Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2000.10.02BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA awm=V REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 2, 2000 PAGE 1 OF 2 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES - Regular Meeting of September 18, 2000 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS The mayor may limit speakers to three minutes tack 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS - At this time, persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M. Brown Act (the State local agency open meeting law) prohibits council from acting on any matter which is not on the agenda. It is the policy of council to refer such matters to staff for investigation and/or action. Speakers are requested to fill out a "request to speak" card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Proposed Restructuring Recreation Supervisor Job Classifications b. Discussion and Direction on the Draft Peninsula Transportation Plan c. Commissioner Items; Library Board, Beautification, Traffic Safety Parking, and Civil Service d. Support for Measure B 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a. Adopt RESOLUTION Amending the List of Designated Employees in the City's Conflict of Interest Code b. RESOLUTION Awarding Canyon Road Water Line Replacement c. Final Condominium Map for a 34 Unit Condominium, Lots 6 and a Portion of Lot 7, Map of Burlingame Land Company, No. 2 d. Introduce an Ordinance to Install Two Stop Signs on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue e. RESOLUTION Amending 1999-00 Budget Appropriations 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 10. OLD BUSINESS City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010 (650) 558-7200 SUGGESTED ACTION 7:00 p.m., Council Chambers Approval Approval Discuss/Direct Appoint or Set Interviews Consideration Approval 11. NEW BUSINESS BURLINGBURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame AME CITY HALL - PRIMROSE ROAD REGULAR MEETING - OCTOBER 29 2000 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIAC94010 (650) 558 7200 PAGE 2 OF 2 12. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Reports: Planning, September 25, 2000; b. Letter from Betty Sullivan, 1133 Cortez, regarding traffic safety problems in her neighborhood c. Letter from Pete and Jennifer Varma, complimenting Police Officer D. Williams d. Letter from James Van Epps, Executive Manager, West Bay Extension for BART, regarding possible parking fees at the new Millbrae Station 13. CLOSED SESSION a. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6: City Negotiator: Dennis Argyres, City Manager: Labor Organization: Police/Fire Administrators b. Threatened Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1), (3)(C)); Arlene DiNitto claim for personal injury 14. ADJOURNMENT NOTICE: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities, please contact the City Clerk at (650) 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office, City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burlingame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING — October 16, 2000 cc CM MICHAEL TOSHIO INTERNATIONAL C� T1415 Rollins Road, Suite 210, Burlingame, CA 94010 650 348-6149 CP - Tel (650) 348 6140 Fax ( ) The City Clerk 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 September 26, 2000 Dear City Clerk: 29_ rav nr a►faa`� tom°" l y"Y The intent of this letter is to officially notify you that I am appealing the Planning Commissioners September 25, 2000 approval on the 1755 Bayshore Highway Hotel project. My reasons for appealing the decision are: • Objection to the location of the proposed hotel. • Decrease in value of the property I own at 810 Malcolm, if the hotel is constructed as proposed the Bay and San Francisco views from 810 Malcolm will be eliminated. • Planning Commissioners failure during the hearing to address my concerns. I hope my concerns will be appropriately addressed at the meeting on October 16, 2000. Sincerely, Michael . Nakamura President HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: This appealshould be scheduled for the Council Meeting on October 16, 2000. Ann Musso, City Clerk cc. Rosalie O'Mahony, Mayor; Joseph Bojues, Jerry Deal, Martin Dreiling, Ann Keighran, Dave Luzuriaga, Ralph Osterling, Stanley Vistica, Burlingame Planning Commissioners; Ruben G. Hurin, Planner. CITY OF BURLINGAME FINANCE DEPARTMENT p(k CASH COLLECTIONS DIVISION UU 09/29/00 03:42pm REFERENCE — 11964-20-3 MISC BATCH 068 - UTILITY BATCH 067 FROM MTI PROPERTIES ACCOUNT 10136600 ZONING & SIGN PERMITS 10136600 250.00 TOTAL PAID 250.00 CHECK 250.00 RECEIVED BY COUNTER M.T.I. PROPERTIES g w1p, t 1415 ROLLINS RD. t BURLINGAME, CA 94010 PAY �. W p TO THE j--� ORDER OF E� "—� c :i a O 5 OEUVENEO W CONNECTION WIT THE FpLIOYA O W o Q Ymso C E ci a p mpm � PIN - cif 11MOO 14 9 3116 1: 1 2 1000 3 SID: 0 1 i 2-0 3 70 31I' 1493 11-35/1210 jAi CyL 116 ,Tv DOLLARSMzx_—"' DFA UNAPPROVED MINUTES BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA October 2, 2000 1. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER A duly noticed 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 Rosalie O'Mahony. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Commander Jack Van Etten. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCIL PRESENT: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI COUNCIL ABSENT: NONE 4. MINUTES Councilwoman Janney made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on September 18, 2000; Vice Mayor Galligan seconded the motion; approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. PUBLIC COMMENTS Tom Carrey, 1404 Floribunda, spoke regarding the Draft Peninsula Transportation Plan; stated some residents are not interested in BART coming through or around the City of Burlingame; feels BART is a duplication of services that has destroyed wetlands and eucalyptus groves. STAFF REPORTS 8d) INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE TO INSTALL TWO STOP SIGNS ON ADELINE DRIVE AT CORTEZ AVENUE DPW Bagdon referred to his staff report dated October 2, 2000; this item came before the TSP Committee in which a number of residents request two additional stop signs be placed at the intersection of Adeline and Cortez; a petition with over 100 names was submitted. Staff evaluated the request and found that the intersection did not have the warrants for either the volume or the traffic accidents to support the stop signs; there is a volume of less than 250 vehicles per hour; warrants require 300. There have been no accidents at this location in the last five years. TSP Commission is recommending the placement of the signs because children and parents cross at this intersection because it provides more direct access to Ray Park. Staff is concerned if this is approved, there would be three intersections fairly close together with three stop signs; afraid the public will not take the stop signs seriously and it would create a false sense of security for pedestrians who are relying on them. Recommended Council introduce the ordinance and hold a public hearing in two weeks to hear the citizens concerns. Burlingame City Council 1 October 2, 2000 Unapproved Minutes Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Kathleen Wentworth, a resident on Cortez, stated when the public hearing is held again in two weeks, residents and neighbors will be present to speak. Mayor O'Mahony requested the City Clerk read the title of the ordinance. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to waive further reading of the ordinance; seconded by Councilman Coffey, motion carried unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. A motion was made by Councilman Spinelli to approve the introduction of the proposed ordinance to install two stop signs on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, motion carried unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor O'Mahony directed the City Clerk to publish a notice of the proposed ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption. 7a) PROPOSED RESTRUCTURING OF RECREATION SUPERVISOR JOB CLASSIFICATIONS Parks and Recreation Director John Williams referred to his staff report requesting the elimination of the job classification series, Recreation Supervisor I, II and III. The current Recreation Supervisors are at the Recreation Supervisor II level, a comparable classification of other cities in the area. It is difficult to compare salaries because other cities do not have this type of classification, which has caused some misunderstandings among staff; feels it's time to go to the Recreation Supervisor class that other cities in the area have. BAMM and AFSCME have no object to the proposed change. Part of the proposal is the creation of a new permanent part-time employee. Karen Hager has been in the Recreation Coordinator class for almost 15 years. Currently she is on maternity leave but would like to return part time. The revenue in the recreation division is strong; with various staff vacancies, there is more than enough money to cover these two changes. Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve the restructuring of the Recreation Supervisor job classifications; seconded by Councilwoman Janney, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 7b) DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON THE DRAFT PENINSULA TRANSPORTATION PLAN City Planner Monroe stated she and Director of Public Works Bagdon are on the CCAG Technical Advisory Committee. CCAG has met to review the most recent draft of the Peninsula Transportation Plan (2010), an update of the 1997 countywide transportation plan. CCAG staff has indicated that Council comments must be submitted to them no later than October 3. At that time, CCAG's board will be requested to vote on the release of the draft some time in October. CP Monroe summarized that this is a policy plan for the entire county; in the overview of the plan it notes that the objective is to develop a consensus for the 2000-2010 time frame on funding between roadways and transit without setting specific percentages. The land use segment of the document proposes a policy to change the sales tax structure for the county and use the proceeds to encourage the construction of more housing in the county. State law has been changed and it is now possible for the jurisdictions in the county to agree on a redistribution of the sales tax among the communities to encourage land uses that would bring people closer to work and reduce traffic rather than land uses which generate traffic. It is not clear what program they would use to accomplish this or what October 2, 2000 2 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes portion of the sales tax they would redistribute. The emphasis in the plan is on using TSM to increase efficient roadways. A series of pedestrian policies are also proposed. The major recommendation is that each of the jurisdictions add staff that is qualified to review all plans and require the developers address maximizing pedestrian access. This portion of the plan also talks about design approaches to encourage pedestrians. DPW Bagdon noted that the priority roadway project of the plan is the 101 corridor north of Highway 92. In addition, it identifies three major elements for relieving the congestion on the freeway in this location: auxiliary lanes, interchanges, and ramp metering; having these projects as priorities will help the City when competing for grant monies, which are very scarce. A project scoping report has been completed on auxiliary lanes with Cal Trans and the Transportation Authority, which identifies the addition of an auxiliary lane in both directions between Millbrae Avenue and San Mateo's Third Avenue. It also includes replacing the Peninsula Avenue overcrossing, the addition of sound walls on the west side, and a new pedestrian bridge that would be located close to the south side of the existing Broadway interchange. The cost has been estimated at $86 million, half of which will come from the Transportation Authority. The current STIP is putting $15 million toward that effort, and they are looking at getting $10-15 million from the ITIP, a funding source available for the airport, which is causing a lot of the traffic to occur in this area. That leaves $13-18 million out of the future STIP; it is important that the priority for this project be connected to future funding criteria and scoring. Work on the EIR has begun and could take a couple years. The plans and specifications are intended to be prepared in 2002 or 2003, with construction beginning in 2004 or 2005. The second roadway project is interchanges, which has been given a high priority in the Transportation Plan. Staff met with Cal Trans who is working on a project scope report for replacing the Broadway interchange. A number of alternatives were reviewed; one costing approximately $35-40 million which may alleviate the City from having to acquire land. An operational study is being performed, which means they are looking at what the effect of this interchange improvement would have on freeway traffic as well as the City street traffic; it is very important that the improvement does not adversely affect either. In this study, they will also be looking at the possibility of a grade separation at Broadway if operationally necessary in order for this interchange to work. There is funding for the current study, the EIR, and also for the plan specifications. There is no funding identified for the improvement; it is considered to be an "unfunded" project on the Transportation Authority's list of projects. In order to get funding for this type of work, it may be necessary to get an extension of the Measure A tax. DPW Bagdon stated building a new interchange would make the 101 pedestrian overcrossing project mute. Moving the funding from the pedestrian crossing to the interchange project would depend on whether or not the pedestrian overcrossing was built first; the two have to be reviewed together. The pedestrian crossing could be built in three or four years; a new interchange could take as long as eight to 10 years. The 2010 plan talks about endorsing the rapid rail study being done by CalTrain; it has a very important impact on Burlingame. The purpose of this study is to improve the safety on Cal Trans as well as increasing the frequency of trains by adding rolling stock and making safety improvements such as fencing; a third rail would be constructed all the way through Burlingame. It includes relocating the Broadway platform and rebuilding it further south, which would allow the gates to be up when trains stop at the station. They are also looking at the possibility of including an undercrossing for pedestrians at the relocated Broadway platform as well as at Morrell Avenue. Moving the Broadway platform further south would allow for trains to stop longer, and to allow the gates to be up Burlingame City Council 3 October 2, 2000 Unapproved Minutes at North Lane when a train is in the station. However, it would require the closure of South Lane, another issue that would need to be reviewed. CalTrain would like to complete the construction of parking on the west side of Carolan within next two years in coordination with the opening of the Millbrae BART station. The funding is available and this is the Transportation Authority's first priority project. The Transportation Authority is considering studying high-speed rail; if that proceeds, it will require grade separations. This would have to dovetail with rapid rail; can't put in rapid rail improvements that have to be taken out when high-speed rail is put in. This is a long-term project and no funding source identified yet. A recommendation was not made to extend BART further south of Millbrae; ridership and cost- effectiveness needs to be studied to see if it would support such an extension. Two alternatives would be along the CalTrain right-of-way and the other would be to get BART over to the freeway and have it run down the median of the freeway. Transportation Authority does not want SamTrans to compete with BART or CalTrain for long distance service; would like to see SamTrans direct their attention to providing better feeder service to CalTrain and BART stations. Council discussion: Vice Mayor Galligan wanted to know if building a flyover at Anza Boulevard and 101 to go south was discussed; this would relieve traffic at Poplar in the evening as well as stop people from having to use the Broadway interchange. DPW Bagdon noted it was reviewed with respect to the Broadway interchange; the problem with a flyover is when you get to the "non -bay" side of the freeway, you end up having to bring it down, which affects properties fronting Rollins Road. It could mean taking residential property to make that work; they paid more attention to providing the improvement at Broadway; don't think they will study the Anza flyover concept at this time. The auxiliary lanes can be installed through the Broadway interchange as it exists; they can't do that at Peninsula Avenue because the abutments of the bridge are in the way, they will have to move and replace the abutments, which means they have to replace the Peninsula overcrossing in the process of putting in the auxiliary lanes in. This is what will cause the Peninsula overcrossing to be rebuilt. Mayor O'Mahony noted in the staff report that one of the intentions of the new PTP is to anticipate county -wide cooperation and planning and to prevent vying for funds among the pertinent agencies; feels the cities have functioned very cooperatively in offering their plans and proposals for funding requests. DPW Bagdon stated it was his perception that the process has been fair. At one time there was a discussion about not having competition but more of a fixed allocation between cities; where others believe there should be honest competition and there may be more need in one city compared to another city. This plan will help identify the criteria more clearly for selecting priorities. CP Monroe verified that the sales tax they are considering diverting is a portion of the 1 % sales tax. Mayor O'Mahony stated she was very concerned about the diversion of the sales tax. Vice Mayor Galligan feels the use of sales tax has a tremendous impact in reference to land use and may make more residential housing available; would not be opposed to it. Councilwoman Janney concurred with Vice Mayor Galligan. Councilman Spinelli was concerned about what the implications could be in the future. Does not want to see a large portion of the city's income raided; Council has worked very hard over the years to make it solid. Councilman Coffey feels Council should look at the intent of the measure; must look at the major need for housing; tremendous number of personnel that serve the community cannot live in Burlingame. Need to think about this regionally, not just Burlingame; what is good for the County is good for Burlingame. October 2, 2000 4 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes Councilman Coffey noted the Anza area is very important to the Burlingame community; have wonderful inbound ingress to the area and southbound access isn't bad because of Millbrae or Broadway; there is no southbound egress. Looking at the Broadway interchange and the complexities of redoing the whole interchange, the complications with the railroad tracks being so close to 101, it would seem that a single southbound flyover would alleviate some of the congestion at Broadway and would relieve a lot of the congestion there. DPW Bagdon noted that in the context of the plan, interchanges are a priority. For the Broadway interchange, it's a matter of whether or not they will put the flyover it in the project scope report; at this time, they have indicated they are not, but that doesn't preclude that from happening in a separate project scope report for a future study of an interchange improvement at Anza. Vice Mayor Galligan noted there is room on the bayside of Highway 101 to move lanes over so there would be room for a flyover without taking property on Rollins Road. When the grade separation for Broadway was reviewed previously, the City was potentially going to lose various buildings. DPW Bagdon stated the interchange improvement might not involve property acquisition. Not sure what the impact will be if a Broadway grade separation for operational purposes is needed. Council's approval will be required if a grade separation is needed. 7c) COMMISSIONER ITEMS; LIBRARY BOARD, BEAUTIFICATION, TRAFFIC SAFETY AND PARKING, AND CIVIL SERVICE Councilwoman Janney made a motion to reappoint Nancy Locke and Jill Lauder to the Beautification Committee; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to reappoint David Mayer to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission, and to reopen the process to fill the other two vacant positions; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to reappoint Gerry Hipps to the Civil Service Commission and reopen the process to fill the remaining vacant position; seconded by Councilman Spinelli, approved by voice vote, 5-0. Due to the possibility that Mary Lou Morton will miss three consecutive Library Commission meetings, Vice Mayor Galligan stated he feels interviews should be conducted for the vacant position on the library board. October 30th is the deadline for applications for the Traffic Safety and Parking and Civil Service Commission. Councilman Coffey noted Council should keep in mind the experience Mary Lou Morton has on the Commission when evaluating the number of meetings she may miss. 7d) SUPPORT FOR MEASURE B Chief Missel explained that Measure B is a $13 million bond issue that will be on the November ballot. Its purpose is to finance a new crime lab for San Mateo County. The current lab is not sufficient to meet the forensic needs of San Mateo County. Currently much testing cannot be done at the current lab such as firearm testing and forensic examination of vehicles. A mold issue has developed over the years that can't be kept under control. DNA testing requires very strict cleanliness standards; the facility straggles to meet these standards. The cost to the taxpayer is $1.16 for $100,000 of assessed valuation of property. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to endorse Measure B; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Burlingame City Council 5 October 2, 2000 Unapproved Minutes 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a) ADOPT RESOLUTION #102-00 AMENDING THE LIST OF DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES IN THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE City Attorney Anderson recommended adopting Resolution #102-00 to amend the list of designated employee positions required to file Statements of Economic Interests pursuant to the City Conflict of Interest Code. b) RESOLUTION #103-00 AWARDING CANYON ROAD WATER LINE REPLACEMENT Director of Public Works Bagdon recommended that Council approve Resolution #103-00 awarding the Canyon Road Water Line Replacement Project to Pacific Underground Construction of San Jose in the amount of $435,265; also recommended that staff be authorized to issue change orders up to 20% of the construction work. c) FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 34 UNIT CONDOMINIUM, LOTS 6 AND A PORTION OF LOT 7, MAP OF BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY, NO. 2 , 530 EL CAMINO REAL Director of Public Works Bagdon recommended approval of final condominium map for a 34-unit condominium, lots 6 and portion of lot 7, map of Burlingame Land Company, No. 2 — 530 El Camino Real. a) RESOLUTION #104-00 AMENDING 1999-00 BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS Assistant City Manager Becker recommended approval of Resolution #104-00 adjusting selected appropriations as described in his staff report dated October 2, 2000. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve the consent calendar; seconded by Councilman Coffey, motion carried unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Vice Mayor Galligan attended Commerce and Coffee, Joint Elementary School Liaison Committee Meeting, parcel tax meeting, Burlingame Golf Tournament, Council of Cities Meeting, Samaritan House dinner, BCE Golf Tournament, Dorothy Sneider Cancer Center Dedication at Mills Hospital, TSM employee luncheon, and the OLA Fun Faire. Councilwoman Janney attended Commerce and Coffee, Burlingame Golf Tournament, BCE Golf Tournament, Convention and Visitor's Bureau Executive Committee, Forbes Anniversary reception, and TSM employee luncheon. Councilman Spinelli attended the Burlingame Golf Tournament, Convention and Visitor's Bureau mixer at Scores Restaurant, and the Forbes Anniversary reception. Councilman Coffey attended the TSM employee luncheon. Mayor O'Mahony attended the Public Works Department annual picnic, Council of Cities Meeting, San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Meeting, TSM employee luncheon, and the OLA Fun Faire. October 2, 2000 6 Burlingame City Council Unapproved Minutes 10. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 11. NEW BUSINESS An appeal hearing was scheduled for the October 161" Council meeting for 348 Lorton and 1755 Bayshore. Councilman Spinelli request the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission review intersection at Trousdale and El Camino Real; there are many accidents there; possibly a directional signal or restricted view signal should be installed. Councilman Spinelli also expressed concern about a truck that is parked on Adeline Drive between Vancouver and Columbus where there is a curve. It creates a situation where there is no site line around the curve. Would like the TSP Commission to look into this to see if it should be made into a red zone. Vice Mayor Galligan suggested the Police Department speak to the residents who are parking on that curve and let them know there is the possibility the TSP Commission will need to get involved. 12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a) Commission Reports: Planning, September 25, 2000 b) Letter from Betty Sullivan, 1133 Cortez, regarding traffic safety problems in her neighborhood c) Letter from Pete and Jennifer Varma, complimenting Police Officer D. Williams d) Letter from James Van Epps, Executive Manager, West Bay Extension for BART, regarding possible parking fees at the new Millbrae Station. Council adjourned to closed session at 8:17 p.m. 13. CLOSED SESSION The Council met in closed session to discuss two items. a. Council directed the City Attorney on possible settlement of a claim from Arlene DiNitto for personal injury. b. Council discussed ongoing negotiations with the fire and police administrators, and the Council instructed the City Manager as City Negotiator with regards to that bargaining unit. Council returned to open session at 8:36 p.m. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 8:37 p.m. in honor of Mr. Bruce Kirkbride, a longtime Burlingame businessman and Burlingame Lion who passed away September 25, 2000. Ann T. Musso, City Clerk Burlingame City Council 7 October 2, 2000 Unapproved Minutes UNAPPROVED MINUTES BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA September 18, 2000 1. REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER A duly noticed 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 7:02 p.m. by Mayor Rosalie O' Mahony. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by City Manager Dennis Argyres. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCIL PRESENT: COFFEY, GALLIGAN, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI COUNCIL ABSENT: NONE 4. MINUTES Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to approve the minutes of the regular meeting held on September 5, 2000; Councilman Spinelli seconded the motion; approved by voice vote, 4-0, with Councilwoman Janney abstained since she was not at the meeting. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO EXPAND SEATING AREA FOR AN EXISTING FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (FANNY AND ALEXANDERS) AT 1108 BURLINGAME AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA A BURLINGAME AVENUE COMMERCIAL AREA CP Monroe presented the staff report explaining the applicant is requesting an appeal to an amendment to a conditional use permit to expand seating area for an existing full service food establishment at 1108 Burlingame Avenue for Fanny and Alexander's Restaurant. The applicant, with the property owner, are requesting approval to expand the seating area for dining, banquets, live entertainment and dancing into an adjacent structure at 303-305 California Drive. This adjacent building fronts on California Drive but the rear of the building opens onto a patio area shared by the existing restaurant. The rear entrances of the two sites converge on the patio area. Fanny and Alexander's present permit includes outdoor seating in the patio area. The existing indoor seating area in the restaurant is 1,083 SF and 1,685 SF in the outdoor patio area. With this application, the total indoor seating area would increase by about 1,000 SF. One of the provisions of the ordinance that limits food establishments in Subarea A is if the seating area of a restaurant is expanded, the conditional use permit must be amended. Burlingame City Council 1 Unapproved Minutes September 18, 2000 The Fire Marshal has been working with the applicant since the Planning Commission acted on this project. The applicant had stated that at any given time a total of 550 patrons could be on the three sites during regular hours of operation. The Fire Marshal had inspected the site and the maximum number of patrons he feels can be on the site atone time are 360: 110 at 1108 Burlingame Avenue; 140 in the patio area; and 110 at 303-305 California Drive. One of the issues the Fire Marshal was concerned about was the use of the patio area during inclement weather. There was concern that those 140 people would shift to either one of the indoor areas. One of the conditions of approval on this application is that the maximum occupancy of the entire site be reduced to 220 during inclement weather when the outside seating area can't be used. The Planning Commission was concerned that the site at 303-305 California Drive could become a freestanding food establishment sometime in the future. This would increase the number of food establishments in Subarea A which is not allowed under our ordinance. A condition of approval states that if there should be any future change in use of 303/305 California Drive site, the entire use permit would become void. Council questions of Staff. Councilman Spinelli noted there is a Fanny and Alexander sign on the California Drive portion of the building; wanted to know what the policy was on signage. CP Monroe stated she believed this would be considered secondary frontage and would be signage according to the code. Vice Mayor Galligan asked Police Chief Missel if there have been any noise complaints or police calls since granting the amusement permit. PC Missel stated that the number of police incidents at Fanny and Alexander's is slightly below what is normally seen at new establishments of this type. In the past month, there were 8 police incidents, one arrest for drunkenness in public. With the volume of their business, this is considered a below average. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Jeffrey Weinberg, General Manager of Fanny and Alexander, 1108 Burlingame Avenue came forward; stated they are very excited about proceeding with the project and would like to clarify some issues. He stated that it was always Fanny and Alexander's stipulation that they would not have full service food preparation at the new building. It has been their intention to hold banquets, private parties and gatherings seating the guests and using the kitchen space at 1108 Burlingame Avenue; they did plan on putting a full service bar into 303-305 California Drive to better serve the 70-110 guests. The intent would be strictly beverage service, no food preparation out of that side of the facility. It has been their intention that the hours of operation at 303-305 California Drive would be the same as the hours of operation at 1108 Burlingame Avenue, 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Monday thru Saturday. Mr. Weinberg stated they would comply with the rest of the conditions in the staff report Mayor O'Mahony asked how the storage facility areas in 303-305 California Drive would be used; Mr. Weinberg stated it would be used for dry storage only, no food products. Councilman Coffey asked if the service bar they were proposing was a permanent installation or rolling, removable bar. Mr. Weinberg explained they are proposing a permanent structure that would be built into the space; feels a rollaway bar would cause logistical problems during banquets. Mayor O'Mahony asked City Attorney Anderson if a permanent structure is built into the building, what would that do to future uses of the building. CA noted that staff s concern is that in the future this does not turn into two separate restaurants, which a permanent bar at 303-305 California Drive could lead to; would like some assurance that this would not happen. CP Monroe asked Mr. Weinberg if there would be plumbing with the proposed bar; he confirmed Unapproved Minutes 2 Burlingame City Council September 18, 2000 there would. CP Monroe explained that her concern also is one business could run two separate operations. CA Anderson noted that under California law, the City couldn't condition a use permit on transfer of ownership. Vice Mayor Galligan asked if there were not a banquet scheduled, would the room still be used. Mr. Weinberg stated the space is for banquets, private functions, overflow dining, and possible dancing and live bands. He clarified that the main entrance on Burlingame Avenue is the only entrance to the facility; the doors on California Drive are for fire egress only. The only way to get to the 303-305 California Drive space is through Burlingame Avenue. Security personnel would be monitoring the fire doors from the inside as well as the outside of California Drive. CP Monroe stated an amendment would need to be made to condition #4 if dancing and live music were allowed at 303-305 California Drive, since based on the Planning Commission's application it describes the building as expanded lounge and banquet area only. There were no further comments from the floor and Mayor O'Mahony closed the public hearing. Council Comments: Mayor O'Mahony noted her concern was losing retail but that this site is not really a part of Burlingame Avenue; wouldn't mind the building to be used for overflow patrons; would like to see a portable bar be one of the conditions of approval. Councilman Spinelli stated the retail portion of this property is in an area where there is very little foot traffic; doesn't feel it is a viable retail space and has no problem with it being converted to banquet use. Wants to be sure that in the future, 303-305 California Drive does not become a restaurant, bar or deli. Councilman Coffey feels the objective of any establishment the City supports is to give them the maximum opportunity to be successful; would like a provision that states the permanent bar be removed if the business changes. Feels there is a very big difference between the serviceability of a rollaway bar compared to a permanent installation. Agreed that this is not a viable retail space; the previous tenant, Frame-O-Rama, was a "destination" shop. CA Anderson stated it was possible to work with the owners to try to come up with a definition to meet that requirement. Mr. Weinberg was not opposed to having a bar without bar stools; their concern is being able to serve their customers. Councilman Spinelli noted he was not opposed to having this portion of the building mirror the business hours of the business at 1108 Burlingame Avenue. Vice Mayor Galligan asked if not allowing a dishwasher at the site be a feasible condition. CA Anderson explained this was something that may pose problems due to County Health requirements. Councilman Coffey made a motion that the appeal of the Planning Commissions denial be overturned for an amendment to the conditional use permit to expand seating. area for the existing full service food establish at 1108 Burlingame Avenue (Fanny and Alexander's), Zoned C-1, Subarea A Burlingame Avenue commercial area with the additional changes to condition 43 & 4, the details of the service bar, with exact wording to be established by the City Attorney in conjunction with the applicant. Condition #4 should include dining, dancing and live music and that the hours of operation is concurrent with the Burlingame Avenue operation. Seconded by Councilwoman Janney; approved by voice vote, 5-0. CA Anderson proposed that the revised conditions be submitted with the resolution for action at the meeting when the Council considers the amusement permit. Councilman Spinelli wanted to emphasize that even though Council was overturning the Planning Commissions denial, the Commission did exactly what Council wanted as far as looking at Subarea A and the impacts of expansion of restaurants. Mayor O'Mahony noted the Planning Commission works extremely hard and is very grateful for them. Burlingame City Council 3 Unapproved Minutes September 18, 2000 b. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DENIAL OF A VARIANCE FOR FRONT SETBACK AND DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY RESIDENCE AT 112 BAYSWATER AVENUE, ZONED R-1 CP Monroe reviewed the staff report noting the applicant has requested design review and a front setback variance for 17% 6" from the property line where 19'-6" is required. Request is to build a new two story, three bedroom single-family house at 61.9% FAR with a one -car garage, which is 297 square feet. The existing two -bedroom house with detached garage will be demolished. The existing house has a 27' front setback. In their action, the Planning Commission did not believe a hardship existed on the property to grant the variance; lot size is typical, lot is basically flat; occasionally hardships are established by the placement of existing structures on the site; in this case the house is being demolished so there are no such existing conditions; to grant a variance on any basis other than a hardship applicable to the property which does not exist on other properties in the district will set a precedent for future zoning implementation; regarding design, the commissioners noted that the 27' setback is a part of the pattern on this side of this particular block. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. Mr. Rob Cunningham, applicant and owner, and Mr. Pat Kelly, family friend and consultant, came forward to speak. Mr. Cunningham referred to the design reviewers letter stating he supported the design and the variance. Mr. Cunningham showed Council photos of the neighboring houses. He stated the two houses to the right of his house have a front setback of 15'. The two houses to the left have front setbacks of 22' and 18% 6", the average without his lot is 17'-6". Mr. Kelly stated the existing house is 98 years old; when demolished it would be replaced with a two story house, a great improvement to the neighborhood; feels a 17' setback is consistent with the rest of the homes in the neighborhood. Vice Mayor Galligan asked Mr. Cunningham why he does not want to build a house with a 19'-6" setback. He stated he would like to have a larger back yard; also, his architect feels building the house with a 17' setback would make it easier to maneuver a car into the garage; the hardship that exists is that the lot size 48' x 102', which is long and narrow. Mayor O'Mahony referred to the code that states that the front setback has to be either 15' or the average front setback of the properties on the same side of the street, whichever is greater; with 17'-6" applicant is not counting one of the houses with the frontage on that side of the block. Vice Mayor Galligan noted if the variance was granted, any property owner could come forward in the future and demand a variance; not a position he was willing to put the City in. Councilman Coffey noted he discussed with the City Attorney the interpretation of the code; the determination of the average is a measurement taken from the front property line to any wall or any covered projection of any existing "or" proposed structure. He noted that the code section could be interpreted either using the current structure or eliminating it from the average. CA Anderson noted that the interpretation placed on the code section since it was adopted in 1993 was that the average should include the applicant's property, as it currently exists. Councilman Coffey feels the backyard is the most important non-structural space in a house. Discussed with CP Monroe what some of the negative ramifications would be if a determination was made to leave Mr. Cunningham's house out of the equation. The only negative factor was that it might have future ramifications; feels it would be easy to correct this code to read the way it was Unapproved Minutes 4 Burlingame City Council September 18, 2000 intended to read. Doesn't feel granting the two -foot variance will have a negative effect on the neighboring properties; feels it is not a required variance. Mayor O'Mahony stated that the code has always been determined in this matter; doesn't feel it should be interpreted any differently in this case. CA Anderson stated this was an interpretation that could be applied; it is not mandated by the code; this is a policy determination that Council needs to make. Councilman Spinelli read the exact wording at the request of Vice Mayor Galligan; concerned that somebody in the future will get penalized in the opposite manner. Katie O'Brien, 2204 Poppy Drive, and Richard Farella, 114 Bayswater, spoke; stated Mr. Cunningham's backyard will be 29' feet, much larger than the average yard in Burlingame. Noted that the code has been applied in a certain way since adoption, and changing it for one applicant is not fair. Expressed concern over effect on the Planning Commission when many of the denials are appealed to the City Council and then overturned; opposed to variance; neighbors object to big homes and zoning requirements being changed; feel the Planning Commission did a good job in interpreting the code; interpreting the code any other manner than what has been done since adoption will pose future problems; urged the Council to uphold the Planning Commission's denial for a variance and design review. There were no further comments from the floor and Mayor O'Mahony closed the public hearing. Mayor O'Mahony stated she would follow the current code and not support the variance. Vice Mayor Galligan, Councilwoman Janney, and Councilman Spinelli agreed to support the Planning Commission's denial for the variance. Councilman Coffey stated he would support the appeal to overturn the Planning Commission's denial. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to uphold the Planning Commission's decision to deny the variance for a front setback and to deny without prejudice the design review; Councilwoman Janney seconded the motion; approved by voice vote, 4-1, Councilman Coffey voting no. C. ORDINANCE #1639 OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 12.23 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH CLEAR STANDARDS FOR THE PLACEMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF NEWSRACKS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY Recreation Superintendent Randy Schwartz stated at the Council meeting held on September 5t', the news rack ordinance was introduced. The two main changes of the proposed ordinance is to establish a newsrack committee and that the news racks within the Broadway commercial area and Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue commercial area shall be modular units permanently affixed to the ground. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to adopt Ordinance #1639 amending chapter 12.23 of the Burlingame Municipal Code to establish clear standards for the placement and maintenance of newsracks in public right-of-way, seconded by Councilman Coffey; approved by voice vote, 5- 0. Burlingame City Council 5 Unapproved Minutes September 18, 2000 d. ADOPT ORDINANCE #1640 AMENDING CHAPTER 13.04 TO MAKE THE DEFINITION OF HOLIDAYS FOR PARKING ENFORCEMENT AND POWER EQUIPMENT OPERATION CONSISTENT WITH COMMON UNDERSTANDING OF HOLIDAYS IN THE CITY City Attorney noted the current provisions in the Municipal Code do not include Columbus Day as a holiday for purposes of parking enforcement. Some citizens have been cited for parking violations on this holiday; it also creates problems with the Police Department as it is also a holiday for some of the cities bargaining groups. This means there may not be parking enforcement officers available that day, which would require uniformed officers to issue parking citations. This would also carry over to power equipment usage on Columbus Day. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Councilman Spinelli made a motion to adopt the Ordinance #1640 amending Chapter 13.04 to make the definition of Holidays for parking enforcement and power equipment operation consistent with common understanding of holidays in the city, seconded by Councilwoman Janney; motion carried unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. e. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE #1641 ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE TO PROVIDE A SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS FOR DETACHED GARAGE DIMENSIONS, TO PROHIBIT WAREHOUSE STORAGE IN C-1 AND C-2 DISTRICTS, AND TO CLARIFY TIME LIMITS ON THE EXERCISE OF ZONING APPROVALS CP Monroe noted that at the Planning Commission meetings of July 24 and August 14, the Planning Commission suggested some revisions to the zoning code; the revisions were corrections in the text of the code for special permit requirements for garages, to enact a prohibition of warehouse storage use in the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts and changing the expiration of zoning approvals to match new expiration times of tentative maps when a project requires both. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Councilman Coffey made a motion to approve Ordinance #1641 amending the zoning code to provide a special permit process for detached garage dimensions, to prohibit warehouse storage in C-1 and C-2 districts, and to clarify time limits on the exercise of zoning approvals, seconded by Councilwoman Janney; motion carried unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. f. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE #1642 AMENDING THE CITY CODE TO ALLOW ISSUANCE OF PARKING PERMITS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES IN MUNICPAL PARKING FACILITIES CM Argyres stated a request was received from library and city hall staff to look for ways to improve the parking situation in the area. Currently, the number of reserved spaces is not sufficient to deal with all the employees. Rather than increase the number of reserved spaces, a permit system has been suggested along with improving the TSM program incentives for city Unapproved Minutes 6 Burlingame City Council September 18, 2000 employees. In order to try the permit system, the City code needs to be amended; the permits would be controlled and would only apply to City owned property. Mayor O'Mahony noted there is a need for permit parking for employees at the recreation center, also. CM Argyres stated that this permit process would be for all city employees. Mayor O'Mahony opened the public hearing. There were no comments and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to adopt Ordinance #1642 amending the City Code to allow issuance of parking permits for city employees in municipal parking facilities, seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved by voice vote, 5-0. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS The following residents of the Capuchino, Grove and Paloma Avenue area came forward to reiterate their feelings of not having mandatory street sweeping twice a week: Renee Landworth, 1321 Capuchino, Diana Kayiotos, 1325 Capuchino, Dottie Bonnici, 1332 Capuchino, Shelly Scholtz, 1349 Capuchino, Joan Lang, 1333 Capuchino, Janeen Wheeler, 1204 Capuchino #1, Norm Utigard, 1252 Paloma, and Chuck Bonnici, 1332 Capuchino. Constance Cohen, 605 Lexington Way, stated she was glad the Council was forming a citizens committee for commercial design review, however, would like to see "regular" citizens such as homeowners, renters, and smaller business owners of Burlingame appointed to the committee. It would balance the proposed committee that so far consists only of business owners, property managers and property owners. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. REQUEST COUNCIL DIRECTION ON STREET SWEEPING IN THE AREA BETWEEN BROADWAY AND GROVE AVENUE AND EL CAMINO REAL AND CALIFORNIA DRIVE DPW Bagdon stated that due to public comment at the September 5, 2000 Council meeting, staff is requesting Council provide further direction regarding the program. He referred to his staff report dated September 18, 2000, that addressed several of the issues raised by the public. Noted a mandatory program will not be perfect; all issues will be not addressed to everyone's satisfaction. The three major issues are signage, parking restrictions, and noise. The signs are necessary in a mandatory program, but it is possible to make place them less frequently. A 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. time period was recommended for this program; one of the alternatives would be to move the time to 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. An alternative to the parking restrictions would be to do the street sweeping less frequently. Another alternative is to not have a mandatory program and to change it to a voluntary program. Council questions: Councilman Coffey asked DPW Bagdon what the staff level is for street sweepers and if their scheduling could be changed, such as cleaning the commercial areas first, then return to the residential areas at a later time. Councilman Spinelli wanted to know if it was possible for the street sweepers to work a split shift; DPW Bagdon stated that the street Burlingame City Council 7 Unapproved Minutes September 18, 2000 sweepers would work from 4:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. and return later in the day to work another six hours. Later in the day, the street sweepers will experience traffic problems on the streets. After much discussion of various scenarios, Council decided not to implement the mandatory street -sweeping program at this time; will revisit the issue in early spring to see if the volunteer program works. Residents will be notified, possibly as an insert in their water bill, what day their neighborhood is swept and what the alternative will be if the volunteer program does not work. DPW Bagdon wanted to note that the success of the program will be based on judgment; when the issue is revisited in the spring, residents may judge the success of the program differently than the way staff may judge the success of the program. b. APPOINTMENT OF A CITIZENS COMMITTEE TO ADVISE THE CITY COUNCIL ON COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW REGULATIONS Mayor O'Mahony suggested another name to add to the Citizens Committee: Carolyn Root, a former Beautification Commissioner. Vice Mayor Galligan noted that out of the seven suggested citizens, five of them are Burlingame residents so they represent the citizens as well; this will allow public input regarding commercial design. Vice Mayor Galligan agreed that it would be beneficial to have someone on the committee with a different perspective who does not have a business interest. Councilwoman Janney made a motion to add Carolyn Root to the Citizen's Committee to advise the City Council on Commercial Design Review Regulations and to endorse the appointment of the other six members proposed, seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan; approved by voice vote, 5-0. C. UNAUDITED FINANCIAL SUMMARY, FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 CM Argyres noted the Finance Department has closed the books for 1999-2000. Finance Director stated in his staff report that it was a good year; the first time in 15 years that the three major revenues, hotel tax, property tax, and sales tax all increased over 10%. Net general fund revenue increase was 9.3% overall. Growth on the expenditure side was due to 27 payroll periods this year; caused expenditures to go up to 6.7%; without that it would have been under 3%. The general fund ended up better than budgeted because of the additional revenue. Even with the additional payroll, fund balance decreased only about $430,000. One area of concern is in the enterprise funds concerning working capital; because of the large transfers to the capital improvement program to do some of the water and sewer improvements, concerned the working capital is getting depleted to a level it must be watched closely. d. APPOINTMENT OR CALL FOR APPLICATIONS FOR CITY REPRESENTATIVE TO MOSQUITO ABATEMENT DISTRICT Mayor O'Mahony noted she spoke with Dennis Preger, who was agreeable to continue holding the position of representative to the Mosquito Abasement District; the determined term would be to 2004. Vice Mayor Galligan made a motion to retain Dennis Preger as the representative, seconded by Councilwoman Janney; approved by voice vote, 5-0. Unapproved Minutes 8 Burlingame City Council September 18, 2000 8. CONSENT CALENDAR Item 8b) was removed for separate voting at the request of Councilman Coffey. a. RESOLUTION #96-2000 AWARDING AGREEMENT FOR CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR CALIFORNIA DRIVE AND TROUSDALE DRIVE RESURFACING PROGRAM AND PENINSULA AVENUE RESURFACING PROGRAM DPW Bagdon recommended that Council approve the resolution awarding the agreement with Harris and Associates for construction management services for the resurfacing program in the amount of $109,150. C. RESOLUTION #98-2000, AMENDMENT #1 TO AGREEMENT OF OPERATION OF BURLINGAME GOLF CENTER Director of Parks and Recreation recommended that Council adopt the resolution authorizing the City Manager to sign Amendment #1 to the Agreement for Operation of the Burlingame Golf Center. d. CORPORATION YARD RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT, ACCEPTANCE OF COST ESTIMATE AND TIME LINE, AND AUTHORITY TO HIRE A FINANCIAL ADVISOR AND BOND COUNSEL DPW Bagdon recommended that Council accept the cost estimate and time line for the subject project and grant authority to the Finance Director to hire a Financial Advisor and Bond Counsel. e. RESOLUTION #99-2000 ACCEPTING AIRPORT BOULEVARD BRIDGE SEISMIC RETROFIT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT Director of Public Works recommended that Council approve the resolution accepting the Airport Boulevard Bridge Seismic Retrofit Improvement Project in the amount of $134,429.45 by Cone Engineering Contractors. f. SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR A 40-INCH HIGH BRICK ENTRANCE AT 260 CRESCENT AVENUE DPW Bagdon recommended to Council to approve the Special Encroachment Permit in accordance with the submitted drawing and permit conditions. g. SPECIAL ENCORACHMENT PERMIT FOR A RETAINING WALL WITHIN THE CITY'S RIGHT-OF-WAY AT 1667 ESCALANTE WAY DPW Bagdon recommended to Council to approve the Special Encroachment Permit in accordance with the submitted drawing and permit conditions. Burlingame City Council 9 Unapproved Minutes September 18, 2000 h. RESOLUTION #100-2000 APPROVING NON-EXCLUSIVE INSTALLATION AND SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND METRICOM, INC. City Attorney Anderson recommended adopting resolution authority City Manager to execute a new agreement with Metricom, Inc. to install and maintain transceivers of City light poles. i. RESOLUTION #101-2000 AMENDING RESOLUTION 79-2000 RELATING TO SALARIES Assistant City Manager Rahn Becker recommended to Council to approve the resolution to correct the salary schedule for City Clerk, appointed portion. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL, AUGUST, 2000 Finance Director recommended approval of Warrants 71746-72186 (excluding Library checks 71856-72186), duly audited, in the amount of $2,557,749.71, Payroll Checks 129212-130077 for August 2000 in the amount of $1,352,382.99 and EFTS for August 2000 in the amount of $314,769.20. Councilwoman Janney moved approval of the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan and carried unanimously. 8b) RESOLUTION AWARDING 2000 SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE PROGRAM Councilman Coffey asked DPW Bagdon to address the accusations and issues made by the San Mateo County Building and Construction Trades Council regarding B-1 Enterprise. DPW Bagdon noted the information received from the Trades Council very serious; a number of hours was spending contacting many cities, state license board and the contractor as well. Based upon information heard in these discussion, B-1 Enterprise is still be recommended for the award of this project. The reasons are as follows: the quality of work of B-1 Enterprises has never been an issue with the other cities who have hired them. The State License Board has been contacted about the contractor about the issue of his license; it was indicated there is a valid license but a labor issue judgment of $15,000 must be paid by October 3. The contactor has guaranteed to make this $15,000 payment. This award is contingent upon having a valid contractor's license. Measures have been put in place to carefully monitor the contractor during construction. A contractor inspector will be hired to random checks to be sure there will not be an issue with any labor laws. Certified weekly payroll submittals will be required. Does not feel that the City is in a position that he is a non -responsive bidder, therefore, recommend this contract be awarded to B-1 Enterprise. Councilman Spinelli made a motion to approve RESOLUTION #97-2000 awarding the 2000 Sidewalk Maintenance Program to B-1 Enterprise; seconded by Vice Mayor Galligan, approved by voice vote, 5-0. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Vice Mayor Galligan attended a meeting with Bob Merwin and Carole Groome regarding the reconstruction of Peninsula Hospital, attended the Convention and Visitor's Bureau Board of Unapproved Minutes 10 Burlingame City Council September 18, 2000 ` Directors meeting; Housing Foundation dinner; McGuire Real Estate Open House, Leadership Group, SAMCEDA luncheon, AYSO season opener, Mills Peninsula Foundation, Art on the Avenue, St. Paul's 50th Anniversary, and met with the new owners of Peninsula Ford. Councilwoman Janney was on vacation the prior two weeks. Councilman Spinelli attended the AYSO season opener and the Airport Roundtable meeting. Councilman Coffey attended the Congestion Relief Alliance meeting, Housing Foundation dinner, AYSO season opener, Burlingame Art on the Avenue, Chamber of Commerce luncheon, and the funeral of Burlingame resident Matt Thomaselli. Mayor O'Mahony attended the Broadway BID Board, met with Bob Merwin regarding the reconstruction of Peninsula Hospital, the ribbon cutting at McGuire Real Estate Open House, AYSO season opener, "Clean the Bay" event, Art on the Avenue, celebrated Mrs. Wilbur Senior's 100th Birthday, and St. Paul's 50th Anniversary, 10. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 11. NEW BUSINESS Mayor O'Mahony noted that a flier was placed on a number of cars in the area of Occidental and Chapin and Howard Avenues; the flier was titled "Please Act Now" regarding the request for a conditional use permit by St. Paul's. This flier included her name and phone number on it; received more than 40 phone calls; would like the public to have an element of respect and ask before publishing information such as this. 12. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. Commission Reports: Finance, August 31, 2000; Building, August, 2000; Planning, September 11, 2000 b. Letter from Reverend Michael and Karlene Harvey, 920 Linden Avenue, regarding Interfaith Hospitality Network c. Letter from Benjamin Yuh, 1140 Vancouver, regarding golf facility d. Letter from Martin Dreiling, 1103 Juanita, Max Hensley, 1225 Paloma, and Trudy and Jim Maxwell, 1421 Cortez, regarding street sweeping program e. Letter from Richard Farella, P.O. Box 665, Burlingame, regarding 112 Bayswater f. Letter from Mary Ellen McMahon regarding Interfaith Hospitality Network g. Letter from Martin Dreiling, 1103 Juanita apologizing for letter dated September 7, 2000 Council adjourned to closed session at 9:55 p.m., and returned to open session at 10:12 p.m. Burlingame City Council 11 Unapproved Minutes September 18, 2000 13. CLOSED SESSION a. Discussion of Initiation of Litigation (Government Code § 54956.9 (c)) — Pacific Construction and Manufacturing, Inc. CA Anderson noted that Council met in closed session to discuss possible initiation of litigation vs. Pacific Construction and Manufacturing, inc.; Council authorized City Attorney to initiate litigation regarding the issues involving that company. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor O'Mahony adjourned the meeting at 10:13 p.m. in memory of Matt Thomaselli who died accidentally in San Francisco on September 13, 2000. Ann T. Musso City Clerk Unapproved Minutes 12 Burlingame City Council September 18, 2000 le � CITV O 7 0 BURLINGAIME 0 STAFF REPORT 9aowwic HONORABLE MAYOR DATE: September 22, 2000 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITEM # 8 d MTG. 1 0/2/00 SUBJECT: INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE TO INSTALL TWO STOP SIGNS ON ADELINE DRIVE AT CORTEZ AVENUE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council take the following actions for adopting an ordinance to install two STOP signs on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue : 1. Requesting the City Clerk to read the title of the attached ordinance. 2. Waiving further reading of the proposed ordinance. 3. Introducing the proposed ordinance. 4. Directing the Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption. BACKGROUND: At the September 14, 2000 meeting, Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) received a petition from 133 local residents requesting a crosswalk on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue. Residents are concerned about speeding on Adeline Drive and safety of pedestrians crossing Adeline Drive. TSPC approved the installation of a new crosswalk at this location. STAFF ANALYSIS: Staff recommends the installation of two STOP signs on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue to reduce the accident potential for pedestrians who use the new crosswalk at Cortez Avenue to access Ray Park and Lincoln School. Staff examined speed data to determine whether City warrants for vehicular volume and accidents were met to justify the installation of STOP signs. A radar survey in 1999 and recent radar sampling 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 3 per year). Although STOP signs are not warranted based on vehicular volume and accidents, staff believes that the signs are needed to improve safety for the high number of 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 to access to Ray Park and Lincoln School. TSPC and residents stated 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 was strongly opposed by the residents. Adeline Dr @ Cortez Ave - Staff Report to Council 10-02-OO.wpd Page 2 10/2/00 Introduce an Ordinance to Install 2 STOP Signs on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue TSPC ACTION: At the September 14, 2000 meeting, TSPC considered the request and approved the installation of two STOP signs on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue and a crosswalk at the intersection. BUDGET IMPACT: The cost of installing the two STOP signs is estimated to be $300. There are sufficient funds available in the current City's maintenance budget for this work. EXHIBITS: Ordinance Location map, aerial photographs, existing signs and pavement markings Accident history, stop sign warrant, speed survey summary Public Notice to applicant and residents Petition and letters from local residents TSPC Minutes for September 2000 '��k Philip Ho, T.E. Traffic Engineer c City Clerk, Police Department Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission Adeline Dr @ Cortez Ave - Staff Report to Council 10-02-OO.wpd 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 ADOPTING AN URGENCY ORDINANCE PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 36937 FOR INSTALLATION 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. A petition was received from residents requesting a school crosswalk on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue. This new crosswalk will further increase pedestrians traveling from the surrounding neighborhood to Ray Park and Lincoln School via Cortez Avenue. The Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission recommended that stop signs be installed at the intersection. Section 2. Subsection 13.20.010(a) is amended to read as follows: (a) Adeline Drive approaching Alvarado Avenue; Adeline Drive approaching Balboa Avenue; Adeline Drive approaching Bernal Avenue; Adeline Drive approaching Cabrillo Avenue; Adeline Drive approaching Columbus Avenue; Adeline Drive approaching Cortez Avenue; Adeline Drive approaching Poppy Drive; Adrian Court approaching Adrian Road; Albermarle Way approaching Ray Drive; Alturas Drive approaching Hillside Drive; Anita Road approaching Howard Avenue; Arguello Drive approaching Sebastian Drive; Arguello Drive approaching Toledo Avenue; Arundel Road approaching Bayswater Avenue; Arundel Road approaching Howard Avenue; 1 . ..�.... .:.. ...... .. ... �.. ..�......_:_.�-_.,_._..._.�,......v_..............k....y__.F:::��.,.,>1__._�_._._..�.._.r,..�,,.v�--__ir<•-,1 sr.;'l_F�t:✓:.rr_.r___si.,.__li rd_-us_:r�{r1`✓.i$:%r�'S'M_.f_}.._ .-�1..ru, L 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 South Ashton Drive approaching Trousdale Drive; Atwater Drive approaching Hunt Drive; 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 , 2000, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2000, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: D:\wp5l\Files\ORDINANC\stopsignIO02.pwd.wpd City Clerk 2 LOGation. Map E L as.{�• .�s �1fo4' cL 4 .mor. sz-52•. so.Q:• so.oz• so•o: s. 9 %All %46% q ♦ '� P �� I 4 Aso w l N � �- ° OWC.EL1 .t a � v 7 n MRCELZ4 r I I I a w e PM.VoI.• 41 PKt Photographs taken on 8-24-00 Dead End of Cortez Ave Lincoln School in background Cortez Ave at Adeline Dr facing south View of Cortez Ave from Ray Park Cortez Ave at Adeline Dr facing north Adeline Drive facing east from Cortez to Cabrillo Ave Cortez Ave / Adeline Dr facing southeast Adeline Drive facing west from Cortez to Balboa Ave EXISTING SIGNS AND P • PAVEMENT MARKrNGS c -a Q Ray Park and Lincoln School dots 0. H H STOP �. Scltoor Xing STOP i R1 +- Sctiool Xin = ZS MPH. bal boa Ave - Co rfu Ave - Cab ,I I r o Av< =fi'i�F�v/�y�''Yf.••••r FiJ` i'.y`''�'/��^` ,f :f"i�ff•`�'/ � �:fi�+t=�l�f ..ti,�-'��'Kr ��` ,p�'-rF - �y�/�J,r�j> �.,c'����li•'i .::.'v'�i-'�G�:%�'v'}' ,f •Jli'-'r �'i`:"r''•�•�{ `s>{l Lr!•" �' Jr1�.'+�rs 5".:,_ r3�.>�4! _fit _�c_7/�'+�ri" !:!-,_ f�"�'����.._.r. �f ����+'I'�f_:�/�!S_t-��J;.H'<.,<��ri �: t-'-��=;-� .•S :/f%`_:iY.�'.•:`_�•c2v'r��� �. � •�`i .( }' f- ;; 1,•f���! S • •�1>�!'l,�lfjrl-�.rY" .- �'�_- !• _ 1 -'ram . f _ _ - . SEE SHEET 28 ACCIDENT LOCATIONS E� o IN THE LAST 5 YE ARS a�.,•• ,. M CAM 1 N O !, `t 1•• 1 1 "ti li 1; T u wrcu . m.vo•. o w J6 r..ucz's � : T ry` s <9 0. : u 12 a e u C1s 1�1 1� Iz le No Pcdes tans involvU 1 1 ' ' • 5I w 50 S Z t T a I, O la 39 ]a ]7 36 37 3a 7] 32 71l1 ]O L9 Yt t/`` 26 LS J1113. ,f�\� •AVEN ._._. BALBOA • � ;,1,`' S 'i c\s d° ,S°f y, , td �^ �f � ,�'' ,,��� es � ,ts �" +''' �''� „e �,�v �j° 1��' lia .,;°� ^'6 3 �!'ll a 3 t 1° °1 t s a a -1 1 1'T a 9 4 11 Iz 13 14 16 is IT 1• 1 .... 52 t . �� �IJro Le 39 S,aS 37 X 33 _3a 33 32 1..49 30 t9 2t 27 26 LS La t3 • 'S`6 'S� \p �� R- � 1"�D +ty IISt ,,•6 eft ,�a +, +6�t w ,\,y `i11 !r .�to N• sa• Fi M U s CORTEZ AVEN ,,j h 44 y] t 1; i t 3 a a t T 9 9 10 a 1 F+i' 1W 13 1 ATIT R 1 � �40 39 39 1 37 36 33 34 33 32 ;�T,3 ,t tct1 Ili/ �d Itb 1 �,, _ 1 s, f `— \0 CABRILLO hAVEN �`4 2 P s' v� i•* 1,� 1� `S°S $y �4 P ,I,f i i IdJ N?I �'1 P"f 1�'I Ip'• /i>f I�i, ,itf I�ii INi , 1p, ` ,o PP , °P•t 3 •� f 3 • • p It It 13 la IS 16 17 1• �•P` 3 tS 11 . � S � � ,t1 Z i i 54 J 47 !. 5 4 T • • 10 11 12 u 14 13 ; Q :ao sa f6 ii 36 76 34 33 32 31 30 t9 to tT II` 26 ( 1 to ,moo `IS Ifs ISLE Ism 1¢ +fM1 161, 1fF •.�` , �� \S` \\�� ��' •ll'° ��11� N'f' 1 11`� I R R/' N' /I M M N A N M p' A• N• ae• ee• m• rtY ! eX DRAKE AVEN i 11 10 • t- 7 • • • i [ 1 t yl .t 3 a • • T • • p 11 IL 13la U 16 IT to ..: .� .., .r a er ar r a __ a N• ,✓ .e- !e• N• .°' es ,v N• ...• u �•• ..• �.- a.r .... - .. ate, - � � . " _. _.. _ , ' ' .. ---+---•--<.—•--- - - - . CITY OF BURLINGAME STANDARD URBAN FOUR-WAY STOP SIGN WARRANTS (MODIFIED FOR BURLINGAME FROM STATE TRAFFIC MANUAL) MAJOR STREET /\d el i n e -D r i v e, MINOR STREET C Dvte,,� Ave-K te. AT LEAST ONE (1) WARRANT NET: WARRANT 1: TRAFFIC WARRANT TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANTED URGENT PENDING INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL WARRANT 2: ACCIDENT HISTORY WARRANT BURLINGAME) THREE (3), MODIFIED FROM 5, OR MORE REPORTED ACCIDENTS IN A 12-MONTH PERIOD. ACCIDENTS OF TYPE CORRECTABLE BY SIGNS. RIGHT ANGLE AND LEFT TURN COLLISIONS ARE SUSCEPTIBLE TO CORRECTION. WARRANT 3: MINMJM VOLUME WARRANT (BURLINGAME) BOTH A. AND B. MUST BE NET A. TOTAL VEHICULAR VOLUME ENTERING INTER- SECTION FROM ALL APPROACHES, AVERAGES MORE THAN 300/1HR FOR ANY EIGHT (8) HOURS OF AVERAGE DAY. (MODIFIED FROM 500) YES GO) B. COMBINED VEHICULAR AND PEDESTRIAN VOLUME FROM MINOR STREET MUST AVERAGE AT LEAST 120/HR (MODIFIED FROM 200) FOR SAME EIGHT (8) HOURS AS "A" WITH AN AVERAGE DELAY TO MINOR STREET TRAFFIC OF AT LEAST 30 SECONDS PER VEHICLE DURING THE MAXIMUM HOUR SATISFIED X NOT SATISFIED SATISFIED NOT SATISFIED SATISFIED X NOT SATISFIED YES X NO 'YES X NO F:WPUBLI\FORMS\TRAFFIC\WARRANTSTOP 7 r� PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Tel:(650) 558-7230 Fax:(650) 685-9310 The City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 ENGINEERING AND TRAFFIC SURVEY SUMMARY Adeline Drive - El Camino Real to Alvarado Ave Surveyed on September 30, 1999 from 11:15 am to 12:40 pm CORPORATION YARD Tel:(650) 558-7670 J Mean Speed 25 mph Critical Speed = 33 mph Pace Speed = 24-33 mph Percent in 10-mph Pace = 74 % Existing Speed Limit = 25 mph Establish Speed Limit at 25 mph because: J1. Substandard street width of 30 feet curb -to -curb. 2. Residential land use. Classified as collector street. 3. Driveway access with vehicles backing into through lanes. 4. Unrestricted curb parking which reduces the width of travel way and limits sight distances. 5. Closely spaced intersections with frequent turning movement conflicts. 6. School crosswalks at Cortez, Cabrillo and Bernal. 7. Nearby schools include Lincoln School and Our Lady of Angel School, Mills High School, and Mercy High School. 8. 4-way STOP signs at Alvarado, Poppy, Columbus, Bernal, Cabrillo and Balboa. This survey, was conducted in conformance to the methods described in section of the State of California Traffic Manual marked below. Section 8-03.3 B1 State Highways x Section 8-03.3 B2 City and County Through Highways, Arterial & Collector Roads, and Local Streets hereby certify that this is true, full and correct copy of a traffic survey conducted by the City of Burlingame, Public Works Department, Engineering Division, that I am the Custodian of Records for that Division, and the data is on file therein. ` Oeorge B�gdon, Director Public Works Department Adeline Dr - ECR to Alvaradompd The City of Burlingame PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD Tel:(650) 558-7230 BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 Fax:(650) 685-9310 August 28, 2000 NOTICE OF TRAFFIC, SAFETY & PARKING COMMISSION MEETING at 7:00 pm on Thursday, September 14, 2000 To: Property Owners, Residents, School Official From: Philip Ho, Traffic Engineer Subject: Request for School Crosswalks on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue CORPORATION YARD Tel:(650) 558-7670 The City received a request from two residents to install crosswalks at the intersection of Adeline Drive and Cortez Avenue. This item will be introduced as Discussion at the next TSPC meeting at 7:00 p.m. on September 14, 2000 at the City Hall, 501 Primrose Road, 1st Floor, Conference Room "A", Burlingame, CA 94010. You are welcome to attend this meeting. At the meeting, attendees will be given the opportunity to speak and comment on their concerns. You attendance, however, is not required for the Commission to consider this request. The Commission may choose to discuss and/or act on this request at this meeting. If you are unable to attend this meeting, you may submit your written comments to Traffic Safety and Parking Commission, .c/o Philip Ho, City of Burlingame, 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010. Your written comments will be submitted to -the Commission. If you have any questions or need additional information about this notice, please do not hesitate to call Philip Ho at 650 558-7236. Attachment TSPC Agenda' Adeline @ Cortez - Public Notice 1:wpd r Xi TO. FRANK ERBACHER FROM. R.L. MINDERMAN SUBJECT. INTERSECTION OF ADLINE AND CORTEZ AVE. August 2,2000 UG 4 2000 Enclosed you will find a letter of concern in regards to the subject. These parents have expressed their thoughts to me regarding students attending Lincoln Elementry school and Ray Park. The recommendations from other residents and their concerns are as follows; 1. The intersection has no lined cross walk. 2. Adline, east to west has no stop sign 3. Although there are stop signs at Adline and Balboa and Adline and Cabrillo, the traffic seems to increase in speed on Adline through the intersection of Coryez and Adline. There seems to be little respect for this intereection. I feel it would be of the best interest to the community if your safety officer, Mr. Philip Ho made a professional evaluation of the existing conditions. The concerns are for the Health and Safety of our neighborhood. Pleaes advise me of your decision regarding these concerns. Enc . Sinnncce�Jrly Richard L. Minderman Commissoner, Rec. And Park Dept. 1508 Cortez Ave. 342-2933 August 1, 2000 Dear Philip Ho, As the parents of two young elementary boys attending Lincoln School, we are writing to ask for your support to install a crosswalk at the intersection of Cortez Avenue and Adeline. As you know, this intersection is especially busy with both cars and pedestrians. For cars, this is a thoroughfare for driving to Mercy High- School as well as the connection to Hillside and 280. For pedestrians, it is a high traffic area for elementary school children walking to Lincoln School and Ray Park. The major reason for requesting a crosswalk is that cars do not willingly stop to allow the children to cross Adeline and then proceed onto Cortez to Ray Park and/or Lincoln School. In most instances a parent must walk slowly onto Adeline and motion to the driver to stop. This is an unsafe practice for pedestrians. We feel the situation is at a crisis point and intervention is needed. Unless a crosswalk is installed an accident will inevitably occur. There will come a day in which a parent is unable to walk their child to school or to Ray Park and the child will be forced to cross the street alone, hoping that the driver will slow down and stop. For children ages 10 and younger, they do not have the skill to be able to judge oncoming cars accurately and are easily distracted by other events. These are high risk situations, where accidents are likely to occur. Please don't wait for an injury to happen. Let's be proactive by installing a crosswalk at Cortez and Adeline. Thank you for your help in this matter. If you have any questions please call. _We can be reached at 685-8814. Sincerely, Susan Peloquin Michael Turzanski Uzi SEP 1 2000 0;tKS CITY OF SUFkLC iu,iyE Kathleen Wentworth I 1429 Cortez Avenue, Burling e," CA 94010 Phone:650-344-3186 George Bagdon Director of Public Works City of Burlingame Dear Mr. Bagdon: Councilmember Mary Janney suggested that I contact you regarding a crosswalk at the intersection of Adeline Drive and Cortez Avenue. As you likely know, this crosswalk serves as the portal to Ray Park and Lincoln Elementary School. Every day, scores of citizens, including many seniors, access Ray Park through the Cortez Avenue entrance. And every school day, scores of children and their parents attempt to traverse the perils of an Adeline crossing at Cortez. Adeline Drive receives more than a normal share of residential traffic -- especially a the times in the morning and afternoon when most children are going to and from Lincoln School. Apparently the additional traffic comes from traffic relating to other neighborhood schools. Parents and teenage drivers use Adeline for quick access from El Camino to Mercy High School. (I should know since I used this route when I was a student there!) Also, parents often use Adeline from El Camino to access Cortez to bring their children to Our Lady of Angels Elementary School. While I believe that the traffic laws in California still require drivers to yield to pedestrians - even if a crosswalk is not present — it is quite apparent that few drivers neither know the law nor respect it. I can't tell you the number of times that my eight year old son and I have walked to Lincoln School from our house on Cortez and waited to cross at Adeline. And waited ... and waited ... and waited -- usually with the cars not even bothering to slow. My son, in desperation, has even cut out a stop sign from a poster and taped it to a stick to try to get us more attention at the street crossing. Several of our neighbors on the 1400 block of Cortez have lived here for more than twenty years. And they remember walking their children to Lincoln School and they remember crossing Adeline daily. And they distinctly remember that during that time, there was a crosswalk at Adeline and Cortez. I can only speculate that an intervening paving may have obliterated the crosswalk markings. I have two requests. Would you please have staff research this crosswalk to determine if a crosswalk existed in the past and whether it can be repainted now. If your records are not comprehensive enough to determine the history of this crosswalk, please let me know what civic process we need to initiate to get a stop sign and crosswalk at this intersection. Very truly yours, 1 Kathl Wentworth cc: Councilwoman Janney PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Tel:(650) 558-7230 Fax:(650) 685-9310 September 1, 2000 Kathleen Wentworth 1429 Cortez Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 (650) 344-3186 NGAME The City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 Subject: Request for a Crosswalk and STOP sign at Adeline/Cortez Dear Ms. Wentworth: CORPORATION YARD Tel:(650) 558-7670 I would like to acknowledge receipt of your letter earlier today regarding your request for a crosswalk and stop sign at the intersection of Adeline Drive and Cortez Avenue. In early August, the City received a request for crosswalks at Adeline/Cortez. This request will be considered by the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) at the September 14, 2000 meeting. On August 28, 2000, the City sent out a public notice to local residents to notify them of the TSPC meeting. My record shows.that a public notice was mailed to the resident at 1429 Cortez Avenue. If you need any additional information or wish to further discuss this matter with me, please do not hesitate to call me at 650 558-7236. Sincerely, Philip Ho, T.E. Traffic Engineer c Mary Janney, Councilwoman Kathleen Wentworth 1.wpd � -� GOB 2ooD _ SEA' 1 ; 2000 - �l�c e-4 ----------- 9s�,--------- - — ---- -- - -- -- -- - - - ------------- --dos-� -- r�s ------j�' - ----- ------ -------- sa pwr - Pro f-7+ ®VcvAt," _ JAL D r sTi2� A4,4 OCJT— — — P>u .CA— �l40 o A regVest (or a crosswalk at th' t6rsectigp of Adeline D ` ye and Cd tez Avenue will be considered by the Bu game Traffic, S%ety & king Commission on Thursday, September 14,, 2000 at 7 Opm at City Hall. Please help by signin, thl beto Petition. Thanks. Kathleen Went+i, Lincoln Parent Name Yi '5AI Addr4ss �VYIti! 71 t,iv��, flu `� 62¢� fJ 13'� CL-U`-' c o J J L.1 t� ra it +'x'F €k`,���a 'y,,' ',.'S-��`� sYa"rrz`ni'�..a"U. t t j'S? ``Y z t a' tx.p fg,r n+�• e y ..,P, iti t kef7e' �``9.}..ztiy?.-.'��r.`x �`"�S-- 4 t 2000 •fir. �� t{� WORKS 11 !.GAME V P'V �tw �rassalk . 8� Cortez atiAdehn:e Dr�l request for a crosswalk at the intersection of Adeline Drive and Cortez Avenue =ice Y will be considered by the Burlingame Traffic, Safety &Parking Commission on Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 7:00pm at City Hall. Please help by signing the below Petition. Thanks. Kathleen Wentworth, Lincoln Parent Name Address Name Address I �4 0 g-�, C" f-q-� v Ave, �n S r r IMIIIM'N.Ih��' RV E RSA r P 1 000 q L f • " K x r pion in su ort pp o - +9��oRKs �. �uf,�.� :���5t f i Crosswalk k �ry t.Adeline Drive & Cortez A request for a crosswalk at the intersection of Adeline Drive and Cortez Avenue will.be considered by the Burlingame Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission on Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 7:00pm at City Hall. Please help by signing the below Petition. Thanks. Kathleen Wentworth, Lincoln Parent Name AAegs d i 3 s e 0 A !f O �Y; L S, '^� �a aY iil" NV — 1 �ttl' R[1 S ti; ' 3'` etltlon in Supportoc�1'iro.EuiE�,; at ���We P Crosswalk A Y f4 r4,4,t at -Adeline Drive & Cortez . f: A request for a crosswalk at the intersection of Adeline Drive and Cortez Avenue will be considered by the Burlingame Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission on Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 7:00pm at City Hall. Please help by signing the below Petition. Thanks. Kathleen Wentworth, Lincoln Parent Name -A Address mill ililll •�•L 1 41 . A , ..—, nl /,--/_4 Name Address G� IIS�I A f q�ojo w jz t •^� r!A v f4t.;,f J� fez +'fir ��} '��,;3.�:.'y' �4K: •- � 5��"'�ti '�s}w'''��,�"'�� `'r � 'at'da ,.�as,��, i a t .:` •�'Z ° �jrc �'� r. Fl� �` f Ar Sr' �,,,n"F"Y�,a�-5�'-�'r`�„�'`.,�''�%`�,+�, .. Q � u..e a .s k ���3� �as'k. �a'��+,:c""t'i�'� ?. � 1 , � �'a f �'� 9 .?� •�v} 1P3 i • `�•�i }' `�`2.� �.. • l � ,~ f YY��+{ 3 � `r+i� GX�ef � f 1p;`. 'ti. 5'A'�.Y i`0.�� rt SEP 1 4 2000 inSupport of �,��, ,nJOls PetitionC, ,j OFSURLU IGAME Crosswalk at Adeline Drive & Cortez A request for a crosswalk at the intersection of Adeline Drive and Cortez Avenue will be considered by the Burlingame Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission on Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 7:OOpm at City Hall. Please help by signing the below Petition. Thanks. Kathleen Wentworth, Lincoln Parent Name r 1M 0.r to �o i Address l3 actin t ( hm M- 1 W-1Lt cv A— isao��l Arc. Cortez A 4 0 * f EP 1 4 200C Petition in Suppo'rt o UN OF BURLINGAN E C� ;� �:t: rosswalk'. at.,Adeline Drive & Cortez A request for a crosswalk at the intersection of Adeline Drive and Cortez Avenue will be considered by the Burlingame Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission on Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 7:00pm at City Hall. Please show your support by signing the below petition. Thanks. ­n, Address 60 IWW22k O yg�Au I "q evi C9AM (a A ff= _ _Petltlo n in Su ort of SEP 1 4 200 lii 1 Y OF ijl,PI H r'Ais Crosswalk at -,Adeline Drive & Cortez A request for a crosswalk at the intersection of Adeline Drive and Cortez Avenue will be considered by the Burlingame Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission on Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 7:00pm at City Hall. Please show your support by signing the below petition. Thanks. Name Address :SFP 1 4 2000 U D'U., Support .„O IPetition in o �O'N�-fBURU IGAME Crosswalk0 1 �. • at Adeline Drive & Cortez A request for a crosswalk at the intersection of Adeline Drive and Cortez Avenue will be considered by the Burlingame Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission on Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 7:00pm at City Hall. Please help by signing the below Petition. Thanks. Kathleen Wentworth, Lincoln Parent Name Address r �LI 0 L'3 �� al{ .K\r y . r e 8 :C a ez A request for a crosswalk at the intersection of Adeline Drive and Cortez Avenue will be considered by the Burlingame Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission on Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 7:00pm at City Hall. Please help by signing the below Petition. Thanks. Kathleen Wentworth, Lincoln Parent Name Address o/c) p-/w� u Name Address 23Z a,e, e--r�L f�rZ t' �:. SEP 1 4 2000 y O CITY or i:t1 i�.'sC�fE a ition In u ort i r Crosswalk 1 at A deline Drive & Cortez Ajt.quest fp crosswalk at the intersection of Adeline Drive and Cortez Avenue 4¢be co tiered by the Burlingame Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission on 3 ' Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 7:OOpm at City Hall. v.. Y, P Please help by signing the below Petition. Thanks. Kathleen Wentworth, Lincoln Parent Name Address 6) CJ� 9-2a-� �-�t� -1" � v � 4- 15� f/IV / � AAy Qr I AAA/ - l 6 zg Van w 11 t Address R2� Qhuyz' FZ A request for a crosswalk at the intersection of Adeline Drive and Cortez Avenue will be considered by the Burlingame Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission on Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 7:00pm at City Hall. Please show your support by signing the below petition. Thanks. Name y F A request for a crosswalk at the intersection of Adeline Drive and Cortez Avenue will be considered by the Burlingame Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission on Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 7:00pm at City Hall. Please help by signing the below Petition. Thanks. Kathleen Wentworth, Lincoln Parent Name Address IXA14� xz54—r- S MOVIKe . 1 'wit hn, r 11A �' Z- C'L 0 61ce- gtgq� - SEP 1 4 2000 f h tition in Support of � URI-IiMECin of a�� �Ff, t Y s I t x of Crosswalk I . tAdeline Drive &'Cortez A request for a crosswalk at the intersection of Adeline Drive and Cortez Avenue will be considered by the Burlingame Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission on Thursday, September 14, 2000 at 7:00pm at City Hall. Please help by signing the below Petition. Thanks. Kathleen Wentworth, Lincoln Parent Name Address Vj ,�-- I�i.. A� yl� The City of Burlingame CITY HALL - 501 PRIMROSE ROAD CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, September 14, 2000 Commissioners Present: Maureen Laks-Harber, Chair Aldo Simonetti, Vice Chair Jim Evans Tim Auran David Mayer Jim McIver Commissioners Absent: Lisa De Angelis Staff Present: Frank Erbacher, Assistant Director of Public Works, Public Works Department Philip Ho, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Department Jack Vanetten, Commander, Police Department Doris Mortensen, Administrative Secretary, Public Works Department Staff Absent: None. Visitors: Bobo Faulkner, Couch Casting, 1174 Broadway, Burlingame Robin Lakil, Couch Casting, 1174 Broadway, Burlingame Bennett Yee, 1001 Paloma Avenue, Burlingame Kathleen Wentworth, 1429 Cortez Avenue, Burlingame Dimitri Wentworth, 1429 Cortez Avenue, Burlingame Jill Young, 1408 Cortez Avenue, Burlingame Kaly Young, 1408 Cortez Avenue, Burlingame Andrew Turzanski, Cortez Avenue, Burlingame Sue Pelofuin, 1472 Cortez Avenue, Burlingame Jeff Menicucci, Cortez Avenue, Burlingame Elizabeth Sullivan, 1133 Cortez Avenue, Burlingame Minutes for 9-14-00 Meeting.wpd Page 1 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, September 14, 2000 1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m. by Chairwoman Harber. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. Led by Chairwoman Harber. 3. ROLL CALL. 6 of 7 Commissioners present. 4. CURRENT BUSINESS. 4.1 ACTION ITEMS. 4.1.1 Minutes of August 10, 2000, were submitted and approved. 4.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS. 4.2.1 Request for crosswalks on Adeline Drive at Cortez Avenue Mr. Ho advised that there have been no accidents at this location in the last five years. Intersections with yellow crosswalks lead to Lincoln School. Placing a crosswalk here would give pedestrians a false sense of security and would direct pedestrians away from the crosswalks at Balboa and Cabrillo. Mr. Erbacher had walked this route and stated that Cortez is a direct route to the play area, not to the school. Further, Mr. Ho advised that according to aerial maps for 1979 and 1989, no crosswalk was shown at this intersection. From the floor, Ms.. Wentworth stated there used to be a crosswalk at this intersection. Also, there is a City gate for entry to the park which invites you to use this access; therefore, the City should provide a safe crossing. Two students stated that cars at this intersection do not always stop for them when trying to cross the street. Other parents in attendance stated this is a heavily populated area with a large flow of traffic and that a lot of student athletics occurs at this park. Another parent stated there had been a crosswalk at this intersection between 1972 and 1979 when she attended school there. Ms. Wentworth and the students then presented a 16-page petition to the Commission. Comm. Mayer suggested to either O remove the gate and replace it with a fence or O add a crosswalk and STOP signs on Adeline at Cortez. Comm. Auran stated we cannot deny access to the playground. Chairwoman Harber stated that to add a crosswalk without a STOP sign would invite trouble. STOP signs would be needed with a crosswalk at this site. Mr. Erbacher advised that this site does not meet the warrants for STOP signs so this would be a special condition to facilitate park access. It was moved and seconded (Comms. Auran/Mayer) to move this item to an Action item immediately; it, was then moved and seconded (Comms. Auran/Mayer) to recommend to City Council to install crosswalks and STOP signs at Adeline/Cortez. Unanimously approved by the Commission. Minutes for 9-14-00 Meeting.wpd. Page 2 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, September 14, 2000 4.2.2 Request for a loading zone on 1100 block of Broadway. Includes discussions of a loading zone on Chula Vista Avenue or Laguna Avenue Mr. Erbacher advised that the two loading zones on Broadway at Stanaway Market were recently removed as a part of streetscape improvements. This created a need for a loading zone on the 1100 block of Broadway. Since the streetscape improvement project plans to remove two additional loading zones on Broadway between Laguna and El Camino Real, there is a need for further discussions on the placing of new loading zone's on Broadway to meet truck loading needs. There are several possibilities for placing a loading zone near the 1100 block of Broadway, including: (1) removing curb parking and adding a loading zone on Laguna north of Broadway, (2) widening Laguna north of Broadway to provide curb parking and a loading zone, (3) adding a loading zone and making Laguna one way northbound north of Broadway, or (4) removing curb parking and providing a loading zone on Chula Vista. From the floor, tenants of 1174 Broadway stated that four businesses in the 1100 block of Broadway (north side) need a loading zone for their truck deliveries. To make Laguna one way and add a loading zone would help these businesses a great deal. Mr. Ho advised that some trucks currently park in the red zone on Laguna blocking two- way traffic flow. Removing on -street parking on the west side of Laguna and providing an 8-foot wide loading zone on the east side of Laguna would create a tight corner and a substandard street width of 18 feet for two-way traffic flow. Chairwoman Harber suggested the option of narrowing the sidewalk. Comm. Evans motioned to agendize this item as Pending until further design information is available. Comm. Auran stated that waiting is not desirable, a loading zone should be placed on Laguna, and the resulting loss of curb spaces on Laguna will be offset by the spaces in the new City lot on Laguna. Commander Vanetten stated that since the two loading zones have been removed from the 1100 block of Broadway, trucks tend to park diagonally on Broadway which make two-way traffic flow minimally passable. Comm. Auran stated he would like more input about Chula Vista from the Broadway Business Improvement District (BID) before further discussion. It was moved and seconded (Comets. Auran/Mayer), as a temporary measure, to remove the existing red zone and install a yellow loading zone on the east side of Laguna, and to remove the curb parking spaces on the west side. Unanimously approved by the Commission. This will be a Discussion Item at the next meeting. Mr. Erbacher advised that in the near future, TSPC will meet with the Broadway BID group to discuss further streetscape issues. Minutes for 9-14-00 Meeting.wpd Page 3 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes Unapproved Thursday, September 14, 2000 4.2.3 Request for traffic control on Dwight Road Mr. Ho advised that the applicant requested this item be continued to October. It was moved and seconded to continue this item as Discussion at the next meeting. Unanimously approved by the Commission. 4.2.4 Millbrae BART Station - potential impacts on City streets Mr. Ho again requested the handwritten notes from those Commissioners who had contacted other agencies on this issue. Comm. Mayer asked what Millbrae is planning to do to alleviate parking issues when the Millbrae BART station opens. Mr. Ho advised that Millbrae is waiting for the station to open (targeted for the end of 2001) to experience the impact. If needed, BART will assist Millbrae in developing mitigation measures. Mr. Erbacher stated that if Millbrae gets heavily impacted, Burlingame might be directly affected. Chairwoman Harber advised that the City of Fremont had no major problems. They suggested looking at the Rockridge station in Oakland since they provide permit parking around their station. 4.2.4.1 Chamber of Commerce Meeting on BART concerns at 7:45 a.m., Wednesday, September 20, 2000, Bay View Bank, 1188 El Camino Real (at Broadway) Mr. Erbacher advised that he and the Director of Public Works will attend and provide baseline study data at the meeting. 4.2.5 Discussion Items for Joint Meeting with City Council October 16, 2000 The Commissioners agreed to use the same list of discussion items developed for last year's joint meeting with Council. 5. ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF NEW ITEMS. None. 6. FROM THE FLOOR. None. 7. INFORMATION ITEMS. 7.1 From TSPC 7.1.1 Reports of citizen complaints or requests from TSPC. Comm. Auran stated that merchants on the 200 block of California Drive said delivery trucks are being chased away by Parking Enforcement Officers (PEO's) from Hatch Lane because Minutes for 9-14-00 Meeting.wpd Page 4 TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Unapproved Thursday, September 14, 2000 of "No Parking" signage. Commander Vanetten stated he will talk to the PEO's to allow deliveries there. 7.1.2 Comments and communication from TSPC to staff. 7.1.2.1 Comm. McIver reported that a STOP sign legend was painted on Easton at Benito. Mr. Ho advised that the crew's equipment needed repair so they will be back out to complete the work. They will also install a "Stop Sign Ahead" sign. 7.1.2.2 Comm. Evans asked about the speed limit and school crossing signs for the Ray Drive and Lassen Way intersection. Mr. Ho advised that they have been ordered. 7.1.2.3 Comm. Auran asked about the Shinn-yo En Temple response regarding the parking problem on Easton Drive. Mr. Ho advised that the temple is changing the size of their meetings so the parking impact will be more spread out. The temple has 63 spaces on site, and the overflow parking should be reduced. 7.1.3 Expected absences of Commissioners at the next meeting. Comm. Simonetti will be out of town for the October meeting. His term expires in November 2000, and he will not seek reappointment. The Commissioners wished him a fond farewell and thanked him for his services. 7.2 Traffic Engineer's Report None. 7.3 Staff Action Log None. 8. INACTIVE ITEMS. None. 9. AGENDIZE FOR THE NEXT MEETING. 10. ADJOURNMENT. 8:45 p.m. Minutes for 9-14-00 Meeting.wpd Page 5 CITY 0 STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: SP^tember 27 2000 FROM: Parks & Recreation Director AGENDA 7a ITEM # MTG. DATE 10/2/00 SUBMITTED� BY U AP ROVED BY SUBJECT: Proposed Revisions to Recreation Supervisor Job Classifications Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council approve the restructuring of the Recreation Division through the creation of a new single class Recreation Supervisor position and the elimination of the existing Recreation Supervisor 1, II and III classes; the reclassification of the three current Recreation Supervisor II's to the new Recreation Supervisor class; the promotion of the current Supervisor I to the new Recreation Supervisor class; and the creation of one new permanent part time (60%) Recreation Supervisor position within the Recreation Division. All changes to be accommodated within the current approved expenditure budget or funded with new recreation program revenues. Background: For many years the Recreation Division programs have been supervised by staff working in the series classification of Recreation Supervisor I and Recreation Supervisor II. With the introduction of the Recreation Coordinator class in the 1990's (slightly below the level of Supervisor 1), the Supervisor I classification has seldom been filled. Only one other City in the area organizes their Recreation Supervisors into separate classes and job/salary comparisons have been difficult in years past. The existing Recreation Supervisor III classification has not been filled for 20 years. Incumbent Recreation Supervisor II's are Mike Blondino, Tricia Pinney and Lynn Mutto [60% permanent part time (PPT)]. Recently, Jordana Schneiderman was promoted into the Recreation Supervisor I class when the Aquatic Center was changed to a 50 meter pool and the City took on the management of the pool schedule on a daily, year-round basis. Jordana has demonstrated her versatility and her ability to supervise virtually any program in the Recreation Division. She should be recognized as a Recreation Supervisor at the highest level and promoted into the new Recreation Supervisor Class. Although staff has been reluctant to create new permanent part time positions, flexibility has become the most important standard in creating City organizational tables. Whereas Recreation Supervisor position openings used to regularly attract from 50 to 120 applications for a single vacancy, similar position openings in this area now attract no more than a few qualified applicants and many of them prove to be unwilling to relocate. It will be important in the future to offer options to outstanding staff in order to attract qualified employees who wish to work in this County. The City has an outstanding employee, Recreation Coordinator Karen Hager, who is currently on maternity leave. She has been a part time, permanent part time and full time Recreation Coordinator for the City for over 15 years. She has worked as a credentialed school teacher. She is willing to return to City employment after her maternity leave is completed if she can work as a 60% permanent part time Recreation Supervisor. Staff believes that her return would provide continuity in several programs, as well as retaining a trained employee who performs at a very high level. The Recreation Coordinator position vacated by Mrs. Hager should be filled at its current level if staff is to continue the current level of recreation programming and introduce several programs that have been planned for implementation in the next few months. The proposed programs include new girls softball and boys baseball summer programs; new junior golf programs; new classes for children at Village Park; the reintroduction of the Holiday Faire arts and crafts faire and sale at the Recreation Center; and increased new adult soccer leagues. It is anticipated that these unbudgeted programs will generate a minimum of $20,000 in new program revenues during this fiscal year. Recreation program revenue is already running well ahead of overall projections after two months of operation during this fiscal year. Some salary savings will also be realized during this fiscal year due to unfilled or underfilled positions. Clearly, in all areas of the Parks & Recreation Department, flexibility will be mandated in the coming years if good employees are to be attracted to and then retained in City service. The changes proposed can be accomplished with no additional funds during this fiscal year. Summarizing the changes: 1. The existing Recreation Supervisor I, II & III series classification is abolished. 2. A new Recreation Supervisor position is established - same pay level and job specifications as previous Recreation Supervisor II position. 3. Current Supervisor II's converted to new Recreation Supervisor position are Mike Blondino, Tricia Pinney and Lynn Mutto (60% PPT) 4. Full time Recreation Supervisor I Jordana Schneiderman is promoted to new Recreation Supervisor position. 5. Permanent part time (60%) Recreation Coordinator Karen Hager is promoted to new Recreation Supervisor position (60% PPT) upon her return from maternity leave. 6. A new full time Recreation Coordinator will be hired to fill Mrs. Hager's current budgeted position. Both AFSCME and the Burlingame Association of Middle Managers have been advised of these proposed changes and have been invited to comment. Neither organization has expressed any concern or opposition to the proposed changes. Exhibit: Exhibit A: Proposed new Organizational Chart Exhibit B: Estimated budget impacts Budget Impact: All of the proposed changes can be accommodated within the current approved budget, plus the addition of new unbudgeted program revenues. (Exhibit B) Recreation Division t�^ pavk64 BURUNGAME Organizational Chart (proposed) � ' Public City Council _� _ _ _ _ _ _ � Parks &Recreation City Manager ` Commssion 0.45 Director of � � � Senior Parks & Recreation Commssion 1.0 Recreation Superintendent 1.0 Rec. 0.6 Rec. 0.6 Rec. 1.0 Rec. 1.0 Rec. Supervisor Supervisor Supervisor I Supervisor I Supervisor (Adult &Youth (Preschool/ (Seniors/ (Spec. Events/ (Aquatics/ Sports) Grants) Spec. Classes) Classes) Brochure) 1.0 Rec. 0.47 Rec. 1.0 Rec. 0.6 Rec. 0.8 Bldg. Coord. Coord. Coord. Coord. Attend. (Teens/Youth) (B.I.S.) 11 (Youth) 11 (Seniors) 11 1.0 Secretary 1.0 Bldg. 1.0 Acct. Clerk II Maint. 1.0 Sr. Clerk Typist 0.475 Cust. 0.475 Clerk Typist Typist Over 250 part-time 0.475 Clerk Typi Recreation Leaders / Specialists / m Contract Instructors / Volunteers / etc. _ W a 9/11100 • RS 2. EXHIBIT B ESTIMATED BUDGET IMPACTS OF PROPOSED CHANGES Changes in salary and benefit costs for FY 1999-2000: $ 3,800 Promotion of J. Schneiderman - salary and benefits + $ 3,300 New PPT 60% Supervisor position for K. Hager (6 mos.) + 20,000 New Recreation Coordinator - start on Step B - 2,000 Recreation Coordinator 4 month vacancy (net after part time) - 10,000 Typist Clerk 3 month vacancy (net after part time) - 7,500 New Recreation Division estimated revenue for FY 1999-2000 $13,000 New program revenue generated + $ 5,000 ($20,000 less 70% program costs) Estimated revenue over budget based on Fall registration + 8,000 ($30,000 less 70% program costs) INCREASED REVENUE OVER NEW COSTS $ 9,200 AGENDA BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT To: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: September 27, 2000 FROM: CITY PLANNER & PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR ITEM # 7b MTG. 1 0/2/00 DATE SUBJECT: DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON THE DRAFT PENINSULA TRANSPORTATION PLAN (PTP) 2010 RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that Council provide comments and direction for CMAC and CCAG consideration of the draft Peninsula Transportation Plan 2010 (formerly known as the Countywide Transportation Plan). BACKGROUND: The CCAG TAC has met twice in October to review the most recent draft of the Peninsula Transportation Plan (formerly called the Countywide Transportation Plan). The plan, which is an ambitious update of the 1997 Countywide Transportation Plan, has been developed by CCAG staff over the last two years. Although several sections of the plan have been previously reviewed by affected agencies, CCAG and the TAC, this is the first time that the entire document is being distributed for comment. The CCAG TAC and CMAC have reviewed this edition virtually simultaneously. Although the TAC has reviewed most of the plan, it did not take a vote of endorsement. CCAG staff has indicated that City comments must be submitted no later than October 3, 2000. The CCAG board will be asked to vote on the release of the draft in mid October. It will then be distributed to all transportation and transit agencies in the county for comment. Following is a synopsis of the major recommendations and implications of the plan organized by section. A complete copy of the plan is available in the Public Works and Planning Departments. Summary of the Peninsula Transportation Plan 2010 Executive Summary The purpose of the Peninsula Transportation Plan is to guide CCAG staff on future funding decisions and county wide deficiency plan preparations. Overview The theme of the plan is expressed in this section. Emphasis is given to moving to a "higher plane" of cooperation in seeking funding among all transportation oriented agencies. The objective of the plan is to develop consensus for the 2000 to 2010 time frame on the funding between roadways and transit without setting specific percentages. Land Use The major policy issue to consider in this section is a change in the state tax structure. The plan includes redistributing sales tax among communities in San Mateo County to encourage land uses that bring people closer to work and reduce traffic rather than land uses that generate revenue and possibly increase traffic. State law has been changed to make this possible with an affirmative 2/3 vote of each participating jurisdiction. There are no details of how this "redistribution" would be accomplished. The program implies that the money would not be used for roadway improvements but instead for encouraging land uses such as housing. DISCUSSIONAND DIRECTION ON THE DRAFT PENINSULA TRANSPORTATION PLAN (PTP) 2010 October 2, 2000 Page 2 Roads This section identifies US 101 north of SR 92 as the highest priority roadway in the county. It also identifies auxiliary lanes, interchanges and ramp metering as the highest priority improvements. These priority designations will influence the scoring on future Federal and State project applications. Bicycles This section recommends placing a priority on a bicycle system which connects to Caltrain. It suggests funds be spent on incentives to integrate bicycle and transit modes. Transit This section identifies an objective to increase the share of total trips traveled on transit from current 5 % to 10 % in the next ten years. It will affect the funding choices between transit and non -transit (roadway) projects. There is a goal to decrease rail travel times by 25 % and increase the number of 45-minute trips between San Jose and San Francisco by reducing headways. . High Speed Rail This program will be coordinated by the JPB rather than the cities. It will require station relocations (referred to as upgrades) and grade separations in order to increase train speed and frequency. . Caltrain The Rapid Rail Program will increase the frequency of trains thereby resulting in more down gate time. The frequency can be increased through train and station improvements. Although not articulated in the PTP, these include the relocation of the Broadway Station, platform adjustments at the Burlingame Station, a third rail through the entire city, possible closure of South Lane, fencing and pedestrian undercrossings at the Broadway Station and Morrell Avenue. This section states that program improvements should not conflict with (preclude) high speed rail and that electrification of Caltrain would occur only when high speed rail is ready to operate in the same right-of-way. . BART The plan identifies two alignment choices: the Caltrain right of way and US 101. It recommends extension south of Millbrae if BART would generate new net transit ridership and demonstrate cost effectiveness. . SamTrans The plan identifies SamTrans' role as providing transit feeder service to the rail system as there are better long distance service alternatives such as Caltrains and BART which can provide better access to San Francisco. . Ferries The plan supports such services only so long as they are not duplicative. Studies show that the most cost effective ferry service would be from Redwood City to San Francisco which is a service route already provided by the train. TSM The plan identifies the distinction between TSM and TDM programs. TSM (Transportation Supply Management) focuses on programs which increase the efficiency of the existing roadway and transit services, e.g. ramp metering. TDM (Transportation Demand Management) addresses programs/actions which reduce vehicle usage, e.g. rideshare. Policies focus on TSM and include implementation of a comprehensive set of TSM and TDM programs to increase efficiency of the existing transportation network and reduce single - occupancy trips. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON THE DRAFT PENINSULA TRANSPORTATION PLAN (PIP) 2010 October 2, 2000 Page 3 Pricin The plan identifies a policy to require employers to offer monetary incentives for people who drive. It also recommends a regional (San Mateo County) gasoline tax. This is possible but would require a 2/3 affirmative vote to pass. Pedestrians The plan identifies a goal to increase those walking to work from 2.4% to 5 % in ten years. One major recommendation is that the jurisdictions add staff qualified to review all plans and require that developers address maximizing pedestrian access. Several design approaches are also expressed as policy, e.g. all parking lots should be built behind buildings. Financial The plan provides background on the possible and existing use of funds. This information may be helpful in determining priorities for dividing available funding between roadway and transit projects in the San Mateo County Congestion Management Plan. For example, in the last STIP, State funds were divided 40 % for roads and 60 % for transit. c: City Clerk S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Draft PTP 2010.wpd * AGENDA ITEM # 7 c CITY OF BURLINGAME MEETING DATE: 1 U-2-00 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council DATE: September 27, 2000 FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Commissioner Items As of the September 26 filing deadline, the below -listed residents have applied to serve on a city commission: Library Board (1 position: term to 6-30-03) Elaine Fuchs Carolyn Hipps Andrew Gurthet Mary Lou Morton' Beautification Commission (2 positions: terms to 10-7-03) Dorothy Katz Nancy Locke' Jill Lauder' Rick Malaspina Traffic Safety Parking Commission (3 positions: terms to 11-6-03) David Mayer' Civil Service (2 positions: terms to 12-1-03) Gerry Hipps' Also, the attached table was created earlier this year to quickly reference those commissioner candidates interviewed within the past 24-month period. Council may choose to (1) reappoint incumbent commissioners; (2) appoint candidates from attached list; (3) select council interview teams as necessary and schedule candidate interview date(s); and/or (4) extend the application filing deadline to Monday, October 30, 2000. Dennis Argyres City Manager v Attachments Incumbent/number of terms served ff 4.e C�tt-a of �3urfingamr COMMISSIONER APPLICATION ✓ Please type or print clearly. ✓ All applicants must be residents and registered voters of the City of Burlingame. ✓ Return completed form to Chy Manager's Office, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, 94010, far (650) 342-8386. Inquiries: (650) 558-7204. Name 15J=, -fN4,- - (JC- (-14'S7 Address //0- ffA-f-ris Length of residence in Burlingame: olr�sf� FOR CITY �;,. JUN! CITY OF BI VIANAGE1 Burlingame Copies to: C( ............................... USE ONLY 1_ RU*4GAAhFE S 0"`- •egistered voter CM, i, ► 6 INCUMBENT O NEw APPLICANT Home phone: Occupation:-f Ct'�ri��--rim'-%` Education 1��. s�+c:�����y� h'oi;7Pr-C fv67Pz-1-f T&�AlV Work phone On which city commission do you wish to serve? (select from list below) Please note the meeting date/time of each commission_ First choice: `f Second choice: -� Beautification ........... first Thursday, 5:30pm, City Hall Conference Room A Civil Service ............ third Monday, 4.00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -� t rary Boar ........... third Tuesday, 4:30 pm, Library, 480 Primrose Road ->- Park & Recreation ........ third Thursday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -� Planning ............... second and fourth Monday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Council Chambers -� Senior ................ third Thursday, 10.00 am, City Hall Conference Room A -Y Traffic Safety & Parking .... second Thursday, 7:00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Please list any special education, training, work or other experience you may have had which you feel affects your capability to servethe commission4 LY ourpc�ae-rae,ncuiti•H F e ��ee c.� "-P��• ` wig-� dN--4 &-b A-f' 4::� r 72VK4h!::JC 7Z5Ae,&rNy UEM>[�c�A�GS A+C'TT%.e[�#3i _ 11fN' T%NV Ili' kr /2i•x %'� lv!'%�Ac^�S/ Special interests and hobbies.'�4�'� fCZ�� Ji:.��•� .J W/ H�/�/Co �JO//t 4. 'TD Aow Sfzl..e=r •7i[�Y �.� %Z Please comment on your reasons for offering to serve on a City commission and any ideas you have which may serve for the betterment of the City. T "b mod -ro ee R462'er --n G;vc baZZ4 .7V -fir G.'-Izf V;n r; ..issQ,aQy &Y S-I*V' teyoe-+'Tia G+li ! z-ib*y 7fk2,61- twAcer. tartVrp t�: eG -,V Moa.t� 3e-s A�V ' -M -Z;VC-eP.� ^40� cv � :�� u-3yu��- 1&4&r.,e4- 7s g D �!Z,-glue P �'d t-ac e r_2 ,'7crrs .�-t ' Rv 7lrrie- �nl�t Sv & Dee' O-F Do you have any comments on City problems or current procedures? clex.7 Revised November 12. 1999 IH:COMMISSION%COMMAPPL.NEWJ Signature: (-f4r C'Titlj .af (RurlixrgaM-C COMMISSIONER APPLICATION ✓ Please type or print clearly ✓ All applicants must be residents and registered voters of the City of Burlingame ✓ Return completed form to City Manager's Office, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, 94010: fax (650) 342-8386. Inquiries: (650) 558-7204. Name Address ���� �"1CXiYJul1�2 A/c --0ZCZ3 i Length of residence in Burlingame: •3 � V,Fs Education Q L ' S (See �hc J FOR CITY USE ONLY � • ,ti rN = R . ^{ 01TY OF BURLINGAME • uueanrevn nrrmr )Burlingame registered vote Copies to: CC, CM, L + �i INCUMBENT 0 NEW APPLICANT Home phone: � _ i Ll --Z so( Lam L,�faiz-t Work phone: (LA, I ) --S5C/ G &-Z On which city commission do you wish to serve? (select from list below) Please note the meeting date/time of each contrnission- First choice: J— r &)f o ;? (, Second choice: . -►- Beautification ........... first Thursday, 5:30 pm, City Hall Conference Room A — Civil Service ............ third Monday, 4:00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -Y Library Board ........... third Tuesday, 4:30 pm, Library, 480 Primrose Road -� Park & Recreation ........ third Thursday, 7:00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -Y planning ............... second and fourth Monday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Council Chambers Senior ................ third Thursday, 10. 00 am, City Hall Conference Room A -►- Traffic Safety & Parking .... second Thursday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Please list any special education, training, work or other experience you may have had which you feel affects your capability to serve the commission of your preference. 4jj l suyicrk!j as 2 re- 1.1?w 11*&)/, ?,n CL Special interests and hobbies. I "I r-A l r S l/oc io« elC l A01'i-1 4 2 / . Th t,✓o r ' Ht� 24 Ac S a-, f4cr aver ct L..Zn, y sele-7ce. Z i»cisco Lat,� caT/ Please comment on your reasons for offering to serve on a City commission and any ideas you have which may serve for the betterment of the City. / Jj ff� // �' U I 1 1-ts a low %+ t0�2tl21'i ti?✓� b cst -iI--'e) 46 vy,, r &L be etwt�+f o t'es VAle t.h/%/,vC . 11%/ 17cV Ac7GtYC 2/S0 625 4l✓e., 015- !e?S � /itL— 'J/c lC�'l %SsVe% Alo,ae z ��i is �)M� , �f weUo', T Do you have any comments on City problems or current procedures? &7 Revised November 12, 1999 IB:COMMISSION\COMMAPPL NllVt Signature: Z� ZrZ' ANDREW D. GURTHET 1452 Floribunda Ave. #203, Burlingame, California 94010 (650) 348-2801 EXPERIENCE Reference Librarian (1/00 to present) San Francisco County Law Library, San Francisco, California Provide reference assistance to patrons. Research, recommend and develop library electronic resources such as Westlaw, :Lexis, LoisLaw, etc. Design and maintain library's web site. Create, implement and oversee library retention policy. Assist in collection development by making acquisition recommendations. Assist in branch library day-to-day operations. Reference and Interlibrary Loan (2/97 to 12/99) Stanford University Law Library; Stanford, California Assist students and professors with their legal reference needs, including locating on- line materials using Westlaw, Lexis-Nexis, and Dialog. Create faculty bibliographies and reference pathfinders. Assist in the design and maintenance of the library's four virtual library web projects. Scan, edit and upload new documents onto these websites using Adobe Acrobat software. Conduct and oversee all aspects of interlibrary loan borrowing and lending, including searching for and requesting materials using RLIN and OCLC. Web Master (1/1198 to present) Reference (8/93 to 10/93, 7/96 to 1/97) Santa Barbara County Law Library, Santa Barbara, California Web Master- Design and maintain the law library's web page. Reference Assistant - Provided patrons with reference assistance. Assist patrons with Internet and CD-ROM legal searches. Manage circulation, interlibrary loan and cataloguing. Maintain and evaluate collection. Oversee accounting/billing, including procurement, receipt, payment and distribution of library materials. Conduct inventory of collection. Law Clerk (3/95 to 7/96) Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold, San Francisco, California Conducted personal injury law research. Assisted with trial preparation and motion practice for large, multi -district personal injury litigation. Prepared witness and trial binders. Assisted with written discovery, including document review and analysis. Law Clerk (9/93 to 9/94) Law Offices of Steven R. Andrade; Santa Barbara, California Conducted personal injury, criminal and family law research. Prepared and drafted briefs, motions and legal memoranda. Conducted all aspects of discovery, including preparing and responding to interrogatories, requests for admissions and production demands. Negotiated settlement of civil cases with insurance carriers. Attorney (4/93 to 8/93) Dunn Law Offices; Madiscn, Wisconsin Practiced law under license No. 1021498, State Bar of Wisconsin. Conducted court appearances and client counselling. Conducted criminal and personal injury law research. Prepared and drafted briefs, motions and legal memoranda. EDUCATION San Jose State University, School of Library and Information Science; San Jose, California Masters of Library and Information Science (M.L.I.S.) awarded December 1999. University of Wisconsin Law School; Madison, Wisconsin Juris Doctorate awarded May 1993. Approximate 3.0 GPA. Katholieke Universitait — Tilburg; Tilburg, The Netherlands Completed six month study program in European Union Law. Spring/Summer 1991. University of Wisconsin - Madison; Madison, Wisconsin Bachelor of Arts (History) awarded December 1989. Graduated with Distinction. Karl Mark University; Budapest, Hungary 1988-1989 Study Abroad Program (Eastern European History). ANDREW D. GURTHET Page 2 MEMBERSHIP Northern California Association of Law Libraries (NOCALL) Active member since 1996. American Association of Law Libraries (AALL) Active member since 1997. INTERNSHIPS Judicial Intern (1/93 to 5/93) Wisconsin Court of Appeals, District IV, Madison, Wisconsin Drafted final decisions of the Court. Prepared memoranda of law. Conducted legal research on the various issues before the Court. Legal Intern (9/92 to 12/92) . Office of the Public Intervenor, Wisconsin Department of Justice; Madison, Wisconsin Drafted various legal documents for state environmental hearings. Conducted preliminary investigations of reported ground water contamination. Surveyed individual affected by lead poisoning. Legal Intern (1/92 to 5/92) Center for Public Representation, Inc.; Madison, Wisconsin Established outreach clinic providing legal counseling for low-income individuals. Organized educational workshops concerning common legal problems. COMPUTER SKILLS Proficiency searching in the following online search services: • Westlaw • Lexis-Nexis • Dialog • LoisLaw • Internet • CCH Internet Tax Research Network • Searchbank LegalTrac • Legal Scholarship Network Electronic Library • RIA Checkpoint • RLIN • OCLC • World News Connection Web Proficiency with: • HTML coding • Javascript • Java • XML Proficiency on Macintosh and PC with the following sof"'I'lare: • Folio Bound VIEWS 3.1 (CD-ROM search engine) • Netscape and Internet Explorer • Adobe Acrobat • Adobe Photoshop • Macromedia Dreamweaver 3.0 • Microsoft Word • Microsoft Excel • Microsoft Access • Microsoft Front Page • Eudora Pro 3.0 • BIBL for Windows • Summation 3.1 • Paradox 4.5 • Legal Solutions Pro -Forma The City of Burlingame COMMISSIONER APPLICATION ✓ Please npe or print cle_arh.: ✓ All applicants must be residents and I'egistered voters of the C'itt' of Burlingame ✓ Reali n coi)'I j?1eied toii)'I to L iLl'_Vana rose Roal, burlinga;ne, er'S Ice, ?� : 94010; /ax (6.50 ii6-9281. inquiries: (6.50) . 8-7204. / ZNCL�IEE1Z' `� a1212 /Z d C � /�'j• / S Cldress / t 'J fJ✓ Length of residence in Burlingame: 0 S' Education tH/" /( ;Y►✓%/ , NEIV APPLIC.-UNT Y FOR CITY USE ONLY E r s XN 1 3 CIlY OF ERLINGAME MANAGER'S GFF;C i'llilga"le i"eV;'er eSI� V10 Op1." i0: CC. wit Home phone: 06 r, Occupation: Work phone: On rx hick city commission do you ivish to serve? (select from list below) Please note the meeting dateWtne of each convnissiom Furst choice: d./�I" Second choice: -' Beautification .. ............ first Thursday, -5:30 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -�' Civil Service ................ third Monday, 4: 00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A - Libran- Board ............... third Tuesday, 4:30 pm, Library, 480 Primrose Road ./ -* Park cC Recreation ........... third Thursday, 7: 00 pm, Cq Hall Conference Room A -� Planning ................... second and, fourth Afonday, '7 00 pm, Ciiy Hall Council Chambers Senior .................... third Thursday, 10:00 am, City Hall Conference Room - Traffic Safety & Parking ....... second Thursday, 7:00 pm, Chy Hall Conference Room A Please list any special education, training, work or other experience you may have had which you feel affects your capability to serve the commiss Special interests and hobbies. ed on your reasons for offering to serve on a City Do You have any comment on City problems or curt any ideas you have which may serge for the betterment of the City f, V Gt1 V kr.,iud hlovtxnbn T2, 1999 ;E.COMbI13410hP;COWIM.aYYi.NEWj Signature: Z4-e Titij of Purlingame COMMISSIONER APPLICATION ✓ Please type or print clearly. ✓ All applicants must be registered voters of the City of Burlingame at the time of application. ✓ Return completed form to City Manager's Office, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, 94010; fax (650) 342-8386. Inquiries: (650) -69� 7204. SS 1' Name �r t 6& Address %JZ-c.) Length of residence in Burlingame: Education ��ll� j�1lL?� 5 �- S4 /-L FOR CITY USE ONLY 1, NY J G t CITY OF BURLIN— GAME MANAGER'S GFF'�r Burlingame registered voter Copies to: CC, CM, L- .......................................................... — INCUMBENT NEW APPLICANT ❑ Home phone: Occupation: Work phone: On which city commission do you wish to serve? (select from list below) Please note the meeting date/time of each commission. First choice: '"`,�' ` Second choice: — Beautification ........... first Thursday, 5:30 pm, City Hall Conference Room A — Civil Service ............ third Monday, 4:00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A — Library Board ........... third Tuesday, 4.30 pm, Library, 480 Primrose Road } Park & Recreation ........ third Thursday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A — Planning ............... second and fourth Monday, 7:00 pm, City Hall Council Chambers -► Senior ................ third Thursday, 10:00 am, City Hall Conference Room A — Traffic Safety & Parking .... second Thursday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Conference. Room A Please list any special education, training, work or other experience you may have had which you feel affects your capability to serve the commission of your preference. Special interests and hobbies. Please comment on your reasons for offering to serve on a City commission and any ideas you have which may serve for the betterment of the City. �[ -z j2zz -e LG��{7%12.�(�i �-L'-����� _ ��C-L i°. �-P �lll�Q ���y-• �Yj �te;��P�IC�-i CL�Gf�2./ _ Do you have any comments on City problems or current procedures? (0,I747 6? CI Gta •-- -9447 /: Revised September 10, 1998 [D:\WPWiN60\Commissions\COMMAPPL.98] Signature• The City of Burlingame COMMISSIONER APPLICATION ✓ Please type or print clearly. ✓ All applicants must be residents and registered voters of the City of Burlingame. ✓ Return completed form to City Manager's Office, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, 94010; fax (650) 556-9281. Inquiries: (650) 558-7204. Name De lZw-H) At - Address 4zzD 1�o VC l, 4 S A u� � Length of residence in Burlingame��, j/r.,-, l (7L/ Education I H n "l 'e' 0 v0 e C'� I (E- rr e- FOR CITY USE ONLY I i ` EI 1 CITE OF B KINGAME 1 IV IIIIA EWS GFFTE Burlingame registered voter Copies to: CC, CM, 1�AP ..........................................------....._...... INCUMBENT 0 NEW APPLICANT Home phone: 6� 7 — ��. 3 //� 7 / Occupation:e( Work phone: On which city commission do you wish to serve? (select from list below) Please note the meeting date/time of each commission_ First choice: ed l 1 C i CcL�I D Lr Second choice: 1 -► Beautification ........... first Thursday, 5:30 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Civil Service ............ third Monday, 4:00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Library Board ........... third Tuesday, 4:30 pm, Library, 480 Primrose Road Park & Recreation ........ third Thursday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -> Planning ................ second and fourth Monday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Council Chambers Senior ................ third Thursday, 9.30 am, City Hall Conference Room. A -► Traffic Safety & Parking .... second Thursday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Please list any special education, training, work or other experience you may have had which you feel affects your capability to serve the commission of your preference. G o '� 0 f— l�-t-. /2 v rs Please comment on your reasons for offering to serve on a City commission and any ideas you have which may serve for the betterment of the City. t 1 ay� -�cm�, 1�� -t 1�c,5er��tce. - czl v illl wk,cZ -T jl: 'VP1i � 1 Ct IZ o Do you have any comments on City problems or current procedures? Weal l ze tLkt - al I e'i tip bavca- P, ro tits, jj ricy -real SyNeo vve-�, in,yvrl - C. Revised August 4, 2000 (&COMMISSIOMCOMMAPPLNEW] Signature: pe'�-tz& - - - The City of Burlingame COMMISSIONER APPLICATION ✓ Please type or print clearly. ✓ All applicants must be residents and registered voters of the City of Burlingame. FOR CITY USE ONLY jJ {fy OF Bt1RUNGAME ✓ Return completed form to City Manager's Office, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, 94010; � 8urlingame registered voter fax (650) 556-9281. Inquiries: (650) 558-7204. Copies to: CC, CM, :................................................... 44 ll INCUMBENT NEW APPLICANT ❑ Name �_J ! I � L_ . r�..i_.�c�.�' �` Address �� �) �� G,_; 01 `t I � Home phone: 4 -Z " 5� 72 4 Length of residence in Burlingame: `� >^S , Occupation: Education ` < /1 _ . )p 1�� r-k i�1 �S tS �" r r��' C P'CA 1 - IC t ) Work phone: Nu -se- 7>`c� . C erj t ica--ke., '7- A t-1 C -)f t t-We- Ccv4 �'-CS PIA On which city commission do you wish to serve? (select from list below) Please note the meeting date/time of each commission_ First choice: Ph 1 J'T-1 �i 6' r�--L,i n t1 Second choice: -> Cpeautificatiot ........... first Thursday, 5:30 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -- -> Civil Service ............ third Monday, 4: 00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Library Board ........... third Tuesday, 4:30 pm, Library, 480 Primrose Road -Y Park & Recreation ........ third Thursday, 7:00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Planning ............... second and fourth Monday, 7:00 pm, City Hall Council Chambers Senior ................ third Thursday, 9:30 am, City Hall Conference Room A Traffic Safety & Parking .... second Thursday, 7:00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Please list any special education, training, work or other experience you may have had which you feel affects your capability to serve the commission of your preference. Gc�_1- �� 3peClial intbres s a �ho��ies`A S,M CF 1 A*t a (2niel Al IcfS. Please comment on your reasons for offering to serve on a City commission and any ideas you have which may serve for the betterment of the City.- , , :1-- h'&Ive 1 ►.ny � Do you have any comments on City problems or current procedures? -1 nl? ry \ (101.l e F A- n C� Wit. el %r; u a ` PNP- --r--f'c:k L Revised August 4.2000 [BXOMMISSIONWOMMAPPL.NEW) Signature:'t-- FOR CITY USE ONLY The City of Burlingame BURLINGAME COMMISSIONER -' -�- �5 - APPLICATION ✓ Please type or print clearly. t OF BURLINGAME t'.":".4FR'S OFFTI ✓ All applicants must be residents and registered voters of the City of Burlingame. -' 6/Return completed form to City Manager's Office, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, 94010; Burlingame registered voter fax (650) 556-9281. Inquiries: (650) 558-7204. Copies to: CC, CM, INCUMBENT NEW APPLICANT 0 Name D G%(�, Address % 3 � Length of residence in Burlingame:. Education .� • .C/1 q [� mil[ �(�' . Home phone: G V O -J,70' 96 -/ �- Occupation: -'"A_rlok�o 74 h G Work phone: fi '56 ,3',/o i(, 'S/ ?- On which city commission do you wish to serve? (select from list below) Please note the meeting date/time of each commission. First choice: 2 e� 4-44-A 0" Second choice: — Beautification ........... first Thursday, 5:30 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Civil Service ............ third Monday, 4:00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -Y Library Board ........... third Tuesday, 4:30 pm, Library, 480 Primrose Road -Y Park & Recreation ........ third Thursday, 7.-00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A — Planning ............... second and fourth Monday, 7:00 pm, City Hall Council Chambers -> Senior ................ third Thursday, 9:30 am, City Hall Conference Room A -> Traffic Safety & Parking .... second Thursday, 7:00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Please list any special education, training, work or other experience you may have had which you feel affects your capability to serve the commission of your preference. G��u✓a,� lit/D���d h L/(�� j Aft-0 ex.; eri Special interests and hobbies. Z wYt - 7)4rk � X itri • ' rQ-n- 4'*'t'4 '�f wr ddt&*,Lt c, Please comment on your reasons for offering to serve on a City commission and any ideas you have which may serve for the betterment of tl�e City. „ ^ BroA-o1,w& f 40/0); % i riti�+•A-�G Do you have any comments rt / ents on City problems or current procedures? �h rr>G.%-� 64 4 Revised August 4. 2000 [B:COMMISSIOMCOMMAPPL.NEW] _ j — 'ff4e Tit-q of 7'�Burfingamr COMMISSIONER APPLICATION ✓ Please type or print clearly. ✓ All applicants must be residents and registered voters of the City of Burlingame. ✓ Return completed form to Chy Manager's Office, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, 94010, fax (650) 342-8386. Inquiries: (650) 558-7204. Name FOR CITY USE ONLY SEP r �, girl Of BUr'RIiidGpME ❑ Burlingame registered voter Copies to: CC, CM, ........................................................ - INCUMBENT 0 NEW APPLICANT! Address f S 3 7 �/ `t V 6 Home phone: // (GitFw vP 1-1-cl7te3 Length of residence in Burlingame: 040t. l2-IeLuc.4-r-i Wr- PE.2^&-e-r7Pccupation: /3C,/tt1'AJC-A—E EducationS/hv�s<< s> �` v wi vcSc s; r^� Work phone: RA, 'T0UtAVACir1'- — i973 On which city commission do you wish to serve? (select from list below) Please note the meeting date/time of each commission_ First choice: /S T7'1G/_ T� G �' Second choice: Y Beautification ........... first Thursday, 5:30 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -� Civil Service ............ third Monday, 4:00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -� Library Board ........... third Tuesday, 4:30 pm, Library, 480 Primrose Road -Y Park & Recreation ........ third Thursday, 7.00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Y plug .... , ..... ...second and fou�thdlonday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Council Chambers 4 Senior ................ third Thursday, 8.00 am, City Hall Conference Room A Traffic Safety & Parking .. second Thursday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Please list any special education, training, work or other experience you may have had which you feel affects your capability to serve the commission of your preference. J 7740Al (3 CV H„t- v. 4 c,GC-r , A��- AtX-4'* A/c`�sbl-P Z -C re�c Ash eoL(Jly.v�"Si Sri uelp /�r truly' Wcq i 4 , /y3t,' c, /�-� C0WAAy,-.; r �E Sri o wS. �uJ��t.r-y - fi vE �c f N , 1-W-r1A f cc., ,. �od�M'E /tx-A PVRG c- ScrthslL i'>A* Special interests and hobbies. d*f- 1"RN1 A /F �°y ntW c`T r /Sr7'S�•'�i �i*Ki Al . Please comment on your reasons for offering to serve on a City commission and any ideas you have which may serve for the betterment of the City. Do you have any comments on City problems or current procedures? ;P/`t eeA, 76 ?-fsI-)e- ULc yQ �, t4445"T_ Revised November 12, 1999 18:COMMiSSIONICOMMAPPLNEW] Signature: w E aENDED ANSWER AND RELATED NOTES QUESTICN: Reasons for offering to serve on a City commission. ANSWER: I grew up in Burlingame. It was a wonderful time in a special place. Now that I have .relocated to my family home after more than 20 years in the Concord/Walnut Creek area, I would like to contribute to the betterment of Burlingame through an appropriate form of civic service. I am particularly interested in preserving and enhancing the appearance and character of the city and/or maintaining the high quality of the library I used often as a youngster and student (and use now). Ideas: --More trees. --Signage/marking of notable and historic sites. --Guided walks for newcomers and visitorsto explain the sights and history of Burlingame. (Work on this with historical society, service groups, library and high school students?) -=A brochure that describes Burlingame. --Is there a periodic city newsletter to inform residents of events, activities and progress? Notes to application: --I have submitted a form to the County Clerk to register as a voter in Burlingame. --In October I will begin employment as a director at A&R Partners, a public relations agency in San Mateo that serves high-tech clients. , `•4 p Rick Malaspina Manager, Public Affairs =� � n UC Labors tory Administration Aj \ — University of California 1I I I Franklin St, 5th Floor 77 Oakland, CA %607 rlr TEL: (510) 987-0105 it FAX: (510) 839,3831 E-MAIL: rickinalaspina@ocop.edu URL: hap://Iabs ucop.edu/ RICK MALASPINA Career Profile Rick Malaspina has 25 years of experience in the communications field -- as a newspaper reporter and columnist at major metropolitan newspapers, a speech writer and publications editor at the Bank of America, and a manager of public affairs at the University of California Office of the President. Currently, he is in charge of public affairs for UC's management of the U.S. Department of Energy national laboratories at Berkeley, Livermore and Los Alamos (New Mexico). He is based at the UC Office of the President in Oakland, which is headquarters of the 10-campus UC system. It is a $13 billion enterprise with 174,000 graduate and undergraduate students and 160,000 employees at the campuses, five medical centers, the national laboratories and other operations in California, other states and abroad. Malaspina is the first to hold the laboratory public affairs position. In this role, he planned and conducted the first strategic communications program in support of UC's management of the three national laboratories. He works closely with colleagues at the laboratories and serves as liaison for UC with counterparts at the Department of Energy in Washington, D.C. and at operations offices in Oakland and Albuquerque. He also represents UC in community relations activities in northern New Mexico; he helped establish the first UC office in the are to increase UC's visibility and promote its corporate citizenship as manager of the Los Alamos laboratory. In previous Office of the President positions, Malaspina was interim director of news and communications and associate director of news services. He has lectured and presented training programs on media relations at UC campuses, the Berkeley and Los Alamos laboratories, the UC Management Institute, and at other institutions and events. Before joining UC in 1987, Malaspina was a senior corporate communications officer for Bank of America, working at the bank's world headquarters in San Francisco. He wrote speeches for senior executives and later developed and edited a weekly publication he named NewsFront, which was designed to inform employees worldwide during a time of major institutional change and challenge. The publication continued for several years after Malaspina's move from Bank of America. Malaspina began his career as a newspaper reporter and columnist in the San Francisco Bay Area. He worked in journalism for 12 years, mostly at the Oakland Tribune and the San Francisco Examiner, and covered a variety of news events including the attempted assassination of then -President Gerald Ford and the kidnapping of publishing heiress Patricia Hearst. Later, as a featured columnist for the Oakland Tribune and the San Francisco Examiner, he specialized in "slice -of -life" writing and did reporting and commentary on the broadcast industry at the local and national level Malaspina's writing has won awards and commendations from the Press Club of San Francisco, the Associated Press, the California Newspaper Publishers Association, and Gannett News Service. Born in San Francisco, Malaspina received his bachelor's degree in journalism, with distinction, in 1973 from San Jose State University. He was editor of the school's award -winning student newspaper, the Spartan Daily. June 2000 The City of Burlingame COMMISSIONER APPLICATION ✓ Please type or print clearly. ✓ All applicants must be residents and registered voters of the City of Burhngarne. ✓ Return completed form to City Manager's Office, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, fax (650) 556-9281. Inquiries: (650) 558-7204. Name Address 5/ O V y2 Length of residence in Burlingame: 0& YRS . Education FOR CITY USE ONLY I § SFP — E IGiTy OF BURLINGAME. s'A E Vrr -.:. Fr".. �.�,>t,UR'S OFF. ._ 94010; Burlingame registered` voter Copies to: CC, CM, .................................................................: INCUMBENT 1' NEW APPLICANT ❑ Home phone: �7�— 1��3 Occupation: Work phone: �f On which city commission do you wish to serve? (select from list below) Please note the meeting date/time of each commission. Firs_ t choice: �7 Second choice: Beautification ........... first Thursday, 5:30 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -> Civil Service ............ third Monday, 4:00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Library Board ........... third Tuesday, 4:30 pm, Library, 480 Primrose Road Park & Recreation ........ third Thursday, 7:00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Planning ............... second and fourth Monday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Council Chambers Senior ................. third Thursday, 9:30 am, City Hall Conference Room A Traffic Safety & Parking .... second Thursday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Please list any special education, training, work or other experience you may have had which you feel affects your capability to serve the commission of your preference. vie o4'�-c C, Special interests and hobbies. y O 2 t �v� 20 V Al CL /AfA r Please comment on your reasons for offering to serve on a City commission and any ideas you have which may serve for the betterment of the City. /. / r► t kC l D '6,c Fy/l T_ O �, 7ZC 9—. lt�- tJ -c O T So /z �- - Do you have any comments on City problems or current procedures? M Revised August 4, 2000 [B:COMMISSION\COMMAPPL.NEW] Signature ""� �� The City of Burlingame COMMISSIONER APPLICATION ✓ Please type or print clearly. ✓ All applicants must be residents and registered voters of the City of Burlingame. ✓ Return completed form to City Manager's Office, 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, 94010; fax (650) 556-9281. Inquiries: (650) 558-7204. Name a /V Address Length of residence in Burlingame: Education C. FOR CITY USE ONLY I = 1 C CM' OF BURL114GAME OFFV'E l $urlingame registered voter / Copies to: CC, CM, ..................................................................: INCUMBENT NEW APPLICANT Asa G'f'7 Home phone: / Il Occupation: ��G �ls.i Work phone: On which city commission do you wish to serve? (select from list below) Please note the meeting date/time of each commission. First choice: ��yz z Second choice: -> Beautificatio .. first Thursday, 5:30 pm, City Hall Conference Room A -> 'Civil Se ry ... ...... third Monday, 4:00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Li aar3�-B�a�cL third Tuesday, 4:30 pm, Library, 480 Primrose Road -> "Park & Re n .. .. third Thursday, 7:00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Planning ............... second and fourth Monday, 7.•00 pm, City Hall Council Chambers -> Senior ................ third Thursday, 9:30 am, City Hall Conference Room A Traffic Safety & Parking .... second Thursday, 7:00 pm, City Hall Conference Room A Please list any special education, training, work or other experience you may have had which you feel affects your capability to serve the commission of your preference. Special interests and hobbies. Please comment on your reasons for offering to serve on a City commission and any ideas you have which may serve for the betterment of the City. # _ • _ Do you have any comments on City problems or current procedures? Revised August 4, 2000 I&COMMISSIOMCOMMAPPL.NEWJ d 1'�74e4r'- c.- Signature: Carney, Jeanne 727 Winchester Drive Beautification 1 1-30-99 12-20-99 Coffey/Spinelli Nov 2001 Windsor, Carina 31 55 Frontera Way #318 Beautification Ernst, Jay 1434 Capuchino Park & Rec 12-20-99 Janney/O'Mahony " Popin, Richard 760 Walnut Avenue Park & Rec 99 " " Amstrup, Irving 2708 Trousdale Drive TSPC 12-28-99 Coffey/Galligan " Cottrell, Richard 1685 Hunt Drive TSPC " Root, John 1407 Montero Avenue TSPC " Grandcolas, Mark 1432 Alvarado Planning 12-27-99 1-19-00 Janney / Spinelli Dec 2001 Hinckle, David 1616 Sanchez Planning if 11" Fuchs, Elaine 1117 Hamilton Lane Library 6-13-00 Gurthet, Andrew 1452 Floribunda Ave #203 Library of Hipps, Carolyn 1649 Balboa Way Library " Appt'd to Commission Wentworth, Gerard 516 Burlingame Avenue Civil Service 1-4-00 Galligan/Spinelli 2-7-00 Revised 9/25/00 [C:\WPWIN60\Commission\commiss ioner-mailing-list.wpd] 7d Agenda Item -- Meeting Date l0/2L00 I N T E R - MEMO ® F F I C E To: DENNIS ARGYRES, CITY MANAGER From: GARY MISSEL, CHIEF of POLICE C^J- ev ;) Subject: SUPPORT FOR MEASURE B Date: September 27, 2000 I have attached materials sent to me by Sheriff Horsley in support of Measure B which will be on the November ballot. In short, Measure B is a $13,000,000 bond issue to finance a new crime lab for San Mateo County. The current lab is not sufficient to meet the forensic needs of San Mateo County. As I mentioned to you yesterday, I have already endorsed Measure B, as have most of the police chiefs in San Mateo County. Sheriff Horsley has asked that our city council also endorse Measure B. After your review, I request that you forward a copy of this memo and attachments to the Council members. Thank you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- To: Honorable Mayor & City Council Date: 9-27-00 Council should consider endorsement of Measure B. Dennis Argyres City Manager 09/2S/2000 16:'_6 650�63124� HORSLEY PAGE 04 San Mateo County Citizens for Crime Reduction Yes On Measure B For Immediate Release 824 Winslow Street August 22, 2000 PMB # 163 Don Horsley 650-365-0187 Redwood City, Ca. 94063 Crime Fighters Join Together in Support of San Mateo County Measure B A diverse group of crime fighters has come out in support of San Mateo County's Measure B on the November ballot. Measure B would permit the construction of a new County Forensic Crime Laboratory because the existing facility is old, outdated and seismically unsafe. County Sheriff Don Horsley, Julia O'Daly, the San Mateo County Chapter President of Mother's Against Drunk Drivers (MADD), Mile Nevin, County Supervisor and former police officer, Cynthia Brandon, Executive Director of San Mateo County's Criminal Justice Council and James Fox, the County District Attorney have all signed the ballot argument in favor of Measure B. "The Crime Lab serves every police jurisdiction in San Mateo County and is vital in the prosecution of all crimes committed here," said Sheriff Horsley. "We need to replace the lab because it was built in 1929, is old, outdated, overcrowded, seismically unsafe and riddled with fungus and rot." The Crime Lab serves all 22 police jurisdictions in San Mateo County as well as the Sheriff's office in the unincorporated areas of the County and state and federal law enforcement agencies as well. Last year, over 22,000 cases were processed at the lab. They included murders, sexual assaults, drug related offenses, computer hi -tech crimes, drunk driving cases and various other criminal cases. The lab performs such tests as gunshot and firearm matchings, fingerprint analysis, DNA testing, toxicology reports and various other forensic evidence gathering, analysis, cataloguing and processing. Measure B would provide $13 million to build the new facility. An extensive needs analysis was conducted in 1999 identifying problems and recommending this solution as the most fiscally sound and reasonable. The funds would be provided through the sale of general obligation bonds that would cost San Mateo County taxpayers $1.16 per $100,000 of assessed value on their properties. The average San Mateo County homeowner would pay $3.07 per year. Measure B requires a 2/3rds vote for Passage - "Due to careful fiscal management, we have been able to keep the cost of this facility to a minimum " said Sheriff Horsley. "We hope the voters of San Mateo County will agree that an additional $3 per year is a small price to pay to make sure that every police officer in this county can do their job in the most effective way possible. " 011/ 26i' 2000 16: 28 65031631248 HORSLEY PAGE 83 • Lab space is needed to accommodate the growing need for forensic evidence in computer -related hi -tech crimes. • Clean spaces vital for DNA testing are difficult to maintain. • Electrical, plumbing and air conditioning systems are out -of --date, underpowered and often marginally functional. • Inadequate room for storage of working forensic evidence. • Building is seismically unsafe, has physical defects and operational limitations. • Large portion of building unusable due to presence of Stachey-Botris mold caused by inadequate foundation built near high water table from Crystal Springs Reservoir. • Building unable to handle anticipated growth in pro -active forensic programs, expanded quality assurance programs and toxicology testing (blood and drugs). • Lacks adequate firing range for weapons evidence testing. • Building lacks vehicle examination space. A new Crime Laboratory would accommodate and alleviate these problems and more. Location of Current and Future Laboratory The current laboratory is an aging brick building located in the San Mateo County Tower Road facilities area. The new laboratory would also be sited in the 'Tower Road complex near the County Elections offices. Cost of the Facility Due to the careful fiscal management, the cost of this lab has been kept to a minimum. Measure B, on the November 2000 ballot, asks San Mateo County voters to approve a General Obligation bond of $13 million. The $13 million covers all construction costs associated with the new facility, The cost to San Mateo County property owners is $1.16 per $100,000 of assessed value on the property. Based upon the average home price in San Mateo County of $272,000, the average property owner will only pay $3.07 per year — that means only $1.54 once every six months. The bonds would be repaid in 25 years. 16: 28 6503631248 HORSLEY PAGE San Mateo County Citizens for Crime Reduction Yes On Measure B 824 Winslow Street, PMB #163, Redwood City, CA 94063, ID#1226529; Phone 365-0187; supportmeasurebQix,nctcom.com FACT SHEET The San Mateo County Forensic Laboratory serves all 22 police jurisdictions in the County as well as the Sheriffs office for all unincorporated county areas and state and federal agencies. Both the San Mateo County District Attorney and the San Mateo County Adult Probation Department rely heavily on the Laboratory for assistance in their cases. More comrnonly referred to as the Crime Laboratory, the facility processes all crime scene evidence including murder scene evidence, DNA analysis, toxicology for blood and drug analysis, sexual assault kits, gunshot analysis, and a variety of other crime evidence. The Crime Laboratory is a vital component in all criminal prosecutions conducted in the County. Vital Tool for Law Enforcement • 1999 Total Cases Processed: • Drug Related 2863 • Major Crimes 1149 • Toxicology 18516 • 2000 Cases To Date Processed: ■ Drug Related 1784 • Major Crimes 757 ■ Toxicology 12000 Missing Functional % Operational Components San Mateo County and a team of respected consultants conducted an extensive Needs Assessment in 1999. The Study determined that a new crime laboratory was critical to law enforcement needs of the 21 ' Century. It also concluded that constructing a new crime laboratory was less expensive than attempting to remodel the existing facility. Some of the problems identified included: • Low -ceiling and multi -winged current facility. Inadequate for modern laboratory utilizing sophisticated scientific and computerized equipment. • Lab computers need to be networked and connected to State and Federal databases for fingerprint, firearms and DNA matching. ©^ . CITY G BURL,NGAME STAFF REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Council DATE: September 25, 2000 FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: SUBMITTED BY f VED v AGENDA 8 a ITEM # MTG. DATE 10/2/2000 ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LIST OF DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES IN THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution amending the list of designated employee positions required to file Statements of Economic Interests pursuant to the City Conflict of Interest Code. DISCUSSION: Government Code § 87306.5 requires each agency to review its conflict of interest code every two years to ensure that it is current as to language and designated positions. The restructuring of positions and responsibilities in a number of City departments requires that the list of designated employees be amended: --- Add the new Public Works positions of Assistant Director Public Works and Facilities Maintenance Supervisor; — Add the new Finance position of Billing & Collections Supervisor; — Add the position of Information Technology Liaison in the Fire Department; — Add the Library positions of Library Services Manager, Circulation Supervisor, and Library Assistant II - Acquisitions; — Add the position of City Arborist; and — Add the new Planning position of Senior Planner; Attachment Proposed Resolution RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE LIST OF DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES IN THE CITY CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act, Government Code Sections 81000 and following, requires the City to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code for the City; and WHEREAS, Resolution 47-80 adopted a City Conflict of Interest Code, and the list of designated employees required to file statements of economic interests was subsequently amended by Resolutions 19-87 and 51-92 and 90-96; and WHEREAS, Resolution 12-98 adopted an amended conflict of interest code pursuant to the Political Reform Act, and the list of designated employees was further amended by Resolution No. 32-98; and WHEREAS, Government Code Section 87306.5 requires the City to review its Conflict of Interest Code in each even -numbered year to determine if the Code needs to be amended to keep it up to date; and WHEREAS, certain City job classifications have been added or changed, and the list of designated employees should be amended to reflect those changes; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. Appendix A to this Resolution is hereby adopted as the Appendix to the Conflict of Interest Code designating the officials and employees of the City who are required to file statements of economic interests pursuant to the Conflict of Interest Code from this date forward. Mayor I, Ann T. Musso, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing 1 Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2000, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: D:\wp51 \Files\RES0\conflint5.cnl.wpd 2 City Clerk APPENDIX A DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES The following City employees are designated for filing statements of economic interests pursuant to the City Conflict of Interest Code and the Political Reform Act: Disclosure Category Disclosure Category CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE PARKS & RECREATION DEP'T Code Enforcement Officer I Parks & Recreation Director I Parks Superintendent I CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I Recreation Superintendent I City Clerk City Arborist I CONSULTANTS I PLANNING DEPARTMENT Design Review Consultants to City City Planner Planner/Planning Commission Senior Planner Planner Senior Landscape Inspector FINANCE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT Finance Director/Treasurer I Chief of Police I Deputy Treasurer I Commander I Billing & Collections Supervisor I FIRE DEPARTMENT PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Fire Chief I Director of Public Works I Assistant Fire Chief I Assistant Director of Public Works I Fire Marshal I City Engineer I Deputy Fire Marshal I Senior Civil Engineer I Information Technology Liaison II Traffic Engineer I (designated captain or officer) Public Works Superintendent I Assistant Streets and Sewers I Superintendent LIBRARY Assistant Water Superintendent I City Librarian I Shop Supervisor I Library Services Manager II Chief Building Inspector I Circulation Supervisor II Facilities Maintenance Supervisor I Librarian III*** II Building Inspector I Library Assistant II - Acquisitions II Public Works Inspector I *** — Employees designated for "purchasing only" DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES: I — Statements of Designated Employees in Disclosure Category I shall include: a) Investments and business positions in any business entity; b) Income; and c) Interests in real property within the requirements of the Statement of Economic Interests as to reportability. Des&bd employees in Category I shall complete Schedules A through F II — Statements of Designated Employees in Disclosure Category II shall include: a) Investments and business positions in any business entity; and b) Income within the requirements of the Statement of Economic Interests as to reportability. Irsd employees in Category II shall complete Schedules A, C through F. 4 � UTY O U.RLINGAME `1 STAFF REPORT qP TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: September 22, 2000 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS AGENDA ITEM # 8b MTG. 1 0/2/00 SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AWARDING CANYON ROAD WATER LINE REPLACEMENT - CITY -PROJECT NO. 9944 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council approve the attached resolution awarding this project to Pacific Underground Construction of San Jose, in the amount of $435,265. It is also recommended that staff be authorized to issue change orders up to 20 % of the construction work. DISCUSSION: The project was posted for bid on August 21, 2000. Bids were opened on September 21, 2000, and 11 bids were received ranging from $435,265 to $624,615. The low bid was approximately 34% under the engineer's estimate of $580,000 due to a very competitive environment for water projects. The low bidder, Pacific Underground Construction, has met all the requirements for the project and has a past history of satisfactory work for the City and other public agencies. The project consists of replacing approximately 2600 feet of 8-inch and 12-inch diameter water pipeline including valving, fittings, fire hydrants and customer service reconnects. As the project is located on a San Mateo County roadway, an encroachment permit will be necessary. The County has requested that the work be completed as soon as possible as they intend to pave the roadway in spring 2001. Construction is expected to begin in late October and be finished by early February 2001. Due to the narrow roadways and hillside setting, staff anticipates the possible need for additional scope modifications and therefore requests authority to issue change orders up to 20 % of the construction award amount. EXHIBITS: Resolution; Bid Summary; Map BUDGET IMPACT: Funds have been budgeted and are currently available for this project. r f x, J*Xelly Project Manager c: City Clerk, Finance, Pacific Underground Construction SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\9944award1wpd RESOLUTION NO. - CANYON ROAD WATER LINE REPLACEMENT CITY PROJECT NO. 9944 WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized an invitation for bids for the CANYON ROAD WATER LINE REPLACEMENT - CITY PROJECT NO. 9944; and WHEREAS, on SEPTEMBER 21, 2000, all bids were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, PACIFIC UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION, submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the amount of $435,265.00. NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, are approved and adopted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the bid of PACIFIC UNDERGROUND CONSTRUCTION for said project in the amount of $435,265.00, and the same hereby is accep- ted; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THERETO that a contract be entered into between the successful bidder herein above referred to and the City of Burlingame for the performance of said work, and that the City Manager be, and he hereby is authorized for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame to execute said contract and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor and materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. Mayor I, Ann T. Musso, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2000, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\9944RES0LUTI0N.stLwpd CITY OF BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA BID SUMMARY CANYON ROAD WATER LINE REPLACEMENT CITY PROJECT NO.9944 Bid Opening Date: September 21, 2000 Pacific Underground Const. Inc. McGuire & Hester ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE San Jose, CA Oakland, CA BID DESCRIPTION OF ITEM BID Unit Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total ITEM QUANITY Price Price Price Price Price Price 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 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 12" C900 PVC Pipe 8" C900 PVC Pipe 6" C900 PVC Pipe 12" - 45° Elbow 8" - 450 Elbow 6" - 450 Elbow 12" - 22 1/20 Elbow 12" - 11 1/4° Elbow 6" - 22 1/2° Elbow 6" Restrained Joints 12" x 8" Reducer 12" x 6" Reducer 12" Flex Coupling 6" Flex Coupling 12" Flanged Adapter 8" Flanged Adapter 12" x 12" Cross 8"x8"x6"Tee 12" Butterfly Valve 8" Gate Valve 6" Gate Valve Fire Hydrant Assembly 1" House Service, Long 1" House Service, Short Relocate Water Meter Air Release Valve Blow Off Assembly 12" x 12" tie-in: Cut -in Tee 12" x 8" tie-in: Cut -in Tee 12" x 12" tie-in 6" x 6" tie-in Concrete Caps Abandon Valve / Boxes Abandon Fire Hydrant Cut & Plug Existing 6" Main Cut & Plug Existing 4" Main Remove Valve & Replace w/Blind Rock Excavation (4' to 6') Rock Excavation (6' to 8) Traffic Control Mobilization @ 10% 4" Perforated PVC Pipe 4" PVC Pipe Cut-off Walls 1600 LF 120 $192,000.00 $105.00 $168,000.00 $85.00 $136.000.00 1004 LF 100 $100,400.00 $100.00 $100,400.00 $80.00 $80,320.00 57 LF 90 $5,130.00 $95.00 $5,415.00 $120.00 $6,840.00 5 EA 700 $3,500.00 $465.00 $2,325.00 $415.00 $2,075.00 1 EA 500 $500.00 $320.00 $320.00 $200.00 $200.00 2 EA 400 $800.00 $270.00 $540.00 $350.00 $700.00 2 EA 700 $1,400.00 $470.00 $940.00 $420.00 $840.00 6 EA 700 $4,200.00 $470.00 $2.820.00 $325.00 $1.950.00 2 EA 400 $800.00 $270.00 $540.00 $325.00 $650.00 4 EA 200 $800.00 $50.00 $200.00 $550.00 $2,200.00 1 EA 450 $450.00 $400.00 $400.00 $480.00 $480.00 1 EA 400 $400.00 $400.00 $400.00 $450.00 $450.00 4 EA 700 $2,800.00 $900.00 $3,600.00 $250.00 $1,000.00 2 EA 500 $1,000.00 $125.00 $250.00 $175.00 $350.00 9 EA 750 $6.750.00 $350.00 $3,150.00 $525.00 $4,725.00 1 EA 500 $500.00 $220.00 $220.00 $380.00 $380.00 1 EA 1,000 $1,000.00 $860.00 $860.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 1 EA 500 $500.00 $220.00 $220.00 $400.00 $400.00 $290,600.00 $240,760.00 8 EA 1,000 $8,000.00 $1,400.00 $11.200.00 $1,250.00 $10,000.00 4 EA 1,000 $4,000.00 $900.00 $3.600.00 $950.00 $3,800.00 2 EA 700 $1,400.00 $800.00 $1.600.00 $750.00 $1,500.00 5 EA 4,000 $20,000.00 $5.000.00 $25,000.00 $4,000.00 $20,000.00 19 EA 1,500 $28,500.00 $690.00 $13,110.00 $2,400.00 $45,600.00 10 EA 1,200 $12.000.00 $610.00 $6,100.00 $2,000.00 $20,000.00 2 EA 500 $1,000.00 $1,100.00 $2,200.00 $400.00 $800.00 3 EA 2.000 $6,000.00 $1,700.00 $5,100.00 $2,800.00 $8,400.00 10 EA 1,500 $15,000.00 $900.00 $9,000.00 $700.00 $7.000.00 1 EA 6,000 $6.000.00 $3,100.00 $3,100.00 $2,500.00 $2,500.00 1 EA 6.000 $6,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 1 EA 3,500 $3.500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 2 EA 2,000 $4,000.00 $1,400.00 $2.800.00 $1,250.00 $2,500.00 315 LF 55 $17,325.00 $10.00 $3,150.00 $3.00 $945.00 9 EA 200 $1,800.00 $80.00 $720.00 $170.00 $1,530.00 3 EA 500 $1,500.00 $575.00 $1,725.00 $250.00 $750.00 6 EA 300 $1,800.00 $350.00 $2,100.00 $380.00 $2,280.00 1 LS 500 $500.00 $500.00 $500.00 $380.00 $380.00 $94,505.00 $131,485.00 1 LS 500 $500.00 $300.00 $300.00 $500.00 $500.00 685 LF 55 $37,675.00 $16.00 $10,960.00 $18.00 $12,330.00 15 LF 95 $1.425.00 $20.00 $300.00 $160.00 $2,400.00 1 LS 5,000 $5,000.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 $14,000.00 1 LS 60.000 $60,000.00 $17,500.00 $17,500.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 50 $500.00 $100.00 $1,000.00 $50.00 $500.00 A ]EA 40 $4,000.00 $25.00 $2,500.00 $60.00 $6,000.00 100 $400.00 $900.00 $3,600.00 $450.00 $1,800.00 $50,160.00 $77,530.00 TOTAL BID $570,755.00 $435,265.00 $449,775.00 Canyon Rd. Bid Sum. - Sheet 1 of 3 ie Construction Golden Pacific const. Stoloski & Gonzalez Inc. Zolman Construction, Inc. Casey Construction Francisco, CA San Francisco, CA Half Moon Bay, CA San Carlos, CA Redwood City, CA Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price $120.00 $192,000.00 $120.00 $192,000.00 $120.00 $192,000.00 $87.00 $139,200.00 $97.00 $155,200.00 $100.00 $100,400.00 $105.00 $105,420.00 $115.00 $115,460.00 $80.00 $80,320.00 $77.00 $77,308.00 $90.00 $5,130.00 $95.00 $5,415.00 $125.00 $7,125.00 $80.00 $4,560.00 $125.00 $7,125.00 $3,000.00 $15,000.00 $375.00 $1,875.00 $500.00 $2,500.00 $800.00 $4.000.00 $1,250.00 $6,250.00 $1,000.00 $1.000.00 $350.00 $350.00 $450.00 $450.00 $600.00 $600.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $800.00 $1,600.00 $325.00 $650.00 $450.00 $900.00 $600.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $2,400.00 $1,500.00 $3.000.00 $375.00 $750.00 $450.00 $900.00 $800.00 $1.600.00 $2,500.00 $5,000.00 $1,000.00 $6.000.00 $375.00 $2,250.00 $400.00 $2,400.00 $800.00 $4,800.00 $2.500.00 $15,000.00 $1,000.00 $2,000.00 $275.00 $550.00 $400.00 $800.00 $600.00 $1,200.00 $1,250.00 $2,500.00 $300.00 $1,200.00 $130.00 $520.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 $200.00 $800.00 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $900.00 $900.00 $525.00 $525.00 $300.00 $300.00 $800.00 $800.00 $1.250.00 $1,250.00 $900.00 $900.00 $500.00 $500.00 $300.00 $300.00 $700.00 $700.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $400.00 $1.600.00 $550.00 $2,200.00 $350.00 $1,400.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 $1,200.00 $4,800.00 $300.00 $600.00 $345.00 $690.00 $300.00 $600.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $1,200.00 $2,400.00 $800.00 $7,200.00 $310.00 $2,790.00 $500.00 $4,500.00 $500.00 $4,500.00 $1,250.00 $11,250.00 $800.00 $800.00 $225.00 $225.00 $450.00 $450.00 $400.00 $400.00 $1,250.00 $1,250.00 $2,000.00 $2.000.00 $725.00 $725.00 $600.00 $600.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $3,500.00 $3,500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $650.00 1 $650.00 1 $400.00 $400.00 1 $900.00 $900.00 $1,700.00 $1,700.00 $342.8 1 $318,085.00 $333.085.00 $251.380.00 $303,333.00 1 1 $1,200.00 $9,600.00 $1,375.00 $11,000.00 $2.300.00 $18,400.00 $2,000.00 $16,000.00 $2,850.00 $22,800.00 $1,600.00 $6.400.00 $750.00 $3,000.00 $1,200.00 $4,800.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $1,750.00 $7,000.00 $1.000.00 $2,000.00 $525.00 $1,050.00 $900.00 $1,800.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $950.00 $1,900.00 $5,000.00 $25.000.00 $2,750.00 $13,750.00 $4,800.00 $24,000.00 $4,000.00 $20,000.00 $5,648.00 $28,240.00 $500.00 $9,500.00 $500.00 $9.500.00 $1,700.00 $32,300.00 $1,500.00 $28.500.00 $875.00 $16,625.00 $300.00 $3,000.00 $350.00 $3,500.00 $1,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,500.00 $15,000.00 $550.00 $5,500.00 $700.00 $1,400.00 $225.00 $450.00 $500.00 $1,000-00 $1.200.00 $2,400.00 $975.00 $1,950.00 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 $1,025.00 $3,075.00 $1,800.00 $5,400.00 $800.00 $2,400.00 $1,250.00 $3,750.00 $1,100.00 $11,000.00 $325.00 $3.250.00 $1,200.00 $12,000.00 $800.00 $8,000.00 $1,500.00 $15,000.00 $2.000.00 $2,000.00 $475.00 $475.00 $2,200.00 $2,200.00 $1.500.00 $1,500.00 $2,575.00 $2,575.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $450.00 $450.00 $2,100.00 $2,100.00 $1.500.00 $1.500.00 $2,250.00 $2,250.00 $1,400.00 $1,400.00 $1,125.00 $1,125.00 $2,800.00 $2,800.00 $1.500.00 $1,500.00 $4,550.00 $4,550.00 $1.200.00 $2,400.00 $515.00 $1,030.00 $2,600.00 $5,200.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $2,100.00 $4,200.00 $10.00 $3,150.00 $20.00 $6,300.00 $20.00 $6,300.00 $95.00 $29,925.00 $20.00 $6,300.00 $300.00 $2,700.00 $175.00 $1,575.00 $300.00 $2,700.00 $800.00 $7,200.00 $175.00 $1,575.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $225.00 $675.00 $1,100.00 $3.300.00 $2,000.00 $6.000.00 $275.00 $825.00 $300.00 $1,800.00 $395.00 $2,370.00 $800.00 $4,800.00 $800.00 $4,800.00 $1,275.00 $7,650.00 $300.00 $300.00 $375.00 $375.00 $700.00 $700.00 $6,000,00 $6,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $91,150.00 F $62,950.00 $139.800.00 $162.725.00 1 $133,690.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $275.00 $275.00 $2,000.00 $2.000.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $985.00 $985.00 $20.00 $13.700.00 $125.00 $85,625.00 $15.00 $10,275.00 $60.00 $41,100.00 $75.00 $51,375.00 $100.00 $1,500.00 $135.00 $2,025.00 $45.00 $675.00 $80.00 $1.200.00 $100.00 $1,500.00 $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $25,000.00 $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $47,138.00 $47,138.00 $40,000.00 $40,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $50,440.00 $50,440.00 $45,374.00 $45.374.00 $40.00 $400.00 $105.00 $1,050.00 $40.00 $400.00 $80.00 $800.00 $50.00 $500.00 $40.00 $4,000.00 $65.00 $6,500.00 $50.00 $5.000.00 $80.00 $8.000.00 $75.00 $7,500.00 $1.200.00 1 $4,800.00 $600.00 $2,400.00 $3.000.00 $12,000.00 $3,000.00 1 $12,000.00 $700.00 1 $2.800.00 $84,538.00 $142,875.00 $70,350.00 $140,040.00 $120,034.00 5518,518.00 $523,910.00 $543,235.00 1 $554,145.00 $557,057.00 Canyon Rd. Bid Sum. - Sheet 2 of 3 f JMB Const. Inc. D & D Pipelines P & J Utility Co. Trinet Construction Inc. San Francisco, CA Greenbrae, CA San Francisco, CA Daly City, CA Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Unit Total Price Price Price Price Price Price Price Price $115.00 $184,000.00 $133.00 $212,800.00 $120.00 $192,000.00 $151.00 $241.600.00 $110.00 $110,440.00 $120.00 $120,480.00 $110.00 $110,440.00 $140.00 $140,560.00 $100.00 $5.700.00 $110.00 $6,270.00 $90.00 $5,130.00 $130.00 $7.410.00 $500.00 $2,500.00 $700.00 $3,500.00 $500.00 $2,500.00 $200.00 $1,000.00 $475.00 $475.00 $500.00 $500.00 $300.00 $300.00 $180.00 $180.00 $450.00 $900.00 $400.00 $800.00 $300.00 $600.00 $160.00 $320.00 $500.00 $1.000.00 $400.00 $800.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $200.00 $400.00 $250.00 $1,500.00 $600.00 $3,600.00 $500.00 $3,000.00 $200.00 $1,200.00 $450.00 $900.00 $600.00 $1,200.00 $200.00 $400.00 $160.00 $320.00 $100.00 $400.00 $100.00 $400.00 $100.00 $400.00 $300.00 $1,200.00 $700.00 $700.00 $600.00 $600.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $600.00 $600.00 $600.00 $600.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $300.00 $1,200.00 $250.00 $1,000.00 $400.00 $1,600.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 $200.00 $400.00 $150.00 $300.00 $100.00 $200.00 $350.00 $700.00 $400.00 $3,600.00 $500.00 $4,500.00 $300.00 $2,700.00 $500.00 $4.500.00 $300.00 $300.00 $400.00 $400.00 $200.00 $200.00 $400.00 $400.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $1.000.00 $700.00 $700.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $700.00 $700.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $300.00 $300.00 $400.00 $400.00 $316.315.00 $359,750.00 $322.470.00 $405,190.00 $1,500.00 $12,000.00 $1,500.00 $12,000.00 $1,200.00 $9,600.00 $1,000.00 $8,000.00 $1,000.00 $4.000.00 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $600.00 $2,400.00 $600.00 $2,400.00 $700.00 $1,400.00 $800.00 $1,600.00 $400.00 $800.00 $400.00 $800.00 $5,000.00 $25,000.00 $4,000.00 $20,000.00 $4,000.00 $20.000.00 $3,000.00 $15,000.00 $1,000.00 $19,000.00 $1,600.00 $30,400.00 $2,000.00 $38,000.00 $250.00 $4,750.00 $900.00 $9,000.00 $1,000.00 $10,000.00 $1,000.00 $10,000.00 $200.00 $2.000.00 $200.00 $400,00 $400.00 $800.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $400.00 $800.00 $2,500.00 $7,500.00 $3,000.00 $9,000.00 $1,500.00 $4,500.00 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 $1,000.00 $10,000.00 $2,000.00 $20,000.00 $1,000.00 $10,000.00 $300.00 $3,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $7,500.00 $7,500.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $7,600.00 $7,500.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $8.000.00 $8,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $4,500.00 $9,000.00 $1,500.00 $3,000.00 $4.500.00 $9,000.00 $4,000.00 $8.000.00 $5.00 $1,575.00 $10.00 $3.150.00 $30.00 $9,450.00 $40.00 $12,600.00 $200.00 $1,800.00 $100.00 $900.00 $300.00 $2,700.00 $100.00 $900.00 $500.00 $1,500.00 $800.00 $2,400.00 $500.00 $1,500.00 $200.00 $600.00 $100.00 $600.00 $166.67 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $6,000.00 $500.00 $3,000.00 $100.00 $100.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 $1,000.00 $500.00 $500.00 $120,875.00 $125,750.00 $148,950.00 $110,350.00 $500.00 $500.00 $1,500.00 $1,500.00 $400.00 $400.00 $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $40.00 $27,400.00 $30.00 $20,550.00 $50.D0 $34,250.00 $10.00 $6.850.00 $100.00 $1,500.00 $100.00 $1,500.00 $100.00 $1,500.00 $15.00 $225.00 $35.000.00 $35,000.00 $10,000.00 $10.000.00 $15.000.00 $15,000.00 $38,000.00 $38,000.00 $50.000.00 $50,000.00 $59,000.00 $59,000.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50.00 $500.00 $100.00 $1,000.00 $50.00 $500.00 $100.00 $1,000.00 $50.00 $5,000.00 $50.00 $5,000.00 $50.00 $5,000.00 $60.00 $6.000.00 $500.00 $2,000.00 $1,500.00 $6,000.00 $5,000.00 $20.000.00 $1,000.00 $4,000.00 $121,900.00 $104,550.00 $136,650.00 $109,075.00 $559,090.00 $590,050.00 $608'070.00 $624,615.00 Canyon Rd. Bid Sum. - Sheet 3 of 3 c. 13Av �2�Nc�s�o SAN ➢'1 1 L. 1L 5 8 LL 5t\',,p V-?\G CONSTRUCTION SITE VICINITY MAP CANYON ROAD WATER LINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT PROJECT 9944 w eo CITY OF BURLINGAME SAN MATEO COUNTY CALIFORNIA 11M�tO: " 11 � 8' I�J09 r BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: September 22, 2000 BY 000 APPVIED FROM: PUBLIC WORKS BY AGENDA ITEM # 8 c MTG. (;0'1 DATE X9191 SUBJECT: FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 34 UNIT CONDOMINIUM, LOTS 6 AND A PORTION OF LOT 7, MAP OF BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY, NO. 2 - 530 EL CAMINO REAL - PM 98-5 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve this map with the following condition: • the developer shall comply with all the requirements within the Improvement Agreement for the storm system on Bellevue Avenue prior to the building final. BACKGROUND: The Council reviewed the Tentative Map on September 23, 1998. The construction is substantially complete and it is compliant with the Tentative Map. Staff recommends approval of this map with the above condition. EXHIBIT: Finaf Map, improvement agreement. Donald T. Chang, P.E. Senior Civil Engineer c: City Clerk, Applicant, Owner When recorded, please mail to: City Clerk City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN TOP TOYO LOTUS, INC. AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME FOR 530 EL CAMINO REAL, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA The CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation (hereinafter called "City"), and TOP TOYO LOTUS, INC. (hereinafter called "Developer"), as owners of 530 El Camino Real, Burlingame, California (hereinafter called "Property"), more particularly described as: LOT 6 AND A PORTION OF LOT 7, BURLINGAME LAND CO. NO. 2 MUTUALLY PROMISE AND AGREE AS FOLLOWS: WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the applicable codes, rules, and regulations of the City and the laws of the State of California require that the Developer participate in providing certain public improvements in the City as hereinafter described as a condition precedent to the City of Burlingame approval of construction of the proposed development; and WHEREAS, from time to time, it is mutually advantageous to both City and the Developer that the actual construction of such public improvements be deferred until a later date, and it is the purpose and intent of this Agreement to allow the deferment and the guarantee of Developer's contribution to the design and construction of these improvements by the Developer pursuant to this Agreement. WHEREAS, Developer wishes to proceed with construction of the private improvements at the same time as it undertakes-to-campWg -,the-d, i n of the public improvements described in this Agreement and to allow the City to construct those improvements as set forth below. NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by the Parties hereto as follows: 3/12/99 1. Protect. a. Improvements to be constructed. Developer shall design a minimum 8-inch class C-900 storm drain system on Almer Road from the Property to the City's storm drain system on Bellevue Avenue as generally shown on Exhibit A hereto (hereinafter called "Project"). b. Plans and specifications..The design shall include a cost estimate, plans, and _specifications -for the Project in conformance with usual Cif re uirements. Design plans and specifications shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval within sixty (60) days after the date of this Agreement, unless City agrees to extend this time period in writing. 2. Deposit. Before issuance of any construction or grading permits by the City, Developer shall deposit with the City an amount equal to twenty percent (20%) of the most current engineers estimate or bid or contract price for the Project, including all inspection and administrative costs involved in the Project which are estimated to be fifteen (15%) of the construction costs. 3. Construction City shall be responsible or construction of the �� Usual City procedures for bidding and construction for this size and type of Project will be used. City shall comply with Government Code Section 66001(d)-(f) in expending the deposit made by the Developer pursuant to this Agreement. 4. Final payment/reconciliation. Prior to issuance of any certificate of occupancy for the Property, the City shall determine what the most current engineers estimate for the Project is at the time of request for the certificate, or if the Project has been. bid or completed, what the cost of the Project has been bid at or was completed for. City shall then notify the Developer of the determined amount. If twenty percent (20%) of the bid or completion cost, or if the Project has not been bid or is not complete, the most current estimate exceeds the amount deposited pursuant to Paragraph 2, then Developer shall pay the balance due before any certificate of occupancy is issued. If twenty percent (20%) of the actual cost, or if the Project is not complete, the most 3/12/99 2 current estimate is less than the amount deposited pursuant to Paragraph 2, then City shall refund the balance due within thirty (30) days of the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Project. 5. Runs with the Land. The covenants set forth in this agreement shall run with the Property until the completion of the Agreement. 6. Time. This Agreement will expire only upon payment under Paragraph 4 above upon the mutual written consent of both the Developer and the City of Burlingame. 7. Amendments and Waivers. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Developer. 8. Heirs. Successors & Assigns. This agreement shall be binding on the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto, and Developer shall furnish any successor, assign, or purchaser of any interest in any part or all of the Property; provided, however, that Developer's failure, or that of any other person, to so furnish such a copy shall in no way prejudice the rights of the City to require performance under this Agreement. 9. Notice. Developer shall notify the Director of Public Works of any sale, transfer, or other act which results in a change of ownership of the property to which this Agreement relates. This notice shall be provided within fourteen (14) working days of any change of owner- ship. Notices required to be given under this Agreement shall be addressed as. follows: To City: City Engineer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 3/12/99 To Developer: Top Toyo Lotus, Inc. 181 Second Avenue, #568 San Mateo, CA 94401 10. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties regarding the Project. 11. - Recordation and Notice. The City shall cause this Agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder, and a copy will be provided to the Developer. The Developer shall provide a copy of this Agreement to any public agency to which the Developer makes application for any permit for improvement, development, or subdivision. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties hereto have executed this agreement on the date and year first above written. CITY OF BURLINGAME By City Manager ATTEST: TILESTublic Works\toyotop.sub.wpd 3/12/99 4 TOP TOYO LOTUS, INC. By Title nn%�Ol� 65M-0 Z it Approve s to form: rney WScut Mateo County WCmim.5;*mJan24.20M ,CALIFORNIA ALL-PURPOSE ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of County of �AA/ /&7 �Q j On before me,C r Date ^ S7 Name and Title of Officer (e.g., 'Jane Doe, Notary Public") personally appeared 15 Name(s) of Signer(s) C personally known to me proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the personM whose name() is/ftwsubscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/&Y executed the same in his/4:terft+teit- authorized capacity(ie-s), and that by his/hefM,e signature f) on the instrument the person(Q, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(=) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public OPTIONAL Though the information below is not required by law, it may prove valuable to persons relying on the document and could prevent fraudulent removal and reattachment of this form to another document. Description of Attached Document 7�t Pa a ✓EM Et-Af7'119 C i1i s,11-1 'r-c�Jec�.J i oyo Lo%1s, Ltl� Title or Type of Document: lnu`�o 017t of 130ALM14-AHE,CA Also Poft14�,Q-er"1i-TiZQ ,Cf .45 Document Date: L� %✓G'�Z ��i3�E� 3//2/pp/ ,� R3wtR IffTI Number of Pages:Aujew cif 1 fkgc Signer(% Other Than Named Above: Capacity(ies) Claimed by/ Signer(s) Signer's Name: ���yy/�/V Z3/ Individual O Corporate Officer Title(s): ❑ Partner — ❑ Limited ❑ General X Attorney -in -Fact ❑ Trustee ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other. Signer Is Representing: Topm ❑ Individua ❑ Corporate 'cer Title(s)' ❑ Partner— ❑ Limi d ❑ General ❑ Attomey-in-Fact ❑ Trustee _ ❑ Guardian or Conservator ❑ Other: I Top of thumb here Signer Is Representing: O 1996 National Notary Association • 8236 Remmet Ave., P.O. Box 7184 • Canoga Park. CA 91309-7 ro eiLSON rdLr: Call ToWree 14MO476-6827 cOmmhSlpn # ]20Q?3t6 ZtQY Put>r1C-C»f`rrnio ' Sant Mateo Coady MyCOMM EViW Jan24.2= Top Toyo Lotus Construction Development, Inc. 181 Second Ave, #568, San Mateo, CA 94402, Tel: (415)401-6928, (41.5)401-6915. Fax: (415),401-69.15 Power of Attorney I, Gang Yao, Vice -President of Top Toyo lotus Construction Development Inc., authorize Mr. Shiyuan Bu, assistant to the President of Top Toyo Lotus Construction Development Inc. to sign. all legal documents regarding the Sunshine Condominium Project in 530 El Camino Real, Burlingame, CA 94010 between March 10th, 1999 and. April 10th, 1999. Date: / / / Date: --------------------- Gang Yaq SUBSCRIBED �... 91 tad`_ Notary Seal & iY 11IIIIOOIIII/IUIIIIUItlIpOIlri1il00rflrrlrs KRISTI IVANOVA-FISHER Roma COMM. #1113041 Z NOTARY PUILIC - CALIFORNIA". {`. SAN MATEO COUNTY My Comm. Exp. Oct, 6, 2000 � uFennururllwRrlllrllrrrprununuunna� STATE. OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF SAN AIATEO)ss CITY _ OF BURLINGAME) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF CITY CLERK On MARCH 16, 1999 before me, Judith A. Malfatti, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, personally appeared DENN IS ARGYRES LARRY ANDERSON s FRANK ERBACHER known to me to be the C I TY MANAGER, ATTORNEY & ENG I NEER of the City of Burlingame and acknowledged to me that h,they executed the same in der/their capacity(ies), and that by 4i&Aae4their signature(s) on the instrument the City of Burlingame executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the City of Burlingame. Signature s;:�� CITY CLERK (Seal) VOID AFTER 90 DAYS 11-35„210 �_014973332 dank ©f America I�,Suer SankArr)psica Corporation or f ankT&5/a Sar'Fraririsco t♦alliornra ®M4TCH THE AMOUNT IN W afAmQrtcaNORDS WI-T}{..T�{.� igMQU11lTIN.-NUMBERS IF THE AMOUNT OF THIS CHECK EXCEEDS S10,000IT IS DRAWN ON AND 5k �.. ( ISSUED BY BANK OF AMERICA NT&SA AND IT IS A CASHIER'S CHECK I E L f . .Sec.;St.F'1.11:96,i \r lrt4r#arrrY tJX �r c=f*#4**Ikf—i. t tk+rsr•cE4"ko-kFrti�kcf�r-►*4�Ea#-t ,t', �'.T �-_- N�" o �1��._'' �r�i._ •';I -.r`t .:t;r \^ t`; a a) Pay To The Order Of —CITY CF 6URLINGAMEv x *_- Gyi •.AUTfiORIZED�SIGNAT�IRE C 8 @ a -Of Br Ci4�1l &SA UIRED_FORA OU1 lip NTSAy�q.gs p(�, al acd G'iit 1112011-,97333211' 1:121000358i: 139??-EM1cuv CITY 0 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM # �z euRLJNGaME FINANCE DEPARTMENT MEETING DATE: 10-2-00 NATtp .N[6• September 26, 2000 e J �L— TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTED BY:�' �-- FROM: Rahn Becker, Assistant City Manager/ APPROVED BY: Administrative Svcs. Director SUBJECT: Resolution Amending 1999-00 Budget Appropriations RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution adjusting selected appropriations as described below. BACKGROUND: Although the 1999-00 budget expenditures were within total appropriations (approximately 99% of the budget was spent-4158,000 under budget,) several programs exceeded budget for either unanticipated circumstances, or due to the posting of the 27" payroll that was mentioned in the unaudited year-end summary. A few overages involved accounting entries related to posting of accrued vacation and sick leave liabilities for employees retiring within 12 months, as required by generally accepted accounting principles. Finally, two interfund transfer changes are recommended: the golf center opened later than planned, and incurred start-up costs that were not covered by operating revenues. This required an $81,000 transfer from general fund unreseved fund balance. A portion-4500,000—of the sewer fund transfer to capital improvements is recommended for a three-month delay to meet cash flow needs. Since rates are not increased until September 1 each year, the sizable transfer required was not fully raised by the rate increase as of June 30. The transfer will be made in October. Council must approve the movement of budget appropriations. Following is the detail for these changes. Almost all funding sources will come from general fund appropriations for programs that came in under budget. BUDGET APPROPRIATION TRANSFERS DEPARTMENT FUNDING AMOUNT EXPLANATION SOURCE City Manager Central Services, $23,800 27`h payroll, vacation/sick leave accounting entry City Clerk, City Council, Non Dept' 1. Finance Central Services $26,000 27" payroll, miscoding of central services expense which is to be reallocated to Central Services City Attorney Engineering $28,300 27`h payroll, outside legal expense Personnel Engineering $19,500 1 27`h payroll, recruitment cost above budget estimates Retiree Health Streets $66,100 Retirements above original estimates Police Communications, $107,000 27`h payroll Parking Fire Fire Mutual Aid, $119,000 27`h payroll, overtime expense Disaster Prep., Parks, Recreation, Engineering Building Engineering $2,400 27'h payroll Inspection Equipment Engineering $1,000 271h payroll Maintenance Library Recreation $29,000 271h payroll Golf Center Unreserved $81,100 Revenue below budget due to later startup, one General Fund time start-up expenses Balance Sewer Capital N/A -$500,000 Defer transfer to capital program until October, Improvement due to cash flow requirements Transfer City of Burlingame Exhibit Detailing Year End Appropriation Transfers Fiscal Year 1999-00 Transfer From Amount Transfer To Amount Program I Account Program I Account Central Services 101-64450-190 $27,315 Finance 101-64250-011 $26,000 City Manager 101-64150-010 $1,315 $27, 315 Engineering 101-64450-010 $28,300 City Attorney 101-64350-210 $26,000 City Attorney 101-64350-010 $2,300 $28,300 City Clerk 101-64200-010 $10,600 City Manager 101-64150-010 $10,600 City Council 101-64100-250 $4,485 City Manager 101-64150-010 $4,485 Non Dept. Programs 101-64560-210 $7,400 City Manager 101-64150-010 $7,400 Engineering 101-66100-030 $19,500 Personnel 101-64420-010 $19,500 Streets 101-66210-010 $21,000 101-66210-030 $21, 000 101-66210-220 $16,000 101-66210-218 . $8,100 $66,100 Other Emp. Benefits 101-64550-040 $66,100 Communications 101-65150-010 $33,000 Communications 101-65150-012 $19,000 Communications 101-65150-220 $11,000 Parking 101-65400-800 $44,000 $107,000 Police 101-65100-010 $107,000 Disaster Preparedness 101-65500-260 $2,500 Disaster Preparedness 101-65500-800 $3,500 Recreation 101-68010-011 $80,000 Parks 101-68020-010 $16,000 101-68020-012 $5,000 Parks 101-68020-011 $12,000 $119,000 Fire 101-65200-010 $119,000 Engineering 101-66100-030 $2,400 Building 101-65300-010 $2,400 Engineering 101-66100-030 $1,000 Eq. Maintenance 101-66700-010 $1,000 Recreation 101-68010-011 $29,000 Library 101-67500-010 $29,000 Unreserved Fund.Bal. 101-39963 $81,100 Golf Center 529-39901 $81,100 Fund Balance -Sewer CIP 327-39954 $500,000 Fund Balance -Sewer 527-39909 $500,000 $1,003,200 $1,003,200 CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROPRIATION TRANSFER REQUEST DEPARTMENT: VARIOUS DATE: September 26, 2000 1. REQUEST TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS AS LISTED BELOW: FUND DEPT OBJT PROD AMT DESCRIPTION FROM: See Exhibit TO: See Exhibit Justification (Attach Memo if Necessary) SEE STAFF REPORT DEP BY: DATE: 2.® COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED Remarks: ❑COUNCIL ACTION NOT REQUIRED FINANCE DIRECTOR B DATE %-- Z b "' C1 O 3. APPROVE AS REQUESTED Remarks: ❑APPROVE AS REVISED ❑DISAPPROVE CITY M, R L RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1999-2000 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame, that WHEREAS, the Department hereinabove named in the Request for Appropriation, Allotment or Transfer of Funds has requested the transfer of certain funds as described in said Request: and WHEREAS, the Finance Director has approved said Request as to accounting and available balances, and the City Manager has recommended the transfer of funds as set forth hereinabove: NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED AND DETERMINED that the recommendations of the City Manager be approved and that the transfer of funds as set forth in said Request be effected. MAYOR I, ANN T.MUSSO, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS CITY CLERK Unapproved Minutes CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA September 25, 2000 7:00 P.M. Council Chambers CALL TO ORDER Chairman Luzuriaga called the September 11, 2000, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Bojues, Deal, Dreiling, Keighran, Osterling, Vistica and Zuzuriaga Absent: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; City Engineer, Syed Murtuza; Fire Marshal, Keith Marshall MINUTES The minutes of the August 28 and September 11, 2000 regular meetings of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The order of the agenda was approved. FROM THE FLOOR Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1C(1), 1500 Easton Avenue, IC(2), 415 El Camino Real, and 1C(3), 1310 Bayswater Avenue, were removed from off the consent calendar and placed on the regular action calendar before Item No. 5, 1720 El Camino Real. Jennifer Pfaff, 615 Bayswater Avenue, commented regarding the proposed office project at 999 Howard Avenue. She noted that she is pleased that the applicant chose the office project instead of the self - storage facility, but is still unhappy that a 3-story proposal was submitted rather than two-story, and noted she is curious to see the shadow studies for the proposal; would also like to see information on how many people will be working in the building, would like to see how to make the railroad tracks safer; noted that this is an entrance to our neighborhood and the project could be truly beautiful if it were two story with a hip roof with terra cotta tile. STUDY ITEMS There were no study items. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the Commission votes on the motion to adopt. IA. 2616 HALE DRIVE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (DONNA WILLS AND ERIC COLSON, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; WINGES ARCHITECTURE ARCHITECT) Unapproved Minutes -1- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2000 1B. 709 WALNUT AVENUE ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (GEORGE S. DOLIM, APPLICANT AND ARC 14TTFC'TTR AMONA TVARTMF7, PROPFRTV OVVNFR) C. Deal requested that Item No. 113, 709 Walnut Avenue, be called up for discussion, but noted that if no other commissioners had concerns would leave it on consent. No one else requested that the item be pulled off and the item was kept on the consent calendar. C. Bojuds moved approval of the balance 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. Keighran. Chair Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 2. 39 BANCROFT ROAD - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (SOFIA MAKRIS, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; ANTHONY P. MELISSAKIS, DESIGNER) Reference staff report, 9.25.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Three conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Anthony Melisakis, designer, was available for questions. C. Osterling noted that on the landscape plan, are proposing mesquite and palo verdes, these species will not do too well here, you might consider looking at other species on the City's street tree list, look for large scale species. The public hearing was closed. C. Deal moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped September 1, 2000, sheets Al through A6; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the second floor, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s) or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; and 3) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. There was no discussion on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:22 p.m. 3. 1528 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MARY DUNLAP, DUNLAP DESIGN, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JEFFREY L. AND DOLLY R. BAUER, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 9.25.00, 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. C. Keighran noted that she will abstain on this item because she lives within 300 feet of the project. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Jeff Bauer,1528 Vancouver Avenue, applicant, was available for questions. Commissioners noted that the balcony on the rear elevation would look better if stucco columns were eliminated, they should be wood, or better, balcony could be cantilevered without posts. The applicant agreed to this change. The public hearing was closed. Unapproved Minutes -2- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2000 Commissioners noted that the project has improved a whole lot since we first saw it. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions, including the recommended added condition that the rear balcony shall either be built with no posts and be cantilevered or that the posts shall be timber: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 29, 2000, sheets 1-3, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall.be subject to design review; 3) that the rear balcony shall be cantilevered without posts or the posts shall be timber; 4) that the City Engineer's April 24, 2000, memo shall be met; and 5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Discussion on the motion: this is an excellent example of the positive results of a project going through the design review process, at the end of the day it is a better project for everybody. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 voice vote (Cer. Keighran abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. 1. 1225 CABRILLO AVENUE - ZONED R-1- APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GUSTAVO KUBICHEK, DESIGNER AND APPLICANT; JAMES C. AND MICHELLE FOWLER, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 9.25.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. James Fowler, 1225 Cabrillo Avenue, applicant, was available for questions. Commissioners noted that the project is improved over what was previously submitted, it appears that on the front elevation the gable has a 3 foot overhang, should match other overhangs, it would look better; how are the windows made, details show frame around entire window, are there sills; on east elevation, the second floor window looks like a bay, but on the floor plan, it appears to extend to the floor. The applicant noted that the trim on the new windows would match the existing, the bay window just goes down to the sill, and he agreed to the change in the overhangs on the front elevation. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that this is a great improvement over original project, another case of design review improving a project. C. Keighran moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped August 18, 2000, sheets Al-A6, and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3) that if at any time in the future the residential structure is further enlarged or remodeled to require two covered parking spaces, a floor area ratio variance may be required; 4) that the depth of the eaves shall be consistent throughout the building and match the planned depth at the sides and rear; 5) that the style of the new windows (detail around the windows and sills) shall be consistent with the style of the existing windows; 6) that the City Engineer's April 3, 2000, memo shall be met; and 7) 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. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Unapproved Minutes -3- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2000 There was no discussion on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:37 p.m. 1C. APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR TEMPORARY HOMELESS FAMILY SHELTERS IN THREE EXISTING CHURCHES TO SERVE HOMELESS FAMILIES: 1. 1500 EASTON DRIVE - ZONED R-1/R-3 (REV. DR. PAUL WATERMULDER, FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH OF BURLINGAME, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) 2. 415 EL CAMINO REAL - ZONED R-3 (RECTOR WARDENS, VESTRY, ST. PAUL'S EPISCOPAL CHURCH, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER) 3. 1310 BAYSWATER AVENUE - ZONED C-1 (REV. ALBERT VUCINOVICH, ST. CATHERINE CHURCH, APPLICANT; MOST REV. WILLIAMS LEVADA, PROPERTY OWNER) 5. 1720 EL CAMINO REAL - ZONED C-1- APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A DAY CENTER FACILITY TO SERVE HOMELESS FAMILIES (REV. CHANNING SMITH, SAN MATEO COUNTY INTERFAITH, APPLICANT; MILLS PENINSULA HOSPITAL, PROPERTY OWNER) Reference staff report, 9.25.00, with attachments. City Planner presented the staff reports, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration for each of the church site applications. Commission had no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Chad Smith of the Transfiguration Episcopal Church and spokesman for the Interfaith Hospitality Network, project applicant, noted that a year ago, the religious community decided to respond to the issue of homelessness in San Mateo County and looked at the model used in other communities by the Interfaith Hospitality Network, the program uses existing space, is smart, low cost, dependent on community support; the program in San Mateo County would include 9 host sites, each site would host 3-4 families for one week every two and one-half months, families in need of housing are triple -screened, program will not take families with substance abuse or domestic violence issues; the proposed day center would provide case management, laundry and shower facilities, there are now two other day service or care facilities in this building, Senior Focus and an Alzheimer's care facility; housing for young working families is also a health care issue, they need help to address their circumstances; there are 30 families now on the waiting list, children do not adjust well to the homeless experience, found overwhelming support in the community, those wearing IHN stickers in the audience are in support of program, also received support from Mills Peninsula Hospital, and are working in partnership with Shelter Networks. Commissioners asked: families will be at any of the locations for one week, will it be the same group of families at the different facilities each week; is Burlingame the first place they have applied for use permits; since the center is a day center, not day care center, what happens with the kids during the day, what do families do at day center if not working; is there a track record of how long it takes to initiate a life plan, if family returns over and over is there another method used to help; what is the logic for moving families week to week. Applicant response: families would stay in the program until there is room in First Step for Families or in permanent housing; churches in program will only provide place to sleep and meals, showers will be at day center; Unapproved Minutes -4- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2000 there will be 3-5 families at any facility at one time; have applied and received approval for use permits in San Mateo, Redwood City did not require use permits; parents are responsible for their own children, some are in day care or go to school, some parents take care of children at center; working parents will be driving to work during the day, use center as time to rest, put together life plan, create structure to move in a particular direction tends to take about 30 days, may take longer because of housing issue in this area; Call Primrose and First Step for Families provide other programs, families are moved week to week to reduce the impact on the community, other programs at the churches only need to take a week off Reverend Dr. Paul Watermulder, 325 Barriohlet, Pastor of First Presbyterian Church, Reverend Daniel Nascimento, 1310 Bayswater Avenue, Associate Pastor at St. Catherine's Church, and Reverend Stuart Coxhead, Rector for St. Paul's Episcopal Church, spoke about the program as it would be at each of their churches; searched for most responsible way to address issue of housing on Peninsula, minister to families in transition, sent letters to people within walking distance of the church, after meeting held at First Presbyterian Church with 3 5 neighbors, everyone was supportive; do not intend to expand program; done research on legal background of IHN, checked out okay, other programs at churches have had concerns with parking and noise, if neighbors alert church to problem will respond immediately; homeless carries stigma, there is concern for fears from congregation, once understand it is functional families, concerns are alleviated, although there are risks, we will accept risks because see value of bringing hope and stability, children given the attention they need, love and affirmation to get family back on their feet. Public Comment: Janet Uliana, 25 East Carol Avenue, Yvonne Lembi-Detert, 1465 Burlingame Avenue, George Zannis, 1515 Carol Avenue, Lynn Linardon, 143 Dwight Road, Louise Natoli, 117 Bancroft Road, Bob Johnston, 1133 Killarney Lane, Doreen Campanilo, 1620 Howard Avenue, and Mario Palani spoke in opposition to the proposal at St. Catherine's Church; it looks like this will occur more often than every 2 %2 months, men's restroom is located outside the main building to be used for the homeless program, there will be conflict with ongoing evening activities, concern with health and safety of children at St. Catherine's, how will triple screening work, how do we know they are not HIV positive, will not leave needles strewn in playground, when program is at St. Catherine's, children in school will not have hot lunches, students should have right to use all facilities at school, there could be other ideas such as job fairs, having children donate food and clothing, or put facility at senior center; taking people in that cannot afford to live here, bringing people in to try to find housing is impossible, will have to stay on list for a long time; how can we be guaranteed that people won't be coming to the facilities and knocking on the doors to be let in, how will volunteer people be trained to deal with this; would gladly help anywhere that wasn't used by kids, what does medical screening consist of, thought medical records were confidential, concerned that there is only one bathroom in facility, no hot water; can there be settlement if all parties brought together, try to resolve to everyone's satisfaction. Terri Malaspina,1512 Chapin Avenue, Mark Metcalf, 401 Occidental Avenue, Steve Shive,1525 Chapin Avenue, Scott Mason, 344 Occidental Avenue, 405 Occidental Avenue, Edward Chen,1113 Dufferin Avenue, and Richard Jones, 407 Occidental Avenue, expressed opposition to the proposal at St. Paul's Episcopal Church; there is no guarantee that there will not be problems, there are no controls, idea will snowball; statistics show that at least half of the homeless have drug/alcohol problems, there is risk that mistakes will be made in screening, monitoring of program will fall on homeowners, request that all screening information be given to neighbors, needs to be recourse if program doesn't go smoothly, people need to live where they can afford to live, not one person that lives directly across from facilities is in favor, if something goes wrong, people next door will be affected. Tony Dicenzo, 1320 Castillo Avenue, Virginia Pegley 1344 Vancouver Avenue, and Sally Ross, 1248 Drake Avenue, spoke regarding the facility at the First Presbyterian Church; at first there were concerns, church has been responsive, will work with neighbors to resolve issues; want to know if any other locations were explored, why does Unapproved Minutes -5- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2000 it need to be in a residential neighborhood; support program, looking forward to opportunity of sharing the volunteer experience with my children, they will see that not everyone has benefits they do; can see them playing with these kids, see that these families are not that different from the rest of us. Cheryl Johnstone,1148 Dufferin Avenue, Mario Knapic,1108 Dufferin Avenue, Jonathan Gemora,1104 Dufferin Avenue, Michael Lennon, 1128 Hamilton Lane, Grace Wu, 1132 Dufferin Avenue, Jim Hansen, 1116 Dufferin, spoke in opposition to the day center at 1720 El Camino Real; the proposed day center will be bad for the neighborhood, add more problems to the ones we already have, there are already buses for the two senior centers at that location, say program will include a few families, soon will have homeless all over area; like to see credentials of people running the program, concern with safety of children. Mary Watt, Call Primrose, 139 Primrose Road, Ellen Judd, 500 El Camino Real, Wendy Verba, 1548 Ralston Avenue, John Anderson, 702 Newhall Road, Ariana Spiegler,1445 Bellevue Avenue, Diane Linn,1720 El Camino Real, Director of IHN Network, Marsha Jensen, IHP Coordinator for Saint Catherine's, Beth Southorn, 325 Villa Terrace, San Mateo, First Step for Families, Tim Fox, 1020 Paloma Avenue, Theresa Webb, Charlene Schmitz, 1237 Bellevue Avenue, Jonas Harschel, 8 Mariposa Court, Howard Page, 111 Central Avenue, Tom Roberts, 474 Cumberland Avenue, Homeless Coordinator for San Mateo County, John Carson, 500 El Camino Real, Carolyn Parker, 733 Lexington Way, Clarence Cravalho,1265 Vancouver Avenue, Brian Moriarty, 340 Occidental Avenue, commented in support of the program; there are families in crisis waiting to get in to Shelter Network, have no option but to live in cars on the streets; this program will give place to sleep to 14 people; support program, should be concerned with health and safety of all children; hope can live in community that can do this, is minimally intrusive, live in time where teachers, police officers cannot afford to live here; concerns seem to be fear of unknown, we come into contact with homeless everyday; children in program are in school/day care during the day, there is a model for this program nationwide, any family that is not in compliance will be exited, goal is to get people into permanent housing; there will be 6 to 8 volunteers on site between 6:00 and 9:30 p.m., after that there are still volunteers there; will occur six times a year at each facility; in First Step for Families program, 85% of families served found permanent housing, this population is willing to overcome the situation, want to go to school, average child in program is seven year old girl, talking about children that need nurturing, support, education; 75 other cities have had this program, felt that all concerns have been addressed; should be tried for a year and reviewed; would be happy that if my children were in trouble, the church would help in this way; we have so much would like to share it with people with problems; participants are people that have resided in San Mateo County; can there be security personnel on site. Mary Watt, of Call Primrose, Beth Southorn of First Step for Families, and Diane Lynn, Director of IHN Network, offered comments on the concerns raised; regarding length of stay, whether they are the same 14 people or different, should be no concern; people cannot walk in for services, have to be referred by First Step for Families; first step is to go to Call Primrose, they identify the appropriate program for the family, start the screening process; all people doing the screening are trained in this field, look for patterns, consistency. Commissioners asked: how are criminal and health records accessed, is a complete background check done, how long does it take; criminal and medical records are confidential how do you obtain records; how do you deal with people who walk up on the street; are only San Mateo County residents eligible, how far back do you check. Applicant response: complete background check is done, doesn't take weeks, matter of one or two days, people sign releases for medical and criminal records, if they don't sign, would not be accepted in program, only San Mateo County residents are eligible, look at entire life history, do thorough check, in existing programs, people don't walk up to facilities. Unapproved Minutes -6- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2000 Further comments: majority who come to program are first-time homeless, families give permission to check with physicians, landlords and employers; similar program in Los Altos, City Council supports and participates in program and property values are not an issue; all volunteers receive at least 3 hours training and have coordinators with much more training, families will not be performing functions different from parishioners, will be using health precautions normally used; homeless sometimes come up to churches now, when they do they are referred to agencies such as Call Primrose. Further commission questions: at day center, when people look for housing, do they look only in this area or outside as well, have there been any adverse affects in other areas with this program; concern with children attending schools associated with churches, would there be opportunity for interaction, what is the age range of children in program; what happens at 1720 El Camino Real between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m.; what would prevent homeless people who are not in program from coming to facility; do they anticipate placing people in affordable housing in this area; will families be socializing with their friends at the day facility. Applicant responses: people are encouraged to look for housing both inside and outside this area; in 5 years, there were no complaints with the program in Cincinnati, the impact on the community has been positive with participation; there is no overlap with school in the use of facilities, they would be on the same site but in different rooms, there is no criteria on age of children, but average is a 7 year old female; San Mateo program has not yet started, need all facilities in place before program can start; most family members will be at j obs or in school during the day, use day center for showers/laundry, some parents will spend a portion of the day at center, will be doing job hunting, apartment hunting, case management, making plans to get back on their feet; will not allow walk-in traffic, must have a referral, people at facilities will be sleeping in tents and on roll -away beds, people will not be beating doors down to get in, are just providing basics of safety, shelter and food; people in this circumstance generally are not interested in socializing at center, more pressing issues to think about. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public hearing. Commission comment: when read packet and listened to comments, found program is well-intentioned, not 100% convinced that there are not still concerns; may be best to postpone action to get questions answered, support the program in Burlingame, there are still some misunderstandings, gaps in information; good program, but understand apprehension, if some questions answered and if groups could get together, maybe concerns could be mitigated, would like to get information on success of programs in other areas, more information on the three -step screening process, qualifications of staff; provide records from other communities, have there been any police calls, what happens if someone not in the program arrives at church; consider reviewing project after a year and see what can be improved; this is an opportunity to show our children, future citizens how well off they are; these are families that have lived in county; understand parents concerns, issues at St. Catherine's need to be addressed. C. Osterling made a motion to continue the hearing on these applications to the Commission's October 23, 2000 meeting, provided the information requested is gathered and the applicant communicates with others in community to try and address concerns. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. There was no discussion on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This item concluded at 10:07 p.m. The commission took a break until 10:20 p.m. 6. 1010 CADILLAC WAY ZONED C-2 - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND VARIANCE FOR NOT ENCLOSING THE SALES LOT FOR A FIRST FLOOR EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING AUTO DEALERSHIP (KENNETH RODRIGUES & PARTNERS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; E. JAMES HANNAY, PROPERTY OWNER) Unapproved Minutes -7- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2000 Reference staff report, 9.25.00, with attachments. City Planner and Commission discussed the report, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Twenty-one conditions were suggested for consideration. CE noted that the construction of the traffic light at Rollins and Cadillac Way will take place at the end of November. Commission asked how long will construction last. CE noted that it will take about 4 - 5 months for the construction of the signal. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Ken Rodriquez, architect and James Hannay, applicant, were available for questions. The architect noted that the commission asked them to look at a few things, the lighting plan has been revised, presented photo and display boards showing the proposed lighting; there will be lighting at night inside the facilities, the only new signage will be on the building; the aluminum panels proposed are not highly reflective, using warmer tones, with a metallic panel around the top; regarding landscaping, propose to remove the 3 eucalyptus trees, they are in bad shape, propose hedge around vehicle display area, part of this hedge and all trees are on land leased from the City within the road right-of-way, propose to replace the trees with 5 large specimen palm trees evenly spaced, there would be no increase in the intensity of the exterior lighting; concerned with the condition regarding loading and unloading cars on Cadillac Way, will make sure that two curb side parking spaces next to driveways are clear during times of deliveries, when vehicles are unloaded, delivered cars need to be inspected immediately, so unloading needs to occur adjacent to the facility, has successfully off-loaded vehicles on Cadillac Way for a long time. Commissioners asked: regarding the landscaping, could the applicant work with the City Arborist to come up with another vertical tree species besides Palm trees; this is the entrance to Burlingame, need to have a tree that fits; regarding lighting, there is a tendency to light the building so that it becomes a sign, would that be done in this case; area needs to be improved, the building part of the proposal is fine, landscape edge and lighting are important, palm tree is not the right species, maybe consider redwood, describe the type of lighting that will be used; explain the proposed block wall; how often are cars off loaded on Cadillac and how long does it take, how many parking spaces would be affected, who parks in these short-term spaces now; why can't off loading be done at the storage lot on the Caltrain right-of-way. Applicant response: willing to look at other species of trees as long as they are vertical; lighting inside the building will be incandescent spotlights and recessed lights that will not spill a lot of light, will light up cars, exterior lighting will not change, will provide low level of light, there will be no exterior light shining on the building; will use a low level back light for signs, all interior lighting will be incandescent, not that bright, showroom will have some lighting during the evening, will be Tamped down when closed, want something elegant and subtle; 50 -75 foot- candles when opened, dropped by'/z to 1/3 when closed, will close at 6:00 p.m.; the 6' high masonry wall proposed on west property line is intended to block the view of the neighboring building, will be a textured finish; there are 8 autos per truck in the vehicle carriers, takes about 25 to 50 minutes to off-load; happens about 2-3 times a week; the Caltrain storage lot is a half -mile away, there is no electrical service and no technicians, vehicles have to be inspected immediately; the cars could be off-loaded using two parking spaces and temporarily blocking the driveways, there are other exits which can be used during deliveries; the two spaces on street are now used by our customers, there is a 20-minute time limit on those spaces; think it can be policed as it is now, have been off-loading here for 33 years. The commission noted that there is a concern that with the new signal, Cadillac Way will have more traffic, there is a need to get transport trucks out of the travel way; regarding the trees, there are some species of eucalyptus that are neat, tidy and fast growing, would fit nicely; commissioners asked if proposed signage is within code, and asked where employees will park. Unapproved Minutes -8- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2000 CP Monroe noted that because of the existing large pole sign on site, any change to the signage will require a sign exception. The applicant noted they will not remove the pole sign and that as far as the size of the proposed signs, they are within what the code allows without the pole sign. There is a parking plan and designated areas on site for employee parking or they will park at the storage lot, there have been no problems in the past with employees parking in the surrounding area. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that when first saw the proposal, had concerns, looked futuristic, lighting was a concern, the issues have been answered and with a different species of tree, proposal will work. Chairman Luzuriaga moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 15, Sheets 1-6, and Landscape Plan as shown on the Site Plan; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 8, May 31, and May 4, 2000 memos shall be met; 3) that any changes to the footprint, floor area, height of the building, or to the Landscape Plan shall require and amendment to this permit; 4) that the applicant shall work with the Public Works Department so that temporary loading and unloading of vehicle can occur using two curbside parking spaces along Cadillac Way between the two existing driveways; 5) that irrigation shall be provided for the 3' tall hedge along Broadway and Rollins Road, and that an irrigation plan shall be submitted at time of building permit application to be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist; the 3' tall hedge and irrigation shall be installed before final inspection occurs; 6) that the applicant shall be required to apply for a permit from the Parks Department to remove the three eucalyptus trees along Rollins Road and the replacement tree shall not be palm trees and shall be approved by the City Arborist; that the applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance of any new tree planted in the public right-of-way area, and that before any new tree is installed, an inspection shall be made by the City Arborist to confirm that the planting area is large enough to adequately sustain the trees to be planted; 7) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet the applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices for surface water runoff and Storm Drain maintenance; 8) that all runoff from the parking lot, roof -top parking area, and landscaped areas shall be filtered to remove oil and grease prior to discharge by a method approved by the City Engineer and such facilities shall be installed and maintained by the property owner, failure to maintain such filters and facilities in working conditions shall cause this conditional use permit to be called up for review, all costs for the annual or more frequent inspection and enforcement of this condition shall be paid for by this project's property owner; 9) that all site and roof drainage shall be filtered through oil separator drains and be directed to the street frontage on Rollins Road and Cadillac Way; 10) that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction as required by the BAAQMD and City Engineer; 11) that before demolition and construction, the applicant shall obtain appropriate permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their standards;12) that the applicant shall pay for the relocation of the stop controlled limit line on Cadillac Way if the traffic signal facilities are not in place and operational before completion of the showroom expansion; the location and striping of the limit line on Cadillac Way shall be designed to meet the current code standards and must be approved by the City Engineer;13) that all construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements, 1998 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and to the limitations of hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code (CS 18.08.03 5); 14) that no structure shall be built over the existing sanitary sewer line or any other public utility on the site; 15) that the existing sanitary sewer line shall be relocated at the developer's expense away from the proposed addition, and an adequate number of manholes and cleanouts shall be installed as part of the relocation; the portion of the existing sewer line to be relocated shall be televised prior to its relocation; and that the City Engineer shall review and approve all plans and construction before the city accepts it and a final inspection is scheduled; 16) that the existing sewer line shall be abandoned in place with sand backfill or removed completely as approved by the City Engineer; 17) that a new sanitary sewer easement shall be dedicated for the relocated sewer line constructed Unapproved Minutes -9- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2000 by the applicant at his expense and the existing easement shall be vacated; the new easement shall allow for access on private property and for maintenance of the sanitary sewer line; 18) that the project developer shall coordinate the relocation of the sewer line with the City of Burlingame Public Works Department, Engineering Division, during its planning, design and construction; 19) that all new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development will be installed to meet current code standards and diameter; sewer laterals will be checked and replaced if necessary; 20) that the proposed project shall comply with Ordinance 1477 limiting exterior Illumination and all lights including signage, except low level security lighting as approved by the City Engineer, shall be turned off at the end of the business day or no later than 10 p.m. daily; and 21) that should any cultural, archaeological or anthropological resources be discovered during construction, work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated, and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified professionals acceptable to the City, can be implemented. The motion was seconded by C. Boju6s. There was no discussion on the motion. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 11:10 p.m. 7. 1755 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY - ZONED O-M - MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS, FRONT SETBACK AND LANDSCAPING VARIANCES TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW FOUR-STORY, 77-ROOM HOTEL WHICH EXCEEDS THE BUILDING HEIGHT REQUIREMENT IN THE O-M ZONE, AND TO VARY FROM THE FRONT SETBACK AND FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BAYFRONT DEVELOPMENT (SATURN INVESTMENT GROUP, LLC, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; LEE GAGE & ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) Reference staff report, 9.25.00, with attachments. Senior Planner Brooks presented the staff report and plans revised September 17, 2000, reviewed criteria and Planning Department comments. Thirty-seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: number of compact parking stalls seems to have shifted back and forth what is the number now proposed,12; are NPDES requirements addressed, yes in conditions 10 and 15. C. Dreiling noted that he had exchanged a number of phone calls and faxes with the applicant regarding the porte cochere. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Lee Gage, 763 6 N. Ingram, Fresno, and Anut Patel, property owner, represented the project, noting tried to accommodate the Commission's concerns, moved the hotel closer to the street, increased landscaping at the rear, lowered the porte cochere removed the plaster and reduced the size of the columns and proportionally reduced the size of the posts on the trellis at the front and increased the visibility from the street by adding windows. Commissioners discussed with the applicant: exterior lighting - included down lighting in the porte cochere, light walls with wall packs or property line lights directed at the structure, one foot candle lights in all parking areas; landscaping plans show sycamores, these trees are subject to windshear and may not like the salt filled clay - will select other species of trees; several locations at the side and rear of the building where there are recessed doors for pedestrians to enter can these be called out using a repeat of the trellis structure at the front which will carry that design theme around - can incorporate; do not see the 12 foot sidewalk at the front next to the street - area of stamped concrete at front could not continue to property line because sidewalk would end into the wall of a building, it needed to be tapered down to the existing 5 foot sidewalks at each side property line, another problem was the reduction in front landscaped area caused by the wider sidewalk across the site which increased the front landscaping exception; CE noted that there is only 8 feet between the curb and the edge of the street right-of-way at this location; CA noted that the part of the side walk on private property (inside of the 8 feet remaining of street right-of-way) will not be maintained by the city. Unapproved Minutes -10- City Of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2000 Michael Nakamura, 810 Mountain Road, representing the adjacent property owner noted that they would prefer the original design with the hotel at the rear of the site; the proposed project which rotated building and moved it to the front of the site blocks the view from the existing small office area in their building next door at 810 Malcolm Road. The precedent for hotels being built at the back of the lot away from the street is established in the area with the Westin and Hyatt hotels. This project would block the view of the Bay from windows on the northeast side and the Marriott blocks the view of the bay across the street. He cited a number of advantages achieved by placing the hotel at the rear of the site, parking visible from the street, would look like a mansion, would open the view from his property, provide the hotel guests with direct bay views, and give the building more exposure to the street. He advocated including a pedestrian overpass over Bayshore Highway between the project site and the Marriott to increase bay access. Bought this property for its bay view, now it is being removed and his property is being damaged. Commissioner asked if he had owned the property where the hotel is proposed and sold it to the current developer. Applicant said that they had owned the property and sold it to this applicant. Had they developed the property they would have built an office building. Applicant response: it has always been their intention to prepare a project in line with Commission concerns, feel have addressed al concerns, 77 room density is consistent with what is allowed for site of this size; there will be 100 feet between the wall of the hotel and the windows on the neighboring property. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Deal commented that the architect did a good job changing the placement of the building, an 8 foot sidewalk is better than 5 foot, could add 4 feet to make the 12 feet later; the mitigated negative declaration is complete and mitigations address the concerns and are included in the conditions of approval; most of the code exceptions, conditional use permits and variances were caused by the Planning Commission's request that the building be relocated, the height exception is the only one not affected by the relocation and the smaller foot print achieved by the taller building is preferable at this location; feel that for these reasons and including the reasons stated by the commissioners, in the staff report and at the public hearing, as well as the fact that the applicant has done what the commission requested he would therefore move for approval by resolution with the conditions in the staff report. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Discussion on the motion: feel that conditions addressing the following issues should be included in the motion: providing an 8 foot wide sidewalk across the front of the property; cover the surface under the porte cochere with pavers not concrete; place additional trellises to match the trellis proposed at the front at each of the side and rear pedestrian entrances; replace all the trees proposed in the landscaping plan on site with trees of the same size at planting which would achieve the same size as a sycamore at maturity selected from a list of trees which will flourish in the Bayside environment, the City Arborist shall review the proposed selections for their environmental compatibility and potential mature size. C. Deal maker of the motion and C. Dreiling second, agreed to the amendment to the motion and conditions. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the mitigated negative declaration, four conditional use permits for use, height, front setback limitations and front setback landscaping, and variance for front setback with the following amended conditions:1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 13, 2000, Sheets SD1, Al, A2, A2B, A2C, A3, A3B, A4, and L1 with an eight (8) foot sidewalk across the entire front of the property, that the surface under the porte cochere shall be covered with pavers not concrete, that additional trellises which match the design of the trellis at the front shall be placed over all of the pedestrian entrances to the hotel located on the sides and rear of the structure, that all trees shown on the landscape plan (L 1) shall be replaced with trees of the same size at planting which would achieve the same size at maturity selected from a list of trees which will flourish in the Bayside environment and which the City Arborist has reviewed and approved for their environmental compatibility and for Unapproved Minutes -11- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2000 their match for potential size at maturity; 2) that the conditions of the City Engineer's May 23 and May 31, 2000 memos, the Chief Building Official's November 1,1999 memo, the Fire Marshal's November 1,1999 memo, and the Senior Landscape Inspector's May 30, 2000 memo shall be met; 3) that any changes to the footprint, floor area, setbacks, or height of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 4) that two lanes shall be striped or delineating through the porte cochere area; one of the lanes shall be marked "Keep Clear" so that guests already registered at the hotel can circulate through the porte cochere to parking spaces without having to stop and to allow departing vehicles to leave the site unhindered; 5) that the applicant shall provide airport shuttle service for hotel guests, this shuttle service shall be made available to hotel employees to connect to Caltrain, BART, and SamTrans at shift changes; 6) that the applicant shall be required to contribute a proportional share towards operation of the City's "FreeBee" shuttle service, based on a prorated share of the operating costs to be determined by the City Finance Director, which provides transportation between this area and the transportation corridor and commercial centers on the west side of the freeway (U.S. 101); 7) that the project shall be built and designed to conform to all, seismic related requirements of the latest edition of the California Building Code as amended by the City of Burlingame in effect at the time a building permit is issued in addition to the limitations of hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code (CS 18.08.035), and any additional seismic requirements established by the State Architect's office; 8) that seismic -resistant construction shall follow the recommendations of the site -specific geotechnical investigations as approved by the City Engineer; 9) that the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. All applicable requirements of the NPDES permit for the site shall be adhered to in the design and during construction; 10) that all applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices shall be adhered to in the design and during construction, including stabilizing areas denuded due to construction prior to the wet season; erosion shall be controlled during and after construction to protect San Francisco Bay waters; 11) that the project structures shall be built on piles, as mitigation for static and seismic forces as approved by the City's structural engineer, and the building shall be built on pads that raise their first floor elevation to elevation to + 10 feet MSL as flood protection; 12) that all water and sewer lines shall be constructed from flexible material with flexible connections with the degree of flexibility established by the City Engineer and with his approval and inspection; 13) that in the event that there is subsidence as the result of an earthquake, the site shall be repaired as approved by the City Engineer;14) that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet the applicable San Mateo County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices for surface water runoff and Storm Drain maintenance; 15) that all runoff in the parking lot, including runoff from the landscaped areas, shall be filtered to remove oil and grease prior to discharge by a method approved by the City Engineer and such facilities shall be installed and maintained by the property owner, failure to maintain such filters and facilities in working conditions shall cause this conditional use permit to be called up for review, all costs for the annual or more frequent inspection and enforcement of this condition shall be paid for by this proj ect's property owner; 16) that all site and roof drainage shall be directed to the street frontage; 17) that grading shall be done so that impacts from erosion and runoff into the storm drain will be minimal; 18) that the applicant shall provide a complete Irrigation Water Management Conservation Plan together with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application;19) that low flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed and City water conservation requirements shall be met at all times, including special additional emergency requirements; 20) that the site shall be periodically sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction as required by the BAAQMD and City Engineer; 21) that before demolition and construction, the applicant shall obtain appropriate permits from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with their standards; 22)that payment of a Bayfront Development fee to the City of Burlingame for traffic impacts in the Anza area shall be required to mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other projects on area circulation, one-half due at the time of planning application and one-half due before the final framing inspection; 23) that the required parking areas shall not be used for long-term parking or converted to useable/leasable space as a part of any hotel promotion; 24) that if the hotel proposes to charge for customers or guests to park in the parking lot, an amendment to the conditional use permit shall be required, and the conditional use permit shall include conditions of approval which provide that Unapproved Minutes -12- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2000 employees can park for free, and that the rates charged for short-term parking shall be limited and the rate charged geared to penalize those non -hotel guests/visitors who would abuse the availability of parking; 25) that the developer shall pay for the installation of a median refuge area for vehicles turning left from Cowan Road to northbound Bayshore Highway; the median refuge area shall be designed to meet the current code standards and must be approved by the City Engineer; 26) that notwithstanding the Burlingame Municipal Code requirements, no piles shall be driven before 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, and none shall be driven on Sunday; 27) that the hotel shall be built so that the interior noise level in all rooms does not exceed 45 dBa; 28) that before a building permit is issued for the project, the applicant shall perform a study and capacity analysis of the existing sanitary sewer system to analyze the impact of the proposed project to the existing collection and processing system. The study shall include all the existing flows and proposed flows, the capacity of the system using the peak factors governing the existing conditions, increase in BOD/TSS (Biological Oxygen Demand/Total Suspended Solids) due to the project volumes, and mitigation of impact to the system; 29) that all new utility connections to serve the site, and which are affected by the development, shall be installed to meet current code standards and local capacities; 30) that sewer laterals from the site to the public sewer main shall be checked and shall be replaced to city standards as required by the development; 31) that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed; 32) that the developer shall pay (proportional share) for the installation of any necessary sewer line improvements. If the developer does not install the new line he will be required to pay for the development's portion of the installation cost. If the City Engineer determines that the pipe will not be installed at the time of development, the developer will make a cash deposit to the City for a portion of the estimated cost prior to issuance of a building permit for his construction. The City will use this deposit at the time of the pipe installation for this development's share of the cost; 33) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 34) that the project applicant shall pay a fee to the City per square foot of developed space to offset costs of treating the additional wastewater and the proj ect's proportional share should the sewer pump station serving this area require resizing; 35) that the developer shall, as a part of the demolition work on the site, prepare, have approved by the City and implement a recycling plan for all material to be removed, prior to issuance of a demolition or grading permit (Assistant City Manager, City Engineer); 36) that the proposed project shall comply with Ordinance 1477 limiting exterior Illumination; and 37) that should any prehistoric or historic archeological relics be discovered during construction, all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by a qualified cultural resources consultant acceptable to the City, can be implemented; all removal or restoration work shall be required to be supervised by qualified professionals approved by the City Planner. Project personnel shall not collect cultural resources. Prehistoric resources include chert or obsidian flakes, projectile points, mortars, and pestles; and dark friable soil containing shell and bone dietary debris, heat -affected rock, or human burials. Historic resources include stone or adobe foundations or walls; structures and remains with square nails; and refuse deposits, often in old wells and privies. Any identified cultural resources shall be recorded on forms DPR 422 (archaeological sites) and/or DPR 523 (historic properties) or similar forms. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 11:48 p.m. 1. 348 LORTON AVENUE - ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B - DETERMINATION OF USE OF AN EXISTING BASEMENT AREA (TIM AURAN, APPLICANT; DONALD F. AND P.A. SABATINI TRS, PROPERTY OWNERS) Reference staff report, 9.25.00, with attachments. City Planner presented her determination, the history of the site and facts. Commissioners asked: when a legal action such as the settlement noted here occurs is it attached to the deed; CA noted we do not have a title report, typically leases or dissolutions are not recorded. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public hearing. Tim Auren, real estate broker,1323 Bernal, who had requested the determination spoke along with Mr. Sabitini, property owner. He noted that the law suit was settled before there Unapproved Minutes -13- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2000 was court action; that the other party had leased the basement area for storage and then changed the use to a manufacturing use, Fire Department stopped the use because a second exit was required, the tenant left because his use was restricted. Building was built in 1951, three stories including a full basement; basement area has an 8 '/2 foot ceiling, is fully sprinklered, concrete walls and ceiling; was used for storage for a restaurant which was on the first floor, so has always been active retail support space, restaurateur (also building owner) had an office for their business in the basement; was also used as a civil defense shelter to store emergency goods in the 1950's. The owners who built the building sold their restaurant business and the new owner moved it down the street; tried to lease, the grocery store with basement storage was one tenant, has been continually offered for lease but the Planning Department denied all tenants, actually added two stairways for exit because basement area is so big; Mr. Sabitini has an office in this basement area now and allows Mr. Auren to use some of the area for conferences too. Have an office tenant, a union, who would like to use some of the area and would be on site a couple of times a week, did not want to come one at a time with proposal but work out a resolution for the use of the entire space. Would not have installed staircase in 1995 if knew could not use basement, architect drew plans, was done the way it was supposed to be done did not see note regarding parking variance. Tenants do not need the basement area for storage, have an office there, it is well built and clean, protected by a sprinkler system, don't know why the sprinkler is there if the area can't be used. Commissioners asked: there were specific conditions on the building permit, - applicant noted contract related to another party (contractor) never saw the piece of paper until staff report, was it hidden, building department had no record of the building permit, Mr. Sabitini would not have installed the stairway if he had known storage was the only use. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner discussion: spent some time in the basement with Mr. Auren, to me the basement is a typical basement, has no HVAC, fire sprinkler system hangs low, there are signs of office use, but they are tacked on, not part of the original building; there is no parking on site and parking is what we are discussing here; this basement area is not a good candidate for office use; have a number of basements on Burlingame Avenue people use for storage for businesses on site; when see no HVAC system know that space is meant for storage; do not feel that this is nonconforming office space. Did not understand that ordinance change prohibiting storage and warehouse use in C-1 and C-2 would prohibit owners from leasing existing space for off -site storage. This is not a nonconforming use, to recognize it as such would be to grant a large parking variance, already building has a real advantage because they have 10,000 SF for which they provide no parking now. C. Keighran noted clear that the basement area can be used for storage by tenants on the site, not want to intensify the use of the existing floors, if it is not nonconforming it will not increase the parking demand so move that there is no nonconforming use in the basement area and that the area can be used as storage only for tenants on the site. The motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on the motion: made good point that small office space is needed, could ask for a parking variance to provide it there if wanted to. CA Anderson noted that the current policy is to require an in lieu fee for parking not provided in this area. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to determine that there is no nonconforming use in the basement area of the building at 340-348 Lorton Avenue and that the basement area can be used for storage for tenants on the site. The motion passed on a 7-1 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 12.15 p.m. Unapproved Minutes -14- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2000 DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1108 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN & ENG., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; GARY ERNST, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the project description. C. Bojues noted that he lived within the noticing area and would not participate in this action. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, represented the project. Member of the public asked why a commissioner who lived nearby could not participate, who would know the area better. CA Anderson noted that the voters had directed in the Political Reform Act that decision makers who might be affected by living within a given distance of an action by the body on which they serve, cannot vote. Design issues discussed were: design fairly good, disturbed by the reduction of the front porch, getting too small for a person to stand on; porch size is not consistent with what is in the neighborhood, concerned with the turret which also is tending toward a tall, monumental entry, needs to be made more subtle; the architectural style is all right, this project is acceptable but do not like the pattern of the windows, the 10 foot tall window in the stair well is to big, there are shutters on the front but not on the sides or rear; elements on either side are all right, could add dormer and articulation with materials as have on the front elevation; mass is broken up all right; reduce scale of window in the closet over the front entry, reduce the plate height and size of the closet. There were no further comments from the floor. Chairman Luzuriaga closed the public comment. C. Keighran noted that the entrance needs to blend with the houses in the area, be more subtle; the nice articulation with materials at the front should be added to the other elevations to improve the rest of the house; feel that these are minor changes which the designer can address so would move to put this item on the consent calendar. Motion was seconded by Chairman Luzuriaga. Motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote and was set for October 11, 2000, if all the information is submitted in time. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:30 a.m. 10. 1261 VANCOUVER AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN & ENG., INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; OTTO A TT T FRS PRnPFRTY nV1NFR) CP Monroe presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. James Chu designer, represented the project. The following commented from the floor on the project: Joanne Colombo Christ,185 Argyres Street, Monterey, speaking for her parents at 1249 Vancouver; Clarence Cravalho 1265 Vancouver; John Cockcroft, 1250 Jackling Drive; Lee Thompson,1237 Vancouver; Martha Beshore,1234 Vancouver. Issues of concern were: concern about exceptions to the code for a new house, especially special permit for height which impacts views and privacy of neighbors; new house twice the size of the one being demolished; all house no lot; owned parcels in 1960 and subdivided into four with father and brother, developed all with one story houses; live on flag lot, detached garage will be in his front yard, does not need to crowd property line, move garage toward Vancouver 5 to 10 feet and plant trees behind; 20 foot deep cistern is in the street in front of the proposed house, not sure can put driveway in location shown; cistern will affect access of equipment during construction; sewer and water service cross existing driveway, will straight Unapproved Minutes -15- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2000 proposed location work; do not need balcony on side of house affects two adjacent property owners directly; two story all right but not over 30 feet; should refer to design reviewer; scale of design is not in keeping with existing, overly tall, too narrow; need to have soils study if retaining walls are to be changed. Design issues identified in discussion with applicant were: this house has no porch, the two wings at the front are very dominant, the lot is too narrow for this house; unclear about what the overall height is from grade, first floor plate is too high results in a lot of mass; the fireplace chimney does not need to be 4 feet, the window size is fine. Sense a number of issues here, this item should be referred to a design reviewer, presently it is more of a two story box, all roof areas need to break at the second floor; because of arrangement of flag lot the garage at the rear of this project is in the front yard of the house behind, can it be relocated and changed to have less impact. C. Deal noted its good idea to move garage forward 5 to10 feet; reduce height, look at first floor plate, work on porch, balcony is two feet deep, not useable for long term; work with Public Works Department to address cistern properly; and then moved to continue the item to be see what the designer and public works come up with. Motion was seconded by C. Bojues. Comment on the motion: CE Murtuza noted public works did address cistern in comments but will work with applicant. Concerned with garage; house above and English Tudor across street dwarfs mass of the proposed house; need to address the entrance and the issue of bulk at the front. With continuance, applicant would return for a second design review study. C. Deal amended his motion to take this item forward to regular action. C. Bojues, the second, agreed. Comment on the amendment: if applicant knew what to do could have done it on these plans; feel that there is a lot of work that needs to be done on this design would prefer to refer this to a design reviewer. C. Deal amended his motion again to refer this item to a design reviewer. C. Bojues, the second, agreed. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer to a design reviewer. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 1:15 a.m. 11. 1322 CARLOS AVENUE - ZONED R-1 - APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CHU DESIGN & ENG., TNC , APPT TCANT ANT) I)FOUCTNFR; OTTO MIT T FR, PRQPFRTY nWNFRI CP Monroe described the project. C. Osterling noted that he would abstain from discussion and action on this item since he lived within the noticing area. There were no questions of staff. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. James Chu, designer, represented the project. There were no comments from neighbors. Design issues identified by the commission: the eaves of the garage should be extended; there is no porch on this house, there should be; it has two large elements at the front and very big windows, don't see the precedence for the windows as shown with this style, some have shutters others not; the stairwell window is too big; roof structure at the front taken to the 9 foot plate is good with 8 foot plate above; what is hardy -shake roof, should not look like concrete; need to address window trim, stucco mold, keep shutters on right and left side, put boards on windows; concern that the second story is a box with a lot of mass, prefer to bring one side down to the first floor, want to see mass and bulk addressed at a human scale especially on the right elevation; the columns at the front door are not consistent with the rest of the timber/stick design. Unapproved Minutes -16- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2000 C. Vistica moved that this item be redesigned and brought back to the consent calendar. The motion was seconded by C. Dreiling. Noted that the windows are all right since they are within proportion of the structure. Chairman Luzuriaga called for a voice vote on the motion to refer to the consent calendar, to be scheduled when the information submitted is complete and staff has checked. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling abstaining) voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 1:30 a.m. 12. 1250 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY - ZONED C-4 - SCOPING SESSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSED SINGLE -STORY, 5,602 SF ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOTEL (BOB EVERINGHAM, EVERINGHAM ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT; TSH ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; RAMADA HOTEL VENTURE, LTD. ET AL, PROPERTY OWNER) CP Monroe presented the information on the project for the environmental scoping. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the Public Comment. Tim Haley, architect, represented the project. Commissioners noted that the following items should be addressed in the environmental review: the rip -rap along Easton Creek should be examined for its condition and maintenance; NPDES issues need to be addressed; the relocation of the row of trees along the shoreline need to be studied, prefer next to parking area not between pathway and view of bay, could even be relocated into parking lot; consider adding more seating area, very limited in this reach of access; environmental document should explain the problem of installing the bridge with this project; Provide a ballpark estimate of the cost of installing the bridge; evaluate what landscaping is appropriate on bay edge, look at what done elsewhere; should look at using native species, not lolly -pop trees, evaluate how much the trees are needed, could shrubs be used; provide species list and identify native or native like species which will do well in this environment, carry same vegetation through out. There were no further comments from the Commission. Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 1:45 a.m. 13. 999 HOWARD AVENUE - ZONED C-2 - SCOPING SESSION FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF A PROPOSED 3-STORY, 21,897 SF OFFICE BUILDING (JESSE MORGAN, APPLICANT; TSH ARCHITECTS, ARCHITECT; HOWARD/MYRTLE STORAGE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) Senior Planner Brooks presented the project information for the environmental scoping. Chairman Luzuriaga opened the public comment. Jesse Morgan, applicant, represented the project. Commissioners noted that the following items should be addressed in the environmental review: concerned about aesthetics, this structure does not reflect the history of the styles in this area should look to the train station, fire station and library, all public buildings which are true to historic style of immediate area, should look like it belongs in this older area, the proposed roof pieces do not fit or the dryvit with jewel tiles; concerned about parking, providing minimum required, current experience is that employers concentrate employees so minimum is not enough, do not want overflow into adjacent residential neighborhood, should be addressed; traffic is a concern, high density of employees for many current businesses results in more trips and would impact the nearby school and residents, should examine the worst case; orientation of entrance of building discourages pedestrian access when it should be encouraged, have entry directly off the street, perhaps at corner to anchor building; need to address shadow on Myrtle, would more setback at second floor help reduce shadow; evaluate transition at rear, landscaping fingers could be used in parking lot to break up parking area; review location of trash enclosure, away from street into area next to tracks; impact of the on street parking of other businesses in the area and on California on the parking provided for this building should be evaluated; evaluate the face of the building on Myrtle, how can it be more compatible, would stepping back at second floor help; need to address relationship of driveway access and building usage with people backing up over railroad tracks; for land use need to address what role. this site plays in the life of the city, should there be retail uses here at some time, it's a transportation corridor of increasing Unapproved Minutes -17- City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2000 importance how does this use relate, how does the building relate to the life on the street, the entrance should be on the street to encourage people to walk from train station to work; site is an odd shape, left over, how can that be taken advantage of; why could housing not be placed on this site; how can landscape provide better scale and pedestrian affinity; parking is away from street, but so is entrance, should not design to give impression that the only way to get there is by car; ground floor can open to the street; investigate appropriate species for the trees, need ones that are vertical and taller, should be included in visual analysis and landscape plan; property is next to fiber optic cable in easement next to railroad, what issues does that raise for construction and landscaping, should be evaluated in environmental document. No further issues were identified to include in the environmental evaluation. This item conclude at 2:10 a.m. PLANNER REPORTS CP Monroe briefly reviewed actions taken at the September 18, 2000 City Council Meeting. ADJOURNMENT Chairman Luzuriaga adjourned the meeting at 2:20 a.m. MINUTES9.25 Unapproved Minutes -18- Burlingame City Council City Hall Burlingame, Ca. 94010 Sirs/ Madams: September 16, 2000 Last week we attended a meeting of the Burlingame Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission. We were very concerned about the danger of trying to cross the street at Adeline and Cortez. I've lived on Cortez for over 30 years and I agree completely. I have often walked over to that intersection and have always noticed that cars will not stop. Even if I had stepped into the street, cars will almost never acknowledge the pedestrian, but continue to speed up and/or down Adeline. Now with grandchildren, sometimes I walk over to that intersection to pick them up after school, and it is almost impossible to get any car to stop.. I worry about the children when they have to cross alone! I would hope that the City of Burlingame would consider this very dangerous intersection, especially for the children but also for our senior citizens. Let us not wait until Burlingame has it's first pedestrian fatality at that very hazardous intersection. Don't wait, as many other cities have done, until someone is killed there... Burlingame, please give the citizens of our city a safe intersection at Cortez and Adeline. We would like to feel that our pedestrians crossing there will at least have a fighting chance! Sincerely, Mrs. Be Sullivan 1133 Cortez Ave Burlingame, Ca. 94010 SEP 2 1 2000 CRYOF BUS 4AV W RECEIVED September 18, 2000 SEP ? f1 9nnR crtvonC�' Burlingame Police Department Chief Gary Missel 1111 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Officer D. Williams Dear Chief Missel: I dropped by your office last week to speak with you in person about Officer D. Williams, unfortunately you were unavailable. My husband and I felt we wanted you to know in person how we felt about the job Officer Williams did. It is so comforting to know that an officer cares enough and follows through enough to help Burlingame citizens. Because of the work Officer Williams did, we were able to recover a majority of jewelry that was taken from our home. Officer Williams pursued our report of stolen jewelry to the limit; he followed up on every lead we gave him. He pursued the chief suspect and other possible suspects involved. He spoke in a most persuasive manner to these parties (without making our own family feel threatened) to return the stolen goods to us. Five days after the report, I stepped out on my front porch to find a white envelope containing most of the stolen goods. The sentimental value of the pieces themselves is invaluable. These items meant more to us than any other material items we own. Officer Williams handled this investigation professional, calmly, and proactively. We thought there was no chance of recovering the jewelry. Heis to be commended for an outstanding job. I hope you will take a moment and pat him on the back. Officer Williams exceeded the expectations we had of a police officer. And we believe because of how he handled the whole investigation led to us recovering the jewelry that meant so much to us. Thank you for providing such an outstanding officer. rely, ete a er V a�- Cc: Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony 0426 f9 B A R T SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICT 800 Madison Street - Lake Merritt Station P.O. Box 12688 Oakland, CA 94604-2688 Telephone (510) 464-6000 �i September 8, 2000 95 Honorable Rosalie M. O'Mahony, Mayor The City of Burlingame N1W11 Burlingame City Hall 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 THOMAS M. BLALOCK PRESIDENT - Re: Millbrae Station Parking Fees WILLIE B. KENNEDY VICE-PRESIDENT Dear Mayor O'Mahony: THOMAS E. MARGRO GENERAL MANAGER Thank you for your letter dated April 14, 2000 regarding possible parking fees at the new Millbrae Station. We apologize for the delay in our response. DIRECTORS Currently BART is in the preliminary stages of evaluating various alternatives for parking DAN RICHARD 7ST DISTRICT controls (with or without fees) at all West Bay BART stations. We expect to formalize a JOEL KELLER plan for parking controls sometime next year and, if appropriate, will have parking controls 2ND DISTRICT implemented upon the opening of the BART-SFO Extension. ROY NAKADEGAWA 3RD DISTRICT In addition, as we said in response to the City's comments on the Final Environmental CAROLE WARD ALLEN ATH DISTRICT Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement in June of 1996, BART will establish a monitoring program following station opening to determine if SFIA patrons are parking at PETER W. SNYDER 6TH DISTRICT the BART Millbrae station and if substantial spillover parking occurs. Should these problems be identified, BART will follow its commitments in the Mitigation Monitoring THOMAS M. BLALOCK 6TH DISTRICT and Reporting Plan to consider and implement an appropriate parking control plan for the WILLIE B. KENNEDY stations, which may include paid parking. BART will also assist local authorities in 7TH DISTRICT implementing their own parking control plan for city streets. JAMES FANG 6TH DISTRICT BART continues to be concerned with how each one of the new stations affects the TOM RICH TO 9THsurrounding DISTRICT communities and in that regard we appreciate reminders such as yours f regarding what the local concerns are. Thank you again for your letter. Sincerely, v� ames Van Epps Executive Manager, West Bay Extension cc: BART Board of Directors Thomas E. Margro