Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2006.10.03 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame l Regular Meeting—Tuesday, October 3, 2006 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 650 558-7200 Page 1 of 3 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p. in. Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES - Regular Council Meeting of September 18, 2006 Approve 5. PRESENTATION a. Relay for Life Proclamation Presentation b. Citizens for a Better Burlingame Proclamation Presentation 6. PUBLIC HEARING The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. a. Appeal of Planning Commission's approval of design Hearing/Action review variance for parking in the front setback and special permit for detached garage located within the rear 40% of the lot for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1520 Arc Way, zoned R-1 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. Caltrain railroad corridor fencing options Discuss/Direct b. Consider appointment to Beautification Commission and Appoint appointment to Parks & Recreation Commission c. General framework for Measure H Citizens Oversight Discuss/Approve Committee—2006 Flood Protection & Public Safety Bonds d. Adoption of a street tree reforestation project Discuss/Direct e. Traffic Safety Parking Commission vacancy Discuss 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame Regular Meeting—Tuesday, October 3, 2006 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 650 558-7200 Page 2 of 3 a. Accept reports from Executive Director of City of Burlingame Redevelopment Agency and Executive Director of Financing Authority of the City of Burlingame that Conflict of Interest Codes do not require amendment b. Adopt Resolution amending the list of designated officers and employees in the City's Conflict of Interest Code c. Resolution accepting Burlinghome-Easton subdivision Nos. 5 and 7 Main Replacement Project d. Progress update on the Mills Canyon slide repairs project e. Approval of a Resolution supporting the State of California Propositions 1 A,1 B,1 C,l D,1 E and Proposition 84 on the November, 2006 Ballot 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 13. NEW BUSINESS 14. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Library, July 18 & August 15, 2006; Beautification, September 7, 2006; Planning, September 25, 2006; b. Department Reports: Building, August, 2006; Police, August, 2006 15. ADJOURNMENT TO CLOSED SESSION CLOSED SESSION a. Conference with Real Property Negotiators pursuant to Government Code §54956.8: Property: Shinnyo-En Temple (former Hoover School 2220 Summit Drive) BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame url ► Regular Meeting—Tuesday, October 3, 2006 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 650 558-7200 Page 3 of 3 Agency Negotiators: Jim Nantell, Randy Schwartz, Larry Anderson Negotiating Parties: Shinnyo-En; Under negotiation: Possible lease of property 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.burlingame.ora. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—Monday, October 16, 2006 CITY C ININ BURLINGAME w,m 1�NwTED JUNE 6. BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of September 18, 2006 STUDY SESSION a. JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND CHAMBER OF COMMERCE Mayor Baylock reported that the Chamber of Commerce discussed their goals and plans. Also discussed were ways to attract new businesses to Burlingame and to attract more business in Burlingame to support our sales tax revenue. 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 7:10 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Kim Olin. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Cohen, Keighran, Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: None 4. MINUTES Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 5, 2006 regular Council meeting; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Nagel abstained). 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPTION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1794 TO AMEND AND CLARIFY PARKING METER AND METERED LOT ENFORCEMENT ON DESIGNATED CITY HOLIDAYS THAT FALL ON CERTAIN WEEKENDS COP Van Etten reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance No. 1794 amending the definition of holidays for parking enforcement. Mayor Baylock opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. 1 Burlingame City Council September 18, 2006 Unapproved Minutes Councilwoman Keighran made a motion to approve adoption of Ordinance No.1794 amending chapter 13.04 to amend the definition of holidays for parking enforcement; seconded by Councilman Cohen. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. Mayor Baylock directed CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke on the Peninsula Hospital construction, the SPCA, street sweeping and Measure H. Sue Martinez, 910 N. Idaho Street, San Mateo, spoke on Item 8.a. Gary Parma, 4312 Edison and 1107 Peninsula Avenue, spoke on Item 8.a. There were no further comments from the floor. Mayor Baylock moved to Item 8.a. due to public interest. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a. RESOLUTION NO. 74-2006 APPROVING A TRAFFIC STUDY SCOPE OF WORK FOR THE PENINSULA AVENUE INTERCHANGE AT U.S. HIGHWAY 101 AND A COST SHARING AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY OF SAN MATEO DPW Bagdon reviewed the staff report and requested Council approve Resolution No. 74-2006 approving an agreement with the City of San Mateo for traffic impact analysis of the Peninsula Avenue Interchange. DPW Bagdon explained the various steps for this study and the steps that follow. Staff will return to council when they have the results of the study for further public comment before proceeding further. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Resolution No. 74-2006 approving the agreement between the City of Burlingame and the City of San Mateo for traffic impact analysis of the Peninsula Avenue Interchange; seconded by Vice Mayor Nagel. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-1 (Cohen dissented). 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. PROVIDE DIRECTION FOR THE PLANNING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM FY 2006-07, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council review various single family residential issues and identify three for study by the Planning Commission during FY 2006-07. After discussion, Council concurred that the Planning Commission should focus on Mass and Bulk issues without looking at the FAR. CP Monroe stated she would meet with the Planning Commission subcommittee to discuss the issues and report back to Council. CP Monroe invited everyone to the Design Charrette: Destination SOBA, South of Burlingame Avenue, to be held on Saturday, September 30, at the Recreation Center starting at 8:30 a.m. Architects will present their designs starting at 6:30 p.m. b. CIVIC ENGAGEMENT RESOURCE GRANT 2 Burlingame City Council September 18, 2006 Unapproved Minutes CM Nantell reviewed the staff report and requested Council to select a civic engagement opportunity for submittal of a resource grant from the Institute for Local Government (ILG). Vice Mayor Nagel stated that the civic engagement opportunity should be a specific problem to be resolved. After discussion, Council agreed to submit Item 1 of CM Nantell's memorandum: involving the public in the downtown specific area planning process"to the ILG. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR See Item 8.a. above for action. b. RESOLUTION NO. 75-2006 AWARDING MILLS CANYON SEWER AND ACCESS ROAD REPAIRS TO HILLSIDE DRILLING COMPANY DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 75-2006 awarding contract for Mills canyon Sewer and Access Road Repairs to Hillside Drilling Company, Inc., City Project No. 81700. C. RESOLUTION NO. 77-2006 ACCEPTING AIRPORT BLVD. RESURFACING PROJECT TO G. BORTOLOTTO & COMPANY AND RESOLUTION NO. 76-2006 APPROVING AN INCREASE IN FUNDING DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 77-2006 accepting improvements to Airport Boulevard Resurfacing project by G. Bortolotto & Company, City Project No. 81120 and to approve Resolution No. 76-2006 approving the transfer of$60,000 in Proposition 42 funds to Project No. 81120. d. PROGRESS UPDATE ON THE MILLS CANYON SLIDE REPAIRS DPW Bagdon provided Council with a progress update of emergency repairs to the Mills Canyon mudslide. e. WARRANTS & PAYROLL FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants #20637-21117 duly audited, in the amount of $2,033,275.34 (excluding Library checks #21080-21117), Payroll checks #166317-166582 in the amount of $2,659,549.32 for the month of August 2006. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve Items b. through e. of the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Nagel. The motion was approved unanimously by voice vote, 5-0. 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. 10. PUBLIC COMMENTS Perry Spitz, 1215 Laguna Avenue, spoke about the problem of teenagers congregating in public parking lots near his home. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on the Design Review process. Charles Voltz, 725 Vernon Way, spoke on civic engagement. There were no further comments from the floor. 3 Burlingame City Council September 18,2006 Unapproved Minutes COP Van Etten advised that the Police Department would monitor the public parking lots during after school hours and on weekends in response to Mr. Spitz' comments. 11. OLD BUSINESS There was no old business. 12. NEW BUSINESS a. Councilman Cohen mentioned the Relay for Life annual event will be held the weekend of October 7 and 8 at the Burlingame High School football field and suggested staff have a team at this function. b. Councilwoman O'Mahony requested a proclamation honoring the 601h birthday of Preston's Candy and Ice Cream. c. Vice Mayor Nagel requested a future agenda item to discuss creating an emergency preparedness network in neighborhoods for communication and planning purposes. d. Councilman Cohen suggested a Cleanup Week rather than a Cleanup Day for Burlingame to boost our recycling numbers. 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety&Parking Commission, July 13, 2006; Planning, September 11, 2006 b. Department Reports: Finance, August 2006 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Baylock adjourned the meeting at 9:24 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 4 Burlingame City Council September 18,2006 Unapproved Minutes P R O C L A M A T I O N Declaring October 7, 2006 as Relay for Life Day Whereas, Relay for Life is an overnight team event from 11:00 a.m. Saturday to 11:00 a.m. Sunday held at Burlingame Yfigh School where teams of friends, neigh6ors,families and coworkers commit to keeping at least one member walking the track at all times in keeping with their motto: Cancer never steeps and neither do we; and Whereas, Relay for Life holds a Ceremony of.Mope where hundreds of Luminaria light the way under the stars to honor those battling cancer and those who have lost the battle; and Whereas, Relay for Life increases awareness of cancer in the community and raises much-neededfunds to fight the disease; and Whereas, Relay for Life is dedicated to eliminating cancer, a major health pro6lem, by preventing cancer, saving lives, and diminishing suffering fwom cancer through research, education, advocacy and service; and Whereas, Relay for Life is a celebration of life, offering.Mope, the reason to relay. Now therefore, I, Cathy Baylock 911ayor of the City of Burlingame, do hereby proclaim October 7, 2006, be designatedas 12elay for Life Day in Burlingame. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the City of Burlingame to be affixed this, the 71h day of October 2006. Cathy Baylock Mayor BURL.INGAME PROCLAMATION Honoring Citizens for a Better Burlingame Whereas, Citizens for a Better Burlingame(CBB)was initiated bN a desire to enhance concerned citizens'knowledge and influence over development of keN private and public properties, such as the Burlingame Avenue Train Station improvement project and others;and Whereas, CBB is comprises of communitN members interested in improving the qualitN of fife in Burlingame and is committed to not being a single-issue organization;and Whereas, CBB has recruited communitN volunteers to undertake communitN improvement projects like the "Adopt a Planter Program" in our Burlingame Avenue retaif core;and whereas, CBB has provided the leadership to offer public information and education on major regional issues such as mixed use and new urbanism and has secured professionals willing to provide high level expertise at no expense to the communitN to help citizens visualize different futures for our downtown;and Whereas, CBB continues to provide monOWN communitN forums for interested communitN members to engage in dialogues around significant communitN issues;and whereas, CBB created and spearheaded "The $32 Solution" fundraising campaign which raised over$32,000 to fund school crossing guards;and Whereas, CBB is committed to continue to serve as a proponent for spirited and authentic civic engagement in the CitN of Burlingame; NOW, THEREFORE, I, CatbN BaNf ock, mgor of the CitN of Burlingame, bo herebN commend and thank the members of Citizens for a Better Burlingame for their continued commitment and contribution to the betterment of our communitN;and I encourage off citizens to avail themselves of the opportunities for communitN education and engagement provided bN CBB or to follow their example bN committing themselves to similar civic engagement activities. In witness whereof, I have hereunto set mN had and caused the seal of the Citvq of Burlingame to be affixed this 3"daN of October 2oo6 CatbN BaNf ock,Mallor CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 6a MTG. " DATE 10.3.06 DAATED JUNE6 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTE BY DATE: September 22, 2006 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S A ROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW, VARIANCE FOR PARKING IN THE FRONT SETBACK AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DETACHED GARAGE LOCATED WITHIN THE REAR 40% OF THE LOT FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1520 ARC WAY, ZONED R-1. Action: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action should include findings for each of the requests made and should be taken by resolution. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. City Council has three action alternatives: a. to uphold the Planning Commission and approve the application; b. to reverse the Planning Commission and deny the application by resolution; or c. to deny the request without prejudice and return it to the Planning Commission with comments. Action alternative descriptions and the criteria for findings for each action required are included at the end of the staff report. Conditions on the project recommended by the Planning Commission: 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; APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW,PARKING VARIANCE FOR PARKING IN THE FRONT SETBACK AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LOCATION OF DETACHED GARAGE FOR ANEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMIL YD WELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1520 ARC WAY,ZONED R-1. October 3,2006 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 perjury. 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 -2- APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW,PARKING VARIANCE FOR PARKING IN THE FRONT SETBACK AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LOCATION OF DETACHED GARAGE FOR ANEW TWO-STORYSINGLE FAMILYD WELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1520 ARC WAY,ZONED R-1. October 3,2006 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. Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on August 14, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 6-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting) on a roll call vote to approve the applicant's request for design review, parking variance for parking in the front setback and special permit for a detached garage located within the rear 40% of the lot to build a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1520 Arc Way, zoned R-1. In their action the Commissioners noted that several items should be added to the conditions: to reduce the plate height of the detached garage to 8'-1" and to reduce 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; and a revision to the columns so that they work with the mass of the structure better; and that the pitch of the garage roof should be changed from 5.5/12 to 4.5/12. In their findings the Commissioners noted: if the garage were connected to the house the project would require a variance for floor 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; not agree that Arc Way is residential, development on Arc is 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 parking 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 front 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. BACKGROUND: The property owners, Tom and Liz O'Connor, and the applicant/designer, Mark Robertson, are proposing to demolish the existing single family dwelling and detached garage and build a new two-story, five bedroom, single family dwelling at 1520 Arc Way, zoned R-1. The property is considered a through lot, with frontage along both Arc Way and Walnut Avenue. Currently, driveway access and the front entry to the residence are located on Arc Way. The proposal includes maintaining the existing driveway access and approximate garage location with garage access from Are Way, but relocating the front entrance of the residence to the Walnut Avenue side of the lot. For setback purposes, the front of the lot is considered to be the portion along Walnut Avenue (the shorter street frontage). The property owner has also requested from the Public Works Department a Walnut Avenue address to maintain consistency with the layout and positioning of the residence. The project includes a detached two car garage at the rear, which meets the off street parking requirements for the proposed house. -3- APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW,PARKING VARIANCE FOR PARKING IN THE FRONT SETBACK AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LOCATION OF DETACHED GARAGE FOR ANEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMIL YD WELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1520 ARC WAY,ZONED R-1. October 3,2006 The house and garage being removed has a floor area ratio of 0.27 (1,825 SF), the proposed house will have an FAR of 0.53 (3,601 SF) where 0.54 (3,641 SF) is the maximum FAR allowed. For the proposed project the applicant is requesting the following: • Design review for anew two-story single-family residence and detached garage (CS 25.57.010, a, 1); • Variance for parking within the required front setback(CS 25.70.030 3, a); and • Special permit for a detached garage in the rear 40% of the property(CS 25.28.035, d). The proposal includes a new detached 439 SF (21' x 20'-11") two-car garage located in the rear of the property, with access off Arc Way from the existing curb cut. Detached garage structures may be located within the rear 30% of the property or, with a special permit, within the rear 40%. The proposed garage location is within the rear 40% of the lot and therefore the applicant is requesting a special permit. The structure is exempt from setback requirements, and is located 2'-0" from the side property line and 21'-0" from the rear property line. Planning staff would note that in the Commission's approval of the project on August 14, 2006, a condition was added to reduce the plate height of the detached garage to T-1". The applicant is proposing additional off-street parking at the front of the lot with access from Walnut Avenue to coordinate with the new location of the residence's front entrance. The parking area, located between the residence and front property line, will be composed of pervious unit pavers and as approved by the Planning Commission will curve across about half of the width of the property. A new curb cut is proposed to access this area. Landscaping and a 48" high fence at the front are proposed between the front edge of the parking area and the sidewalk, which will act as a visual buffer from the street. The Municipal Code does not allow for off-street parking within a required front setback if it is not associated with driveway access to a garage. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for parking within the front setback. Planning staff would note that in the Commission's approval of the project on August 14, 2006, a condition was added requiring that the paved parking area in the front yard off Walnut be reduced to the point where the 'o' appears in the word 'apron' on the submitted plans in order to provide for parking for only one car with some turning area. The remainder of the paved area on the Walnut Avenue frontage would be removed and replaced with landscaping. The new residence will include a total of five bedrooms, requiring three parking spaces on-site, two of which must be covered (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions). The proposed garage provides for two covered spaces, with clear interior dimensions of 20' x 20'. The garage is set back 21'-0" from the property line, so the uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway. The new parking area at the front of the property allows for a second uncovered parking space. Both of these spaces meet the minimum uncovered space requirements of 9' x 20' and must back into the public right of way. All other zoning code requirements have been met. Neighbor Comments at the Planning Commission Public Hearing At the Planning Commission meetings on June 26 and August 14, 2006, several neighbors and citizens spoke about the proposed project noting: the designer has done a good job with the design, the neighbors are delighted with the proposed house, the owner designed the house to accommodate the neighbors' concerns, don't think it is appropriate to penalize the owner by reducing the square footage with an attached garage; this is a beautiful house, concerned about parking in the front setback but will take cars off the street, there is going to be a lot of paving on this lot, keeping the hedge along Walnut Avenue at its existing height will help to screen the cars parked in the front yard; seems backward not to require a survey at planning submittal, if error found later, have to come back to commission. -4- APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF DESIGN REVIEW,PARKING VARIANCE FOR PARKING IN THE FRONT SETBACK AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR LOCATION OF DETACHED GARAGE FOR ANEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMIL YD WELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1520 ARC WAY,ZONED R-1. October 3,2006 In his letter of August 7, 2006, to the Planning Commission, the neighbor at 816 Walnut Avenue objected because the new house is proposed 6'-0" from the existing fence where the required setback is T-0". He feels that the location of the property line between his lot and the subject property is unresolved. He notes that the existing fence and the property line on the survey are not at the same location. He would like the proposed house to be shifted one foot, so that it is located T-0" from the existing fence (Victor T. Anderson letter, dated August 7, 2006, attached). Staff Comments Staff would note that setback measurements are based on the location of the side property line established by a survey completed and signed by a licensed civil engineer (see Boundary and Topographic Survey by B & H Surveying, Inc,. date stamped June 12, 2006). On the survey, the distance between the fence and property line varies, but is approximately 1'-0". As proposed, the house would have a side setback of T-0" along the left side property line where T-0" is the minimum required, as measured from the side property line established by the survey. At the August 14, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, the City Attorney 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. He also noted that surveys can be disputed by property owners. Environmental Review Status The proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3 — (a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. ATTACHMENTS: Action Alternatives and Design Review, Variance and Special Permit Criteria Planning Commission Minutes, August 14, 2006 Victor T. Anderson letter, dated August 7, 2006 Planning Commission Staff Report with attachments Victor T. Anderson letter, dated August 22, 2006, requesting appeal hearing City Council Resolution Notice of Appeal Hearing, Mailed September 22, 2006 -5- Action Alternatives and Criteria for Findings for 1520 Arc Way, Zoned R-1 ACTION ALTERNATIVES 1. City Council may vote in favor of an applicant's request. If the action is a variance,use permit,hillside area construction permit,fence exception,sign exception or exception to the antenna ordinance,the Council must make findings as required by the code. Findings must be particular to the given properties and request. Actions on use permits should be by resolution. A majority of the Council members seated during the public hearing must agree in order to pass an affirmative motion. 2. City Council may deny an applicant's request. The reasons for denial should be clearly stated for the record. 3. City Council may deny a request without prejudice. This action should be used when the application made to the City Council is not the same as that heard by the Planning Commission; when a Planning commission action has been justifiably,with clear direction, denied without prejudice; or when the proposed project raises questions or issues on which the Council would like additional information or additional design work before acting on the project. Direction about additional information required to be given to staff, applicant and Planning Commission/City Council for the further consideration should be made very clear. Council should also direct whether any subsequent hearing should be held before the City Council or Planning Commission. DESIGN REVIEW CRITERIA A design review application in an R-1 district shall be reviewed for the following considerations(CS 25.57.030(e) (1-6)): 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. 6. In the case of an addition, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. VARIANCE CRITERIA In order to grant a variance the City Council must find that the following conditions exist on the property(CS 25.54.020 a-d): (a) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant,and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,general welfare or convenience; (d) That the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics,mass,bulk and character of existing and potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA The City Council may grant a special permit in accord with this title if, from the applicant and the facts presented at the public hearing, it finds(CS 25.51.020 a-d): (a) the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or additional are consistent with the existing structure and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade,exterior finish material and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure,street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements,and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes August 14, 2006 all the regulations of Bay Area Air Quality Mana ment District; 4) that any anges to the size or envelope of the ement, first or second floors, garage, which would inclcu adding or enlarging a dormer(s),in ing or changing windows and itectural features or changin e roof height or pitch,shall be subjec o Planning Commission revie , 5) that prior to scheduling t framing inspection,the project are t,engineer or other licensed pr essional shall provide architec al certification that the architectural d ils such as window locations d bays are built as shown on t approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the sect, the property owner or co actor shall provide the certification er penalty of perjury. Certifi ions shall be submitted to the ilding Department; 6) that prior to sc uling the roof deck inspecti ,a licensed surveyor shall shoo a height of the roof ridge and provid ertification of that height to t uilding Department; 7) that or to final inspection,Planning Depgptffient staff will inspect and no compliance of the architectura etails(trim materials,window type,e16 to verify that the project ha een built according to the appro d Planning and Building plans; 8) th all air ducts,plumbing vents, d flues shall be combined,whe possible,to a single termination an ' stalled on the portions of the of not visible from the street; d that these venting details shall b included and approved in the nstruction plans before a Buildi permit is issued; 9) that the proje all comply with the Construct' and Demolition Debris Recy 'ng Ordinance which requires aff ed demolition, new constructi and alteration projects to sub ' a Waste Reduction plan and me ecycling requirements; any p 'al or full demolition of a structur ,interior or exterior,shall require emolition permit; 10) that the plicant shall comply with Ordin ce 1503, the City of Burlingam torm Water Management and scharge Control Ordinance;and that the project shall meet all t requirements of the California ilding and Uniform Fire Codes,2 1 Edition, as amended by the ' of Burlingame. The motion w seconded by C.Auran. Co t on the motion: was not here a last meeting,is it appropriate or me to vote? CA noted that h ite was on for study previously so at C. Cauchi could vote on it t fight; could the addition of ve ver the bump out on the north 1 be added? Staff noted that th was no agreement on the det ' of this addition. Chair Brownrigg call for a roll call vote on the moti to approve the project as s mitted with revised landscape plans ump out'on the north wall,i ding the 11 conditions in t staffreport. The mo ' n passed on a 4- (Cers. Cauchi, Deal and Te es dissenting) roll call vo . Appeal procedurewwere advised. Th' 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) (112 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,side 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 ofthe 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 floor area,do not see the hardship on this lot to justify an FAR variance,so the garage should be left where it is, detached offArc 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 V 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 perjury. 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 OILHET AVENUE, TOR D R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIG VIEW AND SP IAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FIRST AND SECOND STORY AD ION (PAUL AND IHAELA HOWIE,APPLICS=: ERICA ROPERTY OWNERS;MARK R ERTSON,DESIGNER) 37 NOTICED PROJECT P STROHMEIER Reference staff repougust 14,2006 with attachments. CP Mo e presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff commerJts. Eleven conditions were suggested for co deration. There were no questions of sta . i Chair Bro gg opened the public hearing. MarkRobertson, architect, 918 E. Grant Place, Mateo, repres ted the project. Noted pleased with the hid result of work with design reviewer,b applicant is oppd�d to the brick water table and on the f'r6�f the structure supporting the stairs imney will stay nck,the design reviewer felt that the brick was an important feature to the design;a icant would like the entire house to be stucco with no wai oting. Commissioner noted that plans ow gutters but no down spouts would be a nice feature on the front of the house,architect noted left but will add;Commissioner noted that problem with the dna"wings on the location of the columns sho be set in behind the front railing on all plans;commission7'noted think need brick to off set the hei of this structure,height is more than usually allow and ho se is set on arise,like cornice,brick one k element which ties it all together,cannot landscape in fron�ecause it is all paved;Commissioners no d that if the chimney cap is really that w' at the top it wilk awkward,should be trimmed down; of chimney is brick,could step in the tqp couple of courses Would increase shadow;there is area in nt of front stairs where a planter could 1winstalled to add 1 caping, could be narrow,2'deep suffi ' nt,house lacks landscaping;when visit site noted that theis a lot of plaster on this site-retainin ails, garden walls,if the skirt is plaster d to tie together in other way, acceptable to keep brick the rest of the house and remove on the ont stoop area. Comment from the floor: Mih a Howie,property owner;Pat Giorni, 1 Balboa Avenue;Hugh Tuck, live across street.Applicant ted having the entire structure stucco wo look clean and elegant,submitted pictures of existing gray vers in a pattern that would conflict with ck,tried to meet design reviewer f way;kept the line bu e brick does not look good. Commissio asked about adding divided li on the upper story,wou provide abetter feel; architect noted that a owner does not like any grids ' windows, so does not w t at all. Commissioner noted aware pav in the front yard provide a lot arking but, as noted in p ious item,paved front yards are not co 'stent with the neighborhood p ern in Burlingame the ho a is up and massive, there is nothing to eak the mass, like to see landsca ing, providing to of 8 COMM UNI CA TION RECEI VEE AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT August 7,2006 RECEIVE® P.C. M41 . 06. 14-o Re: Proposed 1520 Arc Way project Alend-o-t" ?j-AAUG 112006 Attn: Burlingame Planning Commission CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. As the northern next door neighbor to 1520 Arc Way, I strenuously object to the location of the new house as proposed. It will be just six feet from the fence line separating my property(816 Walnut Ave)from the subject property at 1520 Arc Way. The required set back is seven feet. The issue in contention is that the fence line and the property line are offset by approximately one foot. I am requesting that the Planning Commission require the home to be set seven feet from the fence line, or resolve the lot/fence line discrepancy before approval is granted. I have engaged an attorney to litigate the issue of the fence and lot line disparity in both Superior Court(via a Quiet Title action)and Municipal Court. My attorney believes the location of the lot line as recorded in the Assessor-County Clerk's office is in error(having been in error for years), and should in fact coincide with the majority of the fence line. Since this litigation will take some time to work its way through the courts my attorney will, in the meantime, seek an easement for purposes of gardening. The developer's goals are simple: Build the house, sell the house,and make a profit. Given that he potentially conspired to criminally defraud a widow by purchasing the subject property for approximately$400,000 under market value, his projected $700,000+ gross profit will hardly be affected by simply shifting the proposed new home over a foot. I asked for a face to face meeting with the developer(Tom O'Connor). He refused. I asked if he would work to resolve the matter at the Peninsula Conflict Resolution Center(i.e. mediation). He refused. So I have no choice but to pursue the fence/lot line issue via the courts. But the Planning Commission does have a choice: approve the developer's plans with the requirement to build seven feet from the current fence line, or require the developer to resolve the fence/lot line discrepancy before plan approval is granted at the current proposed house location. Finally, a question: if the fence line and lot line were offset by six feet,would the Planning Commission allow the developer to build a mere one foot from the fence line, and not compel the developer to resolve the fence/lot line location issue before the plans are approved? Regards, Victor T.Anderson, homeowner 816 Walnut Ave 650-558-8395 P.S. Should I prevail in the lot line litigation, 1520 Arc Way lot size will be reduced by 110 square feet. Even with a reduced lot size the developer's plans as currently submitted will still meet the Lot Coverage and FAR requirements without need to be amended or changed in any way. As for moving the house one foot to the south, his plans show a total of two feet available to do so. i AF Wt, N. off } T 5✓ {�� �Lf�r t� i ��Y � t4��•' f�i� U y$y-. s a x- r Z 1 City of Burlingame item# Design Review,Parking Variance and Special Permit Consent Calendar Address: 1520 Arc Way Meeting Date: 8/14/06 Request: Design review, variance for parking in the front setback and special permit for detached garage located within the rear 40%of lot for a new two-story single-family residence. Applicant and Designer: Mark Robertson APN: 028-132-140 Property Owners: Tom and Liz O'Connor Lot Area: 6,690 SF General Plan: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3 — (a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. Summary: The existing site consists of a one-story residence and detached one-car garage (total of 1,825 SF),both of which are proposed for demolition and will be replaced with a new two-story single- family residence and a two-car detached garage. The property is considered a through lot, with frontage along both Arc Way and Walnut Avenue. Currently, driveway access and the front entry to the residence are located on Arc Way. The proposal includes maintaining the existing driveway access and approximate garage location with garage access from Arc Way, but relocating the front entrance of the residence to the Walnut Avenue side of the lot. For setback purposes, the front of the lot is considered to be the portion along Walnut Avenue. The property owner has also requested from the Public Works Department a Walnut Avenue address to maintain consistency with the layout and positioning of the residence. The floor area of the new residence will total 3,601 SF (0.54 FAR) where 3,641 SF (0.54 FAR) is the maximum allowed (project is 40 SF below the maximum allowed FAR). The proposal includes a new detached 439 SF two-car garage located in the rear of the property, with access off Arc Way from the existing curb cut. Detached garage structures may be located within the rear 30% of the property or,with a special permit, within the rear 40%. The proposed garage location is within the rear 40% of the lot and therefore the applicant is requesting a special permit. The structure is exempt from setback requirements, and is located 2'-0" from the side property line and 21'-0" from the rear property line. The applicant has proposed additional off-street parking with access from Walnut Avenue to coordinate with the new location of the residence's front entrance. The parking area, located between the residence and front property line, will be composed of unit pavers and will curve across the width of the property. A new curb cut is proposed to access this area. Landscaping and a 48" high fence are proposed between the front edge of the parking area and the sidewalk, which will act as a visual buffer from the street. The Municipal Code does not allow for off-street parking within a required front setback if it is not associated with driveway access to a garage. Therefore, the applicant is requesting a variance for parking within the front setback. The new residence will include a total of five bedrooms, requiring three parking spaces on-site, two of which must be covered (20' x 20' clear interior dimensions). The proposed garage provides for two covered spaces, with clear interior dimensions of 20' x 20'. The garage is set back 21'-0" from the property line, so the uncovered parking space is provided in the driveway. The new parking area at the Design Review,Parking Variance and Special Permit 1520 Arc Way front of the property allows for a second uncovered parking space. Both of these spaces meet the minimum uncovered space requirements of 9' x 20' and must back into the public right of way. All other zoning code requirements have been met. The following applications are required: • Design review for anew two-story single-family residence(CS 25.57.010, a, 1); • Variance for parking within the required front setback(CS 25.70.030 3, a); and • Special permit for a detached garage in the rear 40%of the property(CS 25.28.035, d). 1520 Arc Way Lot Area: 6,690 SF Plans date stamped: June 12 and July 21,2006 Existing 1 Proposed Allowed/Required Setbacks E , Front(]sr flr): 27'-0" F 18'-0" 17'-6" (2nd flr): N/A 23'-0" 20'-0" _-- Side(left l s'fl): 5'-0" i 7'-0" 7'-0" (right Ist flr): 33'-6" 14'-6" 7'-0" i Rear(I st flr): 20'-0" 18'-6" 15'-0" (2nd flr): N/A E 20'-0" 20'-0" Lot Coverage: 1825 SF 2255 SF 2676 SF 27% 33% 40% k FAR: 1825 SF 3601 SF 3641 SF 0.27 FAR 0.53 FAR 0.54 FAR2 1 Information regarding existing site conditions was obtained from County records as well as existing Site Plan provided by the applicant. The locations of the front and rear setbacks/yards shown are consistent with the locations for the new residence (i.e. front yard measured from Walnut Ave to residence). 2 (0.32 x 6,690 SF)+ 1,100 SF+400 SF=3,641 SF Table continued on next page. 2 Design Review,Parking Variance and Special Permit 1520 Arc Way 1520 Arc Way Lot Area: 6,690 SF Plans date stamped: June 12 and July 21,2006 Existing 1 Proposed E Allowed/Required #of bedrooms: 2 5 --- Parking: 1 covered ' 2 covered I 2 covered (10'x 22') I (20'x 20') (20'x 20') 1 uncovered 1 uncovered 3 1 uncovered (9'x 18'-6") (9'x 20') (9'x 20') Height: single story 22'-11" 30'-0" DHEnvelope: n/a complies I see code Additional uncovered parking is proposed at the front of the property, however a variance for the location of the parking is required. Staff Comments: Planning Staff would note that this project does not require a variance for vehicles backing up into the public right of way since this is permitted for single-family residences in the R-1 and R-2 Zoning Districts. Please see attached sheets for all other Staff Comments. Planning staff would also note that two letters of support were submitted from Julius and Ruth Reimche at 1524 Arc Way, dated June 19, 2006, and Mike Rabbitt at 819 Walnut Avenue, date stamped June 26, 2006. June 26, 2006, Design Review Study Meeting: At the Planning Commission design review study meeting on June 26, 2006, the Commission noted that overall the design works well and that the parking variance for parking in the front setback and special permit for garage location are appropriate given the two different street frontages on this lot, and will help to alleviate the parking problems on both streets (June 26, 2006 Planning Commission Minutes). However, the Commission had several comments for the applicant to address. Following are the Commission's questions and responses provided by the applicant. The applicant submitted a letter and revised plans (sheets 1 and 3-6), date stamped July 21, 2006. 1. Concerned with the stone veneer water table at the front of the house changing to a stucco water table along the side and rear of the building, need to choose one material for the entire house, a rustic stucco would work well in this case, could use stone veneer for the chimney. There were no changes made to the water table materials. The applicant would like to retain the stone veneer as designed and notes that the stone and stucco combination will not be seen from the street since there will be a fence where material change occurs from stone to stucco. A stone veneer water table will be visible from Walnut Avenue and a stucco water table will be visible from Arc Way. 3 Design Review, Parking Variance and Special Permit 1520 Arc Way 2. Concerned that the front porch posts and bases are too small, should use 6 x 6 posts with larger bases. • The revised plans, dated stamped July 21, 2006, show 6 x 6 columns with larger 24-inch square bases (see West Elevation, sheet 5). 3. Concerned with the landscaping at the front, Manzanita and Rhododendron planted next to each will not do well. • The revised plans show the previously proposed Rhododendron (11, 15-gallon) replaced with Cassia-Senna(15, 5-gallon) (see revised Landscape Plan, sheet 3). 4. Lavender proposed in the planter strip between the curb and sidewalk may get too tall, suggest pavers or a different ground cover. • The revised plans show a new paver walkway between the curb and sidewalk (see revised Landscape Plan, sheet 3). Most of the existing lavender between the curb and sidewalk will be retained. An automatic irrigation system will be provided for this area. S. Street tree shown as a Walnut tree is actually a Locust tree, concerned that the street trees and on-site trees may not survive during construction, would like to add a condition requiring a tree protection plan, must be completed by a licensed professional and submitted and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit. • The revised plans shows the Locust tree in the right-of-way correctly labeled. A condition of approval has been added requiring a tree protection plan, completed by a licensed professional, to be submitted and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit. 6. Concerned with contemporary rake on some gable ends, gable ends should have a traditional craftsman style overhang. • There was no change made to the gable end design. 7. Concerned with interior spaces, spaces appear to be narrow and small, closet doors are very narrow, area between kitchen counter and island is narrow, designer should check all interior spaces to be sure dimensions will work. • The applicant notes in his response letter, dated July 20, 2006, that interior dimensions and details will be refined during preparation of the plans for a building permit submittal. 4 Design Review, Parking Variance and Special Permit 1520 Arc Way 8. Double-check all windows sizes and locations to be sure they will work • The applicant notes in his response letter, dated July 20, 2006, that all window sizes have been checked and verified that they will work. 9. Concerned with the scale and impact of the detached garage on Arc Way, suggest lowering the plate height to 8 feet, adding decorative dormers, having two single-wide garage doors or a garage door that gives the appearance of two single doors, eta • There were no changes made to the plate height, which is proposed to be 9'-0" from adjacent grade. The design of the double-wide garage door was revised to have the appearance of two single-wide doors (see revised East Elevation, sheet 6). 10. Should consider stepping down the house at the rear(bedroom #5, bathroom #4 and mudroom), would add interest in the hallway and reduce the height of the stucco water table at the rear by a few steps. • In his written response, the applicant notes that bedroom #5 is intended to be a guest room for the property owner's brother, who is disabled and uses a wheelchair. Therefore, stepping down the house at the location of the bedroom is not feasible. Instead, the applicant is proposing a raised planter at the rear of the house to break up the rear stucco profile (see revised East Elevation, sheet 6). Design Review Criteria: The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's June 26, 2006, design review study meeting, that overall the design works well and will improve the character of the block and enhance the design of the community, the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines. 5 Design Review, Parking Variance and Special Permit 1520 Arc Way Required Findings for Variance: In order to grant a variance for parking within the required front setback, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property(Code Section 25.54.020 a-d): (a) there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (b) the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship; (c) the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience; and (d) that the use of the property will be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of existing an potential uses of properties in the general vicinity. Findings for Parking Variance: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's June 26, 2006,public meeting, that the parking variance for parking in the front setback is appropriate given the two different street frontages on this lot (Arc Way and Walnut Avenue) and will help to alleviate the parking problems on both streets; that an existing fence and hedge across the front of the lot will screen the parking area within the front setback; and that the parking area will be made with a unit paver system to help soften the hardscape within the front setback, therefore the project is found to be compatible with the variance criteria listed above. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for location of an accessory structure, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property (Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) the variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) the proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. 6 Design Review,Parking Variance and Special Permit 1520 Arc Way Special Permit Findings: Based on the fact that the proposed detached garage will replace an existing nonconforming detached garage (nonconforming because it is located within the rear 47% of the lot, allowed within the rear 40% with a special permit), it will be located approximately 5'-0" further back on the property than the existing garage and that the design of the garage is compatible with that of the existing residence, the project is found to comply with the special permit criteria listed above. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review, parking variance and special permit. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 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; 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 perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 7 Design Review,Parking Variance and Special Permit 1520 Arc Way 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. Ruben Hurin Planner c. Mark Robertson, applicant and designer 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006 8. 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) (115 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: KRISTINA WOERNER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. Commissioner asked staff to clarify the separation requirement between the house and detached garage. Plr noted that 4'-0"is the minimum required separation between structures,measured eave to eave. In this case,the distance was measured from the garage eave to the house wall since there is no eave at the first floor portion of the house. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Mark Robertson,designer,represented the project,noted that there is a three-story apartment building across the street on Arc Way, to minimize the impact decided to reorient the front of the house Walnut Avenue,also will give it a more single family residential feel;adjacent neighbor at 1524 Arc Way has its rear yard abutting the right side property line of the subject property, neighbor requested that the new house be set back as much as possible to reduce the impact on their rear yard, accomplished that by designing a u-shaped house with a center courtyard; the new garage will be in approximately the same location as the existing garage;the amoeba-shaped parking area at the front of the lot will be good for guests and will help to take cars off the street on Walnut Avenue. Designer submitted several letters from neighbors in support of the project at 1524 Arc Way and 819 Walnut Avenue. Commission asked if the designer considered attaching the garage,would provide better functionality and create a greater separation form the neighbor to the south, as proposed now it reads as though the house is attached. Designer noted that the owner wanted more square footage and an attached garage would require reducing the size of the house, don't want to do that. Jim Keighran, 1600 Willow Avenue;Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue,spoke. Noted that the designer has done a good job with the design,the neighbors are delighted with the proposed house,the owner designed the house to accommodate the neighbors' concerns, don't think it is appropriate to penalize the owner by reducing the square footage with an attached garage;this is a beautiful house,concerned about parking in the front setback but will take cars off the street, there is going to be a lot of paving on this lot, keeping the hedge along Walnut Avenue at its existing height will help to screen the cars parked in the front yard. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. The Commission noted that overall the design works well and had the following comments: ■ concerned with the stone veneer water table at the front of the house changing to a stucco water table along the side and rear of the building, need to choose one material for the entire house, a rustic stucco would work well in this case, could use stone veneer for the chimney; ■ concerned that the front porch posts and bases are too small,should use 6 x 6 posts with larger bases; ■ concerned with the landscaping at the front,Manzanita and Rhododendron planted next to each will not do well; ■ lavender proposed in the planter strip between the curb and sidewalk may get too tall,suggest pavers or a different ground cover; ■ street tree shown as a Walnut tree is actually a Locust tree,concerned that the street trees and on-site trees may not survive during construction,would like to add a condition requiring a tree protection 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes June 26, 2006 plan,must be completed by a licensed professional and submitted and approved by the City Arborist prior to issuance of a building permit; ■ concerned with contemporary rake on some gable ends, gable ends should have a traditional craftsman style overhang; ■ concerned with interior spaces,spaces appear to be narrow and small,closet doors are very narrow, area between kitchen counter and island is narrow, designer should check all interior spaces to be sure dimensions will work; ■ double-check all windows sizes and locations to be sure they will work; ■ detached garage is appropriate, breezeway between house and garage is a nice feature, proposed fence between the house and garage provides a nice integration between the two structures; ■ concerned with the scale and impact of the detached garage on Arc Way,suggest lowering the plate height to 8 feet, adding decorative dormers,having two single-wide garage doors or a garage door that gives the appearance of two single doors, etc.; ■ should consider stepping down the house at the rear (bedroom #5, bathroom #4 and mudroom), would add interest in the hallway and reduce the height of the stucco water table at the rear by a few steps; ■ parking variance for parking in the front setback and special permit for garage location are appropriate given the two different street frontages on this lot, will help to alleviate the parking problems on both streets; and ■ not in support of driveway and parking in front setback off Walnut Avenue, front yard should be landscaped. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-1 (C. Deal dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:40 p.m. 10 -MUM+ � RECEIVED JUL 2 12006 7/20/06 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. ATTN: CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: NEW RESIDENCE 1520 ARC WAY BURLINGAME, CA. 94010 RE: RESPONSES TO COMMISSION COMMENTS DURING 6/26/06 MTG. Dear Planning Commission, We would like to outline our revisions and comments in response to our public hepring: Re: -Stone Veneer. If we may,we would very much liketo retain the stone veneer as designed. The ane/ stucco,combn_wilt never be.seen together. I have added in the fences on the Elev. drgs. to.better illustrate the point. From the rear the water table will appear all stucco, and from the front it will appear all stone. R€:-Frent gorch.Tosts.. . We fully agree with the Commission comments and the posts have been increased tQ 6X�i (plus casing) and the bases have been increased to 24"square. Re: Manzanjta—Rhododendron mix. Rhododendronshave beea removed fromthe plant list and_replaced with Cassia.t Senna which will work well with Manzanita water requirements while still retaining some color. Re- Lavender planter strip at street_ We took your recommendation and have added I extended a walkway through the median. Re; Street Trees and Tree Protection. Street tree name has been.corrected and.Tree Protection Nates and_procedures have been included on Landscaping Plan, Pg. #3 (upper left of plan). 918 E.GRANT PLACE, SAN MATEO, CALIF.94402 U.S.A•TEL:(650)571-1125• FAX:(650)571-1399 11ltARl� �S��D`� �4 Re: Eaxe details./Gable rake details I Interior Dlimensions_1 Window Cheek. Windows phecked and will all work Interior dimensions and details will_be refined and tweaked during plan prep. for Bldg. submittal. Re: Garage Scale/Garage Doors. Garage.top:plate has been towered-to,8'-6'.and Garage Door-reduced to T-6". Door design revised to have a two-panel (dbl. door)appearance as suggested. Re. Step.dawn at.rear_of house/reduce.stucco watertable_ The owners brother is handicapped and wheelchair bound. The rear Bedroom#5 i& slated as his guest room,so floor breaks are not feasible.- Instead we,propose adding a raised_planter across the back of the house,(See East Elev.,_Pg, #6)which will break up the rear stucco profile and accomplishes the same affect. Re: Neighbor fence dispute_(Addendum): The neighbor to.our North is_concerned about the exis in fence location between our properties. The fence encroaches onto our lot by approx. 10"_ We are not touching the existing_fence and we,are not touching-the existing_conc_walk dawn the North side of our lot. There will be no impact to the Neighbors fence/his landscaping, etc. Planning staff/Legal says this is not a City issue and the Owners will sort this issue out between themselves. This concludes our comments/resppnses. Sincerely, Mark Robertson. Project Designer. 918 E.GRANT PLACE, SAN MATEO,CALIF.94402 U.S.A•TEL:(650)571-1125•FAX:(650)571-1399 -City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650)558-7250 F(650)696-3790 www.burlingame.org 14;CITY SA, APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review X Conditional Use Permit Variance X Special Permit_ Other Parcel Number: Project address: 0C W N07E 0 ` C A � A& APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: M i��Lf Z P� I� Name: IM i U Z (760NNPK- Address: 1 19 E , CRAI`PT FLACE Address: 605 W. f OPLJAPL AVE k City/State/Zip: 5AN M6W CA , � City/State/Zip:_5AN M Phone(w): ! 7 ( �Zrj Phone(w): MJ (h): 5-7( _ �(Z5 �(f). 3�-��- 9753 (fl: 57( ���JcJ 01►1: 3(+4 5521 I{m ARCHITECT ESIGNER Name: M nff— goba50N Address:_ 1 (t� E//.,,,,nnTj Wi City/State/Zip: MAW AW CA . qW?- Please indicate with an asterisk Phone(w): �7( ( (�-5 the contact person for this project. (h): ��( - f i 2,5 RECEIVE q MAY - 2006 CITY OFINCAME: PLAMIM,DEPT. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: L-VMftaLLY R&WW-: CO I JZ8 1 KLEK, HOOSE � FULAGE W4 N 2--3-TORY, 360L W/, (N) L.O LAND SLA?I N 6� , AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the b st f my knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature: ( Date: S 06 I know about the proposed application and h y authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commiii Property owner's signature: - Date: 5 6 Date submitted: 5/5 O( PCAPP.FPM MARK,ROBERTS.Q;NDEtr$ji RECEIVED 7 ; JUN 1 3 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 5/ 2/X006 ATTN: CITY OF BURLINGAME — PLANNING COMMISSION PROJECT: NEW RESIDENCE 1520 ARC -WAY BURLINGAME,. CA. -94010 APN/028 - 132— 140 RE: DESIGN EXPLANATION FOR PROPOSED NEW RESIDENCE EXPE.'LANATIRON. 0E DE SI G__1N Our proposal consists of completely removing an existing 1,128 sq. ft. single story(Ikler) house and replacing it with a new two story, 3,604 sq. ft. house (total F.A.R.) and detached two-car garage.' Several elements have.steered this design First, across Arc Way is a large 3-story, R-2 apartment complex that impinges greatly upon the residential feel of our site_ Second, our neighbors to the south occupy a.corner lot and have their rear yard facing.our side yard. The neighbors have-specifically requested that we honor their rear yard and design our structure keeping their rear-yard as open as possible. Our design results from these two criteria.. We have petitioned the Engineering Department for an address change.to have the front of our house at Walnut Avenue instead.of Arc Way.and have designed the house facing Walnut Avenue to give the house an R-1 residential feel. We have.thus redesigned the Arc Way elevation and living spaces as the rear of the house-and minimized the impact of the apartment complex from our views. We have left the garage and driveway.approach in the same location off Arc Way to minimize the impact on Walnut Avenue We also left the garage in.it's.same location since it has minimum interference,with our south neighbor_ There will be no impact to the existing driving patterns on Arc Way. 918 E. GRANT PLACE, SAN MATEO, CALIF.94402 U.S.A•TEL:(650)571-1125• FAX:(650) 571-1399 DECEIVE MARK ROBERTSON-DESIGN %, JUN .1 3 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. To honor our rear yard request we have placed our yard in tandem with theirs. Having both yards back to back-produces the best overall space. In order to achieve this we have created a U— shaped set of structures. To allow auto access.to the_new house entry we have also designed a sculpted parking apron at the proposed front of the house. This will give the house a sense of"frontness" and allow quests to part at the entry without congesting the street. - The house is designed in the classic"Craftsman Style"which we feel will nicely complement the surrounding neighborhood and has been warmly received by neighbors who have seen the plans. Sincerely, 'A, —WeWl�� Mark Robertson 2. 918 E.GRANT PLACE, SAN MATEO, CALIF.94402 U.S.A•TEL:(650) 571-1125•FAX:(650) 571-1399 COMMUNICATION RECEI VED AFTER PREPARATION OF STAFF REPORT June 19,2006 Re:property at 1520 Arc Way RECEIVED Burlingame, Ca JUN 2 6 2006 To Whom It May Concern: CITY of BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. My wife and I have viewed the site plan for the new home proposed at 1520 Arc Way. As residents of 1524 Are Way,we are pleased with the plans. The home will compliment the neighborhood and we feel it will flow with the existing area. �-� Julius and Ruth Ruche'2—'AA 1524 Arc Way Burlingame, CA (650) 375-8459 COMMUNICATION RECEIVED AFTER PREPARATION OFSTAFFREPORT RECEIVED JUN 2 6 2006 June, 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. I have reviewed the plans at 1520 Arc Way(Walnut Avenue). I have no objection to the plans as submitted. � �I City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650)558-7250 F(650)696-3790 www.burlingame.org PAR-KIA16 IQ -Fitowr SET&Ac.K- RECEIVE[ CITY s r � 4 'U MAY - 5 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance (Code Section 25.54.020 a-d). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. a° Describe the exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to your property which do not apply to other properties in this area. Om LOT- 15 R kA95 ThRt) LSI( -rRA-r FLANKS 16"1 ARG Wh-/ � WAWUn" P,vENuE , OuK 5007 lEgN NEI C H.5OR (5 fz\ CORNER Lb-T- W rTH R REAS yARo ALLONCA CSR_ 5 oe_ NWD. NE1CNR)DfZ )ASKED uS 10 HON09- 7146) Z, IEAK- yp ftt) OUg- D5� , PUTS THE NEW YA(ZD IN 'rWDEM W/, --my R.S, Tffls rloposAL- ayTs L,6!s OFF FROM DRIVEWAY A�z-55 MN VkNLT, `TIE NOR5E-nHOE DRIVEMW hLWVg5 Ci4& W-C L55 TO ?F0P05C>) (6) WV5E- E-WKy b. Explain why the variance request is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right and what unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship might result form the denial of the application. THERE JS NO OTKEg- WAS' wE CAN FiND 1 HAT 59TI5 HES N>✓19MZGIZ AEQVE5)-r Wb P%L50 Lb12!,,VE5 t-'RO OSED NOOSE +rl/, AP?Rc0?R-tA-F=- STREET AccESS AND L.AwN SVA(--E , I F WE Do NGT COMPLY W/, N�1 H30R'S RC"Aiz ` ARS vEs�-' WE bEu EVE i iEY WOULD f5cFFFE z- A DEVAL)vQ i r a l of i HEI 4Z c'1P�Ty5 VAt_.uc, , C. Explain why the proposed use at the proposed location will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity or to public health, safety,general welfare or convenience. TEE-- PRITOSAL AT5 WELL W�, E) DRAVEWAY PA`i"VE-Rt5 AND wIL- REv1OVE THE NEED FOR- ON 5178 i PAe-f-JN Wt4)c.H wovtb 1 BE. AN JPAPROVE&'\r--N'T' d. How will the proposed project be compatible with the aesthetics, mass, bulk and character of the existing and potential"uses on adjoining properties in the general vicinity? MVEWA-/ Ft5 (ERNS 3LF-f-ID WE( L_ ON NEs GiH BOBS Rte" HV\VE AZON�T YAP-b FA<Y-)1v c ARE-A5 I� OUK ROK-SE - 5E iDNV - WAY 0 LAND�~?w> i FROPOSI)L W(LL_ M05T' CE-K(-1a1NL7 7Hc E>q5Tl1\jC S C-�i VAR.FRM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650)558-7250 F(650)696-3790 www.burlin ag me.org Acc,ESsogY STICUCTUgE WIT*lk( REArt OP- L O T � "iTY x>, c. E SPT APPLICATION MAY - 5 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT, The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance(Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend of mass,scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood HOUSE FAcES R-Z AMARTM514► COMFLEX AND 0-N R t-Ok5c5 ON SREE-1- HAVE AccEssaTtY S?RUC-iUP-E5 (6iA9A1Z--S) TO BLOCK TWE PAD VIEWS WE CKOP05E To Do THE SAmE INS i NE OTf4ER5 oLrR, C;(n,,RAFE LX6j5T(01\J (S Tru- --5WE A5 THE EX S I N ; 67,FlR1A(�E LOf!:� 110\1 , 2. Explain how the variety of roof line,facade,exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure,street and neighborhood. , Y E,/4s-ri Nr Hovsc (SAN I ICL�hZ AtZ SHALL rqd-(- BE GONS(CFZANT W/, NElG;HWRqeXR- , \&-- ��( _ -FeVP05E A STYLE How FOR- aLEjQD W/. W A_LN UT AVE, RESI DE:N GE-5 . 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city(C.S. 25.57)? H005c c5iyLE WAS C00o 56N To HJT &END W, NEI VDVA5, - DRIVEWAY p1nCER\l 6 IN (-WMaa� W/, ai�fat5 orl --21�1s AND 5M-L- t RoVI,DE AM T IONAL dFF-- 4. Explain how the removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What mitigation is proposed for the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. - 2 -T&ES SHALL Jbz-i SPECPERMFRM e9&A1Y)cCZ-D W/, 6 WEW -CRSS . LAt�t��c N(� FLANS i fa)DF-1>• Project Comments Date: May 5,2006 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650)558-7230 (650)558-7271 X Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal (650)558-7260 (650)558-7600 ❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650)558-7254 (650)342-3727 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review,special permit for accessory structure and parking variance for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1520 Arc Way,zoned R-1,APN:028-132-140 Staff Review: May 8,2006 1) All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes(CBC), the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes,and all other State and Federal requirements. 2) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 3) Comply with the new,2005 California Energy Efficiency Standards for low-rise residential buildings.Go to http://www.energy.ca.gov/title24 for publications and details. 4) Obtain a survey of the property lines for any structure within one foot of the property line. 5) Roof eaves must not project within two feet of the property line. 6) Exterior bearing walls less than three feet from the property line must be constructed of one-hour fire-rated construction and no openings are allowed. 7) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. 8) Provide guardrails at all landings.NOTE:All landings more than 30"in height at any point are considered in calculating the allowable floor area.Consult the Planning Department for details if your project entails landings more than 30" in height. 9) Provide handrails at all stairs where there are more than four risers. 10)Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 11)The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet above any roof surface within ten feet. 12)Note:Show compliance on the plans with item#7 above prior to moving forward for Planning Commission approval. Reviewed b Date: j1`O 4 Project Comments Date: May 5, 2006 To: d City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 ❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review, special permit for accessory structure and parking variance for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1520 Arc Way, zoned R-1, APN: 028-132-140 Staff Review: May 8, 2006 1. The proposed driveways exceed the maximum width allowed the Municipal Code. The maximum driveway width is 20% of the total street frontage. Plans need to be revised to meet this requirement. 2. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works — Engineering Division at (650) 558-7230 for additional information. 3. See attached. Reviewed by: V V xf��' Date: 5/08/2006 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS F-J0.4 1w- s >Y Project Name:4, *J44f Vtt±Y t±`� Project Address:197- The following requirements apply to the project 1 A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property comers, easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) $e6v4vy t' ''''ow vrv* Eg A..-t6ba � 2 The site and roof drainage shall be plans saand hould be made to Y drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit. 4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's flood zone requirements. 5 A sanitary sewer lateral test is required for the project in accordance with the City's standards. ) 6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures. 8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project. 9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City Engineer. 10. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering Division. The parcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements, monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map. Page 1 of 3 UAprivate developmenAPLANNING REVIEW CONUAENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 11. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map for reviews. 12 Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. 13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 14 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. 15 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage streetscape improvements including sidewalk, curb, gutters,parking meters and poles, trees, and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan. 16 By the preliminary review of plans, it appears that the project may cause adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic and public on street parking. The project shall identify these impacts and provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City. 17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements. 18 Any work within the drainage area, creek, or creek banks requires a State Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers Permits. 19 No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek. 20 The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution. 21 The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re- submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is proposing to widen the driveway. Any widening of the driveway is subject to City Engineer's approval. 22 The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans showing the driveway profile with elevations Page 2 of 3 UAprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW COMAAENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 23 The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm water from the street into private property. 24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the property. 25._ _ For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to the Sanitary Sewer System is required. Page 3 of 3 UAprivate developmentTLANNING REVIEW COMM ENTS.doc Project Comments Date: May 5, 2006 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 ❑ Chief Building Official a( Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 ❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review, special permit for accessory structure and parking variance for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1520 Arc Way, zoned R-1, APN: 028-132-140 Staff Review: May 8, 2006 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide double backflow prevention. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Reviewed by: / Date: � �� Project Comments Date: May 5,2006 To: ❑ City Engineer X Recycling Specialist (650)558-7230 (650)558-7271 ❑Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal (650)558-7260 (650)558-7600 ❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator (650)558-7254 (650)342-3727 ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review,special permit for accessory structure and parking variance for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1520 Arc Way,zoned R-1,APN:028-132-140 Staff Review: May 8,2006 Applicant shall submit a Recycling and Waste Reduction Plan for approval, and pay a recycling deposit for this and all covered projects prior to construction or permitting. Reviewed by: Date: Project Comments Date: May 5, 2006 To: City Engineer 1110� Recycling Specialist (650) 558-7230 (650) 558-7271 Chief Building Official 110' Fire Marshal (650) 558-7260 (650) 558-7600 City Arborist Q NPDES Coordinator (650) 558-7254 (650) 342-3727 City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review, special permit for accessory structure and parking variance for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1520 Arc Way, zoned R-1, APN: 028-132-140 Staff Review: May 8, 2006 1) Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not limited to ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases of the construction project (including demolition). Include appropriate stormwater BMPs as Project Notes. These BMPs include but are not limited to the following: • Store, handle, and dispose of construction materials and wastes properly to prevent contact and contamination of stormwater; • Control and prevent the discharge of all potential pollutants, including pavement cutting wastes, paints, concrete, petroleum products, chemicals, wash water or sediments, and non-stormwater discharges to storm drains and watercourses; • Use sediment controls or filtration to remove sediment when dewatering site and obtain all necessary permits; • Avoid cleaning, fueling, or maintaining vehicles on-site except in a designated area where wash water is contained and treated; • Protect adjacent properties and undisturbed areas from construction impacts using vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes, mulching, or other measures as appropriate; • Perform clearing and earth moving activities only during dry weather; • Limit and time application of pesticides and fertilizers to prevent polluted runoff; • Limit construction access routes and stabilize designated access points; • Avoid tracking dirt or other materials off-site; clean off-site paved areas and sidewalks using dry sweeping method; • The Contractor shall train and provide instruction to all employees and subcontractors regarding the construction BMPs. 1 of 2 Project Comments — Con't-1520 Arc Way - NFSD, 2-story with detached garage 2) The public right of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging and/or storage area and shall be free of construction debris at all times. 3) Implement Erosion and Sedimentation Controls (if necessary): a. Install and maintain all temporary erosion and sediment controls continuously until permanent erosion control have been established; b. Address method(s) for diverting on-site runoff around exposed areas and diverting off-site runoff around the site; c. Address methods for preventing erosion and trapping sediment on-site. 4) Provide notes, specifications, or attachments describing the following: a. Construction, operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; b. Methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling, clearing of vegetation, and storage and disposal of excavated or cleared material. Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available for your review at the Planning and Building departments. Distribute to all project proponents. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727. Reviewed by: Date: 05/08/06 2of2 WHY SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT SOIL EROSION? _= Nature slowly wears away land, but human activities such as _ construction increase the rate of erosion 200 eve 2 " _;: }` e n ,000 times that amount. When we remove vegetation or other objects that hold soil in place, we expose it to the action of wind and water / and increase its chances of eroding. The loss of soil from a construction site results in loss of topsoil, minerals and nutrients, and it causes ugly cuts and gullies in the Water and wind carry soil from our Bay Area land down into our landscape. Surface runoff and the materials it carries with it clog streams, lakes and the Bay. This soil carries with it pollu- our culverts, flood channels and streams. Sometimes it destroys tants such as oil and grease, chemicals, fertilizers, animal wildlife and damages recreational areas such as lakes and re- wastes and bacteria, which threaten our water quality. servoirs. Such erosion also costs the home construction industry, local As an example, road and home building in the Oakland hills government, and the homeowner untold millions of dollars above Lake Temescal filled the lake to such an extent that it had a year. to be dredged in 1979 at a public cost of$750,000. NEED MORE INFORMATION? ABAG has produced a slide/tape show on soil erosion addresses problems and solutions as they apply to called "Money Down the Drain." It is available for showing California and the Bay Area. It can be purchased from to any interested group. Call ABAG Public Affairs at (415) ABAG and is available on reference at many local libraries 841-9730. and in city and county public works and planning depart- ments. ABAG has also published a "Manual of Standards for Sur- face Runoff Control Measures" which deals extensively USDA Soil Conservation Service personnel are willing to with designs and practices for erosion prevention, sedi- provide more information on specific erosion problems. ment control, and control of urban runoff. The manual This brochure is a cooperative project of the Association of Bay Area Governments and the East Bay Regional Park District. A�/�y/�� ASSOcmTjON EAST BAY REGIONAL /1f. AGOVERNMENEAS I PARK DISTRICT PROTECTING y YOUR PROPERTY -` 6. FROM EROSION EROSION CONTROL CAN PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY AND PREVENT FUTURE HEADACHES .��� y ~ Vegetation-stabilized Bare Slope: Headaches ?' Slope:Security and Liability (r ' •, ) � soil in place • mudslide danger .�. � • minimum of • loss of topsoil ' erosion • clogged storm � • fewer winter clean- drains,flooding Au problems p p problems • protection for expensive house foun- cleanup�oo .fir dations • eroded or ��� buried house foundations CZP TIPS FOR THE HOMEOWNER "Winterize" your property by mid-September. Don't Seeding of bare slopes wait until spring to put in landscaping. You need • Hand broadcast or use a "breast seeder." A typical winter protection. Final landscaping can be done yard can be done in less than an hour. later. • Give seeds a boost with fertilizer. • Mulch if you can, with grass clippings and leaves, Inexpensive measures installed by fall will give you bark chips or straw. protection quickly thatwill last all during the wet • Use netting to hold soil and seeds on steep slopes. season. • Check with your local nursery for advice. AU Wfnter alert In one afternoon you can: • Check before storms to see that drains and ditches • Dig trenches to drain surface runoff water away are not clogged by leaves and rubble. from problem areas such as steep, bare slopes. • Check after major storms to be sure drains are clear • Prepare bare areas on slopes for seeding by raking and vegetation is holding on slopes. Repair as the surface to loosen and roughen soil so it will necessary. hold seeds. • Spot seed any bare areas. WHAT YOU CAN DO TO on all areas that are not to be paved or otherwise covered. CONTROL EROSION AND PROTECT YOUR PROPERTY / v- Soil erosion costs Bay Area homeowners millions of dol- lars a year. We lose valuable topsoil. We have to pay for damage to roads and property. And our tax money has to be spent on cleaning out sediment from storm drains, channels,lakes and the Bay. Control dust on graded areas by sprinkling with water, restricting traffic to certain routes, and paving or gravel- You can protect your prop- ing access roads and driveways. erty and prevent future headaches by following these guidelines: TEMPORARY MEASURES TO _-- STABILIZE THE SOIL BEFORE AND x Grass provides the DURING cheapest and most ef- fective short-term ero- CONSTRUCTION sion control. It grows quickly and covers the ground completely. To • Plan construction activities during spring and summer, find the best seed mix- tures and plants for so that erosion control measures can be in place when your area, check with the rain comes. = your local nursery, the U.S. Department of A • Examine your site carefully before building. Be aware of _ ,R nculture Soil Conserva- the slope, drainage patterns and soil types. Proper site tion Service, or the design will help you avoid expensive stabilization work. 4 University of California • Preserve existing vegeta- Cooperative Extension. tion as much as possible. Limit grading and plant removal to the areas == = Mulches hold soil moisture and provide ground protection under current construc- _= AM from rain damage. They also provide a favorable envi- tion. (Vegetation will - ronment for starting and growing plants. Easy-to-obtain naturally curb erosion, mulches are grass clippings, leaves, sawdust, bark chips improve the appearance and straw and the value of your property, and reduce the Straw mulch is nearly 100%effective when held in place by cost of landscaping later.) spraying with an organic glue or wood fiber (tackifiers), by punching it into the soil with a shovel or roller, or by tack- • Use fencing to protect plants from fill material and traffic. ing a netting over it. If you have to pave near trees, do so with permeable as- phalt or porous paving blocks. Commercial applications of • Preserve the natural contours of the land and disturb the wood fibers combined with earth as little as possible. Limit the time in which graded various seeds and fertilizers areas are exposed. (hydraulic mulching)are effec- tive in stabilizing sloped areas. • Minimize the length and Hydraulic mulching with a steepness of slopes by tackifier should benching, terracing, or be done in two _ constructing diversion separate appli- "� structures. Landscape cations: the first " benched areas to stabilize composed of seed fertilizer and half the mulch,the second the slope and improve its composed of the remaining mulch and tackifier. Commer- appearance. cial hydraulic mulch applicators—who also provide other erosion control services—are listed under"landscaping"in • As soon as possible after grading a site, plant vegetation the phone book. • Riprap (rock lining)—to protect channel banks from erosive water flow - _.. • Sediment trap—to �1 stop runoff carrying sediment and trap the sediment i r Mats of excelsior,jute netting and plastic sheets can be ef- fective temporary covers, but they must be in contact with the soil and fastened securely to work effectively. Storm drain outlet --� protection—to reduce the speed of water flow- ing from a pipe onto Roof drainage can be collected in barrels or storage con- ;' P open ground or into a tainers or routed into lawns, planter boxes and gardens. natural channel Be sure to cover stored water so you don't collect mos- quitos,too. Excessive runoff should be directed away from Diversion dike or perimeter dike—to divert excess your house. Too much water can damage trees and make water to places where it can be disposed of properly foundations unstable. STRUCTURAL RUNOFF CONTROLS • Straw bale dike—to stop and detain sediment from Even with proper timing and planting, you may need to small unprotected areas protect disturbed areas from rainfall until the plants have (a short-term measure) time to establish themselves.Or you may need permanent ways to transport water across your property so that it perimeter swale—to divert doesn't cause erosion. runoff from a disturbed area or to contain runoff within 1 K To keep water from carrying soil from your site and dump- a disturbed area .. ing it into nearby lots, streets, streams and channels, you need ways to reduce its volume and speed. Some exam- Grade stabilization structure—to carry concentrated ples of what you might use are: runoff down a slope jute netting landscaping hydraulic mulch ' 4 L plastic sheeting = __ perimeter dike diversion ditch .. bench straw mulch sediment trap outlet protection c�conservatree RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL PERMIT AND PARKING VARIANCE RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review, special permit for location of a new detached garage and variance for parking within the front setback for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1520 Arc WE, zoned R-1, Thomas O'Conner, 1232 Cabrillo Avenue Burlingame CA 94010 property owner,APN: 028-132-140; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on August 14, 2006, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption,per CEQA Article 19, Section: 15303, Class 3 — (a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review, special permit and parking variance are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for such design review, special permit and parking variance are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. Chairman I, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14`h day of August , 2006 by the following vote: Secretary EXHIBIT"A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, special permit and parking variance. 1520 Are Way Effective August 24, 2006 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; 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 perjury. 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; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, special permit and parking variance. 1520 Arc Way Effective August 24, 2006 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. �rS CITY o� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT �RLJNGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 � ' 3;x TEL:(650)556-7250 FAX:(650)696-3790 www.burlingame.org $0A0. 240 e - a4y US POSTAGE Site: 1520 ARC WAY The City of Burlingame Planning Commission announces the PUBLIC HEARING following public hearing on Monday, August 14, 2006 at NOTICE 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame,CA: Application for design review, special permit for location of a new detached garage & parking variance for parking in the front setback for a new, two-story single family dwelling & detached garage at 1520 ARC WAY zoned R-1. (APN 028-132- 140) Mailed: August 4, 2006 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applic�at an 1 r3 th�pro�ect' y be reviewed prior to the meeting aft Primrose Road, y§s Burlingame C l"' rIP. If you challe e u e t ,'Nu mai be limited to raising only i sr� lblic hearing, described in h a riNie e _ weed to the city at or prior tolthe pu c eaj}n&_ y tj ], X T Propertyow ers "�r e responble`;or informing their tenants bou Th io al info atid , please call (650) 558-7200, 6, #A�, *h Margaret Monr City Planner PUB't�IC'I-# „ .w ICE (Please refer to other side) i c a ,t r a • � cc Ai 419 All r,; 'a�` �^� r�,,.•. ��� ��, 0. `"!` 'y �rr,`v?�� � ,�o,�` � �� r� �� 6�� �g f' �� s �:' V' .r"�e ��Fr •tY °+f``�t�' _�. rMr„° �, s` r' ,r� �• t'�x •�y �. � � .r' d � r b �.d'� '��C��;; s4,�rlh s' �i'�,. •��',, 1, r,5 �, } .,n ., ,. �,ati.; '�,°'s. �.A,, ,, "` P M �'4A.,. ^.,✓ >„ aY f '��^� '(3`4 � .,F, a ``.�`� i ,�' ':.. 'tea•�" �,�� °�`1:=:.� j I�'"�.r'r.�p.4,' i<. _ �� �x°N ' �""�' ,�'�.;� Ftp' i /• SP F `7 el r' / ���� *nav" ^� •'#�t� y ��;a. '"'n+`q�" ,./�. �°� t� R : `M .s I �`�"^� �e. •1'` ,.'� �-�y,� f' � AT� 3 iia S ka Mb ! .• t'm'"' ^. + • �. q • \ 4�.4 e x cr,� � � �,t =a. yt s �`� .j F.$•1�� �s'�y�'i'�9k< �`��« �# {, �.s,,,. S. �s. .r. 0t,.y1.�+�`�,L' '° ♦. ,a ,� � ,•� a,�6 '� �, �: .. ,d' RM fAh M a • °���y ,r'�• ♦> se+'i •���a`+�� h.. �nyn � � ,pR�z,� L`.'�c^�`4 P��nti > "` ".��y,��l� ��r«�.>y `rr.,�, ".'r",,'+ '`.` ti. «bran.. a.., �� �"d�,'yy A +y'• C ,.,��.. "�; cry o,.� f« yC '-i&'Y A �y `�'� fit,.� 'f• fi* � l ° r 4 ,: _Agenda Item 1 3 al- Meeting Date NSVO4 August 22,2006 Burlingame Town Council Re:Appeal of Planning Commission decision 1,Victor Anderson,hereby appeal the Planning Commission's 8/14/06 4-3 approval of the plans for a new house at 1520 Arc Way. Regards, Honorable Mayor and City Council: Please schedule an appeal hearing for 1520 Arc Way to' be heard at the i September 18, 2006 Council meeting. City C.Iet* Victor T. Anderson 816 Walnut Ave Burlingame, CA 94010 650-558-8395 CITY sz BURIJNGAME Agenda Item 13 a. MEMORANDUM Mtg Date: 9/5/06 City of Burlingame Office of the City Clerk To: Honorable Mayor and City Council From: Doris Mortensen Date: September 5, 2006 Re: Agenda Item 13.a. NEW BUSINESS Appellant Victor Anderson of 816 Walnut Avenue has requested that the Appeal Hearing of the Planning Commission's decision at 1520 Arc Way be set for October 3, 2006, as he will be out of town for the September 18'h Council meeting. c: City Planner cirr o� GITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010E Vs 11v 501 432 TEL:(650)556-7250 • FAX:(650)696-3790 www.burlingame.org : Xa F- -47! � -' Site: 1520 ARC WAY h- ' ,ila rscsrr -�r,L} I Appeal to the City (ouncil the Planning (a 5 `"= '0'--A decision on design review,variance for parking and special PUBLIC HEARING permit for garage location for a new, two-story single NOTICE family dwelling and detached garage at 1520 ARC WAY zoned R-1. (APN 028-132-140) The(ity of Burlingame City(ouncil announces the following public hearing on Tuesday, October 3, 2006 at 7:00 P.M. in the City Hall (ouncil (bombers,501 Primrose Road, Burlingame,(A. Mailed: September 22,2006 (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applicadt'and rt� tli prolect'ihay be reviewed prior to the meetingait a ► � tannin n _ ent At�54`I��Primrose Road Burlingame, CalifO1 , =r , If you chane e th ul3jd� you ma be limited to raising only t7 S[trd"Atmel blic hearing, described in he rite11' e :w. e " $l weed to the city at or prior to he u c ea m , P P �:.) T g• Property ow ers o x i i e respon able or informing their tenants bou ional info r atid , please call (650) 558-7 0ct '40 Irl ) , f�a Margaret Mon re City Planner PU NOTICE (Please refer to other side) RESOLUTION NO RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW, PARKING VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT RESOLVED,by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review, variance for parking in the front setback and special permit for detached garage located within the rear 40% of the lot for a new, two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1520 Arc Way, zoned R-1, Thomas O'Connor, 1232 Cabrillo Avenue, Burlingame, CA, 94010,property owner, APN: 028-132-140; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on said application on August 14, 2006, at which time said application was approved; WHEREAS, this matter was appealed to City Council and a hearing thereon held on October 3 2006, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Council that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this council, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19, Section 15303, Class 3 — (a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption, is hereby approved. 2. Said design review, parking variance and special permit are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A' attached hereto. Findings for such design review, parking variance and special permit are as set forth in the staff report, minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. 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 October 3, 2006, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk EXHIBIT"A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, parking variance and special permit. 1520 Arc Way Effective October 3, 2006 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 perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review, parking variance and special permit. 1520 Arc Way Effective October 3,2006 Page 2 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. Agenda Item # 8a Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: October 3, 2006 1 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BYG/% /� � �y �✓ TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: September 26, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: CALTRAIN RAILROAD CORRIDOR FENCING OPTIONS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that City Council review the three fencing options for the Caltrain railroad corridor presented below and provide direction to staff. DISCUSSION: On September 21, 2006, the Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission (TSPC) held a special public meeting on the Caltrain railroad corridor safety fencing issue. The TSPC heard from sub-committee members specifically formed to evaluate the extent and type of fencing in Burlingame. The City Traffic Engineer will make a presentation to Council covering the following three options reviewed by the TSPC: OPTION 1 • West side of Carolan Avenue: fencing from the car wash lot south to the Morrell Avenue pedestrian crossing (about 2,000 feet). • East side of California Drive: fencing from the Broadway station parking lot south to Sanchez Avenue (about 300 feet). OPTION 2 • Same as Option 1, with the addition below. • East side of California Drive: fencing from the Oak Grove Avenue intersection north to the existing drainage channel (about 400 feet). OPTION 3 • West side of Carolan Avenue: fencing from the car wash lot south to the Oak Grove Avenue intersection (about 3,500 feet). • East side of California Drive: fencing from the Broadway station parking lot south to the Oak Grove Avenue intersection (about 3,200 feet). Staff and the TSPC support option 2 because it best controls track crossings by pedestrians through the effective use of fencing and natural barriers. Fencing near Sanchez Avenue and Oak Grove Avenue, together with the drainage channel in between these locations, would deter pedestrian crossings along California Drive. Fencing along Carolan Avenue and the drainage channel along California Drive cover the areas where dirt paths exist which have been used by pedestrians in the past. The location of the Carolan fencing also conforms to the scope of fencing in the Broadway station plans developed by Caltrain. The TSPC recommends that a six-foot high black cyclone fence be installed, similar to fencing at the Belmont train station.The cost is estimated to be about$80,000. Based upon Council's direction, staff will inform Caltrain of the recommended scope of fencing for Burlingame so that it can be considered in their system wide fencing plan. EXHIBITS: • Fencing Option Maps • Fencing Exhibit /Abilidstine Ch u Traffic Engineer S:�A Public Works Directory\TSP Commission\Special Meeting\Caltrain Fatality\Railroad Fencing Recommendation- CCSR4.doc NOIldO JNIONd--A Q3SOdObd r +-" 4r' '.*pm%q '�"•.�" �.:. .�.,. OL �' i ++ t lJ ,� w y s� act . �� 's 16Y . .a � .. < i �i. - •,..�; c; p 'c,{� c. ., � - �:. ' - . .:n U t !i.i ;may aim J116 : WAAO �. 1. .� . •� _ i3ninNHsr�yi,�Naa _ 4F 0 ilk r ,gyp fi I:;� �, ,,' _-. �Ci" � `•:1114-�`c —� '4� JNIONEIJ NMA -LIVO Z NOIldO ONION3303SOdMJd dim III VA If 2 9 IENNJ�H 041,60 ���Y ��', � -•��T J �.. � ��.' � �a. �'r•s, ��it tr �r� � ■ — -- - ---- �- -- --- _ r - iN v ry a# . � { ,T ' � 41 ONIONA:J NlVdi-lVO C NOIldO+� JNION3d03SOdOdd n I ` '� ire oil ,�' I,�.. 1 , _ _ _ __ -s ONIONdJ NMJllb3 s r ' r ♦.�• W S ya �; � � � � Air:. Y _ `� y � �� �,E ��r�'�,,p����v,� y�..�"'i�Js�►.'M �� r -F ; p�� c' ,p �� �-•�Jj�.'';'.; .. ,•�.. r. .unO.$Yf �L rr N ry AA'.F,Y.-.Ir X�AJ,Y � ' ". • � � ,: ,a�.Y hk � .Yn'w.M 5, a'n ti' � YWi.♦ V, JS + o r a - F T '11 I y. hyo r 1 t s R '4 yi 4: Y' / Y. r""-Cr (� .. : �� 1r I e r �rt f' �� "�', 1 S _�lrw • IY'. 1 ' �I, ':A+N:.., � 'Y it� C {.4 Ik .r+ . .. •4 -•� ��' j �, (^ur,^1, �! �.� ;'}•. f�. 1 •f�`Y '. C L � 1 - •• _ A.•f � _ ^ ] y r a - ♦� 4 -' - ,'n.. •"a �� M �Y�� rte. ift n _ mme>�rc : ,xrwsxwu�maa i c prgf 1f "` -;f �>\ �' �j;•:•1 55.1�'h� 7,' t.rv� :� 'r.1'I i� ��1.F'u�r �i �riS���� i Om i���p 1' , MINN. Ibbbb�ilbAblbbb!*b�t — � EEWEA�tlE --------------------- 11w I y ry �r 1. y je :s Y'. p, . ti 4 y j �t F CITY C AGENDA 8b ITEM# BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT MTG. c DATE Ortobara 9006 ao TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTE BY DATE: September 25, 2006 APPROVED FROM: Crystal Duong (558-7204) BY SUBJECT: Consider Appointment to Beautification and Park & Rec. Commission RECOMMENDATION: Consider appointment recommendations of interview committee and make appointments or take other action. BACKGROUND: Five commission positions are due for appointment because of term expiration- two positions on the Parks and Rec Commission, and three on the Beautification Commission. The positions were publicized and notification letters were sent to all past commission applicants on the City's 2-year waiting list. As of the deadline, September 22, 2006, we received five applications for the P&R Commission and four for the Beautification Commission. All applicants will be interviewed by the applicable Council subcommittee on September 29, 2006. The appointees' term will be for three years, ending in October 7, 2009. Q' LL O Q• Recommendations for Parks and Rec. Commission Interviews held, Friday, September 29, 2006. Vice Mayor Terry Nagel, Councilmember Russ Cohen interviewers. Four candidates were interviewed for two openings and each were uniquely qualified. I want to encourage those that were not chosen to continue to reapply when there are other openings for this commission as well as other commissions. In fact,the other candidates for this position have skill sets and experience that were identified during the interviews and listed on their applications that would be helpful to other commissions. Vice Mayor Terry Nagel and I recommend the appointment of Peter Comarato and Susan Castner-Paine to the Parks and Recreation Commission. Peter's experience as a teacher at the rec. center and at the YMCA and his work teaching children of various ages, brings a fresh perspective that will only help the commission address issues regarding programming and service. Pete has been a life long resident of Burlingame and his deep sense of community values will enhance the commission. Susan Castner-Paine will bring a unique perspective to the commission because of her fine arts background as well her horticultural background. She brings a passion and knowledge of tranquil open spaces. In her application and in her interview she illustrated many new and diverse ideas, including some thoughtful ideas regarding our senior community that she will bring with her to the commission. Both Vice Mayor Nagel and I want to thank Ron Johnstone for applying and want to especially thank Kirk Heathcoat for his many invaluable years on the commission. ,,,� CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA 8c ITEM # MTG. ,M°O9°NwTE°JUNE6,9°0 DATE October 2, 2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITT f BY DATE: October 2, 2006 APPR ED /���� FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director/Treasurer BY / �' SUBJECT: GENERAL FRAMEWORK FOR MEASURE H CITIZ �S OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE - 2006 FLOOD PROTECTION AND PUBLIC SAFETY BONDS Recommendation: That the City Council approve the general framework for the Measure H — Citizens Oversight Committee Background: The City Council directed that a citizens oversight committee be added to the Measure H ballot language in order to provide fiduciary review of the use of the $44 million in general obligation bonds. The Citizens' Oversight Committee will oversee the implementation of Measure H, a $44 million general obligation bond measure for flood protection and public safety improvements. The Committee will review the city's progress on the capital improvements funded by Measure H and ascertain that all bonds funds are used only for the purposes set forth in the ballot measure. The Committee also will review the findings of the City of Burlingame's independent audit as they pertain to the expenditure of general obligation bonds approved by the voters and issue an annual report. The City Council will adopt a resolution creating the committee and outlining its authority and by-laws upon voter approval of Measure H. Attachments: City of Burlingame Measure H Citizens Oversight Committee Framework CITY OF BURLINGAME, CA MEASURE H CITIZENS OVERSIGHT COMMITTEE Committee Purpose: The Citizens' Oversight Committee will oversee the implementation of Measure H, a $44 million general obligation bond measure for flood protection and public safety improvements. The Committee will review the city's progress on the capital improvements funded by Measure H and ascertain that all bonds funds are used only for the purposes set forth in the ballot measure. The Committee will review the findings of the City of Burlingame's independent audit as they pertain to the expenditure of general obligation bonds approved by the voters. Committee Makeup: The Citizens' Bond Oversight Committee will consist of 3 to 5 members appointed by the City Council. To qualify for an appointment, the applicant: 1. Shall be at least 18 years of age 2. Shall reside within the city limits of the City of Burlingame 3. Shall not be an employee or an official of the City of Burlingame 4. Shall not be a vendor, contractor or consultant to the City of Burlingame Committee Appointments: The City Council will solicit applications for appointments to the Citizens' Oversight committee. The Council will review all applications and make the final appointments. Committee Tenure: The Citizens' Bond Oversight Committee will be organized upon approval of Measure H. The City Council will adopt a Resolution creating the Committee and outlining its authority and by-laws. Committee members will serve for terms of four years. Annual or Semi Annual Meetings: The City Council will determine the need for regular meetings. However, the Citizens' Oversight Committee will meet at least once a year to review the progress of projects and verify the expenditure of funds as outlined in the ballot measure. Annual Committee Report: The Citizens' Oversight Committee will issue an annual report to the citizens of Burlingame outlining the accomplishments of the bond measure and expenditure of funds. The report will serve to keep Burlingame residents informed about Measure H. STAFF REPORT BURL AGENDA 8d ITEM# MTG. 10/3/06 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL sUBWTED J � BY (yC�s —�> DATE: September 24, 2006 APPROVE FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF A STREET TREE REFORESTATJ9N PROJECT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Street Tree Reforestation Project as recommended by the Beautification Commission and direct Staff to consider funding the Project in the 2007-08 General Fund budget. BACKGROUND: The City currently adds street trees upon request from a home owner with a vacant planting area. If there is no street tree currently, no cost is assessed to the home owner. If this is a request for an additional tree, the home owner is charged $75. At the present time, the Department budgets for and receives approximately 25 such requests each year. As requested by City Council, in May of 2006, the Beautification Commission began considering potential options for tree planting on streets (blocks) that have few or no City trees. Director Schwartz instructed the Commission to also consider potential areas for planting such as residential, business, or the Rollins Road area and determine a concept or process that might include prioritizing, fundraising, and community information and input. At the August 3, 2006, the Commission further discussed different approaches on how to promote and educate residents with regard to the City's street tree planting program, as well as the individual commitment that is needed to care for the newly planted trees. The Commission expressed their interest in beginning a process or a program to add new trees in the community. Staff informed the Commissioners that a proactive plan would require additional funding to be successful. Whether the request is for a first or additional tree, staff time involved includes working with the home owner to verify the site and select the desired variety, ordering from the nursery, tagging the trees upon arrival, planting and long term maintenance. It is estimated that to fully cover the time and material demands of a larger program would require approximately $120 per tree. After receiving Staff input, the Commission approved a recommendation to Council at the September 2006 that included the following steps: • Request funding from the City Council in future budgets to begin the program • Commission to look for additional funding sources(donations, grants, etc) • Commission to identify and prioritize areas of Burlingame that would benefit from additional street trees • Letters to residents of prioritized areas informing them of the project and how to participate BUDGET IMPACT: Adopting the Street Tree Reforestation Project would not affect the 2006-07 budget unless Council directs staff to implement the project prior to consideration of the 2007-08 budget. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY AGENDA ITEM# 8@ BU_RLNGAME STAFF REPORT MAG. DATE October 200S TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: September 20, 2006 APPROVED'.� FROM: Crystal Duong (558-7204) BY --- /w SUBJECT: Traffic Safety Parking Commission RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that Council call for applications to fill one impending vacancy on the Traffic Safety Parking Commission. The recommended due date is October 27, 2006. The Mayor and Council should determine a two-member committee to perform the interviews. BACKGROUND Eugene Condon, Jr's term expires on November 6, 2006. Our current commissioner appointment procedure calls for any commissioner desiring reappointment to apply in the same manner as all other candidates. The current commissioner will be invited to reapply if he wishes to serve again. In addition, all past applicants on the two-year waitlist will be informed of the vacancy. CITY AGENDA 9a 0 ITEM# BURLNGAME STAFF REPORT MAG. DATE 10/3/2006 �Ant[o TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED--- BY DATE: September 15, 2006 APPROVE BY- FROM: Y FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: ACCEPT REPORTS FROM EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF CITY OF BURLINGAME REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF FINANCING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THAT CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODES DO NOT REQUIRE AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATION: Accept Reports of Executive Officers that no amendments are needed to the conflict of interest codes of the two agencies. DISCUSSION: Government Code § 87306.5 requires each agency to review its conflict of interest code every two years to ensure that it is current as to language and designated positions. Attached are the reports from the Redevelopment Agency and the Financing Authority, which shows that no amendments are needed at this time. Attachment Report of Executive Director of Redevelopment Agency Report of Executive Director of Financing Authority 2006 Local Agency Biennial Notice Name of Agency: REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME Mailing Address: 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame,CA 94010 Contact Person: James Nantell,Executive Director Office Phone No:650-558-7204 E-mail: inantell(rDbulrinaame.org Fax Number: 650-342-8386 This agency has reviewed its conflict-of-interest code and has determined that: ❑ An amendment is required. The following amendments are necessary: (Check all that apply) O Include new positions(including consultants)that must be designated O Delete positions that manage public investments from the list of designated positions O Revise disclosure categories O Revise titles of existing positions O Delete titles of positions that have been abolished O Other(described) �(No amendment is required. The agency's code accurately designates all positions that make or participate in the making of governmental decisions;the disclosure categories assigned to those positions accurately require the disclosure of all investments,business positions, interests in real property,and sources of income which may foreseeably be affected materially by the decisions made by those designated positions;and the code includes all other provI yfionsr/e�quired„py GoveGJ�nt Code Section 87302. 1� Sign u of Chief Execuitva Officer 'Date Complete this report regardless of how recently your code was approved or amended. Please return this report no later than October 1,2006 to: City Clerk City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 2006 Local Agency Biennial Notice Name of Agency: BURLINGAME FINANCING AUTHORITY Mailing Address: 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Contact Person: James Nantell, Executive Director Office Phone No: 650 -558-7204 E-mail: inantell(o)bulringame.oro Fax Number: 650 -342-8386 This agency has reviewed its conflict-of-interest code and has determined that: ❑ An amendment is required. The following amendments are necessary: (Check all that apply) O Include new positions (including consultants) that must be designated O Delete positions that manage public investments from the list of designated positions O Revise disclosure categories O Revise titles of existing positions O Delete titles of positions that have been abolished O Other(described) J!Q No amendment is required. The agency's code accurately designates all positions that make or participate in the making of governmental decisions; the disclosure categories assigned to those positions accurately require the disclosure of all investments, business positions, interests in real property, and sources of income which may foreseeably be affected materially by the decisions made by those designated positions, and the code includes all other rovisions required by Government Code Section 87302. Ile IV 761""of Chief Execuitve Officer " Date Complete this report regardless of how recently your code was approved or amended. Please return this report no later than October 1, 2006 to: City Clerk City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 CITY G AGENDA 9b ITEM# BURLJNGAME STAFF REPORT MAG. q m DATE 10/3/2006 9`MSTFD JuwE b♦ TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMIT' BY �r�4i DATE: September 15, 2006 APP OVE BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE LIST OF DESIGNATED OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES IN THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution amending the list of designated officer and employee positions required to file Statements of Economic Interests pursuant to the City Conflict of Interest Code. DISCUSSION: The list of designated officers and employees required to file disclosure of economic interests was last updated in 2003. The proposed changes are as follows: — Boards and commissions play an important role in reviewing various issues coming to the City, including real property decisions and purchasing. — Veolia Water (Water Quality Treatment Plant contractor) employees conduct inspections and enforcement actions on behalf of the City. — As part of the merger of the Burlingame and Hillsborough Fire Departments, the position titles were redesignated. — The Human Resources Specialist conducts the key recruitments for the City. — The Parks Supervisor has assumed many of the roles that the City Arborist used to manage. — The Assistant Director of Public Works now handles the City Engineer duties. — The Senior Building Inspector acts as the deputy to the Chief Building Inpsector. — The Management Analyst in Public Works manages many of the Public Works contracts. This resolution also acts as the biennial update to the City's Conflict of Interest Code. Attachment Proposed Resolution RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING THE LIST OF DESIGNATED EMPLOYEES IN THE CITY CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE WHEREAS, the Political Reform Act, Government Code Sections 81000 and following, requires the City to adopt a Conflict of Interest Code for the City; and WHEREAS, Resolution 47-80 adopted a City Conflict of Interest Code, and the list of designated employees required to file statements of economic interests was subsequently amended by Resolutions 19-87 and 51-92 and 90-96; and WHEREAS,Resolution 12-98 adopted an amended conflict of interest code pursuant to the Political Reform Act,and the list of designated employees was further amended by Resolution Nos. 32-98, 102-00, 23-2001, 99-2002, and 14-2003 ; and WHEREAS, a number of positions within the Fire Department have been renamed as part of the merger with the Hillsborough Fire Department; and WHEREAS,the contractor employees managing the City's water treatment plant should be designated for disclosure; and WHEREAS, the boards and commissions of the City have assumed an increasingly important role in advising the City Council on various matters within their jurisdiction and should be included in designated positions, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The list of designated employees contained in the City of Burlingame Conflict of Interest Code is amended to read as contained in Exhibit A hereto. 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 1 _day of , 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk U:\FILES\RESO\conflint9-2006.cnl.wpd 2 APPENDIX A DESIGNATED OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES The following City officers and employees are designated for filing statements of economic interests pursuant to the City Conflict of Interest Code and the Political Reform Act: Disclosure Disclosure Category Category BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS HUMAN RESOURCES Beautification Commission I Human Resources Director I Civil Service Commission II Human Resources Specialist II Library Board of Trustees I Parks& Recreation Commission I LIBRARY Traffic, Safety&Parking Commission I City Librarian I Library Services Manager II CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE I Circulation Supervisor II Code Enforcement Officer Librarian III*** H Library Assistant II-Acquisitions II CITY CLERK'S OFFICE I Library Technology Services II City Clerk Manager CONSULTANTS PARKS &RECREATION DEP'T Design Review Consultants to City I Parks&Recreation Director I Planner/Planning Commission Parks Superintendent I Water Quality Treatment Plant Recreation Superintendent I Contractor City Arborist I Plant Manager I Parks Supervisor I Environmental Compliance Officer I Storm Water Coordinator I FINANCE DEPARTMENT PLANNING DEPARTMENT Finance Director/Treasurer I City Planner I Deputy Treasurer I Senior Planner I Administrator/Information Services I Planner I Manager Zoning Technician I Financial Services Manager I Assistant Deputy Treasurer I FIRE DEPARTMENT POLICE DEPARTMENT Fire Chief I Chief of Police I Deputy Fire Chief I Commander I Fire Marshal I Facilities and Fleet Maintenance II Fire Inspector I (assigned officer) Division Chief I Information Technology Services II Battalion Chief I (assigned officer) Secretary II Administrative Secretary to Chief II Information Technology Liaison Il (designated captain or officer) A=1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Director of Public Works I Assistant Director of Public Works I Senior Civil Engineer I Traffic Engineer I Public Works Superintendent I Assistant Streets and Sewers I Superintendent Assistant Water Superintendent I Shop Supervisor II Chief Building Inspector I Senior Building Inspector I Facilities Maintenance Supervisor I Building Inspector I Public Works Inspector I Electric Supervisor I Management Analyst I ***—Employees designated for"purchasing only" DISCLOSURE CATEGORIES: I — Statements of Designated Employees in Disclosure Category I shall include: a) Investments and business positions in any business entity; b)Income; and c) Interests in real property within the requirements of the Statement of Economic Interests as to reportability. Designated employees in Category I shall complete Schedules A through F II— Statements of Designated Employees in Disclosure Category II shall include: a) Investments and business positions in any business entity; and b) Income within the requirements of the Statement of Economic Interests as to reportability. Designated employees in Category II shall complete Schedules A, C through F. A-2 Agenda Item # 9c Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: OCTOBER 3, 2006 I SUBMITTED BY -- f APPROVED BY �r / C TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: SEPTEMBER 25, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE BURLINGHOME/EASTON SUBDIVISION NOS. 5 AND 7 MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT NO. 80770 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution accepting the Burlinghome/Easton Subdivision Main Replacement Project No. 80770 - Phase III, in the amount of $990,884.46. BACKGROUND: Council approved an annual water system capital improvements program budget of $4,500,000 to replace aging water system infrastructure. The Phase I and Phase II projects involved replacement of undersized, inaccessible water mains at the end of their service life located within the Burlinghome Subdivision and Easton Subdivisions 5 and 7. The water mains were located in the easements behind the homes, rather than in the street as is typical. The new water mains and meters were relocated to the front of the homes to improve access and maintainability. DISCUSSION: On October 17, 2005 the Phase III project was awarded to JMB Construction, Inc. in the amount of $901 ,870. During the construction, $89,014 of work was added to the contract to replace unforeseen problem piping. The construction is completed in compliance with the plans and specifications and staff recommends acceptance of these improvements. EXHIBITS: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: Staff Administration $27,000 Engineering Design 207,000 Construction Management 152,545 Construction 990,884 Public Outreach 42,958 Total: $1,420,387 There are sufficient funds available in the CIP budget to cover this work. c: City Clerk, Erler & Kalinowski, Inc., JMB Construction SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\80770 phase Ill.acceptdoc2.doc RESOLUTION NO. - ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS - BURLINGHOME/EASTON SUBDIVISION NOS. 5 AND 7 MAIN REPLACEMENT CITY PROJECT NO. 80770 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 JMB CONSTRUCTION, INC., under the terms of its contract with the City dated OCTOBER 17, 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. 80770. 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. 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 SAA Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\SOTTO Water Main ReplacemenARESOLUTION ACCEPTANCE.wpd Agenda Item # 9d Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: October 3, 2006 C' SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: SEPTEMBER 22, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: PROGRESS UPDATE ON THE MILLS CANYON SLIDE REPAIRS PROJECT, CITY PROJECT NO. 81720 BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Public Contract Code 22035, Council awarded an emergency construction contract to Hillside Drilling Company, Inc., for performing repairs to the Mills Canyon mudslide at its meeting on September 5, 2006. This is a progress update report provided in accordance with the requirements of Pubic Contract Code 22035. PROGRESS UPDATE: The following progress has been made on the project: ■ A Notice to Proceed was forwarded to Hillside Drilling Company, Inc., on September 22, 2006. ■ The Contractor is scheduled to initiate construction the week of September 25, 2006. ■ Staff has negotiated site access agreements with the property owners. ■ Topographic and property surveys for the mudslide area are completed. Doug Bell Senior E ' eer C: City Clerk, City Attorney, Director of Public Works, Hillside Drilling Company, Inc. SAA Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\81720\StaffReportProgress Update 100306.doc 1A4CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURL.INGAME AGENDA ITEM# 9e 'ticOq 9pe MTG. 'A•*� � E" DATE October 2,2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMIT E i BY DATE: October 2,2006 APPR VED FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director/Treasurer BY yv/ ' SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION SUPPORITNG TH STATE OF CALIFORNIA PROPOSITIONS 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E AND PROPOSITIONS 84 ON THE NOVEMBER 2006 BALLOT Recommendation: That the City Council approve A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Burlingame Supporting Propositions IA, 1B, 1C, 1D, I And Proposition 84 On The November 2006 Ballot Background: The League of California Cities has formally endorsed these State Propositions and has asked California local governments to adopt resolutions of support. The attached League document, "The Infrastructure Ballot Measures: Critical Funding for City Priorities"provides the known details of each ballot measure. Of particular importance is Proposition IA, which is a constitutional amendment designed to fix Proposition 42 funding for transportation. If approved, the City of Burlingame will receive approximately$899,834 in funding for local street and road improvements. Specific allocations for the City of Burlingame to be derived from other Propositions are currently unknown. Attachments: League of California Cities: "The Infrastructure Ballot Measures: Critical Funding for City Priorities" A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Burlingame Supporting Propositions 1 A, 1 B, 1 C, 1 D, 1 E And Proposition 84 On The November 2006 Ballot Leagpe of California Cities Pagel of 5 2006-09-27 The Infrastructure Ballot Measures:Critical Funding for City Priorities This year,as in virtually every year since the 1950s,California's population is projected to grow by more 500,000 people, driving the state population to almost 37 million.More than 80 percent of Californians live in cities,requiring the cities to respond with more housing,schools,improved transportation systems,upgraded sewers and drinking water systems, flood control,parks,libraries and other facilities. These factors make it easy to see why increased funding for infrastructure is so crucial for California cities,and a top priority for the League.Its why the League worked hard this past year to encourage the Legislature and Gov. Schwarzenegger to place a package of infrastructure funding measures on the November ballot-and why we are urging cities to support all six infrastructure measures:Propositions 1A,1 B,1 C.1 D,1 E(placed on the ballot by the Legislature) and Proposition 84(placed on the ballot through the initiative process). "Cities and communities across California will benefit directly from these measures,"said League President and Los Angeles Council Member Alex Padilla,speaking last week at a press conference in support of the measures during the League's Annual Conference in San Diego.'The San Diego area alone will see an influx of hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of jobs.Every city and community in California wins." Your City Wins If Voters Pass These Measures.The following summarizes these measures,and why they are so important for cities.Click here for a sample resolution that cities can adopt to support these measures.(See also the story on our website:"What Cities Can Do To Help Rebuild California's Infrastructure") Proposition 1A-Transportation Funding Protection.Legislative Constitutional Amendment.(Prop.42 Reform) This measure is not a bond,but a constitutional amendment designed to"fix"Proposition 42-the 2002 ballot measures that funded transportation-by permanently dedicating the sales tax on gasoline to transportation purposes(with narrow exceptions). Like the League-sponsored Prop.1A of 2004,which protected local tax revenues from further state takeaways,this measure will restrict the Legislature's ability to borrow the Prop.42 funds to the following: ■ The Governor must declare that the state faces a severe fiscal hardship,and the Legislature must enact a statute authorizing the borrowing by two-thirds vote.At the same time,the Legislature must pass a bill specifying that they will repay the loan with interest within three years. ■ The state can borrow the funds no more than twice in 10 years,and must repay a prior loan before borrowing. ■ Any Prop.42 transportation funds that were borrowed by the state but not repaid as of July 1,2007,must be repaid within a 10 year period(no later than June 30,2016)at payment of no less than one-tenth per year of the total amount owed. The measure also authorizes the Legislature to provide for the issuance of bonds by state or local agencies in accordance with the established Prop.42 allocation methodology.(See also:"Prop.42 Funding:We Need to Pass Both Prop.1A and 1 B".) Proposition 1B-Highway Safety,Traffic Reduction,Air Quality,and Port Security Bond Act of 2006. Specific allocations benefiting cities include the following: ■ 2 billion for the Local Street and Road Improvement,Congestion Relief,and Traffic Safety Account,allocated directly to cities and counties for traffic congestion relief,traffic safety,transit,storm damage,maintenance, construction and other projects to improve the local street and road system.$1 billion will go directly to cities (minimum$400,000 allocation),and$1 billion will go directly to counties. ■ $4.5 billion to Corridor Mobility Improvement Account to fund performance improvements on highly congested travel corridors.This includes major access routes to the state highway system on the local road systems that relieve congestion. ■ $1 billion for improvements to State Route 99 traversing approximately 400 miles of the Central Valley. ■ $3.1 billion for the California Ports Infrastructure,Security,and Air Quality Improvement Act.Of the$3.1 billion,$2 billion is to fund improvements to trade corridors,$1 billion to State Air Resources Board for emission reductions related to goods movement,and$100 million for the Office of Emergency Services for publicly-owned port, http://www.cacities.org/story_&splay.j sp?displaytype=pf&zone=locc&section=&sub_sec=... 9/27/2006 League of California Cities Page 2 of 5 harbor and ferry terminal improvements. ■ $200 million for school bus retrofitting and replacement to reduce air pollution. • $2 billion for projects in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). • $4 billion for the Public Transportation Modernization Improvement and Service Enhancement Account for improvements to intercity rail and other transit-related projects and improvements. Of the$4 billion,$400 million is dedicated to rail improvements and purchase of railcars and locomotives. • $1 billion for the State-Local Partnership Program Account for transportation projects nominated by a regional transportation agency.This program requires a dollar for dollar match of local funds. • $1 billion for the Transit System Safety,Security and Disaster Response Account for projects that increase protection again security and safety and develop disaster response for public transit systems. ■ $125 million for the Local Bridge Seismic Retrofit Account for seismic work on local bridges, ramps, and overpasses. • $750 million for the Highway Safety, Rehabilitation and Preservation Account(SHOPP)for safety,rehabilitation and preservation projects on state highway systems.$250 million of the funds in this account are for technology- based improvements to improve safety,operations and effective capacity of local streets and roads. ■ $250 million for the Highway-Railroad Crossing Safety Account for completion of high-priority grade separation and railroad crossing safety improvements. Proposition 1C-Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006. Prop. 1C contains$2.85 billion in funding to address a range of housing needs, including $1.35 billion that helps cities address housing-related infrastructure issues: • Infill Housing Construction-$850 million in grants for development of public infrastructure projects that facilitate or support infill housing construction. Projects could include water, sewer and transportation improvements,traffic mitigation, brownfield clean up and up to an additional$200 million for parks • Urban,Suburban and Rural Parks-$200 million • Transit-Oriented Development-$300 million to develop and construct housing and infrastructure projects within close proximity to transit stations Cities also benefit from other funding contained in Prop. 1C: • Affordable Home Ownership Programs-$725 million to help over 23,600 families become or remain homeowners ' Affordable Housing Construction Programs-$345 million for affordable rental housing for more than 4,000 families • Housing for Farmworkers-$135 million to build rental and home ownership oppor-tunities to help farm workers ' Homeless Permanent Housing Construction-$245 million to build permanent housing for the homeless,those transitioning out of homelessness and foster care youth • Homeless Shelter Housing Construction-$50 million to construct and expand homeless shelters of last resort and transitional housing for the homeless For the Legislative Analyst's Office summary of Prop. 1 C and all the November 2006 ballot measures,click here... Proposition 113-Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act of 2006. This measure would provide$10.4 billion in bonds to be deposited into the 2006 State School Facilities fund,which will be used to meet capital outlay needs of higher educational facilities, and finance grants for construction and renovation of schools, including charter schools and facilities for career technical education programs,and to relieve overcrowded schools.This also includes$29 million to fund joint-use projects for construction of K-12 school facilities. • $1.9 billion for new construction of school facilities. • $500 million for providing school facilities to charter schools. http://www.cacities.org/story_display.jsp?displaytype=pf&zone=locc&section=&sub sec=... 9/27/2006 League of California Cities Page 3 of 5 • $3.3 billion for modernization of school facilities. • $500 million for facilities for career techni- cal education programs. ■ $1 billion for new construction to fund severely overcrowded school sites. ■ $1 .5 billion for CA Community Colleges. ■ $890 million for UC and Hastings College of Law. ® $690 million for CSU. Proposition 1 E - Disaster Preparedness and Flood Prevention Bond Act of 2006. This bond would provide a total of $4.09 billion to prevent flooding by repairing levees and other flood control infrastructure in the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta and elsewhere. The funds will be allocated as follows: ■ $3 billion to evaluate, repair, rehabilitate, reconstruct or replace levees, weirs, bypasses and facilities contained in the state flood control plan; improve or add facilities to increase levels of flood prevention; and reduce the risk of levee failure. $500 million to cover the past and future obligations under the flood control subvention payments to local governments for qualifying projects. ' $290 million for the protection, creation, and enhancement of flood protection corridors and bypasses, including fund for floodplain mapping. ' $300 million for grants (with local match) to manage storm water runoff to reduce flood damage and provide benefits such as ground water recharge, water quality improvement and ecosystem. Proposition 84 - Water Quality, Safety and Supply. Flood Control. Natural Resource Protection. Park Improvements. Bonds. Initiative Statute. Proposition 84, a $5.4 billion initiative slated for the November 2006 statewide ballot, provides funding for all of the major natural resource protection and water programs at the state level. The total amount of funding for water programs is $2.714 billion and includes: $240 million for Safe Drinking Water $10 million for Emergency Safe Drinking Water Projects • $180 million for Small Community Grants • $50 million for Safe Drinking Water Revolving Fund $1.28 billion for Integrated Water Management and Water Quality $80 million for the Clean Water Revolving Fund • $1 billion for Integrated Regional Water Management Grants (DWR) $60 million for Groundwater Cleanup Loans and Grants (DHS) ■ $130 million for Delta Water Quality Improvement ■ $15 million for Agricultural Pollution Reduction $800 million for Flood Control ■ $30 million for Floodplain Mapping • $275 million for Flood Control • $275 million for Delta Levees ■ $180 million for Subventions ■ $40 million for Flood Corridors http://www.cacities.org/story_display.jsp?displaytype=pf&zone=locc&section=&sub sec=... 9/27/2006 League of California Cities Page 4 of 5 $65 million for Statewide Water Planning and Design ■ Surface Water Storage Planning and Feasibility(CalFed) ■ Evaluation of Climate Change Impacts on Flood and Water Systems • Flood Protection Improvement ■ Other Studies Related to Integration of Flood and Water Systems $928 million for Protection of Rivers. Lakes and Streams ■ $90 million for Stormwater Cleanup(TMDLs) ■ $180 million for Environmental Conflicts Related to Water Projects ■ $90 million for Colorado River,QSA and Salton Sea ■ $54 million for Public Access to State Water Projects(State's obligation) • $72 million for River Parkways and$18 million for Urban Streams ■ $72 million for the LA/San Gabriel Rivers ■ $36 million for the San Joaquin River • $36 million for Coachella/Desert Area • $45 million for the Santa Ana River ■ $90 million for Sierra Nevada Rivers and Lake Tahoe • $45 million for Restoration/Conservation projects(California Conservation Corps) ■ $100 million for San Joaquin River Restoration $450 million for Wildlife and Forest Conservation • $180 million for Forests • $135 million for Wildlife ■ $90 million for Natural Community Conservation Plans • $45 million for Working Landscapes • $15 million for Grazing Land ■ $15 million for Oak Woodlands ■ $10 million for Farmland Conservancy Program • $5 million for Wildlife Stewardship Grants $540 million for Beaches. Bays and Coastal Protection ■ $90 million for Clean Beaches(coastal stormwater/TMDLs) • $225 million for Bays ■ $108 million for the San Francisco Bay ■ $45 million for the Monterey Bay ■ $45 million for the Santa Monica Bay Watersheds ■ $27 million for the San Diego Bay ■ $135 million for the State Coastal Conservancy ■ $90 million for the Ocean Protection Trust Fund $500 million for Parks and Nature Education Centers ■ $400 million for State Parks http://www.cacities.org/story_display.jsp?displaytype=pf&zone=locc&section=&sub sec=... 9/27/2006 Leagvze of California Cities Page 5 of 5 ■ $100 million for Nature Education Centers, Museums and Aquariums $580 million for Sustainable Communities ■ $90 million for Urban Greening and Joint Use Projects • $400 million for Local and Regional Parks • $90 million for Planning and Incentives for Resource Conservation Note: To view the language of any of these measures as well as support and opposition arguments, visit the Secretary of State's website at www.ss.ca.gov. last updated:9/15/2006 http://www.cacities.org/story_display.jsp?displaytype=pf&zone=locc&section=&sub sec=... 9/27/2006 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME SUPPORTING PROPOSITIONS 1A,1B,1C,1D,1E AND PROPOSITION 84 ON THE NOVEMBER 2006 BALLOT WHEREAS,the City of Burlingame is responsible for public infrastructure that is essential to the economic and social well-being of its residents and businesses;and WHEREAS, these infrastructure include roadways, public transit systems, bike lanes,and other transportation systems;schools;affordable housing;drinking water and sewage treatment systems;parks and other amenities;and WHEREAS, the city faces new pressures to expand and improve our basic infrastructure as it relates to all of these infrastructure needs;and WHEREAS,the city currently is responsible for maintaining 84 miles of existing streets,and has adopted a capital improvement plan that estimates the cost of fulfilling this responsibility to be approximately$150 million for 15 years; and there is a growing need to expand investment in streets, transit systems, bike lanes, infill and transit- oriented housing,and other improvements to meet the needs of a growing city;and WHEREAS,school population in this city is expected to grow in the next decade requiring new investment in educational infrastructure;and WHEREAS, the city supports the construction of new housing and the State financing of housing related infrastructure;and WHEREAS, the city's drinking water and sewer systems are in need of upgrading and expansion to serve the current and growing needs of this city,and these repairs and upgrades are estimated to cost$85 million;and WHEREAS, the city's recreational facilities are in need of upgrade and repair, estimated to cost$45 million;and WHEREAS, the California State Legislature passed a $37.3 billion package of fiscal and bond measures to provide funding for housing, transportation, levee repairs and flood control projects and education facilities in May 2006;and WHEREAS, an additional bond measure to raise funds for clean water, parks and coastal protection has been placed on the ballot through the initiative process by a coalition of business,public health,government and environmental organizations;and WHEREAS, these measures have been titled Propositions 1 A, 1 B, 1 C, 1 D, 1 E and 84 by the Secretary of State and appear on the November 2006 ballot;and WHEREAS,Proposition 1A will close a loophole and ensure that gas tax revenue from Proposition 42, passed by voters in 2002, is only spent on transportation improvement projects, as originally intended; and this city's annual share of the Proposition 42 funds, to be used for repair and maintenance of existing streets, is estimated to be$899,824;and WHEREAS, Proposition 1B will provide up to $20 billion on various transportation projects to rebuild California, of which $1 billion will go to cities and $1 billion to counties for local streets and roads improvement projects; and WHEREAS, Proposition 1 C will provide $2.8 billion for housing projects, including $1.35 billion that helps cities address housing-related infrastructure issues, consisting of$850 million in grants for development of public infrastructure projects that facilitate or support infill housing construction, $200 million for parks, and $300 million for development near public transportation; and WHEREAS, Proposition 1 D will improve California's weakening school system by providing $10 billion for performing school building repairs and providing innovative learning facilities for Californian students, including seismic retrofitting and classroom repairs; and WHEREAS, Proposition 1 E will provide $4 billion for critical river levee repair and construction, as well as flood control projects and the updating and repair of old water mains and sewage systems; and WHEREAS, Proposition 84 will provide $5.4 billion for improving natural resources and water programs including state projects and grants for flood control, safe drinking water, improving water quality, integrated water management, water planning, and sustainable communities; and WHEREAS, the League of California Cities strongly supports Propositions 1A — 1 E and 84, and views these measures as providing critically needed resources; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME that the City hereby expresses its strong support for Propositions 1A, 1B, 1C, 1D, 1E and 84 which are presented for voter approval on the November 2006 statewide ballot. RESOLVED FURTHER, that the City Council and staff provide such educational materials on the possible impacts of such initiatives as may be lawfully provided; and RESOLVED FURTHER, that the City Manager and Clerk is hereby directed to send a copy to the Executive Director of the League of California Cities. ADOPTED this 2nd day of October, 2006. Mayor Cathy Baylock I, Doris Mortensen, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: NOES: Councilmembers: ABSENT: Councilmembers: BURL i hO Board of Trustees Minutes July 18, 2006 W I. Call to Order Secretary Toft called the.meeting to order at 5:30pm. II. Roll Call Trustees Present: Nancy Brock, Bruce Carlton, Deborah Griffith, Pat Toft Trustee Absent: Katie McCormack Staff Present: Al Escoffier, City Librarian Sidney Poland, Recorder III. Warrants and Special Funds The Trustees unanimously approved the Warrants. M/S/C (Griffith/Carlton) IV. Minutes The Trustees approved as written the minutes of t1-Ye June 20, 2006 meeting. M/S/C (Carlton/Griffith) V. Correspondence and Attachments A. News From the Capital - The state budget signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on June 30, 2006 includes a General Fund increase of$7M to the Public Library Foundation (PLF) and to the transaction-based interlibrary Loan and Direct Loan Program. The City Librarian noted that the procedure for calculating these loans will be based on first check outs only. Renewals will not be counted as in the past. Since 25 to 30% of borrowers renew their books, our statistics will most likely begin to show a deficit of this percentage. B. Estate O.E. E. Anderson - The Trustees approved a motion to add an engraved leaf to the donor vine in memory of O. E E. Anderson who made a bequest of$20,000 from his estate to the Burlingame Library. M/S/C (Griffith/Carlton) Mr. Anderson did not specify in his bequest how his,donation should be allocated. Therefore, the Trustees will be able to use the donation as specific Library needs and-projects arise. C. Current Library Foundation Budget 2006 The Trustees reviewed the current Foundation expenditures. Trustee Griffith inquired into the possibility of providing programs for Burlingame High students especially those who have reading deficiencies. 480 Primrose Road•Burlingame•California 94010-4083 Phone(650)558-7474'Fax(65o)342-6295•www.buAingame.org/library The City Librarian noted that the Library does,have a yearly Teen Poetry Workshop and that committee members of the One Book/Once Community program have visited high schools in the area to encourage student participation in this event. For adult non- readers, the country'provides a program entitled "Project Read" which is managed from the San Mateo City Library. Our Library budgets $8,000 for this program. Currently, there are not any programs offered by Burlingame Library for high school students who have reading deficits. VI. From the Floor - No one from the public attended the meeting. VII. Reports A. City Librarian's Report - Highlights of Report 1. Personnel Issues - Interviews for the full time Librarian with both children and adult experiencewill begin July 19th. Thirty applications have been received. 2. San Mateo Public Closure- San Mateo Pubic Library will be closed for 7 weeks in preparation for the opening of the new library on August 27th. Arrangements have been made with the City of San Mateo, to have some of its staff members fill in on the public service desks in anticipation of patron increases due to its temporary closure. 3. Children's Department a. Summer Reading Club - This year the three summer reading clubs have had the highest attendance since their inception. Presently, there are 1,000 children enrolled. b. Family Fun Nights - Family Fun Nights are extremely popular and every event has been sold out. Because the Lane Room can accommodate only 120 people, tickets are.sold in advance on a first come first serve basis. B. Foundation Report Foundation Event - President Hamilton presented his Strategic Plan to the Foundation Board, Foundation Advisory Board and Library Trustees at an evening soiree held on the Library terrace July 14th. This plan will serve as the _ instrument by which the Foundation will implement its goal of providing a source of funding for Library needs that are not included in the City budget, as well as enhancing the role of the Foundation in the community. C. Trusteeship Vacancy - The appointment of,a new Library Trustee has been postponed until the end of August. Library Board of Trustee Minutes 2 July 18,2006 VIII. New Business The Trustees approved the memorial leaf for Mr. Anderson during the discussion of his bequest under Section V. Correspondence and Information. IX. Announcements A. Novelist- Novelist training was held for the library staff on July l lth. This new database prograrn will be available for our patrons the week of August 1st and will assist patrons in finding books that are similar to ones they previously read and enjoyed. Patrons will also have the opportunity to subscribe to a free newsletter database entitled "Next Reads" which will give them an annotated list of new publications added to our Library's collection. The City Librarian informed the Trustees that it would be possible to give them a demonstration of Novelist. Foundation Board members would be invited. B. Future Meeting Dates 1. August 15, 2006 - Trustee-Brock will not be able to attend the August 15th meeting due to previously made vacation plans. Trustees Carlton, Griffith and Toft will be in attendance. 2. 'September 19, 2006 - The Trustees requested that the September 19th meeting be changed to September 26th. The requested meeting change will be placed on the August 15, 2006 agenda. C. PLS Orientation - PLS will hold an orientation meeting September 19th for new trustees. X. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 7:00pm. The next regular meeting will be held August 15, 2006 in the Conference Room at 5:30pm. M/5/C (Brock/Griffith) Respectfully Submitted, Alfred H. Escoffier City Librarian Library Board of Trustee Minutes 3 July 18,2006 3 City Librarian's Report August 15, 2006 New Main Library Schedule in place The two additional hours added to the library schedule are in place and the public is learning of the longer hours. All library signage has been updated to reflect the changes. Library managers have been staffing the initial Friday evenings to see what staffing is needed. We will begin regular staffing in August. Summer Reading Clubs Were a Roaring Success! The three children's summer reading clubs came to a close the week of July 24th. Nearly 1,000 Burlingame and Hillsborough children participated. The Summer Reading Clubs were co-sponsored by the Burlingame Lions Club and the Burlingame Library Foundation. The Family Fun Nights were sell outs each time with 120 per session. August is the annual planning month for the children's and teen departments. We will be implementing some new collections and programs focused particularly at teens as we move into the 2006-2007 fiscal year. San Mateo Public Library Opens August 27th We are grateful to the staff of the San Mateo Public Library for assisting us in filling in during the 7-week San Mateo closure. The traffic has been greatly increased at the Burlingame main library. Their experienced staff was able to step in and work our service desks and help relieve the burden. Changes in Interlibrary Loan and Direct Loan Statistics Public libraries may no longer count "renewals" for ILL and Direct Loan reimbursement from the state. This change took place this last quarter. This has reduced our statistics by 30%, meaning 30% less funding for service to non-residents. This makes more funding available statewide for reimbursements, but hurt those of us who have heavy crossover traffic. 1 Foundation Fall Schedule The Burlingame Library Foundation will hold their Fall Book Sale on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, October 6,7,8th. There will be a$5.00 charge at the door on Friday night only. In addition,the upcoming sale will be leveraged with a new fall event featuring a book auction for the higher value books.The book auction will take place Friday, October 6th,from 7 PM-9 PM.Invitations will be mailed. Cost will be$25.00 per person,and wine and cheese will be served along with musical entertainment. The Foundation will also be launching its new website as part of the publicity around the sale:www.burlingamelibrarvfoundation.org. The annual Foundation newsletter will be printed and published in November. New Librarian Hired Kelly Keefer has been hired as a new Librarian I to fill our vacant position. Kelly comes to us from the San Bruno Public Library where she did adult and children's work. Kelly will work in both departments at Burlingame as well. Kelly will begin work on August 21,2006. The Kite Runner: One Book/One Community Kites have been installed in the lobby of the main library to announce the One Book,One Community program for October.We have ordered another 20 copies of the book in paperback and developed a reading list of related titles. Burlingame Library will feature Stephen Olsson(Kris Cannon's brother!) an Emmy award winning film maker who will show his"Last Images of War"and offer a question and answer session in the Lane Room on October 11,2006. A proclamation has been written and sent to the City Clerk for preparation to present to the City Council.I would appreciate it if one of the Trustees would present this Proclamation at the City Council meeting of September 5,2006. All PLS Library Program Planning Al Escoffier called a meeting with the County Librarian and the PLS Director to discuss ways in which we can cooperate more fully on joint adult programming.We all have a need for adult programming,and it is often just as easy to plan,book and arrange several programs throughout the county by one author or performer,as it is to plan one 2 program. We will be bringing this idea to the full PLS Administrative Council in August. Library Periodical Collections Reviewed The Library periodical collections underwent their annual review by a task force of librarians. Several expensive items either ceased or were dropped. All of the dropped items are available in full text both in the library and remotely, so there was not a need to duplicate them, as they did not circulate in hard copy. Several new titles were added. Changes in our list begin January 2007. Annual Library Collection Meeting All of our professional librarians and support staff met in a meeting on July 12th to discuss various issues about budget, assignments and focus of the collections for 2006-2007. The Trustees-approved copy of the Children's Collection Development policy was distributed and discussed. Collection assignments were re-distributed. Some changes were held off until the new librarian is on board. Focus for the collection this year will be to expand the patron-popular "Quick picks," refresh the children's paperback collection, and add more funding and multiple copies to the highly popular media collection. Novelist and Next Reads Databases Added Thanks to a memorial gift from Trustee Deborah Griffith, the library has added two new databases. "Novelist" helps readers answer the question: "I just read this book and I'd like something similar!" Staff has been trained in its use and it is now available to the public. "Next Reads" is a customized online subscription to which our library users may subscribe for free. Users choose one or more areas and receive regular monthly newsletters on what's new in Burlingame's collection on their topic of interest. This is similar to the way Amazon handles their business model. We are excited to get both of these items rolling. Linda Santo of our staff will be taking on the training and publicity for both. Upcoming Events: • Library Foundation Board Meeting, August 10, 5:30 PM • Library Board Meeting, August 15, 5:30 PM • San Mateo Main Library Opens, Sunday, August 27 • Labor Day Holiday, September 3 8s 4, Closed Alfred H. Escoffier City Librarian August 2, 2006 3 BURL i NAME Burlingame Public Library Board of Trustees Minutes August 15, 2006 I. Call to Order President McCormack called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM. II. Roll Call Trustees Present: Bruce Carlton, Deborah Griffith, Pat Toft, Katie McCormack Trustees Absent: Nancy Brock (vacation) Staff Present: Al Escoffier, City Librarian Staff Absent: Sidney Poland, Recorder Also Present: Kristen A. Wallerstedt, Assistant to Assemblyman Leland Yee, 12th Assembly District III. Warrants and Special Funds The Trustees unanimously approved the Warrants. M/S/C (McCormack/Toft) IV. Minutes The Trustees approved the minutes as written of the July 18, 2006 meeting. M/S/C (Griffith/Carleton) V. Corresbondence and Attachments A Letter from Gene Weisskopf - The Trustees noted the letter of thanks from the son of a deceased outreach patron. The outreach program to the homebound is a popular volunteer program B. Proclamation - To be discussed under New Business: C. Sample Reference Question - The Trustees reviewed the historically significant reference questions involving the Crockers and the French connection. This will be added to our history files. VI. From the Floor. Kirsten Wallerstedt, an assistant to Assemblyman Leland Yee, introduced herself and brought greetings from the Assemblyman. She offered any assistance the Trustees would like. It was suggested that Assemblyman Yee might wish to make an Assembly proclamation for the "One Book, One Community" program. It was also suggested that Assemblyman Yee might send letters of commendation to the winners of the Employee Achievement Awards which will be given later in December. The Trustees thanked Ms. Wallerstedt for her attendance and her offer of assistance. 480 Primrose Road• Burlingame•California 94010-4083 Phone(650) 558-7474-Fax(650) 342-6295•www.burlingame.orq/library i VII. Reports A. City Librarian's Report - Highlights 1 . Summer Reading Club Success - The summer Breading clubs reached over 1 ,000 children in the community. Having children's staff visit each classroom certainly had an effect on the program. In some cases, participation was up between 60-80% at individual public and private schools. 2. San Mateo Public Library - The San Mateo Public Library will reopen on August 27th. The staff from San Mateo has been invaluable in dealing with the 15% increase in library usage during the month. 3. New Librarian - New librarian, Kelly Keefer, will begin work on August 21 St. Kelly was hired as a generalist librarian and will be working in both children's and reference divisions. 4. "Kite Runner" program planning is complete. We have over 60 copies of the book in circulation. A display of books on the Middle East and similar titles has been very popular. The kites decorating the lobby are a fun accent for what will be a great program. 5. Novelist & Next Reads. - The database Novelist, which was a gift from Trustee Griffith, will be a help to staff and library users both in the library and remotely. It also includes children's books. The "Next Read" component of the project will be a free online newsletter which users can opt for receiving online. B. Foundation Report 1 . Book Sale - The Foundation will continue with its plans for the fall book sale, October 6, 7, and 8. However they have decided there is not enough time to have a special event attached to the sale. They will instead do a special event for the spring book sale. 2. Fall Fundraising - The fall fundraising will focus on Burlingame businesses, with each Foundation member taking on one business and asking for funds for children's programs. 3. Signage in the Book Sale Area - Staff will work on better signage for the book sale area so that buyers know where the funds are going. 4. Strategic Plan - The Foundation Strategic Plan has been reviewed by an author on non-profit fundraising and will be included in an upcoming book on fundraising. 5. New Board Member - Jean Fiske, Burlingame resident and former school board member has joined the Foundation Board. I 2 6. Trustee/Foundation Communications- Trustee McCormack suggested that a Trustee periodically attend the Foundation Board meetings and that a Foundation Board member periodically attend Trustee meetings to increase communications between the two groups.The City Librarian will contact the Foundation. VIII. Unfinished Business A. Request to change meeting date from September 19, 2006 to September 26,2006.The Board voted unanimously to make-this change. M/S/C(Carlton/Griffith) B. Trustee Appointment.The final interview with Nancy Brock and the City Council will take place on August 21, 2006 by conference call. IX. New Business A. Proclamation for"One Book/One Community" & Presentation from City Council Trustee Carlton agreed to be the official to accept the Proclamation.Trustee Toft and Trustee McCormack will attend if possible.Trustee Griffith will be unavailable. B. Nomination of Officers.The nomination of officers was discussed.It was decided to elect the slate of officers with Pat Toft, President and Deborah Griffith, Secretary. M/S/C McCormack/Carlton) X. Announcements A. Foundation/Author's Luncheon-The City Librarian announced that the Foundation will again be sponsoring this event and provide a bus to and from the event.A display and raffle is in the lobby. B. Agenda Building-The Trustees wished to have the following items on the next agenda: Employee Achievement Awards Process,Staff Recognition Dinner,and potential performance of staff at the event. XI. Adjournment. The meeting was adjourned at 6:10 PM.The next regular meeting of the Board of Trustees will be Tuesday, September 26,2006,5:30 PM. M/S/C(Toft/Griffith) Respectfully submitted, Alfred Escoffier City Librarian 3 BURLiNO I City Librarian's Report September 26, 2006 Launching of New City Website A group of library staff have been working hard to complete the library's portion of the new City Website.The work began last year with an outline Of what we wanted on the site.It has continued with staff developing content and graphics for the site.Although we are not completely through with the work,it will be ready for the Citizen's Group review beginning the week of September 25th,with an anticipated launch date of October 18t. Features of the new site include the ability to apply for a library card online,the ability to reserve an internet session online and the ability to make a donation online.The new site address will be the same:www.burlingame.org/libra .The Foundation's new website is: www.burlingamelibraryfoundation.org. Fall Children's.Programs Underway The 7 story hours per week have been launched by.the children's division.Several story hours are at Easton,and the rest are at the main library.We are proud of the popularity of the story times,and pleased to have the support of the Library Foundation for our children's programming.A letter was sent to all of the schools attended by the children who completed the summer reading club.This is in your packet. San Mateo Public Library Now Open A number of Burlingame staff attended a behind the scenes tour of the new San Mateo Library on September 18th.The 90,000 square foot building is a sustainable"green"building and has many sustainability features.New services include as teen section with a cafe and the Genentech Biotech Center. Unfortunately,the library hours remain reduced. Changes in Interlibrary Loan and Direct Loan Statistics I have contacted_ the State Librarian regarding the statistical counting process and we have had the opinion reversed in our favor.We will be able to follow"past practice"and count first check-outs the same as renewals.As the result of my request to State Librarian Susan Hildreth, a survey of California libraries was done and recognized that the past practice would be honored. 48o Primrose Road•Burlingame•California 94010-4083 1 Phone(650)558-747,4'Fax(650)342-6295 wuwv.burlingame.org/library Foundation Fall Events The Burlingame Library Foundation will hold their Fall Book Sale on Friday, Saturday and Sunday, October 6, 7, 8th. There will be a $ 5.00 charge at the door on Friday night only. The annual Foundation newsletter will be printed and published in November. The Library Foundation will also be sponsoring a bus for the National Kidney Foundation Author's Luncheon on Saturday, October 28th. The Kite Runner: One Book One Community The City Council proclaimed October "One Book/One Community" month at their September 5th meeting. Members of the Foundation Board and Library Trustees were in the audience. Kris Cannon led.the flag salute and talked some about the program featuring her brother Stephen Olsson. The Emmy award winning film maker will show his "Last Images of War" and offer a question and answer session-in the Lane Room on October 11, 2006 at 7 PM. The culmination of the "One Boo/One Community" programming will be the appearance of Khaled Hosseini at the Performing Arts Center on October 19th. I will be inviting Dr. Hosseini to dinner that evening and extend the invitation to the Board. In addition, I will be opening the session with introductions of Dr. Barbara Petzen and Dr. Hosseini. _Holidays Outlined The proposed library holidays for 2007 are on your agenda for this meeting. Library Annual Report The Library's annual report will be completed by September 30th. I will be presenting the Key Indicators for this year to the City Council in October. Burlingame Library Building Annivers Next year we will celebrate 10 years in the "new" building. We opened the main library on October 4, 1997. The-board may wish to discuss the possibility of a celebration of sorts for the decade in the new structure. Our centennial year for the city will be 2007-2008. The Centennial year for the library's creation is October 11, 2009, making 2009 our official centennial year for the Burlingame Public Library. 2 Celebration of the Opening of the Modernized Burlingame High School The City Librarian attended the opening of the modernized Burlingame High School on Saturday, September 16th to represent the library. The modernization is a wonderful transformation of an 83 year old building. The new library is a separate building at the center of the campus. It's wonderful to see what Bond Measure D (2000) was able to accomplish. Senators Jackie Speier and Gene Mullin were on hand for the celebration. Upcoming Events: • Centennial Executive Board Meeting, Friday, September 22, Noon • Mr. Buddy Storytelling immediately following the "Pet Parade" Saturday, September 23rd, 1 PM, Easton Branch • Library Board Meeting, Tuesday, September 26, 5:30 PM (Note date change) • Film: "Beauty School of Kabul" Wednesday, September 27, 7:30 PM • Charette for Howard Avenue Area: SOBA (South of Burlingame Avenue), Saturday, September 30, 2006 • Foundation Book Sale, October 6, 7, 8, Lane Community Room • Columbus Day Holiday, Monday, October 9, Closed Alfred H. Escoffier City Librarian September 18, 2006 3 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION SEPTEMBER 7, 2006 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Vice-Chair Grandcolas. ROLL CALL Present: Vice-Chair Grandcolas, Carney, Ellis (late), Lahey, and Lauder Absent: Commissioners McQuaide and O'Connor Staff: Parks Superintendent Richmond and Secretary Harvey MINUTES— The Minutes of the August 3, 2006 Beautification Commission Meeting, were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE Letter to Ken & Susan Graven, 10 Clarendon Road, informing them that the appeal for the removal of a City owned Ligustrum tree in front of their address would be placed on the September 7, 2006 Beautification Commission agenda for consideration. Staff Report: Appeal of Denial of Request to Remove the Ligustrum at 10 Clarendon Road. Memo from Director Schwartz and Superintendent Richmond to the Beautification Commission regarding Street Tree Planting in Vacant Areas. Letter to Palo Alto City Manager, Frank Benest, requesting permission to "borrow" staff member Dave Docktor (Eucalyptus expert) to be present at the Easton Drive Long Range Reforestation Community meeting on October 5, 2006, in order that he might share his expertise with those in attendance. FROM THE FLOOR-None OLD BUSINESS — Lona Range Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive - Item was moved to the end of the meeting for discussion to occur after Commissioner Lahey's departure. City Blocks with No Trees The Commission reviewed the memorandum from Director Schwartz and Superintendent Richmond. Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Carney moved to adopt the Plan to Add Street Trees in Vacant Areas and that the following steps should be incorporated into the plan: • Request funding from the City Council to begin the program • Commission to identify and prioritize areas of Burlingame that would benefit from additional street trees • Letters to residents of prioritized areas informing them of the project and how to participate • Commission to look for additional funding sources (donations, grants, etc.) Motion was seconded by Commissioner Lauder and motion carried 4-0-3 (absent/Ellis, McQuaide, O'Connor). The Commission then discussed possible funding options and decided to place this item on a future agenda for further discussion. 1 NEW BUSINESS — Request for Removal of City-Owned Ligustrum (Privit) Tree (a, 10 Clarendon Road - Superintendent Richmond stated that the property owner has requested removal and replacement of the City-owned Ligustrum tree because of the production of berries that stain the sidewalk. Supervisor Disco denied the request and referred the applicant's request to the Commission. Supervisor Disco's Tree Evaluation Report states that the tree, planted in 1979 is in good health; that it does produce berries that stain the sidewalk, but it is in good health and is routinely pruned. Superintendent Richmond noted that the Ligustrum lucidum was removed from the official street tree list in the late 1980's early 1990's for unknown reasons and occasionally past Commission's have approved removal of City street trees that bear fruit or berries. Commissioner Carney asked if the tree would get any taller. Superintendent Richmond stated, no, that the tree had reached its mature height. Commissioner Ellis noted that it is the largest tree on the street. Commissioner Lauder stated that she could see that the tree could be a nuisance with the seeds staining the sidewalk Commissioner Lauder wondered if the tree would hinder the growth of the adjacent Liquidambar. Superintendent Richmond replied that the Liquidambar specie is very hardy and it's growth would not be hindered if the Ligustrum were to stay. Vice-Chair Grandcolas asked if there had been any precedent for this specie being approved for removal. Secretary Harvey stated that some years ago removal was approved of a City owned Ligustrum that had grown more like a shrub than a tree. Vice-Chair Grandcolas opened the meeting to the floor for comment. Mr. Graven then submitted information he had found on the internet with regard to the Ligustrum specie, noting that the tree's thick pollen comes off in profuse amounts in the middle of the summer, covering cars and lawn so deep that it won't grow. He added following the immense pollen drop, the berries drop, staining the sidewalk and anything under it including cars. Mr. Graven further noted that "Floridata" notes that the tree is an "invasive plant". In conclusion, Mr. Graven stated that he loves trees and if approved, would like to have another tree planted that he could nurture in the same manner he has nurtured the City owned Liquidambar. Following Mr. Graven's comments, Vice-Chair Grandcolas closed the meeting to the floor. Vice-Chair Grandcolas commented that though the tree is a nice tree, it is not a recommended street tree and is a relic from the past; and that, the property owner has requested a more suitable tree be planted to add to the area. Commissioner Lauder stated that she would uphold the appeal to remove and replace the tree. Following the discussion, Commissioner Ellis moved that the Commission uphold the appeal because of the noxious fruit complaint and recommend that a permit be given to the property owners to remove and replace the tree from the Official Street Tree list at their expense; seconded Carney. Motion carried S — 0 — 2 (absent/McQuaide, O'Connor). Superintendent Richmond advised the applicant of appeal procedures to Council and that notification of the Commission's decision would be forthcoming in the mail. 2 REPORTS– Superintendent 1. Costa Rica removals—presented Supervisor Disco's arborist reports and pictures re:the scheduled removal of 6 black locusts on Costa Rica. 2. Tree Crew is continuing to work on Bayside Eucs as it is able. 3. Tree Contract with Timberline was approved by Council;the Notice to Proceed has been issued. Work has begun on Skyline Blvd. Early emphasis will also be on stump grinding. 4. Bayfront Cleanup is September 16. Assembly points are Embassy Suites and El Torito. 5. Reminder from Mayor and City Manager to the Commissions of the importance of attendance and punctuality in serving on City Commissions. 6. The 1812 Easton appeal was held over until a recommendation comes from the BBC on the Easton Drive Long Range Reforestation Plan. 7. Arbor Day is only six months away. Any ideas from the Commission as to the location or for any new elements that might be added to the event should be considered and discussed. 8. PG&E Arborist will join us in November;she's on vacation now. 9. Fall tree planting will begin shortly. Grandcolas–Vice-Chair Grandcolas stated he viewed the CalTrans safety video for the Adopt-A- Highway program. He also reported that he received a call from a local newspaper reporter asking questions regarding the Easton Drive Long Range Reforestation Plan and that the reporter was under the impression that the plan was to remove the Eucalyptus lining the drive and replace the trees. Grandcolas attempted to make it clear to the reporter that"the plan"was"long range"and that removal of any one of the Eucalyptus on Easton Drive would only occur when it was at the end of it's natural life span and/or was in decline or determined to be unsafe. Lahey-Commissioner Lahey stated that she is glad to be back after a brief time away. Lauder–Commissioner Lauder reported that the Italian Stone Pine tree on the corner of Marin and Oak Grove Avenue has ivy growing up the trunk. Carney-Commissioner Carney reported that she has noticed several children's swings being placed on City street trees and will call the Parks office with a list of addresses. At this time Commissioner Lahey excused herself from the meeting for the following agenda item. OLD BUSINESS Lon¢Rance Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive–Finalize October 51"Community Meetinn Superintendent Richmond noted that clarification was needed as to the general consensus of the Commission for the agenda for the October Commission meeting,will it focus on one thing i.e.that the Community meeting be the only item on the agenda or that a brief Commission meeting be held to discuss other agenda items prior to the Community meeting. Also, does the Commission wish to be seated front facing the audience or not. After brief discussion,the Commission's consensus was that the only item on the October 5a'agenda should be the Community Meeting;that the Commission be seated up front before those in attendance;and that the Commission/Community Meeting will begin at 7:30 pm. 3 OLD BUSINESS—(Contd.) Lone Ranee Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive—Finalize October P Community Meeting Superintendent Richmond reported that a letter had been sent to the City Manager of Palo Alto requesting permission to "borrow" Dave Docktor to be present at the Community meeting so that he could share his expertise with regard to the Eucalyptus specie. He also stated that Chairperson McQuaide will make the introductions at the Community meeting, Director Schwartz will show colored slides of different Eucalyptus species, and Dave Docktor will share his expertise with regard to the different species. Superintendent Richmond commented that the Community meeting will focus on the trees and species and that any comments or questions that surface with regard to parking would be put aside and referred to the Public Works Department and Traffic & Safety Commission. He also said that he and Director Schwartz would be meeting again with Chairperson McQuaide to finalize plans for the meeting. There being no further business, Vice-Chair Grandcolas adjourned the meeting at 6:40 pm. Respectfully submitted, jKarlene Harvey Recording Secretary 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA September 25, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the September 25, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Cauchi, Deal, Osterling, Terrones and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: None Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Ruben Hurin; Senior Engineer, Doug Bell. III. MINUTES The minutes of the September 11, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, concerned that because of past experience with speculators building to the maximum without regard for the neighbor, there is a false assumption out there that speculators are a problem, the shame of this is that speculators now represent that they are doing the remodel for their own use; some neighbors are so jaded that they think that any house for sale will be bull dozed; would like this unhealthy atmosphere to cease, Commission should insure that all development is good for the neighborhood. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 2320 VALDIVIA WAY, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ADD A TOILET IN AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (EDWARD AND DONNA AVAKOFF, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; JERRY DEAL, JD & ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 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. Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commission noted that there are no concerns with this request since the toilet is not located in the cabana and there is a solid wall separating the cabana and proposed toilet room. This item was set for the consent calendar as proposed with no changes. This item concluded at 7: 12 p.m. C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006 2. 1404 EDGEHILL DRIVE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO AND PARKING VARIANCES FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY REMODEL (DAVID AND JANIS SPIVACK, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; LARRY KAHLE, METROPOLIS ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: ■ on site visit noticed that there is a steel bar outside the gate, how often is the driveway beyond the gate used? ■ by looking at the site plan and first floor at the rear of the house,it appears that at one time the existing playroom may have been a garage; does the play room have a concrete slab floor; does the playroom have a battered or T-foundation; was the foundation removed at the rear window wall; if removed is there any record which shows that a garage existed there at one time; ■ do not see a hardship,applicant needs to rewrite the variance findings,with this application the property owner is enjoying all the development benefits without providing a garage on the property; ■ the house has a lot of square footage despite the narrow lot, applicant should explain why granting this variance would not be grating a special privilege; ■ can only recall one case where a parking variance was approved for no on-site covered parking,property was only 25 feet wide and garage was shared by two properties; may consider a variance to have uncovered space less than 20' in length if covered parking is provided; ■ applicant's letter dated June 24, 2006, notes that a large portion of the lot was sold in 1936 to another neighbor,please clarify on plans which portion of the lot was sold,how big was it and how does the area sold relate to the frontage on Capuchino Avenue; and ■ if approved,would like to add a condition that the variances 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 replacement. 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 7:20 p.m. 3. 711 LINDEN AVENUE,ZONED R-2—APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A CHANGE TO THE HEIGHT OF A CARPORT(KURT MEISWINKEL, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; MARY DUNLAP, DESIGNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked CP to clarify what is being required with this amendment application. CP noted that the applicant is requesting approval for a change in the height and roof pitch of the previously approved carport. She noted that the applicant had not installed the paved driveway as shown on the originally approved plans. The pavers shown are not installed to any construction pavement standard so there is no access to the carport,without access the structure cannot serve as required covered parking. In addition only half of the gate across the driveway opened as photographed on Friday. At the Commissioner's desks,delivered today by the applicant,are pictures of the gate fully open and the pavers placed on top of the grass. Commissioners asked about when the permanent driveway was to have been installed. CP noted that the condition required that the driveway as shown on the plans be installed before the final inspection. There has been no final inspection of the improvements on this property or issuance of an occupancy permit. No 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006 final inspection can be made and no occupancy permit issued until the Planning Commission has acted on the amendment to the conditional use permit. Prior to submittal for action the Commissioners required that the following be completed: ■ clarify the distance from the existing carport to the property line and correct plans;one site plan shows 3'-0" while another shows l'-0" or less; all plans should be consistent; ■ a permanent concrete driveway shall be installed;the applicant may propose a different paving material such as unit pavers,but the driveway from the street to the carport slab must be a permanent installation on an excavated concrete or gravel base; ■ clarify how the plumbing was removed from the kitchen in the accessory structure, the pipes shall be completely removed and the serving pipes filled with concrete and inspected by the building inspector. Chair Brownrigg,with the consent of the commission,set this item for the consent calendar when the plans have been corrected with the proper side setback from the carport as required and all the construction and corrections have been made to the project site as described,the plans and corrections have been confirmed by Planning Staff, and there is space on the agenda. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. VII. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENT 4. 1450 ROLLINS ROAD/20 EDWARDS COURT,ZONED RR—PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR AN APPLICATION FOR RECONSTRUCTION OF AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR PENINSULA HUMANE SOCIETY AND SPCA (14 PROPERTY OWNERS NOTICED; 38 NOTICES OF AVAILABILITY)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report September 25, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the history of the environmental review for the Peninsula Humane Society proposed Center for Compassion project located at 1450 Rollins Road/20 Edwards Court. She noted that currently Burlingame was circulating the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. During the circulation a public hearing is held to give interested members of the community and the Planning Commission the opportunity to comment on the draft document. The comment period will end October 20,2006. All the comments received will be responded to in writing in a Response to Comment document,which will then be reviewed by the Planning Commission along with the proj ect. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. There were no comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: ■ Traffic studies should be expanded to include analysis of conflicts between large trucks and cars including Saturdays, should include volume of each type of vehicle and real speed limits vs. posted limits; ■ How will this proposed land use affect the retention of the industrial area as a viable land use;do not feel that this is addressed adequately,concerned that this will be quite a change from the existing industrial uses; ■ How many protests regarding conflicts caused by land use or services have been received at the present facility in the last 10 years; ■ Explain why mitigation on page 4.5-2b to restripe the parking lot is needed? 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006 ■ What level of study and investigation has the applicant made for the placement of the project on the alternative site at 1575 Adrian Road? ■ Is the sign permit a part of this project and covered by this EIR? ■ Concerned about the public safety if the project does include wild life such as mountain lions and poisonous snakes,would applicant agree never to house such animals? ■ Concerned about aggressive animals, page 3.0-3 notes that these animals will be retained at Coyote Point, how would this be assured and implemented? ■ Has the City Council reviewed in any way the determination the Commission made regarding the'similar use' for the SPCA/Center for Compassion in the M-1 zoning district? ■ How does the aviary fit into the floor area ratio variance requested? ■ Will the services offered at Coyote Point eventually be relocated to this site and what impact would that have? What prevents their relocation to this facility and/or site? Will the services at Coyote Point ever be relocated? ■ Should include a more complete analysis of the sewer capacity and impact of the addition of this facility on the entire system. Want to be sure that there is no 'undue burden on the sewer system'. Some Commissioners noted that they would submit additional comments in writing. There were no further comments from the Commission. Chair Brownrigg closed the discussion. This item was completed at 7:50 p.m. VIII. 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. 5a. 1517 CYPRESS AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW, PARKING VARIANCE, SIDE SETBACK VARIANCE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL,SECOND STORY ADDITION AND A NEW DETACHED GARAGE (MICHAEL GINN, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; HOLDREN-LIETZKE DESIGN, DESIGNER) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER 5b. 3 LA MESA COURT, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF AN APPROVED HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION(LENNY LI,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; LYC BUILDING DESIGN,DESIGNER)(31 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience,on staff,or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C. Deal moved approval of the consent calendar 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 each by resolution. The motion was seconded by C.Vistica. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 7-0. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006 IX. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 6. 1525 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR HEIGHT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JAMES WONG, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JOHN AND ROSA VEGA, PROPERTY OWNERS)(43 NOTICED) PROJECTPLANNER: RUBENHURINPROJECTPREVIOUSLYDENIED WITHOUTPREJUDICE Reference staff report September 25, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. James Wong, architect, represented the project, commented that he would answer questions. Commissioner noted that there were a number of decorative items shown on the design which had no dimensions such as the water table, corbels and bellyband, cannot approve a design without the size and scale of these features being shown on the plans because there is no way of directing the contractor what to build in order to achieve the balance and style of the design. Need to pin those items down now. Asked what the style of the house is? Applicant noted Mediterranean because of the true terracotta roof tiles, materials used in the trim and wrought iron. Feel choice of window type and pattern of windows is chaotic and presents no continuity of style. On the east elevation to the right of the door the shed roof with the windows does not fit. Best part of the design is the rear,the composition there works,the broken arch shown there should be mimicked on the front elevation,if the broken arch were used throughout the design would work much better;better served and would add definition if drawings reflected better the weight and lines of the architectural features included such as the wrought iron,needs more than a note about the size/dimension of these features proportion needs to be reflected in the plans and on the elevations; the following items need to be addressed: ■ the shape of the driveway is not drawn correctly; ■ east side elevation the shed roof is not integrated with the roof above; ■ east elevation,how does the gable dormer trim and glass work; ■ drafting error on the east elevation? two windows without wood trim package,these should be trimmed; ■ Landscape plan, Sheet A-1,posts are in the public right of way, confirm allowed or move; ■ Clarify landscape plan show species and location of major shrubs and trees, new and existing; and ■ Like to see the iron gate on the driveway which is a special item,better defined with more detail. Applicant commented that he doesn't want to go back and forth,would like to hear all the comments now. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion:Not sure what the appropriate action is here a design reviewer can only do so much; deny or deny without prejudice?It's the detail which makes the house,this needs to go to a design reviewer, says it's a Mediterranean but it is not there, has only one good elevation, the rear; east elevation does not work at all, west elevation is a flat, two story plane which is massive, needs a lot of detail with the size shown to scale, it is not up to the Commission or the contractor to decide the size of the details on the design; need to clarify if there needs to be an encroachment permit for the pillars at the front; design reviewer can help architect understand the details to include at the preliminary level of submittal;massing is OK, issue is the details. Architect and design reviewer should both listen to the tapes of this meeting. C.Deal made a motion to refer this item to a design reviewer with the direction that the design reviewer,the property owner,and the architect listen to the tapes of this meeting so that they understand the record,and all attend the design review meeting. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006 Discussion on the motion: concerned that this is the second or third time this project has been reviewed,the drawings are better,project,believe it can eventually be approved,the massing on the east elevation needs work, the trellis does not mask the big planes, it needs more than rework of the size of the details. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to direct this project to a design reviewer for further substantial work. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. There is no appeal to this action. The item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 7. 62 LOMA VISTA DRIVE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW,TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED TWO-CAR GARAGE (JACK CHU, CHU DESIGN&ENGR.INC.,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;CHIN-SHUI CHANG,PROPERTY OWNER) (26 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report September 25, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin 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. Jack Chu, the designer, represented the project. Asked to respond to questions. Commissioners had the following questions and comments: ■ unusually wide driveway,with narrow shaft for light on the left,why?Applicant noted European cars are wide, concerned would scratch the house. ■ Note that the proposed stone base stops 4 to 6 inches short of the dirt, makes the base look like unfinished veneer, should continue to ground. ■ Using redwood for fascia and elsewhere,will it be painted? Yes. Could use paint grade material then, would be cheaper and look the same in the end; cannot use stucco foam. ■ Rear elevation has 8 foot tall doors and windows with transom above,need to show a bar between the window and transom; ■ Roof plan shows that you will see very little of first floor roof after this is built, off set is too small to reduce mass; lot of mass at the front, small porch does not off set; need to see more first floor roof; ■ Right side elevation, roof at second floor hip is not correctly drawn; ■ Doors to the utility room are 8 feet tall and this height follows around with the windows,when built this will look out of scale and mass with the existing houses with 6'-8" window heights; ■ Fire place protrusion is not integrated,has odd appearance; ■ On the detailing the gutters are not shown correctly, should extend beyond the roof, ■ Concerned about the style, this does not look like a Prairie style house; ■ Rear doors need detail; ■ Southeast elevation has 6 skylights, they over take the roof, too many should be toned down; and ■ Massing is OK,but need to work on detail, a very big looking house. This residential area is in transition,just beginning to add second stories,existing about 1,500 SF to 2,200 SF,this house is 4,200 SF,will look massive in the neighborhood. Agree about mass and bulk only the right rear corner offers any relief to the two story mass; this is not in keeping with the neighborhood,big house can be mitigated in design by such things as not having a continuous second floor plate around the building, the rooms across the front are very wide,blank walls above the entry. Needs to go back and rework can add a good sized porch to the master bedroom and increase the first floor roof line for example. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006 C. Vistica noted that the comments showed a lot of dissatisfaction with the mass and bulk of this proposal and with what is happening in the neighborhood, not want this project as the example for the future expansions which will happen in this transition area, move to deny this project without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on the motion: is there an option to denial without prejudice,concerned if send back to a design reviewer it will come back with the same mass and bulk;maybe more appropriate to deny the project. CP noted that with a denial without prejudice it is up to the applicant to decide the extent of a proposed change, if at all, and no fees are charged for resubmittal; with a denial the same project cannot be submitted for a year and fees must be paid for another submittal. It was noted that this house is on a large lot and the setbacks are greater than required, the style is not Prairie, inclined to give the designer another chance to design, the width of the lot is important. Valid that a big house has different setbacks, but bigger house needs more design to diminish bulk,the square footage is OK but the presentation is not good. Protest bulk and size, not fit the character of the neighborhood, support denial. With `denial without prejudice' softer message, hate to see go though redesign process if not see a major change. Mass and bulk could be supported by the lot if it were handled better in the design,big indicator of the problem is the eight foot tall windows and doors, too big, need to reduce scale of those in neighborhood and add a front porch to add human scale to the project. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to deny without prejudice including the direction given by the commission in the discussion. The motion passed on a 6-1 (C. Brownrigg dissenting) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:45 p.m. 8. 1145 CORTEZ AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR AN APPROVED FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JD & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; STEVE AND COURTNEY LOVE, PROPERTY OWNERS) (54 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Deal recused himself because of a business relationship with the applicant. He stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers. Reference staff report September 25, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twelve conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Stewart Gunrow, designer, JD and Associates, Steve Love, property owner, represented the project. This was an unusual structural problem. When opened up the house and discovered it, stopped work and applied to the Planning Commission. This affects the height of the house but not the footprint. The applicant submitted a diagram of the framing of the first and second floor showing how the existing roof was tied in. Other comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue,Paul Hart, 1148 Cabrillo Avenue. Pass this house often, exemplary remodel, straight forward problem found during construction, thank the applicant for coming forward now and not after construction was completed. Feel this house is out of proportion with the houses on the side of the street,did the architect and engineer supervise this project as it proceeded or did they just draw the plans,when were they contacted regarding this problem? Why do they need three feet,to increase the insulation,looks like they added this as an after thought,can it be built within 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006 the approved 31'-6";live behind have lost view of trees on Cortez because of the peaked roof,with this will loose all view of trees,have a loss of sunlight,all I will see is the house and the garage;concerned about the tree in the backyard between house and garage,blocks about 50%of the view,will be fully exposed if it is removed, feel that this was forced by a number of small changes asked of the contractor, would ask the Planning Commission to deny this request. Applicant noted: additional height is only 1'-3" not three feet from the existing 31'-9",or total height of 33 feet, e.g. the net increase is F-3". This V-3"is to the highest point since the house is not level. The architect was engaged immediately when found the problem which emerged from keeping the existing first floor eaves. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica noted that the detail showing the problem and the framing to fit is helpful,request is to add 1'-3" to the wall to the level of the second floor windows, improves the appearance, so move to approve the application for an increase in height of F-3"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 June 29, 2005, sheets 3,5 and G-1,as amended by the plans date stamped May 2,2006,sheets 1-2,4 and 6,and as amended by the plans date stamped September 15,2006,sheet 7,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 project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped May 2, 2006, , and that any changes to building materials,exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; (3) 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; (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 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 prior to final inspection,Planning Department staffwill 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; (7) 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; (8) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 13,2005,memo,the City Engineer's,Fire Marshal's and Recycling Specialist's May 16,2005,memos, and the NPDES Coordinator's May 19, 2005, memo shall be met; (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 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; (11) 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 (12) 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. Osterling. Commissioner comments: Should be clear that this is 15 inches more not three feet more in height;most of the roof is below this highest point; this remodel is smaller than it could be. 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006 Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the amendment to the special permit for height of the single family house at 1145 Cortez Avenue. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. 9. 1730 ROLLINS ROAD, ZONED RR,— APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AUTO STORAGE FOR A TOWING BUSINESS AND AN AUTOMOBILE DEALER IN A DRAINAGE EASEMENT (MARC ROCHETTE, D & M TOWING, APPLICANT; FITNESS PROPERTIES LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) (39 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report September 25, 2006,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked does the owner of the drainage area have an easement across the property at 1704 Rollins? It is staffs understanding that there are no easements,a coterminous lease agreement was proposed. Is it appropriate to allow a conditional use on the condition that it is not inconvenient for a neighboring property? Staff would note that such a condition would probably not resolve potential problems; which would take a lot of staff time. Was any survey information beside the sketches included provided, observe obstructions in the driveway at 1704 Rollins and the width between buildings seems to scale from aerial at 20 feet 5 inches,not the 24 feet which would justify a 12 wide driveway claimed; seems this is set up for continued conflict with neighbor. In addition the sprinkler pipe extends 2 feet from the building so it will be impossible to use the southern drive way on 1704 Rollins without going over on to the property at 1670 Rollins? Staff noted that no surveys were submitted. Why was this use not stopped and removed until this hearing had occurred? Staff suggested that the commission ask the applicant, the city has been processing various code enforcements on this use since 2002. There were no further questions of staff from the Commission. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Nichole Rochette, daughter of the owner and manager, represented D&M Towing,Guillermo Macalpin and Ray Genworth representing Fitness Properties,property owner,and Terry Sterling,owner of the property at 1670 Rollins Road spoke. The applicant noted that they thought that this issue had been resolved and it has resurfaced,can provide dates for discussions to resolve recurring problems. Have spoken with Terry Sterling,comes with complaints from the tenants,then spoke to tenant operations manager, last year worked it out,put up cones to mark driveway and do not block the driveway, last year was working as smoothly as possible,tried recently to contact Terry Sterling twice,did not reach her. Commissioner asked what can be done? Could put a fence down the middle of the driveway or Botts Dots, there are ways to work it out. Would you be willing to enter into a roadway maintenance agreement? Ms. Sterling did not mention that, in our letter thought we had fixed all the issues. If the driveway at 1670 Rollins is blocked what would you do? Possibly use the other(north side)of 1704 Rollins between 1704 and 1708;would also look at removing 18 feet of the fence at the rear of 1640 Rollins where our office is and gain access to the drainage area from there instead of from 1704 Rollins;have not pursued this since the property at 1640 Rollins recently changed hands and have not talked to the new owner. Commissioner noted that access from 1640 Rollins is a better solution,your use should not be a burden on your neighbors, it should be confined to the site you lease. Access is affected by two sea containers and a trailer? Yes,these hold the security system and dry storage. Is there a reason you did not comply with code enforcement and relocate these? Thought the code enforcement would move faster than it did. Commissioners noted: on site visits saw a lot of traffic on both sides (1670 and 1704) of the driveway, including ACME towing there today, they do not know the rules of use; if approve this use there will certainly be a conflict between 1704 and 1670, the damage to the pavement is serious, Botts Dots will not keep a truck confined on one side of the driveway, if fence put down the middle, trucks will not be able to 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006 use the driveway on the south side of 1704,where is the sprinkler riser going to go? Will not be able to get through, need to find an alternative. Comments from the floor continued: Is there room between 1718 and 1704 Rollins Road? Applicant noted that it is very tight could get a car but not a truck through;City of Burlingame requires D&M towing to have a storage lot in Burlingame if they are to do the city's towing, not much place to put such a lot in the City. Commissioner noted it is logical to have a gate at 1640 Rollins where the business is, can that be a condition?Staff noted that more information about the feasibility and needs,including from Public Works, would be need to be provided before it would be appropriate to make the access from 1640 Rollins to the drain a condition of approval. Are there any agreements in place for the use of the driveway between 1718 and 1704 Rollins Road;is the use of this area practical? Applicant noted the building at 1718 is on property line, so access/egress is only in 1704 Rollins, if the debris bins were moved the driveway would be wider. Further comments:Property owner at 1670 Rollins noted that the 10 feet is not wide enough,continually use her property, tow trucks are heavy and have damaged the paving, will cost $17,000 to fix, asked D&M Towing to assist with cost of repair,they objected,there is no existing agreement on shared use,clearly they should not be using her property and they cannot get to the drainage easement without using her property. Commissioner noted on site visit there was a damaged Mazda parked behind 1670 Rollins,whose was it? Many times towed vehicles are parked along 1670 Rollins and behind the building, tenants cannot get deliveries because the access it blocked. D&M representative noted that the Mazda mini-van belonged to an employee at 1670 Rollins, they do not park any place but in the yard in the drainage easement. How many deliveries are made to the tow yard a day, what kind of screening for pollution are used? Three to 5 deliveries are made a day, and PIG sump skimmer screens are used in all the drains, they are inspected regularly. Staff noted should this be approved,Public Works would require that NPDES-recognized drain separators be installed and they would be inspected on a regular schedule by the city; and should this be approved an inspection schedule similar to the one's used for hotels would be implemented by the city's inspector. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: concerned about the proposed number of vehicles on the lot,would like to see the pavement striped so can tell where vehicles are stored,how truck will maneuver onsite,and how towing and new car storage would be separated without conflict;would like actual and accurate dimensions,do not see a survey or an engineer's name on the plans submitted; would like to see access from 1640 Rollins,not across a property on which the applicant is not a tenant; am okay with the use,problem with the access. C.Osterling made a motion to continue this item until the access at 1640 Rollins Road can be developed and recognized with a lease agreement and the site access and storage properly surveyed, with paving delineations marked as noted by the Commission and documentation on how the two uses will operate in the space, including truck access and turn around. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: do not need a licensed surveyor to get an accurate survey and dimensional drawing of this site and use; in the mean time all uses on the driveway between 1704 and 1670 Rollins Road shall cease and be abandoned immediately;message should be clear,the commission is not going to approve the current access proposed; should there be a statement in the minutes about when the use in the drain should stop? Prefer to set a date when the applicant will report back. Staff noted Commission can set a mandatory date, say three meetings out, for a revised application; if one is not submitted staff will return with the present application and the Commission can act on it. To make this schedule,submittal from the applicant would have to be no later than 10 days prior to meeting date. Think three meetings out with the 10 day requirement is plenty of time to get accurate information on the site and the arrangement of the uses on it,the 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006 physical ability to use the access from 1640 Rollins Road, and to get a contract with the property owner at 1640 Rollins to cross his site. The driveway between 1670 and 1704 Rollins should not be used in the interim,the property owner at 1670 Rollins has every right to call the police for trespass. Since have option of using the north side of 1704 Rollins do not know it they need three meetings to respond. Would like the application to shift the access to 1640 Rollins and will need time to negotiate with the property owner and investigate the viability of access at that location. Would like to see the two containers and trailer moved immediately, they pose a real access and damage problems if this area should flood. When the project returns there should be a condition about oil separating drains,the required maintenance and establishing a regular maintenance inspection. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to a date certain,three planning Commission meetings from now (November 13, 2006), noting that the item would be renoticed for that meeting and all revisions are due to planning staff at least 10 days in advance of the meeting date. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. There is no appeal of this action. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. X. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 1426 PALOMA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION AND ATTACHED GARAGE (POKO KLEIN, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;JENNIFER HAYDEN AND BILLY RYAN,PROPERTY OWNERS) (76 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Randy Grange,TRG Architects, 205 Park Road Suite 203, Burlingame,noted that the property owner is a chair and cabinet maker and a finish carpenter,designed this house so that the owner can showcase his skills, house is a foursquare arts and crafts design with a lot of woodwork; designed an attached garage so that the rear yard is maximized and so that the garage will be used by the owners to park a car,the existing lot coverage decreased with the proposed design,the 37 foot long wall on property line created by the existing detached garage will be eliminated,new attached garage will be set back 4'-6", existing detached garage is now located forward of the rear 30% of the lot, two nonconforming conditions would be eliminated with the removal of the detached garage;special permit for declining height envelope along the sides is needed for this design style, the second story mass will be screened by three large trees,one of the second story bump-outs is a little over 10 feet in length and almost complies with the dormer exception to declining height envelope;the proposed attached garage wall will be located parallel to the neighbor's garage so there should be no impact,the proposed house is not very large, without the garage the house is approximately 2,700 SF. Commission asked if a window can be added in the kitchen along the left side elevation to break up the wall; architect noted that if a window were added in the kitchen it would look out onto a fence and there is not much light along this side of the house to bring in,the entire rear wall has windows. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project: ■ several corrections need to be made on the plans, T&G siding noted where plans show shingle siding, brick base noted where plans show no base, painted door noted where plans show a window; please review plans and notes and make all necessary corrections; 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006 ■ concerned about the attached garage, do not think it is appropriate, the traditional style in this neighborhood has houses with detached garages,only the newer houses have attached garages,with this house style should have a greater setback between houses created by a detached garage; ■ understand problem with the garage,neighborhood has a mixed parking pattern of attached and detached garages,the proposed 32 foot setback does help with the existing parking pattern in the neighborhood; attached garage fits in with the neighborhood; ■ the addition is well proportioned in massing, like the design; ■ should consider using some type of base to give something for the house to sit on, maybe horizontal wood siding with a water table on top; and ■ provide landscape plan, include larger scale trees and shrubs for screening. C.Auran noted that the property owner completed a very nice project on Sanchez Avenue which included a garage,addition to the house and cobblestone driveway and made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above revisions have been made and plan checked. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on motion: Commissioner noted that he would be voting against the project only because the garage is proposed to be attached, feel a detached garage is more appropriate in this neighborhood. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-1 (C. Deal dissenting). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:05 p.m. 11. 1461 ALVARADO AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (JACK MCCARTHY, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;GEORGE AND ANDREA SCARBOROUGH,PROPERTY OWNERS) (48 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commissioner noted that while on a site visit he spoke with the property owner about the details of the project but not the merits. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Jack McCarthy, designer, 5339 Prospect Road #311, San Jose,noted that the addition was previously approved with a 9 foot plate height,now would like to increase the plate height to 10 feet so that it matches the existing plate height on the first floor living room, would like to take advantage of the beautiful rear yard. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. Commissioners had the following comments regarding the project: ■ concerned with the mansard roof design on the addition, mansard will not work; ■ there is great detail on the front fagade of the house, should carry the details at the front of the house to the rear addition; ■ consider using a flat roof to tie the addition into the house; and ■ new gas fireplace should be architecturally consistent with the existing fireplace, should look like the existing fireplace narrowing towards the top;could add architectural elements such as brick or iron or an ornament to tie it together. 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes September 25, 2006 C. Terrones made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the above following revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans had 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 10:10 p.m. XI. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS - Summary of Permit Processing Committee Meeting of September 8, 2006. CP reviewed briefly the direction given staff by the Permit Processing Subcommittee regarding demolition without a permit, fees for such demolition and fees for work done without a permit. After some general discussion the and no direction to change Subcommittee's direction to Staff,Commission directed that the item be brought back to the Commission on the action calendar for public hearing. XII. PLANNER REPORTS - Review of City Council regular meeting of September 18, 2006. CP Monroe noted that the Council had reviewed the Council and Commission survey results regarding single family residential development and design issues and suggested that the commission to look at mass and bulk as it related to neighborhood fit and consistency in the coming year. This item was referred to the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee of the Planning Commission for further consideration. -FYI: 1504 Alturas Drive—changes to a previously approved Design Review Project. Commission had no comments on the proposed change to the roofing material on this project. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David Cauchi, Secretary SA IINUTMunapproved 09.25.06.doc 13 City of Burlingame MONTHLY PERMIT ACTIVITY August 2006 THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F.Y. 2007 F. Y.2006 DIFF Permit Type # # % # # % WATER HEATER 2 1,915 4 0 5 5,193 13 0 0 SWIMMING POOL 1 7,500 3 30,800 -76 1 7,500 4 63,800 -88 SIGN 6 13,595 3 15,537 -12 11 25,795 8 25,037 3 ROOFING 36 561,984 24 271,701 107 67 1,091,084 46 566,958 92 RETAINING WALL 1 120,000 PLUMBING 21 57,576 25 18,900 205 41 109,666 34 18,900 480 NEW SFD 4 1,517,000 3 1,140,000 6 2,427,000 -53 NEW COMMERCIAL NEW 5 UNIT APT OR CO NEW 3 OR 4 UNIT APT MECHANICAL 5 138,960 6 5,000 2,679 8 166,710 10 5,000 3,234 KITCHEN UPGRADE 7 290,000 2 50,000 480 9 369,500 3 80,000 362 FURNACE 1 0 1 10,847 3 0 0 ELECTRICAL SERVICE 4 9,350 8 18,750 City of Burlingame MONTHLY PERMIT ACTIVITY August 2006 THIS MONTH THIS MONTH LAST YEAR DIFF F. Y. 2007 F.Y.2006 DIFF Permit Type # # % # # % ELECTRICAL 4 26,950 13 18,000 50 10 28,575 23 59,417 -52 BATHROOM UPGRADE 5 91,500 3 36,800 149 11 182,500 5 137,100 33 ALTERATION RESIDENTI 33 1,196,249 56 2,298,647 -48 69 2,731,061 116 4,048,959 -33 ALTERATION NON RES 12 896,000 9 673,200 33 15 2,131,000 17 785,200 171 Totals: 136 3,291,579 153 4,935,585 -33 259 8,018,181 289 8,337,371 -4 Monthly permit activity for August was down approximately 7%.Although it appears that activity was down 33% these numbers continue to reflect the change from the old permit tracking system to the new CRW permit tracking system. Pre-application meeting update! There were no requests in August for a pre-application meeting. SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1 9-13-06 FOR: AUGUST, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD 'rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change $ Change Iurder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 fanslaughter by Negligence o 0 0 0 0 .ape By Force 2 0 6 1 5 500.00 .ttempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0 jobbery Firearm 0 2 4 6 -2 -33.33 robbery Knife 0 0 2 0 2 ,.obbery Other Dangerous Weapon 1 0 2 2 0 0.00 robbery 2 0 14 7 7 100.00 Strong-Arm .ssault - Firearm 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 .ssault - Knife 0 1 1 6 -5 -83.33 ,ssault - Other Dangerous Weapon 2 0 22 12 10 83.33 issault - Hands,Fists,Feet 1 0 6 4 2 50.00 Lssault - Other (Simple) 16 12 115 121 -6 -4.96 3urglary - Forcible Entry 4 5 42 60 -18 -30.00 3urglary - Unlawful Entry 9 3 62 41 21 51.22 3urglary - Attempted Forcible Entry 0 0 3 2 1 50.00 larceny Pocket-Picking 0 0 0 0 0 .larceny Purse-Snatching 0 0 2 0 2 larceny Shoplifting 1 3 32 29 3 10.34 Larceny From Motor Vehicle 17 17 184 155 29 18.71 :arceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories g 12 86 94 -8 -8.51 Larceny Bicycles 4 5 11 24 -13 -54.17 Larceny From Building 9 15 82 75 7 9.33 1 Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 0 9 16 -7 -43.75 ;arceny All Other 7 4 50 78 -28 -35.90 4otor Vehicle Theft Auto 10 5 55 51 4 7.84 4otor Vehicle Theft Bus 0 0 10 6 4 66.67 4otor Vehicle Theft Other0 0 6 1 5 500.00 ------- ------ ------- 93 85 806 793 93 85 806 793 -9-13-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: AUGUST, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD :rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change ill Other Offenses 42 45 287 325 -38 -11.69 inimal Abuse 0 0 0 0 0 inimal Nuisance 1 0 2 4 -2 -50.00 krson 4 0 26 8 18 225.00 kBSiets to outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Bigamy 0 0 0 0 0 3omb Offense 0 0 0 0 0 3omb Threat 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 3ribery 0 0 0 0 0 heck Offenses 0 0 12 4 8 200.00 �hild Neglect/prot custody 4 3 40 24 16 66.67 7omputer Crime 0 0 0 0 0 2onspiracy 0 0 0 0 0 2redit Card Offenses 0 0 2 0 2 2ruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 2 2 0 0.00 yurfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Death Investigation 6 1 27 34 -7 -20.59 Disorderly Conduct 1 0 11 24 -13 -54.17 Driver's License Violations 0 0 3 5 -2 -40.00 Driving Under the Influence 4 5 47 49 2 -4.08 Drug Abuse Violations 3 4 22 21 1 4.76 Drug/Sex Registrants/Violations 0 0 3 0 3 Drunkeness 8 7 49 35 14 40.00 - Embezzlement 2 3 4 7 -3 -42.86 Escape 0 0 0 0 0 Extortion 0 0 0 0 0 False Police Reports 1 0 2 0 2 False Reports of Emergency 0 0 4 0 4 Fish and Game Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Forgery and Counterfeiting 6 3 28 33 -5 -15.15 Found Property 2 5 43 75 -32 -42.67 Fraud 3 2 19 18 1 5.56 Gambling 0 0 0 0 0 Harrassing Phone Calls 8 2 32 21 11 52.38 ,9-13-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: AUGUST, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD .rime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change Sit and Run Accidents 4 5 33 25 8 32.00 :mpersonation 1 1 2 3 -1 -33.33 :nest 0 0 0 0 0 ..decent Exposure 3 0 9 3 6 200.00 :ntimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0 :idnapping 0 0 0 0 0 .ewd Conduct 0 0 1 0 1 Aquor Laws 0 0 2 6 -4 -66.67 Attering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 7arijuana Violations 2 3 13 14 -1 -7.14 lental Health Cases 8 6 68 52 16 30.77 7issing Person 2 0 36 34 2 5.88 7issing Property 8 13 66 60 6 10.00 lunicipal Code Violations 1 9 49 52 -3 -5.77 larcotics Sales/Manufacture 0 0 2 0 2 )ffenses Against Children 1 1 4 3 1 33.33 )ther Assaults 16 12 115 121 -6 -4.96 )ther Juvenile Offenses 0 1 1 1 0 0.00 )ther Police Service 3 4 39 51 -12 -23.53 ?andering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 ?arole Violations 2 0 4 0 4 ?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 1 7 2 5 250.00 ?rostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 5 1 4 400.00 ?rowling 0 0 4 2 2 100.00 tesisting Arrest 0 1 3 2 1 50.00 Zestraining Orders 0 0 1 12 -11 -91.67 runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0 iex Offenses 0 1 2 2 0 0.00 Sex Offenses against Children 0 0 1 1 0 0.00 Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 ;talking 0 0 0 0 0 9-13-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 3 CITY REPORT FOR: AUGUST, 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 7tolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 1 1 8 4 4 100.00 suspended License 0 6 22 22 0 0.00 'ax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 'errorist Threats 1 0 5 5 0 0.00 'owed Vehicle 39 38 245 276 -31 -11.23 'respassing 0 0 9 7 2 28.57 'ruants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 IS Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 ]agrancy 0 0 0 0 0 landalism 35 15 189 167 22 13.17 /ehicle Code Violations 1 5 10 23 -13 -56.52 /iolation of Court Order 3 4 10 8 2 25.00 larrants - Felony 2 1 9 9 0 0.00 Varrants - Misd 6 7 43 50 -7 -14.00 Veapons;Carrying,Possessing 0 2 8 7 1 14.29 velfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 236 217 1,690 1,722 236 217 1,690 1,722 09-13-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: AUGUST, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . YTD. .. Parking Citations 3585 2 , 959 24 , 060 22 , 859 Moving Citations 212 183 1, 680 958 ------- ------ --- ---- ------- 3797 3 , 142 25 , 740 23 , 817 3797 3 , 142 25, 740 23 , 817 BURLINGAME Officer Productivity. . . . generated on 09/13/2006 at 10 : 17 : 44 AM Reported On: All Officers Report Range: 08/01/2006 to 08/31/2006 Data Type Reported on: PARKING Valid % All Voids s All % Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------ ALVISO 355 1110 31.81 6 13.95 99.46 DOTSON 509 340 9.74 8 18.60 97.70 FEITELBERG 508 1106 31.69 11 25.58 99.02 GARRETT 501 828 23.72 18 41.86 97.87 KIRKPATRICK 502 106 3.04 0 0.00 100.00 Total 3490 3490 43 Page 1 of 1 AURUNirik)l AGENDA closed session ITEM# STAFF REPORT MTG. DATE 10/3/2006 TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITT BY DATE: October 3, 2006 APPROVED BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: POSSIBLE SUBLEASE OF REAL PROPERTY AT 2220 SUMMIT DRIVE (FORMER HOOVER SCHOOL) RECOMMENDATION: Discuss in closed session and instruct real property negotiators (City Manager and Parks & Recreation Director) regarding negotiations about possible sublease of property. DISCUSSION: Shinnyo-en Temple is in the process of selling or leasing the property at 2220 Summit Drive. The Burlingame School District is exploring the possibility of buying or leasing the property, and has asked the City if it is interested in subleasing a portion of the site. The closed session will provide an opportunity for staff to update the Council on the property and receive direction on further discussions with the District or the property's owners.