Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2006.08.21 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame rv�aPM Regular Meeting—Monday,August 21,2006 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 Page 1 of 4 650 558-7200 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES —Regular Council Meeting of July 17, 2006 & Approve Adjourned Regular Council Meeting of July, 19, 2006 5. PRESENTATION a. Present the winner of the Charrette logo contest b. Presentation by Superintendent Sam Johnson on the High School District Bond Issue 6. PUBLIC HEARING The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. a. Action on an Amendment to the General Plan and Bayfront Adopt Specific Plan in order to complete implementation of Specific Plan 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS — At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a "request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Adopt Resolution establishing City Council's intent Adopt regarding projects to be funded from proposed Flood Protection and Public Safety Bond Measure b. Provide direction on preparation of scope of work Direct including request for proposal and selection of a Consultant to prepare the specific plan for Downtown Area c. Consider appointment to Library Board Appoint d. Update on Burlingame's Centennial Celebration Update e. Introduce Ordinance making, clarifying, updating and Introduce making consistent various provisions of the Municipal Code BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame n4�NP Regular Meeting—Monday, August 21, 2006 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 Page 2 of 4 650 558-7200 f. Parks for the Future Proposal to fund Parks agencies Discuss within San Mateo County 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve a. Adopt a Resolution designating voting delegate for 2006 League of California Cities annual conference b. Adopt a Resolution correcting fees for fire inspection of multifamily dwellings and police repossession of vehicles; and revising master fee schedule for Parks & Recreation Department facility usage c. Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative and Final Parcel Map for lot combination of portions of Lot 5, Block 7, Burlingame Land Co. Map No. 2 Subdivision, 1512- 1516 Floribunda Avenue d. Final Condominium Map for a 5-Unit Commercial Condominium at 821 Cowan Road, Parcel B-93, Block 2, Map of East Millsdale Industrial Park Unit No. 1 Subdivision e. Resolution accepting the Marsten Outfall Pipeline Project, Phase 2, by Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction Inc. f. Resolution accepting Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation Project by J. Howard Engineering g. Resolution awarding Street Resurfacing Program 2006 to Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc. and approve an increase in funding from Proposition 42 funds h. Resolution accepting Chula Vista Storm Drain Pipeline Project by Casey Construction Company i. Resolution to reject all bids and authorize staff to readvertise the replacement of City Hall elevator project j. Resolution appointing Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency to represent Burlingame in negotiations with San Francisco Public Utility Commission (SFPUC) for Water Purchase Agreement BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame r Regular Meeting—Monday,August 21, 2006 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 650 558-7200 Page 3 of 4 k. Resolution awarding tree pruning and stump removal, 2006-2007 to Timberline Tree Service, Inc. 1. Adopt Budget Amendment No. 1 to increase funding for City Clerk's office m. Approval for Chief Building Official to attend an out of state conference n. Approve out of state travel for Finance Director o. Warrants and Payroll 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS—At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 12. OLD BUSINESS a. Direct Staff on possible Study Session for campaign finance Direct regulations and set date for Study Session b. Subcommittee update on Safeway next step Direct 13. NEW BUSINESS a. Request to set hearing date for appeal of tree removal at Set Hearing 1812 Easton Drive b. Update on Commissioners attendance at meetings Update/Discuss 14. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety & Parking, June 8, 2006; Library, June 20, 2006; Beautification, July 13, 2006; Planning, July 24 & August 14, 2006 b. Department Reports: Police, June &July, 2006; Finance, June & July, 2006; Building, July, 2006 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame Regular Meeting—Monday,August 21, 2006 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 650 558-7200 Page 4 of 4 c. Three letters from Comcast concerning programming adjustment d. Letters from Samaritan House; Sustainable San Mateo County; Jobs for Youth; Call Primrose; Parca; Ombudsman Services of San Mateo County; Community Gatepath; Youth and Family Enrichment Services; Burlingame Historical Society; Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse; and Mission Hospice gratefully acknowledging the City's donation to their organizations e. Letters from Comcast and RCN advising the Finance Director that they do not offer senior citizen discounts 15. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION a. Threatened Litigation((Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1),(3)(C)) - Claim of Angela Ostini 16. ADJOURNMENT Notice: Any attendees wishing accommodations for disabilities please contact the City Clerk at 650 558-7203 at least 24 hours before the meeting. A copy of the Agenda Packet is available for public review at the City Clerk's office,City Hall 501 Primrose Road,from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burl ingame.ore,. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—Tuesday, September 5, 2006 CIT7 C BURLINGAME 1'coq ao $MattD Juwt D BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of July 17, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Cathy Baylock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Charles Voltz. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Cohen, Nagel COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Keighran and O'Mahony 4. MINUTES A correction to the minutes of the June 19, 2006 regular Council meeting: In the first paragraph, correct the spelling of Noemi Avram and Ellis Schoichet. Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to approve the amended minutes of the June 19, 2006 regular Council meeting; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved by voice vote, 3-0-2 (Keighran and O'Mahony absent). 5. PRESENTATION a. SAN MATEO COUNTY OPERATIONAL AREA PLAN TO DEAL WITH A POTENTIAL PANDEMIC Fire Division Chief Ladas presented information on the City and County preparedness and response plans to contain a potential Avian Flu pandemic. He provided the website address for San Mateo County Health Department's coverage of the Avian Flu which would be linked to the City's website for public information. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. CONSIDERATION OF A BALLOT MEASURE FOR NOVEMBER 2006 TO FINANCE MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS CM Nantell reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and further consider the ballot measure for financing flood control and building safety improvements. 1 Burlingame City Council July 17,2006 Unapproved Minutes Mayor Baylock opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Mayor Baylock advised that this item would be continued to Wednesday, July 19, 2006, at 8 a.m. to consider adoption of the proposed ordinance calling for a special municipal election for approval of bonds to finance municipal improvements. b. NPDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN—2006/07 GENERAL PROGRAM BUDGET DPW Bagdon reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and approve a resolution endorsing the 2006-07 National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Program Budget. Mayor Baylock opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to approve Resolution No. 53-2006, recommending the San Mateo County Flood Control District impose basic and additional charges for funding the expanded scope of work for the 2006-07 Countywide NPDES General Program; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved by voice vote, 3-0-2 (Keighran and O'Mahony absent). 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS The following citizens spoke on Falun Gong human rights in China: Yukichi Negishi of El Cerrito; Aaron Nelson of San Francisco; Huy Lu, 183 Longview Drive; and Chung Lim, 1469 Bellevue Avenue. There were no further comments from the floor. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO THE LIBRARY BOARD Mayor Baylock and Vice Mayor Nagel had interviewed two of the three candidates for the Library Board position. The third candidate would be interviewed at a later date. The recommendation for appointment would be presented at the August 21, 2006 Council meeting. 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Vice Mayor Nagel requested removal of Item c. from the Consent Calendar for further discussion. a. RESOLUTION NO. 54-2006 AUTHORIZING COORDINATION WITH THE AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS SAN MATEO COUNTY ON THE DESTINATION: SOBA (SOUTH OF BURLINGAME AVENUE) DESIGN CHARRETTE CP Monroe requested Council approve Resolution No. 54-2006 to authorize coordination with American Institute of Architects San Mateo County on the destination: SOBA, South of Burlingame Avenue, Design Charrette and approve staff resources for the September 30, 2006 event. b. RESOLUTION NO. 55-2006 ACCEPTING THE LIGHT REHABILITATION AT BAYSIDE PARK FIELD #1 2 Burlingame City Council July 17,2006 Unapproved Minutes P&RD Schwartz requested Council approve Resolution No. 55-2006 accepting completion of Bayside Park Relighting Project, City Project No. 81060. d. AUTHORIZATION OF SIGNATORIES FOR CITY CHECKS AND DRAFTS FinDir Nava requested Council approve Resolution No. 56-2006 authorizing signatories to City of Burlingame checks and drafts. e. ACTION ON RESOLUTION NO. 57-2006 AUTHORIZING C/CAG TO ACT AS A SUBREGION FOR ALLOCATING THE HOUSING NEEDS NUMBERS FOR THE MANDATED 2009 UPDATE OF THE BURLINGAME HOUSING ELEMENT CP Monroe requested Council approve Resolution No. 57-2006 authorizing the City of Burlingame to become a member of a countywide sub-region, an entity that would locally administer the regional housing needs allocation process of the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG). f. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants #19279-19842 duly audited, in the amount of $1,927,569.03 (excluding Library checks#19280-19308, Payroll checks #165684-166040 in the amount of $3,668,471.64 for the month of June 2006. Councilman Cohen made a motion to approve Items a.,b., d., e., and f. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Nagel. The motion was approved by voice vote, 3-0-2 (Keighran and O'Mahony absent). C. APPROVAL FOR A POLICE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE TO ATTEND OUT OF STATE TRAINING FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCEPTING SPECIALIZED POLICE EQUIPMENT OBTAINED THROUGH A DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT Vice Mayor Nagel requested more information on the specialized police equipment obtained through a Department of Homeland Security grant. COP Van Etten explained that the specialized police equipment is called a video detective, which is a laptop commuter that enhances videos of crime scenes. Homeland Security is providing the required out of state training and related travel expenses. Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to approve the out of state training for the purpose of accepting this specialized equipment through a Department of Homeland Security grant; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved by voice vote, 3-0-2 (Keighran and O'Mahony absent). 10. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. 11. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, requested that the Bicycle Subcommittee meetings be open to the public. Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Way, invited the public to attend the roundtable meetings scheduled on the first Tuesday of every month at Il Piccolo at 6:30 p.m. to discuss community issues. Jackson Yip of Foster City 3 Burlingame City Council July 17,2006 Unapproved Minutes spoke on the potential flu pandemic and the merits of meditation. There were no further comments from the floor. 12. OLD BUSINESS Councilman Cohen, in reference to the recent six-month Commissioners Absence Report, requested that commission Chairs discuss attendance and tardiness issues with their commissioners who fall below attendance standards. Mayor Baylock requested a copy of the previous six-month report to see the whole year in review. She suggested sending a reminder to all commissioners of their commitment to serve. 13. NEW BUSINESS There was no new business. 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Library, May 16, 2006; Parks &Recreation, June 15, 2006; Planning, June 26, & July 10, 2006 b. Department Reports: Police, May 2006; Building, June 2006 c. Copy of letter being sent to artists and architects in the community requesting suggestions for a centennial monument d. Continuation of parking permit program 15. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION Mayor Baylock adjourned the meeting to the Closed Session at 8:21 p.m. in memory of Burlingame Lion Cliff Flook, a native of Burlingame, and Prince Tu'ipelehake and Princess Kaimana of Tonga who met their untimely death in a recent automobile accident while visiting on the Peninsula. CLOSED SESSION CA Anderson advised that Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following: a. Claim of Douglas Winnett b. Claim of Denis Champagne (GEICO) 16. ADJOURNMENT TO 8:00 A.M.,JULY 19,2006 Mayor Baylock adjourned the meeting at 8:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 4 Burlingame City Council July 17,2006 Unapproved Minutes CITY G BURUNGAME yo.W BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Adjourned Regular Meeting of July 19, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed adjourned regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Cathy Baylock called the meeting to order at 8:00 a.m. 2. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Cohen, Nagel, O'Mahony Councilwoman Keighran attended by teleconference from Galway City, Ireland. COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE CALLING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL BOND ELECTION FOR APPROVAL OF BONDS TO FINANCE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENTS FOR FLOOD CONTROL, AND FOR DISASTER PREPAREDNESS,DISABLED ACCESS, SAFETY,AND SECURITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING CITY BUILDINGS (CONTINUED FROM JULY 17, 2006) CM Nantell reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing and consider adoption of the proposed ordinance calling for a special municipal bond election. In response to Council questions, CA Anderson clarified that after adoption of the ordinance, the City would be conducting an educational campaign since the City would not be allowed to spend time and resources on advocacy of the measure; also, CA Anderson advised that a Resolution of Intent would declare this Council's formal intent as to how bond proceeds would be spent for future councils to acknowledge. Council discussed formalizing a strategy incorporating consultant advice as to how and when they should advocate for the bond measure to the community. DPW Bagdon stated that in cooperation with the educational campaign consultant, answers to new questions on the bond measure are continually being formulated and added to the educational materials which would be available to Council and to the public. Mayor Baylock opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to adopt Ordinance No. 1792, calling a special municipal bond election for approval of bonds to finance construction and completion of municipal improvements for flood 1 Burlingame City Council July 19, 2006 Unapproved Minutes control, and for disaster preparedness, disabled access, safety, and security capital improvements to existing City buildings; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was unanimously approved by roll call vote, 5-0. b. ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION OF INTENTION REGARDING BOND PROCEEDS THAT MAY COME FROM APPROVAL OF PROPOSITION BY VOTERS CA Anderson advised that the Resolution of Intent discussed earlier would be presented to Council for their consideration at the August 21, 2006 Council meeting. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no comments from the floor. 5. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Baylock adjourned the meeting at 8:35 a.m. in memory of Sister Diane Grassilli of the Sisters of Mercy. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 2 Burlingame City Council July 19,2006 Unapproved Minutes &� STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 6a ITEM# • MTG. `oAA�o juNE 6' DATE 8.21.06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY J � DATE: JULY 19, 2006 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY - h//11nW SUBJECT: ACTION ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL P N AND BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN IN ORDER TO COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN. Recommendation: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on the proposal to amend the Bayfront Specific Plan in order to complete implementation of the plan. The City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on the resolution adopting the amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan. Public Notice was published in the San Mateo Times on August 11, 2006. With this action the public notice requirements for a General Plan amendment in the Municipal Code have been met. General Plan Compliance: All of the proposed changes to the Bayfront Specific Plan are part of the implementation of the Specific Plan and arise from the need to achieve consistency between the zoning and the specific plan. These changes do not affect the policy plan which is the core of the Specific Plan, but implement the policies as directed in the implementation chapter of the plan. The Bayfront Specific Plan is a part of the Burlingame General Plan. The Bayfront Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council and amended to the City's General Plan in April 2004. Consistent with the specific plan, Council adopted 5 new zoning districts to implement the plan, these include Inner Bayshore, Shoreline, Anza Area, Anza Point North and Anza Point South zoning districts adopted in 2005 and 2006; and amendment the Unclassified Zoning District so that it would better apply to the Anza Extension subarea(2005). The proposed changes to the plan were found by the Planning Commission to be consistent with the adopted Bayfront Specific Plan and therefore with the General Plan, since the Bayfront Specific Plan is a part of the Burlingame General Plan. CEQA Compliance: The zoning actions and proposed amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan are covered by the Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-531P for the Update of the Bayfront Specific Plan accepted by the City Council on April 5, 2004. The proposed zoning changes and subsequent clarifying adjustments to the Specific Plan text are a part of the adopted implementation program of the Bayfront Specific Plan and are consistent with the land use and design parameters of the Bayfront Specific Plan adopted by the City on April 5, 2004 which included approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-531P. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission studied the proposed amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan at their study meeting on June 26, 2006; and suggested no changes. At their July 10, 2006, meeting the Commission held a ACTION ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN IN ORDER TO COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN. August 21,2006 public hearing and voted 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent) on a voice vote to recommend the proposed changes/amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan to the City Council for action. In their action the commissioners noted that each of these amendments to the Bayfront Specific Plan was reviewed along with the implementing zoning for each subarea at the time that the individual zoning districts were adopted. This action completes the implementation phase of the planning program by making the zoning and the plan consistent. BACKGROUND: Over the past two years the Bayfront Subcommittee of the Planning Commission has developed five new zoning districts for the Bayfront Specific Planning area. The last of these districts, Anza Point North (APN), was adopted in April 2006. The preparation of the zoning regulations required a close reading of each of the subareas within the Planning Area. In some cases inconsistencies among the zones or lack of clarity in the land use direction was discovered. In these cases the Subcommittee made a recommendation to the Commission for correction to the plan along with zoning. It was noted to the Commission and Council as each zoning district was adopted, what revisions to the plan would be required should the zoning be approved. State law requires that the General Plan and its implementing zoning be consistent. For that reason, these changes to the Specific Plan are being brought forward by the Planning Commission to Council action. The approval of this proposed amendment will conclude the Bayfront Specific Plan implementation. As a part of implementation of the plan, a new zoning district was required for each subarea and as a result the changes all occur in chapters III. Land Use and V. Bayfront Design Guidelines of the Specific Plan. A copy of the two chapters with the strikeout and corrections inserted is attached for your reference so you can see how the changes were incorporated into the text. A slightly different format was used for corrections in each chapter because of the different programs used for word processing and illustrations. For this reason the corrections to the illustrations are recorded by hand. They will be formalized in the proper format after all the changes have been identified and approved. Despite these issues, the changes proposed are clear. Below is a summary of each of the inconsistencies identified by subarea within the Specific Plan. The land use and design guideline changes are attached for reference. Proposed Changes by Subarea Inner Bayshore Subarea ■ Text was not clear that hotels were to be confined to the Bayshore overlay area which fronts on the Shoreline Subarea where most of the existing hotels are located. The plan focused on achieving a consistency and compatibility in land uses between the east and west side of Bayshore Highway as a part of upgrading the character of this street. (see revised pagesIII-2 and III-4) ■ The design goal for the Inner Bayshore area was amended to clarify the importance of the connections (Bayshore overlay land uses and visual) with the Shoreline area. (See revised page 4) ■ The building design guidelines were modified to set the maximum development density on a site by FAR rather than by height or stories. The amount of development allowed is basically the same but the development out come is clearer since a story can be 7 feet or 17 feet depending upon the use. (See revised page V-11) ■ A note was added at the end of the design guidelines that the zoning for the interior area of the Inner Bayshore area continues the 35 foot review line presently employed in an effort to continue the existing pattern of development, while the height limitations for the overlay area are focused on 2 ACTION ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN IN ORDER TO COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN. August 21,2006 developing a new height pattern consistent with the pattern of development on the east (Shoreline side) of Bayshore Highway. (see revised page V-11) Shoreline Subarea ■ The original plan identified three retail nodes and noted that one of these should be developed, as a concentration of retail and commercial recreational uses to support the visitors and employees in the area. When working on the zoning it was apparent that most of the land in the Shoreline area is committed to long term uses, and that to attract retail and commercial recreation uses to serve the visitors and employees in this and the Inner Bayshore subarea, the retail uses would need more location flexibility. So the plan was amended to recommend that retail, commercial recreation, and service oriented businesses be more dispersed including all three retail node areas identified in the plan. (See revised page III-5 and III-6) ■ The design goal for the Shoreline area was amended to support creating more than one visitor and employee serving retail cluster or node. (See revised page V-4) ■ A title describing the notations on the graphic was added to the graphic defining the Shoreline area. (See revised page V-12) ■ Design guidelines for view corridors were amended to indicate that proposed maximums are guidelines not directives to be consistent with allowances provided in the zoning for a conditional use permit or variance to address unusual lot configurations or incentives for desired land uses or public improvements. (See revised page V-14) ■ Design guidelines for landscaping were amended to indicate proposed maximum are guidelines not directives to be consistent with allowances in zoning for a conditional use permit for unusual circumstances or beneficial trade offs proposed in the development. (See revised page V-15) ■ Design guidelines for the gateways were modified to direct a consistent design motif at all Gateways to the Bayfront planning area. (See revised page V-16) ■ Design guidelines for building design were modified for height to add compliance with FAA requirements and community wind standards, as stated in the development issues section of the plan and noted in the zoning. A maximum density for any site was noted at 2.0 FAR which is the same as in the zoning and in the Inner Bayshore overlay zone. (See revised page V-17) Anza Extension No changes to the plan were needed to achieve consistency in this subarea. The only zoning change for this area was to add a provision to the current Unclassified zoning to require a conditional use permit for the expansion of any existing use in the Unclassified zone. Anza Area ■ A change was made to clarify that the 'parcels available for development' in the area include both vacant and underused land (primarily the Anza Airport Parking site). (See revised page III-8) 3 ACTION ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN IN ORDER TO COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN. August 21,2006 ■ The design goal for the Anza Area was amended to clarify the importance of future development addressing the visual connections to San Francisco bay at the Anza and Burlingame lagoons. (See revised page V-5) ■ A title was added to the subarea diagram to explain the symbols on the map, also the story notations on building height were changed from stories to measurements in feet since it was determined that stories for buildings serving different uses could vary substantially (7' in a parking garage to 17' in a biotech building). Since zoning is based on height, the proposed heights based on the previous requirements of the C-4 zone became the basis for the proposed building pattern, with the heights adjusted for community wind standards and view corridor protection. (see below). (See revised page V-20) ■ The design guideline relating to promenades and US 101 for building/shoreline/lagoon relationships was amended to indicate that proposed guideline is not a requirement but a suggestion to be modified by the community wind standard, FAA requirements and with allowances in the zoning for a conditional use permit for unusual lot configurations (See revised page V-22) ■ Design guidelines for landscaping were amended to indicate proposed maximum are guidelines not directives and need to be consistent with allowances in zoning for a conditional use permit for unusual circumstances or beneficial trade offs. (See revised page V-23) ■ Design guidelines for building design were amended to indicate that the proposed guidelines are not requirements but standards to guide and can be modified as reflected in the zoning to provide for a conditional use permit when unusual circumstances exist; these include requirements for arrangement for development on the state lands parcel and variation of heights of buildings adjacent to the lagoons. A requirement for complying with community wind standards which could over-ride other height regulations and guidelines was also added. (See revised page V-25). Anza Point(divided into two Zoning Districts Anza Point North(APN) and Anza Point South (APS) ■ Because two zoning districts were created to address the very different characteristics of the subareas with in the Anza Point area, the land use text needs to be edited. The southern area along Beach and Lang Roads is called out on revised page III-9, and clarified that its current light industrial and warehouse use is expected to remain and expand with some recreation serving retail uses. ■ The land use definition of the area to the north was amended to include office complex uses which encompass research and development such as biotech as well as visitor oriented uses. (See revised page III-10) ■ The Anza Point Subarea design description was amended to create a distinction between the Anza Point North and South areas. (See revised page V-5) ■ Added a title to the diagram for this subarea, changed the typical height designation from stories to feet because of the confused message conveyed by the term 'story' as it relates to height. (See revised page V-26) ■ The introduction was amended to note the importance of the community wind standards in this subarea and that the wind standards would over ride other height and mass standards in both the plan and zoning. (See revised page V-26) 4 ACTION ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN IN ORDER TO COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SPECIFIC PLAN. August 21,2006 ■ Added a title to the diagram on V-27 clarifying that the diagram is an example and replacing the reference to stories with a reference to feet in height to better illustrate the gradation in height in the future development that the community wind standards may require. (See revised page V-27) ■ Design guidelines for landscaping are amended to reflect that the percentage of landscaping in parking lots, in the front setback and along the shoreline setback may be adjusted for unique circumstances based on receipt of a conditional use permit. (See revised page V-30) ■ Building design guidelines are amended to note that heights in the plan are 'suggested' based on the application of the community wind standards and zoning. (See revised page V-33) Staff Comments: No changes are proposed to the Goals and Policy statement in the Bayfront Specific Plan, to the background data or to the community standards established based on that data; or to the implementation program included in the plan. For this reason the entire plan document is not provided for your review at this time. This amendment is focused on the changes to the land use and design guideline sections identified as the Planning Commission and Council worked through the zoning for each of the subareas. Because of the word processing technology used, it is possible to review the proposed changes vs. the adopted wording on each page of Chapters III and V. For that reason no errata sheet has been prepared rather the changes are shown within the originally adopted text. Diagrams have been changed by hand, and will be redrafted in final form when the amendment process is compete. The Commission's action would be to approve the changes as noted on the pages of these chapters. ATTACHMENTS: Map of the Bayshore Specific Planning Area with Subareas Noted Proposed Amendments June 2006, Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan adopted April 2004. Planning Commission Minutes, July 10, 2006 (Action) Planning Commission Minutes, June 26, 2006 (Study) Notice of Public Hearing, published August 11, 2006 Resolution (Proposed Amendments June 2006, Bayfront Specific Plan adopted April 2004 are attached to the original resolution.) 5 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN OF THE BURLINGAME GENERAL PLAN TO COMPLETE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PLANNING PROCESS FOR THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN AREA RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City has undertaken a four-year planning process to update its Bavfront Specific Plan; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame held a properly noticed public hearing on July 10,2006, at which time the Commission reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented to the Commission on this application; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission recommended approval of this general plan amendment; and WHEREAS,the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on August 21,2006,at which time the Council received and considered the staff report and attached documentation, and all other written materials and testimony that any interested person wished to present prior to the close of the public hearing; and WHEREAS,the City Council has received and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-531P for the Update to the Bayfront Specific Plan and there have been no changes in the Specific Plan Area that would require changes to the Negative Declaration and this amendment is part of the mitigation and implementation program directed in the Declaration; and WHEREAS,the changes contained in the amendment are technical in nature and ensure that the Specific Plan will be readable, workable, and thorough; and WHEREAS,this General Plan Amendment is consistent with the remainder of the Burlingame General Plan and is in the public interest; and; NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED: 1. The general plan amendment to make technical changes to the Bayfront Specific Plan to ensure consistency between the General Plan and the implementation measures is approved. MAYOR 1 I, DORIS M. MORTENSEN, 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 ,2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK U:\FILES\RESO\bayfrontplanamnd.res.wpd 2 Figure III-1 - General Land Use Map BURLINGAME BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN horeline General Land Use Map �s See Figures III-2 through III-6 for Subarea Land Uses Legend int Inner Bayshore Office and Warehouse Shoreline ® Waterfront Commercial Anza Extension Public Facilities- Park ® Anza Area Waterfront Commercial Anza Point Waterfront Commercial City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan III-1 General Plan S i� ry �'TWz ry�Y ,.W .a, �' U � ✓ .. .x. �,� ��� ����� .��..� � fit. � ��, �� � °� ¢4 yvr �ry � r^ Lo all �ry 47 - r 7 ° 4i W rou �:4 rt � y fi , ai a .' aY «,�, ya , t a'A ,- 9n.;. °,r�9 d.,,„ ,?�i p�a4;`• $ ,TsS as vaq a,u ¢ ei z t'l s r5 s a,'a h is�'aa3 sT ' # �,Y� s' *fru- � j � - vr•< _ d'.?5 h ,`, 73 .bbl=„� "u ;m"s;s .r�i^+9 t4�f� .S -,Ifi r ,. oist#�i 4.f� WJ #A f w"'�, �a r, r � i r k � rvi i� � � ., •�rr1 itir g i"�,�,'�'�' d"5 �! �a ��R�F'"` .0 2i tx �d "saw 4�r � �",l �i' .*�. �h,,� .�*�:"i ' ? � •(�"� r�i a. Burlineame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use III. LAND USE A. DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA The Bayfront Area of Burlingame which lies generally east of US 101 composes about one-half square mile of the three square miles of the City of Burlingame which are not covered by San Francisco Bay. The area is the only portion of Burlingame with frontage on San Francisco Bay. Because there is only one roadway connection in Burlingame between the westerly and easterly sides of US 101,over the years the Bayfront Area has developed almost independently from the built out residential-retail-light industrial centers of Burlingame tucked into the area west of US 101 at the bottom of the coastal range. Except for the middle portion of the Bayfront Planning Area(site of the lower deck of Bayside Park and the city's waste water treatment plan)and the area between Bayshore Highway and US 101,the Bayfront Area is bay fill which was mostly completed by 1970. The Bayfront Planning Area is bounded on the sides by San Francisco Bay and US 101;and extends from El Portal Creek and Millbrae's City Line at the north to unincorporated San Mateo County's Coyote Point Park at the South. Easton Creek and Sanchez Creek,which drain the coastal ridge and the westerly part of the City,cross the area on their way to San Francisco Bay. The Anza Area,the most recently filled portion of the planning area,is bounded on three sides by water. Burlingame Lagoon links Sanchez Creek and its wetland and Sanchez Channel to San Francisco Bay forming an estuary on two sides of the Anza subarea. Figure HI-1—General Land Use Map BURLINGAME BAYFRONT SPECIFIC AREA PLAN roe General Land Use Map ` horeline See Figures 111-2 through III-6 �q of for Subarea Land Uses San rranduo Bay Legend y • - — Iwai ;' Aointi „®, lrina BByehere A �� -- 2 T oKice and Waetrwse ^:t Stareiire `r ¢ � a weternont commerdal r4^•r 5" 5 4.�� fY`M�A` $'.-' �aY\�$ IMAra.Extension ��^.a3•:_S�',P �^,. .-.3! QJ --""t. .o,sin. -.:a��- Pubk Favi Nes-Pak Anna Area Waterfront C-Cial Nva Point Waterfront Conur"em City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan III-1 General Plan Burlineame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use Despite its common location on the east side of US 101 adjacent to San Francisco Bay,the Bayfront Area has developed as a number distinctive enclaves or Subareas. It is the purpose of the Specific Plan to build on the individual strengths of these Subareas and to unite them to form the Bayfront Area with a shared sense of being a part of the Burlingame community,connecting our community to San Francisco Bay and to the open space and recreational opportunity that the bayfront location provides.(See Land Use Map,Figure III-1) 1. Inner Bayshore Area The Inner Bayshore Area lies between US 101 and Bayshore Highway and extends from El Portal Creek and the Millbrae City Line to the intersection of Bayshore Highway and Airport Blvd. Land uses in this area should focus on light industrial,office,and manufacturinHotels should beDeleted:stroller,scattered employee hunted to the Bayshore overlay area. Along Bayshore Highway,hotels,offices,including research serving,retail uses and development with associated laboratories.destination restaurants and smaller,scattered -- (Deleted:and - -- ---------- ----------- employee serving,retail uses should be encouraged to support the visitor attracting and serving uses across the street on properties which front on San Francisco Bay. These properties should be subject to development and siting standards similar to those in the Shoreline Area in order to create a uniform"tree city"sense along Bayshore Highway. Appropriate land uses and densities for the Inner Bayshore Area are: INNER BAYSHORE -Land Uses and Densities Hotels 65 rooms per acre,in the Bayshore Overlay Area -------- Formatted:Right,Right: 0.2- 0111v Offices 0.9 FAR ------ Fonnatted:Right Right: 0.2' Restaurants 0.15 FAR-free standing on Bayshore Highway ------ Formatted:Right,Right: 0.r Retail less than 5,000 SF located in existing buildings, ---- Formatted:Right,Right: 0.2" or freestanding in the Bayshore Overlav Area Warehouse 0.5 FAR ------- Formatted:Right,Right: 0.2° Light 0.5 FAR iFormatted:Right Right: 0.2" Industrial/Manufacturinp, City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan III-2 General Plan Burlineame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Inner Bayshore Area Land Use Map- �� Office and Warehouse Offices 0. FAR Warehouse 0.55 FAR (� Light Industrial/ 'SAO Manufacturiacturing 0.5 FAR 7 Properties with jiiiiiiiiiiiiiii Bayshore Highway Frontage Restaurants 0.15 FAR Hotels 65 rms/acre Retail <5000 5F 4- Figure III-2 Inner Bayshore Area Land Use Map Pedestrian access through the Inner Bayshore Area and to the Shoreline Area is important and should be provided by well maintained public sidewalks with streetscape oriented landscaping. Development should be oriented to the sidewalk. Local serving streets should act as view corridors across Bayshore Highway to San Francisco Bay. Pedestrians should be encouraged to cross Bayshore Highway at the established view corridors. Landscaping along US 101 should screen pedestrians from the presence of the freeway but provide openings so signage and businesses in the Inner Bayfront Area retain some visibility from the freeway. With regional access at each end,arterial access to the Inner Bayshore Area is provided by Bayshore Highway. This arterial provides the seam between the visitor-oriented Shoreline Area and the Inner Bayshore Area. Seven local streets provide access from Bayshore Highway to the properties within the area. Six of the seven local serving streets in this area are connected by a collector roadway parallel to US 101 which allows convenient internal circulation for large trucks. The freeway access to this area is at the Broadway/US 101 Interchange near Airport Blvd.and the Millbrae Avenue/US 101 Interchange north of the Burlingame City Limits. Development along the Bayshore Highway frontage should reinforce the interface between visitor oriented and support uses in the Shoreline Area. This should be accomplished by encouraging visitor serving and office uses on the properties in the Inner Bayshore Area which front on Bayshore Highway.Along with the similarity in land uses should be a consistency of building City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan IR-3 General Plan Burlinsame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use siting.height and mass.and streetscape character for the Inner Bayshore side of Bayshore Highway that fronts the Shoreline Area. Together these street frontages should support Burlingame's"Tree City"image. A number of local serving streets intersect Bayshore Highway. Where possible at these intersections,view corridors toward San Francisco Bay should be preserved so that people using the Inner Bayfront Area have a stronger sense of the presence of San Francisco Bay. Because there is no direct water frontage,no part of the Bay Trail extends into the Inner Bay Area. Pedestrian and bicycle access linldng to the Bay Trail should be provided throughout the Inner Bayfront Area. A bicycle-pedestrian interconnect should be included on or adjacent to the Broadway Interchange to provide employees and visitors access to the shopping and commercial opportunities on the west side of US 101,as well as to the regional transportation available on the west side of US 101. Clear,safe access across Bayshore Highway should also be provided at focal points in the Shoreline Area to give employees in the Inner Bayfront Area access to the Bay Trail, both to encourage pedestrian access to employee services provided in the Shoreline Area as well as access to active and passive recreational opportunities throughout the Bayfront Planning Area. Any new development and additions within this area shall comply with Design Guidelines as outlined in Chapter V,with the primary goal of creating a mixed district of industry and business with pedestrian-oriented buildings and streetscape and focused nodes of activity. 2. Shoreline Area The Shoreline Subarea is long and narrow lying between Bayshore Highway and San Francisco Bay. The southerly tip of this area includes the developed parcel across the intersection of Bayshore Highway and Airport Boulevard located at the edge of the Anza Extension. The land in the entire area consists of old bay fill. City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan 111-4 General Plan Burlineame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan vShoreline Area Land Use Map- �C�Ty7 Waterfront Commercial ( / ® Hotels Offices 0.0.r9 FAR Restaurants Q15FAR Sties with Characteristics for Potential Retail Node- 0.5 FAR Open Space Figure III-3-Shoreline Area Land Use Map Principally land uses in this area should take advantage of the bay shoreline and focus on visitor- oriented development. The designated land uses for this area are hotel,office,and destination restaurants.,To accomplish the visual connection to the bav fi-om the inland Inner Bayshore Deleted:with a retail node to be located - - : -- Subarea.retail nodes are located at e Shoreline subarea. Visitoror and employee m a visually prominent location serving retail uses,including commercial recreation,should be focused to the extent possible within these nodes. Appropriate land use densities are: Shoreline Area Land Uses and Densities Hotels 65 rooms to the acre Offices 0.9 FAR Restaurants 0.15 FAR Retail 0.5 FAR The Bay Trail is vital to the character and success of the area's visitor and local employee serving role. The Bay Trail serves as an attractive pedestrian link between service uses and a recreational outlet for area employees and visitors alike. As new development occurs,private property owners should be encouraged to complete the gaps in the trail. Conservation and protection of the bay's adjacent environment and eco-systems,particularly at the Burlingame Wildlife Sanctuary,is important to the unique recreational experience and character of this area. Development in the Shoreline Area should respect the role of bay access. Development should be sited to enhance view opportunities of San Francisco Bay at the ends of the perpendicular land- City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan III-5 General Plan Burlineame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use locked streets serving the Inner Bayshore Area. View corridors toward San Francisco Bay should be provided where possible for future development fronting on the opposite side of Bayshore Highway. sually_prominent sites identified as retail nodes should be developed as focalpoints of Deleted:one --------------------------- -- -- — commercial and entertainment activity for the Shoreline and Inner Bayfront Areas. These focal--------- -- Deleted:v points should serve as a destination for visitors,provide visitor and employee oriented retail Deleted; services and provide some indoor recreational alternative. Deleted:-nis The Shoreline Area is accessed at the south end from the Broadway/US 101 Interchange and at the north end by the Millbrae Avenue/US 101 Interchange in the City of Millbrae. Arterial access is provided by Bayshore Highway,which runs parallel to US 101 and San Francisco Bay and connects the two interchanges. Most properties access directly on to Bayshore Highway. Development along both sides of Bayshore Highway needs to create a character consistent with Burlingame's image as a"tree city". A gateway entrance should be established at each end of Bayshore Highway. Since the Broadway Interchange is expected to be replaced within the next 10 years,gateway development should be phased. Development projects in this area shall comply with Design Guidelines as outlined in Chapter V. The primary goals of these Design Guidelines are to better relate development to,both the street and to the Bay,to provide view corridors from and across Bayshore Highway and to create gateways at key locations. 3. Anza Extension Area The Anza Extension Area is located just east of the Broadway Interchange where Bayshore Highway ends and becomes Airport Boulevard. The area contains Bayside Park and the city's waste water treatment plant. Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan C° unityPwk Anza Extension Area PubkFaciHties- Land Use Map- Wastewater Treatment Fadity Public Facilities (� i Figure 1H4—Anza Extension Area Land Use Map City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan III-6 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use Bayside Park was developed in two phases.The lower deck on the west end provides two full baseball diamonds,a soccer field which can be converted to practice baseball fields and a parking lot. Bayside Park's lower area(deck)is connected to its upper area(deck)by a segment of the Bay Trail. The upper deck of Bayside Park at the east end of the area includes a golf driving range,a group of putting greens,a soccer field,a tot lot,an open field for informal group activities and a large parking lot which serves all these uses.Bayside Park also includes a Dog Run Park with limited parking. The lower deck of Bayside Park and the Dog Run are accessed from Airport Boulevard. The upper deck of the park is accessed from Anza Boulevard. Also accessed from Airport Boulevard,and situated between the upper and lower decks of Bayside Park,is the city's wastewater treatment plant. On the north side of Airport Boulevard is a containment barrier,built to protect the bay waters from infiltration of water which may have percolated through the sanitary landfill on which the upper deck of Bayside Park is built. The top of the containment barrier is developed with a segment of the Bay Trail and trail access parking. On the south side of the upper and lower decks of Bayside Park is the outlet of Sanchez Creek. Sanchez Creek carries water through developed areas of Burlingame under US 101 to San Francisco Bay. On the east side of US 101 the creek has created a wetland. Water drains through the wetland into Burlingame Lagoon and then through Sanchez Channel into the Bay. Sanchez wetland is protected and human intrusion is discouraged. A segment of the Bay Trail on the upper deck includes wetland observation points and information kiosks for the public. The Bay Trail continues from the Upper Deck,both under and across the Anza-USI01 access bridge to the west side of Burlingame Lagoon where there is a pocket park for picnicking and a wall,built at the tum of the century by Sarah Winchester,now used for fishing. This public access area next to US 101 is west of the protected wetland,and the design discourages pedestrians and domestic animals from entering the wetland area. Arterial roadway access is provided to the Anza Extension by Bayshore Highway,Airport Boulevard and Anza Boulevard. The entire Anza Extension is in public ownership and fully developed. Bicycle and pedestrian access from the west side of U.S. 101 will be provided with a separated bridge near Broadway when the auxiliary lane project on U.S. 101 is completed. A second bicycle access should also be provided linking the west side of the freeway in the vicinity of Morrell Road directly to Bayside Park. This will provide residents of this area of Burlingame to have better,safer access to Bayside Park. The Anza Extension provides a valuable center for community recreation activities. Because the Upper Deck of the park was built on the city's closed sanitary landfill,major buildings cannot be built in this area. Also because of the protected wetlands,the land area of Bayside Park cannot be expanded in the future. Development projects in this area shall comply with Design Guidelines as outlined in Chapter V, with the primary goal of enhancing the quality of the community oriented open space facilities and services while connecting them to the larger open space network with trails and pedestrian paths. 4. Anza Area Because the physical orientation of Burlingame's shoreline shifts,the Anza Area extends to the east of the Anza Extension. The Anza Area lies between San Francisco Bay to the north and Burlingame Lagoon to the south. Sanchez Channel marks the easterly most boundary of the area and the upper deck of Bayside Park marks the westerly most boundary. The Anza Area was filled in the 1960's;so the development in this area is recent. As a result of legal issues at the time the City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan III-7 General Plan Burlin¢ame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use area was filled,the parcels fronting on San Francisco Bay in this area are owned by the State of California and developed as leaseholds.Located at the center of the Anza Area,dredged in the 1960's on State owned property,is the Anza Lagoon which has a narrow opening into San Francisco Bay.The shallow Anza Lagoon creates an important,centrally placed extension of San Francisco Bay into this area. The Anza Lagoon has become a coastal,water-oriented amenity for development,the Bay Trail and passive recreation in the Anza Area. The Anza Area has been developed as a visitor-oriented destination with bay and airport oriented hotels,destination restaurants and offices which support the local and visitor economy. This is the type of development which should continue in this area.There are several vacant and underused parcels suitable for development in the Anza Area,one of which is owned by the State of California and is designated for hotels,destination restaurants and commercial recreation uses. The proposed land uses and densities for the area are: Anza Area-Land Uses and Densities Hotel,including extended stay 85 rooms/acre Offices 0.6 FAR Destination Restaurants 0.15 FAR Selected Interim Uses Based on trip generation impacts Burlingame Bayfront Hotet;lndudky Extended Stay BS roanspa we Specific Plan ODeestYaUonRgmtlarAs 0.15FFAAR Selected lntedm Uses Density Based on Anza Area Trip Gateradm Land Use Map- Noe:tclal BSroom�P<,ao< Waterfront Commercial DesOnadonReswa is CoERecreation f� I i U.S.101 I*� fflfi Figure III-5-Anza Area Land Use Map City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan III-8 General Plan Burlineame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use Roadway access to the Anza Area is provided by Airport Boulevard,a two to four-lane arterial street,and Anza Boulevard which provides a north bound on-and-off access to US 101. Two local serving streets,extending from Airport Boulevard,provide access to properties fronting San Francisco Bay. The entire Anza Area is highly visible from US 101.Access from westbound Airport Boulevard narrows as it passes into the Anza Extension Area. Access from the east is affected by the narrowing of the bridge over Sanchez Channel. In the early 1980's building siting and development guidelines were adopted for the Anza Area. These guidelines emphasize taller structures in order to provide surrounding groomed open spaces and to protect open views of San Francisco Bay from the public street. These guidelines worked with the Bay Conservation and Development Commission(BCDC)guidelines to require private developers to provide segments of the Bay Trail as a part of their developments. Over the years these standards have caused a development pattern which balances open space,public access,Bay Trail access,preservation of view corridors from the public street and has optimized the coastal location. These standards should continue to guide development in the Anza Area. Pedestrian and recreational access is a major land use theme in the Anza Area surrounded by San Francisco Bay and estuaries. Private developers in this area should be required to provide and maintain the Bay Trail along all water frontages in this area. Project design should continue to encourage integration and strategic placement of passive and,where appropriate,active recreation areas accessible to the public. Access should include some designated on-site parking for Bay Trail users. Development projects in this area shall comply with Design Guidelines as outlined in Chapter V, with the primary goal of continuing to build on the existing character and design of the area and enhance and visually connect the Anza and Burlingame Lagoons and San Francisco Bay. 5. Anza Point Located at the easterly most end of the Bayfront Planning Area,Anza Point is the gateway to the Burlingame bayfront. Bounded by Sanchez Channel on the west and San Francisco Bay on the north and east,US 101 completes the southern edge. In this area Airport Boulevard turns east next to US 101 at the City boundary and enters unincorporated San Mateo County and San Mateo County's Coyote Point Park Recreation Area. The portion of San Francisco Bay immediately outboard of the Anza Point Area is used by sail boarders. This area is also used for water-oriented recreation facilities and provides connection to land bound recreational and educational activities at Coyote Point Park. A portion of the Anza Point Area is developed,and the remainder is vacant. There is one recreation area,Fisherman's Park,a San Mateo County facility,located in the area. The developed portion of the Anza Point Area facing US 101 was built on the first fill laid in the 1960's and is located in the area of Lang and Beach Roads at the south end of Anza Point Area. The City boundary crosses the Lang Road/Airport Boulevard intersection,and creates the potential for a gateway entrance into the Bayfront Planning Area. The properties along Lang Road face US 101 and are fully developed in one and two story warehouse type buildings. On Beach Road there is one vacant property,but generally the type of I development is the same as on Lang Road. The predominant land use is warehouse/office with potential for light industrial/manufacturing uses such as product research and development and City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan III-9 General Plan Burlineame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use biotech. Because of the power tower structures which traverse the center of the block between Lang and Beach Roads on a PG and E easement,much of the area cannot be built on;however,in some circumstances the area under the power lines can be used for parking. The appropriate land uses and densities for this portion of the Anza Point Area are: Recreation-related Retail 5,000 SF or less Warehouse/Office 0.5 FAR Office 0.6 FAR Light Industrial/Manufacturing 0.5 FAR The remainder of the Anza Point Area to the North is not developed. This area offers a unique opportunity for Burlingame given its location adjacent to the Bay and Sanchez Channel,end the Deleted:With unusual development opportunity provided by the size of the two prominent underused sites in the area. Because of the lot sizes,this area is also attractive for emerging manufacturing research and development uses such as biotech;as well as the visitor oriented uses located on Burlingame's Bayfi-orit area. The appropriate uses for this northern part of the Anza Point Area include visitor- oriented and employee attracting land uses at densities such as: Hotel,including extended stay 85 rooms/acre Office 0.6 FAR Restaurants,destination 0.15 FAR Commercial Recreation 0.5 FAR 11 lanufacturine/Research and Development 0.5 FAR Burlingame Bayfront „I j Specific Plan Anza Point Area Land Use Plan- i f' ' iii EE I i Waterfront Commercial •1P I I! {i !_ grRes Ob FAR ' i; Iis I, Indu6gEmMed Shy 85 rmYxre C0MffWc lR"~ UFAR MFAR mufxMYg�R I I OlRces Ob FAR II it j iij ii ��li!i 4' M-axt—lg as FAR R(oeatbR bW kW SAO SF L- 75 MhenroNS Pxk t Sall Francisco flay N U.S.1 Ot Figure III-6-Anza Point Land Use Map City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan III-10 General Plan Burlineame Bayfront Specific Plan Land Use Airport Boulevard,a two-lane arterial,provides the major access to and through the Anza Point Area. Built as a haul road when the area was filled,Airport Boulevard makes two 90 degree turns, one at the entrance to the City and one between the two vacant parcels to connect to the three lane bridge over Sanchez Creek. Future development of the area requires that Airport Boulevard be realigned at these two"corners"to improve the safety and operation of the roadway. In addition,a new local street system may be created to serve new development. In designing the new street alignments,emphasis should be given to a design which keeps the roadways away from the Bay edges. This is less important for Sanchez Channel. Because it is the major arterial for more than half the development in the Bayfront Planning Area and the easterly connection to US 101 (at Peninsula Avenue in San Mateo County),Airport Boulevard in the Anza Point Area should be improved to four lanes in the places where it is now two or three lanes. When the auxiliary lanes are added to US101 between Third Avenue in San Mateo and the Anza Boulevard north bound on-off ramp,the Peninsula Avenue north bound off-on ramps will be relocated on to Airport Boulevard south of the City boundary. This off ramp should be properly sized to handle the projected volume of traffic from the Bayfront Planning Area. Water is a dominant feature of the Anza Point Area. For this reason the Bay Trail is important to pedestrian circulation as well as to local recreation. Presently the Bay Trail crosses Sanchez Creek over a pedestrian/bicycle bridge at the junction of Burlingame Lagoon and the south end of Sanchez Channel;from this point the trail should follow the east side of Sanchez Channel across Airport Boulevard to the San Francisco Bay edge at the north end of the Anza Area and along the north edge to Fisherman's Park. At the south end of Fisherman's Park the Bay Trail should connect to the existing trail built by the City along the top of the seawall which extends south to the City line. At the City line the Bay Trail should connect to the trail system in Coyote Point Park. With new development,sidewalks should be provided along all street frontages;and bicycle lanes should be included in the future design of Airport Boulevard. Because of its exposed and windy location and the wind dependent recreation use of the adjacent bay waters at Coyote Point Park,future development in the Anza Point Area should be designed in lower buildings,clustered around interior,protected open spaces available to the public and suitable for passive uses. These interior open spaces should be arranged to provide visual access and physical connection to the Bay Trail system and its varied recreational opportunities. Less concern should be placed on protecting view corridors from the street to the bay in this area than in the adjacent Anza Area. Development projects in this area shall comply with Design Guidelines as outlined in Chapter V, with the primary goal of creating a structure of streets,walks and open space to organize a mixed- use district of development that takes advantage of its proximity to Sanchez Channel and San Francisco Bay frontage. Refer to the Design Guidelines for the height restrictions for different portions of the Anza Point Area. City of Burlingame Bayfront Plan III-11 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines V Bayfront Design Guidelines Traditionally thought of as a light industrial and visitor-orientated hotel district, the Burlingame Bayfront Planning Area includes all of the area in Burlingame that is located east of U.S. 101 to the San Francisco Bay, from the northern border shared with the City of Millbrae at El Portal Creek south to the Coyote Point County Park, a San Mateo County recreational area. The Burlingame Bayfront Design Guidelines were created to assure that development is in har- mony with the natural character and qualities of the area while promoting the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The encompassing objective is to establish criteria for man- aging change within the Bayfront Area. The Design Guidelines aim to: • Provide developers with clear direction about what type and quality of development the city desires, and expects. • Provide a set of guiding design principles for public officials, developers, designers and the community to use which are sensitive to the conditions in each subarea of the planning area. • Give the City of Burlingame tools to evaluate and direct project design. • Make sure design takes into account the San Francisco Bay setting and the "tree city" image of Burlingame. For Burlingame, there is an opportunity to create a dynamic Bayfront district that serves the diverse needs of the community while protecting and enhancing the natural features of the San Francisco Bay. The challenge for this kind of transformation is to develop a new character for light industrial, office, and hotel uses. This character should create an attractive environment for pedestrians, recreational users, motorists and transit riders while fitting in with the existing development and the shoreline of the San Francisco Bay. In order to realize the overall vision and goals for the Bayfront Planning Area, the Design Guidelines encourage property owners, merehants business owners, public officials and the community to: • Encourage a"fabric" or cluster-based development pattern as opposed to an "object"based pattern. • Create an overall identity that is specific to the Bayfront Planning Area. • Support the pattern of diverse architectural styles that characterize the City of Burlingame. • Respect and promote pedestrian activity through site planning and building design. • Encourage uses to be clustered in order to develop a stronger sense of place. • Encourage design that complements the streetscape and attracts additional private invest- ment. • Encourage a healthy and vibrant market for new development projects, both large and small. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-3 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Planning Area The Bayfront Area consists of five separate sub-areas. There are some design considera- tions that are common to all properties throughout the Bayfront Planning Area such as the relationship of buildings to streets, landscaping and treatment of parking areas. However, there are also design issues that are particular to the different Subareas. Each of the following districts displays unique char- acteristics that together help to form an iden- tity for the Bayfront Area: Inner Bayshore Area The Inner Bayshore Area displays an indus- t,` trial district character where parcels and small and low-scale buildings g are relatively qd typically covering large portions of each site with comparitivly less space between build- q ox�,as! ings. The character of the district feels some- what more urban than other areas directly d ajacent to the Ba .1 Y• .. Goal:To create a mixed district of industry and 4 <` business with pedestrian-oriented buildings and streetscape and i ' 1M `� � � \- "✓�` Bayshore HighwaX,-4is rong connection with the Shoreline Area.b,y encouraging similar uses with inner Bayshore Areaisimilar design emphasis. Shoreline Area In the Shoreline Area, buildings are typically © �' ►, distinct objects, often large in scale, with p wide spaces between to preserve bay views and provide large parking areas. The overall character of the area is that of a hotel district supported by visitor-oriented and office uses �.' and the Bay Trail provides an important con- ` nective element. The area is characterized by �tvp'V a narrow band of land between San Francisco Bay and the Bayshore Highway. \� Goal: To better relate development to both the ` street and to the Bay,to provide view corridors �N , ..- from and across Bayshore Highway,ai&create vis- Shoreline Area itor and employee serving r t i clusters gr nodes. and create gateways at key locations. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-4 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Anza Extension The Anza Extension is dominated by open space and public facilities including playing fields, passive open space and public trails, with no substantial buildings. a� Goal:To enhance the quality of the community ori- ented open space facilities and services while con- \ � necting them to the larger open space network with X, `� r trails and pedestrian paths. i► -�,�Y.._ �. Anza Area Q�c��" _.:1 - ti._«_� ,-�.,t►�_� The Anza Area exhibits the character of aQ suburban business park and hotel district. In /� � this area, buildings are typically distinct Anza Extension objects, often large in scale,with wide for- mally landscaped spaces between each other. Open spaces preserve bay views and allow large areas for parking. The Anza Area also contains two large salt water lagoons which are important natural resources. �.. .,. �„ «� Goal: Continue to build on the existing character and design of the area and enhance and Asually "`°°N � eonnect establish visual connections al the Anza and Burlingame Lagoons and to San Francisco Bay. V., _ a Anza Point ; � •��., ,,,� The Anza Point Area is partially developed, -" '` �""��"' with significant undeveloped area. The areas % C �N adjacent to Beach Road and Lan Road J g (Anna Point South) exhibit an industrial park Anza Area character similar to the Inner Bayshore Area, where parcels and buildings are relatively .....:.: small and low-scale, typically covering large portions of each site with comparatively less „; space between buildings. The area north of Beach Road Anza Point North), is vacant. Fisherman's Park, a County facility is located at the northeast corner of the area. The Anza ' Point North Area is surrounded on three sides • by water which creates a natural, open wind- swept character to the district. Goal:To create a structure of streets,walks and _ open space to organize a mixed-use district of A1i development that takes advantage of its proximity to Sanchez Channel and San Francisco Bay _. frontage. Anza Point CITY OF BURLINGAME Bayfront SAP V-5 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines f dy 4 ^> 3 i v lekkl .� Inner Bayshore Area :.: 4z " J it Features " w ; ` ; .. •� I.apwNFMCwwm• k �' '/v'•A� V ��.�ei hN 3Seee,If.6i6.HMe ( i(' '.. li.'�# »�rra•waiwOn .`^e0. ^+.'� � M� .q".r� F Inner Bayshore Area Building/ Street Relationships Goal: To create a mixed district of industry and business with pedestrian-oriented To create a consistent and attractive buildings and streetscape and feeused streetscape, buildings should be located rela- on Bayshore Highwa- a tively close to the street, with attractively strong connection to the Shoreline Area. by landscape front setbacks. In addition: Encouraging similar uses with similar design emphasis. Building entries should face the street,and should be easily identifiable r .M Businesses at important intersections should locate their L. entrances at the building comer. 00 , Curb cuts should be limited to ease pedestrian/vehicular 0 D s.u.a conflict. tl o o t Businesses fronting on Bayshore Highway should have an attractive 15'landscaped front setback and a 8'-10' ® wide sidewalk. P.__�• ® � H Businesses fronting on all other streets should have an *_• attractive 10'landscaped front setback and at least a 6' sidewalk. r • Seating areas should be encouraged within the front set- back. Front setbacks should be consistent and attractive. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-6 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Bayshore Highway Interface t•.awa+�w�•a To create a consistent design concept on both sides of Bayshore Highway, building, land- scaping, signage and streetscape standards `' > should be the same for properties in both the , Shoreline and Inner Bayshore areas that front d � r on Bayshore Highway. Additionally: *"� t Owl noo • An average of 15'landscaped front setback is appropri- ate 4y • Lighting should emphasize pedestrian users,not build- ing facades. • 8'-10'Sidewalk width is appropriate. Attractive parking areas should be located to the rear and sides of the building to encourage a pedestrian-friendly street • There should be a consistent pattern of street trees and edge. street lights. Plans wkh • Bayshore Highway should receive priority in and PW*1ns L Saattnt L&URdIM at ta.a 25•TAA ro streetscaP a am. P � i t Parking `i Attractive, landscaped parking areas should _`- be located to the rear and sides of the build- '....,. '-Wat ing to encourage a pedestrian-friendly street '. 000 ,Setbatit edge. Additionally: • Parking is not allowed in front setback. at tmt SO%&MdhV F—tap • Parking should be screened with landscaping and/or low screen walls Buildings should be located relatively close to the street, with • Truck loading areas should be located to the rear of attractively landscape front setbacks. buildings,and screened from view. • Parking entry drives should be encouraged to be shared Buffer with adjacent businesses to minimize multiple curb- planting cuts. Low • Parking areas should be broken up with landscape fin- Wall gers with no more than 6-7 spaces between the fingers. • Encourage pervious surfaces in all site paving,particu- larly pedestrian traffic areas such as entry courtyards etc. ,, Green Fingers" Landscaping / Street Trees and Pacing Details LAMA consistent, formal landscaping treatment wall should be developed throughout the Inner Bayshore Area. Additionally: A consistent,formal landscaping treatment should be devel- oped. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-7 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines • Landscaping should protect and enhance view corridors. • Landscaping can be used as a visual buffer to shield parking and loading areas. Landscape features should not just be visually appeal- ing,but also should function as open space amenities to be used and enjoyed. - �' Landscaping should enhance the site,but not obscure r _ 40e J building signage and entrance areas. • Building signage should be incorporated into the land- ___ scaping. • 15%of the site area shall be landscaped,with 5%of the parking area and 60%of the front setback devoted to View Corridors can be framed by buildings,and may termi- landscaping. nate with a landmark building. • Front setback landscaping may include hardscape fea- tures such as walkways and seating areas. • Parking isn't allowed in front setbacks,only driveways and accent paving. View Corridors View Corridors are defined as important views from, between or towards buildings and natural features. View Corridors should be maintained and enhanced. Additionally: • Views may be framed by buildings. View corridors may terminate with a landmark building. Signage should be attractive and eye-catching. Pedestrian plazas should be incorporated in the design of view corridors. • Any new development should respect existing view cor- ridors. • View corridors at the ends of streets shall tie into visual openings to the bay across Bayshore Highway. Signage Visible, attractive signage should be devel- oped throughout the Inner Bayshore Area. Additionally: • Signs should be designed as an integral part of the building and should not cover or obscure architectural Attractive signage directories are encouraged to help provide elements. wayfinding in the District. Projecting signs should be attractive and eye-catching. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-8 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines • Projecting signs attached to a building can be used as a secondary sign for use as a pedestrian-scaled sign. Structural supports should be hidden or designed to be a decorative element. eunUNCAME • Monument and wall signs should feature individually formed lettering as opposed to box signs. - Ex6ft _ \= • Monument signs should be low-profile,with a maxi- mum height of 4'. • Monument signs should have architectural features con- sistent with the building,and be integrated into the site landscaping. MILLBRAE • Attractive signage directories should be encouraged to help provide wayfinding within the Inner Bayshore District. A gateway feature on Bayshore Highway at the Burlingame/ Millbrae bonier should be a landscape treatment with a monu- mental bridge design. Gateways Gateway features should be located on pri- vate land at prominent locations along the edges of the Inner Bayshore Area. o° oda dr Additionally: o °°°o • Any gateway feature on Bayshore Highway at the ` . Burlingame/Millbrae border should be a landscape s � ® s.•e-. treatment or pocket park with a monumental bridge o.1 ` ° apa design. Coordination with the City of Millbrae would T—.I" be required. Vl• Coad•- ® d �"sus.1oiEes. a • Gateways should maintain a consistent design motif throughout the Inner Bayshore Area. .�...�. .,__ Fom U.S.101 w" Consistent landscaping should be encouraged,but shouldn't U.S. 101 Frontage conceal businesses that rely on being seen by U.S. 101 traf- U.S. 101 Frontage treatment should be attrac- tive and consistent. Additionally: • A consistent pattern of landscaping should be encour- aged,which provides visibility for business facing U.S. 101. • Trees and shrubs should have gaps between them in order to allow for businesses visibility. • Trees should be located at the end of streets with lower bushes in between to allow building signage visibility. • Buildings should have attractive facades facing towards U.S. 101. • Tree types and landscape patterns along U.S. 101 should be consistent with the North Burlingame/ Rollins Road Specific Plan. CITY OF BURLINGAME Bayfront SAP V-9 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines • Signage located along U.S. 101 should be designed to encourage better wayfinding in the district. r, Street Design t The streetscape in the Inner Bayshore area J_ a M:t Ri., should be consistent, attractive and well- 1u lmi ,l , l,d.,. a� .• k t, defined. Additionally: .thack lane Ik9l tun I.ro setback lane • Streets should be designed for both the automobile and the pedestrian/bicyclist. • A variety of lighting features should be used to accom- Bayshore Highway is envisioned as a major street or"Grand modate both the driver and pedestrian. Lighting should Boulevard" also help increase visibility of businesses,but not flood their facades. • The design of the sidewalk and setback area should cre- ate an urban character and should feature amenities such as street trees with tree grates,planters,benches and removable cafe furniture. BuMng sage Sign Light Pedestrian Bayshore Highway should receive priority in any Lighting Per cigsandasd, streetscape program. The street should be designed as a Ren..ed Belling v l,,•nlar "Grand Boulevard"with landscaping,lighting and Ett Light Lighting sidewalks standards the same on both sides. Undea.Ca "Light Paade 2 , Landscaped medians and left turn lanes should be USIA" ; K � developed along Bayshore Highway. Exact locations \ should be determined by the Department of Public Works. B'1BSAYSHORE HIGHWAY Sidewalk Building Design A wide variety of lighting should be encouraged. Building facades should animate the street, providing visual interest to passers-by. S'iPPin= Additionally: � Uses to Rear l i Buildings should have entries directly accessible and visible from the street. Tower ElBR1ent � Entries should be marked by architectural features such as projecting overhangs,special lighting,awnings and t oFF�� Q signage that emphasize their importance. QQ Q Building facades should be designed to have a rhythm pti ® Q and pattern and should be articulated as an expression W Projecting of the building use. Overhang Windows at The use of reflective or dark-tinted glass should be dis- v;sasie street Level couraged,especially at ground level,because it creates Attractive an effect which lacks the visual interest of clear window Entry openings. Building design should animate the street,providing visual Building facades should be articulated with a building interest to passers-by. base,body and roof or parapet edge. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-10 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines • All visible sides of buildings should be designed with the same level of detail. • Exterior building materials and finishes should convey a sense of integrity,permanence and durability,rather than applique. Height.Maximum development density on my site shall be no more than 2.0 FAR. Note: The obiective in the plan of creatin similarity in use and design on both sides of Bayshore Highway can- not be achieved with a limitation on buildings of two stories or 30 feet. In the interior of the Planning Area. the existing developmentap ttern has been based on a 35-foot review line. The zoning for the interior of the Inner Bayshore area follows this existingatQ tern. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-11 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines J�/ �•���� � � „�'{�.��� �F �a• yap tI F /K l ShorelineArea Features MN FAAWMSAY 'u:av'u So..orp Nq.mm..n � .✓�� $ ,s S mac. �� y 1 n. Deve%pemeM should relate to view coif o/S Gob/ inland as w�l/as m�,e Shoreline Area Goal: To better relate development to both the street and to the Bay, to provide view corridors from and across Bayshore Highway and create gateways at key loca- tions. Building/Street Relationships ... To create a consistent and attractive streetscape, buildings should be located rela- tively close to the street, with attractively landscape front setbacks. In addition: Building entries should face the street,and should be easily identifiable. Buildings that are setback from the street should have attractively landscaped plazas leading to the main build- ing entry. • At least 50%of the parcel frontage should be non park- ing uses. Buildings should relate both to the street and to San Curb cuts should be limited to ease pedestrian/vehicular Francisco Bay conflict. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-12 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines • Businesses should have a consistent,attractivel0'-15' Parting tsssith tine sulleare at Leat:stories landscaped front setback from the public street. i s Seating areas should be encouraged within the front t- e Preaerntion back. I «view Corridor Businesses at important intersections should locate their 1 entrances at the building corner. ''<>s> i o•-i s• • Businesses fronting on Bayshore Highway should have Landscaped —,.. Setback an attractive 10'-15'landscaped front setback , - aieewaw t„ ti Bayshore Highway Interface To create a consistent design concept on both at Leant SOX Non-Parking Fronde. sides of Bayshore Highway,building, land- Buildings should be located relatively close to the street with scaping, signage and streetscape standards attractively landscaped front setbacks should be the same for properties that front on Bayshore Highway in both the Inner Bayshore and Shoreline areas Additionally: • An average 10-15'landscaped front setback is appropri- ate • Seating areas are encouraged in front setback • 8'-10'Sidewalk width is appropriate o F P • ' IID ] • Bayshore Highway should receive priority in any a streetscape program. FaaNL1enseo ,.� SAY . earnaK Building/ Shoreline Relationships To create a dynamic, usable shoreline area, Buildings should have well-designed plaza areas adjacent to buildings should have a consistent, attractive the Bay Trail. setbacks. In addition: • Continuous public access improvements should be installed and maintained with a consistent standard inLAGOON accordance with BCDC guidelines. w- -- • Open space should extend an average of 75 feet from Some Parking .. eAYTMML the edge of the ba to the building facade g Y g aea.r.ed For � `'> � PuWk • Where buildings taller than 40 feet are proposed,the °A-m minimum width of the open space should equal the height of the building. 'Green- Fin" • Pocket parks and seating areas should be located along the shoreline. Ladd To side • Vertical access,both visual and physically from the orsrrodirn shoreline to the Bayshore Highway should be provided in site planning wherever possible. Parking Attractive parking areas should be located to the sides of the building to encourage a pedestrian-friendly street edge. City of Burlingame BAYFRONT SAP V-13 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Attractive parking areas should be located to the sides of the building to encourage a pedestrian-friendly street edge. Additionally: • Some parking on each site should be reserved for public r ' o Bay Trail access. ,a Building entries should be located adjacent to parking ;. .. and sidewalk. Parking should be screened with landscaping and/or low d walls. Y • Truck loading areas should be located to the side of buildings,and screened from view from the street. View corridors to San Francisco Bay are important and should Parking entry drives should be shared with adjacent businesses to discourage multiple curb-cuts. be enhanced. View Corridors View Corridors to San Francisco Bay are important and should be maintained and enhanced. Additionally: - 1 View Corridors should be incorporated in the design of -r - pedestrian plazas. i Continuous public access improvements should be installed and maintained in accordance with BCDC -------- guidelines. • View Corridors may be framed by buildings. • View Corridors may also terminate with attractive View Corridors should be incorporated in the design of pedes- building elements such as tower features and entryways. trian plazas. Any new development should respect existing View Corridors. • View corridors into the Bay with pedestrian access Buffer should be created to line up with the streets in the Inner Planting Bayshore Area and to provide a visual connection Lou, across Bayshore Highway. Wall • To protect view corridors,buildings she4 should not obstruct more than 40-60%of the Bayshore Highway frontage,and shell•she ld cover no more than35%of the site. ^Green/ Fingers" Landscaping Street Trecs Low A consistent, attractive landscaping treatment and Paving Details Wall should be developed throughout the Shoreline Area. Additionally: A consistent,formal landscaping treatment should be devel- oped. Landscaping should protect and enhance view corridors. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-14 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines • Landscaping can be used as a visual buffer to shield parking and loading areas. • Landscape features should not just be visually appeal- ing,but also should function as open space amenities to be used and enjoyed. • Landscaping should enhance and not obscure building signage and entrance areas. jet • Building signage should be incorporated into the land- scaping. • 10%of the parking area ska4 should be landscaped. • 80%of the front setback s4&4 should be landscaped. • 40%of the shoreline setback 964 should be land- Monument signs should be well integrated into the design of scaped. the site. • Hardscape features such as walkways,seating areas and patios may be included in landscaped areas. O p�FAQy Signage Visible, attractive signage should be devel- oped throughout the Shoreline Area. Additionally: • Signs should be designed as an integral part of the building. and should not cover or obscure architectural elements. • Projecting signs should be attractive and eye-catching. • Projecting signs should be designed as an integral part of the building.and should not cover or obscure archi- Attractive gateway signage directories are encouraged to help tectural elements. provide wayfinding in the District. • Projecting and wall signs attached to a building can be used as a secondary sign for use as a pedestrian-scaled sign. Structural supports should be hidden or designed to be a decorative element. �N"ANCMCODAY • Monument and wall signs should feature individually formed lettering as opposed to box signs. • Monument signs should be low-profile,with a maxi- mum height of 4'. • Monument signs should have architectural features con- c"w„ sistent with the building,and be integrated into the site landscape. • Attractive signage directories are encouraged to help provide wayfinding in the Shoreline Area. o w Gateways A building gateway is appropriate on Bayshore Highway at the Broadway Interchange. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-15 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Gateway features should be located on pri- s.l�n.F.�. vate land at prominent locations along the Si`"U`"e Nd..tA&n edges of the Shoreline Area. Additionally: UgAtln6 P., Ck,St"..d. R« nd s.tww,f Whk•I Any gateway feature on Bayshore Highway at the E""°"`•` � `� n` Broadway Interchange should be a building treatment. and i• und_C_f Ugl.e 'ted• The gateway at Bayshore Highway at the Broadway Interchange could consist of wayfinding signage and ' \ landscape treatment until the interchange reconstruction occurs. 6AYSHOPE HIGHWAY Sidewalk A landscape treatment or pocket is appropriate iate as a gateway feature on Bayshore Highway at the Burlingame/Millbrae border. A wide variety of lighting should be encouraged. • Gateways should maintain a consistent design motif throughout the Shoreline Area and Ba ron Plannine Area. Street Design To create a consistent and attractive r, streetscape,buildings should be located rela- tively close to the street, with attractively i landscape front setbacks. In addition: �to-ts � a-to << w n•-tz td-t � to n•az l+'� s•-to to-tr se16ah lane lldttun setbxk•'� k The sidewalk area should be 8'-10'wide and include 6ne • uniform street furniture. • Seating areas should be encouraged within the front set- back. Bayshore Highway should be a "Grand Boulevard" Streets should be designed for both the automobile and the pedestrian/bicyclist. • A variety of lighting features should be used to accom- modate both the driver and pedestrian. Lighting should also help increase visibility of businesses,but not flood their facades. • The design of the sidewalk and setback area should cre- ate an urban character and should feature amenities such as street trees with tree grates,planters,benches and removable cafe furniture. • Bayshore Highway should receive priority in any streetscape program. The street should be designed as a "Grand Boulevard"with landscaping,lighting and sidewalks standards the same on both sides. • Landscaped medians and left turn lanes should be developed along Bayshore Highway. Exact locations should be determined by the Department of Public Works. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-16 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Building Design r �StJ BWld,ng - Building facades should animate the street, T Ry providing visual interest to passers-by. Additionally: 40 _ Sp P—..Vr >7 to DMP-Offy � Patio • Buildings should have entries directly accessible and �a i A— visible from the street. t� Wind— " Buildings Windows i • Buildings with Bay frontage should relate to the Bay as well as the street. • Entries should be marked by architectural features such as projecting overhangs,special lighting,awnings and Vert" 8 signage that emphasize their importance. EI—t Building design should animate the street,providing visual • Building facades should be designed to have a rhythm interest to passers-by. and pattern and should be articulated as an expression of the building use. • The use of reflective or dark-tinted glass should be dis- couraged,especially at ground level,because it creates an effect which lacks the visual interest of clear window openings. • Building facades should be articulated with a building base,body and roof or parapet edge. • All visible sides of buildings should be designed with the same level of care and integrity. • Exterior building materials and finishes should convey a sense of integrity,permanence and durability,rather than applique. • Buildings should be no more than 3 steries,65 feet in height or comply with the requirements of the FAA and community wind standards. Maximum development dens i on gM site shall be no more than 2.0 FAR. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-17 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines , AV AwA Extension�� Features 44 �— Nu fv.s Cmvtlm :Ts.: Anza Extension Goal:To enhance the quality of the community ori- ented open space facilities and services while con- necting them to the larger open space network with trails and pedestrian paths. Most of the site planning and building design issues in the other areas do not apply to this area. The primary role of this area is a com- munity serving facility. The area has been recently developed to the designated land uses. The purpose of these guidelines are to complete and maintain these public facilities and recognize the need to be responsive to the community needs as they change. Parking, landscaping and open space design are the primary considerations. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V 18 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Landscaping A consistent, attractive landscaping treatment should be developed throughout the Anza Y Extension area. Additionally: • A natural,park-like landscaping should be encouraged throughout the area. .t� ! ti Z • Landscaped wind breaks should be developed through- _ 4 out the area. • Public buildings in the Anza Extension Area should have indoor and outdoor spaces which relate to San Francisco Bay. • Lighting should be focused internally so it does not A natural,park-like landscaping should be encouraged affect adjacent properties. throughout the area. • Community oriented active recreational uses should be preserved and enhanced. • Landscape features should not just be visually appeal- ing,but also should function as open space amenities to C .J be used and enjoyed. Gateway Element To Park • Landscaping should protect and enhance view corridors. �r Q\ Waybnding -�� ! Ws^� • Trails should facilitate pedestrian activity within the New area and as connections to the bay and other opens Pedestrian space systems. c—i g • t i� Parking Alm ,- Appropriately sized and attractive landscaped !� parking areas should be located at the edges ' BAYTRAI� of the area to conveniently provide service to A gateway element should be located at the entry to the park. the area's many recreational uses. Gateways Gateway features should be located on pri- vate land at prominent locations along the edges of the Anza Extension area. Additionally: • Any gateway feature at the Broadway Interchange should be a wayfinding monument sign to complement the gateway feature in the Shoreline area across Airport Boulevard. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-19 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines I. 651 . A^1 0. *, d x Gf l ........ Nii.! fk .......... ............................... :w2. .......... ......... .......... . ....... ......... ........... .. ............ .... ........... t" 1 _... t .. ' s S , . r 4S ...£ A! Anza Area Features :' �N Development should orient toward the water and view&and slope awayfrom the visual connection to Anza Area the Bay on the west side Airport Boulevard to U.S. Goal: Continue to build on the existing character 101 hekhts shown are examples, and design of the area and enhance and visually connect the Anza and Burlingame Lagoons and San Francisco Bay. Building/ Street Relationships To create a consistent and attractive % .EDESTR" S A streetscape, buildings should be located rela- tively close to the street, with attractively landscape front setbacks. In addition: fl v 9 +. ^R °�0a°°°� eBasily�ng de t ablentries ehould face the street,and should be t.,: Y` Buildings that are setback from the street should have attractively landscaped areas or plazas leading to the main building entry. • Curb cuts should be limited to ease pedestrian/vehicular conflict. Buildings should relate both to the street and to the Sanchez and Anza Lagoons. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-20 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines • Businesses should have a consistent,attractive land- scaped front setbacks equal to the height of the build- Businesses fronting on Airport Boulevard should have ings. an attractive landscaped front setback equal to the height of the building and a 8'-10'wide sidewalk which • Design should acknowledge the importance of the street includes uniform street furniture. and the Bay. Seating areas should be encouraged within the front set- Businesses at important intersections should locate their back. entrances at the building comer. Building/ Shoreline/Lagoon Relationships To create a dynamic, usable open space area, buildings should have a consistent, attractive setbacks. In addition: • Continuous public access improvements should be installed and maintained with a standard consistent with the BCDC Guidelines. • A formal pedestrian trail should be developed along both Sanchez and Anza Lagoons. • Open space should extend an average of 75 feet from the edge of the bay to the building facade. • Open space should extend an average of 65 feet from the edge of the Anza and Sanchez Lagoons to the build- ing facade. • Pocket parks and seating areas should be located along both Sanchez and Anza Lagoons. • The promenade along Burlingame Lagoon she4should have a strong face as viewed from U.S. 101. ANZALAGOON Buildings Pedestriann VerticalVerticalStep Down Ptaza with Cuist"t To View Corridor LMater FuCronktg Cg ^E turo Elnnmit B TRAIL .. ... ...:. . C—Latent Parkinj Landscaped Ple 65'Setback Seructuro Parking S Facing Lagoon ►arkina Savcture BVRLINGAME LAGOON um Buildings should relate to the surrounding lagoons City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-21 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines - _ LAGOON Parking i BAYt Attractive parking areas should be located to Some Parking "�'edPL"k the sides of the building to encourage a BayTrall �Y A pedestrian-friendly street edge. Additionally: "G vn �—- — �. Some parking on each site should be reserved for public Bay Trail access. Parking Located ; Building entries should be located adjacent to parking To swe and sidewalk. ofauildk,g —� ^ • Parking should be screened with landscaping. Attractive parking areas should be located to the sides of the Truck loading areas should be located to the side of building to encourage a pedestrian-friendly street edge. buildings,and screened from view from the street. • Parking entry drives should be shared with adjacent businesses to discourage multiple curb-cuts. View Corridors View Corridors to San Francisco Bay are important and should be maintained and enhanced. Additionally: w - - _— View Corridors should be incorporated in the design of pedestrian plazas. • Continuous public access improvements should be _ installed and maintained in accordance with BCDC guidelines. View Corridors should be incorporated in the design of pedes- View Corridors may be framed by buildings. trian plazas. • View Corridors may also terminate with attractive building elements such as tower features and entryways. • Any new development should respect existing View Corridors. • To protect view corridors,buildings sha4should not obstruct more than 50%of the Airport Boulevard or other street frontages,with a minimum 30'view corri- dor on at least one side of the building. • Buildings sha4 should cover no more than 35%of the site. Landscaping A consistent, attractive landscaping treatment should be developed throughout the Anza Area. Additionally: City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-22 General PIan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines • Landscaping should protect and enhance view corridors. Butter Planting • Landscaping can be used as a visual buffer to shield Low parking and loading areas. WaU • Landscape features should not just be visually appeal- ' ing,but also should function as open space amenities to be used and enjoyed. • Landscaping should enhance and not obscure building "Green signage and entrance areas. / Fingers" • Building signage should be incorporated into the land- StteetTrees scaping. and Paving Details LOW WaU • 10%of the parking area sl+&4 should be landscaped. • 80%of the front setback shell should be landscaped. A consistent, formal landscaping treatment should be devel- oped. • 40%of the 100'wide shoreline setback shft4should be landscaped. • Hardscape features such as walkways,seating areas and patios may be included in landscaped areas. r`�y v, signage Route` Signage Y to Building A i Architecture Visible, attractive signage should be devel- oped throughout the Anza Area. Additionally: Sign ® 41'Maximum �^ I'i"—" • Signs should be designed as an integral part of the — Sign Signage Meight building. and should not cover or obscure architectural elements. • Projecting and wall signs should be attractive and eye- Sign a part Attractive g � y ar Setback Attractive catching. Landscaping Lettering Monument signs should be well integrated into the design of • Projecting and wall signs should be designed as an inte- the site. gral part of the building.and should not cover or obscure architectural elements. • Projecting signs attached to a building can be used as a secondary sign for use as a pedestrian-scaled sign. Structural supports should be hidden or designed to be a decorative element. • Monument and wall signs should feature individually formed lettering as opposed to box signs. • Monument signs should be low-profile,with a maxi- �� ,P•t mum height of 4'. a® • Monument signs should have architectural features con- sistent with the building,and be integrated into the site landscape. • Attractive signage directories are encouraged to help provide wayfinding in the Anza Area. Projecting signs should be attractive and eye-catching. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-23 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Street Design To create a consistent and attractive streetscape, buildings should be located rela- tively close to the street, with attractively 4, (r landscape front setbacks. In addition: • The sidewalk area should be 8'wide with uniform street L�,S• fiom •:�t I fiM,r• furniture. .,back W. kne s d • Streets should be designed for both the automobile,the pedestrian and the bicyclist. • Airport Boulevard should be designed as a"grand Airport Boulevard should receive priority in any streetscape boulevard"with the same landscaping,sidewalk and program. lighting standards that are used on Bayshore Highway. • Lighting features used should accommodate both the driver and pedestrian. • Lighting should also help increase visibility of business- es but not flood their facades. Building Face Sign light Pedeabian lighting Per Ciq standard: Receaard Liuilfing Vehicular Building Design E„ ca Light Lighting ane uneerCar,opr light Fade Building facades should animate the street, providing visual interest to passers-by. Additionally: Sidewalic BAYSNORENwHWAY Buildings should have entries directly accessible and visible from the street. A wide variety of lighting should be encouraged. Buildings should relate to San Francisco Bay,lagoons and the street. • Entries should be marked by architectural features such as projecting overhangs,special lighting,awnings and signage that emphasize their importance. Hotel Building facades should be designed to have a rhythm �^ and pattern and should be articulated as an expression �- of the building use. • The use of reflective or dark-tinted glass should be dis- couraged,especially at ground level,because it creates 5tt"`"r° an effect which lacks the visual interest of clear window .r:•r.r.:r:r openings. Building facades should be articulated with a building base,body and roof or parapet edge. verntal • All street,bay and lagoon frontages of a building should E a°PP be designed with the same level of care and integrity. d'y Buildings on the state lands parcel sha4shou[d be clus- Hotel Complex Prototype tered to present a lower level complex with courtyards. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-24 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines • Buildings on parcels with lagoon frontages 9 a4 should have varied building heights as shown on the Anza Area Features map on page SAP V-20 and comply with the community wind standard feeti • Buildings on all parcels should be no more than Ove stefies,65 feet in height or not exceed the maximum height allowed by the community wind standard. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-25 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Ifot y �^t »,. . #yi2or* e 50 hb d >�# 3bt�i• �r : c Of 30 ., ff"Ri"11� ::' Anza Point a ' Features . .� ... i AW �.•� 0..y.rtdTN Gswtdas ¢ f O..:SPx.dnm Nadu {# 1 R Illustrationhs ows an example of how height limits and community wind standards work together in the northern portion fthe Anza Lefty Subarea. Anza Point Goal:To create a structure of streets,walks and open space to organize a mixed-use district of development that takes advantage of its proximity to Sanchez Channel and San Francisco Bay frontage. Areas adjacent to Beach Road and Lang Road exhibit an industrial park character sim- ilar to the Inner Bayshore Area, and should follow the design guidelines set forth in sec- tion III. Inner Bayshore Area as adjusted to meet the requirements of the community wind standards. The physical environment of this subarea is unique because most mit is surrounded by water on three sides and because omits orien- tation to the prevailing winds and proximity to the Coyote Point Recreation Area. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-26 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines L O L O �U SAN FRANCISCO BAY Extended Stay Hotel BAYTRAIL ti FISHERMANS 1 PARK � � z New Public 'If7>4f( Space l Z Zl AIRPORT BO LEVAR f„ View ' Corridor Parking g j Behind 1 Buildings Bay Trail Spur ) T" c l Formal ) 1ys Landscaping Along Channel New Road Mixed Use ft Buildings )) Landscapeda in p Buffer between Structure n ) Adjacent n 1 Industrial Uses �o )1 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE BEACH ROAD r 1 l� Example dhow area might Le developed in compliance with the design guidelines or the Northern portion the Anza Point subarea. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-27 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Building/ Street Relationships To create a consistent and attractive •ynyY ' 4 j� - streetscape, buildings should be located rela- tively close to the street, with attractively landscape front setbacks. In addition: o .. \- Building entries should face the street,and should be easily identifiable and driveways should be consolidat- ed. Taller Building should be located at the entry corners adjacent to the channel. • Buildings that are setback from the street should have Buildings should relate both to the street and to San attractively landscaped plazas leading to the main build- Francisco Bay ing entry. • Curb cuts should be limited to ease pedestrian/vehicular conflict. • Businesses should have a consistent,attractive 15'aver- age landscaped front setback. • Seating areas should be encouraged in central sheltered areas .uNM.P IlehOe N•• b M b Design should acknowledge the importance of both the rill, street and the Bay. E�nnQ J F""DAY"""' ���,r, ti�i = Building / Shoreline Relationships t.r� �n/�,.✓ sarrnu� ',.tb.,k \ The shoreline should be designed as a net- work of interconnected open spaces. In addi- The shoreline should be attractive and user-friendly tion: Pedestrian oPe+SPaCe Plazas SAN FRANCISCO BAY Extended Stay Hotel Network 3 o Connects to Fisherman Park Landscaped >U Buildings Parking Area *\*Y\ Relate to Bay Front SAYTRAIL FISHERMAN$ S PARI[ } New g. i Public m T, a� ermans Park Space C for a r ti r The shoreline should be designed as a network of interconnected open spaces. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-28 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines • Continuous public access improvements should be Parking installed and maintained in accordance with BCDC Minimal Attractively guidelines. Curb-Cuts Landscaped I ! • Open space should extend an average of 75 feet from the line of highest tidal action on the bay and an aver- }'+� age of 65 feet from the Channel to the building facade • Pocket parks and seating areas should be located along 00 the shoreline,a larger park area should be provided I ' where Sanchez Channel meets the Bay to balance tt'. Fisherman's Park. Parking Parking Located on Interior of Site Attractive parking areas should be located to Parking should be located to the interior of sites. the interior of the site whenever possible to encourage a pedestrian-friendly street edge. Additionally: • Some parking should be reserved for public Bay Trail access. it Formal r • Secondary building entrances should be located adja- Landscaped cent to parking. ` P g Pedestrian "� j .'.. . • Parking areas should be screened with landscaping Path (10%of parking area) Plaza • Parking entry drives should be shared with adjacent Area buildings to discourage multiple curb-cuts. t.anscaped • Truck loading areas shall be screened from view from - Butter a the street. Between Adjacent Uses Landscaping An attractive and consistent landscape treatment should be incorporated throughout the Anza Point Area. A consistent, attractive landscaping treatment should be developed throughout the Anza Point Area. Additionally: Pl—with Parking L seating LOWIding at lwa 3rrW • Landscaping sca protect and enhance view corridors P g should and not create wind shadows on Bay waters ! t • Alandscaped pedestrian ath should be developed t along the east side of Sanchez Channel C e and terminate at the BY a Trail. • Landscaping should be used as a visual buffer to shield00 Setbm* parking and loading areas. —,•- L g••id .Sidewalk • Landscaping should be used as a visual buffer to shield adjacent uses. • Landscape features should not just be visually appeal- at Lv t SO%Buikiing frontage ing,but also should function as open space amenities to be used and enjoyed. Buildings should be located relatively close to the street,with attractively landscape front setbacks. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-29 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront SpeciSc Area Plan Design Guidelines • Landscaping should enhance and not obscure building signage and entrance areas. • Building signage should be incorporated into the land- scaping. • Landscaping choices should be sensitive to wind oat impacts. 10%of the parking area shelf should be landscaped. • 80%of the front setback shells ould be landscaped. • 40%of the]00'wide shoreline setback shelf should be landscaped. • Hardscape features such as walkways,seating areas and Signage should be attractive and eye-catching. patios may be included in landscaped areas. Signage s jd A Visible, attractive signage should be devel- oped throughout the Anza Point Area. r �i Additionally: Signs should be designed as an integral part of the � � A���• �` building.and should not cover or obscure architectural elements. l Zti Projecting signs should be attractive and eye-catching. • Projecting and wall signs should be designed as an inte- gral part of the building.and should not cover or obscure architectural elements. Gateways can act as community gathering places Projecting signs attached to a building can be used as a secondary sign for use as a pedestrian-scaled sign. Structural supports should be hidden or designed to be a decorative element. Monument and wall signs should feature individually formed lettering as opposed to box signs. • Monument signs should be low-profile,with a maxi- mum height of 4'. • Monument signs should have architectural features con- sistent with the building,and be integrated into the site landscape. • Attractive signage directories are encouraged to help provide wayfinding within the Anza Point district. Signage directories should be develop to improve wayfinding in the area. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-30 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines Gateways Gateway features should be located on pri- vate land at prominent locations along the edges of the Anza Point. Additionally: • Gateways should maintain a consistent design motif fli throughout the Anza Point Area. • The entry to the City on Airport Boulevard at Lang Road should incorporate landscaping,identify the Bay Trail access and incorporate a seating wall or other sig- nage announcement. View Corridors View Corridors should be incorporated in the design of pedes- View corridors to San Francisco Bay are trian plazas. important and should be maintained and enhanced. Additionally: • View corridors to the Bay or Bay Trail should be incor- porated in the design of pedestrian plazas,interior to wind sheltered groupings of buildings. • Continuous public access improvements should be installed and maintained in accordance with BCDC guidelines. • View corridors may be framed by buildings but should extend to open water or Bay Trail. l,d-s•t t l T. t an,,= r m„•,=t T$ t r-,o t,o-,r M1•nt aakwalk bmNt stet nsedian usM Ines e W Se,E.ck �• isnse,bacY • Any new development should respect existing view cor- ridors. • Because much of the Anza Point area is now vacant, view corridors of the Bay and Bay Trail should be coor- Airport Boulevard should be designed as a`Grand dinated across properties and respected as the entire Boulevard." area develops. • The minimum width of the open space between build- ings should equal the height of the building on at least one side. BuiMing Face Street Design Sign Light Pedftl— Ughting w City standard. The streetscape in the Anza Point Area Rece..ed Building WhicuA. Entrance Light 'UZI dng should be consistent, attractive and well- tar de Ca�,Llot defined. Additionally: d sight `. • Streets should be designed for both the automobile and the pedestrian/bicyclist. SAYSHORE HIGHWAY Sidewalk • A variety of lighting features should be used to accom- modate both the driver and pedestrian. Lighting should also help increase visibility of businesses,but not flood Airport Boulevard should have auto and pedestrian scaled their facades; lighting should be focused on site. lighting. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-31 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines • The design of the sidewalk setback should create an urban character and should feature amenities such as , ,.. street trees with tree grates,planters,benches and removable cafe furniture. Airport Boulevard should be designed as a"Grand Boulevard"with the same landscaping,sidewalk and ®� ® lighting standards that are used on Bayshore Highway. The sidewalk area should be 8'wide with uniform street furniture. 5 it Building Design ENmsee yyy� At CmrN. , E•buc•s Building facades should animate the street, Buildings should should animate the street providing visual providing visual interest to passers-by. interest to passers-by. Additionally: • Buildings should have entries directly accessible and visible from the street with auto access to the rear. • Buildings along shore should orient toward the Bay as well as the street. • Entries should be marked by architectural features such as projecting overhangs,special lighting,awnings and signage that emphasize their importance. • Building facades should be designed to have a rhythm and pattern and should be articulated as an expression of the building use. • The use of reflective or dark-tinted glass should be dis- couraged,especially at ground level,because it creates an effect which lacks the visual interest of clear window openings. • Building facades should be articulated with a building base,body and roof or parapet edge. • All street and Bay frontages of a building should be designed with the same level of care and integrity. • Exterior building materials and finishes should convey a sense of integrity,permanence and durability,rather than applique. • Buildings should be lower rise and designed to be sensi- tive to the wind environment both in nearby San Francisco Bay and adjacent to the structure. • Buildings should be clustered around protected open spaces which connect visually to the Bay Trail and nearby parking. • Vacant land should be developed with a unified charac- ter to establish both a sense of entry to the City and the Bayfront Area and a unique sense of place at Anza Point. City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-32 General Plan Burlingame Bayfront Specific Area Plan Design Guidelines • Buildings should be designed with parking internalized and should have interior courts with open space to pro- vide protection from the wind. • Building heights should be staggered as shown on the Anza Point Features map on Page SAP V-26,adjusted to meet the community wind standards.with Ewe stem, 30'hi rshorter buildings along the Bay edge facing Coyote Point Recreation Area and taller buildings(Ehfee '. behind. • Building heights along the channel should be no more than feerstefiesinheig4allowe ¢y the community wind standards andoz nine. • All buildings heights shall comply with the zonin and be evaluated based on wind impacts on the Bay and Coyote Point Recreation Areal and adjacent undevel- opedan rcels• City of Burlingame Bayfront SAP V-33 General Plan CITY AGENDA AA 0% ITEM# 8a BURIJNGAME STAFF REPORT MAG. DATE 8/21/2006 �Mn uri[b` TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMIT BY DATE: August 1, 2006 APV �j BY - FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING CITY COUNCIL'S INTENT REGARDING PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED FROM PROPOSED FLOOD PROTECTION AND PUBLIC SAFETY BOND MEASURE RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution that describes the Council's intent with regard to the projects to be funded from the November 2006 ballot measure. DISCUSSION On July 19, 2006, the City Council adopted an ordinance placing a ballot measure on the November 7, 2006, election to finance flood control and building safety improvements. The measure would provide up to $37 million in general obligation bonds for flood control improvements and up to $7 million in building safety improvements. The Council directed staff to return with a resolution describing the projects that the Council currently intends to fund with the proceeds of bonds if the measure is adopted by the voters. Attachment A to the proposed resolution is the same attachment that accompanied the July 19 staff report on the ordinance. This list would be subject to amendment in the future if unlisted needs were identified, but the language of the ordinance regarding use of the bond proceeds would still control. Attachments Proposed Resolution RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING THE CITY COUNCIL'S INTENT REGARDING PROJECTS TO BE FUNDED FROM THE PROPOSED FLOOD PROTECTION AND PUBLIC SAFETY BOND MEASURE RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City Council has heretofore determined that the public interest and necessity require the City Council to conduct a special municipal bond election within the City in order to place a measure before the City's voters for incurring bonded debt to pay for certain municipal improvements for flood protection and public safety; and WHEREAS,the City Planning Commission has heretofore approved the city plan of improvements consisting of these flood protection and public safety improvements and determined that the plan is consistent with the City General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has ordered the special municipal bond election to be held and conducted in the City on November 7, 2006; and WHEREAS, the City Council has prepared a specific plan of flood protection and public safety improvements that it intends to finance from the proceeds of the bonds, if the bond measure shall be approved by the voters of the City; NOW,THEREFORE,THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: Section 1. Expenditure of Bond Proceeds for Projects. The City Council hereby declares that it intends to spend the net proceeds of the bonds, if approved by the voters of the City, for the specific public works and municipal improvement projects listed in Exhibit A hereto. All of the municipal improvement projects listed in Exhibit A are hereby declared to be described in, authorized by, and consistent with the bond measure, consisting of improvements to aging and undercapacity flood control infrastructure; and for seismic stability, disabled access, safety, security, fire protection, ventilation and disaster preparedness improvements in existing City buildings, including acquisition and/or construction of facilities, other works, property or structures necessary or convenient for said municipal improvements. The list of municipal improvement projects contained in Exhibit A represents the current plans of the City Council, based upon citizen input,the recommendations of the City Manager, Director of Public Works,the Police Department,the Fire Department, and other City departments, the studies of expert professionals in the fields of engineering, estimates of projected costs and revenues, and other information. The City Council shall continue to evaluate 1 such information and other information that comes to its attention and to determine from time to time whether the listed projects continue to meet the needs of the City, and shall modify the specific project list from time to time as necessary; provided that at no time shall any bond funds be used for any purposes inconsistent with the bond measure and the municipal improvements authorized to be financed by that measure. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, 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 , 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 2 ATTACHMENT A PROJECTED IMPROVEMENTS Easton Watershed Recreation Center Upgrade Marsten Road pump station Upgrade building to seismic standards Install force main from pump station to Install fire sprinklers Bay Remedy electrical code deficiencies Improve catch basins and creek Make facility ADA accessible embankments Improve heating and ventilation system Burlingame/Ralston Watershed City Hall Install bypass from Burlingame Creek to Upgrade building to seismic standards Bay with floodgates Install fire sprinklers Install bypass from Ralston Creek to Remedy asbestos contamination channel Make facility ADA accessible Sanchez/Terrace Watershed Police Station Increase box culvert size Improve heating and ventilation system Install debris basis upstream from Improve security Carolan Avenue Install emergency power Install new pump station and force main Provide equal access pipeline in vicinity of Carolan Make facility ADA accessible Avenue Improve catch basins and storm drainage Fire Stations in Laguna Avenue neighborhood Make facilities ADA accessible Provide equal access Mills Watershed Widen channels and raise Parks Yard embankments/headwalls Make facilities ADA accessible Raise or remove footbridge Provide equal access Add box culvert across Rollins Road El Portal/Trousdale Watershed Repair liner in El Portal and Gilbreth Creeks and Trousdale channel Install corrosion protection system in drainage pipes Bayfront curb/gutter Rehabilitate storm drain systems and pump stations STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8b 0 MTG. 9FoAq91 oH'ED—..I DATE Q 8.21.06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY LOU�, Crzl DATE: JULY 28, 2006 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE PREPARATION OF T E SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDING THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL AND SELECTION OF A CONSULTANT TO PREPARE THE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA Recommendation: City Council confirm staff plans to have the Mayor appoint two city council members and two planning commissioners to a working group to assist the consultant who is preparing the scope of work for the Downtown Specific Plan. Background: City staff has selected Elizabeth Cullinan Principal at Neal Martin Associates, to work as a consultant to prepare the scope of work which includes the request for proposal (RFP) for the Downtown Specific Plan. She will see the process through the interviews and selection of a consultant team. Ms. Cullinan, a planner by training, has done similar work in San Carlos and other cities. Staff has prepared a proposed'Process for Preparation of the Scope of Work and Request for Proposal for the Downtown Specific Plan'. This document is attached and provides the basis for her task. One item to be determined in the RFP process is whether Ms. Cullinan will be advised just by staff or by an advisory group, as she prepares the scope of work for the downtown specific plan. In the case of the economic study, a committee of six worked with staff to prepare the scope of work and select a consultant. The committee included two council members, two planning commissioners, and two members of the public. Because this group was appointed by the City Council the entire process was subject to the Brown Act; and all meetings were public, including the interviews. An alternative is to have a smaller advisory group appointed by the Mayor. In that case, the meetings, including the interviews would not necessarily have to be open to the public. It is suggested in this case, that public input be solicited through written suggestions which can be reviewed and discussed by the advisory group as they work on the scope of work. In the case of the Economic Study, it should be pointed out that in the end, the RFP designed via the open meeting process was too comprehensive and more than we needed, resulting in extraordinarily high bids. In the end the work program was written by the consultants by asking the ones selected for the interview to tell us what they could do for the budget we had. As a result we came into the work program by the back door. Also it was difficult to compare the resulting bids for cost effectiveness because there was an unusual variety among the proposed work programs. PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE PREPARATION OF THE SCOPE OF WORK INCLUDING THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS AND SELECTION OFA CONSULTANT TO PREPARE THE SPECIFIC PLAN FOR THE DOWNTOWN AREA August 21,2006 Although the end result of the Economic Study came out fine, it would be better this time to have a scope of work in the RFP which focuses the work program on the most important community issues and is based on what we are comfortable about spending on the program. The scope for Ms. Cullinan's contract includes a generalized estimate of the cost for the various components of the work program to insure that the scope of work is consistent with what we anticipate to be a reasonable budget for the project. In addition she will investigate possible supplemental sources of funding e.g. El Camino Corridor grants which may be available. Staff currently anticipates that the advisory group's commitment would end with the selection of a consulting team to prepare the Downtown Specific Plan. Also it is assumed that all consulting teams would include those consultant's who have already done extensive work in the downtown area, (e.g. economic and traffic). This information will be provide in the RFP and should serve to stabilize the cost some. Attachments: Process for Preparation of the Scope of Work and Request for Proposals for the Downtown Specific Plan, July 29, 2006. 2 Process for Preparation of Scope of Work and Request for Proposals for Downtown Specific Plan I. Preliminary A. Meet with staff to identify available information B. Collect available information/review(staff help) 1. Economic study ERA and traffic and parking studies 2. Land Use studies, restaurant et cetera 3. Zoning studies which might have data associated 4. Solicit public input 5. Other C. Advisory group to work with consultant 1. Determine responsibilities for this work program 2. Determine involvement with interview/selection process 3. Work with advisory group to review solicited public input 4 Determine Scope of Downtown Specific Plan II. Prepare RFP document A. Administrative Draft 1. Meet with advisory group and staff-determine issues and scope 2. Incorporate as appropriate issues identified by staff and public 3. Provide guidance on environmental process/document B. Prepare draft scope of work and RFP document text 1. Review with staff 2. Review with advisory group 3. Select interview panel 4. Prepare cost estimate for proposed scope of work 5. Schedule City Council Study session on scope of work C. Finalize RFP document D. Prepare list of interested consultants for distribution III. Select Consultant A. Collect responses 1. Copy and distribute for advisory group/staff review a. Review qualifications b. Copy and distribute to interviewees c. Develop criteria for reviewing applications (matrix) 2. Interview candidates a. Organize interview venue, date, et cetera b. Prepare interview questions - distribute with responses c. Manage interview event d. Prepare recommendation on selected candidate IV. Negotiating/Approving Contract A. Work with staff to prepare contract with selected candidate B. Prepare staff report for city council for contract execution CITY AGENDA 8C ITEM# � 'N�AMEi STAFF REPORT MTG. I, DATE August 21 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: July 25, 2006 APPROVED I ��� FROM: Crystal Duong (558-7204) BY SUBJECT: Consider Appointment to Library Board RECOMMENDATION: Consider appointment recommendation of interview committee and make appointment or take other action. BACKGROUND: One commission position is due for appointment (Nancy Brock's, who has served out the remainder of David Carr's term). The position was publicized and notification letters were sent to all past commission applicants on the City's 2-year waiting list. Three applications were received as of the deadline of June 23, 2006. Two of those applicants were interviewed by the Council subcommittee of Cathy Baylock and Terry Nagel on July 17, 2006. The third applicant will be interviewed on August 21 st just prior to the council meeting. The interview committee will notify the council in writing of their recommendation at the on set of the meeting. The term will be for three years ending in June 2009. STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8d DATE 8/21/06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL !UWTED BY DATE: August 13,2006 APPRO FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY1�� SUBJECT: UPDATE ON BURLINGAME'S CENTENNIA)�LEBRATION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive the staff report regarding the plans for Burlingame's Centennial celebration. BACKGROUND: Plans for Burlingame's Centennial celebration are well underway, with several committees meeting on a regular basis. The Executive Committee guides the other committees and oversees the expenditures of City funds. It is comprised of Mayor, Cathy Baylock; Vice Mayor, Terry Nagel; Treasurer, Judy Jingirian; Secretary,Doris Mortensen; Finance Chair, Jeff Griffith; Events Chair, Gene Condon; Marketing Chair,Dan Andersen; City Finance Director, Jesus Nava; Parks&Recreation Director,Randy Schwartz, City Librarian, Al Escoffier. In preparation of the overall budget, the Executive Committee is considering a commemorative project. Of the many ideas submitted, the Committee has agreed to research the potential scope and costs for a water fountain on the west side of the Burlingame Avenue train station. The Events Committee is planning a year of events from June 2007 to June 2008 to celebrate and remember Burlingame's History. Each sub-committee will begin meeting within the next several weeks to better define each event, determine ways to incorporate Burlingame's past, refine the event budget, etc. In addition to the dozens of individuals and organizations that have signed up assist with the events, the following individuals have been selected by the Executive Committee as the Event Chairpersons. • Mike McQueen is heading theap rade committee. The parade is scheduled for Saturday, June 2, 2007 and the Committee will be working on route, speakers, times and other details for the parade and kick-off ceremony. • Mary Meissner, former Lincoln School Principal, will be the Burlingame School District's liaison for the Centennial and will organize an essay contest. The contest will be held in March 2007, with the prizes awarded during the kick-off ceremony on June 2, 2007. • The City's Youth Advisory Committee will be organizing a softball game in June 2007, a 7t'& 8 grade dance on May 2, 2008 and a Day on the Green concert on May 3, 2008. • Christine Thorsteinson will conduct the Scavenger Hunt — something she has done professionally. The Hunt is scheduled for October 6, 2007 and will incorporate all areas of Burlingame. • Shinnyo-en Temple has agreed to conduct the Centennial Community Picnic in October 2008. • Jerian Fleres (Director), Annette DeMaria (Producer), Jo-Ellen Ellis (House Manager) will all help organize the Variety Show for February 2008. Jeriann will handle the items on stage and back stage; Jo-Ellen will be in charge of the duties in front of the curtain and Annette will oversee the show's business aspects. • Mercy High School will be hosting and organizing a Vintage Fashion Show on February 24, 2008. • Diane Condon-Wirgler (Chair) and Raziel Unger (Vice-Chair) will organize the Historical Site Tour based upon the passport book tour Diane has been conducting for the City's third graders. The tour is scheduled for February of 2008. • Karen Key (Chair) and Susan Burleson (Vice-Chair) are leading a committee to conduct the Centennial Ball that will be held at the Hyatt Regency Hotel on the City's 100th Birthday—June 8, 2008. • Gordon Gottsche will be overseeing the Fireworks Show that will be on display over the Bayside Park area during a break in the Centennial Ball. The show will be able to be seen by those attending the Ball and those at the other staging area, Bayside Park. The Marketing Committee, with Dan Anderson serving as Chairman, is working on two main pieces: (1) a Centennial magazine that incorporates historical articles and information on each of the events and (2) centennial merchandise. Once an overall budget is established, the committee and the Executive Committee will establish goals and limits on advertising in the magazine and the merchandise. The Finance/Fund Raising Committee, under co-chairs Judy Jingarian and Jeff Griffiths, will ensure proper cash handling procedures are in place for all centennial sales and events and will seek opportunities to raise funds for the celebration or commemorative project. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no budget impact associated with this report. The City has been setting aside funds for the past few years in preparation for the City's Centennial Celebration. This will provide $50,000 in start-up funds for the events, souvenirs and promotional materials. In the upcoming months, the Executive Committee will make recommendations to Council as to the best use of those funds. ATTACHMENTS: Centennial Executive Committee Minutes— 8/7/06 Centennial Executive Committee Minutes August 7, 2006 6:40 p.m. Location: Recreation Center, 850 Burlingame Avenue Members: Chair: Mayor Cathy Baylock Vice Chair: Vice Mayor Terry Nagel Treasurer: Judy Jingirian- Absent Secretary: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk Finance Chair: Jeff Griffith Events Chair: Gene Condon Marketing Chair: Dan Andersen Jesus Nava, Finance Director- Absent Randy Schwartz, Parks &Recreation Director Al Escoffier, Librarian Gene Condon provided a list of the proposed chairs for the various Event Committees. In looking at the event list, Dan Andersen suggested combining the essay contest with a poster contest. Mr. Condon confirmed that Shinnyo-en would sponsor the community picnic. Randy Schwartz stated that once the new committees establish their meeting dates, the remainder of volunteers would select their committee preferences. Meeting dates would be posted on the website. Gene Condon stated that overall, events would be self-supporting. Dan Andersen made a motion to approve the proposed list of committee chairs; seconded by Jeff Griffith. The motion was unanimously approved by the committee. Vice Mayor Nagel provided a copy of a letter sent to local architects and artists asking for ideas for a permanent commemorative centennial monument. Several suggestions were received in favor of placing a fountain in front of the Burlingame Train Station. Gene Condon made a motion to recommend to Council a commemorative centennial monument of a fountain plaza in front of the Burlingame Train Station; seconded by Dan Andersen. The motion was unanimously approved by the committee. To enhance the fountain, Mayor Baylock suggested selling personalized granite-type bricks to be placed around the fountain and that the relief of Marianne which had adorned the original city hall could be replicated to adorn the fountain base. Both Mayor Baylock and Vice Mayor Nagel expressed their desire that the centennial publication be simple and non-commercialized. Dan Andersen stated that the centennial magazine would be less than one-quarter commercial and would include history notes and the schedule of centennial events. He stated that magazine revenue could help pay for the cost of the fountain. Thus far, he has received the following contribution commitments: $5,000 (2X), $10,000; in-kind contribution commitments for newspaper ads and photos, and a potential commitment from Virgin America for$30,000. Randy Schwartz suggested asking for proposals and the costs for the fountain plaza to establish a fundraising goal. Gene Condon and Randy Schwartz reviewed alternative dates and routes for the centennial parade. The plan is to start off with speeches at the Burlingame Train Station to open the centennial year of events then a parade of cars would travel to Broadway business district and back while a foot parade would proceed up Burlingame Avenue and return to Washington Park or remain on the east side of the station. It was agreed the parade would be held on Saturday, June 2, 2007, at 10 a.m. so as not to conflict with Art in the Park on June 9`h. Mr. Condon would confer with Chair Mike McQueen to discuss the route and advise the Executive Committee of their recommendation. Vice Mayor Nagel advised that Mr. Alain Pinel offered to provide water at all centennial events. The next meeting will be a luncheon meeting on Friday, September 22, 2006, at the Recreation Center. Chair Baylock adjourned the meeting at 8:00 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen, Secretary CITY AGENDA 4RyR9f,ME °c ITEM# 8e STAFF REPORT MAG. +�9 DATE 8/21/2006 �si uu[t�•o TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTE BY DATE: August 7, 2006 APPROVED BY— FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE CLARIFYING, UPDATING, AND MAKING CONSISTENT VARIOUS PROVISIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RECOMMENDATION: Introduce an ordiance making changes in the Municipal Code to update and clarify various provisions and to make provisions consistent with recent changes in the Zoning Code by taking the following steps: A. Request City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least 5 days before proposed adoption. DISCUSSION: The City Clerk has recently republished the Municipal Code through Quality Code Publishing Company. Staff found a number of unclear provisions and inconsistencies as they proof-read the republished Code. In addition, the recent adoption of new zoning districts in the North Burlingame/Rollius Road and Bayfront areas triggers a need to make other provisions consistent with the districts nomenclature. A summary of the proposed changes is attached for the Council's convenience. Attachment Summary of Changes Proposed Ordinance SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES Ordinance Code Provision Change Reason Section 2 3.48.030 Allow civil service commission to When the number of commission take action by 3 affirmative votes members was reduced from seven instead of 4 to five in 2002, the requirement for a voting requirement remained at four. Because of the difficulty of having all 5 commissioners present, this has presented an unnecessary burden on the commission by making decisions require unanimity. 4.15.010 Add"its officers and employees" to This clarifies that a claim is claim requirements required to be filed before an officer or employee of the City may be subject to suit in State court. 4 6.16.120 Add a violation of a condition on an This clarifies that revocation or entertainment permit as a reason for suspension can be triggered by a revocation or suspension of the violation of a permit condition as permit well as violation of the Municipal Code. 13.32.180 Change M-1 wording to RR wording. The M-1 district in the City became the RR district in June 2006. 6 17.04.028 Renumber one section 17.04.028 as The Fire Code has two sections 17.04.029. numbered 17.04.028. The most recently adopted section will be renumbered 17.04.029. 7 22.06.040 Change designations for districts to Responds to new AA, APN, RR, conform to new districts. and SL district designations. 8 22.18 Change title from C-3 to TW C-3 district has become Trousdale West(TW). �) 22.20 Change title to reflect new districts C-4, M-1, and O-M have been replaced by AA, APN, SL; RR; and IB, APS respectively. SUMMARY - 1 Ordinance Code Provision Change Reason Section 10 22.20.010 Change section language to reflect C-4, M-1, and O-M have been new districts replaced by AA, APN, SL; RR; and IB, APS respectively. 11 22.20.070 Change C-4 designation to new C-4 has been replaced by AA, districts APN, and SL 12 22.29.010 Change section language to reflect C-3, C-4, M-1, and O-M have new districts been replaced by TW; AA, APN, SL; RR; and IB, APS respectively 13 22.52.020 Change section language to reflect O-M and M-1 districts have been new districts replaced by APS, IB, and RR districts respectively. 14 22.52.030 Change section language to reflect M districts have been replaced by new districts RR district and clarify that C district reasoning applies to AA, APN, APS, IB, and SL district 15 22.58.030 Change section language to reflect M districts have been replaced by new districts APS, IB, RR districts and clarify that C district reasoning applies to AA, APN, and SL district 16 25.08.012 Renumber"arbor" definition to Puts "Arbor" in alphabetical order 25.08.091 in definitions. 17 25.08.022 Replace district name in definition M-1 has become RR 18 25.08.477 Repeals definition of"new Definition no longer used in construction" Zoning Code 19 25.12.010 Eliminates old form of zoning district Simplifies section to current designations designations and usage. 20 25.28.072 Listing of setbacks is made consistent Existing language seemed to omit certain points in setback hierarchy. 21 25.30.071 Listing of setbacks is made consistent Existing language seemed to omit certain points in setback hierarchy. 22 25.32.075 Listing of setbacks is made consistent Existing language seemed to omit certain points in setback hierarchy. SUMMARY - 2 Ordinance Code Provision Change Reason Section 23 25.34.075 Listing of setbacks is made consistent Existing language seemed to omit certain points in setback hierarchy. 24 25.38.031 Eliminate related storage from Existing language caused automobile service uses permitted in confusion by leading to belief that C-1 district automobile storage as a standalone use was permitted. 2� 25.38.033 Apply hours limitation on health and Language implies that C-1 limits personal services to C-2 district apply to C-2 uses, but this makes hour limitation clearly applicable 26 25.40.027 Apply hours limitation on health and Carry-over from C-3 limitation personal services to new TW district 27 25.40.070 Listing of setbacks is made consistent Language is made consistent with other setback sections in Zoning Code. 28 25.42.050 Designation of controlling section Correct section designated for made reference. 29 25.43.010 Reference to new districts is made C-4 has become SL in this area and M-1 has become RR 30 25.43.027 Apply hours limitation on personal Carry-over from OM limitation services to new IB district 3 l 25.44.035 Apply hours limitation on health Carry-over from M-1 district services to new RR district 32 25.48.027 Apply hours limitation on health Carry-over from C-4 district services to new APN district 33 25.55.010 a) Change section language to reflect a) O-M and M-1 districts have new districts been replaced by APS, IB, and RR districts respectively. b)Eliminate outdate allowance of b)2001 revisions to Sign Code minor modifications to vary total area minimized First Amendment of signage on a property conflicts by only allowing variances for sign height and combination. 34 25.60.010 Change"window"to "glazed Use of various materials and styles opening" has made term"window"too narrow in setback context. SUMMARY - 3 Ordinance Code Provision Change Reason Section 35 25.61.020 Clarify that hillside construction Eliminate contention that the permit process applies to any hillside construction permit structure process would not apply to a commercial structure or deck or similar variation. 36 25.70.030 Change "new construction"to current Makes terminology consistent term"substantial construction" with other Zoning Code provisions. 37 25.70.030 Eliminate use of term "new Makes terminology consistent construction" with other Zoning Code provisions. >8 25.70.050 Change section language to reflect C-4, M-1, and O-M have been new districts replaced by AA, APN, SL; RR; and IB, APS respectively, and adds C-R as well. ,9 25.74.010 Change section language to reflect M-1 has become RR district. new district 40 25.76.030 Change section language to reflect C-4 has been replaced by AA, new districts APN, SL. 41 25.78.025 Change section language to reflect M-1 has become RR district, new district which actually has fence requirements. 4? Ordinance No. Require payment of Bayfront Gov't Code section 66007 allows 1151 Development fee in 2 parts: %at a property developer to postpone permit issuance and '/z at final payment of off-site development framing. fees until final inspection if a lien is placed on the property;the City's alternative process allows one-half before permit and one- half at final framing without the burden of lien. SUMMARY - 4 Ordinance Code Provision Change Reason Section 4; Ordinance No. Require payment of North Gov't Code section 66007 allows 1751 Burlingame/Rollins Road a property developer to postpone Development fee in 2 parts: %2 at payment of off-site development permit issuance and '/z at final fees until final inspection if a lien framing. is placed on the property; the City's alternative process allows one-half before permit and one- half at final framing without the burden of lien. SUMMARY - I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME MAKING CLARIFYING AND CONSISTENCY AMENDMENTS TO VARIOUS CODE 3 SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND UNCODIFIED ORDINANCES 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 Section 1. The City has recently republished the Municipal Code, and the review 7 involved in the republication has revealed various provisions that are unclear or inconsistent. The 8 recent Zoning Code amendments adopting new zoning districts AA,APN,APS,RR, SL, and TW 9 have created a need to correct reference elsewhere in the Municipal Code. This ordinance is 10 intended to address the unclear and inconsistent provisions that were found at this time. 11 12 Section 2. Section 3.48.030 is amended to read as follows: 13 3.48.030 Meetings—Officers. 14 The commission shall elect one of its members as chair.They shall meet at the city hall,or 15 such other location in the city as designated by the commission, at such time as fixed by the 16 commission. A majority of the commission shall constitute a quorum,and no official action shall 17 be transacted by less than the affirmative vote of at least three(3)fanr f-4�-members. 18 19 Section 3. Section 4.15.010 is amended to read as follows: 20 4.15.010 Claims for money or damages. 21 (a) Claims against the city, its officers or employees for money or damages which are 22 exempted by Government Code Section 905 from Chapter 1 and Chapter 2 of Part 3 of Division 23 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California, and which are not governed by 24 any other statutes or regulations expressly related thereto, shall be governed by this section. A 25 claim relating to such a cause of action shall be presented not later than one year after the accrual 26 of the cause of action. Such claims shall be presented and processed as provided by Chapters 1 and 27 2 of Part 3 of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code insofar as the provisions are not in 28 conflict with this section. 1 I (b) No suit for money or damages may be brought against the city, its officers or 2 employees until a written claim therefor has been presented to the city council and has been acted 3 upon or has been deemed to have been rejected by the city in accordance with this section.The time 4 within which the citywill act on the claim presented will conform to the time requirements set forth 5 in section 912.4 of the Government Code. 6 (c) Pursuant to Chapter 5 of Part 3 of Division 3.6 of Title 1 of the Government Code, 7 written agreements entered into by or in behalf of the city may provide all claims arising out of or 8 related to the agreement must be presented not later than six (6) months after the accrual of the 9 cause of action, and such claims shall be governed by the provisions of this section. 10 11 Section 4. Subsection 6.16.120(b)(2) is amended to read as follows: 12 (2) The permittee, employee, agent, partner, director, stockholder, or manager of an 13 entertainment business has knowingly allowed or permitted, and has failed to make a reasonable 14 effort to prevent the occurrence of any of the following on the premises of the entertainment 15 business, or in the case of a single event entertainment permit, the permittee, employee, agent, 16 partner, director, stockholder, or manager has knowingly allowed or permitted and has failed to 17 make a reasonable effort to prevent the occurrence of any of the following at the single 18 entertainment event miy conduct piolfibited by this chapter: 19 (A) Any conduct prohibited by this chapter; or 20 (B) Any violation of any condition of the entertainment permit. 21 22 Section 5. Section 13.32.180 is amended to read as follows: 23 13.32.180 Overnight parking of recreation vehicles and trailers. 24 No person shall permit any trailer, semitrailer, camper, camp trailer,house car,trailer coach or 25 mobilehome to park or remain upon any street,park or other public place within the city,other than 26 the M--+RR"zone,between the hours of 7:00 p.m. of any day and 7:00 a.m. of the following day. 27 28 Section 6. Section 17.04.028 adopted by Ordinance No. 1749, section 4 (2004) is 2 I renumbered as Section 17.04.029. 2 3 Section 7. Section 22.06.040 is amended to read as follows: 4 22.06.040 Frontage and sign area calculations. 5 In the AA,APN, APS, C-1, C-2,113, RR, and SL wide-4 cormnercial districts mid in the 6 M-f light manufacturing district, where maximum signage is related to frontage, the following 7 procedures shall determine that frontage for purposes of this title: 8 (a) A distinction shall be observed between parcel frontage and building frontage. Parcel 9 frontage shall be used for freestanding signs, or combinations of these signs with any other type. 10 Building frontage shall be used to calculate maximum signage area for signs attached to or wholly 11 supported by a building or major structure. 12 (b) Primary frontage shall be determined and declared by the applicant for the appropriate 13 parcel or building frontage; such declarations shall be approved by the city planner and shall be 14 consistent with Section 22.04.340 or Section 22.04.350. The length of this primary frontage shall 15 be the figure used to calculate maximum permitted signage in the appropriate zoning district, as 16 described in Chapters 22.10 to 22.22 inclusive. 17 (c) Secondary frontage is any additional frontage, consistent with Section 22.04.400 or 18 Section 22.04.410, after determination of the primary frontage. 19 (d) Sign area shall be determined as specified in Section 22.04.440. 20 (e) Any freestanding sign which can be viewed from both a primary and a secondary 21 frontage,and which is so placed that it has equal or nearly equal exposure from each frontage,shall 22 be counted twice, once for each frontage. 23 24 Section 8. Chapter 22.18 is renamed "TROUSDALE WEST (TW) C—� DISTRICT 25 REGULATIONS". 26 27 Section 9. Chapter 22.20 is renamed: -e-4, - O-Nf AA, APN APS,1B,RR, and 28 SL DISTRICT REGULATIONS 3 1 Section 10. Section 22.20.010 is amended to read as follows: 2 22.20.010 Permitted signs. 3 Any signs permitted by other sections of this title are permitted in the e-4, -f and E)-Nt AA 4 APN, APS, IB, RR,and SL districts. 5 6 Section 11. Section 22.20.070 is renamed "Permitted signage in the Shoreline and Anza 7 subareas of the Bayfront zoned C--4 AA, APN, and SL". 8 9 Section 12. Section 22.29.010 is amended to read as follows: 10 22.29.010 Changeable copy signs. 11 A changeable copy sign that does not contain any flashing lights or brilliant or reflected 12 light is allowed in AA, APN, APS, C-1, C-2, 1B, RR, SL and TW e-3, e-4, SH, E)-Nf 13 districts only, so long as the total square footage of all changeable copy signs on the parcel is not 14 more than the following:(a)fifteen(15)square feet or twenty(20)percent of the allowable signage 15 area,whichever is less, if the lettering or graphics are movable only by hand; or(b)six(6) square 16 feet or twenty(20)percent of the allowable signage area, whichever is less, if some or all of the 17 lettering or graphics are movable mechanically or electronically. 18 19 Section 13. Section 22.52.020 is amended to read as follows: 20 22.52.020 Size limitations. 21 Real estate signs shall not exceed seventy-five (75) square feet in total area per parcel in 22 any commercial zoning district, and shall not exceed one hundred (100) square feet in total area 23 in the - - APS, IB, and RR zoning districts. 24 25 Section 14. Section 22.52.030 is amended to read as follows: 26 22.52.030 Number. 27 Not more than one real estate sign may be placed on any parcel frontage; however, when 28 a building in either a C orM district or an AA,APN,APS,IB,RR,or SL district,consists of more 4 I than one store, section or office, signs not exceeding nine(9)square feet in area may be displayed 2 within or upon each such store,section or office,subject to the total signage not exceeding the limit 3 for that district. 4 5 Section 15. Section 22.58.030 is amended to read as follows: 6 22.58.030 "Sale" signs. 7 Window signs which advertise goods or services in a C or M district or an AA, APN, APS, 1B, 8 RR, or SL district, and obscure twenty-five (25)percent or less of any window, may be allowed 9 without a sign permit,providing such signs are displayed for a period not to exceed fourteen(14) 10 consecutive days. 11 12 Section 16. Section 25.08.012 (Arbor) is renumbered as Section 25.08.091. 13 14 Section 17. Section 25.08.022 is amended to read as follows: 15 25.08.022 Accessory use,Ni--+RR. 16 "Accessory use,M--+RR District"means a use which is subordinate in area, extent or purpose 17 to the principal permitted or conditional use of land and/or building, does not exceed twenty-five 18 (25) percent of each tenant's floor area within the structure or equivalent of the site, except that 19 when outdoor storage is the primary use of the site such outdoor storage areas may not exceed 20 twenty-five (25) percent of the gross site area; parking must be provided on site as required in 21 Chapter 25.70. 22 23 Section 18. Section 25.08.477 ("New construction") is repealed. 24 25 Section 19. Section 25.12.010 is amended to read as follows: 26 25.12.010 Establishment of districts. 27 The city is divided into the €aiming districts as shown on the zoning maps attached to 28 Ordinance 539 and the amendments thereto,which maps,with all notations,references,and other 5 I information thereon, are incorporated herein by reference and are declared to be a part hereof. 2 - -I districts. 3two-fmrily dweffings)hereinafter referred to as R-2 4 districts. 5 Third residentiaf districts (multifmnily dweffings) hereinafter referred to as R-3 districts. 6 - 7 districts g -I distl xi&o. 9e-2 d!stricts. 10e-3 districts. 11 - 12 districts 13 - -retail14 to as e-R . 15 - - - 16 districts 17M-1 districts. 18M-2 districts. 19 Tidaf plain districts hereinafter referred to as 9F-P 20 Whenever the term R district or R zone is used herein, it refers to R-1, R-2, R-3 and R-4 21 districts. Whenever the term C district or C zone is used,it refers to AA,APN,APS, C-1,C-2,C- 22 R, IB, SL, TW, e-3, e-4-and C-R districts. , 23 refers to NH and M-2 . 24 25 Section 20. Subsection 25.28.072(c)(1) is amended to read as follows: 26 (1) If front and rear lot lines are equal, the minimum side setback shall be based on the 27 front property line dimension; if front and rear lot lines are unequal,the setback shall be based on 28 the width of the lot as measured between the midpoints of the two (2) side lot lines. In either case 6 I the setbacks based on lot width shall be as follows: 2 Side Setback Lines (in feet) 3 Lots 42'wide or under less ............................................. 3 4 Lots wider than over 42',but and less than 51.. .............. 4 5 Lots ever 51'wide or more, but Mess than 54'............ 5 6 Lots over 54'wide or more,but Mess than 61'............ 6 7 Lots ever 61'wide or more and-over................................ 7 8 9 Section 21. Subsection 25.30.071(c)(1) is amended to read as follows: 10 (1) If front and rear lot lines are equal, the minimum side setback shall be based on the 11 front property line dimension; if front and rear lot lines are unequal,the setback shall be based on 12 the width of the lot as measured between the midpoints of the two (2) side lot lines. In either case 13 the setbacks based on lot width shall be as follows: 14 Side Setback Lines (in feet) 15 Lots 42'wide or tinder less............................................................... 3 16 Lots over wider than 42',and but less than 51'.... ......... ...............`.. 4 17 Lots ever 51' wide or'more,`and but less than 54' ........ ................. 5 18 Lots over 54'wide or more,acrd but less than 61' ......... ................. 6 19 Lots ever 61'wide-&ndbver or more ....... .... ...... ........ ................. 7 20 Rear Setback Lines (in feet) 21 1 and 2 story 15 22 23 Section 22. Subsection 25.32.075(c) is amended to read as follows: 24 (c) The minimum side and rear setback lines shall be as follows; if front and rear lot lines 25 are unequal their average shall be the width at the midpoints of the two (2) side lot lines: 26 Side Setback Lines (in feet) 27 Lots 42'wide or under less............................................................... 3 28 Lots ever wider than 42', and but less than 51'... ...... ............... 4 7 I Lots ever 51'wide or more,and but less than 54'............................ 5 2 Lots over 54'wide or more,and but less than 61' ......... ................. 6 3 Lots ever 61'wide-andwer or more .............................................. 7 4 Rear Setback Lines (in feet) 5 1 and 2 story.... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ......... ................ 15 6 More than 2 stories .... ......... ....... . ....`.... ......... ......... ................ 20 7 8 Section 23. Subsection 25.34.075(d) is amended to read as follows: 9 (d) The minimum side and rear setback lines shall be as follows; if front and rear lot lines 10 are unequal their average shall be the width at the midpoints of the two (2) side lot lines: 11 Side Setback Lines (in feet) 12 Lots 42'wide or under less............................................................... 3 13 Lots ever wider than 42',and but less than 51................................. 4 14 Lots over 51'wide or more,''and but less than 54'............................ 5 15 Lots over 54'wide or more,and but less than 61' ......... ................. 6 16 Lots over 61'wide-and-over or more .............................................. 7 17 Rear Setback Lines (in feet) 18 1 and 2 story...: ........ ....... . ........ ....... . ......... ......... ................. 15 19 More than 2 stories .... ....... . ........ ......... .......... ......... ....... ...... 20 20 21 Section 24. Subsection 25.38.031(a)(1)(A) is amended to read as follows: 22 (A) Retail sales of and service of automobiles and related storage; 23 24 Section 25. A new Section 25.38.033 is added to read as follows: 25 25.38.033 Health services, beauty shops,barbershop, health studio, tanning facilities. 26 A health service,beauty shop,barbershop,health studio,or tanning facility in any location 27 in any C-2 district shall be limited to the hours of 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. unless a conditional use permit 28 is approved bythe planning commission pursuant to chapter 25.52 to allow use outside those hours. 8 I This limitation expressly applies to the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area if the use is 2 otherwise allowed. The hours limitation imposed by this section does not apply to an occasional 3 medical emergency at a health service use. 4 5 Section 26. A new Section 25.40.027 is added to read as follows: 6 25.40.027 Hours for health service uses and conditional use permit. 7 A health service use shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. unless a 8 conditional use permit is approved by the planning commission pursuant to Chapter 25.52 to allow 9 use outside those hours. The hours limitation imposed by this subsection does not apply to an 10 occasional medical emergency at a health service use. 11 12 Section 27. Subsection 25.40.070(b)(1) is amended to read as follows: 13 (1) The minimum side setback line shall be as follows: 14 Lots Side setback line 15 16 42'wide or less 17 over 42'b-at less than 5 f' 4 18 19 54' or more but less than 61' 6 20 6F-mide or mote 21 Side Setback Lines (in'feet r 22 bots 42'wi e or less................... 23 Lots wider than 42,but less than 51'................................ 24 Lots 51' wide or more, but less than 54'...>........................ 5 25 Lots 54'wide more but less than 61' 26 Lots 61'widc or more .......... .... ........ ..: ...................... 7 27 28 Section 28. Subsection 25.42.050(c) is amended to read as follows: 9 I (c) On-site parking shall not be required for single story commercial development fronting 2 on California Drive except that second story commercial uses shall require on-site parking 3 accessible from California Drive pursuant to the requirements of Section 25.76.030 25.70.040. 4 5 Section 29. Section25.43.010 is amended to read as follows: 6 25.43.010 Scope and purpose of regulations. 7 It is the purpose and policy of this chapter to designate for the Inner Bayshore (IB) an 8 office/light industrial park area which will serve as a transition between the Shoreline Commercial 9 District(C-4 Sly)and the Rollins Road(RR) - zones. In its uses,this 10 district shall be consistent with the intent of the General Plan and the Bayfront Specific Plan,Inner 11 Bayshore subarea, to provide professional and administrative offices, distribution, service, light 12 industrial and other uses supported by access to San Francisco International Airport.An additional 13 purpose of this district is to create a supportive interface between the adjacent hotel,restaurant and 14 other Shoreline commercial activities and Bay Trail recreation area nearby which front on San 15 Francisco Bay. These proposed uses shall further enhance the economic and aesthetic advantages 16 of the adjacent Shoreline subarea and the economic base of the city. 17 18 Section 30. A new Section 25.43.027 is added to read as follows: 19 25.43.027 Hours for massage,bathing,tanning,or similar establishments and conditional use 20 permit. 21 A massage,bathing, tanning, or similar establishment use shall be limited to the hours of 22 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. unless a conditional use permit is approved by the planning commission 23 pursuant to Chapter 25.52 to allow use outside those hours. 24 25 Section 31. A new Section 25.44.035 is added to read as follows: 26 25.44.035 Hours for health service uses and conditional use permit. 27 A health service use shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. unless a 28 conditional use permit is approved by the planning commission pursuant to Chapter 25.52 to allow 10 I use outside those hours. The hours limitation imposed by this subsection does not apply to an 2 occasional medical emergency at a health service use. 3 4 Section 32. A new Section 25.48.027 is added to read as follows: 5 25.48.027 Hours for health service uses and conditional use permit. 6 A health service use shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. unless a 7 conditional use permit is approved by the planning commission pursuant to Chapter 25.52 to allow 8 use outside those hours. The hours limitation imposed by this subsection does not apply to an 9 occasional medical emergency at a health service use. 10 11 Section 33. Subsections 25.55.010(b) and (c) are amended to read as follows: 12 (b) In the C-1 and C-2 zoning districts, including subareas A, B, B-1, and D of the 13 Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area unless noted: 14 (1) A maximum often (10) percent reduction in any dimension of aisles, driveways or 15 parking spaces,provided no more than ten(10)percent of the parking spaces in a project may be 16 affected by the dimensional adjustment; 17 (2) 76m additional sign of ainaximnni of ten(10) sqnare feet if total si— does 18 , 19 (2) Increase in compact parking stalls up to thirty (30) percent for a commercial or 20 industrial building; 21 (3) Classes associated with a retail or service use where classes are held after 5:00 p.m. 22 weekdays and after 12:00 noon on Saturday and Sunday, except in subareas A and B-1; 23 (4) Schools above the first floor which operate outside of the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 24 p.m. Monday through Friday, except in subarea A; 25 (5) Laundry and dry cleaning establishments without processing plants or machines on 26 site, except in subareas A and B; 27 (6) Residential uses above the first floor; 28 (7) Parking lots for public use; 11 1 (8) In subareas B and B-1 of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, real estate or 2 financial institution uses with a maximum of six hundred (600) gross square feet in office area 3 which are unrelated to any other office or use in the building and with a maximum of one proprietor 4 and one employee 5 (c) In the - - APS, IB; and RR zoning districts: 6 (1) A maximum often (10) percent reduction in any dimension of aisles, driveways or 7 parking spaces,provided no more than twenty(20)percent of the parking spaces in a project may 8 be affected by the dimensional adjustment; 9 (2) 74m additional sign of amaxinittin often(10) square feet if total signage on site does 10 , 11 — (3) Increase in compact parking stalls up to thirty (30) percent for a commercial or 12 industrial building. 13contractor's 14 , provided that such nse occupies fess 15 . 16 17 Section 34. Subsection 25.60.010(i) is amended to read as follows: 18 (i) Windows Glazed;oper Ings of the accessory structure will be within ten(10)feet of the 19 property line or any portion of a window glazed opening will be higher than ten (10) feet above 20 grade; 21 22 Section 35. Section 25.61.020 is amended to read as follows: 23 25.61.020 Hillside area construction permits. 24 No new residence or accessory structure or any addition to all or a portion of an existing 25 residence or accessory structure shall be constructed within the affected area without a hillside area 26 construction permit. 27 28 Section 36. Subsection 25.70.030(a) is amended to read as follows: 12 I (a) Parking Space Requirements. There shall be at least one permanently maintained 2 garage or covered carport available to park a car for each single-family dwelling with the following 3 further requirements: 4 (1) New constru A new single-family dwelling"with any number of bedrooms shall 5 provide at least two (2) covered off- street parking spaces and one uncovered off-street parking 6 space; 7 (2) Existing single-family dwellings increased in size to three (3) or four (4) bedrooms 8 shall provide off-street parking spaces to current code dimensions for at least two(2)vehicles,one 9 of which must be covered by a garage or carport; 10 (3) A single-family dwelling hereafter increased in size to five(5)or more bedrooms shall 11 provide off-street parking to current code dimensions for at least three (3) vehicles, two (2) of 12 which must be covered by a garage or carport; 13 (4) For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) above, an existing garage not less than 14 eighteen(18)feet wide and twenty(20)feet deep interior dimension shall be considered to provide 15 two (2) covered off-street parking places. 16 17 Section 37. Subsection 25.70.030(c)(4) is amended to read as follows: 18 (4) For an.addition to an existing single.-family dwelling,required uncovered spaces may 19 be provided in tandem configuration if and may 20 extend: 21 (A) In areas with sidewalks, to the inner edge of the sidewalk; 22 (B) In areas without sidewalks to five (5) feet from the inner edge of the curb; 23 (C) In areas without either sidewalks or curbs,to five(5) feet from the edge of pavement. 24 25 Section 38. Section 25.70.050 is amended to read as follows: 26 25.70.050 Exceptions for the AA,AP ,APS,C-1,C-2,e-4, - - C-R,lB, RR, and 27 SL districts and for nonconformities. 28 (a) , 13 I , All uses in the AA, APN,APS, C-1, C-2, C- , 2 113, RR, SLe-4, - -f districts shall conform to the parking requirements of this Chapter 3 unless specific ,parking requirements are imposed by the chapter of this Code gov::r)irlg [he 4 particular district. 5 (b) Existing uses which become nonconforming as a result of the adoption of parking 6 requirements may be remodeled so long as the gross floor area occupied by the use is not increased. 7 If the gross floor area is increased, parking shall be provided as required for the additional floor 8 area. 9 (c) Any existing parking spaces which form the basis for credit against any parking 10 assessment shall be maintained in a usable operating condition. 11 12 Section 39. Subsection 25.74.010(d) is amended to read as follows: 13 (d) Where such area adjoins a lot in a C district or the RR M district, and such lot is 14 occupied by a building extending to the lot line, the fence will not be required on that portion of 15 the common lot line occupied by the building; 16 17 Section 40. Section 25.76.030 is amended to read as follows: 18 25.76.030 Location requirements. 19 (a) No adult-oriented business shall be established or located in any zone in the city other 20 than the Anza Area(AA), Anza Point North(APN),or Shoreline( L),IES zone. 21 (b) Within these designated&+zones, an adult-oriented business shall not be established 22 or located within the following minimum distances: 23 (1) Within one thousand (1,000) feet of any other adult-oriented business. 24 (2) Within one thousand(1,000) feet of any then-existing church, school, or city athletic 25 facility. 26 (c) The distances set forth above shall be measured as a radius from the primary entrance 27 of the adult-oriented business to the property lines of the property so used without regard to 28 intervening structures. 14 I Section 41. Section 25.78.025 is amended to read as follows: 2 25.78.025 Fence height in all other districts. 3 In all other districts, except as required or permitted in the RR district in Chapter 25.44 for 4 certain Nf-f uses by Sectimn 25.44.0751,fences seven(7)feet in height shall be permitted,provided 5 the last foot in height is of an open design freely allowing light and air to pass through. 6 7 Section 42. The first two sentences of Section 4 of the provisions of Ordinance No. 1151 8 as amended by Ordinances 1305 and 1739 (Bayfront Fees) are amended to read as follows 9 "Fees are hereby established for all property within the Bayfront Area of Benefit. As;an 10 aitcrnativc to the development of a development fee contract and recording of lien pursuant to the 11 Government Code, one-half of said fees shall may be deposited with submittal of tile pr0j-e& 12 assessment for traffic allocation or plarming appliration to the Plarming Department before 13 issuance of a construction permit for the project and the remaining one-half paid prior to 14 the approval of final framing of buildings or additions subject to this ordinance. Any project which 15 has submitted a construction permit nent or plarming application prior to the 16 effective date of any amendment to this ordinance but has not received a building permit, shall at 17 the time of receiving the building permit, pay any difference between the amount paid at the 18 submittal of the sment or application and the amount of said fee established by such 19 amendment. " 20 21 Section 43. The first three sentences of Section 4 of the provisions of Ordinance No. 22 1751 (North Burlingame/Rollins Road Fees) are amended to read as follows: 23 "Fees are hereby established for all property within the North Burlingame/Rollins Road 24 Areas of Benefit. As an alternative to the development of a development fee contract and recording 25 of lien pursuant to the Government Code, one-half of said fees shall may be deposited with 26 submittal of the project assessment for traffic allocation or pimming application to the Plarmin 27 Dement before issuance of a construction permit for the project and the remaining one-half 28 shall be paid prior to the approval of final framing of buildings or additions subject to this 15 I ordinance. In the case of a change of use within a building, the fee shall be paid one-half at 2 time of appfication for before issuance of a construction permit for any building or tenant 3 improvements conditional use pennit and one-half before scheduling the final inspection of tenant 4 improvements for the change in use; if no building or tenant improvements are contemplated,the 5 fees second one-1shall be paid within thirty(30) days of the approval of the conditional use 6 permit. Any project which has submitted a construction permit project assessment or p! 7 application prior to the effective date of any amendment to this ordinance but has not received a 8 building permit, shall at the time of receiving the building permit,pay any difference between the 9 amount paid at the submittal of the project assessment or application and the amount of the fee 10 established by that amendment. 11 12 Section 44. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 13 14 Mayor 15 16 I,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the 17 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 18 of , 2006, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 19 day of , 2006, by the following vote: 20 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 21 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 22 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 23 City Clerk 24 U:\FILES\ORDINANC\omniupdate2006.aty.wpd 25 26 27 28 16 BURLI®NGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA 8f ITEM# MTG. 8/21/06 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL sus TED L / - BY DATE: August 13, 2006 APPRO FROM: Parks & Recreation Director(558-7307) BY suB.IEcT: PARKS FOR THE FUTURE PROPOSAL TO FUN PARKS AGENCIES WITHIN SAN MATEO COUNTY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive the report regarding Parks for the Future and then determine whether or not to support the measure. BACKGROUND: Parks for the Future is an effort to secure dedicated funding to support parks and recreation agencies within San Mateo County for a period of 25 years. The measure will be placed on the November 2006 ballot and is anticipated to raise approximately$15 million annually. If the measure is approved by 2/3 of the County's voters,the funds will be shared by the San Mateo County Parks Department,the 20 city Parks and Recreation agencies, the Ladera and Highlands Recreation Districts and the Mid-Peninsula Regional Open Space District. Each agency would be required to maintain their general fund contributions to their Parks and Recreation budgets(see Attachment`B")and would be able to use the funds at their discretion for Parks and Recreation purposes, such as maintenance, operations, activities and programs, capital improvements and acquisition. C/CAG would serve as the administrative board for distribution of funds, auditing and reporting functions. Approval of the measure would increase the County's sales tax from 8.25%to 8.375% - still in line with the sales tax rate in other Bay Area counties. Alameda 8.75% San Francisco 8.50% Contra Costa 8.25% Santa Clara 8.25% Santa Cruz 8.00% BUDGET IMPACT: If the Parks for the Future initiative is passed by the voters of San Mateo County, the anticipated revenues to each agency will be distributed per a negotiated formula using the 2002 sales tax level. The revenues will be distributed per capita with the smaller cities receiving a minimum of 1.357 % of the net revenue. Annual growth of sales tax revenues equal to or less than 4% will be distributed per this formula. Cities and special districts only will benefit from annual growth greater than 4%. Note that the State Board of Equalization estimates that it is 5% to administer the tax and for planning purposes 1% is being identified for local administration by C/CAG. Administrative costs will be charged at actual costs and may be less depending on number and frequency of audits. A one time set up charge (could be as high as $40,000) and any election costs (could be as high as $350,000 depending on number of county wide measures)will also be deducted from the first quarter revenues. This table illustrates the anticipated revenues to each agency(using the 2002 level) per the negotiated distribution of funds after the administrative costs have been deducted. County(42%) $6,346,207 Special Districts (6%) $906,601 Mid-Peninsula Open Space District $634,620 Highlands Recreation District $181,320 Ladera Recreation District$90,660) Cities (52%) $7,857,209 Atherton$205,000 Belmont$268,272 Brisbane $205,000 Burlingame $300,681 Colma$205,000 Daly City $1,106,502 East Palo Alto $315,076 Foster City $307,569 Half Moon Bay $205,000 Hillsborough $205,000 Menlo Park$328,733 Millbrae $221,234 Pacifica $409,942 Portola Valley $205,000 Redwood City $805,169 San Bruno $428,896 San Carlos $295,983 San Mateo $987,556 South San Francisco $646,596 Woodside $205,000 Total $15,110,017 ATTACHMENTS: A. An Ordinance Proposing a One-Eighth Cent Retail Transactions and Use Tax for Park and Recreation Purposes in San Mateo County B. Maintenance of Effort Language ATTACHMENT A ORDINANCE NO. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF SAN MATEO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AN ORDINANCE PROPOSING A ONE-EIGHTH CENT RETAIL TRANSACTIONS AND USE TAX FOR PARKAND RECREATION PURPOSES IN SAN MATEO COUNTY The Board of Supervisors of the County of San Mateo, State of California, ORDAINS as follows: SECTION 1. Title. This ordinance shall be known as the"County of San Mateo Parks for the Future Ordinance". This ordinance shall be applicable in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of the County of San Mateo, which shall be referred to herein as "County". SECTION 2. Purpose. This ordinance establishes a one-eighth of one percent retail transactions and use tax in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County, for a period of 25 years, for the purposes of funding park acquisition, improvements, maintenance, programs, and operations, including recreation and recreation programs. The ordinance is hereby adopted, and should be interpreted, so as to achieve the purposes set forth herein: a. To establish a transactions and use tax at a rate of one-eighth of one percent (0.125%), in the incorporated and unincorporated territories of the County of San Mateo, under the authority provided for in Chapter 2.995 (commencing with Section 7286.90) of Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code, and in accordance with the provisions of Part 1.6 (commencing with Section 7251) of Division 2 of the California Revenue and Taxation Code. b. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that incorporates provisions identical to those of the Sales and Use Tax Law of the State of California insofar as those provisions are not inconsistent with the requirements and limitations contained in Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. c. To adopt a retail transactions and use tax ordinance that imposes a tax and provides a measure therefor that can be administered and collected by the State Board of Equalization in a manner that adapts itself as fully as practicable to, and requires the least possible deviation from, the existing statutory and administrative procedures followed by the State Board of Equalization in administering and collecting the California State Sales and Use Taxes. d. To authorize administration of the retail transactions and use tax ordinance in a manner that will,to the greatest degree possible,be consistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code,minimize the cost of collecting the transactions and use taxes,and at the same time,minimize the burden of record keeping upon persons subject to taxation under the provisions of this ordinance. e. To set a maximum term of twenty-five(25)years during which time this tax shall be imposed pursuant to the authority granted by section 7286.90 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. SECTION 3. Contract with State Board of Equalization Prior to the operative date of the tax,the County shall contract with the State Board of Equalization to perform all functions incident to the administration and operation of this retail transactions and use tax;provided,that if the County shall not have contracted with the State Board of Equalization prior to the operative date of the tax,it shall nevertheless so contract and in such a case the operative date of the tax shall be the first day of the first calendar quarter following the execution of such a contract. SECTION 4. Transactions Tax Rate of One-Eighth of One Percent,and Term. For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail,a tax is hereby imposed upon all retailers in the incorporated and unincorporated territory of this County at the rate of one-eighth of one percent(0.125°/x)of the gross receipts of any retailer from the sale of all tangible personal property sold at retail in this County on and after the operative date of this ordinance.This tax shall be imposed for a maximum period of twenty-five(25)years. SECTION 5. Place of Sale. For the purposes of this ordinance,all retail sales are consummated at the place of business of the retailer unless the tangible personal property sold is delivered by the retailer to an out-of-state destination or to a common carrier for delivery to an out-of- state destination.The gross receipts from such sales shall include delivery charges, when such charges are subject to the state sales and use tax,regardless of the place to which delivery is made. In the event a retailer has no permanent place of business in the state or has more than one place of business,the place or places at which the retail sales are consummated shall be determined under rules and regulations to be prescribed and adopted by the State Board of Equalization. SECTION 6. Use Tax Rate of One-Eighth of One Percent,and Term. An excise tax is hereby imposed on the storage,use or other consumption in this County of tangible personal property purchased from any retailer on and after the operative date of this ordinance,for storage,use or other consumption in this County at the rate of one-eighth of one percent (0.125%) of the sales price of the property. The sales price shall include delivery charges when such charges are subject to state sales or use tax regardless of the place to which delivery is made. This tax shall be imposed for a maximum period of twenty-five (25) years. SECTION 7. Adoption of Provisions of State Law. Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance and except insofar as they are inconsistent with the provisions of Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, all of the provisions of Part 1 (commencing with Section 6001) of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code are hereby adopted and made a part of this ordinance as though fully set forth herein. SECTION 8. Limitations on Adoption of State Law and Collection of Use Taxes. In adopting the provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, wherever the State of California is named or referred to as the taxing agency, the name of the County shall be substituted therefore. The substitution, however, shall not be made when the word "State" is used as part of the title of the State Controller, State Treasurer, State Board of Control, State Board of Equalization, State Treasury, or the Constitution of the State of California; when the result of that substitution would require action to be taken by or against the County or any agency, officer or employee thereof rather than by or against the State Board of Equalization, in performing the functions incident to the administration or operation of this ordinance; in those sections, including but not necessarily limited to, sections referring to the exterior boundaries of the State of California, where the result of the substitution would be to (1) provide an exemption from this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not otherwise be exempt from this tax while such sales, storage, use or other consumption remains subject to tax by the state under the said provisions of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or; (2) impose this tax with respect to certain sales, storage, use or other consumption of tangible personal property which would not be subject to tax by the state under the said provisions of that code; and in sections 6701, 6702 (except in the last sentence thereof), 6711, 6715, 6737, 6797 or 6828 of the Revenue and Taxation Code. The name of the "County" shall be substituted for the word "State" in the phrase "retailer engaged in business in this state" in section 6203 and in the definition of that phrase in section 6203. SECTION 9. Permit Not Required. If a seller's permit has been issued to a retailer under section 6067 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, an additional transactor's permit shall not be required by this ordinance. SECTION 10. Exemptions, Exclusions, and Credits. a. There shall be excluded from the measure of the transactions tax and the use tax the amount of any sales tax or use tax imposed by the State of California or by any city, city and county, or county pursuant to the Bradley-Burns Local Sales and Use Tax Law or the amount of any state-administered transactions or use tax. b. There are exempted from the computation of the amount of transactions tax gross receipts derived from: (1) Sales of tangible personal property, other than fuel or petroleum products, to operators of aircraft to be used or consumed principally outside the County in which the sale is made and directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property under the authority of the laws of this state, the United States, or any foreign government; (2) Sales of property to be used outside the County which is shipped to a point outside the County, pursuant to the contract of sale, by delivery to such point by the retailer or his agent, or by delivery by the retailer to a carrier for shipment to a consignee at such point. For the purposes of this paragraph, delivery to a point outside the County shall be satisfied; (i) With respect to vehicles (other than commercial vehicles) subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, and undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code by registration to an out-of-County address and by a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, stating that such address is, in fact, his principal place of residence; (ii) With respect to commercial vehicles by registration to a place of business out-of-County, and a declaration under penalty of perjury, signed by the buyer, that the vehicle will be operated from that address; (3) Sale of tangible personal property if the seller is obligated to furnish the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this ordinance; and (4) A lease of tangible personal property which is a continuing sale of such property for any period of time for which the lessor is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by the lease prior to the operative date of this ordinance. For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4), above, the sale or lease of tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract of lease for any period of time for which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised. c. There are exempted from the use tax imposed by this ordinance, the storage, use or other consumption in this County of tangible personal property: (1) The gross receipts from the sale of which have been subject to a transactions tax under any state-administered transactions and use tax ordinance; (2) Other than fuel or petroleum products purchased by operators of aircraft and used or consumed by such operators directly and exclusively in the use of such aircraft as common carriers of persons or property for hire or compensation under a certificate of public convenience and necessity issued pursuant to the laws of this state, the United States, or any foreign government. This exemption is in addition to the exemptions provided in sections 6366 and 6366.1 of the Revenue and Taxation Code of the State of California; (3) If the purchaser is obligated to purchase the property for a fixed price pursuant to a contract entered into prior to the operative date of this ordinance; and (4) If the possession of, or the exercise of any right or power over, the tangible personal property arises under a lease which is a continuing purchase of such property for any period of time for which the lessee is obligated to lease the property for an amount fixed by a lease prior to the operative date of this ordinance. (5) For the purposes of subsections (3) and (4), above, storage, use or other consumption, or possession, or exercise of any right or power over, tangible personal property shall be deemed not to be obligated pursuant to a contract or lease for any period of time during which any party to the contract or lease has the unconditional right to terminate the contract or lease upon notice, whether or not such right is exercised. (6) Except as provided in subparagraph (7), a retailer engaged in business in the County shall not be required to collect use tax from the purchaser of tangible personal property, unless the retailer ships or delivers the property into the County or participates within the County in making the sale of the property, including, but not limited to, soliciting or receiving the order, either directly or indirectly, at a place of business of the retailer in the County or through any representative, agent, canvasser, solicitor, subsidiary or person in the County under authority of the retailer. (7) "A retailer engaged in business in the County" shall also include any retailer of any of the following: vehicles subject to registration pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 4000) of Division 3 of the Vehicle Code, aircraft licensed in compliance with Section 21411 of the Public Utilities Code, or undocumented vessels registered under Division 3.5 (commencing with Section 9840) of the Vehicle Code. That retailer shall be required to collect use tax from any purchaser who registers or licenses the vehicle, vessel, or aircraft at an address in the County. d. Any person subject to use tax under this ordinance may credit against that tax any transactions or reimbursement for transactions tax paid to a district imposing, or retailer liable for a transaction tax pursuant to Chapter 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code with respect to the sale to the person of the property, the storage, use or other consumption of which is subject to the use tax. SECTION 12. Full Text of Measure. There shall be proposed to the voters of San Mateo County for approval at the election set for November 7, 2006, the following Measure: San Mateo County 1/8 Cent Sales Tax Measure for Parks and Recreation This measure authorizes the enactment of a one-eighth (1/8) cent retail transaction and use (sales) tax to fund park acquisition, improvements, maintenance, programs and operations, including recreation and recreation programs, within the incorporated and unincorporated areas of San Mateo County, with the following requirements: • The tax will be levied for a period of twenty-five (25) years. • Revenues from the tax may only be used for park acquisition, improvements, maintenance, programs, and operations, including recreation and recreation programs, within the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the County, and shall be used only in accordance with the expenditure plan set forth below. • During the first year that the tax is levied, net tax revenues, after deduction of administrative expenses, will be apportioned among the County, all cities within the County ("Cities"), and the MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District, the Highlands Recreation District, and the Ladera Recreation District (collectively, "Districts") on the following basis: 1 . The County will receive 42% of net tax revenues. 2. Districts will receive 6% of net tax revenues. Of the amounts allocated to the Districts, the MidPeninsula Regional Open Space District will receive 70%, the Highlands Recreation District will receive 20%, and Ladera Recreation District will receive 10% of such amounts. 3. Cities will receive 52% of net tax revenues, with each city to receive a portion of the total Cities' allocation calculated on a per capita basis, using yearly population figures published by the State Department of Finance. Notwithstanding the amounts calculated on a per capita basis, each city will receive from the Cities' allocation a minimum distribution equal to 1.357% of total net tax revenues and the remaining City allocations will be adjusted accordingly. • In each year after the first year, the County, Districts, and Cities shall share in any growth in sales tax revenues of up to four percent (4%) over the previous year in accordance with the allocation percentages set forth above. In each year after the first year, the Cities and Districts only shall share in any growth in sales tax revenues over the previous year which exceeds four percent (4%). Districts will be allocated 10% and Cities will be allocated 90% of any such sales tax revenues exceeding a four percent (4%) growth in sales tax revenues over the previous year. The allocation of the funds in excess of the 4% growth for the respective District and City will be in proportion to the shares established for each agency for the funds less than 4% growth. For each year after the first year, the method of allocation to each of the Cities and Districts shall be the same as that for first year, including the minimum allocation of 1.357% for each City. • The County and each city will establish a general fund baseline Parks and Recreation budget for Fiscal Year 2006/07, measured in dollars. The baseline budget will be adjusted every five years, beginning in Fiscal Year 2011/12, and continuing at five year intervals thereafter, by applying the Bay Area Consumer Price Index, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or a successor index. In order to receive its full share of sales tax proceeds for a give n fiscal year, the County and each city must either (1) maintain or increase its Parks and Recreation budget in dollars as measured against the baseline budget, or(2) reduce its Parks and Recreation budget compared to the baseline budget, in percentage terms, no more than the percentage by which the combined budgets of all other non-public safety departments is reduced as measured against the combined budgets of all other non-public safety departments for the prior fiscal year. In the event the County or a city reduces its Parks and Recreation budget compared to the baseline budget, measured on a percentage basis, more than percentage reduction of the combined budgets of all other non-public safety departments over the prior year's combined budgets, or reduces its Parks and Recreation budget compared to the baseline budget, measured on a percentage basis, while the combined budgets of all other non-public safety departments increases in relation to the prior year's combined budgets, the sales tax revenue that would otherwise have been payable to that County or city for that fiscal year shall be reduced by the difference between those percentage variances. For each fiscal year beginning in Fiscal Year 2007/08, before sales tax revenues for that year may be disbursed to the County or city, a resolution must be adopted stating the baseline Parks and Recreation budget in dollars; the Parks and Recreation budget in dollars for the fiscal year; the reduction in percentage terms of the Parks and Recreation budget from the baseline, if any; and the variance in percentage terms of the combined budgets for all other non-public safety departments from the combined budgets for the prior fiscal year. The County and each City shall certify the data provided. All requests for disbursement must be made within the fiscal year for which the measure funds are made available or the funds will not be disbursed to the city or County and will be rolled over for the next year. For purposes of this section, neither the baseline Parks and Recreation budget, nor any yearly Parks and Recreation budget used for purposes of the calculations set forth herein, shall include any revenues from the sales tax disbursed pursuant to this measure. • The following expenditure plan represents allocations for the first year of sales tax revenue collection and distribution (Fiscal Year 2006-07), and is based on population figures published by the State Department of Finance on January 1, 2006. The allocations will change from year to year based on the allocation specified above, changes in published populations, and any adjustments based on the failure of an entity to maintain its required general fund baseline Parks and Recreation budget. Expenditure Plan (Fiscal Year 2006-07) Entity Population Percent Allocation of Tax Revenue County of San Mateo 724, 104 42.00% Highlands Recreation District N/A 1 .20% Ladera Recreation District N/A 0.60% MidPeninsula Regional Open N/A 4.20% Space District Atherton, Town of 71262 1 .357% Belmont, City of 25,648 1 .778% Brisbane, City of 31744 1 .357% Burlingame, City of 281322 1 .964% Colma, Town of 11575 1 .357% Daly City, City of 1041820 7.267% East Palo Alto, City of 321083 2.224% Foster City, City of 291900 2.073% Half Moon Bay, City of 121739 1 .357% Hillsborough, Town of 101965 1 .357% Menlo Park, City of 301750 2. 132% Millbrae, City of 201735 1 .438% Pacifica, City of 381739 2.686% Portola Valley, Town of 4 553 1 .357% Redwood City, City of 76,087 5.275% San Bruno, City of 411515 2.878% San Carlos, City of 281265 1 .960% San Mateo, City of 941315 6.539% South San Francisco, City of 61 ,824 4.286% Woodside, Town of 57507 1 .357% Notes: 1 . Population figures represent populations served by parks and recreation facilities within the jurisdiction of the specified entity. For the County of San Mateo, the population figure represents the entire County population. City population figures are those published by the State Department of Finance. 2. The estimated yearly tax revenues available for distribution, after deduction for administrative expenses, is approximately $16,000,000, based on taxable sales during the 2002 calendar year. For FY 2006-07, it is anticipated that revenues will be collected for the last quarter (April-June) only. 3. Tax revenues will supplement any amounts specified by an entity under its annual General Fund Parks and Recreation budget. 4. Funds must be used for parks and recreation purposes, including but not limited to , maintaining and improving park bathrooms, picnic areas and athletic facilities; repairing and upgrading playgrounds and play structures; improving access to parks and playgrounds for the disabled;preserving natural open spaces;and maintaining hiking,walking and biking trails. • Tax revenues received will be deposited into a separate account maintained and administered by the City/County Association of Governments(C/CAG),or a successor entity as may be selected by the County and Cities,which shall calculate the amounts to be allocated to the County,Cities and Districts as provided for in this measure,and distribute such amounts on a quarterly basis to the Cities,County and Districts. C/CAG shall audit the distribution and use of the tax revenues distributed pursuant to this measure on a yearly basis,shall audit the performance of the entities receiving tax revenues on a periodic basis, shall consider and approve the audit results in an open meeting,and shall provide a copy of the audit results to the County,the Cities and the Districts. C/CAG shall be entitled to reimbursement for its services from available tax revenues at a rate of one percent(1%)of such revenues for the first full year of such services,with reimbursement to be adjusted for future years based on the actual cost of such services. • Any election costs and state startup costs required by state law, borne by the County of San Mateo shall be reimbursed to the County from net tax revenues received during the first year of collection. SECTION 13. Abbreviated Statement of Measure. The abbreviated statement of the measure for inclusion on the ballot pursuant to California Elections Code section 13247 shall be as follows: SAN MATEO COUNTY 1/8 CENT SALES TAX MEASURE FOR PARKS AND RECREATION Measure Shall San Mateo County enact a one-eighth cent sales tax,with annual audits and reports to the community,to support parks and recreation services provided by cities,the county and special districts,including,but not limited to: maintaining and improving park bathrooms,picnic areas and athletic facilities;repairing and upgrading playgrounds and play structures;improving access to parks and playgrounds for the disabled;preserving natural open spaces;and maintaining hiking,walking and biking trails. SECTION 14. Use of Proceeds. The proceeds of the tax imposed by this ordinance shall be used in accordance with applicable law and solely for the projects and purposes set forth in the expenditure plan required by this ordinance,and administrative costs as set forth in this ordinance SECTION 15. Amendments. All amendments to Part I of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code relating to sales and use taxes and which are not inconsistent with Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, and all amendments to Part 1.6 and Part 1.7 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, subsequent to the effective date of this ordinance shall automatically become a part of this ordinance; provided, however, that no such amendment shall operate so as to affect the rate of tax imposed by this ordinance. SECTION 16. Enjoining Collection Forbidden. No injunction or writ of mandate or other legal or equitable process shall issue in any suit, action, or proceeding in any court against the State or the County, or against any officer of the state or the County, to prevent or enjoin the collection under this ordinance, or Part 1.6 of Division 2 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, or any tax or any amount of tax required to be collected. SECTION 17. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the ordinance and the application of such provision to other persons or circumstance shall not be affected thereby. SECTION 18. Operative Date; Period of Tax Imposition. "Operative Date" means the first day of the first calendar quarter commencing more than 110 days after the adoption of this ordinance, the date of such adopting being as set forth throughout this ordinance. This ordinance relates, in substantial part, to the levying and collecting of the County's retail transaction and use taxes and will become effective at the close of the polls on the day of election at which the Measure in Sections 12 and 13 is adopted by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the electors voting on the Measure. The maximum period during which this tax will be imposed is twenty-five (25) years. Attachment "B" Maintenance of Effort The effort requires the new funds to supplement existing parks and recreation budgets. Language reflecting this concept will be included: The County and each city will establish a general fund baseline Parks and Recreation budget for Fiscal Year 2006/07, measured in dollars. The baseline budget will be adjusted every five years, beginning in Fiscal Year 2011/12, and continuing at five year intervals thereafter, by applying the Bay Area Consumer Price Index, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, or a successor index. In order to receive its full share of sales tax proceeds for a given fiscal year, the County and each city must either (1) maintain or increase its Parks and Recreation budget in dollars as measured against the baseline budget, or (2) reduce its Parks and Recreation budget compared to the baseline budget, in percentage terms, no more than the percentage by which the combined budgets of all other non-public safety departments is reduced as measured against the combined budgets of all other non-public safety departments for the prior fiscal year. In the event the County or a city reduces its Parks and Recreation budget compared to the baseline budget, measured on a percentage basis, more than percentage reduction of the combined budgets of all other non-public safety departments over the prior year 's combined budgets, or reduces its Parks and Recreation budget compared to the baseline budget, measured on a percentage basis, while the combined budgets of all other non-public safety departments increases in relation to the prior year 's combined budgets, the sales tax revenue that would otherwise have been payable to that County or cityfor that fiscal year shall be reduced by the difference between those percentage variances. For each fiscal year beginning in Fiscal Year 2007/08, before sales tax revenues for that year may be disbursed to the County or city, a resolution must be adopted stating the baseline Parks and Recreation budget in dollars; the Parks and Recreation budget in dollars for the fiscal year; the reduction in percentage terms of the Parks and Recreation budget from the baseline, if any; and the variance in percentage terms of the combined budgets for all other non-public safety departments from the combined budgets for the prior fiscal year. The County and each City shall certify the data provided. All requests for disbursement must be made within the fiscal year for which the measure funds are made available or the funds will not be disbursed to the city or County and will be rolled over for the next year. For purposes of this section, neither the baseline Parks and Recreation budget, nor any yearly Parks and Recreation budget used for purposes of the calculations set forth herein, shall include any revenues from the sales tax disbursed pursuant to this measure. CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 9a a�oq MTG. p L �RATEO JUNE6 DATE 8/21/06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED By DATE: July 19, 2006 APPROVED r , FROM: Doris J. Mortensen, City Clerk—558-7203 BY � � ���1 , SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION DESIGNATING A VOTING DELEGATE FOR 2006 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution designating Vice Mayor Nagel as Burlingame's voting delegate for the 2006 League of California Cities Annual Conference. BACKGROUND: Vice Mayor Nagel is registered to attend the 2006 League of California Cities Annual Conference in September and as a city official is eligible to be designated as Burlingame's voting delegate. League of California Cities bylaws require that a city's voting delegate be designated by City Council action. Attachment: Resolution RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE TO 2006 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the Bylaws of the League of California Cities, specifically Article V, Section 3(a), require approval of the City Council to designate a city official as the city's designated voting delegate to the General Assembly; and WHEREAS,Vice Mayor Nagel is registered to attend the 2006 League of California Cities Annual Conference representing the City of Burlingame; NOW,THEREFORE,IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: That the City Council of the City of Burlingame hereby designates Vice Mayor Nagel as the City of Burlingame Voting Delegate to the 2006 League of California Cities Annual Conference. Mayor I, DORIS J. MORTENSEN, 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 2151 day of August, 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk CITY AGENDA 9b ITEM# BURT INGAME STAFF REPORT MAG. .�9 DATE 8/21/2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTE BY DATE: August 7 2006 APPROV BY— FROM: Y FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION CORRECTING FEES FOR FIRE INSPECTION OF MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS AND POLICE REPOSSESSION OF VEHICLES AND REVISING MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT FACILITY USAGE RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution making corrections to the City Master Fee Schedule for Fire and Police Services and amending the Master Fee Schedule for Parks & Recreation facility usage.. DISCUSSION: The City Council adopted a revised Master Fee Schedule on May 1, 2006. Staff has found two necessary corrections: — The fire inspection fee for 10 or less dwelling units is misstated at $104.50, and it should be $83. — The police repossession fee was increased by a personnel costs factor; however, the State Legislature has capped the fee by statute at $15, which was set at 1993 costs. The City cannot increase the fee. The Parks & Recreation Department believes that the generic fees for facility usage do not reflect the actual costs for the various sizes and amenities of the facilities. Therefore, a revised master fee schedule is proposed that would differentiate among the various fields and gymnasiums. The Parks & Recreation Commission will be reviewing the proposed changes at its meeting on August 17 and the Commission's comments will be provided to the Council at the Council meeting. Attachment Proposed Resolution Distribution Fire Chief Police Chief Finance Director Director of Parks & Recreation RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR FIRE MULTIFAMILY INSPECTIONS AND POLICE REPOSSESSION CHARGES AND PARKS & RECREATION FACILITIES WHEREAS,the City has established a master fee schedule for fees charged by the City for various services; and WHEREAS, the Central County Fire Department provides the City with inspection and checking services with regard to the California Fire Code and City codes; and WHEREAS, the fee for inspection of ten or less units of multifamily residential buildings needs to be reduced to be in line with the other fees for inspections; and WHEREAS, Government Code section 41612 establishes a police service fee for repossession of vehicles that cannot be adjusted, so the current fee must be reduced to the amount set by the State Legislature; and WHEREAS,the current fees for parks and recreation facilities does not differentiate between the various types and capacities of the fields and gymnasiums,so that the fees do not reflect the costs incurred in maintenance and repair for the variety of facilities, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Master Fee Schedule is amended as follows and takes effect immediately: FIRE DEPARTMENT SERVICE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Reference Apartments, Hotels and $104.50 $83.00 Resolution No. Motels— 10 or less units POLICE DEPARTMENT SERVICE CURRENT FEE NEW FEE Reference Repossessed Vehicle $17.50 $15.00 Gov't Code § 41612 1 2. The Master Fee Schedule for Parks&Recreation is amended pursuant to Attachment A to this Resolution and also takes effect immediately. Mayor I, DORIS MORTENSEN, 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 , 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk 2 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT Group Classifications for Purposes of Parks&Recreation Facilities Usage: Group A: Government agencies with Parks&Recreation service agreements with the City, such as Burlingame School District and SMUHSD Group B: Non-profit(501c(3)) groups or organizations, such as AYSO,BYBA, Library Foundation. Group C: Private parties, commercial,business, and profit-making organizations, such as weddings, seminars, receptions FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE INDOOR FACILITIES �,� d1 i7� uir ' tli i7i ti i it t. Burlingame High School Mani Gyri Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. 31- G rOUP B 2003 Burlingame Residents $14.00 per $15.00 per Resolution No. 27- hour hour 2006 Non-residents $18.00 per $20.00 per Resolution No. 27- hour hour 2006 Group Burlinganxe Residents $30.00 per $30.00 per Resolution No. 27- hour hour 2006 NNon xe d t $36.00 per $50.00 per Resolution No. 27- hour hour 2006 Small Gym GrOUp A No charge No charge Resolution No. 31- Group B 2003 Burlingaine Residents $14.00 per $10.00 per Resolution No. 27- hour hour 2006 Nein-residents $18.00 per $15.00 per Resolution No. 27- hour hour 2006 GrOcIp C Burlingame Residents $30.00 per 520.00 per Resolution No. 27- hour hoar 2006 gran-residents $36.00 per $25.00 per Resolution No. 27- hour hour 2006 PARKS &REC - 1 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Other Indoor Facilities, except the Auditorium Group A No charge No change Resolution No. 31- Group B 2003 Burlingame Residents $14.00 per No change Resolution No. 27- hour 2006 Non-residents $18.00 per No change Resolution No. 27- hour 2006 Group C Burlingame Residents $30.00 per No change Resolution No. 27- hour 2006 Non-residents $36.00 per No change Resolution No. 27- hour 2006 Auditorium Group A No charge No change Resolution No. 31- Group B 2003 Burlingame Residents $30.00 per No change Resolution No. 27- hour 2006 Non-residents $36.00 per No change Resolution No. 27- hour 2006 Group C Burlingame Residents $77.00 per No change Resolution No. 61- hour 2004 Non-residents $94.00 per No change Resolution No. 61- hour 2004 Building Attendant* $22.00 per No change Resolution No. 27- hour 2006 Weekend Custodian $80.00 No change Resolution No. 27- 2006 Weekday Custodian $25.00 No change Resolution No. 31- 2003 Extra,Non-Scheduled Hours $125 per hour No change Resolution No. 27- 2006 Building Attendant or Security will be on duty 1 hour prior to andl hour after duration of activities at Recreation Center. Security fee will be charged for all private parties over 150 persons or serving alcoholic beverages. PARKS &REC - 2 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Security Personnel' $60.00 per No change Resolution No. 27- hour 2006 Tables/Chairs—up to 50 $7.00 No change Resolution No. 31- 2003 Tables/Chairs—5 1-100 $15.00 No change Resolution No. 31- 2003 Tables/Chairs—over 100 $20.00 No change Resolution No. 31- 2003 Coffee Pots $10.00 per pot No change Resolution No. 31- 2003 Wine/beer to be served $30.00 No change Resolution No. 31- additional 2003 TV/VCR $10.00 No change Resolution No. 31- 2003 Overhead Projector $10.00 No change Resolution No. 31- 2003 Microphone $10.00 No change Resolution No. 31- 2003 it k 'v'..Jui vaHSxra .m iir' J i ri`iri OrrrJYx; ' E OUTDOOR FACILITIES Field Use for Season by Burlingame-based non $5 per resident $5 per resident Resolution No. 31- profit youth sports group player; player per 2005 $20/non- league; resident player $25/non- resident player per league *Building Attendant or Security will be on duty 1 hour prior to and 1 hour after duration of activities at Recreation Center. Security fee will be charged for all private parties over 150 persons or those serving alcoholic beverages. PARKS &REC - 3 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Burliname Higli School Stadluin Field Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. 31- Group F 2003 Burlingame Residents $5.00 per 520.00 per Resolution No. 31- resident player hour 2005 and $20 per nonresident player Non-residents $20.00 per 530.00 per Resolution No. 31- hour hour 2003 Group C Burlingame Residents $35.00 per $40.00 per Resolution No. 31- hour hour 2003 Noxi-residents $50.00 per $50.00 per Resolution No. 31- hour hour 2003 Stadi urn "Tach (Track only) Group A No provision No charge Group B Burl;ingamc Residents No provision S 10,00 per hour `von-residents No provision $15.00 per hour Group C" Burlingame Residents No provision 520.00 per hour Non-residents No provision 525.00 per hour Stadium Lights $20.00 per $25.00 per Resolution No. 31- hour hour 2003 PARKS &REC - 4 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Burlingame High School Back Field Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. 31- Group B 2003 Burlingame Residents $5.00 per $15.00 per Resolution No. 31- resident player hour 2005 and $20 per nonresident player Non'-residents $20.00 per S20M per Resolution No. 31- hour hour 2003 Group Burlingame Residents $35.00 per $20.00 per Resolution No. 31- hour hour 2003 Non-residents $50.00 per $25.00 per Resolution No. 31- hour hour 2003 Burlingame High School Softball Field (#1 or#2) Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. 31- Group B 2003 Burlingame Residents $5.00 per $10.00 per Resolution No. 31- resident player hour 2005 and $20.00 per nonresident player Non_resid $15.00 per S15.00 per Resolution No. 31- hour hour 2003 Group -b6rlingar e Residents $20.00 per 520.00 per Resolution No. 31- hour }your 2003 Non-residents $25.00 per $25.00 per Resolution No. 31- hour hour 2003 PARKS &REC - 5 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Burlingame High School Tennis Courts Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. 31- Group B 2003 Burlingame Residents $30.00 for 4 $15.00 for 4 Resolution No. 31- hours hours 2005 Non-residents No provision $15.00 for 4 hours Group C Burlingame Residents $40.00 for 4 $30.00 for 4 Resolution No. 31- hours hours 2003 Non-residents $50.00 for 4 $30.00 for 4 Resolution No. 31- hours hours 2003 Franklin Field Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. 31- Group B 2003 Burlingame Residents $5.00 per $10.00 per Resolution No. 31- resident player hour 2005 and $20 per nonresident player Non-residents $20.00 per $15.00 per Resolution No. 31- hour hour 2003 Group C Burlingame Residents $35.00 per $20.00 per Resolution No. 31- hour hour 2003 Non-residents $50.00 per $25.00 per Resolution No. 31- hour hour 2003 PARKS &REC - 6 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Osberg Field Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. 31- Group B 2003 Burlinganmc Residents $5.00 per 510.00 per Resolution No. 31 resident player hour 2005 and $20 per nonresident player Non-residents $20.00 per $15.00 per Resolution No. 31- hour hour 2003 Group C' Burlingame Residents $35.00 per $20.00 per Resolution No. 31- hour hour 2003 Non-residents $50.00 per $25.00 per Resolution No. 31- hour hour 2003 Bayside Ball Fields#1 or#2' Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. Group B 31-2003 Burlingame Residents $5.00 per $10.00 per Resolution No. resident player hour 31-2005 and$20.00 per nonresident player N, on-resiet $15.00 per $15.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Group Burlingame Residents $20.00 per $20.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Non-residents $25.00 per $25.00 per. Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 PARKS &REC - 7 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Bayside Ball Fields#3 or#4 for softball or baseball Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. Group B 31-2003 Burlingame Residents $5.00 per S7.00 per Hour Resolution No. resident player 31-2005 and $20.00 per nonresident player Non-residents $15.00 per S 10.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Group C Burlingame Residents $20.00 per $15.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Non-residents $25.00 per $20.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Bayside Ball Fields#3 or#4 for soccer Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. Group B 31-2003 Burlingame Residents $5.00 per $10.00 per Resolution No. resident player hour 31-2005 and $20.00 per nonresident player Non-residents $20.00 per $15.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Group C Burlingame Residents $35.00 per $20.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Non-residents $50.00 per $25.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 PARKS &REC - 8 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Cuernavaca Park Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. Group B 31-2003 Burlingame Residents $5.00 per $1,0.00 per Resolution No. resident player hour 31-2005 and $20.00 per nonresident player Non-residents $15.00 per $15.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Group C Burlingame Residents $20.00 per $20.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Non-residents $25.00 per $25.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 1urrav Field Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. G1oul) B 31-2003 Burlingame Residents $5.00 per $20.00 per Resolution No. resident player hour 31-2005 and $20.00 per nonresident player Nwi-residents $20.00 per $30.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Grout) C Burlingame Residents $35.00 per $40.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Noi3-residents $50.00 per $50.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 PARKS &REC - 9 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Ray Park Ball Fields #1 or#2 Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. Group B 31-2003 Burlingame Residents $5.00 per $10.00 per Resolution No. resident player hour 31-2005 and$20.00 per nonresident player Non-residents $15.00 per $15.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Group C Burlingame Residents $20.00 per $20.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Not-residents $25.00 per $25.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Ray Park Tennis Courts Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. 31- Group B-(residence) 2003 Burlingame Residents $30.00 for 4 $15.00 for 4 Resolution No. 31- hours hours 2003 Noti-residents No provision $25.00 for 4 hours Group C Burlingame Residents $40.00 for 4 $30.00 for 4 Resolution No. 31- hours hours 2003 Non-residents $50.00 for 4 $50.00 for 4 Resolution No. 61- hours hours 2004 PARKS &REC - 10 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Washington Park Main Ball Field for baseball Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. Group B 31-2003 Burlingame Residents $5.00 per $20.00 per Resolution No. resident player hour 31-2005 and $20.00 per nonresident player Non-residents $15.00 per $30.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Group C Burlingame Residents $20.00 per $40.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Non-residents $25.00 per $45.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Washington Park Bullpen Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. Group B 31-2003 Burlingame Residents $5.00 per $5.00 per hour Resolution No. resident player 31-2005 and $20.00 per nonresident player Non-residents $15.00 per $10.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Group C Burlingame Residents $20.00 per $5.00 per hour Resolution No. hour 31-2003 Non-residents $25.00 per $10.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 PARKS & REC - 11 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Washington Park Main B'allfield Outfield for Soccer Group A No charge No,charge Resolution No. Group B 31-2003 Burlingame Residents $5.00 per $20.00 per Resolution No. resident player hour 31-2005 and $20.00 per nonresident player Non-residents $20.00 per $30.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Group C Burlingame Residents $35.00 per $40.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 rte>idents $50.00 per $50.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Washington Park Small Ballfield Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. Group,B 31-2003 Burlingame Residents $5.00 per $7.00 per hour Resolution No. resident player 31-2005 and$20.00 per nonresident player Non-residents $15.00 per $10.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Group C Burlingame Residents $20.00 per $15.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 Non-residents $25.00 per $20.00 per Resolution No. hour hour 31-2003 PARKS &REC - 12 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Washington Park Tennis Courts Croup A No charge No charge Resolution No. 31- Group Bj 2003 Burlingame Residents $30.00 for 4 $30.00 for 4 Resolution No. 31- hours hours 2003 Non-residents No provision $50.00 for 4 hours Group C Burlingame Residents $40.00 for 4 $30.00 for 4 Resolution No. 31- hours hours 2003 Non-residents $50.00 for 4 $50.00 for 4 Resolution No. 61- hours hours 2004 PARKS &REC - 13 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Bafffiefd No charge Resolution 3963 5.00 per Resolution resident player 3 f 5 and $20.00 nortresident p}a-yer Non-residents $15.00 perResolution hom 3d-2603 B=llingame Residents $20.00 perResolution how 3 i-2603 $25..00 per Resolution hom 3 r2003 - 6roup LAX No charge Resolution No. 3 f 6roup B (residents only) 3 X66-fart Resolution No. 3 f- hours 2-663 Group e Bnrfingame Residents $40.66 far 4 Resofution No. 3 i- Non-residents hours 2993 $56:66 for 4 Resolution No. 6 i- i m rs 1 12664 PARKS &REC - 14 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Soccer Field - Burlingame Resi $5.00 PC r - resident player 2995 mope. nonresident plam $20.00 pe - ho-ar 2-0� Burlingame Residents $35.00 pe Resolution No. 3 1- hom 2`0� $50.00 per Resolution No. 3 1- hotir 2`0� Pool—50 meter Group A Lifeguard cost No change Resolution No. 31- Group B 2003 Burlingame Residents $125.00 per No change Resolution No. 31- hour plus 2003 lifeguard Non-residents $188.00 per No change Resolution No. 27- hour plus 2006 lifeguard Group C Burlingame Residents $225.00 per No change Resolution No. 31- hour plus 2003 lifeguard Non-residents $288.00 per No change Resolution No. 27- hour plus 2006 lifeguard PARKS & REC - 15 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Pool (small pool) Group A Lifeguard cost No change Resolution No. 31- Group B 2003 Burlingame Residents $63.00 per No change Resolution No. 27- hour plus 2006 lifeguard Non-residents $95.00 per No change Resolution No. 31- hour plus 2003 lifeguard Group C Burlingame Residents $125.00 per No change Resolution No. 31- hour plus 2003 lifeguard Non-residents $188.00 per No change Resolution No. 27- hour plus 2006 lifeguard Pool Lanes (short) Group A Lifeguard cost No change Resolution No. 31- 2003 Group B $10.00 per lane No change Resolution No. 31- per hour 2003 Group C $16.00 per lane No change Resolution No. 27- per hour 2006 Pool Lanes (long) Group A Lifeguard cost No change Resolution No. 31- 2003 Group B $20.00 per lane No change Resolution No. 31- per hour 2003 Group C $25.00 per lane No change Resolution No. 31- per hour 2003 Lifeguard (minimum of 2 per event) $25.00 per No change Resolution No. 31- guard per hour 2003 Field Lights (Washington Park Main Ballfield, $20.00 per No change Resolution No. 31- Murray Field, Bayside) hour 2003 PARKS &REC - 16 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Infield dragging and lining (subject to Fees to be No change Resolution No. 31- availability determined by 2003 Parks Division based on conditions Facility Maintenance Fee for Field User Groups $5 per player No change Resolution No. 31- per league per 2003 season Picnic Permit o Small Picnic Area $75.00 + $50 No change Resolution No. 61- refundable 2004 cleaning deposit Large Picnic Area $100.00+ $50 No change Resolution No. 61- refundable 2004 cleaning deposit Classes R Class Fees To be set based No change Resolution No. 31- on class 2003 provider and materials/facilit ies provided Registration Fees $7.00 No change Resolution No. 61- 2004 Non-resident Fee on Classes Add 20%to No change Resolution No. 31- class fee 2003 rounded to nearest dollar Senior discount—Burlingame residents age 65 50% off class No change Resolution No. 31- and over fee on classes 2003 held at Recreation Center under $75 PARKS &REC - 17 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Senior discount—non-residents age 65 and over Waive non- No change Resolution No. 31- resident fee 2003 Registration cancellation charge $5.00 per class No change Resolution No. 31- or event 2003 Tree and Parks Fees Memorial tree plantings and additional street $75.00 No change Resolution No. 31- tree plantings 2003 Protected Tree Removal Applications $50.00 No change Resolution No. 1- 2005 Arborist's plan review for landscaping $125.00 No change Resolution No. 1- requirements on planning applications 2005 (See also planning fee schedule) Arborist check of construction plans and 5% of building No change Resolution No. 1- inspection of landscape requirements on permit fee 2005 building permit submittals Appeal to City Council from Beautification $230.00 No change Resolution No. 26- Commission decision(does not include noticing 2005 costs) Noticing, City Council appeal $25.00 No change Resolution No. 26- 2005 PARKS &REC - 18 CITY AGENDA ITEM# BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MAG. DATE 8/21/2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED BY DATE: August 21, 2006 APPROVED BY ZB �� � FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney w SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENT TO RESOLUTION CORRECTING FEES FOR FIRE INSPECTION, POLICE REPOSSESSION, AND MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT FACILITY USAGE The Parks & Recreation Commission reviewed the proposed revisions to the Master Fee Schedule for Parks & Recreation on August 17, 2006, and recommended approval of the revisions. Distribution Director of Parks & Recreation Agenda Item # 9c Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: August 21, 2006 11 SUBMITTED BY / APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: AUGUST 3, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF PORTIONS OF LOT 5, BLOCK 7, BURLINGAME LAND CO. MAP NO. 2 SUBDIVISION, 1512-1516 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE, PM 03-08 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council concur with the Planning Commission and approve the subject Tentative and Final Map with the following conditions: • A final parcel map for a lot merger shall be filed by the applicant within the two year time period allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's subdivision ordinance and, if necessary, an extension of up to one year may be filed. • All property corners shall be set and shown on the final parcel map. • The final map shall show the width of the right-of-way for Floribunda Avenue, Almer Road and EI Camino Real, including the centerline of the right-of-way, bearings and distance of the centerline and any existing monuments in the roadway. • All sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter shall be replaced with new. • During construction, the project developer shall maintain the existing street in good condition to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director. If the construction activity results in street damage, the developer shall re-pave the street frontage to City standards. The developer shall take photographs of the street condition prior to and after construction to document any damage caused by the project construction. The street reconstruction shall be a minimum of 2 inches of asphalt concrete removal and replacement. BACKGROUND: At their meeting of October 11, 2005, the Planning Commission reviewed the attached tentative parcel map and recommended Council approval with the conditions listed above. The parcel map should be considered as both the tentative and final parcel map to facilitate processing. Staff will ensure that the proper map is recorded. EXHIBITS: Tentative Parcel Map; Staff Memorandum; October 11, 2005 Planning Commission Minutes c: Ci Clerk,Applicant Victor Vo Assis t En ineer SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\05-02.doc PC 7/11/2005 Item# 5b MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING DEPARTMENT FROM: PUBLIC WORKS -ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DATE: JULY 11, 2005 RE: (ACTION) CONDOMINIUM PERMIT FOR 9 UNITS, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION PURPOSE-RESUBDIVISION OF PORTIONS OF LOT 5 (APN 029-100-270 AND 029-100-280), BLOCK 7, MAP OF BURLINGAME LAND COMPANY- 1512-1516 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE,PM 03-08 CONDOMINIUM PERMIT The following comments will be conditions of approval for this project. I GENERAL: 1. Provide projected stormwater quantities (flowrate and total flow per day) with backup calculations for proposed stormwater flow to street. Provide hydraulic analysis to determine capability of City drainage facilities including existing gutter, catch basins and storm drain pipeline to transfer and collect the projected stormwater flow. City may require an upgrade, at developer's expense, to existing storm drain facilities to accommodate the additional stormwater flow quantity. 2. Since this whole site is to be developed below street or adjacent grade, approvals will be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump system shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects(i.e., dual pumps,controls,level sensors,etc.). Emergency generators must be so housed that they meet the City's noise requirement - see attached plan check sheet. Proposed pump and generator are to be shown. 3. If large trees are to be removed,plans shall show new proposed plantings to help ameliorate the tree removals. 4. Show required seven foot(T)minimum clearances at parking garage floor areas not just floor to floor. Provide room for all pipings,ducts and fire sprinklers.Disabled parking shall have access and parking area at eight feet two inches(82")clear. 1 5. All utilities to this site must be installed underground. Any transformers needed for this site must be installed underground or behind the front setback on this site. 6. Indicate that new curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting this site shall be designed by a civil engineer, approved by the City Engineer, and installed by this development. H SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLANS: 1. All transformers needed for this project shall be indicated on project and installed underground on this site or behind the front setback. 2. All irrigation systems and planting shall follow City's water conservation guidelines. 3. Show the location for the fire sprinkler connection that is proposed. All fire system work shall conform to the City's current procedures for underground water systems. 4. All on site catch basins and drainage inlets shall be stencilled.All catch basins shall be protected during construction so no debris will be dumped into them. The City will provide a stencil. III PARKING: 1. Show underground and at-grade parking slab elevations. Maximum slope in any parking space is 5%. Show drainage pattern. 2. Provide all on site drainage inlets or the sump pump basin for the underground garage with a petroleum absorbent system for treating all drainage flows from the automobile parking areas. 3. Dimension the structural columns and dimensions with respect to parking stalls. Columns that are on the side of parking spaces are to be clear of vehicle's side door access and should be at least two feet(2)clear of the rear of the stalls to facilitate maneuvering. 4. The underground garage walls are at property line with little or no clearances. How are they going to be constructed without easements on adjacent property?Show how excavation is to be made on property with room also for back of wall drainage or propose alternate system. Also show the type of foundation proposed for this building. 5. Show callbox/intercom system to all units from driveway in front of security gate and at the top of the driveway so guests may have access to guest parking spaces. If no gate is planned,install conduit to all units so that if gate is installed in the future,the system may be easily installed. 6. Project plans show two new driveways on Floribunda Avenue shall have a combined width of 26 feet maximum. Driveways for adjacent properties shall be shown on projects plans. 7. Underground garage area vents shall be shown on the project plans. 8. Show which parking spaces belong to which unit. 2 IV ARCHITECTURAL PLANS: 1. Show design of trashroom and indicate size of receptacles,including receptacles for recycling. Confirm sizes needed with BFI. 2. On the Parking Level Plan and First Floor(Site)Plan, show adjacent site and street elevations for reference. 3. Elevator sump drainage shall go to sanitary sewer and be shown on project plans. Elevator sump shall also be separate from groundwater system which is to go to the storm drainage system. 4. All building sections need to show site elevations and adjacent site elevations and shown to scale to give the relationship. 5. The sewer ejection system shall be shown in garage plans and indicate the pit,ventilation,etc. Sewer ejection system must also be on the emergency generator. 6. Individual unit climate controls as well as separate shutoffs for gas, electric and water are required. V TENTATIVE MAPS: 1. Show exact building setbacks both below and above grade. 2. The CCR's for this map must be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approval conditions and City Codes. c: Owner,Architect 3 Cityof Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 C. Keighran moved to continue the application until the applicant has had the opportunity to address all of the Commissions concerns and make all necessary changes. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: after discussion it was suggested that the motion be amended to place the application on the consent calendar after the changes had been made and staff checked. The maker of the motion and the second agreed. It was further noted that the changes are substantial and should all be addressed before the consent hearing. It was noted that if there is a problem, the item can be called off the consent calendar. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when all requested changes have been made and plan checked by staff. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 3. 1512-1516 FLORIBUNDA AVENUE,ZONED R-3—APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION,CONDOMINIUM PERMIT,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT,SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING, TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP AND TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A NEW, FOUR-STORY, 9-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM(DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;THORENFELDT CONSTRUCTION, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (145 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN(CONTINUED FROM SEPTEMBER 12, 2005) Reference staff report October 11, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Forty conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Dayle Meyer, 851 Burlway Rd.,architect,and Michael Callan, 63, Bovet Rd. #314, San Mateo, landscape architect,represented the project. He stated changes were made to the project in response to the Planning Commissions concerns;the color board was revised and included in the packet;main concern at last meeting was the common open space area,a hallway was added directly off the lobby for access to the space from inside the building, planters were placed along each side of exit to provide privacy screening, screening walls were added off of private open spaces, and the largest chunk of the open space was placed in the area that will get the most sunlight,which caused a stairwell change and a revision in the parking plan. Commission asked: why did not put in security gates?Never came up before,never discussed with client. There are still trees in planters, landscaping plays a major part in this development, are the planters large enough for the trees to grow? Bottom of planters will be sawed off which will encourage roots to grow down into dirt below,will require a lot of maintenance. Seems unnecessary to walk all the way around the building to get to the open space at the back corner; how does revised common open space work? Any tenant could take the elevator to the lobby to the hallway and walk back to the common open space; no greater distance then if you were at a park and to travel from the street; this is a shorter straighter direction than the other option;the redesign has several areas for people to sit in. Right route to common open space should be a direct connection from the lobby, should be a stronger connection from lobby to open space; what is the relationship between the master bedrooms at the rear of the building and the open space? Privacy walls have been installed to help with screening these areas. Tried to create more intimate spaces in the common open space for people with separate seating areas, outdoor fire pits, low seat walls, a centrally located BBQ area and a putting green. Because of the grade change towards the rear of the property, it would be hard to look up into lower level units. Is rear landscaping in ground or in pots? Mostly in ground. 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 Design is a lot better,big improvement,but connection to common open space is no where near as nice as it could be. Common open space has been increased by approximately 405 SF because of moving the stairwell area. Like change to common open space and proposed color board. Who is responsible for maintaining the wooden balconies at the front? The condo association. Who is responsible for the planting over the pergola? Has yet to be discussed. Like the vines,is a softening feature; like tile element on front fagade at door and would like it continued on the tower element? Main reason tile is around entrance is to help distinguish the entrance,if tile work were on the tower it might detract from the entrance. Would help to add tile to the windows that have balconies on the east elevation on the tower. Public comments continued:This is a good project and a good compromise for the site;the project has come a long way. Change in elevation from common open space to 1"floor units will be a sloping ramp? Yes. Is the seat wall between the circular seating areas three feet tall? Yes. Landscape architect should be complimented on this revision,there is a lot of varied interest;appreciates what was done. Will windows be true divided light windows? Yes. Like changes; color is very nice; some concern over interior access to common open space; could walk-in closet towards the back of unit number 2 be used as a restroom for people using the patio area? Would work to locate a bathroom in the closet area, do not feel route to common open space is out of the ordinary,like visiting a park;could add bathroom if Commission desires. Understands applicants idea,however,this space should be looked at as a backyard,not a park;there should be a sink by the BBQ area with running water and the installation of a bathroom. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission commented:Much better project then what was seen in the past;concerned with connection to common open space; nicer building; a bathroom will add convenience to the outdoor space; would be in favor of the project with the proposed changes, including a waste line and a sink with running water in the BBQ area;how much use does a place like this get used realistically?;cold water in the sink would suffice; is it a necessity to have the bathroom?; restroom should be put in,bottom units are large and do not see a problem with reducing one of the bottom units for a restroom; likes adding a sink facility; access down middle of building would be better, but this will suffice; bathroom is a nice amenity; these added conveniences will help to create better use of the space;wants the tile incorporated around balconies on the east elevation; wood areas in front should be properly maintained; nice to see increased density in the downtown area; done a nice job. The commission requested the following changes to the project, added to the conditions of approval: • A sink with hot and cold running water and a waste line shall be added next to the BBQ area; • The master bedroom walk-in closet in unit # 2 shall be replaced by a bathroom with direct access from the common open space area; • Title work shall be added to the window areas with the balconies along the east elevation; and • All windows shall be true divided light windows. Chair Auran moved to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote to approve the mitigated Negative Declaration. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. C. Keighran 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 26,2005, sheets Tl,PI through P10, SS4, L1.0,Ll.1,and Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map;with 1,997 SF of common open space; and that the project shall include an affordable unit as shown on the plans date stamped September 26, 2005, and shall comply with the inclusionary housing requirements in Municipal 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 Code Chapter 25.63; 2)that a sink with hot and cold running water and a waste line shall be added next to the BBQ area; 3)that the master bedroom walk-in closet in unit#2 shall be replaced by a bathroom with direct access from the common open space area; 4) that the tile work shall be added to the window areas with the balconies along the east elevation; 5)that all windows shall be true divided light windows; 6)that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 85.69'as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Floribunda Avenue(32.61') for a maximum height of 53'-1", and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The garage floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 22.73'; first floor finished floor shall be elevation 33.36'; second floor finished floor shall be elevation 44.36';third floor finished floor shall be elevation 54.36'; fourth floor finished floor shall be elevation 64.36';and the top of ridge elevation shall be 82.95'. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 7)that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 8) that the conditions of the City Arborist's July 15, 2003 memo, the City Engineer's August 6, 2003, and December 6,2004 memos,the City's Traffic Engineer's April 13,2004,memo,the Chief Building Official's June 9,2003,memo,the Fire Marshal's June 9,2003,memo,the Recycling Specialist's June 6,2003,memo, and the City Attorney's June 7, 2003, memo shall be met; 9) that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 10)that the applicant shall receive a Tree Removal Permit from the Parks Department before removing the two existing 22-inch diameter liquidambar trees at the front of the property in the city right-of-way,and that a building permit shall not be issued before such permits are issued; 11) that `guest parking stall' shall be marked on the three guest parking spaces and designated on the final map and plans,these stalls shall not be assigned to any unit,but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stalls shall always be accessible for parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; 12)that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions(CC&Rs)for the condominium project shall require that the two guest parking stalls shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 13)that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 14) that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property, including but not limited to the roof,painting,common.area carpets,drapes and furniture; 15)that the trash receptacles,furnaces,and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 16)that if a security gate system across the driveway is installed in the future, the gate shall be installed a minimum 20'-0'back from the front property line;the security gate system shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 17) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners, set the building envelope; 18)that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 19) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 20) that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs(Best Management Practices)to be used to prevent soil,dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines, existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed,locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with 6 Cit of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 existing vegetation to be protected; existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures;watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes, staging areas and washout areas; 21) that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps, silt fences, straw bale dikes, storm drain inlet protection such as soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 22)that construction access routes shall be limited in order to prevent the tracking of dirt onto the public right-of-way, clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping methods; 23) that if construction is done during the wet season(October 15 through April 15),that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting,maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to, during, and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding,mulching matting,or tarping;rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 24)that common landscape areas shall be designed to reduce excess irrigation run-off,promote surface filtration and minimize the use of fertilizers,herbicides and pesticides; 25)that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas,a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 26) that this project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 27)that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 28) that this proposal shall comply-with all the requirements of the Tree Protection and Reforestation Ordinance adopted by the City of Burlingame in 1993 and enforced by the Parks Department; complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted at the time of building permit application and the street trees will be protected during construction as required by the City Arborist; 29) that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects(i.e.,dual pumps,controls,level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City's noise requirement; 30) that the project shall be required to meet all the construction requirements of the California Building and Fire Codes,2001 Edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame, including seismic standards, for structural stability and other related items; 31) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,City of Burlingame Storm Water management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 32)that demolition of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall be required to receive a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District prior to issuance of a demolition permit from the Building Department; and all requirements of the permit shall be complied with during construction; 33)that in order to reduce the occurrence of visitors entering a dead-end aisle in the below grade garage with no maneuvering space to exit, a sign shall be posted near the guest parking spaces which advises visitors of the limited area for guest/visitor parking;parking spaces in this area shall be assigned directly to residential units on the site and shall be closely managed by the homeowners association; 34)that the applicant shall plant two 36-inch box replacement Flowering Pear trees in the city right-of-way in front of the property and shall comply with the City's on-site reforestation requirements as approved by the City Arborist; 35) that the applicant shall install fire sprinklers and a fire alarm system monitored by an approved central station as required by the Fire Marshal prior to the final inspection for building permit; 36) that prior to demolition of the existing structures on the site, a survey shall be performed to determine if there is any presence of asbestos. The person who performs the survey must be Cal-OSHA certified. If asbestos is found,the BAAQMD(Bay Area Air Quality Management District)shall be immediately notified and the applicant shall comply with asbestos removal requirements; 37)that all construction shall be done during the hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code; these hours are 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes October 11, 2005 between 7:00 a.m.and 7:00 p.m.on weekdays,9:00 a.m.and 6:00 p.m.on Saturdays and 10:00 a.m.to 6:00 p.m. on Sundays. There shall be no construction on holidays; 38) that the method of construction and materials used in construction shall insure that the interior noise level within the building and inside each unit does not exceed 45 dBA in any sleeping area; 39)that the contractor shall submit the"Recycling and Waste Reduction" form to the building department to be approved by the Chief Building Official that demonstrates how 60 percent of construction demolition material will be diverted from the waste stream and the applicant shall be required to implement this plan;40)that all surface storm water runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet National Pollution Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)standards as adopted by the City of Burlingame;41)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; 42) that all abandoned utilities and hookups shall be removed as directed by the City Engineer; 43)that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477,Exterior Illumination Ordinance;and 44)that should any cultural resources be discovered during construction,all work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion:because an exemption was taken,the standard condition for affordable housing should be included;the corridor stays as is unless the applicant makes a change;who will maintain the vines on the pergolas above the balconies? Those are generally handled by the CC&R's. People will most likely take a lot of pride in their building and will do their own maintenance or the neighbors will get involved. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the suggested changes and added condition. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. C. Brownrigg moved to recommend approval of the Tentative Parcel Map for the project by the City Council. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend approval of the Tentative Parcel Map for the project by the City Council. The motion passed on a 7-0 vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 4. 904 AZALEA AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND VARIANCES FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND PARKING SPACE DIMENSION FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION(KEVIN SULLIVAN,APPLICANT&PROPERTY OWNER;RICHARD CAMPONUEVO, DESIGNER) (62 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report October 11, 2005, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. She noted that there were seven areas in which the plans were deficient and these would have to be addressed before action could be taken on this item. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: when the staff saw this project the first time there was no second floor? CP Monroe responded that when the original project was submitted in 2004 there was an attic with a 30"x 30" access door in a bathroom ceiling,so the attic was not considered habitable space,at that time the addition of the dormers was presented as architectural amenity for appearances,the attic was to be used for light storage with limited access. The present plan proposes a to-code fixed stair way to the attic area and enables the attic to be used for habitable area including being partitioned into two rooms. The covered parking area appears to be 19' by 22' on the plans. CP Monroe noted that a parking space must be unobstructed for its entire area,perhaps the applicant should address this. There were no further questions from the Commissioners. 8 Agenda Item # 9d SSW Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: August 21, 2006 SUBMITTED BY Ih APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: AUGUST 7, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: FINAL CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR A 5-UNIT COMMERCIAL CONDOMINIUM AT 821 COWAN ROAD, PARCEL B-93, BLOCK 2, MAP OF EAST MILLSDALE INDUSTRIAL PARK UNIT NO.1 SUBDIVISION, PM 05-03 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve this map subject to the following: 1. All sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter shall be replaced as new. 2. All conditions attached to the condominium permit shall be met. 3. The conditions, covenants and restrictions for this map must be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approval conditions and City codes. BACKGROUND: The condominium map was approved by Planning Commission on April 24, 2006. Staff has reviewed the final condominium map and recommends approval subject to the above conditions. EXHIBITS: Final Condominium Map, Condominium Permit Conditions Victo'kV60 Ass tant En ineer c: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\05-03Condo.doc City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 Comment on the tion: have ' en good direc ' on this chan design review is the way to go. Acti hair Bro gg called for oice vote o e in ion to re fe is je o a esi eview sultant. T motion passe n a 5-0-1-1 it Aur recuse . Cauc ent). procedures were adv' d. T ' ite ncluded t9: p.m. C air Aur rued to the d , and took ove c air. 10. 821 COWAN ROAD,ZONED IB—APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (ONE STOP DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT; KONSTANTINOS DOKOS, PROPERTY OWNER; DOMINGUEZ ASSOCIATES, ENGINEER) (14 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN A. APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FIVE- UNIT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING; AND B. APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP Reference staff report April 24,2006 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifty-five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked what the actual address is because the site signage says 819 and the staff report says 821. Staff noted that they will verify the address with the Public Works Department. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Greg Ward, One Stop Design, project applicant was present to answer questions. He noted that they negotiated with the City to have a 7 foot sidewalk. They are trying to save the Sycamore tree in the front,and will try to move it. If it can't be saved then they will be adding two, new 24 inch box Sycamore trees. Commission asked if the Sycamore tree can be moved easily? Commissioner Osterling clarified that it can be relocated easily. But it might be better to have two new 36 inch box trees.Having two on each side will establish symmetry. Commission asked if it might be better to have 48 inch box size trees. Commissioner Osterling responded that the largest tree that he would recommend would be 36 inch box because it will catch up in size faster and become better established over time. Would like to add a condition that the existing Sycamore tree be relocated and a new 36 inch box Sycamore tree be added. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application for the condominium conversion and amendment to the conditional use permit for floor area 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 March 6, 2006, sheets L.2, A.3, A.3A, A.4 through A.7, D.l, E.1, E.2, C.1, AS.1 through AS.3, C-1 through C-5, Lighting Details(8%2"x 11" sheet) and date stamped April 13,2006, sheets T.1 and L.1,Vesting Tentative Tract Map,and the Physical Elements Report,Physical Standards Report and Acoustical Assemblies Report date stamped December 27, 2005; 2)that the reports required by this code,in a form approved by the city, shall be provided to each person executing any purchase,rental or other agreement to purchase or occupy a unit in the project. Copies of the full reports shall be made available at all times at the sales office and shall be posted at various locations, as may be required by the city, at the project site; 3) that a new T-0" wide sidewalk shall be installed along the front of this property as shown on the plans date stamped April 13, 2006, sheets T.1 and L.1; the new T-0" wide sidewalk, curb and gutter and driveway apron shall comply with the Public Works' construction standards and shall be installed prior to the final inspection; the applicant shall obtain the necessary special encroachment permit to install the curb,gutter and sidewalk and 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 driveway apron; 4) that the applicant shall attempt to relocate the existing 12" Sycamore tree that will be within the new 7' sidewalk; and if that is not possible then it shall be replaced with a new 36-inch box Sycamore tree;and the applicant shall plant one new 36-inch box Sycamore tree adjacent to the relocated or replacement Sycamore, for a total of 4 Sycamore trees(two on each side of the main walk way)at the front of the property; 5) that the conditions of the City Attorney's February 3, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's January 30,2006 memo,the Fire Marshal's January 4,2006 memo,the Chief Building Official's January 3, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's January 4, 2006, memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's January 6, 2006 memo shall be met;6)that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit;7)that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association,an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property,including but not limited to the roof,painting,common area carpets,drapes and furniture; 8)that if a security gate system across the driveway is installed in the future,the gate shall be installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; the security gate system shall include an intercom system connected to each unit which allows occupants to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units;9)that demolition for removal of the existing structures or walls within the condominium units and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 10) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 4, 2005, sheets T.1, L.1, T.2, A.1 through A.7 and Plat of Survey; 12)that a seating area, to be architectural compatible with the building,shall be designed at the front entrance to the building; 13)that vines,to grow along the front wall of the building, shall be planted and maintained by the property owner; 14) that the windows and window trim shall be installed as shown on the detail,date stamped February 4,2005; 15)that the parking variance shall only apply to this building and shall become void if the building is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for intentional replacement; 16) that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's June 1, 2004, memos, the Chief Building Official's February 9,2005,and June 4,2004,memos,the Recycling Specialist's June 2,2004,memo and the NPDES Coordinator's January 31,2005,memo shall be met; 17)that payment of a Bayfront Development fee to the City of Burlingame for traffic impacts in the Inner Bayshore and Shoreline areas shall be required to mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other projects on area circulation, one-half of the fee is due at the time of planning application and one-half due before the final framing inspection; 18) that one-way directional signage shall be installed and painted throughout the parking area to clearly define the vehicular direction for employees and visitors to the site;prior to issuance of a building permit,the applicant/property owner shall work with the City's traffic engineer to determine the required signage and markings on the pavement to clearly identify the on-site vehicular direction; 19)that the driveway aisles in front of the roll-up doors at the rear of the building and in the parking area shall be maintained clear and trucks shall not be stored or parked in the driveway aisles;20)that the paved area adjacent to parking space#15 shall be painted"No Parking"to provide a clear,unobstructed back-up area for the disabled-accessible parking spaces;21)that the 53 on-site parking spaces shall be used only for the customers and employees of the businesses at this site and shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles either by businesses on this site or by other businesses for off- site parking; 22) that the landscaping noted on sheet L.1 shall be installed according to plan and shall be irrigated with an automatic irrigation system; landscaping that does not survive on the site shall be immediately replaced with an equivalent species; 23) that the property owner shall provide a complete 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 Irrigation Water Management Conservation Plan together with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application;24)that the office/warehouse building shall be built so that the interior noise level in all areas used as office does not exceed 45 dBA;25)that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the City of Burlingame Municipal Code, and shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.on weekdays,9:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.on Saturdays,and 10:00 a.m.and 6:00 p.m.on Sundays and holidays; 26) that on-site illumination shall be shielded and directed only on to the site in compliance with the City's exterior illumination ordinance; 27) that all parking areas should be lit for safety at night, such lighting should comply with the requirements of the City's exterior illumination ordinance;28)that the remodel/addition shall not be built with a reflective exterior finish;29)that the project shall obtain necessary permits to meet the standards of the required permitting agencies including: Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 30) that the project design shall 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 and any additional seismic requirements established by the State Architect's office; 31) that all construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and in addition to the limitations of hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code(CS 18.08.035);32)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 diameter;existing sewer laterals shall be checked and replaced if necessary;33) that 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; 34)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; 35) that all site and roof drainage shall be directed to the street frontage; 36) that low flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed and City water conservation requirements shall be met at all times, including special additional emergency requirements; 37) 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; 38)that if construction is done during the wet season(October 15 through April 15),that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting,maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to,during,and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding,mulching matting,or tarping;rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 39) that all applicable San Mateo County Storm water 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; 40) that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs(Best Management Practices)to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines,existing and proposed topography and slope; areas to be disturbed,locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas; areas with existing vegetation to be protected;existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project;and designated construction access routes,staging areas and washout areas;41)that the erosion and sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications, and/or attachments describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling clearing of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization;and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation;42)that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet the applicable San Mateo County Storm water Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices for surface water runoff and Storm Drain maintenance; 43) that all runoff in the parking lot, 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes April 24, 2006 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 project's property owner; 44) that the phrase "No Dumping-Drains To Bay"shall be labeled on new storm drain inlets by stenciling,branding,plaguing or casting;45)that grading shall be done so that impacts from erosion and runoff into the storm drain will be minimal; 46) that each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all sand/oil separators shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis,and immediately following periods of heavy rainfall,to ascertain the conditions of the chambers; maintenance records shall be kept on-site and maintenance shall be as directed by the City;47)that drainage from paved surfaces,including parking lots,driveways and roofs shall be routed to storm water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters,then the water shall be discharged into the storm drain system;the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning (vacuuming out) sand/oil separators and changing fossil filters on a regular basis as well as immediately prior to,and once during,the rainy season(October 15—April 1)and as directed by the City;48)that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas;49)that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas,a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 50) that no vehicles or equipment shall be washed, cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site;51)that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps,earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed during construction to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 52) that the site shall be sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction. Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 53) that a construction fence, including a impermeable fabric/material, shall be required around the site during construction to keep all construction debris on site; 54)that if any trenching is proposed on the site, the applicant shall contact the San Mateo County Health Department; if any contaminated soil is encountered,the applicant shall follow County protocol for its disposal; and 55)that if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during grading and construction,all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts, can be implemented. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the condominium permit and amendment to the conditional use permit for floor area. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). C. Vistica moved to recommended approval of the Tentative Condominium Map to the City Council. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. C. Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the Tentative Condominium Map to the City Council for actions, including the conditions of approval. The motion passed in a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. 11. 1299 YSHO ,N — APP _ TION CO ON P IT, P G SE AC N F ON AANP S E TO CO EXIS OFF PACE TAB S (P ZH ,APPL ANT;PET AM,AR TEC T YTS ED SO ES INV., C., PRO RTY R) (9 N TICED) P JECT ANNER: CA STROHME 15 T- Agenda Item # 9e Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: Aucuist 21 06 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY /�M/ TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL 7 DATE: AUGUST 7, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE MARSTEN OUTFALL PIPELINE PROJECT, PHASE 2, BY ANDERSON PACIFIC ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. — CITY PROJECT NO. 80250 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council approve the attached resolution accepting the Marsten Outfall Pipeline Project, Phase 2 by Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction Inc. in the amount of $1,052,560.76. BACKGROUND: On March 1, 2004, Council approved a change order in the amount of $982,900 to the Phase 1 contract with Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction Inc. to install 420 feet of storm drain pipeline from the Hyatt hotel parking lot, under Bayshore Boulevard to Easton Creek. All construction has been completed satisfactorily and in a timely manner. The project final construction cost is $1,052,560.76, an increase of $ 69,860.46 due to unforeseen extra work to install a temporary access manhole and to remove buried piers, boulders and other tunneling obstructions. BUDGET IMPACT: There are sufficient funds in the CIP project for the total contract amount. All extra work was within the administrative authorization. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Final progress payment Doug Bel Senior Civil Engineer c: City Clerk, Finance, Anderson Pacific Engineering Construction Inc. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Repo rts\81350acceptance.doc RESOLUTION NO. - ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS - MARSTEN OUTFALL PIPELINE PROJECT, PHASE 2 BY ANDERSON PACIFIC ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 80250 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame,California,and this Council does hereby find, order and determine as follows: 1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by ANDERSON PACIFIC ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INC., under the terms of its contract with the City dated MARCH 1, 2004, has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 80250. 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. Mayor 1,DORIS MORTENSEN,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 , 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\80250 ACCEPTANCE.doc 2 yy A n N0�w u 00 n C O ti" Z m m POP u u-POPZ Cflq y. l Z m A 1 n V 0 0 0- a p 3 0 0 0 '� ;T X a, m1 p o3 sx o N2��; T n [ij R R •' S m ti R 9yO 3 A y N x m n O x c m _ GGp Kp Z n o m OR « Z \Y yywymyymmm yy G G GG O v s o m c m q z D p pops 3c m � x Qpp 0 Z 3 x x x n P }}}} W 8 O T m & i x x u P.1 8 b"$a H "z; N x x x x x O Q� 0 p assssassssQzm � �� z N30 �i °�zza Ov a p °�- R $Sw �a- w�'�a0 e�mzv 04 5�5�pg5�ppp5� — p p Q R p q p p �oo� w9 9 9889 89 89 985 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 88 8 8 O 189°8888888 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 rg � vps o \1 0 S� ~ "80006000�006�8 b o -V1, 88 x x x x x x 8 8 8 8 x 55 ,m 888888888588888 $8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 $ 8 8 8 8 91. O Agenda 9f Item # ® Date: Au u 21 2006 BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: August 3, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING EASTON CREEK SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 81150 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution accepting the Easton Creek Sewer Rehabilitation project in the amount of $17534,028.69. DISCUSSION: On June 20, 2005, J. Howard Engineering, Inc. was awarded the contract in the amount of $1 ,455, 184 for installing a new sewer main on Easton Drive between Alvarado Avenue and EI Camino Real to divert major flows from an existing sewer main under Easton Creek. Work also included reconstructing all service laterals and sealing all manholes to prevent infiltration into the creek. The project was completed successfully within budget. There were two change orders issued in the amount of $66,000. Both change orders included additional sewer pipe replacement and minor extra work due to unforeseen field conditions. This project was completed successfully and staff has received many positive feedback surveys from the residents about the quality of work. BUDGET IMPACT: Construction Including Change Orders $1 ,534,029 Design & Construction Management 3921000 Engineering Administration 173,971 Total $251005000 There are sufficient funds in the existing sewer capital improvement budget. Remaining funds will be used for the design of the next phase of the sewer rehabilitation program. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Final Progress Payment Donald Chang, PE Senior Civil Engineer SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\81150acceptance.doc RESOLUTION NO. - ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS - EASTON CREEK SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT BY J. HOWARD ENGINEERING, INC. CITY PROJECT NO. 81150 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame,California,and this Council does hereby find, order and determine as follows: 1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by J. HOWARD ENGINEERING,INC.under the terms of its contract with the City dated JUNE 20,2005, has been com- pleted in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 81150. 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. Mayor 1,DORIS MORTENSEN,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 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\Author,By Name\Joanne Louie\RESOLUTION ACCEPTANCE.wpd CONTRACTOR: J.HOWARD ENGINEERING CITY OF BURLINGAME DATE: August 30,2006 ADDRESS: 1325 HOWARD AVENUE#265 PROGRESS PAYMENT NO.7(FINAL) FOR THE MONTH OF:July BURLINGAME,CA 94010 EASTON CREEK SEWER REHABILITATION PROJECT PURCHASE ORDER# 10030 TELEPHONE: (650)375-8314 CELL(650)906-7556 CITY PROJECT NO.81150 .......... «««.....».....«»..............................».»...«.»«««. «««.....««.«.. .........«.». .. ITEM UNIT w BID UNIT BID QUANTITY % AMOUNT PREVIOUS AMOUNT # ITEM DESCRIPTION w PRICE QUANTITY SIZE AMOUNT TO DATE PAID TO DATE PAID THIS PMT. .......... .........«......«..................................................... ...........«....... .................... ........«.......... ............................... .........»......... .................... ........»..................... ............................... ......................... A-GENERAL ITEMS 1 MOBILIZATION,DEMOBILIZATION AND NPDES $ 68,000.00 1 q LS $ 68.000.00 1.0 100.00% $68,000.00 $68,000.00 $0.00 2 CONSTRUCTION SURVEY AND SITE INVESTIGATION $ 30,000.00 1 LS $ 30,000.00 1.0 100,00% $30,000.00 $30,000.00 $0.00 3 SIDEWALK RECONSTRUCTION $ 7.00 800 w SF $ 5.600.00 197.0 24.63% $1,379.00 $1,379.00 $0.00 4 DRIVEWAY RECONSTRUCTION $ 10.00 30 SF $ 300.00 147.0 490.00% $1,470.00 $1,470.00 $0.00 5 CURB AND GUTTER RECONSTRUCTION WITH ASPHALT $ 27.00 200 w LF $ 5,400.00 66.0 33.00% $1,782.00 $1,782.00 $0.00 RGPI Ar:FUPNT 6 POST TELEVISION INSPECTION $ 3.00 4,604 LF $ 13.812.00 4.788.0 104.00% $14.364.00 $14,364.00 $0.00 B-BURLINGAME PARK SUBDIVISION 7 REPLACE 6"SEWER MAIN W/8"MAIN BY PIPE $ 110.00 120 LF $ 13,200.00 402.0 335.00% $44,220.00 $44,220.00 $0.00 8 REPLACE 12'MAIN WITH 18"MAIN BY PIPE BURSTING $ 180.00 923 LF $ 166,140.00 1,005.0 108.88% $180,900.00 $180,900.00 $0.00 9 NEW 8"PVC PIPE-OPEN CUT $ 137.00 69 LF $ 9,453.00 55.0 79.71% $7.535.00 $7,535.00 $0.00 10 NEW 18"PVC PIPE-OPEN CUT $ 180.00 2.126 LF $ 382,680.00 2,159.0 101.55% $388,620.00 $388,620.00 $0.00 11 REPLACE EXISTING 6"MAIN WITH 18"PVC-OPEN CUT $ 180.00 748 LF $ 134,640.00 845.0 112.97% $152,100.00 $152,100.00 $0.00 12 BORE AND JACK 27'STEEL CASING WITH 18"HDPE $ 405.00 377 LF $ 152,685.00 388.0 102.92% $157,140.00 $157,140.00 $0.00 13 HAND-DIG TO INSTALL 18"MAIN $ 200.00 200 LF $ 40,000.00 0.0 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 14 REPLACE 4"EXISITNG SEWER LATERAL $ 1,500.00 33 EA $ 49,500.00 44.0 133.33% $66,000.00 $66,000.00 $0.00 15 REPLACE 4"EXISTING SEWER LATERAL AND EXTEND $ 2,000.00 12 EA $ 24,000.00 8.0 66.67% $16,000.00 $16,000.00 $0.00 16 REPLACE 4"EXISTING SEWER LATERAL BY HAND-GID $ 2.500.00 7 EA $ 17,500.00 4.0 0.00% $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 17 REPLACE 4"EXISITNG LATERAL AND EXTEND TO NEW $ 2,500.00 2 w EA $ 5,000.00 0.0 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 MAIN RV NANtlr.111 r)PFN-r.1 IT 18 REPLACE EXISITNG LATERAL CONNECTION $ 500.00 54 EA $ 27.000.00 53.0 98.15% $26.500.00 $26.500.00 $0.00 19 INSTALL SS MANHOLE $ 3,750.00 14 EA $ 52.500.00 15.0 107.14% $56,250.00 $56,250.00 $0.00 20 INSTALL SS DROP MANHOLE $ 4,000.00 5 EA $ 20,000.00 3.0 60.00% $12,000.00 $12,000.00 $0.00 21 INSTALL SS DROP MANHOLE AT EASTON DR.AND EL $ 15,000.00 1 EA $ 15,000.00 1.0 100.00% $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $0.00 f:AUINh RFAI 22 ABANDON EXISTING MANHOLE $ 1,000.00 5 EA $ 5,000.00 6.0 120.00% $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $0.00 23 ABANDON EXISTING 6"SEWER MAIN $ 8.00 30 LF $ 240.00 30.0 100.00% $240.00 $240.00 $0.00 24 ABANDON EXISTING 8"SEWER MAIN $ 8.00 60 LF $ 480.00 0.0 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 25 ABANDON 12"SEWER MAIN $ 15.00 990 LF $ 14.850.00 990.0 100.00% $14.850.00 $14.850.00 $0.00 BASE BID TOTAL(SECTION A&BI : $ 1.252,980.00 : 0.0 C-ALTERNATE BID NO.1(EASTON CREEK) 26 SPOT REPAIR EX.12"SS $ 175.00 150 LF $ 26,250.00 0.0 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 27 REPLACE 4"SEWER LATERALS AND CONNECT TO EX. $ 1,500.00 32 EA $ 48.000.00 30.0 93.75% $45,000.00 $45.000.00 $0.00 28 REPLACE EXISTING LATERAL CLEANOUT $ 500.00 32 EA $ 16,000.00 27.0 84.38% $13,500.00 $13,500.00 $0.00 29 REHABILITATE EXISTING MANHOLE $ 1,750.00 30 EA $ 52,500.00 30.0 100.00% $52,500.00 $52.500.00 $0.00 30 RAISE EXISTING MANHOLE T HIGHER $ 2,300.00 2 EA $ 4,600.00 2.0 100.00% $4,600.00 $4,600.00 $0.00 31 INSTALL SEWER LAMPHOLE $ 2,000.00 2 w EA $ 4,000.00 1.0 50.00% $2,000.00 $2,000.00 $0.00 32 INSTALL 6"PIPE LINER(CIPP) $ 95.00 222 LF $ 21,090.00 180.0 81.08% $17,100.00 $17,100.00 $0.00 33 INSTALL 12"PIPE LINER(CIPP) $ 112.00 142 LF $ 15,904.00 473.0 333.10% $52,976.00 $52,976.00 $0.00 34 ABANDON EXISTING 6"SEWER MAIN $ 3.00 120 LF $ 360.00 0.0 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 35 ABANDON EXISTING 12"SEWER MAIN $ 15.00 50 LF $ 750.00 0.0 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 36 REMOVE EXISTING MANHOLE $ 2.750.00 1 EA $ 2,750.00 0.0 0.00% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ALTERNATE BID NO.1 SUBTOTAL: a $ 192,204.00 0.0 0.0 D-ADDITIONAL COSTS TO ALTERNATE BID NO.1 37 :ADDITIONAL COST $ 10,000.00 1 LS $ 10.000.00 1.0 100.00% $10,000.00 $10,000.00 $0.00 ADDITIONAL COST TO ALTERNATE BID NO.1 SUBTOTAL: a $ 10,000.00 w . CHANGE ORDERS: CO i EXTRA MATERIAL&TIME,EMERGENCY REPAIRS $ 43,308.21 1.0 0.00% $43,308.21 $43.308.21 $0.00 CO 2 EXTRA WORK AND MATERIALS $ 22.694.48 : 1.0 0.00% $22,694.48 $22,694.48 $0.00 TOTAL CCO: $ 66.002.69 • DATE SUBTOTAL . ..... """" $ 1,455,184.00 $1,534,028.69 $1,534,028.69 $0.00 PREPARED BY: August 30,2006 RETENTION RELEASE(10%) $0.00 $153,402.87 ($153,402.87) CHECKED BY: SUBTOTAL WITHOUT DEDUCTIONS $1,534,028.69 $1,380,625.82 $153,402.87 APPROVED BY AMOUNT DUE FROM CONTRACTOR w $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 CITYENGINEER: ..».............». «................... .............«........«..... APPROVED BY TOTAL THIS PERIOD """""""""""" w w $1,534,028.69 : $1,380,625.82 : $153,402.87 CONSULTANT: S:\A PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTORYtPROJECTS49937(1)\Progress Payment-81150.x1s,(SHEET-PROGRESS PAYMENT#7(FINAL)) 8/12006, 2:21 PM PAGE 1 OF 1 Agenda Item # 9g Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: Au t21 2006 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: AUGUST 3, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION AWARDING STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM 2006 AND APPROVING AN INCREASE IN FUNDING — CIP 81550 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Council approve the attached resolution awarding the resurfacing project to Interstate Grading and Paving Inc. in the amount of $1,041,882.15. It is also recommended that the Council approve adding $110,000 to the project using Proposition 42 Gas Tax funds. DISCUSSION OF CONTRACT: Bids were opened on August 3, 2006 and three bids were received. Bids ranged from $1,041,882 to $1,121,864. The low bid was 10% higher than the Engineer's estimate of $946,235. The difference between the Engineers estimate and low bid is due to a recent substantial increase in material and labor costs. As an example, asphalt overlay increased from $60 per ton to $100 per ton over the last year due to petroleum and oil price escalation. The low bidder, Interstate Grading and Paving Inc., has met all the requirements of the project and has a past history of satisfactory work for the public agencies. The project consists of asphalt base-failure repair, asphalt overlay and pavement reconstruction in locations as shown on the attached map. Construction will occur in September. DISCUSSION OF FUNDING: The approved 2006-07 capital improvement budget for the project is $1,150,000. The City has recently received $210,000 of additional gas tax funds through Proposition 42 which were not included in the budget. Since these funds can only be used for improving or rehabilitating local transportation, streets and roads, staff is seeking authorization to add $110,000 to this project. The remaining $100,000 of Proposition 42 Gas Tax funds will be used for the Airport Boulevard resurfacing project and traffic signal improvements. Staff will return to Council at a later date to obtain funding authorization for those projects. BUDGET IMPACT: The following is a financial summary for the project: Expenditures: Construction $1,041,882 Contingencies $ 103,118 Engineering Administration $ 105,000 Total: $1,250,000 With the Proposition 42 Gas Tax, there are sufficient funds in the street capital improvement project to cover the expenditures. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\81550 RESUR award.doc EXHIBITS: Resolution,Agreement, Bid Summary, Map Donald T.Chang, P. E. Senior Civil Engineer c: Jesus Nava,Finance Director;Doris Mortensen,City Clerk SA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\81550 RESUR award.doc RESOLUTION NO. - AWARDING CONTRACT FOR STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM 2006 TO INTERSTATE GRADING AND PAVING, INC. AND AMENDING THE 2006-2007 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BY ADDING PROPOSITION 42 MONIES TO RESURFACING PROGRAM CITY PROJECT NO. 81550 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized an invitation for proposals for the - CITY PROJECT 81550 --STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM 2006 WHEREAS, on AUGUST 3, 2006, all proposals were received and opened before the City Clerk and representatives of the Public Works Department; and WHEREAS, INTERSTATE GRADING AND PAVING, INC., submitted the lowest responsible bid for the job in the amount of$1,041,882.15; AND WHEREAS, the City adopted its capital improvement budget in June 2006, which includes the Street Resurfacing Program 2006 budgeted at $1,140,000; and WHEREAS, the City has recently received monies from the State of California pursuant to Proposition 42; and WHEREAS, due to economic conditions, the price of materials for the Resurfacing Program is approximately ten percent higher than when the original estimates were prepared; and WHEREAS, use of a portion of the Proposition 42 monies would allow the City to complete the work originally proposed for the Project, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1 . The Plans and Specifications, including all addenda, for the Street Resurfacing Program 2006 are approved and adopted. 2. The Capital Improvement Plan adopted for the 2006-2007 fiscal year is amended to provide $1,250,000 for the Street Resurfacing Program 2006. 3. An appropriation of$110,000 from the Proposition 42 funds received by the City to the Street Resurfacing Program 2006 is approved. 4. The bid of INTERSTATE GRADING AND PAVING, INC. for the Street Resurfacing Program 2006 is accepted. 5. The City Manager is hereby authorized to enter into a standard form City agreement for 1 and on behalf of the City of Burlingame with Interstate Grading and Paving, Inc., to execute said contract, and to approve the faithful performance bond and the labor materials bond required to be furnished by the contractor. Mayor I, DORIS MORTENSEN, 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 , 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk s:\apublicworksdir\projects\resolutionaward 2 AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM 2006 CITY PROJECT NO. 81550 THIS AGREEMENT, made in duplicate and entered into in the City of Burlingame, County of San Mateo, State of California on , , by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation, hereinafter called "City", and Interstate Grading and Paviniz, Inc., hereinafter called "Contractor," WITNESSETH : WHEREAS, City has taken appropriate proceedings to authorize construction of the public work and improvements herein provided for and to authorize execution of this Contract; and WHEREAS, pursuant to State law and City requirements, a notice was duly published for bids for the contract for the improvement hereinafter described; and WHEREAS, on August 21, 2006, after notice duly given, the City Council of Burlingame awarded the contract for the construction of the improvements hereinafter described to Contractor, which the Council found to be the lowest responsible bidder for these improvements; and WHEREAS, City and Contractor desire to enter into this agreement for the construction of said improvements, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED by the parties hereto as follows: 1. Scope of work Contractor shall perform the work described in those Specifications entitled: STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM 2006. CITY PROJECT NO. 81550 2. The Contract Documents The complete contract consists of the following documents: this Agreement,Notice Inviting Sealed Bids,the prevailing wage rates of the State of California applicable to this project by State law, the accepted Bid Proposal, the complete plans, profiles, detailed drawings and Standard Specifications, Special Provisions and all bonds, and are hereinafter referred to as the Contract Documents. All rights and obligations of City and Contractor are fully set forth and described in the Contract Documents. All of the above described documents are intended to cooperate so that any work called for in one, and not mentioned in the other, or vice versa, is to be executed the same as if mentioned in all said documents. 3. Contract Price The City shall pay, and the Contractor shall accept, in full, payment of the work above agreed to be done,the sum of One million, forty-one thousand and eight hundred eigh -two dollars and fifteen cents ($ 1,041,882.15). This price is determined by the unit prices contained in Contractor's Bid. In the event authorized work is performed or materials furnished in addition to those set forth in Contractor's Bid and the Specifications, such work and materials will be paid for at the unit prices therein contained. Said amount shall be paid in progress payments as provided in the Contract Documents. 4. Provisions Cumulative. The provisions of this Agreement are cumulative and in addition to and not in limitation of any other rights or remedies available to the City. 5. Notices. All notices shall be in writing and delivered in person or transmitted by certified mail, postage prepaid. Notices required to be given to the City shall be addressed as follows: CITY ENGINEER CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, California 94010 Notices required to be given to Contractor shall be addressed as follows: 6. Interpretation. As used herein, any gender includes the other gender and the singular includes the plural and vice versa. 7. Waiver or Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Contractor. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, two identical counterparts of this Agreement, consisting of three (3) pages, including this page, each of which counterparts shall for all purposes be deemed an original of this Agreement, have been duly executed by the parties hereinabove named on the day and year first hereinabove written. CITY OF BURLINGAME, "CONTRACTOR" a Municipal Corporation By By City Manager Approved as to form: City Attorney ATTEST: City Clerk CITY OF BURLINGAME BID SUMMARY STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM 2005 City Project No.81350 Engineer's Estimate Interstate Grading&Paving Inc. O'Grady Paving Inc. C.F.Archibald Paving Inc. ITEM DESCRIPTION OF ITEM ESTIMATED UNIT UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST UNIT PRICE TOTAL COST QUANTITY SCHEDULE STREET RESURFACING 1 A.C.Di out Repair 1002 TON $ 110.00 $ 110,220.00 $ 65.00 $ 65,130.00 $ 155.00 $ 155,310.00 $ 155.00 $ 155,310.00 2 Concrete Removal 153 C.Y. $ 36.00 $ 5,508.00 $ 265.00 $ 40,545.00 $ 80.00 $ 12,240.00 $ 120.00 $ 18,360.00 3 Aggregate Base 20 TON $ 35.00 $ 700.00 $ 50.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 50.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 20.00 $ 400.00 4 Leveling Course 774 TON $ 87.00 $ 67,338.00 $ 100.00 $ 77,400.00 $ 92.00 $ 71,208.00 $ 98.00 $ 75,852.00 5 A-C.Overlay 5963 TON $ 87.00 $ 518,781.00 $ 89.00 $ 530,707.00 $ 100.00 $ 596,300.00 $ 95.00 $ 566,485.00 6 Cold plane 3006 C.Y. $ 35.00 $ 105,210.00 $ 52.00 $ 156,312.00 $ 42.00 $ 126,252.00 $ 45.00 $ 135,270.00 7 Wedge Grind 1915 S.Y. $ 2.00 $ 3,830.00 $ 1.40 $ 2,681.00 $ 5.00 $ 9,575.00 $ 5.00 $ 9,575.00 8 Engineered Paving Mat 9,171 S.Y. $ 3.00 $ 27,513.00 $ 4.25 $ 38,976.75 $ 3.85 $ 35,308.35 $ 4.50 $ 41,269.50 9 Pavement Reinforcing Fabric 3,034 S.Y. $ 3.00 $ 9,102.00 $ 2.80 $ 8,495.20 $ 2.00 $ 6,068.00 $ 3.00 $ 9,102.00 10 Concrete Curb&Gutter 216 L.F. $ 50.00 $ 10,800.00 $ 104.00 $ 22,464.00 $ 75.00 $ 16,200.00 $ 108.00 $ 23,328.00 11 Adjust Manholes 51 EACH $ 420.00 $ 21,420.00 $ 650.00 $ 33,150.00 $ 500.00 $ 25,500.00 $ 480.00 $ 24,480.00 12 Adjust Valves,Lam holes,Etc 90 EACH $ 360.00 $ 32,400.00 $ 275.00 $ 24,750.00 $ 300.00 $ 27,000.00 $ 320.00 $ 28,800.00 13 Traffic Signal Loop 4 EACH $ 1,200.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 1,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 1,200.00 $ 4,800.00 $ 600.00 $ 2,400.00 14 T e"A"& 'AY" Pavement Markers 317 EACH $ 3.00 $ 951.00 $ 3.50 $ 1,109.50 $ 4.00 $ 1,268.00 $ 3.30 $ 1,046.10 15 Type"D"&Blue Pavement Markers 131 EACH $ 4.80 $ 628.80 $ 6.00 $ 786.00 $ 6.00 $ 786.00 $ 5.50 $ 720.50 16 4"Solid Line--Paint 998 L.F. $ 2.40 $ 2,395.20 $ 1.15 $ 1,147.70 $ 1.10 $ 1,097.80 $ 1.10 $ 1,097.80 17 6"Solid Line--Paint 100 L.F. $ 3.60 $ 360.00 $ 1.25 $ 125.00 $ 1.40 $ 140.00 $ 1.50 $ 150.00 18 8"Solid Line--Paint 100 L.F. $ 6.00 $ 600.00 $ 2.10 $ 210.00 $ 2.20 $ 220.00 $ 2.20 $ 220.00 19 12"Solid Line--Paint 1470 L.F. $ 4.80 $ 7,056.00 $ 2.30 $ 3,381.00 $ 2.50 $ 3,675.00 $ 2.40 $ 3,528.00 20 Parking Tees 80 EACH $ 48.00 $ 3,840.00 $ 17.00 $ 1,360.00 $ 20.00 $ 1,600.00 $ 16.50 $ 1,320.00 21 Le ends&Arrows--Paint 984 S. F. $ 3.60 $ 3,542.40 $ 3.00 $ 2,952.00 $ 3.00 $ 2,952.00 $ 3.00 $ 2,952.00 22 Handicap Legends 2 EACH $ 120.00 $ 240.00 $ 100.00 $ 200.00 $ 100.00 $ 200.00 $ 99.00 $ 198.00 23 Handicap Rams 5 EACH $ 1,800.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 5,000.00 $ 25,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 20,000.00 Subtotal: $ 946,235.40 $ 1,041,882.15 $ 1,118,700.15 $ 1,121,863.90 By LL 8/3/2006 1 of 1 P �(B g,4 ry p P� •2'y4' % P —tell �`+ era �` �� ,�Fy � � •" {' � �: � ar yt cl/`y�� t*�-O Cp,� I� 4�eafiyjq � w• � (� .:�J.C�� .K11- I YAAll � X., AL 94 1, a r AT( w ~ol I r CITY OF BURLINGAME J 2006 STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM SAN MATED COUNTY �� CALIFORNIA =;` ` '' •� STREET RESURFACING `r, r -_ � 'k, I cR—w scu[ . +^ a Agenda Item # 9h Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: Au t 21 2006 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: August 7, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING CHULA VISTA STORM DRAIN PIPELINE PROJECT BY CASEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY — CITY PROJECT NO. 80570 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution accepting the Chula Vista Storm Drain Pipeline Project by Casey Construction Company in the amount of$473,762. BACKGROUND: On September 6, 2005, Council awarded a $456,549 contract to Casey Construction Company for the Chula Vista Storm Drain Pipeline Project. All construction has been completed satisfactorily in compliance with the project plans and specifications. The project final construction cost is $473,762, an increase of $17,213 due to added storm drain pipelines at Oak Grove Avenue. BUDGET IMPACT: There are sufficient funds in the CIP project for the total contract amount. All extra work was within the administrative authorization. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Final Progress Payment Douglas II Senior Engineer c: City Clerk, Casey Construction Company SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\80570 Acceptance.doc RESOLUTION NO. - ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS - CHULA VISTA DRAIN PUMP IMPROVEMENTS BY CASEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY CITY PROJECT NO. 80570 RESOLVED by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame,California,and this Council does hereby find, order and determine as follows: 1. The Director of Public Works of said City has certified the work done by CASEY CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,under the terms of its contract with the City dated SEPTEMBER-,2005, has been completed in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City Council and to the satisfaction of the Director of Public Works. 2. Said work is particularly described as City Project No. 80570. 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. Mayor 1,DORIS MORTENSEN,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 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\80570-Chula Vista Storm Drain\80570 RESOLUTION ACCEPTANCE.wpd CASEY CONSTRUCTION CHULA VISTA/MISCELLANEOUS STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS 242 Sylvan Way CHULA VISTA,PALOMA AVENUES AND EDGEHILL ROAD DATE:AUG 7.06 Emerald Hills,CA 94062 CITY OF BURLINGAME FOR THE MONTH OF:June 06 TELEPHONE(650)369-1876 PROGRESS PAYMENT.NO#6 FINAL P.O. No.10038 CITY PROJECT NO.80570 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT BID BID CITY THIS CITY TO %AGE $AMOUNT PREVIOUS $AMOUNT PRICE SIZE CITY TOTAL PERIOD DATE TO DATE TO DATE PAID THIS PERIOD 1 MOBILIZATION $ 17 600.00 LS 1 $17,600.00 0.00 1.00 100% $17,600.00 $17,600.00 $0.00 2 CONSTRUCTION AREA STAKING $ 6'D00.00 LS 1 $6,000.00 0.00 1.00 100% $6,000.00 $6,000.00 $0.00 3 POTHOLING $ 874.00 EACH 10 $8,740.00 0.00 10.00 100% $8,740.00 $8,740.00 $0.00 4 LF 277 TRENCH IN PLACE 24"DIA.STORM DRAIN PIPE $ 212.00 $58,724.00 10.00 270.00 97% $57,240.00 $57,240.00 $0.00 5 LF 318 TRENCH IN PLACE 27"DIA.STORM DRAIN PIPE $ 215.00 $68,370.00 0.00 0.00 0% $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 6 TRENCH IN PLACE 30"DIA.STORM DRAIN PIPE $ 225.00 LF 477 $107,325.00 0.00 790.00 166% $177,750.00 $177,750.00 $0.00 7 TRENCH IN PLACE 15"DIA.LATERAL STORM DRAIN PIPE $ 181.00 EACH 90 $16,290.00 0.00 85.00 94% $15,385.00 $15,385.00 $0.00 8 DRAIN INLETS Caltrans Type GO $ 4,900.00 EACH 6 $29,400.00 6.00 6.00 100% $29,400.00 $29,400.00 $0.00 9 STORM DRAIN MANHOLE $ 5,000.00 EACH 4 $20,000.00 2.00 4.00 100% $20,000.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 1 10 MANHOLE CONNECTION TO EX.BOX CULVERT $ 4,700.00 EACH $4 700.00 0.00 1.00 100% $4,700.00 $4,700:00 $0.00 11 EACH 1 CONNECTION TO EXISTING CATCH BASIN $ 700.00 $7DO.001 0.00 1.00 100% $700.00 $700.00 $0.00 12 DRAIN INLET(TYPE GO)W/GRATE ON BOX EACH 2 CULVERT TOP $ 3,200.00 $6,400.00 1.00 2.00 100% $6,400.00 $5,400.00 $0.00 13 WATER,STORM DRAIN,and SEWER CONFLICTS $ 3,450.00 EACH 8 $27,600.00 3.00 8.00 100% $27,600.00 $27,600.00 $0.00 14 REMOVE AND REPLACE CURB AND GUTTER $ 35.00 LF 240 $8,400.00 170.00 240.00 100% $8,400.00 $8,400.00 $0.00 15 SF 60 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONC.VALLEY GUTTER $ 52.00 $3,120.00 0.00 60.00 100% $3,120.00 $3,120.00 $0.00 SF 1000 16 ASPHALT CONCRETE"DIG OUT"REPAIRS $ 7.80 $7,800.00 0.00 900.00 90% $7,020.00 $7 020.00 ]�E$$Eo 00 TONS 40 17 AGGREGATE BASE ONLY FOR DIG OUT REPAIRS $ 25.00 $1,000.00 0.00 30.00 75% $750.00 $750.00 00 SUBTOTAL(ITEMS 1-17) $392,169.00 $390,$05.00 $390,805.00 "Required by Sections 6700-6708 of the Labor Code with pricing included in items 1 through 11 above. ADD ALTERNATE-ITEMS 18.24-DELETED-NOT INCLUDED IN CONTRACT I AGREEMENT 18 MANHOLE VALVES AND OTHER ADJUSTMENTS $ 525.00 EA 10 $ 0% $0.00 0 $0.00 19 COLD PLANE AC $ 73.50 CY 225 $ 0% $0.00 0 $0.00 20 AC PAVING -STREET PAVING $ 84.00 TONS 650 $ 0% $0.00 0 $0.00 21 ENGINEERED PAVING MAT $ 4.25 SY 4100 $ 0% $0.00 0 $0.00 22 STRIPING- 12"WHITE OR CURB STRIPING $ 4.50 LF 130 $ 0% $0.00 0 $0.00 23 LEGENDS AND MARKINGS $ 4.50 SF 108 $ 0% $0.00 0 $0.00 24 1 1 PARKING"TEES"OR MARKERS I$ 31.501 EA 1 19 1$ 0% $0.00 0 $0.00 SUBTOTAL(ITEMS 18-24) $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Printed:8/102006 U\e0570CneyPPM6FINALAug7o6As ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT 1 BID BID QTY THIS QTY TO %AGE $AMOUNT PREVIOUS $AMOUNT PRICE SIZE QTY TOTAL PERIOD DATE TO DATE TO DATE PAID THIS PERIOD MISCELLANEOUS STORM DRAIN IMPROVEMENTS-Paloma Edgehill,and Chula Vista Avenue-ITEMS 25-39 REMOVE DRAIN INLETS AND INSTALL NEW TYPE GO 25 CURB INLET TO BOX CULVERT Chula Vista $ 3,520.00 EA 2 $ 7,040.00 0.00 2.00 100% $7,040.00 $7,040.00 $0.00 REMOVE DRAIN INLETS AND REPLACE WITH TYPE 26 GO CURB INLETS Paloma $ 4,930.00 EA 2 $ 9,860.00 0.00 2.00 100% $9,860.00 $9,860.00 $0.00 NEW TYPE GO CURB DRAIN INLET with 11 LF OF 15" 27 PVC C900 STORM DRAIN PIPE IN STREET Paloma $ 5,250.00 EA 1 $ 5,250.00 0.00 1.00 100% $5,250.00 $5,250.00 $0.00 NEW 12"DIA.AREA DRAIN INLET W/GRATE,AND FLAP GATE BELOW GRATE IN BOX(easement 28 between Chula Vista and Laguna) $ 1,73&00 EA 1 $ 1,735.00 0.00 1.00 100% $1,735,001 $1,735.00 $0.00 REMOVE AND REPLACE DRAIN INLET,ADD NEW 6" CURB OPENING W/DOUBLE GO GRATE IN TOP OF 29 BOX CULVERT(Edgehill near Paloma $ 7,850.00 EA 1 $ 7,850.00 0.00 1.00 100% $7,850.00 $7,850.00 $0.00 30 STEEL FRAME FOR DOUBLE GO GRATE $ 3,800.00 EA 1 $ 3,800.00 0.00 1.00 100% $3,800.00 $3,800.00 $0.00 GRATE IN DRIVEWAY W/WELDED STEEL GRATE 31 912 PALOMA $ 750.00 EA 1 $ 750.00 1.00 1.00 100% $750.00 $750.00 $0.00 REMOVE EXISTING 8"AND INSTALL NEW 12"C900 32 STORM DRAIN PIPE IN STREET Paloma $ 105.00 LF 34 $ 3,570.00 0.00 36.00 106% $3,780.00 $3,780.00 $0.00 AC PAVING REPAIR-MIN.TWO LIFTS-ABOUT 6" 33 DEPTH Not including Chula Vistapaving) $ 5.00 SF 700 $ 3,500.00 542.00 542.00 77% $2,710.00 $2,710.00 $0.00 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE CURB AND 34 GUTTER $ 35.00 LF 150 $ 5,250.00 0.00 150.00 100% $5,250.00 $5,250.00 $0.00 35 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE DRIVEWAY $ 25.00 SF 300 $ 7,500.00 47.00 347.00 116% $8,675.00 $7,500.00 $1,175.00 36 REMOVE AND REPLACE CONCRETE SIDEWALK $ 20.00 SF 60 $ 1,2G0.00 16.00 36.00 60% $720.00 $400.00 $320.00 AREA RESTORATION-LANDSCAPING AND REPAIR 37 WORK $ 1200.00 LS 1 $ 1200.00 1.00 1.00 100% $1200.00 $0.00 $1200.00 38 POST TELEVISION INSPECTION $ 1.50 LF 1250 $ 1,875.00 1081.00 1081.00 86% $1,621.501 $0.00 $1 621.50 39 SHEETING BRACING AND SHORING-Pncing to be included in items above SUBTOTAL(ITEMS 25-39) $60,380.00 $60,241.50 $55,925.00 $4,316.50 CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS CRD CREDIT ADD C.C.O.#1: $0.00 L.S. 0 $0.00 0 0 $22,715.00 $22,715.00 $0.00 ADD C.C.O.#2: $0.00 L.S. 0 $0.00 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 ADD C.C.O.#3: $0.00 L.S. 0 $0.00 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $22,715.00 $22,715.00 $0.00 PREPARED BY: SUBTOTAL $ 452,549.00 """......"' $473,762 $469,445 $4,317 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES(DEDUCTION) ""......""' $0 $0 $0 CHECKED BY: LESS TEN PERCENT RETENTION(DEDUCTION) """""""' ($47,376) ($46,945) ($432) SUBTOTAL WITH DEDUCTIONS """""""' $426,385 $422,501 $3,885 CONTRACTOR: CASEY CONSTRUCTION ................................................................................. TOTAL THIS PERIOD """""""'"""""""' $426,385 $422,501 $3,885 APPROVED BY ........................................»....................................... CITY ENGINEER: Printed:8/102006 U'�805700aseyPP#6FINAL.Aug7.06.)ds Agenda 9i Item Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: August 21, 2006 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: August 3, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION TO REJECT ALL BIDS AND AUTHORIZE STAFF TO RE- ADVERTISE THE REPLACEMENT OF CITY HALL ELEVATOR PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council reject all bids and authorize staff to re-advertise the Replacement of City Hall Elevator Project. DISCUSSION: The City received two bids for replacement of the elevator at City Hall. The apparent low bid did not list any subcontractors to be involved in the work. However, the low bidder indicated to staff that subcontractors were going to be used that required disclosure under the Public Contract Code. Unfortunately, the City's specifications did not require disclosure at the proper levels of participation. The other bidder did disclose all subcontractors in compliance with the Public Contract code. Because the Public Contract Code does not allow the low bidder to now list its subcontractors, it is recommended that the City reject all bids and re-bid the project. EXHIBITS: Resolution, City Attorney Memo SAA Public Works Directory\StaffReportsTity Hall Elevator Re-Bid.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME REJECTING ALL BIDS FOR CITY HALL ELEVATOR REPLACEMENT PROJECT RESOLVED,by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City of Burlingame intends to replace the elevator in City Hall; and WHEREAS, the City issued an invitation for bids and received two sealed bids in response to the invitation; and WHEREAS, the apparent lowest bidder did not list any subcontractors for the project, although the lowest bidder intends to use subcontractors for work that involves more than one- half of one percent of the bid price as required by the California Public Contract Code; and WHEREAS, the other bidder did list subcontractors that would exceed one-half of one- percent of the bid price; and WHEREAS, the apparent lowest bidder may have been led into not listing the necessary subcontractors because the City specification provided"one-half of one percent or $10,000, whichever is greater" as the base requirement for listing a subcontractor; and WHEREAS, both bids were responsive to the City's specifications; and WHEREAS, the specifications provide that the City may reject all bids in its discretion; and WHEREAS, the appropriate and fair process is to reject all bids and re-advertise the project with both bidders eligible to submit bids, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine, and find as follows: 1. All bids received for the City Hall Elevator Replacement Project are hereby rej ected. 2. All bonds and security received in connection with the bids shall be returned to the bidders. No bidders are disqualified by this action from participating in the readvertised bidding. 3. The project will be readvertised as directed by the Director of Public Works. MAYOR 1 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of , 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK U:\FILES\RESO\rejectbid6.pwd.wpd 2 M E M O R A N D U M CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY ATTORNEY DATE: August 1, 2006 TO: George Bagdon, Director of Public Works ,7 FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney RE : Bids for Replacement of City Hall Elevator INTRODUCTION The City received two bids for replacement of the elevator at City Hall. The apparent low bid did not list any subcontractors to be involved in the work,but discussions with the low bidder reveal that subcontractors are going to be used that are required to be disclosed under the Public Contract Code. However, the City's specifications did not require disclosure at the proper levels of participation. The other bidder did disclose all subcontractors in compliance with the Public Contract Code. Because the Public Contract Code does not allow the low bidder to now list its subcontractors, it is recommended that the City reject all bids and re-bid the project. DISCUSSION The elevator at City Hall is in need of replacement. The Public Works Department prepared specifications for the work,including a bid package for use by bidders. The package used a standard subcontractor submittal form substantially as follows: DESIGNATION OF SUBCONTRACTORS (Public Contract Code Sections 4100 and following) TO BE EXECUTED BY BIDDER AND SUBMITTED WITH BID PROPOSAL As a bidder on the above-entitled project, the undersigned hereby designates the subcontractors that will perform work or labor or render services to the Contractor in or about the construction of the project in an amount in excess of one-half('/2) of one percent(I%) of the Contractor's total bid or $10,000 whichever is greater. The undersigned understands and agrees that should it fail to specify a subcontractor for any portion of the work as above stated, it agrees that the undersigned is fully qualified to perform that portion of the work itself, and that it shall perform that portion itself. Penalties for failure to comply with this provision are provided in the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act commencing with Section 4100 of the Public Contract Code. George Bagdon, Director of Public Works Re: Bids for Replacement of City Hall Elevator August 1, 2006 Page 2 The undersigned agrees that it shall not,without written consent of the City Council, make any substitution, assignment or sublet to or of the following list of subcontractors which is made a part of this proposal and then only after compliance with the provisions of the Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act. The specifications were reviewed by this office before being sent out. I did not catch that the"%2 of one percent or $10,000, whichever is greater"provision only applies to street and highway projects under Public Contract Code § 4104, not elevator contracts. Instead, the package should have required a description of any subcontractor that was going to be paid more than '/2 of one percent of the bid amount. The City received two bids from the bid request. The lower bidder, ThyssenKrupp, did not list any subcontractors at all with a total bid of$108,469. ThyssenKrupp did not list any subcontractors because the specification contained the "%2 of one percent or $10,000, whichever is greater" statement, and ThyssenKrupp's subcontractors were not going to exceed $10,000; however, the company had at least one subcontractor that was going to exceed the '/2 of one percent.' In addition, ThyssenKrupp did not assert any claim for inadvertent error within the two working days provided by Public Contract Code § 4107.5. The other bidder, at a bid amount$5,000 higher, listed 3 subcontractors, complying with State law. The provisions of Public Contract Code§§4100 and following(Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act) are very strict. A penalty is to be imposed on any contractor that violates its provisions. A contractor cannot substitute a listed subcontractor without a series of findings. However,most onerous is Section 4109 regarding the allowance of an unlisted subcontract segment: Subletting or subcontracting of any portion of the work in excess of one-half of 1 percent of the prime contractor's total bid as to which no subcontractor was designated in the original bid shall only be permitted in cases of public emergency or necessity, and then only after a finding reduced to writing as a public record of the awarding authority setting forth the facts constituting the emergency or necessity. The City cannot find any emergency or necessity that would allow the City to permit the low bidder to now list subcontractors. The Subletting and Subcontracting Fair Practices Act is to ensure fair competition among contractors and subcontractors, and in this instance, award of a contract to a contractor that has not complied with the Act would not protect any of the Legislature's expressed 'One-half of one percent is only $540 or so. George Bagdon, Director of Public Works Re: Bids for Replacement of City Hall Elevator August 1, 2006 Page 3 interests, and would particularly damage fair competition among subcontractors. First, the low bidder cannot provide the City with a meaningful list of subcontractors that provided bids under the original bid by which the City could bind the contractor under the provisions of the Act. The City has no means by which to hold the contractor to those undisclosed subcontractors, and the other bidder and unlisted subcontractors have no meaningful process by which to judge the submitted bid or subcontractors. The low bidder has had a number of weeks to manipulate the subcontractor bids if it so chose. That can only be corrected by a bid process that fully complies with the Act's requirements. Staff does not believe that the elevator is in imminent danger of disfunction, and a delay of 3 to 4 weeks to allow a rebidding of the project would serve the interests expressed by the Legislature, including a fair price for the taxpayers for the work. Finally, there is no authority in the Public Contract Code for the City to simply waive the requirements of the Public Contract Code. City specifications expressly reserve the right of the City to reject all bids: Award or Rejection of Bids The Contract,if awarded,will be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder subject to City's right to reject any or all bids and to waive any informality in the bids or the bidding. In the current instance,the City's specifications may have led one bidder to not list subcontractors, while the other bidder complied with the provisions of the Public Contract Code by listing all subcontractors (perhaps in spite of the specifications). It would be manifestly unfair to the bidder that complied with State law (and a violation of the State policy to protect subcontractors by disclosure) to award the contract to the low bidder, and just as unfair to the low bidder to reject the low bid that might have been based on the specification misstatement. Therefore, it is recommended that all bids be rejected, and the project be re-advertised with both bidders qualified to bid under the corrected specifications. cc: Rob Mallick Agenda Item # 9j Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: Auciust2l, 2006 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY "Z TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: August 9, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPOINTING THE BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY (BAWSCA) TO REPRESENT BURLINGAME IN NEGOTIATIONS WITH SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION (SFPUC) FOR WATER PURCHASE AGREEMENT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution appointing BAWSCA to represent Burlingame in negotiations with SFPUC for a water purchase agreement. BACKGROUND: In 1984, Burlingame entered into a settlement agreement and a Master water sales contract with SFPUC. The 1984 contract settled a federal lawsuit brought by the City and other water suppliers in the Peninsula challenging the legality of water rates charged by San Francisco. The current contract will expire on June 30, 2009 and a new contract needs to be negotiated with SFPUC. DISCUSSION: Burlingame is a member of BAWSCA agency which represents 28 Bay Area agencies in the area of water supply, quality, and conservation. BAWSCA has proposed to serve as the representative of its members in discussions and negotiations with SFPUC for the continued delivery of high quality drinking water after June 2009. The scope of negotiations will include the following as indicated in the attached letter from BAWSCA.- Reliable AWSCA: Reliable water supply • High quality • Fair pricing BAWSCA has the capabilities to serve in this capacity by virtue of its agency staff and consultants in relevant disciplines including Civil Engineering, water supply, planning, financing and law. In addition, City staff has met with BAWSCA staff several times to discuss issues concerning Burlingame in the area of water supply and believe that BAWSCA is well qualified to represent the City's position in negotiating the next water supply contract with SFPUC. BUDGET IMPACT: The negotiations are funded as part of BAWSCA budget. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\BAWSCA Representation with SFPUC.DOC EXHIBITS: Resolution, Letter from BAWSCA regarding Scope of Work Syed Murtuza Assistant Public Works Director S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\BAWSCA Representation with SFPUC.DOC CITY OF BURLINGAME RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION APPOINTING THE BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY AND CONSERVATION AGENCY AS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF CITY IN DISCUSSIONS/NEGOTIATIONS WITH SAN FRANCISCO FOR AN AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE A RELIABLE SUPPLY OF HIGH QUALITY WATER AT A FAIR PRICE WHEREAS, 1. In 1984 City, together with other water suppliers in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, entered into a"Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract"with the City and County of San Francisco (San Francisco). The 1984 Contract settled a federal lawsuit brought by City and other water suppliers to these communities challenging the legality of water rates charged by San Francisco. 2. The 1984 Contract and the individual water supply contract entered into concurrently by City and San Francisco will expire on June 30, 2009. 3. In April 2003, the City and other water suppliers in Alameda, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties established the Bay Area Water Supply and Conservation Agency (BAWSCA) as authorized by Water Code Section 81300 et seq. pursuant to State legislation enacted in 2002 (AB 2058). The City is represented on the BAWSCA board of directors. 4. BAWSCA has proposed to serve as the representative of its members in discussions and negotiations with San Francisco leading toward a continued, and improved, contractual relationship with San Francisco for delivery of drinking water after June 2009 and has provided funds for this activity in its budget for Fiscal Year 2006-07. 5. BAWSCA has the capabilities required to serve in this capacity by virtue of Agency staff and consultants in relevant disciplines including civil engineering, water supply planning, finance, economics, accounting, and law. 6. BAWSCA's General Manager has met with City's representatives to discuss their perspectives on a continued contractual relationship with San Francisco for water supply. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. City appoints BAWSCA as its authorized representative in discussions and negotiations with San Francisco for the terms and conditions of delivery of drinking water after June 2009,to be incorporated in a new overall agreement between San Francisco and its regional customers. 2. BAWSCA, through its General Manager, shall confer with and keep the City informed on the status of these discussions and negotiations. To that end, the BAWSCA General Manager shall provide a report to City no less frequently than each calendar quarter, on developments during the preceding three months and expected activities during the ensuing three months. 3. This appointment shall continue unless and until revoked by the City Council. 4. This resolution confers no authority on BAWSCA to enter into a contract with San Francisco or to make any commitments legally binding on City. The authority to enter into any contracts is expressly reserved to the City Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2006, by the following vote. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Attest: Approved as to form: Attachment to July 28, 2006 letter from Bern Beecham on Negotiation of an Agreement for San Francisco to Provide Its Regional Customers With a Reliable Supply of High Quality Water at a Fair Price This attachment has two purposes. The first is to convey BAWSCA's readiness to represent all of its member agencies in negotiations with San Francisco for the terms on which San Francisco will deliver, and BAWSCA agencies will purchase, water after the 1984 Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract expires in mid-2009. The goal will be a new, or extended, agreement with San Francisco for a reliable supply of high quality water at a fair price. The second purpose is to request that the governing board of each agency which wants BAWSCA to serve in this capacity take formal action to establish BAWSCA's authority, and responsibility, to act on its behalf by adopting a resolution substantially along the lines of the sample attached. This attachment provides background and specifics about this action. The first part of the attachment provides background on the existing contract and some of the context in which negotiations for the future agreement will take place. It then describes BAWSCA's formation and recent activities, as well as summarizing the respective roles that BAWSCA and its member agencies could each logically play in negotiations. The third section describes BAWSCA's capabilities in terms of a multi-disciplinary negotiating "team". The fourth section outlines in brief and general terms the overall objectives that BAWSCA would seek to accomplish in the negotiations, based on the interests that member agencies have themselves articulated in a consultative process with BAWSCA over the past year. The final section addresses the mechanics of each agency delegating the necessary authority to BAWSCA, as well as the approximate schedule for beginning discussions with San Francisco. A sample resolution appointing BAWSCA as your agency's representative is attached. 1. EXISTING WATER CONTRACTS WILL EXPIRE IN JULY, 2009 The Settlement Agreement and Master Water Sales Contract signed in 1984 by San Francisco and all wholesale customer agencies will expire on June 30, 2009. (Its title reflects the fact that the 1984 contract settled a federal court lawsuit, brought by wholesale agencies, challenging San Francisco water rates.) The individual water supply contracts for all but two of the agencies also expire in June 2009. The contracts are expiring at a time of change and uncertainty. San Francisco faces a challenge of unprecedented scale - rebuilding and improving the regional water system after decades of deferred maintenance to standards designed to withstand major earthquakes on the three faults that lie beneath the system's dams,pipelines, and treatment plants. A top priority for all residents, businesses and community organizations of the four-county service area is for San 1263192.5 Background Information Page 2 Francisco to complete this vital Water System Improvement Program (WSIP), on time (by 2014) and on budget($4.3 billion). At the same time, there are also unprecedented challenges to increasing diversions of water from the Tuolumne River. The river is the obvious choice for obtaining at least the majority of the additional water projected to be needed by BAWSCA agencies from the San Francisco system in 2030. San Francisco has the necessary water rights, the water is of extremely high quality, and the cost of sizing facilities to allow for wholesale customer demand to be met from the Tuolumne River is small in comparison to the rest of the $4.3 billion capital program and in comparison to most alternatives. Environmental organizations based both in the Tuolumne River watershed and in the Bay Area are generally opposed to taking any more water from the river. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission(FERC) license for New Don Pedro Reservoir(where San Francisco has a substantial"water bank") expires in 2012. It is likely that FERC will be urged to require more water be left in the river, rather than less. Moreover, the California Department of Water Resources has just recently released a report evaluating the feasibility of removing O'Shaughnessy Dam and draining Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. San Francisco has not yet made any firm commitments to meeting the increased demand in the wholesale service area, which is projected to occur by 2030 even after cost-effective conservation measures and recycling projects are deployed. The Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) on the overall WSIP is expected to be released in draft by the San Francisco Planning Department for public comment this fall. Its release will sharpen the terms of the public debate over water supply alternatives and regional growth in the Bay Area. The resolution of these issues will, of course, profoundly influence the terms of a new or extended agreement expected to be in effect from 2009 through 2030. For example, San Francisco has indicated that it will use the negotiations to seek commitments from wholesale agencies to implement even more aggressive conservation and recycling measures, irrespective of cost- benefit considerations. The multi-billion cost of the WSIP will also affect negotiations for a new agreement. Continued application of the cost allocation principles embedded in the current contract would result in a nearly 300% increase in wholesale water rates by 2015. And San Francisco has indicated that it may seek changes to the financial provisions of the Master Contract. One such change that has been mentioned would require wholesale agencies to contribute more quickly to the cost of capital projects, by sharing in debt service as soon as bonds are issued rather than waiting until projects are completed and placed into service. We expect that the discussions and negotiations leading to a new agreement will be complex and technical as regards both the water supply and the financial provisions. 1263192.5 Background Information Page 3 2. BAWSCA'S ROLE AS REPRESENTATIVE OF WHOLESALE WATER CUSTOMERS BAWSCA was formed in the Spring of 2003 by unanimous decisions of the governing bodies of city and special district members. The State law that authorized BAWSCA's formation was enacted in 2002, one of three landmark pieces of legislation supported by the Bay Area Water Users Association (the non-profit corporation that preceded BAWSCA and that played a leading role in the negotiations that culminated in the 1984 water sales contract). These bills were supported by the cities, water districts and other water suppliers now represented on BAWSCA's board of directors and were voted for by the overwhelming majority of State legislators. For the past two years, BAWSCA has focused its attention primarily on the rebuilding and improving of the San Francisco regional system. This has entailed closely tracking San Francisco's major, year-long process of revisions to facilities, construction schedule and cost of the WSIP, including active involvement with the review of those revisions by the California Department of Health Services and the California Seismic Safety Commission, which concluded just a few months ago. It has also meant playing an assertive, constructive role in the lengthy PEIR process, in the development of accurate forecasts of water demand in 2020 and 2030 that underlie basic decisions about the San Francisco system's capacity, and in analyses of the economic effects of water shortages on industries in the BAWSCA service area. In addition, BAWSCA has continued to offer an array of cost-effective water conservation programs to member agencies on a voluntary subscription basis, to monitor San Francisco's compliance with the cost-allocation rules of the existing Master Contract, and to enforce compliance with them through discussions with San Francisco whenever possible and through arbitration when necessary. More recently, anticipating requests from member agencies to take a leading role in the negotiations for a new agreement, BAWSCA staff have been meeting with representatives of all member agencies. The purpose of these meetings has been to learn the perspectives of member agencies on how the existing contract has worked and what they would like to see continued, or changed, in their relationship with San Francisco after 2009. These meetings included: (1)an individual meeting with each agency's City Manager/General Manager or their designee; (2)a series of small group meetings with the agencies' designated representatives, held between January and May of this year; and (3) a meeting with all agencies' representatives held in June to review the input we had received through the small group meetings. One of the important facts we learned from this extensive consultation is that there is a general expectation and desire for BAWSCA to take the lead in negotiating the "global" issues common to all agencies and on which those agencies have similar interests. These issues include: water supply reliability; water quality; cost allocation(as between San Francisco and its wholesale customers); efficient contract administration; and increased collaboration-- rather than 1263192.5 Background Information Page 4 confrontation-- with San Francisco on regional water matters whenever appropriate and possible. There was also broad recognition that most agencies do not have independent resources sufficient to address these "global" issues as effectively as can be done through a pooled effort. A clear understanding emerged from these meetings in terms of the respective roles of BAWSCA and individual member agencies in the negotiation process. First, BAWSCA should assume responsibility for negotiating the "global"issues, which apply to the overall relationship between San Francisco and wholesale customers collectively. (Some of these issues are those addressed in the 1984 "Master Contract" signed by San Francisco and all wholesale agencies.) Second, the ultimate decision on whether or not to accept the resolution of the "global" issues in a proposed new agreement is up to the governing body of each BAWSCA member agency. Third, individual BAWSCA agencies will have the principal responsibility for negotiating the separate (and much shorter and simpler) individual water supply contracts which address matters unique to each agency such as service area, points of connection between the San Francisco transmission system and the retail system, minimum purchase requirements for those agencies with multiple suppliers, etc. Those individual contracts will most likely not be addressed until negotiation of the new overall agreement is nearing completion. 3. BAWSCA'S CAPABILITIES BAWSCA has a very strong, in-house staff and has also assembled an equally strong team of consultants in each of the disciplines likely to be called on during negotiations. The negotiations would be led by BAWSCA's General Manager, Art Jensen, who is well-qualified for this task. Art received a Ph.D. in civil engineering from CalTech and has over 30 years of experience in California urban water supply, initially with a major consulting engineering firm, and then as a planner and manager for large Bay Area water utilities, including the San Francisco Water Department and the Contra Costa County Water District. He has served as General Manager of BAWSCA and its predecessor BAWUA since 1995. He is highly regarded in the California water industry. BAWSCA staff provides Art with capable and experienced support in key areas. Nicole Sandkulla, P.E., is an engineer with relevant experience at East Bay MUD before joining BAWSCA in 1999. John Ummel is thoroughly familiar with the financial provisions of the existing Master Contract, having monitored San Francisco's implementation of it for over 10 years. And Ben Pink brings strong analytical skills to water supply planning issues. BAWSCA's strong in-house staff is supplemented by capable consultants, some of whom have served BAWSCA, and its predecessor, for many years and are extremely knowledgeable about the San Francisco water system and the Master Contract. 1263192.5 Background Information Page 5 • Accounting: Burr,Pilger& Mayer, LLP (Steve Mayer and Jeff Pearson). BPM is a Bay Area-based CPA firm which is currently assisting BAWSCA in reviewing recent compliance audits of San Francisco's implementation of the Master Contract cost allocation and accounting rules. Mr. Mayer and Mr. Pearson have extensive experience in analyzing complex financial transactions and in auditing of California water agencies, respectively. • Economics: Energy & Water Economics, Inc. (William Wade, Ph.D.). Dr. Wade is broadly experienced in natural resource economic analysis. His clients have included major water supply agencies in California and on the East Coast. He has recently assisted BAWSCA in assessing the economic impact of water shortage on Bay Area individual customers. • Engineering: Stetson Engineers (Allan Richards,P.E.). Stetson Engineers is a civil engineering firm that has specialized in water supply for over 30 years. Mr. Richards has assisted BAWSCA (and previously BAWUA) for many years with the complex water use measurement protocols that the Master Contract requires and is thoroughly familiar with the hydraulics of the San Francisco regional system. • Municipal Finance: Kelling Northcross Nobriga/Public Resources Advisory Group (David Brodsly). KNN is a Bay Area-based firm specializing in advising public agencies on financing. PRAG is a similar national firm. David Brodsly, whose background in public finance includes service with cities and a national bond rating agency, has assisted BAWSCA in the analysis of alternative capital cost recovery approaches. KNN has also constructed a computer model that can be used to evaluate various cost allocation proposals. • Legal Counsel: Hanson Bridgett Marcus Vlahos & Rudy, LLP (Ray McDevitt). Hanson Bridgett is a Bay Area-based law firm with a long- standing local government law practice. Ray McDevitt, a senior partner in the firm, participated in the lawsuit against San Francisco that led to the 1984 Master Contract and played a major role in negotiation of that contract. He has served as legal counsel for BAWUA and BAWSCA for many years. Mr. McDevitt can call on other attorneys at Hanson Bridgett with specialized expertise in litigation, environmental law, and municipal finance, including Allison Schutte, who has been assisting BAWSCA staff on a range of issues with the WSIP and associated PEIR. • Strategic Counsel: Bud Wendell is a seasoned public affairs professional with many years of experience in both the public and the private sectors, including Fortune 500 companies and federal, state and local government. He played a central role in the successful effort to secure State legislation requiring San Francisco to repair the water system and establishing BAWSCA. 1263192.5 Background Information Page 6 More recently, he has been instrumental in discussions with San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom relating to the WSIP. BAWSCA's Board has made provision in our FY 2006-2007 budget to support significant activity directed toward agreement negotiations, and I fully expect that it will continue to support the effort to a successful conclusion. 4. BAWSCA AGENCIES' OBJECTIVES The goals expressed by members can be summarized, at a high level of generality, as seeking an agreement that provides them with a reliable supply of high-quality water at a fair price. Some of the specific elements that contribute to each of these goals include: A. Reliable Supply • Completion of the seismic rehabilitation/WSIP on time and on budget. • Commitment to good system maintenance practices in the future. • Equal treatment in delivery of water by San Francisco to customers inside and outside of San Francisco in the event of a major system disruption. • Management of the system by San Francisco so that generation of hydroelectric power at Hetch Hetchy remains subordinate to providing a reliable water supply to the Bay Area. • Firm individual entitlements for each agency, with flexibility to trade water entitlements, and water, among BAWSCA agencies. • Ability for BAWSCA to "wheel"water from outside sources during drought. B. High Quality • A commitment by San Francisco to deliver potable water requiring no additional treatment(except for Coastside). • Prompt notification of possible Safe Drinking Water Act violations or changes in water quality affecting individual customers. C. Fair Price • In general, agencies expressed desire to preserve the basic cost allocation architecture of the existing Master Contract: o Cost of water to be limited to facilities and services that benefit wholesale customers (i.e., no in-City costs, no Hetch Hetchy power costs, unless power revenues also shared.) o Costs of regional facilities allocated between San Francisco and wholesale customers on basis of relative usage. o Maintenance of the balancing account to monitor and account for overpayments/underpayments. • Provide greater flexibility in administration to prevent sharp rate fluctuations from year to year. 1263192.5 Background Information Page 7 The foregoing is an illustrative, rather than comprehensive, list of BAWSCA member goals. Moreover, it doesn't include any of the points that San Francisco may propose be incorporated into a new contract. 5. MECHANICS AND SCHEDULE BAWSCA will negotiate on behalf of only those agencies that explicitly authorize it to do so. A sample resolution for your agency's governing body is attached which, if adopted, will provide this authorization. As you will see, it is a carefully crafted document, designed to be both sufficiently broad while also reserving full authority in your agency's governing body to withdraw that authority at any time and to make clear that the ultimate authority to enter into any agreement is reserved to your agency. In terms of timing, a logical point at which to begin negotiations is shortly after the PEIR is released in draft form. This is expected to occur in November of this year. Ideally, it would be most helpful to receive all of the authorizations by the end of September. If you, or any members of your governing board have any questions about this information or the accompanying resolution, please let Art Jensen know as soon as possible. He, and the entire BAWSCA team, are available to answer any questions you may have and to attend the meeting of your governing body at which the resolution will be considered. 1263192.5 c,TY o. STAFF REPORT AGENDA B4iRLING1aME ITEM# 9k t MTG.DATE 8/21/06 Ani w.lIIK� TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED DATE: July 21, 2006 APPR FROM: Parks &Recreation Director (558-7307) SUBJECT: TREE PRUNING & STUMP REMOVAL, 2006-267 PROJECT# 81690 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution accepting TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE,INC.,as the low responsible bidder on this project. BACKGROUND: $135,000 has been appropriated for tree trimming of Eucalyptus and other large trees, and stump removal/grinding on City property at various locations. There is a provision for tree removal using a crane, if necessary, during the life of the contract. On July 19, 2006, five bids were opened for this project. TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE'S bid was $38.75 per man hour: this represents an increase of 27%over the previous year ($30.46/per hour), and is $16.25 per hour less than the next lowest bid submitted by Tru Green. Timberline Tree Service was the contractor for the recently completed City Tree Pruning contract,and the work was completed to the satisfaction of Staff. Bids received for the 2006207 Contract were: 1. Timberline $ 38.75 per man hour 2. Tru Green $ 55.00 per man hour 3. Professional Tree Care $ 5 8.00 per man hour 4. West Coast Arborist $ 60.00 per man hour 5. Arborwell $ 72.00 per man hour DESCRIPTION The pruning will be performed primarily on large Eucalyptus trees, and will require the use of high climbers as well as aerial lifts. Stump removal and emergency work will be performed at various locations on an as needed basis. All work will be evenly distributed over the life of the contract. The contractor will be required to perform a minimum of 120 and a maximum of 240 man-hours per month up to the maximum amount of$135,000. The contract also contains a provision for an option year at the City's discretion. Crews will consist of 2 to 3 fully qualified tree workers, each with a minimum of 3 years experience. Each crew will have all the equipment necessary to perform the work, including a chipper and truck of sufficient size to accommodate at least one day's wood chips, and access to an aerial lift. RESOLUTION NO. AWARDING CONTRACT - TREE PRUNING& STUMP REMOVAL, 2006 -2007 CITY PROJECT #81690 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME, that., WHEREAS, the City Council has authorized an invitation for bids for the TREE PRUNING & STUMP REMOVAL 2006 - 2007 PROJECT, and WHEREAS, on July 19th, 2006, all bids received were opened before the Parks Supervisor, the Parks Superintendent, and the Administrative Secretary of the Parks Division; and WHEREAS, TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC., submitted the lowest bid for the job in the amount of$38.75 per man hour; NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED, and it is hereby ORDERED, that the bid of TIMBERLINE TREE SERVICE, INC. for said amount of$135,000, be and the same is hereby accepted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that a contract be entered into between the successful bidder hereinabove 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, DORIS MORTENSON, 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 21st day of August, 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 91 ITEM# wcDq Som MTG. DAATED JUNED DATE August 21,2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT E BY DATE: August 21,2006 APOVED -PA Xh FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director/Treasurer BY SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT NO. 1 — G.O. BOND ELECTI APPROPRIATION RECOMMENDATION That the City Council approve a Resolution amending the FY 2006-07 Adopted Budget by appropriating $30,000 to cover the special municipal election expenses for the 2006 General Obligation Bond. BACKGROUND The City Council approved an Ordinance calling a special municipal bond election for approval of general obligation bonds to finance construction and completion of municipal improvements for flood control and for disaster preparedness, disabled access, safety and security capital improvements to existing city buildings. The special municipal election will be held in conjunction with the November 7, 2006 General Election. The City of Burlingame's costs for the municipal election are estimated to be $30,000. This appropriation will cover those costs. The additional funds will be appropriated in the City Clerk's Elections Budget, Account 101-64540 as follows: 64540-150 Advertising and Legal Notices $ 5,000 64540-220 Contractual Services 25,000 Total: $30,000 FINANCIAL IMPACT The FY 2006-07 Adopted Budget will increase by$30,000. Funds are available in the General Fund undesignated balance to cover this appropriation. U:\G.O.Bond Issue-2006\Budget Amendment-2006 Election.doc CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROPRIATION TRANSFER REQUEST DEPARTMENT DATE: Elections August 21,2006 1.REQUEST TRANSFER OF APPROPRIATIONS AS LISTED BELOW: FUND DEPT OBJT PROJ AMT DESCRIPTION FROM: 101 26000 Undesignated Fund Balance Elections Budget TO: 101 64540 150 Advertising&Legal Notices 101 64540 220 Contractual Services Justification(Attach Memo if Necessary) Attached staff report DEPARTMENT HEAD [BY: DATE: 2.❑COUNCIL ACTION REQUIRED ❑COUNCIL ACTION NOT REQUIRED Remarks: FINANCE DIRECTOR BY: DATE 3.❑APPROVE AS REQUESTED ❑APPROVE AS REVISED []DISAPPROVE Remarks: CITY MANAGER BY: DATE: RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING TRANSFER OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 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,Doris Mortensen,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 Agenda 9m Item Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: Auciust 21 2006 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: July 20, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. — BUILDING DIVISION SUBJECT: APPROVAL FOR ATTENDANCE AT OUT OF STATE CONFERENCE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attendance of the Chief Building Official at an out-of-state conference in Orlando, Florida for the International Code Conference (ICC) annual business meeting and code adoption final hearings. BACKGROUND: The ICC sponsors their annual business meeting in various cities throughout the United States. This year the conference is being held in Orlando, Florida and the Chief Building Official is Burlingame's representative. As the City of Burlingame's Class A member, the Chief Building Official will participate in hearings and vote on a variety of code change proposals. The Building Official will also attend the business sessions as well as a variety of building code seminars, and will obtain Continuing Education Units required for job certifications. Attached is a flyer for the conference. The estimated cost for travel, accommodations, registration and food for the conference is approximately $2, 175. BUDGET IMPACT: Funds are available in the FY2006-2007 Building Division Budget EXHIBITS: Conference Flyer c: George Bagdon, Public Works Director Syed Murtuza, Asst. Public Director Doris Mortensen, City Clerk S:AA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Out of State Conf ICC Orlando Florida CBO.doc ICC 2006 Annual Meeting - Schedule at a Glance I»ATlONAL CODECOUNICIP SCHEDULE AT A GLANCE Saturday, September 16 Registration Conference Schedule 9:00 AM - 12:00 PM Pre-Conference/Disney Institute Schedule at a Glance 12.00 PM - 6.00 PM Registration/Bookstore Open Education Programs ' Special Events Code Development Sunday, September 17 Hearings Lodgingf •► 6.00 AM - 2.00 PM ICC Annual Conference Golf Tournament Exhibitors 9:00 AM - 10:30 AM Fellowship Breakfast FAQs 9.00 AM - 5:00 PM Nomination Committee Meeting Home 9:00 AM - 6:00 PM Registration/Bookstore Open 11:00 AM - 5:00 PM Exhibits 11:00 AM - 5:00 PM Silent Auction Bidding 6:00 PM - 10:00 PM Opening Event Monday, September 18 7:00 AM - 8:30 AM Chapter President's Breakfast 7:00 AM - 6:00 PM Registration/Bookstore Open 9:00 AM - 11:00 AM Opening Session 11:30 AM - 1:00 PM General Assembly Luncheon 1.15 PM - 2:30 PM Companions Orientation 1:15 PM - 3:15 PM Chapter Leadership Program 1.15 PM - 3:15 PM Interoperability Meeting 1:15 PM - 5:15 PM International Forum 1:30 PM - 3:30 PM Education Programs 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM Silent Auction Bidding 3:00 PM - 7:00 PM State Photos 3:00 PM - 8:00 PM Exhibits 3:30 PM - 5:00 PM Major Jurisdication Meeting http://abm.iccsafe.org/schedule—at—a—glance.cfm 6/21/2006 ICC 2006 Annual Meeting-Schedule at a Glance 6:00 PM-8:00 PM Exhibitors Reception 6:00 PM-8:00 PM Silent Auction Tuesday,September 19 7:00 AM-5:00 PM Registration/Bookstore Open 8:00 AM-10:30 AM Annual Business Meeting 9:00 AM-4:00 PM Companions Tours/Shopping 10:30 AM-11:30 AM Members Forum 11:30 AM-1:00 PM Delegates Luncheon 1.15 PM-3:15 PM Legislative Forum 1:15 PM-3:15 PM Past Presiding Officers Meeting 1:15 PM-5:30 PM Education Programs 5:15 PM-7:00 PM Chapter Regions Open Mtg Room Wednesday,September 20 7:00 AM-9:00 AM 5K Run 7:00 AM-5:00 PM Registration/Bookstore Open 8'00 AM-5:00 PM Code Development Hearings Track 1 8:00 AM-5:00 PM Code Development Hearings Track 2 9.00 AM-10:00 AM Companion's Breakfast 11:00 AM- 1:00 PM Awards Luncheon 6:00 PM-7:00 PM Reception 7:00 PM-9:00 PM Annual Banquet Thursday,September 21 7:30 AM-6:00 PM Registration/Bookstore Open 8'00 AM-8:00 PM Code Development Hearings Track 1 8:00 AM-8:00 PM Code Development Hearings Track 2 Friday,September 22 7:30 AM-6:00 PM Registration/Bookstore Open 8'00 AM-8:00 PM Code Development Hearings Track 1 8.00 AM-8:00 PM Code Development Hearings Track 2 Saturday,September 23 http://abm.iccsafe.org/schedule_at_a_glance.cfm 6/21/2006 A� CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM # 00 MTG. O��AATED1JUNE6,9 DATE August 21, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMI BY DATE: August 21, 2006 AP OVED FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director/Treasurer BY SUBJECT: OUT-OF-STATE TRAVEL FOR FINANCE DIRECTOR V RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Finance Director's travel to San Antonio, TX to attend the 92nd Annual Conference of the International City-County Management Association (ICMA), September 9-13, 2006. Approval of this item will not have an impact on the City budget. Jesus will use his Professional Development Account to cover expenses associated with this trip. BACKGROUND: Jesus has been an active member of the ICMA since 1983. He currently serves on the following ICMA Boards and Committees, which are scheduled to meet during the conference. • ICMA Representative to the Governmental Accounting Standards Advisory Council (GASAC) • International Hispanic Network Board of Directors Jesus will serve as moderator for the conference session entitled: "Meeting the Challenges of Immigration." He will also be a moderator/speaker for the conference session entitled: "Governmental Accounting Standards Board Update." U:\Travel & Reimbursement\2006\Council Agenda Report - ICMA San Antonio.doc $3,043,073.52 Ck. No. 19843-20636 Exciudes Library cks 19843-19867&20495-20526 RECOMMENDED FOR PAYKENT APPROVED FOR PAYMENT Payroll for July 2006 $2,725,447.31 Ck. No. 166041- 166316 INCLUDES ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFERS PERS HEALTH PERS RETIREMENT FEDERAL 941 TAX STATE DISABILITY TAX STATE INCOME TAX PERS&ICMA DEFERRED COMP SECTION 125 DEDUCTION CD OQ m m .+ q �. a � m o m � 0 N S:\FI NEXCEL\MISCELLANEOUS\COUNCILCKS.XLS CITY OF BURLINGAME 08-11-2006 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 13 FUND RECAP - 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT 0.00 GENERAL FUND 101 60,122.57 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 2,530.36 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 187.02 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 81,829.68 WATER FUND 526 9,703.43 SEWER FUND 527 48,372.12 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 22,799.28 - ECUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 4,500.63 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 242.76 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 57.84 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 1,715.10 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 114.12 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL 8232,174.91 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 13 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 20527 THROUGH 20636 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $232,174.91, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ...... ............ ................ . . .../. ../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .. . . ....................... . . ..... .. .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME 08-11-2006 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 12 FUND RECAP - 05-06 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 3,872.63 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 17,757.33 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 7,491.02 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $29,120.98 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 12 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 20527 THROUGH 20636 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $29,120.98, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME 08-11-2006 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11 FUND RECAP - 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT 0.00 GENERAL FUND 101 63,995.20 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 2,530.36 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 187.02 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 17,757.33 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 81,829.68 . WATER FUND 526 9,703.43 SEWER FUND 527 48,372,12 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 22,799.28 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 11,991.65 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 242.76 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 57.84 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 1,715.10 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 114.12 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL 8261,295.89 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 11 INCLUSIVE,. AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 20527 THROUGH 20636 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $261,295.89, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT ............I....................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 10 08/11/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20634 MARGHERITA SOULE 26841 31 .00 MISCELLANEOUS 31 .00 101 36330 000 1890 20635 MEGAN DYER 26842 43.00 MISCELLANEOUS 43.00 101 36330 000 1890 20636 LAURA THOMPSON-SEVERINO 26843 250.00 MISCELLANEOUS 250.00 101 36330 000 1372 TOTAL $261 ,295.89 1 ) ) CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 08/11/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '•' Denotes Nand Written Checks 20618 SKYLINE BUSINESS PRODUCTS 26825 323.28 MISC. SUPPLIES 315.75 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 7.53 526 69020 120 20619 STEP AHEAD CARPET 8 FLOORING 26826 - 385.00 BLDG. 8 GROUNDS MAINT. 385.00 201 65200 190 20620 MIKE LEWIS 26827 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 , 20621 DOROTHY WILSON 26828 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 20622 WILLIAM KAPPEN 26829 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 20623 SAC VALLEY APPRAISERS 26830 105.00 PROFESSIONAL&SPECIALIZED S 105.00 101 64350 210 20624 VALERIE ARRIAZA 26831 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 20625 CAROLE BARNES 26832 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 20626 CORINNA DRANOW 26833 292.00 MISCELLANEOUS 292.00 101 36330 000 1330 20627 FELICIA STACKER 26834 55.00 MISCELLANEOUS 55.00 101 36330 000 1890 20628 JANET A. CHOY 26835 107.00 MISCELLANEOUS 107.00 101 36330 000 1890 20629 AMY Z. FEARN 26836 250.00 MISCELLANEOUS 250.00 101 36330 000 1422 20630 DAN ROSALES 26837 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 . 20631 NANCY RUSPINI 26838 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 20632 ROGER LARGAESPADA 26839 - 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 20633 KATE MULLIGAN 26840 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 08/11/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20605 J HOWARD ENGINEERING 25811 750.00 MISCELLANEOUS 750.00 526 22502 20606 KIMBERLY ROSALES 25951 125.00 MISCELLANEOUS 125.00 101. 36330 000 1372 20607 ALLIED OFFICE SUPPLIES 26138 411.21 OFFICEEXPENSE36.26 101 64150 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 32.35 101 64350 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 35.78 101 64400 110 OFFICE EXPENSE -15.50 101 64350 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 69.66 527 66520 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 205.92 619 64460 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 46.74 620 66700 110 20608 CALIFORNIA POWER PARTNERS 26205 69,678.81 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 69,678.81 327 81510 220 20609 DANCE FORCE 26351 1,360.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,360.00 101 68010 220 1646 20610 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26373 -' - 69.78 COMMUNICATIONS 69.78 101 65100 160 20611 HAPPY FEET DANCE CO 26392 500.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 500.00 101 68010 220 1349 20612 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26418 114.12 UTILITY EXPENSE 114.12 896 20281 20613 WENDY VOORSANGER 26525 250.00 MISCELLANEOUS 250.00 101 36330 000 1372 20614 SHELLEY TAKASATO 26574 2,000.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 2,000.00 101 22520 20615 AMERICAN MESSAGING 26822 63.65 COMMUNICATIONS 12.73 101 66210 160 COMMUNICATIONS 38.19 526 69020 160 COMMUNICATIONS 12.73 527 66520 160 20616 EARTH PROTECTION SERVICES INC 26823 251.77 PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 251.77 619 64460 210 20617 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26824 159.98 COMMUNICATIONS 159.98 101 66100 160 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 08/11/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20593 J&L CONSTRUCTION,INC. 24256 5,155.67 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,155.67 101 68020 800 2200 20594 A&G SERVICES 24400 21,090.39 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,300.00 526 69020 120 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 18,790.39 527 66520.220 20595 BEACON FIRE & SAFETY 24535 124.65 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 124.65 619 64460 210 20596 KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS 24570 AP 13,278.31 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S12,959.56 326 80950 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 318.75 326 81180 210 20597 I.M.P.A.C. GOVERNMENT SERVICES 24752 3,122.13 OFFICE EXPENSE 598.77 201 65200 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 191.25 201 65200 120 SMALL TOOLS 105.20 201 65200 130 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 6.15 201 65200 140 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 170.77 201 65200 190 VEHICLE MAINT. 12.95 201 65200 202 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 75.25 201 65200 203 TRAINING EXPENSE 516.66 201 65200 260 MISCELLANEOUS 1,445.13 731 22554 20598 SETON IDENTIFICATION PRODUCTS 24855 - 573.85 MISC. SUPPLIES 573.85 101 65300 120 20599 DE LAGE LANDEN 25057 - 438.02 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 23.08 101 65150 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 414.94 101 65100 220 20600 CATHY FOXHOVEN 25088 903.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 387.00 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL.SERVICES 516.00 101 68010 220 1646 20601 KELLIE MEYERS 25339 40.00 MISCELLANEOUS 40.00 101 36330 000 1370 20602 JULIE CARLSON 25341 1,020.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,020.00 101 22525 20603 LORAL LANDSCAPING 25394 160.00 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 160.00 527 66520 190 20604 JANETHIA WONG 25459 31.00 MISCELLANEOUS 31.00 101 36330 000 1890 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 08/11/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Cheeks 20581 OFFICE MAX 23306 326.40 OFFICE EXPENSE 326.40 101 68010 110 1101 20582 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO. 23611 93.96 MISC. SUPPLIES 93.96 619 64460 120 20583 AT&T 23661 24.69 COMMUNICATIONS 24.69 621 64450 160 20584 THE MARLIN COMPANY 23712 896.51 TRAINING EXPENSE 298.83 101 66210 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 298.84 526 69020 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 298.84 527 66520 260 20585 JANNETTE GREER 23769 26.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 26.00 101 68010 220 1648 20586 RICHARD BARBERA PAINTING 23780 55.00 MISCELLANEOUS 55.00 101 36330 000 1890 20587 FRANK GROSSMAN LANDSCAPING 23786 960.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 960.00 101 22520 20588 INDUSTRIAL PLUMBING SUPPLY 23857 2,229.69 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,229.69 619 64460 210 5260 20589 BRIAN ROCHE 23865 400.00 MISCELLANEOUS 400.00 101 22525 20590 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 14,054.13 MISC. SUPPLIES 17.38 101 68010 120 1114 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 958.00 619 64460 220 5210 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,176.00 619 64460 220 5130 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 874.00 619 64460 220 5190 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,802.00 619 64460 220 5240 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 465.00 619 64460 220 5121 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,807.00 619 64460 220 5110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,974.00 619 64460 220 5180 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 477.75 619 64460 220 5240 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 145.00 619 64460 220 5230 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 358.00 619 64460 220 5170 20591 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 478.16 COMMUNICATIONS 291.50 101 68020 160 2300 COMMUNICATIONS 186.66 619 64460 160 20592 ABE KIRSCHENBAUM 24136 500.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 500.00 619 64460 260 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 08/11/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '•' Denotes Hand Written Checks 20566 THYSSENKRUPP ELEVATOR-042 21240 937.42 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 703.86 619 64460 220 5110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 233.56 619 64460 220 5130 20567 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 81.86 OFFICE EXPENSE 81.86 621 64450 110 20568 HILLYARD/SAN FRANCISCO 21658 1,117.01 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,117.01 101 68020 120 2200 20569 MISSION VALLEY FORD 21675 171.02 SUPPLIES 171.02 620 15000 20570 CHRISSY HOLMES 21723 30.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.75 101 68010 220 1644 20571 EILEEN P. GOLDENBERG 21846 30.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 30.00 101 68010 220 1644 20572 SIGN-A-RAMA 21864 59.68 MISC. SUPPLIES 59.68 619 64460 120 5130 20573 VB GOLF LLC 21948 132.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 132.00 101 68010 220 1784 20574 IEDA 21981 2,688.25 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 2,688.25 101 64420 240 20575 CIRCLEPOINT 21986 AP 4,479.02 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,479.02 326 80770 210 20576 DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS 22082 125.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 125.00 101 66100 240 20577 TOWNE FORD SALES, INC. 22146 46.46 SUPPLIES 46.46 620 15000 20578 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 5,728.24 MISC. SUPPLIES 5,728.24 526 69020 120 20579 TURF STAR 22682 68.10 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 68.10 101 68020 200 2200 20580 BINGHAM NETWORKS 22866 136.21 OFFICE EXPENSE 136.21 621 64450 110 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 08/11/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20554 BAY ALARM 18854 1,045.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 552.00 619 64460 210 5180 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 156.00 619 64460 210 5230 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 178.50 619 64460 210 5210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 262.50 619 64460 210 5140 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 498.00 619 64460 210 5110 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 198.00 619 64460 210 5190 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES -800.00 619 64460 220 5130 20555 NITV 18941 7,795.00 MISCELLANEOUS -824.59 101 23611 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 8,619.59 101 65100 800 20556 ANG NEWSPAPERS 19083 187.02 MISC. SUPPLIES 187.02 320 81550 120 20557 SIX FLAGS MARINE WORLD 19119 3,430.57 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,430.57 101 68010 220 1212 20558 CREATIVE INTERCONNECT 19768 228.36 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 228.36 201 65200 220 20559 CLAUDE ARRIOLA 20435 90.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00 101 68010 220 1789 20560 PERNA CORP. 20568 - 879.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 MISCELLANEOUS 579.00 101 36310 20561 SPRINT PCS 20724 269.97 MISCELLANEOUS 269.97 731 22554 20562 MATT SOSNICK 20745 750.00 MISCELLANEOUS 750.00 101 22525 20563 AARONSON, DICKERSON, COHN & 20798 4,187.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,187.50 101 64420 210 20564 COMPUMASTER 20923 399.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 399.00 101 66100 210 20565 QUICK MIX CONCRETE 21140 2,376.41 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,208.57 101 66210 120 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 254.23 101 66210 219 MISC. SUPPLIES 913.61 527 66520 120 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 08/11/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '•' Denotes Hand Written Checks 20541 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPPLY 09459 465.48 BLDG.-& GROUNDS MAINT. 465.48 101 68020 190 2200 20542 OCE 09493 1,714.68 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,714.68 101 66100 210 20543 NOEL L. MILLER, INC, 09499 4,236.41 SUPPLIES 390.00 620 15000 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 3,846.41 620 66700 200 20544 BERNARD EDWARDS 09548 1,677.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,677.00 101 68010 220 1762 20545 CRAIG W. REED 09881 2,052.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,052.00 101 68010 220 1787 20546 CAL-STEAM 10557 250.51 MISC. SUPPLIES 130.59 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 13.14 527 66520 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 106.78 619 64460 120 5130 20547 ELECTRO-MOTION INCORPORATED 14007 - 2,091.24 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 264.33 619 64460 210 5130 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 260.00 619 64460 210 5250 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,046.91 619 64460 210 $110 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 260.00 619 64460 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 260.00 619 64460 210 5160 20548 HDL COREN&LONE 14750 595.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 595.00 101 64560 210 20549 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 14855 567.63 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 567.63 101 68010 800 1101 20550 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 17402 AP 7,491.02 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 7,491.02 620 66700 800 20551 CALIFORNIA PNEUMATIC TOOL CO 17741 450.04 MISC. SUPPLIES 450.04 526 69020 120 20552 BALDWIN COOKE COMPANY 17760 38.59 OFFICE EXPENSE 38.59 101 64400 110 20553 GEORGE MASTALIR 18088 208.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 208.00 101 68010 220 1789 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 08/11/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20534 BURLINGAME REC. DEPT./PETTY CASH 03910 5,396.81 MISCELLANEOUS 64.00 101 36330 000 1283 MISC. SUPPLIES 106.36 101 68010 120 1520 MISC. SUPPLIES 400.00 101 68010 120 1893 MISC. SUPPLIES 172.70 101 68010 120 1370 MISC. SUPPLIES 540.00 101 68010 120 1521 MISC. SUPPLIES 508.61 101 68010 120 1423 MISC. SUPPLIES 8.22 101 68010 120 1330 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 349.33 101 68020 140 2300 COMMUNICATIONS 44.39 101 68010 160 1100 COMMUNICATIONS -0.03 101 68010 160 1101 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 150.00 101 68020 210 2200 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 35.00 101 68010 220 1648 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 9.00 101 68010 220 1660 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 624.39 101 68010 220 1646 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 892.00 101 68010 220 1212 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 323.00 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 180.00 101 68010 220 1349 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 187.00 101 68010 220 1645 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 45.00 101 68010 220 1331 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 114.00 101 68010 220 1660 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 140.00 101 68020 240 2100 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 195.00 101 68020 240 2200 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 11.00 101 68020 250 2200 OFFICE EXPENSE 240.00 201 65500 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 57.84 730 69532 120 20535 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 334.72 MISC. SUPPLIES 334.72 101 64350 120 20536 JULIE COHN 09122 580.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 580.50 101 68010 220 1646 20537 FASTSIGNS 09136 441.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 183.49 619 64460 120 5110 MISC. SUPPLIES 183.48 619 64460 120 5120 MISC. SUPPLIES 74.03 619 64460 120 5110 20538 LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS 09143 833.53 MISC. SUPPLIES 833.53 101 68020 120 2200 20539 TURF & INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT CO. 09319 84.31 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 84.31 101 68020 200 2200 20540 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFC. 09433 3,586.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,586.00 101 65100 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 08/11/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20527 BURLINGAME STATIONERS 01676 31.71 OFFICE EXPENSE 31.71 101 68020 110 2200 20528 CALIFORNIA PARK & RECREATION 01726 415.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 415.00 101 68010 240 1101 20529 VEOLIA WATER 02110 39,808.62 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 12,150.87 327 79480 210 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 11,343.20 527 66530 190 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 16,314.55 527 66530 800 20530 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 488.76 SMALL TOOLS 488.76 619 64460 130 20531 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 327.69 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 327.69 101 66210 226 20532 P. G. & E. 03054 456.00 GAS & ELECTRIC 456.00 527 66530 170 20533 CITY OF SAN MATEO 03366 AP 3,872.63 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,872.63 101 66100 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME 08-03-2006 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 15 FUND RECAP - 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT 0.00 GENERAL FUND 101 139,199.50 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 19,957.14 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 11,899.20 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 4,816.93 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 750.00 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 28,802.00 WATER FUND 526 2,742.79 SEWER FUND 527 211,037.75 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 197.54 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 1,868.01 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 1,624.20 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 20,807.18 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 3,502.96 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 2,053.26 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 150.00 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 11,307.99 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $460,716.45 k0l HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 15 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 20324 THROUGH 20494 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $460,716.45, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME 08-03-2006 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 14 FUND RECAP 05-06 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 38,479.26 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 25,258.91 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 15,077.58 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 72, 103.00 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 133,069.03 WATER FUND 526 26,560.06 SEWER FUND 527 25,000.00 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 4,056.59 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 145 .24 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 11 ,291 .25 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $351 ,040.92 \O HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL : THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 14 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 20324 THROUGH 20494 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $351 ,040.92, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./. . ./. . . FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./. . ./. . . COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME 08-03-2006 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 13 FUND RECAP - 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT 0.00 GENERAL FUND 101 177,678.76 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 19,957.14 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 37,158.11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 19,894.51 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 72,853.00 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 161,871.03 WATER FUND 526 29,302.85 SEWER FUND 527 236,037.75 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 4,056.59 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 197.54 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 1,868,01 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 1,769.44 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 20,807.18 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 14,794.21 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 2,053.26 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 150.00 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 11,307.99 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $811,757.37 \ I^ HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 13 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 20324 THROUGH 20494 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF$811,757.37, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... ... • COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME WARRANT RE G 1 ST E R PAGE 12 08/03/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20483 WEF MEMBERSHIP 26809 182.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 182.00 527 66520 240 20484 SHARON DEMETRIUS 26810 45.00 MISCELLANEOUS 45.00 101 36330 000 1787 20485 JARROD HARDEN 26812 67.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 67.50 101 68010 220 1781 20486 ERIK BIANCHI 26813 382.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 382.50 101 68010 220 1781 20487 ARNOLD SCHMITT 26814 67.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 67.50 101 68010 220 1781 20488 JOE BORELLI 26815 157.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 157.50 101 68010 220 1781 20489 CRITICAL REACH 26816 250.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00 101 65100 220 20490 ALVARO VASQUEZ 26817 972.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 972.00 101 22520 20491 ALEX NOVELL 26818 20.00 MISCELLANEOUS 20.00 101 36310 20492 ANNE BAKER 26819 325.00 MISCELLANEOUS 325.00 101 37010 20493 MARTIN REYES 26820 414.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 414.00 101 68010 220 1660 20494 YVONNE WUN 26821 200.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00 101 68010 220 1781 TOTAL 8811,757.37 CITY OF BURLINGAME WARRANT REG I ST ER PAGE 11 08/03/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '*' Denotes Hand Written Checks 20467 GOLDFARB LIPMAN ATTORNEYS 26325 125.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 125.00 101 64350 210 20468 DANCE FORCE 26351 1,935.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,935.00 101 68010 220 1646 20469 BUS & EQUIPMENT REPAIR 26386 164.00 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 164.00 625 65213 203 20470 MIKE ADAM 26517 427.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 427.50 101 68010 220 1781 20471 LAKE TRAFFIC SOLUTIONS 26590 1,072.56 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,072.56 320 81530 220 20472 COSTEN HICKMAN 26704 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 20473 PIPE USERS GROUP 26791 295.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 295.00 101 66100 210 20474 CAROLINA MAZA 26799 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 20475 JOSE GONZALEZ 26800 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 20476 CECILIA VITAL BELLA 26801 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 20477 STACEY HAWLEY 26802 150.00 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00 101 22593 20478 DONALD DOUGHERTY 26803 24.00 MISCELLANEOUS 24.00 101 36330 000 1644 20479 THERESA KUO 26804 18.00 MISCELLANEOUS 18.00 101 36330 000 1212 20480 GINA VENTURA 26805 95.00 MISCELLANEOUS 45.00 101 22593 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 36330 000 1216 20481 ALL CHEMICAL DISPOSAL INC 26806 200.00 SUPPLIES 200.00 201 65200 112 20482 THE RADAR SHOP 26808 356.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 356.00 101 65100 200 CITY OF BURLINGAME WARRANT REG 1 ST ER PAGE 10 08/03/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20453 J HOWARD ENGINEERING 25811 AP 133,069.03 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 133,069.03 327 81150 220 20454 HASLER FINANCIAL SERVICES, LLC 25852 512.46 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 512.46 621 64450 200 20455 JAN BALDWIN 25906 2,587.50 MISCELLANEOUS 2,587.50 101 22546 20456 BRIAN STUBBS 26014 387.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 387.00 101 68010 220 1660 20457 COMET MICRO SYSTEMS 26069 922.39 MISC. SUPPLIES 922.39 101 66100 120 20458 GRAPHICS ON THE EDGE 26096 1,112.65 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 1,112.65 201 65200 203 20459 NATHAN FASEL 26113 170.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 170.00 101 68010 220 1781 20460 ALLIED OFFICE SUPPLIES 26138 707.47 OFFICE EXPENSE 18.97 101 64350 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 34.02 101 64420 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 3.48 101 64150 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 174.54 101 64420 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 161.15 101 66210 120 OFFICE EXPENSE 142.29 527 66520 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 173.02 619 64460 110 20461 CINGULAR WIRELESS ATLYS 26143 103.62 COMMUNICATIONS 103.62 101 64150 160 20462 CINGULAR WIRELESS ATLYS 26144 34.17 COMMUNICATIONS 34.17 101 64100 160 20463 LANCE BAYER 26156 500.00 PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 500.00 101 64350 210 20464 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26161 43.12 COMMUNICATIONS 43.12 530 65400 160 20465 SHAKESPEARE SAN FRANCISCO 26194 2,969.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,969.50 101 68010 220 1646 20466 VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS INC 26294 AP 9,000.00 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 9,000.00 621 64450 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 08/03/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '•0 Denotes Hand Written Checks 20437 NEOPOST 24987 2,838.00 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 2,838.00 621 64450 200 20438 DE LAGE LANDEN 25057 171.35 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 171.35 201 65200 220 20439 GINA BALDRIDGE 25092 180.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 180.00 101 68010 220 1330 20440 JESSE MOORE 25104 275.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 275.00 101 68010 220 1785 20441 OFFICE DEPOT 25224 129.54 OFFICE EXPENSE 129.54 201 65200 110 20442 OFFICE DEPOT 25244 427.32 OFFICE EXPENSE 427.32 101 65100 110 20443 ROCHE GEORGE 25323 270.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 270.00 101 68010 220 1781 20444 VICTOR CARIOLA 25677 360.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 360.00 101 68010 220 1781 20445 BRAD HAMBLIN 25680 225.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 225.00 101 68010 220 1781 20446 DARRELL BARBOUR 25682 90.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00 101 68010 220 1781 20447 KEVIN NELSON 25715 250.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 250.00 101 68010 220 1422 20448 CINGULAR WIRELESS 25727 53.64 COMMUNICATIONS 53.64 101 64250 160 20449 CINGULAR WIRELESS 25731 813.12 UTILITY EXPENSE 813.12 896 20281 20450 CINGULAR WIRELESS ATLYS 25777 596.13 COMMUNICATIONS 596.13 201 65200 160 20451 CINGULAR WIRELESS ATLYS 25778 246.38 COMMUNICATIONS 246.38 101 66100 160 20452 CINGULAR WIRELESS ATLYS 25792 104.98 COMMUNICATIONS 104.98 201 65200 160 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 08/03/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 20422 CENTRAL COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24519 48.00 UNION DUES 48.00 130 21080 - 20423 BURLINGAME POLICE ADMINISTRATION 24520 160.00 MISCELLANEOUS 160.00 130 20024 20424 BURLINGAME POLICE OFFICERS ASSN 24521 600.00 MISCELLANEOUS 600.00 130 20024 20425 C.L.E.A. 24523 624.00 MISCELLANEOUS 624.00 130 20026 20426 TEAMSTERS #856 24526 420.00 UNION DUES 420.00 130 21091 20427 TEAMSTERS UNION LOCAL 856 24528 320.60 MISCELLANEOUS 320.60 130 21092 20428 IMEDD INCORPORATED 24550 655.50 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 655.50 101 64420 121 20429 SPRINGERWEST LLC 24704 729.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 729.00 101 68010 220 1660 20430 AETNA 24760 3,161.10 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 2,889.80 130 20022 MISCELLANEOUS 271.30 130 20028 20431 DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF CALIFORNIA 24793 5,173.12 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 5,173.12 130 20014 20432 THE HARTFORD PRIORITY ACCOUNTS 24796 4,965.32 MISCELLANEOUS 995.15 130 20025 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 3,970.17 130 20021 20433 RANDALL KARP 24851 4,125.00 MISCELLANEOUS 4,125.00 101 22546 20434 ART IN ACTION 24912 7,522.05 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,522.05 101 68010 220 1646 20435 LAURA MARSH 24964 688.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 688.00 101 68010 220 1646 20436 COYOTES LACROSSE CLUB 24967 1,062.10 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,062.10 101 68010 220 1372 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 08/03/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20407 ERLER AND KALINOWSKI,INC. 23531 AP 2,315.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,315.00 526 69020 220 20408 MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY CO. 23611 142.80 MISC. SUPPLIES 142.80 526 69020 120 20409 SCS FIELD SERVICES 23727 AP 1,912.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,912.50 528 66600 210 20410 AT&T/MCI 23728 8,305.37 COMMUNICATIONS 16.74 101 67500 160 UTILITY EXPENSE 8,288.63 896 20281 20411 JANNETTE GREER 23769 216.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 216.00 101 68010 220 1648 20412 JOHN PHILIPOPOULOS 23821 6,685.25 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,685.25 101 68010 220 1372 20413 MLS CAMPS 23875 3,868.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,868.00 101 68010 220 1372 20414 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 1,067.45 MISC. SUPPLIES 483.43 101 68010 120 1114 MISC. SUPPLIES 584.02 101 68010 120 1111 20415 WINZLER & KELLY CONSULTING ENGIN 23992 AP 1,538.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,538.50 326 80770 220 20416 FLORA ROBELET 24167 50.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 50.00 101 68010 220 1521 20417 ERIC GATTMAN 24169 420.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 420.00 101 68010 220 1521 20418 ATLAS AUTO GLASS 24319 600.00 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 600.00 201 65200 203 20419 BIOSYSTEMS - 24345 480.52 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 480.52 201 65200 203 20420 C.W. ROEN CO. 24474 28,802.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 28,802.00 327 79480 220 20421 CENTRAL COUNTY FIREFIGHTERS FUND 24518 4,485.00 MISCELLANEOUS 4,485.00 130 20016 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 08/03/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 20394 CINGULAR WIRELESS 21747 - 139.01 COMMUNICATIONS 139.01 101 65360 160 20395 VS GOLF LLC 21948 2,642.25 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,642.25 101 68010 220 1762 20396 HELENE RENE 22366 90.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 90.00 101 68010 220 1660 20397 CUTTERS EDGE 22407 47.57 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 47.57 201 65200 203 20398 COUNTY OF SAN MATEO 22620 1,795.70 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,795.70 201 65200 220 20399 ANZA ENGINEERING 22634 AP 48,600.72 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 23,600.72 526 69020 220 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 25,000.00 527 66520 220 20400 JIM NANTELL 22762 350.00 MISCELLANEOUS 350.00 101 64150 031 20401 ALLIED IRON CO. 22855 143.43 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 143.43 625 65213 203 20402 FIRST AMERICAN REAL ESTATE SOLUT 23012 AP 7,672.67 MISCELLANEOUS 639.38 101 22515 MISC. SUPPLIES 5,754.53 101 64400 120 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 639.38 101 64350 210 MISC. SUPPLIES 639.38 201 65200 120 20403 OFFICE DEPOT 23153 335.56 MISCELLANEOUS 335.56 101 68010 400 1111 20404 OFFICE MAX 23306 529.13 OFFICE EXPENSE 103.35 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 87.96 101 66100 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 13.09 101 68010 110 1101 OFFICE EXPENSE 60.13 101 64200 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 264.60 101 68010 110 1101 20405 KAREN SCHEIKOWITZ 23507 276.80 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 276.80 101 68010 220 1661 20406 ICE CENTER OF SAN MATEO 23512 1,206.40 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,206.40 101 68010 220 1762 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 08/03/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20379 DIANNA ARIANI 20117 1,226.40 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,226.40 101 68010 220 1331 20380 GE CAPITAL 20216 379,75 OFFICE EXPENSE 94.93 101 68020 110 2100 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 284.82 101 68010 220 1101 20381 AFFINITEL COMMUNICATIONS 20246 2,443.75 COMMUNICATIONS 2,443.75 621 64450 160 20382 RACQUET SMITH 20339 12,320.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 12,320.00 101 68010 220 1782 20383 ROBERT BARRY 20369 2,815,38 MISCELLANEOUS 2,815.38 101 65100 010 20384 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES 20501 AP 600.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 600.00 526 69020 210 20385 EIP ASSOCIATES 20526 AP 3,157.00 DEPOSIT REFUND 3,157.00 101 22590 20386 CWEA - CALIFORNIA WATER 20631 110.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 110.00 527 66520 240 20387 CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO 20737 750.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 750.00 326 80950 210 20388 JEFF DOWD 20779 1,719.90 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,719.90 101 68010 220 1372 20389 CATHERINE J.M. NILMEYER 20801 375.00 MISCELLANEOUS 375.00 101 22525 20390 PACIFIC COAST TRANE SERVICE 20818 815.92 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 815.92 619 64460 210 5130 20391 THE BANK OF NEW YORK 21439 1,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,500.00 101 32100 20392 WESTERN HIGHWAY PRODUCTS, INC. 21680 13,662.08 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 985.98 101 66210 222 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 12,676.10 320 81540 220 20393 SKYHAWKS SPORTS ACADEMY 21741 11,351.20 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11,351.20 101 68010 220 1372 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 08/03/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT �•� Denotes Hand Written Checks 20364 LEE & ASSOCIATES 17568 2,701.30 SMALL TOOLS 711.92 201 65200 130 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,989.38 201 65200 260 20365 JEFF HIPPS 17803 5,668.65 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,668.65 101 68010 220 1372 20366 PENINSULA PUMP & 18450 AP 2,433.43 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,433.43 101 66210 220 20367 MILLS-PENINSULA HEALTH SERVICES 18546 639.60 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 639.60 101 64420 210 20368 PENINSULA CONFLICT 18633 4,500.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,500.00 101 65100 220 20369 KLEINFELDER, INC 18684 AP 2,144.09 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 2,144.09 528 66600 210 20370 DEAN'S AUTO BODY & 18795 1,868.01 MISCELLANEOUS 1,868.01 618 64520 604 20371 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 19027 261.65 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 261.65 201 65200 220 20372 GOETZ BROTHERS 19045 1,001.31 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 1,001.31 101 68010 190 1106 20373 ANG NEWSPAPERS 19083 419.00 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 419.00 101 64200 150 20374 JAMES CACCIA PLUMBING 19320 300.00 DEPOSIT. REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 20375 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 290.93 MISC. SUPPLIES 261.59 201 65200 111 MISC. SUPPLIES 29.34 620 66700 120 20376 CAL-LINE EQUIPMENT INC 19697 1,048.67 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 1,048.67 101 68020 200 2300 20377 EFREM CONSTRUCTION CO. INC. 20019 3,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,000.00 101 22546 20378 PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT 20060 3,914.00 RENTS & LEASES 1,957.00 526 69020 180 RENTS & LEASES 1,957.00 527 66520 180 _ CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 08/03/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 20350 WECO INDUSTRIES, INC. 11640 72.48 MISC. SUPPLIES 72.48 527 66520 120 20351 ED SCHULER 13713 45.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 45.00 101 68010 220 1781 20352 ELECTRO-MOTION INCORPORATED 14007 3,874.97 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 1,741.00 101 66210 230 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 642.99 526 69020 210 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 1,230.98 527 66520 230 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 260.00 619 64460 210 5150 20353 DON E. GIOVANNETTI 15229 157.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 157.50 101 68010 220 1781 20354 PARKIN SECURITY CONSULTANTS 15250 279.00 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 279.00 101 64420 121 20355 PENINSULA SPORTS OFFICIALS 15711 AP 1,271.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,271.50 101 68010 220 1787 20356 VALLEY OIL CO. 15764 AP 21,032.65 GAS, OIL & GREASE 1,061.28 201 65200 201 SUPPLIES 19,971.37 620 15000 20357 LOS ALTOS TYPEWRITER 15853 17.99 OFFICE EXPENSE 17.99 101 68020 110 2100 20358 MOSS RUBBER & EQUIPMENT CORP. 16225 469.79 MISC. SUPPLIES 250.08 619 64460 120 5130 SUPPLIES 219.71 620 15000 20359 CUMMINS WEST, INC. 16414 3,744.37 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,744.37 320 80790 210 20360 LINHART PETERSEN POWERS ASSOC. 16599 AP 24,741.16 MISCELLANEOUS 24,741.16 101 22515 20361 MUNICIPAL MAINTENANCE 16629 401.20 TRAINING EXPENSE 401.20 620 66700 260 20362 JMB CONSTRUCTION, INC. 17299 AP 70,564.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 70,564.50 326 80770 220 20363 COLORPRINT 17497 AP 155.88 OFFICE EXPENSE 155.88 101 64250 110 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 08/03/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20338 B.E.I. ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 09072 AP 189.58 MISC. SUPPLIES 44.34 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 119.05 619 64460 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 26.19 619 64460 120 5250 20339 CITY OF MILLBRAE 09234 AP 23,558.25 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 23,558.25 201 65200 220 20340 POM INC. 09248 130.28 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 130.28 530 65400 200 20341 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPPLY 09459 2,043.76 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,043.76 101 68020 120 2200 20342 CALLANDER ASSOCIATES 09461 AP 2,401.48 GAS, OIL 8 GREASE 2,401.48 320 81090 201 20343 OLE'S 09626 884.55 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 434.20 201 65200 203 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 450.35 625 65213 203 20344 ANA FITZGERALD 09975 516.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 516.00 101 68010 220 1646 20345 AUGUST SUPPLY, INC 10256 1,215.47 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,215.47 201 65200 111 20346 WINGFOOT COMMERCIAL TIRE SYSTEMS 11316 906.04 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 906.04 625 65213 203 20347 ROMEO PACKING CO 11348 2,489.75 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,489.75 101 68020 120 2200 20348 LEE STAMBOLIS 11361 427.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 427.50 101 68010 220 1781 20349 CHIEF BILL REILLY 11568 1,936.55 OFFICE EXPENSE 52.04 201 65200 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 27.05 201 65200 111 MISC. SUPPLIES 25.81 201 65200 120 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 482.79 201 65200 140 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 226.86 201 65200 220 DUES 8 SUBSCRIPTIONS 375.00 201 65200 240 TRAVEL 8 MEETINGS 97.00 201 65200 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 500.00 201 65200 260 MISCELLANEOUS 150.00 731 22554 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 08/03/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20324 BAYSHORE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 01236 389.44 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 389.44 625 65213 203 20325 BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 01637 2,301.63 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,301.63 101 64560 220 20326 POLETTI ASSOCIATES INC. 01992 95.00 MISCELLANEOUS 95.00 101 22515 20327 VEOLIA WATER 02110 207,343.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 207,343.00 527 66530 220 20328 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 196.66 MISCELLANEOUS 196.66 101 68020 192 2200 20329 FEDEX 02160 86.72 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 16.38 101 65150 200 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 32.69 101 65100 200 TRAINING EXPENSE 13.51 101 65100 260 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 24.14 530 65400 200 20330 WATER/FINANCE PETTY CASH 02164 2,206.24 MISCELLANEOUS 2,206.24 896 20282 20331 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 795.45 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 103.92 101 68020 190 2200 TRAINING EXPENSE 566.35 101 68020 260 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 57.59 619 64460 120 5130 MISC. SUPPLIES 67.59 619 64460 120 5141 20332 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 648.60 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 321.72 101 66210 219 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 326.88 101 66210 226 20333 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. 02755 185.56 SUPPLIES 185.56 620 15000 20334 P. G. & E. 03054 19,533.61 GAS & ELECTRIC 19,533.61 101 66100 170 20335 AT&T 03080 177.89 COMMUNICATIONS 177.89 101 67500 160 20336 STEPHEN J. PICCHI 03168 6,012.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 6,012.50 101 68010 220 1372 20337 U S POSTAL SERVICE 03821 2,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,500.00 101 68010 114 1101 CITY OF BURLINGAME 07-28-2006 WARRANT REGI ST ER PAGE 15 FUND RECAP - 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT 0.00 GENERAL FUND 101 219,497.48 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 3,467.25 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 1,182.96 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 4,927.74 WATER FUND 526 353,285.62 SEWER FUND 527 61,832.23 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 1,111.28 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 88.84 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 488,300.56 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 6,767.44 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 1,678.46 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 1,215.26 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 113,204.15 STATE GRANTS FUND 734 499.91 PUBLIC TV ACCESS FUND 738 19,742.36 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $1,276,801.54 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 15 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 20156 THROUGH 20323 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,276,801.54, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../. FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME 07-28-2006 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 13 FUND RECAP - 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT 0.00 GENERAL FUND 101 272,163.74 PAYROLL REVOLVING FUND 130 3,467.25 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 6,407.96 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 4,927.74 NATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 26,099.07 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 13,177.42 WATER FUND 526 358,055.83 SEWER FUND 527 92,743.11 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 1,134.82 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 2,600.13 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 495,032.03 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 7,595.89 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 1,934.66 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 1,268.34 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 113,204.15 STATE GRANTS FUND 734 499.91 PUBLIC TV ACCESS FUND 738 19,742.36 UTILITY REVOLVING FUND 896 52,936.75 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $1,472,991.16 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 13 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 20156 THROUGH 20323 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,472,991.16, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT ...................I................ .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME WARRANT REGI ST ER PAGE 12 07/28/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20310 NEEC 26781 1,095.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,095.00 619 64460 260 20311 ANDY CARLISLE 26782 39.99 MISCELLANEOUS 39.99 526 22502 20312 M HOSKING 26783 2,275.00 MISCELLANEOUS 2,275.00 101 22546 20313 KURT MEISWINKEL 26784 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 20314 TINA CHENG 26785 350.00 MISCELLANEOUS 350.00 101 22525 20315 MARK LEIALOHA 26786 1,625.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,020.00 101 22525 MISCELLANEOUS 605.00 101 36630 20316 PETER TOKARSKI 26788 440.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 440.00 130 20060 20317 KATHRYN L BROCK 26789 1,466.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 642.00 130 20060 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 824.00 130 20015 20318 CATHERINE BARBER 26790 383.25 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 383.25 130 20015 20319 LAURA LANGONE 26792 125.00 MISCELLANEOUS 125.00 101 36330 000 1372 20320 MARGARET NIETO 26793 59.00 MISCELLANEOUS 59.00 101 36330 000 1890 20321 JENNIFER S. AMDURSKY 26794 64.00 MISCELLANEOUS 64.00 101 36330 000 1782 20322 KATHY MARUYAMA 26795 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 36330 000 1372 20323 JULIE BAUMANN 26796 315.00 MISCELLANEOUS 315.00 101 36330 000 1370 TOTAL 51,472,991.16 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 11 07/28/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20294 RUNYU MAO 26765 250.00 MISCELLANEOUS 250.00 101 36330 000 1422 20295 SCOTT SUTHERLAND 26766 250.00 MISCELLANEOUS 250.00 101 36330 000 1422 20296 NANCY WHELAN 26767 95.00 MISCELLANEOUS 95.00 101 36330 000 1422 20297 OLIVIA UMSTEAD 26768 15.00 - MISCELLANEOUS 15.00 101 36330 000 1646 20298 ELIZABETH SILVER 26769 165.00 MISCELLANEOUS 165.00 101 36330 000 1349 20299 MR/MRS. SOLOMON 26770 30.00 MISCELLANEOUS 30.00 101 36330 000 1660 20300 ROSEMARIE PSAILA 26771 19.00 MISCELLANEOUS 19.00 101 36330 000 1660 20301 ELAINE CRUZ-TARANGO 26772 42.00 MISCELLANEOUS 42.00 101 36330 000 1646 20302 MICHAEL MESAROS 26773 19.95 MISCELLANEOUS 19.95 101 36330 000 1212 20303 ANNIE DE LA CRUZ 26774 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 20304 SARA O'MALLEY 26775 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS _ 75.00 101 22593 20305 WENDY PANAGOS 26776 125.00 MISCELLANEOUS 125.00 101 22593 20306 MARTHA LOA 26777 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 20307 JENNIE ROSE 26778 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 20308 LEO HOPE 26779 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 20309 MODESTO PASCUAL 26780 720.00 MISCELLANEOUS 720.00 101 22546 CITY OF BURLINGAME WARRANT REG I ST ER PAGE 10 07/28/06 NUMBER NAME - VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 20281 ALLIED OFFICE SUPPLIES 26138 404.11 OFFICE EXPENSE 15.04 101 64150 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 15.03 101 64350 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 92.32 101 65100 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 187.62 101 66210 120 OFFICE EXPENSE 94.10 619 64460 110 20282 SYSKA HENNESSEY 26142 AP 682.50 MISCELLANEOUS 682.50 619 64460 804 20283 BAKER AND TAYLOR BOOKS 26271 799.04 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 171.84 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 627.20 101 67500 129 20284 BAKER AND TAYLOR BOOKS 26272 506.64 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 226.10 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--RECORDS AND CASSETT 280.54 101 67500 125 20285 BAKER AND TAYLOR BOOKS 26276 3,336.62 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 787.09 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 2,549.53 101 67500 129 20286 BAKER AND TAYLOR BOOKS 26375 152.16 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 28.68 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 123.48 101 67500 129 20287 CATHERINE BLAIR 26383 516.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 516.00 101 68010 220 1646 20288 SAMCAT 26393 2,000.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,000.00 101 64560 220 20289 SHIRLEY E. LEE 26561 76.00 MISCELLANEOUS 76.00 101 36330 000 1372 20290 UNITED COMFORT SOLUTIONS INC 26639 1,062.50 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,062.50 619 64460 210 5130 20291 NEAL MARTIN & ASSOCIATES 26660 AP 12,600.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 12,600.00 101 64400 210 20292 BAKER AND TAYLOR BOOKS 26763 1,855.81 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 362.70 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 1,493.11 101 67500 129 20293 CHERYL GOLDMAN 26764 250.00 MISCELLANEOUS 250.00 101 36330 000 1422 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 07/28/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20267 RON NOVELLI 25609 119.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 119.00 130 20060 20268 ROBERT GILSON 25616 1,770.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 750.00 101 22520 MISCELLANEOUS 1,020.00 101 22525 20269 NICHOLAS BELLAFATTO 25625 640.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 640.00 101 68010 220 1331 20270 ELLI SAHAR 25704 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 20271 LARSON CONSULTING 25732 AP 4,123.66 PROFESSIONAL 8 SPECIALIZED S 4,123.66 527 66520 210 20272 MR. CANNIFFE 25758 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 36330 000 1372 20273 KATHLEEN VON MAYRHAUSER 25771 115.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 115.00 130 20015 20274 CINGULAR WIRELESS 25775 78.07 COMMUNICATIONS 78.07 101 65100 160 20275 WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL LEASING 25820 153.22 RENTS 8 LEASES 153.22 526 69020 180 20276 ED BARTON 25850 100.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 100.00 130 20060 20277 M.H.A. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTING 26017 AP - 3,193.12 DEPOSIT REFUND 3,193.12 101 22590 20278 ADCOM/BHS 26024 499.91 MISCELLANEOUS 499.91 734 65198 400 20279 IMPACT SCIENCES 26099 AP 13,522.00 DEPOSIT REFUND 13,522.00 101 22590 20280 PETER BASSFORD 26116 2,500.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,500.00 101 68010 220 1646 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 07/28/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20251 COMPUCOM 24467 AP 798.49 OFFICE EXPENSE 798.49 101 64400 110 20252 WATER SOLUTIONS 24532 AP 750.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 750.00 526 69020 260 20253 HONEYWELL 24546 419.56 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 419.56 619 64460 210 5240_ 20254 UNIQUE MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. 24602 268.40 MISCELLANEOUS 268.40 101 36320 20255 THE COHEN GROUP - 24776 884.25 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 884.25 320 81600 210 20256 LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 24815 89.55 COMMUNICATIONS 89.55 201 65200 160 20257 SHIRLEY LADDY 24826 198.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 198.00 130 20015 20258 ART IN ACTION 24912 1,120.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,120.00 101 68010 220 1646 20259 MANOOCHEHR JAVAHERIAN 24917 5,420.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 5,420.00 101 22520 20260 S AND S SUPPLIES & SOLUTIONS 24963 914.12 TRAINING EXPENSE 914.12 527 66520 260 20261 SBC LONG DISTANCE 25033 AP 111.65 UTILITY EXPENSE 111.65 896 20281 20262 CATHY FOXHOVEN 25088 2,700.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,700.00 101 68010 220 1646 20263 LISA HOSMAN 25203 45.00 MISCELLANEOUS 45.00 101 36330 000 1890 20264 MICHAEL VONADA 25235 100.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 100.00 130 20060 20265 NETVERSANT SILICON VALLEY 25422 3,069.24 OTHER AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS 3,069.24 320 80430 270 20266 BROOKE HILL 25497 83.00 MISCELLANEOUS 83.00 101 36330 000 1890 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 07/28/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 20236 JANNETTE GREER 23769 387.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 387.00 101 68010 220 1648 20237 KELLY MOORE 23779 615.70 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 615.70 101 66210 222 20238 KAREN LIU 23823 1,720.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 516.00 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,204.00 101 68010 220 1645 20239 DAVE CREAMER 23876 912.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 912.00 101 68010 220 1644 20240 DUNBAR ARMORED 23925 AP 3,059.99 BANKING SERVICE FEES 548.70 101 64250 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,511.29 530 65400 120 20241 CHOICE POINT BUSINESS AND GOVERN 23935 AP 250.00 POLICE INVESTIGATION EXPENSE 250.00 101 65100 292 20242 UNIVERSAL BUILDING SERVICES 23941 368.36 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 303.12 619 64460 220 5110 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 65.24 619 64460 220 5170 20243 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 AP 36.55 COMMUNICATIONS. 36.55 101 65300 160 20244 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO TIRE SERVICE 23950 1,315.43 SUPPLIES 1,315.43 620 15000 20245 QUILL 24090 243.78 OFFICE EXPENSE 243.78 621 64450 110 20246 BOB FRUDENBERG 24151 1,408.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 1,408.00 101 22520 20247 JENNIFER ULRICH 24160 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 20248 KUMUDINI MURTHY 24210 702.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 702.00 101 68010 220 1644 20249 CALIFORNIA WATER SERVICE COMPANY 24249 AP 648.00 MISCELLANEOUS 648.00 526 69020 233 20250 A8G SERVICES 24400 19,377.59 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19,377.59 527 66520 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 6 07/28/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20221 ANDERSON PACIFIC ENGINEERING CON 22387 AP 17,826.66 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 17,826.66 326 80950 220 20222 PENINSULA T.V. 22442 19,742.36 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 19,742.36 738 64580 220 20223 CSG CONSULTANTS 22465 AP 5,225.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,900.00 201 35221 000 7100 MISCELLANEOUS 3,325.00 201 35220 000 7100 20224 BURLINGAME GOLF CENTER 22582 AP 499.46 GAS & ELECTRIC 499.46 101 68010 170 1286 20225 JIM NANTELL 22762 AP 1,744.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,744.00 101 64150 031 20226 SAN MATEO DAILY JOURNAL 22804 AP 389.38 MISCELLANEOUS 389.38 526 69020 233 20227 GEORGE MARTIN CONSTRUCTION 23074 300.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 300.00 101 22520 20228 T. RANDOLPH GRANGE 23112 650.00 MISCELLANEOUS 650.00 731 22525 20229 LEONARD HEYMANN 23162 120.00 MISCELLANEOUS 120.00 101 .36330 000 1422 20230 BOB MALLAMO 23173 44.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 44.00 130 20015 20231 OFFICE MAX 23306 181.75 OFFICE EXPENSE 109.94 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 71.81 621 64450 110 20232 WILCO SUPPLY 23333 366.70 MISC. SUPPLIES 366.70 619 64460 120 5130 20233 DATASAFE 23410 AP 169.55 OFFICE EXPENSE 135.00 101 66100 110 BANKING SERVICE FEES 34.55 101 64250 120 20234 ERLER AND KALINOWSKI,INC. 23531 AP 4,042.41 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,395.05 326 80931 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 647.36 326 81480 210 - 20235 REFRIGERATION SUPPLIES DISTRIBUT 23639 479.35 MISC. SUPPLIES 479.35 619 64460 120 5130 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 07/28/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Nand Written Checks 20207 DAPPER TIRE CO., INC. 20464 278.01 SUPPLIES 278.01 620 15000 20208 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES 20501 AP 3,960.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,960.00 327 75170 210 20209 LARRY ANDERSON 20716 215.00 MISCELLANEOUS 215.00 101 64420 031 20210 AARONSON, DICKERSON, COHN & 20798 AP 3,750.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,750.00 101 64420 210 20211 COW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 81.86 MISC. SUPPLIES 81.86 101 66100 120 20212 DU-ALL SAFETY 21613 AP 7,337.50 . PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 250.00 101 64420 210 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,504.17 101 66210 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,504.16 526 69020 260 TRAINING EXPENSE 1,504.17 527 66520 260 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 2,575.00 618 64520 601 20213 TURBO DATA SYSTEMS, INC. 21767 AP 7,071.45 MISCELLANEOUS 7,071.45 101 37010 20214 SEWER RAT 21821 150.00 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 150.00 101 22520 20215 EILEEN P. GOLDENBERG 21846 2,205.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,470.00 101 68010 220 1646 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 735.00 101 68010 220 1644 20216 VB GOLF LLC 21948 1,980.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,980.00 101 68010 220 1784 20217 CAREER TRACK 22177 195.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 195.00 101 66100 210 20218 ROBERTS AND BRUNE 22178 6,662.68 MISC. SUPPLIES 6,662.68 526 69020 120 20219 BENNET WEINTRAUB 22206 250.00 MISCELLANEOUS 250.00 101 36330 000 1422 20220 YEV PHILOPOVITCH 22217 AP 4,230.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 4,230.00 326 80770 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 07/28/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20196 VERIZON WIRELESS MESSAGING SERVI 18763 63.65 COMMUNICATIONS 12.73 101 66210 160 COMMUNICATIONS 38.19 526 69020 160 COMMUNICATIONS 12.73 527 66520 160 20197 PLASTI-PRINT, INC 18794 974.25 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 974.25 320 81540 220 20198 S M COUNTY FIRE CHIEFS ASSOC 18838 400.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 400.00 201 65200 240 20199 PREFERRED ALLIANCE 19025 AP 202.40 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 202.40 101 64420 121 20200 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY 19027 AP 1,455.14 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 314.26 101 66210 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 413.10 526 69020 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 314.24 527 66520 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 23.54 528 66600 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 133.80 619 64460 140 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 256.20 620 66700 140 20201 ANG NEWSPAPERS 19083 AP 160.17 MISC. SUPPLIES 67.82 101 64400 120 PUBLICATIONS & ADVERTISING 92.35 101 64200 150 20202 LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE 19095 AP 231.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 231.00 101 64350 210 20203 PRIORITY 1 19239 AP 4,156.47 MISCELLANEOUS 4,156.47 618 64520 604 20204 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRING WATER 19330 AP 227.15 OFFICE EXPENSE 48.58 101 64250 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 6.77 101 64200 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 6.77 101 64150 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 6.77 101 64420 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 6.77 101 64350 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 98.41 201 65200 111 OFFICE EXPENSE 53.08 621 64450 110 20205 POWER WASHING SERVICE 19564 1,111.28 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,111.28 528 66600 210 20206 KATHY KARAS 19812 344.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 344.00 101 68010 220 1644 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 07/28/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20182 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 488,300.56 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 144.00 618 64520 601 INSURANCE PREMIUMS 488,156.56 618 64520 602 20183 OLE'S 09626 85.02 SUPPLIES 85.02 620 15000 20184 LEONA MORIARTY 09979 3,277.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,277.50 101 68010 220 1644 20185 MEYERS, NAVE, RIBACK, SILVER 11101 5,319.62 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,319.62 101 64350 210 20186 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 11707 387.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 53.00 101 67500 120 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 263.00 101 67500 129 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 6.00 101 67500 190 MISCELLANEOUS 65.00 101 67500 235 20187 ELECTRO-MOTION INCORPORATED 14007 260.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 260.00 619 64460 210 5170 20188 BLACKWELL'S BOOK SERVICE 14153 402.50 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 402.50 101 67500 129 20189 ROYAL WHOLESALE ELECTRIC 14855 3,144.50 MISC. SUPPLIES 3,144.50 526 69020 120 20190 PARKIN SECURITY CONSULTANTS 15250 245.00 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 245.00 101 64420 121 20191 HITECH SYSTEMS, INC. 15712 50,761.25 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 50,761.25 101 65100 220 20192 MILLBRAE LOCK SHOP 15739 AP 19.16 MISC. SUPPLIES 19.16 101 65100 120 20193 ITRON 16913 899.67 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 899.67 621 64450 200 20194 C/CAG 17725 88,148.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 88,148.00 101 64560 220 20195 DAMON CARLUCCI 18418 22.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 22.50 101 68010 220 1646 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 07/28/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20167 P. G. & E. 03054 AP 53,335.56 GAS & ELECTRIC 510.46 101 68010 170 1286 UTILITY EXPENSE 52,825.10 896 20280 20168 AT&T 03080 78.01 COMMUNICATIONS 78.01 101 65100 160 20169 SANDRA POSE 03175 AP 436.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 436.50 101 68010 220 1646 20170 SAN FRANCISCO WATER DEPT. 03353 329,220.90 WATER PURCHASES 329,220.90 526 69020 171 20171 BAY AREA WATER SUPPLY 03361 14,728.50 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 14,728.50 526 69020 240 20172 INFORMATION SERVICES DEPT. 03378 AP 1,913.42 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,913.42 101 65150 220 20173 SAN MATEO COUNTY CONVENTION & 03431 112,554.15 - MISCELLANEOUS 112,554.15 731 22587 20174 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 03483 41,471.50 OTHER AGENCY CONTRIBUTIONS 41,471.50 527 66530 270 20175 WITMER-TYSON IMPORTS, INC. 03788 AP 350.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 350.00 101 65100 260 20176 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 487.29 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 487.29 101 64350 210 20177 MUFFIE CALBREATH 09125 1,242.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,242.00 101 68010 220 1891 20178 FRANK ERBACHER 09195 297.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 297.00 130 20015 20179 POM INC. 09248 88,84 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 88.84 530 65400 200 20180 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFC. 09433 22,425.10 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20,761.10 101 65100 220 PRISONER EXPENSE 1,664.00 101 65100 291 20181 STERICYCLE, INC. 09439 232.98 PRISONER EXPENSE 232.98 101 65100 291 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 07/28/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20156 ALAN STEEL & SUPPLY CO. 01059 56.29 MISC. SUPPLIES 56.29 527 66520 120 20157 BAKER AND TAYLOR, INC. 01190 2,706.67 LIBRARY CATALOGING EXPENSE 146.56 101 67500 124 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 2,560.11 101 67500 129 20158 VEOLIA WATER 02110 AP 33,959.67 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 9,217.42 327 79480 210 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 18,777.35 527 66530 190 CAPITAL EQUIPMENT 5,964.90 527 66530 800 20159 GENE EVANS 02149 215.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 215.00 101 68010 220 1644 20160 EWING IRRIGATION PRODUCTS 02157 306.12 MISCELLANEOUS 306.12 101 68020 192 2200 20161 GRANITE ROCK COMPANY 02261 1,642,76 STREET RESURFACING EXPENSE 1,642.76 101 66210 226 20162 INDUSTRIAL EMERGENCY COUNCIL 02499 595.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 595.00 201 65200 260 20163 K & W DISCOUNT LIGHTING & SUPP 02645 1,960.83 MISC. SUPPLIES 590.01 619 64460 120 5250 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,370.82 619 64460 210 5250 20164 GARY KAISER 02654 205.00 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 205.00 130 20060 20165 LAWSON PRODUCTS, INC. 02755 661.04 MISC. SUPPLIES 514.94 619 64460 120 SMALL TOOLS 146.10 619 64460 130 20166 MILLBRAE LUMBER CO. 02898 AP 1,186,91 MISC. SUPPLIES 194.33 101 66210 120 SMALL TOOLS 60.27 101 66210 130 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 42.50 101 68020 190 2200 SIDEWALK REPAIR EXPENSE 233.35 101 66210 219 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 54.54 101 66210 222 MISC. SUPPLIES 363.21 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 164.29 527 66520 120 SMALL TOOLS 62.27 527 66520 130 MISC. SUPPLIES 9.31 619 64460 120 5230 SMALL TOOLS 2.84 619 64460 130 CITY OF BURLINGAME 07-14.2006 WARRANT REG I ST ER PAGE 17 FUND RECAP - 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 100,841.60 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 3,719.47 WATER FUND 526 1,458.33 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 1,423.00 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $107,442.40 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 17 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 19868 THROUGH 20027 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $107,442.40, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME 07-14-2006 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 16 FUND RECAP 05.06 NAME FUND. AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 172,259.96 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 17,733.00 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 6,681.41 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 16,335.77 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 41,813.24 WATER FUND 526 13,680.32 SEWER FUND 527 16,768.71 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 246.63 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 892.52 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 6,024.11 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 1,075.19 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 5,738.49 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 31,118.43 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 1,330.57 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 282.42 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 57,605.93 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL 8389,586.70 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL: THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 16 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FRO14 19868 THROUGH 20027 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF 8389,586.70, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, .................................... .../.../... FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT .................................... .../.../... COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME 07-14-2006 W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 15 FUND RECAP 06-07 NAME FUND AMOUNT GENERAL FUND 101 273, 101 .56 CENTRAL COUNTY FIRE 201 21 ,452.47 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS FUND 320 6,681 .41 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 326 16,335.77 SEWER CAPITAL PROJECT FUND 327 41 ,813.24 WATER FUND 526 15, 138.65 SEWER FUND 527 16,768.71 SOLID WASTE FUND 528 246.63 PARKING ENTERPRISE FUND 530 892.52 SELF INSURANCE FUND 618 6,024. 11 FACILITIES SERVICES FUND 619 11075. 19 EQUIPMENT SERVICES FUND 620 5,738.49 INFORMATION SERVICES FUND 621 32,541 .43 FIRE MECHANIC SERVICES FUND 625 1 ,330.57 OTHER LOCAL GRANTS/DONATIONS 730 282.42 TRUST AND AGENCY FUND 731 57,605.93 TOTAL FOR APPROVAL $497,029. 10 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL; THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE CLAIMS LISTED ON PAGES NUMBERED FROM 1 THROUGH 15 INCLUSIVE, AND/OR CLAIMS NUMBERED FROM 19868 THROUGH 20027 INCLUSIVE,TOTALING IN THE AMOUNT OF $497,029. 10, HAVE BEEN CHECKED IN DETAIL AND APPROVED BY THE PROPER OFFICIALS, AND IN MY OPINION REPRESENT FAIR AND JUST CHARGES AGAINST THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS AS INDICATED THEREON . RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./. . ./. . . FINANCE DIRECTOR DATE APPROVED FOR PAYMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./. . ./. . . COUNCIL DATE CITY OF BURLINGAME WARRANT REG I ST ER PAGE 14 07/14/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20017 FIRE FIGHTER TREE SERVICE 26738 AP 10,500.00 MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSE 10,500.00 201 65200 290 20018 DAISY KEELE 26739 90.00 MISCELLANEOUS 90.00 101 36330 000 1780 20019 MELANIE MEYERS 26741 94.00 MISCELLANEOUS 94.00 101 36330 000 1782 20020 MRS. RODRIGUES 26752 35.00 MISCELLANEOUS 35.00 101 36330 000 1423 20021 CYNTHIA BLICKENSTAFF 26753 125.00 MISCELLANEOUS 125.00 101 36330 000 1372 20022 RENEE MARK 26754 125.00 MISCELLANEOUS 125.00 101 36330 000 1372 20023 MARGARET OSBORN 26755 125.00 MISCELLANEOUS 125.00 101 36330 000 1372 20024 BETTY YOUNG 26756 125.00 MISCELLANEOUS 125.00 101 36330 000 1372 20025 LEA PASCUAL 26757 - 95.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 MISCELLANEOUS 45.00 101 36330 000 1216 20026 JERRY MENDOZA 26758 49.00 MISCELLANEOUS 49.00 101 36330 000 1890 20027 YMCA YOUTH SERVICE BUREAU 26759 3,416.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,416.00 101 64560 220 TOTAL $497,029.10 1�� CITY OF BURLINGAME WARRANT REGI ST ER PAGE 13 07/14/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 20002 MARLA R. ZEMANEK 26719 193.00 MISCELLANEOUS 193.00 101 36330 000 1372 20003 JULIE BAUMAN 26721 117.00 MISCELLANEOUS 117.00 101 36330 000 1370 20004 MR. HADDAD 26722 342.00 MISCELLANEOUS 62.00 101 36330 000 1890 MISCELLANEOUS 280.00 101 36330 000 1370 20005 STEVEN M. LEE 26723 42.00 MISCELLANEOUS 42.00 101 36330 000 1890 20006 SANDRA AGUILAR 26724 125.00 MISCELLANEOUS 125.00 101 22593 20007 CAROL KARER 26725 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 20008 CATHY DEBENDETTO 26726 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 20009 IRENE AllOLLINI 26728 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 20010 ELAINE MAH 26729 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 20011 AMY SANFORD 26730 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 20012 SHANNON SULLIVAN 26731 100.00 MISCELLANEOUS 100.00 101 22593 20013 ROCKY POINT LLC 26733 AP 615.77 MISC. SUPPLIES 615.77 101 65100 120 20014 DEIRDRE DOLAN 26734 AP 1,625.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,625.00 101 64420 031 20015 CAROL NOWLIN 26736 110.00 MISCELLANEOUS 110.00 101 36330 000 1521 20016 DANIEL BOYLE 26737 AP 710.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 710.00 201 65200 260 CITY OF BURLINGAME WARRANT REG I ST ER PAGE 12 07/14/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 19988 ALLIED OFFICE SUPPLIES 26138 AP 203.36 OFFICE EXPENSE -41 .11 101 65300 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 7.92 101 64150 110 OFFICE EXPENSE 7.92 101 64350 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 228.63 101 65300 120 19989 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26161 AP 43. 16 COMMUNICATIONS 43. 16 530 65400 160 19990 SHAKESPEARE SAN FRANCISCO 26194 629.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 629.00 101 68010 220 1644 19991 RANDY SCHWARTZ 26206 AP 576.24 MISCELLANEOUS 576.24 101 68010 031 19992 RICHARD HOLTZ 26208 AP 289.22 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 289.22 101 64420 210 19993 DANCE FORCE 26351 2,907.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,907.50 101 68010 220 1646 19994 CINGULAR WIRELESS 26373 AP 68.13 COMMUNICATIONS 68.13 101 65100 160 19995 ACTION TRAILER SALES 26391 AP 3,551 .12 MISCELLANEOUS 3,551 . 12 526 69020 400 19996 ALEX LEE 26429 162.00 MISCELLANEOUS 162.00 101 36330 000 1372 19997 MICHAEL SULPIZIO 26597 75.00 MISCELLANEOUS 75.00 101 22593 19998 GAYATHRI GOUTAM 26620 1 ,015.00 MISCELLANEOUS 475.00 101 36330 000 1890 MISCELLANEOUS 339.00 101 36330 000 1372 MISCELLANEOUS 201 .00 101 36330 000 1782 19999 ROBERT HUNTER AARONSON 26679 AP 68.25 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 68.25 101 64420 210 20000 PENINSULA GIRLS CHORUS 26682 200.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 200.00 101 64560 220 20001 PATRICIA ANDERSON 26717 162.00 MISCELLANEOUS 162.00 101 36330 000 1372 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME N ARRANT REG I ST ER PAGE 11 07/14/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT '•' Denotes Hand Written Checks 19974 EXCEL FITNESS SOLUTIONS 24854 AP 325.00 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 325.00 201 65200 200 19975 ART IN ACTION 24912 2,120.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,120.00 101 68010 220 1646 19976 DOWNTOWN BURLINGAME IMPROVEMENT 25058 AP 735.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 735.00 530 65400 220 19977 SCOTT'S PPE RECON INC 25084 AP 844.35 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 844.35 201 65200 140 19978 RUTH REIMCHE 25143 50.00 MISCELLANEOUS 50.00 101 22593 19979 ADVANCED MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 25198 3,719.47 RADIO MAINT. 3,719.47 201 65200 205 19980 SSFFD LTC 25376 AP 360.00 SUPPLIES 360.00 201 65200 112 19981 LORAL LANDSCAPING 25394 160.00 BLDG. &GROUNDS MAINT. 160.00 526 69020 190 .19982 THE BRIDGE SCHOOL 25563 350.00 MISCELLANEOUS 350.00 101 22593 19983 OMBUDSMAN SERVICES OF SAN MATEO 25692 1,012.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,012.00 101 64560 220 19984 PACIFIC LINERS 25694 AP 11,600.00 PUMP EQUIPMENT REPAIR 11,600.00 527 66520 230 19985 NIRMALA BANDRAPALLI 25919 64.00 MISCELLANEOUS 64.00 101 36330 000 1782 19986 EDMOND-S PLAZA FLORIST 26041 AP 133.69 MISC. SUPPLIES 133.69 101 65100 120 _ 19987 USPS-HASLER 26134 AP 5,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 5,000.00 101 15500 CITY OF BURLINGAME WARRANT REG I ST ER PAGE 10 07/14/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 19971 I.M.P.A.C. GOVERNMENT SERVICES 24752 AP 18,474.08 OFFICE EXPENSE 84.38 101 67500 110 - OFFICE EXPENSE 212.95 101 64420 110 - MISC. SUPPLIES 19.90 101 68010 120 1101 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,484.29 101 67500 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 630.09 101 64420 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 82.34 101 69537 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 1,164.62 101 68010 120 1423 MISC. SUPPLIES 195.60 101 68010 120 1521 MISC. SUPPLIES 256.64 101 67500 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 99.83 101 69537 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 63.89 101 65100 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 500.78 101 68010 120 1781 MISC. SUPPLIES 607.91 101 68010 120 1330 MISC. SUPPLIES 780.88 101 68010 120 1891 MISC. SUPPLIES 63.80 101 68010 120 1520 MISC. SUPPLIES 877.01 101 68010 120 1890 MISC. SUPPLIES 257.60 101 68010 120 1892 MISC. SUPPLIES 575.72 101 68010 120 1370 PERSONNEL EXAMINATIONS 780.14 101 64420 121 LIBRARY--BOOKS AND MAPS 571.49 101 67500 129 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 1,062.87 101 68010 140 1893 COMMUNICATIONS 80.85 101 65100 160 COMMUNICATIONS 17.94 101 67500 160 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 111.66 101 67500 190 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 1,522.41 101 65100 200 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 1,603.25 101 65150 200 MISCELLANEOUS 118.46 101 67500 235 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 435.00 101 64100 250 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 166.40 101 64150 250 TRAINING EXPENSE 98.97 101 64250 260 MISCELLANEOUS 971.96 101 68010 400 1101 MISCELLANEOUS 819.90 101 65150 400 TRAINING EXPENSE 461.00 526 69020 260 OFFICE EXPENSE 83.08 527 66520 110 SUPPLIES 21.63 620 15000 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 338.00 620 66700 210 OFFICE EXPENSE 64.95 621 64450 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 185.89 730 69533 120 19972 TOM DONNELLY 24830 AP 738.31 TRAINING EXPENSE 738.31 201 65200 260 19973 T MOBILE 24846 AP - 4.90 COMMUNICATIONS 4.90 101 65150 160 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 9 07/14/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 19964 RUSSELL HOM 24322 3,900.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,900.00 101 22546 . 19965 ALERT-ALL 24392 AP 291.99 MISCELLANEOUS 291.99 201 35220 000 7150 19966 HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES 24466 AP 1,034.20 SMALL TOOLS 566.57 527 66520 130 MISC. SUPPLIES 208.61 619 64460 120 5240 MISC. SUPPLIES 215.42 619 64460 120 5180 MISC. SUPPLIES 43.60 619 64460 120 5170 19967 COMPUCOM 24467 AP 517.89 MISC. SUPPLIES 517.89 101 66100 120 19968 BEACON FIRE & SAFETY 24535 AP 396.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 396.00 619 64460 210 5120 19969 KENNEDY/JENKS CONSULTANTS 24570 AP 16,335.77 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 16,335.77 326 80950 210 19970 INTERNATIONAL CODE COUNCIL 24647 390.00 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 390.00 101 65300 250 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 8 07/14/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 19949 OFFICE MAX 23306 AP 22. 17 OFFICE EXPENSE 22.17 101 66100 110 19950 AIRGAS 23307 AP 241 .80 SUPPLIES 241 .80 620 15000 19951 RECALL- TOTAL INFORMATION MGMT 23411 AP 105.00 MISCELLANEOUS 105.00 101 22518 19952 COAST CRANE 23524 AP 1 ,554.28 MISC. SUPPLIES 1 ,554.28 527 66520 120 19953 BKF ENGINEERS 23641 AP 30,403.24 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 9,750.30 327 81500 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,576.21 327 81440 210 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 15,076.73 327 81150 210 19954 AT&T 23661 AP 24.02 COMMUNICATIONS 24.02 621 64450 160 19955 GWENDOLYN BOGER 23703 5,250.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,250.00 101 68010 220 1331 19956 SBC/MCI 23728 AP 24.34 COMMUNICATIONS 24.34 621 64450 160 19957 MATT VAUGHN 23787 11114.75 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1 , 114.75 101 68010 220 1372 19958 SAFE HARBOR 23811 7,207.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,207.00 101 64560 220 19959 BRENDA JENSEN 23813 3, 110.40 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3, 110.40 101 68010 220 1330 19960 KAREN LIU 23823 150.50 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 150.50 101 68010 220 1645 19961 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS 23946 AP 286.28 COMMUNICATIONS 286.28 101 68020 160 2300 19962 DOUG BELL 24189 AP 115.27 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 115.27 320 79410 210 19963 CHRISTINE GRANUCCI 24197 AP 1 ,008.54 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1 ,008.54 101 64420 210 ` \ 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 7 07/14/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 19935 CINGULAR WIRELESS 21747 AP 155.78 COMMUNICATIONS 155.78 101 65300 160 19936 IEDA 21981 2,688.25 DUES&SUBSCRIPTIONS 2,688.25 101 64420 240 19937 SUSTAINABLE SAN MATEO COUNTY 22351 1,551.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,551.00 101 64560 220 19938 NORTH AMERICAN SPORTS MANAGEMENT 22382 AP 1,200.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,200.00 101 68010 220 1785 19939 CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EOUALI 22424 AP 5,748.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1,308.81 101 23611 BANKING SERVICE FEES -1.74 101 64250 120 MISCELLANEOUS 22.53 201 23611 MISCELLANEOUS 1,346.14 320 23611 MISCELLANEOUS 90.35 526 23611 MISCELLANEOUS -32.79 527 23611 MISCELLANEOUS 34.32 530 23611 MISCELLANEOUS 2,980.38 620 23611 19940 ANZA ENGINEERING 22634 AP 11,410.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 11,410.00 327 81360 220 19941 LA SELVA CONSULTANTS, INC. 22635 AP 5,771.25 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 5,771.25 101 68020 220 2200 19942 FIRE SERVICE SPECIFICATION&SUP 22705 AP 34.64 SMALL TOOLS 34.64 201 65200 130 19943 SAN MATEO REGIONAL NETWORK, INC. 22759 AP 300.00 SUPPLIES 300.00 201 65200 112 19944 BURLINGAME FAMILY PET HOSPITAL 22773 AP 203.52 MISC. SUPPLIES 203.52 101 65100 120 19945 KONICA MINOLTA BUSINESS SOLUTION 22803 AP 190.78 OFFICE EXPENSE 190.78 101 65100 110 19946 PITNEY BOWES INC 22878 1,423.00 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 1,423.00 621 64450 200 19947 THE INNOVATION GROUPS 23082 2,500.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,500.00 101 64560 220 19948 LEGAL AID SOCIETY 23149 2,136.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,136.00 101 64560 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE. 6 07/14/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT *� Denotes Hand Written Checks 19921 AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSN. 18951 150.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 150.00 526 69020 240 19922 ACCESS UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY 18990 AP 5,484.06 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,321 .54 101 68010 120 1370 MISC. SUPPLIES 1 ,334.03 101 68010 120 1423 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 914.24 101 68010 140 1370 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 914.25 101 68010 140 1423 19923 BURTON'S FIRE, INC. 19366 AP 701 .44 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 701 .44 625 65213 203 19924 AMERICA PRINTING 19430 AP 8,766.03 MISCELLANEOUS 8,766.03 526 69020 233 19925 ROBERTSON INDUSTRIES INC 19779 AP 7,927.43 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,927.43 101 68010 220 1101 19926 RACQUET SMITH 20339 13,915.20 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 13,915.20 101 68010 220 1782 19927 CLAUDE ARRIOLA 20435 220.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 220.00 101 68010 220 1789 19928 BURLINGAME LIB. FOUNDATION 20561 AP 1 ,396.24 LIBRARY EXPENSES 15.00 731 22531 MISCELLANEOUS 1 ,381 .24 731 22551 19929 CWEA - CALIFORNIA WATER 20631 AP 385.00 TRAINING EXPENSE 385.00 527 66520 260 19930 RENEE RAMSEY 21136 1 ,720.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1 ,720.00 101 68010 220 1331 19931 GEORGE BAGDON 21174 1 , 152.00 MISCELLANEOUS 1 , 152.00 101 64420 031 19932 CEB 21210 AP 897.49 MISC. SUPPLIES 897.49 101 64350 120 19933 CDW GOVERNMENT, INC. 21482 AP 163.66 SMALL TOOLS 81 .83 101 65300 130 MISCELLANEOUS 81 .83 101 64420 400 19934 HILLYARD 21658 AP 264.52 MISC. SUPPLIES 264.52 101 68020 120 2200 CITYOF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 5 07/14/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 19905 MISSION HOSPICE 13923 1,789.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,789.00 101 64560 220 19906 PARCA/PROJECT REACH 13924 1,848.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,848.00 101 64560 220 19907 SAMARITAN HOUSE& 13925 7,038.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 7,038.00 101 64560 220 19908 COMMUNITY OVERCOMING RELATIONSHI 13926 3,099.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,099.00 101 64560 220 19909 YFA CRISIS INTERVENTION AND 13927 2,146.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,146.00 101 64560 220 19910 BURLINGAME LIBRARY 14228 AP 6.00 MISCELLANEOUS 6.00 731 22552 19911 ALL CITY MANAGEMENT 15595 AP 1,511.74 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,511.74 101 65100 220 19912 COMMUNITY GATEPATH 16575 4,317.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,317.00 101 64560 220 19913 LINHART PETERSEN POWERS ASSOC. 16599 AP 16,680.90 MISCELLANEOUS 16,680.90 101 22515 19914 BROADWAY BUSINESS 16849 AP 7,250.00 MISCELLANEOUS 7,250.00 731 22555 19915 CINTAS CORP. #464 16911 AP 883.25 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 883.25 101 68020 140 2200 19916 SHELTER NETWORK 17107 4,655.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,655.00 101 64560 220 19917 METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS 17402 AP 160.88 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 160.88 101 65100 200 19918 LEE&ASSOCIATES 17568 AP 802.08 SUPPLIES 277.07 201 65200 112 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 525.01 201 65200 203 19919 CALIFORNIA PNEUMATIC TOOL CO 17741 AP 103.55 MISC. SUPPLIES 103.55 526 69020 120 19920 DEAN'S AUTO BODY& 18795 AP 1,333.35 MISCELLANEOUS 1,333.35 618 64520 604 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 4 07/14/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 19894 POM INC. 09248 AP 80.04 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 80.04 530 65400 200 19895 TESTING ENGINEERS, INC. 09270 AP 5,220.00 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 5,220.00 320 81120 210 19896 SAN MATEO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFC. 09433 AP 263.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 263.00 101 65100 220 19897 ABAG - LIABILITY 09518 AP 4,690.76 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 1,303.90 618 64520 210 CLAIMS PAYMENTS 3,386.86 618 64520 601 19898 SAN MATEO LAWN MOWER SHOP 09560 AP 803.21 SMALL TOOLS 169.96 101 68020 130 2200 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 347.40 101 68020 200 2200 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 285.85 201 65200 203 19899 ORCHARD SUPPLY HARDWARE 09670 AP 1,896.03 MISC. SUPPLIES 93.11 101 66210 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 54.41 101 68020 120 2200 SMALL TOOLS 296.99 101 68020 130 2200 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 80.13 101 68020 190 2200 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 287.94 10166210 222 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 69.43 201 65200 203 TRAINING EXPENSE 86.82 201 65200 260 MISC. SUPPLIES 546.41 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 50.30 .527 66520 120 TRAINING EXPENSE 246.63 528 66600 260 MISC. SUPPLIES 83.86 619 64460 120 19900 CAL-STEAM 10557 AP 198.88 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 19.76 101 68020 190 2200 MISC. SUPPLIES 161.86 526 69020 120 MISC. SUPPLIES 17.26 527 66520 120 19901 GWENN JONES 13824 86.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 86.00 101 68010 120 1661 19902 CALL-PRIMROSE CENTER 13918 4,801.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 4,801.00 101 64560 220 19903 CENTER FOR INDEPENDENCE 13919 1,341.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,341.00 101 64560 220 19904 HUMAN INVESTMENT PROJECT 13922 1,789.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,789.00 101 64560 220 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 3 07/14/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT �•� Denotes Hand Written Checks 19888 BURLINGAME REC. DEPT./PETTY CASH 03910 AP 6,156.22 MISC. SUPPLIES 68.67 101 68010 120 1520 MISC, SUPPLIES 100.00 101 68010 120 1286 MISC. SUPPLIES 21.94 101 68010 120 1950 MISC. SUPPLIES _ 129.19 101 68010 120 1781 MISC. SUPPLIES 407.00 101 68010 120 1892 MISC. SUPPLIES 572.41 101 68010 120 1891 MISC. SUPPLIES 14.97 101 68010 120 1893 MISC. SUPPLIES 30.96 101 68010 120 1521 MISC. SUPPLIES 54.67 101 68020 120 2100 MISC. SUPPLIES 21.00 101 68020 120 2300 MISC. SUPPLIES 392.65 101 68010 120 1330 MISC. SUPPLIES 71.92 101 68010 120 1101 MISC. SUPPLIES 127.03 101 68010 120 1114 _ MISC. SUPPLIES 148.82 101 68010 120 1423 MISC. SUPPLIES 1.83 101 68010 120 1111 MISC. SUPPLIES 271.61 101 68010 120 1370 UNIFORMS AND EQUIPMENT 335.54 101 68020 140 2200 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 354.00 101 68010 220 1644 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 20.00 101 68010 220 1422 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 640.00 101 68010 220 1330 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 180.00 101 68010 220 1521 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 60.00 101 68010 220 1648 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 550.00 101 68010 220 1645 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,091.14 101 68010 220 1646 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 10.00 101 68020 240 2300 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 255.00 101 68010 240 1100 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 65.00 101 68020 240 2200 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 63.34 101 68010 250 1100 TRAVEL & MEETINGS 1.00 101 68010 250 1101 MISC. SUPPLIES 96.53 730 69583 120 19889 WEST GROUP PAYMENT CTR. 03964 AP 1,353.35 MISC. SUPPLIES 611.56 101 64350 120 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 741.79 101 64350 210 19890 LINDSTROM CO. 09059 AP 2,400.00 MISC. SUPPLIES 2,400.00 527 66520 120 19891 STATE OF CA/CONSERVATION DEPT 09073 AP 1,820.33 DEPOSIT REFUNDS 1,820.33 731 22520 19892 LYNGSO GARDEN MATERIALS 09143 AP 136.32 MISC. SUPPLIES 136.32 527 66520 120 19893 CITY OF MILLBRAE 09234 AP 3,152.82 PROFESSIONAL & SPECIALIZED S 3,152.82 101 64350 210 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 2 07/14/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 19880 PENINSULA BATTERIES 02625 AP 242.77 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 84.33 101 68020 200 2200 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 64.91 101 68010 200 1286 MISC. SUPPLIES 13.53 619 64460 120 5170 SUPPLIES 80.00 620 15000 19881 PACIFIC NURSERIES 03041 AP 51.42 MISCELLANEOUS 51.42 731 22560 19882 PK SAFETY SUPPLY 03108 AP 301.28 MISC. SUPPLIES 301.28 201 65500 120 19883 LEE BUFFINGTON TAX COLLECTOR 03465 1,148.33 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 1,148.33 526 69020 220 19884 SAN MATEO UNION HIGH 03471 AP 101,744.71 BLDG. & GROUNDS MAINT. 85,966.81 101 68010 190 1114 SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT FEE 15,777.90 731 22562 19885 RANDY SCHWARTZ 03518 200.00 MISCELLANEOUS 200.00 101 64420 031 19886 SNAP ON TOOLS 03587 AP 57.96 SMALL TOOLS 57.96 201 65200 130 19887 U S POSTAL SERVICE 03821 3,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS 3,000.00 101 64250 114 CITY OF BURLINGAME W A R R A N T R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 07/14/06 NUMBER NAME VENDOR DETAIL ACCOUNT AMOUNT Denotes Hand Written Checks 19868 GRAY'S PAINT, BURLINGAME 01025 AP 186.53 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 31.38 101 68020 200 2200 TRAFFIC CONTROL MATERIALS 40.98 101 66210 222 MISC. SUPPLIES 109.85 619 64460 120 5230 MISC. SUPPLIES 4.32 619 64460 120 5120 19869 BAYSHORE INTERNATIONAL TRUCKS 01236 AP 27.95 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 27.95 201 65200 203 19870 MATTHEW BENDER & CO., INC. 01312 AP .156.97 MISC. SUPPLIES 156.97 101 64350 120 19871 BURLINGAME ELEM. SCHOOL DIST. 01500 AP 31,304.04 SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT FEE 31,304.04 731 22563 19872 BURLINGAME AUTO SUPPLY 01507 AP 3,237.62 EQUIPMENT MAINT. 326.44 101 68020 200 2200 GAS, OIL & GREASE 92.78 201 65200 201 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 112.59 201 65200 203 SUPPLIES 2,076.68 620 15000 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 629.13 625 65213 203 19873 BURLINGAME HISTORICAL SOCIETY 01535 3,113.00 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 3,113.00 101 64560 220 19874 BURLINGAME STATIONERS 01676 AP 31.27 OFFICE EXPENSE 22.58 101 64400 110 MISC. SUPPLIES 8.69 527 66520 120 19875 CALIFORNIA PARK & RECREATION 01726 260.00 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 130.00 101 68010 240 1100 DUES & SUBSCRIPTIONS 130.00 101 68010 240 1101 19876 CITY OF REDWOOD CITY 01862 AP 31,005.12 CITY HALL MAINTENANCE 31,005.12 621 64450 220 19877 POLETTI ASSOCIATES INC. 01992 AP 2,740.70 CONTRACTUAL SERVICES 2,740.70 101 65300 220 19878 L. N. CURTIS & SONS 02027 AP 1,729.99 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. - 1,729.99 201 65200 203 19879 W.W. GRAINGER, INC. 02248 AP 39.45 FIRE APPARATUS MAINT. 39.45 201 65200 203 CITYAGENDA ORY'Nqf,ME 0ITEM # 12a MTG. STAFF REPORT � _ m DATE 8/21 /2006 9qMGTEOJ NE 6` j TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMI BYE/ DATE: August 9, 2006 APPROVED BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: DIRECT STAFF ON POSSIBLE STUDY SESSION FOR CAMPAIGN FINANCE REGULATIONS AND SET DATE FOR STUDY SESSION RECOMMENDATION Discuss whether to schedule a study session to discuss possible campaign finance regulations and direct staff with regard to specific aspects to be researched for the study session. DISCUSSION In April 2006, the Council briefly discussed possible campaign finance regulations for municipal elections and directed staff to return the item to a Council agenda after the U.S. Supreme Court decided Randall vs. Sorrell (126 S.Ct. 2479), a Vermont case that had a range of issues involved. In late June, the Supreme Court issued its decision, and as with many Supreme Court decisions, it was inconclusive on many points. Three Justices formed the plurality bloc for most points; three other justices concurred with the bloc to provide the votes necessary to reach the overall decision. However, Justice Kennedy reluctantly voted with the majority, expressing deep concern about the shadowy campaign finance system that the Court and legislative bodies have permitted or created. Justices Scalia and Thomas voted with the majority, but both believe that campaign finance regulation is unconstitutional in almost all cases, and only concurred because the majority struck down the actual limits imposed by Vermont. However, even among the multiple opinions in the case, there are a number of key points that any campaign finance regulation will have to address: I . A firm, strong majority of the court rejects mandatory limits on expenditures of any kind. Disclosure of expenditures is seen as meeting the public' s need for scrutiny of how money is spent. 2. Limits on contributions have to be carefully structured so that they are not so low that they prevent challengers from mounting effective campaigns against incumbents. 3 . Contribution limits on organizations have to be proportional to limits on individuals. Mayor and Council Re: Direct Staff on Possible Study Session for Campaign Finance Regulations and Set Date for Study Session August 9, 2006 Page 2 4. Contribution limits have to account for volunteer expenses in some form. 5. Contribution limits have to provide for increases over time, probably by reference to inflation, and capping contribution limits over an election cycle (which may or may not involve more than one election) has to be done very carefully. In working through these issues, the Supreme Court looked at the evidence provided with regard to campaign contributions to challengers in past contested elections and found it inadequate. However, there is no bright line established as to what limit might be too low(which subjects the plurality opinion to strong criticism by a number of the justices). NEXT STEPS At the April meeting, the Council stated that it did not want to pursue any public financing/matching grant program. Three additional issues were identified for future discussion: 1) placing limits or some other control on loans to candidates; 2) placing disclosure forms on the City's website; and 3) seeking some additional disclosure requirement on sponsors of mailers. Staff can cover these three additional issues in the materials for a study session. Staff suggests that the Council set a date for a study session on campaign finance regulation. Staff will then research past election history to see what the range of contribution amounts has been. We will also provide the Council with suggested ranges for contribution limits that would appear to meet the Supreme Court's concerns, including an inflation mechanism. If there is any other related issue that the Council would like addressed, staff can follow up on that, too. Attachment: March 30, 2006, Staff Report CITYAGENDA °� ITEM# BURLIN,GAME-,, STAFF TAFF REPORT MAG. DATE 4/3/2006 4 Ani[o TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED BY DATE: March 30, 2006 APPROVED BY FROM: Lam E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: OUTLINE OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REGULATIONS FOR DISCUSSION RECOMMENDATION Discuss outlines of campaign finance regulation issues and direct staff whether to return for further discussion following decisions in pending cases in the United States Supreme Court. DISCUSSION Last month, the Council asked staff to provide a background memorandum on campaign finance issues so that the Council could decide whether to develop any campaign finance regulations. This memorandum is intended to provide that background information; the United States Supreme Court is currently considering a campaign finance case from Vermont,Randall vs. Sorrell, which will probably provide an important update to the landmark case of Buckley vs. Valeo, which was decided some 30 years ago, particularly with a relatively new court in place. Therefore, it is recommended that further discussion be postponed until the Randall case is decided some time in early summer. History For the past 30 years or more, various levels of government, from Congress to small towns, have tried to address concerns about the high costs of elections and the effects that money can have on policy-making. Campaign finance regulations are often motivated by a number of reasons: 1)creating a more level playing field for candidates; 2) opening up the election process to more candidates; 3)relieving candidates and officeholders from the need to be constantly raising money; and 5)minimizing the possible corruption of both the electoral and the policy-making process. In 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Buckley vs. Valeo, a review of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971. The Court determined that disclosure and record keeping requirements of the Federal law were valid. The Court also found that limitations on contributions as provided in the Federal law were constitutional; the Court reasoned that these limits served an overriding governmental interest in avoiding "the reality or appearance of improper influence stemming from the dependence of candidates on large campaign contributions." Mayor and Council Re: Campaign Finance Regulations March 30, 2006 Page 2 However,the Court struck down the Federal law's limits on expenditures. The Court determined that the First Amendment right of speech of a candidate to spend the money that the candidate felt was necessary to win an election could only be overcome by a compelling governmental interest that was implemented in the only way possible by expenditure limitation. The Court did not agree with the Federal Election Commission that expenditure limitations were necessary to reduce the costs of elections;the Court decided it was not the government's business to regulate the costs of elections or other free speech expression, and that expenditure limitations might unfairly affect a less-recognized candidate. The Court also strongly disapproved of any limitation on a candidate's personal expenditure on behalf of the candidate's own campaign. In Nixon vs. Shrink Missouri Gov't PAC in 2000, the Supreme Court determined that states could also set limits on contributions in State election campaigns and the states could individually determine what limits were appropriate. In establishing the need and level for contribution limits,the Court made clear that the regulating agency had to develop evidence of possible corruption and the contribution levels necessary to retain an effective election system. California voters have made several attempts at campaign finance regulation. After a number of court decisions threw out earlier initiatives,the voters in 1996 adopted Proposition 208,which imposed a variety of campaign contribution limits, including a$100 individual contribution limit to local elective offices; however,before the measure could be fully tested in the courts, the California Legislature proposed Proposition 34, which wiped out Prop 208's local agency provisions and according to some, eroded some of the contribution limits found in Prop 208; Proposition 34 passed in 2000. At about the time of Proposition 208, many cities adopted supplementary campaign finance regulations. Here in Burlingame, the City Council adopted a voluntary expenditure ceiling in Ordinance No. 1575 that applied to just the 1997 election. The cap was $28,500, or roughly$100 per resident, which matched with the maximum contribution of$100 per individual. Acceptance of the voluntary ceiling entitled the candidate under Proposition 208 to recognition on the ballot. However, that basis for recognition was swept away by Proposition 34 A summary of local agency campaign contribution regulations for smaller cities in the Bay Area, as well as the County of San Mateo, is attached for the Council's reference; the left hand column contains the date of the first adoption by that city of campaign finance regulations as well as the current population. As the summary shows,there is a wide variety of levels of regulation in the ten(10) local agencies. Scope Local campaign finance regulations can address various levels or issues of campaign finance: A. Disclosure. A local regulation could impose more stringent levels of disclosure, such as for every $50 contribution, rather than the $100 contribution disclosure required under the State Political Reform Act, or more detailed expenditures disclosure. Or it could impose disclosure more often, such as four pre-election statements, rather than the two required by the State Political Reform Act. Mayor and Council Re: Campaign Finance Regulations March 30, 2006 Page 3 Some cities require prompt disclosure of large contributions, such as any contribution over$250 being reported within twenty-four hours of receipt, particularly near an election date. B. Voluntary Limits on Campaign Contributions or Expenditures. Some agencies have created a voluntary system of campaign contribution or expenditure limits, in which candidates commit to be bound by certain limits on either contributions or expenditures, or both. The regulations then provide a mechanism where the candidate who accepts the limits is recognized on the ballot or on the ballot statements. Of course, candidates themselves could agree on such a system without regulations. C. Voluntary-Mandatory Limits on Campaign Contributions or Expenditures. Proposition 208 adopted by the voters in 1996 provided a mix and match option to local agencies. If a candidate voluntarily agreed to limit expenditures, for example, then the candidate was entitled to a certain per-individual contribution limit; if a candidate did not agree to limit expenditures, then the contribution limit was lower. Proposition 34 adopted in 2000 by the voters swept that option out of State law for local agencies, but cities could probably still seek to craft such a system. Palo Alto, for example, still has vestiges of the Prop 208 approach. D. Mandatory Contribution Limits. The most common approach is a simple limit on the amounts that a single individual or single organization can contribute during either a calendar year or election period of some kind to a candidate. E. Public Financing. The only currently approved approach to limiting expenditures that has a mandatory element is the exchange of public moneys for the commitment to limit expenditures. In other words, the local agency contracts with any candidate willing to accept the expenditure limits that the candidate will, in turn, not spend more than a certain amount of money on the election campaign. Constraints and Principles Campaign finance regulations occur within the context of three provisions of the Federal Constitution: 1. First Amendment Right to Free Speech. The Supreme Court has found that an expenditure limit is a "direct restraint" on free speech and is therefore subject to "strict scrutiny"to determine if it advance a compelling government interest in the least restrictive means possible. Given that test, expenditure limits have uniformly failed. However, contribution limits have been viewed as only an indirect restraint on free speech—contributing money so that someone else can speak on your behalf, in effect. The Court has found that the test for these limits is less exacting—was the regulation"closely drawn"to advance a"sufficiently important interest;"the dollar amount of the limit did not have to be "fine tuned,"but did have to allow for an adequate campaign. 2. First Amendment Right to Free Association. The Court has applied the same tests to contentions that campaign regulations adversely affect the right of candidates and contributors to associate in a Mayor and Council Re: Campaign Finance Regulations March 30, 2006 Page 4 political campaign. However, the Court has noted that the right to freely associate is the primary right affected by contribution limits. 3. Fifth Amendment Guarantee of Equal Protection. The Supreme Court has rejected contentions that valid contribution regulations violated equal protection guarantees to be accorded unknown candidates or minor parties; however, this issue would, of course, be raised if expenditures were going to be regulated, or if the contribution limits were so skewed as to favor one type of candidate over another. The upcoming decision on the Vermont law should provide new guidance on this issue. The Supreme Court has also made clear that there are a couple of aspects of campaign finance regulation that are, in effect, off limits: A. Personal Contributions. Personal contributions to one's own campaign is viewed as the essence of free speech. A limit on personal contributions might well be viewed as antithetical to the expressed government purpose of avoiding corruption, because using one's own money would seem to avoid the entanglement with fund-raising and influence-peddling. Therefore, personal contribution limits have been uniformly rejected. Some cities have imposed limits on loans that a candidate might make to the candidate's own campaign on the basis that the loan is going to be repaid by others' contributions, even after the election is over. Such a provision would have to be narrowly crafted to be limited to the issue of repayment by others. A second issue is contributions by a candidate's own family. In a community property state such as California, how does limiting a spouse's contributions to the other spouse's campaign address corruption? Once again, any such provision would have to be carefully considered as there is no case law to support such a limitation. B. Independent Political Committees. The courts have almost uniformly refused to apply any contribution or expenditure limitations to political committees that are not connected to a candidate. Some cities in the State have made attempts at regulation, and those have failed. Therefore, any campaign finance regulation system has to recognize that a political committee may be able to have a strong influence on an election but be exempt from the regulations imposed on a candidate or a candidate-controlled committee. Specific Provisions In crafting a campaign finance regulation, the following aspects can be addressed. Of course, the regulations can be as simple or as complicated as a city council may wish. It is important to recognize that enforcement may be problematical; even the State Fair Political Practices Commission has been severely underfunded and is often able to sanction only the most egregious violations. Local governments do not have the staffing or financial capability to provide an independent enforcement agency. Instead, reliance is placed in many Mayor and Council Re: Campaign Finance Regulations March 30, 2006 Page 5 cases on the city clerk and the belief that open disclosure will be a strong enough incentive to gain compliance. 1. Contribution Limits. As can be seen in the summary table, contribution limits range from $100 to $500 or more, and are structured on calendar years, election periods (2 years), or terms of office (4 years). In developing a contribution limit, a court would expect a study of past contribution history to ensure that the limits provide adequate leeway for effective campaigns. The limits can also be adjusted automatically by an index, such as the Consumers Price Index, so that the limits stay current and do not require an ordinance amendment. B. Contribution Categories. Contribution limits can also vary according to the contributor's identity. Different limits might be placed on individuals, organizations (such as committees and corporations), and aggregations of individuals (such as the employees or officers of a corporation). Limits can also be placed on anonymous contributions below the $100 limit imposed by Gov't Code § 84304 and on cash contribution below the $100 limit imposed by Gov't Code § 84300. C. Loans. As discussed above, limits can be placed on how much money a candidate can loan the candidate's own campaign, but these have to be carefully crafted to focus on repayment by others. D. Publication of Contributors. As part of additional disclosure, some cities publish a list of large contributors to candidates just before the election. Others impose additional disclosure filings in the weeks just before the election with regard to larger contributions. E. Disqualification from Participation. Some cities have added disqualification requirements on top of those found in the Political Reform Act and FPPC regulations, so that if a matter comes before a city council within a specified period following an election that involves a larger campaign contributor to a councilmember, the councilmember is required to disqualify him or herself from participation. Under current FPPC rules, this disqualification requirement is imposed on an unsuccessful candidate serving on a board or commission, but not on an elected official. Some cities go so far as to disqualify a candidate from office if the candidate violates the campaign finance regulations. CONCLUSION It is hoped that this memorandum has given the Council a beginning outline on the issues involved in campaign finance regulations. The upcoming decision in Randall vs. Sorrell should provide us with a strong update on the standards to which campaign finance regulation must conform. Therefore, it is recommended that if the Council wishes to discuss this issue further, staff be directed to bring it back to the Council once the Randall decision is made and a chance has been given to evaluate the impact of that decision on campaign law. Mayor and Council Re: Campaign Finance Regulations March 30, 2006 Page 6 Attachment Summary of local campaign finance regulations SUMMARY OF SMALLER CITIES' CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION REGULATIONS CITY/ MANDATORY- INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE/ PERSONAL PAC LIMIT LOAN LIMITS OVERSIGHT SANCTIONS COUNTY VOLUNTARY LIMIT ORGANIZATN LIMIT City of Belmont Mandatory $100 per $200 per None $200 per Not clear None Misdemeanor (1986) candidate per candidate per candidate per +25,000 year year year Conviction Candidate cannot triggers vacancy receive more in office than$600 from PAC's City of Dublin Mandatory $300 per $300 per Unclear Unclear None None Misdemeanor (1998) candidate per candidate per +38,000 election year election year City of Mandatory $250/candidate $250/candidate No $250/candidate No None General code Livermore per term of office per term of office per term of office violation (1986) +80,000 City of Milpitas Mandatory $350/election per $350/election per No None No None General code (1996) candidate candidate violation +65,000 City of Palo Alto Voluntary (1997) expenditure of +61,000 $14,000—seems to be no longer valid under PRA City of San Mandatory $250 per election $500 per election None None $15,000 None Infraction Mateo(2005) Candidate per candidate per candidate outstanding Misdemeanor if +90,000 elections only knowing/willful City of Sausalito Mandatory $250/election $250/election Unclear $500/election No None Civil penalties (1999) cycle(4 years) cycle(4 years) cycle(4 years) +7,500 per candidate per candidate per candidate Summary - 1 SUMMARY OF SMALLER CITIES' CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION REGULATIONS CITY/ MANDATORY- INDIVIDUAL CORPORATE/ PERSONAL PAC LIMIT LOAN LIMITS OVERSIGHT SANCTIONS COUNTY VOLUNTARY LIMIT ORGANIZATN LIMIT City of Scotts Mandatory $100/election per $0 Unclear 0 No City Clerk Misdemeanor Valley(1992) candidate +15,000 Voluntary expenditure—$1 per resident City of Union Mandatory $600/term of $600/term of No Unclear No None Misdemeanor City(1994) office per office per +70,000 candidate candidate Bar from office City of Walnut Mandatory $100/election per $100/election per Unclear No No City Clerk General code Creek(1985) candidate candidate provisions +66,000 CPI adjust since CPI adjust since 1996 1996 County of San Mandatory $1,000 per $1,000 per None None None None Not specified— Mateo(2005) Candidate election per election per general code elections only candidate candidate provisions i Summary - 2 13. OL- . Judy Dostal Schneider Garden Consultant 1812 Easton Drive Burlingame,CA 94010 650-347--1993 home 650 773 3821 cell July 31,2006 HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL.: PLEASE SCHEDULE AN APPEAL HEARING Attn:Burlingame City Council FOR 1812 EA S T O N DRIVE ON 850 Burlingame Ave SEPTEMBER 5, 2006. Burlingame,CA 94010 DORIS MORTENSEN, CITY CLERK Re:Denial of permit to remove tree at 1812 Easton Dr. To Whom It May Concern: Please consider this letter as official notice for an appeal to the council's denial of my request to have the above mentioned tree removed.This tree has caused extensive damage to both my property and my health as listed below. 1. This tree has made it extremely difficult for me to get in and out of my driveway and garage without causing damage to my vehicle. Due to the fact that this imposing tree was blocking what should be an ordinary exit from my driveway by making it such a tight squeeze, the bumper was dented when I attempted to back out. Please see attached photo.The estimated cost for repair of the bumper exceeds $600.00. 2.The amount of maneuvering to enter and back out of my driveway has aggravated my arthritic wrists and it has also created tension in my neck. 3.This tree has also caused major damage to my_fence,which is now leaning so far over that the gates have fallen off.Please see attached photo. I would think this might create liability for the city should the fence fall completely over due to your tree. �'0 -¢- -7b 4. The roots of this tree have infiltrated the sewage line into my home causing leakage,which then caused my kitchen hardwood floor to cup due to the dampness underneath the flooring. 5.My driveway had to be cut in order to free up more space for the roots,and the cement has been replaced with gravel which has caused a mess. I would appreciate consideration of my request at your earliest convenience.I would not have purchased this home had I known the removal of this tree was going to cause me so many problems. Sincerely, Schnei er :Bobbi aniscalco,Senior sales associate,Coldwell Banker , M a v au ti • xa � u a 1 fie. y zAlt Q ' :�-1 a I•� � td ,�`�(�r�'�'��kf�1�1:f''1('�..�.� "Y}lj ijlii ��'; " rw ( !'4ft�`JSs4 i t�4� J).1�1`�S + � t a " �+�f�,'fir � , �t��C"-�. �`.3•�r ,, ;'• g �K "� y y 4 pP - rr, 5 C � s 1 r 8 1 � � A �s 3 fid �, �p• -rte :. '. - ,�... 1 ,tq g i �•'�i � rs 1 r ( Y ��z n. Y f2+. 74 y � A ♦i M1 y o 9 p '`� 1 i= t 4 : jt fes, BURLINGAMS The City of Burlingame CITY HALL-501 PRIMROSE ROAD CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes - Approved Thursday — June 8, 2006 Commissioners Present: Eugene Condon, Chair Victor James, Vice-Chair Michael Bohnert Stephen Warden Dan Conway Staff Present: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Sergeant Don Shepley, Police Department Visitors: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue Linda Abbey, 1415 Adeline Drive Jay DeWOIf, 1212 Edgehill Drive John Kevranian, 1241 Broadway Avenue Barbara Zukowski, 1108 Capuchino Avenue Tom Koros, 2225 Summit Drive Farris Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive Rudy Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive Sandy Towle, 2200 Hillside Drive Susan Towle, 2220 Hillside, Drive Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road Dennis O'Brien, 2204 Poppy Drive Katie O'Brien, 2204 Poppy Drive Eugenia Swanson, 1124 Paloma TRAFFIC,SAFETY&PARKING COMMISSION June 8,2006 Minutes Page I of 13 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. ROLL CALL 5 of 5 Commissioners present. (Commissioner Conway arrived at 7:15 PM). 4a CURRENT BUSINESS 4.1 ACTION ITEMS 4.1.1 Minute for March 9, April 13, and May 18, 2006 meeting. Traffic Engineer Chou explained that the Minutes for March 9 were not in the current packet. The April 13, and May 18, 2006 were in the packet to be approved. Motion: To approve April 13 and May 18 minutes M/S/C: Warden, James; 4/0/0 4.2 DISCUSSION ITEMS 4.2.1 California Drive — Proposed "Overnight Parking Restriction" signs along the 700 Block. Traffic Engineer Chou explained that at the January 12, 2006 TSPC meeting there was a request from a Commissioner to evaluate the extension of the overnight parking restriction along the 700 block of California Drive. As a previous action, the Commission had approved similar restrictions further north on California Drive. Mr. Chou said that extending the restriction would prohibit overnight parking from Oak Grove, north to Carmelita. He explained that the Commission wanted to ensure sufficient public notification so that businesses along the 700 Block would have time to present any concerns before action was taken. Commissioner Warden stated that he requested to have this brought back for review. He said the 700 block of California Drive had become a parking TRAFFIC,SAFETY&PARKING COMMISSION June 8,2006 Minutes Page 2 of 13 zone for commercial vehicles and this would be an opportunity to clean the matter up and get these vehicles into a commercial storage yard. Motion: To move this to an action item M/S/C: Warden,James;4/0/0 Second Motion: To accept staff recommendation to implement No Overnight Parking restrictions on the block of California Drive from Oak Grove to Palm(700 Block). M/S/C: Warden,James;4/0/0 4.2.2 Broadway/Paloma Avenue—Evaluate need for stop signs Traffic Engineer Chou explained that the City had received requests from merchants for stop signs on Broadway at Paloma. The merchants felt vehicles speeding had made this intersection unsafe for pedestrians and that some type of traffic control would help. Mr. Chou stated that staff conducted a Stop Sign Warrant Study. He explained that for the volume condition, about 13,000 to 14,000 vehicles were recorded on Broadway. Additionally, approximately 1,000 vehicles were recorded on Paloma Avenue. He went on to explain that while the volume condition for Broadway was met, the volume condition for Paloma fell very short. And the accident conditions were not met. He explained that Broadway had a large number of vehicles traveling on it. The use of stop signs was really for right-of-way assignment. There was not enough demand on the side streets to warrant stop signs. Pedestrian safety should be the focus and alerting vehicles to pedestrian traffic. Mr. Chou stated that Broadway already experienced traffic congestion from 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM. He expressed concern that if a stop sign was installed, a speeding situation could be created between the blocks as drivers would try to make up any time lost due to stopping. Mr. Chou stated that since all three warrants were not met, a stop sign recommendation could not be made. He did make the recommendation that other options regarding pedestrian safety (signage and/or crosswalk enhancements)be considered. Chair Condon stated traffic enhancements had been approved at the crosswalk,at the intersection of Chula Vista and Broadway. Tom Koros, 2225 Summit Drive, stated that both vehicular and foot traffic would increase due to the opening of five new restaurants on Broadway. TRAFFIC,SAFETY&PARKING COMMISSION June 8,2006 Minutes Page 3 of 13 He said Broadway was viewed as a main artery to the freeway, and that visibility was reduced due to streetscape. Despite the warrant study, he said he wanted consideration given to stops at Paloma. He expressed concerns for citizens who were pedestrians, and went on record as a strong supporter for the stop signs. Barbara Zukowski, 1108 Capuchino Avenue, expressed her concern about cars speeding along Broadway with crosswalks not a being a deterrent to speeding. She also stated that there wasn't enough protection for pedestrians. She expressed the difficulties she experienced in attempting to cross Broadway, and also went on record in support of a stop sign at Paloma and Broadway. John Kevranian, 1241 Broadway, recommended a stop sign be installed. He wanted to see traffic study numbers for Burlingame Avenue, which had both stop signs and a traffic signal. He said the volume of traffic was the same as Broadway. He also said that there wasn't enough police power to enforce safety laws. He went on record strongly urging the installation of a stop sign. Rudy Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive, stated that the constant flow of traffic on Broadway prevents him from crossing to shop on the north side of Broadway. He said Paloma was halfway down Broadway and the logical place to put stop signs. Farris Horak, 1332 Edgehill Drive, discussed how difficult it was to cross Broadway and how time consuming it was driving north on Paloma and turning onto Broadway. She felt stop signs at this location would allow cars to turn. Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive, stated pedestrians crossing Broadway was the reason it was impossible to turn left off Paloma, as well as other streets, onto Broadway. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, suggested making Broadway a one-way street from EI Camino through to the freeway. She said that traffic could be directed to use Carmelita westbound since the parking has parking restrictions during commute hours. This would allow for two lanes going to the freeway at Broadway and two lanes coming back on Carmelita. Ross Bruce, 500 Almer Road, asked if 18-wheeler trucks were allowed on Broadway. He also asked if the accident history condition study was conducted only at that specific intersection. Mr. Bruce stated he and other merchants felt that placing a stop sign at Paloma would have a beneficial result for all of Broadway, preventing vehicle accidents and slowing traffic. He asked that the study area be expanded even though the warrants had TRAFFIC,SAFETY&PARKING COMMISSION June 8,2006 Minutes Page 4 of 13 not been met. He suggested placing a stop sign at this intersection as a one year experiment. Sandy Towle, 2200 Hillside Drive, suggested slowing down traffic by installing a lighted crosswalk on Broadway, similar to ones in San Mateo and on California Drive. He felt stop signs and traffic signals would create tremendous delays, causing drivers to go faster and not make it any safer for pedestrians. He wanted the City to try a lighted crosswalk approach. Eugenia Swanson, 1124 Paloma Avenue, discussed speeding issues on Broadway and getting across Broadway (east-west) from Paloma and went on record in favor of the stop sign. Jay deWolf, 1212 Edgehill Drive, asked what the City was doing for Broadway and Chula Vista. Chair Condon stated crosswalk enhancements on Broadway and Chula Vista was the past recommended action. Mr. deWolf inquired about variations in the count which could occur during various times of the year. He asked the City to look at U-turn signage on Broadway. He felt installing a stop sign would be fine, but suggested a stronger police presence might be more helpful. He also said that those turning right didn't seem to slow down for pedestrians. Katie O'Brien, 2204 Poppy Drive, stated Broadway was a thoroughfare going to the freeway. She said pedestrian traffic and car traffic had increased, and will continue to increase. Commissioner Warden expressed his opposition to making Paloma a one- way street. He stated he didn't want to see all the traffic backed up on a residential street like Carmelita. Commissioner Warden asked if Paloma was the correct place for a stop sign, with respect to side street traffic. He asked Mr. Chou if the stop sign belonged at Laguna rather than Paloma since 2-way traffic crossing Broadway was allowed on Laguna. He stated that numerous stop sign requests had been turned down in the past because of liability to the City. Commissioner Warden asked if placing stop signs in locations not meeting warrants would actually make the City liable. Mr. Chou stated that the City Attorney knew of no cases where cities had legal action against them for installing unwarranted stop signs. However, doing this did not stop any city from being taken to court. He said that the City would have to prove a professional engineering decision was made for doing so, based on overwhelming evidence that stop signs would benefit the City at those locations. TRAFFIC,SAFETY 8 PARKING COMMISSION June 8,2006 Minutes Page 5 of 13 Commissioner Warden wanted the Laguna area studied for action based on the increased amount of pedestrian traffic possibly resulting from new businesses opening soon. Mr. Chou stated that while the Laguna intersection was not at the center of the Broadway corridor, it did have traffic entering from both ends of the side street and might better meet the warrant conditions. Commissioner Warden stated that if nothing is done with a stop sign, knock-down delineators might be another option for consideration when this matter comes back to the Commission. Commissioner James directed his questions to the floor speakers. He asked Mr. Koros about the levels of traffic and what time the heaviest traffic occurred. Mr. Koros indicated the heaviest was between 7:00 AM and 9:30 AM, and then again between 4:00 PM and 7:00 PM. He said this was true for both pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Commissioner James asked Barbara Skukoski what the time frame was for her concerns. She stated it was 5:30 PM to 6:00 PM. Commissioner James asked John Kevranian what time he observed the "near-miss" incidents referenced earlier. Mr. Kevranian stated it is all day, between 9:00 AM and 6:00 PM. Commissioner James then asked Jay deWolf about the times of the U-turn violations. Mr. deWolf stated it was all day. He also thanked the Commissioners for their service to the community by serving on the Commission. Commissioner James asked if speeding was the biggest concern based on the discussion from the floor. The audience agreed. Commissioner Conway stated that the warrant studies were useful because the Commission could rely on them legally. He stated that there had not been a time where the warrant study did not match the field test. He added, however, that he also felt discomfort crossing Broadway. Regardless of the outcome of the warrant studies, he felt strongly that something needed to be done. He expressed his concern with the backup that would be caused by putting in stop signs. Commissioner Bohnert expressed his own concerns regarding crossing Broadway. He said crossing Carmelita was just as dangerous as crossing Broadway. He suggested the entire area should go under review (Carmelita, Broadway, Laguna, Paloma, all cross streets, the Broadway overpass enhancement and freeway) to be made pedestrian safe. One stop sign in the middle of all of this would create a great deal of backup to the freeway without addressing the problems in all of these areas. Commission Condon expressed his concern that the residential streets would be subjected to the backups. He said he would entertain a traffic study for stop signs at Capuchino because it is a 4-way intersection. He said he would also like to look at the placement of knockdown delineators at TRAFFIC,SAFETY&PARKING COMMISSION June 8,2006 Minutes Page 6 of 13 Capuchino and Laguna. With so many cars coming through Broadway, he said he didn't see speeding as the problem, but crossing the streets was the issue. He suggested looking at the locations where people cross streets, implement measures known to work similar situations, and consider a stop sign at Laguna if the warrants were met. Mr. Chou responded that delineators were a good option. He cautioned that wide turning vehicles on a street narrowed by streetscape would roll over delineators, so regardless of using less expensive delineators, there would still be a maintenance issue. He said this intersection was a three way approach and there would only be one type of turning movement minimizing the damage to the delineators. Mr. Chou said that this intersection and corridor was a good case for considering traffic signals. He stated the main reason being large volumes of vehicles traveling in one direction where breaks in traffic flow was needed for other vehicles and pedestrians to cross. He said that stop signs were not warranted because this would mean that each of the 13,000- 14,000 vehicles would be required to stop and backups would be a concern. Traffic signals would allow vehicles to move through the intersection and create breaks when needed. Mr. Chou stated that a traffic signal warrant study could be conducted for the future and the Commission can then bring this to the Council. Chair Condon asked Mr. Chou if a new traffic signal at this intersection could be coordinated with the signal at California Drive to avoid a congestion and backups. Mr. Chou responded that this could be done. Chair Condon said he would like to see the crosswalk delineators at the Capuchino and Paloma intersections; and, look into traffic signals and get a sub-committee together to study the feasibility of meeting signal warrants. Commissioner James stated the problem was not being addressed because the issue being brought up was speeding, but the request for stop signs dealt with right-of-way control. He raised the question that speed was stated as the issue during public discussions, but how could there be speeding when the traffic was so heavy? Commissioner James asked Mr. Chou if there were other studies and methods to address the issue of speed. Mr. Chou said there were. Commissioner James stated that cars parked perpendicular would also affect the speeding issue. He stated a different approach to the speeding problem is required other than a stop sign. Commissioner Bohnert expressed the importance of seeing the big picture in all options planned for this area. TRAFFIC, SAFETY&PARKING COMMISSION June 8,2006 Minutes Page 7 of 13 Commissioner Warden suggested changing Paloma into a two-way street. He said that combined with a signal at Paloma, this could be the way to keep traffic moving, and improve pedestrian traffic access. Motion: To make this an Action Item. M/S/C: Warden, Conway; 5/0/0 Chair Condon aske dfor a motion to deny the request and open up the whole Broadway district to a sub-committee to look into several alternatives such as signals and crosswalk delineators. He asked that the sub- committee come up with a plan for all of Broadway. Commissioner Warden suggested adding merchants and residents in the area to the sub-committee. Commissioner Conway asked asked Mr. Chou the best way to set up the sub-Committee. Mr. Chou stated that two members from the commission should work with the merchants and/or Ross Bruce, BID President. This would be an on-going process to build consensus for a plan of attack for the entire corridor and not just this intersection. Then the sub-committee, with support from the business community, would come back to the Commission and build the last bit of consensus from the rest of the Commissioners. This way the sub-committee would not come back to the Commission with a "done deal" solution. Further discussion of any new ideas should occur between the business community, sub-committee and Commission. Second Motion: To deny the request for a stop sign at Broadway and Paloma, and have the chair appoint a sub-committee to review the entire Broadway corridor for a more appropriate approach to the traffic and pedestrian issues in that area. M/S/C: Warden, James; 5/0/0 Commissioner Warden and Commissioner Bohnert volunteered for the sub- committee. 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NEW ITEMS 5.1 California Drive/Highland Avenue — Crosswalk enhancement or total elimination Mr. Chou stated that a staff report discussing this matter would be available at the next Commission meeting. TRAFFIC,SAFETY 8 PARKING COMMISSION June 8,2006 Minutes Page 8 of 13 & FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, stated that Councilwoman O'Mahoney said at the last Council meeting that money would be available for repaving arterial streets; and, that one of them was Hillside Drive. Ms. Giorni expressed her hope that the Commission would consider re-evaluating crosswalks at Hillside and Balboa. She said the City ordinance regarding overnight parking was not being enforced there and cars parked at the corners add to the "blindness". She requested red paint be added at corners of the intersection to keep cars from parking there. Linda Abbey, 2415 Adeline Drive, thanked the City of Burlingame for the traffic counts conducted on Adeline Drive. She said that one count location had a red cone in the street next to the counter. She was also concerned that during the study, Mercy High School was not in full attendance because of finals week, and she asked if the City could verify with Mercy High School what the attendance was during the dates of the study. Ms. Abbey stated that the traffic was never light during the week on Broadway, and she also wanted it noted that the time period between 11:30 AM and 1:00 PM during the week was a high traffic time. She stated that the pedestrians on the street may not perceive cars as speeding, but cars aren't yielding to people in the crosswalks. 7. INFORMATION ITEMS 7. 1 Bicycle Safety Issues in Burlingame Traffic Engineer Chou stated the sub-committee was working on dates to meet to discuss potential projects. He said that June 20 or June 27 were the most likely dates. Mr. Chou added that the sub-committee members were in agreement that they need to develop some projects for funding; and, that this sub-committee would not impinge on the Council's sub-committee because this current sub- committee would lay the groundwork and be able to hand over something viable to the Council's sub-committee after it was established. Chair Condon asked Mr. Chou if a format of the meeting could be established beforehand, and Mr. Chou agreed that they could do that once the meeting date was established. 7.2 From Council to Commission/Staff None. TRAFFIC,SAFETY&PARKING COMMISSION June 8,2006 Minutes Page 9 of 13 7.3 From Staff to Commission 7.3.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 7.3.1.1 Peninsula Avenue/US 101 Overpass Status Report Traffic Engineer Chou stated that San Mateo and Burlingame were working on an agreement to hire a traffic consultant to redo some of the studies in the area. He said that Burlingame would pay for a portion of the studies and receive data on a list of Burlingame intersections. Mr. Chou said that the City of Burlingame provided the City of San Mateo with recommendations of the streets to be studied. 7.3.1.2 Broadway/US 101 Overpass Status Report Traffic Engineer Chou stated that this was still in the EIR stage. 7.3.1.3 Radar Speed Zones Traffic Engineer Chou reported that he was reviewing the accident reports supplied by the Police Department. Mr. Chou also stated that the section of California Drive in questions would be broken into two sections with two surveys rather than one. The first section of California Drive would be from Murchison to Broadway. He said at Broadway, California Drive changed significantly, and this is not reflected in the current report. Commissioner Warden commented that it made sense to look at this in three sections: Murchison to Broadway, Broadway to Burlingame Avenue, and Burlingame Avenue to Peninsula Avenue. 7.3.2 Traffic Sergeant's Report Traffic Sergeant Shepley stated that staffing continued to be sporadic.He reported on the following: • The Police Department was able to deploy the radar trailer more often when their staffing was higher. It is currently broken and has been sent for repairs. TRAFFIC,SAFETY&PARKING COMMISSION June 8,2006 Minutes Page 10 of 13 • Selective enforcement had been happening on the train tracks at Sanchez, Broadway, and North Lane areas. Two joint operations with Amtrak and ESO were conducted. • Moving the California/Sanchez bus stop appeared to have positive impact on the afternoon SamTrans school bus route. • Police was also enrolling their School Resource Officer into an Instructor's Course to teach him how to conduct the Operation Life Saver program in schools, which will be part of the officer's curriculum next year. • The Street Racer Detail was to be on Friday night, June 9. There had been lots of media interest and Burlingame was hosting the event, as well as next weekend's event at the request of the Daly City Police Chief for the premiere of the movie "Fast and Furious 3". • A training session was scheduled for Friday, June 9, from noon to 4:00 PM with the San Diego Police Department, who were the current "gurus' in street racing enforcement. Sgt. Shepley also reported that Engineering, Finance and the Police Department were involved in several studies. • Preliminary Red Flex red light running studies were done for Broadway/EI Camino Real, Broadway/California Drive, Chapin Avenue/EI Camino Real, and Trousdale Drive/EI Camino Real. The results showed that Broadway/EI Camino Real was the highest violator location. Further evaluation was needed before suggesting to Council whether or not to accept the program citywide. • Engineering, Police, and Finance were currently working on smart meter implementation. • The Employee Parking Permit Program would be ending in August. Commissioner Warden asked what would happen when funding ran out with DBID. Sergeant Shepley stated that the City Manager could designate who he wanted to administer the sale of the parking permits, and was looking for one of the merchant groups or a merchant take over what DBID was doing. Commissioner James asked about the other capabilities of the red light runner cameras. Sgt. Shepley stated that he was not directly involved with the program implementation, but understood that once they were installed, the system could have the ability to provide Police with the footage of a crime if it occurred at a monitored intersection. TRAFFIC,SAFETY&PARKING COMMISSION June 8,2006 Minutes Page I I of 13 7.4 From Commission to Staff 7.4.1 Commission Chairperson Report. Chair Condon reported on the Caltrain railroad corridor safety issue. He said that he was looking into possible funding for joint fencing, as well as cost for the various options for fencing material. Chair Condon asked staff to look into the design options for fencing lengths and the use of natural barriers, defensive landscaping, and gullies. Commissioner Warden asked about scheduling another Special Meeting and inviting Caltrain and SamTrans to discuss what changes they made regarding fencing and rerouting bus line. Chair Condon said that he wanted all the answers to all possible questions beforehand, along with costs for the total job and for each option. Commissioner Warden wanted to know what the timing would be, as he would like to see something done for the August meeting, before the beginning of school. Chair Condon responded that securing funding for fence installation was the delay and could not be done by August. He asked, however, if it was possible to get all the "ducks in a row" with respect to planning, options, costs, funding avenues, before the August meeting. Mr. Chou stated that the information could be gathered for the internal meeting with Caltrain. Chair Condon asked that at the July meeting, a date be set for an August Special Railroad Corridor Safety meeting. Chair Condon asked for a Commissioner to join him on this sub-committee, and Commissioner Conway volunteered. 7.4.2 Reports of Citizen Complaints or Requests Commissioner Warden stated his concern over a lot of commercial vehicles parking in residential areas. He asked if it is was possible to have the Business License Office or the Code Enforcement Officer to look into whether these businesses were being operated out of homes. He asked if this could be controlled through the City Attorney's office. Traffic Engineer Chou agreed the process could begin there and then assigned to Finance, Permits or Code Enforcement. TRAFFIC,SAFETY&PARKING COMMISSION June 8,2006 Minutes Page 12 of 13 7.5 Comments and Communications Chair Condon suggested that Engineering and Police look into the Hillside Drive issue. Chair Condon also said that the Commissioners could help staff with traffic counts and the development of possible solutions future plans for the Broadway/Paloma issue. Commissioner Warden asked if they ask the sub-committee to draft local merchants and residents based on this meeting's attendance. It was suggested Ross Bruce, Dave from the II Piccolo Coffee Shop and some others. 7.6 Next Regular Meeting There were no anticipated absences for the next meeting on July 13, 2006. 8. INACTIVE OR PENDING ITEMS None. 9 AGENDUM FOR NEXT MEETING • Item 5.1 - California Drive/Highland Avenue crosswalk. 10. ADJOURNMENT 9:15 PM. TRAFFIC,SAFETY&PARKING COMMISSION June 8,2006 Minutes Page 13 of 13 BURL 01 NOAME Board of Trustees Minutes June 20, 2006 I. Call to Order President McCormack called the meeting to order at 5:30pm. II. Roll Call Trustees Present: Bruce Carlton, Deborah Griffith,. Katie McCormack, Pat Toft Trustee Absent: Nancy Brock Staff Present: Al Escoffier, City Librarian Sidney Poland, Recorder III. Warrants and Special_ Funds The current Warrants were unavailable for review. The Trustees passed a motion that any two Trustees could review and approve the Warrants before the next meeting date of July 18, 2006 M/S/C McCormack/Carlton IV. Minutes The Trustees approved as written the minutes of the May 16, 2006 meeting. M/S/C (Carlton/McCormack) V. Correspondence and Attachments A. The Kite Runner - The One Book/One Community events have begun with a book discussion in Redwood City and will continue throughout the summer. Dr. Hosseini will make a personal appearance on October 19th at the San Mateo Performing Arts Center. B. News From the Capitol - Due to CLA's successful lobbying efforts, Governor Schwarzenegger's proposal to increase both the Public Library Foundation and the Transaction Based Reimburse- ment budgets by $7million each was passed by both the Senate and the House of Representatives. VI. From the Floor - No one from the public attended the meeting. 480 Primrose Road Burlingame•California 94010-4o83 Phone(650)558-7474'Fax(650)342-6295-www.burlingame.org/library VII. Reports A. City Librarian's Report-Highlights of Report 1. Personnel Issues-Recruitment for the 40 hour librarian position will begin this month. 2. Friday Alight Hours-Beginning July 7th Friday hours Will be from 10:00am until 7:00pm. Signage changes and new brochures will be updated to reflect the new hours. B. Foundation Report 1. Foundation Event-The Foundation has invited Foundation Advisory members and the Library Trustees to a soiree on July 14th from 5-7pm. The purpose of the event is to present the Foundation's new Strategic Plan on how to raise - donations for Library needs. 2. Summer Reading-The Foundation gave$10,000 to the Library in support of the three summer reading programs: Read to Me,School Age and Teen. C. Trusteeship Vacancy-Trustee Brock's term is completed as of June 30,2006 which creates a vacancy on the Library Board. Nancy Brock is serving out the remaining year of David Carr's 3 year term. Trustee Brock is eligible to serve another 3 year term but must follow the required procedures which entail reapplying and participating in a personal interview conducted by a two member panel. Interviews for this position will be held July 17th. VIII. Unfinished Business Library Budget-The formal date for the beginning of the City's new 20G6-2007 budget year is July 1st. The new budget provides for the Library to be allotted an additional two hours of public service on Friday evenings from 5-7pm and an increase of$30,000 for the collection. IX. New Business A. Staff Recognition-The Trustees unanimously passed a motion to continue to provide monetary support through the Staff-Recognition Fund to recognize and honor staff for the 2006-2007 fiscal year.M/S/C Toft/Griffith B. Flag-The Trustees unanimously passed a motion to purchase an American Flag to be used for public meetings in the Lane Community Room. M/S/C(Carlton/Griffith) C. Reader's Advisory Data Base and"Novelist"-The Trustees unanimously approved the request of the City Librarian to fund the first year of a five year contract with Reader's Advisory Database from the Dorothy Thigpen Memorial Fund in the amount of$2,000. M/S/C(Griffith/Carlton) Library Board of Trustee Minutes 2 June 20,2006 D. Collection Development Policy for Children and Young Adults The Trustees unanimously approved as drafted the adoption of a collection development policy specifically designed and written for children and young adults by the management and children's staff. M/S/C (McCormack/Toft) XI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:00pm. The next meeting will be held July 18, 2006 in the Conference Room at 5:30pm. M/S/C (Carlton/Griffith) Respectfully Submitted, Alfred H. Escoffier City Librarian Library Board of Trustee Minutes 3 June 20,2006 City Librarian's Report July 18, 2006 New Main Library Schedule Begins The two additional hours added to the library schedule by the City Council began on Friday, July 7th. We will do some publicity on the opening in the coming weeks. The main library sign has been updated. But the small book sign, and library inserts still need to be updated. We are very pleased to offer later hours on Friday for our busy public. Summer Reading Clubs a Roaring Success! Sue Reiterman reports that the 3 children's summer reading clubs are the biggest ever, with nearly 1,000 children enrolled at this writing. Sue and her children's staff visited 87 classrooms in person, reaching some 2,104 children in May and June. The personal touch has paid off with new library cards for many children, and a visit to the library. The Family Fun Nights are sell outs each time. We can accommodate about 120 people. The events are ticketed at no charge to help with crowd control. The Family Fun Nights have been underwritten by the Burlingame Library Foundation, and a generous donation from staff artist Maryam Refahi. Schools visited included: South Hillsborough, North Hillsborough, West Hillsborough, Washington, Franklin, Lincoln, Roosevelt, McKinley, and Our Lady of Angels. One was an all-school assembly, but the most successful contacts were the classroom visits. Trustees Receive $ 20,000 Gift The Trustees received a bequest from the O.E.E. Anderson Trust on June 29, 2006. We had known about this bequest for about 18 months, but there were some legal hurdles for the estate. Mr. Anderson was a San Mateo resident and apparently used Burlingame Public Library and certainly appreciated it! The funds have been deposited into the Trustees Special Fund and are undesignated. 1 San Mateo Public Library Closed 7 Weeks The San Mateo Main Library will be closed from July 7th through August 26th, reopening, Sunday, August 27th. We have made contractual arrangements with the City of San Mateo to have their staff fill in on our service desks and behind the scenes. We expect with the main library closed such a long time, BlArlingame and Foster City will bear the most increase in library usage. San Mateo has been very cooperative in this effort. _Governor's Budget is a Great Day for Libraries! Governor Schwarzenegger signed the state budget, adding about 30% support for local libraries. The Public Library Fund, which is based on population served will increase Burlingame's share from $ 13,000 to approximately $ 17,000. The Transaction Based Reimbursements for serving non-residents will go from $ 160,000 to approximately $ 205,000. Just to keep this great gift in perspective, the Public Library Services Act has never been fully funded. These increases bring us back up to where we were 3 years ago. Foundation Strategic Plan By the time you read this report, the Stephen Hamilton, President of the Foundation Board will have hosted the Foundation Strategic Plan Soiree, Friday, July 14, from 5 PM- 7 PM. The evening was an opportunity to gather Foundation Board members, Foundation Advisory Board members and Library Trustees to announce the formal plan. The plan is an ambitious one to help guarantee support of library programs and collections on an on-going basis. I am thrilled with the Foundation's enthusiasm for future fundraising! Personnel Matters Recruitment to replace the vacant librarian position will close Friday, July 14th. Interviews will be held on Wednesday, July 19th. We expect to have someone on board by the end of August. The Kite Runner: One Book/One Community At least 70 copies of the Kite Runner book have flown off the library shelves! We have seen great interest in the book and the Afghan culture. Libraries will be sponsoring a number of programs in October before Dr. Hosseini speaks about his book. Burlingame will feature Stephen Olsson (Kris Cannon's brother!) who is an Emmy award winning film maker. He will be showing his "Last Images of War" and offering a question and answer session in the Lane Room on October 11, 2006. 2 Upcoming Events: • "Novelist" Training for all staff, Tuesday, July 11, 1 PM • Library Foundation Soiree, Friday, July 14, 5 PM-7 PM • Library Board Meeting, July 18, 5:30 PM • Library Board Meeting, August 15, 5:30 PM • San Mateo Main Library Opens, Sunday, August 27 • Labor Day Holiday, September 3 & 4, Closed Alfred H. Escoffier City Librarian July 5, 2006 3 BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2006 Patron Statistical Classes - New Adds Registered Borrowers Previous month's total #Added Total Registered Burlingame Adults 20,479 148 20,627 Burlingame Children 5,832 80 5,912 Hillsborough Adults 3,061 23 3,084 Hillsborough Children 1,652 65 1,717 Non-San Mateo Co. Borrowers 2,129 22 2,151 Totals 33,153 338 33,491 Circulation Activity Main Easton Branch Adult Print Materials 16,547 990 Children's Print Materials 10,859 2,309 Audio/Visual Materials 10,967 1,503 Circulation Totals This month total Main 49,373 This month previous year 48,222 1.1% Increase This month total Branch 4,835 This month previous year 5,051 4.2% Decrease This month Grand Total 54,208 This month previous year grand total 53,873 .6% Increase Express Check Use Patrons Items % of Circulation Main 5,435 21,561 55% Easton 588 2,694 58% Reference Activity Inter Library Loans Questions Lent 3,058 Reference 2,832 Borrowed 2,301 Children's 1,495 TOTAL 5,359 Lower Level 2,605 Branch 525 TOTAL 7,457 Collections Main Titles Volumes Main Titles Added Branch Volumes Added Adult Non Fiction 210 117 16 Children's Non Fiction 337 228 22 YA Non Fiction 0 0 0 Adult Fiction 399 222 44 Children's Fiction 130 36 7 YA Fiction 91 26 4 DVD's 73 29 12 Children's DVD's 51 0 0 BKCD 34 29 2 Children's BKCD 2 0 0 TOTALS 1,327 687 107 BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2006 PAGE 2 Fines and Fees Main $8,294.51 Branch* $ 650.18 Total $8,944 Main and Easton Deposits Trustee Special Fund Photocopies/SAM (Main)** $939.98 Branch $ 10.25 Total Estimated User Traffic Main 33,050 Daily Average Main 1,101 Estimated User Traffic Easton 3,488 Daily Average Easton 134 Total User Traffic 36,538 Total Daily Average 1,235 Community Room Adult* TOTAL MEETINGS HELD 12 Attendance 327 Adult Library Programs Attendance Lectures, Film Series etc. 0 0 Book Groups 2 30 Children's and Young Adult Attendance Pre-school Story Time 6 188 Toddler Story Time 5 378 Total Story Time 11 Total Story Time Attendance 566 Class Visits 96 2,293 Preschool Outreach 1 29 Total Class Total Class Visits Attendance Special Programs June Attendance Family Fun Night#1 Nick Barone Puppets 150 Family Fun Night#2 Colibri Latin American Music 150 Total Attendance 300 Note: Summer Reading Began June 19, 2006 Easton Story Times & Special Programs Attendance Questions Easton Preschool 2 68 Reference 525 Toddler 3 136 Total Programs 5 Total Attendance 204 Class Visits Attendance Special Programs 1 Dad & Me Story Time 90 Easton Internet Usage User Sessions 1 383 Main Internet User Sessions Hour, Half Hour, & Express Childrens Total 9,301 329 9,630 BURLINGAME PUBLIC LIBRARY STATISTICS FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 2006 PAGE 3 June Outreach Statistics Deliveries 30 Pick Ups 4 Books 124 Magazines 10 CDs Books on Tae 5 Paperbacks 24 DVDs 8 Total Library Materials 189 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION JULY 13, 2006 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5:45 p.m. by Chairperson McQuaide. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson McQuaide, Carney, Ellis, Grandcolas, Lauder, and O'Connor Absent: Commissioner Lahey Staff: Parks Superintendent Richmond, Supervisor Disco, and Secretary Harvey Guests: Thomas Hornblower (2100 Easton Drive);Kevin Kielty (Mayne Tree) MINUTES— • The Minutes of the May 4, 2006 Beautification Commission meeting, were approved as submitted. • The Minutes of the April 6, 2006 Community meeting regarding Long Range Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive, were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE Copy of letter from Sempervirens fund thanking the Commission for their individual gifts of $160 for a Redwood tree to be planted in memory of Bill Richmond in the Santa Cruz mountains. Letter from Jennifer Pfaff regarding her concerns with the current Street Tree Program with suggestions to improve and a list of vacant planting sites in her neighborhood on Bayswater, Bloomfield, and Howard Avenue. Letter to Thomas Hornblower, 2100 Easton Drive, (copied to neighboring properties) informing him that his request to remove 6 City-owned Pittosporum trees because of the intensity of the fragrant flowers, would be continued to the next Beautification Commission meeting so that Staff could study alternatives to removal. Letter to Judith Schneider, 1812 Easton Drive, (copied to neighboring properties) informing her that her request for removal of a City-owned Cypress tree due to damage to driveway and brick fence, would be heard at the June 1, 2006 Commission meeting. Staff Report from Superintendent Richmond to Commission regarding further information and several options for consideration and/or alternatives to removal of the 6 Pittosporum trees at 2100 Easton Drive. Staff Report from Superintendent Richmond to Commission regarding further information and several options for consideration in determining approval or denial of the request for removal of the City-owned Cypress tree at 1812 Easton Drive. Memorandum from Director Schwartz to Commission regarding: Field Meet with P.G.&E. Representatives to Discuss Line Clearance Pruning. Letter from Superintendent Richmond to Thomas Hornblower, 2100 Easton Drive, informing him of an alternative growth regulator treatment that could be used to eliminate the fragrant blooms on the Pittosporum trees. 1 CORRESPONDENCE— (Contd.) Memorandum from Director Schwartz and Superintendent Richmond regarding the current status on the Landscaping on the Broadway Interchange, the Adopt-a-Highway agreement that past Commissioner Locke and Commissioner Lauder arranged so they could volunteer their time to that area periodically weeding, clearing trash, and improving plant life, and that any others willing to assist with this task are encouraged and can call the Parks & Recreation Department for contact information to register with CalTrans. Letter(s) to Thomas Hornblower, 2100 Easton Drive and Judith Schneider, 1812 Easton Drive, (copied to all neighboring properties) notifying them that the July 6th Beautification Commission would be postponed to July 13th due to unforeseen scheduling conflicts and that their items would be heard at the July 13th meeting. FROM THE FLOOR-None OLD BUSINESS— Reguest for the Removal of 5 City-Owned Pittosnorum Trees at 2100 Easton Drive, Due to Allergies - Superintendent Richmond corrected that the number of Pittosporums is 5 and stated that he invited Kevin Kielty from Mayne Tree Expert Company to discuss some possible chemical treatments to eliminate the flowers on the Pittosporums as an alternative to be considered other than removal. Kevin Kielty stated that at a recent chemical conference that he attended he discussed with the different chemical companies eliminating or reducing the flower production on Pittosporums. Two options that could have a satisfactory effect would be to 1) spray the flowers with an agent that is used to kill olives on olive trees or 2)to paint a systemic control on the trunk of each tree to prevent the tree from flowering. Mr. Kielty stated that the systemic controls, which would be preferable to spraying agents in the air, are not registered for that particular use but could probably be arranged with the Department of Agriculture as a test study. He stated that the cost of spraying or the systemic control process are comparable, although spraying the flowers would need to occur on the Pittosporum at least twice a year but the systemic control would probably only need to be applied once or twice a year, depending on the effect of the blooming periods, that Pittosporum's can be unpredictable in the blooming habits. The Commission discussed with Mr. Kiety the differences between the two different chemical treatment options. Chairperson McQuaide then recognized Mr. Hornblower. Mr. Hornblower noted that he received a letter dated June 6"' from Superintendent Richmond explaining the chemical spray option with a combination of Embark and Florel. He stated that he contacted other Arborists, who indicated that they had never been approached with this type of request before and were not able to get any satisfactory answers to his questions. Mr. Hornblower went on to say that this year the trees first blossomed in January, were in full bloom by March, and have just bloomed again in June. He stated that all the trees don't bloom at the same time and wondered about the effectiveness of spraying and how often it might need to be done. Mr. Kielty stated that it could take up to three sprays; that spraying to eliminate the flowers has not yet been researched or studied and that these particular trees and their blooming habit would need to be studied. Following Mr. Hornblower's comments, Chairperson McQuaide asked the Commission for their comments. 2 Request for the Removal of 6 City-Owned Pittosporum Trees at 2100 Easton Drive, Due to Allergies— (Contd.) Commissioner Ellis wondered if the chemical applications were harmful to pets. Mr. Kielty replied that neither application would be harmful to pets. Commissioner Carney asked if the intensity of the fragrance from the Pittosporum flower decreases with age. Mr. Kielty said that the intensity would probably not decrease as the tree ages but noted that aroma doesn't travel like pollen and sensitivity to the fragrance is different than allergies to pollen. Commissioner Grandcolas stated he was in favor of salvaging the trees before removing them and thought it would be worthwhile to try options that Mr. Kielty suggested. Chairperson McQuaide asked what it might cost to paint the trunk(s) with the systemic control and who would be responsible for the cost. Mr. Kielty stated that Mayne Tree would be willing to absorb the cost for labor and would only require a charge for the cost of the chemical; he also noted that the test study could also be done in house if that were preferable. Mr. Hornblower asked if trimming the trees could be considered as well. Mr. Kielty stated that trimming off the flowers would also include trimming off portions of the tree and that the trees would end up being little balls and that if trimming were to be considered trimming from the inside out and opening up the tree might eliminate enough of the flowering to cut down on the intensity of the bloom. Although, Mr. Kielty concluded that trimming the trees could also promote even more flower growth. The Commission discussed thinning of the trees as a viable option and asked if City crews could thin the trees as a possible solution to removal. Supervisor Disco stated that the Easton Drive area will be in the 2007 grid pruning section and that type of pruning could be done by City crews. Mr. Kielty suggested if this was the chosen option it would be best to trim the trees in November to lessen the risk of promoting more flower growth. Following the discussion, Commissioner Grandcolas moved to deny the appeal to remove the S Pittosporum trees at 2100 Easton Drive, with the recommendation that the City crews thin the trees and that an experimental systemic treatment be further investigated to remove the .fragrant f lowers on the trees; seconded(Lauder). Motion carried 6—0—1 (absent Eahey). Chairperson McQuaide thanked Mr. Hornblower and advised him of appeal procedures to Council. Commissioner O'Connor also thanked Mr. Hornblower for his presentation and stated that she was hopeful that the Commission had given him some tools to gain some relief. Request for the Removal of a City-owned Cypress at 1812 Easton Dr. Due to Damage to Driveway and Private Brick Fencing The Commission reviewed Arborist Report from Kevin Kielty (Mayne Tree) and a Hazardous Tree Evaluation from Supervisor Disco. Based on mallet and drill testing as indicated in Mr. Kielty's report, the Cypress tree has been given a 55 rating, which falls in the 50-69 "Fair" category and does not pose an apparent immediate hazard. The driveway has had a 3 foot section removed and replaced with pea gravel to help reduce root damage and asphalt has been placed in areas to relieve tripping hazards. Supervisor Disco's Hazardous Tree Evaluation gave the Cypress tree a hazard rating of 8 (medium), but that the hazard can be abated by thinning and shaping (reducing the end weight) which would save the tree for an additional few years; noting that root pruning could not be done because the hardscape is next to the root buttress of the tree. 3 Request for the Removal of a City-owned Cypress at 1812 Easton Dr. Due to Damage to Driveway and Private Brick Fencing— (Contd.)- Supervisor Disco stated that he met with the previous property owner with the same issues over a year ago and the cuts to the driveway and placement of pea gravel were conducted to change the elevation. He noted that because of the Easton Drive reforestation still being considered he denied the request for removal and referred the applicant to the Beautification Commission for further consideration. Chairperson McQuaide asked if the iron gate could be putting stress on the brick and causing the damage. Mr. Kielty and Supervisor Disco both agreed that it was the roots that are causing damage to the brick fence. Commissioner Grandcolas asked how long the life span of this tree might be. Mr. Kielty stated anywhere from 5 to 25 years; that the foliar condition is good, but the tree has some decay issues at the top. Commissioner Grandcolas confirmed with Kevin Kielty that the tree is not posing a danger. Mr. Kielty stated that "the tree is in a lousy spot, but not bad". Following the discussion, Commissioner Grandcolas stated that he believed there was no compelling reason to approve removal of the Cypress tree at this time. Commissioner O'Connor then moved that the appeal for the removal of the Cypress tree be denied because the tree is a healthy tree; seconded(Grandcolas). Motion carried 6— 0—I (absent Eahey). Long Range Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive- Chairperson McQuaide stated that those present at the Community meeting offered good input and most seemed to be primarily interested in maintaining the same character of Easton Drive and preferring replacement with a Eucalyptus species to heights of up to 70+feet. Although, the group also expressed concerns about losing parking spaces if trees are planted in areas that are currently vacant. She reported that based on a list of trees from, Robert Santos (UC Stanislaus) the Committee has developed a list of Eucalyptus trees to be considered that are wind hearty, drought tolerant, and some that also meet the height criteria. Chairperson McQuaide then asked Kevin Kielty (Mayne Tree) if there were any Eucalyptus experts he could recommend that could assist the Committee by reviewing the list of Eucalyptus trees to determine those that would meet the standards expressed. Mr. Kielty stated that Barrie Coate was the foremost authority on the subject of Eucalyptus trees but that Dave Docktor from the City of Palo Alto and Rob Weatherill from Advanced Tree Care would also be good choices and added that specie selection is critical. Following a brief discussion, the Commission agreed that the Committee conduct further research on reforesting Easton Drive with the Eucalyptus specie and contact one of the experts mentioned by Mr. Kielty. City Streets with No Trees & P.G.&E. Pruning Practices in the City of Burlingame — Committee Report—These items were tabled to the next regularly scheduled meeting. NEFvFv BrJSffdESS— Nominating Committee Appointment for August Election of Officers— Chairperson McQuaide appointed Commissioners Lauder and Carney to develop a list of nominees for the positions of Chairperson, Vice Chair, and Secretary to be presented at the August Commission meeting for the election of officers. 4 REPORTS– Superintendent 1) Tree Crew conducted some site specific watering of young street trees. 2) Street Tree Removals – Superintendent Richmond submitted information to the Commission on the removal of 3 City owned street trees: A) A Coast Live Oak on Vancouver just off Easton (tree was under utilities) was removed; a major lateral on the tree split near its union with the main stem, and removal was necessary. The call came on July 3; it was necessary to remove most of the canopy before the holiday for public safety. B) A pine in Washington Park in serious decline due to Pine Pitch Canker will be removed. C) An Elm tree on Edgehill, which is infected with Dutch Elm disease will be removed. 3) Scalloped leaves on Eucalyptus trees are appearing in Burlingame—Skyline, Ray Park, California Drive. The damage is done by Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetle. Some of the larvae may have been killed by a released natural predator wasp. The beetle will not kill the trees. A UC Extension handout on the insect was made available for Commission review. Kevin Kielty, (Mayne Tree) – By way of information Mr. Kielty reported that Sudden Oak Death has just been confirmed on a private Oak tree, East of 280 on Summit Drive in Hillsborough. He briefly explained to the Commission the symptoms, complications, and serious impacts this disease can have on the Urban Forest. Lauder– Commissioner Lauder stated that she received an email from former Commissioner Hesselgren regarding a `Slog" complaining about the garbage around the City, reporting that visitors to the City are even complaining about the trash around the City; she wondered if the Commission could address this issue. Commissioner Grandcolas stated comments about the trash has been an ongoing issue during his service on the Commission, that it has been mentioned frequently, and that perhaps it is time to make this issue a high profile for the Commission. Commissioner Lauder also remarked on how beautiful the flowers are at the Train Station. Superintendent Richmond noted that the department has recently received a $500 donation from the Garden Club in Hillsborough for future plantings at the SP Circle. Commissioner Lauder noted that former Commissioner Locke had noted that the plantings at Hillside Circle are dying and was wondering if work can be done in that area again. McQuaide - Chairperson McQuaide reminded and encouraged the Commissioners to volunteer some of their time working with Commissioners Lauder and former Commissioner Locke in their efforts to enhance the I01Broadway triangle. There being no further business, Vice Chair Grandcolas adjourned the meeting at 7:50 pm. Respectfully submitted, Karlene Harvey Recording Secretary 5 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA July 24, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the July 24, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 p.m. I1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Terrones Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi, Osterling, Vistica (Osterling arrived at 8:15 p.m. and left at 8:35 p.m.) Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Senior Planner, Maureen Brooks; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. MINUTES The minutes of the July 10, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA The Chair noted that he would hold the option open to move the consent calendar item when the commission reached that point in the meeting. There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue,noted that she had counted all the projects which have been processed through the design review since it began and it is almost 300, few bear any visual relationship to the houses removed, the number is significant; designers should be required to propose really new designs because these new houses are the driving force of change in the neighborhoods. The developers are quick to learn the language; they know the Commission has no say about the interior,this is not right since the floor plan drives the exterior design. Make two requests:it is time to pay attention to the floor plans of houses and Commission should take a field trip to see the impact of the new residential construction. There were no further comments from the floor. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1300 SANCHEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-2 - APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANDARD UNCOVERED PARKING SPACE LENGTH AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND LOCATION OF WINDOWS FOR A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (STEVEN PEDIGO, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TWYLA KABATCHNICK, PROPERTY OWNER) PR111-T PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Need to readdress the findings for the conditional use permits and variance,ones presented cite only existing conditions, need to be based on physical hardships on the property; • Review building code requirements for this structure, if they are not met, indicate clearly on the plans how they will be met; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 24, 2006 • Clarify when applicant first contacted the contractor,when he hired the contractor to work on the garage, and how it happened that work was done without a building permit; • State that this is a repair, please clarify since saw all new material with a few recycled members, explain how it was that nothing added and that this is a repair; • Survey markers should be in place before applicant returns to the Planning Commission; • Contractor's sign has been on this property a long time, so long that it has become an advertisement, it should be removed or dramatically reduced in size; • Review in the staff report what happens when there is a series of repairs on a building,when does it become a new building; This item was set for the regular action calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:16 p.m. Chair Brownrigg asked, and all commissioners agreed,that they had visited all the projects on the calendar tonight. 2. 3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE,ZONED C-2,SUBAREA D-APPLICATION FOR ANTENNA EXCEPTION TO INSTALL WALL MOUNTED ANTENNAS ON AN EXISTING BUILDING (OMNIPOINT/T- MOBILE,APPLICANT;MSA ARCHITECTURE&PLANNING,INC.,ARCHITECT;3 CALIFORNIA DRIVE LLC, PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Ask the applicant how they will address the exposed conduit up to the upper roof and down to the equipment, provide a letter describing how this would be handled, painted to match the wall, concealed, etc; • Color photo shows screens to be 1.5 to 3 feet projections,but in visual simulation not in scale with wall projection, document wall projection and relationship between screens and this wall, revise photo simulation; • Would like to visit a location where these same screens are installed,provide location in this area so can see them in place. Chair Brownrigg set this item for the consent calendar with commission concurrence. He noted it should be brought back when all the information has been provided,checked by staff and there is space on an agenda. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. 3. 1731 ADRIAN ROAD#11,ZONED RR-APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR GROUP INSTRUCTION(TRAINING FACILITY)(TODD PAWLOWSKI, VIRGIN AMERICA, APPLICANT; GEORGE S. AVANESSIAN, ARCHITECT; ROBERT J. MANTEGANI, PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: • Conditional use permit should be specific and limited to this use; • Bussing should be required and because of the limited number of parking spaces available to this suite on site,busses should be limited to small vans,large buses should not be brought to this site or parked on the street nearby. -� 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 24, 2006 Chair Brownrigg set this item for the consent calendar with commission concurrence. He noted it should be brought back when all the information has been provided,checked by staff and there is space on an agenda. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant,a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Brownrigg noted that he would have to recuse himself for the consent item at 1535 Vancouver Avenue because he lives within 500 feet of the project. He asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call 3066 Hillside Drive item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. 4a. 3066 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING(MIKE MA,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;MIMI SIEN, PROPERTY OWNER) (44 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Deal noted that he did not want to call 3066 Hillside Drive off the consent calendar but he would like to amend the conditions of approval to require: • that the applicant retain the original front porch without a clear-story, triangular window over the front door- which the applicant indicated he was willing to do; C. Auran moved for approval of the consent item at 3066 Hillside Drive with the amendment that the originally approved porch without a window over the front door be included in the project. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote to approve the consent item at 3066 Hill side Drive with the addition of one condition regarding the front porch. The motion passed on a voice voted 4-0-3 (Cers. Cauchi, Osterling, Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. Chair Brownrigg then asked if the applicant for item 4b, 1535 Vancouver Avenue,was in the audience. He was. The Chair noted that at this time there was not a quorum of the Commission present to act on this project, however, C. Osterling who had a work emergency would arrive later in the meeting so that the commission could act on this item tonight. For this reason he would continue the consent calendar until C. Osterling arrived. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 5. 1315 SANCHEZ AVENUE,ZONED R-2—APPLICATION FOR LOT COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (JOHN SCHLENKE, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;ELISEY SOKOLIK,PROPERTY OWNER)(71 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: KRISTINA WOERNER Reference staff report July 24, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if the FAR 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 24, 2006 shown for this project includes the detached garage? Staff noted that it did and the bonus is up to 400 SF,if the detached garage is smaller than 400 SF, applicant only gets the amount actually in the garage. -� Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. John Schlenke, architect; Elisey Sokolik, daughter, Alex Sokolik property owner,represented the project.This is a single story house because the applicant is unable to climb to a second story. Property owner noted that he has health problems and needs a room the size proposed so that he can get around with a cane, the other rooms in the house are too small. Needs the separate bath and room for privacy and independence when there are visitors in the house. Commissioners asked if the applicant lives by himself. Applicant noted that he did. Commissioners noted that they need to think about the impact of this construction in the next 20 years and this approval goes with the property, would like to approve but this is a large request,seems to be space which could be saved by consolidation of the bathrooms for example, and other ways to reduce the floor plan and lot coverage; appears this addition could easily be converted to a second unit,this would be harder if the two bathrooms were consolidated into a single larger bathroom; cannot find the exceptional circumstances on this lot,might be for less given lot size if the footprint were reduced, asked for change at study and none was given; Commissioner noted that the property is zoned R-2, if did create a second unit there is no place for the on site parking. Applicant noted needed space for an exercise machine. Other comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Question of code compliance comes up a lot from older residents who want to add to their houses so that they do not need to move, if applicant can reduce lot coverage to within a point or two,commission can tie future development on the property into that,require removal if want to expand later. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comments: CA noted that could add a condition which would not allow FAR to increase on the lot over what is present and that the envelope and foot print cannot be changed,so would need to return to the Commission to make any change to the structure; uncomfortable have recent experience,do not want to commit future Commission,could see a request for 43%lot coverage not being a special privilege since 41%is a minor modification, this is a substandard lot and commission does need to consider what people want. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Auran noted he agreed that there is some justification for a smaller exception to lot coverage and made a motion to deny without prejudice this application for 46% lot coverage, with this action the applicant can come back with a reduced project. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Commission comment on the motion: willing to consider an overage of lot coverage,but not to the extent requested,can revise and return with this motion;CA noted with an FAR limit the applicant could not add a second floor to this footprint,could be granted to address this applicant's special needs,would need to come back to the commission to remove later if want to expand,however, cannot remove the applicant's right to petition the commission in the future. Commissioner noted that he would not mind seeing a couple of alternatives at study if the applicant wishes to resubmit. Chair Brownrigg called for a denial without prejudice on the request to increase the floor area to 46%. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Cauchi, Osterling, Vistica absent). 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 24, 2006 6. 1601 HOWARD AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR FRONT SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING (MARGARET JENSEN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; PETER SANO, DESIGNER) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: KRISTINA WOERNER Reference staff report July 24, 2006,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Margaret Jensen, 1601 Howard Avenue,applicant,noted that the way Crescent Avenue curves, all of the houses have varying setbacks but match the curve of the street, this house follows that pattern so it lines up with the others. Commissioners asked: has applicant considered putting tile instead of stucco molding at the top of the roof edge, it would go with the Spanish style of the house. The applicant noted that Styrofoam molding with stucco applied over it is proposed,molding would go below the existing metal cap on the roof to provide a softer line at the upper edge. Would applicant be willing to add a chimney to the gas fireplace to make it look like a true fireplace,it would add aesthetic value. Yes. Original plans showed shutters removed,asked that they be put back but not shown on the drawings,would applicant agree to a condition requiring that the shutters be installed that mimic the existing ones in size and shape? The applicant notes that will agree to put on shutters; the ones that are there now are 30 years old and will be replaced. Commissioners noted that the French doors shown at family room are proposed to open out and an 8-inch drop is shown to the patio,building code requires that the drop to the patio be less if the doors open out. The applicant notes that the patio will be raised or the door swing could open inward. Would like to see tile on parapet, it is typical to use Spanish the to define the roof edge. Commissioners asked why the parapet with flat roof was not carried through for the addition to match the existing structure. The applicant noted that originally there were pitched roofs on certain details of the house, rather not have a tar and gravel roof on the addition, there have been leakage problems with the existing flat roof. C. Osterling arrived at 8:15 p.m. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioner comment: Would like to see tile added at the top edge of the roof,would enhance the charm of the house, should add shutters to mimic what now exists, replace with same size shutters; don't have a problem with the pitched roof, agree that tar and gravel roof can be a problem,they have a tendency to leak, roof as proposed is okay;variance can be justified because of the placement of the existing house on the lot this is the most logical place for the addition, a chimney should be added to the fireplace to add charm. C. Deal 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 June 9, 2006 (Sheets 1 through 10 and L-1) and the plan submitted to the Planning Department stamped July 12, 2006 (Sheet 11),with the following changes: that tile shall be added at the top edge of the roof to visually �. cover the flashing;that the existing shutters shall be replaced with shutters of the same size and shape; and that a chimney should be added to the gas fireplace on the exterior of the house; and that any changes to the 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 24, 2006 footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 26, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's and NPDES Coordinator's May 30,2006 memos and the Recycling Specialist's May 31,2006 memo; 3) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect,engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details (trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street;and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 8) 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; 9) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,interior or exterior,shall require a demolition permit; 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 11) that the project shall meet all the -� requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2(C.Osterling abstaining and Cers.Cauchi and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS (Consent Calendar continued) Chair Brownrigg noted that C. Osterling had arrived, and that the commission would now act on the remainder of the Consent Calendar.He reminded the audience that he had to recuse himself from action on this item because he lives within 500 feet of the project. Chair Brownrigg left the chambers. Vice Chair Deal took over as Chair. Vice-Chair Deal asked if the applicant,any Commissioner,or anyone in the audience want to remove 1535 Vancouver Avenue from the Consent Calendar. Pat Giorni,a resident,asked to have the item removed from the consent calendar because this house is almost the same house as 1443 Balboa, and that house had not required a height exception, so why did this one? 4b. 1535 VANCOUVER AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (GARY PARTEE, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JAMES CHU, CHU DESIGN&ENGR.,INC.,DESIGNER- -� (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: KRISTINA WOERNER 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 24, 2006 Reference staff report July 24, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff how height was measured. SP noted that height is measured from average top of curb at the front of the house; lot slope has the greatest impact on height measurement. There were no further comments from staff. Vice Chair Auran opened the public hearing. James Chu, 39 West 43rd Avenue, San Mateo, and Gary Partee, contractor,represented the project. He noted that the reason the house at 1433 Balboa was 30 feet tall is that the pitch of the roof was different;also the second floor layout was different. Knew neighbors on Vancouver did not want a Colonial, this time tried for a style which would satisfy the neighbors, invited them all to see the plans before they submitted, only three came, but felt that they were happy with this design. Additional comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, this is essentially the same second floor as the house on Balboa,with a bump out on the left side at the master bedroom,an increase in the slope of the roof and a French style. On Balboa they reduced the height to 30 feet because the neighbors opposed it;this lot is only 100 SF larger, it is flat; should be able to meet the height limit. Applicant noted that the layout is directed by what people want in a floor plan, this layout is not identical to Balboa. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted: the height issue is minor,it is a 2'-5"wide by 13'-4"long area which extends over 30 feet by a maximum of 2'-5" at the ridge,the impact on the total mass and bulk is minimal, certainly within the range for a special permit since it contributes to the consistent and overall architectural style of the structure; not reviewing 1433 Balboa this evening, it is not relevant, most houses in the city have similar layouts because the majority of the lots have the same configuration, long and narrow. C. Auran noted that the special permit for height was needed to complete the architectural style which is allowed in the design guidelines and consistent with the intent of a special permit and moved to approve the project at 1535 Vancouver Avenue by resolution with the following conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped June 21, 2006, Sheets A.1 through A.7 and L.1; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's and City Engineer's June 9,2006 memos,the Fire Marshal's June 8,2006 memo and the NPDES Coordinator's and Recycling Specialist's June 12,2006 memos are met; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors,which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s),moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subject to design review; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect,engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 6) that all air ducts,plumbing vents,and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street;and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 8) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 24, 2006 regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 9) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new -� construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit and that all construction debris boxes shall be kept on site for the duration of the work on this project; 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 11) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code,2001 edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame. C. Osterling seconded the motion. Comment on the motion: last thing want a designer to do is to clip a roof in order to meet the height limit, the flat portion of the roof not only hurts the architectural character of the project but is can be a maintenance problem; the applicant did a good job on this design. Vice Chair Deal called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project. The motion passed on a4-0-1- 2(C.Brownrigg abstaining,Cers. Cauchi and Vistica absent)voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. C. Osterling left the dais and the meeting at 8:35 p.m. 7. 1505 BALBOA AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW,TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (MICHAEL AND AMY GONG,APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS;AND JOHN STEWART,AIA,ARCHITECT) (53 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report July 24,2006,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments.Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. The applicant was not present,but several residents were in the audience wishing to speak regarding the project. Commissioners decided to hear the public testimony, comment on the project, and then continue the item until a time when the applicant could be present and address any issues raised. Christina Habelt; 1509 Balboa Avenue,James Cacciato, 1600 Adeline Drive,and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke, asked how would the style of the proposed house be described, not sure what defines the style; at last meeting,the Commission asked for more articulation,not sure what that means,only changes can see that were made are that one window was added and another was taken away,will see a huge mass of wall, there is a similar wall on a new house at 1464 Vancouver, it is massive, still have concern about design;met with owner, had discussed modifications to the fence along the shared property line, don't see that change on plans; the fireplace as proposed is massive, concerned with size and coverage of proposal, understand that it falls within the zoning code limits,but it is still too big; this is a spec house, owner has built others in Burlingame,will not live there,have a few suggestions: if front setback were increased to 20 feet and house were pushed back it would not be so imposing,will tower over the one-story house next door, could have better siting; the porch entryway extends into the front setback, appears to bring the building closer to the street,that is another reason to set it back,would not be so massive if it was set back;chimneys are overly large for a gas vented fireplace;and since this is a five-bedroom spec house,should have less floor -� area to reduce mass and bulk. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 24, 2006 CA Anderson advised the Commission that comments can be made at this time and staff will pass them on to the applicant to address before the project comes back to the Commission for action. Commissioners made the following comments regarding the project: • Reducing the mass of the house by burying it is inappropriate, house looks buried; concerned with submerging property by 2—3 feet, not a good solution to the height problem; creates other problems; • Don't like the idea of a flat roof, not the proper solution, if this is to be a Spanish style house should propose something different; • Rafter spacing is shown as 36", is that the intent? • Like to see the tile details on the drawing, as it is currently drawn, it looks like a composition shingle roof, • Concerned about the rear element, facade will be massive; • Concerned with massing on right side of front elevation; • Front elevation of garage shows curved wall on sides, looks flat on the side elevation, like to see how much curve there is, tile is not drawn in on garage roof, is that the proposed material? • What material will be used on the roof of the house? • There are a few areas where the materials are not called out,need to show on plans,what is the material on the awning; • There should be a tile roof on the bays, consistent with the Spanish style; • Clarify what is the logic on which downspouts have ornamental leader heads, should be carried throughout; • Not enough articulation on the right side elevation, elements appear tacked on; and • Concerned about the mass of the two chimneys, two are one too many, it creates an industrial feel; Commissioners requested that the applicant bring in response to these items;the project will be brought back at a time when the items are addressed. C. Terrones moved to continue the item until a time when the applicant has addressed the Commission's comments and there is space on an agenda. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cers. Cauchi, Osterling and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:57 p.m. 8. 1840 OGDEN DRIVE,ZONED TW—APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP,DESIGN REVIEW,CONDOMINIUM PERMIT,SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR LOT COVERAGE FOR A NEW,4-STORY,45- UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM WITH TWO LEVELS OF UNDERGROUND PARKING(ALEX NOVELL,BURLINGAME HILLS MANOR,LLC,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER AND TOBY LEVY,LEVY DESIGN PARTNERS,ARCHITECT)(36 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report July 24, 2006, with attachments. SP Brooks presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments.Thirty conditions were suggested for consideration,including the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. John Ward, 792 Willborough Road; Toby Levy, project architect, 90 South Park, San Francisco; John Hickey, 60 South Market Street, San Jose; and Alex Novell, property owner represented the project, noting that this project provides an opportunity to fulfill the 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 24, 2006 objectives of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan to provide high density housing and transit oriented development within walking distance of the Caltrain and BART station. The project architect reviewed the changes made to the plans to address the Commission's design comments,gave a lot of thought to the issue of the front "build-to" line,revised the front to have a 30" high stoop with a 2'-6"railing, total will be 5'-6"high,working with the intent of the requirement and compatibility with neighboring properties, residential building to the north still has a long life,is set back 15',the office building to the south will most likely be replaced using the TW regulations, this project will provide a transition between the two; living spaces on the first floor need some separation from the street for privacy,the porches will provide a semi- private area for bedrooms that are facing street, the activity at the stoops will enliven the street. She presented a materials board,noting that the design has been revised to incorporated stone rather than brick, will provide more texture and richness,and more vertical elements were added to complement the stone,the copper being used will keep its color,the cedar planks will only be used as railings for the porches,there will be a 6" recess for the windows to give depth, they will be edged with a thicker material, mechanical equipment on the roof will either be in a well or it will be screened;the landscape architect added a sink and bathroom near the courtyard, and the planting was modified to carry the curve of the planting to the front of the street, a bench was incorporated along the street. The architect continued,noting that have incorporated many energy efficient and sustainable elements,will not be full LEEDS compliant, but will embrace the concept where possible, the stone is manufactured in Napa,will use low VOC, non-toxic paints, the transformer will be housed in a Cedar enclosure, increased the guest parking by having only one assigned space for each one bedroom unit,ask that condition No. 11 be modified, it now states that the designate spaces can only be assigned to owner, would like that revised to include"occupants,"in case the units are rented. -1 Commissioners asked: The stone finish proposed,will it be stucco stone? Yes. Looking at the fascia detail, note that the top of the fascia will be painted with a vented wood soffit,could that soffit be made of Cedar? Yes, it is not specified but could use Cedar. Like the change from brick to stone, nice palette proposed; where will the kids play, there are nearby schools but would have to cross busy streets to get there, should have some amenities for children on site. Hoping that the courtyard space will be used,there are only a few units facing into it,not meant for activities such as soccer,meant for quiet play,the grass area and the area under the trellis would be likely play areas,hoping residents will use the private decks and porches,on the south the patios extend over to cover the parking area,are fairly large,the courtyard area was not intended to include playground;but as an area for hanging out with kids,usually play yards are provided in projects with more units,the insurance the condominium association would require for the playground makes it infeasible for smaller projects such as this one, see this as an intergenerational project,will be some kids in the three- bedroom units,but generally see a lower number of families with children in this type of project. Commissioner's questions continued: Would the applicant be willing to consider having the affordable units run for 30 years rather than the 10 years required? The applicant noted that the issue of the inclusionary housing is a big one because of the cost, made the decision when application submitted not to propose 30 years because it was not financially viable,understand it is important,would be willing to propose 15 years as an option, it will add to the cost of the project,each suggestion made on its own is great,but they all add up and add to the project cost,willing to have the five units deed-restricted for 15 years,at this point,plan to retain the units as rentals, but want the option to be able to sell as affordable units if market conditions warrant. Appreciate that a restroom was added near the courtyard and the change in materials, could applicant explain the area where the side setback variance is required? The area where there is an encroachment in the side setback is limited to an area over the parking garage,could have left it open and not required a variance, but wanted to add deck to make it more desirable both for the neighbors and the 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 24, 2006 residents. Concerned about the front setback conforming to the plan,Sunrise project was required to bring their building forward to comply. Commissioners noted that there is an opportunity for activity on these decks as well as to provide privacy from being directly on the street for these units,with the three distinct sets of steps, it will provide a connection to Ogden,units will be more desirable because of the buffer, and have two points of access, one from inside and one from outside. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners noted that the applicant had done a good job addressing the Commission's comments, like the addition of a Cedar soffit under the fascia,would amend condition No. 10 to extend the affordability to 15 years, think the project has addressed the issue of the build-to line, the wall proposed creates a private space for the units,variance is reasonable because if this area were left uncovered,it would be a detriment to both the neighbors and the condominium residents;valid use of conditional use permit for lot coverage,are providing more open space in exchange for the added lot coverage,the environmental document adequately addresses the potential impacts of the project and provides mitigation, would like an amendment to Condition No. 11 that the assigned spaces be for unit owner or occupant, would also like to state that the vehicle shall be registered to the occupant and be operable. C.Deal 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 June 22, 2006, sheets A0.0 through A6.1,L1,L2,L2.1 and L2.2, and that the soffit material shall be Cedar; 2) that the maximum elevation at the top of the roof ridge shall not exceed elevation 100.93"as measured from the average elevation at the top of the curb along Ogden Drive(54.93')for a maximum height of 46-0",and that the top of each floor and final roof ridge shall be surveyed and approved by the City Engineer as the framing proceeds and prior to final framing and roofing inspections. The second level garage floor finished floor elevation shall be elevation 38.10'; garage level one finished floor elevation shall be elevation 46.93; first floor finished floor shall be elevation 57.43';second floor finished floor shall be elevation 67.43';third floor finished floor shall be elevation 77.43 ; fourth floor finished floor shall be elevation 88.93'; and the top of ridge elevation shall be no more than 100.93'. Should any framing exceed the stated elevation at any point it shall be removed or adjusted so that the final height of the structure with roof shall not exceed the maximum height shown on the approved plans; 3) that any changes to the size or envelope of the building, which would include expanding the footprint or floor area of the structure, replacing or relocating windows or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; 4) that the backflow prevention device shall be placed on the side of the courtyard where it will be hidden from both the street and project residents; 5) that the project shall incorporate the following features to comply with general environmental planning principles: a) the glazing on the south side of the building shall be minimized; b) overhangs and recesses shall be provided for the west facing windows; c) the materials for the stone finish shall be manufactured in Napa; d) the paints and interior finishes shall be low VOC;e) native plants shall be used for plant materials to the extent feasible; f) all appliances shall have energy star ratings; 6) that the conditions of the City Engineer's August 24, 2005, memo, the Chief Building Official's July 29, 2005, memo, the Fire Marshal's July 31,2005,memo,the NPDES Coordinator's August 15,2005,memo and the Recycling Specialist's August 1, 2005, memo shall be met; 7) that storage of construction materials and equipment on the street or in the public right-of-way shall be prohibited; 8) that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project, the applicant shall pay the first half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of$14,685.93,made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning Department; 9) that prior to scheduling the final framing inspection for the condominium o- building,the applicant shall pay the second half of the North Burlingame Rollins Road Development fee in the amount of $14,685.93, made payable to the City of Burlingame and submitted to the Planning 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 24,2006 Department; 10) that prior to issuance of a building permit for the project,the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the City to establish the affordability of the five below market rate units required as apart of this project; the affordable units shall be retained as affordable for a period of fifteen years; the applicant shall also submit a below market rate housing plan which shall describe in detail the applicant's proposal for meeting the inclusionary housing requirements as required by Chapter 25.63 of the Burlingame Municipal Code;the applicant shall enter into an agreement with a third-party non-profit organization approved by the City to administer the program; 11) that 'guest parking stall' shall be marked on the eight guest parking spaces and designated on the final map and plans,these stalls shall not be assigned to any unit,but shall be owned and maintained by the condominium association, and the guest stalls shall always be accessible for parking and not be separately enclosed or used for resident storage; and that in addition to the eight guest parking stalls, 85 parking spaces shall be available on site for owners,and none of the on-site parking shall be rented,leased or sold to anyone who does not own or occupy a unit on the site; and that the vehicles shall be registered to the occupant of a unit and shall be operable; 12) that the Covenants Conditions and Restrictions(CC&Rs)for the condominium project shall require that the eight guest parking stalls shall be reserved for guests only and shall not be used by condominium residents; 13) that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit; 14) that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association, an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property,including but not limited to the roof,painting,common area carpets,drapes and furniture; 15) that the trash receptacles, furnaces, and water heaters shall be shown in a legal compartment outside the required parking and landscaping and in conformance with zoning and California Building and Fire Code requirements before a building permit is issued; 16) that any security gate system across the driveway shall be installed a minimum 20'-0'back from the front property line;the security gate system shall include an intercom system connected to each dwelling which allows residents to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 17) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners,set the building envelope; 18) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s)and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 19) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall establish the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height; 20) that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas, a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 21) that this project shall comply with the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management and Conservation Plan together with complete landscape and irrigation plans shall be provided at the time of building permit application; 22) that all site catch basins and drainage inlets flowing to the bay shall be stenciled. All catch basins shall be protected during construction to prevent debris from entering; 23) that project approvals shall be conditioned upon installation of an emergency generator to power the sump pump system; and the sump pump shall be redundant in all mechanical and electrical aspects (i.e., dual pumps,controls, level sensors, etc.). Emergency generators shall be housed so that they meet the City's noise requirement; 24) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 25) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 26) that the applicant shall implement feasible control measures for construction emissions of --� PMIO. Using the methodology outlined in the BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, for projects with less than 4 acres per day of ground disturbance during construction,basic control measures such as watering,covering 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 24, 2006 loose materials during transport, and sweeping would be sufficient to reduce PM10 to less-than-significant levels.Implementation of Mitigation Measure E-1 below would reduce potentially significant localized dust emissions to a less-than-significant level; a) water all active construction areas at least twice daily; b) cover all trucks hauling soil,sand,and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard; c) pave, apply water three times daily, or apply(non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; d) sweep daily(with water sweepers)all paved access roads,parking areas and staging areas at construction sites; e) sweep streets daily(with water sweepers)if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets; 27) that the applicant shall conduct pre-construction surveys for nesting birds and implement protective measures if identified. The removal of trees, shrubs, or weedy vegetation shall be avoided during the February 1 through August 31 bird nesting period to the extent possible. If no vegetation or tree removal is proposed during the nesting period, no surveys shall be required. If it is not feasible to avoid the nesting period,a survey for nesting birds should be conducted by a qualified wildlife biologist no earlier than 14 days prior to the removal of trees, shrubs, grassland vegetation,buildings,grading,or other construction activity. Survey results shall be valid for 21 days following the survey. The area surveyed shall include all construction sites,access roads,and staging areas, as well as areas within 150 feet outside the boundaries of the areas to be cleared or as otherwise determined by the biologist. In the event that an active nest is discovered in the areas to be cleared, or in other habitats within 150 feet of construction boundaries,clearing and construction shall be postponed for at least two weeks or until a wildlife biologist has determined that the young have fledged(left the nest), the nest is vacated, and there is no evidence of second nesting attempts; 28)that the applicant shall implement best management practices to reduce construction noise. The City shall ensure the project applicant incorporates the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor; a) maximize the physical separation between noise generators and noise receptors. Such separation includes, but is not limited to, the following measures: use heavy-duty mufflers for stationary equipment and barriers around particularly noisy areas of the site or around the entire site; use shields, impervious fences, or other physical sound barriers to inhibit transmission of noise to sensitive receptors; locate stationary equipment to minimize noise impacts on the community;and minimize backing movements of equipment;use quiet construction equipment whenever possible;impact equipment(e.g.,jack hammers and pavement breakers) shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically-powered tools. Compressed air exhaust silencers shall be used on other equipment. Other quieter procedures, such as drilling rather than using impact equipment, shall be used whenever feasible; prohibit unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines;select routes for movement of construction-related vehicles and equipment in conjunction with the Burlingame Planning Department so that noise-sensitive areas,including residences and schools,are avoided as much as possible; the project sponsor shall designate a "disturbance coordinator" for construction activities. The coordinator would be responsible for responding to any local complaints regarding construction noise and vibration. The coordinator would determine the cause of the noise or vibration complaint and would implement reasonable measures to correct the problem; the construction contractor shall send advance notice to neighborhood residents within 50 feet of the project site regarding the construction schedule and including the telephone number for the disturbance coordinator at the construction site; 29) that the applicant shall implement measures to reduce construction vibration. The City shall ensure the project applicant incorporates the following practices into the construction documents to be implemented by the project contractor; the project sponsor shall require that loaded trucks and other vibration-generating equipment avoid areas of the project site that are located near existing residential uses to the maximum extent compatible with project construction goals; 30) that the applicant shall conduct protocol and procedures for encountering cultural resources. The following provisions shall be incorporated `-- into the grading and construction contracts to address the potential to encounter currently unknown cultural resources: prior to the initiation of construction or ground-disturbing activities, all construction personnel 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 24, 2006 shall receive environmental training that will include discussion of the possibility of buried cultural and paleontological resources,including training to recognize such possible buried cultural resources,as well as the procedure to follow if such cultural resources are encountered; if potential historical or unique archaeological resources are discovered during construction, all work in the immediate vicinity shall be suspended and alteration of the materials and their context shall be avoided pending site investigation by a qualified archaeological or cultural resources consultant retained by the project applicant. The immediate vicinity wherein work shall be suspended shall be approximately 50 feet from the discovery or within an appropriate distance to be determined by the archaeologist or cultural resources consultant. Construction work shall not commence again until the archaeological or cultural resources consultant has been given an opportunity to examine the findings, assess their significance, and offer proposals for any additional exploratory measures deemed necessary for the further evaluation of and/or mitigation of adverse impacts to any potential historical resources or unique archaeological resources that have been encountered.;if the find is determined to be an historical or unique archaeological resource, and if avoidance of the resource would not be feasible, the archaeological or cultural resources consultant shall prepare a plan for the methodical excavation of those portions of the site that would be adversely affected. The plan shall be designed to result in the extraction of sufficient volumes of non-redundant archaeological data to address important regional research considerations. The work shall be performed by the archaeological or cultural resources consultant, and shall result in detailed technical reports. Such reports shall be submitted to the California Historical Resources Regional Information Center. Construction in the vicinity of the find shall be accomplished in accordance with current professional standards and shall not recommence until this work is completed;the project applicant shall assure that project personnel are informed that collecting significant historical or unique archaeological resources discovered during development of the project is prohibited by law. Prehistoric or Native American resources can 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 can include nails,bottles,or other items often found in refuse deposits;if human remains are discovered, there shall be no further excavation or disturbance of the discovery site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains until the project applicant has complied with the provisions of State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). In general, these provisions require that the County Coroner shall be notified immediately. If the remains are found to be Native American,the County Coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The most likely descendant of the deceased Native American shall be notified by the Commission and given the chance to make recommendations for the remains. If the Commission is unable to identify the most likely descendent, or if no recommendations are made within 24 hours, remains may be re-interred with appropriate dignity elsewhere on the property in a location not subject to further subsurface disturbance. If recommendations are made and not accepted, the Native American Heritage Commission will mediate the problem. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 4-0-3 (Cern. Cauchi,Osterling and Vistica absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS There were no design review items for review. 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 24, 2006 X. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS The commissioners present discussed several issues raised as the Subcommittee continues its work on the El Camino North zoning district. Several of the issues affect the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan. The impact of the existing subdivision pattern and ownership on the planned development in the area was discussed along with how this pattern would affect the character of El Camino and the change anticipated to establish the northern part of El Camino Real as a gateway to the tree-lined portion of the street to the south. The group decided to put this item back on the agenda at a meeting when the full commission was present. Staff suggested that the Subcommittee would not be meeting again immediately, so would target to discuss this item further at a Commission meeting in August, before the Subcommittee's next meeting. X. PLANNER REPORTS Review of City Council regular meeting of July 17, 2006. CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of July 17, 2006. FYI: 1718 Escalante Way- changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Commissioners agreed to the change in roofing materials, although it was noted that some of them felt that this should have been noted on the original plans because the roofing material contributes significantly to the appearance of the house. - FYI: Summary of Planning Programs for the El Camino Corridor. CP Monroe reviewed briefly the number of programs currently focusing on the El Camino Corridor. She noted that awareness of these as the City enters into planning for the downtown area is important since the remaining blocks on El Camino not planned for and where the most change is likely to happen, are in the downtown area. Possibly the city could consider doing an El Camino Corridor study along with the Downtown Specific Plan. Adoption of a C/CAG corridor plan would enable the City to apply for TOD funds for residential development within the corridor. Chair Bownrigg noted that he had received a message from the City Planner informing him of her intention to retire in the Spring of 2007. He wanted to pass on this information to the Commission while acknowledging that she would be fully engaged,no lame duck,until her last day with the city. He noted he was looking forward, with her help, to a busy year for the Commission. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Richard Terrones, Acting Secretary SAMINUTMunapproved 07.24.06.doc 15 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA August 14, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the August 14, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:04 p.m. 11. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling, Terrones and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. MINUTES The minutes of the July 24, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed with Cers. Vistica, Cauchi abstaining because they were not at the meeting; and C. Osterling abstained from all but item 4b 1535 Vancouver, because he was present for only one item to insure a quorum. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Ave., commented on the FYI item, 110 Clarendon Road; C. Deal recused himself and left the chambers because he has a �- business relationship with the applicant; he also noted that he would have to recuse himself from the first study item 1400 Broadway because he lives within 500 feet of the project. He stepped down from the dias and left the chambers. Ms. Giorni noted that the Commission approved this application with a condition that the garage door be replaced with one that is more consistent with the design of the house, the applicant writes in her letter that she wants a door which she can afford, claiming the hardship for not complying to be her budget constraints; applicant owns the house next door and is a participant in a local condominium project, bought this house as a lot, believe this to be a spec house; since there is a record of developing property, to say the door will be upgraded in a number of years is inadequate, think that this item should be brought back to the agenda for public review. From the floor concluded at 7: 10 p.m. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1 . 1400 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE SEATING AREA OF AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (CONNIE MORRIS, BROADWAY GRILL, INC., APPLICANT; ERIC HOLM, CSS ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT; NICK KOROS/TSTN PARTNERSHIP, PROPERTY OWNER PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Deal remained out of the chambers because he lives within in 500 feet of the project site. C. Terrones also recused himself because of a business relationship with the applicant. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: ■ How did they gain 28 seats while adding only 75 SF of floor area? -� ■ Could staff check how the fire department calculates occupancy for restaurants? ■ Can the second floor seating area be used as a private function room? This item was set with unanimous agreement of the seated commissioners for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:17 p.m. Cers. Deal and Terrones returned to the chambers and took their seats on the dais. Chair Brownrigg asked, so the public would be aware, when the full commission was seated, if all commissioners had had an opportunity to visit all the sites on tonight's agenda. All commissioners indicated that they had made site visits to all the project sites on this agenda. 2. 1333 BAYSHORE HIGHWAY, ZONED IB — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR TEMPORARY TENT PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING TENT STRUCTURE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A PARK AND FLY PROGRAM AT AN EXISTING HOTEL(HYATT REGENCY SFO,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: ■ Does the parking count given include the parking area which is now under the tent? ■ Has the hotel had any problems with inadequate parking;and,if so,how have they addressed them? ■ How permanent was the tent structure intended to be when it was installed,seems to be surrounded by a number of permanent structures e.g. ADA access ramp, arbor? ■ Has the tent material(exterior covering)been replaced since the tent was originally approved,if so how often,what is the life expectancy of the exterior skin, and what is its current condition? ■ For the park and fly—if a car stays more than ten days,how are parking fees handled? This item with unanimous agreement was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant,a member of the public or a commissionerprior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Commissioners asked to remove items 3b 127 Loma Vista Drive,3c 860 Fairfield Road, and 3d 1520 Arc Way. There were no requests from the audience to remove items from the consent calendar. 3a. 1320 CARMELITA AVENUE,ZONED R-2—APPLICATION FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(RICHARD TERRONES,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;RICHARD TERRONES AND -� CAROL YASUDA-TERRONES,PROPERTY OWNERS)(64 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER:RUBEN HURIN 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 3e. 1731 ADRIAN ROAD#11,ZONED RR—APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR GROUP INSTRUCTION(TRAINING FACILITY)(TODD PAWLOWSKI, VIRGIN AMERICA, APPLICANT; GEORGE S. AVANESSIAN, ARCHITECT; ROBERT J. MANTEGANI, PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Chair Brownrigg asked for a motion on the remaining items on the consent calendar, 3a 1320 Carmelita Avenue and 3e 1731 Adrian Road#11. C. Vistica moved approval of the consent calendar items 3a 1320 Carmelita Avenue and 3e 1731 Adrian Road #11, based on the facts in the staff reports, Commissioners comments and the findings in the staff reports with recommended conditions in each staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. C. Terrones noted that he would abstain from the vote on item 3a 1320 Carmelita because of a business and personal relationship. C.Cauchi also abstained from the total action. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve item 3a 1320 Carmelita Avenue and it passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Terrones abstaining)voice vote. The motion on item 3e 1731 Adrian Road#I 1 passed on a 6-0- 1 (C. Cauchi abstaining)voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 3b. 127 LOMA VISTA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING(LUIS ROBLES,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JAIME GOMEZ, PROPERTY OWNER) (35 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER(continued from July 10 2006 P C Meeting) CP Monroe presented the staff report. Eleven conditions were proposed. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Luis Robles,designer,represented the project and noted that he would take questions. Plans appear to lack some detail, all items typically seen on plans. To facilitate the review Chair Brownrigg asked for a list of the items lacking on the plans: ■ belly band dimension; ■ size of fascia over the front door; ■ stair material; ■ material used on the rear deck; ■ material used on the rear porch; ■ size of the stucco mold; ■ size and material to be used on the water table band; ■ clarify material on the front columns, all stucco or not; ■ lack of large scale plant material which would rise to the height of the first floor plate and balance with existing trees, could be a vine on the house or large shrubs; ■ look at staircase,as shown will not fit space,do not want it revised in such a way that it affects the front porch; ■ skirt of the roof on the east and south elevations show brackets but are not structurally supported, will this detail work? There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. �. C. Osterling made a motion to continue this item so that the changes can be made and put this item on the consent calendar when the changes detailed by the Commission have been incorporated into the plans and 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 checked by the planning staff. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to the consent calendar when al. the changes identified by the Planning Commission have been incorporated into the plans. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. There is no appeal to this action. The item concluded at 7:40 p.m. 3c. 860 FAIRFIELD ROAD,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND DETACHED ONE-CAR GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; BRIAN AND LAURA HUFF-DOX, PROPERTY OWNERS) (70 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Plr Hurin presented the project. Eleven conditions were proposed for the project. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Roberts, architect, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo, represented the project. Commissioners noted should check the direction of the staircase to the second floor; feel that the articulation added to the north elevation is inadequate, need to increase integration into the design of this component; roof line is one plane over a long first and second story wall, need to adjust window heights and break roof edge like the one in the middle;like landscape additions with plants chosen will create a 30 foot green wall, will be attractive and cover up "bump out" on the wall. There were no further comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Terrones moved to approve the application with the roof line broken similar to the center bay. CA suggested that the item be moved to the consent calendar so that the Commission could review the changes "1 and insure that they fit the way they expect. C. Terrones moved to bring this item back on the consent calendar when the north side elevation issue has been addressed and the plans corrected for the staircase. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: think with the proposed landscaping given its large scale the bumps on the north elevation will be covered up,would favor approving project as it is,the Laurel will extend up to the second floor;agree that the change in the roof line as suggested should be made,would like to see some effort made to address fagade; could consider, if motion passes, a fireplace with a chimney in the upstairs family room would break the roof line as well. Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to continue this item to the consent calendar when the changes have been made to the north elevation and plans and they have been checked by staff. The motion failed 3-4 (Cers. Auran, Brownrigg, Osterling, Vistica dissenting) on a roll call vote. C.Osterling made a motion to approve this project as submitted by resolution with the following conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 21, 2006, sheets 1 through 5, and date stamped June 28, 2006, Sheet 6, Sections and Garage Plans; and that any changes to building materials,exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 16,2006,memo,the City Engineer's June 16,2006,memo,the Fire Marshal's June 14,2006, memo,Recycling Specialist's June 21,2006,memo,and NPDES Coordinator's June 19,2006,memos,shal' be met; 3) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement, first or second floors, or garage, 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 Planning Commission review; 5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect,engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7) that prior to final inspection,Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8) that all air ducts,plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined,where possible,to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9) that the project shall complywith the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,interior or exterior,shall require a demolition permit; 10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;and 11) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: was not here at the last meeting,is it appropriate for me to vote? CA noted that he item was on for study previously so that C. Cauchi could vote on it tonight; could the addition of an eave over the bump out on the north wall be added? Staff noted that there was no agreement on the detail of this addition. Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve the project as submitted with revised landscape plans and'bump out'on the north wall,including the 11 conditions in the staffreport. The motion passed on a 4-3 (Cers. Cauchi, Deal and Terrones dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 3d. 1520 ARC WAY, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LOCATION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR PARKING IN THE FRONT SETBACK FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (MARK ROBERTSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; TOM AND LIZ O'CONNOR, PROPERTY OWNERS) G 12 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Hurin presented the staff report. Sixteen conditions were included in the staff report. He noted that a letter from the neighbor at 816 Walnut Avenue was at the commissioners desks this evening. Commissioners asked: neighbor letter questions location of the shared fence, the plans show the fence 7 feet away when the fence is one foot inboard of the property line,is this an issue for the commission;how is such a dispute resolved? CA noted that a licensed land surveyor would establish the lot line and setback before a building permit will be issued,if the dispute continues,the Superior Court would need to resolve it. It is to the benefit of both property owners to resolve this issue because if the house is built at the wrong location it would be nonconforming. Is a site survey required? CA noted it would be when the foundation is �-- set, not necessarily at planning submittal. Commissioner noted that a survey is included in the plans. CA noted that surveys can be disputed. There were no further questions of staff. 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, architect, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo, represented the project. He noted that he designed the house based on the survey, the applicant does not—., propose to relocate the fence and does not intend to move on plans so will not affect the neighbor, sidt setback is taken from property line shown on survey. Commission expressed concern about the garage on the Arc Way frontage being out of scale with the residential uses on that side of the street, acknowledged larger scale across street and on El Camino,can the plate height of the garage be dropped from 9 feet to 8'-1" there is a 15 %slope on the driveway and it rises 3 feet,this is a full 2 car garage with a lot of mass; think the garage location is not an optimal site solution separated to increase floor area,an attached garage would do three things for this project: increase the daylight for the neighbor, allow the garage to be shifted an additional one foot from the neighbor, and would reduce the scale of the building, garage should be integrated into the house,would not affect living space,no cost,cannot support as it is, solution should not be driven by the code but by what best for the lot and that constitutes a hardship; concerned about the driveway up in front on Walnut,paved front yard is out of character on this residential street,would like to see the front apron reduced and greened up like front yards in Burlingame;like the pass through the rear yard into the driveway area,breaks up the planes on the rear elevation;opposed this project before because of the paving up to the front door,not see hardship,rather typical to have two street frontages, like the separation and treatment at the rear with the detached garage, the driveway slope diagram scale makes the driveway look steeper than it really is; concerned about the detail on the front porch, looks awkward to have the 6x6 posts down to stone halfway up the column,house has a lot of mass and these columns are too spindly for the mass,need a whole column;cannot see dropping the plate on the garage 6 inches,it would still be 15 feet above adjacent grade,need to think about another solution for the garage,a dormer might reduce the scale,a gable may hide the roof from the rear yard;concerned about the driveway profile,is there radius at the top to provide clearance for an suburban? Additional public comment: Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue, seems backward not to require a survey at planning submittal,if error found later,have to come back to commission. CA noted that the burden is on the applicant/property owner, surveys are expensive so it is hard to ask for before they know they have a project. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comments: not agree that Arc Way is residential, almost commercial in scale, El Camino is noisy and there is a predominance of residential condominiums,have no problem with layout of this project including the paved front apron,Walnut is narrow at this point,there is no place to park,this paving would add off-street parking,the 22 foot width of street with parking on both sides leaves two 8 foot lanes which is a hardship on the other residents in the area;agree that paving at front desirable but not necessary to drive up to the front door,landscaping should be increased in the front to enhance the entry;do not know where the apron ends at the front if reduce size and add landscaping, would make front look better, like the house, paving at front only problem; opposed at study because of front yard paving, live where there is little on- street parking,neighbors not allowed to pave their front yards to provide parking,can get 5 cars on this site, OK to have one space accessed from Walnut and reduce paving,porch columns should be changed,garage is OK; can support paving for one space in front yard,the hedge will visually cover the area,but whole area should not be paved,Arc Way is residential,if look down the street it is finely scaled residential use, a full size double car garage rising 12 feet over the sidewalk will increase the mass on the street; can reduce the mass on Arc Way by moving the garage back and attaching it to the house,would enhance the rear elevation not create a separate mass. C. Deal noted that if the garage were connected to the house the project would require a variance for floo area, do not see the hardship on this lot to justify an FAR variance, so the garage should be left where it is, detached off Arc Way,conditions should be added to reduce the plate height of the garage to 8'-1",to reduce 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 the parking area in the front yard off Walnut to provide for one car and some turning area so paving would extend to the point on the plans where the"o"is in the word"apron"with the remainder of the paved area at the front to be removed and landscaped, a revision to the columns so that they work with the mass of the �-' structure better , and that the pitch of the garage roof be changed from 5.5/12 to 4.5/12; and moved by resolution with the following amended conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 21,sheets 1 and 3-6,and date stamped June 12,2006,sheets 2 and 7,and that any changes to building materials,exterior finishes,footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;and that the plate height of the garage shall be reduced to 8'-1"above adjacent grade,that the paved parking area in the front yard off Walnut shall be reduced to the point where the'o'appears in the word'apron'on the submitted plans in order to provide for parking for one car with some turning area with the remainder of the paved area on the Walnut Avenue frontage to be removed and replaced with landscaping, that the columns shall be redesigned so that they work better with the mass of the structure, and that the pitch of the roof of the garage be changed to a maximum of 4.5/12; 2) that a tree protection plan, completed by a licensed professional, shall submitted and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit; 3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 7,2006,memo,and the City Engineer's,Fire Marshal's,Recycling Specialist's and NPDES Coordinator's May 8, 2006 memos shall be met; 4) that demolition for removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement,first or second floors,or garage, 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 Planning Commission review; 6) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 7) that prior to underfloor frame inspection the surveyor shall certify the first floor elevation of the new structure(s) and the various surveys shall be accepted by the City Engineer; 8) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect,engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in the project,the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of per ury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 9) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 10) that prior to final inspection,Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 11) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible,to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street;and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 12) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame; 13) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 14) that during demolition of the existing residence, site preparation and construction of the new residence, the applicant shall use all applicable "best management practices" as identified in Burlingame's Storm Water Ordinance,to prevent erosion and off-site sedimentation of storm water runoff; 15) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 16) that the project is subject to the state-mandated water conservation program, and a complete Irrigation Water Management Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 Comment on the motion. Proposed parking at the front will only work if a hammer head is provided,paving should be cut off where the letter"o"is in the word apron on the plans,the maker and second to the motion accepted the amendment to the conditions. Think that there is a hardship on this lot, it is a standards size with street frontages on both ends,cannot push the detached garage to the rear because of the sidewalk and another street,so there is merit for a floor area variance,then could eliminate the peak on the garage roof and reduce mass, cannot support this as now proposed; if garage integrated into the house would create a variance,do not see the justification for the additional 400 SF,okay to separate the garage;the 5'walkway between structures makes the massing worse,point of FAR is to reduce the mass and bulk,the 5' gap and peaked roof on the garage do the opposite. Noted that the roof peak of the garage could be reduced by changing the pitch from 5.5/12 to 4.5/12, maker and second to the motion agreed to add a condition to change the pitch of the garage roof. Would like to see changes as an FYI so can tell out the project will turn out. Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed 6-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. 4. 1824 BARROILHET AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (PAUL AND MIHAELA HOWIE,APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS;MARK ROBERTSON,DESIGNER) (37 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER:ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report August 14,2006 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Mark Robertson, architect, 918 E. Grant Place, San Mateo, represented the project. Noted pleased with the end result of work with design reviewer,but applicant is opposed to the brick water table and on the front of the structure supporting the stairs, chimney will stay brick,the design reviewer felt that the brick was an important feature to the design;applicant would like the entire house to be stucco with no wainscoting. Commissioner noted that plans show gutters but no down spouts would be a nice feature on the front of the house,architect noted left off but will add;Commissioner noted that problem with the drawings on the location of the columns should be set in behind the front railing on all plans; commissioner noted think need brick to off set the height of this structure,height is more than usually allow and house is set on a rise,like cornice,brick one key element which ties it all together,cannot landscape in front because it is all paved;Commissioners noted that if the chimney cap is really that wide at the top it will look awkward,should be trimmed down;top of chimney is brick,could step in the top couple of courses would increase shadow;there is area in front of front stairs where a planter could be installed to add landscaping,could be narrow,2'deep sufficient,house lacks landscaping;when visited site noted that there is a lot of plaster on this site-retaining walls,garden walls,if the skirt is plaster need to tie together in another way, acceptable to keep brick on the rest of the house and remove on the front stoop area. Comment from the floor: Mihaela Howie,property owner;Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa Avenue;Hugh Tuck, live across street.Applicant noted having the entire structure stucco would look clean and elegant,submitted pictures of existing gray pavers in a pattern that would conflict with brick,tried to meet design reviewer half way,kept the line but the brick does not look good. Commissioner asked about adding divided lights on the upper story,would provide a better feel; architect noted that the owner does not like any grids in windows, so does not want at all. Commissioner noted aware pavers in the front yard provide a lot of parking but,aF -� noted in previous item,paved front yards are not consistent with the neighborhood pattern in Burlingame, the house is up and massive, there is nothing to break the mass, like to see landscaping,providing lots of 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 parking is not an issue. Applicant noted that lot is 52 feet wide, and way laid out barely room at the front between the wall and the stairs to park, cannot maneuver unless very good driver, now have minimum distance to get from street;there is no place for more landscaping,there is a planter to the left and additional `-- planter parallel to the right side of the front fence,have added as much landscaping as can. This proposal is a change from the original,brick water table common on colonial;trying to make the front of the building and pavers a major feature,brick should be included and should be weathered,not new,to add"age";can the chimney be lowered,if reduced and narrowed it would become a focal point of the taller house;unfortunate about the parking apron if not change wrought iron rail and front wall,the wrought iron fence at the front of the lot should be made solid so the hardscape is not visible from the street; overall pretty well designed. Live across the street, no predominant architectural style in this corner of Burlingame,personally not like brick,cars passing by at 40 m.p.h.will not see the brick,different design on this lot will not affect property values in the neighborhood. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comment: Commission recently approved a Colonial with stucco,think should keep the water table,stucco is okay,concerned about eliminating the grids at the front,they are a necessary element for the style, should at least use double hung with a center dividing bar. C. Terrones noted think that it is critical to have some base element, there is a mish mash of windows,no grids is all right but should have some consistency, single pane OK, design has come a long way,move to approve with a stucco water table and support structure for the front stairs and a 2 foot by 12 foot curb surrounded with a raised planter box at the base of the support structure for the stairs,leave windows as they are shown on the plans,narrow the overhang at the top of the chimney and reduce the width of the chimney at the top,and show the columns at the front porch property located on the floor plan,by resolution with the following conditions in the staff report as amended: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 18,2006, sheets 1 through 8,with a stucco water table instead of brick including the front of the support structure for the stairs at the front of the house,and a two foot deep by twelve foot long curbed or at grade planter shall be installed at the base of the support structure for the stairs and planted with shrubs or vines to cover the stair support structure,the overhang at the top of the chimney shall be narrowed and the width of the top of the chimney shall be narrowed,and the columns at the front porch shall be properly located on the floor plan; and that any changes to building materials,exterior finishes,footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 10,2006 memo,the City Engineer's April 17, 2006 memo, the Fire Marshal's April 19, 2006 memo, the City Arborist's April 12, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's May 3,2006 memo,and the NPDES Coordinator's April 10,2006 memo shall be met; 3) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement,first or second floors,or garage,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 Planning Commission review; 5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7) that prior to final inspection,Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8) that all air ducts,plumbing 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 vents, and flues shall be combined,where possible,to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,2001 Edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame; 10) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of a structure,interior or exterior,shall require a demolition permit; and 11) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C.Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: planter box can be above grade,standing on the pavers if the applicant wishes and should cover about half to two-thirds of the width of the stair at the front 2 feet deep by 12 feet long,enough for shrubs or vines to grow to cover stucco wall,it is not necessary for a car to turn around in the front yard; the water table is an effective means to reduce the mass of the building; if cover the front, the water table may not make much difference; stucco would work if add planter box at grade in front of stair structure, agree about windows, two upper windows should have grids, not necessary at bays; if planter at grade the owner can park over the dirt,if 2 feet tall will not hit the wall. Commission asked the maker and second of the motion if they would include conditions for the following: ■ require a 2 foot by 12 foot planter with curb or at grade at the base of the support structure for the stairs; ■ leave the windows as they are shown on the plans; ■ narrow the overhang at the top of the chimney,reduce the width at the top; ■ show the columns at the front porch on the floor plan,properly located. The maker and second of the motion agreed to the amended conditions of approval and incorporated them into the motion. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the proposed project at 1824 Barroilhet Avenue with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. 5. 113 COSTA RICA AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR CHANGES TO THE ROOF CONFIGURATION OF AN EXISTING TWO-STORY HOUSE(TOM AND JEAN MARIE BUCKLEY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (64 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS C. Deal recused himself from this item because of a business relationship with the applicant. He stepped down from the dais and left the council chambers. Reference staff report August 14,2006 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Nine conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioner asked if the flat roof was to be retained under the proposed peaked roof, why were there skylights in the pitched roof? Staff suggested that the applicant might want to respond to this question. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Tom and Jean Buckley, property owners 113 Costa Rica Avenue,represented the project. She noted that what she has wanted since they built the house 13 years ago was a peaked roof to complete the Tudor style,tried in 1997 and failed,are back today. Commissioner asked why there are skylights in the new sloped roof if flat roof to remain below. Applicant noted that there are 5' 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 by 5' and 2'x2' skylights in the flat roof, want the skylights in the new roof to get light down into the skylights they are keeping in the flat roof. Commissioners asked where exactly are the skylights located,did the flat roof leak and also noted that there are solar panels on the roof,would they remain? One new skylight is located over the existing skylight over the stairwell,divided into three new skylights to get adequate light into the existing skylights below,when first built had a big problem with the flat roof leaking, solar panels will be flipped on the roof so not conflict with new roof. CA noted that solar panels are not subject to design review. Commissioner noted that proposed new skylights are proposed to be tinted,require that because of night glow,in this case over existing skylights in such a way that night glow will not be an issue,so may not want to tint the new skylights to maximize the light down into the existing skylights on the flat roof. There were no more comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C.Osterling moved to approve this application by resolution to add a new roof to complete the roof to a peak consistent with the Tudor style of the existing house on the basis that it would improve the appearance of this house and therefore be a benefit to the other houses in the neighborhood with the following conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped July 20, 2006, sheets 1, 4 and 8, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 28, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's April 3, 2006 memo,the Recycling Specialist's March 29,2006 memo,and the NPDES Coordinator's April 3,2006 memo shall be met; 3) that the existing roof beams for the flat roof shall be retained and the new peaked roof shall be installed over the existing roof structure;any changes to the attic configuration which results in habitable floor area shall require an amendment to this permit; 4) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 5) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 6) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible, to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street;and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 7) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 8) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on the motion: support request,concerned why applicant wants to do since they have lived with house as it is for 13 years, saw house needs to be finished to the peak,troubled with the 35-10"height since the house is massive,almost 3,700 SF,if a new house Commission would require them to reduce the mass but we are beyond that now, cannot reduce the second floor; agree if this were a new project would treat differently,reduce mass to keep lower,concerned about the way the current project got to where it is; allow height over 30 feet to enhance architectural style,this does not do that since the slope on the new roof does not match that of the existing roof. 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.Deal abstain). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dias. 6. 2112 EASTON DRIVE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (ORLANDO BUENA,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECT)(51 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C.Auran recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the project site. He stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report August 14, 2006,with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of Staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Orlando Buena,applicant and property owner,represented the project. He noted that over the past few months he has worked with the design review consultant and staff to address the Commission's concerns. Commission asked if the property owner worked with the architect to revise the plans;applicant noted yes. Commission noted that the design reviewer comments that the quality of the materials is very significant, however stucco is the dominant material on the house. The house is barren of architectural detail, it is possible to augment it with more details. The applicant noted that the design reviewer decided that the project as proposed is acceptable. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission noted that the plans still do not accurately reflect what is being built and had the following comments: ■ removing the dentils is significant to the design of the house,details are critical architectural feature to this house, dentils need to be added even if window head trim is up to the underside of the eave; could consider other proposing another architectural feature to add architectural character if the dentils are not feasible; ■ applicant noted reason for removal of dentils was the result of the Commission asking the plate height to be lowered,not true, other modifications could have been made by the architect; ■ plans submitted are misleading, not representative of what is being built, revised plans must accurately reflect what is being built; ■ transom window above front door still shown on plans but has been removed in field,chimney cap has been changed but not reflected on plans,front entry design where the address is located looks flat on plans but as built the entry edge is folded in, folded entry reduces the welcoming feeling of the porch, too many changes not shown on the plans; frustrating the that plans are misleading; ■ do not know if applicant engaged the architect enough to decide if additional detail could be added; ■ design details are critical to this house, need to add some feature even if up under the eave; ■ additional landscaping could help the front of the house; and ■ the architect should be present at the next meeting this project is heard,need to respond to questions about adding details. C. Vistica moved for a denial without prejudice with direction including need to replace dentils or some equivalent architectural detail proposed by the project architect who should be present at the next review, 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 correct the detail on the plans and on the building,provide an accurate representation on the plans of what was actually built and address Commission comments. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: might be advantageous for the applicant to install a mock-up of the dentil or other architectural feature on the site before next review, could consider a dental soffit under the eaves, dental molding applies to the eaves on the first and second floors. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to deny this application without prejudice with the direction to redesign as noted. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Auran abstain) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. C. Auran returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dias. 7. 1243 CABRILLO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND PARKING DIMENSION VARIANCE FOR SUBSTANTIAL CONSTRUCTION INCLUDING A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(FARHAD ASHRAFI AND DEBBIE KAUFMAN, STEWART ASSOCIATES, APPLICANTS AND DESIGNERS; FRANK KNIFSEND PROPERTY OWNER) (64 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report August 14,2006,with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if a parking variance for covered parking space dimension is required since the length was increased to 20'-0";staff noted that the applicant can verify that the proposed dimension is 20'-0", if so a parking variance would not be required. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Fran Knifsend,property owner, and John Stewart, designer, 1351 Laurel Street, San Carlos, represented the project; confirmed that the size of the garage has been increased to 20'-0" clear interior dimension; the owners settled on a Craftsman design; submitted signed petitions of neighbors in support of the project; at the study meeting the Commission noted that the Dogwood tree in the rear yard near the Acacia will not do well together and asked if the Acacia tree can be removed and the Dogwood tree replaced with another tree from the Street Tree list,the neighbor would like to keep the Acacia tree,one option is to not plant a Dogwood tree next to the Acacia;submitted a letter from contractor noting that keeping the existing foundation,floor structure and walls will save the owners$20,000 in costs;the existing garage roof will be rebuilt so that the ridge is centered,the garage will contain stucco siding; the stone veneer will be continued at the same height around the entire house; rafters will be 32 inches on center throughout the house; downspouts will be round with a half-round gutter. Commission asked why water table was changed to stone veneer; architect noted that the stone is more irregular than brick, is more consistent with the proposed style, chimney will also contain stone veneer and will be gas vented. Commission noted that the revised design is handsome and consistent throughout. Commission asked what is the size of the columns proposed at the front;architect noted that the double columns will be 12" x 12". Commission asked the architect to clarify the size of the driveway pavers and if it will be a contrasting color; architect noted that the driveway pavers will be 8" x 12" with contrasting colors. Commission noted that the proposed citrus trees along the left side property line adjacent to the concrete patio at the rear of the house will be messy at maturity,not a good landscape screen, evergreen large scale shrubs would work better, such as Bay Laurel; architect agreed. Commission noted a concern with the 4x knee brace and noted that a 6x knee brace would look better. Commission commented that the 2x corner trim is too small and suggested that a 4x corner trim be used;architect noted that a 2"x 4"trim will be used. 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 Sigrid Geiger, 1237 Cabrillo Avenue and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue,spoke. Noted that she would like to keep the Acacia tree because it blocks the view of a telephone pole,cannot move the telephone pole,there —, are large trees behind the lots which provide nice screening for rear yards, the property owners are gooc, neighbors,asked that the Commission approve the project and let them build the house they have wanted for a long time; current design is more charming than the previously proposed, worked hard to address the Commissions' concerns, the final design does not resemble the existing house but it does give a sense of home,this is a good addition to the neighborhood; in a letter dated April 5,2006,the architect notes that in other cities variances are not required for existing nonconforming conditions,however they serve a good purpose in Burlingame,do not cause problems that other cities have. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C.Vistica noted that the architect worked with existing house to create a good design and 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 July 24,2006, sheets Ai through A7, L1.0 and Sheet 1, Boundary Survey; and that any changes to building materials including casement windows throughout,exterior finishes,footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit;that 6"x wood knee braces and 2"x4"corner trim shall be used;that the citrus trees along the left side property line adjacent to the concrete patio at the rear of the house shall be replaced with large scale evergreen shrubs,such as Bay Laurel; 2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's April 10,2006, memo, the City Engineer's April 10, 2006, memo, the Fire Marshal's April 7, 2006, memo, Recycling Specialist's April 24,2006,memo, and NPDES Coordinator's April 10,2006,memos,shall be met; 3) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the basement,first or second floors,or garage,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 Planning Commission review; 5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 7) that prior to final inspection,Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the proj ect has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; 8) that all air ducts,plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined,where possible,to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street; and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is issued; 9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,2001 Edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame; 10) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure,interior or exterior,shall require a demolition permit; and 11) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 7-0. Appeal -� procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:00 p.m. 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 1420 MONTERO AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (GEURSE CONCEPTUAL DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; SARAH GOLDBERG, PROPERTY OWNER) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. The Commission asked staff to verify if there was a remodel or addition to the house in recent years. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Jesse Geurse,designer,405 Bayswater Avenue,represented the project. Commissioners made the following comments regarding the project: ■ concerned how the dormer roof engages with the existing hip roof,looks very close,verify that the dormer roof can be built as shown on the plans; ■ show downspouts on all building elevations, clarify type of downspouts proposed; ■ proposed cased columns supporting the second floor on the rear elevation are inappropriate, as proposed they are heading toward a Tudor design, the columns look spindly, should consider a different design to be more in keeping with the style of the existing house, a stucco column with wood trim might work better; ■ concerned with the way the gutters are shown on the plans,they will project beyond the roof line but not shown this way on the plans,in reality it will look different,revise plans to accurately show how the gutters will look in relation to the roofline and downspouts; and ■ front yard lacks landscaping,would like to see a landscape plan with larger scale trees and shrubs in the front yard, the existing landscaping in the rear is adequate There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C.Deal made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the identified revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:07 p.m. 9. 2725 TROUSDALE DRIVE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(JAMES WONG, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; RICKY KWAN, PROPERTY OWNER) (46 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commission requested that staff provide development data, meeting minutes and photographs of a large two-story house previously approved and built on Castenada Drive. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. James Wong, architect,207 Northwood Drive, South San Francisco,represented the project. Commission asked if the architect is familiar with and has read the view ordinance;architect noted he has read the view ordinance. Commission asked if the current property owner intends to live in the house;architect noted that currently the house is being rented but the owner intends to live in the house after the addition/remodel is complete. Commission asked the applicant to clarify the use of the second floor space between bedroom#4 and the stairway,it is approximately 250 SF;architect noted 15 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 that this space would be used to house a TV and seating or as a sitting area. Concerned with the number of bedrooms proposed(6),the Commission asked how large is the family;architect noted that there are two or -� three children in the family and that two grandmothers intend to live with the family. Commission askec what type roofing material is proposed; architect noted that a composition shingle roof is proposed. Commission noted that the existing roof has a 4:12 roof pitch and that the roof above the addition is 5:12, why are they different? Architect noted that different roof pitch is necessary to increase to slope at the rear of the house. Commission commented that generally like to see massing for additions set back on the lot,in this case the addition is set back 60 feet,not sure if it is appropriate;architect noted that with the long garage element at the front of the house, the addition was planned over the main portion of the house. Roseann Pelzner,2728 Trousdale Drive;Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue,spoke,have lived across the street since 1988, Trousdale Drive has a beautiful flow and symmetry to the street, all houses between Highway 280 and Sebastian Drive are there because of the views,houses located below Sebastian Drive are single- story ranch style; in 1989 the house adjacent to the subject property proposed a second story addition, the Council Chambers was full of neighbors concerned with view blockage; concerned with parking and the number of additional vehicles at this site for the number of bedrooms proposed, see up to nine vehicles possible with this many bedrooms;do not see why addition cannot be added only on the ground floor,have seen recent addition at the front, sides and rear of the house; suggest concerned neighbor speak to other neighbors about the proposed size of this house. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners made the following comments regarding the project: ■ very concerned with the size of the house,proposed house is 2%Z times the size of the existing house, not in character with the neighborhood, size is not consistent with the size of houses in the neighborhood,rooms are very large; this is too much for the street; ■ proposed design is out of character with the neighborhood; ■ design and massing seems appropriate, entrance is handle well,but overall house is too big; ■ chimney stack is very large and out of scale, needs to be reduced in size; ■ proposed vinyl siding and faux molding are typically not materials used in Burlingame,do not want to see these materials used; ■ in order for a person sleeping in bedroom#4 to use the bathroom,one must walk through bedroom #3, access to bathroom#3 is awkward and should be addressed; ■ must install story poles,story pole plan must be submitted along with the survey to verify they were installed at the correct locations and heights; ■ concerned that the FAR math is driving the design, this is a deep, upsloping lot however the buildable area is towards the front of the lot at the street; in this case the size of house should be based on the buildable area of the lot; ■ clearly see two issues with this project,consistency with the neighborhood and view blockage,both need to be addressed; ■ ask staff to provide a description in the next staff report of how the lot slopes on this property and what the building area is,will help to evaluate the project in relation to the lot; ■ concerned that that size of the house is based on a 19,000 SF lot, but house is located on a much smaller buildable area; ■ provide dimension from front property line to the fence behind the house; ■ provide a site section of the lot from front to rear; and ■ plans note that the plate height will be increased by 1'-0",do not think this can be done structurally verify with engineer. 16 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 C.Deal noted that the proposed house is very large,will need a lot of design work done to be an approvable project, should start over with the design and size, and made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: the Commission provided comments on architectural details,want to make sure that the architect and property owner clearly understand that addressing the details is not enough,this project requires a major redesign to address concerns with size, compatibility and view blockage. Since a major redesign is required, it may be unfair to send this project to a design review consultant and required story poles for a project which may likely be denied, could cause additional unnecessary delay, could consider setting this project for action so that it can be denied. CA Anderson noted that the applicant has different options,could decide to go or not to go to a design reviewer,could withdraw the project,could come back to action as proposed or could substantially redesign the project and come back to a design review study meeting. Commission suggested that the property owner read the residential design guidelines to get a better understanding of appropriate design,mass and bulk of houses. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with the comments made. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. 10. 2828 MARIPOSA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION(PHOI PHAM, PHAN ARCHITECTS,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;LOUIS LARRAZABAL,PROPERTY OWNER) (51 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description, noted that letter from William Chen, 2832 Mariposa Drive, was received after preparation of the staff report, letter states concerns with view blockage from proposed second story addition. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment.Luis Larrazabal,applicant and property owner,represented the project,noted that he has two children and would like to move his parents in with him,has lived in house for six months. Commission asked if there has been recent work done to the front porch; applicant noted that the existing 4"x 4"columns were replaced with larger 4"x 8"columns and that the porch slab was extended one foot. Commission asked applicant to clarify the accessory structure at the rear of the lot;applicant noted that he began building a tree house for his son,size is 6'x 18'but after discussing the size with Planning staff will reduce it to 100 SF. Jeffrey Bernstein,2836 Mariposa Drive,spoke. Have several concerns with the proposed project,have two children going to a private university,proposed addition will decrease the value of his house; for 20 years have been able to look out their windows with a view,now will loose view from bedroom, bathroom and living room;proposed addition is out of character with the neighborhood,will not look like any other house on the block, there are only one or two other two-story houses in the neighborhood,opposed other second story proposals in the past;concerned neighbors were here to speak tonight but left because it is so late in the evening, do not really know what the steps are to oppose this project, but will do everything possible to oppose this project including hiring legal aid. The applicant noted that the property at 2836 Mariposa Drive is two houses above, roof height of subject property is lower than the roof of the adjacent house and is set back 2 feet further, proposed addition will not block this neighbor's view. Commission noted that story poles will be required which will demonstrate any impacts on views. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. 17 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 Commissioners made the following comments regarding the project: ■ proposed design lacks character, all four elevations need embellishment; ■ there is a lot of stucco proposed on the left side elevation,could use additional windows to break up the wall and add character; ■ proposed addition is not integrated into the existing structure, visually appears to be an addition, concerned with the amount of blank walls proposed, project lacks fenestration, there is no clear theme in the design; ■ there is a lack of architectural detail, lack of detail relates to mass and bulk, detailing needs to be addressed; ■ 4:11 roof pitch shown on plans, roof pitch should be translated to x:12,please correct plans; ■ 4"x 4"posts for second floor deck are too small,need to make them more substantial; ■ concerned with potential view blockage by proposed addition; ■ no fenestration proposed on the second story wall facing the street, window can be added in the master bathroom or elsewhere along this wall; ■ must install story poles,story pole plan must be submitted along with the survey to verify they were installed at the correct locations and heights; ■ noted two other houses in the neighborhood which appeared to have additions at 2804 and 2849 Mariposa Drive,these additions were done well and were integrated into the roofline so that it does not appear to be an addition; ■ concerned with very long cricket at the ridge, will be a big maintenance problem, forces addition onto house; and ■ design reviewer should consider a single story alternative. C. Vistica made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. Story poles must be installed after the project has been redesigned to the address the concerns stated. In addition,access to adjacent houses should be provided to the Commission after the story poles are installed so that the Commission can evaluate view impacts. This motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Comment on the motion: want to caution the applicant that this is going to be a difficult project to design because of potential view impacts, a redesign may be proposed but if it blocks views the project will most likely not be approved;want to clarify that the view ordinance is strict,addresses view blockage from inside habitable areas of houses in the area. CA Anderson noted that views from patio/deck areas are less important in consideration for view impacts since in the past it has been determined that these are not habitable areas. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with the comments made. The motion passed on a voice vote 7-0. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 11:00 p.m. X. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS There were no Commissioner's Reports for review. IX. PLANNER REPORTS - City Council regular meeting of July 5, 2006—cancelled. --. - FYI: 110 Clarendon Road- changes to a previously approved Design Review project. 18 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 C.Deal recused himself from this item because he has a business relationship with the applicant and left the dais and chambers. Commissioners noted that the reduced landscape plan was hard to read and the descriptive information about the shrubs and trees needed to be clarified and even corrected and that the garage door change requires more review. The applicants should bring this item back on the Commission's action calendar for review, unless they wish to comply with the direction of the original approval. - FYI: 1609 Monte Corvino Way- changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Commission had no comments on the proposed changes. - FYI: 1548 Newlands Avenue- changes to a previously approved Design Review project. Commissioners expressed concerns about the proposed changes noting that the window changes on the front elevation were not consistent with the approved proportions and that there were a sufficient number of changes proposed that cumulatively they should be reviewed at a public hearing. It was recommended on a 6-0-1 (C. Vistica abstaining) voice vote that this item be placed on the Commission's action calendar for review. - FYI: Status Report on Peninsula Hospital Construction Hours. Commission acknowledged the complaint log submitted by the Hospital and the desk item e-mail clarifying two dust complaints made in the month of July. XI. ADJOURNMENT Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 11:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David Cauchi, Secretary SAMINUTES\unapproved 08.14.06.doc 19 POLICE DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME City of Burlingame Jack L. Van Etten Chief of Police June, 2006 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Please note that the criminal statistical information contained in the June, 2006, police department report is displayed in both numbers and percentages. When reviewing the report, the percentages of certain crimes might've dramatically increased or decreased in percentage (compared to the previous month or year). When reviewing the police department report please also consider the actual numbers in various crime categories in conjunction with the percentages. Even though the percentages may have increased or decreased, the actual number change may be slight or negligible. When criminal statistics are compared on local, state or federal levels, they generally refer to the most serious crimes as "Part I Crimes." These criminal offenses are reported in the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, and include the following crimes: criminal homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary (breaking and entering), larceny-theft (except motor vehicle theft), motor vehicle theft and arson. All other offenses (such as simple assaults, forgery and counterfeiting, fraud, prostitution, carrying weapons, drunkenness, disorderly conduct, etc.) are classified as Part 11 Crimes. Generally, law enforcement experiences a rise in criminal activity during the summer months when school is not in session, the weather is nice, people travel or are on vacation and are out later at night, etc. For the most part, the majority of crimes in Burlingame involve property; thefts of property from locked and unlocked vehicles, businesses and residences. However, as you can see in June, 2006, police department statistics, there has also been an increase in the categories of robbery. During the latter part of May and into June, Investigations Bureau personnel have identified the suspects and have cleared several robberies from recent months. These include the robberies at two banks (Bank of America and Wells Fargo) as well as the armed robbery at Kern's Jewelers. One detective continues to work an assignment on the Gang Task Force (with other officers from all police departments in our county) in a local and county-wide effort to reduce or eliminate the level of violence associated with gangs, groups of young people, issues involving bars/clubs, etc. During the month of August, 2006, the police department will provide council with some relative comparisons of certain crimes during the past 3 years (calendar years 2003, 2004, 2005) and the first 6 months of 2006. 1111 Trousdale Drive- Post Office Box 551 - Burlingame, California 94011-0551 -(650) 777-4100-Fax (650)697-8130 As you can also see from the statistics, both of the moving and parking citation totals have increased over last year during the first six months of 2006. Parking citations have increased by approximately 900 for the first 6 months of 2006,while moving citations have increased by approximately 600 during the same time period. In other related safety matters,the police department will be making a presentation to the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission regarding red light photo enforcement in July. If approved at the TSP level with public comments,staff will make a presentation asking council for direction and approval for this traffic calming,accident reduction enforcement tool for our community. For the last several weeks, it appears that the Downtown Bar/Club activity has decreased.The Del Mar Club has closed. Burlingame Police continue to meet with Bar owners on a regular basis to discuss matters of mutual interest and safety in our community.The police department continues to pro-actively monitor the weekend bar/club crowds as staffing permits. The police department routinely and continuously receives information from the public regarding a number of criminal,traffic and parking related matters.All of these matters are immediately addressed, prioritized(based on the safety of the community), and handled in the most effective manner possible.When necessary,additional outside resources are also brought in to assist current staff with specific or unusual criminal activities. Chief Jack Van Etten Burlingame Police Department�)RD Preliminary Annual Uniform Crime Report For Release January-December 2005 June 12, 2006 Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported an increase of 2.5 percent in the number• of violent crimes brought to their attention in 2005 when compared to figures reported for 2004. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The number of property crimes in the United States from January to December of 2005 decreased 1.6 percent when compared to data from the same time period in 2004. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals. Figures for 2005 indicated that arson decreased 2.2 percent when compared to 2004 figures. The data presented in Tables 1 and 2 indicate the percent change in offenses known to law enforcement for 2004 and 2005 by population group and geographic region, respectively.Table 3 reflects the percent change within the Nation for consecutive years (each year compared to the prior year). Table 4 presents a 2-year comparison of 2004 and 2005 offenses known to law enforcement for agencies having a resident population of 100,000 and over and providing 12 months of complete data. All data in this report are preliminary. TABLE 1 Percent Change by Popular on Group Numbers 'L' i Age Motor of M14I Forcible vated Property Larceny- vehicle Population group agencies Population ` 1crim, Murder rape Robbery assault crime Burglary theft theft Arson Total 12,485 249,700,756 , a ,., . c +4.8 -1.9 +4.5 +1.9 G +0.6 2.5 " 22 Cities: k 4 1,000,000 and over 10 24,885,884 0 +0.5 -1.5 +1.3 -1.9 ,'3 -1.5 4.3 -1.8 +3.5 500,000 to 999,999 22 14,744,541 +8 +2.4 3.0 +9.9 +8.5 +0.9 -3.3 -1.2 -10.6 250,000 to 499,999 36 13,011,218 +21..4 +9.4 -1.4 +4.5 +2.0 +3.5 -3.3 +1.3 -5.1 100,000 to 249,999 184 27,597,669 +3; ' +12.5 3.3 +3.7 +3.7 +0.5 -3.7 -1.6 +2.9 50,000 to 99,999 380 25,930,706 +i6 K• +12.4 -3.4 +5.1 +0.4 +1.8 2.6 +0.2 -2.8 25,000 to 49,999 663 22,957,559 -418 +4.5 -1.6 +4.3 +2.8 0.7 +1.3 -1.5 +1.4 -0.7 10,000 to 24,999 . 1,513 23,998,768 +0`.5 -0.5 -0.6 +2.1 +0.1 1 +1.3 -2.0 +1.9 +02 Under 10,000 6,130 19,631,899 +1.6 +5.8 +1.5 +2.4 +1.3 4 . ,7 +1.0 -1.3 +1.1 -0.5 Counties: Metropolitan' 1,413 53,428,572 +2' +3.5 -4.6 +8.7 +0.8 r +0.5 -1.6 +1.7 -2.9 Nottmetropolittm= 2,134 23,513,940 +I': -3.9 +3.8 -0.1 +0.8 L:0 2.7 0.7 +3.8 5.1 'Includes crimes reported to sheriffs'departments,county police departments.and state police within Metropolitan Statistical Arcas. 'Includes crimes reported to sheriffs'departments.county police departments.and state police outside Metropolitan Statistical Ames. Less than one-tenth of I percent TABLE 2 Percent Change by Geographic Region Motor y; n Forcible Aggravated Propert4 Larceny- vehicle y.B .. - . :. Region ��f��lt[E`��`�?�tit� Murder rape Robbery assault crimp I3urglary theft - theft Arson Total '3 +4.8 -1.9 +4.5 +1.9 ].6 +0.6 -2.5 1' 2.2 Northeast +5.2 -2.3 +3.2 +0.5 3.1 -2.4 -2.2 -9.6 -2.8 Midwest �, +5.8 -1.6 +8.5 +5.3 0.7 +3.8 -2.1 -0.1 -9.3 South +5.3 2.8 +4.8 +0.9 -1.7 +0.5 -2.5 -1.0 -0.1 West =1 f +32 -0.8 +2.3 +2.0 1.3 +0.1 32 +4.0 +0.7 nr Less Chun one-wrah of I percent TABLE 3 Percent Change for Consecutive Yeats Motor L'.. Violent Forcible Aggravated Property Larceny- vehicle Years crime Murder rape Robbery assault crime Burglary theft theft Arson 2002/2001 0.9 +1.0 +4.7 -0.7 -1.6 +0.1 +1.7 -0.6 +1.4 -3.7 2003/20023.0 +1.7 1.9 1.8 3.8 -0.2 +0.1 -0.5 +1.1 -6.3 2004/2003 1 -2.4 +0.8 -3.1 -0.5 1 7 0.5 1.1 1.9 -6.4 2005/2004 +4.8 -1.9 +4.5 +1.9 1.6 +0.6 -2.5 * 22 41.ess than one-tenth of I percent Issued By Robert S. Mueller, III, Director,Federal Bureau of Investigation,United States Department of Justice.Washington.D.C.20535 Advisory: Criminal Justice Information Systems Committee, International Association of Chiefs of Police: Criminal Justice Information Services Committee,National Sheriffs'Association: Criminal Justice Information Services Advisory Policy Board. U.S.Department of Justice PRST STD Federal Bureau of Investigation POSTAGE 8:FEES PAID Federal Bureau of Investigation 1000 Custer Hollow Road Permit No. G-168 Clarksburg, WV 26306-0002 Official Business Penaltv for Private Use$300 Return Service Requested FOR RELEASE June 12,2006 PLEASE NOTE. Figures used In thls report are submitted voluntarily by law enfom rceent agencies throughout the country. individuals using these tabulations! are cautioned against drawing conclusions by'makitg direct com- parisens between cities because many factors affect the amount and type of crime from place to place. Some of these factors lore listed inthe annual 'publication Crime in the tlnrted States. Mozr, valid use can be made of these figures by determining deviations from national averages and through comparisons' with averages for cities"in similar population groups (Table ). It 18-IM 0rtdrtlo remember thatcrime, is a socia( problem":and, therefore,"a concern of the entire community. The efforts of law enforcement are limited to factc�rsl"within its"contr©l.'"Datailasers"can obtain assistance by calling (ao4X25-4995_ Data users are cautioned against' comparisons of"crime trends presented Jrthis report and those estimated.by the National Grime Victimization ;Survey rfUCUS), administered by the .Bureau of'Justice Statistics.. 'Because of!differences in"me#hodalQgy and crime coverage; the two programs examine the'' .Nation's crime problem from somewhat different persp"ectives",and their.resuIts are not strictly comparable. The defini#ionaI Aand .Procedural differen'bes can account for many of the apparent discrepancies in results. The Departmeptof Justice's fact sheetThe Nation's Two Crime Measures;"contains a detailed dscriptior3,af the NGilS"and l)nifcrrn Grime Reporfis: 7-11-06 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1 FOR: JUNE, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD :rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change furder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 Sanslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 tape By Force 0 0 4 1 3 300.00 ittempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0 tobbery Firearm 0 0 3 3 0 0.00 tobbery Knife 0 0 2 0 2 2obbery Other Dangerous Weapon 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 tobbery Strong-Arm 0 0 12 6 6 100.00 %ssault - Firearm 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Assault - Knife 0 0 1 4 -3 -75.00 Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 4 1 15 9 6 66.67 Assault - Hands,Fists,Feet 0 2 5 3 2 66.67 Assault - Other (Simple) 13 12 88 95 -7 -7.37 Burglary - Forcible Entry 7 13 33 49 -16 -32.65 Burglary - Unlawful Entry 8 4 48 32 16 50.00 Burglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 0 0 2 2 0 0.00 Larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 Larceny Purse-Snatching 0 0 2 0 2 Larceny Shoplifting 4 7 25 24 1 4.17 Larceny From Motor Vehicle 18 12 142 124 18 14.52 Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 7 10 62 74 -12 -16.22 Larceny Bicycles 1 7 4 16 -12 -75.00 Larceny From Building 14 11 61 53 8 15.09 Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 1 0 9 10 -1 -10.00 Larceny All Other 2 4 34 66 -32 -48.48 Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 8 4 42 38 4 10.53 Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 4 3 9 5 4 80.00 Motor Vehicle Theft Other 3 0 6 0 6 ------- ------ ------- ------- 94 90 610 617 94 90 610 617 )7-11-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: JUNE, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD :rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change 4ll Other Offenses 31 39 214 237 -23 -9.70 4nimal Abuse 0 0 0 0 0 4nimal Nuisance 0 1 1 2 -1 -50.00 Orson 4 0 16 4 12 300.00 kssists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Bigamy 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Offense 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Threat 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Bribery 0 0 0 0 0 Check Offenses 0 0 12 4 8 200.00 Child Neglect/prot custody 4 1 34 16 18 112.50 Computer Crime 0 0 0 0 0 Conspiracy 0 0 0 0 0 Credit Card Offenses 0 0 2 0 2 Cruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 2 2 0 0.00 Curfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Death Investigation 3 7 17 30 -13 -43.33 Disorderly Conduct 1 2 10 20 -10 -50.00 Driver's License Violations 0 1 3 5 -2 -40.00 Driving Under the Influence 9 6 39 38 1 2.63 Drug Abuse Violations 5 1 17 14 3 21.43 Drug/Sex Registrants/Violations 0 0 2 0 2 Drunkeness 3 8 34 21 13 61.90 Embezzlement 0 1 2 3 -1 -33.33 Escape 0 0 0 0 0 Extortion 0 0 0 0 0 False Police Reports 0 0 1 0 1 False Reports of Emergency 1 0 3 0 3 Fish and Game Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Forgery and Counterfeiting 2 3 21 24 -3 -12.50 Found Property 6 8 32 58 -26 -44.83 Fraud 1 0 15 15 0 0.00 Gambling 0 0 0 0 0 Harrassing Phone Calls 5 1 18 14 4 28.57 ,7-11-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: JUNE, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD :rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change lit and Run Accidents 5 3 24 19 5 26.32 Impersonation 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Incest 0 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 0 3 3 3 0 0.00 Intimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0 Cidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 Lewd Conduct 0 0 1 0 1 Liquor Laws 0 3 2 5 -3 -60.00 Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 Marijuana Violations 2 1 9 8 1 12.50 Mental Health Cases 11 11 53 42 11 26.19 Missing Person 5 4 28 31 -3 -9.68 Missing Property 10 6 47 42 5 11.90 Municipal Code Violations 8 9 46 33 13 39.39 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 1 0 1 0 1 Offenses Against Children 0 0 3 1 2 200.00 Other Assaults 13 12 88 95 -7 -7.37 Other Juvenile Offenses 1 0 1 0 1 Other Police Service 4 8 34 41 -7 -17.07 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 0 0 2 0 2 Perjury 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of Burglary Tools 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0 Probation Violations 0 0 3 1 2 200.00 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 5 1 4 400.00 Prowling 1 0 3 2 1 50.00 Resisting Arrest 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 Restraining Orders 0 0 0 12 -12 -100.00 Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0 Sex Offenses 0 0 2 1 1 100.00 Sex Offenses against Children 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 Stalking 0 0 0 0 0 17-11-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 CITY REPORT FOR: JUNE, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD :rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change statutory Rape 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 3 0 5 3 2 66.67 Suspended License 3 3 20 15 5 33.33 rax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 rerrorist Threats 0 1 4 5 -1 -20.00 rowed Vehicle 32 28 168 195 -27 -13.85 rrespassing 1 0 8 6 2 33.33 truants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 JS Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 Vandalism 31 38 131 129 2 1.55 Vehicle Code Violations 1 1 9 14 -5 -35.71 Violation of Court Order 1 1 6 4 2 50.00 Warrants - Felony 2 0 7 6 1 16.67 Warrants - Misd 7 4 32 39 -7 -17.95 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 3 2 8 5 3 60.00 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 ------- ------ ------- ------- 220 217 1,250 1,277 220 217 1,250 1,277 07-11-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : 1 CITY REPORT FOR: JUNE, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . YTD. . Parking Citations 2804 2 , 625 17 , 928 17, 032 Moving Citations 171 119 1, 276 661 ------- ------ ------- ------- 2975 2 , 744 19,2-04 17, 693 2975 2 , 744 19 , 204 17 , 693 BURLINGAME Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 07/11/2006 at 04 : 24 : 18 PM Reported On: All Officers Report Range: 06/01/2006 to 06/30/2006 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Valid All Voids 96 All Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ALVISO 355 772 25.54 12 26.67 98.47 DOTSON 509 79 2.61 1 2.22 98.75 FEITELBERG 508 1246 41.22 11 24.44 99.12 GARRETT 501 517 17.10 8 17.78 98.48 KIRKPATRICK 502 246 8.14 12 26.67 95.35 MORAN 201 163 5.39 1 2.22 99.39 Total 3023 45 Page 1 of 1 POLICE DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME City of Burlingame Jack L. Van Etten Chief of Police July, 2006 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: During the past few months, I have provided you with information about the types of crimes that have been reported to the police department. As always, when reviewing the documents please note that the criminal statistical information contained in the July, 2006, police department report is displayed in both numbers and percentages. When reviewing the report, the percentages of certain crimes might've dramatically increased or decreased in percentage (compared to the previous month or year). When reviewing the police department report please also consider the actual numbers in various crime categories in conjunction with the percentages. Even though the percentages may have increased or decreased, the actual number change may be slight or negligible. It is somewhat difficult to provide the Council with actual clearance rates for all crimes, as the clearance rates of certain crime categories might only reflect arrests and exceptional clearances where a case was investigated, a suspect identified - but the case not filed by the DA, the victim refuses to prosecute, etc. If a case was solved and an arrest warrant issued, the Department of Justice statistics would not reflect an arrest or clearance, making it appear that this case wasn't solved, when in fact, it was. Also, a crime committed in 2005 would not reflect a clearance if the arrest was made in 2006. The actual clearance would be reflective in the 2006 stats, not the 2005 stats. To help facilitate your knowledge in these comparisons, I've prepared reports (attached to this letter) that compare the number of reported crimes in certain categories. The years of comparison are listed as the calendar years of 2003, 2004, 2005, and cumulative numbers from January - July, 2006. The categories listed are as follows: Murder/Manslaughter Strong Arm Robbery Mental Illness Cases Rape Shoplifting Missing Property Robbery Auto Burglary Prostitution Assault Thefts from Autos Vandalism Burglary Disorderly Conduct Larceny Drunkenness Motor Vehicle Theft Harassing telephone calls Arson Hit/Run Accidents 1111 Trousdale Drive-Post Office Box 551 -Burlingame, California 94011-0551 -(650)777-4100-Fax (650)697-8130 For the most part,the majority of crimes in Burlingame involve property;thefts of property from locked and unlocked vehicles,businesses and residences.However,as you can see in the July, 2006, police department statistics,there has also been an increase in the categories of robbery. During the latter part of May and into June,Investigations Bureau personnel have identified the suspects and have cleared several robberies from recent months.One detective continues to work a temporary assignment on the County-Wide Gang Task Force(with other officers from all police departments in our county)in a local and county-wide effort to reduce or eliminate the level of violence associated with gangs,groups of young people,issues involving bars/clubs,etc. As you can also see from the statistics,both of the moving and parking citation totals continue to show increases over last year during both the current month and the total in 2006. Parking citations have slightly increased by approximately 575 for this year,while moving citations have just about doubled over the same time period compared to last year.This is attributed to additional enforcement by addressing traffic related complaints from our community. Continuing for the last several weeks,it appears that the Downtown Bar/Club activity has decreased. The Burlingame Police Department continues to meet with Bar owners on a regular basis to discuss matters of mutual interest and safety in our community.The police department continues to pro- actively monitor the weekend bar/club crowds as staffing permits. Investigators have identified the suspects and solved the armed robbery at the 7-Eleven Convenience store last month. One of the Kern's Jewelry Store robbers was just apprehended in the State of Texas on an arrest warrant. As previously mentioned,the police department routinely and continuously receives information from the public regarding a number of criminal,traffic and parking related matters.All of these matters are immediately addressed,prioritized(based on the safety of the community),and(based on staffing levels)handled in the most effective manner possible.When necessary,additional outside resources are also brought in to assist current staff with specific or unusual criminal activities. Respectfully, Chief Jack Van Etten Burlingame Police Department STATISTICS 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31/06 Murder/Manslaughter 0 0 2 0 Rape 12 6 5 4 Robbery 16 23 28 19 Assault 256 237 201 108 Burglary 462 423 449 283 Larceny 487 472 410 237 _...._Motor Vehicle. Theft 102 _ 135 . 105___ . . _ 62_. Arson 6 3 5 8 Strong Armed Robbery 6 3 14 12 Shoplifting 24 26 36 17 Auto Burglary 237 213 179 121 Thefts from Autos 96 72 56 42 Disorderly conduct 49 31 36 10 .:Drunkenness 72 -5:7 58 46 Harassing Phonecalls 44 52 36 23 Hit and Run accidents 188 214 205 81 Mental Illness cases 134 118 87 66 Missing Property 103 104 93 60 Prostitution 5 2 2 6 Vandalism 314 208 274 168 Statistics Murder/Manslaughter 2 1 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31/06 Pope 20 �I ---- 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31 Robbery 30 j 25 20 9 15 101" 5 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31 300 ' AssaLdts 250 i 77 150 ; -- - —- 100 �zl 50 , I 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31 Burgiay 500 400 � a v a. t 4; 100 } 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31 Larceny 500 1 400 300 �M 200 100 0 r 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31 Molitor- Ve"cfa Theft 140 I - 120 100 — M 80 60 � - - ' 40 20 }: 0 . 4 .. 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31 Arson 6 '' - 4 2 ' 'i 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31 Strong Armed Robbery 15 f 10 G 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31 Shoplifting 40 30 2010 j s 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31 Auto a 250 200 - 150 _ - 100 ILI 50 > 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31 Thefts from Autos 777 100 so 60 40 20 t; 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31 Disorderly Conduct 50 40 30 / - -- - --- - E 20 10 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31 Drunkenness 80 60 40 �w { t'I 20 f 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31 Harassing Phone calls 60 ` 40 z S 20 if G 3 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31 Flit and Run Accidents 250 ` 200 ---- -- ---- 150 100 1. �x 50 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31 Mental Illness 140 -- — f - r r; 120 ' - - - IN 100 Y 80 6040 20 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31 Missing Property 120 100 80 60 40 20 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31 Prostitution 6 � 5 4 / - - 3 - — - - -- --------- -- - 2 I 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31 Vandalism 400 300 200 E 100 ' 0 2003 2004 2005 2006 to 7/31 8-14-06 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1 FOR: JULY, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change urder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 anslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 ape By Force 0 0 4 1 3 300.00 ttempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0 obbery Firearm 1 1 4 4 0 0.00 obbery Knife 0 0 2 0 2 obbery Other Dangerous Weapon 0 1 1 2 -1 -50.00 obbery Strong-Arm 0 1 12 7 5 71.43 ssault - Firearm 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 ssault - Knife 0 1 1 5 -4 -80.00 ssault - Other Dangerous Weapon 5 3 20 12 8 66.67 ssault - Hands,Fists,Feet 0 1 5 4 1 25.00 .ssault - other (Simple) 11 14 99 109 -10 -9.17 urglary - Forcible Entry 5 6 38 55 -17 -30.91 urglary - Unlawful Entry 5 6 53 38 15 39.47 urglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 1 0 3 2 1 50.00 arceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 arceny Purse-Snatching 0 0 2 0 2 arceny Shoplifting 6 2 31 26 5 19.23 .arceny From Motor Vehicle 25 14 167 138 29 21.01 arceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 16 8 78 82 -4 -4.88 arceny Bicycles 3 3 7 19 -12 -63.16 arceny From Building 12 7 73 60 13 21.67 arceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 0 5 9 15 -6 -40.00 arceny All Other 9 8 43 74 -31 -41.89 otor Vehicle Theft Auto 3 8 45 46 -1 -2.17 otor Vehicle Theft Bus 1 1 10 6 4 66.67 otor Vehicle Theft Other 0 1 6 1 5 500.00 ------- ------ ------- ------- 103 91 713 708 103 91 713 708 8-14-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: JULY, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD._ Change & Change 11 Other Offenses 31 43 245 280 -35 -12.50 nimal Abuse 0 0 0 0 0 nimal Nuisance 0 2 1 4 -3 -75.00 rson 6 4 22 8 14 175.00 ssists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 icycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0 igamy 0 0 0 0 0 omb Offense 0 0 0 0 0 omb Threat 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 ribery 0 0 0 0 0 heck Offenses 0 0 12 4 8 200.00 hild Neglect/prot custody 2 5 36 21 15 71.43 omputer Crime 0 0 0 0 0 onspiracy 0 0 0 0 0 redit Card Offenses 0 0 2 0 2 ruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 2 2 0 0.00 urfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 eath Investigation 4 3 21 33 -12 -36.36 isorderly Conduct 0 4 10 24 -14 -58.33 ,river's License Violations 0 0 3 5 -2 -40.00 i ,riving Under the Influence 4 6 43 44 -1 -2.27 ,rug Abuse Violations 2 3 19 17 2 11.76 ,rug/Sex Registrants/Violations 1 0 3 0 3 ,runkeness 7 7 41 28 13 46.43 Imbezzlement 0 1 2 4 -2 -50.00 ;scape 0 0 0 0 0 ;xtortion 0 0 0 0 0 'alse Police Reports 0 0 1 0 1 'alse Reports of Emergency 1 0 4 0 4 'ish and Game Violations 0 0 0 0 0 'orgery and Counterfeiting 1 6 22 30 -8 -26.67 ound Property 9 12 41 70 -29 -41.43 raud 1 1 16 16 0 0.00 ambling 0 0 0 0 0 [arrassing Phone Calls 6 5 24 19 5 26.32 8-14-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: JULY, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change it and Run Accidents 5 1 29 20 9 45.00 mpersonation 1 0 1 2 -1 -50.00 ncest 0 0 0 0 0 ndecent Exposure 3 0 6 3 3 100.00 ntimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0 idnapping 0 0 0 0 0 ewd Conduct 0 0 1 0 1 iquor Laws 0 1 2 6 -4 -66.67 ittering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 arijuana violations 2 3 11 11 0 0.00 ental Health Cases - 7 4 60 46 14 30.43 issing Person 6 3 34 34 0 0.00 issing Property 11 5 58 47 11 23.40 unicipal Code Violations 2 10 48 43 5 11.63 arcotics Sales/Manufacture 1 0 2 0 2 ffenses Against Children 0 1 3 2 1 50.00 ther Assaults 11 14 99 109 -10 -9.17 ther Juvenile Offenses 0 0 1 0 1 ther Police Service 2 6 36 47 -11 -23.40 andering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 arole Violations 0 0 2 0 2 erjury 0 0 0 0 0 ossession of Burglary Tools 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 ossession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0 ossession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0 robation Violations 2 0 5 1 4 400.00 rostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 5 1 4 400.00 rowling 1 0 4 2 2 100.00 esisting Arrest 2 0 3 1 2 200.00 estraining Orders 1 0 1 12 -11 -91.67 unaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0 ex Offenses 0 0 2 1 1 100.00 ex Offenses against Children 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 odomy 0 0 0 0 0 talking 0 0 0 0 0 B-14-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 CITY REPORT FOR: JULY, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD._ YTD.. Change Change tatutory Rape 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 tolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 2 0 7 3 4 133.33 uspended License 2 1 22 16 6 37.50 ax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 errorist Threats 0 0 4 5 -1 -20.00 owed Vehicle 38 43 206 238 -32 -13.45 respassing 1 1 9 7 2 28.57 ruants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 S Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 agrancy 0 0 0 0 0 andalism 23 23 154 152 2 1.32 ehicle Code Violations 0 4 9 18 -9 -50.00 iolation of Court Order 1 0 7 4 3 75.00 arrants - Felony 0 2 7 8 -1 -12.50 arrants - Misd 5 4 37 43 -6 -13.95 eapons;Carrying,Possessing 0 0 8 5 3 60.00 elfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 ------- ------ ------- ------- 204 228 1,454 1,505 204 228 1,454 1,505 08-14-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE : 1 CITY REPORT FOR: JULY, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . YTD. . Parking Citations 2547 2 , 868 20 , 475 19, 900 Moving Citations 192 114 1, 468 775 ------- ------ ------- - ------ 2739 2 , 982 21, 943 20, 675 ------- ------ ------- ------- ------- ------ ------- ------- 2739 2 , 982 21, 943 20, 675 '` " BURLINGAME Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 08/14/2006 at 04 : 17 : 34 PM Reported On: All Officers Report Range: 07/01/2006 to 07/31/2006 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Valid % All Voids % All � Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ALVISO 355 608 25.29 6 26.09 99.02 DOTSON 509 213 8.86 4 17.39 98.16 FEITELBERG 508 888 36.94 9 39.13 99.00 GARRETT 501 424 17.64 2 8.70 99.53 KIRKPATRICK 502 209 8.69 2 8.70 99.05 MORAN 201 62 2.58 0 0.00 100.00 Total 2404 23 Page 1 of 1 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary July 31, 2006 Par Market Book %of Daysto YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. LAIF&County Pool 17,254,581.57 17,254,581.57 17,254,581.57 53.55 1 1 4.441 4.503 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 13,500,000.00 13,381,055.00 13,500,000.00 41.90 805 329 4.009 4.064 Federal Agency Issues-Discount 1,500,000.00 1,478,800.00 1,464,362.23 4.55 173 97 5.057 5.127 32,254,581.57 32,114,436.57 32,218,943.80 100.00% 346 143 4.288 4.347 Investments Total Earnings July 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 119,072.75 119,072.75 Average Daily Balance 32,833,012.73 32,833,012.73 Effective Rate of Return 4.27% 4.27% Pursuant to State law,there are sufficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure requirements for the coming 6 months. Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types,and avail 'ty of some of these funds is restricted by law(e.g.Gas Tax,Trust&Agency funds,Capital Projects,and Enterprise funds). !!� tone SUS NA A, FINANCE DIR./TREASURER Reporting period 07/01/2006-07/31/2006 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:08/10/2006-09:23 PM(PRF_PM1)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments July 31, 2006 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Date LAIF&County Pool SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 10,383,547.61 10,383,547.61 10,383,547.61 4.849 4.849 1 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 6,871,033.96 6,871,033.96 6,871,033.96 4.070 Aaa 4.070 1 Subtotal and Average 17,868,650.50 17,254,581.57 17,254,581.57 17,254,581.57 4.539 1 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 3133X9QV5 517 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/22/2004 1,000,000.00 983,440.00 1,000,000.00 3.500 Aaa 3.500 325 06/22/2007 3133XARN9 518 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/08/2005 1,000,000.00 997,810.00 1,000,000.00 3.390 Aaa 3.390 38 09/08/2006 3133XDGM7 519 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 10/24/2005 1,000,000.00 992,500.00 1,000,000.00 4.450 Aaa 4.450 815 10/24/2008 3133XDNL1 520 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 11/17/2005 1,000,000.00 990,630.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 839 11/17/2008 3133XE2W8 521 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/28/2005 1,000,000.00 994,380.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 514 12/28/2007 3133XEUE 522 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/22/2006 2,000,000,00 1,995,620.00 2,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 143 12/22/2006 3133XFNM4 525 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 05/25/2006 1,000,000.00 998,130.00 1,000,000.00 5.280 Aaa 5.280 297 05/25/2007 3133XFRL2 527 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/22/2006 500,000.00 499,375.00 500,000.00 5.200 Aaa 5.200 143 12/22/2006 3128X2NA9 514 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 01/30/2004 3,000,000.00 2,963,850.00 3,000,000.00 3.000 Aaa 3.000 182 01/30/2007 3136F5TJ0 515 FANNIE MAE 04/27/2004 1,000,000.00 983,130.00 1,000,000.00 3.100 Aaa 3.100 269 04/27/2007 3136F6FZ7 516 FANNIE MAE 10/18/2004 1,000,000.00 982,190.00 1,000,000.00 3.820 Aaa 3.547 443 10/18/2007 Subtotal and Average 13,500,000.00 13,500,000.00 13,381,055.00 13,500,000.00 4.064 329 Federal Agency Issues-Discount 313397E23 524 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 05/17/2006 500,000.00 497,750.00 492,718.06 4.900 Aaa 5.041 31 09/01/2006 3135891-148 523 FANNIE MAE 05/17/2006 500,000.00 495,850.00 490,948.61 4.900 Aaa 5.060 57 09/27/2006 313588CFO 526 FANNIE MAE 05/19/2006 500,000.00 485,200.00 480,695.56 4.964 Aaa 5.285 206 02/23/2007 Subtotal and Average 1,464,362.23 1,500,000.00 1,478,800.00 1,464,362.23 5.127 97 Total and Average 32,833,012.73 32,254,581.57 32,114,436.57 32,218,943.80 4.367 143 Portfolio CITY Run Date:08/14/2006-10:42 CP PM(PRF_PM2)SyrnRept 6.41.202a rt Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 3 Activity By Type July 1, 2006 through July 31, 2006 Beginning Stated Transaction Purchases Redemptions Ending CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Rate Date or Deposits or Withdrawals Balance LAIF&County Pool (Monthly Summary) SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 4.849 104,912.55 0.00 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 3.980 96,042.94 1,700,000.00 Subtotal 18,753,626.08 200,955.49 1,700,000.00 17,254,581.57 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon Subtotal 13,500,000.00 13,500,000.00 Federal Agency Issues-Discount Subtotal 1,464,362.23 1,464,362.23 Total 33,717,986.31 200,955.49 1,700,000.00 32,218,943.80 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:08/10/2006-09:23 PM(PRF_PM3)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 4 Activity Summary July 2005 through July 2006 Yield to Maturity Managed Number Number Month Number of Total 360 365 Pool of Investments of Investments Average Average End Year Securities Invested Equivalent Equivalent Rate Purchased Redeemed Term Days to Maturity July 2005 8 30,880,702.93 3.045 3.087 3.141 0 0 273 143 August 2005 8 29,380,702.93 3.048 3.091 3.151 0 0 287 141 September 2005 8 25,480,702.93 3.125 3.168 3.285 0 0 330 151 October 2005 9 26,721,256.73 3.268 3.313 3.406 1 0 356 175 November 2005 9 26,614,225.47 3.484 3.532 3.521 1 1 344 206 December 2005 10 27,741,871.03 3.594 3.644 3.613 1 0 356 214 January 2006 10 29,203,493.47 3.692 3.743 3.767 0 0 338 192 February 2006 10 27,236,535.77 3.734 3.786 3.836 0 0 363 196 March 2006 11 28,865,253.49 3.750 3.802 3.721 1 0 361 192 April 2006 11 31,600,492.83 3.997 4.052 4.136 0 0 330 165 May 2006 15 34,904,265.49 4.169 4.227 4.293 4 0 317 155 June 2006 16 33,717,988.31 4.224 4.283 4.375 1 0 330 150 July 2006 16 32,218,943.80 4.288 4.347 4.503 0 0 346 143 Average 11 29,582,033.48 3.647% 3.698% 3.750 1 0 333 171 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:08/10/2006-09:23 PM(PRF_PM4)SymRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 5 Distribution of Investments By Type July 2005 through July 2006 July August September October November December January February March April May June July Average Security Type 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 by Period LAIF&County Pool 70.9 69.4 64.7 62.6 66.2 64.0 65.8 63.3 58.4 62.0 58.6 55.6 53.6 62.7% ...... . ...... .. .......... Certificates of Deposit-Bank .......... . .......... Certificates of Deposit-S&L Certificates of Deposit-Thrift&Ln ......................................... ..... Negotiable CD's-Bank . .... _. .................................................................................... CORP NOTES Bankers Acceptances . .. . __. _...... __... __.. ....... Commercial Paper-Interest Bearing .. ................................................ .. ...................................... ......... . :..................................................................... ......... ..... ... Commercial Paper-Discount ........ Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 29.1 30.6 35.3 37.4 33.8 36.1 34.2 36.7 41.6 38.0 37.2 40.0 41.9 36.3% _._ ......... __ .......... ..._.... . ......._.. Federal Agency Issues-Discount4 2 4.3 4.6 1.0% .............................................. . ...... . .... .................................................................................................................................... ...... .... ................. ......... . . .. ................ . ......._. Treasury Securities-Coupon Treasury Securities-Discount _.... ..... . .. . ..... ........ Miscellaneous Securities-Coupon .... ........... .... .... ........... .............. . .................................................................... .......... ,. . ............ Miscellaneous Securities-Discount Non Interest Bearing Investments ....................._. _..._ Mortgage Backed Securities .............................................. ....... ......... ..... ......... ..........._.. .... ........... .,_....... Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 2 Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 3 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:08/10/2006-09:23 PM(PRF_PM5)SymRept 6.41202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 6 Interest Earnings Summary July 31, 2006 July 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date CD/Coupon/Discount Investments: Interest Collected 45,000.00 45,000.00 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 127,159.10 127,159.10 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 119,852.38) ( 119,852.38) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 52,306.72 52,306.72 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Periods 52,306.72 52,306.72 Pass Through Securities: Interest Collected 0.00 0.00 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 0.00 0.00 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 0.00 0.00 Adjusted by Premiums and Discounts 0.00 0.00 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Periods 0.00 0.00 Cash/Checking Accounts: Interest Collected 200,955.49 200,955.49 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 319,656.32 319,656.32 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 453,845.78) ( 453,845.78) Interest Earned during Period 66,766.03 66,766.03 Total Interest Earned during Period 119,072.75 119,072.75 Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Total Earnings during Period 119,072:75 119,072.75 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:08/10/2006-09:23 PM(PRF_PM6)SyrnRepl 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 r r Investment Portfolio Information For CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME(116-00) Portfolio# 12510150 Section/Report Title A. Account Summary B. Detail of Securities Held C. Fair Market Values&Analytics D. Security Transactions&Interest E. Cash Transactions Report F. Realized Gains&Losses G. Cash Balance Report For The Month Ending July 31,2006 CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME CA PFM Asset Management LLC*One Keystone Plaza*North Front&Market Streets,Suite 300*Harrisburg,PA 17101-2044*(717)232-2723 For more information,please contact your client manager: NSESA KAZADI (415)982-5544 KAZADIN@pfm.com I I PROGRAM IIi Account Summary: 12510150 CAMP-CITYOF BURLINGAME (116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: July 31, 2006 MARKET % OF YTM AT YTM AT DURATION SECURITY TYPE PAR VALUE AMORTIZED COST MARKET VALUE UE PORTFOLIO COST MARKET TO WORST FED AGY BOND/NOTE 11800,000.00 1,799,226.88 1,798,312.50 28.553 4.002 4.873 10.041 FED AGY DN 4,560,000.00 4,509,502.22 4,499,928.68 71.447 4.514 5.317 0.241 TOTAL SECURITIES 69360,000.00 613089729.10 69298,241.18 100.000 4.368 % 5.190 % 0.183 TOTAL INVESTMENTS 69360,000.00 693089729.10 692989241.18 100.000 % ACCRUED INTEREST 23,862.50_ 23,862.50 TOTAL PORTFOLIO $6,3609000.00 $6,3321591.60 $693229103.68 Disclosure Statement: PFM's monthly statement is intended to detail our investment advisory activity. The custodian bank maintains the control of assets and executes (i.e. settles) all investment transactions. The custodian statement is the official record of security and cash holdings and transactions. Only the client has the authority to withdraw funds from or deposit funds to the custodian and to direct the movement of securities. Clients retain responsibility for their internal accounting policies, implementing and enforcing internal controls and generating ledger entries or otherwise recording transactions. PFM recognizes that our clients may use these reports to facilitate record keeping, therefore the custodian bank statement and the PFM statement should be reconciled and differences resolved. PFM's market prices are derived from closing bid prices as of the last business day of the month as supplied by F.T. Interactive Data, Bloomberg or Telerate. Prices that fall between data points are interpolated. Non-negotiable FDIC insured bank certificates of deposit are priced at par. LL PROGRAM Detain Securities Held: 12510150 CAMP-CITYOFBURL,jGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: July 31,2006 SECURITY TYPE MATURITY S&P TRADE SETTLE ORIGINAL YTM ACCRUED AMORTIZED MARKET CUSIP DESCRIPTION PAR COUPON DATE RATING DATE DATE COST AT COST INTEREST COST VALUE FED AGY BOND/NOTE 3133X85Z1 FHLB GLOBAL NOTES 1,800,000 2.875 08/15/06 AAA 07/18/05 07/19/05 1,778,891.40 4.002 23,862,50 1,799,226.88 1,798,312.50 1. 1, FED AGY DN 1,800,000 799,226.88 1,798,3 12.50 313397G47 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,560,000 09/19/06 A-I+ 09/22/05 09/22/05 1,498,508.27 4.081 0.00 1,551,676.52 1,548,658.39 313589M26 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 10/27/06 A-1+ 11/17/05 11/18/05 958,077.78 4.593 0.00 989,366.67 987,151.31 313397P47 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 11/14/06 A-1+ 12/21/05 12/21/05 959,246.00 4.663 0.00 986,953.75 984,525.54 313589T60 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 12/18/06 A-1+ 03/22/06 03/22/06 963,941.94 4.969 0.00 981,505.28 979,593.44 4,560,000 4,379,773.99 4.514 0.00 4,509,502.22 4,499,928.68 TOTAL SECURITIES $6,360,000 $6,158,665.39 4.368% $23,862.50 $6,308,729.10 $6,298,241.18 Issuers by Market Value Ratings by Market Value FH L8 $179' 313 28.8% FHLMC $2,533,184 40.2% Q A•1. $4,499,929 71.4% P" $1988745 31.2% EAAA $1,798,313 28.8% total: 46.293.1� Total: $8,298,241 100.0% B-1 PFMAsset Mwiaftlment LLC- CAMP PROGRAM Fair Market Values & Analytics: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: July 31,2006 SECURITY TYPE MATURITY FIRST CALL MARKET MARKET UNREAL G/(L) UNREAL G/(L) DURATION YTM CUSIP DESCRIPTION PAR COUPON DATE DATE PRICE VALUE ON AMORT COST ON COST TO WORST AT MKT FED AGY BOND/NOTE 3133X85Z1 FHLB GLOBAL NOTES 1,800,000 2.875 08/15/06 99.906 1,798,312.50 (914.38) 19,421.10 0.041 4.873 FED AGY DN 313397G47 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,560,000 09/19/06 99.273 1,548,658.39 (3,018.13) 50,150.12 0.133 5.273 313589M26 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 10/27/06 98.715 987,151.31 (2,215,36) 29,073.53 0.235 5.325 313397P47 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 11/14/06 98.453 984,525.54 (2,428.21) 25,279.54 0.283 5.338 313589T60 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 12/18/06 97.959 979,593.44 (1,911.84) 15,651.50 0.373 5.357 SUBTOTALS $6,298,241.18 ($10,487.92) $139,575.79 0.183 5.190 ACCRUED INTEREST ON INVESTMENT 23.862.50 TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF INVESTMENTS $6,322,103.68 ( ( C-1 PFMAssetManaenI I , I AM Securi.y Transactions & Interest: 12510150 CAMP-01YOFBURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: July 31,2006 S&P MATURITY PRINCIPAL ACCRUED TRADE SETTLE TRAN TYPE SECURITY DESCRIPTION CUSIP RATING PAR COUPON DATE AMOUNT INTEREST TOTAL 07/15/06 07/15/06 INTEREST FNMA GLOBAL BENCHMARK NOTES 31359MV135 AAA 1,000,000 3.125 07/15/06 0.00 15,625.00 15,625.00 1,000,000 0.00 15,625.00 15,625.00 07/15/06 07/15/06 MATURITY FNMA GLOBAL BENCHMARK NOTES 31359MVPS AAA 1,000,000 3.125 07/15/06 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 TOTAL SECURITY TRANSACTIONS 1,015,625.00 D-1 PFM Asset Management LLC- CAMP PROGRAM Cash Transactions Report: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00) MONTH ENDED: July 31,2006 CASH DATE TRANSACTION CODE TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION TOTAL AMOUNT 07/15/06 CW WITHDRAW (1,015,625.00) (1,015,625.00) NET CASH CONTRIBUTIONS/(WITHDRAWS) ($1,015,625.00) E1 Reali;._J Gains and Losses: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFv OkINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) TRADE SETTLE MONTH ENDED: July 31,2006 DATE DATE TRAM TYPE SALE METHOD SECURITY DESCRIPTION PRINCIPAL REALIZED REALIZED 07/15/06 07/15!06 MATURITY FNMA CUSIP PAR VALUE COUPON PROCEEDS G/(L)COST G/(L)AMORT CST GLOBAL BENCHMARK NOTES 31359MVP5 1,000,000 3.125 1,000,000.00 8,318.00 0.00 TOTAL GAINS AND LOSSES $8,318.00 $0.00 F-1 IFMAsset I PROGRAM I , I Cash Balance Report: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00) MONTH ENDED: July 31,2006 CASH BALANCE: $0.00 Earnines Calculation Templates Current Month-End Book Value + Add Coupon Interest Received + Current Month-End Accrued Interest + Less Purchased Interest Related to Coupons Less Purchases Add/Subtract Gains or Losses on Cost For The Mth +/- Less Purchased Interest Total Cost Basis Earnings For The Month Add Disposals(Sales,Maturities,Paydowns,Sinks,etc.) + Add Coupon Interest Received + Less Previous Month-End Book Value - Less Previous Month-End Accrued Interest - Total Accrual Basis Earnings For The Month Economic Calendar 08/04/06 Change in Nonfarm Payrolls 08/17/06 Leading Indicators 08/04/06 Unemployment Rate 08/23/06 Existing Home Sales 08/08/06 FOMC Meeting 08/24/06 New Home Sales 08/15/06 Producer Price Index 08/30/06 Personal Comsumption 08/16/06 Consumer Price Index 08/30/06 GDP 2nd Quarter 08/16/06 Housing Starts 08/31/06 Chicago Purchasing Manager Market Commentary The view that the Fed is at the end of their tightening cycle was reinforced by softer than expected economic growth for the 2nd quarter of 2006. GDP was reported to have grown at a rate of 2.5%against expectations of a 3%growth rate. Although a slower growth rate was expected the degree of the decline was surprising. Both consumer and business spending was disappointing and contributed to the lower GDP figure. The housing market continued to soften in June. Existing home sales fell 13%compared to 2005 and new home sales fell 3%. Those who think that the Fed will increase the overnight lending rate past 5.25%point to inflation as the reason. June Core CPI came in higher than expected for the fourth straight month. The Fed has recently downplayed inflation concerns indicating that slower economic growth should help to contain inflation. Expectations of future rate hikes have declined pushing yields lower across the entire yield curve. The Fed has left themselves considerable maneuvering room but faces a tough decision with slowing growth and persistent inflationary pressures. CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary June 30, 2006 Par Market Book %of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. LAIF&County Pool 18,753,626.08 18,753,626.08 18,753,626.08 55.62 1 1 4.315 4.375 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 13,500,000.00 13,344,266.00 13,500,000.00 40.04 805 360 4.009 4.064 Federal Agency Issues-Discount 1,500,000.00 1,472,300.00 1,464,362.23 4.34 173 128 5.057 5.127 33,753,626.08 33,570,192.08 33,717,988.31 100.00% 330 150 4.224 4.283 Investments Total Earnings June 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Fiscal Year Ending Current Year 116,743.41 1,136,181.41 1,136,181.41 Average Daily Balance 33,240,183.31 28,860,168.92 Effective Rate of Return 4.27% 3.94% Pursuant to State law,there are sufficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure requirements for the coming 6 months. Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types,and availability of some of these funds is restricted by law(e.g.Gas Tax,Trust&Agency funds,Capital Projects,and Enterprise funds). ;4-4so�� A& zwl A, J SUS NAV , FINANCE DIR./TREASURER I� Reporting period 06/01/2006-06/30/2006 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:07/21/2006-09:05 PM(PRF_PM1)SymRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments June 30, 2006 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Date LAW&County Pool SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 10,278,635.06 10,278,635.06 10,278,635.06 4.700 4.700 1 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 8,474,991.02 8,474,991.02 8,474,991.02 3.980 Aaa 3.980 1 Subtotal and Average 18,625,821.08 18,753,626.08 18,753,626.08 18,753,626.08 4.375 1 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 3133X9QV5 517 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/22/2004 1,000,000.00 980,040.00 1,000,000.00 3.500 Aaa 3.500 356 06/22/2007 3133XARN9 518 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/08/2005 1,000,000.00 996,250.00 1,000,000.00 3.390 Aaa 3.390 69 09/08/2006 3133XDGM7 519 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 10/24/2005 1,000,000.00 989,690.00 1,000,000.00 4.450 Aaa 4.450 846 10/24/2008 3133XDNL1 520 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 11/17/2005 1,000,000.00 986,880.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 870 11/17/2008 3133XE2W8 521 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/28/2005 1,000,000.00 992,190.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 545 12/28/2007 3133XEUE 522 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/22/2006 2,000,000.00 1,994,380.00 2,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 174 12/22/2006 3133XFNM4 525 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 05/25/2006 1,000,000.00 997,190.00 1,000,000.00 5.280 Aaa 5.280 328 05/25/2007 3133XFRL2 527 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/22/2006 500,000.00 499,220.00 500,000.00 5.200 Aaa 5.200 174 12/22/2006 3128X2NA9 514 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 01/30/2004 3,000,000.00 2,956,890.00 3,000,000.00 3.000 Aaa 3.000 213 01/30/2007 3136F5TJ0 515 FANNIE MAE 04/27/2004 1,000,000.00 980,630.00 1,000,000.00 3.100 Aaa 3.100 300 04/27/2007 3136F6FZ7 516 FANNIE MAE 10/18/2004 1,000,000.00 970,906.00 1,000,000.00 3.820 Aaa 3.547 474 10/18/2007 Subtotal and Average 13,150,000.00 13,500,000.00 13,344,266.00 13,500,000.00 4.064 360 Federal Agency Issues-Discount 313397E23 524 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 05/17/2006 500,000.00 495,650.00 492,718.06 4.900 Aaa 5.041 62 09/01/2006 3135891-148 523 FANNIE MAE 05/17/2006 500,000.00 493,750.00 490,948.61 4.900 Aaa 5.060 88 09/27/2006 313588CFO 526 FANNIE MAE 05/19/2006 500,000.00 482,900.00 480,695.56 4.964 Aaa 5.285 237 02/23/2007 Subtotal and Average 1,464,362.23 1,500,000.00 1,472,300.00 1,464,362.23 5.127 128 Total and Average 33,240,183.31 33,753,626.08 33,570,192.08 33,717,988.31 4.283 150 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:07/21/2006•09:05 /// PM(PRF_PM2)SymRept 6.41.202a ort Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 3 Activity By Type June 1, 2006 through June 30, 2006 Beginning Stated Transaction Purchases Redemptions Ending CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Rate Date or Deposits or Withdrawals Balance LAIF&County Pool (Monthly Summary) SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 3.980 213,722.82 1,900,000.00 Subtotal 20,439,903.26 213,722.82 1,900,000.00 18,753,626.08 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 3133XFRL2 527 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 5.200 06/22/2006 500,000.00 0.00 Subtotal 13,000,000.00 500,000.00 0.00 13,500,000.00 Federal Agency Issues-Discount Subtotal 1,464,362.23 1,464,362.23 Total 34,904,265.49 713,722.82 1,900,000.00 33,717,988.31 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:07/21/2006.09:05 PM(PRF_PM3)SynnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 4 Activity Summary June 2005 through June 2006 Yield to Maturity Managed Number Number Month Number of Total 360 365 Pool of Investments of Investments Average Average End Year Securities Invested Equivalent Equivalent Rate Purchased Redeemed Term Days to Maturity June 2005 8 31,826,904.29 3.006 3.048 3.085 0 0 265 147 July 2005 8 30,880,702.93 3.045 3.087 3.141 0 0 273 143 August 2005 8 29,380,702.93 3.048 3.091 3.151 0 0 287 141 September 2005 8 25,480,702.93 3.125 3.168 3.285 0 0 330 151 October 2005 9 26,721,256.73 3.268 3.313 3.406 1 0 356 175 November 2005 9 26,614,225.47 3.484 3.532 3.521 1 1 344 206 December 2005 10 27,741,871.03 3.594 3.644 3.613 1 0 356 214 January 2006 10 29,203,493.47 3.692 3.743 3.767 0 0 338 192 February 2006 10 27,236,535.77 3.734 3.786 3.836 0 0 363 196 March 2006 11 28,865,253.49 3.750 3.802 3.721 1 0 361 192 April 2006 11 31,600,492.83 3.997 4.052 4.136 0 0 330 165 May 2006 15 34,904,265.49 4.169 4.227 4.293 4 0 317 155 June 2006 16 33,717,988.31 4.224 4.283 4.375 1 0 330 150 Average 10 29,551,876.59 3.549% 3.598% 3.641 1 0 327 171 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:07/21/2006-09:05 PM(PRF_PM4)SymRept 6.41.202a ( ( r Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 5 Distribution of Investments By Type June 2005 through June 2006 June July August September October November December January February March April May June Average Security Type 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 by Period LAW&County Pool 71.7 70.9 69.4 64.7 62.6 66.2 64.0 65.8 63.3 58.4 62.0 58.6 55.6 64.1% Certificates of Deposit-Bank Certificates of Deposit-S&L Certificates of Deposit-Thrift&Ln Negotiable CD's-Bank CORP NOTES Bankers Acceptances Commercial Paper-Interest Bearing Commercial Paper-Discount Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 28.3 29.1 30.6 35.3 37.4 33.8 36.1 34.2 36.7 41.6 38.0 37.2 40.0 35.3% Federal Agency Issues-Discount 4.2 4.3 0.7% Treasury Securities-Coupon _ _ Treasury Securities-Discount Miscellaneous Securities-Coupon Miscellaneous Securities-Discount Non Interest Bearing Investments Mortgage Backed Securities Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 2 Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 3 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:07/21/2006-09:05 PM(PRF_PM5)SynnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 6 Interest Earnings Summary June 30, 2006 June 30 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date CD/Coupon/Discount Investments: Interest Collected 42,500.00 319,250.00 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 119,852.38 119,852.38 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 111,767.38) ( 66,482.49) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 50,585.00 372,619.89 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Periods 50,585.00 372,619.89 Pass Through Securities: Interest Collected 0.00 0.00 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 0.00 0.00 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 0.00 0.00 Adjusted by Premiums and Discounts 0.00 0.00 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Periods 0.00 0.00 Cash/Checking Accounts: Interest Collected 96,042.94 734,358.98 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 453,845.78 453,845.78 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 483,730.31) ( 424,643.24) Interest Earned during Period 66,158.41 763,561.52 Total Interest Earned during Period 116,743.41 1,136,181.41 Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Total Earnings during Period 116,743.41 1,136,181.41 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:07/21/2006-09:05 PM(PRF_PM6)SymRept 6.41.202a ( Report Ver.5.00 PFM Asset , , PROGRAM, , Investment Portfolio Information For CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME (116-00) Portfolio # 12510150 Section/Report Title A. Account Summary B. Detail of Securities Held C. Fair Market Values&Analytics D. Security Transactions&Interest E. Cash Transactions Report F. Realized Gains&Losses G. Cash Balance Report For The Month Ending June 30, 2006 CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME CA PFM Asset Management LLC * One Keystone Plaza*North Front&Market Streets,Suite 300*Harrisburg,PA 17101-2044*(717)232-2723 For more information,please contact your client manager; NSESA KAZADI (415)982-5544 KAZADIN@pfm.com PFM AssetI PROGRAM I / I t Account Summary: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED' June 30,2006 MARKET%OF YTM AT YTM AT DURATION SECURITY TYPE PAR VALUE AMORTIZED COST MARKET VALUE PORTFOLIO COST MARKET TO WQRS FED AGY BOND/NOTE 2,800,000.00 2,797,240.07 2,793,437.50 38.412 3.998 5.323 0.093 FED AGY DN 4,560,000.00 4,492,471.00 4,478,815.50 61.588 4.514 5.374 0.323 TOTAL SECURITIES 7,360,000.00 7,289,711.07 7,272,253.00 100.000 4.316% 5,354% 0.235 TOTAL INVESTMENTS 7,360,000.00 7,289,711.07 7,272,253.00 100.000% ACCRUED INTEREST 33,959.72 33,959.72 TOTAL PORTFOLIO $7,360,000.00 $7,323,670.79 $7,306,212.72 Disclosure Statement: PFM's monthly statement is intended,to detail our investment,advisory activity.The custodian bank maintains the control of assets and executes(i,e,settles)all investment transactions.The custodian statement is the official record of security and cash holdings and transactions. Only the client has the authority to withdraw funds from or deposit funds to the custodian and to direct the movement of securities. Clients retain responsibility for their internal accounting policies,implementing and enforcing internal controls and generating ledger entries or otherwise recording transactions.PFM recognizes that our clients may use these reports to facilitate record keeping,therefore the custodian bank statement and the PFM statement should be reconciled and differences resolved.PFM's market prices are derived from closing bid prices as of the last business day of month as supplied by F.T.Interactive Data,Bloomberg or Telerate,Prices that fall betwr -lata points are interpolated. Non-negotiable FDIC insured bank certificates of deposit -iced at par. A-1 PFM A i I PROGRAM I / I Detail of Securities Held: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: June 30,2006 SECURITY TYPE MATURITY S&P TRADE SETTLE ORIGINAL YTM ACCRUED AMORTIZED MARKET CUSIP DESCRIPTION PAR COUPON DATE RATING DATE DATE COST AT COST INTEREST COST VALUE FED AGY BOND/NOTE 31359MVP5 FNMA GLOBAL BENCHMARK NOTES 1,000,000 3.125 07/15/06 AAA 07/18/05 07/19/05 991,682,00 3,991 14,409,72 999,669,86 999,062.50 3133X85Z1 FHLB GLOBAL NOTES 1,800,000 2,875 08/15/06 AAA 07/18/05 07/19/05 1,778,891.40 4.002 19,550.00 1,797,570.21 1,794,375,00 FED AGY DN 2,800,000 2,770,573,40 3.998 33,959.72 1 2,797,240.07 2,793,437.50 313397047 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,560,000 09/19/06 A-l+ 09/22/05 09/22/05 1,498,508.27 4.081 0.00 1,546,410,66 1,541,536.54 313589M26 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 10/27/06 A-1+ 11/17/05 11/18/05 958,077,78 4.593 0.00 985,577,78 982,535.25 313397P47 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 11/14/06 A-1+ 12/21/05 12/21/05 959,246.00 4.663 0.00 983,102.00 979,881.62 313589T60 FNMA DISC NOTE 11000,000 12/18/06 A-1+ 03/22/06 03/22/06 963,941.94 4.969 0,00 977,380.56 974,862.09 4,560,000 4,379,773.99 4,514 0,00 4,492,471.00 4,478,815.50 TOTAL SECURITIES $7,360,000 $7,150,347,39 4.316% $33,959.72 $7,289,711.07 $7,272,253.00 Issuers by Market Value Ratings by Market Value O FHLB $1,794,37524.7% FHUAC $2,521,418 34.7% Q A-1+ $4,478,816 81.6% FNA1A $2956460 40.1% g AAA $2,793,436 36.4% Total: $7,272,253 100.0% dL B-I IManagement I PROGRAM 4 Fair Market Values & Analytics: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: June 30,2006 SECURITY TYPE MATURITY FIRST CALL MARKET MARKET UNREAL G/(L) UNREAL G/(L) DURATION YTM CUSIP DESCRIPTION PAR COUPON DATE DATE PRICE VALUE ON AMORT COST ON COST TO WORST AT MKT FED AGY BOND/NOTE 31359MVP5 FNMA GLOBAL BENCHMARK NOTES 1,000,000 3.125 07/15/06 99.906 999,062.50 (607,36) 7,380.50 0.041 5,304 3133X85Z1 FHLB GLOBAL NOTES 1,800,000 2.875 08/15/06 99.688 1,794,375.00 (3,195.21) 15,483.60 0.122 5.334 FED AGY DN 313397G47 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,560,000 09/19/06 98.816 1,541,536.54 (4,874.12) 43,028.27 0,216 5.323 313589M26 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 10/27/06 98.254 982,535.25 (3,042.53) 24,457.47 0.317 5.377 313397P47 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 11/14/06 97.988 979,881.62 (3,220.38) 20,635.62 0.365 5.395 313589T60 FNMA DISC NOTE 11000,000 12/18/06 97.486 974,862.09 (2,518.47) 10,920,15 0.456 5.429 SUBTOTALS $7.272.253.00 ($17,458.07) $121,905.61 0.235 5.354 ACCRUED INTEREST ON INVESTMENT 33,959,72 TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF INVESTMENTS $7,306,212.72 PFM Asset Mait LL C- CAMP PROGRAM ` Security fransactions & Interest: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: June 30,2006 S&P MATURITY PRINCIPAL ACCRUED TRADE SETTLE TRAN TYPE SECURITY DESCRIPTION CUSIP RATING PAR COUPON DATE AMOUNT INTEREST TOTAL 06/15/06 06/15/06 INTEREST FNMA BENCHMARK NOTES 31359MJX2 AAA 1,000,000 5.250 06/15/06 0.00 26,250.00 26,250.00 1,000,000 0.00 26,250.00 26,250.00 06/15/06 06/15/06 MATURITY FNMA BENCHMARK NOTES 31359MJX2 AAA 1,000,000 5.250 06/15/06 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000 1,000,000.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 TOTAL SECURITY TRANSACTIONS 1,026,250.00 D-1 t PFM Asset Management LLC- CAMP-PROGRAM Cash Transactions Report: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00) MONTH ENDED: June 30,2006 CASH DATE TRANSACTION CODE TRANSACTION DESCRIPTIQN TOTAL AMOUNT 06/15/06 CW WITHDRAW (1,026,250.00) (1,026.250.00) NET CASH CONTRIBUTIONS/(WITHDRAWS) ($1,026,250.00) PFMAs.vetManqgemoSLLC- CAMP PROGRAM ` Realizru Gains and Losses: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: June 30,2006 TRADE SETTLE PRINCIPAL REALIZED REALIZED DATE DATE TRAN TYPE SALE METHOD SECURITY DESCRIPTION CUSIP PAR VALUE COUPON PROCEEDS G/(L)COST G/(L)AMORT CST 06/15/06 06/15/06 MATURITY FNMA BENCHMARK NOTES 31359MJX2. 1,000,000 5.250 1,000,000.00 (11,340.00) 0.00 TOTAL GAINS AND LOSSES ($11,340.00) $0.00 I F•1 PROGRAM Cash Balance Report: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00) MONTH ENDED: June 30,2006 CASH BALANCE; $0.00 Earnings Calculation Templates Current Month-End Book Value + Add Coupon Interest Received + Current Month-End Accrued Interest + Less Purchased Interest Related to Coupons Less Purchases Add/Subtract Gains or Losses on Cost For The Mth +/- Less Purchased Interest Total Cost Basis Earnings For The Month Add Disposals(Sales,Maturities,Paydowns,Sinks,etc,) + Add Coupon Interest Received + Less Previous Month-End Book Value Less Previous Month-End Accrued Interest Total Accrual Basis Earnings For The Month Economic Calendar 07/07/06 Change in Nonfarm Payrolls 07/20/06 Leading Indicators 07/07/06 Unemployment Rate 07/25/06 Existing Home Sales 07/14/06 Advance Retail Sales 07/27/06 New Home Sales 07/18/06 Producer Price Index 07/27/06 Durable Goods Orders 07/19/06 Consumer Price Index 07/28/06 GDP 2nd Quarter 07/19/06 Housing Starts 07/31/06 Chicago Purchasing Manager Market Commentary The FOMC finished the quarter with their 17th consecutive 25 basis point increase bringing the target Fed Funds rate to 5.25%. Few were surprised as many had expected the Fed to increase rates, The Fed acknowledged in their post meeting statement that the economy was moderating but continued to express worries about future inflation. The statement was somewhat non-committal and gave the Fed plenty of room to react to upcoming economic data. Inflation has been trending higher than what the Fed finds desirable and will be a key part of their decision making process in the future. Economic data released in June was mixed, Housing is slowing slower than expected,but the number of unsold homes has increased.Many have expected that the increase in mortgage rates and the speculative nature of some housing markets would lead to a rapid slowdown. The non-farm payroll number was much lower than expected,75,000 jobs were created vs. expectations of 170,000,but the unemployment rate decreased to 4,6%. Although the non-farm payroll number was less than expected there is anecdotal evidence that there is a shortage of some types of workers. Rates in general moved higher for the month and the yield curve stayed flat. The two. year Treasury ended the month at 5,15%and the ten-year Treasury closed at 5.14%. Yields at the beginning of the month were 5.04%and 5.12%respectively. Y City of Burlingame MONTHLY PERMIT ACTIVITY July 2006 THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F. Y. 2007 F. Y.2006 DIFF Permit Type # # % # # % WATER HEATER 3 3,278 9 0 3 3,278 9 0 0 SWIMMING POOL 1 33,000 1 33,000 SIGN 5 12,200 5 9,500 28 5 12,200 5 9,500 28 ROOFING 31 529,100 22 295,257 79 31 529,100 22 295,257 79 RETAINING WALL 1 120,000 1 120,000 PLUMBING 20 52,090 9 0 20 52,090 9 0 0 NEW SFD 3 1,140,000 2 910,000 25 3 1,140,000 2 910,000 25 NEW COMMERCIAL NEW 5 UNIT APT OR CO NEW 3 OR 4 UNIT APT MECHANICAL 3 27,750 4 0 3 27,750 4 0 0 KITCHEN UPGRADE 1 30,000 1 30,000 1 30,000 1 30,000 0 FURNACE 1 10,847 2 0 1 10,847 2 0 0 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 4 9,400 4 9,400 City of Burlingame MONTHLY PERMIT ACTIVITY July 2006 THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F. Y. 2007 F. Y.2006 DIFF Permit Type # # % # # % ELECTRICAL 6 1,625 10 41,417 -96 6 1,625 10 41,417 -96 BATHROOM UPGRADE 6 91,000 2 100,300 -9 6 91,000 2 100,300 -9 ALTERATION RESIDENTI 36 1,531,312 60 1,730,312 -12 36 1,531,312 60 1,730,312 -12 ALTERATION NON RES 3 1,235,000 8 112,000 1,003 3 1,235,000 8 112,000 1,003 Totals: 122 4,673,602 136 3,381,786 38 122 4,673,602 136 3,381,786 38 Monthly permit activity for FY 06/07 is similar to FY 05/06.The apparent increase of 38% is actually a reflection of the change to our new CRW permit tracking system. Information collected in this report was not captured in the previous AS-400 permit tracking software system. Pre-application meeting update! During the month of July staff hosted pre-application meetings for the following projects: Sunrise Assisted Living, 1818 Trousdale Avenue New Restaurant,410 Airport Boulevard Comcast® Comcast Cable 12647 Alcosta Boulevard Suite 200 July 21, 2006 San Ramon,CA 94583 Mr. Jesus Nava City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Jesus Nava: As you may already know, it has always been our goal at Comcast to ensure that your office remains informed of the programming services we offer to our customers who reside in your community. In pursuit of keeping with that goal, we are sending you this letter to inform you of our intent to adjust the programming on the current channel line-up. Effective July 26, 2006, Comcast will add the KFTY-DT channel to the Limited Basic level of service on channel 199. Customers with the Limited Basic subscription and a Digital Control Terminal will receive the programming at no additional cost. Customers have been notified of the addition via a message on their Digital Control Terminal. This channel addition will not result in a price increase at this time. If you should have any questions or concerns regarding the matter please feel free to coritdci your iacai ff D 4 T n Pell g `k4cV% X0(1 GoV 111i11G11L tiiiair >;irec�or, LCc-r�ilil Y �i��: cii '180 6794. Sincerely, a� Mitzi Givens-Russell Government Affairs Manager Franchise Compliance- Bay Market Comcast® Comcast Cable 12647 Alcosta Boulevard Suite 200 San Ramon,CA 94583 August 9, 2006 FOaxice:925,9 7.7000 015 www.comcast.com Mr. Jesus Nava City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Jesus Nava: As you may already be aware, it is our goal at Comcast to ensure that your office remains informed of the programming services we offer to our customers who reside in your community. In keeping with that goal we are sending you this letter to inform you of our intention to adjust the current channel line-up in your community. Effective September 5, 2006 we will remove the CasaClub TV channel from channel 600 and add the VeneMovies channel to the line up at channel 600 on the Hispanic tier of services. VeneMovies offers a comprehensive collection of current movies in Spanish and original productions; the biggest blockbusters from Mexico, Colombia, Puerto Rico, Argentina, Chile, Venezuela and other Spanish speaking countries with no commercial breaks, 24 HOURS A DAY! These adjustments will not result in a price increase at this time. If you should have any questions or concerns regarding the matter, please feel free to contact your local Government Affairs Director, Lee-Ann Peling at (650) 289- 6794. Sincerel Mitzi Givens-Russell Government Affairs Manager Franchise Compliance-Bay Market Ccomcast Comcast Cable 12647 Alcosta Boulevard Suite 200 San Ramon,CA 94583 August 10, 2006 Mr. Jesus Nava City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Jesus Nava: As you may already know, it is our goal at Comcast Cable to ensure that your office remains informed of the programming services that we offer to our subscribers who reside in your community. In pursuit of keeping with that goal, we are sending you this letter. We are excited to inform you of a Digital programming addition that took place in your community on July 26, 2006! Comcast added the KFTY channel to the Limited Basic level of service on channel 199. The KFTY channel is available to all Limited Basic subscribers with a Digital Control Terminal at no extra charge. This addition will not result in a price increase at this time. If you should have any questions or concerns regarding the matter please feel free to contact your local Government Affairs Director, Lee-Ann Peling at (650) 289-6794. Sincerely, q6_� Mitzi Givens-Russell Government Affairs Manager Franchise Gornpiiance-Bay nflamet �r I r F r RECEIVED Q SAMAMAN AUG 7 2006 H O U S E CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF BURLINGAME August 1, 2006 Mayor Cathy Baylock City of Burlingame City Hall—501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Cathy: I write to express our deep gratitude to you and the other members of the Burlingame City Council for providing Samaritan House with a total of$14,245 in grants for the 2006-07 fiscal year, including $7,038 for general agency operations and $7,207 for Safe Harbor shelter operations. As you know, we will certainly put these funds to good use, helping to improve the lives of our low-income neighbors. We continue to clothe moms and dads for work, feed hungry families, provide medical and dental care for the uninsured, grant rental assistance in times of financial emergencies, and offer counseling to families and individuals. Recently, we have been increasing our educational efforts, offering free classes in budgeting, parenting skills, English as a Second Language, literacy, financial education, and health and wellness. Our intention is to help our clients break the cycle of poverty and become self-sufficient, and education is clearly essential to achieving that goal. Our Safe Harbor shelter in South San Francisco provides a variety of services to homeless men and women, including comfortable beds, hot meals, and restroom facilities. Additionally, shelter residents have the opportunity to meet one-on-one with case managers who can assist them in achieving their personal objectives. Safe Harbor is also the only shelter in San Mateo County that accepts individuals who have active substance-abuse problems, offering them the opportunity to participate in HAALO (Helping Alcoholics and Addicts Learn to Overcome). We are so grateful to know that you and the other members of the Burlingame City Council recognize both the need for these critical programs and the ability of Samaritan House to help meet that need. It is a privilege to partner with you in providing these kinds of services to our low-income neighbors. Thank you so much for your care and compassion. Sincerely, oo ��i Kitty Lopez Executive Director cc: Jesus Nava, Finance Director CENTRAL OFFICE - 1515 South Claremont Street • San Mateo, CA 94402 • (650) 341-4081 - Fax (650) 341-0526 SAN MATEO CLIENT SERVICES • 401 North Humboldt Street • San Mateo, CA 94401 • (650) 347-3648 Fax (650) 347-6066 REDWOOD CITY CLIENT SERVICES • 114 - 5th Avenue • Redwood City, CA 94063 • (650) 839-1447 Fax (650) 839-1457 www.somaritanhouse.com Food & Nutrition • Shelter • Healthcare • Clothing • Counseling • Worker Resrouces • Holiday Assistance Sustainable San Mateo County (650)638-2323 177 Bovet Road, Sixth Floor Fax: (650)3.41-1395 San Mateo, CA 94402 E-mail:advocate@sustainablesanmateo.org 10) Web!www.sustainablesonmateo.org Dedicated to the long-term health and vitality of our region Founder MARCIA PAGELS RECEIVED BOARD of DIRECTORS August 7, 2006 Chair AUG 10 2006 RUTH PETERSON Ms. Cathy Baylock Vice Chair PATRICK BURT Mayor CITY CLERK'S OFFICE to secrery City of Burlingame CITY OF BURLINGAME BETH BHATNAGAR 501 Primrose Road Treasurer Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 THOMAS ROUNDS GLADWYN D'SOU7A Dear Mayor Baylock: ROSALYN Koo MARCIA PAGELS On behalf of Sustainable San Mateo County (SSMC),I want to thank the City of Burlingame SrEPHAm SCOTT for its generous contribution of$1,551 toward our 2007 Indicators for a Sustainable San SAPNA SINGH Mateo County Report. We are pleased your city values the importance of promoting ADVISORY COUNCIL sustainable thinking and practices in our communities. JILL BOONE orr JULIA G TOM IA OTT During the past few months, SSMC's Director of Education, Shelley Kilday,has been NIN EVANGELINE BURGESS receiving valuable feedback from government leaders and staff on how to make our RICHARD GORDON Indicators Report an even more useful and effective tool for decision-makers. We look JERRY HILL forward to.incorporating your ideas and suggestions in our 2007 Edition. ANNE HINCKLE DAVID HINCKLE Our work is always more effective with the support and encouragement of local leaders. We ARTHUR LLOYD are grateful for your financial recognition of the Report's value and look forward to working KAY MCCANN together to enhance the long-term vitality of our region. DOUG MCGLASHAN RICKI MCGLASHAN Sincerly yours, CLEM MOLONY ! JANICE ROSSI Executive Adadaiskotor Ruth Peterson CARLA BAGNESCHI Board Chair Director of Education SHELLEY KiLDAY �L����,� Editor in Chief v'^ If Indicators Report LINDA BAGNESCHI DORRANCE "- Project Coordinator Indicators Report t ADAM BENNETT SUSTAINABLE SAN MATEO COUNTY is a nonprofit public benefit corporation exempt from federal income tax under IRS Code Section 501(c)(3) SAN MATED COUNTY low. 14111 H RECEIVED PeninaWorks IffVJUL 3 1 2006 Your one-stop job connection CITY CLERK'S'F_" July 27,2006 CITY OF Ri lr" The City of Burlingame Mayor Cathy Baylock 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Dear Mayor Cathy Baylock, The San Mateo County Jobs for Youth program wishes to extend a heartfelt thank you for the generous monetary donation of$3000.00. Each year,the program continues to advance its mission in providing youth with employment services that will assist them to be successful in their employment goals. The monies raised at the Jobs for Youth fund-raising event on May 25,2006 will help to serve youth ages 14 through 21 years old with employment services throughout the year. There is no cost to the youth or employers. The San Mateo County Jobs for Youth program relies on the kindness of businesses and individuals such as you to keep this worthwhile program in operation. With your assistance,we were able to improve youth employment services throughout San Mateo County: • Made one addition to our counseling staff in the southern region • Added a youth internship program at our Redwood City location • Provided paid internships to the Coastside youth community • Currently collaborating with Americorps volunteers to increase employment services in the San Mateo and Coastside youth communities. Thank you very much in supporting the youth in our community. Your donation is tax deductible to the fullest extent allowed by law. Our Federal Tax ID#94-6000-532. We use this in lieu of a 501 (C3)designation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Al Teglia, San Mateo County Jobs for Youth Program Coordinator at(650)301-8444. Sincerely_ Al Tegli a Ruby Tomas Program Coordinator Program Services Coordinator CALL CHRISTIAN LIFE LINE 139 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 ,uly 19, 2006 RECEIVED 650-342-2255 FAX JUL 2 6 2006 650-342-5005 City of Burlingame CITY OF BURLINGAME c/o Jesus Nava, Finance Director Coordinating Council 501 Primrose Rd Board Members Burlingame CA 94010 Polly Baugh Dear Friends, Marie Bernardo Suzanne Boutin It is so rewarding to be recognized for our work in the local Tom Caldecott community. Thank you for lending a helping hand to assist us in easing the troubles of others. It is this shared concern that Tony DiCenzo allows all of us to be a part of one family. Tyce Fields Nancy Fineman Your recent grant in the amount of $4,801 is so important in helping us maintain our community outreach programs. You are Carol Knowles to be applauded for the good will this gift brings representing the Denise Lundquist City of Burlingame. Rev. Laurie McHugh Every day, we receive thanks from our clients. It is my pleasure Joan Mersman to extend their thanks to you as well. Rachel Rothe Cora Sargent Blessings, Rev. Dr. Paul Watermulder Linda Weaver Larry Wright,Jr. Naomi Youngdoff Mary Watt Executive Director CALL Primrose Executive Director Mary Watt To faithfully assist those in need on a path to self-sufficiency by providing direct aid and referral services RECEIVED Serving People with Developmental Disabilities &their Families JUL 2 6 2006 CITYCLERK'S OFFICE July 20, 2004 CITY OF BURL INGHMF Mr. Jesus Nava, Finance Director City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Dear Mr. Nava: On behalf of Parca clients, staff, volunteers, and Board of Directors, I would like to express my sincere thanks to the City of Burlingame for its recent grant to Parca's Raji House. The funds we received will be used to offset the cost of recreation expenses needed to engage program participants. As you know, Raji House is an out-of-home respite care program for children and teens with developmental disabilities. Located in Burlingame, this facility has come to be a lifeline for families dealing with the challenges of developmental disability and is unique in the Bay Area. We are most grateful for your continuing support of this 12-year-old program. Thanks again. Sincerely, Diana M. Conti Executive Director 800 Airport Blvd.,Suite 320,Burlingame,CA 94010 Phone 650.312.0730 Fax 650.312.0737 E-mail parca@parca.org Donation pickup 1-877-99PARCA (toll free) www.parca.org 0 m 3uasman SERVICESof San Mateo1700 South Amphlett Blvd, Suite 220, San Mateo,CA 94402 County, Inc. phone: 650 349 7008, fax: 650 349-7009 July 17, 2006 City of Burlingame RECEIVED Attention: Mayor Cathy Baylock JUL 0 2006 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 CITY OE RK'SBURLGAME BOARD Dear Ms. Baylock: Mary C.Pappas President Betty Brown I write to thank City of Burlingame for its check of$1,012 in support Vice President of the services we provide to the residents of the long-term care Nancy Cronin facilities in your city. We are indeed grateful that you recognize the Treasurer value of our services, and we will continue to do our work to improve Tippy Irwin the quality of care and the quality of life for this vulnerable group of Secretary people. Andre Belarmino Carolyn Crow Fran Guevarra Sincerely, Harold O.Hughes Fred Jackson Marianne Mannia - Pat Str li Al Teglia lnj h Legal Counsel Tipp rwin Executive Director Deirdre OReilly Marblestone Your Ref: 101-64560-220 Vendor Number: 01535 Thanks to all our donors,including the following major contributors:San Mateo County Area Agency on Aging, Peninsula Healthcare District,Peninsula Community Foundation,Bernard A.Newcomb Foundation, Woodlawn Foundation,City ofSan Mateo,City of Redwood City,Atkinson Foundation,Labuda Family Foundation,Catholic Healthcare West, Sequoia Healthcare District Chair Niall McCarthy Cotchett, Pitre, Simon G McCarthy Vice Chair COMMUNITY Barry Parker GATE PATH Carr, McClellan, Ingersoll, OF NORTHERN CALIFORNIA Thompson & Horn "Turning Disabilities Into Possibilities" Treasurer Joe GaWgan Galligan, Thompson &Floras, LLP July 17, 2006 RECEIVED Secretary Lee Caraher The Honorable Cathy Baylock Double Forte JUL 2 4 2006 City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road CITY CLERK'S OFFICE Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY OF BURLINGAME Board of Directors Dear Mayor Baylock, Pat Barr Hillsborougb Auxiliary to Community Gatepath On behalf of the participants, staff and Board of Directors, I would like to Elaine Breeze express my personal appreciation and thanks for your contribution of SummerHill Homes $4317.00 to Community Gatepath's Family Resource Center. Your Sonny Da Marto ongoing support and generosity enables those we serve to continually Burlingame School District grow towards independence, as well as experience the joy of acceptance, Jeff Fallick friendship, challenge and success. Falliek Insurance Services Patricia Giosso For over 80 years, Community Gatepath has been turning disabilities into Coldwell Banker possibilities by serving over 2000 children, adults and seniors with Norm Jacobi disabilities, as well as their families. With the assistance of organizations Marsh such as the City of Burlingame, we are able to achieve our goal in helping MaryJanney these individuals lead more independent and fulfilling lives, by reaching Sterling Court their full potential. Larry Leisure Kaiser Permanente Again, thank you for your continued support of our organization. Susan Manheimer San Mateo Police Department Very truly yours, H.G.(Toby) Mumford,Jr. Franklin Templeton Resources i Bryan Neider Electronic Arts Sheryl Young AdrienneTissier CEO County Board of Supervisors Sheryl Young Chief Executive Officer 875 Stanton Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Tel:650-259-8500 Fax:650-697-5010 www.gatepath.com 0 0 0 YOUTH AND FAMILY ENRICHMENT SERVICES July 17, 2006 Mr. Jesus Nava Finance Director City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, Ca 94010-3997 Dear Mr. Nava, On behalf of all of us at Youth and Family Enrichment Services (YFES), I would like to thank you for your generous grant in the amount of$2,146.00. YFES believes that everyone deserves the chance to be healthy and strong, no matter what challenges life has handed to them. We provide assistance at every step of the way—with residential and treatment services for those who need the help most urgently; early intervention services and counseling to individuals and families who are showing the first signs of a problem; and prevention and education programs to build up youth, adults, and families before issues arise. Your support empowers your neighbors to transform their challenges into opportunities. Thank you for helping us to strengthen our communities. Si6Rybic BExirector I No goods or valuable services were provided in exchange for your gift. Youth and Family Enrichment Services is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, tax ID#94-3084966. FORMERLY: YOUTH AND FAMILY ASSISTANCE & FAMILY AND COMMUNITY ENRICHMENT SERVICES 6 10 ELM STREET, SUITE 212. SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 • 650-591-9623 • 650-591-9750 FAX • WWW.YFES.ORG ..............._. ........... ..................._....._._.... .S' TUE BURLINGA"WSTORICAL SOCIVM P.O.DOR 248•AF7RI,IgGAMB,_CA_,fl,#U7,1 July 23, 2006 Finance Director Jesus Nava City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Jesus, dear honorable Mayor Baylock and Councilmembers: On behalf of the Board of the Burlingame Historical Society, I'd like to thank the City of Burlingame for the generous check of $3113.00 to use towards purchasing our new computer system for the Archives. We are absolutely thrilled about this, and so look forward to being able to work more efficiently. We are always looking for ways to better educate the community in its own heritage, and are grateful to you for making our job a lot easier. Sincerely yours, Jennifer Pfaff Co-Vice President Burlingame Historical Society * CORA Community Overcoming Relationship Abuse August 9,2006 Jesus Nava - Finance Director, City of Burlingame City Hall—501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010-3997 Dear Mr.Nava: This letter is to inform you that we have received a check for the full amount($3,099)from the City of Burlingame in response to our request for Community Group Funding. I would like to thank you on behalf of CORA's board and staff for your support of our organization. This current award will help our agency continue to serve the needs of domestic violence victims in the City of Burlingame. Thank you for your continued investment in our work. Sincerely, Natasha Guest Director of Development P.O.Box Sogo,San Mateo,CA 94402 • Office:65o.652.o800 • Fax:65o.652.o8o8 24-hr Hotline: 800.300.to8o • wwwcorasupport.org 117 y July 31, 2006 Mr. Jesus Nava Finance Director City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Dear Mr.Nava: We are very appreciative of the contribution of$1,789.00 in support of Mission Hospice and our new Transitions pre-hospice program. Please express our gratitude to the members of the City of Burlingame's City Council for their continued support of these vital services to our community. Please note our new address for your records. I hope you will join us Wednesday, October 11 from 1:00 pm until 7:00 pm for an Open House at our new offices. We are directly behind the offices of San Mateo City Hall. Thank you again for your generous contribution. Sincerely, Donn"1VLTyrid �l Director of Development r. Serving the community since 1979 1900 O'Farrell Street • Suite 200 San Mateo • California 94403 • T 650.554.1000 F 650.554.1001 www.mission hospice.org Comcast® Comcast Cable 1205 Chrysler Drive Menlo Park,CA 94025 August 14, 2006 Mr. Jesus Nava Finance Director/Treasurer City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010-3997 Re: Senior Citizen Discounts for Comcast Cable Subscribers Dear Jesus: I am in receipt of your letter regarding potential discounts for cable subscribers in the City of Burlingame that are senior citizens. Unfortunately, Comcast does not currently provide a discount on cable services to senior citizens. Historically, there were such discounts available in some areas due to the fact that there was only one level of service available (i.e. "fat basic") , and that fat basic was priced somewhere around $30.00 per month. This changed in the 1990s with the split of limited basic and standard into two tiers of service. Comcast currently provides many product and pricing choices for our customers, from limited basic service to platinum level digital service, which provide a number of different price points, depending on customer needs and interests. The current price of limited basic service is just $12.79 a month (not including taxes and franchise fees). Additionally, Comcast is rate regulated by the City of Burlingame on the limited basic service tier, thereby ensuring a low cost basic rate. Comcast is not an exclusive provider of video products and we face tremendous competition from many providers who are not regulated and do not face an equivalent regulatory framework, such as franchise fees, PEG support and build-out requirements. Due to the increased level of competition, we must continue to invest in the infrastructure to improve our product and service offerings. I trust this responds to your inquiry but should you need any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Very't� ly yo s, Lee-Ann Peing' Director of Government Affairs West Bay Area Dom'"Mk ' - Connect to something more.' David Hankin,Vice President Regulatory&Government Affairs 1400 Fashion Island Blvd.#100 San Mateo,CA 94404 (650)212-8010 July 28, 2006 Jesus Nava, Finance Director/Treasurer City of Burlingame, 501 Primrose Road Burlingame CA 94010-3997 Dear Mr. Nava: This is in reference to your recent letter requesting information on RCN's senior citizen discounts. Please be advised that RCN does not offer any senior citizen discounts in the Bay area. With regard to low income rates, in the City of San Francisco we offer a 20% reduced rate that only applies to the basic or expanded basic tiers. To qualify for this discount, a person must be receiving federal, state or local cash income maintenance benefits or food assistance. Please do not hesitate to contact me should you need additional information. Sincerely, , David Hankin