14,081,398.97
CORP NOTES
073902BM9 487 BEAR STEARNS CORP 03/02/1999
37042R2C5 489 GENERAL MTRS ACCEP CORP 04/20/1999
Subtotal and Average 3,027,780.00
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
10, 060, 954.81
10, 060, 954.81
3133M3TS4
476
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
03/17/1998
3133M4HM8
480
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
05/20/1998
3133M5P95
482
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
09/24/1998
3133M5T34
483
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
09/30/1998
3133M5SSO
484
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
10/06/1998
3133M7Y75
488
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
03/22/1999
3133MA5R6
491
FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK
10/18/1999
3134A3MFO
492
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP.
10/12/1999
312902GZ6
493
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP.
10/26/1999
31364FVU2
477
FANNIE MAE
03/20/1998
31364F4F5
481
FANNIE MAE
08/24/1998
31364GMK2
486
FANNIE MAE
12/28/1998
31364GT82
490
FANNIE MAE
06/25/1999
Subtotal and Average 19,194,743.76
Total Investments and Average 36,303,922.73
Page 2
Stated YTM Days to Maturity
Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Date
10, 060, 954.81
10, 060, 954.81
10, 060, 954.81
6.230
3,863,663.19
3,863,663.19
3,863,663.19
5.870
13,924,618.00
13,924,618.00
13,924,618.00
6.270
2,000,000.00
1,995,000.00
1,997,500.00
6.150
1,000,000.00
1,015,000.00
1,030,280.00
6.750
3,000,000.00
3,010,000.00
3,027,780.00
6.790
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1, 000, 000.00
2,000,000.00
2,500,000.00
1,000, 000.00
1,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
2,000,000.00
18,500,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
1,000,000.00
998,750.00
2,000,000.00
2,530,475.00
999,370.00
1,003, 750.00
2,002,500.00
2,002,500.00
1,001,250.00
2,007,500.00
18,546,095.00
1,000,000.00 6.020
1,000,000.00 6.270
1,000,000.00 6.000
1,000,000.00 5.800
1,000,000.00 5.590
2,000,000.00 6.000
2,500,000.00 7.000
963,683.28 5.850
1,000,000.00 6.760
2,000,000.00 6.100
2,003,125.00 6.000
1,000,000.00 5.290
1,986,000.00 6.340
18,452,808.28
35,424,618.00 35,480,713.00 35,405,206.28
6.230 1
5.870 1
6.130
1
6179
1.125 03/02/2004
5.685
494 06/10/2002
6.011
910
6.020
774 03/17/2003
6.270
838 05/20/2003
6.000
965 09/24/2003
5.800
971 09/30/2003
5.590
977 10/06/2003
6.000
1,145 03/22/2004
7-000
1,355 10/18/2004
6.790
1,184 04/30/2004
6.760
631 10/25/2002
6.100
777 03/20/2003
5.963
924 08/14/2003
5.290
330 12/28/2001
6.507
1,223 06/08/2004
6.223
983
6.169 591
Portfolio CITY
Run Date: 02/09/2001 - 10:16
CP
PM (PRF_PM2) SymRepl V5.01t
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Cash
January 31, 2001
Average Purchase
CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value
Total Cash and Investments 36,303,922.73
Stated YTM Days to
Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity
35,424,618.00 35,480,713.00 35,405,206.28
6.169 591
Page 3
Portfolio CITY
Run Dale: 02/09/2001 • 10:18 CP
PM (PRF_PM2) SymRepl V5.011
T
CUSIP Investment # Issuer
1 -
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management
Investment Activity By Type
January 1, 2001 through January 31, 2001
Beginning Stated Transaction Purchases
Balance Rate Date or Deposits
Sales/Maturities
or Withdrawals
Ending
Balance
Page 4
LAIF & County Pool (Monthly Summary)
77
LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD.
6.230
141,428.01
0.00
79
S M COUNTY POOL
5.870
452,027.93
860,000.00
Subtotal
14,191,162.06
593,455.94
860,000.00
13,924,618.00
CORP NOTES
Subtotal
3,027,780.00
3,027,780.00
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
3134A11-64 467
FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 6.630 01/24/2001
0.00
1,000,000.00
Subtotal
19,452,808.28
0.00
1,000,000.00
18,452,808.28
Total
36,671,750.34
593,455.94
1,860,000.00
35,405,206.28
Run Date: 02/09/2001 - 10:16
Portfolio CITY
CP
PM (PRF_PM3) SymRepl V5.01f
11
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Month
End
Year
Number of
Securities
Portfolio Management
Investment Activity Summary
January 2000 through January 2001
Yield to Maturity Managed
Total 360 365 Pool
Invested Equivalent Equivalent Rate
Number
of Securities
Purchased
Number
of Securities
Matured I Sold
Average
Term
Page 5
Average
Days to Maturity
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
January
2001
17
35,405,206.28
6.084 6.169 6.130
0
1
1,041
591
Average 18
32,773,954.76
6.109% 6.194% 6.131
0
0
1,180
781
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Dale: 02/09/2001 - 10:16 PM (PRF_PM4) SyrnRept V5.011
Investment Type
January
2000
February
2000
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management
Distribution of Investments By Type
January 2000 through January 2001
March April May June July August September
2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000
October November December
2000 2000 2000
January
2001
Page 6
Average
by Period
LAIF & County Pool
24.9
25.1
25.8 32.4 31.2 27.9 28.1
32.5
33.5
33.9 34.5 38.7
39.3
31.4%
Certificates of Deposit - Bank
Certificates of Deposit - S & L
Certificates of Deposit -Thrift & Ln
Negotiable CD's - Bank
CORP NOTES
10.1
10.1
10.0 9.1 9.3 9.7 9.7
9.1
9.0
8.9 8.8 8.3
8.6
9.3%
Bankers Acceptances
Commercial Paper - Interest Bearing
Commercial Paper - Discount
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon
65.0
64.8
64.2 58.5 59.6 62.4 62.2
58.5
57.6
57.2 56.7 53.1
52_.1
59.4%
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
Run Date: 02/092001 - 10:16
Portfolio CITY
CP
PM (PRF_PM5) SymRepl V5.011
4'
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Portfolio Management
Page 7
Interest Earnings Summary
January 31, 2001
January 31 Month Ending
Fiscal Year To Date
CD/Coupon/Discount Investments:
Interest Collected 33,150.00
731,350.01
Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 416,161.57
416,161.57
Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 334,234.08)
( 334,234.09)
Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00)
( 0.00)
Interest Earned during Period 115,077.49
813,277.49
Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00
0.00
Earnings during Period 115,077.49
813,277.49
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
Earnings during Period
Cash/Checking Accounts:
Interest Collected
Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period
Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period
Interest Earned during Period
0.00
0.00
( 0.00)
( 0.00)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00)
0.00)
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 297,215.64
298, 347.71 298, 347.71
222,847.92) ( 177,317.41)
75,499.79 418,245.94
Total Interest Earned during Period 190,577.28 1,231,523.43
Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00
Total Earnings during Period 190,577.28 1,231,523.43
Portfolio CITY
CP
Run Date: 02/09/2001 •10:18 PM (PRF__PN1o) Syn)Repl V5.G if
95BD
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
January 31, 2001
Par Market Book % of Days to YTM YTM
Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv.
Federal Agency Issues - Coupon 800,000.00 800,248.00 802,000.00 100.00 1,756 956 4.995 5.064
Investments 800,000.00 800,248.00 802,000.00 100.00% 1,756 956 4.995 5.064
Total Earnings January 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date
Current Year 3,416.67 23,916.67
Average Daily Balance 802,000.00 802,000.00
Effective Rate of Return 5.02% 5.06%
Pursuant to State law, there are s.1ficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure requirements for the coming 6 months. Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types, and
t se fu is restricted by law (e.g. Gas Tax, Trust & Agency funds, Capital Projects, and Enterprise funds).
Rahn Becker, Finance Director/Treasurer
Run Date: 02/09/2001 • 10:16
Portfolio 95BD
CP
PM (PRF_PMI) SymRepl V5.01f
("n
95BD
Total Investments and Average 802,000.00 800,000.00 800,248.00 802,000.00 5.064 956
Portfolio 95BD
CP
Run Date: 02/09/2001 - 10:16 PM (PRF_PM2) SyrnRept V5.01(
Portfolio Management
Page 2
Portfolio Details - Investments
January 31, 2001
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
800,248.00
802,000.00
5.125
5.064
956 09/15/2003
Subtotal and Average
802,000.00
800,000.00
800,248.00
802,000.00
5.064
956
Total Investments and Average 802,000.00 800,000.00 800,248.00 802,000.00 5.064 956
Portfolio 95BD
CP
Run Date: 02/09/2001 - 10:16 PM (PRF_PM2) SyrnRept V5.01(
95BD
Portfolio Management Page 3
Portfolio Details - Cash
January 31, 2001
Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to
CUSIP Investment # Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate 365 Maturity
Total Cash and Investments 802,000.00 800,000.00 800,248.00 802,000.00 5.064 956
Run Date: 02/09/2001 - 10:16
Portfolio 95BD
CP
PM (PRF_PM2) SymRept V5.01 f
98BD
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Summary
January 31, 2001
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 1,710,000.00 1,710,000.00 100.00 1,826 783 5.977 6.060
Investments 1,710,000.00 1,710,000.00 1,710,000.00 100.00% 1,826 783 5.977 6.060
Total Earnings January 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date
Current Year 8,874.05 61,139.78
Average Daily Balance 1,710,000.00 1,710,000.00
Effective Rate of Return 6.11% 6.07%
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
2
I
fu s is restricted by law (e.g. Gas Tax, Trust & Agency funds, Capital Projects, and Enterprise funds).
�- 9�-C 1
KAHN BECKER, Fina a Director/Treasurer
Run Date: 02/09/2001 • 10:17
Portfolio 98BD
CP
PM (PRF_PMt) SymRepl V5.01f
CUSIP Investment # Issuer
98BD
Portfolio Management
Portfolio Details - Investments
January 31, 2001
Average Purchase
Balance Date Par Value Market Value
Page 2
Stated YTM Days to Maturity
Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity na+a
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
1,710,000.00
1,710,000.00 6.060
6.060 783 03/26/2003
Subtotal and Average 1,710,000.00
1,710,000.00
1,710,000.00
1,710,000.00
6.060 783
otal Investments and Average 1,710,000.00
1,710, 000.00 1,710,000.00 1,710, 000.00
6.060 783
Portfolio 98BD
Run Date: 02/09/2001 - 10:17 CP
PM (PRF PM2) SymRept V5.01t
98BD
Portfolio Management Page 3
Portfolio Details - Cash
January 31, 2001
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 1,710,000.00
1,710,000.00 1,710,000.00 1,710,000.00
6.060 783
Portfolio 98BD
CP
Run Date: 021OW001 - 10:17
PM (PRF_PM2) SymRepl V5.01!
CITY OF BURLINGAME
Permit type
New Single Family
New Multi -Family
New Commercial
Alterations -Res
Alterations-NonRes
Demolition
Swimming Pool
Sign Permits
Fences
Reroofing
Repairs
Window Repl
Miscellaneous
TOTALS.....
MONTHLY PERMIT ACTIVITY
THIS MONTH
# Valuation
1 $272,150
0 $0
1 $2,000,000
21 $544,900
11 $1,523,250
3 $12,000
0 $0
5 $16,053
0 $0
11 $106,209
3 $12,800
4 $38,999
15 $223,494
75 $4,749,855
2/01/01 11:41:28
LAST MONTH
#
Valuation
2
$500,000
0
$0
0
$0
15
$263,800
6
$321,250
2
$10,000
0
$0
2
$16,000
0
$0
25
$420,703
2
$17,500
5
$40,089
5
$120,600
64 $1,709,942
76 $3,083,303
JANUARY, 2001
THIS YEAR
TO DATE
# Valuation
1 $272,150
0 $0
1 $2,000,000
21 $544,900
11 $1,523,250
3 $12,000
0 $0
5 $16,053
0 $0
11 $106,209
3 $12,800
4 $38,999
15 $223,494
75 $4,749,855
BUILDING INSPECTION
LAST YEAR
SAME MONTH
#
LAST YEAR
#
Valuation
4
$996,900
0
$0
1
$500,000
26
$840,396
9
$455,500
3
$4,000
0
$0
5
$27,400
0
$0
13
$153,000
3
$20,800
4
$13,507
8
$71,800
76 $3,083,303
JANUARY, 2001
THIS YEAR
TO DATE
# Valuation
1 $272,150
0 $0
1 $2,000,000
21 $544,900
11 $1,523,250
3 $12,000
0 $0
5 $16,053
0 $0
11 $106,209
3 $12,800
4 $38,999
15 $223,494
75 $4,749,855
BUILDING INSPECTION
LAST YEAR
FISCAL YEI
TO DAT]
# Valuatic
14 $4,033,01
1 $1,859,38
1 $2,000,00
157 $5,119,41'
60 $9,119,79!
27 $22,00(
1 $7,50(
23 $121,795
1 $2,500
159 $1,744,758
21 $141,895
24 $213,529
38 $544,972
76 $3,083,303 527 $24,930,565
TO DATE
#
Valuation
4
$996,900
0
$0
1
$500,000
26
$840,396
9
$455,500
3
$4,000
0
$0
5
$27,400
0
$0
13
$153,000
3
$20,800
4
$13,507
8
$71,800
FISCAL YEI
TO DAT]
# Valuatic
14 $4,033,01
1 $1,859,38
1 $2,000,00
157 $5,119,41'
60 $9,119,79!
27 $22,00(
1 $7,50(
23 $121,795
1 $2,500
159 $1,744,758
21 $141,895
24 $213,529
38 $544,972
76 $3,083,303 527 $24,930,565
02-12-01 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1
FOR: JANUARY, 2001
Last
Act
Prev Act
Crime Classification ....................
Current Year..
YTD...
YTD.....
Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter
0
0
Manslaughter by Negligence
0
0
Rape By Force
2
2
0
0
0
Attempt to Commit Forcible Rape
Robbery Firearm
0
0
0
Robbery Knife
0
0
1
Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon
1
0
Robbery Strong -Arm
3
3
1
Assault - Firearm
1
0
Assault - Knife
1
0
1
Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon
1
0
1
Assault - Hands,Fists,Feet
0
0
Assault - Other (Simple)
18
10
18
10
Burglary - Forcible Entry
16
4
16
4
Burglary - Unlawful Entry
7
8
7
8
Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry
1
0
1
Larceny Pocket -Picking
1
0
1
Larceny Purse -Snatching
0
0
Larceny Shoplifting
2
2
2
2
22
Larceny From Motor Vehicle
4
22
4
5
Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories
2
5
2
6
Larceny Bicycles
1
42
6
13
1
42
13
Larceny From Building
1
Larceny From Any Coin -Op Machine
1
1
1
Larceny All Other
2
7
2
7
7
Motor Vehicle Theft Auto
19
7
19
Motor Vehicle Theft Bus
0
0
Motor Vehicle Theft Other
1
------- ------
1
------
0
--------
120
91
120
91
120
91
120
91
02-12-01 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1
CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2001
Last Act
Prev
Act
Crime Classification ....................
Current
Year.. YTD...
YTD.....
Arson
Other Assaults
2
18
10
2
18
0
10
Forgery and Counterfeiting
1
2
1
2
0
Check Offenses
1
1
0
2
Fraud
2
0
0
Bad checks
2
2
0
Credit Card Offenses
Impersonation
0
0
0
0
Welfare Fraud
0
0
Wire Fraud
1
0
Embezzlement
1
1
0
Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess
1
Vandalism
24
33
24
33
Weapons;Carrying,Possessing
3
1
3
1
Bomb Offense
0
0
0
0
Bomb Threat
0
0
Prostitution and Commercial Vice
Pandering for immoral purposes
0
0
Sex Offenses
1
2
1
0
0
2
Indecent Exposure
0
0
Sex Offenses against Children
0
Lewd Conduct
0
0
0
Incest
0
0
Sodomy
0
0
Statutory Rape
6
5
6
5
Drug Abuse Violations
0
0
Narcotics Sales/Manufacture
3
Marijuana Violations
3
3
3
0
Gambling
2
0
0
2
Offenses Against Children
6
Driving Under the Influence
12
6
12
2
Vehicle Code Violations
2
2
2
5
Hit and Run Accidents
5
0
5
Suspended License
2
5
2
0
Driver's License Violations
1
1
0
Liquor Laws
1
5
3
1
5
3
Drunkeness
4
1
4
1
Disorderly Conduct
0
Vagrancy
All Other Offenses
40
46
0
40
46
1
0
1
Trespassing
0
0
Violation of Court Order
0
Animal Abuse
0
0
0
Animal Nuisance
2
1
2
1
Municipal Code Violations
3
Harrassing Phone Calls
3
3
5
3
5
5
Mental Health Cases
5
0
0
Littering/Dumping
0
Intimidating a Witness
0
0
Terrorist Threats
1
1
0
0
Extortion
1
1
0
Resisting Arrest
02-12-01 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2
CITY REPORT FOR: JANUARY, 2001
Last Act Prev Act
Crime Classification .................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD.....
Possession of Burglary Tools
Escape
Perjury
Bribery
Drug/Sex Registrants
Kidnapping
Possession of drug paraphernalia
Possession of obscene literature;picture
Peeping 'Tom'
Towed Vehicle
Temp Restraining Orders
K9 Assists to Outside Agencies
Warrants - Felony
Warrants - Misd
Probation Violations
Parole Violations
Found Property
Missing Property
Missing Person
Stalking
Prowling
False Police Reports
Fish and Game Violations
Other Police Service
Bigamy
US Mail Crimes
False Reports of Emergency
Conspiracy
Computer Crime
Curfew and Loitering Laws
Runaways (Under 18)
Truants/Incorrigible Juvs
Other Juvenile Offenses
Child Neglect/prot custody
Death Investigation
Bicycle Violations
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
43
24
43
24
6
7
6
7
0
0
2
2
0
2
5
2
5
3
3
0
0
0
2
11
2
11
10
9
10
9
1
3
1
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
17
17
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
1
0
0
0
4
3
4
3
6
6
0
0
0
239
200
239
200
239
200
239
200
N .
02-09-01 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE: 1
CITY REPORT
FOR: JANUARY, 2001
Last Act Prev Act
Crime Classification .................... Current Year.. YTD... YTD.....
Parking Citations 3,153 3,123 3,153 3,123
Moving Citations 174 229 174 229
------- ------ ------ --------
3,327 3,352 3,327 3,352
3,327 3,352 3,327 3,352
BURLINGAME
Officer Productivity.... generated on 02/09/2001 at 02:00:09 PM
Reported On: All Officers Report Range: 01/01/2001 to 01/31/2001
Data Type Reported on: PARKING
Page I of I
Valid
o All
Voids
% All
%
Valid
Cnt
Voids
Valid
Officer:
ZD:
Cnt
---------------------------------------
--------------------
8
27.59
98.76
DAZA-QUIROZ
634
638
21.72
20.69
98.64
505
434
14.77
6
JFOX
12.56
6
20.69
98.40
KSRKPATRICK
502
369
5
17.24
99.62
201
1327
45.17
MORAN
5.79
4
13.79
97.70
ROSCOE
503
170
2938
29
Total
Page I of I
�d CITY CITY OF BURLINGAME
RURLI"GAME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
°••°°
MEMORANDUM
February 9, 2001
TO: Jim Nantell
FROM: John Williams
SUBJECT: Proposed Skateboard Park Update - F.Y.I.
40V-kr'e*'
In August, 2000 I was asked by San Mateo Parks & Recreation Director Sheila Canzian if the
City of Burlingame would be interested in discussing the development of a skateboard park at
Coyote Point County Park. At that time, Dennis Argyres directed me to discuss the matter
further with she and the Parks & Recreation Director from Foster City.
On October 2, 2000 I met with Sheila Canzian and Kevin Miller to discuss the matter. Sheila
advised us that the County was willing to provide land for a skateboard park at Coyote Point (just
south of the Humane Society) at no cost, if the City of San Mateo would develop the facility. She
stated that the City of San Mateo would probably develop a skateboard park at that location in
any case, but that San Mateo was interested in finding out if there was any interest in Burlingame
and Foster City participating in such a project so that the skateboard park could be done on a little
bigger scale, with adequate restrooms, parking, etc. I told Sheila and Kevin that Burlingame was
interested and I suggested that we look at a 5 -way split of development costs based on
population: I share each for Burlingame and Foster City; 3 shares for San Mateo.
Shortly after that meeting, the Foster City Parks & Recreation Committee officially supported the
idea and urged the City Council to participate. I do not know if any Council action has been
taken on the matter in Foster City. Dennis Argyres felt that we had inadequate information to
bring the matter before our Commission and Council. Both in September and in November, I
responded to Parks & Recreation Commission questions on this matter, following newspaper
articles about the proposed project.
I have been regularly checking with San Mateo since October to see if any plans or budgets have
been developed for the project. As of yesterday, Sheila Canzian reported that the San Mateo and
the County were still discussing plans in general and that no specific plans or budgets have been
developed. At this point in time, it still does not appear possible to have any in depth discussions
on City of Burlingame participation in such a project. It is currently my intention to recommend
that we include $100,000 in the Capital Improvements Budget, in case the project goes forward.
�� CITY OF BURLINGAME ?Ark, e,
BURLIP AME PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT
4°
MEMORANDUM
February 14, 2001
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Jim Nantell, City Manager
FROM: John W. Williams, Parks & Recreation Director �Ir
SUBJECT: Energy Conservation at Bayside Park - FYI
On Monday of this week, Council Member O'Mahony called to relay a citizen complaint about the
driving range lights burning last Sunday evening when the weather was not good. I investigated the
matter and reported back to Rosalie. Jim Nantell and I felt that it would be good to pass the same
information on to all the Council in case you receive other questions or complaints.
In all of Bayside Park. Staff has stopped permitting night lighted soccer or other field uses
in January, February and the early part of March. We will revisit this policy when the
weather improves, baseball/softball seasons begin, and more is known about the energy
crises.
2. At the Golf Center. The City does have a contract with VB Golf that calls for open range
hours between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. The last patron purchasing balls before 9:00 p.m. is
given until 9:30 p.m. to hit the balls. We have been fortunate and have not had any
vandalism or theft problems of range balls overnight and so the Operator's practice has been
to turn the lights off by 9:30 p.m. and to pickup range balls during the day following.
The Operator has agreed to reduce the heating level in the Golf Shop; to turn off short
game practice area lights at 7:30 p.m. and to turn off all range lights as quickly after 9:00
p.m. as the last person has finished hitting balls. On a rainy evening, the Operator may shut
down the entire operation if there are no customers and no expectation that there will be
any. Bill VerBrugge is willing to negotiate any other changes in the operating schedule that
the City might wish to discuss.
In December, Jim Nantell asked VB Golf to begin keeping a log of range use between 7:00
and 8:00 a. m. in the morning and between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m. during the winter months so
that an evaluation could be made regarding open hours next winter. We do have a record
of Sunday evening's range use between 8:00 and 9:00 p.m. Six (6) customers were hitting
balls during the 8:00 to 9:00 p.m. hour. The Operator's staff estimates that there were 15-
20 total persons in the facility between 6:00 and 9:00 p.m. Sunday night, February 11.
W
Lorenz d: Louisa Zee .Kao
1110 Burlingame Avenue, Suite 400
Burlingame, CA 94010-4125
Tel.: 650 344 3883 Fax: 650 344 1807
January 29 2001
The City of Burlingame,
City Hall, C 501 Primrose Road
Burlingame, CA 94010-3997
Attention:
Re:
Mayor Joe Galligan
Margaret Monroe, City Planner
Burlingame Planning Commissioners:
Joseph Bojues,
Jerry L. Deal
Martin Dreiling
Ann Keighran
Dave Luzuriaga
Ralph Osterling
Stanley Vistica
Fred Palmer, City Code Enforcement
Erika Lewit, Zoning Technician
RECEIVED
FEB 02 2001
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
CITY OF BURLINGAME
"Pilates Studio" a Fitness Studio at
Suite 105 at Lower Street level of Avenue Plaza Building
1110 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame
Dear Mr. Mayor, Planning Commissioners and City Officials,
I have just returned to Burlingame from an overseas business trip. During my trip, my office
-forwarded me a copy of your letter of January 11, 2000 by Erika Lewit, the City of
Burlingame Zoning Technician, to our tenant, Ms. Karen Scheikowitz. You advised her that
the business operation of "Pilates Fitness Studio" at Suite 105 of the Avenue Plaza building
in Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area requires a Conditional Use Permit under Section
C.S. 25.36.040. Ms. Lewit cites that she found no record of such Use Permit on record, and
determined that the "Pilates Studio" is an illegal business operation and requires the site must
be vacated in two months, by March 12, 2001.
First of all, I sincerely believe that the failure of applying for the Conditional Use Permit was
an honest oversight since neither the tenant nor we had the knowledge of this requirement. I
have spoken with Ms. Scheikowitz and she wanted to process the application retroactively.
c�
e�
CA
The City of Burlingame
Mayor Joe Galligan
The City Planner and Planning Commissioners
City Code Enforcement Department
1/29/01
Page 2
When, about two years ago, our tenant Ms. Scheikowitz provided our property management
office an approved and paid Business License (See attached) that was formally issued by The
City of Burlingame for "Pilates Studio" indicating the nature of business of "A Pilates Fitness
Studio" conducted at our Suite #105 premises prior to its entering the lease agreement, we
were under the implied understanding that no further governmental procedural approval
would have been warranted. We believe that the Pilates Studio which also conduct retail
sales of fitness related equipment, tools and accessories basically conforms to the zone use
codes of retail/service business use at that location under the variance of use permitted by the
City Planning Department when THE ZEKA GROUP/K.,�OS started the major seismic
retrofits of the building complex in 1995 and finished in 1997.
We understand that the fitness studio and retail sales business operation has been well
received in that location which offers personal fitness exercise services and related equipment
and accessories sales for the well being of upscale walk-in clientele in this community and
ideally meets the local market demand for those who do not care for the large open gyms or
fitness stores. The below street level location strategically offers the comfort of privacy and
shelter from direct street -front exposure yet still provides the convenience of independent
street access for walk-in retail clients. It is specially designed and focused for today's
Burlingame Avenue open shopping -mall like ambience and allows the customers to combine
their shopping and/or beauty salon schedule in the Burlingame Avenue neighborhood.
We truly consider that the current tenant does make the best use of our below street level
retail/servicing commercial spaces at Avenue Plaza Building as stipulated in the Subareas A
and B of the Burlingame Avenue commercial areas upon with your acceptance of our
application of a Conditional Use Permit, per the information of Code Section C.S. 25.36.040
that we recently received from your City's Zone Technician, Pilates Studio/Retail Store will
be in compliance.
We are not aware of any outside complaint's existence, other than your Zoning Technician's
First Notice letter, which we wanted to rectify the oversight and apply for the Conditional
Use Permit retroactively.
We wish to add, that being a long time resident of the community and investor on the
Burlingame Avenue since 1981, we were some of the foremost local citizen business people
who took on the major structural upgrades to voluntarily beautify and face lift the California
Street block of downtown Burlingame Avenue before the recovery of the prolonged
California economic recession that had lasted during 1991-6. We had indeed paid high prices
in sustaining a prolonged vacancy period at the below street level spaces during 1997-99,
having completed the beautification and renovation of the Avenue Plaza Building in our
faithful compliance of the retail/service zone use, we feel that Pilates Studio is a selective
tenant for the highest quality use, for the below street level retail/services use as a result of
our contributing financial investment in tenant improvements at this below street level of
Avenue Plaza Building as our incentive attributing to the success of our tenant's business.
The City of Burlingame
Mayor Joe Galligan
The City Planner and Planning Commissioners
City Code Enforcement Department
1/29/01
Page 3
Therefore, we respectfully request the City of Burlingame to review the letter of January 11,
2001 and revoke vour decision to force hard working Americans out of business because of
an honest oversight, and provide us the opportunity of correcting the oversight by accepting
the retroactive application and issuance of the Conditional Use Permit, as we hereby request.
Please do not force a contributing community investor/property owner on Burlingame
Avenue to sustain irreparable damage of loss in rent income for an unpredictable vacancy
period unwarrantedly for good and full), improved tenantable commercial spaces. It will in
turn force us into the danger of irreparable economic and financial detriments. We would
like to Jocument that our property management office had turned down a number of qualified
tenant applicants, which we considered them not suitable for the zone use.
Our tenant and we kindly invite you and all City Officials of the Planning Department to visit
the Pilates Studio at our Avenue Plaza Building for a site inspection in person to see the our
substantial financial tenant improvements for the spaces as well as the state of the art
equipment installed for both exercise use and floor samples of retail sales at this retail/
services space which is carefully designed and focused for today's local retail/services market
in mind.
Taking this opportunity, we would sincerely appreciate your permitting us to rely on your
assistance, Members of City of Burlingame, to productively resolve this matter in the true
spirit of unity as pledged by our new President Mr. George Bush in his most recent
Presidential Address to us, the American publics.
Thank you for your prompt attention and assistance.
Yours very truly,
Avenue Plaza Building
Lore Kao & Louisa Zee Kao
Pro rty Owner /f
Read and Approv nd
I jointly submit the above letter
By PILATES STUDIO
Karen Scheikowitz
Studio Owner Manager
CITY OF ,URLINGAME LICENSE &' AX RECEIPT
EXPIRES JUNE 30 2001
501 PRIMROSE ROAD • BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7212
THIS LICENSES ISSUED WITHOUT VERIFICATION THAT THE LICENSEE IS SUBJECT TO OR EXEMPT ACCOUNT NUMBER
FROM LICENSING BY THE STATE, COUNTY, FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, OR ANY OTHER GOVERN-
BYNUV LAME MENTAL AGENCY. IT IS ISSUED FOR REVENUE PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A 16038
PERMIT TO OPERATE A BUSINESS IN VIOLATION OF CITY ORDINANCES OR STATE LAWS. EACH
FIRST TIME LICENSE MUST BE APPROVED BY THE CITY DEPARTMENTS OF BUILDING, FIRE,
PLANNING AND THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, AS MAY BE REQUIRED. AMOUNT PAID
STATEMENT DATE • 07/01/00 RATE TABLE • 01 BUSINESS TAX $ 100.00PENALTY $ 0.00
BUSINESS DESCRIPTION- DILATES EXERCISE STUDIO TOTAL $ i00.00
BUSINESS THE RIGHT DIRECTION (PILATES STUDIO)
NAME
MAILING 1110 BURLINGAME AVE #107 BURLINGAME • 1110 BURLINGAME AVE #105
ADDRESS
TION
BURLINGAME, CA 94010
PLEASE POST IN CONSPICUOUS PLACE,
OWNER'S KAREN SCHEIKOWITZ NOT ASSIGNABLE OR TRANSFERABLE
NAME
ACCGUN7 VUV16; R
BUSINESS NAME • THE RIGHT DIRECTION (PILATES STUDIO) 16038
PAID
JUL 2 5 2000 THIS LICENSE WILL EXPIRE ON JUNE 30TH
FOLLOWING THE ABOVE ISSUE DATE.
CITY OF BURLINGAME
IT IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO NOTIFY THE BUSINESS TAX COLLECTOR IN WRITING
OF ANY CHANGE OF OWNER, NAME OF BUSINESS OR ADDRESS.
The City of Burlingame
CITY HALL C 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650) 558-7250
PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650) 696-3790
FIRST NOTICE
January 11, 2001
Karen Scheikowitz
1110 Burlingame Avenue #105
Burlingame CA 94010
Dear Ms. Scheikowitz,
It has been brought to our attention that you are operating a fitness studio at 1110 Burlingame Avenue, Suite
105. The Pilates studio in question is defined by the City Code as an instructional class. Your business is
located in zone C-1, subarea A, which allows an instructional class use only if it is incidental to a retail use.
In addition to which, instructional classes conducted as an incidental use also require a conditional use permit
from the Planning Commission.
Our records indicate that the Pilates Studio has no conditional use permit for the address at 1110 Burlingame
Avenue, Suite 105. The City's Code Enforcement Officer, Fred Palmer, performed a site visit on 1/10/00
and observed that the business operation in question was the primary use on site and not incidental to a retail
use.
The Pilates Studio at 1110 Burlingame Avenue Suite 105 is an illegal business operation. The site must
be vacated in two months, by March 12, 2001.
Attached is C.S. 25.36.040, which details the regulations for zone C-1, subarea A (see the highlighted
section). Please contact the Planning Department if you have any questions regarding this matter.
In addition, for our records we request that you send the Planning Department notification when your business
vacates the building. Thank you for your cooperation.
Sincerely,
Erika Lewit
Zoning Technician
c: Fred Palmer, City Code Enforcement
Louisa Kao, owner 1110 Burlingame Avenue
City of Burlingame
Chapter 25.36
C-1 DISTRICT REGULATIONS
25.36.010
Scope of regulations.
25.36.020
Permitted uses.
25.36.030
Conditional uses requiring a
conditional use permit.
25.36.032
Grocery, drug and department stores.
25.36.035
Additional conditional uses in certain
areas.
25.36.040
Burlingame Avenue commercial area
and Broadway commercial area.
25.36.045
Prohibited uses.
25.36.050
Ambiguity of use.
25.36.060
Building regulations.
2536.0 70
Height and bulk of buildings.
25.36.075
Minimum lot size and street frontage.
25.36.080
Minimum setbacks on certain streets.
25.36.010 Scope of regulations.
The following regulations of this chapter shall
apply to all C-1 districts. (1941 Code § 1930 (part),
added by Ord. 539; January 4, 1954).
25.36.020 Permitted uses.
The following uses are permitted in the C-1
districts:
1. Advertising structures, where such structures are
a component part of a building and used for advertising
the business therein;
2. Antique shop;
3. Automobile sales room, but excluding service
facilities;
4. Barbershop;
5. Business office or agency;
6. Cleaning and dyeing agency;
7. Creamery, but excluding bottling or manufacture
of dairy products;
8. Dancing academy;
9. Dressmald ng, tailoring, but excluding wholesale
manufacturing;
10. Electrical appliances, fixtures, radio, etc.;
11. Hotel;
12. Pet shop, but excluding breeding pens,
boarding or kennels;
13. Offices except health services, financial
institutions and real estate; provided that health services
shall be permitted in the C-1 portion of those blocks
bounded by EI Camino Real, Murchison Drive,
California Drive and Dufferin Avenue;
14. Public eating establishments;
I.S. Shoe repair shop;
16. Store or shop for the conduct of any retail
business as otherwise herein provided;
17. Washing machine rental service, but excluding
laundries:
I8. Uses customarily incidental to the above uses.
and accessory buildings when located on the same lot:
provided, that there shall be no manufacturing.
assembling, compounding, spraying, processing or
treatment of products other than that which is clearly
incidental and essential to a store or business and where
all products therefrom are sold on the premises. (1941
Code § 1930 (A), added by Ord. 539; January 4, 1954,
amended by Ord. 1058 § 1; January 5, 1976,Ord. 1184
§ l; July 7, 1980, Ord. 1229 § 2; July 19, 1982, Ord_
1403 §§ 7, 8; February 5, 1990, Ord. 1418 § I; August
20, 1990, Ord. 1426 § 5; November 5, 1990).
25.36.030 Conditional uses requiring a
conditional use permit.
The following are conditional uses requiring a
conditional use permit:
1. All permitted uses and all uses allowed with a
conditional use permit in the R-1, R-2, R-3, and R-4
districts, and subject to the same regulations and
restrictions applying to those uses in their respective
districts, and subject to the building restrictions
prescribed in sections 25.36.060 and 25.04-080;
2. Public garages;
3. Gasoline service stations, subject to regulations
prescribed in chapter 25.74;
4. Transportation terminal, depot, station ticket
offices and any building or structure used for the
accommodation of passengers;
5. Parking lots, subject to the regulations
prescribed herein;
6. Mortuaries;
7. Financial institutions;
8. Dry cleaning processing plants;
9. Other uses similar in character to those
enumerated in this section which will not be obnoxious
or detrimental to the neighborhood in which they are
located;
10. Any structure that is more than thirty-five feet
is height;
11. C-2 uses in the block described in section
25.36.035;
12. Certain grocery, drug and department stores as
described in section 25.36.036;
13. Drive-in services or takeout services
associated with permitted uses;
14. Real estate;
15. In association with a church or other religious
or nonprofit institution, provision of temporary shelter
for homeless individuals or families, provided that the
facility is located within a transportation corridor and
the use does not occur continuously at any one location
for more than six months of any twelve month period.
16. Tanning facilities;
17. Classes.
(25.36) 1
July 2000
City of Burlincratne
18. Food establishments in the Broadway
Commercial Area.
19. Other uses similar in character to those
enumerated in this section or section 25.36.020 which
will not be obnoxious or detrimental to the
neighborhood in which they are located. (1941 Code
1930 (B), added by Ord. 539; January 4, 1954,
amended by Ord. 1025 § 5; December 16, 1974, Ord.
1078 § 11; July 6, 1976, Ord. 1184 § 2; July 7, 1980,
Ord. 1229 § 3; July 19, 1982, Ord. 1248 § 1; April 18,
1983, Ord. 1297 § 1; March 4, 1985, Ord. 1312 § 3;
December 2, 1985, Ord. 1403 §§ 9, 10; February 5,
1990, Ord. 1426 § 6; November 5, 1990, Ord. 1511 §
3; October 17, 1994)
(1619 § 8, Amended, 10/18/1999; 1603 § 27,
Amended, 09/23/1998; 1586 § 19, Amended,
O i/20/1998; 1586 § 18, Amended, 01/20/1998)
25.36.032 Grocery, drug and department stores.
Grocery, drug, or department store uses shall
require a conditional use permit if they:
1. Operate outside the hours of seven a.m. to
eleven p.m.; or
2. Include sale of alcoholic beverages; or
3. Abut a residential district and do not meet the
following requirements:
(a) All structures have a maximum height of
eighteen feet;
(b) A solid wall or fence of six feet in height is to
be provided on or about the property line abutting, the
residential district;
(c) Structures cover no more than fifty percent of
the lot;
(d) At least one hundred twenty percent of required
off-street parking is provided;
(e) No curb -cut is closer than twenty-five feet to
the residential district;
(f) The business is wholly contained within the
structures on the lot;
(g) All storage and loading areas and facilities are
wholly contained on-site and at least fifteen feet from
the residential district;
(h) Areas between structures and adjacent
residential districts are inaccessible to the public. (Ord.
1248 § 2; April 18, 1983).
(1603 § 28, Amended, 09/23/1998; 1586 § 20, Renumbered,
01/20/1998)
25.36.035 Additional conditional uses in certain
areas.
In addition to the conditional uses set forth in
Section 25.36.030, the following, areas shall have
additional conditional uses requiring a conditional use
permit as described:
1. Hatch Lane. Uses permitted in Section
25.38.020, except section 1, in the area bounded by
California Drive, Highland Avenue, Howard Avenue,
a
Hatch Lanz and City Parking Lot "W.
2. Alurchison Drive-Ca/ijornia Drive. Multiple
family residential uses developed to the standards of
Chapter 25.3=4 and uses permitted in Section'-) 5.34.030.
in the area bounded by El Camino Real, Murchison
Drive, California Drive and northerly (rear) property
line of all parcels facing, Dufferin Avenue. (Ord. 1083
§ 1; September 7, 1976, amended by Ord. 1460 § 2
(part); May 18, 1992, Ord. 1512 § 1; October 17,
1994.)
(1603 § 29, Amended. 09/23/1998)
25.36.040 Burlingame Avenue commercial area
and Broadway commercial area.
(a) Permitted uses in the Burlingame Commercial
Area. Only the following uses are permitted in subareas
A and B of the Burlingame Avenue co..:mercial area.:
(1) Subarea A:
(A) Retail uses which achieve contiguous,
pedestrian -oriented, retail frontage such as drug, liquor,
variety stores, paint and hardware, apparel, accessory,
stationery, florists, household furnishings, and furniture.
(B) Personal services, such as barber and beauty
shops, photographic studios, shoe repair,
(C) Above the first floor only: hotels; offices
except health services, real estate and financial
institutions;
(2) Subarea B:
(A) All uses permitted in Subarea A,
(B) Nurseries,
(C) Auto supply,
(D) Offices except health service, and except as
provided in subsection (b)(2XE) below,
(E) Computer programming and software
equipment rental,
(F) Schools, above the first floor only,
(G) Floor covering,
(H) Household appliances.
(b) Conditional uses in the L'urtfirgarnerIverme.
Commercial Area. The following uses are the only
conditional uses allowed in subareas A and B of the
Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area and shall require
a conditional use permit:
(1) Subarea A:
(A) Instructional classes incidental to retail or
service use,
(B) Grocery stores and markets,
(C) Gasoline service stations,
(D) Schools, above the first floor only, which
operate outside of retail hours,
(E) Real estate and financial institutions above the
first floor only,
(F) Public utility and public service buildings and
facilities,
(G) Laundry and dry cleaning agencies and
July 2000 (25.) 2
Jennifer Pfaff
615 Bayswater Ave.
Burlingame, CA 94010
February 1, 2001
Burlingame Traffic Commission
501 Primrose
Burlingame, CA 94010
Dear Commissioners:
Our family lives on Bayswater Avenue and we are writing you to express support for our
neighbors on Dwight Rd. These residents are making a concerted effort to find a way of
slowing traffic in our neighborhood.
The "L" formed by Bayswater and Howard Avenues, from Anita east to Dwight at Peninsula,
is the most heavily traveled in our area. Speeding cars and trucks, cutting through to
Peninsula Avenue and constant test-driving from the car dealerships have plagued the area
for several years.
Some of you may recall the effort four years ago, to get stop signs around Washington
School and reduce the 30mph speed limit in our area. At the time, an additional effort was
made by the Burlingame Police Department to form liaisons with the car dealerships to
encourage safe test-driving of cars in our area. These requests took an enormous amount of
research and effort by our neighborhood to finally achieve.
Up until approximately two years ago, these changes were enforced and most people felt
that there was a noticeable difference in the speed with which cars went through our area.
However, with the increased volume of traffic here, particularly in the vehicles cutting over to
Peninsula on Dwight, it has become clear to us that the changes made four years ago are no
longer sufficient to control the problems in our area. Many of us call the police and the car
dealerships regularly to report offenders, but this has not resulted in fewer incidences. We
fear that this situation will only worsen with time.
While it would be unrealistic to expect that the Burlingame Police Department devote large
amounts of time to patrolling our area, it is also unreasonable to expect the residents to
tolerate the current situation. There are many children and elderly people here who no longer
feel safe.
I would ask that our traffic commission look seriously into "traffic calming" measures, like the
ones proposed for Dwight, as a way to slow down and limit traffic. These can be an asset to
any city and improve the quality of life. Such measures are already taking place in several of
our neighboring communities, most recently, in San Mateo. Commissioners there are
creating a `traffic calming" policy and have already started experimenting with various
techniques (round -abouts, median strips, speed bumps, etc.) to see what works and what
doesn't. We would very much welcome such an effort here.
Yours sincerely,
RECEIVED
J rifer d Juergen Pfaff 346-7961 cc: Philip Ho, Burlingame Cit Council
9 Y
FEB 02.2001
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
CITY OF BURLINGAME
;.;. , ,. -
...__ Y.. ...
fC
RECEIVED CM
Rs d 3 FEB 12 2001
CITY CLERK s OFFICE
CITY OF BURLINGAME
To: BURLINGAME MAYOR
From: PAT MOORE
FAX Number:
Comments: Howard Street/East Lane Hazard
Dear Sir:
I am writing a brief note regarding this ongoing hazard in the City of
Burlingame. I have contacted the Public Works Dept. on two separate
occasions and was told that I would be contacted but was never called
back. As the pictures show there is an area where some re -finishing had
previously occurred but this area was left unfinished.
I go walking evenings and have tripped in the dark on this area where
there should be a sidewalk. The City has been doing a great job recently
putting in handicapped accessible sidewalks throughout our area, but this
area is not handicapped accessible in any fashion and it continues to be a hazard
to the most astute pedestrian. I appreciate your looking into this area and either
contacting me through the listed numbers.
Sincerely,
Pat Moore
P O Box 465
Burlingame, CA. 94010
650 375 1595
CITY HALL - (650) 558-7230
PUBLIC WORKS - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997
The�Urltz�$ttnte
February 14, 2001
Pat Moore
P.O. Box 465
Burlingame, CA. 94010
RE: Howard Street/East Lane Hazard.
Dear Pat,
CORPORATION YARD - (650) 558-7670
1361 NORTH CAROLAN AVENUE
BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-2401
Thank you, for your letter addressed to our Mayor with photos dated 1-22-01. I am writing to let
you know that our crews have responded to this request on February 13, 2001 and
repaired/eliminated this hazard by paving the area to make it safe to pedestrians. The mentioned
area is within the Caltrain right-of-way and unfortunately when this area was reconstructed this part
of the walkway was not paved.
We hope that the work was done to your satisfaction and we have corrected this hazard as you
requested. Once again, thank you for your concern and for taking the time to notify us of such a
hazard.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me at 650/558-7679.
Sincerely,
.A
•
Vincent Falzon,
Assistant Superintendent, Streets & Sewer
c: City Manager, Public Works Director, Public Works Superintendent
cc
Rsd3
To: BURLINGAME MAYOR
From: PAT MOORE
FAX Number:
Comments: Howard Street/East Lane Hazard
Dear Sir:
am writing a brief note regarding this ongoing hazard in the City of
Burlingame. I have contacted the Public Works Dept. on two separate
occasions and was told that I would be contacted but was never called
back. As the pictures show there is an area where some re -finishing had
Previously occurred but this area was left unfinished.
1 go walking evenings and have tripped in the dark on this area where
there should be a sidewalk. The City has been doing a great job recently
putting in handicapped accessible sidewalks throughout our area, but this
area is not handicapped accessible in any fashion and it continues to be a hazard
to the most astute pedestrian. I appreciate your looking into this area and either
contacting me through the listed numbers.
Sincerely,
Pat Moore
P O Box 465
Burlingame, CA. 94010
650 375 1595
gy
P41 a=13-Af
D'