Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Agenda Packet - CC - 2006.12.04
CITY G , A BU�JNOAME m �RR�6n JUNe 6• BURLINGAME CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME, CA 94010 CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Monday,December 4, 2006 STUDY SESSION—South Bay Waste Management Authority Contractor Selection Process—6:00 p.m. Conference Room A 1. CALL TO ORDER—7:00 p.m. - Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. APPROVAL OF MINUTES—Regular Council Meeting of November 20, 2006 5. PRESENTATION a. Launch of City's new website b. Award for Excellence in financial reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association of America and Canada c. Key Indicators for Fire Department 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS—The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. a. Appeal of the Planning Commission's determination on Skin Care Clinic and Spa use as a health service use b. Adoption of assessments for year 2007 for the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District c. Adopt an Ordinance to amend the Municipal Code for issuing a demolition permit and clarification of penalties for work done without a building permit 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. I 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Update on plans for celebration of Burlingame's Centennial Anniversary- Update b. Consider appointment to Traffic, Safety and Parking Commission- Appoint c. Consider appointment to Civil Service Commission—Appoint d. Adoption of Easton Drive street tree list -Adopt e. Consider recommendation of Beautification Commission to remove tree in front of Easton Branch Library—Discuss/Direction f. National Citizens Survey - Discuss 9. APPROVAL OF CONSENT CALENDAR a. Approve rotation list for offices of Mayor and Vice Mayor b. Recommendation to accept Council assignments for 2007 c. Recommendation to adopt 2007 City Council calendar d. Update and Resolution accepting Mills Canyon slide repair project by Hillside Drilling e. Map amendment to recorded condominium map for Units 401 and 402, Lot B, Block 3, Burlingame Land Co. Map No. 2 Subdivision, 345 Lorton Avenue 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: Traffic, Safety & Parking Commission, September 14, 2006; Beautification,November 2, 2006; Planning,November 13 &November 27, 2006 b. Department Reports: Police, October, 2006; Finance, October, 2006 c. Letter from Comcast concerning a price increase for cable services effective January 1, 2007 15. ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION 2 CLOSED SESSION a. Threatened Litigation(Government Code § 54956.9(b)(1),(3)(C)): Claims of Rosa Oliva; Jocelyn Najera; Patricia Cano; and claim of Ali Kuc and Sahite Kuc b. Conference with Labor Negotiator pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6: City Negotiators: Jim Nantell, Deirdre Dolan Labor Organizations: BAMM; Fire; Fire Administration; Department Heads and Unrepresented Group; and Teamsters 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.burling;ame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 13, 2006 3 AOI"� RethinkWaste.org "ids WASIO M � Mt AWhorft SBWMA Contractor Selection Process Serving Member Agencies Through Quality and Cost Effective Solid Waste and Recycling Programs Member Agency Presentation December 2006CD QQ cD CD � � CD Presentation by Robert Hilton HF&H Consultants, LLC N w W O0 � ---------- — SBWMA Contractor Selection Process D�cember 2006 Member Agency Presentation Presentation Outline Page ■ Member Agency needs 2 ■ SBWMA working on your behalf 3 ■ SBWMA approach 6 ■ Member Agency franchise award 9 ■ Decisions for elected officials 12 ■ Commitment to process 13 ■ Select services 14 ■ Estimated impacts to diversion and rates 34 RethinkWasteorg Page 1 South Wy,;dt W&.tt MAmgtmtol AtAonty SBWMA Contractor Selection Process -- D cember 2006 Member Agency Presentation Member Agency Needs ■ Achieving and sustaining state-mandated AB 939 diversion goals (50% diversion) ■ Implementing new collection and operating agreements by January 1 , 2011 ■ Ensuring customers pay competitive rates for quality programs and services RethinkWasta.vrg Page 2 South SM140 Waate M4nagcmmntAuthar tj ri� d+ SBWMA Contractor Selection Process LF- cember 2006 Member Agency Presentation SBWMA Working on Your Behalf Managing Contractor Selection Process ■ Commenced contractor selection process ❑ Future collection contractor ❑ Future Shoreway facility operator ■ Member Agency staff actively engaged in the planning phase ( PAC and PAF Committees) ■ Ongoing involvement of Member Agency elected officials throughout the process ■ New SBWMA Executive Director to lead process A% tethinkWaste.o g Page 3 'w^"T South *Write Management AAAhur 4y SBWMA Contractor Selection Process D�cember 2006 Member Agency Presentation SBWMA Working on Your Behalf (cont. Well-Planned Public Committee Process ■ 16 well-planned PAF and PAC meetings ■ Analysis of a wide array of options ■ Over 50 staff reports prepared and reviewed ■ Team of expert consultants provided analysis ■ All meetings were "public meetings" with opportunities for public comment ■ Other input via surveys and focused workshops `. R+ thinkWa te.org Page 4 ' ""7 Saukh 04"140 WOON M40494menr.AaAhar + SBWMA Contractor Selection Process December 2006 Member Agency Presentation SBWMA Won Your Behalf (cont . Extensive Public Input ■ Customer surveys ❑ Residential : Survey mailed to 24,335 homes; 2,838 responses ❑ Multi-family: 200 phone surveys ❑ Commercial : 200 phone surveys ■ Industry input ❑ Workshops with at least a dozen companies ❑ Individual interviews with five interested companies ■ Peer workshop with representatives from five Bay Area jurisdictions with relevant experience Rethinkftste.org Page 5 �^"' South Baoi4o wasto Managamont Aatharsiy SBWMA Contractor Selection Process 2006 Member Agency Presentation Approach Meets Member Agency Needs ■ Deliver quality programs and services ❑ Cost-effective and efficient programs ❑ Improved waste diversion programs and services ❑ Increased customer convenience ■ Set high standards for collection program quality and customer service ■ Achieve reasonable rates through competitive process and best management practices '441' RethinkWaste.org Page 6 South W)%ido WW6 MhnugemontAutharriy SBWMA Contractor Selection Process Dcember 2006 Member Agency Presentation Contractor Selection Process Schedule Task 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 1A Board organizes contractor selection process 1 B Board determines Member Agency needs t 2 Prepare RFP and franchise agreement 3 Issue RFP and conduct preproposal process 4A Review of proposals by consultant 4B Evaluation of proposals by committee 5 Selection of contractors 6 Final contract negotations 7 Prepare for implementation ������RUH Execute Commence agreements new services Legend: Board JiCommittee 17_ Member Agency� FO 0 01 Other RethinkWaste.org Page 7 7s-.O� Souks 84*40 Wasto MWV,90MK-n1 A(Ahorvtj SBWMA Contractor Selection Process Q cember 2006 Member Agency Presentation Member Agency Milestones Action Date 1 . Hear SBWMA's general approach Feb — Mar 2006 2. Commit to the process and approve Dec 2006/Jan 2007 programs and contract terms 3. Approve RFP and agreements May — Jul 2007 4. Attend proposer presentations Feb 2008 5. Receive proposal summaries Mar — Jun 2008 6. Approve selection of contractors Oct — Dec 2008 7. Approve collection and operating agreements May — Jun 2009 Contractors commence new services Jan 1 , 2011 RethinkWaste.org Page 8 `M "T South NysWo Watt H�ngamont authoritj SBWMA Contractor Selection Process —_D�cember 2006 Member Agency Presentation Member Agency Franchise Award ■ SBWMA role ❑ Solicit proposals for two service areas ❑ Staff/consultants evaluate proposals and present findings to evaluation committee ❑ Evaluation committee (consisting of Member Agency staff) reviews evaluation and recommends contractors to Board ❑ SBWMA Board reviews evaluation committee recommendations and makes recommendation for Member Agency consideration Re hinkWa to org Page 9 South Bayside 4 mOc Mamgamemt AAWhanty SBWMA Contractor Selection Process D�cember 2006 Member Agency Presentation Member Agency Franchise Award cont . ■ Member Agency role ❑ Review SBWMA Board recommendation ❑ Award its franchise to the company it selects ■ If a Member Agency chooses a company other than that recommended by the SBWMA Board , it will negatively impact all other Member Agencies. ❑ Fulfill its obligation to the SBWMA to deliver solid waste, recyclables, and yard waste to the SBWMA-owned Shoreway facilities (regardless of the collection contractor selected) RethinkWaste.Qrg Page 10 South 84ysidrt Wustp MAnogoment Aulhooty SBWMA Contractor Selection Process n cember 2006 Member Agency Presentation Proposed Proposal Evaluation Process ■ Evaluation of proposals : ❑ Quantitative evaluation using criteria defined in the RFP (e.g . , qualifications , technical approach , environmental consequences, and cost) ❑ Evaluation team of SBWMA staff, member agency staff, and industry experts t RethinkWaste.org Page 11 " ""T South Boysilc Woto MarAgomtnt Authority SBWMA Contractor Selection Process - --- —D�cember 2006 Member Agency Presentation Decisions for Elected Officials ■ Commit to the SBWMA process by ado tin p g resolution ■ Affirm/Approve SBWMA recommended core service package ■ Review optional programs and services available to meet unique needs of Member Agencies t:�RethinkWaste.org Page 12 South 63y%ide waste IAanSg ement Authgnty SBWMA Contractor Selection Process -- December 2006 Member Agency Presentation Commitment to the SBWMA Process ■ Request commitment by adopting a resolution documenting that Member Agency: ❑ Agrees to participate in SBWMA process ❑ Agrees to proposed programs and contract terms ❑ Agrees to method of soliciting proposals and selecting contractors ❑ Agrees to not independently solicit or entertain collection and processing proposals during the SBWMA contractor selection process A%�Rethinkftste.Org Page 13 South Bayside Waste Management Authority SBWMA Contractor Selection Process cember 2006 Member Agency Presentation Select Programs and Services ■ Proposed programs (both core and optional ) were developed by PAC and PAF committees and approved by SBWMA Board ■ SBWMA fulfilling diverse needs for Member Agencies ❑ Core programs — maximize cost efficiencies and increase diversion by modernizing collection programs and improving customer service ❑ Optional programs ■ Address unique Member Agency needs ■ Ensure ongoing compliance with state-mandated diversion goal of 50% by offering additional diversion programs 'xCiW:...xE.Y3`'"'fia' 3a'S`ss®'o- .[..:.a,w.a.'ti :R,".' Ek.«a'I':W^" .•. wd:i4vn.Fl.GA :t<..'"' YR":'.: Gh+ .a'.m34: ',..' , \ RethinkWaste.org Page 14 `^' w 594th BAysMa W*sIm M#m9mW A-Ah4RP/ SBWMA Contractor Selection Process December 2006 Member Agency Presentation Current Residential Programs ■ Solid waste ❑ Collected weekly, at the curb or back/side yard ❑ Two—person crews ("Manual Collection") ❑ Residents provide their own cart/container ■ Recyclables and yard waste ❑ Collected every other week, at the curb ❑ Residents given two containers to segregate paper and bottles/cans ("Dual Stream") ❑ Residents are provided wheeled carts for yard waste ❑ Separate trucks with one-person crews are used to collect recyclables and yard waste ("Automated Collection") ■ Two annual on-call bulky pick-ups per household RethinkWaste.org Page 15 South Bayside Waite Mamgemrrai Authority - -- F1 F SBWMA Contractor Selection Process - December 2006 Member Agency Presentation Pro osed Residential Programsp "Core Service Package" ■ OBJECTIVE: Modernize programs to increase customer convenience and improve cost effectiveness ■ Solid waste ❑ Collected weekly at the curb, option for back/side yard for additional fee ❑ One—person crews ("Automated Collection") ❑ Residents given new wheeled carts for ease of use; customer selection of cart size (20-, 32-, 64-, or 96-gallon) ❑ Significant productivity improvements and potential cost savings are achieved if Member Agencies select curbside service. Assumes Member Agencies also charge a higher rate for the residents requesting side or backyard service. Rethinkftste.org Page 16 South Bayside Waste Manooment Authontf SBWMA Contractor Selection Process -- - - - December 2006 Member Agency Presentation Pro osed Residential Programsp "Core Service Package" (cont . ■ OBJECTIVE: Modernize programs to increase customer convenience , improve cost effectiveness and maximize recycling ■ Recyclables and yard waste ❑ Weekly collection at the curb ❑ Residents given 96-gallon wheeled carts to place/commingle all recyclables ("Single Stream")* ❑ Residents provided 96-gallon wheeled carts for yard waste as needed* ❑ Separate trucks with one-person crews are used to collect recyclables and yard waste ("Automated Collection") ❑ 23% to 31 % estimated increase in residential recycling tonnage through proposed programs * Small cart sizes will be provided upon customer request. Rethinkaste. r Page 17 South BAY At Wave MANS mrnt Aulhontp SBWMA Contractor Selection Process -- D cember 2006 Member Agency Presentation Pro osed Residential Programsp " Core Service Package" (cont. ■ OBJECTIVE: Modernize programs to increase customer convenience and maximize recycling ,�� � � • � � ■ Solid waste carts: Customers have choice of one �- 20-, 32-, 64-, or 96-gallon carts rK ■ Recyclables and yard waste: Customers provided f 96-gallon carts (smaller � carts provided upon Source: "Automated Collection of Recyclables and Solid Waste, A Report to Mayor Dave Cieslewicz and the City Council," prepared by George P. Dreckmann, Recycling customer's request) Coordinator, City of Madison, Wisconsin, March 29, 2004. Rethinkwaste.org Page 18 �""'7 South Baysidt Wazto Manaytmrnt Authonty SBWMA Contractor Selection Process - -- cember 2006 Member Agency Presentation Pro osed Residential Programsp SummaryOptionalof ■ OBJECTIVE: Enhanced programs to meet Member Agency unique needs ■ Additional programs (mainly for recycling) ❑ Expanded on-call clean-ups to include e-waste ❑ Co-collection of food waste with yard waste; customers to be provided kitchen pails for food waste collection* ❑ Community clean-up events ❑ Community a-waste events ❑ Weekly collection of oil filters and household batteries with curbside recyclables collection ❑ On-call curbside collection of HHW, e-waste, and u-waste *Program to be evaluated SBWMA-wide once identify processing options I�`� Rethinkftste.org Page 19 ,�" 1 South 84yli �Waste!MarwapMtnt AWhatit/ SBWMA Contractor Selection Process -- --D cember 2006 Member Agency Presentation Pro osed Residential Programsp SummaryOptionalof (cont. ■ Optional programs have nominal rate and diversion impact except for residential food waste collection ■ Residential food waste ❑ Program could increase residential recycling tonnage by 9% to 11 % ❑ Residential food waste diversion on a cost-per-diverted ton basis would be less expensive than the current recycling collection programs A `RethinkWaste•org Page 20 ♦W era.W#A*Mo%mmem SBWMA Contractor Selection Process - - — December 2006 Member Agency Presentation Current Multi =Family and Commercial Programs ■ Solid waste ❑ Collected weekly or more frequently depending upon customer needs ❑ One-person trucks pickup carts and bins of varying sizes ■ Recycling service ❑ Service is optional, but at no additional cost ❑ Papers and bottles/cans separated by customer and placed in different containers ❑ Allied has six commercial outreach staff to set-up and/or expand accounts and provide limited technical assistance RethinkWaste.Org Page 21 South BaYsi dt WjMe Management A.Ihontj SBWMA Contractor Selection Process December 2006 Member Agency Presentation Current Multi =Family and Commercial Programs (cont. ■ Multi-family - SBWMA provides some technical assistance and collection bags (" Recycling Buddy") for multi-family units ■ Food waste — Food waste collection provided at customer's request with fees 25% to 50% less than solid waste fees Rthn ' t .o Page 22 ' '" 5aath OvW4a W"to Mar4qemenl P4AAarslp SBWMA Contractor Selection Process December 2006 Member Agency Presentation Proposed Multi -Family and Commercial Proqrams "Core Service Package" ■ OBJECTIVE: Modernize programs to increase customer convenience, improve cost effectiveness and maximize recycling ■ Solid waste - No change in solid waste collection ■ Recycling service ❑ Continue to offer at no cost to customer ❑ Papers and bottles/cans commingled ("Single Stream") by customer ■ Food waste — Continue existing food waste collection program with reduced rates for recycling RethinkWa te.org Page 23 South Wysitlo Waste MAYQg0MW01 Aulhotly SBWMA Contractor Selection Process -D cember 2006 Member Agency Presentation Proposed Multi -Family and Commercial Programs Summary of Optional Programs ■ OBJECTIVE: Enhanced diversion programs to meet Member Agency unique needs ■ Automatic roll-out of recycling to all customers (currently recycling is provided upon customer request) ■ Expand services to on-call collection of bulky items , e- waste, and u-waste at customer's request for a fee (currently on-call service is only available for bulky items) ■ Drop-off community e-waste events ■ Shared recycling bins downtown RethinkWaste.org Page 24 +"^ South Bayside Waste Management AAharNy cember 2006 Member Agency Presentation SBWMA Contractor Selection Process Proposed Multi =Family and Commercial Programs Summary of Optional Programs (cont.) ■ Multi-family tenant recycling containers and technical assistance for all complexes (currently available only upon request) ■ Commercial site visits/assistance for top 10% and telephone/visual assessment for others ■ Wet/dry collection solicited as optional proposals Rethink ste org Page 25 $owth 84ysida Waste hlanagoMent Aulh y SBWMA Contractor Selection Process D�cember 2006 Member Agency Presentation LI Other Collection Services ■ Current ❑ SBWMA provides public education materials for residential , multi-family and commercial programs (newsletters, website, etc. ) ❑ Billing services — provided by contractor or Member Agency at Member Agency option ■ Proposed - Core ❑ Programs to include expanded public education and outreach to support rollout of new programs ❑ Billing services — same as current RethinkWaste.org Page 26 South Saysida Wosta hta gamont Auth" SBWMA Contractor Selection Process cember 2006 Member Agency Presentation Other Collection Services (cont. ■ Proposed - Optional ❑ Collection of select u-waste from two drop-off sites for expanded customer convenience Jr "� R+ethinkWaste.org Page 27 South BMW$W alo Maaa94mV01 Au thorft SBWMA Contractor Selection Process December 2006 Member Agency Presentation Current Contract Terms ■ Labor — employees represented by collective bargaining agreements ■ Term of the collection and facility operating agreements expire December 31 , 2010 ■ Contractors' compensation - cost plus profit; involves detailed annual review and reconciliation of costs ■ Rate setting ❑ Member agencies set their own customers' collection rates ❑ SBWMA Board sets rates for Shoreway facility /rr Rethin tftste•org Page 28 South 9ayside Waste Managemani Aukhoft SBWMA Contractor Selection Process December 2006 Member Agency Presentation Proposed Process and Contract Terms " Core Package" ■ Two collection districts — divide SBWMA north and south and allow the potential for different collection contractors to operate for improved competitiveness ■ Labor policy — wages and benefits based on existing labor agreements; worker retention policy ■ Contract term — initial 7 years for franchise plus extensions for a total not-to-exceed 20 years ■ Contractor's compensation — cost plus profit; review process simplified with detailed reviews of actual costs every three years and indexed adjustments in interim years ; no reconciliation of costs RethinklWa..ete.org Page 29 '^' South Bayside Waste Managatnant Autho" SBWMA Contractor Selection Process - - ----December 2006 Member Agency Presentation Proposed Process and Contract Terms " Core Package " (cont. ■ Rate setting ❑ Member agencies set customers' collection rates ❑ SBWMA Board sets rates for Shoreway facility ■ Alternative fuel vehicles — optionalro osals p p will be solicited for SBWMA-wide implementation ■ Liquidated damages for non-performance assessed more automatically RethinkWaste.org Page 30 South Etayside Waste Management Avthorirty SBWMA Contractor Selection Process -- — Djdcember 2006 Member Agency Presentation Proposed Process and Contract Terms Optional Terms ■ Performance incentives ❑ Inclusion of one or more incentive provisions to motivate exceptional service ❑ Amount and frequency of incentive payments RethinkWaste.org Page 31 South 8ayzlde Waite Manogamant Authority SBWMA Contractor Selection Process - - - - - - - - --December 2006 Member Agency Presentation Proposed Shoreway Facility Improvements ■ Core ❑ Shoreway single stream processing equipment retrofit (currently dual stream processing system) ❑ Expanded transfer station to accommodate additional yard waste and food waste ■ Optional ❑ Other Shoreway transfer station expansion (currently floor space is limited ) for additional tipping area Rethin Waste.org Page 32 South Baysldo Wash Management Authority E+J SBWMA Contractor Selection Process -- - --- -- — - ---- - -- cember 2006 Member Agency Presentation Estimated Diversion Impact (Tons per Year) OBJECTIVE: Modernize programs to increase customer convenience, improve cost effectiveness and maximize recycling Program Core Package Optional Package Total Low High Low High Low High Residential* 18,100 241400 67700 8,900 24,800 33,300 Multi-family and commercial 3,600 10,400 N.A. N.A. 3,600 10,400 Other collection services N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. Facility improvements Included above 137000 13,000 (single stream) Total Tons per Year 21 ,700 34,400 19,700 21 ,900 41 ,400 56,700 *Includes residential food waste collection in the optional package for SBWMA-wide consideration. RethinkWaste.org Page 33 South Bayrwde Waste Management Authority SBWMA Contractor Selection Process n cember 2006 Member Agency Presentation Estimated Rate Impact Program Core Package Optional Package Total Low High Low High Low High Residential* 0.43% 3.23% 0.83% 1 .22% 1 .26% 4.45% Multi-family and commercial 0.21 % 0.21 % 1 .45% 2.39% 1 .66% 2.60% Other collection services 0% 0.15% 0% 0% 0% 0.15% Facility improvements 0% 0% 0.34% 0.41 % 0.34% 0.41 % Process and contract terms (0.04%) 2.39% 0% 0.75% (0.04%) 3.14% Total 0.60% 5.98% 2.62% 4.77% 3.22% 10.75% *Includes residential food waste collection in the optional package. RethinkWaste.�r Page 34 South Saysidt Wasto MAM90mgmt&Ahonty CITY G BURLINGAME m �o4e qo bNwTED June b BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of November 20, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Cathy Baylock called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by AJ and Nicky Baylock. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Keighran, Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Cohen 4. MINUTES Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to approve the minutes of the November 6, 2006 regular Council meeting; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Cohen absent). 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on Measure H election results and thanked Mayor Baylock for her term in office. There were no further comments from the floor. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR a. APPROVAL OF NEW BYLAWS FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY COUNCIL OF CITIES CC Mortensen requested Council direct the Mayor or her designee, as the voting member on the City Selection Committee, to approve the amended Bylaws for the San Mateo County Council of Cities. b. RESOLUTION NO. 92-2006 APPROVING SEWER TELEVISING AND CLEANING AGREEMENT WITH THE TOWN OF HILLSBOROUGH DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 92-3006 approving agreement between Town of Hillsborough and City of Burlingame to provide video inspection services for the town's sanitary sewer lines. 1 Burlingame City Council November 20,2006 Unapproved Minutes C. PROGRESS UPDATE ON THE MILLS CANYON SLIDE REPAIRS PROJECT DPW Bagdon provided Council with a progress update of emergency repairs to the Mills Canyon mudslide. d. RECLASSIFICATION OF FIRE DEPARTMENT ADMINISTRATIVE SECRETARY POSITION FC Reilly requested Council approve the reclassification of the Fire Department Administrative Secretary position to Administrative Support Officer. e. WARRANTS AND PAYROLL FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants #21656-22186 duly audited, in the amount of $2,616,465.40 (excluding Library checks#21767-21801), Payroll checks #166815-167049 in the amount of $2,682,250.40 for the month of October 2006. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Nagel. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Cohen absent). 7. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Memo from Police Chief—Redflex Red Light Photo Enforcement Camera Systems 8, CEREMONIAL a. ROTATION OF COUNCIL OFFICERS Mayor Baylock introduced local dignitaries in attendance and noted the highlights of Council's accomplishments during the year and thanked City staff for all their expertise. Mayor Baylock explained the Rotation of Council Officers process then turned the meeting over to incoming Mayor Terry Nagel. Council Members introduced each of their family members and friends in attendance. Mayor Nagel presented former Mayor Baylock with a gavel plaque. Mayor Nagel introduced the new Vice Mayor, Rosalie O'Mahony. Mayor Nagel then spoke regarding the coming year and encouraged public involvement in our community. 9. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Nagel adjourned the meeting at 7:35 p.m. in memory of Alfred Cohen, father of Councilman Cohen, and Elizabeth Davenport, mother of Mayor Nagel. Respectfully submitted, Doris I Mortensen City Clerk 2 Burlingame City Council November 20,2006 Unapproved Minutes PRESENTATION&OFFICIAL KICK—OFF OF CITY'S NEW WEBSITE City Staff Ronda Caine-Alcantara Netie Shinday Lori Brock Maureen Brooks Jim Ford Karen Hager Shaun Marsh Jeff Mikulik Doris Mortensen Linda Santo Don Shepley Cathy Somerton Certificates of Recognition Joe Bojues Don Donoughe Jo-Ellen Ellis Julianna Fuerbringer Stephen Hamilton Anne Hennegar Kent Lauder Norm Persing Alex Veech Charles Voltz Russ Cohen Terry Nagel � CITY o� STAFF REPORT 11 BURUNGAME AGENDA 6a ITEM # •,�Co9q 100 DATE 12.04.06 �AwT[n JVue 6 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 2006 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DERTERMINATION ON SKIN CARE CLINIC AND SPA USE AS A HEALTH SERVICE USE. Recommendation: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Action to uphold the Planning Commission's determination or to reverse it should include findings. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. Notice of the public hearing on this item was published in the San Mateo County Times on Friday, November 24, 2006. Determination Request: Is a Skin Care Clinic and Spa land use which includes medical supervision of procedures offered a 'personal service' or a 'health service'. Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on October 13, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 4-3 (Cers. Auran, Terrones, Vistica dissenting) to uphold the City Planner's determination that a skin care clinic which includes medical supervision of procedures offered on site is a health service as defined in the zoning code and not a professional service or retail use similar to a beauty parlor. In their comments in support of the City Planner's determination the commissioners noted: agree sounds like cosmetology rather than health care until discussed insurance, doctor and nurse both require medical malpractice insurance which is required for a health service; think this use is in between the two designations, but if it is called a personal service there is no regulation of the extent of the business and a Botox Clinic could located in Subarea A; if a registered nurse is required then this does not look like a normal hair and nail care salon; the skin care clinic will generate more traffic and parking than a beauty salon; have relatives who are doctors, if need a doctor and a registered nurse present it is a health care business, can debate the classification of the business but registered nurses consider themselves health care professionals whatever they are doing; opposed because need something more than a permitted use designation to have proper control of this use, need criteria which establish guidelines for hours, staff level, intensity of use because overtime one business replaces another. In their comments in opposition to the City Planner's determination the following were mentioned: sounds like cosmetology that is very careful and professional, what you would like to see in a business where surgery is included; regulation is inherent in the licensing process with this type of use, cosmetic services being attached to it, without Botox this is a cosmetic/skin treatment personal service. ( Planning Commission Minutes, October 13, 2006) APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DERTERMINATION ON SKIN CARE CLINIC AND SPA USE AS A HEALTH SERVICE USE. December 4,2006 BACKGROUND: Summary of Determination Request: The applicant would like to put a Skin Care Clinic and Spa in a vacant first floor retail space in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District. Health services are not allowed in Subarea A. For this reason the applicant argues that the services offered by this business are cosmetic not medical, and the fact that a physician and registered nurse would be on hand to administer Botox injections does not make the application a medical treatment. Rather the applicant believes that Botox treatments did not exist at the time the zoning code definition was created and are consistent with "personal services" as defined in Burlingame's code to include nail care, hair cutting, styling and treatment; and skin care including facials, cosmetic application, waxing and body wraps. (J. Ward memo dated September 18, 2006) The applicant goes on to note that there is a retail component in this business including the sale of skin care and related products which would be included in the new Burlingame location. Staff Determination: On August 25, 2006, the applicant requested staff to review and make a determination on whether a particular skin care clinic and spa, SkinSpirit, is a 'personal service'; and as such could be located in Subarea A, of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. There is currently in the code a distinction between a 'health service' use and a'personal service' use which includes a retail component. The zoning code defines ' personal service' (CS 25.08.522) as: "Personal Service means establishments primarily engaged in providing services involving the care of person or his or her personal goods or apparel." As a sub-set of personal service is the definition of beauty shop or barbershop (CS 25.08.124) Beauty shop or barbershop means a personal service business conducted by barbers, cosmetologists, electrologists, estheticians, or manicurists licensed by the state. Services provided may include nail care; hair cutting, styling and treatment; and skin care and treatment, including facials, cosmetic application, waxing and body wraps. A beauty shop or barbershop may include massage when conducted in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 6.40 of this code." The zoning code also defines 'health services' (CS 25.08.336) as: "Health services means an office, clinic, laboratory or any other facility engaged in furnishing medical, surgical or other services including a physician, dentist, dental technician, chiropractor, acupressurist, acupuncturist, therapist, counselor or other similar occupation. From the descriptions of the SkinSpirit business provided by the applicant which include cosmetic treatments provided by a registered nurse and overseen by a doctor, the traffic study prepared by Wilson Engineering, staffs internet search of SkinSpirit's web site and a follow up phone call and discussion with the receptionist at the SkinSpirit site in Palo Alto, staffs understanding of the business is as follows: many of the skin treatments offered to customers are provided by licensed registered nurses who receive monthly training from a practicing physician as well as oversight from a licensed physician. Further similar treatments are commonly offered in doctors' offices, provided by their nurses under the doctor's supervision. -2- APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DERTERMINATION ON SKIN CARE CLINIC AND SPA USE AS A HEALTH SERVICE USE. December 4,2006 Based on these facts this proposed skin care operation is similar to the operation of dentist office, where many customers only see the dental technician who is under the supervision of the licensed dentist. Further, the trip generation figures provided by Wilson Engineering, based on the Palo Alto office operation, appear to be similar to many health services, including a dental office. Finally, the retail sales component of this business, based on the traffic analysis report, appear to be minor (25% or less, with 20% of that being from walk in customers). Based on this information and data, the City Planner's conclusion was that SkinSpirit, skin care clinic and spa, is a health service. As a health service this use is not allowed in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. However, this use may be allowed with a conditional use permit in Subarea B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area, with the proviso that parking to code requirements (1:250 SF) be provided on site. Staff Comment; In his letter the applicant notes an option to consider a new definition of'personal service/retail' which might cover a business which provides components of medical services but also sells products at retail to customers and people who 'walk in' from the street. This is a different request from a determination. If, following the Council's review of the request of a skin care clinic as a kind of personal service use, the applicant would like to propose a new use be added to the zoning, a zoning code amendment must be requested and processed. A request for a change to the zoning code definitions and uses sections requires review by the Planning Commission with a recommendation to the City Council. If such a request is made by the applicant, the Planning Commission will determine if such a use as described and defined is appropriate as a retail use. At the same time the Commission will determine, based on the direction of the general plan, in which zoning districts and overlay zones the requested retail use is appropriate. Such application would require an initial study and an evaluation regarding appropriate environmental review. Since the city is going to undertake a Specific Area Plan for the downtown area (including Subarea A) in 2007, it might be more appropriate for the applicant to participate in that planning process rather than request special legislation prior to the community discussion about appropriate land uses in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Margaret Monroe City Planner Attachments: Debbie Sharp, letter November 2, 2006, appealing Planning Commission's action Planning Commission Minutes October 13, 2006 Planning Commission Staff Report, October 13, 2006, Determination on Skin Care Clinic and Spa Use as a personal service with the following attachments: • J. Ward letter September 18, 2006, appealing the City Planner's Determination • Monroe letter September 11, 2006, to John Ward re: City Planner's determination on skin care clinic and spa use • Application for a Determination • John Ward letter August 25, 2006,presenting skin care clinic use requesting a determination with attachments from architect and traffic engineer attached • John M. Ward, e-mail September 11, 2006, documenting skin care establishments in Subarea -3- APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DERTERMINATION ON SKIN CARE CLINIC AND SPA USE AS A HEALTH SERVICE USE. December 4,2006 • SkinSpirit Web Page, business description, September 11, 2006 Notice of Public Hearing, San Mateo County Times,published November 24, 2006 -4- ` SKINCARE CLINIC & SPA 701 Emerson St_ ret 650.324.9600 Pato Alto,CA 94301 h.650.323.3161 RECEIVED NOV 2 2006 CITY CLERK'S OFF S k i n s P I r i t CITY OF BURLINGAME NOVEMBER 2,2006 DORIS J.MORTENSEN CITY CLERK—BURLINGAME Honorable Mayor and City Council: 50I PRIMROSE ROAD Please schedule an appeal- hearing BURLINGAME,CA 94.0I0 *`for Skinsp.frit to`-be heard at the December 4, 2006 Council meeting'. DEAR MS.MORTENSEN City Clerk THIS LETTER AND A CHECK FOR$270.00 ARE PRESENTED TO YOU TO STATE OUR APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONS ACTION ON OCT. 23,2006 REGARDING SKINSPIRIT. CERTAINLY FORMAL DOCUMENTATION WILL FOLLOW. PLEASE FEEL FREE TO CONTACT ME WITH ANY AND ALL QUESTIONS. BEST REGARDS, s DEBBIE SHARP SKINSPIRIT PRINCIPLE 360 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 940I0 d (650)375-5204, DIRECT 650)375-5205,LISA (650)348-0233,FAX DEBBIE@DEBBSHARP.COM RECEIVED NOV 0 3 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006 would be tied to current circumstances and if new construction or a substantial reconstruction to the house or parking were proposed, the variances would go away and the project would have to comply with code regulations in effect at that time? The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. This action is not appealable. This item concluded at 8:55 p.m. �8. DETERMINATION ON SKIN CARE CLINIC AND SPA USE AS A 'PERSONAL SERVICE'. PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report October 23, 2006,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report summarizing the nature of the business requested and its consistency with the current definitions in the zoning code. She noted that the issue here is the definition of the use. Once clearly defined, then the appropriate zoning districts will be determined. In the end if the applicant wishes to add a new definition to the zoning code and identify appropriate zones for that use,that is not a determination and would require separate application to the commission to cancel the zoning code. Cers.Deal and Vistica both disclosed that they met with or were made aware of this project by John Ward before tonight's hearing. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing.John Ward,792 Willborough Place,represented the applicant, along with Jerry Winges, architect and urban designer, 1290 Howard Avenue, and Debbie Sharp of SkinSpirit. They feel that their proposed use is a'personal service' like a 'beauty salon' as defined in the current zoning code; feel that they are not a medical service just because a cosmetic treatment offered requires a registered nurse trained and under the leadership of a doctor;the number of patients actually seen by a doctor on the site will be less than 1%, 25% of the customers see a nurse in the course of their procedures at the site;they are not treating a disease on the site but providing a cosmetic procedure;this use is not a lab or office,it is a skin clinic and spa,the existing definition of'personal service'is unclear and the fact has not been tested before. Goal in the downtown area is to encourage a turnover of parking and provide interest and activity on the street fronts,this use includes a retail and personal service,Botox treatments are combined with cosmetology,if it meets the goals of the downtown should be allowed without regard for how it is labeled as a use. Have a shop in Palo Alto which would like to replicate in Burlingame,25%of visitors are walk-in, 80% are scheduled; 5 to 7 people working daily, 6 days a week, 3 to 36 appointments a day ranging from 15 minutes to an hour,average appointment is 30-40 minutes,licensed staff includes registered nurse,aestheticians,others include receptionist,retail sales clerk and leadership who is a licensed physician who is on site 1 to 3 days a week. The doctor is an employee of the business and a principal in the business, he is scheduled for training and available at client's request. Commissioner asked is insurance required and what kind? Applicant responded registered nurse and doctor are provided malpractice insurance, other licensed individuals are not required to have malpractice insurance, overall the business is insured; Botox treatments average 28 per week,2 to 5 per day. Commissioner asked how bio-waste is handled;Botox is not a bio-waste issue to her knowledge,delivered by FedEx,stored in a refrigerator,do not share needles used, can be done on prescription or on request as an elective. This is not a Botox clinic,not the main purpose of the business,overall spa and beauty,registered nurse does treatments, state requires a doctor to be a part of the business, there are others doing Botox in Burlingame without a doctor being present; Other comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue. Most places like this look like a beauty shop,one on second floor of Crosby Commons and one in the 1400 block on the second floor,prefer to have a doctor around for this treatment,might take a different tact if this is a health service can go in Subarea B, the proposed site is adjacent to Subarea B,might look at moving the line between Subarea A and B, so use would be allowed with a conditional use permit. Applicant noted that this applicant does not have the time 7 City,of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 23, 2006 to request the relocation of the line between Subareas A and B or to add a new definition to the code,cannot wait a year to have the study of the downtown completed. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission comments: Sounds like cosmetology that is very careful and professional,what you would like to see in such a business where surgery is included; agree sounds like cosmetology rather than health care until discussed insurance, doctor and nurse both require medical malpractice insurance which is what is required for a health service. Think this use is between personal service and medical, if personal service there is no regulation of the extent of the business, someone with a Botox clinic could locate in Subarea A, leery that there would be no regulation of such use at all. Regulation is inherent in the licensing process with this type of use, cosmetic services being attached to it, without Botox this is a cosmetic/skin treatment personal service. If this is called cosmetology then we will have Botox clinics all over town. If a registered nurse is required then this does not look like a normal hair and nail care salon. This proposed use will generate more traffic and parking than a beauty salon. Have relatives who are doctors,if need an doctor and a registered nurse it is a health care business, can debate the classification of the business but registered nurses consider themselves health care professionals whatever they are doing. Opposed because need something more than a permitted use to have proper control of this use,need to provide guidelines for hours, staffing level, intensity of use because a lot of businesses come and go, replaced by similar uses. Chair Brownrigg made a motion to uphold the City Planners determination that this proposed use is a health service use as defined in the Zoning Code. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to uphold the City Planner's determination. The motion passed on a 4-3 (Cers. Auran, Terrones, Vistica dissenting) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:30 p.m. 9. AMEND THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AND REVISE AND RECLASSIFY THE ZONING IN THE EL CAMINO REAL NORTH SUBAREA(271 NOTICED). PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report October 23,2006,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report reviewing the background of the implementation of the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and the need to clarify the language in the plan adopted in September 2004. She noted that three zoning districts implement the plan Trousdale West(TW)and Rollins Road(RR)already adopted and El Camino North(ECN)which is included for review and action at the public hearing tonight. The staff report includes a summary of the proposed amendments to the specific plan and the text of the ECN zoning district, compliance of the amendment with CEQA including Addendum to the Negative Declaration ND533-P,and compliance with the adopted General Plan. She pointed out that there are three questions regarding the zoning that the commission should address tonight after the public hearing. Three communications regarding the plan were received after the packet was delivered and are at the Commissioner's desks this evening: David Moutoux, letter,October 23,2006;Eileen Chow,CSE Investments,letter,October 19,2006;Larry Anderson,memo, October 20,2006. Commission asked if the second letter submitted from Mr.Moutoux this evening is also included in the correspondence; CA responded that. the subject of that letter is not on the agenda for discussion this evening. Commission asked if the poion of this planning area along El Camino Real would be eligible to be integrated into a future El Camino Corridor plan and what would that mean to the city. CP noted that this area could be integrated into a future El Camino Corridor Plan, and after that plan was accepted by C/CAG and MTC a Burlingame El Camino Corridor plan would make the city eligible for Transit Oriented Development(TOD) funds for each bedroom built within the corridor in the future. This 8 City of Burlingame item# a Determination on Skin Care Clinic and Spa Use as a Action Calendar Personal Service Determination Request: Is a Skin Care Clinic and Spa Use which includes medical supervision of procedures offered a'personal service'or a'health service'. Planning Commission Action: Planning Commission should review the request and determine: ■ Is the City Planner's understanding of the code correct and the use being requested qualifies as a health service; or ■ Is a Skin Care Clinic and Spa Use which includes medical supervision for some procedures a 'personal service'. Whichever conclusion the Commission makes,it should be clearly stated for the record because it will be the way the code will be interpreted in the future. If the applicant wishes to ask for a definition to be added to the code to differently define a class of retail or service uses, then it is appropriate for the applicant to apply for a zoning amendment and possibly a General Plan amendment. Summary: The applicant would like to put a Skin Care Clinic and Spa in a vacant space in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District. Health services are not allowed in Subarea A. For this reason the applicant argues that the services offered by this business are cosmetic not medical,and the fact that a physician and registered nurse would be on hand to administer Botox injections does not make the application a medical treatment. Rather the applicant believes that Botox treatments did not exist at the time the zoning code definition was created and are consistent with "personal services" as defined in Burlingame's code to include nail care,hair cutting,styling and treatment; and skin care including facials, cosmetic application,waxing and body wraps. (J. Ward memo dated September 18,2006) The applicant goes on to note that there is a retail component including the sale of skin care and related products which would be included in the new Burlingame location. Staff Determination On August 25, 2006, the applicant requested staff to review and make a determination on whether a particular skin care clinic and spa, SkinSpirit, is a 'personal service; and as such could be located in Subarea A, of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. There is currently in the code a distinction between a'health service' use and a'personal service' use which includes a retail component. As you are aware the zoning code defines 'personal service' (CS 25.08.522) as: "Personal Service means establishments primarily engaged in providing services involving the care of person or his or her personal goods or apparel." As a sub-set of personal service is the definition of beauty shop or barbershop (CS 25.08.124) Determination on Skin Care Clinic and Spa Use as a Personal Service October 23,2006 "Beauty shop or barbershop means a personal service business conducted by barbers, cosmetologists,electrologists,estheticians,or manicurists licensed by the state. Services provided may include nail care; hair cutting, styling and treatment; and skin care and treatment, including facials, cosmetic application,waxing and body wraps. A beauty shop or barbershop may include massage when conducted in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 6.40 of this code." The zoning code also defines 'health services' (CS 25.08.336) as: "Health services means an office, clinic, laboratory or any other facility engaged in furnishing medical, surgical or other services including a physician, dentist, dental technician, chiropractor, acupressurist, acupuncturist, therapist, counselor or other similar occupation. From the descriptions of the SkinSpirit business provided by the applicant which include cosmetic treatments overseen by a registered nurse and doctor, the traffic study prepared by Wilson Engineering, staffs internet search of SkinSpirit's web site and a follow up phone call and discussion with the receptionist at the SkinSpirit in Palo Alto, staffs understanding of your business is as follows: many of the skin treatments offered to customers are provided by licensed registered nurses,who receive monthly training from a practicing physician as well as oversight from a licensed physician. Further similar treatments are commonly offered in doctors' offices, provided by their nurses under the doctor's supervision. Based on these facts this proposed skin care operation is similar to the operation of dentist office,where many customers only see the dental technician who is under the supervision of the licensed dentist. Further, the trip generation figures provided by Wilson Engineering, based on the Palo Alto office operation, appear to be similar to many health services, including a dental office. Finally,the retail sales component of this business,based on the traffic analysis,appear to be minor(25%or less,with 20%of that being from walk in customers). Based on this information and data, the City Planner's conclusion was that SkinSpirit,skin care clinic and spa,is a health service.As a health service this use is not allowed in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. However, this use may be allowed with a conditional use permit in Subarea B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area,with the proviso that parking to code requirements(1:250 SF)be provided on site. Staff Comment In his letter the applicant notes an option to consider a new definition of'personal service/retail'which might cover a business which provides components of medical services but also sells products at retail to customers and people who 'walk in' from the street. This is a different request from a determination. If, following the Commission's review of the request of a skin care clinic as a 'personal service'use, the applicant would like to propose a new use be added to the zoning, a zoning code amendment must be requested and processed. The Planning Commission will determine if such a use as described and defined is appropriate as a retail use. At the same time the Commission will determine, based on the 2 Determination on Skin Care Clinic and Spa Use as a Personal Service October 23,2006 direction of the general plan, in which zoning districts and overlay zones the requested retail use is appropriate. Such application would require an initial study and an evaluation regarding appropriate environmental review. Since the city is going to undertake a Specific Area Plan for the downtown area (including Subarea A)in 2007,it might be more appropriate for the applicant to participate in that planning process rather than request special legislation prior to the community discussion about appropriate land uses in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Margaret Monroe City Planner Attachments: J. Ward letter September 18, 2006, appealing the City Planner's Determination Monroe letter September 11, 2006, to John Ward re: City Planner's determination on skin care clinic and spa use Application for a Determination John Ward letter August 25, 2006, presenting skin care clinic use with and requesting a determination, attachments from architect and traffic engineer attached John M. Ward, e-mail September 11, 2006, documenting skin care establishments in Subarea A SkinSpirit Web Page,business description, September 11, 2006 3 JOHN M. WARD AND ASSOCIATES A Consulting Group 792 Willborough Place Burlingame,CA 94010 TEL (650)342-0683 FAX(650)342-0977 iohn@imwassociates.com DATE: September 18,2006 TO: Planning Commission RECEIVED FROM: J. Ward SEP 1 9 2006 RE: Appeal of determination b Plannin Director CITY OF BURLIi`�GAME ply y g PLANNING DEPT. Please accept this memorandum along with a formal application to the Commission on behalf of SkinSpirit, which is appealing the City Planner's determination(see September 11,2006 letter attached)on the proposed skin care clinic and spa use at 235 Park Road. After receiving my letter(copy attached),the City Planner concluded that SkinSpirit is a "health service"not allowed in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial District rather than a use consistent with those allowed under the"personal service" section of the city's zoning code. My letter of August 25,2006 with the attachments provides the foundation for our request. In response to the City Planner's determination letter,we believe the central issue here relates to how the city defines a"health service". The zoning code(CS 25.08.336) states: "Health services means an office, clinic, laboratory or any other facility engaged in furnishing medical, surgical or other services including a physician, dentist, dental technician, chiropractor, acupressurist, acupuncturist,therapist, counselor or other similar occupation."As described,the uses are clearly tied to a medical purpose rather than a cosmetic one. The fact that a physician and registered nurse would be on hand to administer Botox injections does not make the application a medical treatment. The doctor is not treating a disease or other infirmity,but is strictly engaged in an elective and cosmetic procedure to remove wrinkles. Further,we would point out that the Botox procedure post dates the enactment of the applicable zoning code provisions. Based on the above, we contend that the proposed use is consistent with those listed as a "personal service"in your zoning code(CS 25.08.124),including nail care; hair cutting, styling and treatment;and skin care and treatment,including facials,cosmetic application,waxing and body wraps. Thank you for your consideration of our request. Attachments e r�ieieiu ve' �i■?���` I�iI.1,+12�'},,• . asks; �.. �■►tea •> ' 'i�■�i'►n1■■\®'off/■\■■I[ �• � � '.:. - , •moi■'■IR.',yf' �■F■\0il�. � ,� • p IRENE 1 IN MMEMEMENUME SOMEN■il■f■■■Ie■L■■■�P6 ,� ■■r■■■.■■■■■■■■■■ >• . ���■�®■■OCL i�,■■r' �•'• W HLIRLINGAME The City of Burlingame CITY HALL 501 PRIMROSE ROAD TEL: (650)558-7250 PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME,CALIFORNIA 94010-3997 FAX: (650)696-3790 September 11, 2006 RECEIVED Mr.John Ward John M.Ward and Associates SEP 1 9 2006 792 Willborough Place Burlingame CA 94010 CIN OF BURLINIGAME PLANNING DEPT. RE: Determination on skin care clinic and spa use. Dear Mr. Ward, I am in receipt of your letter of August 25, 2006, in which you request a review and determination whether a particular skin care clinic and spa,SkinSpirit,is a'personal service;and as such could be located in Subarea A, of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. As you note in your letter you feel that there is a distinction between a 'health service' and a 'personal service' which includes a retail component. You conclude by suggesting that the city might consider a new definition of'personal service/retail'which might cover a business which provides components of medical services but also sells products at retail to customers and people who 'walk in'from the street. As you are aware the zoning code defines'personal service' (CS 25.08.522) as: "Personal Service means establishments primarily engaged in providing services involving the care of person or his or her personal goods or apparel." As a sub-set of personal service is the definition of Beauty shop or barbershop(CS 25.08.124) : "Beauty shop or barbershop means a personal service business conducted by barbers, cosmetologists, electrologists,estheticians,or manicurists licensed by the state. Services provided may include nail care; hair cutting,styling and treatment;and skin care and trreatment,including facials,cosmetic application, waxing and body wraps. A beauty shop or barbershop may include massage when conducted in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 6.40 of this code." ::Register online for the City of Burlingame list serve at www.burlingame.org H Determination on Skin Care Clinic and Use September 11,2006 The zoning code also defines%ealth services' (CS 25.08.3 36) as: "Health services means an office,clinic,laboratory or any other facility engaged in furnishing medical, surgical or other services including a physician, dentist, dental technician, chiropractor, acupressurist, acupuncturist,therapist,counselor or other similar occupation. From the descriptions of the SkinSpirit business provided in your letter, the traffic study prepared by Wilson Engineering, my internet search of SkinSpirit's web site and a follow up phone call and discussion with the receptionist at the SkinSpirit in Palo Alto,my understanding of your business is as follows: many of the skin treatments offered to customers are provided by licensed registered nurses,who receive monthly training from a practicing physician as well as oversight from a licensed physician. Further it was noted to me that similar treatments are commonly offered in doctors'offices, provided by their nurses. Based on this,this operation is similar to the operation of dentist office,where many customers only see the dental technician. Further,the trip generation figures provided by Wilson Engineering,based on the Palo Alto office operation,appear to be similar to many health services,including a dental office. Finally,the retail sales component of this business,based on the traffic analysis, appear to be minor(25%or less,with 20%of that being from walk in customers). Based on this information and data it is my conclusion that SkinSpirit,skin care clinic and spa,is a health service. As a health service this use is not allowed in Subarea A of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. However, this use may be allowed with a conditional use permit in Subarea B of the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area,with the proviso that parking to code requirements(1:250 SF)be provided on site. In your letter you note that you are proposing a new definition be added to the zoning provisions of the Municipal Code which would allow a use which provides skin care treatments administered by a registered nurse and retail sales of skin care products. Certainly you may apply for such a zoning code amendment. The Planning Commission will determine if such a use is appropriate, and at the same time, in which zoning districts and overlay zones the use is appropriate. Such application would require an initial study and an evaluation regarding appropriate environmental review. Since the city is going to undertake a Specific Area Plan for the downtown area(including Subarea A)in 2007,you may wish to participate in that process rather than request special legislation prior to the community discussion about appropriate land uses in the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. If you have any questions regarding this determination or wish to make application for a zoning code amendment,please do not hesitate to contact me. If you prefer we will be happy to be sure that you and those you represent receive notification of the public meetings regarding the Downtown Specific Plan. Si lFerely yours, garet Monroe City Planner City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650)558-7250 F(650)696-3790 www.burlingaine.or 4 CITY APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Type of application: Design Review Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other � Parcel Number: Project address: Z3 5 PA K.!< P.0. APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: Name: 13w-u � ( Address:_ 7o I �vrt�,rlc-r, 54- Address: 4-6'q (r1 m�e- J2J City/State/Zip: 'P,.,1. A ND , CA 61430) City/State/Zip: WL4� ,� c4vre CA Phone (w): 3�t4 'qtoG Phone (w): (h): (h): ARCHITECT/DESIGNER Name: Te rrj i in 1 ed 14 T Address: 12 qt) City/State/Zip:_[ L"k6Vhe- C° 9� Please indicate with an asterisk Phone (w): 343—fit I the contact person for this project. W)L Ibvytu5A A ci L3U (fly r1,► SCvh J C /�if `�yej o PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Gtr,� «Y 1191 n Ivft t&4m 0- babnl- d Ui[ AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information given herein is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. `fit, Sri�S p►�r►t Applicant's signature: Date: I know about the pro application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commission. f Property owner's signature: Date: Vl?/00/ P-D �j. Date submi z2G_ SEP 1 9 2006 PCAPP.FRM CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. JOHN M. WARD AND ASSOCIATES A Consulting Group 792 Willborough Place Burlingame,CA 94010 TEL (650)342-0683 FAX(650)342-0977 john@imwassociates.com August 25,2006 Meg Monroe, City Planner City Hall - 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Meg, This letter is a follow-up to our meeting in your office on June 2, 2006 when Jerry Winges and I introduced SkinSpirit,owner of a skin care clinic and spa in Palo Alto. You will recall that SkinSpirit has been exploring the feasibility of leasing the 235 Park Road building where Kern's Jewelry has been located for many years. As you know, Kern's is planning to relocate to a new building on Lorton Avenue. In our meeting,you raised a number of concerns about the concept of a skin care business going into this location in Subarea A of the downtown commercial district. You pointed out that this use is considered a"Health Service"which is allowed in the adjacent Subarea B. We have taken considerable time since that meeting to review the matter and wish to present via this letter the basis on which we believe SkinSpirit is a use consistent with hair salons and beauty shops allowed under"Personal Services"(Section 25.08.124) in Subarea A. Please refer to the attached summary prepared by Jerry Winges which places the proposed use in the context of the city's goals for its downtown business district. After reviewing the information provided herein,we kindly request that you make a consistency determination as to whether the proposed use by SkinSpirit is similar in nature to those cosmetology-related"Personal Services" allowed in Subarea A. We believe the definition of"Health Services"(Section 25.08.336) seems to revolve around medical, surgical or other services,including physician, dentist, chiropractor,and where there is simply an office without a retail component. We are also proposing that this use be subject to a regulatory or conditional use permit process and that a new definition be created, e.g. "personal service/retail". You further indicated in our meeting that the turnover of parking spaces in the downtown/public lots was an issue we would need to be address in terms of bringing a skincare clinic and spa to the Park Road location. Please find attached a parking assessment conducted by Wilson Engineering. PEC IVED AUG 3 0 2006 I T Y OF BURLINGAME P_A iNING DEPT. -2 - SkinSpirit provides non-surgical cosmetic skincare procedures like laser hair removal and Botox, as well as therapeutic spa treatments in its current location at 101 Emerson Street in Palo Alto. SkinSpirit's vision is to expand its already successful operations from Palo Alto to other markets that have similar demographic characteristics. A retail component is included with the sale of skin care and related products today and would be included in a new Burlingame location. Given the proposed downtown location and city's desire for retail presence in its commercial district(Subarea A),the architectural design (see exhibit)reflects this objective as the storefront and entrance area would emphasize the retail aspect vs. skincare clinic. Thank you for your consideration of this request. We would be pleased to meet with you to respond to any questions you may have regarding the proposed use and the basis on which we believe it is consistent with those Personal Services referenced above. Best regards, M. Ward Principal Attachments c: Winges Architects, Inc. Lynn Heublin, SkinSpirit Debbie Sharp, SkinSpirit RECEIVE® AUG 3 0 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. ^a €e D W ! IN G t J ARCHITECTS AUG 3 0 2006 CFfN OF BURLINGAME Current Situation CA Subarea A: F:AFv1NING DEPT. 1. 25.36.040: C-1 Subarea A permits uses that provide contiguous pedestrian oriented retail frontage and "personal services" such as barber and beauty shops, shoe repair. 2. 25.36.030 (s) Conditional Uses allow "other " uses which do not fall neatly into one of the definitions but that are similar in character to those listed 3. "Offices" are allowed only above the first floor. 4. "Health Services" are specifically disallowed. Why this Zoning??: 1. Goal: Encourage lively in and out turnover of pedestrians; 2. Encourage "shopping" activity, including window shopping, 3. Encourage interest and visibility of activity and services on the street as one moves as a pedestrian along the sidewalk—things to look at, browsing, impulse shopping and "ducking In" 4. Uses are synergistic in that people come to visit one shop and may stroll or look at others on the way encouraging activity and sales—"bring people downtown" due to concentration of different shopping venues and products and services in one spot. 5. One goes to get nails done, haircut, or to a particular retail shop and they may visit other shops or walk along and look at windows and go in and out of retail stores. 6. Parking pattern is a constant turnover; city encourages parking turnover of 8 times per day (1 hour stays) in sub-Area A Definitions of Permitted Uses are Out of Date 1. Section 25.08.124- Definition of a Beauty Shop or barbershop: personal service business conducted by cosmetologists including "skin care treatment", facials, cosmetic application, waxing, etc. 2. Section 25.08.336- Definition of "Health Services" seems to revolve around medical, surgical or other services including physician, dentist, chiropractor, etc. -ie, not a retail component, simply and office. 3. New uses and new combinations of uses are developed all the time. • Need for Botox treatment combined with cosmetology and some retail sales of products is an example. 4. If a use meets the goals of the City it doesn't matter how it is "labeled." Skin Spirit is a combined Personal Service and Retail use with a small physician component. • This use has contiguous retail frontage • Use is "more lively" than current use to the street • Similar in nature to personal services, beauty parlor, cosmetology, nails • A unique new "mixed" use • Does not matter what the use is if the use is similar to other uses in terms of retail frontage, turnover, parking pattern, etc. • Create new definition for this use: "Personal Service/Retail" to allow in Subarea A WINGES ARCHITECTS, INC. 1290 HOWARD AVE. SUITE 311, BURLINGAME,CA 94010 / FAX(650) 343-1291 / info@wtngesaia.com / TEL.-(650) 343-1101 ARCHITECTURE / MASTER PLANNING- / INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE / SPACE PLANNING / DESIGN COUNSELING I I&NEWAN&MINEAWRIAM ee.■rc� . ■■OK• r\�►1E , ` lip wr MIF �_.�e\■e.�■�r/. `brae►/�. . �Ia , ,�ea■eeee■®■ ' ica�ee� MEN ■e■■O■%R.�i■ill►F�,1\■ . � ��' 91■■ee■e%�!�Mi%■iii\',e•�,t ,�,�D, �� � � ,�i�..es�er.■se..e�r�J'u, r� , �eee■es■.%■■■e■eee,e� 9iiii■■■iiiiiiiii �s��'�. �. , � . ,.. . ■�e■err���e�era > I Ig �r��l1l�V�1'` iMOVAll • , 1 \ I , c� a::v:����a�:�i\1a\\\\\\\\\\\�\�11�a,��\\n\\qa \\\"1! .ww.....F••a�ra� R a�\��.••�..•tia�tt�� �na�a��a1��>a\aa. a•w�aa�a��a��\\\�a���aNaa�r\,\f � Ivy•w.-i�� \nwy�iM�. ��. !��. ;S\\\\`!.�a��_��tt����`AA��� �1 Nl��� ��. -r\\. �� �� �'a\\ ����,.� � � � gtalR \'1!�/IM1}.f�aal.�i[�.t n�Y �Yl. A e•.i� I•+.;��'tJ+mow 1�:��►�It�r �� :�.i�1;,�; !.Vii''', , c A�`�1_=�� r .�if.�li �_� " �i � �i►� � I�!. :; 'I � N� ;• ate.. ,.;. I� i . � , • ld7�s 1, ijll��`. I ���I �'I� ( IIt I � ,�,�' ��I I� ��li �� � � 1 y, y ��lr!� '��1�1 a� ', �Iy � ��f/�� 11►---� d affil. �i�': !\dl� 1 L:�I `..•:�'-ee.� ./ i�1'!11.�:�� n_ � �j --- ��w.f<,...-__,_--.��,�•.� .�. ..�`: r�� � 1 i .tea_' � wlf ilbl=rli ]I1iMigil�l�i{��I�ale; � + � Nei IIIi�l�il��' Wdi *Him IN .w w � d -o R�brrgz . �a,cT �y1 t4 Y• a w� o' s5 o - 0 - �'• 1111E SIC��gi,1L. PUb�t'7�I"t- PI�DUC7' 0 RECEIVED PLAN "�T AUG 3 0 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. MEMORANDUM Date: August 15,2006 To: Ms. Debbie Sharp McGuire Real Estate 360 Primrose Road WILSON Burlingame, CA 94010 ENGINEERING & TRANSPORTATION From: John Wilson CONSULTANTS, INC RE: Parking Assessment for a Proposed SkinSpirit Skincare Spa Wilson Engineering has completed a parking assessment of a proposed new SkinSpirit Skincare Spa facility in the City of Burlingame as requested. Our understanding is that the proposed business will be owned and operated by the owners of an existing SkinSpirit in the City of Palo Alto. In terms of relative size, the new facility will be approximately 75 percent of the size of the existing facility (six versus eight treatment rooms), but will offer the same types of personal services and retail products during the same business hours. The proposed site for the new facility in Burlingame is located at 235 Park Road. The existing SkinSpirit in Palo Alto is located at 701 Emerson Street. Our assessment of parking demand and turnover rates for the proposed facility in Burlingame is based upon a detailed review of current operations at the existing facility in Palo Alto. A tour of the site and interview of management indicated the facility is open Monday through Saturday from 9:00 A.M. to 8:00 P.M. The facility offers a combination of retail skincare products, skincare services and beauty treatments with a staff of up to 14. A combination of estheticians, massage therapists and nurses totaling between three to eight service providers are typically present on any day dependent upon appointment schedules. Service staff is generally booked a week in advance. Retail sale of skin care product represents approximately 25% of total revenue. Retail sales are typically to skincare treatment customers and an occasional walk-in, although they do represent nearly 20%of total sales. In terms of parking demand, assuming the facility is approximately 75 percent of the size of the Palo Alto facility means a service staff level of between 2 and 6, one manager, and one receptionist at any time. The maximum or worst case would be 6 service providers and 2 staff for a total of 8 personnel. A detailed review of one month's appointment records from the Palo Alto facility showed a maximum of 8 70 Zoe weal.STE 200 concurrent appointments with potentially another up to three customers waiting(having San Francisco,CA 94107 an appointment starting within 0 — 30 minutes of the end of one of the concurrent 8). Tel(415)9745071 Assuming all drove alone yields a potential peak customer parking demand for up to 11 Fax(415)974-5073 spaces,and when translated to the Burlingame site would yield a peak demand for up to 8 spaces (six treatments and two people waiting). This yields a peak potential demand at the Burlingame site for 8 staff and 8 customer spaces. RECEIVE I AUG 3 0 2006 CITY OF 6URUINGMOE PLANNING DEPT. Ms Debbie Sharp August 15,2006 Page 2 In terms of parking turnover rates for customers, the detailed review of the Palo Alto spa's appointment records for the month of June 2006 was also used to estimate the amount of time customers would typically be parked. The review and estimated length of time at the spa is based upon the total time a customer was present. The results of the review are summarized in the attached Table 1. The table includes a breakdown by day of the month showing the number of appointments by length in 15 minute intervals as well as an average for the month. Review of the table will indicate that on an average day in the month of June,there were: 2.8 15 minute appointments 7.2 30 minute appointments 8.4 45 minute appointments 8.3 60 minute appointments 6.0 75 minute appointments 3.6 90 minute appointments 0.6 105 minute appointments 0.8 120 minute appointments In summary, at the Palo Alto clinic,there is an average of 38 appointments per day. Of these,27 or approximately 71 percent, last from 15 minutes to an hour. The average time of this 71% of appointments is roughly 43 minutes while the mathematical average length of all appointments is 55 minutes. At the proposed project in Burlingame, which is expected to operate at approximately 75 percent of the level of the Palo Alto clinic. this results in a forecast of approximately 29 appointments on a typical day. Of these,approximately 20 are forecast to last from 15 minutes to an hour. Attachment RECEIVED AUG 3 0 2006 CITY OF 13URLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Table:1 Number and Length of Appointments, June 2006 1 Appointment Aver Da of Month age number Percent lengths in per day Average (min) 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 1 14 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 15 10 4 1 1 3 2 1 4 4 0 4 6 2 8 2 0 4 4 2 3 0 2 2 1 0 2 2.8 7.42 30 7 12 8 5 8 3 6 14 14 2 9 5 11 5 12 5 5 12 9 13 2 3 4 6 2 6 7.2 19.36 45 15 12 9 3 14 7 11 12 2 6 14 5 10 12 6 8 10 13 12 13 3 3 6 4 5 3 8.4 22,45 60 13 15 12 11 6 8 4 14 8 4 6 10 7 11 8 4 9 12 5 12 2 7 3 12 1 4 9 8.3 22.25 75 11 12 6 5 6 5 5 11 7 4 3 7 6 2 2 4 4 5 8 9 0 4 7 13 2 9 6.0 16.17 90 6 9 6 4 4 7 1 2 0 2 5 0 7 4 1 4 6 5 6 1 1 3 2 1 3 3.6 9.58 105 1 0 2 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 2 0 0 2 1 06 120 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 00 0 10-5 02 1 1 0 3 0 1 1 0 1 2 2 3 2 08 2.06 TOTAL 63 64 44 30 43 32 29 57 35 18 39 39 46 35 22 39 53 42 58 9 23 27 40 19 35 37.7 100 (1) Month of June,2006,SkinSpirit Skin Care Clinic&Spa, Palo Alto,Ca RE ' AUG 3 4 2006 CITY OF BUR t;�.a .� PLANNING DEPT. rage i or i John M.Ward and Associates From: "John M.Ward"<john@jmwassociates.com> To: "Jerry L,Winges"<jlw@wingesaia.com>;"Lynn Heublein"<lynn@skinspirit.com>;"Debbie Sharp" <dsharp@mcguire.com> Sent: Monday,September 11,2006 4:20 PM Attach: Burlingame Subarea A skincare services.doc Subject: Fw:Supplement to SkinSpirit request FYI RECEIVED ----OriginalMessage-- SEP 1 9 2006 From:John M.Ward To:Meq Monroe CITY OF BURLINGAME Sent:Monday,September 11,2006 4:19 PM PLANNING DEPT. Subject:Supplement to SkinSpint request Information on skin care establishments currently operating in subarea A is provided in the attachment. Please accept as supplement to the request by SkinSpirit. --------------------------- --------------------------- John M.Ward,Principal John M.Ward and Associates 792 Willborough Place Burlingame,CA 94010 650/342-0683 650/342-0977 fax john omwassociates.com 9/18/2006 Jouvence Skin Rejuvenation Center 1375 Burlingame Avenue • Botox (service provided by Victor Liu, MD) • Thermage (service provided by Victor Liu, MD) • Mesotherapy (service provided by Victor Liu, MD) • Restylane (service provided by Victor Liu, MD) • Facials • Micro dermabrasion • Chemical peels • Micro current muscle toning Fox Avenue Salon 1461 Burlingame Avenue • Laser hair removal (under direction of Michael Schorr, MD) • Micro dermabrasion • Glycolic peels • Facials • Permanent make-up Rituals Skin Care 249 Park Road • Facials • Eyebrow shaping • Eyelash tinting • Massage Dimensions Skin Care Studio 251 Park Road Suite #600 • Facials • Electrolysis • Body waxing • Diamond peels L'Escape Spa and Salon 1217 Burlingame Avenue • Micro dermabrasion • Computerized tissue repair (electrical stimulation of the skin) • Waxing • Massage • Facials • Glycolic peels (cont'd next page) Comme La Mer 319-1 Primrose Road • Facials • Glycolic peels • Waxing • Massage • Micro dermabrasion • Retinol anti-wrinkle treatment Skin Envy 1110 Burlingame Avenue • Facials • Waxing • Eyebrow shaping • Massage Visage Studio 329 Primrose Road Ste #109 • Facials • Glycolic peels Gia's Electrolysis 1403 Chapin Avenue • Facials • Electrolysis skinspirit.com Pagel of 3 Y I� 1t� Ski nSfrit 1114 - � s �Y :• t' 't�4 7 x"n` C i= r 0 Dy f�t _—FAQ 1� C u P Qj S i n p i r i What's New SKINCARE CLINIC & SPA Free Thermage Eyes Treatment with Thermage Full Welcome to SkinSpirit. Face purchase. You've just discovered the perfect blend of skincare clinic and spa. And it's ($1300 value - offer good right in downtown Palo Alto. SkinSpirit provides non-surgical cosmetic until 10/31/06) skincare procedures, like laser hair removal and Botox, as well as luxurious "Thermage rocks. My and therapeutic spa treatments - all under one roof. Our advanced skincare skin looks so good!" is highly effective and safe, and backed by solid medical expertise and -L.H. years of professional research and hands-on testing. We also give you plenty of personal attention, honest answers and beautiful results that'll keep you coming back. September 28th, 6:00-8:00 pm. BotoXTM 101: Learn Get medical skincare treatments in a spa setting. about the facts and fiction of this leading Enjoy medically supervised treatments in an environment of anti-aging product. professionalism and beauty. Get the latest, proven non-surgical procedures for skin's special needs - such as reversing the effects of aging, unwanted http://www.skinspirit.com/ 9/11/2006 skinspirit.com Page 2 of 3 hair removal, acne control, correction of facial imperfections and management of cellulite. Call us and ask about the dermaplaning treatment for exfoliating dull skin. Benefit from physician-designed spa treatments. Indulge and do something wonderful for yourself. Experience SkinSpirit's world-class spa treatments, designed by our founder, Board Certified Plastic Surgeon Dr. Dean Vistnes, to not only soothe and relax you, but Fall Specials: also to improve your skin's health, texture and resiliency. Endermologie, La Roche-Posay, Intense Pulsed Light, &BotoxTM Our doors are always open to you. It's not just about treatments at SkinSpirit. We'd love to talk about your skincare needs and questions. Or you're welcome to browse our store and check out our extensive collection of medical-quality skincare formulas and luxury spa products all carefully selected by our expert staff. Call to book an appointment or schedule a complimentary skincare consultation phone: 650-324-9600 Thank you for choosing SkinSpirit. We will always do our best to give you excellent and honest care. Please feel free to email me with any questions, suggestions and feedback at drvistnes@skinspirit.com. k Dr. Dean Vistnes Founder of SkinSpirit and Vistnes Plastic Surgery disclaimer http://www.skinspirit.com/ 9/11/2006 BURLINGAME CITY OF BURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010-3997 (650)558-7250 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The CITY OF BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL will hold a public hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's determination that a skin care clinic and spa use is a `health service' as defined by the city's current zoning requirements. The hearing will be held at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame. A copy of the staff report may be reviewed prior to the meeting at the Planning Department at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. For further information you can contact the Burlingame Planning Department at (650) 558-7250. To be published Friday November 24 2006 U:\CCStaffRepts\Public Notices\CCAction Determination SkinCare Retail 11.24.06.doc S:WOTICINGInewspapernotice.doc CITY AGENDA 6b 0 ITEM# BURLJNGAME STAFF REPORT MTG. DATE 12/4/2006 t TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMITTED- BY DATE: November 27, 2006 �x APPROVE B i FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF ASSESSMENTS FOR YEAR 2007 FOR THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT RECOMMENDATION: 1. Hold public hearing on the levy of assessments for the year 2007 in the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District. 2. Close public hearing on the levy of assessments for the year 2007 in the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District. 3. Adopt resolution overruling protests received as to assessments for the year 2007, approving programs and activities for the year 2007, and levying assessments for the year 2007. DISCUSSION In February 2001, the City Council formed the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District with the consent of the County of San Mateo and the Cities of Belmont, Daly City, Foster City, Half Moon Bay, Millbrae, Redwood City, San Bruno, San Carlos, San Mateo, and South San Francisco. Burlingame is the lead agency for the District. Daly City withdrew in 2002 because its absence of a tourism industry. East Palo Alto joined the District last year. r The City has entered into an agreement with the San Mateo County Convention and Visitors' Bureau to provide the activities and services for the District. To date, the assessments have been timely paid by almost every hotel in the District. The key elements of the District are a stable, focused source of revenue for promotion of tourism and conventions in the County, which has been so difficult in the past, and management and direction of the district and the convention and visitors bureau by hotel and tourist professionals, who establish the priorities for programs on a County-wide basis. Mayor and Council Re: Adoption of Assessments for Year 2007 for the San Mateo County Tourism BID November 27, 2006 Page 2 2007 Assessment Process On November 6, 2006, the City Council received and approved the annual report of the BID Advisory Board, which is composed of representatives of hotel properties and tourist-related businesses from throughout the County. The Board recommended that assessments be levied for the year 2007 at the same rate as in 2006. The small hotels in Half Moon Bay will continue to be exempt as that city is struggling to establish a viable chamber of commerce. The Ritz-Carlton in Half Moon Bay is also exempted again for the coming year. The annual report detailed the fine efforts made by the Bureau in the past 12 months to boost the hospitality and tourism industry in the County. Attached to this staff report is a letter from the San Mateo County Conventions and Visitors' Bureau responding to questions that the Council asked at the November 6 meeting: 1) Booking history for Burlingame hotels through the Bureau; 2) Joint and cooperative efforts with the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce; and 3) Expertise in the Bureau for attracting filmmakers and production companies to the County. The Council adopted Resolution No. 88-2006, declaring its intention to levy assessments for the coming year and to approve the proposed programs and activities, and giving notice of the public hearing on the 2007 assessments on December 4, 2006. A copy of that resolution and the proposed assessments were then mailed to each and every hotel in the District. A copy of the resolution was also mailed to the County and each and every city that is within the boundaries of the District. A copy of the resolution was also published in the County-wide newspaper. Protests The City has not received any protests from any hotels as of the date of this report. Next Steps At the conclusion of the public hearing, the Council should formally close the public hearing and consider all protests received and changes requested. It does not appear that there is a majority protest as to the services and programs to be offered or provided, or to the assessments for 2007. It is recommended that the Council adopt the attached resolution, which: Mayor and Council Re: Adoption of Assessments for Year 2007 for the San Mateo County Tourism BID November 27, 2006 Page 3 — Overrules protests submitted; — Approves the District programs and activities for the coming year; and — Adopts and levies the assessments on hotels in the District for the coming year. Attachments: Letter from Anne LeClair, CEO, SMCCVB, dated November 8, 2006 Proposed Assessments by Agency Location Proposed Resolution Distribution Anne LeClair, SMCCVB A14S` 4" 111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 410, Burlingame, CA 94010 650-348-7600 ♦ 1-800-288-4748 Fax 650-348-7687 info@sanmateocountycvb.com ♦ www.visitsonmateocounty.com co..ve,.ttna a,.d..risttos a,.rmu __ - November 8, 2006 Burlingame City Council City of Burlingame C/o Larry Anderson 501 Primrose Rd. Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mayor Baylock and Council Members Nagel, Cohen, Keighran and Mahoney: City Attorney Larry Anderson passed on some of your questions from Monday night's meeting. Answers appear below, but I would be happy to elaborate at the December 4 meeting. (The introductory meeting fell on the same night as our meeting planner reception in Sacramento.) Q: What has been the booking history through the District/Bureau for Burlingame hotels in the past year? A: Since Burlingame has the two largest convention-sized hotels, the Hyatt SFO and SFO Marriott, all large meeting referrals go to those two properties, with additional overflow rooms going to other Burlingame properties and to properties throughout the county. Large meetings at those properties also create compression, filling additional properties in Burlingame and up and down the peninsula. Without counting any overflow, leisure or individual corporate rooms generated through our efforts, we have generated in the city of Burlingame in the last year(November, 2005 through October, 2006): 22395 room nights through group bookings from our leads, plus an additional 17280 room nights at the largest Burlingame properties alone for a nine-weekend group to whom we offered support (plus "day-trippers" driving in for meetings)for a total (Nov. 05-Oct. 06) of 39,675 room nights and an economic impact of$13,517,931. Q: What interaction/coordination have the Bureau and the Burlingame Chamber of Commerce had in the past year, particularly with regard to restaurants, the Culinary Destination program, and the shopping areas? A: Our culinary destination program information went not only to our restaurant and hotel members, but the information, press release and applications were also sent to all chambers for distribution to their members. We also sent separate packets of information to major restaurants in every city in the county. We publish information on the local farmers' markets, including the Burlingame Chamber's, in our"As Fresh as it Gets" material, as well as our calendars of events. We continue to include chamber events in our ebulletins, contacting all chambers on a routine basis for special event information. Downtown Burlingame is included as a shopping destination in all of our visitor information, on every fam tour and on nearly every individual prospective client site visit. We continue to serve as the financial conduit for hotel money dedicated to the extended shuttle hours into downtown. We have just compiled an entire concierge notebook for our member hotels, and are in the process of making over 100 duplicates. An entire section is devoted to Burlingame restaurants, and a map included allowing visitors to find the area closest to them. All inquiries from our film commission looking for speck venues are disseminated to all of the chambers via email. Q: What expertise has the Bureau retained to help generate film industry business? Filmmakers go to areas that have the location they need with quick response time, support systems in place and quick turn around time for film permitting. Our film commission has a reputation as one of the best in the business for response time and support. We are also trailblazers in our efforts to market our area to filmmakers (but are cautious about letting out the techniques that give us a competitive edge). We have numerous people in the production arena come to us first now, knowing that their filming needs will be handled well. Our Film Commissioner Brena Bailey also offers assistance to any city in the county desiring assistance with the creation of simple film permitting forms, clear instructions for filmmakers and/or information on permitting fees. Brena has gone through extensive training and our film commission is certified. She is considered one of the top leaders in that industry and very well respected in the filming community. (I am attaching only a handful of testimonials to give you an idea of how highly regarded Brena and our film commission are.) She is not only called upon to help instruct other film commissions on how to "do it right", but has been asked by the California Film Commission to serve as a mentor for new members of the CFC. Her expertise has earned her a Board position at the CFC and she is often asked to work their booth at key shows, greatly enhancing the exposure for our area. Her nominees have won a COLA award two years in a row, generating positive comments from the winners in front of large audiences of key filmmakers. Among her most recent training classes (this year): CFC (California Film Commission): Dealing with Music Videos & Reality TV; Location Scouts -What they want in digital images of locations; AFCI's (Association of International Film Commissioners) Cineposium Oct 06: New Technology& Marketing; Roles& Responsibilities of a Film Commission; Location Scouts- Location Burnout; Reality TV; Economic Reporting and Grant Writing Recent Panels on which she has served: SFBAWIF (SF Bay Area Women In Film &TV) and AFTRA/SAG (Screen Actors Guild) Joint Membership Meeting I hope this information is helpful to all of you. As always, I am happy to answer any remaining questions you may have. Sincerely, aw� 4f , Anne LeClair, CDME, CAE President & CEO Cc: Jim Nantell FILM COMMISSION TESTIMONIALS (Partial List) "[Brena Bailey,Film Commissioner] is the best in the business. How refreshing it is to work with someone who not only knows their stuff but is so pleasant." Sandra Moy,Producer "Just a note to say how great it is to have Brena as a resource to help me in my work. I am a location scout and manager who works out of Southern California. I utilize film commissions on a weekly basis ...and work with all the commissions in the Western US. I put Brena in the top five commissions I work with. I never considered San Mateo [County] before,but have sent two shoots there after meeting Brena at the Cola Awards last fall. She made those shoots happen, making me look good,and both producers said great things about her." D.Norman Diaz, Location Scout speaking of Brena Bailey "WOW! Thanks so much. This is the most help I've received in weeks! Since we're still new and trying to get our name out there,people are just reluctant to give us the time of day.But WOW! Thanks again for your continued help. Every time I come to you,I always get results. I will make sure people know about how awesome the San Mateo County Film Commission is." Dionne Lotivio,Location Scout "Thank you again for all your help. We had a very successful shooting experience in San Mateo County. I don't know how we could have moved through the production process without your direction." Conchita Perales,Production Coordinator "You and your staff are real standouts among Northern California film liaisons." Annette Lindemann,Producer "Thank you Brena for your quick,expert,and professional response." Joe Madalena,Location Scout "Thanks for putting the word out on our behalf. You went far beyond the call of duty. If you take as good care of your film clients as you did us,I don't know why they would want to film anywhere else."Ed Henegar,Corporate Client "Thank you very,very,very much. The City of Half Moon Bay and you were an absolute pleasure to meet and work with. Looking forward to filming in your neck of the woods soon." Christopher Lee,Location Manager "Thanks for all your help in regard to our accommodations. You have made my job that much easier and your assistance has proven to be invaluable." Nathan McMahan,Production Manager "As always,you are spot-on and timely in your response."Steve Dolden,Location Scout "I'm the one that owes you a big thank you. Everything went very well. Thanks again for the great location lead and for all your help." Chuck Jessen,Location Manager DRAFT SUMMARY OF AGENCY ASSESSMENTS--YEAR 2007 TOTAL OF AGENCIES Rooms 2007 ASSESSMENT Per Room Belmont 671 $24,127 $35.96 Burlingame 3,742 $721,994 $192.94 County of San Mateo 466 $13,082 $28.07 East Palo Alto 200 $46,800 $234.00 Foster City 503 $99,180 $197.18 Half Moon Bay 575 $9,720 $16.90 Millbrae 1,218 $193,349 $158.74 Redwood City 1,218 $123,464 $101.37 San Bruno 622 $38,448 $61.81 San Carlos 368 $14,429 $39.21 San Mateo 1,659 $186,059 $112.15 South San Francisco 2,827 $303,890 $107.50 TOTAL 14,069 $1,774,542.60 $126.13 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ESTABLISHING AND LEVYING YEAR 2007 ASSESSMENTS FOR THE SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT AND APPROVING DISTRICT PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES FOR THE YEAR 2007 WHEREAS, pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 36500 et sea., the San Mateo County Tourism Business Improvement District has been established for the purpose of promoting tourism in the District; and WHEREAS, the District Advisory Board has requested the Burlingame City Council to establish Year 2007 assessments for the District; and WHEREAS, on November 6, 2006, the City Council adopted a resolution of intention (Resolution No. 88-2006) declaring its intention to impose assessments for the Year 2007 within the assessment District, and setting a public hearings on the proposed assessments; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Streets & Highways Code, a public hearing on the proposed assessments was duly noticed for December 4, 2006, at 7:00 p.m. before the City Council of the City of Burlingame, at the Council's Chambers at 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame; and WHEREAS, at the public hearing held at that place and time, the City Council received and considered all oral and written testimony from all interested persons; and WHEREAS, the City did not receive a majority protest pursuant to the Streets & Highways Code as to the assessments or to any program or activity proposed for the District; and WHEREAS, the proposed assessments appear reasonable and consistent with the ordinance establishing the District and the underlying State law, and the assessment basis is within the basis established in Ordinance No. 1648; and WHEREAS, the proposed services, programs, and activities of the District are consistent with the ordinance establishing the District, NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Burlingame does hereby resolve, determine, and find as follows: 1 1. Written protests to assessments, improvements or activities were not received at those public hearings that constituted a majority as defined in Government Code sections 36500 and following. 2. The City Council does hereby levy an assessment for the Year 2007 on hotels in the District as described in City of Burlingame Ordinance Nos. 1648, 1678, and 1774 and to pay for services, programs, and activities of the District. 3. The types of services, programs, and activities to be funded by the levy of assessments on businesses in the District are set forth in Exhibit"A", incorporated herein by reference. 4. The basis for assessments for the Year 2007 on all hotels within the District are set forth in Exhibit`B", incorporated herein by reference. 5. The assessments for the Year 2007 on hotels within the District are set forth in Exhibit "C", incorporated by reference. 6. New businesses shall not be exempt from assessment as provided in Exhibit "A." 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 on the day of , 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK UAFILES\HotelBid\2007assessment.res.wpd 2 2007 Assessment Resolution EXHIBIT A SERVICES AND PROGRAMS TO BE PROVIDED IN 2007 San Mateo Tourism Business Improvement District 1. Generate Additional Group Leads through: a. Participating in over 50 trade shows, putting word out about San Mateo County b. Hosting receptions in Washington, DC, Chicago and Sacramento, and Southern California; C. Conducting group "fam" (familiarization)tours for meeting planners from the Midwest and Washington, DC area; d. Targeting medical and incentive markets and conducting mail and sales blitzes in those areas; e. Conducting multiple individual "fam" tours for planners as well as "site" visits for planners with possible interest in the area; f. Further penetrating the military market buy conducting "fam" tour for military planner group; g. Hosting a "fam" tour for religious meeting planners; h. Parlaying existing accounts, (e.g. California Farm Bureau annual meeting contract) into related-industry accounts; i. Increasing our marketing to planners in the sports industry, continuing our work with Stanford University's athletic directors and other area universities, schools and specialty sports groups; j. Conducting numerous targeted mail and sales blitzes, including two in Chicago, two in Washington, DC and two in Chicago; k. Using testimonials to recruit additional planners; 1. Enhancing/updating trade show booth decor and marketing materials; M. Increasing memberships in organizations/attendance at meetings with key, potential target visitors; n. Enhancing advertising in publications/web programs aimed at meeting planners; o. Creating additional specialty guides/promotional pieces aimed at target market segments (e.g. golf, culinary experiences); P. Continuing to make contacts/build business in Washington, D.C., Sacramento, and Midwestern markets; q. Continuing efforts to focus on new feeder markets for discounted airlines into SFO, including Boston,New York and Calgary; r. Continuing in-house sales managers' focus on corporate, SMERF markets; S. Hosting "fam" trip for Sacramento planners; t. Broadening outreach to fraternal groups from Midwest; U. Targeting agricultural meetings; V. Continuing in-house sales managers' focus on corporate, SMERF markets; W. Creation of strong presence with tour and travel operators through conference attendance and ads in targeted T&T publications; X. Working with SFCVB and "Team Japan" to secure time on San Francisco Bay A-1 Area "fam" trips for Japanese meeting planners to tour our area; Y. Enhancing advertising in publications/web programs aimed at meeting planners; Z. Continuing investment in Travel planner publications and distribution of editorial to same publications. 2. Generate additional individual room nights-leisure and corporate-by: a. Contracting for PR/professional ads targeting potential customers as outlined by research; b. Continue to place visitor guides in California Welcome Centers throughout the State to generate drive traffic; C. Participating in multiple travel writer shows, e.g. Society of American Travel Writers and National Assn. of Travel Journalists in America; d. Continuing to generate multiple editorial pieces every month for distribution to several hundred publications per month; e. Continuing to respond to all California Travel and Tourism Commission leads for editorial requests; f. Hosting annual group travel writer "fam" tour and numerous individual "fam" tours for writers, editors and photographers; g. Updating on-line individual reservation service to go directly to properties for reservations; h. Creating additional collateral and marketing materials; i. Continuing ads in travel publications which generate the greatest return, e.g. Sunset; j. Continuing to subscribe to multiple travel writer "lead" services and editorial calendar release programs, responding immediately to leads and calendaring all scheduled publications for follow-up; k. Continuing to publish specialty guides/promotional pieces aimed at target market segments; 1. Continuing to work with SFO, CalTrain, and BART on coordinated marketing of the area; in. Continuing operation of Visitor Center Kiosk at Hiller Aviation Museum. n. Continue Culinary Destination program with San Mateo County Farm Bureau and San Mateo County Harbor District. 3. Use Film Commission to Enhance Area's Image and to Generate Room Nights by: a. Continuing monthly "teaser" thumbnail photo emails to location scouts/producers on various sites in San Mateo County; b. Continuing immediate responses to California Film Commission leads re: specific areas sought, finding matches within our County; C. Continuing to attend several film industry trade shows to give producers an idea of what we have to offer; d. Continuing to build photo database for outreach by Film Commission; e. Proactively contacting key location scouts and producers to offer assistance. A-2 EXHIBIT B ASSESSMENT BASIS FOR SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT FOR 2007 YEAR CATEGORY ZONE A—ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2007 ZONE B—ASSESSMENT FOR YEAR 2007 Hotel with full service $360 per sleeping room X 65% $360 per sleeping room X 55% and more than 20 sleeping (no assessment in Half Moon Bay) rooms Hotel with limited service $180 per sleeping room X 60% $180 per sleeping room X 40% and more than 1000 square feet of meeting space and more than 20 sleeping rooms Hotel with limited service $90 per sleeping room X 60% $90 per sleeping room X 40% and some meeting space but (no assessment in Half Moon Bay) less than 1000 square feet and more than 20 sleeping rooms Hotel with standard service $54 per sleeping room X 60% $54 per sleeping room X 40% and more than 20 sleeping (no assessment in Half Moon Bay) rooms Hotel with full service, $54 per sleeping room X 30% $54 per sleeping room X 25% limited service,or standard (no assessment in Half Moon Bay) service, and 20 sleeping rooms or less ZONE A—Includes all cities participating in the District except Half Moon Bay ZONE B—Includes Half Moon Bay, and most of the unincorporated areas of San Mateo County Assessment of new hotels opening duringfiscal iscal year: A new hotel shall be assessed for an amount equal to the ratio of the number of full quarters remaining in the fiscal year multiplied by the full annual assessment that would have been due. A partial quarter is not counted for the ratio. For example, if a hotel opens in May,there are two full quarters and 2 months of one partial quarter remaining in the fiscal year. The full annual assessment would be multiplied by 2/4 for that year's assessment for the new hotel. SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS EXHIBIT C YEAR 2007 ASSESSMENTS Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment #Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly assessment l Belmont �� ... Bel Mateo Motel A $ 54.00 23 $ 745.20 $ 62.10 _ Belmont Palms A $ 54.00 _ 14 $ 226.80 $ 18.90 ExtendedStay America A $ 54.00 _ 108 $ 1,749.60 $ 145.80 Hillside Inn A $ 54.00 23 $ 745.20 $ 62.10 Holiday Inn Express&Suites A $ 90.00 82 $ 4,428.00 $ 369.00 Kingsway Motel A $ 54.00 16 $ 259.20 $ 21.60 Motel A $ 54.00 273 $ 8,845.20 $ 737.10 Summerfield Suites _ A $ 90.00 132 $ 7,128.00 $ 594.00 Room Total 671 Total: $ 24,127.20 MR 3='., ,..,,.. •: u�ir;,a,Lx. „. .F,., .:a .��,;s=. « .,zs.:.�C�i,,.o.. a. .,. .v.. 'fzr - sz.>..,Y, n,...... Lj3 �.. ,, /..., .. «F• Burlingame _ Bay Landing A $ 54.00 130 $ _ 4,212.00 $ 351.00 Burlin ame Hotel A $ 54.00 41 $ 1,328.40 $ 110.70 Crowne Plaza SFO A $ 360.00 309 $ 72,306.00 $ 6,025.50 Doubletree Hotel A $ 360.00 388 $ 90,792.00 $ 7,566.00 Embassy Suites A $ 360.00 340 $ 79,560.00 $ 6,630.00 Hampton Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 77 $ 2,494.80 $ 207.90 Hilton Garden Inn A $ 180.00 132 $ 14,256.00 $ 1,188.00 HolidayInn nn Express A $ 90.00 144 $ 7,776.00 $ 648.00 H aft Regency SFO A $ 360.00 789 $ 184,626.00 $ 15,385.50 Red Roof Inn A $ 54.00 212 $ 6,868.80 $ 572.40 SFO Marriott A $ 360.00 685 $ 160,290.00 $ 13,357.50 Sheraton Gateway A $ 360.00 404 $ 94,536.00 $ 7,878.00 Vagabond Inn A $ 54.00 91 $ 2,948.40 $ 245.70 _ Room Total 3742 pg Total: $ 721,994.40 : d �"'kf39a rol;i3 i� 3 3 u` 3'. ,`fill •„3,. a..a..a .° w.«.1.3 ,a.N, ,,,,'zt,. « „ .,,;, .��,iii .«�w _.. ., „a•iartY 3�.. East Palo Alto Four Seasons Silicon_ Valley A $ _360.00 200 $ 46,800.00 $ 3,900.00 Room Total 200 Total: $ 46,800.00 1 of 6 12/4/2006 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS EXHIBIT C YEAR 2007 ASSESSMENTS Name of Property Zone .Category/Assessment #Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly assessment Foster City Crowne Plaza Mid-Peninsula A $ 360.00 356 $ 83,304.00 $ 6,942.00 Courtyard by Marriott A $ 180.00 147 $ 15,876.00 $ 1,323.00 Room Total 503 Total: $ 99,180.00 ,• .,.;tzt' r. �a;. n 1 •h, £3 '',3i SW Half Moon Bay Beach House Hotel B $ 180.00 54 $ 3,888.00 $ 324.00 Best Western Half Moon Bay Lodg B $ 180.00 81 $ 5,832.00 $ 486.00 Cameron's Inn B $ 54.00 3 $ _ - $ - Holiday Inn Express B $ 54.00 52 $ Mill Rose Inn&Garden B $ 54.00 6 $ - Miramar Lodge&Conf. Center B $ 90.00 40 $ - $ - Moon Dream Cottage B $ 54.00 0 $ - $ - Old Thyme Inn B $ 54.00 7 $ - $ - Plum Tree Court B $ 54.00 6 $ - $ - Ramada Limited B $ 54.00 29 $ - $ - Ritz Carlton B $ 360.00 261 $ - $ - San Benito House B $ 54.00 12 $ - $ The Gilchrest House B $ 54.00 1 $ - $ Zaballa House B $ 54.00 23 $ - $ - Room Total 575 Total: $ 9,720.00 3,' x a PW 10 Millbrae Best Western EI Rancho Inn A $ 180.00 306 $ 33,048.00 $ 2,754.00 Clarion Hotel A $ 360.00 250 $ 58,500.00 $ 4,875.00 Comfort Inn SFO A $ 54.00 100 $ 3,240.00 $ 270.00 Millwood Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 34 $ 1,101.60 $ 91.80 Quality Suites Millbrae A $ 90.00 80 $ 4,320.00 $ 360.00 SFO South Travelodge_ A $ 54.00 58 $ 1,879.20 $ 156.60 Westin Hotel A $_ _ 360.00 390 $ 91,260.00 $ 7,605.00 Room Total 1218 _ Total: $ 193,348.80 2 of 6 12/4/2006 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS EXHIBIT C YEAR 2007 ASSESSMENTS Name of Property Zone jCategory/Assessment i #Rooms JANNUAL Assessment IMonthly assessment na�N Redwood City Best Inn A $ 54.00 38 $ 1,231.20 $ 102.60 Best Western Inn A $ 54.00 26 $ 842.40 $ 70.20 Budget Inn A $ 54.00 40 $ 1,296.00 $ 108.00 Capri Motel A $ 54.00 50 $ 1,620.00 $ 135.00 Comfort Inn A $ 54.00 52 $ 1,684.80 $ 140.40 Days Inn A $ 54.00 68 $ 2,203.20 $ 183.60 Deluxe Inn A $ 54.00 27 $ 874.80 $ 72.90 Garden Motel A $ 54.00 17 $ 275.40 $ 22.95 Good Nite Inn A $ 54.00 123 $ 3,985.20 $ 332.10 Holiday Inn Express A $ 54.00 38 $ 1,231.20 $ 102.60 Holiday Inn Express RWC Central A $ 54.00 61 $ 1,976.40 $ 164.70 Pacific Euro Hotel A $ 54.00 55 $ 1,782.00 $ 148.50 Pacific Inn A $ 54.00 75 $ 2,430.00 $ 202.50 Redwood Motor Court A $ 54.00 12 $ 194.40 $ 16.20 Sequoia Inn A $ 54.00 22 $ 712.80 $ 59.40 Sofitel San Francisco Bay A $ 360.00 419 $ 98,046.00 $ 8,170.50 Towne Place Suites by Marriott A $ 54.00 95 $ 3,078.00 $ 256.50 Room Total 1218 Total: $ 123,463.80 MIMI San Bruno Ba hill Inn A $ 54.00 24 $ 777.60 $ 64.80 Budget Motel A $ 54.00 29 $ 939.60 $ 78.30 Comfort Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 29 $ 939.60 $ 78.30 Courtyard by Marriott A $ 180.00 147 $ 15,876.00 $ 1,323.00 Days Inn A $ 54.00 1 48 $ 1,555.20 $ 129.60 Gateway Inn&_Suites A $ 54.00 31 $ 1,004.40 $ 83.70 Howard Johnson A $ _ 54.00 49 $ 1,587.60 $ 132.30 Ramada Limited A $ 54.00 61 $ 1,976.40 $ 164.70 Regency Inn A $ 54.00 32 $ 1,036.80 $ 86.40 Ritz Inn A $ 54.00 23 $ 745.20 $ 62.10 StayBrid a Suites SFO A $ _180.00 95 $ 10,260.00 $ 855.00 Super A $ 54.00 54 $ 1,749.60 $ 145.80 Room Total 622 Total: $ 38,448.00 3 of 6 12/4/2006 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS EXHIBIT C YEAR 2007 ASSESSMENTS Name of Property Zone ':Category/Assessment j #Rooms ;ANNUAL Assessment Monthly assessment KNIN JAM San Carlos Americas Best Value Inn A $ 54.00 32 $ 1,036.80 $ 86.40 Country Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 50 $ 1,620.00 $ 135.00 Days Inn A $ 54.00 29 $ 939.60 $ 78.30 Fairfield Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 112 $ 3,628.80 $ 302.40 Homestead Studio Suites A $ 90.00 116 $ 6,264.00--$-- 522.00 Travel Inn A $ 54.00 29 $ 939.60 $ 78.30 Room Total 368 Y Total: $ 14,428.80 rMEN `, �G ,u�rk San Mateo Avalon Motel A $ 54.00 48 $ 1,555.20 $ 129.60 Best Western Los Prados Inn A $ 90.00 113 $ 6,102.00 $ 508.50 Coxhead House B&B A $ 54.00 4 $ 64.80 $ 5.40 Firestone Lodge A $ 54.00 46 $ 1,490.40 $ 124.20 Hillsdale Inn A $ 54.00 90 $ _ 2,916.00 $ 243.00 Hilton Garden Inn A $ 180.00 156 $ 16,848.00 $ 1,404.00 Holiday Inn A $ 360.00 110 $ 25,740.00 $ 2,145.00 Homestead Studio Suites A $ 54.00 136 $ 4,406.40 $ 367.20 Howard Johnson A $ 54.00 57 $ 1,846.80 $ 153.90 Quality Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 111 $ 3,596.40 $ 299.70 Residence Inn by Marriott A $ 54.00 160 $ 5,184.00 $ 432.00 San Mateo Marriott A $ 360.00 476 $ 111,384.00 $ 9,282.00 Super 8 A $ 54.00 53 $ 1,717.20 $ 143.10 Wingate Inn SFO South A $ 54.00 99 $ 3,207.60 $ 267.3.0_ Room Total 1659 Total: $ 186,058.80 4 of 6 12/4/2006 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS EXHIBIT C YEAR 2007 ASSESSMENTS Name of Property Zone Category/Assessment #Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly assessment South San Francisco Airport Inn A $ 54.00 34 $ 1,101.60 $ 91.80 Americana Inn Motel A $ 54.00 17 $ 275.40 $ 22.95 Best Western Grosvenor Hotel A $ 360.00 206 $ 48,204.00 $ 4,017.00 Comfort Suites A $ 54.00 166 $ 5,378.40 $ 448.20 Courtyard by Marriott A $ 180.00 197 $ 21,276.00 $ 1,773.00 Days Inn A $ 54.00 25 $ 810.00 $ 67.50 Deluxe Inn A $ 54.00 20 $ 324.00 $ 27.00 Economy Inn A $ 54.00 21 $ 680.40 $ 56.70 Embassy Suites A $ 360.00 312 $ 73,008.00 $ 6,084.00 Four Points by Sheraton Hotel&Su A $ 90.00 100 $ 5,400.00 $ 450.00 Good Nite Inn A $ 180.00 175 $ 20,475.00 $ 1,706.25 Hallmark House Hotel A $ 54.00 13 $ 210.60 $ 17.55 Hampton Inn A $ 54.00 100 $ 3,240.00 $ 270.00 Hilton Garden Inn A $ 180.00 169 $ 18,252.00 $ 1,521.00 Holiday Inn Express Hotel&Suites A $ 54.00 87 $ 2,818.80 $ 234.90 Holiday Inn SFO North A $ 360.00 224 $ 52,416.00 $ 4,368.00 Howard Johnson A $ 54.00 51 $ 1,652.40 $ 137.70 Inn at Oyster Point A $ 90.00 30 $ 1,620.00 $ 135.00 La Quinta Inn A $ 180.00 174 $ 18,792.00 $ 1,566.00 Larkspur Landing A $ 90.00 111 $ 5,994.00 $ 499.50 Motel A $ 54.00 117 $ 3,790.80 $ 315.90 Quality Inn&Suites A $ 54.00 45 $ 1,458.00 $ 121.50 Ramada Limited Suites A $ 54.00 45 $ 1,458.00 $ 121.50 Residence Inn A $ 90.00 152 $ 8,208.00 $ 684.00 Royal Inn A $ 54.00 17 $ 275.40 $ 22.95 Travelodge SFO North(S.Airport) A $ 54.00 199 $ 6,447.60 $ 537.30 Travelers Inn A $ 54.00 20 $ 324.00 $ 27.00 Room Total 2827 Total: $ 303,890.40 5 of 6 12/4/2006 SAN MATEO COUNTY TOURISM BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT ASSESSMENT CALCULATIONS EXHIBIT C YEAR 2007 ASSESSMENTS Name of Property j Zone jCategory/Assessment #Rooms ANNUAL Assessment Monthly assessment 00,.' Unincorporated County - ------------ Atherton Inn A $ 54.00 5 $ 81.00 $ 6.75 Best Western Exec. Suites A $ 54.00 29 $ 939.60 $ 78.30 Costanoa Resort B $ 90.00 172 $ 6,192.00 $ 516.00 Cypress Inn on Miramar Beach B $ 54.00 18 $ 243.00 $ 20.25 Estancia del Mar B $ 54.00 3 $ 40.50 $ 3.38 Farallone Inn B&B B $ 54.00 9 $ 121.50 $ 10.13 Goose&Turrets B&B B $ 54.00 5 $ 67.50 $ 5.63 Harbor House B $ 54.00 6 $ 81.00 $ 6.75 Harbor View Inn B $ 54.00 18 $ 243.00 $ 20.25 Landis Shores Oceanfront Inn B $ 54.00 8 $ 108.00 $ 9.00 Motorville Motel B $ 54.00 30 $ 648.00 $ 54.00 Pacific Victorian B&B B $ 54.00 3 $ 40.50 $ 3.38 Pescadero Creek Inn B $ 54.00 4 $ 54.00 $ 4.50 Pescadero Creekside Barn B $ 54.00 1 $ 13.50 $ 1.13 Pillar Point Inn B $ 54.00 11 $ 148.50 $ 12.38 Princess Port B&B B $ 54.00 _ 4 $ 54.00 $ 4.50 Rose Cottage by the Beach B $ 54.00 1 $ 13.50 $ 1.13 Seal Cove Inn B $ 54.00 10 $ 135.00 $ 11.25 Stanford Guest House A $ 54.00 112 $ 3,628.80 $ 302.40 Stillheart B $ 54.00 16 $ 216.00 $ 18.00 The Tower B $ 54.00 1 $ 13.50 Room Total 466 Total: $ 13,082.40 6 of 6 12/4/2006 Agenda 6c Item # AA Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: December 4, 2006 op1 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY t TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: NOVEMBER 7, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR ISSUING A DEMOLITION PERMIT AND CLARIFICATION OF PENALTIES FOR WORK DONE WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council hold a public hearing to 1. Adopt the proposed ordinance. 2. Direct City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 30 days of Council action. If approved this ordinance will become effective on January 4, 2007. BACKGROUND: Recently staff has investigated, and issued stop work orders at a number of small projects where work was commenced without first obtaining a building permit. These small building projects have consisted of window replacements, storage racks, owner-built garage conversions, demolished buildings, and minor plumbing, electrical or mechanical work. Although a project is small and has a low value of construction, staff can spend many hours resolving the issues surrounding the stop work order. The current ordinance allows for doubling fees when a stop work order is issued. Often the fees assessed do not cover the City's staff costs for achieving code compliance and are not a sufficient deterrent for preventing non-permitted work. In the past demolition permits were issued separately from the building permit. With this ordinance amendment demolition permits will not be issued without the simultaneous issuance of the building permit. Therefore, penalties will be based on the value of the building permit. The new penalty for work without permits, including demolition, will be up to ten times the building permit fee based on the actual cost of City staff time to investigate and resolve the issues surrounding the work done without permits. (See memo attached for example.) DISCUSSION: Staff met with the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee of the Planning Commission to develop recommendations for demolition and other work done without a permit. The options explored included: 1) keep the penalty for work C:\Documents and Settings\jcyr\Desktop\edited Penalties for Work Done without a Building Permit Adopt.doc without a permit at double the permit fee; 2) increase the penalty to five times the permit fee; 3) increase the penalty to ten times the permit fee; 4) increase the penalty up to ten times the permit fee but provide some discretion to allow for adjustment of the penalty depending on the amount of staff time required to resolve the issues related to the work without permits. As part of their review the subcommittee discussed the policy regarding demolition permits.They discussed linking the Planning permit process to the demolition permit thereby reducing the impact of construction on the neighborhood. This policy will allow a thorough review of buildings of community importance before issuing a building permit and safeguarding the health and safety concerns of the community. In addition to Building, Planning, Engineering, and Fire Department the City's Recycling Specialist,Stormwater and Wasterwater Specialists,and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District review projects for compliance with their specific regulations before a building permit is issued. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:The recommendations from the Subcommittee meetings were presented to the Planning Commission on October 10, 2006. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended Option 4 which includes raising the fees for work without a permit up to ten times the building permit fee and the amendment requiring demolition permits to be issued simultaneously with the building permit. BUDGET IMPACT:None EXHIBITS: Proposed Ordinance Memo dated November 8,2006 Staff report for Introduction with attachments c: City Clerk, City Manager, City Attorney, Public Works Director, Asst. Public Director,City Planner Joe C ,CBO, hlef BAffding Official CADocuments and Settings\jcyr\Desktop\edited Penalties for Work Done without a Building Permit Adopt.doc I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 18.07 TO SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT, TO 3 CLARIFY CIVIL PENALTIES FOR WORK WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, AND TO CLARIFY FEE SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS 4 5 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS 6 FOLLOWS: 7 8 Section 1. 9 (a) It is important that buildings in the City not be demolished unless proper safeguards are 10 taken to ensure environmental review is conducted, property values are preserved in the 11 neighborhood, and unlawful construction is prevented. In addition, unlawful construction or 12 demolition adversely affects neighborhoods, endangers public safety, wastes public resources, and 13 imposes an unnecessary burden on the community. Civil penalties should be in place that discourage 14 such practices and compensate the community in case of such violations. This ordinance is intended 15 to address these concerns. This ordinance also clarifies that the fees for construction permits are set 16 by Council action. 17 (b) The City Council hereby finds and declares that this amendment to Chapter 18, Uniform 18 Administrative Code, promotes and implements the original policy of the Chapter and the Code, and 19 does not significantly broaden its scope of application. In addition, this ordinance is intended to and 20 does protect public health and safety. 21 22 Section 2. A new Section 18.07.065 is added to read as follows: 23 18.07.065 Section 303.1 amended — Issuance 24 A fourth paragraph is added to Section 303.1 to read as follows: 25 Demolition permits will only be issued after all approvals required by title 25 of this code and 26 the California Environmental Quality Act are granted for the overall project for which the demolition 27 is intended, and in any event, will only be issued simultaneously with the construction permits for 28 the project. 11/8/2006 1 I Exceptions: 2 a. If a property owner does not intend to construct anything on the property following 3 demolition in the foreseeable future, the property owner shall file a declaration under penalty of 4 perjury to that effect, and the building official may issue the demolition permit on the condition that 5 the property where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped. 6 b. If the city has ordered the demolition of the structure because it is an imminent danger to 7 public health or safety, the building official may issue the demolition permit on the condition that the 8 property where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped even though the 9 property owner has not applied for any construction permits. 10 11 Section 3. Subsection 18.07.080(a) is amended to read as follows: 12 (a) The first sentence of the first paragraph of Section 304.2 is amended to read as follows: 13 The fee for each permit shall be as established by resolution or ordinance adopted by the city council, 14 plus any additional fees which may be established or mandated by state or federal law or city 15 ordinance. 16 17 Section 4. Section 18.07.090 is amended to read as follows: 18 18.07.090 Section 304.3 amended—Plan review fees. 19 Section 304.3 is amended by adding a new second and third paragraphs: 20 When the submittal documents require review for compliance with State access regulations, an 21 access plan review fee shall also be paid at the time of submittal. This fee shall be as established by 22 resolution or ordinance adopted by the city council. 23 When the submittal documents require review for compliance with State energy regulations, an 24 energy plan review shall also be paid at the time of submittal. This fee shall be as established by 25 resolution or ordinance adopted by the city council. 26 27 Section 5. Section 18.07.100 is amended to read as follows: 28 18.07.100 Section 304.5 amended-Investigation Fees: Work without a Permit. 11/8/2006 2 I (a) The first sentence of Section 304.5.1 is amended to read as follows: 2 304.5.1 Investigation. Whenever construction or work for which a permit is required by this code, 3 or any other code adopted or incorporated by reference as a part of this code, has been commenced 4 without first obtaining a permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued 5 for the work. Demolition of all or any part of a structure without a required permit shall be subject 6 to the investigation and fees imposed by this section. 7 (b) Section 304.5.2 is amended to read as follows: 8 304.5.2 Fee. An investigation fee, in addition, to the permit fee, shall be collected as a civil penalty, 9 whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The investigation fee shall be up to ten times 10 the building permit fee. The investigation fee shall be determined by the building official and shall 11 be based on the staff time reasonably required to resolve all of the issues related to the work that has 12 been performed without a permit. No construction permit shall be issued until the investigation fee 13 has been paid in full. 14 Any person assessed such a fee may file an appeal with the city clerk within ten (10) days 15 after written notice to such person of the assessment. A hearing upon such appeal shall thereafter be 16 held by the city council; its decisions thereon shall be final. 17 Nothing in this section shall relieve any persons from fully complying with the requirements 18 of this code, or with any codes incorporated by reference and made a part of this code in the 19 execution of the work, or from any other fees or penalties prescribed by law. 20 21 Section 6. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 22 23 Mayor 24 25 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 26 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6t' day of 27 November, 2006, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 28 day of , 2006, by the following vote: 11/8/2006 3 I AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 2 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 3 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 4 5 City Clerk 6 U:\FILES\ORDINANC\uac2006.bld.wpd 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11/8/2006 4 BURLINGAME TO: City Council FROM: Joe Cyr, CBO DATE: November 8, 2006 SUBJECT: Clarification of current penalty fees and proposed penalty fees The recent demolition of a single family home without permit on Hillside Drive resulted in a penalty of$188. This amount would not be enough to recover the administrative costs that were necessitated by the stop work order. However, by linking the demolition permit with the building permit as proposed the City would be able to recover all of the administrative costs caused by the violation. The building permit for the new home was $9,751. Therefore the maximum penalty in the new code could be $97, 510. Between the Building Division, Planning Department, and the City Attorney's office the City spent approximately $10,000 of City time on enforcement of the Hillside demolition without a permit. By linking the demolition permit to the Building permit and increasing the penalties for work without a permit the City will be able to adjust the size of the penalty in order to ensure full cost recovery. Agenda Item # Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: November 6, 2006 1 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: OCTOBER 26, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE FOR ISSUING A DEMOLITION PERMIT AND CLARIFICATION OF PENALTIES FOR WORK DONE WITHOUT A BUILDING PERMIT RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council begin adoption of the attached ordinance to amend the Municipal Code for issuing a demotion permit and clarifying penalties for work done without a building permit, by: 1. Requesting the City Clerk to read the title of the attached ordinance. 2.Waiving further reading of the proposed ordinance. 3. Introducing the proposed ordinance. 4. Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before its proposed adoption. BACKGROUND: Recently staff has investigated, and issued stop work orders at a number of small projects where work was commenced without first obtaining a building permit. These small building projects have consisted of window replacements, storage racks, owner-built garage conversions, demolished buildings, and minor plumbing, electrical or mechanical work. Although a project is small and has a low value of construction, staff can spend many hours resolving the issues surrounding the stop work order. The current ordinance allows for doubling fees when a stop work order is issued. Often the fees assessed do not cover the City's staff costs for achieving code compliance and are not a sufficient deterrent for preventing non-permitted work. In addition, the demolition permit is issued separately from the building permit and the neighborhood effectively experiences two construction projects. The first project takes place when the buildings are demolished; then the site remains dormant for weeks or months. The second project begins after the permit is issued and reconstruction of the site begins. If a demolition permit is issued before the building permit there is also the potential for a building of community importance to be removed without proper review. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Penalties for Work Done without a Building Permit.doc DISCUSSION: Staff met with the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee of the Planning Commission to develop recommendations for demolition and other work done without a permit. The options explored included: 1) keep the penalty for work without a permit at double the permit fee; 2) increase the penalty to five times the permit fee; 3) increase the penalty to ten times the permit fee; 4) increase the penalty up to ten times the permit fee but provide some discretion to allow for adjustment of the penalty depending on the amount of staff time required to resolve the issues related to the work without permits. In addition the subcommittee reviewed the policy regarding demolition permits. They discussed linking the Planning permit process to the demolition permit thereby reducing the impact of construction on the neighborhood, allowing a thorough review of buildings of community importance, and safeguarding the health and safety concerns of the community. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: The recommendations from those meetings were presented to the Planning Commission on October 10, 2006. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended Option 4 which includes raising the fees for work without a permit up to ten times the building permit fee and the amendment requiring demolition permits to be issued simultaneously with the building permit. BUDGET IMPACT: None EXHIBITS: Proposed Ordinance Planning Department Memo date August 25, 2006 Annotated changes and additions to the Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapter 18, Planning Commission Staff Report, October 10, 2006 Planning Commission minutes, October 10, 2006 c: City Clerk, City Manager, City Attorney, Public Works Director, Asst. Public Director, City Planner j Joe , Chief uildin fficial SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Penalties for Work Done without a Building Permit.doc I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 18.07 TO SPECIFY REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUANCE OF A DEMOLITION PERMIT,TO .3 CLARIFY CIVIL PENALTIES FOR WORK WITHOUT CONSTRUCTION PERMITS, AND TO CLARIFY FEE SCHEDULE FOR CONSTRUCTION PERMITS 4 5 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME DOES ORDAIN AS 6 FOLLOWS: 7 8 Section 1. 9 (a) It is important that buildings in the City not be demolished unless proper safeguards are 10 taken to ensure environmental review is conducted,property values are preserved in the 11 neighborhood, and unlawful construction is prevented. In addition,unlawful construction or 12 demolition adversely affects neighborhoods, endangers public safety,wastes public resources, and 13 imposes an unnecessary burden on the community. Civil penalties should be in place that discourage 14 such practices and compensate the community in case of such violations. This ordinance is intended 15 to address these concerns. This ordinance also clarifies that the fees for construction permits are set 16 by Council action. 17 (b) The City Council hereby finds and declares that this amendment to Chapter 18, Uniform 18 Administrative Code,promotes and implements the original policy of the Chapter and the Code, and 19 does not significantly broaden its scope of application. In addition,this ordinance is intended to and 20 does protect public health and safety. 21 22 Section 2. A new Section 18.07.065 is added to read as follows: 23 18.07.065 Section 303.1 amended—Issuance 24 A fourth paragraph is added to Section 303.1 to read as follows: 25 Demolition permits will only be issued after all approvals required by title 25 of this code and 26 the California Environmental Quality Act are granted for the overall project for which the demolition 27 is intended, and in any event,will only be issued simultaneously with the construction permits for 28 the project. 10/26/2006 1 I Exceptions: 2 a. If a property owner does not intend to construct anything on the property following 3 demolition in the foreseeable future, the property owner shall file a declaration under penalty of 4 perjury to that effect, and the building official may issue the demolition permit on the condition that 5 the property where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped. 6 b. If the city has ordered the demolition of the structure because it is an imminent danger to 7 public health or safety, the building official may issue the demolition permit on the condition that the 8 property where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped even though the 9 property owner has not applied for any construction permits. 10 11 Section 3. Subsection 18.07.080(a) is amended to read as follows: 12 (a) The first sentence of the first paragraph of Section 304.2 is amended to read as follows: 13 The fee for each permit shall be as etali� h� baluan or Qrdinance{aopt pupr_; 14 set forth in Tabfes 3-A - , plus any additional fees which may be established or mandated 15 by state or federal law or city ordinance. 16 17 Section 4. Section 18.07.090 is amended to read as follows: 18 18.07.090 Section 304.3 amended—Plan review fees. 19 Section 304.3 is amended by adding a new second and third paragraphs: 20 When the submittal documents require review for compliance with State access regulations, an 21 access plan review fee shall also be paid at the time of submittal. This fee shall be �h b 22 resolution car ordm e adopt&d by t q 'n- 35 percent of the building permit fee as show 23 in Tabfe No. 3-A. 24 When the submittal documents require review for compliance with State energy regulations, an 25 energy plan review shall also be paid at the time of submittal. This fee shall belbs 26 resolution or 6rdinance 'ad�� ` b�<�� ei� 25 percent of the buiHing pemift fee as shown in 27 9Fabf e No. 3-A. 28 10/26/2006 2 I Section 5. Section 18.07. 100 is amended to read as follows: 2 18.07.100 Section 304.5 amended-Investigation Fees: Work without a Permit. 3 (a) The first sentence of Section 304.5. 1 is amended to read as follows: 4 304.5.1 Investigation. Whenever construction or work for which a permit is required by this code, 5 or any other code adopted or incorporated by reference as a part of this code, has been commenced a 6 without first obtaining a perrnjt, a 0,0100 rwj00 �,� ' y d"i38tt'Pi s raa.s. _�.: . -*aNnowo 7 . Do �tzn Qf .., ? � P . _'.._ itu . .N, . . , y� 9 (b) The third sentence of Section 304.5.2 is amended to read as follows: 10 304.5.E Fen aesti atxor _ "��tiiy }(}( e� yy "$ . . . ... 8 s.:s �,..lc.C6� � 1 �� ., ;2z -n^run" .si.: 11tt`' � e3fpt . hs The mirrimum investigation fee shall be h "Al , .. - +Id ' '" � 12 � tire the buring per- mit fee ,: 13 6aae pn tie staff TW,AM ; fie"r _. etc w„ 14 + k ifia had b ari performed :;. 1 1� F . e._. s._ 3_ �? 15tze h been pi - - 16 minimmn of $ f 00.00, whichever is greateir. 17 Any person assessed such a fee may file an appeal with the city clerk within ten (1 O) days 18 after written notice to such person of the assessment. A hearing upon such appeal shall thereafter be 19 held by the city council; its decisions thereon shall be final. 20 Nothing in this section shall relieve any persons from fully complying with the requirements 21 of this code, or with any codes incorporated by reference and made a part of this code in the 22 execution of the work, or from any other fees or penalties prescribed by law. 23 24 Section 6. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 25 26 Mayor 27 28 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 10/26/2006 3 I foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of 2 , 2006, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 3 day of , 2006, by the following vote: 4 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 5 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 6 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 7 8 City Clerk 9 U:\FILES\ORDINANC\uac2006.bld.wpd 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10/2612006 4 SU PLANNING DEPARTMENT MEMO BURLWGAME . . . . . . . . . . rtrm.www� J DATE: August 25, 2006 TO: City Council: Mayor Cathy Baylock Vice-Mayor Terry Nagel Russ Cohen Ann Keighran ' Rosalie O`Mahony FROM: Margaret Monroe, City Plann RE: Status of Review of Demolition Permit and Associated Fees We recently had a house demolished on Hillside without a permit. In fact the demolition occurred the week-end before the design review project was to be heard by the Planning Commission. Both the City Council and Planning Commissioners expressed concern about the action and the consequences for the action currently outlined in the city's building code. For FY 2006-2007 the Chair of the Planning Commission has appointed a number of subcommittees of the commission to assist staff with completing the FY 2006-07 Work Program agreed to at the Joint City Council/Planning Commission meeting held this Spring. The Permit and Processing Subcommittee, composed of Cers. Cauchi, Deal and Terrones, seemed to be the appropriate body to review and make recommendations regarding the current demolition permit policies and associated fees (including penalty fees for undertaking demolition without a permit). Planning staff has scheduled a meeting of this subcommittee on September 8, 2006, with the objective of reviewing the current policy regarding demolition permits, fees and penalties and making a recommendation to the Commission regarding any proposed changes to the Municipal Code and fee schedule. Joe Cyr, ChiefBuilding Official representing Public Works, and City Attorney, Larry Anderson, will work with the Subcommittee and City Planner, to formulate a recommendation. Adoption of new Municipal Code provisions, and fee schedule will include a public hearing before the Planning Commission with a recommendation to City Council. Presently staff anticipates that the Subcommittee will meet twice on this matter and their report out to the Planning Commission. Planning Commission action will require study and action. Based on Memorandum: Status of Review of Demolition Permit and Associated Fees August 25,2006 Page 2 this time table a recommendation regarding demolition permit compliance should come to the City Council in late October or November, 2006. A second item which has been discussed with staff, is what fees should be charged for 'work done without a permit'. This goes beyond demolition permits, to include any work which would require a building permit. Staff is proposing that this issue be discussed separately from demolition permits. The Subcommittee can begin work on the work without a permit' fee issue while the Planning Commission is reviewing the demolition permit issue. Taking the two issues to the Subcommittee at the same time would delay the resolution of both. In addition the direction followed for demolition permits and appropriate fees, could help fiame the solutions for ' building without a permit' enforcement. Please let me know if you would like to take a different approach to these issues. I can be reached at(650) 558-7255. If I do not hear from you I will proceed with the demolition permit issue on September 8, and leave the 'work without a permit issue' to subsequent action. cc. Jim Nantell, City Manager Larry Anderson, City Attorney George Bagdon, Public Works Director Joe Cyr, Chief Building Official U:TCmemosTo\2006%fmo Status Rev Demo Permit and fee 8.22.06.doc Draft: Base draft September 15, 2006 �-- From September 8, 2006 Permit Processing Subcommittee Meeting Annotated Changes and Additions to the Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapter 18 18.07.065 Section 303.1 amended - Issuance A fourth paragraph is added to Section 303 . 1 to read as follows: Demolition permits will only be issued after all approvals required by title 25 of this code and the California Environmental Quality Act are granted for the overall project for which the demolition is intended, and in any event, will only be issued simultaneously with the construction permits for the project. Exceptions: a. If a property owner does not intend to construct anything on the propertyfollowing demolition in the foreseeable future, the property owner shall file a declaration under penalty of perjury to the effect, and the building official may issue the demolition permit on the condition that the property where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped. b. If the city has ordered the demolition of the structure because it is an imminent danger to public health or safety, the building official may issue the demolition permit on condition that the property where the demolition is to occur will be properly secured and landscaped even though the property owner has not applied for any construction permits. Annotation: The Subcommittee wanted it to be clear for all builders and developers when a demolition permit will be issued. Demolition performed prior to construction presents some significant problems to the community. There are two basic sets of customers during a construction project: 1) the builder and 2) the neighbors who must live with and during the construction. In the past buildings have been demolished months before plans were approved and the actual new construction began. Neighbors see this as living through two construction projects. The site is left vacant and fenced, often resulting in soil erosion and other neighborhood nuisances. Trash accumulates and the site is basically ignored until construction begins. Neighbors have been vocal about the visual condition of the site and express fear for the safety of their children. In addition, allowing demolition prior to the issuance of building permit could mean that the proposed project is never constructed. When this happens the City and neighbors are forced to tolerate a vacant lot until some future project is proposed and built. For these reasons the Subcommittee thought that it is prudent to require that the demolition permit is issued simultaneously with the building permit and after all Planning approvals. This will allow �. public comment on most projects before a demolition permit is issued. Section 3. Subsection 18.07. 100 is amended to read as follows: 18.07.100 Section 304.5 amended - Investigation Fees. Work without a Permit. (a) The first sentence of Section 304.5. 1 is amended to read as follows: 304.5.1 Investigation. Whenever construction or work for which a permit is required by this code, or any other code adopted or incorporated by reference as a part of this code, has been commenced without first obtaining a permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for the work. Demolition of all or any part of a structure without a required permit shall be subject to the investigation and fees imposed by this section. (b) The third seatenee a Section 304.5.2 is amended to read as follows: 304.5.2 Fee. An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected as a civil penalty, whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The-mininium investigation fee shall be up to ten times the building permit fee. The investigation fee shall be determined by the building official and shall be based on the staff time reasonably required to resolve all of the issues related to the work that has been performed without a permit. No construction permit shall be issued until the investigation fee has been paid in full. equal to the foo set feftl, in Tables 3 ^ thfo g 3 u er „ filinifliumf $ 1 nn nn whiehever- is greater-. Any person assessed such fee may file an appeal with the city clerk within ten (10) days after written notice to such person of the assessment. A hearing upon such appeal shall thereafter be held by the city council; its decisions thereon shall be final. Nothing in this section shall relieve any persons from fully complying with the requirements of this code, or with any codes incorporated by reference and made a part of this code in the execution of the work, or from any other fees or penalties prescribed by law. Annotation: The Subcommittee was presented with a number of options for assessing fees for work performed without a permit. The current penalty for work without a permit is a flat fee equal to the cost of the building permit fee. For most violations this fee does not begin to cover the costs of City staff time to investigate and resolve the issues surrounding work done without a permit. The Subcommittee recognized that there needs to be a correlation between the fees charged and the administrative costs to the City. This amendment to the Ordinance also gives the Building Official some discretion in adjusting the fees to match the staff time required to gain compliance with City requirements. This section will also clarify the requirements that demolition without a permit will follow the same procedures and carry the same penalties as any other work performed without a building permit. Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. City of Burlingame item # Action on Proposed Amendment to the Municipal Code: Requirements Action Calendar for Issuing a Demolition Permit and Clarify Penalties for Work Done without a Construction Permit Meeting Date: 10. 10.06 Planning Commission Action: Commissioners should review the proposed amendments to the Municipal Code to address demolition permits and penalties for doing construction work without a permit, including demolition and other work which would normally require a building permit. The reasons for the Commission's action should be clearly stated for the record. Action in the case of Municipal Code changes is a recommendation to City Council. This item was noticed as required by law in the San Mateo Times on Saturday, September 30, 2006. CEQA Compliance: CEQA Code Section 15308 Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment, Class 8: consists of actions taken by regulatory agencies, as authorized by state or local ordinance, to assure the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment where the regulatory process involves procedures for protection of the environment. Construction activities and relaxation of standards allowing environmental degradation are not included in this exemption. General Plan Compliance: The General Plan is implemented by the zoning code and the building and fire codes. Because the California Building Code and California Fire Codes are based on protection of life and public safety, they are determined to be consistent with the city's development policy and therefore the city's General Plan. These code amendments clarify the intended protection of life and the public's safety in the City of Burlingame. History: A demolition permit is a permit which a contractor applies for and is issued by the City before removing any portion or all of an existing structure. To protect the safety of the community and environment, there are a number of clearances which must be obtained before the city will issue a demolition permit. These include a permit from the Bay Area Air Quality Control Board, approval of a demolition materials recycling plan, termination of utilities, erosion control plan, and approval of proposed demolition by the Building Department. Under the present Municipal Code provisions the City's penalty for demolishing without a demolition permit is twice the value of the building demolition permit. For a single family house the demolition permit runs about $200.00. There are also separate penalties for failing to have an air quality permit and a completed construction and demolition recycling plan. The monetary penalties for the air quality permit and recycling permit are substantially more than the current penalty for the City's demolition permit (two times the permit fee). Recently a single family house was demolished without applying for and receiving a demolition permit. The code enforcement activity which followed underscored two things. First, the penalty for �-- failing to get the demolition permit from the building department was more of an aggravation than a deterrent to the contractor. Second, the $300 penalty did not begin to cover the cost of the City staff Action on Proposed Amendment to the Municipal Code. Requirements for Issuing a Demolition Permit and Clarify Penalties for Work Done without a Construction Permit October 10, 2006 time involved in investigating and obtaining correction of the violation. Moreover, in this case the contractor had obtained permits or partial permits which would reduce the penalties from other agencies whose penalty fees were high enough to be "real". Another indication that the City's fees were too low. With this experience in mind and with the encouragement of the City Council, a Subcommittee of the Planning Commission met with the Chief Building Official, City Planner and City Attorney, to discuss how Burlingame might better express the City's policy regarding demolition without a permit and develop meaningful, realistic Burlingame fees for those who do work not only without a demolition permit, but also without a building permit. The policy which is recommended ties the Planning permit process to the demolition permit and Building permit process in a continuum. It also centers on the community concern that the impact of construction should be kept to the shortest time frame, and thus have the least possible impact on the neighbors. Several key community concerns were identified: ■ Separation between demolition and construction results in the neighbors' experiencing the impacts of two construction projects resulting in only one developed site. ■ Structures which may be important to the Community's culture and history may be removed without proper community review. ■ Public health issues can be created such as air pollution e.g. asbestos removal and dust; public utility impacts e.g. erosion impacting storm drain capacity causing flooding and damage to street surfaces; noise; and traffic. ■ Vacant sites which sit after demolition while plans are processed through Planning and Building review are rarely maintained and often become a neighborhood nuisance and public safety issue; and can sit for years without attention if the resulting project is not approved or the financing is no longer available. The Subcommittee also felt that the City's General Fund should not subsidize developers who do work without a permit. City fees and fines should be based on reimbursing the City for the cost of doing the enforcement. However, the Subcommittee did not feel that arbitrary penalties such as prohibition from building on the site for a given period or a flat fee based on a percentage of the value of the construction were appropriate at this time. Many of the miscreants in the case of demolition without a permit are homeowners with small projects who anticipate work on their houses without realizing that they need a demolition permit. The fairer approach appeared to be one that included flexibility based on the scale of the error and the willingness of the homeowner or contractor to take corrective action. Based on this, the suggestion was that the fee be based on a maximum amount to be drawn down by the cost (number of hours) of the staff time to obtain correction. There is a real difference between the homeowner who comes in immediately upon being ordered to stop work, submits plans and pulls a building permit and the developer who the City ends up having to take to court in order to get compliance. 2 Action on Proposed Amendment to the Municipal Code. Requirements for Issuing a Demolition Permit and Clarify Penalties for Work Done without a Construction Permit October 10, 2006 Summary of Proposed Municipal Code Amendments: CS 18.07.065: Demolition permits will only be issued after CEQA review, Planning approvals are complete and a Building permit has been issued. CS 18.07. 100 (a) Demolition without a permit shall be subject to an investigation fee which will be paid by the property owner. CS 18.07. 100 (b) The fee for demolition without a permit and for work without a building permit shall be up to ten (10) times the value of the building (or demolition ) permit. The fee paid shall be based on the actual staff time reasonably required to resolve all of the issues related to the work done without a permit. It is important to note that these code sections amend the Uniform Building Administrative Code which was adopted by the City a number of years ago. In the Administrative Code it states that a building permit will not be issued until all of the investigation fees have been paid. So there is a guarantee that the fees accrued by staff to enforce work done without a permit will be paid, if not voluntarily so that the project can go forward, then by an order from the court. Attachments: Annotated Changes and Additions to the Burlingame Municipal Code, Chapter 18 Ordinance of the City of Burlingame Amending Chapter 18.07 to Specify Requirements for Issuance of a Demolition Permit and to Clarify Civil Penalties for Work without Construction Permits. Public Notice, San Mateo Times, Published Saturday, September 30, 2006. 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes October 10, 2006 Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with amended conditions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:30 p.m. 7 j AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE WITH REQUIREMENTS FOR ISSUING A DEMOLITION --- PERMIT AND TO CLARIFY PENALTIES FOR WORK DONE WITHOUT A CONSTRUCTION PERMrf (PUBLISHED IN SAN MATEO TIMES) PROJECT PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report October 11, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe and CBO Cyr presented the staff report noting that this amendment was not to the zoning code but the process proposed would tie the implementation of the CEQA review, zoning/design review and the building permit together and hold demolition permits until all these approvals had been completed. Second the ordinance addresses the issue of penalties for doing work without a permit setting a ten times fee limit based on the hours of staff time used to attain compliance with the code. CP noted that he Commission had reviewed the Subcommittee's suggestions for this ordinance at the September 25, 2006,meeting, so it is being brought forward for public hearing and action this evening. Commissioner's comment: Chair Brownrigg thanked the Subcommittee of Cers. Cauchi, Deal and Terrones, for their quick action on this recommendation; commissioner asked how this would affect fast tracking major projects; CBO noted that this proposal is consistent with the current industry standards for review of large projects, if there is something unusual about a given project it would be considered at that time; clarified that a demolition permit is a type of building permit. CP noted that current provisions of the Building Code require all penalties be paid before a Building Permit can be issued Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor. The public hearing �.. was closed. C. Deal moved that the Planning Commission recommend the proposed ordinance changes to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Comment on the motion: CA noted two technical changes that should be made before the ordinance would go forward to the City Council. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the proposed ordinance changes addressing demolition permits and civil penalties for work without a permit to the City Council for approval. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Osterling absent). . This item concluded at 8:35 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 8. 1557 DRAKE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;JAY AND JANET GARCIA,PROPERTY OWNERS) (48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe briefly presented the project description. Commission asked if the decision for designating the front yard,rear yard and side yards was made by staff and if it was open to change by the Commission. Staff 10 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM # 8a MTG. 12/4/06 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL sus rT DATE: November 19, 2006 APPROtD FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY 'U SUBJECT: UPDATE ON PLANS FOR CELEBRATION OF � BURLINGAME'S CENTENNIAL ANNIVERSARY RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive the staff report and give direction regarding the plans for celebrating Burlingame's Centennial Anniversary. BACKGROUND: Plans are underway to celebrate Burlingame's Centennial with a wide variety of events, memorabilia and a monument. Staff will update Council on the status of each of these areas, as well as the fundraising program. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no budget impact associated with this report. ATTACHMENTS: None CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8b MTG. DATE December 4,2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY Q,Ld`ac/ DATE: November 28,2006 APPRONJ, FROM: Ana Silva By Tel.No.: 558-7204 SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO TRAFFIC SAFETY PARKING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Make appointment to fill expired term or take other action. BACKGROUND: One commission position is due for appointment because of term expiration. The position was publicized and notification letters were sent to past commission applicants. Six applications were received as of the deadline of October 27, 2006. The applicants were interviewed by the full Council on November 6, 2006. The appointee term will be for four years, ending in November 2010. (4�� CITY o� STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8c MTG. 'RATED���Ee. DATE December 4,2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: November 28,2006 APPROVE FROM: Ana Silva By _ &a4 Tel.No.: 558-7204 SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Make appointment to fill expired terms or take other action. BACKGROUND: Two commission positions are due for appointment because of term expiration. Both incumbents are unable to continue to serve on the commission. The positions were publicized and notification letters were sent to past commission applicants. Four applications were received as of the deadline of November 9, 2006. The applicants were interviewed by the full Council on November 20, 2006. The appointee term will be for four years, ending in December 2010. STAFF REPORT aw%NGAME AGENDA 8d ITEM it MTG. DATE 12/4/06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL suB TTE BY � DATE: November 12,2006, 2006 APPRO � FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF AN EASTON DRIVE STREET TREE LIST RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the Easton Drive Street Tree List as recommended by the Beautification Commission. BACKGROUND: Last year, the City Council asked the Beautification Commission to develop a long range plan for the reforestation of the eucalyptus trees on Easton Drive. On April 6, 2006, the Commission conducted a public meeting on the long-term vision for the trees on Easton. There were many residents present and thoughts exchanged. Topics discussed included: 1) The need for parking spaces on Easton 2) Safety impacts associated with the tree in front of library(possibly install traffic reflectors) 3) Creating a sense of uniformity/spacing(mixed opinion from residents) 4) Keeping the canopy above the height on other streets (#1 item—discussion on 70'+) 5) Disease, safety evaluations and issues 6) Need for trees to allow light to homes(low priority) 7) Need for trees to provide wind protection(low priority) 8) Impacts to the streets 9) Locations to plant(planting strip only or behind sidewalk) A second public meeting was held on October 5, 2006, with approximately 15 members of the public in attendance. At that meeting, group consensus was reached on the following items: • Limiting the number of species used on Easton • Use of trees with large trunks • Use of accent trees on the corners • Focus on fast growing trees with minimal limb drop and residual debris The following Trees were also agreed upon by the public and commission: • Tasmanian Blue Gums be retained on Easton until removal is necessary due to health concerns • Cladocalyx Sugar Gums be used as the primary replacement street tree • Nicholii Willow-Leafed Peppermints should be used as accent trees on the corners • Ficifolia Red Flowering Gum should be used in front of the Easton Branch Library At the Beautification Commission's November 2, 2006 meeting, the Commissioner's voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council the adoption of a street tree list for Easton Drive consisting of the Tasmanian Blue Gums, Cladocalyx Sugar Gums, Nicholii Willow-Leafed Peppermints and the Ficifolia Red Flowering Gum. BUDGET IMPACT: There is no budget impact associated with the creation of the Easton Drive Street Tree List. ATTACHMENTS: A. Easton Drive Reforestation Memo from Randy Schwartz to Easton Drive Residents dated October 23, 2006 City of Burlingame - Parks & Recreation Dept. 850 Burlingame Ave., Burlingame, CA 94010 phone: (650) 558-7300 • fax: (650) 696-7216 BURLINGAME recreationgburlingame.org MEMORANDUM To: EASTON DRIVE RESIDENTS From: Randy Schwartz, Parks &Recreation Director 9-4- Date: - —Date: October 23, 2006 Re: EASTON DRIVE REFORESTATION On October 5t',the Beautification Commission held their second public meeting regarding the reforestation of Easton Drive at Our Lady of Angels. Approximately 15 members of the public were in attendance, as well as Dave Dockter,Managing Arborist for the City of Palo Alto's Planning Division, 4 Beautification Commissioners and staff. Group consensus was achieved on the following items: Limiting the number of species used on Easton Use of trees with large trunks Use of accent trees Focusing on fast growing trees, with minimal limb drop and residual debris Two Species for Easton Drive Street Trees TAZMANIAN BLUE GUM,the existing street tree, will be retained on the Easton Drive street tree list CLADOCALYX SUGAR GUM is recommended to be the primary replacement street tree Use of Accent Trees NICHOLH WILLOW-LEAFED PEPPERMINT will be used as an accent tree on the corners of blocks FICIFOLIA RED FLOWERING GUM is recommend for planting in front of the Easton Branch Library The Easton Drive Reforestation Plan will be discussed by the Beautification Commission at its November 2, 2006 meeting. The public is invited to attend the meeting(which will be held at Burlingame City Hall, 501 Primrose Road at 5:30pm) and give the Commission your comments before a recommendation on an Easton Drive Street Tree List is made to the City Council. Photos and descriptions of the recommended trees are on the next few pages. Creating a Better Place to Live, Work and Play TASMANIAN BLUE GUM 0 tThe Tasmanian Blue Gum tree is the existing street tree on Easton Drive. The Blue Gum's large trunks are smooth and grayish-white Y _ and its bark sheds in long reddish-brown ribbons. The green, glossy leaves are 6 to 14 inches long on rounded stems and are sickle shaped. The yellow flowers produced by the Blue Gum in the fall, lack petals and so assume a feathery starburst pattern with the multitude of stamens arising from calyx. The tree can grow in a variety of soil types, � :. growing rapidly up to 80 feet in its first 20 years, and can reach heights of up to 160 feet in its introduced habitat of California. CLADOCALYX SUGAR GUM The Sugar Gum is a hardy tree, 1A tolerating a wide variety of soil types, and is one of the most striking of eucalyptuses. Planted for structure, it has been used as a "Skyline" tree on the Southern California coast with its characteristic puffly clouds of foliage separated by open spaces. In its native habitat it has been commonly planted on farms in western �' • t Victoria and South Australia. The Cladocalyx sugar gum has shiny, reddish 3-5 inch leaves, oval or variable shaped. Its attractive bark sheds yearly to reveal white, gray or yellow patches. The Sugar Gum trunks are straight, tall, and stately, growing to 80+ feet. Creating a Better Place to Live, Work and Plal NICHOLII WILLOW-LEAFED :r PEPPERMINT The Eucalyptus nicholii, commonly called the ' *A r Willow-leafed Peppermint, is a well-behaved, graceful, weeping tree with narrow, willow-like, d " % decidedly blue leaves. The short, narrow - leaves, which have a distinctive peppermint aroma when crushed, disappear into the ground cover. It has a compact crown and is resistant to frost. The matted bark is rough, does not shed, and ranges in color from yellow/brown to gray/brown. The Eucalyptus nicholii which has been cultivated in Australia and California as an ornamental street or shade tree, tolerates heat, any soil, is drought resistant, and can reach up to 50' in warmer climates. FICIFOLIA RED FLOWERING GUM } The Ficifolia red flowering gum is native to Western Australia. The Red-Flowering Gum is a tidy, round headed tree and has a striking appearance with its bright red flowers, in the spring and the fall, cast against the dark brown-green leaves and the rough gray bark. The Red-Flowering Gum is not detrimental to gardens, as it has a very , deep roots stem allowing Plants and lawn ;= ` to be grown right up to it. It is a drought- " tolerant species and will grow up to 40 feet. Creating a Better Place to Live, Work and Plaly Benefits of Urban Street Trees usForest,Servicefactsandfigoesandnewtrafcsafety mdies detail many urban street tree benefits. Once seen as highly problematic for many reasons,street trees are proving to be a great value to people living working shopping sharing walking and motoring in and through urban places 1. Reduced and more appropriate 2. Create safer walking 3. Trees call for urban traffic speeds.Urban street trees environments, by forming and planting strips, I... "d create vertical walls framing streets,and framing visual walls and providing which further v a defined edge,helping motorists guide distinct edges to sidewalks so that separate motorists their movement and assess their speed motorists better distinguish between from pedestrians, (leading to overall speed reductions). their environment and one shared buildings and other with people urban fabric. 4.Increased security.Trees create more pleasant walking environments, bringing about increased walking, talking, ; a 5.Improved business.Businesses on treescaped pride, care of place, association and therefore actual streets show 20%higher income streams,which ownership and surveillance of homes, blocks, �. is often the essential competitive edge needed neighborhoods plazas,businesses and other civic spaces. ` for main street store success,versus competition 6. Less drainage infrastructure. from plaza discount store prices. Trees absorb the first 30%of most 7. Rain,sun,heat and skin protection.For 8. Reduced harm from tailpipe precipitation through their leaf light or moderate rains, pedestrians find less emissions.Tailpipe emissions are adding system,allowing evaporation back need for rain protection. Temperature to asthma, ozone and other health into the atmosphere.This moisture differentials of 5-15 degrees are felt when impacts. Impacts are reduced never hits the ground. walking under tree canopied streets. significantly from proximity to trees. 9. Gas transformation 10. Lower urban air temperatures. Asphalt and concrete streets and parking lots are efficiency. Trees in street known to increase urban temperatures 3-7 degrees. A properly shaded neighborhood, proximity absorb 9 times more mostly from urban street trees, can reduce energy bills for a household from 15-35%. pollutants than more distant trees,converting harmful gasses 11. Lower Ozone. Increases in urban street temperatures directly above asphalt where back into oxygen and other tailpipe emissions occur dramatically increase creation of harmful ozone and other gasses useful and natural gasses. into more noxious substances impacting health of people, animals and agricultural lands. 12.Convert streets,parking and walls into more aesthetically pleasing environments.There are few streetmaking elements that do as much to soften wide, grey visual wastelands created by wide streets, parking lots and massive,but sometimes necessary blank walls than trees. 13. Soften and screen 14. Reduced blood pressure, improved overall emotional and necessary street features such psychological health. People are impacted by ugly or attractive as utility poles,light poles and environments where they spend time. ' other needed street furniture. Y Trees are highly effective at 15. Time in travel perception.Motorists perceive it takes longer to screening those other vertical get through a treeless environment trip than one that is treed. features to roadways that are 16.Reduced road rage.Motorist road rage is less in green urban versus stark suburban areas. needed for many safety and Trees and aesthetics,which reduce blood pressure,may handle some of this calming effect. functional reasons. 17. Improved operations potential.When properly positioned and maintained,the backdrop of street trees allow features such as vital traffic signs to be better seen. 18.Added value to adjacent 19.Filtering and screening agent.Softens and screens utility poles,light poles, homes, businesses and tax and other features creating visual pollution to the street. base.Realtor based estimates 20. Longer pavement life. Studies in a variety of California environments of street tree versus non street show the shade of urban street trees add from 40-60%more life to costly asphalt. tree comparable streets relate a $15-25,000 increase in 21. Connection to nature and the human senses.Urban street trees provide * home or business value. a canopy and root structure for a comfortable urban setting. Creating a Better Place to Live, Work and Play UNGAME STAFF REPORT AGENDA } ITEM# 8e BUR MTG. DATE 12/4/06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUB TTE BY DATE: November 20,2006 FROM: Parks & Recreation Director (558-7307) BY SUBJECT: CONSIDER REMOVAL OF THE TREE AT 1800 EASTON DRIVE RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council hold a public hearing and determine whether to support or deny the recommendation of the Beautification Commission to allow the Eucalyptus Tree located at 1800 Easton Drive to be removed and replaced. BACKGROUND: In 2004,Public Works applied to the Parks &Recreation Department to have the Eucalyptus tree located at 1800 Easton Drive removed because of its disruption to the roadway and sidewalk, driver safety issues and flooding problems. The City hired Mayne Tree Company to assess the health of the tree. The report, which included drill testing as well as non-invasive evaluations, indicated the tree to be in good health(see attached). In attempting to resolve the street disruption and flooding issues, City staff examined a wide variety of options, including: 1. Cutting or trimming the main root 2. Paving over the root to smooth out the roadway 3. Rerouting the street 4. Turning Easton Drive into a one-way street The Beautification Commission examined the information presented by Public Works and discussed the options in-depth before voting 5-1 to allow for the removal of the tree. The Library Board also reviewed the information and options at their February 16, 2005 meeting and voted 4-1 to support the decision of the Beautification Commission. Following a letter from Susie and Sam Lahey, 1719 Easton Dr.,to appeal the Beautification Commission's decision, Council member Baylock called the item up to Council. In their letter, the Lahey's said". . . the uniqueness of the trees and the history of this street is what makes it such a special place to live." In March 2005, the City Council held a public hearing, appealing the Beautification Commission's decision to allow the tree to be removed. Public Works Superintendent Phil Scott made a presentation on the options available to remedy the problems caused by the tree's roots: street damage, water ponding, sewer infiltration and traffic hazards. During the public hearing, a few neighbors spoke on each side of the argument. Council continued action on this item and requested that the reforestation plan be in place prior to any Council action. In November, the Beautification Commission completed the process of developing a street tree list for Easton Drive that will serve as a long-term replacement plan. If the tree at 1800 Easton is removed, it would be replaced as the first tree in this reforestation plan. BUDGET IMPACT: The cost of the tree removal is anticipated to be approximately $8,000 and would be paid for by the City's sewer enterprise fund. ATTACHMENTS: Minutes of the November 2, 2006 Beautification Commission Meeting Minutes of the February 3, 2005 Beautification Commission Meeting Letter dated February 11 , 2005 from Sam and Susie Lahey, 1719 Easton Drive Letter from the Library Board dated February 16, 2005 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2,2006 The regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m. by Chairperson McQuaide. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson McQuaide(departed at 7:05), Carney(departed at 7:05),Ellis, Lahey, O'Connor(arrived at 6:20), and Wright Absent: Commissioner Grandcolas Staff: Director Schwartz, Superintendent Richmond, and Secretary Harvey Guests: Terra Pratt (2116 Easton Dr.) and Dawn Stefko (2012 Easton Dr.); Doug Pherson (PG&E Area Supervisor),Erin Parks (PG&E Vegetation Manager), and Tacy Alferos (PG&E Public Affairs) MINUTES – The Minutes of the October 5, 2006 Beautification Commission Meeting, were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE -- ---—�eftte–rfibm-Directoi-Sc i1 war to City of Palo Alto City Manager,Frank Benest, thanking the City of Palo Alto for allowing Managing Arborist, Dave Dockter, to participate in the Community meeting on October 2nd, and to share his expertise and knowledge with the Commission and Community members. Key Ethics Lara Principles for Public Servants from the Institute for Local Government. Letter from Superintendent Richmond thanking former Commissioner Jill Lauder, for the 5 terms served on the Beautification Commission, for her commitment to the urban forest, as well as her dedication and reliability to the Commission. Letter from Jennifer Pfaff regarding street tree policies in the'City of Burlingame, stating that the planting of one or two types of trees in neighborhoods, (to give a more elegant, cohesive look), be considered, rather than allowing homeowners to choose the types of replacement trees from the Official Street Tree lists. FROM THE FLOOR–None OLD BUSINESS Lone Ranze Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive – Director Schwartz complimented the Commission for the excellent public outreach to gain consensus on the Easton Drive Reforestation plan. Residents on Easton Drive were sent a copy of tonight's agenda as well as the brochure recommending select Eucalyptus varieties as replacement trees when removal of an existing Eucalyptus tree is required. Chairperson McQuaide thanked Director Schwartz for creating the picture brochure and the information provided on the different trees. Director Schwartz noted that if the'Commission approves the selected replacement species,the recommendation will be forwarded to the Council for its approval at the December meeting. Chairperson McQuaide then recognized guests, Terra Pratt (2116 Easton Drive) and Dawn Stefko (2012 Easton Drive). They stated that they were there to just to listen but were pleased to know that the existing trees would only be removed when necessary on a case by case basis and will be replaced with suitable Eucalyptus varieties. 1 OLD BUSINESS— Lona Ranee Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive—(Contd.) Following a brief discussion, Commissioner Carney moved that it be recommended to the City Council that the existing Tasmanian Blue Gum be retained on the Easton Drive street tree list, the Cladocalyx Sugar Gum be used as the primary replacement tree, the Nicholii Willow-leafed Peppermint be used as the corner accent tree, and the Ficifolia Red Flowering Gum be used for the replacement in front of the Easton Branch Library; seconded, Commissioner Wright. Motion carried 4 0—2 (absent/Grandcolas, O'Connor))1 (abstain/Lahey). P.G.&E.'Prunine Practices in the Citv of Burlingame Chairperson McQuaide stated that representatives from P.G.&E. have been invited to discuss current pruning practices and concerns made by the public with regard to those practices. Doug McPherson, Area Supervisor, stated that he appreciated the opportunity to speak to the Commission regarding these issues, that P.G.&E. wants to cooperate with the Communities they serve. He stated that P.G.&E. is proud that for 12 years in a row, they have been awarded the "Best Management Practices" award. He noted that safety and reliability is P.G&E°s primary goal and _ that it is a state law that the trees be a minimum distance of 18" from the power lines. Every line is pected every year; foresters then identify the trees that need ;trimming for line clearance. The contractor, Asplundh Tree Company, most often trims to the "Best Practices" trimming standards, but at times is unable to because of the previous pruning practices on some trees i.e., pollarded Sycamores. He concluded that the tree crews receive extensive training but admitted that some crews are better than others. The Commission further discussed with Doug McPherson and Erin Parks the different pruning techniques, options for homeowners, notification of property owners, registering complaints, crew scheduling and monitoring, identifying pruning circuits/schedules/maps,yearly permits with the City, bidding practices with pruning contractors, undergrounding of power lines, replacement of trees that are damaged due to pruning techniques, etc. Mr. McPherson stated he would be interested in meeting with City Staff and Commission representatives on site to discuss with him,Erin, and Carlos (Asplundh crew supervisor) specific trees or areas that were improperly trimmed and how the job could be done differently. Erin Parks believed that schedules/circuits could be provided to the City to assist with public communication and that, the crews could be reminded of the `Best Practices" standard that is to be followed. She also stated that P.G.&E. is currently updating their website to help provide better information to the public and that complaints to the 1-800-74'-5000 number are responded to within a week. Following the discussion it was the consensus of the Commission and the P.G.&E. representatives that a meeting with Staff and a Commission representative be scheduled for mid December, early January. The Commission will provide specific trees/areas ofparticuiar concern to be discussed. Street Tree Planting in Vacant Areas—"Street Tree Reforestation Proiect" Superintendent Richmond reported that the Council approved the project to plant trees in targeted planter strips throughout the City that are vacant. Funding will be considered in the 2007-2008 Budget. He stated that the Commission has been asked to determine areas to be planted and brainstorm ideas to get the public involved. Director Schwartz stated that the Commission will need to begin to identify other funding sources such as grant opportunities, bequests, or individual donations to the general fund; that this project will not be funded through the existing "Tree Replacement Fund". He noted that he and Superintendent Richmond would be meeting with the City Planner, Meg Monroe, to discuss mandating street tree planting for residential reconstruction or remodels as well as for commercial developments. 2 OLD BUSINESS— Street Tree Planting in Vacant Areas—"Street Tree Reforestation Project" (Contd.) DirectorSchwartz directed the Commission to the letter submitted by Jennifer Pfaff that addresses a changing philosophy to that of the existing street tree policies, suggesting the planting of only one or two species on a block to provide-a more.uniform look. Secretary Harvey reported that;currently on vivvhv uiaL iiavc oiuy one species, au.emipts are it ade wheriever possible to replace .with the;same species, but that primary utility lines'-and narrow planter strips sometimes hinder those attempts. Director Schwartz stated that.as part of the Street Tree Reforestation Project,the Commission may also wish to :discuss with different neighborhoods, different reforesting policies for their block; similar to the process used on Easton Drive. Superintendent Richmond.also noted that there are property owners that do not want trees in front of their homes and that those and other issues of concern such as responsibility for sidewalk damage would also need to be addressed. Commissioner Ellis then read a list of areas identified by Chairperson McQuaide as needing street tree planting: Ray Drive near El Camino Real, Vancouver Avenue & Easton Drive, and Laguna Avenue near Lincoln & Edgehill. She then noted that Jennifer Pfaff had suggested Bayswater Avenue as a block having numerous vacant planting strips. Director 'Schwartz directed the Commission to identify other areas needed for planting and to report back at the next meeting. NEW BUSINESS Reinstatement of Landscape Award The Commission briefly discussed reinstating the Landscape Award. Commissioner Lahey stated that she had researched what other cities do and will provide the information to the Commission for the December meeting for further discussion. Arbor`Dav Ceremony—Wednesday.March"7.2007 at 10:00 am Superintendent Richmond asked for suggestions for planting sites. Commissioner O'Connor suggested that Village Park could use more trees. It was the consensus of-the Commission that unless there are any other suggested sites, the Arbor Day Ceremony be held:at Village Park. Secretary Harvey will check with the Burlingame Elementary School District to confirm that there :are no conflicts with the date. The Commission also discussed incorporating Arbor Day into the centennial theme by planting 100 trees as part of the Arbor Day Ceremony in 2008. Director Schwartz stated that additional funding would be required to plant that many trees and planning well in advance would be necessary. The Commission asked that the Arbor Day Ceremony for 2008 be placed on the next agenda. REPORTS Superintendent Richmond a. Removals: Siberian Elm at 1145 Oxford (major lateral failed and exposed decay and failure potential of additional laterals); diseased Pine in Washington Park next to Basketball Court; diseased Pine in rear of Washington Park. Both Pines were in serious decline from Pine Pitch Canker. b. Fall Tree Planting is near completion. Over 130 trees were planted. c. Free Contract pruning is continuing on Skyline Blvd. Contract crew has completed the block from Margarita to Rivera. Crew will complete some work assignments on Easton then resume pruning on Skyline where work stopped last spring. d. From Council concerning Commission attendance: Council has asked that Staff report attendance,late arrivals, early departures, and those who were present when quorums could not be obtained. 3 REFORM'S—(Contd.) Director Schwartz Director Schwartz reported to the Commission that injured tree worker rel Esikia is rehabilitating at home but it will be several weeks or months before he can return to work. C:ommissioner'lEffis Commissioner Ellis reported that she attended the Town Hall Meeting :arranged by Councilman Cohen, and reported on some of the various suggestions offered up by the public: planting of only deciduous trees; only .allowing 2 to 3 different species or, each 'block; developing -an Arts and Entertainment Commission. Commissioner O'Connor Commissioner O'Connor apologized for being late but stated that at times, she is unable to leave work and atothertimes commute traffic interferes. After a brief discussion,the Commission asked that meeting time be placed on the next agenda for further discussion. Commissioner Wriebt Commissioner Wright announced that she would be out of town for the December 'Commission meeting but stated she would like to serve on the Landscape Award Committee, the 2008 Arbor Day Committee, or any other Committees that may be formed during her absence. Commissioner Lahev Commissioner Lahey reported that she attended the Town Mall Meeting and participated in a round table discussion led by Council person, Ann Keighran, regarding: trash and overflowing garbage cans in the business districts:and in the parking lots, garbage:in the grates, assessments for street cleaning, steam cleaning :sidewalks, etc., various ideas for clean up projects, and coordinating volunteer efforts for ongoing cleanups including ways to get the community to participate. There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at 8:25pm. Respe1ctfizlly submitted, Karlene Harvey 0 Recording Secretary 4 BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION February 3, 2005 Chairperson Hesselgren called the regularly scheduled meeting of the Beautification Commission to order at �;:30 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson Hesselgren, Commissioners Carney, Grandcolas, Lauder, McQuaide, O'Connor, Absent: Commissioner Webb Staff: Parks & Recreation Director Schwartz, Parks Superintendent Richmond, Supervisor Disco, Secretary Harvey Guests: Phil Scott (PW Superintendent), Vince Falzon (Asst. Street and Sewer Superintendent), Jo Ellen Ellis MINUTES The minutes of the January 6, 2005 Beautification Commission meeting were approved as submitted. CORRESPONDENCE Copy of Internet Research on Tree Ordinances (with regard to views [submitted by Commissioner McQuaide]),that summarizes problems with the lack of enforcement and inequalities of complaints. Notes from Beautification Commission files regarding the Commission's consideration of establishing a View Ordinance in 1979. (Submitted by Commissioner McQuaide.) FROM THE FLOOR- There were no comments from the floor. Chairperson Hesselgren changed the order of the Agenda to accommodate the appellants requesting the removal of the Eucalyptus tree at 1800 Easton Drive. NEW BUSINESS Request for Removal of a City-owned Eucalyptus Tree at 1800 Easton Drive — Superintendent Richmond stated that for several years City Arborist Porter has been reviewing this particular Eucalyptus tree with the Public Works Department. Arborist Porter observed the large buttress root when it was exposed and determined that severing the root to accomplish a flatter street grade would be inadvisable, that the root was too significant and could end up destablizing the tree. Superintendent Richmond reported that an Independent Arborist had evaluated the Monterey Cypress and Eucalyptus trees lining Easton Drive. A boring (drilling) method and a mallet were used on this particular Eucalyptus to detect rot. Based on the procedures used, the report indicated that the tree appears to be healthy. The report stated that further testing with a Resistograph on the root crown might be advisable because Resistographs more accurately measure the presence of decay. Superintendent Richmond concluded that the health of the tree is not in dispute, but repairs to the roadside, the clay sewer main,and traffic safety are at issue. The Commission discussed the tree's health and suggestions such as re-routing of the roadside, adding road signage, lowering the speed limit, and making Easton Drive a one-way street. Following the discussion, Chairperson Hesselgren recognized Superintendent Scott and Asst. Superintendent Falzon. Supt. Scott thanked the Commission for scheduling the hearing. Asst. Superintendent Falzon stated over the years, street repair near this tree has been a challenge and that the tree causes traffic hazards because the buttress root extends so far into the road and doesn't allow for traffic to safely pass. Request for Removal of a City-owned Eucalyptus Tree at 1800 Easton (Cont'd;) Supt. Scott showed a Power Point presentation showing street damage, root growth, drainage problems, sewer damage, grade issues, and vehicular and traffic hazards. Alternatives to removal that have been considered are: trimming the roots, covering the roots with more asphalt, re-aligning the street, and making the street one-way travel. Supt. Scott stated thatthe City Arborist believes trimming or shaving the buttress root could cause the tree to be unstable and covering the root with more asphalt could damage the root system. Supt. Scott added that covering the root with more asphalt would also make the hump even higher. Re-aligning the street would not only mean other trees would need removing, but is cost prohibitive (up to $100k). Re-alignment of the street would affect all 4 comers and would also require removal and construction of various new sections of curb, gutter, and roadway, as well as utility pole relocation. Supt. Scott concluded that making the street one-way travel is not feasible in residential areas because it pushes traffic onto smaller streets. It would confuse the driving public, is costly, would make library access difficult, and Easton Drive is the only street that provides direct access for residents in the Canyon Road area. Following the presentation the Commission discussed the various issues. Commissioner Grandcolas asked if the tree was mature and had it stopped growing. Superintendent Richmond stated that the tree is mature in top growth but would assume that the root would continue to grow. Commissioner McQuaide stated that other cities have one wav streets or use less costly alternatives such as signage (Caution Tree Cross/Caution Slow), and that the sewer could be moved to the other side of the street. Commissioner Grandcolas stated that he slows down when approaching the area, that if accidents were occurring or residents were complaining he would be more inclined to consider removal as a solution but both cases are absent. He added that these trees are part of the character and charm of a Tree City USA. Commissioner Camey stated that it is a traffic hazard for cars coming in opposite directions, particularly if you are not totally aware. She added when it rains, the roadside puddles up making it more difficult to see the hump. Commissioner O'Connor stated she frequents the area; accessibility is an issue and has been for many years. Chairperson Hesselgren commented that she is tom, having all the Eucalyptus trees removed on Easton Drive would change the whole character of the neighborhood, however, this particular tree is presenting substantial liabilities and danger. The tree is causing damage to curbs, sidewalk, drainage; an 8' root extending into the street causing a grade ncline of 2', and if left to remain,will end up causing ongoing future costs and liabilities to the City. Commissioner Lauder responded that she agreed with Chairperson Hesselgren, that this tree is causing significant liabilities to the City. She stated that removal of this tree would not take away from the purpose and intent of the Urban Reforestation and Tree Protection ordinance but if removal is granted, she would like it to be replaced with a fast growing tree . . . that it should be a"grand tree". Director Schwartz informed the Commissioners that the City Council, at it's January 29`�budget and goal study session, agreed to ask the Beautification Commission to develop a long range reforestation plan for the Eucalyptus trees on Easton Drive. He stated that any decision made regarding this tree or a possible replacement, should be made in consideration of the long term plan. Following the discussion, Commissioner Lauder moved to uphold the appeal and grant removal of the City-owned Eucalyptus tree at 1800 Easton Drive due to safety hazards, damage to the sewer main, drainage problems, traffic flow problems, and accessibility issues. But with the recommendation, that the tree be replaced with a sizeable specie to be determined by the Commission at a future meeting, seconded, Carney. Motion carried 5—1 (McQuaide)—1 absent(Webb). OLID BUSINESS - Tree "View Ordinance — Commissioner Grandcolas stated the draft for a policy has yet to be developed by the Committee, but that Commissioners McQuaide and Lauder would present what they had researched on their own. Superintendent Richmond stated that City Planner Monroe has agreed to come to the March Commission meeting to discuss what the Planning Department considers with regard to views for new construction. OLD BUSINESS - Tree View Ordinance- (Contd.) Commissioner McQuaide submitted Internet Research on Tree Ordinances and stated she conducted an Internet research of legal journals pertaining to view ordinances. She stated that what she found mostly was that tree view ordinances more often than not lead to nasty disputes between neighbors, generally satisfies only a few people, and does not protect the interests of the community as a whole_ She noted three themes that kept surfacing in her research were: 1) In California, no one has a"right"to a view, air, sunlight; etc. 2) A personal view cannot be guaranteed. 3) The advantages of trees (clean air, reducing landslides, etc.) outweigh the disadvantages. She concluded that an ordinance or a policy should be unique to the community, that if the City of Burlingame were to adopt an ordinance or policy it should have clear, specific goals, it should specifically designate responsibility, allow for flexibility, and most importantly, should have community support. Commissioner McQuaide then submitted her notes from department files of 1979 Beautification Commission meetings with regard to past considerations for establishing a view ordinance in the City of Burlingame. After reviewing the information, Commissioner O'Connor suggested that the Commission receive updated case laws. Commissioner Grandcolas stated he did not find the Berkeley ordinance helpful as a model, and that the Committee needs more direction, whether to consider nothing, consider an ordinance, or consider a policy, as well as the pros and cons of establishing a policy. He commented that he would like to provide a mechanism for property owners, but the more this issue is researched, the more it appears to be a real can of worms. Chairperson Hesselgren stated battles between neighbors could create even more problems. Commissioner Lauder stated it would be very important to consider the words of wisdom from past Commissions. Director Schwartz suggested that along with the City Planner attending next month's meeting, the City Attorney might provide the Commission with information, comments, or updates on existing case law. Street Tree Removal Policy — Superintendent Richmond asked the Commission for feed back on the Criteria for City Street Tree Removal form. The Commission agreed that the form was easy to understand and useful. Chairperson Hesselgren asked the Commission to further review, try to use the form, and be prepared to make a recommendation to Council at the next meeting. Arbor Day Ceremonies—Monday, March 7, 2005 —Bayside Park— Superintendent Richmond reminded the Commission of this upcoming event; correspondence has gone out to schools, agencies, newspapers, and Council, announcing the event. Commissioner's Dinner - Superintendent Richmond reminded the Commission of Friday nights Commissioners Dinner at the Doubletree Hotel DEPORTS— Director Schwartz— l. At the Council Budget Study Session it was announced that the economic indicators are up and the trends are progressing nicely; 1.6 million of reserves will be used to reduce impacts to employees and the Parks & Recreation Department will be able to add back a Tree Worker position. Superintendent Richmond- I. Tree planting is now occurring. 2. Sycamore Pruning is continuing in the SE section of the City. 3. A Eucalyptus fronting the Rec Center will be removed in the near fixture. It has been in decline through the last two pruning cycles. It now has significant die back in the canopy. 4. The irrigation system for the street channels at City Hall was improved and sod/seed was added after the sidewalk replacement. 5. Final acceptance of the new landscaping to screen the BART tail tracks will be recommended to Council. Cost reimbursement from BART will be the next step. REPORTS—(Contd.) Hesseluen— Chairperson Hesselgren reported that she attended the Mayor's Meeting. She asked that the Commission think about and respond back at the next meeting, questions they may want to ask other Commissions. These questions would pertain to the work of this Commission and would clarify the work OI the Omer t— ss' ns, as we" as IlUW file l UII1r111SS1UIIS work Might111terJel 1llG neXt Mayor's 5 Meeting will be in April and Chairperson Hesselgren will share with the other Commissions thoughts from the Beautification Commission. O'Connor — Comrnlssioner O'Connor stated she would be interested in working or, urban reforestation as an ongoing endeavor. like a tree planting program, or a replacement program to stagger tree replanting etc. There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:25 pm. Respectfully submitted, s 1 Karlene Harvey Recording Secretary -" 1-9 E°~i~o'~ P, ~~~ _FEB � � ��0� f,,4� -- ~_°� CITY CLERKp Ogig City of Burlingame Parks & Recreation Department 358Burlingame Ave. Burlingame, CA 94010 RE: Appeal ofthe removal ofEucalyptus Trea. 18OUEaston Dr. � i his !effer is to formally appeal 'the removal the Eucalyptus Tree at 1800 Easton Drive, Burlingame. Our family has lived onthis corner for over 55years. VVabelieve itiathe uniqueness ofthe tnaea and the history of this street iowhat makes it such a Special place to live. it is understandable that trees and under street pipes have a difficult time co-existing. The demands of modern living and thetrees that never caused a problem in past, now can place engineering difficulties onrenovation projects. Asolution should befound toboth preserve the integrity ofthe trees gowell oaunderground utilities. Cutting a healthy (as stated by the independent arborist) 100 year oid tree, can only be the beginning of'the demise of every tree on Easton, which remains a beautiful and historic avenue toBuriingome'apast. It seems asharne after the long and well thought out restoration ofthe Easton Branch Library that the same consideration can not begiven toanolder and more majestic monumantto Bur(ingame'mrich history. Saving this tree would reflect the pride we have in ourwonderful communitv. t4Sile Di Ion Laney m Lahey The Dillon Family Resident r 850-342-4302 mffaohamant 2117/2005 :mail sent to Burlingame City Council My name is Susie 'Dillon Lahey and I live at 1719 Easton Dr., with my husband, Sam and two small children. We are "kitty corner'to the tree. My whole family is shocked and saddened that :his tree will be removed. Our family has lived on this corner for over 55 years. We believe it is the uniqueness of the trees and the history of this street is what makes it such a special place to live. During our many years here on Easton we have lots of stories to tell...and not surprisingly, averyone has a story of a speeding car whizzing by ...Unfortunately people speed on this ztreet and do not stop completely at the stop signs on the corner of Easton and Cabrillo. This beautiful, strong tree acts as a natural speed deterrent. 1 would like respond to a few of the comments I've seen from the various daily papers... "...roots make a hump in the road..." -thank goodness, it slows people down. is it too bumpy? Sure...how about paving it over smooth, painting some lines on it and putting up a'Caution Bump' sign??There are many other cities that have installed natural barriers to neighborhoods to deter speeding (round about, trees, planting areas) at great expense...we should utilize this tree to benefit safety. - ":..-makes driving-unsafe and hard for pedestrians and the-elderly to get to the-library..."-Again the tree does not make driving unsafe...dis-courteous drivers who speed make driving unsafe. The cross walk is very clearly ahead of the tree...there is a lovely path way just built during the remodel that makes it accessible for all. Again, this tree acts as a natural barrier, if anything, it would shield children and elderly from a speeding, out of control car. "...;Hakes it hard to make a right hand turn from Cabrillo on to Easton..."the road does narrow there, and during a busy time of day (OLA school drop off and pick up) it can get a little crazy there...however, there are many places through out town that have the same difficult situation...for instance, turning right from Chula 1fista on to Carmelita during the afternoon when cars can park on both sides of the street...you must wait for an opening or hope someone is not speeding down the road... How about a no right turn sign during certain hours or a drive safely sign?? "...bark falls down during a storm..." Sark, leaves and acorns do fall from TREES during severe wind storms...ln all these years I've never heard a story of someone getting hurt from bark_cutting this particular tree will not cut down on natural debris during a storm. ".--concerned some of the old trees could come down on a house..."THANKS to the wonderful tree trimming protocol the City of Burlingame has enacted, :hese trees are strong and sturdy. During the last severe storms we had, we looked long and hard at ALL the trees around our home...they are all safe, as stated by the independent arborist. Burliingame's attitude towards its rich history, beautiful trees, and citizens who take pride in their homes and neighbors, is why our entire family has worked very hard ail these years, to preserve 2/11/2005 10:24 AM :his "little slice of heaven'for our future generations...We will Teel a great loss if this tree, that we look at so many times each day its hard to count...not to mention the many birds who nest high up in these trees...is gone. ,Please help me to block the r emoval of this tree, and to come up with other alternatives to the concerns mentioned. Sincerely, Susie Dillon Lahey, Sam Lahey The Dillon f=amily Resident 850-342-4302 2/11/2005 104 AM February 16, 2005 Honorable Mayor Galligan and City Council City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mayor Galligan: RE: Removal of the Tree at the Corner of Easton Drive and Cabrillo Avenue The Library Board of Trustees reviewed the matter of removal of the tree on Easton Drive at their meeting of February 15, 2005. We support the decision(4 yes and 1 abstention) of the Beautification Commission to remove this particular tree. There were a number of issues that were of concern: safety of pedestrians, safety of vehicle drivers, concern for falling limbs on homes or the library itself. In addition, it is difficult to turn left from Cabrillo to Easton safely because of the location of the tree. This tree narrows the Easton arterial considerably. We understand that the Beautification Commission looked at: a) removal of the root in the street, which would likely shorten the life of the tree; b)re-routing traffic off Easton onto the side streets, which would route traffic onto streets not designed to carry this traffic; c) make Easton one-way, which would again route traffic onto side streets, no longer making Easton the important arterial street it is. Randy Schwartz, Park and Recreation Director, spoke to the commission about the need to manage the urban forest and not have all trees end their life at the same time. In keeping with this long range strategy, we support the removal of the tree and the planting of new tree species. We understand that this will likely need to be done in other parts of the city so that trees that come to the end of their lives are not removed all at once, completely changing the urban forest environment. The Board will be available for comments at your March 7tj'meeting, should you wish further comments. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input on this important decision. Sincerely, Mary Herman President, Library Board of Trustees David Can, Secretary Carol Rossi, Trustee Patricia Toft, Trustee Katie McCormack, Trustee CITY STAFF REPORT BllRLINGAME AGENDA ITEM# 8f MTG. 12/4/06 DATE TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED JJ� BY la ®(/ DATE: November 29,2006 APPROVE FROM: Jim Nantell 558-7205 BY SUBJECT: National Citizen Survey RECOMMENDATION: That the Council concur with recommendation of the City Manager to participate in the ICMA National Citizen Survey as part of the California Regional Consortia. BACKGROUND: As the Council is aware last August staff indicated that we were exploring participation in a consortia of peninsula cities considering participating in the ICMA National Citizen Survey as a way to bench mark our citizen satisfaction data with other near by cities. Just as the key for a successful business is customer satisfaction,the first and last measure of good government is citizen satisfaction. The International City Managers Association(ICMA)has teamed up with National Research Center Incorporated to create a low cost citizen survey service for local governments. The survey lets you survey citizen opinion for program planning, budgeting, goal and priority setting and benchmarking our performance. Staff can use the results to improve service, the Council can use it to set priorities and management can use the results too measure progress and chart the future. The City of Palo Alto, which has been involved in the program for a couple of years, has taken the initiative to form a consortia of peninsula cities as a way to get us more value for our money and to ensure data from other near by cities that can be used to compare our results. BUDGET IMPACT: The cost for participation in the survey is $8,400 which is available in the City Manager's budget due to our decision to delay replacing the intern position in the City Manager/City Attorney's office. ATTACHMENTS: A. CA NCS Consortium Proposal B. Power Point Presentation and sample survey ATTACHMENT A 1CM NATIONAL Leaders at the Core of Better Communities RESEARCH C E N T E R INC. California Bay-Area Consortium Proposal for The National Citizen SurveyTM To: City/County Managers and other representatives of California Bay-Area local governments From: Frank Benest, City Manager, City of Palo Alto Sharon Erickson, City Auditor, City of Palo Alto Tom Miller, President, National Research Center, Inc. Michael Lawson, Director, ICMA Center for Performance Measurement Heather Locke, Director, The National Citizen SurveyTM Re: Proposal to create a regional performance management consortium for communities in the California Bay-Area to conduct The National Citizen SurveyTM (The NCS) Date: October 30, 2006 Action Required: Please contact Heather Locke (Heather(o7n-r-c.com) by November 21, 2006 Background In many state management association meetings in the past year and at the ICMA conference in Minneapolis, ICMA Executive Director Bob O'Neill has emphasized the growing importance of performance measurement and performance management to all communities. Bob has linked this to the `performance dividend' of professionally managed local governments and its long-term relevance to the profession. Citizen surveys are core to performance management. National Research Center, Inc. (NRC) has developed The National Citizen SurveyTM (The NCS) with ICMA and other experts and implements the survey across the U.S. Below is a proposal for your consideration. This proposal, if implemented, would result in a regional citizen survey consortium using The NCS in California. Vision and Goals I. To use comparative citizen survey data to: - 1 - a. If desired,identify among consortium members similarities and differences in resident ratings of services. b. If desired,identify higher performing jurisdictions for particular services(or clusters of related measures)in order to identify key factors contributing to high performance(e.g.,effective practices, leading practices). i. Once several jurisdictions are identified as higher performers for specific measures,those jurisdictions would be asked to share"best practices/effective practices"that have contributed to higher ratings(e.g.,specific internal processes,materials,training,equipment,communication, etc.). ii. The result would be a set of informal case studies that would be shared within the region as well as across the country. iii. Goal: To promote specific actions and practices that contribute to service improvement among localities within the consortium(and nationwide). Key provisions included in The National Citizen SurveyTm Basic Service All localities that agree to join the CA Bay-Area consortium for The National Citizen SurveyTm will have the following included: I. Copy of Citizen Surveys:how to do them,how to use them,what they mean II. Customized survey form and mailing envelope with jurisdiction name,logo, and local contact phone number III. Choice of services to be surveyed IV. Addition of three optional questions V. Three mailings to 1,200 randomly selected households VI. Margin of error(95%confidence interval)of about+/-5% VII. Data input and cleaning VIII. Statistical analysis of survey results IX. Written report illustrated with tables and graphs summarizing the survey results X. Comparative norms report for service evaluations XI. Additional norms report for participants in Bay-Area consortium for comparisons among participants XII. Certificate of authenticity signed by the executive director of ICMA and the president of National Research Center,Inc. XIII. Technical assistance by phone and email XIV. Add-on options for further reports and customization XV. Presentation of consortium results,the cost of which can be split among participants -2- XVI. Entry into the Voice of the People Awards competition for recognition of excellence and transformation XVII. Hourlong debriefing call for each jurisdiction with NCS staff Additional Services and Incentives for Localities in Bay Area (at no additional cost) For 5 participating jurisdictions or over, all of the above PLUS: • In addition to the standard report and normative report provide in the regular service outlined above (see IX and X above), a third report containing survey results for all localities participating in the Bay-Area consortium. For 10 participating jurisdictions or over, all of the above PLUS: • In-person presentation of the overall consortium report at a single location.' • Facilitated half-day workshop & discussion re next steps including best practices among consortium members and all NCS participants as well as use of survey results to improve performance and linkages to existing performance measurement efforts. • Access to best practices among consortium members and all NCS participants. • In-person presentation of results of individual jurisdictions at reduced cost of $1 ,600 each (regular cost is $2,500) when reports to individual jurisdictions are scheduled as part of single trip by NRC to deliver the consortium report. Costs for participants during 2006 through Sept 2007: • Total cost for all key provisions described above: $8,400 'The in-person presentation of the overall consortium report also would be available in a consortium having 5-9 participating jurisdictions. The fee would be $2,500 divided by the total number of participating jurisdictions. This service would be free to the consortium if it has 10 or more participating jurisdictions. - 3 - ATTACHMENT B The- National Citizen Survey" For California Regional Consortia Tom Miller,President(tom@n-r-c.com National Research Center, Inc. Boulder, CO o NATIONAL -- RESEARCH -.- - --- C- E N- T E- RIc __Why jurisdictions Conduct-citizen surveys ❑ Monitor trends 1n resident opinion-- ❑ Measure government performance ❑ Assess support for local policies ❑ Inform budget, land use strategic planning decisions ❑ Benchmark service ratings ❑ Communicate with residents ®National Research Center,Inc.2006 - 2 © 2006 National Research Center, Inc. 1 Survey myths ❑ Residents don't like local government ❑ Only those who love or hate will respond ❑ Surveys are needed only when officials are _out of touch with- residents ❑ Survey data speak for themselves ❑ The press_will crucify you if you have bad results ®National Research Center.Inc.2006_ - 3 Whet S Tht NIMBI CitiZen_Survey'" ❑ A turnkey=citizen survey service offered by _the lnternational City/County Management ASSOclatiotl (ICMA) and National Research Center, Inc. (NR C) ❑ Cost-effective system for conducting comprehensive surveys of local residents ❑ Customizable survey with core questions important_to your community ❑ Benchmarking tool that allows comparison among communities .. ®National Rese ch Center,Im.2006 4 © 2006 National Research Center, Inc. 2 What is included in The NOW Citizen SurVeyTM? ❑ Customized questionnaire with community logo and local signatures ❑ Scientific selection of 1,200 residents ❑ Postcard followed by two survey mailings ❑ Dataprocessing ❑ Data analysis ❑ Final report - ❑ Normative comparisons from across the U.S. O National Research Center,Inc.2008 - 5 Now OOrmnta ON- =survey? ❑ Random selection-of households= ❑ Unbiased selection of onenember within =each targeted household ❑ Multiple mailings reminding each targeted t household to participate= ❑ Easy response (self addressed postage- 9 paid)_ - ❑ Statistical reweighting of sample so that survey demographics reflect-the most -recent Census O NatioiW Reseamh Center,Inc.2008 © 2006 National Research Center, Inc. 3 Custonizalft and additional optans ❑ Basic Service: ■ Choose core services from a list of more than 40 services ■ Create a subset of questions specific-to your jurisdiction ❑ You can select add itionat services including ■ Design an open.4nded question - _ ■ Increase sample size _- ■ Add Spanish version =- ■ Compare results to your results from pno_r years ■ Cross-tabulate responses to survey questions by respondent demographics and/or geographic area O National Research Cerder,Inc.2006 - - _- 7 What do The National Citizen Swveyl" results tell UST Residits' POMPOM Quality of life in the_community ❑_Quality of local ciovern�nent services ❑ Resident_:participation in local activities ❑ Local policy-re_iated information in optional- questions - - ❑ Community demographics _®NaborW Re amh Certer.Ino:2008 _-. 8 © 2006 National Research Center, Inc. 4 Normative comparisons ❑ Why are norms useful? ❑ Data on trends in resident opinion across the U.S. comes from: - - ■ 4o0+jurisdictions' survey results ■ Over 100,000 respondents representing more than 30,_000,000_Americans ■ Cities, Bou-nties, townships andvillages -- - -- - - -townships Regional norms for-consortia 0 National Research Centw,Inc.2006 B Sample V-- from R 889 F".11:0-a,:mdsThs:of tlrn Conrraadtyr Gen"and OpporlunlWs Sense of community 57 Overall appearance_of - -- - Anytown --- -_ _ -- Educational opo nilie; 71 Overall imagelreputagon 56 — Overall quality of riew development r_ - 0 10 20 30 -40 50 60 - _ ._ 70- 80 _ 90 100 Average rating on the 10D-Wnt scale(1WEUellent,0-100r) 0 National Research Carrier,Inc 2006 _ __- _- 70 © 2006 National Research Center, Inc. 5 Sample from Normative Comparisons report Figure 2:Characteristics of the Community:General and Opportunities Percentile 100- 90- 80- 70- 60 0090 8070 60 50- 40 0 40 30 20- 10- 0 0 10 Sense of community Overall appearance Educational Overall Overal quaNty of new nnnoryt _"' imagelrr iputatian -. - development- ®National Research Center,Inc.2006 Questions Ideas for Consortium © 2006 National Research Center, Inc. 6 jrc«�cx...o....-,�.awrao-.>�+Aw. ««...,•....«.w.,nra,s,.,mw. ..+..aww�...-.,w..wr..«..-...�.mwvw..a..,.-._ ,•- i THE XYZ OF ABC 2006 CITIZEN SURVEY e this qunstionna r u"_are y ult(age 19 or+alders ri the househ ho ritoe � : The adult's year of birth"does not matter,.Please circle the response that 'r` pre'sients your Ion for each ques aur responses are anonymous and will be reported jn group form only. i i ( 1. Please circle the number that comes closest to your opinion for each of the following questions: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know How doru rate ABC as a place to live?. 1 2 3 4 5 .z �Ylr netgttb+ifiovd as a tv How do you'rate ABC as a place to raise children 1 2 3 4 5 you' s a:.pace to �. . .m.� � .. u How do you rate ABC as a place to retires 1 2 3 4 5 How d'©you:rate,the n�era ualt f li p'In ABCr?, ,-« 1 2.: 3 I 2. Please rate each of the following characteristics as they relate to ABC as a whole: Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Sense of community 1 2 3 4 5 ©pe 4� ���l�a�n�,Fof the C0!mfr[t�tl people©f � Overall appearance of ABC 1 2 3 4 5 Shoppm opporturnties 5:, 1 2 3 4 i Recreational opportunities ... 1 2 3 4 5 a .. , Access to affordable quality housing .... ... 1 2 3 4 5 X 004 Access � _ SON.4 q o held care t£ Access to affordable quality health care 1 2 3 4 5 € MO EK fordable gL;41ty 'o ' i iii 1 2 3 4 Ease of car travel m ABC 5 �� t uF# SBC .,_. ,.�. .. .. �. ..,.._ � __ w" Ease of rail/subway travel in ABC .1 2 3 4 5 Ease of walking in ABC .... 1 2 3 4 5 +rfieatiflnaopl�ciurtte�. .. 1 W213 REMOVE,nsT k Overall image/reputation of ABC.. ... 1 2 3 4 5 overall quality of new development in ABC' .- ��;S%g 1 2 3. Please rate the speed of growth in the following categories in ABC over the past 2 years: Much Somewhat Right Somewhat Much Don't tooslow too slow amount too fast too fast know Population growth............................................................ .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 ir 2etaf gro stops,".restatarants etc .�... 4 " , Jobs growth ...................... ..... .... 1 2 3 4 5 6 i i a The National Citizen SurveyTm Page 1 of 5 The XYZ of ABC 4. To what degree, if at all, are the following problems in ABC: Nota Minor Moderate Major Don't rop blemrop blemrop blemrop blem know Crime ... 1 2 3 1 2 3 4 5 Too muchrowth... Graffiti .. .. ....... 1 2 3 4 5 i Run down buildin s weed lots,or unk vehicles.. 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 Homelessness _ _ 2 3 5 Absence of communications from the XYZ of ABC translated into languages other than English 1 2 3 4 5 Toxic waste or other environmental hazard(s).... ......... ......... .........1 2 3 4 5 5. Please rate how safe you feel from the following occurring to you in ABC: I Very Somewhat Neither safe Somewhat Very Don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know Violent crime(e.g., rape assault robbery) 1 2 3 4 5 6 � i Ptc arty crimes{e c ,burg{ary� thefts Y I v ... W Fire . ......... ......... . ......... .. ............ ........... ......... 1 2 3 4 5 6 6, Please rate how safe you feel: Very Somewhat Neither sate Somewhat Very Don't safe safe nor unsafe unsafe unsafe know In your neighborhood during the day . 1 2 3 4 5 6 > ydtxr nefgkttlocjd after . 54, _ �- . .-.�_s .- w: In ABC's downtown area during the da I......................... 1 2 3 4 5 6 � m In ABC's parks during the day .. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7. During the past twelve months,were you or anyone in your household the victim of any crime? O No 4 Go to question#9 O Yes 4 Go to question#8 O Don't know 6 C 8. If yes,was this crime(these crimes) reported to the police? O No O Yes O Don't know r U 9. In the last 12 months, about how many times, if ever, have you or other household members participated in the following activities in ABC? Once or 3 to 12 13 to 26 More than Never twice times times 26 times Used ABC public libraries or their services 1 2 3 4 5 0 �sl� « afn enter , 'FO ; . ,. .. ;� AN Z Participated in a recreation program or activity 1 2 _3 4 5 0 Ridden a local bus within ABC 1 2 3 4 5NE, 0 Watched a meeting of local elected officials or other local public meeting on cable television .. .. . ..... 1 2 3 4 5 iv Volunteered our time to soID me grou /activit m ABC .1 2 3 4 5 C Y �, , . Used the Internet for anythin .. ... ...... .. 1 2 3 4 5 U r - � Co"WAKNOWN Purchased an item over the Internet.....................................................1 2 3 4 5 Z CD L F i The National Citizen SurveyTm _ Page 2 of 5 i The XYZ of ABC j10. How do you rate the quality of each of the following services in ABC? I Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know Police services 1 2 3 4 5 �r-.�V1>. : el C2S 5� s *�A a � -. Ambulance/emergency medical services ....1 2 3 4 5 . . r prevention....... . .... Fire prevention and education 1 3 4 5 c enforcement Garbage collection 1 2 3 4 Yard waste ick up '11 1 2 3 4 5 IMEMOMMOM Street cleaning 1 2 3 4 5 ri Rw Snow removal ...... ..... .... .... .... . .. 2 3 K.. r 4 � �5 x�wa� Traffic signal timing 1 2 3 4 5 Drnkmg water .y .z1 �2 �3 4 5 NOW Range/vanety of recreation programs and classes .1 2 3 4 5 Accessibility of parks F erslfa�iis� 1 4 ..... 2 3 5 Appearance/maintenance of parks ... 4 WL 5 Land use plannin and zoning 1 2 3 4 �� ar�don dlr�id1 G �4,. �, ,�. ��:. . �'. £" w1 >ki c'z., u" _.. 1 2 >n-N9s:_, m: _9 .YM%C3z,s i Animal control .. .. r. F a... Health services ... 2 3 5 Services to outh . ... ..... . 3 y Public library services 1 2 3 4 5 Public information services ..... 1 2 3 4 5 U Public schoolsCU .. 1 2 3 r...?e tel . . , '4 F_. .,. ct 11. Overall, how..would you rate the quality of the services provided by... Excellent Good Fair Poor Don't know ° The XYZ of ABC? ..1 2 3 4 5 z N, _ , o av<_ �..e .uc. CD The State Government?........................................................................1 2 3 4 5 0 0 I 12. Have you had any in-person or phone contact with an employee of the XYZ of ABC within the last 12 months o (including police,receptionists, planners or any others)? O No 4 Go to question#14 O Yes 4 Go to question#13 iu 13. What was your impression of employees of the XYZ of ABC in your most recent contact?(Rate each U) characteristic below.) u Excellent Good Fair Poor Don'tknow N Knowled a ... 1 2 3 4 5 FU Courtesy 1 z The National Citizen SurveyTm Page 3 of 5 The XYZ of ABC _ 14. Please rate the following statements by circling the number that most clearly represents your opinion: Strongly Somewhat Neither agree Somewhat Strongly Don't agree agree nor disagree disagree disagree know 1 receive good value for the XYZ of ABC .... ... .... 1 2 3 4 5 6 taxes I pay .. I am pleased with the overall drred or _... ABC is taking...; .. .,... The XYZ of ABC government welcomes citizen l involvement..... 1 2 3 4 5 6 The XYZ ofABC 15. What impact, if any, do you think the economy will have on your family income in the next 6 months? Do you think the impact will be: i O Very positive O Somewhat positive O Neutral O Somewhat negative O Very negative 16. Please check the response that comes closest to your opinion for each of the following questions: a. Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question #1 Policy Question #1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question #1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question#1 Policy Question #1 ( O Scale point 1 O Scale point 3 O Scale point 5 O Scale point 2 O Scale point 4 O Scale point 6 b. Policy Question#2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question #2 Policy Question#2 Policy Question#2 O Scale point 1 O Scale point 3 O Scale point 5 } O Scale point 2 O Scale point 4 O Scale point 6 c, Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy F Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question #3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question #3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 Policy Question#3 O Scale point 1 O Scale point 3 O Scale point 5 O Scale point 2 O Scale point 4 O Scale point 6 d. OPTIONAL[See Worksheets for details and price of this option]Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended 3 Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open-Ended Question Open- Ended Question c r U i m i N N N C C O Z to 0 O N O O N O E T N Z 7 U) C N N U y m S c 0 Z 1 N L,X� i e National Citizen SurveyT"" Page 4 of 5 Th I • � '"`� `� '�''�- ��� The XYZ of ABC n � w5" i 17. Do you live within the XYZ limits of the XYZ of 24. Are you or any other members of your ABC? household aged 65 or older? 0 No 0 Yes 0 No 0 Yes 18. Are you currently employed? 25. Does any member of your household have a 0 No 4 Go to question#19 physical handicap or is anyone disabled? 0 Yes 4 Go to question#18a 0 No 0 Yes 18a.What one method of transportation do you 26. What is the highest degree or level of school you usually use (for the longest distance of your have completed? (mark one box) commute)to travel to work? 0 12th Grade or less, no diploma O Motorized vehicle (e.g. car, truck, van, 0 High school diploma motorcycle etc...) O Some college, no degree O Bus, Rail, Subway, or other public 0 Associate's degree (e.g.AA, AS) transportation 0 Bachelor's degree (e.g. BA, AB, BS) O Walk 0 Graduate degree or professional degree O Work at home O Other 27. How much do you anticipate your household's total income before taxes will be for the current 18b.1f you checked the motorized vehicle (e.g. year? (Please include in your total income car, truck, van, motorcycle, etc.) box in 18a, money from all sources for all persons living in do other people (adults or children) usually your household.) ride with you to or from work? 0 Less than $24,999 0 No 0 Yes 0 $25,000 to$49,999 0 $50,000 to $99,999 19. How many years have you lived in ABC? 0 $100,000 or more 0 Less than 2 years 0 11-20 years 0 2-5 years 0 More than 20 years 28. Are you Spanish/Hispanic/Latino? 0 6-10 years 0 No 0 Yes 20. Which best describes the building you live in? 29. What is your race? (Mark one or more races to O One family house detached from any other indicate what race you consider yourself to be) houses O American Indian or Alaskan native O House attached to one or more houses (e.g., a O Asian or Pacific Islander duplex or townhome) 0 Black,African American O Building with two or more apartments or 0 White/Caucasian condominiums 0 Other O Mobile home O Other 30. In which category is your age? 0 18-24 years 0 55-64 years N 21. Is this house, apartment, or mobile home... O 25-34 years 0 65-74 years 0 Rented for cash or occupied without cash 0 35-44 years 0 75 years or older payment? O 45-54 years ° 0 Owned by you or someone in this house with a z mortgage or free and clear? 31. What is your sex? o 0 Female 0 Male N 22. Do any children 12 or under live in your o household? 32. Are you registered to vote in your jurisdiction? N 0 No O Yes 0 No 0 Yes 0 Don't know 23. Do any teenagers aged between 13 and 17 live in 33. Did you vote in the last election? your household? 0 No 0 Yes O Don't know I 0 No 0 Yes 34. Are you likely to vote in the next election? O No 0 Yes O Don't know Thank you for completing this survey-'. Please return the completed survey in the postage paid envelope to: National Research Center,Inc.,3005 30th St., Boulder,CO 80301 z Q) L H lj��he.National Citizen SurveyTM Page 5 of 5 The National Citizen SurveyTM Participants through August 2006 Jurisdiction Name State 2000 Population Siloam Springs AR 10,000 Safford AZ 9,232 Scottsdale* ------------ -...- ._._ AZ 202,705 .__..._......._.._....._._...----._....-----...-._._._....._.._....... - Sedona* AZ 10,192 Tucson* AZ 486,699 ___.._._..__....... -._.......-----.-----.....................--........---..___...___----------..-- ...._...._.-.._..-...__._._...._.....................-._..-_------..__..._. ---.....-.___...._ BeniciaCA 26,865 ..................................--........_----..............................._...............-......---...---......-....................._....._..._..._....................._..............___..._._..__....--._...._.. ..__.._.._..._._. Chula Vista CA 173,556 EI Cerrito* - CA _ 23,171 ....._........_._.._............._._.....__.._....._......_._.....-------.._.._..--...._._.. -- ._._...------...----- ----- ..-..._....__........._......_.__..._.......-- -----. --.._.._. Livermore* CA 73,345 - _..__..._._.... .._.._.... _._._._..._._.__._. Long Beach CA 461,522 Palm Springs CA 42,807 ----.........--.._.._....._.....__._._...__.....---.._..--- - Palo Alto* CA 58,598 Ridgecrest CA 24,927 San Luis Obispo County- CA - 247,900 _.-_._....._...._...._..__. - ..............................._ __....._....-- --- ...._...--- ---.._._.. -- --._._._----_------------- -- San Ramon CA 44,722 Santa Barbara County CA 399,347 Boulder County* CO 291,288 _._._.........................---._._... -.._..__....--......-----....----..__.............-..__.._.__-...---- - -..._..-......_....- - Denver(City and County)* CO 554,636 Jefferson County CO 527,056 Larimer County _ -- CO - - 251,494 Dover* DE 32,135 Bonita Springs FL32,797 ------ ----------- --_--------- -...... ..---------- -- --------- - ...---------------- -- - Brevard County FL 476,230 __......_......_ ._...-- --------------------....._.......---- ------ ---. _ Cape Coral FL 102,286 Dania Beach FL 20,061 Lee County FL 454,918 ......_........._....._......-----...._..... ..__._._........ _- ---....----._....---....._---_ --...-_-...---.._.._.-._..---..._._._.. Melbourne FL 71,382 Ocoee FL 24,391 _................_...._.._...._._....---.......- -- _.._.__..._.....__._....-._.....__...._--...-- ..__.._...----..__.....- _._......_._._._....- --...._._.........-- -.....- ---- Oldsmar FL 11,910 _._.__... .._..._._.......---..._.._._.........._._._._.. ---....---_ ----...__...__._.._..__ ..- ---------..._..-- ------- - - Oviedo FL 26,316 Palm-Bay* - -FL _ _---� 79,413 - - - ---.......--*..--........---------------.._.._._........._...._.._._._..- -....----- - ----- - ------.._....._....-............._.._-.._....__....._......._....._..__......._............... Palm Coast FL 32,732 Sarasota* FL 52,715 South Daytona - FL - . _ ._._....._.__......._.... Titusville FL 40,670 Walton County* - FL - 40,601 *Jurisdiction has repeated The National Citizen Survey"at least once. Page 1 of 3 The National. Citizen SurveyTM Participants through August 2006 Jurisdiction Name State 2000 Population Cartersville* GA 15,925 Decatur GA 18,147 Hanau Germany(BSB) _.__....-.._..._.._._.....--------_.-------.._._....._..---._.._..._.._.._.._.......-- .._...._.------.................. -._.._._......._.....--- ...._..._....._._.._..._..__._....__.._...- Ankeny* IA 27,117 -� DeKalbIL 39,018 ---.... .._......__.._.._.......--........_._._..._..__.... -_.._...._...._.__.._.._ ....__._.._._._..-- ._._.-.._......_._._. ......_....._._.......__.._._.........-.__..._._..._...-------..._.. ._._.._ Evanston IL 74,239 ---._._........-...................__...._...__...............-...__........---._.....---......._._........----- -._._.._.._...._.._..----.........._.....--............................_._......._...._._.._.------------ Highland Park* IL 31,365 _ Homewood1L 19,543 .....-----....__... ---- - - ._......_... ... --.....- - - -- ....--- ---._... O'FallonIL 21,910 __._..._.._..__.....-._._..__._...._-----.._._.... -- Skokie* IL 63,348 FishersIN -37,835 .....-..._.._.._...--..._......_.._.�...._.........._._.. Munster IN 21,511 Salina KS 45,679 Wichita - KS 344,284 ...---.........__......._..._.._......._........ .....-....._.._.... __..__..- .._..._._..... --..._.__._...--..._..._..........__._..............._._._..--.........___.._...__...._.......----- Ashland KY 21,981 Daviess County _ KY 91,545 Andover - MA -��- 31,247 ._.......-...._.._...- - ..._.__.__.__..___._........_....._...--...._.-.__........--........-.._.._......_........-.......---- _.__.....-...._....._._._.........._......---- ...._..__..__......._. Ann Arbor MI 114,024 Delhi Township* MI -� 22,569 Meridian Charter ---- ...___..._...... ........... .._.._......._......_._ __...._...._. .............__......._._.._.._ - Troy _MI 80,959 Chanhassen - MN 20,321 ......_..._. _.._..__._...-- - ___ .__._._.......... . . -.._..._....- --....- - _.------ 1 Maplewood MN 34,947 ..-__ _. ........_.__ ... ............ -- --- -- .._._..__._ ._...._..-._..__ . - --- - - - St. Cloud MN 59,107 MaryvilleMO 10,581 - ..._..._._.._...__......_..._._...__.._.--... - -..._.-..._..-- -._..._..__.._..- -- ............... ...- - .._. -....- ..__._.._...__._......_..-- -- _.._..---_.._... _._..... Bozeman MT 27,509 ..........._.. -----...---........-........-..............- ._...---...._........_._._...._.._..._.._..- ---.._.._...._.._---._..........._.--..__._..-----......................_._.._......__... -- - Wilmington* NC 90,400 Dover - NH .....---------- . _........_...........-......._ Willingboro Township NJ 33,008 ...._... ........._- - - ......._..._.. _ .._.... _.. .. .. ..._.._. _. . Alamogordo NM 35,582 Bloomfield NM 6,417 _----._ _._-__..__...........____._______......_..._.__......_._...___...__._..._._..._-_...........__..._...._.._-__ .....__...--._.--............_..........._..._....__._............._..__.._.._. Taos NM 4,700 Henderson* -� - NV - � 175,381 North Las Vegas* NV 115,488 ----_._._..._......_........._..__..........................__..............-- -- ._.__.._......................---...._ --......--- __..__......_._._......_-.....__..........._._.._........_._..... ... . Reno* NV 180,480 _Washoe County � NV � �-� 339,486 *Jurisdiction has repeated The National Citizen Survey"at least once. Page 2 of 3 The National Citizen SurveyTM Participants through August 2006 Jurisdiction Name State 2000 Population Rye NY 14,955 Village of Rye Brook - - NY --8,602 _ Watertown NY 26,705 -..........-......................__._............__........_......_.._._....._._..........---------..._.........-------.....----.......-. --- .....--.... ..... ...----_ ......-------- ......._............_..._...................._.._........_..----- Hudson OH 22,439 Sandusky* OH 27,844 ......._........._..._.__.._..._..__.._..._...---...._........_....------.._.___...- ._...-- - ----..._.__-.......------------..._......._.............__._....__..--...._._....__....._._..__..........._............._......_....._.......... -- Broken Arrow OK 74,859 _..._...._.._.......__............._._ ....__._._........_..__......_---... --....._. _-._......--- -- _..._......................._........_._....__._...---._..._....----..__.._-....__._........_............._..............._._........__......._._.........--.-.--- Oklahoma City OK 506,132 Gresham* OR — 90,205 ......--....---.............._....................._._._........._.._...----._._...- .__ ... ....___..._. ...._.......... ...... .._ _ _-........._...................---......-----...-----..._........._..._..............._._........_............. ---- Springfield OR 52,864 _............_...----._._.....----........._._.........._._.._..__._....._.....-_........_.__......._.. _...___..._.. ........... .._. _._.._........... ____._..._....................----...__.._..---_...-----................................._..........._......_......-.---_........... Ephrata Borough PA 13,213 Mauldin* Sc --- . 15,224-------- - -...__..._......._._..-_----------...__.....-- .._.__.... -----...__....._...._._........--............_..----........_...._......_...__..__.._..... -- Rock Hill* Sc 49,765 Johnson City TN 55,469 Dallas* TX 1,188,580 _.-........................_........---......._..._..---............................._._...._.__..._......_..--......_.__.._._..._......-- ----.....--......................_...----.... - -------...._...-.__........_....._........_.. ...................... --- Grand Prairie TX 127,427 McAllen* TX 106,414 Missouri City TX 52,913 ............---....__._......._.._.__..--.....--- ....-..._..._..__._..._.._._...__......_._.._.._._.___...__..._-.._.__.._....._......._._. ---- ........._._..---._..__._._._----- ...._.._._._.... -_.._..---- -- ----- Pasadena* TX 141,674 Farmington UT 12,081 — Washington City UT 8,186 -.......... Blacksburg* VA--....__......- ---.... -- 39,357 .._...... ------ Hanover County VA 86,320 -.............._..__._._......_ _._....__.._.._...--- ---------._._... -..._.._..---...----- -.._._....----..._..--.._.._...--- -------...------ ---------- -...... Hopewell* V-A-. 22,354 __.............._._................._......... _.._._.....__.._.......----------.. _.-._--._.._..._.._..._....._....._ ._.__.._..---...----- Lynchburg* VA 65,269 Lynnwood* WA . 33,847 ---------....._.._.......-.... __...._. -.._.----- Marysville WA 12,268 ---------.._._._...- -._..--- -- --- - --- - --- ---- ------ -._....._........................---._.._.... -- -- .__._................-------- - Pasco WA 32,066 AppletonWI .70,087 ------ ._............._..._._..........- ...._.._......--......._............__....__._...------ - ------...._._......._.._.............-- ----..._..._.._..__.._.._....._.....--................................-..........._._... _..- ------ Eau Claire WI 61,704 _ .......__..._....._.._......._.._.__..-..___..._..- ---- .._..__...._.....- ------- - --... -- -._...._.. ---._.... _ ---_._.. ..--............ -- -- Milton WI 5,132 Whitewater WI 13,437 .._..__..._.._.__.... --- ._...__......--............._....... _-- --------._........_._.__._.._..__...._...._....--- --- -___........----..__._._._._......------.......--.--._......._._...._.___..__..--------- Morgantown WV 26,809 *Jurisdiction has repeated The National Citizen Survey" at least once. Page 3 of 3 CITY AGENDA 9a °� ITEM# BURLINGAME MTG. DATE 12/4/2006 STAFF REPORT <o TO: Honorable Mayor and Council SUBMIT BY- DATE: Y DATE: November 20, 2006 APPROVE BY FROM: Larry E. Anderson, City Attorney SUBJECT: APPROVE ROTATION LIST FOR OFFICES OF MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR RECOMMENDATION: Approve rotation list for Mayor and Vice Mayor for coming year. DISCUSSION: Resolution No. 117 (1999) sets forth the process for rotating the offices of Mayor and Vice Mayor. Pursuant to that resolution, the rotation list is to be updated each year so that the rotation list is kept current. Attached are the rotation lists for December 5, 2005 (before the current rotation) and November 20, 2006 (the current rotation list). Attachment Rotation List (December 5, 2005 and November 20, 2006) Resolution No. 117 (1999) ROTATION LIST FOR OFFICES OF MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR (December 5, 2005) 1. Mayor Cathy Baylock 2. Vice Mayor Terry Nagel 3. Councilmember Rosalie O'Mahony 4. Councilmember Ann Keighran 5. Councilmember Russ Cohen ROTATION LIST FOR OFFICES OF MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR (December 4, 2006) 1. Mayor Terry Nagel 2. Vice Mayor Rosalie O'Mahony 3. Councilmember Ann Keighran 4. Councilmember Russ Cohen 5. Councilmember Cathy Baylock (Immediate Past Mayor) RESOLUTION NO. 117-1999 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING CITY COUNCIL POLICY ON ROTATION OF COUNCIL OFFICERS WHEREAS, Section 36802 of the Government Code requires the City of Burlingame have a Mayor and Vice Mayor; and WHEREAS, by Council tradition the Council has rotated the office of Mayor and Vice Mayor annually at the second meeting in November of each year; and WHEREAS, the Council desires to insure an equitable rotation of officers amongst all persons elected to the City Council, NOW, THEREFORE, be it RESOLVED and DETERMINED by the CITY COUNCIL of THE CITY OF BURLINGAME that the following procedure shall govern the appointment of Council officers: 1. Rotation of the office of Mayor and Vice Mayor shall occur annually at the second City Council meeting in November of each year. 2. The Vice Mayor shall become Mayor if eligible and a new Vice Mayor shall be appointed from the remainder of the councilmembers next in order of position on the rotation list described below. If the Vice Mayor is ineligible, unable, or declines to serve as Mayor, then councilmembers next in order of position on the rotation list described below shall fill both the offices of Mayor and Vice Mayor. 3. A rotation list based on seniority of consecutive years in the office of councilmember and this resolution is established pursuant to Exhibit A. 4. As changes in Council membership occur, the rotation list shall be updated as follows: A. The outgoing mayor shall be placed ahead of any councilmembers newly elected in the November general election, if any, but below all continuing and re-elected council-members B. A newly elected or appointed councilmember shall be placed at the bottom of the rotation list upon taking office. If more than one councilmember is elected or appointed at the same time, the newly elected or appointed councilmembers shall draw straws to determine their position relative to each other at the bottom of the rotation list. 1 C. If a councilmember declines to serve as either mayor or vice mayor when it is that councilmember's turn to serve, the declining councilmember shall be placed on the rotation list ahead of any councilmembers newly elected in the November general election, if any, and below all continuing and re-elected councilmembers. If however, more than one councilmember at the same time declines to serve as either mayor or vice mayor when it is their turn to serve, the declining councilmembers shall be placed in the same relative order to each other as before but below all other councilmembers on the rotation list. 5. The same process for rotation of officers contained in this resolution shall be used if the office of mayor or vice mayor becomes vacant at a time other than the second Council meeting in November of each year. However, if the vacancy occurs because the mayor or vice mayor is no longer able or willing to serve in that office, the outgoing officer shall be placed below all other councilmembers on the rotation list. 6. For purposes of this resolution, "the November general election" refers to the City general election that has occurred on the first Tuesday of November immediately preceding the second Council meeting for that November. Mayor I, Judith A. Malfatti, 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 P' day of November, 1999, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: GALLIGAN, KNIGHT, JANNEY, O'MAHONY, SPINELLI NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: NONE City Clerk [U:FILESTOUNREMmayorlist2006.ccr.wpd] 2 EXHIBIT A ROTATION LIST FOR OFFICES OF MAYOR AND VICE MAYOR (November 1, 1999) 1. Mayor Mary Janney 2. Vice Mayor Marti Knight 3. Councilmember Rosalie O'Mahony 4. Councilmember Joe Galligan 5. Councilmember Mike Spinelli (Immediate Past Mayor) 3 �MIT � STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA ITEM# 9b MTG. tioq 9,a DATE 12/4/06 �AATFO JUNEb TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTE BY DATE: November 27, 2006 APPROVED FROM: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk By 650-558-7203 SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt the Council Assignments for 2007 RECOMMENDATION: To review, make changes if necessary and approve the City Council assignments for 2007. EXHIBITS: Council Assignments - 2007 ~ CITY OF BURLINGAME COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS 2007 1. ABAG—City Delegate 1 to 4 meetings per year Baylock(alternate Cohen) 2. Airport Land Use Commission As needed, regarding Keighran(alternate Cohen) (subcommittee of C/CAG) airport impacts, at Burlingame City Hall 3. Airport Round Table 1St Wednesday, 7 p.m. Cohen(alternate Keighran) 4. Audit Committee Meets 2-3 times per Baylock and O'Mahony year, including once in December 5. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Last Thursday of month Baylock Committee(BPAC) + extra meetings in C/CAG ap ointment with no term end February-March 6. BAWSCA (Bay Area Water Supply and 4-year term (ends July O'Mahony Conservation Agency) 2007 7. Budget Responsibilities: Each council (There are no budget chairs. member to meet with appropriate Department heads will make department head(s)to review budget reports; council members will elaborate) • CA, CM, CC, FIN, HR Nagel • Parks&Recreation Keighran • Library Cohen • Fire and Police Baylock • Planning/Public Works O'Mahony 8. Centennial Executive Committee Monthly, usually on Nagel and O'Mahony Fridays, 3 to 5 p.m. at Rec Center 9. Central County Fire Board 1St Tuesday in May and Baylock and Nagel November, 4 p.m., at (2-year terms; Baylock is Hillsborough Town Hall completing Coffe 's term) 10. Chamber of Commerce Liaison 2n Tuesday of each Cohen and Keighran month, noon-1:30 p.m. alternate Baylock) 11. City/County Association of Governments P Thursday of each O'Mahony(alternate Nagel) (C/CAG) month, Legislative Committee meets at 5, regular meeting at 7 12. City/Schools Liaison Committee 3 times a year, usually Nagel and Keighran Wed. or Thurs. during (alternate Cohen) lunch Propose switching to Fridays 13. Commission interview teams May not be necessary Determined at recruitment time an longer 14 Congestion Management Committee Monthly, 3-5 p.m. at Not applicable; need to be (CMAC, subcommittee of C/CAG) San Mateo City Hall appointed by C/CAG. 15. Council of Cities 4 Friday of month in All different city 16. Downtown Specific Area Plan Committee Varies Cohen and Kei bran 17. Economic Development Committee As needed Nagel and O'Mahony 18. Emergency Services Council (quarterly) 3r Thursday in January, Nagel (alternate Cohen) April, June and September, 5:30 p.m. at Hall of Justice in Redwood City 19. Fire ALS Joint Powers Authority Twice annually as group Baylock agrees, usually at 6 p.m. Next meeting is Feb. 7 at 6 .m., location TBA 20. Grand Boulevard Task Force Quarterly, 10 a.m.-noon, Cohen(alternate Keighran) location varies 21. Housing Endowment and Regional Trust 4 Wednesday of month Not applicable; need to be SART at 3 p.m. in Belmont appointed by C/CAG. 22. Peninsula Congestion Relief Alliance Every other month on Cohen (alternate Gomery) Tues. or Thurs. at 8 a.m. 23. Peninsula Division League of California 4 dinner meetings per All Cities year, plus January reception for newly elected council members 24. Regional Financing Authority(RFA) 4-year term (ends July O'Mahony Manages bond issuance process 2007 25, Policy Advisory Committee for Sub- Unknown at this point We need 1 rep. Volunteer? Regional Housing Needs Allocation (reports to ABAG 26, Safeway Subcommittee Varies Baylock and Kei hran 27. Transportation Authority Up for reappointment at O'Mahony City Selection Meeting of Council of Cities in January 28. Utilities and Sustainability Task Force 3r Thursday of each Nagel (appointed for 18-month (reports to C/CAG) month at BAWSCA term, through 2007) conference room, San Mateo 29. Warrants Review Monthly review O'Mahony CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURLINGAME AGENDA 9C ITEM# a�o9 MTG. �N4TE0 JUNE6 DATE 12/4/06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTE BY DATE: November 27, 2006 APPRO ' FROM: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk By iot'6 650-558-7203 SUBJECT: Recommendation to Adopt 2007 City Council Calendar RECOMMENDATION: To review, make changes if necessary and approve the Burlingame City Council Calendar for 2007. EXHIBITS: 2007 Burlingame City Council Calendar 2007 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL CALENDAR City Council meetings are held on the first and third Monday of each month. When Monday is a holiday,the meeting is usually held on Tuesday or Wednesday. Study meetings are held as scheduled. Meetings begin at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 501 Primrose Road,and are open to the public. Regular Council meetings are televised live via Burlingame's Cable Channel 26 for RCN subscribers and Channel 27 for Comcast subscribers. For more information,please view the City's website at www.burlingame.org or call the City Clerk at 650-558-7203. REGULAR MEETINGS Tuesday, January 2 Monday, July 2 (tentative) Tuesday, January 16 Monday, July 16 Monday, February 5 Monday, August 6 (tentative) Wednesday, February 21 Monday, August 20 Monday, March 5 Tuesday, September 4 Monday, March 19 Monday, September 17 Monday, April 2 Monday, October 1 Monday, April 16 Monday, October 15 Monday, May 7 Monday, November 5 Monday, May 21 Monday, November 19 Monday, June 4 Monday, December 3 Monday, June 18 Monday, December 17 (tentative) STUDY MEETINGS AND OTHER DATES Saturday, January 27 2007/08 Goals Session, 9 a.m., Recreation Center Wednesday, February 28 2007/08 Budget Session, 6 p.m., Lane Room, Main Library F:.i�., A/Tarrh 7 T Commissioner's Dinner Saturday, March 24 Joint Council and Planning Commission Meeting, 9 a.m. Wednesday, June 13 City Manager's fiscal year-end review, 5:30 p.m. Wednesday, December 5 City Manager's fiscal mid-year review, 5:30 p.m. 11/29/2006 10:36 AM Agenda 9d Item Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: Decembar 4 2006 1 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: NOVEMBER 16, 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: ■ Hillside Drilling Co., City contractor, is processing contract completion documentation. ■ Construction work continues to improve the drainage system on the hillside above the retaining wall, planting, and repair of private property landscaping. Doug Bel Senior Engineer C: City Clerk, City Attorney, Director of Public Works, Hillside Drilling Company, Inc., A&G Services SAA Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\81720\Staff ReportProgressUpdateI l I606.doc Agenda Item # 9d Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: December 4, 2006 \ SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: November 17, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION ACCEPTING MILLS CANYON SLIDE REPAIR PROJECT BY HILLSIDE DRILLING — CITY PROJECT NO. 81720 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution accepting the Mills Canyon Slide Repair Project by Hillside Drilling in the amount of $156,570.91. BACKGROUND: On September 18, 2006, Council awarded a $156,469.00 contract to Hillside Drilling for the Mills Canyon Slide Repair Project. All construction has been completed satisfactorily in compliance with the project plans and specifications. The final project construction cost is $156,570.91 , an increase of $6,101 .91 (4%) due to landscaping and erosion control work within Mills Creek. BUDGET IMPACT: There are sufficient funds in the CIP project for the total contract amount. All extra work was within the administrative authorization. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Final Progress Payment c: City Clerk, Hillside Drilling SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Repo rts\8172OAcceptance.doc RESOLUTION NO. - ACCEPTING IMPROVEMENTS - MILLS CANYON SLIDE REPAIR BY HILLSIDE DRILLIING COMPANY CITY PROJECT NO. 81720 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 HILLSIDE DRILLING COMPANY,under the terms of its contract with the City dated SEPTEMBER 18,2006, 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. 81720. 3. Said work be and the same hereby is accepted. Mayor I,DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City ofBurlingame,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, Doris Mortenson CADocuments and Settings\jlouie\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK67\81720Hillside RESOLUTION ACCEPTANCE Nov06wpd(2).wpd HILLSIDE DRILLING MILLS CANYON SLIDE REPAIR PROJECT PO Box 70130 DATE: Nov 17, 20t'6 Pt. Richmond,CA 94807-0130 CITY OF BURLINGAME FOR THE MONTH OF:thru Oct 31, '06 TELEPHONE (510)234 6532 PROGRESS PAYMENT. NO#2 (FINAL) PO# 10239 CITY PROJECT NO. 81720 ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT UNIT BID BID IQTYTHISI QTY TO 1 %AGE $AMOUNT I PREVIOUS $AMOUNT PRICE SIZE QTY TOTAL PERIOD DATE TO DATE I TO DATE PAID THIS PERIOD 1 Mobilization and Design $16,269.00 $16,269.00- 1 00 1.00 100% $16,269.00 $16,269.00 $0.00 2 Retaining wall columns $200.00 1,F -lull $80,000.00 400.00 400.00 100% $80,000.00 $80,000.00 $0.00 3 Yardwork preparation $5,000.00 1.S 1 $5,000.00 1.00 1.00 100% $5,000.00 $5,000.00 $0.00 4 Retaining wall lagging $22.00 SF 600 $13,200.00 600.00 600.00 100% $13,200.00 $13,200.00 $0.00 5 Earthwork $36,000.00 LS 1 $36,000.00 1.00 1.00 100% $36,000.00 $36,000.00 $0.00 Sheeting,Bracing,and Shoring* $0.00 0.00 0.00 0% $0.001 $0.00 1 $0.00 TOTAL CONTRACT $150,469.00 $150,469.00 $150,469.00 $0.00 *Required by Sections 6700-6708 of the Labor Code with pricing included in items 1 through 11 above. CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS 1 Landscape&Rip Rap work addition $6,101.91 LS 1 $6,101.911 1 1 1 1 100%1 $6,101.91 $0.00 $6,101.91 PREPARED BY: //��� SUBTOTAL $156,571 $150,469 $6,102 LIQUIDATED DAMAGES(DEDUCTION) $0 $0 $0 CHECKED BY: LESS 10.0 PERCENT RETENTION(DEDUCT) ($15,657) ($15,047) ($610) CONTRACTOR: SUBTOTAL WITH DEDUCTIONS $140,914 $135,422 $5,492 HILLSIDE DRILLING TOTAL THIS PERIOD ************ ***************** $140,914 $135,422 $5,492 APPROVED BY CITY ENGINEER: Agenda 9e Item # Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: December 4 2006 z"t 1. SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY d_ I' TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: November 21, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: MAP AMENDMENT TO RECORDED CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR UNITS 401 (APN 108-510-070) AND 402 (APN 108-510-080), LOT B, BLOCK 3, BURLINGAME LAND CO. MAP NO. 2 SUBDIVSION, 345 LORTON AVENUE, PM 06-06 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve this map amendment subject to the following: • A map amendment for changes to the original recorded condominium map must be filed by the applicant within the time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. • A declaration of no improvements for all other units shall be approved and signed by the condominium association or governing board. • All damaged and displaced sidewalk, driveway, curb and gutter shall be replaced with new. • All conditions attached to the condominium permit shall be met. • Revisions to the conditions, covenants and restrictions shall be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approval conditions and City codes. BACKGROUND: The condominium map amendment was approved by Planning Commission on November 13, 2006. Staff has reviewed the condominium map amendment and recommends approval subject to the above conditions. EXHIBITS: Condominium Map Amendment Plan, Staff Memorandum, Planning Commission Minutes Victor Voong Assistant Engineer c: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk S:\H Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\06-06.doc BURLINGAME MEMORANDUM PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PUBLIC WORKS -ENGINEERING DATE: NOVEMBER 7,2006 RE: MAP AMENDMENT TO RECORDED CONDOMINIUM MAP FOR UNITS 401 (APN 108-510-070) AND 402 (APN 108-510-080), LOT B, BLOCK 3, BURLINGAME LAND CO. MAP NO. 2 SUBDIVISION, 345 LORTON AVENUE, PM 06-06 This application is to record the changes to the originally recorded condominium map as a result of proposed improvements to units #401 and 402. The original map was filed with San Mateo County on February 17, 1984. The map amendment is complete and therefore may be recommended to the City Council for approval subject to the following conditions: I. A map amendment for changes to the original recorded condominium map must be filed by the applicant within the time period as allowed by the Subdivision Map Act and the City's Subdivision Ordinance. 2. A declaration of no improvements for all other units shall be approved and signed by the condominium association or governing board. 3. Any damaged/displaced sidewalk,driveway, curb and gutter shall be replaced with new. 4. All conditions attached to the condominium permit shall be met. 5. Revisions to the conditions, covenants and restrictions shall be approved by the City Attorney and conform to all approved conditions and City Codes. Exhibit: Tentative Map&Assessor's Map r Vic or Voo Assistant ngi eer U:\VICTOR\Projects\Private\PM06.06.wpd City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 13, 2006 4e. 345 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B-1 — AMENDED APPLICATION FOR AN ADDITION TO THE FOURTH FLOOR OF AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING(ANGELINE ASKHAM, WALKER WARNER ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; OUTFITTER PROPERTIES LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) (90 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS a. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CONDOMINIUM PERMIT,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT, AND PARKING VARIANCE; AND b. AMENDMENT TO CONDOMINIUM MAP Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Commissioner called off item 4c 607 Concord Way because issues were not addressed and CP Monroe called off item 4 b because of a requested change to the project. Chair Brownrigg set these items for public hearing on the Action Calendar. He then noted that items 4a Response to October 23,2006 letter from David Moutoux, 4d 1440 Chapin Avenue, and 4e 345 Lorton Avenue remained on the consent calendar. He noted that with the Commission's permission he would like to make some changes to personalize the letter to Mr. Moutoux. C. Osterling 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 by resolution and with agreement to the Chair personalizing the letter to Mr. Moutoux. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve items 4a, the letter to Mr. Moutoux, 4d, 1440 Chapin Avenue,and 4e,345 Lorton Avenue with the changes noted. The motion passed 7-0 on a voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 4b. 2725 ARGUELLO DRIVE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (THOMAS BIGGS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ALBA LOPEZ, PROPERTY OWNER) (43 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report October 13,2006,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. She noted the receipt of a letter from the neighbor at 1600 Granada (property to the rear of the project site) requesting that the roof pitch on the addition be changed from 4:12 to 3:12, and that the original story poles showing 4:12 pitch had been removed and replaced with story poles showing 3:12 pitch. She also noted that the plans in the packet showed a 4:12 pitch,no plans showing a 3:12 pitch on the first floor addition have been submitted;however this is not a design review project. Commissioners asked: what is the difference in peak height between a 4:12 and a 3:12 pitch? Commissioner noted about 15 inches. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Tom Davis, 1322 Webster Street,Oakland,the applicant noted that they agreed to reduce the roof pitch on the new addition to 3:12. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with and amendment to the first condition allowing the roof pitch of the new first floor addition to be 3:12 and the following conditions: (1) that the 4 Honorable Mayor and City Council: ►SFTEWART ASSOCIATES Please schedule an appeal hearing ARCHITECTURE • INTERIORS • PLANNING for 3 Rio Court to be heard at the 1351 LAUREL ST. • SAN CARLOS, CA 94070 3 nuary 2, 2007 Council meeting TELEPHONE: (650) 591-8283 FAX: (650)591-9578 City Clerk RECEIAED November 30, 2006 DEC 0 1 2006 Job 0613 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE CITY OF BURLINGAME City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Attention: City Council Re: Appeal of Planning Commission's Ruling of November 22, 2006 for 3 Rio Court Dear Council Members: I am appealing the ruling of the Planning Commission regarding the project at 3 Rio Court. The Commission felt that the proposed second story addition would block "distant" views from the neighboring home at 1821 Loyola Court. We do not feel this is the case. Sincerely, John L. Stewart, AIA cc: Jeffrey Mark The City of Burlingame California 94010-3997 www.burlingame.org TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION Meeting Minutes—Approved Thursday, September 14, 2006 Commissioners Present: Eugene Condon, Chair Victor James,Vice Chair Michael Bohnert Dan Conway Stephen Warden Commissioners Absent: None Staff Present: Augustine Chou, Traffic Engineer, Public Works Commander Mike Matteucci, Police Department Traffic Sergeant Don Shepley, Police Department Joanne Louie, Administrative Secretary, Public Works Visitors: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa John Kevranian, 1241 Broadway Tom Crowes, 1425 Cabrillo Wade Bettesworth, Director Sales and Marketing Redflex Traffic Systems TRAFFIC,SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION September 14; 2006 Minutes Page 1 of 7 1. CALL TO ORDER. 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL. All Commissioners present. 4. CURRENT BUSINESS. 4.1. ACTION ITEMS. 4.1.1 Approval of Minutes for August 10, 2006. Motion: To accept the minutes as submitted. M/S/C: Warden, Bohnert; 5/0/0 4.2. DISCUSSION ITEMS. Chair Condon asked the Commission if there were any objections to moving item 7.3.2.1 Red Light Camera Enforcement Program up as the first item of business. There were no objections. 7.3.2 Traffic Sergeants Report 7.3.2.1 Red Light Camera Enforcement Program Mr. Chou reported that City Council was seeking public comments and recommendations on this issue. Commander Matteucci introduced Wade Bettesworth, Director of Sales and Marketing for Red Flex Traffic Systems. Mr. Bettesworth presented a slideshow presentation demonstrating the Photo Enforcement System. Mr. Bettesworth went through the company profile, nationwide installations, public education program, nation-wide installations, how the process of photographing and timing at each intersection installation worked, the impact of the program through traffic statistics, and city renewals. Mr. Bettesworth demonstrated the online tracking by police officers for citations using the web-based program and the process for citation issuance through Red Flex. Chair Condon opened the floor for public discussion. Mr. Crowes asked what the determining factor was in choosing the intersection of EI Camino Real/Broadway; and, also with signage and knowledge that this intersection was photo enforced. He asked if there had been any studies to indicate if drivers would use other streets to avoid the system. Commander Matteucci responded that Redflex conducted a study at four intersections in May of 2006. Based on this study, Redflex concluded TRAFFIC,SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION September 14, 2006 Minutes Page 2 of 7 that the intersection of EI Camino Real and Broadway Avenue was the most feasible intersection due to the optimal number of violations and past history of collisions. Mr. Bettesworth stated that he is not aware of any study that would indicate that vehicles would avoid a photo enforced intersection. Commissioner Conway asked about cost-neutrality and if the program had privacy protection procedures. Mr. Bettesworth explained that the system was cost-neutral and that any costs unpaid through the revenues would be forgiven by Redflex. Mr. Bettesworth added that Redflex had requirements, compliance, encryption,and met statutes as to how long the evidence should be kept. He also said that Redflex did not subcontract any of their services, so privacy was less of an issue. Commissioner James asks if there have been any Civil Liberty issues,as in"Big Brother"watching. Mr.Bettesworth stated that this was always a constant challenge, however there was no right of privacy on a public right-of-way. Commissioner Warden asked why only one intersection was considered, as opposed to 4 as in the original study. He also questioned whether one application was cost effective. Mr.Bettesworth replied that a typical installation was$100,000 and generally started with one application and enhanced with additional installations over time. Commissioner Warden then asked what provisions were in place regarding a mobile society in which a violator might not receive their citation within the 15 day time period. Mr.Bettesworth stated that there was a 30-day response period which the courts felt was adequate. Commissioner Bohnert asked if the indirect financial impact to the City would be staff costs. Mr.Bettesworth stated that staffing costs would be incurred to review violations,attend court dates, etc. He said that the staff performing the function of reviewing violations typically did not have to be a law enforcement officer. Commissioner Bohnert asked if Redflex wwas the system used in San Mateo,and if so,what type of feedback was received. Mr.Bettesworth stated that there were 8 applications currently in San Mateo with plans to add additional applications. He said San Mateo would be a good reference for Redflex. Chair Condon reiterated concerns regarding large overhead costs for just one intersection. Mr.Bettesworth stated it was a flat-fee for each system installed and the cost-neutrality condition would apply even to the one system. He added that the contract could include a not-to-exceed clause. Mr. Chou reiterated that Council would like the Commission to make a recommendation regarding the Redflex program. TRAFFIC,SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION September 14,2006 Minutes Page 3 of 7 Motion: To proceed with the next phase of evaluation and recommend that Council hear from Redflex on a Red Light Camera Enforcement program for Burlingame. M/S/C: Conway, Warden; 5/0/0 5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF NEW ITEMS. None. 6. FROM THE FLOOR. None. 7. INFORMATION ITEMS 7.1. Bicycle Safety Issues in Burlingame - Future sub-committee meeting and project considerations. Mr. Chou reported that the sub-committee met at 6 p.m. this evening. The scope of the advisory committee meeting was to investigate bike plans and projects. The committee would like to see a dedicated bike lane on Carolan, between Broadway and Oak Grove. Additionally, they would like to see a webpage dedicated to their projects. Chair Condon added that the outreach for public participants was successful. 7.2 From Council to Commission/Staff Mr. Chou reported that Council had requested the Commission to present a Caltrain railroad fencing recommendation and plan back to Council by their November meeting. He said that a special meeting would be held to allow for public comments before the Council meeting. 7.3 From Staff to Commission 7.3.1 Traffic Engineer's Report 7.3.1.1 Peninsula Avenue/US101 Overpass Status Report Mr. Chou reported that the City Council would be deliberating on the revised scope of work at their next meeting on September 18th. 7.3.1.2 Broadway/US101 Overpass Status Report Mr. Chou reported that Caltrans and the Transportation Authority were developing funding schemes for this project. 7.3.2 Traffic Sergeants Report TRAFFIC,SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION September 14, 2006 Minutes Page 4 of 7 Sergeant Shepley presented the Selective Enforcement report. He also reported on the issue of large vehicles parking on the east side of California Drive, north of Oak Grove. He said that after reviewing the matter with the City Attorney the current signs could be changed to height-restriction signs. Sergeant Shepley also reported that the Police Department was able to secure various pieces of equipment such as radar guns and a pocket zone calculator through OTS grants. A county grant will fund a DUI checkpoint on September 19''. He reported that DUI's had dropped significantly, resulting in Burlingame being a countywide leader. 7.3.3 Other City Staff Reports None. 7.4 From Commission to Staff 7.4.1 Commission Chairperson's Report None. 7.4.2 Commissioner/Sub-committee Reports Chair Condon reported that the Caltrain Fencing sub-committee had been working with Caltrain to seek funds for safety measures. Regarding the fencing options, he said the Commission should make specific recommendations to the Council by their meeting on October V. Mr. Chou presented an overhead illustrating the recommended areas for chain link fencing. He said the fencing options along Carolan were part of the original Broadway Platform Improvement plans. Commission Bohnert stated that the natural barrier beyond the 300' of fencing along California Drive was not sufficient. Mr. Chou reiterated that the City's recommendation be feasible and reasonable to Caltrain. Commissioner Bohnert stated that he did not consider the full-length fence on the California Drive side to be a large demand. Commissioner Warden stated that he observed people playing near the tracks just north of Oak Grove, on the California Drive side. He said that fencing should be considered there also. Commissioner James asked that a formal Staff Report with recommendations be presented to the Commission. Mr. Chou answered that he can provide this; however, a special meeting next week would be necessary so that a decision could be made at the October 3r°Council meeting. Commissioner Conway stated he was glad to see the process moving forward and that he was satisfied with a natural barrier for the area in question. Mr. Chou stated that the focus needed to be on real access points - many of which were walking trails, as seen on aerial shots of the area. Commissioner Conway said that he liked the visibility provided by chain link fences. TRAFFIC,SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION September 14,2006 Minutes Page 5 of 7 Chair Condon said that he firmly believed the natural barriers would be sufficient. Chair Condon added that another area of concern was the safety education - aspect that Caltrain was to have provided to local schools. He said that outreach had not been made to Burlingame High School as of yet. Sergeant Shepley reported that the School Resource Officer had attended training to include railroad safety in their program, but that the School Resource Officer might not have reached out to Burlingame High School yet. Chair Condon recommended that the Commission hold a Special Meeting next Thursday, September 21St at 6 p.m. All the Commissioners, with the exception of Commissioner Bohnert who had a previous travel commitment, indicated that they would be able to attend. 7.4.2.1 Broadway/Paloma Avenue — Pedestrian Safety Measure at crosswalk Commissioner Warden reported that the sub-committee was not able to meet since the last TSPC meeting. He stated that the delineators were still be evaluated in regards to their location and type. Commissioner Warden said he hoped to coordinate a sub-committee meeting in two weeks. Mr. Chou added that the delineators were moved further out. Mr. Chou also reported that he received a letter from resident, Rudy Horak, who wrote that from his observations, the intersection improvements were heading in the right direction. Mr. Chou reported that a suggestion from Mr. Horak was to consider replacing the delineators with yellow reflective delineators and signage. Mr. Chou stated that other improvements such as eliminating redundant signage and restricting left-turns on northbound on Paloma would also be looked at. 7.4.3 Reports of citizen complaints or requests Commissioner Conway reported that there seemed to be remnants of the old crosswalk markings left at Pershing and Crescent. Commissioner Warden reported that there were numerous large metal shipping containers parking on streets. He was concerned that these containers stuck out farther into the street than a normal vehicle and that some of the containers were parked for extensive periods of time. Mr. Chou asked Commissioner Warden to provide the addresses so that he could follow-up on the matter and see if there were valid permits issued. Commissioner Warden also asked about the follow-up process for public complaints when brought to the Commission. Commissioner Warden stated that code enforcement should occur the following week on these complaints. Mr, Chou stated that typically staff would pass on the complaints to the appropriate city departments and divisions. 7.5 Comments and communication. None. TRAFFIC, SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION September 14; 2006 Minutes Page 6 of 7 7.6 Next Regular Meeting: October 14, 2006. Commissioner James may possibly be absent. 8. INACTIVE OR PENDING ITEMS None. 9. AGENDUM FOR NEXT MEETING— None. 10. ADJOURNMENT: 8:39 p.m. TRAFFIC,SAFETY AND PARKING COMMISSION September 14;2006 Minutes Page 7 of 7 BURLWGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION NOVEMBER 2,2006 The regularly scheduled meeting;of the Beautification Commission was called to order at 5:30 p.m, by Chairperson McQuaide. ROLL CALL Present: Chairperson1VIcQua de:(departed;at 7:05),Carney;(departedv_7:05),Ellis,Lahey; O'Connor(arrived at.6:20),and Wright Absent: Commissioner Grandcolas Staff: Director Schwartz,Superintendent Richmond,:and Secretary Harvey Guests: Terra Pratt (2116 Easton Dr.) and Dawn Stefko (2012 Easton Dr.); Doug Pherson (PG&E Area Supervisor),Erin Parks:(PG&E Vegetation Manager), and Tact'Alferos (PG&E Public Affairs) MINUTES - The Minutes of the October 5, 2006 Beautification Commission Meeting, were approved as submitted. CORRF,SPONDENCE —fie earroom-Dire oiSSc wartzity oEgalo-lto�ity Manager,Frank Benest, thank ng.the City of Palo Alto for IIallowing Managing Arborist, Dave Dockter, to.participate in:the"Community-meeting on October 2d, and to share his expertise and knowledge with the Commission and Community members. Key Ethics Law Principles for Public Servants from the Institute for Local Government. Letter from Superintendent Richmond thanking former.Commissioner Jill Lauder, for the 5 terms served on the°Beautification'Commission, for her;commitment to tthe urban:forest, as well as'her dedication:ands reliability_to.the Commission. Letter from Jennifer Pfaff regarding street tree policies mi :the City of Burlingame, stating that-the planting of,'One or two types of trees in_neighborhoods, (to give a more elegant, cohesive-look),be considered, rather than allowing homeowners to :choose the types of replacement trees from the Official Street Tree lists. FROM THE FLOOR-None -s- OLD'BUSINESS Long Ranze Reforestation Plan for Easton 'Drive - Director .Schwartz complimented the Commission for the excellent public;outreach to gain consensus on the Easton Drive Reforestation plan. Residents on Easton Drive were sent a copy of tonight's ,agenda as well as the brochure recommending select Eucalyptus varieties as replacement trees when removal of an existing Eucalyptus tree is required. Chairperson McQuaide ;thanked Director Schwartz for creating the picture brochure and the information provided on the:different trees. Director Schwartz noted that if the Commission approves the selected replacement species,the recommendation will be forwarded to the Council for its approval at the December meeting. Chairperson.McQuaide then recognized guests, Terra-Pratt (2116 Easton Drive) and Dawn Stefko (2012 Easton Drive). They stated that they were thereto just to listen but were pleased to know;that the existing trees would only be removed when necessary on a case by case basis and will be replaced with suitable Eucalyptus varieties. 1 t OLD BUSINESS— Long Range:Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive—Wontd.l Following a'brief<Aiseussion, Commissioner`Camey moved that it be recommended to the City Council that:the existing Tasmanian Blue Gum be retained on the Easton Drive_street tree"list, the Cladocalyx Sugar Gum -be used as the primary replacement tree, the 'Nicholii Willow-leafed Peppermint be used as he comer accent tree, and the Ficifolia iced Flowering<Gum be used:for the replacement in front-of#he Easton Branch Library; seconded,Commissioner Wright.Motion carried 4—0—2(absent/Grandcolas,O'Connor) 1-tabstain/lAhey). PG.&E.Pruning Practices in the City of Burlingame Chairperson McQuaide:stated that representatives from P.G.&E. have been-invited to discuss current pruning practices and concerns made by the public-with regard to those practices. Doug McPherson, Area Supervisor, stated that he appreciated the opportunity to speak to the Commission,-regarding:these issues, that P G_&E. wants to cooperate with the°Communities they serve. He stated that P GAER is proud that for 12 years in a'row, they have been-awarded the`Best Management Practices"award. He-noted that safety and reliability is P.G&E.'s-primary goal;and that it a,state law that the trees be.a.minimum distance of 18 from the power lines. Every line is inspected every.year; foresters then identify the trees that.need tine ing for line clearance. The contractor, Asplundh Tree,Company, most often trims.to-the "Best Practices" trimming standards; but at;times is unable.:to<because=of the previous pruning practices on some trees i.e., pollarded Sycamores. He.concluded that the tree crews receive extensive training :but admitted that some crews.are better than others. The Commission '-further discussed with Doug McPherson and Erin Parks the different pruning techniques, options for:homeowners, notification:of property owners registering complaints, crew scheduling and-monitoring, identiffying.pruning circuits/schedules/maps,yearly permits 1.w.Athe:City, bidding-practices with-pruning contractors, undergrounding.of power lines, replacement of:trees`that are damaged .due to :pruning techniques, etc. Mr. McPherson stated he would be :interested-in meeting with City Staff an&Commission representatives+on site to discuss with him,:Erin, andCarlos (Asplundh_crew-supervisor) specific :trees or areas that were :improperly trimmed:and:how the job could be.done differently. Erin Parks believed that schedules/circuits=could--be provided to the'City to assist with public:communication and that, the crews could be reminded,of the "BesvPract ces" standard:that is to be followed She also stated.that PG&E.-is currently updating their website to help..provide:better information to the,public and that:complaints to the 1400-743-5000 number:are responded to within a week. Following the:discussion it was the consensus of the'Commission and the P G&E. representatives that:a meeting with Staff and a Commission representative be scheduled for mid December, early January. The Commission will provide specific trees/areas of particular concern to=be discussed. Street Tree Planting in Vacant Areas—"Street Tree Reforestation Preiect" Superintendent"Richmond reported that the Council approved the project to:plant trees in targeted planter strips throughout the City that are vacant. Funding will be considered in the 2007-2.008 Budget. He stated that the Commission has been asked to determine areas to --be planted and brainstorm ideas to get the public involved. Director Schwartz stated that the Commission will need to begin to identify other funding sources such as grant opportunities, bequests, or individual donations to the general fund; that this project will.not be funded through the existing "Tree Replacement Fund". He noted that he and Superintendent Richmond would:be:meeting with the City Planner, Meg Monroe, to discuss mandating street tree planting for residential reconstruction or remodels as well as for commercial developments. 2 OLD BUSINESS— Street Tree Planting in Vacant Areas—"Street Tree Reforestation Project"(Coutd) Director Schwartz directed the Commission to the.letter submitted by Jennifer Pfaff that-addresses a changing philosophy to that of the existing street tree policies,suggesting the:planting of only one or two species on.a block to provide:a more uniform look. Secretary Harvey reported that--currently on blocks that have only one species, attempts are made whenever possible to replace with thesame species, but that;primary utility lines and.narrow,planter strips sometimes.hinder those .attempts. Director Schwartz stated that as-part-:of theBireel Tree Reforestation>Project,.the' ommission:may also wish to discuss with different neighborhoods, different reforesting policies for their block, similar to the:process used on Easton Drive. Superintendent Richmond also noted that there are property owners that;do not want trees in front of their homes and that those and other issues of concern such as responsibility for sidewalk.damage would also need to be addressed. Commissioner Ellis then read a list of.areas identified by Chairperson McQuaide as needing street tree planting: Ray Drive near El :Camino Real,'Vancouver Avenue & Easton Drive, and-Laguna Avenue hear Lincoln & Edgehill. She then noted that Jennifer Pfaff had suggested Bayswater Avenue as a block having ,numerous vacant planting strips. Director :Schwartz directed the Commissionto identify other areas needed:for planting and to report back at the'next sheeting. NEWBUSINESS Reinstatement4f Landscape Award The Commission briefly discussed"reinstating the Landscape Award Commissioner Lahey-stated that--she had"researched what other cities do:and will provide the information to the,Commission for the Decerriber meeting for fiuther discussion. Arbor Day=Ceremony—WednesdayMarch 7,2007 at-10.00`am Superintendent Richmond asked for suggestions for planting sites. Commissioner O'Connor suggested that Village Park could"use more"trees. It was the consensus-of the:Commission that-unless there_are any other suggested sites, .the Arbor Day Ceremony be held at Village Park. .Secretary Harvey will check with the Burlingame Elementary School District to confirm that there are no conflicts with.the date. The Commission:also discussed incorporating.Arbor Day into the centennial theme:by..planting 100 trees as part of the Arbor Day`Ceremony in 2008. Director Schwartz stated:that additionalfunding would be required to plant that many trees and.planning well :in advance would,be necessary. The Commission asked that the Arbor Day Ceremony-for 2008 be placed on=the next agenda. -- 'REPORTS Superintendent Richmond a. Removals: Siberian Elm at 1145 Oxford (major lateral failed and exposed decay and failure potential of additional laterals); diseased Pine in Washington Park next to Basketball Court; diseased Pine in rear of Washington Park. Both Pines were in serious decline from Pine Pitch-Canker. b. FallTree.Planting is near completion. Over 130 trees were planted. c. Tree Contract pruning is continuing on Skyline Blvd. Contract crew has completed the block from Margarita.to Rivera. Crew will complete some work assignments on Easton then.resume pruning on Skyline where work stopped last spring. d. From Council concerning Commission attendance: Council has asked that Staff report attendance, late arrivals, early.departures, and those who were present when quorums could not be obtained. 3 REPORTS—(Contd.) Director Schwartz" Director Schwartz reported to'�he-Commission that injured tree worker Fel Esikia=is rehabilitating:at home but it will be several weeks ormonths before he can return-to work. Commissioner Ellis_ Commissioner,Ellis reported that she attended .the Town.Hall Meeting arranged by_Councilman. Cohen, and,reported on some of the various,suggestions offered up by the public.:planting_,;of lonjy deciduous trees, only allowing 2 to.3 different species on-each block; developing an Arts'and Entertainment Commission Commissioner O'Connor Commissioner O'Connor apologized for.being =late but stated that at-times, she is unable to leave work and at other times commute traffic interferes. After a:brief discussion; the Commission asked thatmeeting timebe placed-on the next.agenda for further.discussion. :Commissioner Wriaht Commissioner Wright announced-that she>would be out of town for the December Commission meeting but_stated she would like to serve on the Landscape Award:Committee; the.2008 Arbor Day Committee,or any other Committees that may be formed during her absence, Commissioner Lahev Commissioner Lahey reported that she attended the Town Hall Meeting -and;participated in a round table discussion led by Council person, Ann Keighran, regarding` trash:-and overflowing garbage cans in the business districts and in the-park ng lots,..garbage in the grates, assessments for street cleaning, %steam, .cleaning sidewalks, etc. -various .ideas for :-lean up projects, and coordinating volunteer efforts ;for ong-ping dl, eilmups including ways.to :get filte cornmunry to participate: There being no further business,the meeting was adjourned at'8:25pm. Respectfully submitted, Karlene Harvey -_- Recording Secretary i 4 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA November 13, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the November 13, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:00 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; City Attorney, Larry Anderson. III. MINUTES The minutes of the October 23, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved with the following corrections: Page 3, first paragraph, fourth line should read "...shall be evaluated by a heensed certified arborist..."; page 10, item 10, line 5, change Chair Brownrigg to Vice-Chair Deal; page 12, item 11 paragraph 2, change Chair Brownrigg to Vice-Chair Deal; and page 13, Item XII Adjournment change Chair Brownrigg to Vice-Chair Deal. The minutes were approved unanimously as corrected. �--IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no public comments. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 835 CROSSWAY ROAD,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE (JAMES WONG, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JUANITA LUCERO, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Several Commissioners noted that they visited the site and commented that there is a large existing accessory structure on the property to the rear at 842 Acacia Drive and that it spans the rear property line of this site. Commissioners asked: ■ Applicant notes that the additional space in the accessory structure will be used for licensed child day care. Is the child day care use existing or proposed? If existing,how long has it been in operation at this site? ■ How many children are allowed with the existing day care and how many would be allowed if the addition to the accessory structure is approved? ■ Can a condition be added to limit the number of children in the day care facility? ■ Staff should discuss with the applicant how this addition to the accessory structure will impact any future improvements to the house; ■ Clarify nature of entry into the foyer; unclear plans, show a curved opening with a rectangular surround; City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 13, 2006 ■ Provide details of the large door into the recreation room, looks like a garage door; ■ Walkway from house to accessory structure is 18 inches above grade, why does it need to be so high? Should consider a walkway at grade; ■ Explain why this accessory structure will not have an impact on the adjacent neighbor and the use of their rear yard; ■ Explain why this action would not be granting a special privilege; ■ Explain why this addition and function in the accessory structure couldn't be added to the main dwelling, either on the first or second floor; and ■ Concerned that as designed this appears to be a second unit. 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 7:10 p.m. 2. 1205 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR AN ADDITION AND INCREASE IN SEATING AREA OF AN EXISTING FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (ORHAN KURT, APPLICANT; ARNIE GAPESIN, A&T DESIGN GROUP, DESIGNER; LENCI FARKAS PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Deal noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project and recused himself from the proceedings on this item. He stepped down from the dais and left the chamber. Plr Hurin presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: ■ Staff report indicates proposed exterior stairway will be metal,but material is not noted on the plans; —� please clearly indicate stairway material on plans; ■ Review Elevation 1 on sheet A-2P, check building code and verify which portions of the stairway need a railing;provide a detail of guardrail;verify that design of rail extensions comply with code; ■ Not sure exterior stairway has been fully though out,verify compliance with code,configuration may need to change. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:15 p.m. C. Deal returned to the dais. 3. 1419 BURLINGAME AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR MASTER SIGN PROGRAM FOR FOX PLAZA MALL (SIGN AND SIGN AGAIN, APPLICANT; TOLU FAMILY TRUST PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: ■ How would the master signage program handle the combination of two tenant spaces facing Burlingame Avenue; ■ Clarify details on sheet A-3, need to see actual fonts, sizes and color schemes need to be defined, reason for master signage program is a uniform system of signage; ■ Sheet Al-2 the side elevations,understand the need for height above parked cars,but signs need to be depicted more accurately(to scale), upper signs need to be moved down to be parallel to others these do not seem to match the square footage for the percentage over 12 feet; 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 13, 2006 ■ Generally agree with the number and location of the signs requested,think need more graphic design in the signs themselves. Individual tenant signs need a consistent size,type face and color;the Fox Mall sign listing tenants is not thought out in terms of type face, spacing and color; drawings are �-� inconsistent, need to be cleaned up and more accurate and to scale; ■ Would like to see samples of the proposed signs,very important; ■ Dimensions are off relative to scale,A-1-2 lower sign needs to be minimum 8 feet off grade,clearly is lower than that,Al-3 shows sign C at 40 SF,tenant is shown to take a small part of this area,will the entire area be filled with words, if that's the case 40 SF will look like a lot more sign aesthetically. ■ Subcommittee on signs has discussed guidelines for sign heights which are less restrictive than the current 12 foot limit, could staff share this in the staff report. Commissioner comment: feel that the Fox Mall sign identifies a place,can it be treated differently than the retail signage; CA noted that the courts have directed that the city can not distinguish between markers and signs;concerned that Burlingame Avenue is about pedestrians,and the question is will this program be less pleasant for pedestrians? There was a consensus among the Commissioners that this item should be brought back to the commission as an action item when the program has been fully developed and all the questions and issues identified addressed, checked by staff and there is space on the Commission's agenda. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 4a. RESPONSE TO OCTOBER 23, 2006, LETTER FROM DAVID MOUTOUX ALLEGING VIOLATION OF BROWN ACT. 4d. 1440 CHAPIN AVENUE #330/#350, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B-1 — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A REAL ESTATE USE(FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY, APPLICANT; MICHAEL NILMEYER, NILMEYER NILMEYER ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS,ARCHITECT;CORTINA INVESTMENTS LTD.,PROPERTY OWNER)(94 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 13, 2006 4e. 345 LORTON AVENUE, ZONED C-2, SUBAREA B-1 — AMENDED APPLICATION FOR AN ADDITION TO THE FOURTH FLOOR OF AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING(ANGELINE ASKHAM, WALKER WARNER ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; OUTFITTER PROPERTIES LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) (90 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS a. APPLICATION FOR AN AMENDMENT TO CONDOMINIUM PERMIT,CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR HEIGHT, AND PARKING VARIANCE; AND b. AMENDMENT TO CONDOMINIUM MAP Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. Commissioner called off item 4c 607 Concord Way because issues were not addressed and CP Monroe called off item 4 b because of a requested change to the project. Chair Brownrigg set these items for public hearing on the Action Calendar. He then noted that items 4a Response to October 23,2006 letter from David Moutoux,4d 1440 Chapin Avenue, and 4e 345 Lorton Avenue remained on the consent calendar. He noted that with the Commission's permission he would like to make some changes to personalize the letter to Mr. Moutoux. C. Osterling 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 by resolution and with agreement to the Chair personalizing the letter to Mr. Moutoux. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve items 4a, the letter to Mr. Moutoux, 4d, 1440 Chapin Avenue,and 4e,345 Lorton Avenue with the changes noted. The motion passed 7-0 on a voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:35 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 4b. 2725 ARGUELLO DRIVE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION (THOMAS BIGGS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; ALBA LOPEZ, PROPERTY OWNER) (43 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERIKA LEWIT Reference staff report October 13,2006,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the staff report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Five conditions were suggested for consideration. She noted the receipt of a letter from the neighbor at 1600 Granada(property to the rear of the project site) requesting that the roof pitch on the addition be changed from 4:12 to 3:12,and that the original story poles showing 4:12 pitch had been removed and replaced with story poles showing 3:12 pitch. She also noted that the plans in the packet showed a 4:12 pitch,no plans showing a 3:12 pitch on the first floor addition have been submitted;however this is not a design review project. Commissioners asked: what is the difference in peak height between a 4:12 and a 3:12 pitch? Commissioner noted about 15 inches. There were no other questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Tom Davis, 1322 Webster Street,Oakland,the applicant noted that they agreed to reduce the roof pitch on the new addition to 3:12. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution, with and amendment to the first condition allowing the roof pitch of the new first floor addition to be 3:12 and the following conditions: (1) that the 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 13, 2006 project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped September 22, 2006, sheets Planning-1 and -2, and that the new roof over the sun room shall have a 3:12 pitch with asphalt shingles to match the existing roof over the main dwelling; (2) that any changes to the footprint, floor area, or building envelope shall require an amendment to this hillside area construction permit; (3)that during demolition of or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site,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; (4) that demolition for 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; and (5) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes, 2001 Edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the change in the roof pitch on the first floor addition from 4:12 to 3:12. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:40 p.m. 4c. 607 CONCORD WAY, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (JOHN HERMANSON, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; JIM WALL, PROPERTY OWNER) (58 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Cauchi noted that he lives within 500 feet of this project site so would recuse himself from this action. He stepped down from the dais and left the Council Chambers. Reference staff report October 13,2006,with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. John Hermannsson, architect, represented the project. Commissioner noted that he called the item off the consent calendar because he had three questions were not addressed in the comments,and if they came up later would require another review by the commission which he hoped to avoid. First was the concern about the second floor fenestration conflicting with the ability to install shear walls as required. The architect noted that he is working with a structural engineer who recommended a drag line at the sheer wall at the utility room on sheet A4 extended to the second floor,he indicated that it would be enough to take the force. Second concern was the narrowness of the space between the top of the plate and the subfloor as shown on sheet A8,concerned how the second floor will be supported without the beam extended outside of the envelope of the house,9 inch beams are small and look ugly, if it is necessary to raise the roof to get the beam inside there may not be room for the windows as shown on the plan without changing the roof. Third concern was light glow from the 40 SF skylight shown, documents submitted indicate that depending on design,the skylight could reduce light glow/transmission from 14%to 50%;what design are you using? Architect noted that the solar heat coefficient being used is SHGC .15. Commissioner asked about light transmission, can it be reduced below 50%. Another Commissioner added that he has some experience with this type of skylight and they are opaque and diffuse the light at night so that the impact is less than a tinted skylight. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C.Auran moved by resolution to approve the project with the added condition that the light emitted from the �- large skylight shall be reduced to less than 50%of the lumens emitted from an un-tinted glass skylight of the same size and with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 13,2006 submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 1, 2006, sheets A-1 through A-9; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit;that all windows shall be simulated true divided light windows with three dimensional wood mullions;and that tht light emitted from the large skylight be reduced to less than 50 percent of the lumens emitted from an un- tinted glass skylight and that other skylights installed in this house now or in the future meet this same standard for night glow; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's June 23,2006 memo,the Fire Marshall's and NPDES Coordinator's June 26, 2006 memos, the Recycling Specialist's July 3, 2006 memo, and the City Engineer's July 5, 2006 memo shall be met; (3) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; (4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch,shall be subject to design review; (5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; (6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; (7) that prior to final inspection, Planning Department staff will inspect and note compliance of the architectural details(trim materials,window type,etc.)to verify that the project has been built according to the approved Planning and Building plans; (8) that all air ducts, plumbing vents, and flues shall be combined, where possible,to a single termination and installed on the portions of the roof not visible from the street;and that these venting details shall be included and approved in the construction plans before a Building permit is --� issued; (9) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code,2001 edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame; (10) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction Plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of a structure,interior or exterior,shall require a demolition permit;and (11) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the amended condition regarding light emission from the skylights. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.Cauchi abstaining)voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:55 p.m. C. Cauchi returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. 5. 1612 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR SIDE SETBACK, LOT COVERAGE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCES FOR A FIRST FLOOR REMODEL AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING(WEYMAN LEE,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; JD &ASSOCIATES, DESIGNER) (61 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C.Deal noted he would recuse himself from this item because of a business relationship with the applicant. He stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Reference staff report October 23,2006,with attachments. Plr. Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked: if the deck 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 13, 2006 area were expanded to its current full size on this site the future it would count in FAR? Yes because it is 5"-10" off the ground. There is a letter in support from Monte Corvino, is that within 500 feet of this property? Monte Corvino is to the west of this property,it is not shown on aerial,if it is within 500 feet it is �- just barely there. Is the area under the deck counted in FAR? Only if the ceiling height is six feet or greater. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Stewart Gunrow, designer, JD & Associates; Weyman Lee, property owner. Susan Lee,property owner. Have two children,getting bigger and need to add a bedroom, scope of project is small, less than 400 SF; remove existing deck to provide room for addition so will not add bulk to the house,two of the three variances are minor modifications,would not require a public hearing for the two; the storage area created because of the slope on the lot can be seen as a hardship for the FAR variance. Commissioner asked staff which variances are minor modifications; CP noted the side setback because it is an extension of existing nonconforming wall and lot coverage because the increase is less than 41%. The FAR variance is not an administrative variance and always requires a public hearing. Commissioner asked architect at study to look at bringing the addition down to reduce the head clearance of the area below it, why did you not consider? Discussed not good for use of space to drop it down, next to kitchen,tripping hazard,hard to sit there, aesthetically prefer not to have steps. Commissioner noted over FAR a few 100 feet is all that existing space under the house? Property owner noted that garage is existing and over sized 60 to 70 SF, area under the house at 7' or less which is too low to be habitable but high enough to count in FAR, hardship is the slope on the lot. Commission asked if property owner could eliminate the side setback variance,bring wall in one foot,would help articulate side elevation. Architect noted looked at,if jog wall in one foot would result in a hip in the roof or an over hang on the roof that was one foot deeper in that area than on the rest of the house. Basement area floods,has too low a ceiling to use, only have 1750 SF of living space,like living in Burlingame,this is not a monster house,blends in with the neighborhood,all the neighbors have signed a petition in support. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: the deck is existing, area will be enclosed, will be cleaner as an addition; 2 variances are minor modifications, there is a strong showing for the third given the slope on the lot, have looked at alternatives; agree that the hardship is the slope on the lot and the existing structure; lot of other lots with slope the area below the house would not be enclosed and would not count in FAR;. C. Vistica moved to approve the project by resolution with the three variances including findings stated in the record and noting that the hardship for the floor area ratio variance is the placement of the house on the lot and the design of the existing house in relation to the slope of the lot; and with the added condition that none of the area below the house without habitable ceiling height shall not be converted to living space in the future without review of the Planning Commission and an additional variance;and should the house be replaced or undergo a major remodel in the future the floor area ratio variance shall become void, and with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 11,2006,sheets 1-8,F-1 and F-2,and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit,and none of the area below the house,current check or any future deck without habitable ceiling height shall not be converted to living space now or in the future without review of the Planning Commission and granting of an additional floor area ratio variance; 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 13, 2006 (2) that the variances for side setback,lot coverage and floor area ratio shall only apply to this building and shall become void if the building or floor area is ever expanded,demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; (3) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 8, 2006 memo and the City Engineer's, Recycling Specialist's, Fire Marshal'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 the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,2001 Edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame; (6) 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 (7) 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. Cauchi. Commissioner discussion:propose an amendment to require that the square footage in the lower area which is included in the current floor area ratio but does not meet habitable ceiling height shall not ever be changed to living area without further review by the Planning Commission and if the house is every demolished or substantially remodeled,the replacement or remodeled house is required to conform to the allowed floor area ratio. Cers. Vistica and Cauchi, maker and second of the motion, agreed to the amendment. It was noted that it should be clear because of the FAR variance that the rear deck cannot be expanded in the future. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the project with the side setback, lot -� coverage and floor area ratio variances requested with the amendment that none of the area under the house and deck currently without habitable ceiling height shall be used for living space without approval of the Planning Commission and that if the deck is ever expanded or the house is ever removed or undergoes a major remodel it shall be required to conform to the mandated floor area ratio. The motion passed on a 6-0- 1 (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:20 p.m. 6. 1404 EDGEHILL DRIVE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR PARKING VARIANCE AND FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY REMODEL(DAVID AND JANIS SPIVACK, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; LARRY KAHLE, METROPOLIS ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT) (69 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER (continued to November 27, 2006 meeting) 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 13, 2006 7. 1441-1445 BELLEVUE AVENUE, ZONED R-4—AMENDED APPLICATION FOR A NEW FOUR- STORY, 20-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM (DALE MEYER, AIA, DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT, BELLEVUE ASSOCIATES LLC C/0 LITKE �— PROPERTIES,PROPERTY OWNERS)(139 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER:MAUREEN BROOKS a. APPLICATION FOR ADDENDUM TO MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED CONDOMINIUM PERMIT,SPECIAL PERMIT FOR FRONT SETBACK LANDSCAPING; AND b. AMENDMENT TO TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP AND TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION PROJECT ENGINEER: VICTOR VOONG Reference staff report October 13, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. One hundred-two conditions were suggested for consideration which include the mitigation monitoring plan. Commissioner asked if this project is denied, does the original approval stand. CA responded yes. Commissioner asked if the changes to the project were considered as minor in the context of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. CP responded yes,the addition of three dwelling units and the traffic impacts are minor,parking is provided on the site and the foot print of the building is essentially the same,no change is proposed to the common open space or site landscaping, each unit is provided with private open space, arranged in a more uniform pattern. There were no further questions from the Commission. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Dale Meyer, architect, 857 Burlway Road, represented the project. He described briefly the changes proposed to the project noting that there is a slight increase in floor area on the forth floor because of the removal of the mansard roof on the rear half of the building; lot coverage is reduced slightly;he noted that the reason for the changes to the number of units,size of units and building are based on the changes in the residential market since they did their original market study before applying for the original project. Noted that the rear fagade can be seen from the common open space,feel that there is sufficient articulation in the building to make up for the loss of detail on the rear of the building, no changes are proposed to the common open space and the trees and creek provide a screen to the rear of the building and so changes to the building would not affect use of the common open space;when changed the number of dwelling units looked at the entire fagade , decided to break up the long side walls by removing the mansard roof so the side would look like two elements; proposed change in stone trim to reduce the number of penetrations through the stucco and reduce the maintenance costs for future homeowners association. Commissioners asked: liked the continuous mansard roof and the way the building looked before,can you do the same exterior with a new interior arrangement of 20 units? Architect noted most of the addition units are on the third and fourth floors because gained floor space when removed the mansard roof,putting the mansard back on would reduce at least two of the forth floor units (numbers 18 and 20). Commissioner noted that removal of the mansard roof appears to add about 500SF. Commissioner expressed concern that some people like smaller units but do not think that these will be any more affordable,but the quality of the exterior of the building has been reduced,how is this better for the community? Architect commented that from the last review heard guiding direction to increase the number of units and reduce the size,some of the other items such as removal of stone quoins look at making the building more cost effective,need to balance the cost of construction with the sale price of the units. Commissioner noted that additional dwelling units are good for the community;how did you address the water proofing of the two stories below grade parking garage,is there funding to build the necessary retaining wall and keep it from collapsing? Architect noted worked with engineer on method of water proofing basement area, also will use zipax which is a material used to water proof water storage tanks, have retained a water proofing consultant. Commissioner noted 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 13, 2006 originally wanted driveway relocated to the right side of the lot to give neighbors at 1435 Bellevue more separation from the impact of this project, the mansard roof provided some reduction to the impact, now want to remove half of that, units 18 and 20 most affected have big closets and bathrooms which can be adjusted to accommodate the addition of the mansard roof,would suggest that put 20 units in the original design or build original proposal. Architect noted could put 20 units in the original design with some exterior adjustments for windows and balconies. Commissioner noted hate to see the quality of this initial design spoiled,was not on the commission at the time of the action on the original,but would support that project. Commissioner noted would support changing the quoins from stone to stucco, think there is little difference in appearance and a big difference in cost,agree what like is the mansard roof with darker colored real slate effectively hides the fourth floor from the neighbors. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioners comments: As understand it,if approve this revision the applicant can build either project? CA noted until the approval for the original expires. More smaller units is an advantage to the city,not see mansard as critical,changes on the elevations are fine,when it is built the details on either set ofplans would fit in; agree about adding more units, but design should be more in keeping with original; think that the window and balcony arrangement is better with the second proposal but the mansard roof should extent around the entire building. Chair Brownrigg made motion to place this item on the consent calendar when the applicant has addressed the following: ■ a mansard roof around the entire building,roofed with the same dark real slate shown in the original proposal; ■ the stone quoins can be changed to stucco quoins throughout; ■ the project contain 20 dwelling units of the smaller sizes proposed in the second submittal; ■ the window pattern and balconies should be revised to match the pattern in the second proposal; ■ all other stone surfaces, except the quoins, should be kept especially around the entry and window trim as shown on the original; and ■ the fluting around the windows (gull wing)can be done in stucco. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. Comment on the motion: commission wants to be careful not to design the building for the architect and over correct for the changes;to have the whole building in stucco is too much,stone accents have an impact; willing to do away with the stone veneer on the first floor. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item to a time when revised plans have been submitted to the Planning Department,have been plan checked and there is space on an agenda. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The continuation includes the Tentative Map. This action is not appealable. The item concluded at 8:55 p.m. 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 13, 2006 8. 220 PRIMROSE ROAD,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW FOR SUBSTANTIAL REMODEL OF AN EXISTING BUILDING FOR A RETAIL USE (DAVID A. LEVY, DAVID A. LEVY & ASSOCIATES, APPLICANT; ALI REZAEI, ARCHITECT; `— CHICKEN CHICKEN LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) (29 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report November 13, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg noted that he had listened to the tapes of the previous meeting for this project. Commission asked if the Planning Department received any response from the public after the renderings were posted at the site;no comments or inquiries were received. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. David Levy,345 Springside Drive,Akron,Ohio;Ken Nemeth, Senior Development Manager for Anthropologie, 26566 Paseo Del Mar, San Juan Capistrano, California, and Robin Ostler, 531 W. 26`x' Street, New York,New York, represented the project, noted that the color rendering presented at the previous meeting was not accurate,after reviewing the rendering he revised it to accurately depict the size and scale of the proposed storefront, adding larger trees and people to give it human scale;to reduce the scale of the storefront at the front doors,a perforated metal screen was added,the color of the screen will match the color of the framing around the windows;the inside of the store will not be a white box and therefore will not emit light and glare onto the sidewalk and street, the interior space will consist of colored plaster and a French flea market theme, interior space will help to tone down the look of the storefront. Commission noted that the metal screen helps to reduce the scale,but wished the applicant went further. The wood dowels are unique, has this been done before at any other locations? No. Commission expressed a concern with the wood dowels extending to sidewalk level,could be tempting for children to climb on; applicant noted that there will be a mesh screen behind the wood dowels and that the Nft - dowels will be attached with screws to a metal frame with vertical members two feet on center. Further discussion: compliment applicant for addressing the Commissions' concerns from the previous meeting and for revising the rendering,like the variation along the front of the building. Commission asked if the number of resin light boxes had been reduced from the previous meeting;no,the rendering may show less because it's an artistic representation,but the number of light boxes is accurately shown on the proposed plans. Commission asked what is the element behind the window on the left side? Applicant noted that it is an existing concrete beam which will be visible behind the window. Commission expressed a concern with proposed design, feel that it does not fit in with downtown Burlingame. Commission noted that the rear of the building will be visible from the public parking lot,what is being proposed for the rear of the building? Will there be any signage at the rear? Applicant noted that at this time the plan was to paint the building a neutral color and that signage would be submitted under a separate permit. Commission asked how many Anthropologie stores there are on the Peninsula and nationwide? There are three stores on the Peninsula (San Francisco, Palo Alto and San Jose) and 105 stores nationwide. Commission asked why was Burlingame chosen as a location;applicant noted that Burlingame has key demographic,women 25 and over who are affluent and have a sense of style and sophistication. Commission asked if the parking was a consideration when reviewing Burlingame as a possible location; yes, thought parking in the area was adequate and accessible with Lot J and available street parking close by. Commission asked if staff discussed the downtown study and how to incorporate the Howard Avenue commercial area,there may be an opportunity to do something with the rear of the building to make it more inviting and also benefit the business;yes,also met with Citizens for a Better Burlingame to discuss these issues,opening the rear of the building creates a problem with loss prevention. Commission asked the applicant to consider a way to identify the business at the rear of the building rather than just painting the building a neutral color,maybe 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 13, 2006 the rear of the building could be cleaned up so that fire escapes are not visible, would like to see a clean finish or other type of treatment, can work with signage; since the building extends across the entire property,the paint chosen should be one that does not fade. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: feel that the proposed design does not relate to Burlingame,it is too contemporary; there is no pediment to stop your eye at the top of the building as with most buildings in downtown Burlingame. Commissioners noted that they would like to be informed of the improvements proposed for the rear of the building. C.Vistica noted that the storefront will work well as shown on the scaled perspective and with the proposed improvements for the Wells Fargo building across the street and moved to approve the application, by resolution, with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped October 10, 2006, cover sheet, sheets C2, D1, Al through A2.2, A3.1, A3.2, A5.1 through 5.8 and date stamped November 1, 2006, sheets Al, A3 and A5; any changes to the exterior materials shall require review by the Planning Commission; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's October 6, 2006,memo, the City Engineer's October 4, 2006, memo,the Fire Marshal's October 2, 2006,memo,the Recycling Specialist's October 16, 2006, memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's October 3, 2006, memo shall be met; (3) that demolition or removal of the existing structures and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; (4) that any changes to the size or envelope of building,which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls, -� moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; (5) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection,the project architect,engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; (6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; (7) that prior to final inspection,Planning Department 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; (8) 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; (9) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition,new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements; any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior,shall require a demolition permit;and (10) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: Commission noted that once the color and exterior material have been chosen for the rear of the building, it should be brought back as a Planner's Report. CA Anderson noted that the applicant can work with the Public Works Department to obtain an encroachment permit for any signage which may encroach into the public right-of-way. 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 13,2006 Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-1 (C. Deal dissenting). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:25 p.m. �- 9. 1199 BROADWAY,SUITE 2,ZONED C-1,BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA—APPLICATION FOR AMENDMENT TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN INCREASE IN THE HOURS OF OPERATION OF AN EXISTING FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (TOMMY NGAI AND DANNY KUAN,APPLICANTS;GARBIS BEZDJIAN,PROPERTY OWNER)(61 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Commissioner Deal noted that he lives within 500 feet of the project and recused himself from the proceedings on this item. He stepped down from the dais and left the chamber. Reference staff report November 13, 2006, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Thirteen conditions were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Tommy Ngai,owner of Joannie's Happy Days Diner,noted that he would like to extend the hours of operation to accommodate evening customers, recently moved to Burlingame and feels part of the community. Commission asked if four employees(two part-time and two full-time)would be enough cover the extended hours,may need more employees for a restaurant operating seven days a week, 18 hours a day. Mr. Ngai noted that he and his partner are currently the full-time employees,feels there is no need to add employees. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Terrones commended the restaurant owner for living close to his business on Broadway and that the extended hours of operation will bring more night life to Broadway and moved to approve the application,by resolution, with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped January 19,2006, sheets A-1 and A-2; (2) that this business location to be occupied by a full service food establishment,with 700 SF of seating area,may change its food establishment classification only to a limited food service upon approval of a conditional use permit amendment for the establishment,and the criteria for the new classification shall be met in order for a change to be approved; (3) that the 700 SF area of on-site seating of the full service food establishment shall be enlarged or extended to any other areas within the tenant space only by an amendment to this conditional use permit; (4) that the parking variance shall only apply to this 1,226 SF tenant space and the food establishment use with 700 SF of on-site seating and shall become void if the tenant space or food establishment use is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; (5) that the full service food establishment may be open seven days a week,from 6:00 a.m.to 12:00 a.m. (midnight),with a maximum of two full-time and two part- time employees on site at any one time, including the business owner and manager; (6) that this food establishment shall provide trash receptacle(s) as approved by the city consistent with the streetscape improvements and maintain all trash receptacle(s) at the entrances to the building and at any additional locations as approved by the City Engineer and Fire Department; (7) that the business shall provide litter control along all frontages of the business and within fifty(50)feet of all frontages of the business; (8) that an amendment to this conditional use permit shall be required for delivery of prepared food from this premise; (9) that there shall be no food sales allowed at this location from a window or from any opening `.. within 10'of the property line; (10) that if this site is changed from any food establishment use to any retail or other use, a food establishment shall not be replaced on this site and this conditional use permit shall 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 13, 2006 become void; (11) that seating on the sidewalk outside shall conform to the requirements of any encroachment permit issued by the city; (12) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November -� 22, 2005, memo, the Fire Marshal's and City Engineer's November 21, 2005, memos, the Recycling Specialist's November 23,2005,memo and the NPDES Coordinator's November 29,2005,memo shall be met;and (13) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and that failure to comply with these conditions or any change to the business or use on the site which would affect any of these conditions shall require an amendment to this use permit. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 10. 1535 LOS MONTES DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW, HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT,FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (GEOMEN AND ELIZABETH LIU TRUST, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JERRY DEAL JD &ASSOCIATES DESIGNER) (48 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Deal indicated that he has a business relationship with the applicant and will recuse himself from the proceedings on this item. He stepped down from the dais and left the chamber. Plr. Hurin briefly presented the project description and noted that a letter of support was submitted by -� Barbara Wullschleger, next door neighbor at 1537 Los Montes Drive. Commissioner noted that the proposed project exceeds the maximum allowed FAR by 266 SF, but that 280 SF of the basement is the attached garage,understand zoning code states that a garage cannot be exempt from FAR,what was intent? CP Monroe noted that intent was to discourage sunken garages on flat lots; the upward slope on this lot eliminates the sunken garage,but it is still counted in FAR. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Geomen and Elizabeth Liu, property owners, and Stewart Gunrow, designer, JD & Associates, were available to answer questions, since last meeting have worked with the next door neighbor and designer to design a project that will not impact the neighbor and fit in with the neighborhood, much of the mass and bulk is now proposed below grade, eliminated the top floor to address concerns with view blockage;would not need a FAR variance if garage in basement was exempt. Commissioner commended the design because it reduces the mass and bulk compared to the previous design. Barbara Wullschleger, 1537 Los Montes Drive,noted that she reviewed the revised plans,the new design is very nice,appreciate the height of the house being reduced. Commission complimented Ms.Wullschleger for sharing her concerns with the project at the first meeting and attending the second meeting to express her support of the revised project. Commissioners made the following comments regarding the project: ■ Front railing is proposed to be wood,should consider using a metal railing,it would work better witl the stone veneer; if choose not to use metal, the design of the wood railing should be more ornate and in keeping with the prairie style; 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 13, 2006 ■ Provide detail of traditional stucco mold trim around windows, note material and size of trim proposed; ■ As proposed there is no trim proposed around the windows along the side elevations,only a bottom `-- sill, window trim should be added around these windows and should be consistent throughout the house; ■ Designer should figure out a way to conceal the rainwater leaders; ■ Suggest adding a shadow line to the fascia and another reveal where fascia meets the corner; ■ Front walkway should be given some prominence, need to announce the front door, walkway or banister should be enhanced; ■ Front walkway should be widened; walkway material should match the stone veneer proposed on house; ■ Concerned with the design of the garage door, it is very horizontal and will quickly look dated, consider incorporating the glass elements found on the side of the house on the garage door; and ■ Wood panels on garage door should run vertically,will help front elevation. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar at a time when the revisions listed above have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: Commission noted findings for the FAR variance include:the project is located in an area which has a restriction on view blockage, the sloped nature of the site provides a good solution by digging into the hillside to hide the mass and bulk,creates a space that and does not contribute to the visual mass an bulk; garage in basement counts against FAR,but if it were a basement it would not count,this is a complication in the code. Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar when plans have been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Deal abstaining). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:55 p.m. C. Deal returned to the dais. X. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS - Permit Processing Subcommittee: Report on work on Permit Expiration issues. CP Monroe reviewed the key points of discussion by the subcommittee on the permit extension issue. A commissioner noted the importance of educating the public about the importance of getting a final inspection on work done on their homes or buildings. There are a lot of myths out there that need to be corrected. CBO indicated that once these code changes are approved he will develop a series of appropriate handouts based on them. It was noted that the CBO is doing seminars for home builders and the construction and real estate industry members twice a year.The next one is November 14,2006. Staffwill continue to notify the Commissioners when these are being offer. The Subcommittee will meet again to continue to address the issues raised regarding the permit expiration regulation proposal. 15 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 13, 2006 XI. PLANNER REPORTS - City Council regular meeting of November 6, 2006. CP Monroe noted that the appeal hearing for the skin care clinic use as a health service was set for the December 4,2006,Council meeting. She also noted that the jurisdictions in the county are beginning to meet to discuss the allocation of the County Regional Housing Needs numbers for the 2009 Housing Element. - FYI: 1149 Drake Avenue—changes to a previously approved design review project. There were no comments on the proposed changes to the project at 1149 Drake Avenue. - FYI: 1613 McDonald Way—changes to a previously approved design review project. Commissioners asked that the proposed changes to the project at 1613 McDonald Way be put on the action calendar for a public hearing. In closing the commissioners asked if staff would report back to them on the status of the following projects: ■ 1371 Columbus Drive; ■ 1155 California Drive, the clock tower is not keeping time at all. ■ 1300 Sanchez Avenue, the status of the project and the continued presence of a large contractor's sign. ■ 235 Primrose Road,the status of the appliance store going into the Old Wells Fargo Bank building. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 10:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, David Cauchi, Secretary 16 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road,Burlingame, CA November 27, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Brownrigg called the November 27, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:03 p.m. II. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Terrones and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi and Osterling. Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Zoning Technician Erica Strohmeier; City Attorney, Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer; Doug Bell. III. MINUTES The minutes of the November 13, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were reviewed. The following amendments were adopted:page 3, item 3, bullet 3 "... upper signs need could be moved down to be parallel...;page 5,item 4c,line 13, "...9 inch beams are small and look ug!) stick out through the roof...";and page 11,item 8,line 4,add `the elevations for the proposed facade were posted on the construction fence before the Commission action meeting. CP noted that there have been no comments from the public as a result of the posted plans, "... C. Vistica moved to approve the plans as amended. C. Terrones seconded the motion. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion ~ passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers Cauchi and Osterling absent) voice vote. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. V. FROM THE FLOOR Oscar Braun, Executive Director, Half Moon Bay Coast Side Organization which is community based,submitted information to the Commission about the S.T.O.P.P. program in San Mateo County and requested an EIR on the plan amendments because it allows `confined animal facilities,' concerned that there will be legal action if the city allows confined animal facilities which will affect the city broadly and would disqualify the city from eligibility for funding in the future. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1251 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULL SERVICE FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (LILY LI, APPLICANT; CLEMENT YEN, TOYO COMPANY, DESIGNER; K.J. NICKMEY LLC, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER C. Deal noted that he lives within 500 feet of both this project site and 1327 Broadway(Item#2), and that he would recuse himself from both actions. He stepped down from the dais and left the council chambers. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 ZT Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: -� ■ How many specialty food establishments are left in the Broadway Commercial area? ■ How does this use fit the criteria of a full service food establishment? ■ The conditional use permit application explains that this is a well established food establishment. Where are there any other Big Joe's Cafe's in the Bay Area? ■ What caused the delay in this project? ■ Is the exterior of the building really going to be painted the same color as existing? Does this business have a brand identity? and ■ Where is garbage going to be stored? Where will garbage cans be washed out? This should not take place in the public sidewalk. Where is the food establishment next door storing and washing out their cans? 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 7:15 p.m. 20 1327 BROADWAY, ZONED C-1, BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AMENDMENT AND PARKING VARIANCE TO INCREASE THE SEATING ARE OF AN EXISTING FOOD ESTABLISHMENT (BAR) (GERARD MITCHELL, APPLICANT; STEPHEN T. HIGGINS, DESIGNER; BOB NERLI, PROPERTY OWNER) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER ZT Strohmeier presented a summary of the staff report. Commissioners asked: ■ Would like some clarification from the Chief Building Official about the two required exits from the -� patio; is there enough separation? Is paving allowed in the service area and adjacent so that patrons can safely exit into this area? ■ Some room should be left unpaved at the rear of the patio so that the planting can be done in the ground to grow up the trellis; would like to see an irrigation system for planting at the rear and for the potted Italian Cypress trees; like the addition of the landscaping to this area; ■ Is there a plan for making this the only place that people smoke so that people do not smoke on the street in front? • Concerned with people being outside on the patio area later in the evening; are there specific hours that the patio is open? Does the inclusion of the patio area require a review of the Amusement Permit? and ■ Because of the possible impact on the neighbors living nearby,this application should be reviewed immediately upon complaint as well as after the first year. This item was set for the consent calendar when all the information has been submitted and reviewed by the Planning Department. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. C. Deal returned to the chambers and took his seat on the dais. 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar-Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant,a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. 3a. 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) (32 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER 3b. ADOPT PLANNING COMMISSION CALENDAR FOR 2007 - SENIOR PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Chair Brownrigg asked if anyone in the audience,on the Commission or staff wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. CP Monroe did note that on the 711 Linden Avenue project there were two conditions added to require that the driveway pavement be installed and the accessory structure be inspected for the removed pipes before a final inspection can be scheduled. C.Deal noted that the applicant appears to have made changes on the engineering drawings and there is no letter from the Civil Engineer giving permission for these changes,he asked that a condition be added to require the applicant to submit a letter from the Civil Engineer granting permission for the use of his plans before a final inspection is scheduled. CP also noted that there was a change to the Commission Calendar and the Joint City Council/ Planning Commission meeting will be held Saturday March 24, 2007. C. Deal moved approval of the consent calendar with the added condition to 711 Linden Avenue and the change to the Planning Commission's Calendar for 2007, based on the facts in the staff reports, commissioner's comments and the findings in the staff report for 711 Linden with recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C.Brownrigg. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 5-0-2(Cers,Cauchi and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:25 p.m. VIIL REGULAR ACTION ITEM 4. AMEND THE NORTH BURLINGAME/ROLLINS ROAD SPECIFIC PLAN AND REVISE AND RECLASSIFY THE ZONING IN THE EL CAMINO REAL NORTH SUBAREA(CONTINUED FROM OCTOBER 23, 2006) (271 RE-NOTICED AND NOTICE IN SAN MATEO TIMES) CITY PLANNER: MARGARET MONROE Reference staff report November 27,2006,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed the Subcommittee's recommendations noting how they were incorporated into the El Camino North (ECN) zoning district and into North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan and included in the addendum to Negative Declaration 533-P. All the documents are attached to the Staff Report. She noted that tonight is a continued public hearing from the October 23,2006,meeting. The public hearing includes the amendments to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan,the El Camino North zoning district regulations,and the reclassification of the area currently zoned C-1/R-4 to ECN. Commissioners asked staff. the `►' Subcommittee recommendations include integration of public service facilities in the industrial area, feel that people who work in the industrial area need nearby services including services for animals,and medical 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 clinics, are public services restricted in size to meet the immediate needs of people in the area? Staff noted not specifically in the plan. Are restaurants allowed in the ECN zone along El Camino? Yes,restaurants are mentioned specifically in the examples of permitted retail uses. Clarify how the sidewalk recommendation works; does it include the build-to-line? Yes. The visual opening for the sidewalk includes the minimum sidewalk width on public property plus the required setback of any structure on the private property, for example on Trousdale the side walk is 10 feet and the build-to-line is 10 feet so the visual opening is 20 feet. It is not the intention to widen the sidewalks on to private property. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg noted that the first meeting on the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan was 4 years ago, over that time the Commission has spent a lot of time thinking about the North El Camino Gateway Corridor and the Rollins Road industrial area;there were some 15 public meetings on the plan and zoning plus 5 public hearings before the City Council; Commission has worked hard on the rules and plan and now it is time to bring the plan and its implementation to closure and move forward. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Al Guibara, 1400 Rollins Road; David Lewn, 1333 Bayshore Highway,Hyatt Hotel;Victor Baiz, 1750 El Camino Real;Henry Keikler,owner 40-50-60 Edwards Court; Representative of Stanley Moore,1400 Capuchino Avenue; Dave Moutoux, tenant 1400 Rollins Road; Herman Christensen, 1429-1499 Rollins Road; George Chavez, property owner 1860 El Camino Real; Marco Chavez, property owner 1860 El Camino Real, Vincent Muzzi, 1766 El Camino Real and 1100 Trousdale Drive; Oscar Braun,1589 Higgins Canyon Road; Tony Musich, Burlingame Plaza Shopping Center; Jim Knapp, Citizens for Accountability; John Levi, 1116 Hamilton Lane;Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue spoke. Do not like the new addition of animal shelters to the plan will hurt the industrial area long -� term, Commission should look at the plan longer to see the impacts on the area, what is the purpose of putting animal shelters in the area if not for SPCA,the odors will go across the freeway to the business/hotel area and across the tracks to the residential areas, violates the current city ordinance which only allows 2 dogs on a site or 3 with neighbor permission,here we were not notified, even if allowed in the plan do not think shelter will ever be built,violates too many things,need an EIR,this amendment is not consistent with the General Plan which says nothing about this use. Chair Brownrigg noted that he is aware that people are concerned about a specific project, this hearing is not about that project; the question of that project will come before the Commission at another time;this hearing is about the planning now and the future for the Rollins Road industrial area and the El Camino North zoning district, and the zoning for the North El Camino Corridor. Public comments continued: Enjoy the static sound of the freeway and the pleasant smell from Guittard Chocolate,do not want any change that would not be positive to the hotels and to the tax base,do what you can to protect us. Questions about the zoning of El Camino North: how were people noticed for all the meetings?Did the city consider the vacancy rate in the area when considered new zoning regulations?Did you consider how existing businesses would operate during construction in the area and after? What consideration have you given to access to the medical buildings from EI Camino Real?Did you consider the safety of the elderly parking on El Camino to go to the doctor?Did you consider the impact of the zoning on property values? Own property in the Rollins Road area, also operate in another county a licensed dog kennel, like animals,see introduction of doggie day care and animal shelters as a demunition of my property values and those of others as well, to date have opposed zoning changes, would like answers tonight. Representative of Stanley Moore submitted a letter to the Commission. Concerned only about allowing animal shelters in the industrial area,don't think you can do it without an EIR,this is a new use not analyzed in 2004 when you adopted the plan,violates CEQA;there are negative impacts caused by PHS,significant impacts are identified in the DEIR for that project;PHS experience raises significant impacts for a use that 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 was not on the radar screen at that time. Concerned about the Specific Plan including an animal shelter,talk about the industrial area being a vital component of the city's economy and adding new development to enhance the industrial area and its employment base, an animal shelter is opposed to all these things,many property owners are opposed;to pass an amendment which allows something that would discourage existing property improvements is not wise,understand that this amendment will not affect the application of PHS, that it is on a separate track, question is who sponsored this amendment to the Specific Plan,is there another organization waiting to come? What is behind it? Public comments continued: own a 50,000 SF office/medical office building on the first block on El Camino Real,a change to mixed use will be detrimental to the population of Burlingame,there is a shortage of medical office space now and this will increase the hardship for those who live in the area and need to see doctors because the doctors will move away, zoning allows 0.5 FAR for office with high density residential above,this is a 6 fold reduction in office uses now allowed,with current code could build 90,000 SF of office with new can build 15, 000 SF of office, reduced the value of his building, it was built in the 1970's as were other all office buildings in the area,will see many more years of service, ask to postpone decision and investigate negative impact of this decision on office use. Chair Brownrigg noted that nothing in the rules will change how a building is currently used now or in the future,the building will become non- conforming and can continue its use and plan is not a taking; this affects how the property might be used when it is rebuilt in the future. Yes,but cannot rebuild 40,000+ SF with current parking if the property is destroyed more than 50%of its value, earthquakes and fires occur;property has lived only half its life,this change could injure the property owner,El Camino will not change in our life times. For the past 2 years,2 doctors a month have contacted me for office space,there is no place for them to go as the hospital expands; recently refinanced building,lender determined that the useful life is 35 years,will be there at least that long; postpone this action for more discussion so can see the effect of this proposed zoning. Concerned about the required 25 foot sidewalk width on El Camino Real,remove the density incentive provided by 0 foot build- to-line because it will reduce the lot size which is the basis for density, also concerned with 0 foot build-to line because there will be little landscaping around buildings, are you willing to accept the aesthetic result; so the 25 foot sidewalk reduces the development density as well as the aesthetic setting of the building; at least the density of the sidewalk should be transferred to the development on the site, for example, the development is allowed to incorporate the frontage road into the site, but to remove 25 feet of that for sidewalk,can have a substantial impact on the density of the development;plan bases density on 40 units to the acre, this is too low, if there is any area in the city that can handle higher densities without impacting existing development this is the area,in the area north of Dufferin Avenue need to get up two floors to have any view because of the railroad,now allow mixed use on the first two floors which will help address this issue; 40 units to the acre is not enough given the type of construction required, if go to steel need 6 or 7 stories to off set the cost difference, the number on a project will only work in today's market when the building is over 7 stories; have been involved in Millbrae's redevelopment area which is in the airport landing pattern,need incentives for the plan to be real,this area is not blighted,not a redevelopment area,so people are not driven to revitalize on their own; there is a shortage of medical office especially in the El Camino Real-California area,hard to justify the cost now however,it will be different in this area when the hospital is completed. Public comments continued: Plan amendment does require an EIR, problem is in the rezoning and storm water pollution in the industrial area where the storm water systems empty into the Bay, sensitive species habitats have been identified in the drain;concerned about the run off from `confined animal facilities';the new ordinance does not grandfather non-conforming uses if it is shown to discharge into sensitive habitat, same for all facilities in the zone;Burlingame is a signator of the S.T.O.P.P.permit,the animal shelter will violate it;an order will soon be filed to abate the current facility in the county;need to be in full compliance 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 so that are eligible for bond funds. Commissioner asked: what does City"in full compliance"mean? In San Mateo County have NPDES which defines a maximum daily load for each community,the city exceeds that load today and any additional development will exceed it; if you change zoning to allow confined animals,the EIR will have to be reviewed by a host of state agencies. Commissioner asked how would that facility contribute to pollution, other than to the Waste Water Treatment Plant? Water will run into the storm drain. The aviary is outside, it will wash down the parking lot into the storm drain and into the bay resulting in pollution, you only need to follow the science, follow the rules or don't get the money if you degrade under the Clean Water Act;non profits who violate can be stripped of their non-profit status. What would be an appropriate location for a confined animal use? No place in an industrial area, in the unincorporated area that does not drain into sensitive area and with low enough density, with all waste contained on site; in an urban area more than two dogs on site are a problem. San Mateo has a problem,the County owns the facility and it is inspected by County health,concealed the fact that the installation has been polluting the ground. Support encouraging pedestrian connection between Trousdale and Magnolia, encourage development of residential uses west of El Camino Real,plans to enhance frontage road is good, will benefit the shopping center;medical offices on the east side of El Camino Real make sense. Is this an amendment to the General Plan? CP noted that the specific plan is a part of the General Plan and was adopted as such in 2004. Have never won a vote but never lost a case in court,political pressure will not win out; adoption of this plan will put the tax payers of the city at risk and take the city down a path to litigation. When the wind blows with Guittard like chocolate smell,dog shelter is not as good. Should listen to Chavez's about office space, Sutter Health will not be here forever, the office space being built at the hospital is for Sutter,need office space nearby for others,allow existing to be rebuilt or new office condos; do not like uninstall concept, cars are getting bigger; will not allow veterinary services in Plaza Shopping Center,if vet goes away,can he sell to another vet? CP commented yes. Am not speaking to SPCA project -� but Rollins Road zoning regarding comments from Half Moon Bay speaker,tried to pass a bond which failed by 2% to fix storm water runoff community did not support, dog waste and human waste is the same in terms of treatment by the Waste Water Treatment Plant and can be treated the same;do not see the problem with bird guano doesn't seem to affect the millions of birds which migrate through this area, smells will be in a closed building with a filter system like the one proposed for the hospital, why are the neighbors not bothered now by the smell of the chickens in the existing building; there is an animal shelter on 16`h and Bryant in San Francisco in a mixed use neighborhood and there is no problem. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner comments: Checked there have been 15 meetings over 4 %2 years on this plan,many of the goals in this document came right out of the community,we looked at putting housing in the Rollins Road area, if it had been permitted at the north end and near BART property values would increase; when considered decided that we needed an industrial area,industrial areas permit food processing,painting and other uses which are incompatible with housing;also decided that all office use would not be permitted,now only have office in the industrial area if it s an adjunct to manufacturing use and less than 25%of the FAR, we acknowledged that the best place for all office in the city is in the Bayfront area which we zoned for that use, and is an amenable environment for white collar workers who do not like to be next to industrial uses. The City Council had five hearings on this plan. As a part of the rules we do not expect people to have to put up with negative `externalities', rules ask if have discussion about certain uses then do environmental evaluation; presently one can have a fish processing plant on Rollins Road but such a smell would not be allowed without mitigation; think we should have conversation, not prohibition, at the outset. Industry includes a lot of things we don't want next to us,if we did not care about that we would allow housing;we decided with the plan that we need a`back yard'in Burlingame to do those things that we don't want next to our houses. It is not a matter of a small sized use with pollution being bad and a big sized use with pollution being OK;rules are forged in the kiln of public comment, increased density does not mean that it feels like 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 Manhattan. Need to decide some standard. Subcommittee did a lot of hard work,this is not a game,there are no back door dealings, this is a serious endeavor, have no objection to the Subcommittee's recommendations and have read all the detail. Most efforts went into increasing the density on El Camino Real,allowed what was there plus some;should talk to the City Planner about how the proposed regulations will apply to actual properties;objective was to create an identity for the El Camino North area;worked 4%2 years, long and hard, time has come to move forward, right step is to make a recommendation to the City Council. Those who spoke to the ECN zoning should note can go up to 75 feet with FAA approval,pretty rare in a suburban area, clearly we recognized the importance of the transit corridor and proximity to BART/CalTrain, wider sidewalks, 25 feet on El Camino are good for restaurant seating and free flowing pedestrian activity to help people get to doctors offices,tried for a vision that is greater than you envision; the industrial area could support a veterinary clinic if there was a limit on the size, concerned about the impacts of a large facility,if it were limited about 4,000 SF a veterinary medical clinic not a problem would be sized to serve the people who work in the area similar to an emergency medical clinic, do not favor an open definition of veterinary hospital and animal shelter,should make a limitation on size to 3,500 to 4,000 SF. If shown in an EIR there is no difference in noise,odor,etc.why does size matter? Clinic should serve the needs of those who work in the industrial area,not appropriate as a destination,a hospital or rehab center can serve 300 people; vet should be like the small office in the Burlingame Plaza that was always the intention of the zoning for the industrial area. If the EIR shows no negative externalities use should be OK, the community decided that there should be no vets in the R-1 or on Trousdale,only place left to allow this use was in the M-1 because not next to residential uses,if that is the case why should they be limited if EIR shows no negative impact on the neighboring properties or uses?Difference between a veterinary hospital and a huge animal shelter. Commission comment continued: Commission is charged with making the best possible recommendation to the City Council, think that this is it; there are issues remaining which will be addressed as projects are reviewed; have already recognized a problem with the build-to and setback lines and got an early view of what El Camino would look like, feel good about where we are. C.Auran made a motion to amend the Specific Plan to limit veterinary hospitals and animal shelters to 4,000 SF. The motion failed for lack of a second. C. Deal noted that included in the staff report was a list of communities in the Bay Area which allow, as conditional uses, animal shelters in their industrial areas, do not want to limit animal shelter or veterinary uses by size,needs an EIR on the proposed project to decide if the proposed size is correct,might be 4,000 SF; so move by resolution to recommend the amendments to the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the El Camino North zoning district and the reclassification map for the El Camino North zoning district to the City Council for action. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to recommend the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, the El Camino North zoning district regulations and the reclassification map for the ECN zoning district to the City Council for action. The motion passed on a 4-1-2 (C. Auran dissenting, Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent)roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 p.m. Chair Brownrigg called for a brief break to allow the room to clear. The meeting reconvened at 9:10 p.m. 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 5. 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)(70 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER:ERICA STROHMEIER(continued from November 13, 2006 meetiny_) Reference staff report dated November 27, 2006, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if the removal of the steel bar between the bollards was proposed as part of the revised application. Staff responded that removal of the steel bar would be appropriate to add to the conditions of approval. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. David Spivack, property owner, stated that there are two existing bollards with a steel bar running between them; they would like to keep the bollards, but have proposed removal of the steel bar;the bollards are about 1 or 2 feet wider than the actual driveway; and the driveway is 9'-6"wide at the gate. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application, by resolution,with the following amended conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 15,2006,sheet Al,and date stamped September 12,2006,sheets A2—A9,and that any changes to the automatic gate location and footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; and that the existing steel bar and all the attachments of the bar to the existing bollards must be -� removed prior to final inspection; (2) that the variance for no covered parking and the variance for floor area ratio shall only apply to this configuration of buildings and shall become void if the footprint or buildings on the site are ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for replacement; (3) that the conditions of the City Engineer's, Chief Building Official's and Fire Marshall's July 5,2006,memos, and the Recycling Specialist's and NPDES Coordinator's July 10,2006,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 the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building and Uniform Fire Codes,2001 Edition,as amended by the City of Burlingame; and (6) 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 (7) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment on motion: the maker of the motion agreed to the removal of the steel bar and the members that hold it in place as part of the conditions of approval; the reason to approve is because in this unusual circumstance this gated driveway situation with tandem uncovered parking spaces is more likely to get two cars off the street than a parking structure; the curb cut for this property is at the rear off a dead end street and the access to the property from the street is only 8.5' wide at some points because a part of this parcel was sold to a neighbor in the past, still opposed to the solution of not having any covered parking, should have a covered parking space or garage even if there is less onsite parking, will not park in rear yard; first 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 time to approve a project that has no covered parking on site,and feel this is granting a special privilege to one property owner. Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 4-1-2(C.Deal dissenting, C. Cauchi and C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:20 p.m. 6. 2828 MARIPOSA DRIVE, ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (PHOI PHAN, PHAN ARCHITECTS,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;LOUIS LARRAZABAL,PROPERTY OWNER) (50 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN C. Vistica noted that he did not attend the study meeting for this item, and that he had not listened to the tapes from the study meeting so he would recuse himself from the action. The City Attorney noted that he may remain on the dais and may comment on the project, but that he could not vote. Reference staff report dated November 27, 2006, with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Phoi Phan, architect, represented the project; stated that working with a consultant was progressive and positive, and helped the design. William Chen, 2832 Mariposa, stated that he had submitted a photograph to the Commission showing the story pole view from his bedroom window and explained that his view of the east bay hills and Mt. Diablo will be blocked with the proposed addition. Commission commented: ■ The roof over the top on the right side elevation agrees with the roof plan but does not agree with the front elevation; there is a gable extending out I' beyond the other gable; ■ This is an improvement over the previous design; like the 10 x 10 columns by the deck; ■ The projection at the rear elevation begs to have some windows; this elevation looks odd with no windows on the projection; there a lot of cases where you can put a window on the bed wall; could put a high window in the bedroom niche; ■ Why are the triangular vents on the side elevations different sizes? Vent on side elevation needs to be moved down; cave vents could be a nice aspect of the gables and should be made bigger; • The 2 x 12 fascia detail is fairly large for the neighborhood and should be paired down; ■ Vinyl windows are shown on the plans,would encourage wood clad windows instead; ■ Front elevation fascia board is shown as 18"deep, it should be lessened in size; There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Further comment: Overall, the architect did a good job on the project but there is a large problem with the view blockage issue; can't support the project because there is going to be blockage of the distant East Bay views,which the picture reflects; and reluctant to deny the project because the changes made substantially enhance the design, but problem with view blockage. C.Deal moved to deny the application because of the view blockage issue. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to deny. The motion passed on a 4-0-1-2 (C. Vistica abstaining, C. Cauchi and C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:45 p.m. 7. 1557 DRAKE AVENUE,ZONED R-1 —APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,FRONT AND SIDE SETBACK VARIANCES AND SPECIAL PERMIT FOR ATTACHED GARAGE FOR A NEW, TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND ATTACHED GARAGE (RANDY GRANGE, TRG ARCHITECTS,APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT;JAY AND JANET GARCIA,PROPERTY OWNERS) (48 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report November 27, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Sixteen conditions were suggested for consideration.CP noted that there was a letter from Otto Miller received today at the Commissioners desks. Commissioner asked: what is the required front setback for a double car garage? ZT noted that when off set the closest door must be set back 20' the second door 25',when one double door it must be setback 35 feet. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Randy Grange,architect,represented the project. Jay Garcia, property owner 1561 Drake. Tried to find a balance between the function of the garage,the creek setting and the setbacks;this revised project appears to be the best balance,increases the space between 1561 bymoving the house to the left, flipped the inside 10 feet on the right side of the garage,pushed the garage back to the rear wall of the existing garage, can maneuver in and out easily now, does create a side setback variance because of the `T' in the lot; changed the design of the dormer to eyebrow so garage looks like a carriage house at the end of the street, eyebrow balances the curved entry; with this solution can landscape the area between this house and the one to the east. Commissioner asked if had prepared a streetscape drawing. Yes, architect submitted to the Commission, noting that with a flat dead end to the street is a problem to document,but can seethe carriage house feel. Commissioner asked why not put the garage where the entry porch is so go directly from street into the garage? Looked at that but resulted in a long narrow corridor inside the house to get past the garage before getting to the living area. Commissioner noted willing to look at variances given problems with the lot,but would like to see more direct access to the street and reduce the FAR. Architect noted to reverse the garage and porch would need to bring the porch forward 7 feet in front of the garage so it could be seen, then have 35 foot hall inside house and resulted in a larger FAR and a worse floor plan. Concerned that misunderstood when developed the idea of this house, existing house at 1561 Drake is 1900 SF, have a family of 5, been in existing house 24 years need a larger house which is affordable to live in permanently; will stay in this new house as long as possible; believe this design is respectful of 1553 Drake,house will be comfortable for family. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: think existing residence with entry and garage location are the best given the 10 foot frontage and entry courting area and existing conditions; porch addresses the front of the lot appropriately, garage address access and safety, development back in to the"T" area into the creek is less desirable,push mass to the rear have a problem with 1553 Drake;this effort increases the front separation to 10 feet with interior modifications and not shifting house to the rear,support,like added landscaping which will allow for a future property line fence and will diminish the presence of the garage for the neighbor, eyebrow reduces the massing of the garage,makes the roof mass more consistent with the rest of the house. Met with architect and discussed different options for locating the garage, none were as functional or elegant as this, this moves the house back from 1561 Drake 10 feet and improves the existing garage arrangement, there is no opposition in the neighborhood present, seem to support; best use of this site for the particular 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 house. Like design of the house,this is a large property built to the maximum,put the garage in the front to keep the back yard,on another standard lot would not allow,where the patio looks to redwoods have a 7 foot setback on both sides at the rear, should relocated the garage,move it to the left,cannot support,need to be consistent. No street parking at this end of the block,would like more space for parking on this site, 10 feet is not enough separation from 1561,there is room to incorporate the garage into the house and have the same size house. C. Vistica moved approval of the revised project as presented for the reasons stated in the record by resolution with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 13, 2006, sheets A-0 through A-3.1, L1.0, and that any changes to building materials, exterior finishes, footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; (2) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's, City Engineer's, Fire Marshal's, and NPDES Coordinator's September 11, 2006,memos, and the Recycling Specialist's September 20,2006,memo, shall be met; (3) 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; (4) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, or garage, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to Planning Commission review; (5) that the wall between the garage attic and house attic shall contain no openings and that the area in the rafters over the garage shall only be accessible from inside the garage and shall only be used for storage; (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 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 Plan must be submitted with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application. The motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Comment on the motion: CA noted that variance findings require that there be a hardship relating the property in this case the configuration of the lot,relationship to the creek,and the determination of the front, rear and side setbacks impacted the layout of the house resulting in variances,the house is located properly on the site given the surrounding conditions and adjacent properties. Discussion of adequate parking, if there were a way to get three cars on this lot would support it,but given the parking issues at the end of the street this is a covered garage which will be used,added space between the houses is important for livability and also a justification for exception. Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve this project with the conditions in the staff report. The motion passed on a 3-2-2 (Cers. Auran and Deal dissenting, Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent) roll call vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:15 p.m. 8. 3 RIO COURT, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND HILLSIDE AREA CONSTRUCTION PERMIT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (MONICA LIANG, STEWART ASSOCIATES,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; JEFFREY MARK,PROPERTY OWNER) (36 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report November 27, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. John Stewart,architect, 1351 Laurel Street,San Carlos,stated that all architectural comments have been addressed;the issue tonight on this project is view blockage;and that the only part of the view from 1821 Loyola Dr. being blocked is the view of some trees. Other comments from the floor: A. Tabrizzi,5 Rio Court;Mario Muzzi, 1814 Loyola Drive;and Lawrence Barulich, 1821 Loyola Drive,spoke. Only 4 houses on Rio Court,all houses are built on fill,because of this the soil on the hillside is vulnerable. All houses are currently almost the same weight,what will happen if the weight is changed on one side of this curved court? If the soil collapses it could cause a catastrophe;has a geometric study been conducted as part of this project? A second story on this house will block a view on one side of 5 Rio,will remove existing privacy and will obstruct afternoon sunlight to the property;would like to ask the Commission not to approve the project;view from the rear of the proposed house facing west is all windows and applicant will have direct view into existing living room and master bedroom of 1814 Loyola; surprised that privacy issues are not addressed in the code; this is first time these concerns have come into the neighborhood because this is the first and second story requested;homes in the neighborhood were built right next to each other because they are all one-story;parking has been a problem,can imagine that an increase to the number of bedrooms would only increase the parking problem;thank you for coming out to house; invited the project architect and homeowner to come by but they did not; house was built to take advantage of the view and the addition will severely impact that view;the architectural balance of the neighborhood is all single story; hate to see a precedence started over view blockage in the neighborhood; and it is devastating to have the potential to lose existing views. The architect responded that a soils report will be conducted by a soils engineer as a part of the Building Permit Application. Commission commented to architect: could look at cedar roofing material; should install bigger 6X knee braces; has a window manufacturer been picked? Wood window with simulated divided light would be better. Feels there are improvements, like the front, not the back, overall feel of the back is completely 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 different; the issue of privacy,the orientation of this cul-de-sac puts one to two rooms looking straight into the neighbor's back yard; could these windows in the bathroom and the office be made of obscure glass? The architect responded that secondary windows were put on this side and that obscure glass could be put in but they rather it not be fixed glass. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission comment: Massing of the house has been handled nicely;added detail is a nice improvement; stone base at front is not repeated anywhere else;real issue is views and setting a precedence;cannot support the application the way it stands now,there are significant view blockage issues;if a second story were built, it would be creating views that the homeowner didn't have before and then creating a problem if a different neighbor were to propose an addition that would block those new views; when the CC&R's in this area expired, people in the neighborhood began putting up second stories and creating new views that then became protected; and proper engineering for the hill will be done. C. Deal moved to deny the application because of view blockage issues from habitable areas within neighboring properties. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Comment amended on motion: this was a close decision based upon the percentage of the distant views that would actually be blocked;maybe the plate height could be lowered;there are ways to add onto the ground floor; the view blockage here is not as extreme as with the previous project; views being blocked are not really distant views; and would the maker and second of the motion consider denial without prejudice so the applicant can redesign a one-story addition? The maker of the motion and the second amended the motion to a denial without prejudice. Comment on motion: no matter what changes are made to the project, there is going to be an issue with view blockage; a denial without prejudice will give the applicant the opportunity to change the project, which will be difficult;most compelling argument is that there are no two-story homes in the neighborhood, do not feel that project is blocking distant views. Chair Brownrigg called for a roll call vote on the amended motion to deny the project without prejudice. The motion passed on a 4-1-2 (C. Brownrigg dissenting, C. Cauchi and C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:45 p.m. 9. 1613 MCDONALD WAY,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR AS-BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (PATRICK AND ANNETTE DOHERTY, APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS; STEWART ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECT) (71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report November 27,2006,with attachments. ZT Strohmeier presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Ten conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Annette Doherty,property owner,stated that she couldn't find a roofer who would frame the eyebrow and that there are no other eyebrow dormers in the neighborhood. Other comments from the floor: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa; John Stewart, architect, 1351 Laurel St. San Carlos;RG Development is a reputable building company;time to talk about levying some kind of fine for people coming in with as-built changes found during the final inspection; don't think the changes are significant; it is a good thing to have the architect certify the architectural details at the framing inspection. 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 Commission commented: had a discussion with the applicant in regards to the front dormer changing from an eyebrow to a gable; issue couldn't be fully discussed as an FYI item; and although a dormer like this would usually have a window, a window could not fit into this dormer as now designed. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C. Terrones moved to approve the application to amend the design review, appreciating that all questions have been answered, by resolution, with the following conditions: (1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped November 1, 2006 sheets A4 and A5, date stamped January 12, 2005, sheets Al and A3 and date stamped December 15, sheets A2, A6-A7 and boundary and topographic survey and that all new windows shall be true divided light windows and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require and amendment to this permit; (2) that any changes to the size or envelope of the first or second floors, which would include adding or enlarging a dormer(s), moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roof height or pitch, shall be subject to design review; (3) that 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; (4) 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; (5) 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; (6) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; (7) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's November 11, 2004 memo, the City Engineer's, Recycling Specialist's and Fire Marshal's December 6, 2004 memos and the NPDES Coordinator's December 8, 2004 memo shall be met; (8) 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; (9) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and (10) that the project shall meet all the requirements of the California Building Code and California Fire Code, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to approve. The motion passed on a 5-0-2(C.Cauchi and C. Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:55 p.m. 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 10. 1123 BURLINGAME AVENUE,ZONED C-1,SUBAREA A—APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR AS-BUILT CHANGES TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT (JOEL CAMPOS, LA CORNETA TAQUERIA, APPLICANT; J.MARK CRONANDER,ARCHITECT;KARIM A. SALMA)(28 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report November 27, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seventeen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commissioners asked staff: what was the basis in arriving at the one car parking space?CP noted that the mezzanine was reduced in square footage. Was the size of the mezzanine as built checked? CP noted will be done with the final inspection. Was the security screen at the patio entrance shown in the original application? CP noted that she did not think so. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Joel Campos,applicant;Mark Cronnander,architect;Herman Lopez, general contractor; represented the project. Applicant was one who decided to change the design, when constructed found structural beam across all the commercial spaces in the building,property owner did not like the original design wanted all the windows the same height in the building,felt that the tile was too busy so put better tile on one side with granite top,did not install trellis features because was concerned with a bird problem in the out door seating area,this has been a long process almost two years,need help,need to open soon, no Mexican food on the Avenue and are ready to do business. Commissioner asked: when original plan was developed, did you not think that the tile was too busy on both sides? Asked the tile man to put the same,he felt that it was too much so put in one and the granite,trellis problem with birds talked to architect, did not know where top and bottom of structural beam was. Architect noted that he was not involved in the construction or would have convinced Mr.Campos not to flagrantly disobey approval,know most commercial buildings have a large beam to support the entire front,did not know where when prepared the drawings. Contractor noted that took windows to the bottom of the beam, the beam is 12 inches. Commissioner asked: photo shows almost the exact size of the beam also shown as a dark line on the original plans to support trellis,even with beam could transom windows above on the front and arch them on top of beam very similar to the original submittal? Tried to keep the line of the windows the same as on the other buildings. Commissioner asked: your tenant space and the tenant space next door share the beam,not see in photo big beam supporting the rest of the building,if a small beam could install the arched windows above. Architect commented understand but did not know where the beam was in the original design. Commissioner asked: at some point you could have revised the design to achieve the general intent of the original design? Commission action is a contract between the city and applicant,you had a pleasing asset, now it is something that the Commission would never approve,with an important location you have greater responsibility to the presence on the street;took every positive aspect and threw it away, light fixtures are too small,disappointing. Combined two properties both of which were more interesting than what you have created, the community is worse off. Contractor noted that the planter will still have plants on top of the granite. Other comments at the public hearing: Carol Serratto, 8 Peninsula Avenue;Karim Salma,property owner; Archie Offield, 223 Dwight Road. Do not know what is involved in the building code; know these were judgment calls,if any leeway ask for it on matters that are not public safety. Maybe commission has a point about changing the arches, but am happy with the design, feel it matches the block, everyone on the street likes it. I do not; the drop down gate is ugly. Commissioner noted he could not support these changes. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. 15 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 C. Terrones noted that this does not match the rest of the block, may match portions further down Burlingame Avenue but is not consistent with the detail and scale and character of this end of the Avenue: blank stucco walls do not create pedestrian atmosphere;can't support this, could be easily adapted back to what was originally submitted and approved so move to deny this request for amendment to the design review. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Comment on the motion: full denial would allow to come back with a new design; fix may be different from original design could look at such things as trellises, wood work, variation on the fagade, tile as originally proposed flanking the entry. CA noted that with denial of this amendment the original approval still stands. Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the amendment to the design review. The motion passed on a 5-0-2 (Cers. Cauchi and Osterling absent)voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 11: 25 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 11. 50 BRODERICK ROAD, ZONED RR — APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DESIGN REVIEW, PARKING AND LANDSCAPING VARIANCES FOR INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS AND ADDITION TO AN EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (MCA ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; HACOR, INC., PROPERTY OWNER) ( NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER ZT Strohmeier briefly presented the project description. Commission asked:there is an in-flight kitchen on Cowan Road that has parking problems including no on-street parking and cars parking in tandem on-site; have there been any recent complaints about the Cowan site? Staff noted they were unaware of any. The 11 truck bays have been counted in the parking requirement, why? Staff responded that the truck bays were included in the Safeway project and that the same assumption was used here, although in this case trucks will be stored in the bays when not in use. Can this project be assessed a parking in-lieu fee? Staff responded that there the parking in-lieu fee currently applies only to the Burlingame Avenue Commercial Area. Is there a third party that can get involved in the shuttle service? Staff responded that a third party could manage an on-site program. All parking spaces are 9' wide,could they use the uninstall mitigation? Staff responded that yes, uninstall could be included as a mitigation in the conditions of approval, but a variance for dimension of all spaces would be required. Do the 75 employees on site include the truck drivers? Are there any complaints about parking on Broderick Road now? Staff responded that the Commission should ask the applicant to provide a parking study. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Brownrigg opened the public comment. Jeff Wright, MCA Architects, and Jae-Young Noh, representing the property owner, stated that the use of the 11 truck bays as parking spaces was brought forward by staff, contracts for a shuttle service have been sent out and are being reviewed by the property owner, they are very expensive; would commit to providing the employees with an incentive to take mass transit;the facility is an in-flight kitchen,preparing food for flights out of SFO;currently have an operation in Los Angeles;operate around scheduled flights,365 days a year;it takes about 2 to 3 trucks to upload all of the meals for one 747 flight. 16 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 Commission commented: ■ The in-flight kitchen is the only use of the building? ■ Will you provide food to other areas outside of the airlines, such as hospitals, schools, etc? ■ Application says there are 75 employees with a maximum of 45 people on site at any one time;what happens during the shift change? ■ This same use exists on Cowan Road; it is a very intensive use;parking is always terrible there;on- street and on-site parking should be addressed; there is very little parking on Broderick; ■ Entrance to the building should be enhanced, it would improve the front fagade; the entry is not apparent, something should be done to visually enhance it, such as a canopy or an overhang; ■ Do you anticipate you would actually get many employees to take BART? You are relying on a lot of people to take mass transit;it is hard to convince employees to take mass transit when taking a car is just as fast or faster; what is the incentive offered? Would like to see a program. ■ How many employees earn the minimum wage or close to it? ■ Clearly indicate the number of parking spaces on the site plan;truck stalls are not really available as parking spaces and should not be considered since they will frequently be filled with trucks and drivers still need to park on site; ■ What materials are going to be used? Please provide a materials board and color samples; ■ Why are there high windows along the right side elevation? ■ There are some big trees behind the building;would like to see more large scale trees on landscape plan; would like to see landscape variance go away; ■ The proposed use is right in keeping with what the City is trying to encourage in the Rollins Road District; will this use bring sales tax-to the area? Would like the point of sale to be in Burlingame; ■ Have you pursued the possibility of valet parking on site for consolidating the parking and getting more cars parked on site? The architect and property owner responded that: the long term goal of the applicant is to work with a maximum of four airlines; there is some lag time between the employees shifts; currently there are just 17 parking stalls on site;the existing entrance is going to remain in the same location,could provide a canopy or an overhang; there will be a large incentive program for employees to take mass transit,such as payment of BART ticket and payment of gas if employees carpool;when the facility opens at 3:00 a.m.there will be 4-5 employees on-site; most employees get paid approximately $7.00 per hour; it is anticipated that the business will be at full capacity in 2-5 years;the proposed metal material is similar to that used at SFO;the high windows along the right side elevation were not required,just installed for extra light; and the total landscaping could be changed to comply with the 10%requirement. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C. Vistica made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when all questions have been answered, when there is room on the agenda and when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked by staff. Comment on motion: This is a great use, only have a problem with the parking variance; want more information on what the parking situation in the area is; want no parking on street; do not want to see building occupied and take all parking on the block; facility just might be too big for parking that is there, it's being squeezed in; should not count truck bays as parking spaces; this situation could become a model for how an employer could create an incentive program to have their employees use mass transit; and building just needs a little bit of work. This motion was seconded by C. Auran. Staff commented that the '-- applicant might also want to contact the Peninsula Alliance to work with them as a third party to manage the proposed TDM program to increase employee use of mass transit and reduce on-site parking permanently. 17 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes November 27, 2006 Chair Brownrigg called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when all questions have been answered, when there is room on the agenda and when the requested revisions have been made and plan checked by staff. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2(C. Cauchi and C.Osterling absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 12:01 p.m. X. COMMISSIONER'S REPORTS - Update on Commercial Design Review: Construction in Conformance with Approved Plans. CP Monroe asked, given the late hour, that the Commission refer this item to the Permit Processing Subcommittee which is meeting on December 8, 2006, and have them report back to whole commission. There was a consensus that the item be referred to the Permit Processing Subcommittee. - Comments on Draft Scope of Work for the Downtown Specific Plan Because of the late hour Chair Brownrigg continued this item to the next Planning Commission meeting, December 11, 2006. XI. PLANNER REPORTS - City Council regular meeting of November 20, 2006. CP Monroe reported on the rotation of Council officers noting Councilwoman Nagel is now Mayor and Councilwoman O'Mahony is Vice Mayor. CP noted that the City Council set a special meeting for December 13, 2006, at which they will accept the election results, hold a study session on the ECN zoning and the relationship of that zoning to the clarifications in the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan, and do other business. - FYI: 1418 Benito Avenue—changes to a previously approved design review project. Commission acknowledged these changes and had no comment. - FYI: 1718 Escalante Way—changes to a previously approved design review project. Commission asked that this item be placed on the action calendar for further discussion. - FYI: 270 Lorton Avenue—changes to a previously approved commercial design review project. Commission acknowledged these changes and had no comment. XII. ADJOURNMENT Chair Brownrigg adjourned the meeting at 12:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Vice Chair 18 POLICE DEPARTMENT SUR LINGAME City of Burlingame Jack L.Van Etten Chief of Police November,2006 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: In past months, I have provided you with information about the types of crimes that have been reported to the police department.As always,when reviewing the documents please note that the criminal statistical information contained in the October,2006, police department report is displayed in both numbers and percentages.When reviewing the report,please remember that the percentages of certain crimes might've dramatically increased or decreased in percentage(compared to the previous month or year).When reviewing the police department report kindly also consider the actual numbers in various crime categories in conjunction with the percentages.Even though the percentages may have increased or decreased,the actual number change may be slight or negligible. This month,I've included some yearly graph comparisons of crime or traffic accident related categories covering the calendar years of 2002,2003,2004,2005,and end of year projections for 2006.Also included are the actual year numbers and a yearly average covering the 5 year period so you can compare any actual year total to the 5 year average(2002-2006).The categories listed are as follows: Reported Total Crimes(broken down by Part-1 and Part-2) Bar Calls for Service Drugs and County Narcotics Task Force Complaints Gangs and Gang Activity Traffic Accidents As you can see from the graphs and comparisons,the reported"Part 1"crimes for the 2006 calendar year appears to be lower than we have experienced on average for the past 5 years.The same is true of reported"Part 2"crimes for this year.The combined averages for 2006 are also less than our 5 year average.Our traffic accident statistics for 2006 are lower than previous years,however, bar calls for service, reports of drugs and CNTF referrals,gangs and gang activities all show an increase over previous years and the 5 year average. During the latter part of October, Investigations Bureau personnel have identified the suspects and have cleared a robbery at a local credit union.Also,our department arrested 5 juveniles involved in a car theft ring outside of Burlingame.One of our detectives(temporarily assigned to the County-Wide 1111 Trousdale Drive-Post Office Box 551-Burlingame,California 94011-0551-(650)777-4100-Fax (650)697-8130 Gang Task Force with other officers from all police departments in our county, May 24, 2006 - September 9, 2006) was one of the top producers in gang arrests, identification and validation of gang members, etc., while assigned to the Gang Task Force. These numbers didn't necessarily involve only Burlingame, but other neighboring cities and elsewhere throughout the county. For the most part, the majority of crimes in Burlingame involve property; thefts of property from locked and unlocked vehicles, businesses and (or) residences. As you can see in the October, 2006, police department statistics, there has been an increase in the number of probation or parolee arrests. As you can also see from the statistics, both of the moving and parking citation totals continue to show increases over last year during both the current month and the total in 2006. Moving citations have significantly increased during the same time period compared to last year. Additional selective traffic enforcement by our patrol officers (related to addressing traffic related complaints from our community) appears to have a bearing on the increase in these numbers. Continuing for the last several weeks, it appears that the Downtown Bar/Club activity has decreased. The Burlingame Police Department continues to meet with Bar owners on a regular basis to discuss matters of mutual interest and safety in our community. The police department continues to pro- actively monitor the weekend bar/club crowds as staffing permits. Each of you recently received my response from a business owner from the Downtown Burlingame Business Association regarding vandalism in a certain location. The police department has made contact with all of the referenced businesses and continuously reminds our citizens and business owners to notify the police department in the event of a crime, suspicious activity or damage to their property, etc. This way, the police department is made aware of problems (including times/dates/locations) and can plan for additional enforcement, when needed. As previously mentioned, the police department routinely and continuously receives information from the public regarding a number of criminal, traffic and parking related matters. All of these matters are immediately addressed, prioritized (based on the safety of the community), and (based on staffing levels) handled in the most effective manner possible. When necessary, overtime is used and (or) additional outside resources are also brought in to assist current staff with specific or unusual criminal activities. Respectfully, Chief Jack Van Etten Burlingame Police Department 11-09-06 SUMMARY OF PART ONE OFFENSES PAGE: 1 FOR: OCTOBER, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Current Year. . YTD. . YTD. . Change Change Murder and Nonnegligent Manslaughter 0 0 0 0 0 Manslaughter by Negligence 0 0 0 0 0 Rape By Force 0 1 6 2 4 200. 00 Attempt to Commit Forcible Rape 0 0 0 0 0 Robbery Firearm 1 1 5 8 -3 -37.50 Robbery Knife 0 1 2 1 1 100.00 Robbery Other Dangerous Weapon - 0 0 2 3 -1 -33 .33 Robbery Strong-Arm 3 1 18 10 8 80.00 Assault - Firearm 1 0 1 2 -1 -50. 00 Assault - Knife 0 2 1 8 -7 -87 .50 Assault - Other Dangerous Weapon 2 4 24 17 7 41. 18 Assault - Hands,Fists,Feet 3 0 10 4 6 150. 00 Assault - Other (Simple) 14 30 151 158 -7 -4 .43 Burglary - Forcible Entry 5 5 55 69 -14 -20.29 Burglary - Unlawful Entry 6 4 77 52 25 48 . 08 Burglary - 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 2 5 37 37 0 0. 00 Larceny From Motor Vehicle 18 33 216 205 11 5 .37 Larceny Motor Veh Parts Accessories 11 23 106 128 -22 -17. 19 Larceny Bicycles 5 2 19 26 -9 -32 . 14 Larceny From Building 9 12 104 99 5 5 . 05 Larceny From Any Coin-Op Machine 0 1 10 18 -8 -44 .44 Larceny All Other 3 6 55 93 -38 -40 . 86 Motor Vehicle Theft Auto 5 9 66 69 -3 -4 .35 Motor Vehicle Theft Bus 2 1 12 8 4 50. 00 Motor Vehicle Theft Other 0 1 9 2 7 350. 00 90 142 991 1, 023 90 142 991 1, 023 11-09-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: OCTOBER, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change $ Change All other Offenses 27 42 345 417 -72 -17.27 Animal Abuse 0 0 0 0 0 Animal Nuisance 0 0 2 4 -2 -50.00 Arson 0 4 34 12 22 183.33 Assists to Outside Agencies 0 0 0 0 0 Bicycle Violations 0 0 0 0 0 Bigamy 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Offense 0 0 0 0 0 Bomb Threat 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Bribery 0 0 0 0 0 Check Offenses 1 0 13 4 9 225.00 Child Neglect/prot custody 2 3 48 28 20 71.43 Computer Crime 0 0 0 0 0 Conspiracy 0 0 0 0 0 Credit Card Offenses 0 0 2 0 2 Cruelty to Dependent Adult 0 0 2 2 0 0.00 Curfew and Loitering Laws 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Death Investigation 6 1 36 37 -1 -2.70 Disorderly Conduct 1 2 13 27 -14 -51.85 Driver's License Violations 1 2 4 7 -3 -42.86 Driving Under the Influence 4 5 53 60 -7 -11.67 Drug Abuse Violations 6 4 32 28 4 14.29 Drug/Sex Registrants/Violations 0 0 3 0 3 Drunkeness 13 6 65 47 18 38.30 Embezzlement 0 0 4 7 -3 -42.86 - Escape 0 0 0 0 0 Extortion 0 0 0 0 0 False Police Reports 0 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 2 4 33 38 -5 -13.16 Found Property 6 11 55 93 -38 -40.86 Fraud 0 1 20 22 -2 -9.09 Gambling 0 0 0 0 0 Harrassing Phone Calls 3 3 40 29 11 37.93 11-09-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE: 2 CITY REPORT FOR: OCTOBER, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change % Change Hit and Run Accidents 4 3 38 31 7 22.58 Impersonation 2 0 4 4 0 0.00 Incest 0 0 0 0 0 Indecent Exposure 0 7 9 13 -4 -30.77 Intimidating a Witness 0 0 0 0 0 Kidnapping 0 0 0 0 0 Lewd Conduct 0 0 1 0 1 Liquor Laws 1 1 3 7 -4 -57.14 Littering/Dumping 0 0 0 0 0 Marijuana Violations 3 3 18 21 -3 -14.29 Mental Health Cases 7 9 79 66 13 19.70 Missing Person 1 5 41 42 -1 -2.38 . Missing Property 10 11 83 83 0 0.00 Municipal Code Violations 10 2 64 58 6 10.34 Narcotics Sales/Manufacture 1 0 3 0 3 Offenses Against Children 1 0 7 3 4 133.33 Other Assaults 14 30 151 158 -7 -4.43 Other Juvenile Offenses 1 0 2 3 -1 -33.33 Other Police Service 1 7 41 62 -21 -33.87 Pandering for immoral purposes 0 0 0 0 0 Parole Violations 0 0 4 1 3 300.00 Perjury 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of Burglary Tools 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 Possession of drug paraphernalia 0 0 0 0 0 Possession of obscene literature;picture 0 0 0 0 0 Probation Violations 1 0 10 3 7 233.33 Prostitution and Commercial Vice 0 0 6 1 5 500.00 Prowling 4 0 8 2 6 300.00 Resisting Arrest 2 0 5 4 1 25.00 Restraining Orders 0 1 1 13 -12 -92.31 Runaways (Under 18) 0 0 0 0 0 Sex Offenses 0 0 3 2 1 50.00 Sex Offenses against Children 1 0 2 1 1 100.00 Sodomy 0 0 0 0 0 Stalking 0 0 0 0 0 11-09-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF PART TWO OFFENSES PAGE:.3 CITY REPORT FOR: OCTOBER, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual YTD YTD Crime Classification.................... Current Year.. YTD.. YTD.. Change Change Statutory Rape 0 0 0 2 -2 -100.00 Stolen Property;Buying;Receiving;Possess 0 0 12 4 8 200.00 .Suspended License 10 0 34 22 12 54.55 Tax Evasion 0 0 0 0 0 Terrorist Threats 0 3 5 8 -3 -37.50 Towed Vehicle 47 25 317 322 -5 -1.55 Trespassing 0 0 9 7 2 28.57 Truants/Incorrigible Juvs 0 0 0 1 -1 -100.00 US Mail Crimes 0 0 0 0 0 Vagrancy 0 0 0 0 0 Vandalism 22 8 231 194 37 19.07 Vehicle Code Violations 1 3 12 27 -15 -55.56 Violation of Court Order 1 2 13 14 -1 -7.14 Warrants - Felony 3 2 12 13 -1 -7.69 Warrants - Misd 8 12 55 71 -16 -22.54 Weapons;Carrying,Possessing 2 0 11 9 2 22.22 Welfare Fraud 0 0 0 0 0 230 222 2,104 2,139 230 222 2,104 2,139 111-09-06 MONTHLY SUMMARY OF CITATIONS PAGE: 1 CITY REPORT FOR: OCTOBER, 2006 Current Prev Last Actual Actual Crime Classification. . ..... ... . .. ..... .. Current Year. . YTD.. YTD.. Parking Citations 3659 2,048 31,123 27,933 Moving Citations 154 104 2,042 1,192 ------ ------ ------- ------- 3813 2,152 33,165 29,125 -- ------ ------- ------- 3813 2,152 33,165 29,125 BURLINGAME Officer Productivity . . . . generated on 11 / 09 /2006 at 01 : 59 : 55 PM Reported On : All Officers Report Range : 10 /01 /2006 to 10 / 31 /2006 Data Type Reported on : PARKING Valid % All Voids % All % Officer: ID: Cnt Valid Cnt Voids Valid ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ALVISO 355 1411 39 . 40 7 17 . 95 99 . 51 DOTSON 509 323 9 . 02 5 12 . 82 98 . 48 FEITELBERG 508 1072 29 . 94 10 25 . 64 99 . 08 GARRETT 501 689 19 .24 17 43 .59 97 . 59 MORAN 201 86 2 . 40 0 0 . 00 100 . 00 Total 3581 39 Page 1 of 1 REPORTED CRIMES 2001 -2006 5000 4548 4500 4133 40003909 3964 3514 - 3759 3619 3500 3290 3000 2914 2750 2594 2638 2566 2499 2500 r I 2000 1500 1271 1256, 1219 1220 1193 1120 1214 1000 f 500 _ 1 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 6 YEAR AVERAGE D PART 1 CRIMES 0 PART 2 CRIMES D COMBINED BAR CALLS FOR SERVICE 2002-2006 400 350 350 - 300 295 250 241 208 200 190 162 1'50 100 50 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 5 YEAR AVERAGE DRUGS AND COUNTY NARCOTICS TASK FORCE COMPLAINTS 2002-2006 100 90 88 89 80 79 78 80 70 68 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 5 YEAR AVERAGE GANGS AND GANG ACTIVITY 2002-2006 5:) ' 47 43 40 35 32 30 25 24 20 20 17 15 10 10 5 0 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 5 YEAR AVERAGE TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS 2002-2006 800 712 700 619 615 589 598 600 -- 559 500 400 300 200 100 } 0 ».„...........wwx. 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 5 YEAR AVERAGE CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Portfolio Summary October 31, 2006 Par Market Book %of Days to YTM YTM Investments Value Value Value Portfolio Term Maturity 360 Equiv. 365 Equiv. LAIF&County Pool 14,387,440.51 14,387,440.51 14,387,440.51 48.99 1 1 4.471 4.533 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 14,500,000.00 13,534,004.00 14,500,000.00 49.37 913 421 4.251 4.310 Federal Agency Issues-Discount 500,000.00 491,950.00 480,695.56 1.64 280 114 5.212 5.285 Investments 29,387,440.51 28,413,394.51 29,368,136.07 100.00% 456 210 4.375 4.435 Total Earnings October 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date Current Year 111,156.14 464,733.19 Average Daily Balance 29,977,809.31 31,597,635.24 Effective Rate of Return 4.37% 4.36% Pursuant to State law,there are sufficient available funds to meet Burlingame's expenditure requirements for the coming 6 months. Total funds invested represent consolidation of all fund types, and availa '' of some of these funds is restricted by law(e.g.Gas Tax,Trust&Agency funds,Capital Projects,and Enterprise funds). i SUS NAVA FINANCE DIR./TREASURER Reporting period 10/01/2006-10/31/2006 Portfolio CITY Run Date:11/14/2006•10:59 CP PM(PRF_PM1)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver,5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 2 Portfolio Details - Investments October 31, 2006 Average Purchase Stated YTM Days to Maturity CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Date Par Value Market Value Book Value Rate Moody's 365 Maturity Date LAIF&County Pool SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 9,365,444.00 9,365,444.00 9,365,444.00 5.098 5.098 1 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 5,021,996.51 5,021,996.51 5,021,996.51 3.480 Aaa 3.480 1 Subtotal and Average 15,158,404.07 14,387,440.51 14,387,440.51 14,387,440.51 4.533 1 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 3133X9QV5 517 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/22/2004 1,000,000.00 989,060.00 1,000,000.00 3.500 Aaa 3.500 233 06/22/2007 3133XDGM7 519 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 10/24/2005 1,000,000.00 996,250.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 4.817 723 10/24/2008 3133XDNL1 520 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 11/17/2005 1,000,000.00 994,690.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 747 11/17/2008 3133XE2W8 521 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 12/28/2005 1,000,000.00 997,190.00 1,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 422 12/28/2007 3133XEUE 522 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 03/22/2006 2,000,000.00 1,998,760.00 2,000,000.00 5.000 Aaa 5.000 51 12/22/2006 3133XFNM4 525 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 05/25/2006 1,000,000.00 999,690.00 1,000,000.00 5.280 Aaa 5.280 205 05/25/2007 3133XFRL2 527 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 06/22/2006 500,000.00 499,845.00 500,000.00 5.200 Aaa 5.200 51 12/22/2006 3133XGQM9 528 FEDERAL HOME LOAN BANK 09/18/2006 1,000,000.00 999,380.00 1,000,000.00 5.400 Aaa 5.400 1,052 09/18/2009 3128X2NA9 514 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 01/30/2004 3,000,000.00 2,982,510.00 3,000,000.00 3.000 Aaa 3.000 90 01/30/2007 3128X5LP1 529 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 10/06/2006 1,000,000.00 99,439.00 1,000,000.00 5.250 Aaa 5.250 1,800 10/06/2011 3136F5TJ0 515 FANNIE MAE 04/27/2004 1,000,000.00 989,690.00 1,000,000.00 3.100 Aaa 3.100 177 04/27/2007 3136F6FZ7 516 FANNIE MAE 10/18/2004 1,000,000:00 987,500.00 1,000,000.00 3.820 Aaa 3.547 351 10/18/2007 Subtotal and Average 14,338,709.68 14,500,000.00 13,534,004.00 14,500,000.00 4.310 421 Federal Agency Issues-Discount 313588CFO 526 FANNIE MAE 05/19/2006 500,000.00 491,950.00 480,695.56 4.964 Aaa 5.285 114 02/23/2007 Subtotal and Average 480,695.56 500,000.00 491,950.00 480,695.56 5.285 114 Total and Average 29,977,809.31 29,387,440.51 28,413,394.51 29,368,136.07 4.435 210 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:11/14/2006•10:59 PM(PRF_PM2)SyrnRept 6.41.202a { ( / '0r1 Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 3 Activity By Type October 1, 2006 through October 31, 2006 Beginning Stated Transaction Purchases Redemptions Ending CUSIP Investment# Issuer Balance Rate Date or Deposits or Withdrawals Balance LAIF&County Pool (Monthly Summary) SYS77 77 LOCAL AGENCY INV.FD. 5.098 131,896.39 1,700,000.00 SYS79 79 S M COUNTY POOL 3.480 521,515.25 1,100,000.00 Subtotal 16,534,028.87 653,411.64 2,800,000.00 14,387,440.51 Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 3128X5LP1 529 FEDERAL HOME LOAN MORTG.CORP. 5.250 10/06/2006 1,000,000.00 0.00 Subtotal 13,500,000.00 1,000,000.00 0.00 14,500,000.00 Federal Agency Issues-Discount Subtotal 480,695.56 480,695.56 Total 30,514,724.43 1,653,411.64 2,800,000.00 29,368,136.07 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:11/14/2006-10:59 PM(PRF_PM3)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5,00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 4 Activity Summary October 2005 through October 2006 Yield to Maturity Managed Number Number Month Number of Total 360 365 Pool of Investments of Investments Average Average End Year Securities Invested Equivalent Equivalent Rate Purchased Redeemed Term Days to Maturity October 2005 9 26,721,256.73 3.268 3.313 3.406 1 0 356 175 November 2005 9 26,614,225.47 3.484 3.532 3.521 1 1 344 206 December 2005 10 27,741,871.03 3.594 3.644 3.613 1 0 356 214 January 2006 10 29,203,493.47 3.692 3.743 3.767 0 0 338 192 February 2006 10 27,236,535.77 3.734 3.786 3.836 0 0 363 196 March 2006 11 28,865,253.49 3.750 3.802 3.721 1 0 361 192 April 2006 11 31,600,492.83 3.997 4.052 4.136 0 0 330 165 May 2006 15 34,904,265.49 4.169 4.227 4.293 4 0 317 155 June 2006 16 33,717,988.31 4.224 4.283 4.375 1 0 330 150 July 2006 16 32,218,943.80 4.307 4.367 4.539 0 0 346 143 August 2006 16 32,238,322.45 4.317 4.377 4.558 0 0 345 128 September 2006 14 30,514,724.43 4.326 4.386 4.500 1 3 379 158 October 2006 15 29,368,136.07 4.375 4.435 4.533 1 0 456 210 Average 12 30,072,731.49 3.941% 3.996% 4.061 1 0 355 176 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:11/14/2006-10:59 PM(PRF_PM4)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 5 Distribution of Investments By Type October 2005. through October 2006 October November December January February March April May June July August September October Average Security Type 2005 2005 2005 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 2006 by Period LAW&County Pool 62.6 66.2 64.0 65.8 63.3 58.4 62.0 58.6 55.6 53.6 53.6 54.2 49.0 59.0% Certificates of Deposit-Bank Certificates of Deposit-S&L Certificates of Deposit-Thrift&Ln Negotiable CD's-Bank CORP NOTES Bankers Acceptances Commercial Paper-Interest Bearing Commercial Paper-Discount Federal Agency Issues-Coupon 37.4 33.8 36.1 34.2 36.7 41.6 38.0 37.2 40.0 41.9 41.9 44.2 49.4 39.4% Federal Agency Issues-Discount 4.2 4.3 4.6 4.5 1.6 1.6 1.6% Treasury Securities-Coupon Treasury Securities-Discount Miscellaneous Securities-Coupon Miscellaneous Securities-Discount _ Non Interest Bearing Investments Mortgage Backed Securities Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 2 Miscellaneous Discounts-At Cost 3 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:11/14/2006-10:59 PM(PRF_PM5)SyrnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 CITY OF BURLINGAME Portfolio Management Page 6 Interest Earnings Summary October 31, 2006 October 31 Month Ending Fiscal Year To Date CD/Coupon/Discount Investments: Interest Collected 56,850.00 135,133.33 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 192,419.49 192,419.49 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 195,754.44) ( 119,852.38) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 53,515.05 207,700.44 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Periods 53,515.05 207,700.44 Pass Through Securities: Interest Collected 0.00 0.00 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 0.00 0.00 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Less Accrued Interest at Purchase During Period ( 0.00) ( 0.00) Interest Earned during Period 0.00 0.00 Adjusted by Premiums and Discounts 0.00 0.00 Adjusted by Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Earnings during Periods 0.00 0.00 Cash/Checking Accounts: Interest Collected 199,391.66 400,347.15 Plus Accrued Interest at End of Period 310,531.38 310,531.38 Less Accrued Interest at Beginning of Period ( 452,281.95) ( 453,845.78) Interest Earned during Period 57,641.09 257,032.75 Total Interest Earned during Period 111;156.14 464,733.19 Total Capital Gains or Losses 0.00 0.00 Total Earnings during Period': -: 111;156:14 464,733.19 Portfolio CITY CP Run Date:11/14/2006-10:59 PM(PRF_PM6)SynnRept 6.41.202a Report Ver.5.00 PFMAssetIPROGRAM 1 1I , Investment Portfolio Information For CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME (116-00) Portfolio# 12510150 Section/Report Title A. Account Summary B. Detail of Securities Held C. Fair Market Values&Analytics D. Security Transactions&Interest E. Cash Transactions Report F. Realized Gains&Losses G. Cash Balance Report For The Month Ending September 30, 2006 CAMP-CITY OF BURLINGAME CA PFM Asset Management LLC*One Keystone Plaza*North Front&Market Streets,Suite 300*Harrisburg,PA 17101-2044*(717)232-2723 For more information,please contact your client manager; NSESA KAZADI (415)982-5544 KAZADIN@pfm.com PFM Asset Mi-magentent LLC- I PROGRAM I / I Account Summary: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: September 30,2006 MARKET%OF YTM AT YTM AT DURATION SECURITY TYPE PAR VALUE AMORTIZED COST MARKET VALUE PORTFOLIO COST MARKET TO WORST FED AGY BOND/NOTE 3,000,000.00 2,979,626.51 2,979,687.50 50.009 5.286 5.250 0.369 FED AGY DN 3,000,000.00 2,980,976.89 2,978,618.95 49.991 4.741 5.135 0.134 TOTAL SECURITIES 6,000,000.00 5,960,603.40 5,958,306.45 100.000 5.013% 5.193% 0.252 TOTAL INVESTMENTS 6,000,000.00 5,960,603.40 5,958,306.45 100.000% ACCRUED INTEREST 10,451.39 10,451.39 TOTAL PORTFOLIO $6,000,000.00 $5,971,054.79 $5,968,757.84 Disclosure Statement: PFM's monthly statement is intended to detail our investment advisory activity.The custodian bank maintains the control of assets and executes(i.e.settles)all investment transactions.The custodian statement is the official record of security and cash holdings and transactions.Only the client has the authority to withdraw funds from or deposit funds to the custodian and to direct the movement of securities.Clients retain responsibility for their internal accounting policies,implementing and enforcing internal controls and generating ledger entries or otherwise recording transactions.PFM recognizes that our clients may use these reports to facilitate record keeping,therefore the custodian bank statement and the PFM statement should be reconciled and differences resolved.PFM's market prices are derived from closing bid prices as of the last business day of IY -ionth as supplied by F.T.Interactive Data,Bloomberg or Telerate.Prices that fall betw� 4ata points are interpolated. Non-negotiable FDIC insured bank certificates of deposit y -iced at par. PFM Asset I PROGRAM I , I Detail of Securities Held: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: September 30,2006 SECURITY TYPE MATURITY S&P TRADE SETTLE ORIGINAL YTM ACCRUED AMORTIZED MARKET CUSIP DESCRIPTION PAR COUPON DATE RATING DATE DATE COST AT COST INTEREST COST VALUE FED AGY BOND/NOTE 31359MTX1 FNMA GLOBAL NOTES(CALLABLE) 1,000,000 2,625 01/19/07 AAA 08/30/06 08/31/06 989,574.00 5.346 5,250.00 991,899.22 992,187.50 3134A4UN2 FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 1,000,000 2.375 02/15/07 AAA 09/27/06 09/28/06 989,068.00 5.290 3,034.72 989,307,39 989,375.00 3134A4NW0 FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 1,000,000 4.875 03/15/07 AAA 09/27/06 09/28/06 998,391.00 5.221 2,166.67 998,419.90 998,125.00 3,000,000 2,977,033.00 5.286 10,451.39 -2,979,626.51 2,979,687,50 FED AGY DN 313589M26 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 10/27/06 A-1+ 11/17/05 11/18/05 958,077.78 4.593 0.00 996,822.22 996,171.88 313397P47 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 11/14/06 A-1+ 12/21/05 12/21/05 959,246.00 4.663 0.00 994,533.00 993,628.62 313589T60 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 12/18/06 A-1+ 03/22/06 03/22/06 963,941.94 4.969 0.00 989,621.67 988,818,45 3,000,000 2,881,265,72 4.741 0.00 2,980,976.89 2,978,618.95 TOTAL SECURITIES $6,000,000 $5,858,298.72 5.013% $10,451.39 $5,960,603.40 $5,958,306.45 Issuers by Market Value Ratings by Market Value 0 FH.W $2,981,129 50.0% ❑A-1+ $2,978,619 50.0% FMM $2,977,178 50.0% AAA $2,979,688 50.0% Total: $5,858,306 100.0% Total: $5,958,306 100.0 B-1 PFM Asset Management CAMP PROGRAM Fair Market Values & Analytics: 12510150 CAMP-CITYOF BURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: September 30,2006 SECURITY TYPE MATURITY FIRST CALL MARKET MARKET UNREAL G/(L) UNREAL G/(L) DURATION YTM CUSIP DESCRIPTION PAR COUPON DATE DATE PRICE VALUE ON AMORT COST ON COST TO WORST AT MKT FED AGY BOND/NOTE 31359MTXI FNMA GLOBAL NOTES(CALLABLE) 1,000,000 2.625 01/19/07 01/19/05 99.219 992,187,50 288.28 2,613.50 0.295 5.219 3134A4UN2 FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 1,000,000 2.375 02/15/07 98.938 989,375.00 67.61 307.00 0.365 5.249 3134A4NW0 FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 1,000,000 4.875 03/15/07 99,813 998,125.00 (294.90) (266.00) 0.447 5.283 FED AGY DN 313589M26 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 10/27/06 99,617 996,171,88 (650.34) 38,094.10 0.072 5.124 313397P47 FHLMC DISC NOTE 1,000,000 11/14/06 99,363 993,628.62 (904.38) 34,382.62 0,120 5.130 313589T60 FNMA DISC NOTE 1,000,000 12/18/06 98,882 988,818.45 (803.22) 24,876.51 0,211 5.153 SUBTOTALS $5,958,306.45 ($2,296.95) $100,007.73 0.252 5.193 ACCRUED INTEREST ON INVESTMENT 10,451.39 TOTAL MARKET VALUE OF INVESTMENTS $5,968,757.84 Gi PFM Asset Mt ek, MP PROGRAM Security Transactions & Interest: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: September 30,2006 S&P MATURITY PRINCIPAL ACCRUED TRADE SETTLE TRAN TYPE SECURITY DESCRIPTION CUSIP RATING PAR COUPON DATE AMOUNT INTEREST TOTAL 09/27/06 09/28/06 BUY FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 3134A4NW0 AAA 1,000,000 4.875 03/15/07 (998,391.00) (1,760.42) (1,000,151.42) 09/27/06 09/28/06 BUY FHLMC GLOBAL REFERENCE NOTES 3134A4UN2 AAA 1,000,000 2.375 02/15/07 (989,068.00) (2,836.81) (991,904.81) 2,000,000 (1,987,459.00) (4,597.23) (1,992,056.23) 09/19/06 09/19/06 MATURITY FHLMC DISC NOTE 313397G47 A-I+ 1,560,000 0.000 09/19/06 1,560,000.00 0.00 1,560,000,00 1,560,000 1,560,000.00 0.00 1,560,000.00 TOTAL SECURITY TRANSACTIONS (432,056.23) D-1 PFM Asset Management LL C- CAMP PROGRAM Cash Transactions Report: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00) MONTH ENDED• September 30 2006 CASH DATE TRANSACTION CODE TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION TOTAL AMOUNT 09/28/06 CC CONTRIB 1,992,056.23 1,992,056.23 09/19/06 CW WITHDRAW (1,560,000.00) (1,560,000.00) NET CASH CONTRIBUTIONS/(WITHDRAWS) $432,056.23 C � � E-1 CAMP PROGRAM 1 / Realized Gains and Losses: 12510150 CA MRCITYOFBURLINGAME(116-00) (Excluding Cash) MONTH ENDED: September 30,2006 TRADE SETTLE PRINCIPAL REALIZED REALIZED DATE DATE TRAN TYPE SALE METHOD SECURITY DESCRIPTION CUSIP PAR VALUE COUPON PROCEEDS G/(L)COST G/(L)AMORT CST 09/19/06 09/19/06 MATURITY FHLMC DISC NOTE 313397G47 1,560,000 0.000 1,560,000.00 61,491.73 0.00 TOTAL GAINS AND LOSSES $61,491.73 $0.00 F-1 ► I PROGRAM I , Cash Balance Report: 12510150 CAMP-CITY OFBURLINGAME(116-00) MONTH ENDED: September 30,2006 CASH BALANCE: $0.00 Farnines Calculation Templates Current Month-End Book Value + Add Coupon Interest Received + Current Month-End Accrued Interest + Less Purchased Interest Related to Coupons Less Purchases Add/Subtract Gains or Losses on Cost For The Mth +/- Less Purchased Interest - Total Cost Basis Earnings For The Month Add Disposals(Sales,Maturities,Paydowns,Sinks,etc.) + Add Coupon Interest Received + Leas Previous Month-End Book Value Less Previous Month-End Accrued Interest Total Accrual Basis Earnings For The Month Economic Calendar 10/06/06 Change in Nonfarm Payrolls 10/18/06 Housing Starts 10/06/06 Unemployment Rate 10/18/06 Building Permits 10/11/06 FOMC Minutes 10/25/06 Existing Home Sales 10/12/06 Beige Book 10/25/06 FOMC Meeting 10/13/06 Retail Sales 10/26/06 Durable Goods Orders 10/17/06 Producer Price Index 10/26/06 New Home Sales 10/18/06 Consumer Price Index 10/26/06 Third Quarter GDP Market Commentary The Fed remained on hold at their September meeting leaving the Fed Funds rate at 5.25%, The markets expected the Fed to leave rates unchanged and the reaction to the decision was limited. Both the equity and bond markets did react to weaker than expected economic data though. Disappointing economic data and contained inflation expectations have convinced the market that the Fed doesn't need to increase rates further and may need to lower rates in the future. Housing data took center stage in September. Both new homes sales and housing starts were lower than expected signaling the potential for further slowing in the residential real estate market. The prices of most commodities declined in September with crude oil and gold leading the way. Crude oil traded below$65 a barrel for the first time since February 2006 and gold is trading$150 below its peak seen in May 2006. Meanwhile the equity and bond markets performed well. The Dow Jones Industrial Average reached its all time high for a period in September. Treasury yields continued to decline pushing their prices higher as bond investors bought bonds of all maturities on expectations of future rate cuts. Although the markets are expecting a rate cut the Fed hasn't signaled its intention to do so yet. ( ( G-1 Ccomcast., Comcast Cable 12647 Alcosta Boulevard Suite 200 San Ramon,CA 94583 November 17, 2006 Office:925.973.7000 Fax:925.973.7015 www.comcast.com Mr. Jesus Nava City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mr. Jesus Nava: At Comcast, we are dedicated to being the company to look to first for the communications products and services that connect people to what's important in their lives. We have exceeded our goals of upgrading the cable service offered to a large percentage of the communities that we serve in the Bay Area and we continue to offer useful new products and deliver improved customer service. Here at Comcast, we believe that we have set the industry standards by offering a significant variety of reliable video programming options. Since the introduction of video products like High Definition Television, Video-on-Demand and the Digital Video Recorder, our customers have more choices and more control over their television viewing. Our Video-on-Demand library has experienced significant growth since its introduction and we continue to lead the industry in customer viewing convenience. Comcast is committed to providing our customers with the finest variety of programming choices, excellent picture quality and exceptional customer service. We realize that our customers have other alternatives for their entertainment choices and we are working continuously to offer the best choices and value in the industry. To reflect the current value of the products and services that we deliver, we will be adjusting the prices at our analog and digital service levels. These price adjustments will take effect for billing periods on or after January 1, 2007. Prices for equipment and installation are not being adjusted at this time. Customers will be informed of the adjustments by legal notice and a bill insert. The specific adjustments and a list of their respective service levels are set forth in the attached legal notice. If you should have any questions or concerns, please contact Lee- Ann Peling at (650) 289-6794 Sincerely, wjei Mitzi Givens-Russell Government Affairs Manager Franchise Compliance- Bay Market Enclosures: (1) Notice of Price Change Comcast Burlingame and portions of San Mateo County(Burlingame Hills) Effective for billing periods beginning on or after January 01, 2007, Comcast will make the following changes in the area(s) listed above with respect to its cable television pricing. TYPE OF SERVICE CURRENT PRICE NEW PRICE Limited Basic Service $12.79 $13.09 Expanded Basic Service $32.46 $36.90 Standard Cable $45.25 $49.99 Enhanced Cable/Value Package $49.99 $53.50 DVR Service Fee $9.95 $11.95 DIGITAL VALUE PACKAGES CURRENT PRICE NEW PRICE The Comcast packages below do not include Standard Cable: Digital Classic $ 9.95 $11.95 Digital Plus $14.95 $14.95 Digital Silver Package $29.95 $31.95 Digital Gold Package $43.95 $45.95 Digital Platinum Package $56.95 $59.95 Digital Additional Outlet Service $6.95 $6.99 The following digital packages include Standard Cable (no longer sold as of Feb 2003): Digital Starter Package $60.99 $68.99 Digital Bronze Package $63.99 $68.99 Digital Standard Package $71.99 $77.99 Digital Silver Package $81.99 $89.99 Digital Gold Package $92.99 $102.99 Digital Platinum Package $103.99 $111.99 Spanish Language Packages: Cable Latino $27.99 $29.99 Cable Latino Con HBO $37.99 $39.99 Completo $49.99 $53.50 Completo Con HBO $59.99 $63.50 OPTIONAL PER-CHANNEL SERVICES CURRENT PRICE NEW PRICE HBO $16.99 $17.99 Showtime $16.99 $17.99 Cinemax $16.99 $17.99 The Movie Channel $16.99 $17.99 Starz $16.99 $17.99 ON DEMAND SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES CURRENT PRICE NEW PRICE Howard Stern On Demand (monthly) $9.99 $10.99 Howard Stern On Demand (yearly) $109.99 $119.99 MISCELLANEOUS FEES CURRENT PRICE NEW PRICE Service Protection Plan (monthly) $2.95 $0.99 Important Information:For customers receiving service through commercial accounts or bulk arrangements,some of the product,pricing,and other information contained herein may not apply.Please refer to the terms and conditions of the separate agreement covering these arrangements.Where such terms are inconsistent with the information in this notice,the terms and conditions of the separate agreement will apply.Prices for products or services not listed above are not changing on January 1,2007. All prices are exclusive of franchise fees,regulatory fees and taxes.Pricing,programming,channel location and packaging may change.After notice of a retiering of our services or rate increase,you may change your level of service at no additional charge for a period of 30 days.Otherwise,changes in the services you receive which are requested or caused by you,will be subject to upgrade and downgrade charges.If you have questions,please contact us at 1-800-COMCAST. FCC#CA0925,#CA0967, Headend#H2534A,Sys/Prin#8770-2100,Agent#0390, 40400,#0410 12/06