Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet - CC - 2006.05.01 AMERL BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame Regular Meeting–Monday, May 1,2006 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 im Page 1 of 3 650 558-7200 1. CALL TO ORDER 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG 3. ROLL CALL 4. MINUTES —Regular Council Meeting of April 17, 2006 Approve 5. PRESENTATION a. Feedback on training experience of City personnel at Emergency Management Institute in Emmitsburg, MD 6. PUBLIC HEARING The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. a. (i)Consider adoption of Urgency Ordinance to allow Hearing/Action/Introduce Planning Commission to approve extension of construction hours for Parking Garage construction at Peninsula Hospital site through September 2006 and(ii) Consider introduction of an Ordinance to follow on the Urgency Ordinance b. Appeal of Planning Commission's approval of Design Hearing/Action Review and special permits for height and declining height envelope for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1416 Balboa Avenue c. Resolution approving the FY 2006-07 Master Fee Schedule Hearing/Action for City services 7. PUBLIC COMMENTS — At this time,persons in the audience may speak on any item on the agenda or any other matter within the jurisdiction of the Council. The Ralph M.Brown Act(the State local agency open meeting law)prohibits Council from acting on any matter that is not on the agenda. Speakers are requested to fill out a"request to speak"card located on the table by the door and hand it to staff. The Mayor may limit speakers to three minutes each. 8. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS a. Consider appointment to Planning Commission Approve b. Introduce Ordinance for amending fees and penalties Introduce associated with the Industrial Waste Discharge Program for 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame Regular Meeting—Monday, May 1,2006 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 Page 2 of 3 650 558-7200 c. Introduce Ordinance establishing Water Rates for Fiscal Introduce Years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 d. Introduce Ordinance establishing Sewer Rates for Fiscal Introduce Years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 e. Introduce Stop Sign Ordinance for Cortez Avenue and Introduce Sherman Avenue f. Introduce Ordinance to change and increase the cost for the Introduce annual overnight public street parking permits g. Approve a Resolution to change the existing fees associated Approve with the Annual Alarm Permit and False Alarms 9. CONSENT CALENDAR Approve a. Adopt Ordinance to amend the contract for police employees with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and the City of Burlingame b. Resolution approving the purchase of a portion of the Franklin School property for the Trousdale Pump Station and authorizing the City Manager to sign a Sale and Purchase Agreement, to execute escrow instructions and to accept the deed from the Burlingame Elementary School District; and approving Mitigated Negative Declaration No. ND-540-P c. Resolution approving Professional Services Agreement with Olivia Chen Consultants for the design of the Trousdale Pump Station and Trousdale Transmission Main d. Resolution approving Agreement Amendment No. 3 with Parking Company of America for shuttle services e. Request to attend Out of State Conference 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 AGEMIL BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA City of Burlingame Regular Meeting—Monday, May 1,2006 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 19 Page 3 of 3 650 558-7200 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. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Beautification, April 6, 2006; Library, March 28, 2006; Planning, April 24, 2006 b. Letter from Burlingame Chamber of Commerce concerning zoning changes 15. 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 CityClerk's office,City Hall 501 Primrose Road,from 8:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.before the meeting and at the meeting. Visit the City's website at www.burl in ame.org. Agendas and minutes are available at this site. NEXT MEETING—May 15,2006 CITY C BURLINGAME a ��NST60 JUNE 6 BURLINGAME CITY COUNCIL Unapproved Minutes Regular Meeting of April 17, 2006 1. CALL TO ORDER A duly noticed regular meeting of the Burlingame City Council was held on the above date in the City Hall Council Chambers. Mayor Cathy Baylock called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG Led by Mel Lipscomb. 3. ROLL CALL COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Baylock, Cohen, Nagel, O'Mahony COUNCILMEMBERS ABSENT: Keighran 4. MINUTES Councilman Cohen made a motion to approve the minutes of the April 3, 2006 regular Council meeting; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Keighran absent). 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a. CONSIDER ADOPTION OF CHANGE IN ASSESSMENTS FOR THE BURLINGAME AVENUE AREA BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (BID) AND PROPOSED ASSESSMENTS AND PROGRAMS/ACTIVITIES FOR 2006-07 IN THE DISTRICT BY: (i) HOLDING A PUBLIC MEETING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON PROPOSALS AND (ii) INTRODUCING AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 6.54 TO BALANCE THE ASSESSMENT BASIS Councilman Cohen recused himself because he had been paid for services rendered in the last twelve months. Councilman Cohen then left the Council Chambers. FinDir Nava reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public meeting to receive public comments on proposals and to introduce an ordinance amending Chapter 6.54 to balance the assessment basis. Mayor Baylock opened the public hearing. There were no comments from the floor, and the public hearing was closed. 1 Burlingame City Council April 17,2006 Unapproved Minutes Mayor Baylock requested CC Mortensen to read the title of the proposed ordinance amending Chapter 6.54 (Burlingame Avenue Area Business Improvement District) to balance the assessment basis. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to waive further reading of the proposed ordinance; seconded by Vice Mayor Nagel. The motion was approved by voice vote, 3-0-1-1 (Cohen recused; Keighran absent). Vice Mayor Nagel made a motion to introduce the proposed ordinance; seconded by Councilwoman O'Mahony. The motion was approved by voice vote, 3-0-1-1 (Cohen recused; Keighran absent). Mayor Baylock requested CC Mortensen publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. At this time, Councilman Cohen returned to the Council dais. b. PUBLIC HEARING AND ACTION ON ORDINANCE NO. 1780 FOR PROPOSED ZONING FOR THE ANZA POINT NORTH ZONING DISTRICT TO IMPLEMENT THE BAYFRONT SPECIFIC PLAN CP Monroe reviewed the staff report and requested Council hold a public hearing on the adoption of Ordinance No. 1780 amending the zoning regulations to establish the Anza Point North zoning district in the Bayfront planning area. Mayor Baylock opened the public hearing. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, objected to health services, extended-stay hotels and building heights over 50 feet. There were no further comments from the floor, and the hearing was closed. Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve adoption of Ordinance No. 1780 amending Title 25 to adopt the Anza Point North District and establish classification determination; seconded by Vice Mayor Nagel. The motion was approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Keighran absent). Mayor Baylock directed CC Mortensen to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. C. SIX MONTH EVALUATION OF TEMPORARY STOP SIGNS ON CORTEZ AVENUE AT SHERMAN AVENUE DPW Bagdon reviewed the staff report and introduced Traffic Engineer Augustine Chou who provided a traffic volume analysis of the data acquired before and after the temporary stop signs were installed. There was little change in the speed data reflecting little measurable effect on the stop signs slowing traffic speeds. The net loss of traffic volumes may have been due to tree trimming in the area during data collection in March 2006. Staff continued not to recommend installation of the unwarranted stop signs and offered to implement traffic calming measures instead. Mayor Baylock opened the public hearing. The following spoke in favor of making the stop signs permanent: Mark Pitre, 1240 Cortez Avenue; Bob Wren, 1237 Cortez Avenue; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue; and Ario Gregori, 1258 Balboa Avenue. Howard Dunaier, 1244 Cortez Avenue, spoke against the stop signs. David Rosen, 1221 Cortez Avenue, stated that the data collected is not quantitative. There were no further comments, and the hearing was closed. DPW Bagdon acknowledged receiving a letter this evening from Nancy Kux, 1208 Cortez Avenue. Ms. Kux is in favor of making the stop signs permanent. 2 Burlingame City Council April 17,2006 Unapproved Minutes In response to a question of liability to the City for installing unwarranted stop signs, CA Anderson stated that such liability is unlikely as long as the stop signs are well-placed and thoughtfully placed. Council directed staff to take steps to introduce an ordinance making the stop signs permanent. 6. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, spoke on the City's current telephone polling project. John Root, 1728 Crossway Road, spoke on the traffic speeding problem. There were no further comments from the floor. 7. STAFF REPORTS AND COMMUNICATIONS None. 8. CONSENT CALENDAR a. RESOLUTION NO. 23-2006 APPROVING NORTH BAYSIDE SYSTEM UNIT (NBSU) AGREEMENT DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 23-2006 approving North Bayside System Unit Joint Powers Agreement between the cities of Burlingame, Millbrae, San Bruno and South San Francisco and the City and County of San Francisco. b. RESOLUTION NO. 24-2006 APPROVING AMENDED MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH CALTRANS DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 24-2006 amending agreement for specified City maintenance of State Highways within the City of Burlingame. C. TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP ANDTENTATIVE FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF PORTIONS OF LOT 14,BLOCK 10, AT 1441-1445 BELLEVUE AVENUE DPW Bagdon requested Council approve the Tentative Condominium Map and Tentative and Final Parcel Map for 1441-1445 Bellevue Avenue, PM 05-02. d. RESOLUTION NO. 25-2006 AUTHORIZING THE COLLECTION OF SIDEWALK REPAIR COSTS BY THE SAN MATEO COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE FOR THE 2005 SIDEWALK MAINTENANCE PROGRAM DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 25-2006 affirming approval of the City Engineer's report on sidewalk repairs pursuant to Ordinance No. 1732 and Streets & Highways Code Section 5600 and following and placing the outstanding repair costs on the Property Tax Roll. e. RESOLUTION NO. 26-2006 AWARDING AIRPORT BOULEVARD RESURFACING PROJECT TO G. BORTOLOTTO & COMPANY, INC. DPW Bagdon requested Council approve Resolution No. 26-2006 awarding the construction contract to G. Bortolotto & Company, Inc. for Airport Boulevard Resurfacing Program Federal Aid Project No. STPL- 5171(014). 3 Burlingame City Council April 17,2006 Unapproved Minutes L WARRANTS & PAYROLL FinDir Nava requested approval for payment of Warrants#17448-18054 duly audited, in the amount of $2,701,291.47 (excluding library checks#17448-17490), Payroll checks #165005-165261 in the amount of $2,628,575.64 for the month of March 2006 Councilwoman O'Mahony made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar; seconded by Vice Mayor Nagel. Approved by voice vote, 4-0-1 (Keighran absent). 9. COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS Council reported on various events and committee meetings each of them attended on behalf of the City. 10. PUBLIC COMMENTS Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue, stated that she had made audiotapes from those portions of Planning Commission meeting tapes relative to 1416 Balboa Avenue. Ms. Giorni gave each Councilmember a copy of her tapes. Gina Meredith, 1225 Oak Grove Avenue, spoke about the gang issue at Burlingame High School. There were no further comments from the floor. COP Van Etten advised that Burlingame Police Inspector Kiely is the gang liaison officer to San Mateo County's task force on gangs. Citizens may call anonymously to provide information about gang activities at 692-0310 or 777-4100. 11. OLD BUSINESS Vice Mayor Nagel advised that a response has been received from PG&E on some of the continuing concerns of citizens, and copies are available. 12. NEW BUSINESS a. Council set May 1, 2006, as the hearing date for the Planning Commission appeal of 1416 Balboa Avenue. b. Councilwoman O'Mahony expressed concern for City costs when discussing Caltrain landscaping outside of the City's right-of-way. c. Councilman Cohen requested adding a future agenda item to change the commission appointment process by making it more accessible to the public and requested a comparison of that process in other cities. d. Mayor Baylock proposed setting the public hearing for May 1, 2006, to consider Peninsula Hospital's request to extend their construction hours temporarily due to schedule setbacks. Council concurred. This item would be presented to the Planning Commission on May 8, 2006. CLOSED SESSION CA Anderson advised that Council met in closed session and directed staff regarding the following: a. Threatened Litigation (Government Code §54956.9(b)(1),(3)(c)) Claim of Christie West 4 Burlingame City Council April 17,2006 Unapproved Minutes Claim of Linda Tachis Claim of Gerald Posey 13. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS a. Commission Minutes: Traffic, Safety & Parking, January 12 and February 9, 2006; Library, February 21 and March 1, 2006; Planning, April 10, 2006 b. Department Reports: Police, February 2006; Building, March 2006; Finance, March 2006 c. Rollins Road Zoning and Anza North Point Zoning Study Session minutes of March 29, 2006 d. Memorandum from Fire Chief Bill Reilly to City Council concerning local radio station for disaster information 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Baylock adjourned the meeting at 8:44 p.m. in memory of Ann Sprague, retired Planning Administrative Secretary, and Tracy Hammond, a long-time Library employee. Respectfully submitted, Doris J. Mortensen City Clerk 5 Burlingame City Council April 17, 2006 Unapproved Minutes STAFF REPORT la AGENDA 6a ITEM# MTG. DATE 05.01.06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: APRIL 20, 2006 APPROVED FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: A) CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION OF THE CONSTRUCTION HOURS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE PARKING GARAGE AT PENINSULA HOSPITAL AT 1783 EL CAMINO REAL THROUGH SEPTEMBER, 2006 B) CONSIDER INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE TO FOLLOW ON THE URGENCY ORDINANCE RECOMMENDATION: The City Council should hold a public hearing and take action on the request for adoption of an urgency ordinance to allow the Planning Commission to extend construction hours for construction of the parking garage for the Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project beyond the current limits in the Municipal Code. Affirmative action should include findings for the requested change in hours. The reasons for any action should be clearly stated for the record. If the Council wishes to consider adoption of the proposed urgency ordinance, the Council should do the following: A. Make any wording changes that the Council wishes to the ordinance. B. Request City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance. C. Waive further reading of the ordinance. D. Adopt the proposed ordinance (at least 4 votes in favor of the ordinance are required for adoption). E. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance no more than 15 days after adoption. If the Council adopts the proposed urgency ordinance (or if the Council wishes to instead consider a routine ordinance on this matter), the Council should do the following: A. Request City Clerk to read the title of the proposed regular ordinance. B. Waive further reading of the ordinance. C. Introduce the proposed ordinance. D. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least 5 days before proposed adoption. BACKGROUND: Oren Reinbolt, Mills Peninsula Health Services, is requesting to extend construction hours for the construction of the parking garage for the Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project at 1783 El Camino Real (refer to attached letter dated April 12, 2006). He notes that there have been extraordinary rain delays for the project, and is therefore seeking approval of extended construction hours to make up for the rain delays. The CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE CONSTRUCTION HOURS FOR THE PENINSULA HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT PROJECT MAY],2006 extended construction hours would allow the applicant over the next few months to catch up the construction schedule, which is critical to the applicant's ability to manage the construction budget and potential cost escalation. The applicant is requesting the extension of hours only for the parking garage phase of the project and, if approved, the authorization of the ordinance for extended hours would only be in place through September, 2006. The applicant also indicates that the impacts to the neighboring properties during this phase will be limited for the following reasons: • The work on the parking garage phase of the project is in an area which is not directly adjacent to neighbors, but is adjacent to the busy El Camino Real/Trousdale intersection. • There is a large mound of earth between the residential neighbors and the parking garage construction activities. • The applicant plans to schedule quieter work during the evening hours, such as relocating forms and finishing concrete. The Municipal Code has limitations on construction hours to limit the noise impacts of construction projects (Burlingame Municipal Code Section 18.07.130). In addition, the conditional use permit for the Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project contains a condition of approval that limits construction hours for the project more strictly than the Municipal Code requirements. The applicant's request is two pronged: 1) to amend the Municipal Code Construction Hours to allow a temporary extension of construction hours for the garage and 2) ask the Planning Commission to amend the conditions of approval for the conditional use permit. A summary of these requirements compared to the applicant's request is outlined in the table below. Table 1 —Com arison of Construction Hour Limitations Municipal Code Section Peninsula Hospital Applicant's Requested 18.07.130 Replacement Project Hours (through Condition No. 94 September 2006 only) Weekdays 7:00 am. to 7:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Saturdays 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 9:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Sundays 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. No construction on Sundays 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and Holidays The requested change to the municipal code hours would extend the construction hours on weekdays for two hours in the evening (7:00 to 9:00 p.m.), and would extend the hours on Saturdays by one hour in the morning (8:00—9:00 a.m.). There would be no change to the Municipal Code hours on Sundays. The ordinance change would give the Planning Commission authority to consider approval of these temporary extended hours—to implement this change would require an amendment to the conditional use permit conditions of approval. Following council action on this urgency ordinance, the matter would go to the Planning Commission for consideration of an amendment to the conditions of approval. Staff Comment: It should be noted that as the Urgency Ordinance is now drafted, the extended hours would expire on October 1, 2006, while the applicant notes that they expect to need extended hours from May 1 through August 31, 2006. The reason for the extra 30 days in the Urgency Ordinance is to provide contingency for unexpected delays during construction which might extend the completion of the work slightly. When the ordinance expires, the construction during the extended hours must also cease, or the applicant is in violation of both the Municipal Code and the condition of approval for the project. -2- CONSIDER ADOPTION OF AN URGENCY ORDINANCE TO EXTEND THE CONSTRUCTION HOURS FOR THE PENINSULA HOSPITAL REPLACEMENT PROJECT MAY 1,2006 It is City practice to also introduce an ordinance to follow on an urgency ordinance to meet long-term form. Therefore, a regular ordinance is also provided for introduction. ATTACHMENTS: Letter from Oren Reinbolt, Mills Peninsula Health Services dated April 12, 2006 Ordinance Copy of Mailed Notice (245 notices mailed) -3- Mills-Peninsula Health Services A Sutter Health Affiliate 1783 EI Camino Real Burlingame,CA 94010 650.696.5400 April 12,2006 RECEIVED Margaret Monroe APR 12 2006 City Planner City of Burlingame CIN OFBURLINGAME 501 Primrose Road PLANNING DEPT. Burlingame,CA 94010 RE: Mills Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project-Garage Phase Construction Hours Dear Ms.Monroe: Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and City Attorney,Larry Anderson,to discuss Mills Peninsula Health Services'("MPHS")concerns regarding the significant ramifications of the extraordinary rain delays on the Hospital Peninsula Replacement Project,and our plan to address these issues by extending the construction schedule for the garage phase of the project. Specifically,as we discussed,MPHS will submit an application to amend Condition No.94 of the conditional use permit to allow certain extended hours only for construction of the parking garage and associated new main entrance on Trousdale Drive. We are requesting that this request be brought to the Planning Commission for action at the meeting on May 8,2006. We would appreciate your bringing this matter to the attention of the Commission at its next meeting on April 24. In connection with this request,we will also be seeking City Council approval of an ordinance modifying the general limitations on construction hours in Section 18.07.110 of the Municipal Code,to similarly allow the extended hours for the garage phase construction. The proposed ordinance would also conform the application of the Code to the provisions of the use permit. It is our hope that the proposed ordinance will be introduced to the City Council at its next meeting on April 17,and acted on as an urgency matter at the following meeting on May 1. The proposed amendment to Use Permit Condition No.94 and the proposed change to the Code are attached. Also attached is a short statement that explains in some more detail the reasons that MPHS is requesting this urgent change for the construction of the garage portion of the project. This action will allow Mills Peninsula Health Services,over the next few months,to catch-up the construction schedule which is critical to our ability to continue to manage the construction budget against formidable cost escalating pressures and to deliver the quality and scope of the project that the City A 100 Top U.S.Hospitals Award Winner www.mills-peninsula.org Margaret Monroe April 12, 2006 Page 2 approved and that the community needs and deserves. As further explained in the attached statement, the extension request will not impact any of our residential neighbors on the south side of the property. Thank you, again, for your assistance in helping us bring this urgent matter forward. Ve truly ours, Oren Reinbolt Manager, Hospital Replacement Project Attachments: Statement from Oren Reinbolt Report, "Construction Cost Escalation in California Healthcare Projects, January 2006", by Davis Langdon Proposed Use Permit and Code Revisions cc: Larry Anderson, City Attorney Garage Phase Construction Hours The extraordinary record rains this winter, and particularly continuing through March and April, have created unanticipated scheduling problems for our project that threaten Mills Peninsula Health Service's ability to maintain the replacement hospital project scope unless the hospital replacement project can get back to its original schedule. Accordingly, we are submitting an urgent request to extend the hours for construction of the garage phase of the project. The garage at the northeast corner of the property at Trousdale Drive and EI Camino Real and associated new main entrance on Trousdale Drive must be completed before we can commence construction of the hospital. At this point, the rains have put us behind schedule by approximately 2 months. While at first glance this may not seem to be a major delay for a project of this scale, it has significant ramifications for at least the following reasons: (i) A two month delay moves the major excavation for the upcoming hospital foundations into the wet months. Performing this earthwork (which is approximately 4 times the size of the current garage excavation), in wet winter months will add substantial additional costs and delays to the project. (ii) Hospital construction costs in the State of California have increased 18- 20% for each of the past 3 years. This project has only been able to maintain its budget and scope due to the prior engagement of most major subcontractors. Should the main hospital (and MOB) portions of the project be delayed, we will need to go back to the market for subcontractors, and the market has changed substantially (negative to our project costs). (See attached report, "Construction Cost Escalation in California Healthcare Projects, January 2006.") Our construction team has identified that we can make up most of the time by changing the construction sequence for the garage phase of the project. This will allow us to proceed with pouring the garage decks in three phases rather than four, reducing the cycle time for each floor. Unfortunately, we can not pour and finish concrete in this large of an area within the current time limits for construction identified in the conditions of approval for the project.' We are therefore requesting to extend the time limits for the garage portion of the project (estimated from approximately May 1-August 31) to the following: 7AM-9PM on Monday-Friday; 8AM-6PM on Saturday; 10AM to 6PM on Sunday. The extended workday hours requested will allow for two shifts of workers. 08043.005.356683v2 Work during extended weekday evening hours (after 6 p.m.) would be limited to generally quieter non-mechanical activities (such as relocating concrete forms and —� finishing concrete). We would not make this request if we did not believe it was of critical importance to maintain our ability to deliver the scope and quality hospital replacement project as intended and as approved by the City. In making this request for the garage phase of the project, we have given careful consideration to the potential impact on our neighbors, particularly the residences on the south side of the property that are of paramount concern. We believe the neighbors will not be impacted by this change due to the following: (i) The work in question is distant from the neighbors, and is adjacent to the busy Trousdale/EI Camino Real intersection. This commercial side of the project was acknowledged during the City Planning approval process as preferable for early morning work due to its remoteness from the residential neighbors. (ii) There is a large mound of earth between the residential neighbors on the south side and the garage site. The earth mound will provide acoustic and visual screening to the neighbors.2 (iii) The work planned during the extended evening hours is generally quieter work, relocating forms and finishing concrete. MPHS would commit to limiting activities during the extended weekday evening hours to that quieter concrete work. This is a unique event, reflecting not only the extraordinary rain delays, but also this critical phase that is a condition precedent to getting the main hospital portion of the project under way and keeping our subcontractors under contract. The distant location of the garage to our residential neighbors, the presence of the excavation mound and the nature of the work present an opportunity to remedy the situation without impacting neighbors. We are doing our best to provide this community with the very best future hospital possible. We feel that it is in everybody's best interest to avoid the cost increases and resultant pressures on reduction in scope that a delay at this time in our construction schedule would create. Thank you for your consideration and help in this matter. Oren L Reinbolt Hospital Replacement Project Manager 2 The earthen barrier mound component and its acoustic and visual screening properties was not originally anticipated when reviewing the project scheduling concerns. - 2 - 08043.005.356683v2 Proposed Amendment To Conditional Use Permit For The Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project- Condition No. 94 Amend Condition No. 94 by adding the following at the end of Condition No. 94: "Notwithstanding the foregoing, construction of the parking garage shall be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through Friday; the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Saturday; and 10:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on Sunday. Exterior work during the extended evening hours shall be limited to generally quieter activities such as relocating concrete forms and finishing concrete. PLG-Brooks,Maureen From: Kevin Nelson[knelson@abbott.smuhsd.kl2.ca.us] Sent: Friday,April 21,2006 11:16 AM To: PLG-Brooks,Maureen;Council@Burliingame.org Subject: Hospital Construction Hours The Ray Park community has recieved a flyer from the hospital that is WILL be expanding construction hours to make up for lost time due to the rains. These expanded hours are in conflict with the conditions of approval agreed upon during the approval process. The flyer itself is putting the cart before the horse as once again, the hospital is stating that it is dictating construction policy and not the city. The Real Issue - Money NOT Time The hospital should have forseen weather problems in its planning and purchased insurance or self insured againt loss due to weather. The added construction hours will save the hospital money, but that savings will come at the expense of the residents in terms of peace and quit. I would state that if the hospital is to get new contruction hours, then the affected Ray Park residents should be financially compensated for their loss of approved hours of peace and quiet. (This is a legitimate remedy to the problem) Equity If the hospital gets expanded hours for construction, then shouldn't ALL construction projects in Burlingame get expanded hours? All construction has been halted during the rains. All crews have been off the job losing both time and money. why should the hospital get special hours and not all construction crews? Will there be a probelm of discrimination if the city allows one builder extended hours to make up for past losses but prohibits other builders from these same benefits? If I were a builder in Burlingame and saw the Hospital get exteded hours, I too would have my crews working until 9:00 at night. Kevin Nelson Teacher, Burlingame High School Sent via the WebMail system at abbott.smuhsd.kl2.ca.us 1 cirY0 CITY OF BUR UNGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT RLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD :. BURLINGAME,CA94010 : fllfit�16504325 TEL(650) 558-7250 FAX_(650)696-37 ,E.-- ww .burfingame.org wrAV., I Si#e:,1783 EL CAMINO REAL {Two Mei i — Ma .Frmn. 94010 • Thed Burlhtgame Ct"y`Council announces the foNowing US DOSAGE . . M OIL-�1Ni0t i, 2006of 7pm m the (ity Halt(ounal Chumliers,SOT;Primrose ltoad;;$aclinoatg, to to consider atlopiwa of an atgency ordman fe b extend P B LI,C HEARIN G the hauj{ ' g lstrudion Qs established by Manic�pol. Code X18 0 :130,, C ! throu0h Sept X006, for 1he,constFwdtoa of the �tar0a(age;. only,for' NOTICE y } PeanIsq `hospital e1(awa10 ciiastru�ioa to ociur om: apR10 7pni r n weelcdu Dap ant to bpm on Saturdoy3; d Oam to dtp op Sundays L • The ci J6rhngame ('fanningLammission anaouafes4h tollo�ribg lw , hearipg op MoA, Moy 8, 2006 7 m in the HultouhcYLhumberss � < _ SOl frmcose gd Eutlmgumo,to totomead the:tondonpl lice l'ei (or�ille, `` Peninsula ffds �roleit CaWdiiten #94, ( onstrectrnoa heur`sJ, xten . f canstcudibnbais fior iheparking garage phbse al thetraleftotn 3atn 7gm 9m bneek�ays, Sto. m on Sgturdays, am bp end 10amr1a6Tlai on- X i Suaddyt citt><ea no coas"dion is ullawai oa a,`ndays) Maded Afp 't/,3006 t , � Y y (Pleased Ir to otter side) C vl n $ ms s tV, �`IT"Y OF BURK' VGAME 4 "V✓.z A copy`© he applrc an 1 pro�ec y be reviewt�3 4..k ' __ - f ' s yEWx aFP} ` to 4 ff meeting _ Prtmzose�� pi Burl n„game, If you chile lie lire raising blrc hearr �> 4 veRaw p 4 Sw i at t�rP �r=tc h67pu i r (6561VW t � V v , a MarLj� t,.'LYl� 'Sr <:`. 33'r'EtFy �'k'o-r`• g yyW S ExY. 1 br ad `' q R .Ntlk K Cit I s¢c ' er 3 k L S�,`i'- !P S Y J.. �s,Hw i , \/ X31 x3. „y , P. $ #� c<.xj cF- .Y - +ia4i. Jkl 0M (Pl to Ether Al I ORDINANCE NO. -� 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING AN URGENCY ORDINANCE 3 PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 36937 ADOPTING AN INTERIM AMENDMENT TO THE HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION 4 ALLOWED BY SECTION 18.07.110 TO ALLOW PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF EXTENDED HOURS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 5 PARKING GARAGE FOR PENINSULA HOSPITAL 6 7 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 8 9 Section 1. 10 A. In 2004,the City Council approved a conditional use permit for the construction of a 11 new hospital to replace Peninsula Hospital in accordance with the mandates of State law to make 12 all hospitals in the State resistant to and usable during earthquakes and other natural disasters. 13 The new hospital is indispensable to provide quality and comprehensive health care to the 14 residents of the Peninsula Hospital District,including Burlingame residents. Construction on the 15 project has begun with the excavation and framing of the necessary parking garage at the 16 southwest corner of Trousdale Drive and El Camino Real. 17 B. Beginning in November 2005,the San Francisco Peninsula experienced more than 70 18 days of measurable precipitation, and in particular over 30 days of rain in March and early April 19 of this year. Rainfall in March was twice normal,and through just mid-April,rainfall was already 20 four times normal for an entire month of April. This has pushed the expected completion of the 21 parking garage back over two months,and created unexpected impacts on neighboring homes as 22 the excavation spoils cannot be removed until the garage is completed. On April 10, 2006, the 23 Governor of California declared a State of Emergency in San Mateo County. 24 C. The soaring costs of construction created in large part by the shortage of contractors 25 able and willing to work on projects of this complexity and magnitude endanger the successful 26 completion of the project envisioned by the Hospital District and the community. Delays into the 27 next rainy season would compound this threat. 28 D. It is necessary that in order to protect public health and safety to be served by the I completion of a fully functioning, timely new hospital, that the Planning Commission be given 2 authority to approve an extension of the hours of construction for the parking garage if such an 3 extension would serve the public interest and meet the findings of an amended conditional use 4 permit. The current provision governing construction hours of the Municipal Code does not 5 provide this limited authority to the Commission. 6 7 Section 2. Notwithstanding Section 18.07.110 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the 8 Planning Commission may approve an extension of the hours of construction on the parking 9 garage for Peninsula Hospital on the following terms: 10 (a)The hours of construction may be extended to end at or before 9:00 p.m.on weekdays. 11 (b)The hours of construction may be extended to begin at or after 8:00 a.m.on Saturdays. 12 (c)Any extension of the hours shall be made an amendment to and a part of the conditional 13 use permit for the hospital project, shall be expressly limited to the construction of the parking 14 garage only, and shall be expressly terminated no later than October 1, 2006, or the completion ..� 15 of the parking garage, whichever occurs first. 16 17 Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective only until October 1, 2006, unless earlier 18 repealed, and shall have no further force and effect beyond that date. 19 20 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law and take effect 21 immediately. 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 and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on 27 the day of ,2006,by at least a four-fifths vote of the Council as follows: 28 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: - 2 - I NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: _ 2 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 3 4 City Clerk 5 6 U:\FILES\ORDINANC\peninsulaparkinggrg.pin.wpd 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 - 3 - I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING AN INTERIM AMENDMENT TO THE HOURS OF CONSTRUCTION 3 ALLOWED BY SECTION 18.07.110 TO ALLOW PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF EXTENDED HOURS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE 4 PARKING GARAGE FOR PENINSULA HOSPITAL 5 6 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 7 8 Section 1. 9 A. In 2004,the City Council approved a conditional use permit for the construction of a 10 new hospital to replace Peninsula Hospital in accordance with the mandates of State law to make 11 all hospitals in the State resistant to and usable during earthquakes and other natural disasters. 12 The new hospital is indispensable to provide quality and comprehensive health care to the 13 residents of the Peninsula Hospital District,including Burlingame residents. Construction on the 14 project has begun with the excavation and framing of the necessary parking garage at the 15 southwest corner of Trousdale Drive and El Camino Real. 16 B. Beginning in November 2005,the San Francisco Peninsula experienced more than 70 17 days of measurable precipitation, and in particular over 30 days of rain in March and early April 18 of this year. Rainfall in March was twice normal,and through just mid-April,rainfall was already 19 four times normal for an entire month of April. This has pushed the expected completion of the 20 parking garage back over two months, and created unexpected impacts on neighboring homes as 21 the excavation spoils cannot be removed until the garage is completed. On April 10, 2006, the 22 Governor of California declared a State of Emergency in San Mateo County. 23 C. The soaring costs of construction created in large part by the shortage of contractors 24 able and willing to work on projects of this complexity and magnitude endanger the successful 25 completion of the project envisioned by the Hospital District and the community. Delays into the 26 next rainy season would compound this threat. 27 D. It is necessary that in order to protect public health and safety to be served by the 28 completion of a fully functioning, timely new hospital, that the Planning Commission be given Routine Ordinance I authority to approve an extension of the hours of construction for the parking garage if such an 2 extension would serve the public interest and meet the findings of an amended conditional use 3 permit. The current provision governing construction hours of the Municipal Code does not 4 provide this limited authority to the Commission. 5 6 Section 2. Notwithstanding Section 18.07.110 of the Burlingame Municipal Code, the 7 Planning Commission may approve an extension of the hours of construction on the parking 8 garage for Peninsula Hospital on the following terms: 9 (a)The hours of construction may be extended to end at or before 9:00 p.m.on weekdays. 10 (b)The hours of construction may be extended to begin at or after 8:00 a.m.on Saturdays. 11 (c)Any extension of the hours shall be made an amendment to and a part of the conditional 12 use permit for the hospital project, shall be expressly limited to the construction of the parking 13 garage only, and shall be expressly terminated no later than October 1, 2006, or the completion 14 of the parking garage, whichever occurs first. --� 15 16 Section 3. This ordinance shall be effective only until October 1, 2006, unless earlier 17 repealed, and shall have no further force and effect beyond that date. 18 19 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 20 21 Mayor 22 23 I,DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council on the day of 24 ,2006,and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2006, as follows: 25 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 26 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 27 28 City Clerk Routine Ordinance - 2 - CITY o� STAFF REPORT BU JNGAME AGENDA 6b ITEM# �0 90 DATE 5.1.06 �AATm DYNE b TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: APRIL 17, 2006 APPROVED, FROM: CITY PLANNER BY SUBJECT: APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROkAL OF DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AN D DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1416 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1. Recommendation: City Council should hold a public hearing and take action. Affirmative action to approve the applicant's request should include findings for each of the requests made in this case for design review and special :z permits for height and declining height envelope. The Council action should be taken by resolution. The reasons for any action should be stated clearly for the record. City Council has three action alternatives: a. to uphold the Planning Commission and approve the application by resolution; b. to reverse the Planning Commission and deny the application by resolution; or c. to deny the request without prejudice and return it to the Planning Commission with comments. The criteria for findings for design review and special permits are included at the end of the staff report. Notice of the public hearing on this item was mailed to all property owners within 300 feet of the project as required by law. The notice was mailed on April 21, 2006. Conditions on the project approved by the Planning Commission: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2006, sheets A-1,A-2, A-6 and A-8, and date stamped February 13, 2006, sheets A- 3, A-4, A-5, A-7 and T-1; with wood windows with simulated true divided lites, including an encroachment into the left side declining height envelope of 2'-6" x 19'-6" (49 SF) and a building height of 33'-2" as measured from the average top of curb elevation (24.07'), and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the tree protection measures noted in the July 28, 2005 arborist report by Mayne Tree Expert Company shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist prior to commencing demolition or construction on the subject property; 3. that all of the proposed skylights shall be tinted; 4. that the existing hedge and retaining wall along the driveway side property line shall be retained and protected during construction and that the new driveway shall be a minimum of 9'-6" in width as measured from the face of the existing retaining wall along the adjacent property line, and should obtaining the minimum width of 9'-6" require replacing the retaining wall on the inboard side of the APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OFA DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR ANEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMIL YD WELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1416 BALBOA AVENUE,ZONED R-1. May 1,2006 driveway, that replacement or its equivalent shall be required to stabilize the front yard; and planting along the property line edge between the driveway and the house shall be limited to ground cover; 5. 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; 6. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 7. 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; all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; 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 prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge (33'-2" as measured from the average top of curb elevation of+24.07') and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 10. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. 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; 14. that the conditions of the City Arborist, City Engineer, Recycling Specialist, Chief Building Official, NPDES Coordinator and Fire Marshal's August 2, 2005 memos shall be met; 15. 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; -2- APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OFA DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR ANEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMIL YD WELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1416 BALBOA AVENUE,ZONED R-1. May 1,2006 16. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 17. 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. Planning Commission Action: At their meeting on March 27, 2006, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted 4-1-0-2 (C. Brownrigg dissenting and Cers. Osterling and Terrones absent) on a voice vote to approve the applicant's request for design review and special permits for height and declining height envelope to build a new two- story house and detached garage at 1416 Balboa Avenue. In their action the Commissioners noted that a condition should be added: that the property line retaining wall and vegetation it supports shall be protected and the driveway shall be a minimum of 9'-6" in width as measured from the face of the existing property line retaining wall. In their findings the Commissioners noted: that the property line appears to be at the center of the retaining wall so it should not be removed, in addition the vines and shrubs along this property line are on the neighbor's property and should not be damaged during construction, conditions should be amended to address this; this is a new house, the driveway widths should be a minimum of 9'-6" which is what the zoning code requires, there is a retaining wall on both sides of the driveway at the front, if the distance between these existing walls is 10 feet then that distance should be retained, if necessary the retaining wall on the interior side of the driveway may need to be moved to create a 9'-6" width at the entrance. The special permit for height was approved on the basis that the height is necessary for the Tudor style proposed to work, it was also noted that the house is well designed,may be large but has benefited by the work with the design review consultant. Commissioner in opposition noted that he was not comfortable with a minimum width driveway (9'-6") for a five bedroom house, with that many bedrooms need adequate access, need more work on the driveway to be sure that it is useable, since the other side setback is fixed at the minimum allowed, widening the driveway could affect the width of the house and require the applicant to return to the Commission for a substantial revision to the design, height is not a problem because the proposed structure is not too tall for this architectural style which requires a pitched roof BACKGROUND: The applicant/architect, Catherine Anderson, and property owners, Clement and Eva Hung, are proposing to demolish the existing one-story single family dwelling and build a new two story single family dwelling with detached two car garage at 1416 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1. The house being removed has a floor area ratio of 0.30 (2,859 SF), the proposed house will have an floor area ratio of 0.527 (3, 692 SF)where 0.53 (3,740 SF) is the maximum floor area ratio allowed. For the proposed project the applicant is requesting the following: ■ Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling (CS 25.57.010); and ■ Special permit for height (33'-2" proposed where 30' is the maximum height allowed without a special permit (CS 25.28.060 (a) (1)) ■ Special permit for declining height envelope (2'-6" x 19'-6" (49 SF) encroachment into the declining height envelope on the left side) (CS 25.28.035 (c)) -3- APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OFA DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR ANEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMIL YD WELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1416 BALBOA AVENUE,ZONED R-1. May 1,2006 Summary of Project Review This project was first heard by the Planning Commission as a Design Review Study Item on August 8, 2005, and was referred to a design review consultant. It was then brought to the Planning Commission as an action item on February 27, 2006 and was continued for clarification of the landscape plan which was heard by the Planning Commission on March 27, 2006. A number of issues were identified on the August 8, 2006,plans as needing revision and refinement (See attached Planning Commission staff report, March 27, 2006,page 3 -4). The property owners and architect worked with the design reviewer and resubmitted the revised project with a positive design reviewer recommendation. The design reviewer noted that the house massing and scale sits back from the street and is broken up by dormers and varied roof shapes and elevation treatment, and the style is compatible with the surrounding area and the detached garage is compatible with the rear parking pattern that exists in the area. He notes that the roof lines have been improved and corrected. The roof shape, previously truncated and sliced off at 6 inches below the maximum height in an attempt to avoid applying for a special permit for height has been changed. The new roof is higher by three feet, but only at the peak, and a height exception is now required. He believes this is areal improvement over pervious "sliced-off' design and he fully supports the special permit allowing slightly greater height above the 30 foot maximum. (Planning Staff would note that the declining height envelope exception on the second floor is virtually the same so was not affected by increasing the height of the roof.) At the February 27, 2006, meeting the Commissioners felt that the landscape plan was confusing, that the landscaping proposed does not do the best job of screening the new house. Commissioners recommended that the action on the project be continued to have the noted landscape changes incorporated and for a revised landscape plan. In the discussion the Commissioners did note that the project is very much better, design review has worked, that the special permit for height is appropriate because this property is located at the crest of the block, actual house is not over 30 feet tall as measured from adjacent grade, and the height is appropriate to the proposed style, there are no view blockage issues so story poles are not required. At the March 27, 2006, meeting the Commission reviewed the landscape plan along with the proposed project plans, and voted to approve the project based on the plans which resulted from the design reviewer and with the revised landscape plan. Commissioners comments are summarized in the Planning Commission's Action above. Neighbor Comments at the Planning Commission Public Hearing There were no neighbor comments at the August 8, 2005, design review public comment on this project. At the February 27, 2006, meeting neighbors noted: that the existing driveway is narrow and steep, concerned if the new driveway is the same because current residents don't use the existing driveway because of its design and their cars are parked on the street, parking on Balboa is a problem street is narrow, virtually one way. Concerned with the height of the building, this is a large house, does not fit in the neighborhood, should not grant exception for height or declining height envelope, submitted photos, roof line is complicated and problematic, concerned with flat roof at the top of a Tudor style house, this house will be 3 feet taller than the house on the right and 7 feet taller than the house on the left, concerned with the mass and bulk of the building; house will be 4 feet from the 7 foot property line fence, will be hard to clean gutters and without gutters working properly will drain on to the neighbors property; would like to see wood windows used; would like to have story poles installed to show the envelope of the building; do not agree with the design review analysis, the house is more attractive now but does not belong on this small lot; the fabric of this block has changed from all the new construction for example the house at 1453 Balboa Avenue which is too big; this project should be sent back to the design reviewer or denied without prejudice because of the site conditions. -4- APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OFA DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR ANEW TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMIL YD WELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE AT 1416 BALBOA AVENUE,ZONED R-1. May 1,2006 Designer of the project noted that the driveway width and slope is about the same, but it widens at the rear to 10'-6" so it will be easier to use. At the March 27, 2006, meeting the public comments included: measured the driveway, neighbors have invested a lot of time, and the applicant money, in this process do not want to be back with amendments after have begun construction, this should be treated as a new lot; should look at the right side of the lot as if it were a corner lot because a third of this side is exposed to view from the street, ridge of the new house is 7 feet taller than the existing so the first thing you will see is the full extension of that wall; there is no softening of this side by landscaping since the driveway takes up the entire side yard, the new plans do not address this; the new plans do not address the fact that there are retaining walls on either side of the driveway, the wall on the left holds up the front yard; the wall on the right is on property line, it is 33 inches high and 30 feet long, there is a privet on the neighbor's side of the wall. The property line wall was built in 1914, bricks have been added later along with trees on my property, do not want property line wall or hedge removed and would like 10 feet between the wall and the new house; this house will be 175% larger than my house and there are houses on the block smaller than my house; opposed to the height exception, this house will be an anomaly on the street, this lot should be surveyed and markers left so that everyone knows where the property line is. Commissioner noted that Charles Kavanaugh did a survey which was included in the plans and the property line is down the center of the wall. Staff Comments Comments from Building, Fire, Public Works, and Planning staff regarding this proposed project are included in the March 27, 2006, Planning Commission Staff Report which is attached in its entirety at the end of the Council staff report. Also included at the end of the staff report, following the Planning Commission packet, are the pictures which were submitted by the public during the public hearings. Environmental Review Status The proposed project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. CEQA Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303, Class 3 — (a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. ATTACHMENTS: Criteria for Design Review and a Special Permit Planning Commission Minutes, March 27, 2006 Planning Commission Staff Report, 1416 Balboa Avenue, March 27, 2006 with attachments Photographs submitted by the public at the public hearings Resolution Notice of Public Hearing for Appeal, mailed April 21, 2006 -5- RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION, DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review and special permits for height and declining height envelope for a new single family dwelling with a new detached garage at 1416 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1, Clement and Eva Hung, property owner, APN: 026-013-220; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 27, 2006, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Section: 15303, Class 3 — (a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. 2. Said design review and special permits are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for design review and special permits are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. MAYOR I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1st day of May, 2006, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK EXHIBIT"A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and special permits 1416 Balboa Avenue Effective May 1, 2006 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2006, sheets A-1,A-2, A-6 and A-8, and date stamped February 13, 2006, sheets A-3, A-4, A-5, A-7 and T-1; with wood windows with simulated true divided lites, including an encroachment into the left side declining height envelope of 2'- 6" x 19'-6" (49 SF) and a building height of 33'-2" as measured from the average top of curb elevation(24.07'), and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the tree protection measures noted in the July 28, 2005 arborist report by Mayne Tree Expert Company shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist prior to commencing demolition or construction on the subject property; 3. that all of the proposed skylights shall be tinted; 4. that the existing hedge and retaining wall along the driveway side property line shall be retained and protected during construction and that the new driveway shall be a minimum of 9'-6" in width as measured from the face of the existing retaining wall along the adjacent property line, and should obtaining the minimum width of 9'-6" require replacing the retaining wall on the inboard side of the driveway, that replacement or its equivalent shall be required to stabilize the front yard; and planting along the property line edge between the driveway and the house shall be limited to ground cover; 5. 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; 6. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 7. 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; all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; 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 prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge(33'-2" as measured from the average top of curb elevation of EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and special permits 1416 Balboa Avenue Effective May 1, 2006 +24.07') and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 10. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 11. 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; 12. 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, 13. 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; 14. that the conditions of the City Arborist, City Engineer, Recycling Specialist, Chief Building Official, NPDES Coordinator and Fire Marshal's August 2, 2005 memos shall be met; 15. 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; 16. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 17. 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. 1416 Balboa Avenue CS 25.57.030 (e) Design Review criteria (e) A design review application in an R-1 district shall be reviewed by the planning commission for the following considerations: (1) Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; (2) Respect forth parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; (3) Architectural style and consistency and mass and bulk of structures, including accessory structures; (4) Interface of the proposed structure with structures on adjacent properties; (5) Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components; and (6) In the case of an additon, compatibility with the architectural style and character of the existing structure as remodeled. CS 25.51.020 Findings and Conditions for a Special Permit The planning commission may grant a special permit in accord with this title if, form the applicant and the facts presented at the public hearing, it finds: (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or additon are consistent with the exiting structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) The variety of roof line, fagade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006 environmental impact studies still apply to this action. Staff noted that they did. There were no other questions of staff. Commissioners comment: no change from original approval;usually hold condominium development to a higher standard than rental, troubled by request may not have granted variances if knew it was to be a condominium;would the Bayfront Development Fee be different if this had been originally submitted as a commercial condominium? Staff responded no, the Bayfront and other development fees are the same. Does the condominium map entitle the city to more improvements? CA noted that Commission could request a wider sidewalk at the front to comply with design guideline standards in the area, for example. Seems the question revolves around the existing building,and the variances granted originallywere based on the retention of that building. How would parking be assigned for the condominium use because for the rental it would be common/shared. How is it insured that the landscaping will be maintained? Owners are aware of zoning but buyers may not be. Questions for findings seem to imply residential conversions not commercial. Sidewalk width for Bayfront should be 8 feet, same as existing, revised plans show 5 feet. Think need incubator space, appropriate for consent;not difficult, like to see on action to hear answers on how transition from rental to ownership is being handled. Understand transition,CC and R's handle a lot of those things, they are recorded with the property, so issues addressed. Do not do many condominium conversions, good for the commission to look at one closely, like to hear from applicant. Request revisions: ■ Sidewalks at the front of the site along the public right-of-way shall be 8 feet wide with improvements consistent with the Bayfront Design guidelines for the Inner Bayshore area, to be installed by the property owner; ■ Provide information on how the on-site parking spaces will be allocated among the ownerships; and ■ Provide information on how the property and landscaping will be maintained among the ownerships. 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 7:45 p.m. VII. ACTION ITEMS Consent Calendar - Items on the consent calendar are considered to be routine. They are acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by the applicant, a member of the public or a commissioner prior to the time the commission votes on the motion to adopt. Chair Auran noted that he had written requests to remove items 5A, 1416 Balboa Avenue, and 513, 1456 Bernal Avenue, from the consent calendar. He directed that the two items be moved to the action calendar for public hearing. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEMS 5A. 1416 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW,TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE(CATHERINE ANDERSON, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;CLEMENT&EVA HUNG PROPERTY OWNERS)(66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS (CONTINUED FROM FEBRUARY 27, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING) 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006 Reference staff report March 27,2007,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seventeen conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted that there is a retaining wall at the front of this property and that the proposed driveway on the plans is 10 feet wide as measured from the face of the retaining wall. Suggested that condition 4 be amended to add wording that the width of the driveway shall be 10 feet as measured from the face of the retaining wall along the side property line. Commissioner asked if staff knew whose property the hedge was on. CP responded no. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Catherine Anderson,architect,650 Loma Verde Avenue,Palo Alto, represented the project. John Fulton 1412 Balboa; John Gardner, 1421 Balboa; Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa, spoke. Applicant noted that there is no intention of removing the retaining wall along property line,and they will also retain the vines and hedge which are of concern to the neighbor. Commissioner noted that there appears to be 9 feet plus 1.6 feet or 10.6 feet of space for the driveway. Applicant noted that the revised plans show a 10 foot driveway, what is there, and was measured from the face of the retaining wall. Comments from the public: measured the driveway myself,neighbors have invested a lot of time and the applicant money in this process,do not want to be back with amendments after have begun construction,this should be treated as a new lot; look at the right side of the property as if it were on a corner lot because a third of it is exposed to view from the street,the ridge of the new house is 7 feet taller than the existing so the first thing you will see is the whole length of the wall,this side has never been softened by landscaping because the width of the driveway does not allow it; the proposed plans do not address the existing condition;presently there are retaining walls on either side of the driveway,9 feet wide at a height of up to 6 feet for 48 feet in length;the wall on the left holds up the front yard,the right wall is on property line,its 33 inches high and 30 feet long,there is a picket fence at the end; there is a privet along the retaining wall on the neighbor's side;would request that the driveway be 10.5 feet with the measurement taken from the face of the retaining wall. If necessary reduce the face of the front of the building, scale down the house to accommodate. Has a contractor been selected for this construction? Wall was built in 1914,added bricks on top and trees behind on my property,the picket fence is one foot inside the property line,there for dog; do not want the wall or hedge removed and want 10 feet between the wall and the house; this house will be 175%larger than my house and there are other houses on the block smaller than my house;there should be no variance or exception for declining height. Live across the street since 1960 before the present house on this lot was built,concerned about the size of this house;opposed to the height exception,this house would be an anomaly on the street,been to the Commission's past two meetings on this item, am disgusted. Is it possible to have this lot surveyed and retain the survey markers so everyone knows where the property line is? Commissioner noted that Charles Kavanaugh did a survey which was included in the plans, and the property line is down the center of the wall. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: appears from the survey map that the property line is in the middle of the retaining wall and the wall should stay, should amend the condition as suggested by staff to keep the retaining wall and that the plant material will be protected; driveway width should be a minimum of 9-6" which is what the code requires,but must meet 10 feet at the front if that is what the existing wall on the inside defines, it could be that the existing wall on the interior of the lot may need to be moved to attain 9'-6". C. Deal moved to approve the project by resolution on the basis that the special permit for height is necessary for the Tudor design to work, the house is well designed, may be large but has benefited by the work with the design review consultant, with the revisions to condition 4 to retain the hedge along the 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006 driveway and that the driveway width shall be a minimum of 9'-6"as measured from the face of the retaining wall along the property, even if this means that the inboard retaining wall must be replaced and with the following amended conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13,2006,sheets A-1,A-2,A-6 and A-8,and date stamped February 13, 2006, sheets A-3, A-4, A-5, A-7 and T-1; with wood windows with simulated true divided lites,including an encroachment into the left side declining height envelope of 2'-6"x 19'-6"(49 SF) and a building height of 33'-2" as measured from the average top of curb elevation(24.07'), and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2) that the tree protection measures noted in the July 28,2005 arborist report by Mayne Tree Expert Company shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist prior to commencing demolition or construction on the subject property; 3) that all of the proposed skylights shall be tinted; 4)that the existing hedge and retaining wall along the driveway side property line shall be retained and protected during construction and that the new driveway shall be a minimum of 9'-6"in width as measured from the face of the existing retaining wall along the adjacent property line, and should obtaining the minimum width of 9'-6"require replacing the retaining wall on the inboard side of the driveway,that replacement or its equivalent shall be required to stabilize the front yard; and planting along the property line edge between the driveway and the house shall be limited to ground cover; 5) 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; 6) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect,engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans;if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury;certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 7) 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;all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; 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 prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge(33'-2" as measured from the average top of curb elevation of+24.07') and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 10) that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 11) 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; 12) 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; 13) 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; 14) that the conditions of the City Arborist, City Engineer, Recycling Specialist, Chief Building Official, NPDES Coordinator and Fire Marshal's August 2, 2005 memos shall be met; 15) 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; 16) that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance;and 17) that the 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes March 27, 2006 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. Vistica. Comment on the motion: opposed,not comfortable with a minimum width driveway for a 5 bedroom house, need adequate access; height not too tall for this style, needs a pitched roof, at the joint meeting the City Council and Planning Commission discussed height and other issues for design review,so will be discussing this allowance more in the future; in this case need to do more work on the driveway to be sure it is useable; the motion is based on a 9'-6"width from the face of the retaining wall,since the other side setback is fixed, could affect the width of the house, so they may be back before the Commission. Chair Auran called for a roll call vote on the motion to approve this project with the amended condition that the property line retaining wall and vegetation it supports be protected and the driveway be a minimum of 9'- 6" in width as measured from the face of the existing property line retaining wall. The motion passed on a 4-1-0-2(C.Brownrigg dissenting and C.Osterling and Terrones absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. 5B. 1456 BERNAL AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A NEW TWO- STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE. (TONY LEUNG,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; AND JAMES CHU,DESIGNER)(66 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report March 27,2006,with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. CP Monroe received clarification from the designer noting that the roof over the bay window at the living room will be copper,condition#1 will be amended to reflect this clarification. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Tony Leung,applicant and property owner,was available to answer questions. Mary Frances Nappi, 1452 Bernal Avenue,noted that she met with the applicant to discuss the issues listed in her letter dated March 27,2006,feel that the issues about retaining and protecting the existing hedge and ivy at the property line can be worked out with the applicant; there is no agreement about the proposed balcony at the rear of the house,would like to see a decorative wrought iron balcony off the master bedroom instead of a full balcony,feel privacy will be lost with a full balcony,will leave it up to the Commission for direction on the balcony. Applicant noted that he would like to have the balcony as proposed since it will add value to the property. Commission noted that the freestanding trellises, as requested by the neighbor, would help to provide privacy to the neighbor's rear yard and pool. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: Commission should not get involved with the trellises,this should be worked out between the applicant and neighbor, concern about drainage will be addressed by the Public Works Department at time of building permit submittal,should add a condition for protection of the existing hedge and ivy in the neighbor's yard. C.Deal moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 7, 2006, sheets A.1 through A.7,Ll and Boundary and Topographic Survey, and that the roof material above the bay window in the living room shall be copper; and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the 6 Item No. Consent Cali t ..� ': , : '��,.. �,��"t ' .�.` .1 .G�Y .v f��• his a �r PROJECT R 1416 Balboa Ave City of Burlingame Item# 5ct Design Review and Special Permits for Height and Declining Height Action Calendar Envelope for a New Single Family Dwelling Address: 1416 Balboa Avenue Meeting Date: 3/27/06 Request: Design review and special permits for height and declining height envelope for a new two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage. Applicant/Designer: Catherine Anderson APN: 026-013-220 Property Owner: Clement and Eva Hung Lot Area: 7,000 SF General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning: R-1 CEQA Status: Article 19. Categorically Exempt per Section: 15303,Class 3—(a)construction of a limited number of new,small facilities or structures including(a)one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas,up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. History: September 26, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting: On September 26, 2005, the Planning Commission considered this project on its regular action calendar. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission referred this application back to a design review consultant with additional direction given(see attached 9/26/05 Planning Commission minutes). The Commission noted that the following items were to be addressed: concerned about the amount of flat roof on the Tudor style building; there are discrepancies between the floor plans,roof plans and elevations; need more delineation on the building elevations to see the details of the building; consider a varied plate height to reduce the mass of the second floor and be more consistent with an authentic English Tudor style; and while the front and rear elevations work well, the side elevations are too massive. The applicant has been working with a design review consultant and has submitted revised plans date stamped February 13, 2006. The design review consultant's recommendation is attached. February 27, 2006 Planning Commission Meeting: On February 27, 2006, the Planning Commission considered a revised proposal for this project as recommended by the design review consultant(refer to attached 2/27/06 Planning Commission minutes). At the conclusion of the hearing, the Planning Commission, by a 7-0 voice vote, continued the hearing on this item and asked the applicant to address the following issues. The item was set to return on the consent calendar when the requested changes had been made and plan checked. • Details of the second floor dormer with the window on the right elevation needs to be refined,the layout of the trim boards should be consistent with the other dormers; • Consider shifting the detached garage to the right by T-0",this would help increase the useable rear yard space; • Suggest using London Plane trees rather than English Plain trees at the front, this species would be a better compliment to the Tudor style; • The garage vocabulary with the arched roof over the round top vent does not match the vocabulary of the house, roof element and vent should be eliminated; • Skylights need to be tinted; • Like the leaded glass window above the dining room window,would be nice for the dining room window to be leaded glass,will leave up to designer and property owners to decide if it can be incorporated into the design; • Applicant needs to address the concerns noted with the driveway width and slope; there appears to be a discrepancy on the plans regarding the driveway width, 10'-6"between house and property line shown on the site plan, 10'-0" shown on building elevations; clarify driveway location, width and slope, there appears to be 18 inches between the edge of the driveway and the side property line, should increase driveway width by 6 inches towards the property line to make it easier and safer for the residents to use. Design Review and Special Permits for Height and Declining Height Envelope 1416 Balboa Avenue Current Proposed Revisions- Plans date stamped March 13, 2006: The applicant has submitted revised sheets A-1, Site Plan, A-2, landscape plan, A-6, side elevations, and A-8, garage plan and elevations,with revisions to address the above concerns. The following revisions were made to these plans: • Details of second floor dormer have been refined (refer to Sheet A-6, side elevation); • Detached garage shifted so that the right side setback is now 2'rather than 4' (refer to Sheet A-1, site plan); • Trees called out as London Plane trees (refer to Sheet A-2, landscape plan); • Dormer window removed from garage on front elevation (refer to Sheet A-8, garage plan and elevations); • Driveway width clarified to be 10', with no planter strip (refer to Sheet A-1, Site Plan).; The requirement for tinted skylights has been added as a condition of approval. The applicant and property owner decided not to add another leaded glass window on the front elevation at the dining room. Summary: The proposal is to demolish the existing one-story single family dwelling and construct a new two-story single family dwelling with a detached garage at 1416 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 (adjusted to include March 2006 proposed revisions). The proposed house will have a total floor area of 3,692 SF(0.527 FAR),where the maximum floor area allowed is 3,740 SF(0.53 FAR). The proposal is 48 SF under the maximum floor area allowed on this lot. The lot coverage will be reduced with this proposal because the existing house has a deck over 30 inches above grade at the rear which will be removed. Since the deck is counted toward the lot coverage the current total is 40.8%(2,859 SF). With the new proposal, the proposed lot coverage will be 36.2% (2,536 SF) where 40% (2,800 SF) is the maximum allowed. As proposed 49 SF on the left side of the house encroaches into the declining height envelope and will require a special permit. The proposed height is 33'-2" where 30' is the maximum height allowed without a special permit, therefore the proposal will also require a special permit for height. There will be two covered parking spaces provided for this five-bedroom house in the detached garage(21'-6"x 2 F- 6") located at the rear of the lot. One uncovered space(9'x 20') is provided in the driveway. The applicant is requesting the following: • Design review for a new two-story single family dwelling; • Special permit for height(33'-2"proposed where 30'is the maximum height allowed without a special permit); and • Special permit for declining height envelope(2'-6"x 19'-6"(49 SF)encroachment into declining height envelope on the left side.). Lot Area: 7,000 SF Existing Revised Proposal Previous Proposal 1 Allowed/Required Plans of 3/13/06 Plans of 2/13/06 SETBACKS Front(1st flr): 1658" 20'-6" 15' (20'-7" block avg) (2nd flr): N/A No Change 31'-10" 20' -----.._._..... --..__......_._..--...--.....__... ......__...._._..._.—_...................----- -- --.............- -.....----- ._...-- -----..........._.._...._--------....------ ---------.._.._. Side (left): 5' 4' 4' No Change (right): _ 10' g ! 10' 4' Rear(1st flr): 75' 50' 15' No Change (2nd flr): N/A 53'-6" } 20' ...............__....__....._......_......._......- ---....__._... ------- - ---............. No...Change._ _......_......._....-- -...._._......._...._---------... Lot Coverage: 2,859 SF 2536 SF i 2,800 SF 40.8% 36.2% 40% FAR: 2,859 SF 3692 SF 3,740 SF 0.30 FAR No Change 0.527 FAR 0.53 FAR -2- Design Review and Special Permits for Height and Declining Height Envelope 1416 Balboa Avenue Existing Revised Proposal Previous Proposal Allowed/Required Plans of 3/13/06 i Plans of 2/13/06 #of bedrooms: N/A 5 5 Parking: 2 covered 2 covered (20'x 20 (20'x 20') N/A No Change I uncovered I uncovered (9'x 20') (9'x 20') Height: N/A E 331-21f 331-2111 30' ........................... DHEnvelope: N/A Special Permit Special Permit Required2 Required See code Special Permit for height (33'-2" proposed where 30'is the maximum height allowed without a special permit). 2 Special Permit for declining height envelope on left side (49 SF, 2'-6" x 19'-6" =49 SF), along the left side extends beyond the declining height envelope). Staff Comments: See attached. An arborist report has been provided for the trees located at the rear of the subject property. The report recommends removal of one tree only,the pine tree located at the rear of the proposed garage. The City Arborist concurs with the report;however,a tree removal pen-nit is still required. A tree removal permit was issued by the Parks Department on August 24,2005. Tree protection measures are included for all of the other trees on this site. Please see attached report and comments. Planning staff would note that on the revised plans date stamped February 13,2006, the applicant did not correctly depict the declining height envelope or residence height. The plans have been revised by hand to properly document the average top of curb measurement for height as well as the point of departure for the declining height envelope so that the encroachment into the declining height envelope can be accurately documented. This is necessary for the issuance of the building permit where the construction drawings must match the plans approved by the Planning Commission. Planning staff would also note that a letter has been submitted from a former tenant residing at 1416 Balboa regarding the existing driveway conditions(see attached letter from Paul and Karen Lynch date stamped March 20,2006). The letter describes the difficulty of using the existing driveway. It appears that there is a hedge along the right side property line that narrows the effective width of the driveway. A condition of approval has been added which requires that the hedge be removed and that only groundcover may be planted along the right side property line. August 8,2005 Design Review Study Meeting: At the August 8,2005,design review study meeting the Planning Commission voted to send this project to a design review consultant. The Planning Commission identified the following concerns with the project: • Half-timber on sides of house is too much,building looks a bit overdone,reduce the amount of half-timber boards along the sides of the house; • Have trouble following the plans, floor plans, building elevations and roof plan do not agree with each other,building elevations do not portray what is shown on the floor plans,elements seem to be missing on the plans,it appears that what is drawn cannot be built; go through all of the plans so that they coordinate with each other; • Clarify plate heights (finished floor to top of plate) on first and second floors, provide dimensions on building elevations; and • There appears to be errors and omissions on the landscape plan, please carefully review landscape plan and clarify; automatic irrigation should be incorporated. -3- Design Review and Special Permits for Height and Declining Height Envelope 1416 Balboa Avenue Analysis and Recommendation by Design Reviewer(dated February 15,2006): The design reviewer met with the applicant to discuss the Planning Commission's additional concerns with the project. Ina letter dated February 15, 2006,the reviewer notes that through a series of meetings and faxes,he has reviewed numerous changes and revised sets of plans from September 2005,to the present. These comments reflect the plans date stamped February 13,2006. The design reviewer comments that the house massing and scale sits back from the street and is broken up by dormers and varied roof shapes and elevation treatment. He notes that the style is compatible with the surrounding area and the new design with a detached garage is compatible with the rear parking pattern that exists throughout the neighborhood. The design reviewer notes that through a series of resubmittals,the revised plans have been corrected and clarified to communicate the design much better than the original confusing plans. Many design changes have happened over a period of months to respond the comments; the design has been improved and made more consistent. The massing and bulk of the structure is in keeping with other new structures in the neighborhood and is broken up with gables and off-sets. The steep English style roof is pleasing and has been improved with less flat roof and a more authentic look. Intricate and interesting half timber detailing on the elevations adds to the authentic look and the windows and detailing have been improved. The elevations are now more consistent and nicely detailed on all sides. In addition,he notes that the roof lines have been improved and corrected,windows and trims clarified,and the half- timbering has been reduced somewhat on the sides. The roof shape,previously truncated and sliced off at 6 inches below the maximum height in an attempt to avoid applying for a special permit for height have been changed. The new roof is higher by three feet,but only at the peak,and a height exception is now required. He believes this is a real improvement over previous "sliced-off' design and he fully supports the special permit allowing slightly greater height above the 30'maximum. (Planning staff would note that the declining height envelope exception on the second floor is virtually the same so was not affected by increasing the height of the roof.) In summary, the designer reviewer notes that the designer has made many changes to respond to comment of the Commission and suggestions of the design review consultant. The design and the drawing have been corrected and improved dramatically since the first submittal many months ago. He recommends approval of the resubmitted design and support for the special permit for height. Design Review Criteria:The criteria for design review as established in Ordinance No. 1591 adopted by the Council on April 20, 1998 are outlined as follows: 1. Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing character of the neighborhood; 2. Respect for the parking and garage patterns in the neighborhood; 3. Architectural style and mass and bulk of structure; 4. Interface of the proposed structure with the structures on adjacent properties; and 5. Landscaping and its proportion to mass and bulk of structural components. Findings: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's February 27, 2006, action meeting,that the with the suggested changes,the proposed new two-story house with detached garage is well- designed and will improve the character of the block and enhance the design of the community,the project is found to be compatible with the requirements of the City's five design review guidelines. Findings for a Special Permit: In order to grant a special permit for building height and declining height envelope, the Planning Commission must find that the following conditions exist on the property(Code Section 25.51.020 a-d): -4- Design Review and Special Permits for Height and Declining Height Envelope 1416 Balboa Avenue (a) The blend of mass, scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood; (b) The variety of roof line, facade, exterior finish materials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure, street and neighborhood; (c) The proposed project is consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city; and (d) Removal of any trees located within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements, and the mitigation for the removal that is proposed is appropriate. Special Permit Findings for Building Height:Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commission's February 27,2006,public meeting,that the proposed 33'-2"roof height enhances the Tudor style of the building,the plate heights have been reduced to reduce the project's mass and bulk,and that the area exceeding 30'-0" in height measures 217 SF in area at the center of the roof, the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above. Special Permit Findings for Declining Height Envelope: Based on the findings stated in the attached minutes of the Planning Commissions February 27, 2006 action meeting, that only 49 SF (2'-6" x 19'-6" extends beyond the declining height envelope second story setback on the left side of the proposed structure,and the articulation provided by the encroachment enhances the design of the building,the project is found to be compatible with the special permit criteria listed above. Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission should hold a public hearing. Affirmative action should be by resolution and include findings made for design review and special permits, and the reasons for any action should be clearly stated. At the public hearing the following conditions should be considered: 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2006, sheets A-1,A-2,A-6 and A-8, and date stamped February 13,2006, sheets A-3,A-4,A-5,A-7 and T-1; with wood windows with simulated true divided lites, including an encroachment into the left side declining height envelope of 2'-6" x 19'-6" (49 SF) and a building height of 33'-2" as measured from the average top of curb elevation(24.07'), and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the tree protection measures noted in the July 28, 2005 arborist report by Mayne Tree Expert Company shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist prior to commencing demolition or construction on the subject property; 3. that all of the proposed skylights shall be tinted; 4. that the existing hedge along the driveway side property line shall be removed;and planting along the property line edge between the driveway and the house shall be limited to ground cover. 5. 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; 6. 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 -5- Design Review and Special Permits for Height and Declining Height Envelope 1416 Balboa Avenue 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 ofperjury;certifications shall be submitted 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; all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; 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 prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge (33'-2"as measured from the average top of curb elevation of+24.07')and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 10. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. 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; 14. that the conditions of the City Arborist,City Engineer,Recycling Specialist,Chief Building Official,NPDES Coordinator and Fire Marshal's August 2, 2005 memos shall be met; 15. 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; 16. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 17. 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. Maureen Brooks Senior Planner c: Catherine Anderson, applicant and designer -6- LYNCH 2845 CANYON ROAD,BURLINGAME,CA 94010 March 20,2006 RECEIVED Planning Commission MAR 2 0 2006 Burlingame City Hall 501 Primrose Road INGAME Burlingame,CA 94010 CITY of PLANNING DEP`r. PLANNING DEPT. RE:1416 Balboa Avenue—Parking VIA Email Dear Planning Commission, My husband Paul and I rented 1416 Balboa Avenue from April 22,2005—December 31,2005 while we underwent construction on our home. I am writing this letter to address the concerns of the off-street parking and driveway conditions at this residence. While the residence boasts a two car garage,during our tenancy,we were unable to park our vehicles in the garage.The driveway was too narrow for my company car(2001 Ford Taurus),and for our SUV (1998 Chevrolet Tahoe)as the side mirrors hit the side of the house and the adjoining hedge on the south side of the property. The width of each vehicle,from side mirror to side mirror on each vehicle is as follows:1998 Chevy Tahoe—7 It,9 inches,2001 Ford Taurus:6 ft,8 inches,and 2003 Chevy Silverado —7 ft,9 inches;I believe the width of the driveway is 10 feet. I did manage to pull the SUV completely into the driveway once,but I had to pull both side mirrors in toward the vehicle so that I could clear the retaining wall,the house and hedge.It was extremely difficult to back out of the driveway as I was unable to use the side mirrors to guide me and had to rely on the rearview mirror. My husband was able to pull his company truck(2003 Chevrolet Silverado)into the driveway,but again, had to pull in both side mirrors completely and rely solely on the rearview mirror as well. Parking in the driveway was extremely tricky, so we parked two(2)cars directly in front of the house, and Paul's company truck in the driveway(sloped portion). When the driveway gate was closed,there was not enough room to open the vehicle doors so that one could get out of the vehicle and open the gate. The overflow of parking from the apartment buildings located on EI Camino Real continuously spilled onto the 1400 block of Balboa. Many cars parked on the lip of the driveway,which made pulling out of the driveway more difficult due to maneuvering around these parked vehicles,as well as limited visibility of cars traveling north and south along Balboa Avenue.On numerous occasions there was not enough street parking and I would have to pull(partially)into the driveway—the car blocking park of the sidewalk as the car doors on both the Taurus and Tahoe could not be opened without hitting the retaining wall (driver's side)and exit from the passenger side was impossible. On the occasions where I pulled in so the car was off the driveway,I would have to climb up onto the retaining wall. Both cars have dent damage on the driver's side door from opening against the retaining wall. Balboa Avenue is a lovely street,but it is too narrow,and there is a high volume of cars that use it as an alternative to EI Camino Real. We were the victims of a hit-and-run on October 10,2005 when another vehicle came too close to our parked vehicle and ripped the driver's side view mirror off. I feel the planning commission needs to take a good look at the current driveway situation at 1416 Balboa and determine the best solution to ensure that the driveway in the proposed new construction will be put to good use. Thank you, Paul and Karen Lynch RECEIVED { r MAR 1 3 2006 650 . s- p` LO MA' March 13, 2006 CIN OF BURUNGAME PLANNING DEPT. VIERDE PALO ALTO Maureen Brooks CA CACity of Burlingame Planning Division 501 Primrose Road P: Burlingame, CA 65o 424 8570 F: Dear Maureen, 650 424 The following are corrections on action items addressed in the City Council 1901 Meeting Monday, March 1 , 2006. e-mail: grounclwk 1 . Driveway width clarification; See A-1 , A-5 @aol.com 2. Driveway material and landscape tree alternate; See A-2 3. Exterior wood treatment at 2"d floor gable roof at Bath; See A- 6 4. Removal of dormer window on garage elevation; See A-8 5. Garage location moved to right setback by 2' -0": See A-1 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2005 CA Anderson noted that the applicant sells a wide variety of goods that can be advertised in this space,such as the Wall Street Journal, and could meet with the Planning Department to discuss opportunities. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1416 BALBOA AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE(CATHERINE ANDERSON,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CLEMENT & EVA HUNG, PROPERTY OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Catherine Anderson, designer, 650 Loma Verde Avenue, Palo Alto, was available to answer questions. Commissioners noted that the proposed design is charming and heading in the right direction,like the half-timbered look;special permits for building height and declining height envelope are acceptable because this is a sloping lot and it allows the design to be enhanced. Commissioners made the following comments: • Half-timber on sides of house is too much, building looks a bit overdone, reduce the amount of half- timber boards along the sides of the house; • Have trouble following the plans, floor plans,building elevations and roof plan do not agree with each other,building elevations do not portray what is shown on the floor plans,elements seem to be missing on the plans, it appears that what is drawn cannot be built; go through all of the plans so that they coordinate with each other; • Clarify plate heights (finished floor to top of plate) on first and second floors, provide dimensions on building elevations; and • There appears to be errors and omissions on the landscape plan,please carefully review landscape plan and clarify; automatic irrigation should be incorporated. Commission noted that this project is headed in the right direction,but feel this project is a good candidate for a design review consultant to help with the inconsistencies and specifics of the project. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C.Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with direction and comment provided. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 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. There are no consent calendar items. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 3. 1416 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE(CATHERINE ANDERSON,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CLEMENT & EVA HUNG PROPERTY OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report February 27, 2006, with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Catherine Anderson,designer,650 Loma Verde Avenue,Palo Alto, was available to answer questions. Commission noted that this is a much improved project, the design review process worked well for this project; want to make sure that the termination at the top of the roof where the roof ridge meets the flat portion of the roof does not contain a curb,need a ridge shingle along the edge of the flat roof. Commission asked why the detached garage was setback 4'-0" from the rear and side property lines; designer noted that the garage was set back from the rear property line in order to protect existing trees and their root systems. Commission noted that the proposed English Plain trees proposed at the front of the property are too close together,in addition the landscape plans are difficult to understand,the flagstone and concrete is too busy,what is happening with the paving at the front?The designer commented that the English Plain tree is similar to a Sycamore,if manicured and controlled well it can be a nice small shade tree in keeping with the Tudor style,have seen this species in several gardens spaced 6 to 10 feet apart. Commission noted that this style typically generates a stoop at the front of the house and looses the porch element,the design guidelines encourage porches in the design,this design makes the house inward looking, style does not speak to the street with a small porch,however am not requiring the porch to be revised with this project. Commission asked the designer to clarify the type of window proposed; designer noted that simulated true divided light wood windows with metal cladding on the exterior will be used. Commission asked the designer to clarify the vent on the front elevation;designer noted that the vent will be metal with a wood lentil above and stone below, the buildings' exterior will be stucco with stone showing through. Ignac and Edith Sperman, 1417 Balboa Avenue;Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue and with a letter submitted from John and Anne Fallon, 1412 Balboa Avenue; noted the following concerns with the project: the existing driveway is narrow and steep,will the new driveway be the same size and slope,current residents don't use the driveway because it is so narrow and steep, as a result cars are parked on the street, current residents have three big vehicles, two of their cars are parked in the street, concern is that if the proposed driveway is the same width and slope it will not get used, street is narrow and essentially a one-way street, parking on Balboa Avenue is a problem,; concerned with the height of the building, 32'-2" previously proposed, now 33'-2" is proposed, house got taller; this is a large house and does not fit into the neighborhood,no exceptions to building height or declining height envelope should be granted, submitted photographs of the existing site, prepared a model of the original and revised designs, the roofline is 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 complicated and problematic; concerned with having a flat roof on a Tudor style house,the September 26, 2005,Planning Commission Minutes note that the Commission was concerned with the amount of flat roof on this project,don't see significant changes made to the flat roof,the propose house will be 3'taller than the house on the right and T taller than the house on the left,concerned with the mass and bulk of the building; concerned with the two tall black acacia trees at the rear of the lot,these trees shed a lot and cause problems with clogging gutters and drainage, without gutters working property water will drain to the neighbors, proposed house will be 4'from the T tall fence,will be hard to clean gutters;plans say wood windows will be used, but designer noted that metal clad windows are proposed,would like to see wood windows used; would like to see story poles installed to show the envelope of the building; do not agree with the design review analysis,the house is more attractive now,however it does not belong on this small lot;the fabric of this block has changed significantly because of several construction projects,the new house recently built at 1453 Balboa Avenue is too big, during the review of that project the Commission noted that the neighbors would have to see this house for the rest of their lives so it should be better integrated into the neighborhood; this project should be sent back to the design review consultant or deny it without prejudice because of the site conditions. Design noted that the driveway width and slope is approximately the same as existing,however the driveway widens towards the rear of the lot because the house steps back,driveway will be 10'-6" in width and wide enough to use, will be able to park three cars on the property. Commission noted that it appears that the current residents do not find the driveway convenient to use because it is steep, a wider driveway will encourage use. Commission asked how the flat roof will be drained;designer noted that the details have not yet been worked out, however the flat roof will have a slight pitch so that water is directed to a drain at the rear. Commission noted that the flat roof could have been avoided by reducing the pitch,the change in pitch would not be that visible, flat roof design will be more costly to build and may cause the roof to leak; designer noted that she came up with several roof designs,including a reduced pitch,but the design review consultant recommended against it because a reduced pitch would not be as consistent with the Tudor style. Clement Hung, property owner, noted that he heard the neighbors concerns with the height, asked the designer to reduce the overall building height to 30',but design review consultant recommended against it, based on his recommendation the height was increased. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. C.Deal noted that the project has come a long way,the design review process worked well for this project, special permit for height is appropriate because this property is located at the crest of the block,actual house is not over 30'tall as measured from adjacent grade,there are valid findings for the special permit because of the architectural style of the house, do not need to see story poles for this house because there are no view blockage issues,and for these reasons moved to approve the application,by resolution with conditions. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on the motion: still concerned about the landscaping, landscape plan is confusing, proposed landscaping does not do the best job to screen the new house, would like to see project continued to have noted changes incorporated and a revised landscape plan. Maker of the motion and second agreed to continue the project as along as there are no new issues raised. C.Deal made a motion to continue this item on the consent calendar to a time when the following revisions have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes February 27, 2006 ■ details of the second floor dormer with the window on the right elevation needs to be refined, the layout of the trim boards should be consistent with the other dormers; ■ consider shifting the detached garage to the right by T-0",this would help increase the useable rear yard space; ■ suggest using London Plane trees rather than English Plain trees at the front,this species would be a better compliment to the Tudor style; ■ the garage vocabulary with the arched roof over the round top vent does not match the vocabulary of the house, roof element and vent should be eliminated; ■ skylights need to be tinted; ■ like the leaded glass window above the dining room window, would be nice for the dining room window to be leaded glass, will leave up to designer and property owners to decide if it can be incorporated into the design; ■ applicant needs to address the concerns noted with the driveway width and slope;there appears to be a discrepancy on the plans regarding the driveway width, 10'-6" between house and property line shown on the site plan, 10'-0" shown on building elevations; clarify driveway location, width and slope, there appears to be 18 inches between the edge of the driveway and the side property line, should increase driveway width by 6 inches towards the property line to make it easier and safer for the residents to use. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item on the consent calendar to a time when the revisions as directed have been made and plan checked and there is space on the agenda. The motion passed on a 7-0 voice vote. The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 8:10 p.m. 4. 1329 DE SOTO AV\E,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION F DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY PROJECT FOR A NEW S GLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GAROSNAN, APPLICANT AND P OPERTY OWNER; AND MARK ROBERTSON DESOTICED PROJECT PLANNER: RICA STROHMEIER C it Auran and C. Osterling recused mselves from this item because the ive within 500 feet of the prop y. They stepped down from the da and left the chambers. Referenc staff report February 27,2006,with at t hments. Plr Hurin presented the rep ,reviewed criteria and staff co ments. Fifteen conditions were sugge ed for consideration. Vice-chair Bro gg opened the public hearing. The licant was not present to answer estions. Commission note at photographs indicate that the design o the porch columns were changed from ed columns(originally a roved)to square columns,however the vised plans do not reflect this chang . In addition, landscaping at e front of the lot is also being revised to ' clude more turf,but this change is n noted in the application. N d further clarification from the applican egarding several issues. There were no further comments and the blic hearing was closed. Vice-chair Brownrigg noted that be use further clarification is needed from t applicant,he made a motion to move this item to the end of the ag da to follow Item #10 when the appli t might be present. The motion was seconded by C. Cauchi. Comment on the motion: if this project is continued,do not want to see it bump anothe,application off the next agenda. 5 1412 Balboa Ave. Burlingame Calif 94010 2-27-2006 City of Burlingame, Planning Department 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Calif.94010 Dear Planning Commission, Ref. Site: 1416 Balboa Avenue Anne and I have lived at 1412 Balboa Ave for the past 36 years.We are on the south side of the existing single story house at 1416 Balboa. Our request of the Planning Commission is that no variances of overall height and declining height envelope be allowed for the new dwelling at1416 Balboa Ave. This monster house belongs on a Golf course with plenty of space around it. It does not fit in on Balboa Avenue. Please deliver a copy of this letter to each Planning Commissioner prior to the Planning Meeting on Monday,2-27-2006. Sincerely, John G.Fallon Anne M.Fallon WINGES 1 ARCHITECTS MEMO: Date: 2-15-2006 Planning Commission City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: 1416 Balboa Ave. — Hung Residence I have visited the site, the street and the surrounding neighborhood and reviewed the initial plans. I have had meetings, faxes and have reviewed numerous changes and revised sets of plans from Sept 2005 to the present. The following comments pertain to the latest revised set stamped Feb. 13, 2006. 1 Compatibility of the architectural style with that of the existing neighborhood: • The neighborhood and street are a collection of eclectic styles. • The house massing and scale sits back from street and is broken up by dormers and varied roof shapes and elevation treatment. • This new house will replace the current unattractive conditions and will improve the neighborhood appearance and quality. • The style is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. 2 Respect the Parking and Garage Patterns in the Neighborhood: • The existing attached garage is being replaced with a new 2 car free standing garage at the rear of the property. The parking pattern in this neighborhood is a mix of front and rear garages. • The new design is compatible with the rear parking pattern that exists throughout the neighborhood. 3 Architectural Style Mass and Bulk of the Structure and Internal Consistency of the Design. • Through a series of many re-submittals, the revised plans have been corrected, clarified and communicate the design much better than the original confusing plans. Many design changes have happened over a period of months to respond to the comments. The design has been improved and made more consistent. • The massing and bulk of the structure is in keeping with other new structures in the neighborhood. The massing is broken up with gables and off-sets. The steep English style roof design is pleasing and has been improved with less flat roof and a more authentic look. Intricate and interesting half timber detailing on the elevations adds to the design. Windows and detailing have been improved. • The plan is efficient and functional with minimal circulation space and ample rooms. • The elevations are now more consistent and nicely detailed on all sides. • The roof lines have been improved and corrected, windows and trims have been clarified, and the half-timbering has been somewhat reduced on the sides. I believe the amount of half timbering shown is appropriate to the overall design. WINGES ARCHITECTS, INC. 1290 HOWARD AVE. SUITE 311, BURLINGAME, CA 94010 / FAX (650) 343-1291 / inlo@wingesaia.com / TEL:(650) 343-1101 ARCHITECTURE / MASTER PLANNING / INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE / SPACEPLANNING / DESIGN COUNSELING WINGES 2 ARCHITECTS • Roof plan now coordinates with the elevations and drafting has been improved and corrected. • The roof shape, previously truncated and sliced off at 6" below the maximum height limit in attempt to avoid applying for a special height permit, has been changed. The new roof is higher by 2 feet, but only at the peak. I believe this is a real improvement over previous "sliced off" designs and I fully support the special permit allowing slightly greater height above the 30' maximum. 4. Interface of the Proposed Structure with the Adiacent Structures to Each Side: • The main ridges and form of the building run parallel to the long site dimension, allowing for less bulk and height at the sides. • There will be some impacts to the neighboring properties for sun and the change in mass from the existing conditions, due to the higher and larger structure; however the design is within the spirit of the design guidelines. • The building is set back appropriately and highest mass is at the center of the property. 5. Landscaping and Its Proportion to the Mass and Bulk of Structural Components: • Landscaping and site plan have been re-labeled and corrected. • Drafting corrections and clarification of what happens at the entries has been added. • The use of high quality paving materials, steps, and the curving informal front walkways are compatible with the style of the house. • Location of planting and overall site plan design seem well handled and appropriate. Summary: The designer and applicant have made many changes to respond to comments of the Commission and suggestions of the design review. The design and the drawings have been corrected and improved dramatically since the first submittal many months ago. I recommend approval of the re-submitted design and support the special height permit, Jerry L. Winges, AIA Principal WINGES ARCHITECTS, INC. 1290 HOWARD AVE. SUITE 311, BURLINGAME,CA 94010 / FAX'(650) 343-1291/ info@wingesaia.com / TEL:(650) 343-1101 ARCHITECTURE / MASTER PLANNING / INTERIOR ARCHITECTURE / SPACE PLANNING / DESIGN COUNSELING City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005 4. 1416 BALBOA AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW,TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (CATHERINE ANDERSON,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;CLEMENT&EVA HUNG PROPERTY OWNERS)(67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS Reference staff report September 26, 2005, with attachments. Plr Hurin presented the report, reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked staff to clarify the proposed building height,is it 32'-2"or 31'-11"? Staff verified that with the revised plans,the proposed height is 32'-2". There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Catherine Anderson,designer,was available to answer questions. Commission noted that the project has improved,overall design concept has always been good,but that there are several concerns which still need to be addressed. Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue,Mrs. Sperman, 1417 Balboa Avenue and Mrs.Leri,2701 Hillside Drive, expressed concerns with the project;there are a number of neighbors here tonight that are concerned with the proposed height of the building, read and submitted letter expressing concerns from Donna Cerna, 1457 Balboa Avenue,concerned about new development changing the face of Burlingame,urge Commission not to approve special permit for height, proposed house is located on the highest point of Balboa Avenue, discussed the project with a friend who is a contractor and felt that the house will be massive, concerned with drainage from the increase in amount of roof area,most of the flat roof is over a hallway and laundry room, don't think a 12'-0" high ceiling is needed above these areas, roof looks like it was chopped off, proposed house is three times as large as the existing house;concerned that many new houses being built are not owner occupied but rather proposed by developers,would like to see story poles installed showing the envelope of the building,this is a modest block,the street is narrow and therefore the houses appear closer to each other,this street is a Fire Department emergency route but is rarely used because the street is so narrow; would like to see the second floor pushed further back despite its'20'front setback,complicated roof pattern and rolling roof at front of house will be in your face,could move bulk of second floor towards the rear since there is more open space at the rear of the lot;house is so tall and will be close to side property line there is not enough room to use a ladder to clean gutters; look at all other Tudor style houses in the neighborhood and none of them had this much roof area; live across the street from this house, this block has changed dramatically with all of the recent construction, feel like we have been living on a construction site for the last 2-3 years, houses in Burlingame are getting bigger and taller, new houses are not compatible with the existing houses; developers are building big massive houses, living in a building bonanza, seems to be construction on every block in the city, houses being built are too big for the lots, there should be a moratorium on building new houses to stop and evaluate what is going on,it is getting out of hand;the 1400 block of Balboa has a potential of four houses to be built at the same time, this should be taken into consideration; talked to the property owners about the project, would not object to the project if no exceptions to the code were requested. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. Commission noted the following items to be addressed: • concerned about the amount of flat roof on the building,there is something wrong when there are so many flat roofs on a Tudor style; • there are still discrepancies between the floor plans, for example at staircase with windows, check roof plans and building elevations,need to review all plans again to make sure all inconsistencies are corrected; 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2005 shading technique on building elevations hides the details in the design, there is a lack of information, can't see the details on the exterior of the building, need more delineation; • concerned with having a consistent plate height in an English Tudor style, makes the second floor appear more massive, should consider varying the plate height for a more authentic look; . height,mass and bulk can be diminished by reducing some plate heights; and front and rear elevations work well,but side elevations are too massive. Commission comment: noted that the same set of rules apply to a property owner or developer, cannot differentiate between the two; we have special permits for building height for situations where the lot slopes upward,it is appropriate in this case,the architectural style of the house could be negatively impacted if this house were to be restricted to 30'in height. C.Deal made a motion to send this project back to a design review consultant with direction provided. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this project to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a 5-0-2(Cers.Brownrigg and Osterling absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:15 p.m. C.Vistica thanked the neighborhood residents for coming to the public hearing and for being involved in the process. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 5. 1461 BE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — PLICATION FOR DESIGN IEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR EIGHT AND FOR AN ATTA ED GARAGE FORA NEW,T -STORYSINGLE FAMILY DWELL (JERRY WINGES,APPLIC T AND ARCHITECT,MARK KA HOSKING, PROPERTY OWNER 65 NOTICED PROJECT P R: MAUREEN BROOK P Brooks briefly presented th roject description. There we no questions of staff. Chair uran opened the public comme . Mark Hosking,property o er,and Jerry Winges,architect, ere available answer questions, property o er noted that he has been a urlingame resident since 19 , would like t build a new house and maintai arge rear yard for his childr would also like to preserve trees on site, a etached garage would reduce a rear yard space and wou eliminate several trees. Architect provide handout with neighborhood in rmation, summarized how project complies with the five aspects of the sidential design guidelines, fe design is compatible with t neighborhood and fits in well, footprint is aller than other houses on th lock, proposing smaller fo rint to preserve eenery on site,giving up 0 SF with this project because etached garage is not propo d,using steep ofs with dormers to get more ' t and air,this is an eclectic n ' borhoocl,using varying pl heights to ke the scale and mass down,usi true divided light windows t ughout;requesting a specia ermit to prese e the steep roof design,feel t t the proposed landscape desi enhances the property,the r yard landsca ' g was designed around the isting oak tree; property own would like to have an atta ed garage,att ed garage will have two sep to carriage style wooden door ,each door is slightly different in style and are fset by 3'-6", plate height at a garage is brought down to duce impact of the attached garage, left side f house is set back further t educe impact on that neighbo driveway on the adjacent property to the righ rovides separation between a houses,noted that there is a neighborhood pattern of 8 foot separation betw n houses. 5 ` -r M RECEIVED COMMUNICATION I WCEIY, ,D AFTER PR£�90TIROP 1412 Balboa Ave. Z)tTlF1SEP 2 2 2005 Burlingame CITY OF BURLINGAME Calif 94010 PLANNING DEPT. September 19 2005 City of Burlingame, Planning Department 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, Calif. 94010 Dear Planning Commission, Ref. Site: 1416 Balboa Avenue Anne and I have lived at 1412 Balboa Ave for the past 36 years. We are on the south side of the existing single story house at 1416 Balboa. We enjoy the evening sun, which shines over the roof the present single story house. 1. Our request of the Planning Commission is that no variances of overall height and declining height design be allowed for the new dwelling at1416 Balboa Ave. 2. That when work begins on the new house the Construction Company is aware that neighbors have to be able to access their driveways. In the past during construction in the area we have often been unable to get out our driveway or park in front of our residence. Please deliver a copy of this letter to each Planning Commissioner prior to the Planning Meeting on Monday, September 26, 2005. Sincerely, John G. Fallon Anne M. Fallon -------- �----------------- - September 26, 2005 Planning Commission City of Burlingame City Hall 501 Primrose Burlingame, CA 94010 Re: Meeting of September 26,2005 -MONSTER Homes Dear Planning Commission: I had planned on being here this evening but woke up ill. I am truly concerned about the changing face of the Burlingame I have lived in all my life. I am in favor of improvement and realize change is inevitable, but I strongly feel that the Commission has a responsibility to see that it is-done properly and tastefully. If the new homes that are being proposed were scaled back somewhat-not so high, etc., they would not seem so super-sized and out of place in our existing neighborhoods. If all the new homes are being build-totally within the codes -then let's get going and change the codes before the charm of Burlingame is completely gone. Thank you. Respectfully, Donna Cema 1457 Balboa Avenue Burlingame,.CA 94010 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Minutes August 8, 2005 IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 9. 1416 BALBOA AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,SPECIAL PERMIT FOR BUILDING HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE(CATHERINE ANDERSON,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; CLEMENT & EVA HUNG, PROPERTY OWNERS) (67 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr Hurin briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Catherine Anderson, designer, 650 Loma Verde Avenue, Palo Alto,was available to answer questions. Commissioners noted that the proposed design is charming and heading in the right direction,like the half-timbered look;special permits for building height and declining height envelope are acceptable because this is a sloping lot and it allows the design to be enhanced. Commissioners made the following comments: • Half-timber on sides of house is too much, building looks a bit overdone, reduce the amount of half- timber boards along the sides of the house; • Have trouble following the plans, floor plans,building elevations and roof plan do not agree with each other,building elevations do not portray what is shown on the floor plans,elements seem to be missing on the plans, it appears that what is drawn cannot be built; go through all of the plans so that they coordinate with each other; • Clarify plate heights (finished floor to top of plate) on first and second floors, provide dimensions on building elevations; and • There appears to be errors and omissions on the landscape plan,please carefully review landscape plan and clarify; automatic irrigation should be incorporated. Commission noted that this project is headed in the right direction,but feel this project is a good candidate for a design review consultant to help with the inconsistencies and specifics of the project. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. C.Deal made a motion to send this project to a design reviewer with the comments made. This motion was seconded by C. Keighran. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to refer this item to a design review consultant with direction and comment provided. The motion passed on a voice vote 5-0-2 (Cers. Brownrigg and Vistica absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 9:05 p.m. 10 07/29/05 FRI 16:45 FAX 6505934143 MAYNE TREE EXPERTS CO 002 lime dwh6a- Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc. ES rA.F USHTD 1931 STATE CONTRAUFOR"S LICENSE NO.276793 U.nDUAI-E 1:ORESTER CFRTIFIEDARDORISTS PEST CONTROL ADVISORS AND OPERATORS RICHARD L.III.NTINGTON 535 BRAGATO ROAD,STE.A PRESIDENT July 28, 2005 SAN CAR1,05,CA 94070-6228 KEVIN R.KIEL:rY TELEPHONE; (650)593.4400 OPERATIONS MA NAOER FACSIMILE: (650)593-4443 EMAIL: info@inaynctrcc.com Chi'Joa Hung I lands Construction RECEIVED :L449 Montera Avenue Burlingame, CA 94010 AUG - 12005 Re: 1416 Balboa Avenue, Burlingame CITY OF%URLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Dear Mr. Hung: On July 26, 2005, we met at the above referenced site to inspect trees with circum- erenGes of 48 inches and larger. A Removal Permit is required b) remove a Heritage Tree and if it is retained it requires protection. [here are only 4 Heritage Trees at the site (see Site Plan). Tree No's. I. and 3 were not :ouched as they are outside the fence line. However, their diam(lers were estimated. _ach tree was assigned a number which corresponds to the num)er on the site plan. Each tree was given a Condition percent from L to 100,which is a combination of 3eneral tree health and structure. There are remarks to explain the Condition and/or -ecommendations to mitigate problems. Tree Protection is also kiddressed as related to 3roposed construction, Only one Heritage Tree is recommended for removal, No. 5. rr*!e Protection needs to be installed on only one side as all trees are on the perimeter. rnee Number 1, black acacia with a 63 inch estimated circumference: All of the, foliar crown/canopy is on the westerly side. A 50 percent condition rating is assligned to this tree. The comer of the proposed house appears) to be 4 V2 feet away and will impact less than 25 percent of the roots. Install protective fencing 3 feet from the trunk. Minor clearance pruning may be needed. 'iron Number 2, black acacia 51.3 inches in circumference: All of the foliar crown/canopy is on the southerly side. I have assigned a 60 percent condition rating to this tree. The tree will overhang the proposed lawn and barbeque area. Minor impact is expected from landscape installation. Tree protection fencing should stay 5 fect away. 07/29/05 FRI 16:45 FAX 6505934443 MAYNE TREE EXPERTS CO IM003 lianda Construction/Hung 7-29-05,Pg.2 'rrgie Number 3,two-trunked Monterey cypress with an ea.timated circum- r'erence of 94 inches for each bunk: The tree forks at one fryot,with the east trunk depressing utility lines. The tree has been routinely topped for line clearance and it has .I 6D percent condition rating. There are no impacts expected tram the proposed :or sbruction as it will be about 20 feet away. Fence the tree off-.tom construction at 15 Feet, I recommend pruning and clearing wires and installing zi 3/8 inch diameter able between the trunks. 'free Number 4,a Monterey pine 44.5 inches in circumference: This is not a ieiitage Tree,but is included for reference. Trim Number S.a Monterey pine 84.15 inches in circumhrrence: This tree has )eE:n routinely topped for line clearance and now all growth is on the south and west Ades. Limbs are heavy,but pruning back for clearance of the proposed garage would stress the tree. The tree has pine pitch canker which is a slow rr oving disease. I -ecommend removal of this tree. rnx Number 6,a catalpa on the street: Fence off along the sidewalk and curb. Vo construction impacts are expected,but fencing should help reduce trunk impacts To-n trucks and/or equipment entering the lot. In conclusion,I recommend inspection of the Tree Protection Fencing and all excavation ,vithin the ddplines of the Heritage Trees. I do not think any of the Heritage Trees wil x significantly impacted. I think this report is accurate and based on sound 3rt,oricultural principles and practices. Sincerely, p/ ,pGIETY Opq Richard L.Huntington Ceitified Arborist WE#0119A Ce-dfied Forester#1925 C� 1ED AROpP`S� RL+dcr 0 00AM F-KUM h'. I IWO■ City of Burlingame Planning Department SOI Primrose Road P(650) 558-7250 F(650) 696-3790 www.budiggamc.org ■ rr -E APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION WV- W Type of application: Design Review_ Conditional Use Permit Variance Special Permit Other Parcel Number-. ,�Q( Project address: L1 � APPLICANT PROPERTY OWNER Name: �' � - Name:�1 Address: Ca 56 l \ ess;J 2 02 SAY=3t. City/State/Zip: CiryfStateiiZip; G'1 _�,L Phone (w) �� � Phone (wT.� [ �� �--- — (h): (h): 1 ARCHITE ';T-'/DS G R Name: n�aoa,4E Address: G< 1 City/State/Zip Please indicate,with an asterisk Phone (w): the contact person for this 'e (h): 42. - �1 C? JUN 2 3 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT, PROJECT DESCRIPTION: AFFADAVIT/SIGNATURE: I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information givenherein is true and correct to a best of� knowledge and belief. Applicant's signature:_ Date I know about the proposed application and hereby authorize the above applicant to submit this application to the Planning Commi Sion. Property owner's signature: Date: VV Date submitted: PCAPP.FPM City of Burlingame Planning Department 501 Primrose Road P(650)558-7250 F(650)696-3790 www.burlingame.org E SPE ISE _T APPLIG `' The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings as defined by the City's Ordinance(Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the Planning Commission in making the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 1. Explain why the blend of mass,scale and dominant structural characteristics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the existing street and neighborhood. — S(90 4 tfat4�y6X�11-AEC 2. Explain how the variety of roof line,facade, exterior finish mate-rials and elevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing structure,street and neighborhood. (&710V VAJ17' 441 (�;AZWJ725- C,�l`ll tL 7A//4S 4--� C�-G���'--� �� Cil -J 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by the city(GS. 25.57)? #fie WAS -4 es - ACE 7Woj 4 I�Yg LIS 4. Explain ho the removal of a�treeslcated within the footprint of any new structure or addition is necessary and is consistent with the city's reforestation requirements. What 1 mitigation is proposedfor the removal of any trees? Explain why this mitigation is appropriate. 71) W.,e�SS 04" SPECPERM.F 3 bqt4P S C6- Aq of-16 !SJq 9W-VIE�t4 �— `r cmwo'-PAD - � AUCI t NOW (VCjl IY1 c The Planning Commission is required by law to make findings ale by the City's Ordinance(Code Section 25.50). Your answers to the following questions can assist the PlanningCommission in maldng the decision as to whether the findings can be made for your request. Please type or write neatly in ink. Refer to the back of this form for assistance with these questions. 3. Explain why the blend of mass, scale and dominant structural chacraderistics of the new construction or addition are consistent with the existing structure's design and with the exiving street and.neighborhood. - / 2 Explain how the variety of roof ling facade, exterior finish materials andttevations of the proposed new structure or addition are consistent with the existing struabu+, street and neighborhood 3. How will the proposed project be consistent with the residential design guidelines adopted by Me city (CS. 25.57)1 RECEIVED JUL 1 8 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. 4. Exph how the remoml of any trees located wNhin ehefi 0Vrwef any new strudare or -% aeatdWon is xeowary dMd is consistent with dre city's Nq meats. What MW4*&x is proposedfor the removal of any trea? Exptain why dols mitigation is 5MCFERpPDt'oP�� +ERM SF 9'y. R' ^ire 1. Careful evaluation of the existing neighboring properties became the basis for initial design. The neighboring homes contain diversity and charm,consisting primarily of two stories,characterized with borrowed elements of period architecture.Scale was considered with primary(living area)and secondary (entrance)rooflines. Mass was addressed by pulling the house back from the existing property line,and gaining interior volume with high ceilings and lower plate lines.Landscaping enhanced the design with plant material and hardscape consistent with the Architecture;Subtle pathways served to divide the Garden Rooms and soften the structure as a whole. 2. Many of the neighboring homes reflect Tudor Style Architecture.Creating a residence influenced by Jacobean Style seemed appropriate.Earmarked with the use of plaster,stone and decorative wood elements,this home contains visual interest appropriate with existing properties,yet the scale not overwhelming to its neighbors. 3. This residence is composed of an articulation of forms,enhanced with decorative wood and stone elements appropriate with the architecture.The subtle arrangements of windows are important features of this design.An example can be seen in the large picture window in front with smaller leaded glass decorative window above clearly balanced by the windows to the right of the entrance.Rooflines reflect variety yet contain consistent slopes.Overall height blends with neighboring properties.Locating the garage in the rear reduces mass and scale,yet careful consideration was given to develop character in keeping with the main facade. Landscaping contributes to the design by separating yards,softening the structures and enhancing the property with scale, selection and treatment of plants throughout. 4. In the rear yard there are several spindly pine and acacia trimmed beyond cultivation.They are to be replaced with Car olina Laurel,forming a thick tall evergreen hedge giving privacy to both sides.This treatment is used again in boundaries separating neighboring properties.In addition three English Plain trees are used in front and side to separate driveway from front yard. By controlling the growth with seasonal trimming,the trees develop thick trunks and the limbs can be pleached together to create an arbor effect.Finally a decorative Magnolia places in the front lawn adds neighborhood beauty and further privacy to this residence. RECEIVED JUL 1 S 2005 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPT. Project Comments Date: 08/2/05 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ ChiBuilding Official ❑ Fire Marshal rborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and special permits for height and declining height envelope for a new two-story single family dwelling at 1416 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-013-220 Staff Review: rr aG �� `�.�.E ih �/tck o� QfLoOf►�L/ !t �Af �/,6 `�e+ 2 GeYt�.• 1Rxn+ . /1Pa���9c- �-a 2E�au� -��,ccy Trz.E6 w, !/ �� Gita�.�s�v ,Rc.tsravG.y 7��EE .26M.e�,r� i Jed it mdH40-fL -r"06 S 4'ppoAes 6�l� /ZS P�/t �/L�3�� fT �EOoat( Cj?jjy�rE 7/1 Reviewed by`_�O�_ Date: 07 1— Project Comments Date: 06/28/2005 To: ❑ City Engineer X Recycling Specialist ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1416 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-013-220 Staff Review: 07/05/2005 Applicant shall submit for approval a Waste Reduction Plan and recycling deposit for this and all covered projects prior to construction or permitting. Reviewed by: �d Date: -7- 6 — QS Project Comments Date: 06/28/2005 To: 00'* City Engineer 100' Recycling Specialist 001 Chief Building Official 000' Fire Marshal ® City Arborist ✓ NPDES Coordinator 010' City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1416 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1 , APN: 026-013-220 S#aff Review: 07/05/2005 Any construction project in the City, regardless of size, shall comply with the City NPDES permit requirement to prevent stormwater pollution including but not limited tc ensuring that all contractors implement construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) and erosion and sediment control measures during ALL phases of the ccnstruction project (including demolition). Ensure that sufficient amount of erosion and sediment control measures are available on site at all times. The public right of way/easement shall not be used as a construction staging and/or f storage area and shall be free of construction debris at all times. Brochures and literatures on stormwater pollution prevention and BMPs are available for your review at the Planning and Building departments. Distribute to all project proponents. For additional assistance, contact Eva J. at 650/342-3727. f� I Reviewed by: Date: 07/05/05 Project Comments Date: 06/28/2005 To: d City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1416 Balboa Avenue,zoned R-1,APN:026-013-220 Staff Review: 07/05/2005 1. See attached. 2. Sewer backwater protection certification is required. Contact Public Works— Engineering Division at(650)558-7230 for additional information. Reviewed by: V V Date: 7/05/2005 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS 064 -MV—S , Project Name:-5weww =tt .Ph" i Project Address: 0414* A` The following requirements apply to the project I A property boundary survey shall be preformed by a licensed land surveyor. The survey shall show all property lines, property corners, easements, topographical features and utilities. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) .57� Ste, " - imlo D Avv s'`/' -W "Zowtv W%rav 4 rav,16/ or-Vi4l ea Y 2 The site and roof drainage shall be shown on plans and should be made to drain towards the Frontage Street. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 3. The applicant shall submit project grading and drainage plans for approval prior to the issuance of a Building permit. 4 The project site is in a flood zone, the project shall comply with the City's flood zone requirements. 5 A sanitary sewer lateral iM is required for the project in accordance with the City's standards. (Required prior to the building permit issuance.) 6. The project plans shall show the required Bayfront Bike/Pedestrian trail and necessary public access improvements as required by San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission. 7. Sanitary sewer analysis is required for the project. The sewer analysis shall identify the project's impact to the City's sewer system and any sewer pump stations and identify mitigation measures. 8 Submit traffic trip generation analysis for the project. 9. Submit a traffic impact study for the project. The traffic study should identify the project generated impacts and recommend mitigation measures to be adopted by the project to be approved by the City Engineer. 10. The project shall file a parcel map with the Public Works Engineering Division. The parcel map shall show all existing property lines, easements, monuments, and new property and lot lines proposed by the map. Page I of 3 UAprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW COMIVVIBNTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION H. A latest preliminary title report of the subject parcel of land shall be submitted to the Public Works Engineering Division with the parcel map for reviews. 12, Map closure/lot closure calculations shall be submitted with the parcel map. 13 The project shall submit a condominium map to the Engineering Divisions in accordance with the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act. 14 The project shall, at its own cost, design and construct frontage public improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk and other necessary appurtenant work. 15 The project shall,at its own cost,design and construct frontage streetscape improvements including sidewalk,curb,gutters,parking meters and poles, trees,and streetlights in accordance with streetscape master plan. 16 By the preliminary review of plans,it appears that the project may cause adverse impacts during construction to vehicular traffic,pedestrian traffic and public on street parking.The project shall identify these impacts and provide mitigation measure acceptable to the City. 17 The project shall submit hydrologic calculations from a registered civil engineer for the proposed creek enclosure. The hydraulic calculations must show that the proposed creek enclosure doesn't cause any adverse impact to both upstream and downstream properties. The hydrologic calculations shall accompany a site map showing the area of the 100-year flood and existing improvements with proposed improvements. 18 Any work within the drainage area,creek,or creek banks requires a State Department of Fish and Game Permit and Army Corps of Engineers Permits. 19 No construction debris shall be allowed into the creek. 20 V The project shall comply with the City's NPDES permit requirement to prevent storm water pollution. 21 The project does not show the dimensions of existing driveways, re- submit plans with driveway dimensions. Also clarify if the project is proposing to widen the driveway.Any widening of the driveway is subject to City Engineer's approval. 22 The plans do not indicate the slope of the driveway, re-submit plans showing the driveway profile with elevations Page 2 of 3 U.Aprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW COMMENTS.doc PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ENGINEERING DIVISION 23 The back of the driveway/sidewalk approach shall be at least 12" above the flow line of the frontage curb in the street to prevent overflow of storm water from the street into private property. 24. For the takeout service, a garbage receptacle shall be placed in front. The sidewalk fronting the store shall be kept clean 20' from each side of the property. 25. For commercial projects a designated garbage bin space and cleaning area shall be located inside the building. A drain connecting the garbage area to the Sanitary Sewer System is required. Page 3 of 3 UAprivate development\PLANNING REVIEW CONRAENTS.doc Project Comments Date: 06/28/2005 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist ❑ Chief Building Official m Fire Marshal ❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1416 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-013-220 Staff Review: 07/05/2005 Provide a residential fire sprinkler throughout the residence. 1. Provide a minimum 1 inch water meter. 2. Provide double backflow prevention. 3. Drawings submitted to Building Department for review and approval shall clearly indicate Fire Sprinklers shall be installed and shop drawings shall be approved by the Fire Department prior to installation. Reviewed by: � Date:a � ,� Project Comments Date: 06/28/2005 To: ❑ City Engineer ❑ Recycling Specialist X Chief Building Official ❑ Fire Marshal ❑ City Arborist ❑ NPDES Coordinator ❑ City Attorney From: Planning Staff Subject: Request for design review and special permit for height for a new two-story single family dwelling and detached garage at 1416 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1, APN: 026-013-220 Staff Review: 07/05/2005 1) All construction must comply with the 2001 California Building Codes (CBC), the Burlingame Municipal and Zoning Codes, and all other State and Federal requirements. 2) Provide fully dimensioned plans. 3) Provide existing and proposed elevations. 4) Provide a legend that indicates the existing walls, walls to be demolished, and new walls. 5) Obtain a survey of the property lines for any structure within one foot of the property line. 6) Roof eaves must not project within two feet of the property line. 7) Exterior bearing walls less than three feet from the property line must be constructed of one-hour fire-rated construction and no openings are allowed. 8) Rooms that can be used for sleeping purposes must have at least one window or door that complies with the egress requirements. 9) Provide guardrails at all landings. 10)Provide handrails at all stairs where there are more than four risers. 11)Provide lighting at all exterior landings. 12)The fireplace chimney must terminate at least two feet above any roof surface within ten feet. Reviewe �( Date: ��N �� RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review and special permits for height and declining height envelope for a new single family dwelling with a new detached garage at 1416 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1, Clement and Eva Hung, property owner, APN: 026-013-220; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 27, 2006, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW, THEREFORE, it is RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption, per CEQA Article 19. Section: 15303, Class 3 — (a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. 2. Said design review and special permits are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for design review and special permits are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. CHAIRMAN I, , Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting the Planning Commission held on the 27th day of March, 2006, by the following vote: SECRETARY EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and special permits 1416 Balboa Avenue Effective April 6, 2006 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2006, sheets A-1,A-2, A-6 and A-8, and date stamped February 13, 2006, sheets A-3, A-4, A-5, A-7 and T-1; with wood windows with simulated true divided lites, including an encroachment into the left side declining height envelope of 2'-6" x 19'-6" (49 SF) and a building height of 33'-2" as measured from the average top of curb elevation (24.07'), and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the tree protection measures noted in the July 28, 2005 arborist report by Mayne Tree Expert Company shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist prior to commencing demolition or construction on the subject property; 3. that all of the proposed skylights shall be tinted; 4. that the existing hedge along the driveway side property line shall be removed; and planting along the property line edge between the driveway and the house shall be limited to ground cover. 5. 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; 6. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 7. 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; all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; 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 prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge (33'-2" as measured from the average top of curb elevation of +24.07') and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; -2- EXHIBIT "A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and special permits 1416 Balboa Avenue Effective April 6, 2006 10. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. 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; 14. that the conditions of the City Arborist, City Engineer, Recycling Specialist, Chief Building Official,NPDES Coordinator and Fire Marshal's August 2, 2005 memos shall be met; 15. 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; 16. that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 17. 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. -3- *"����-�.a �„ *Ya A� 'y$�gi�� �A�' �,,\ � < �/'•, � � ��Y M1 t y��F" � �",x•tT,.. ViO JL� •,n aii r4 s f� CO' �- a rb Ilk toc IN y e x .�xP; amt` � � �. � � �m ��✓.8 .�.. �a� �, •. a' t i a� + < sZx a� TO ILIA xs b• �a ,a r ._J • �VJ w PA �j. t „ `C m f' t r T } u '?fir i� y# - �� r CITY 6 o CITY OF BURLINGAME K PLANNING DEPARTMENT _ K3AM_E 501 PRIMROSE ROAD 016H16504325 • BURLINGAME,CA 94010 TEL:(650)558-7250 • FAX:(650)696-37 L $00 94d .�. www.burlingame.org Site: 1416 BALBOA AVENUE Mailed From 94010 Application for design review and speci US POSTAGE permits for height and declining height PUBLIC HEARING envelope for a new,two-story single family 1 dwelling and detached garage at: NOTICE 1416 BALBOA AVENUE, zoned R (APN: 026-013-220). " �� , The City of Burlingame Planning Commission '_'� ; } announces the following public.hearing on Monday, March 27,2006 at 7:00 P.M. _ 3 d at , r-<F sd rz� Wr KA in the City Hall Council Chambers locate0. 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, California. I Maned:March v.Zoos 1� _ .. . - I ��I�Inlnllllunllll'Iflllll"In'(7IIII�III�I�IIIII I,'llu' _---. _ . ' (Please refer to other side) CITY OF BURLINGAME A copy of the applicg an r&Wt0fprqjecPij be reviewed prior to the meeting t aft b4 Primrose Road, „ A., Burlingame, C '� If you challe - e t u t', - - , Y ma, be limited to raising only i UU_ UV1 blic hearing, described in h e ritN09five ed to the city IR- at or prior to he pu µc eaLrn&. R If 4 Property ow rs © r ire respon ble or informing AW their tenants bou hr Please call hio nal infor ati , 650 558-7 0 1 Margaret Monr� '' � ' City Planner ICE (Please refer to other side) �a 1416 Balboa Yrt � OCR r 4 x r 4 � rs l �m 4 f � R3 .Z2 cz $w P� e= w r�d 2 tt •L v 4` �"'���*�% � � '`Cay " rt r /� } 3 aY O Y m V7 iw Yea Y ' I `n m tp M a 4�1 r r+ yy N I: I I � #a ► a r � � d "a^, � a� ^r r*tom y , C y ' 4 r ' y dy�t y. �F ggyx� s � x n 4 of ,0 Driveway, 1416 Balboa r l S � se k V. r b ,+�� �ad• r `Y a, � t ,, 'sC t �v r # qi Y�� ,� �.r. ���. : �ii+i i� t off` t � «•.e,` .""^ —. �� gp ir Ad 00 Al an � � � w 4 '� d�'YS y� a.,uakrwrvu : TI: ' st{ W {{ l w a ,r ,r+ r3` 'ate - "'�: ^► 's'./.M /�� � ��_ �' � "•J, iIi f > V a 41 i pc tc , y / l' ;Fie lie "A", A e Y . 3 F 3 c " Put `I,. r�n.�w' ,..,....... ^; �� ✓>"�" ,e.m•!,ae? u .x"*y,1^1„l�1'�' �v`Cp ��t f � „t 9 «s a � f f m S f dt S� F fi "2 S 4 MEAN t m 3r F 3^ pit CIA s - yt imp- MGM A c n mrm �Y �3 raa Yy 4C+ C TOW Y m Y d '45 RESOLUTION APPROVING CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION,DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS RESOLVED,by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame that: WHEREAS, a categorical exemption has been proposed and application has been made for design review and special permits for height and declining height envelope for a new single family dwelling with a new detached garage at 1416 Balboa Avenue, zoned R-1, Clement and Eva Hung,property owner,APN: 026-013-220; WHEREAS, said matters were heard by the Planning Commission of the City of Burlingame on March 27, 2006, at which time it reviewed and considered the staff report and all other written materials and testimony presented at said hearing; NOW,THEREFORE, itis RESOLVED and DETERMINED by this Planning Commission that: 1. On the basis of the Initial Study and the documents submitted and reviewed, and comments received and addressed by this commission, it is hereby found that there is no substantial evidence that the project set forth above will have a significant effect on the environment, and categorical exemption,per CEQA Article 19. Section: 15303, Class 3— (a) construction of a limited number of new, small facilities or structures including (a) one single family residence or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone. In urbanized areas, up to three single-family residences maybe constructed or converted under this exemption. 2. Said design review and special permits are approved, subject to the conditions set forth in Exhibit "A" attached hereto. Findings for design review and special permits are as set forth in the minutes and recording of said meeting. 3. It is further directed that a certified copy of this resolution be recorded in the official records of the County of San Mateo. MAYOR I,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the Ist day of May,2006, and adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COLNCILMEM 3ERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK EXHIBIT"A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption, design review and special permits 1416 Balboa Avenue Effective May 1, 2006 1. that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 13, 2006, sheets A-1,A-2, A-6 and A-8, and date stamped February 13, 2006, sheets A-3, A-4,A-5,A-7 and T-1;with wood windows with simulated true divided lites, including an encroachment into the left side declining height envelope of 2'- 6" x 19'-6" (49 SF) and a building height of 33'-2" as measured from the average top of curb elevation(24.07'), and that any changes to the footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2. that the tree protection measures noted in the July 28, 2005 arborist report by Mayne Tree Expert Company shall be installed and inspected by the City Arborist prior to commencing demolition or construction on the subject property; 3. that all of the proposed skylights shall be tinted; 4. that the existing hedge and retaining wall along the driveway side property line shall be retained and protected during construction and that the new driveway shall be a minimum of 9'-6" in width as measured from the face of the existing retaining wall along the adjacent property line, and should obtaining the minimum width of 9'-6"require replacing the retaining wall on the inboard side of the driveway,that replacement or its equivalent shall be required to stabilize the front yard; and planting along the property line edge between the driveway and the house shall be limited to ground cover; 5. 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; 6. that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury; certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 7. 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; all new windows shall be true divided light wood windows and shall contain a wood stucco-mould trim to match the existing trim as close as possible; 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 prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection, a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge(33'-2" as measured from the average top of curb elevation of EXHIBIT"A" Conditions of approval for categorical exemption,design review and special permits 1416 Balboa Avenue Effective May 1,2006 +24.07') and provide certification of that height to the Building Department; 10. that prior to scheduling the foundation inspection a licensed surveyor shall locate the property corners and set the building footprint; 11. 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; 12. 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; 13. 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; 14. that the conditions of the City Arborist, City Engineer,Recycling Specialist, Chief Building Official,NPDES Coordinator and Fire Marshal's August 2, 2005 memos shall be met; 15. 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; 16.that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503,the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; and 17. 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. CITY v� CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING DEPARTMENT BURLINGAME 501 PRIMROSE ROAD BURLINGAME,CA 94010 TEL:(650)558-7250 . FAX:(650)696-379 016Ft16504325 .. A.,m . • www.burlingame.org i $00.24 Site: 1416 BALBOA AVENUE Aiailed From 94010 Appeal of the Planning Commission action on an US POSTAGE application for design review and special permits HE for height and declining envelope for a new,two- PUBLICARING story single family dwelling and detached garage NOTICE at:1416 BALBOA AVENUE,zoned R-1. 4` (APN:026-013-220). The City of Burlingame City Council announces the .3 7 following public hearing on Monday, MAY 1, 2006 att` jx r `` 7:00 P. City M. i n the e H a II Council ,rr � nclL Chambers located at 501 Primrose..Road,Burlingame,California. Mailed:April 21,2006- i' (Please refer to other side) { CITY OF BURLINGAME 1 A copy of the applic 46 an I 4 y th project y be reviewed prior to the meeting Primrose Road, Burlingame, C r If you challe. e th��e wu ma be limited to raising only c5 d'tss Te n rt e �Y oa L LLI blic hearing + e o e. , . lrve ed to the cit described in h �e ' r y at or prior to he pu is x,�eafmg. Property ow rs > ie res on: ble I:or informing i their tenants bo _" d io al info r ati , please ca) (650) 558-7 0 llama T-141 I Margaret Monrtie u t City Planner _ (Please refer to other side) -. 4� CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 6c ITEM# MTG. ti�oq oggrEp,,,,,,E 6,9oo DATE May 1,2006 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITT BY DATE: May ,1 2006 // APPRC VED B G FROM: Jesus Nava, Finance Director/Treasurer 558-7222 SUBJECT: Resolution Approving the FY 2006-07 Master Fee Schedule for City Services RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Resolution implementing the changes to the City of Burlingame's Master Fee Schedule for FY 2006-07 BACKGROUND: The City Council held its annual Budget Policy Setting Session on Wednesday, March 1, 2006. At that time, the City Council directed that city staff adjust city fees to reflect the increase in operating costs that is anticipated in FY 06-07. That increase in operating costs is estimated to be an average of 3%. The practice of making annual incremental increases in city fees was adopted by the City Council in 2003 with the understanding that increases would not be automatic but would require an annual review and approval by the City Council. In addition to the fee adjustments, the following changes are also incorporated into the schedule: • Amusement/Entertainment Permits and Special Events/Street Closing Permits are moved from the Finance Department to the Police Department. • Block Party(includes up to six barricades) fees have been reduced from $124 to $50. The Master Fee Schedule shall take affect immediately upon City Council approval with the following exceptions: • Planning, Building and Fire Department fees shall become effective July 1, 2006 • Engineering fees pertaining to subdivision and planning review shall become effective July 1, 2006 ATTACHMENTS: 1.) Resolution of the City Council of the City of Burlingame Approving 2006 Master Fee Schedule for City Services 2.) City of Burlingame 2005 Master Fee Schedule RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING 2006 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FOR CITY SERVICES WHEREAS, the City regularly reviews the fees that it charges to persons seeking specific services or use of City facilities; and WHEREAS, in order to ensure that the cost of such services is borne by the users in a fair and equitable manner, fees are adjusted to better reflect actual costs to the City and the City's taxpayers in providing those services and facilities; and WHEREAS,the increased fees to be charged by the Planning and Building Departments and the development fees charged by the Fire Department and the Engineering Division cannot go into effect for sixty (60) days after adoption of this Resolution pursuant to Government Code section 66017,so therefore,fee changes contained in the Master Fee Schedule shall become effective on July 1, 2006; and WHEREAS, while every effort has been made to establish a master schedule of fees, there may be existing fees in the Municipal Code or elsewhere that have been omitted and nothing in this resolution is intended to repeal those fees nor does this resolution affect in any way any taxes of any kind; and WHEREAS,the rates and fees for sewer and water services will be considered over the next month, so those have not been included in the Master Fee Schedule at this time, but will be incorporated once the rates are adopted, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The Master Fee Schedule contained in Exhibit A is approved and shall take effect on July 1, 2006. Mayor I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1 _day of , 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk U:\FILES\RESO\masterfeesked2OO5.pin-wpd 2 1 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE CITY-WIDE SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Returned Check $25.00 No change Resolution No. 31- 2003 Copying of Routine Document S .15 per page No change Resolution No. 31- (Copies of sizes other than 8- %" by 11" or 8 - 2003 '/2" by 14" or 11" by 17 or color copies will be charged at cost) To be paid in advance Audio tape copies (except for Police) If blank tape supplied $5.00 per tape $5.15 per tape Resolution No. 31- 2005 If no tape supplied $8.00 per tape $8.25 per tape Resolution No. 31- 2005 CITY-WIDE FEES - 1 May 1, 2006 2 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ANIMAL CONTROL The following is found in Section 9.04.031 of the Burlingame Municipal Code (as of May 2, 2005): (a) License fees and penalties: (1) Unaltered dog (A) 1-year license $30.00 (which includes a$1.00 surcharge on all licenses for the Animal Population Trust Fund) (B) 3-year license $87.00 (C) 1-year license with senior discount $11.00 (D) 3-year license with senior discount $33.00 (2) Altered dog (A) 1-year license $12.00 (B) 3-year license $33.00 (C) I-year license with senior discount $ 6.00 (D) 3-year license with senior discount $15.00 (3) Wolf-hybrid registration (A)Unaltered I-year license $21.00 (B) Altered 1-year license $11.00 (4) Additional Penalties and Fees Dog/Wolf-hybrid (A) Late penalty $15.00 (B) Duplicate tag $ 5.00 (b) Redemption and shelter charges (1) Type A (large-size animals—horses, cows, etc.) (A) Impound cost $100.00 (B) Board cost per day $20.00 (C) Transportation cost $50.00 per animal (2) Type B (medium-size animals—hogs, sheep, etc.) (A) Impound cost $70.00 (B) Board cost per day $20.00 (C) Transportation cost $50.00 per use (3) Type C (dogs/wolf hybrids, cats) (A) Impound cost Altered/Unaltered (i) First offense, licensed & wearing tag $30.00 / 50.00 (ii) First offense, unlicensed or no tag $40.00/ 70.00 (iii) Second offense $60.00/ 80.00 (iv) Third offense $90.00/ 100.00 (v) Fourth offense $120.00 / 140.00 ANIMAL CONTROL FEES - 1 May 1, 2006 3 (vi) Fifth offense and up $150.00/ 170.00 (B) Board costs (i) Dogs/wolf hybrids $15.00 per day (ii) Cats $13.00 per day (4) Type D (small-size animals-birds, hamsters, etc.) (A) Impound cost $15.00 (B) Board cost per day $ 5.00 (c) Adoption Fees Dogs $70.00 Cats $70.00 Rabbits $40.00 Mice $ 4.00 Rats $ 5.00 Guinea Pig $12.00 Hamster $ 8.00 Pigeon/Dove $ 3.00 Duck/Goose/Chicken $ 5.00 Turtle $ 5.00 Pigs $35.00 (d) Surrender, Euthanasia and Dead on Arrival Disposal Fees Surrender Euthanasia DOA Disposal Dog/Cat $20.00 $40.00 $20.00 Rabbit/Small Animal $20.00 $15.00 $20.00 Litter of three or more $30.00 $30.00 $20.00 Bird/Fowl $20.00 $10.00 $20.00 All Exotic Animals $20.00 $20.00 $20.00 Farm Animal $35.00 $50.00 - $100.00 $50.00 - $100.00 (to be determined (to be determined individually) individually) (e) Quarantine fee $35.00 (0 Dangerous animal permit fee $200.00 (g) Field return fee $35.00 (h) Property inspection fee $25.00 (i) Breeding permit fee $50.00 0) Fancier's permit fee $50.00 per household (k) The Division of Animal Control may establish license discounts for recognized animal rescue organizations and adoption discounts for senior citizens. ANIMAL CONTROL FEES - 2 May 1, 2006 4 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE BUILDING DIVISION (Effective July 1, 2006) SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE BUILDING PERMIT FEES BASED ON TOTAL VALUATION $1.00 to $500.00 $32.50 $33.50 Resolution No. 31-2005 $501.00 to $2,000.00 $32.50 for $33.50 for the Resolution No. 31-2005 the first first $500.00 $500.00 plus plus $4.65 for $4.50 for each each additional additional $100.00 or $100.00 or fraction fraction thereof to and thereof to including and $2,000.00 including $2,000.00 $2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $93.50 for $96.30 for the Resolution No. 31-2005 the first first $2,000.00 $2,000.00 plus $19.00 plus $19.60 for each for each additional additional $1,000.00 or $1,000.00 or fraction fraction thereof to thereof to and and including including $25,000.00 $25,000.00 BUILDING - 1 May 1, 2006 5 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE $25,001.00 to $50,000.00 $524.50 for $540.25 for Resolution No. 31-2005 the first the first $25,000.00 $25,000.00 plus $14.00 plus $14.40 for each for each additional additional $1,000.00 or $1,000.00 or fraction fraction thereof to thereof to and and including including $50,000.00 $50,000.00 $50,001.00 to $100,000.00 $863.50 for $889.40 for Resolution No. 31-2005 the first the first $50,000.00 $50,000.00 plus $9.50 plus $9.80 for for each each additional additional $1,000.00 or $1,000.00 or fraction fraction thereof to thereof to and and including including $100,000.00 $100,000.00 $101,000.00 to $500,000.00 $1,332.00 $1,372.00 for Resolution No. 31-2005 for the first the first $100,000.00 $100,000.00 plus $8.00 plus $8.25 for for each each additional additional $1,000.00 or $1,000.00 or fraction fraction thereof to thereof to and and including including $500,000.00 $500,000.00 BUILDING - 2 May 1, 2006 6 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE $501,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 $4,331.50 $4,461.50 for Resolution No. 31-2005 for the first the first $500,000.00 $500,000.00 plus $6.50 plus $6.70 for for each each additional additional $1,000.00 or $1,000.00 or fraction fraction thereof to thereof to and and including including $1,000,000.00 $1,000,000.0 0 More than $1,000,000.00 $7,518.00 $7,743.50 for Resolution No. 31-2005 for the first the first $1,000,000.0 $1,000,000.00 0 plus $5.00 plus $5.15 for for each each additional additional $1,000.00 or $1,000.00 or fraction fraction thereof thereof Inspections outside normal business hours $80.00 per $82.50 per Resolution No. 31-2005 (minimum charge is for four hours) hour hour Reinspection fees (minimum—one hour) $80.00 per $82.50 per Resolution No. 31-2005 hour hour PLAN REVIEW FEES Basic Fee 65%of No change Resolution No. 104-2002 Building Permit Fee Energy Plan Check Fee (where applicable) Additional No change Resolution No. 104-2002 25% of Building Permit Fee BUILDING - 3 May 1, 2006 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Disabled Access Plan Check Fee (where Additional No change Resolution No. 104-2002 applicable) 35%of Building Permit Fee Planning Department Plan Check Fee (where Additional No change Resolution No. 104-2002 applicable) (minimum fee of$80.00) 15%of Building Permit Fee Plan Revisions for Planning Department $80.00 $82.50 Resolution No. 31-2005 Plan Revisions Subsequent to Permit Issuance $80.00 per $82.50 per Resolution No. 31-2005 hour plus hour plus Cost of Any Cost of Any Additional Additional Review Review Engineering Division Plan Review(where Additional No change Resolution No. 104-2002 applicable) 25% of Building Permit Fee Imaging Fee Additional No change Resolution No. 104-2002 5% of Building Permit Fee Arborist Review Additional No change Resolution No. 1-2005 5% of Building Permit Fee PLUMBING PERMIT FEES (these fees do not include connections fees, such as for seer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies) BUILDING - 4 May 1, 2006 8 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE For issuance of each plumbing permit' $32.50 $33.50 Resolution No. 31-2005 New Residential Building - including all $0.08 per $0.09 per Resolution No. 104-2002 plumbing fixtures, connections and gas outlets square foot square foot of for new single- and multi-family buildings of habitable habitable area area 1. Fixtures and vents—for each plumbing $13.50 $14.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 fixture or trap (including water and waste piping and backflow prevention) 2. Sewer and interceptors— For each building sewer $32.50 $33.50 Resolution No. 31-2005 For each industrial waste pretreatment $27.00 $27.80 Resolution No. 31-2005 interceptor (except kitchen-type grease traps) 3. Water Piping and Water Heaters For installation alteration or repair of water $6.50 each $6.75 each Resolution No. 31-2005 piping or water-treatment equipment For each water heater including vent $17.00 $17.50 Resolution No. 31-2005 4. Gas Piping Systems For each gas piping system of one to five $9.00 $9.25 Resolution No. 31-2005 outlets For each additional outlet over five $2.00 $2.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 'Following items are in addition to basic permit issuance fee BUILDING - 5 May 1, 2006 9 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE 5. Irrigation Systems and Backflow Prevention Devices Irrigation systems including backflow $20.00 $20.60 Resolution No. 31-2005 device(s) Other backflow prevention devices: 2 inches (50.8 mm) and smaller $20.00 $20.60 Resolution No. 31-2005 Over 2 inches (50.8 mm) $32.50 $33.50 Resolution No. 31-2005 6. Swimming Pools For each swimming pool or spa, all plumbing: Public pool $123.50 $127.50 Resolution No. 31-2005 Public spa $80.00 $82.50 Resolution No. 31-2005 Private pool $80.00 $82.50 Resolution No. 31-2005 Private spa $40.00 $41.25 Resolution No. 31-2005 7. Miscellaneous For each appliance or fixture for which no $13.50 $14.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 fee is listed Inspections outside normal business hours $80.00 per $82.50 per Resolution No. 31-2005 (minimum charge is for four hours) hour hour Reinspection fees (minimum—one hour) $80.00 per $82.50 per Resolution No. 31-2005 hour hour Inspections for which no fee is specifically $80.00 per $82.50 per Resolution No. 31-2005 indicated (minimum charge is one-half hour) hour hour Imaging fee Additional No change Resolution No. 104-2002 5% of plumbing permit fee Arborist Review Additional No change Resolution No. 1-2005 5% of plumbing permit fee BUILDING- 6 May 1, 2006 10 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Plan review where plans are required Additional No change Resolution No. 104-2002 25% of plumbing permit fee MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES (these fees do not include connections fees, such as for seer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies) For issuance of each mechanical permit" $32.50 $33.50 Resolution No. 31-2005 New Residential Building - including all $0.08 per $0.09 per Resolution No. 104-2002 mechanical work including appliances, exhaust square foot square foot of fans, ducts, and flues of habitable habitable area area 1. Furnaces To and including 100 MBTU $20.00 $21.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Over 100 MBTU $27.00 $28.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 2. Boilers, compressors, absorption systems To and including 100 MBTU or 3 H $20.00 $21.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Over 100 MBTU or 3 HP $38.00 $39.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 3. Air Conditioners $20.00 $21.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 5. Air Handlers To 10,000 CFM including ducting $13.50 each $14.00 each Resolution No. 31-2005 Over 10,000 CFM $20.00 each $21.00 each Resolution No. 31-2005 6. Ventilation and Exhaust Each ventilation fan attached to a single duct $10.00 each $10.50 each Resolution No. 31-2005 Each hood including ducts $20.00 each $21.00 each Resolution No. 31-2005 "Following items are in addition to basic permit issuance fee BUILDING - 7 May 1, 2006 11 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE 7. Miscellaneous For each appliance or piece of equipment $20.00 each $21.00 each Resolution No. 31-2005 not specifically listed above Inspections outside normal business hours $80.00 per $82.50 per Resolution No. 31-2005 (minimum charge is for four hours) hour hour Reinspection fees (minimum—one hour) $80.00 per $82.50 per Resolution No. 31-2005 hour hour Inspections for which no fee is specifically $80.00 per $82.50 per Resolution No. 31-2005 indicated (minimum charge is one-half hour) hour hour Imaging fee Additional No change Resolution No. 104-2002 5% of mechanical permit fee Plan review where plans are required Additional No change Resolution No. 104-2002 25% of mechanical permit fee ELECTRICAL PERMIT FEES (these fees do not include connections fees, such as for sewer connections or water meter fees charged by other City departments nor any fees charged by public utility companies) For issuance of each electrical permit##" $32.50 $33.50 Resolution No. 31-2005 New Residential Building - including all wiring $0.08 per $0.09 per Resolution No. 104-2002 and electrical devices in or on each building, square foot square foot of including service of habitable habitable area area System Fee Schedule ###Following items are in addition to basic permit issuance fee BUILDING - 8 May 1, 2006 12 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Swimming Pools 1. Public swimming pools and spas $80.00 $82.50 Resolution No. 31-2005 including all wiring and electrical equipment 2. Private pools for single-family residences $64.50 $66.50 Resolution No. 31-2005 Temporary Power 1. Temporary service pole including all $32.50 $33.50 Resolution No. 31-2005 attached receptacles 2. Temporary power pole and wiring for $48.50 $50.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 construction sites, Christmas tree lots, etc. OR Unit Fee Schedule Receptacle, switch and light outlets 1. First 20 units $32.50 $33.50 Resolution No. 31-2005 2. Each additional $1.00 No change Resolution No. 61-2004 Residential Appliances For fixed residential appliances including $6.50 each $6.75 each Resolution No. 31-2005 cooktops, ovens, air conditioning, garbage disposals, and similar devices not exceedingl HP in rating (For other types of air conditioners or other motor-driven appliances having larger ratings, see Power Apparatus below) Nonresidential Appliances Self-contained factory-wired non-residential $6.50 each $6.75 each Resolution No. 31-2005 appliances not exceeding 1 HP, KW, or kVA in rating including medical and dental devices; food, beverage and ice cream cabinets; illuminated showcases; drinking fountains; vending machines; laundry machines; etc. (For other types of devices having larger electrical ratings, see Power Apparatus below) BUILDING - 9 May 1, 2006 13 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Power Apparatus For motors, generators, air conditioners and heat pumps and commercial cooking devices as follows (ratings in horsepower, kilowatts, kilovolt-amperes, or kilovolt-amperes-reactive): 1. Up to 10 $16.50 $17.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 2. Over 10 to and including 100 $37.50 $38.60 Resolution No. 31-2005 3. Over 100 $102.00 $105.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Notes: a. For equipment or appliances having more than one motor, transformer, heater, etc., the sum of the combined ratings may be used. b. These fees include all switches, circuit breakers, contractors, thermostats, relays, and other related control equipment. Photo voltaic systems Up to 3000 watts $300.00 New fee Over 3000 watts Plan Check $82.50 per New fee hour Permit $300.00 New fee Busways For trolleys and plug-in type busways $10.00 for $10.30 for Resolution No. 31-2005 each 100 feet each 100 feet (30,500 mm) (30,500 mm) or fraction or fraction thereof thereof Signs, Outline Lighting and Marquees 1. Signs, outline lighting, or marquees $32.50 each $33.50 each Resolution No. 31-2005 supplied from one circuit 2. For additional branch circuits within the $6.50 each $6.75 each Resolution No. 31-2005 same sign, outline lighting, or marquee BUILDING - 10 May 1, 2006 14 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Services 1. 600 volts or less and not over 200 $37.50 each $38.60 each Resolution No. 31-2005 amperes in rating 2. 600 volts or less, over 200 amperes to $86.00 each $88.60 each Resolution No. 31-2005 1,000 amperes 3. Over 600 volts or over 1,000 amperes $161.00 each $166.00 each Resolution No. 31-2005 Miscellaneous For apparatus, conduits, and conductors for $27.00 $28.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 which a permit is required but for which no fee is set forth Inspections outside normal business hours $80.00 per $82.50 per Resolution No. 31-2005 (minimum charge is for four hours) hour hour Reinspection fees (minimum—one hour) $80.00 per $82.50 per Resolution No. 31-2005 hour hour Inspections for which no fee is specifically $80.00 per $82.50 per Resolution No. 31-2005 indicated (minimum charge is one-half hour) hour hour Imaging fee Additional No change Resolution No. 104-2002 5% of electrical permit fee Plan review where plans are required Additional No change Resolution No. 104-2002 25% of electrical permit fee GENERAL FEES Appeal Fee to Planning Commission from $130.00 $135.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Building Official Determination BUILDING - 11 May 1, 2006 15 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE CITY CLERK SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Passport Application Acceptance $30.00 per No change U.S. Department of State application Video recording of City Council meeting or $15.00 per $20.00 per Resolution No. 31-2003 other proceeding that has been video recorded tape VHS tape to be paid in advance of copying recording $25.00 per DVD Audiotape of City Council meeting or other $5.00 per $5.15 per tape Resolution No. 31-2003 City proceeding that has been taped—to be tape if tape is if tape is paid in advance of copying tape supplied by supplied by requestor requestor Resolution No. 31-2003 $8.00 per $8.25 per tape tape if tape is if tape is not not supplied supplied eertificationofeitizenship All Certifications $5.00 each $5.15 each Resolution No. 31-2003 (new fee for other certifications) Filing of Nomination Papers $25.00 per No change Burlingame Municipal candidate Code section 2.20.020 (Ordinance No. 1703 (2003)) CITY CLERK - 1 May 1, 2006 16 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE ENGINEERING SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Sewer Lateral Test $161.00 $166.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Sewer Lateral Replacement w/o Sidewalk $241.00 $248.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Water Service Connection w/o Sidewalk $321.00 $331.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Fire System Connection w/o Sidewalk $385.00 $397.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Curb Drain Installation $161.00 $166.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 (Sections 12.10.030/ 12.08.020 / 12.04.030) Sidewalk/Driveway up to 200 sf $289.00 plus $298.00 plus Resolution No. 31-2005 $.25 for each $.30 for each (Sections 12.10.030/ foot over square foot 12.08.020 / 12.04.030) 200 over 200 Sidewalk Closure/Pedestrian Protection $171.00 $176.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Traffic Control $171.00 $177.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Block Party (includes up to 6 barricades) $124.00 plus $50.00 plus Resolution No. 31-2005 $5.00 for $5.00 for each each add't add't barricade barricade over 6 Parking Permit $75.00 plus No change Resolution No. 31-2005 $2/space per (Section 13.32.020) day or meter rates GENERAL FEES ENGINEERING FEES - 1 May 1, 2006 17 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Demolition Permit(in addition to Building $852.00 $877.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Permit) Includes sewer and water replacement Add fireline $214.00 $221.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Add curb drain $161.00 $166.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Add sidewalk closure $150.00 $154.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Add PG&E $214.00 $221.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Address Change $268.00 $276.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Transportation Fee $80.00 $83.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Building Moving $100 No change Section 18.07.030 Truck Terminal $250 No change Section 13.60.120 Hauling Permit $35.00 No change Section 13.60.080 application fee 1 Cent per ton per mile SPECIAL ENCROACHMENT PERMITS Permanent structures, such as retaining walls, $348.00 $359.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 fences Right of Way User Fee based on square footage $2.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 over 100 sf square foot Non-permanent installations, such as tables, $268.00 $276.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 chairs, planters SUBDIVISION MAPS Lot Line Adjustment(effective 7/1/2006) $460.00 $474.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 (Section 26.24.090) ENGINEERING FEES -2 May 1, 2006 lb SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Lot Combination (effective 7/1/2006) $536.00 $552.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 (Section 26.24.090) Subdivision Map (effective 7/1/2006) $740.00 plus $761.00 plus Resolution No. 31-2005 $104 for $107 for each (Sections 26.24.090/ each additional lot 26.16.151) additional lot over 5 over 5 Condominium Map(effective 7/1/2006) $1,071.00 $1,103.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 plus $156.00 plus $161.00 (Sections 26.24.090/ for each unit for each unit 26.16.151) over 4 over 4 ZONING FEES TO BE COLLECTED BY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Design Review(effective 7/1/2006) Single Family Dwelling $91.00 $94.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 All others $125.00 plus $129.00 plus Resolution No. 61-2004 $340 if $350 if streetscape streetscape installation installation involved involved Environmental Review(effective 7/1/2006) Traffic &Parking Studies $139.00 $143.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Creek Enclosures $589.00 S607.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Drainage and Utilities $139.00 $1 43.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 ENGINEERING FEES - 3 May 1, 2006 19 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FINANCE DEPARTMENT SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Amusement/Entertaimnent Permit X96:66 Section 6.f 6.03 0 Duplicate business license $10.00 No change Section 6.04.120 Application for first business license $35.00 No change Section 6.04.170 Special Events/Street aosing Permit $ 6-66 Resointion No. 31-20 applieation €ee $meq E fee $72+0ttr pohY officer fee for traffic control Submittal of surety bond for transient occupancy $150.00 for New fee to account for after expiration of bond every 15 days expense of staff in bond is late obtaining bond and securing taxes FINANCE FEES - 1 May 1, 2006 20 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE FIRE (effective July 1, 2006) SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Care Facilities Inspection Pre-inspection of licensed community care $50.00-25 $51.50-25 Resolution No. 105-2002 facility persons or persons or less less $100.00 over $103.00 over Resolution No. 105-2002 25 persons 25 persons Residential Care Facilities $220.00 $227.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Large Family Day Care $110.00 $113.50 Resolution No. 34-2005 Hospital/Institution $365.00 $376.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Re-inspections Second re-inspection $66.00 per $68.00 per Resolution No. 34-2005 inspection inspection Third and subsequent reinspections $100 per $103.00 per Resolution No. 61-2004 inspection inspection Construction Fees Building or Planning Plan Check $110.00 per $113.50 per Resolution No. 34-2005 hour hour Expedite Building or Planning Check Fees $210.00 per New fee (2 hour minimum) hour Consultation and Planning $145.00 per $149.50 per Resolution No. 34-2005 hour hour FIRE-1 May 1, 2006 21 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Fire Alarm Systems Permit for Monitoring System $55.00 $57.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Permit for Manua] System $110.00 $113.50 Resolution No. 34-2005 Permit for Automatic System $220.00 $227.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Permit for Combination System $265.00 $273.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Fixed Extinguishing System Permit $220.00 $227.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Standpipe System Permit $220.00 $227.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Storage Tank(above or below ground) Permit $220.00 $227.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Sprinkler Systems One or two Family Dwelling Fire Sprinkler System (NFPA 13D) Permit $330.00 $340.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 (phase (phase inspections inspections billed at billed at $110 per $113.50 per hour) hour) Fire Pump Permit $110.00 $113.50 Resolution No. 34-2005 Residential or Commercial Fire Sprinkler System (NFPA 13 or 13R) Permit— Single Story(incl. T.I.) $440.00 $453.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Permit -Multi-story (phase (phase inspections inspections billed at billed at $110 per $113.50 per hour) hour) FIRE-2 May 1, 2006 22 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Fire Service Line Inspection $110.00 $113.50 Resolution No. 34-2005 Alternate Means of Protection Review $145.00 per $149.50 per Resolution No. 34-2005 hour hour Miscellaneous Fees and Permits Vegetation Management Inspection $220.00 + $227.00 + Resolution No. 34-2005 20% of 20% of contractor's contractor's fee fee Change of Use Inspection(usually triggered $60.00 $62.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 by new business license) Standby Service Firefighter $105.00 per $108.50 per Resolution No. 34-2005 hour hour (minimum of (minimum of 3 hours) 3 hours) Engine Company $300.00 per $309.00 per Resolution No. 34-2005 hour hour (minimum of (minimum of 3 hours) 3 hours) Photographs from investigations Cost of No change Resolution No. 61-2004 reproduction Fire Hydrant Flow Tests $110.00 per $113.50 per Resolution No. 34-2005 hydrant hydrant Work without a construction permit Double the No change Resolution No. 34-2005 permit fees Emergency Response Costs for Driving under Costs No change Resolution No. 61-2004 the Influence according to Personnel Schedule Below FIRE-3 May 1, 2006 2� SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE False Alarms $300.00 for $309.00 for 3 Resolution No. 34-2005 3to5 to $450.00 for $463.50 for 6 6 or more or more Hazardous Materials Clean-up/Response Costs No change Resolution No. 61-2004 according to Personnel Schedule Below plus actual equipment/ materials costs Personnel Costs Administration $50.00 per $51.50 per Resolution No. 34-2005 hour hour Firefighter $92.00 per $95.00 per Resolution No. 34-2005 hour hour Fire Captain $110.00 per $113.50 per Resolution No. 34-2005 hour hour Shift Inspector $95.00 per $98.00 per Resolution No. 34-2005 hour hour Fire Inspector $100.00 per $103.00 per Resolution No. 34-2005 hour hour Battalion Chief $120.00 per $124.00 per Resolution No. 34-2005 hour hour Fire Marshal $130.00 per $134.00 per Resolution No. 34-2005 hour hour Key Switch (Gate/Knox Box) $80.00 $84.50 Resolution No. 34-2005 General Permits Christmas Tree Lot $66.50 $68.50 Resolution No. 105-2002 Aerosol Products $176.25 $182.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Apartments, Hotels and Motels— 10 or less $80.50 $104.50 Resolution No. 34-2005 units FIRE-4 May 1, 2006 24 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Apartments, Hotels and Motels- 11 to 25 $98.13 $101.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 units Apartments, Hotels and Motels-26 or more $133.38 $137.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 units Asbestos removal $81.25 $84.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Automobile Wrecking Yard $176.25 $182.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Battery System $176.25 $182.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Carnivals and Fairs $318.75 $328.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Combustible Fiber Storage $128.75 $133.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Combustible Material Storage $176.75 $182.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Compressed Gasses $176.75 $182.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Commercial Rubbish-Handling Operation $176.75 $182.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Cryogens $176.75 $182.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Dry Cleaning Plants $176.75 $182.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Dust-Producing Operations $176.75 $182.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Explosives or Blasting Agents $223.75 $230.50 Resolution No. 34-2005 Fire Hydrants and Water Control Valves $110.00 $113.50 Resolution No. 34-2005 Fireworks $185.00 $190.50 Resolution No. 34-2005 Flammable or Combustible Liquids $366.25 $377.25 Resolution No. 34-2005 Hazardous Materials $461.25 $475.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 High-Piled Combustible Storage-20,000 $260.00 $268.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 square feet or less High-Piled Combustible Storage-more than $461.25 $475.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 20,000 square feet Hot-Work Operations $176.75 $182.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 FIRE-5 May 1, 2006 25 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Liquefied Petroleum Gasses $176.75 $182.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Liquid- or gas-fueled Vehicles or Equipment $176.75 $182.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 in Assembly Buildings Live Audiences $176.75 $182.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Lumber Yards storing in excess of 100,00 $271.25 $279.50 Resolution No. 34-2005 board Feet Magnesium Working $152.25 $157.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Mall, Covered-Display Booth $160.00 $165.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Mall, Covered-For Assembly Mall, Covered-With Open Flame $160.00 $165.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Mall, Covered-Display Fuel Powered $160.00 $165.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Equipment Motor Vehicle Fuel-Dispensing Stations $285.00 $293.50 Resolution No. 34-2005 Open Burning $110.00 $113.50 Resolution No. 34-2005 Organic Coating $176.25 $182.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Ovens, Industrial Baking and Drying $152.50 $157.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Parade Floats $160.00 $165.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Places of Assembly $342.50 $353.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Production Facilities $318.75 $328.50 Resolution No. 34-2005 Pyrotechnical and Special Effects Material $285.00 $293.50 Resolution No. 34-2005 Radioactive Materials $128.75 $133.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Refrigeration Equipment $271.25 $279.50 Resolution No. 34-2005 Repair Garage $176.75 $182.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Spraying and Dipping $176.75 $182.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 FIRE-6 May 1, 2006 26 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Tents, Canopies, and Temporary Membrane $185.00 $190.50 Resolution No. 34-2005 Structures Tire Storage $152.50 $157.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 Wood Products $152.50 $157.00 Resolution No. 34-2005 FIRE-7 May 1, 2006 27 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE LIBRARY SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Photocopies $ .15 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 page Internet/Database copies or printouts $ .15 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 page Rental books for one week $1.00 Eliminate Resolution No. 31-2003 Community Room Rental $50.00 $75.00 Resolution No. 31-2003 Audio Visual Assistance When Requested $25.00 per Current rate, but not hour previously listed Outside System Book Loan $5.00 Cost charged Resolution No. 31-2003 by lending library PLS CONSORTIUM CONTROLLED FEES Hold Fee $ .50 per $ .75 per item PLS book Overdue Fee for Adult $ .20 per $ .25 per item PLS book per day Overdue Fee for Child $ .10 per $ .15 per item PLS book per day Maximum Fee $6.00 per No change PLS book LIBRARY FEES - 1 May 1, 2006 28 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Lost Book Replacement Fee $5.00 per $5.00 per PLS book item plus cost of replacement of item Replacement of Lost Card $1.00 No change PLS LIBRARY FEES - 2 May 1, 2006 29 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE PARKS & RECREATION DEPARTMENT Group Classifications for Purposes of Parks&Recreation Facilities Usage: Group A: Government agencies with Parks& Recreation service agreements with the City, such as Burlingame School District and SMUHSD Group B: Non-profit(501c(3)) groups or organizations, such as AYSO, BYBA, Library Foundation. Group C: Private parties, commercial, business, and profit-making organizations, such as weddings, seminars, receptions FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE INDOOR FACILITIES Indoor Facilities, except the Auditorium Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. 31-2003 Group B Burlingame Residents $13.00 per hour $14.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Non-residents $17.00 per hour $18.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Group C Burlingame Residents $28.00 per hour $30.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Non-residents $33.00 per hour $36.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Auditorium Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. 31-2003 Group B Burlingame Residents $28.00 per hour $30.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Non-residents $33.00 per hour $36.00 per hour Resolution No. 61-2004 Group C Burlingame Residents $77.00 per hour No change Resolution No. 61-2004 Non-residents $94.00 per hour No change Resolution No. 61-2004 PARK& REC FEES - 1 May 1, 2006 30 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Building Attendant" $20.00 per hour $22.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003 Weekend Custodian $75.00 $80.00 Resolution No. 31-2003 Weekday Custodian $25.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Extra,Non-Scheduled Hours $95.00 - $125 $125 per our Resolution No. 31-2003 per hour Security Personnel* $50.00 per hour $60.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003 Tables/Chairs—up to 50 $7.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Tables/Chairs— 5 1-100 $15.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Tables/Chairs—over 100 $20.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Coffee Pots $10.00 per pot No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Wine/beer to be served $30.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 additional TV/VCR $10.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Overhead Projector $10.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Microphone $10.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 OUTDOOR FACILITIES Building Attendant or Security will be on duty 1 hour prior to and 1 hour after duration of activities at Recreation Center. Security fee will be charged for all private parties over 150 persons or serving alcoholic beverages. Building Attendant or Security will be on duty 1 hour prior to and 1 hour after duration of activities at Recreation Center. Security fee will be charged for all private parties over 150 persons or those serving alcoholic beverages. PARK & REC FEES - 2 May 1, 2006 31 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Ballfield Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. 31-2003 Group B Burlingame Residents $5.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2005 resident player and $20.00 per nonresident player Non-residents $15.00 per hour No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Group C Burlingame Residents $20.00 per hour No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Non-residents $25.00 per hour No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Tennis Courts Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. 31-2003 Group B (residents only) Burlingame Residents $30.00 for 4 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hours Group C Burlingame Residents $40.00 for 4 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hours Non-residents $50.00 for 4 No change Resolution No. 61-2004 hours PARK& REC FEES - 3 May 1, 2006 32 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Soccer Field Group A No charge No charge Resolution No. 31-2003 Group B Burlingame Residents $5.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2005 resident player and $20 per nonresident player Non-residents $20.00 per hour No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Group C Burlingame Residents $35.00 per hour No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Non-residents $50.00 per hour No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Pool— 50 meter Group A Lifeguard cost No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Group B Burlingame Residents $125.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hour plus lifeguard Non-residents $175.00 per $188.00 per Resolution No. 31-2003 hour plus hour plus lifeguard lifeguard Group C Burlingame Residents $225.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hour plus lifeguard Non-residents $275.00 per $288.00 per Resolution No. 31-2003 hour plus hour plus lifeguard lifeguard PARK& REC FEES - 4 May 1, 2006 33 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Pool (small pool) Group A Lifeguard cost No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Group B Burlingame Residents $60.00 per hour $63.00 per hour Resolution No. 31-2003 plus plus lifeguard lifeguard Non-residents $95.00 per hour No change Resolution No. 31-2003 plus lifeguard Group C Burlingame Residents $125.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 hour plus lifeguard Non-residents $175.00 per $188.00 per Resolution No. 31-2003 hour plus hour plus lifeguard lifeguard Pool Lanes (short) Group A Lifeguard costs No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Group B $10.00 per lane No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Group C $15.00 per lane $16.00 per lane Resolution No. 31-2003 Pool Lanes (long) Group A Lifeguard costs No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Group B $20.00 per lane No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Group C $25.00 per lane No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Lifeguard (minimum of 2 per event) $25.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 guard per hour Field Lights $20.00 per hour No change Resolution No. 31-2003 PARK& REC FEES - 5 May 1, 2006 34 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Infield dragging and lining Fees to be No change Resolution No. 31-2003 determined by Parks Division based on conditions Facility Maintenance Fee for Field User $5 per player No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Groups per league per season Picnic Permit Small Picnic Area $75.00 + $50 No change Resolution No. 61-2004 refundable cleaning deposit Large Picnic Area $100.00 + $50 No change Resolution No. 61-2004 refundable cleaning deposit Classes Class Fees To be set based No change Resolution No. 31-2003 on class provider and materials/facilit ies provided Registration Fees $7.00 No change Resolution No. 61-2004 Non-resident Fee on Classes Add 20%to No change Resolution No. 31-2003 class fee rounded to nearest dollar PARK& REC FEES - 6 May 1, 2006 35 FACILITY/SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Senior discount—Burlingame residents 50% off class No change Resolution No. 31-2003 age 65 and over fee on classes held at Recreation Center under $75 Senior discount—non-residents age 65 Waive non- No change Resolution No. 31-2003 and over resident fee Registration cancellation charge $5.00 per class No change Resolution No. 31-2003 or event Tree and Parks Fees Memorial tree plantings and additional $75.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 street tree plantings Protected Tree Removal Applications $50.00 No change Resolution No. 1-2005 Arborist's plan review for landscaping $125.00 No change Resolution No. 1-2005 requirements on planning applications (See also planning fee schedule) Arborist check of construction plans and 5% of building No change Resolution No. 1-2005 inspection of landscape requirements on permit fee building permit submittals Appeal to City Council from $230.00 No change Resolution No. 26-2005 Beautification Commission decision (does not include noticing costs) Noticing, City Council appeal $25.00 No change Resolution No. 26-2005 PARK& REC FEES - 7 May 1, 2006 36 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE PLANNING DEPARTMENT (effective 7/1/2006) SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED Reference FEE FEE PRE-APPLICATIONS Preliminary Plan Check,New Construction" $175.00 $180.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Preliminary Plan Check, Remodel" $110.00 $120.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 APPLICATIONS \ , r Antenna Exception $25.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2003 Ambiguity/Determination Hearing before $460.00 $475.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Planning Commission (applies to Planning, Fire, and Building requests) Amendment/Extension to Permits $210.00 $215.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Appeal to City Council from Planning $235.00 $240.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Commission decisions (does not include noticing costs) Conditional Use Permit $895.00 $920.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Condominium Permit, 4 Units or Less $950.00 $980.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Condominium Permit, 5 Units or More $1,155.00 $1,190.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Design Review, Addition $550.00 $565.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Design Review, Amendment $400.00 $410.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Design Review Deposit"` $750.00 $800.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Fifty percent(50%)of fee will be credited toward required application fees if and when project is submitted as a complete application. Fifty percent(50%)of fee will be credited toward required application fees if and when project is submitted as a complete application. Minimum deposit. Formula for ultimate calculation is design review consultant fee times hours spent. Project not set for hearing until actual time paid. PLANNING FEES - 1 May 1, 2006 37 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED Reference FEE FEE Design Review—Handling Fee $270.00 $280.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Design Review, Information Submittal to $105.00 $150.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Planning Commission Increase to come up more closely to actual costs to City Design Review,New Construction $560.00 $575.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Fence Exception $630.00 $650.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 General Plan Amendment $1,315.00 $1,355.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Minor Modification/Hillside Area $235.00 $240.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Construction Permit (Sections 25.56.050 & 25.61.070) Rezoning $1,155.00 $1,190.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Second Unit Amnesty Permit Building Official Inspection Deposit $390.00 $400.00 Resolution 31-2005 charged at charged at Being charged at cost $128 per $132 per hour hour Special Use Permit $895.00 $920.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Variance $895.00 $920.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 ENVIRONMENTAL Environmental, Categorical Exception $55.00 $55.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Environmental Initial Study $110.00 $115.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Environmental,Negative Declaration $1,260.00 $1,300.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Environmental, Mitigated Declaration and/or $1,475.00 $1,520.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 with a Responsible Agency PLANNING FEES - 2 May 1, 2006 38 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED Reference FEE FEE Environmental Impact Report $35% of No change Resolution No. 31-2003 contract, deposit to be determined by City Planner Environmental Posting Fee, Negative $140.00 $145.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Declaration and EIR Fish& Game Fee for Negative Declaration, $1,275.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2005 whether mitigated or not Fish& Game Fee for Environmental Impact $875.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2005 Report PARKS a � a Arborist Review when Required $130.00 $135.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 NOTICING Noticing, R1 and R2 $105.00 $110.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Noticing, All Other Districts $105.00 $110.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Noticing, R-1 Design Review, Residential $160.00 $165.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Noticing, Design Review, all other districts $160.00 $165.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Noticing, Minor Modifications, Hillside $160.00 $165.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Area Construction Permits (Sections 25.56.050 & 25.61.070) Noticing, General Plan Amendment $1,015.00 $1,045.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Noticing, Rezoning $1,015.00 $1,045.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Noticing, Environmental Impact Report $1,025.00 $1,055.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Noticing, City Council Appeal $25.00 $30.00 Resolution No. 31-2003 Noticing, Second Unit Amnesty $55.00 No change Resolution No. 61-2004 PLANNING FEES - 3 May 1, 2006 39 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED Reference FEE FEE SIGNS s s„ 5r 50 SF or less $26.00 $27.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 over 50 SF and less than 200 SF $52.00 $54.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 over 200 SF $77.00 $80.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Sign Variance $950.00 $980.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Removal of Illegal Sign (Public Works cost) $50.00 per New fee sign PLANNING FEES - 4 May 1, 2006 40 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED Reference FEE FEE Bayfront Development Fee' Office $1,852/TSF To be updated Ord. No. 1739 (2004) by Public Restaurant $7,458/TSF Works Ord. No. 1739 (2004) pursuant to Hotel $607/room reference in Ord.No. 1739 (2004) July 2006 Hotel, Extended Stay $590/room Ord. No. 1739 (2004) Office/Warehouse/Manufacturing $2,808/TSF Ord.No. 1739 (2004) Retail—Commercial $6,818/TSF Ord. No. 1739 (2004) Car Rental $43,268/acr Ord.No. 1739 (2004) e Commercial Recreation Ord. No. 1739 (2004) $13,428/acr All Other e Ord.No. 1739 (2004) $1,492 per p.m. peak hour trip as det'd by traffic study Bayfront Development fee is charged to all new construction/development within the Bayfront Specific Plan Area on the east side of US 101. Ordinance No. 1305(1985)provides for annual adjustment based on the construction cost index published in the Engineering News Record(ENR)as of July 1 of each year. These fees are current as of September 2004.,subject to effective date of ordinance PLANNING FEES - 5 May 1, 2006 41 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED Reference FEE FEE North Burlingame/Rollins Road Development Fee" $0.42 per To be updated Ord. No. 1751 (2005) Rollins Road Area of Benefit square foot by Public of building Works pursuant to reference in El Camino North Area of Benefit July 2006 Multiple family dwelling or duplex use $0.42 per Ord. No. 1751 (2005) square foot of building Any use other than multiple family dwelling or duplex $0.53 per Ord. No. 1751 (2005) square foot of building IlNorth Burlingame/Rollins Road Development fees are charged to all new construction/development within the North Burlingame/Rollins Road Specific Plan Area. Ordinance No. 1715 (2005)provides for annual adjustment beginning in 2006,based on the construction cost index published in the Engineering News Record(ENR)as of July 1 of each year. These fees are current as of May 21,2005,the effective date of ordinance. PLANNING FEES - 6 May 1, 2006 42 MASTER FEE SCHEDULE POLICE DEPARTMENT SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Vehicle Release $60.00 $75.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Police Reports Report Copies $1.00 per No change Resolution No. 31-2003 page up to $15.00 maximum Fingerprint Rolling Fee $19.00 No change Livescan Fee Set by State of California Department of Justice Audio Tapes $26.00 $28.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 Videotapes/CD's/DVD's $42.00 No change Resolution No. 31-2005 Photographs $26.00 per $28.00 per Resolution No. 31-2005 roll roll Clearance Letter $10.00 $12.00 Resolution No. 31-2003 Overnight Parking Permit $2.00— '/z $10.00 Section 13.32.080 (if ordinance change adopted) year $4.00—Full year Repossessed Vehicle $15.00 $17.50 Resolution No. 31-2003 Bicycle License No charge No change Resolution No. 31-2003 POLICE FEES - 1 May 1, 2006 43 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE DUI Fees $106.00 per $110.00 per Resolution No. 31-2005 hour hour $106.00 per $110.00 per Resolution No. 31-2005 blood test blood test $58.00 per $60.00 per Resolution No. 31-2005 breath or breath or urine test urine test $53.00 per $55.00 per Resolution No. 31-2005 refused blood refused blood test test Booking Fees As set County No change Security Service (Outside Detail) $72.00 per $85.00 per Resolution No. 31-2005 hour hour Alarm Permits $49.50 per No change Resolution No. 116-2003 year Section 10.10.110 False Alarm Charge $50.00 for 3 No change Section 10.10.090 to 5 $100.00 for 6 No change Section 10.10.090 or more Amusement/Entertainment Permit $100.00 $105.00 Formerly in Chapter 6.16—now by resolution(6.16.050) Solicitors $50.00 for $50.00 for Section 6.24.030 investigation investigation plus fingerprinting fees Curb Painting $50.00 for No change Resolution No. 31-2003 investigation POLICE FEES - 2 May 1, 2006 44 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Tanning Salon Application $150.00 No change Section 6.42.060 Sale or Transfer $100.00 No change Section 6.42.120 Renewal $75.00 No change Section 6.42.160 Massage Operator Application $250.00 No change Section 6.40.060 Sale or Transfer $150.00 No change Section 6.40.120 Renewal $100.00 No change Section 6.40.160 Massage Practitioner Application $250.00 No change Section 6.40.060 Renewal $100.00 No change Section 6.40.160 Model/Escort Service Application $150.00 No change Section 6.41.040 Sale or Transfer $100.00 No change Section 6.41.100 Renewal $75.00 No change Section 6.41.130 Private Patrol Company Application $150.00 No change Section 6.44.050 Renewal $75.00 No change Section 6.44.080 Taxi Operator Application $150.00 No change Section 6.36.050 Renewal $75.00 No change Section 6.36.050 Taxi Driver Application $150.00 No change Section 6.36.050 Renewal $75.00 No change Section 6.36.050 Valet Parking $150.00 No change Section 6.30.040 Concealed Weapon $50.00 for No change Resolution No. 31-2003 investigation Fortune Teller $150.00 No change Section 6.38.060 Unruly Gathering Cost of Hours No change Section 10.70.070 of Officer Response POLICE FEES - 3 May 1, 2006 45 SERVICE CURRENT PROPOSED REFERENCE FEE FEE Special Events/Street Closing Permit $110.00 $115.00 Resolution No. 31-2005 application application fee $330/day fee $340/day City facility City facility fee fee $72/hour $85.00/hour police officer police officer fee for traffic fee for traffic control control POLICE FEES - 4 May 1, 2006 CITY 0 STAFF REPORT BURUNGAME AGENDA 88 ITEM# �ea9 �,m MTG. oA.,Eo JUME6 DATE 5/1/06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY DATE: April 26,2006 APPROVED FROM: Doris J. Mortensen By Tel.No.: 558-7203 SUBJECT: CONSIDER APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING COMMSSION RECOMMENDATION: Consider appointment recommendation of interview committee and make appointment 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. Two applications were received as of the deadline of April 14, 2006. The applicants were interviewed by the Council subcommittee of Russ Cohen and Rosalie O'Mahony on April 24, 2006. The interview committee will make their recommendation at the Council meeting on May 1, 2006. The appointee term will be for four years, ending in April 2010. Agenda Item # 8b Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: May 1, 2006 SUBMITTED BY ,n APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: APRIL 17, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: INTRODUCING ORDINANCE AMENDING FEES AND PENALTIES ASOCIATED WITH THE INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGE PROGRAM FOR 2006-2007, 2007-2008, AND 2008-2009 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council introduce an ordinance to adjust fees by: 1 . Request City Clerk to read title of proposed ordinance. 2. Waive further reading of the ordinance. 3. Adopt proposed ordinance. 4. Direct City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND: In July 2003, Council adopted a fee schedule to recover costs associated with the Industrial Waste Discharge Program. This program is required by the State Water Resources Control Board as a condition of Burlingame's National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit (NPDES). The primary purpose of the program is to monitor industrial discharges to the sanitary sewer system. This monitoring protects the City's collection system and the San Francisco Bay from destructive discharges. It also protects the Wastewater Treatment Facility from pollutants which may upset facility processes or cause a pass-through resulting in violations of the City's NPDES permit. DISCUSSION: The three year fee schedule for discharge monitoring, application processing and analytical testing in the attached ordinance is set to cover the cost of labor and materials required for each task. A cost analysis of each task is attached for all FY 2006-07 fees. The FY 2006-07 fees are then adjusted for inflation for the following two years based on the Bay Area CPI of 3%. The re-sampling costs and civil penalties are also in the ordinance. Language clearly describes the difference between re-sampling costs and penalties for permit violations. The re-sampling fees are set to cover the cost of labor and materials required for each task. The penalties are set using industry standards for other Bay Area treatment plants. S:W Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\2006-09 Amended Fees—Waste Discharge.doc BUDGET IMPACT: The fee increase is structured to recover all costs of the Waste Discharge Program. EXHIBITS: Ordinance, Fee and Labor/Materials Breakdown c: Jesus Nava,Finance Director Doris Mortensen,City Clerk Veolia(Waste Water Treatment Plant) S:W Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\2006-09 Amended Fees—Waste Discharge.doc I ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING FEES AND ESTABLISHING PENALTIES ASSOCIATED WITH 3 THE INDUSTRIAL WASTE DISCHARGE PROGRAM FOR 2006-20079 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 Section 1 . The City Council has considered the proposed fees submitted by the Director 7 of Public Works for the Industrial Waste Discharge Program and finds that the fees represent a fair 8 estimation of the costs involved to the City and are properly apportioned among users in the 9 program, and further that the proposed penalties would continue to encourage compliance while 10 ensuring fairness. 11 Section 2. The fees and penalties provided in Exhibit A hereto are adopted for purposes 12 of implementing, monitoring, and enforcing the City Industrial Waste Discharge Program. 13 Section 3. The schedule of fees and penalties adopted by this ordinance for 2006-2007 shall 14 be effective on and after July 1, 2006. The schedule of fees and penalties adopted by this ordinance 15 for 2007-2008 shall be effective on and after July 1 , 2007. The schedule of fees and penalties 16 adopted by this ordinance for 2008-2009 shall be effective on and after July 1 , 2008, and shall 17 continue in effect until such time as they are amended by subsequent ordinance even though that 18 may be beyond the year 2009. However, should no amendment providing otherwise be adopted, 19 the then-current Annual Discharge Monitoring Fees and the Application Processing Fees shall be 20 automatically adjusted on July 1, 2009, and each July 1 thereafter to be the greater of either: 21 a. The fee in effect immediately prior to that July 1 ; or 22 b. The product obtained by multiplying the fee then in effect by a fraction, the 23 numerator of which is the Index as defined below, published for the month of June 24 immediately prior to that July 1, and the denominator of which is the Index 25 published for the immediately prior year. 26 "Index"means the Consumer Price Index-Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers (CPI- 27 W), All Items, for San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose, CA (1982-84=100) published by the 28 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Should the Index no longer be 1 1 published,the Director of Public Works shall select a comparable index that the Director 2 determines measures the increase and decrease in the cost of living in the San Francisco- 3 Oakland-San Jose area. 4 6 Mayor 7 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the 8 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2006, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on 9 the day of , 2006, by the following vote: 10 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 11 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 12 13 City Clerk U:\FILES\ORDINANC\SEWEFEEINDUSWASTE2006.PWD.wpd 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 78 1 EXHIBIT A INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGE PROGRAM FEES AND CIVIL PENALTIES 2 ADOPTED , 2006 3 4 ANNUAL DISCHARGE MONITORING FEES 5 TYPE OF DISCHARGER' 2006-2007 FEE 2007-2008 FEE 2008-2009 FEE 6 LIGHT $ 571.00 $ 588.00 $ 606.00 7 MODERATE $1,565.00 $1,611.00 $1,660.00 g HEAVY/SIU $2,185.00 $2,251.00 $2,318.00 9 NON-CONVENTIONAL2 $1,168.00 $1,203.00 $1,239.00 10 GROUNDWATER Non-conventional Non-conventional Non-conventional fees plus $6.58 per fees plus $6.77 fees plus $6.98 11 1000 gallons per 1000 gallons per 1000 gallons discharged I discharged discharged 12 13 APPLICATION PROCESSING FEE 14 2006-2007 FEE 2007-2008 FEE 2008-2009 FEE 15 APPLICATION FEE $ 150.00 $ 155.00 $ 160.00 16 ANALYTICAL FEES 17 18 2006-2007 FEE 2007-2008 FEE 2008-2009 FEE 19 IN-HOUSE TESTING' Charged at cost Charged at cost Charged at cost CONTRACT LAB TESTING Charged at cost Charged at cost Charged at cost 20 plus 15% 1 plus 15% plus 15% 21 22 23 24 The Director of Public Works determines the type of discharger under the City Sanitary Sewer Use Regulations (Chapter 15.10) 25 'This fee covers two(2)samples,Additional samples will be charged in accordance with the Analytical Processing 26 Fee Schedule below. 27 3This fee is intended to recover the initial review,inspection,and research to permit a business in the city under the industrial waste discharge requirements only. 28 'In-house lab testing consists of BOD, TSS,and pH. 3 I VIOLATION CIVIL PENALTIES/COSTS 2 A fine is a penalty resulting from a sewer discharge permit violation. Fines are not issued for a first time violation. The fee for the first violation is to recover the cost for re-sampling to 3 determine whether the discharge from a business has been brought into compliance. The fees for the 2nd, 3rd, and subsequent violations are a combination of re-sampling costs and fines. 4 For example, if on January 1, 2007, BOD & TSS limits were violated, the total cost would be $165.00 + $135.00 = $300.00. If a 2nd violation was issued on February 1, 2007, for the same 5 Violation Parameters, the cost would be $165.00 + $135.00 + $300.00 = $600.00. If a 3rd violation was issued on March 1, 2007, for the same Violation Parameters, the cost would be 6 $165.00 + $135.00 + $600.00 = $900.00. 7 Re-Sampling Costs 8 Violation Parameter Re-Sampling Cost 9 Biochemical Oxygen Demand(BOD) $165.00 10 Total Suspended Solids (TSS) $135.00 11 pH $ 50.00 12 Oil & Grease $185.00 13 Grease Trap Interceptor Cleaning/Reporting $ 55.00 Other Varies as to actual cost 14 15 Total Fees/Fine Computation 16 1St Violation 2"d Violation 3" or More Violation 17 One Parameter See Re-Sampling Re-sampling costs Re-Sampling costs plus Costs plus $200.00 $400.00 18 Two Parameters See Re-Sampling Re-sampling costs Re-sampling costs plus 19 Costs plus $300.00 $600.00 Three Parameters See Re-Sampling Re-sampling costs Re-sampling costs plus 20 Costs plus $400.00 $800.00 21 Four Parameters See Re-Sampling Re-sampling costs Re-sampling costs plus Costs plus $500.00 $1,000.00 22 Five Parameters See Re-Sampling Re-sampling costs Re-sampling costs plus 23 Costs plus $600.00 $1,200.00 24 Illicit Discharge $250.00 $500.00 $1,000.00 25 26 Pursuant to the Sanitary Sewer Use Regulations (Chapter 15.10) and Government Code Section 54740, the City may also seek a penalty of up to $25,000 per day for violations of industrial 27 waste requirements by petition to the Superior Court. 28 4 Office of Environmental Compliance Cost Breakdown Light Industrial and Commercial Permits Hours Cost Total Permit Writing 1 $53.54 $53.54 Outreach 3 $53.54 $160.62 Data Review 1 @ $32.19 $32.19 Reports 1.5 @ $53.54 $80.31 Login data entry 1 0 $32.19 $32.19 Grease Trap Insp. 3 @ $53.54 $160.62 Total Cost Recovery $519.47 Overhead @ 10% $51.95 Total 10.5 $571.42 Current cost $522.00 % Difference 8.65 * Light Dischargers have been previously discontinued for excellent compliance issues but costs have not been recovered. Light permits will be reissues to recover current inspection costs. Moderate Industrial and Commercial Permits (per permit) Hours Cost Total Permit Writing 2 @ $53.54 $107.08 Outreach 2 @ $44.53 $89.06 Data Review 1 @ $32.19 $32.19 Reports 1 @ $53.54 $53.54 Lab Fees* 6 @ $131.00 $786.00 Login data entry 2 @ $32.19 $64.38 Sampling" 2 @ $32.19 $64.38 Oil and Grease Analysis 2 @ $70.00 $140.00 Grease trap Insp. 1 @ $32.19 $32.19 Industry Me fing 1 @ $53.54 $53.54 Total Cost Recovery $1,422.36 Overhead @ 10% $142.24 Total 20 $1,564.60 Current cost $1,427.00 % difference 8.794 * See below the Heavy Discharger Table Heavy Commercial and SIU permits Hours Cost Total Permit Writing 4 @ $53.54 $214.16 Outreach Sewer Science Bayfront Cleanup 6 @ $53.54 $321.24 Data Review 3 @ 1 $32.19 $96.57 Reports 3 @ $53.54 $160.62 Login Data Entry 2 @ $32.19 $64.38 Lab Fees* 6 @ $131.00 $786.00 Sampling' 2 @ $32.19 $64.38 Oil and Grease analysis 2 @ $70.00 $140.00 Grease Interceptor Inspection 1 @ $32.19 $32.19 Annual Site Inspection 2 @ $53.54 $107.08 Total Cost Recovery $1,986.62 Overhead @ 10% $198.66 Total 31 $2,185.28 Current cost $1,998.00 % difference 8.57 *Lab Fees for Moderate and Heavy dischargers do not include contracted costs from analysis of the oil and grease sample ** Includes sampler calibration, instrument calibration, cleaning/disinfection, van equipment upkeep, van safety Non-Conventional/Groundwater*** Hours Cost Total Permit Writing 3 @ $53.54 $160.62 Outreach 3 @ $44.53 $133.59 Data Review 2 @ $32.19 $64.38 Reports 2 @ $53.54 $107.08 Login Data Entry 7 @ $32.19 $225.33 Lab Fees* 2 @ $131.00 $262.00 Sampling" 2 @ $32.19 $64.38 Stormwater Inspection 1 @ $44.53 $44.53 Total Cost Recovery $1,061.91 Overhead @ 10% $106.19 Total 22 $1,168.10 Current cost $1,089.00 % difference 6.771760319 *** Groundwater permit fees subject to fees per 1000 gallons discharged plus Non-Conventional Permit fee and Oil and Grease sampling costs if applicable. Groundwater Discharge* Cost Collections Systems annual $4,950,000.00 WWTF annual $5,710,000.00 Total Annual Process Water Cost $10,660,000.00 Monthly Process Water Cost $888,333.33 Average Daily Flow Gal. 4,500,000 MGD Average Monthly Flow Gal. 135,000,000 Cost per gallon $0.0066 Cost per 1000 Gallon $6.580 *This charge is the summation of the City's complete operating budgets for Collection Systems and the WWTF. Application Fees Hours Cost Total Inspection and Survey 2 @ 53.54 $107.08 Administration 1 32.19 $32.19 Subtotal $139.27 Overhead @ 10% $13.92 Total $153.19 * This fee is intended to recover the initial review, inspection and research to permit a business in the City under the industrial waste discharge requirements only. Contractor Approx. Resampling Fees Cost Labor Hours Materials" Total Cost Biochemical Oxygen Demand $72.00 2 $20.00 $164.00 $165.00 Total Suspended Solids $59.00 2 $20.00 $138.00 $135.00 H* $32.00 1 $20.00 $52.00 $50.00 Oil and Grease* $70.00 $32.00 2 $50.00 $184.00 $185.00 Grease Trap/Interceptor $53.54 1 $0.00 $53.54 $55.00 Cleaning /Rep rting Varies *1 Hour minimum for set up time Oil and Grease charges at contractor rate for analysis **Materials include use of automatic and/or grab sampler, pH meter, calibration of equipment and use of consumables Agenda Item # 8r Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: May 1, 2006 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: APRIL 21, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING WATER RATES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08, AND 2008-09 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council introduce an ordinance to adjust water rates by: 1 . Requesting the City Clerk to read title of proposed ordinance. 2. Waiving further reading of the ordinance. 3. Introducing the proposed ordinance. 4. Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption. BACKGROUND: Burlingame maintains and operates a 100 mile water pipe distribution system and seven water storage reservoirs. A majority of the system was installed over 70 years ago and has served its intended life. The old pipes are corroded and undersized which makes it difficult to deliver sufficient water volume and pressure to customers. In 2003, Council approved rate increases to fund an aggressive capital improvement program. As a result, seven miles of deteriorated pipeline was replaced with newer and larger pipelines and 700 new water services were installed over the last three years. It is essential that the City continue funding the capital improvement program in order to serve the community with high quality of water as well as remain in compliance with State and Federal regulations. Burlingame purchases it's water from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC), which is the only water supply for Burlingame and most cities on the Peninsula. Effective July 1 , 2006, the SFPUC has proposed a rate increase of 13.7%. In addition, the SFPUC is proposing rate increases of up to 60% over the next five years to fund the capital improvements to the Hetch Hetchy (regional) water system. DISCUSSION: With the assistance of Hilton and Farnkopf Consultants, a firm specialized in analyzing water and sewer rates, staff developed a long term financing model to identify the rate increases necessary to fund the much needed capital improvement program as well as to evaluate the impacts of further SFPUC rate increases. Based on Council's direction at the February 22, 2006 study session, staff is proposing a 12% rate increase for each of the next three years. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\water rates for 2006 through 2008.doc This increase will fund water purchases from the SFPUC and an average annual $4,500,000 capital improvement program to replace aging infrastructure. Following are the three-year rate recommendations: Three Year Water Rate Schedule-Consumption Charge and Base Service Charge 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Rates per 1,000 gallons Actual Proposed Proposed Proposed City Rate 4.19 4.69 5.25 5.88 Burlingame Hills 4.66 5.22 5.85 6.55 Base Charge(Monthly) 5/8-3/4"Meter 19.23 21.54 24.12 27.01 1"Meter 32.70 36.62 41.01 45.93 1'/z"Meter 63.47 71.09 79.62 89.17 2"Meter 101.93 114.16 127.86 143.20 3"Meter 192.33 215.41 241.26 270.21 4"Meter 321.19 359.73 402.90 451.25 6"Meter 640.45 717.30 803.38 899.78 8"Meter 1,025.11 1148.12 1285.89 1440.20 By approving a three year rate schedule, the City will also be able to demonstrate to bond rating agencies that adequate financing is available, producing the lowest possible interest rate for the City. If approved, the average monthly water bill for single family residents will increase by approximately $6 from $51 to $57 for FY 2006-07. A customer's actual increase may vary from this amount depending on their monthly water consumption. PUBLIC OUTREACH: On March 24, 2006 staff scheduled a press conference to educate the local media about the proposed rate changes. Although media representatives did not attend the conference, staff sent the information packets to the local newspapers which resulted in several articles. Staff also sent notices of the public hearing and educational brochures to customers as well as advertised in the local newspapers. In addition, staff held a public meeting on April 26, 2006 to educate the customers of the need for the proposed rate changes. BUDGET IMPACT: It is estimated that the proposed rate changes will generate approximately $1,050,000 in Water Enterprise Funds of which 34% would go towards the purchase of water from the SFPUC, 35% would go towards the operations and maintenance of the system and 31%would go towards the debt service for the capital improvements program. EXHIBITS: Ordinance, Public Notification and education brochure. Syed rtuza, P.E Assis nt Public Works Director CC: City Manager, Finance Director, Public Works Director and City Attorney SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\water rates for 2006 through 2008.doc 1 ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME ADOPTING REVISIONS TO RATES AND FEES FOR WATER SERVICE 3 4 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 5 6 Section 1 . The existing water rates and connection fees were established by Ordinance 7 No. 1715 adopted July 7, 2003, and amended by Ordinance No. 1754 adopted June 6, 2005. 8 Notice of proposed revisions to the water rates and connection fees and of the public hearing on 9 the rates and fees was mailed to each ratepayer in the City and duly published in a newspaper of 10 general circulation in the City. The City Council, after public hearing and due study and 11 deliberation, has determined that the price of water to consumers supplied through the city's 12 distributing system must be increased to balance increased costs. These rates and fees will 13 provide financial support to the immense needs for reconstruction of the water system. The rates 14 are also intended to meet the currently projected increases in the wholesale cost of water 15 provided by the City & County of San Francisco, which is undertaking a reconstruction of the 16 water supply system to the San Francisco Bay Area. In the construction and maintenance of the 17 City water system, the City general fund has contributed significant amounts of money to build, 18 maintain, and operate the water system. The rates and fees adopted in this ordinance are not 19 discriminatory or excessive. 20 21 Section 2. The rates for 2006-2007 are as follows: 22 (a) Effective for all meter readings and billings on and after July 1, 2006, the fixed 23 monthly charge based on meter size shall be as follows, and for residential services only, such 24 service charge shall include the first 1,000 gallons of water per month: 25 Monthly Service Charge 26 5/8" and 3/4" meters .................................................................. $ 21 .54 27 l " meters .................................................................................... $36.62 28 1-1/211 meters .............................................................................. $71 .09 3/15/2006 1 1 2" meters .................................................................................. $114.16 2 3" meters .................................................................................. $215.41 3 4" meters .................................................................................. $359.73 4 6" meters .................................................................................. $717.30 5 8" meters ............................................................................... $1,148.12 6 (b) Effective for all meter readings and billings on and after July 1, 2006, the rate for 7 water consumed within the city shall be $4.69 per thousand gallons and for water consumed 8 outside the city shall be $5.22 per thousand gallons. The normal turn-on fee schedule for new 9 accounts shall be Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., no charge; 3:16 p.m. to 3:30 10 p.m., $20; 3:31 p.m. to 7:59 a.m., $60; Saturday/Sunday/holidays, $60. 11 12 Section 3. The rates for 2007-2008 are as follows: 13 (a) Effective for all meter readings and billings on and after July 1, 2007, the fixed 14 monthly charge based on meter size shall be as follows, and for residential services only, such 15 service charge shall include the first 1,000 gallons of water per month: 16 Monthly Service Charge 17 5/8" and 3/4" meters ................................................................... $24.12 18 1" meters .................................................................................... $41.01 19 1-1/2" meters .............................................................................. $79.62 20 2" meters .................................................................................. $127.86 21 3" meters .................................................................................. $241.26 22 4" meters .................................................................................. $402.90 23 6" meters .................................................................................. $803.38 24 8" meters ............................................................................... $1,285.89 25 (b) Effective for all meter readings and billings on and after July 1, 2007, the rate for 26 water consumed within the city shall be $5.25 per thousand gallons and for water consumed 27 outside the city shall be $5.85 per thousand gallons. The normal turn-on fee schedule for new 28 accounts shall be Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., no charge; 3:16 p.m. to 3:30 3/15/2006 2 I p.m., $20; 3:31 p.m. to 7:59 a.m., $60; Saturday/Sunday/holidays, $60. 2 3 Section 4. The rates for 2008-2009 are as follows: 4 (a) Effective for all meter readings and billings on and after July 1, 2008, the fixed 5 monthly charge based on meter size shall be as follows, and for residential services only, such 6 service charge shall include the first 1,000 gallons of water per month: 7 Monthly Service Chargee 8 5/8" and 3/4" meters ................................................................... $27.01 9 1" meters .................................................................................... $45.93 10 1-1/2" meters .............................................................................. $89.17 11 2" meters .................................................................................. $143.20 12 3" meters .................................................................................. $270.21 13 4" meters .................................................................................. $451.25 14 6" meters .................................................................................. $899.78 15 8" meters ............................................................................... $1,440.20 16 (b) Effective for all meter readings and billings on and after July 1, 2008, the rate for 17 water consumed within the city shall be $5.88 per thousand gallons and for water consumed 18 outside the city shall be $6.55 per thousand gallons. The normal turn-on fee schedule for new 19 accounts shall be Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 3:15 p.m., no charge; 3:16 p.m. to 3:30 20 p.m., $20; 3:31 p.m. to 7:59 a.m., $60; Saturday/Sunday/holidays, $60. 21 22 Section 5. Fees and charges. The following fees and charges currently exist and will 23 continue: 24 (a) Payment of all charges for water furnished by the municipal water department of the 25 city must be made forthwith, and, if not paid within thirty (30) days after the date on which 26 billed, shall be assessed a 1-1/2%penalty charge. In addition, the service may be discontinued 27 and will not be renewed unless a fee for renewal service and all outstanding bills are paid. The 28 fee for renewal shall be for service Monday through Friday during the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 3:15 3/1512006 3 I p.m., $35; from 3:16 p.m. to 3:30 p.m., $45; and from 3:31 p.m. to 4:50 p.m., $60. After 4:50 2 p.m., service will not be renewed until the next working day. 3 (b) In the event of an underground leak on the customer's service which cannot be easily 4 detected or a similar occurrence, the director of public works or the finance director may adjust 5 the resulting water charges if they deem an adjustment is warranted. If an adjustment is made, 6 the resulting charge shall not be less than the amount paid for the purchase of the water lost due 7 to the leak. The director of public works or the finance director may request documentation 8 evidencing the existence and repair of the leak as part of the review process. 9 (c) Fire service charge for maintaining water in a fire protection system shall be $1 per 10 month per inch of pipe diameter for the service connection, with a$2 per month minimum 11 charge. Water delivered at a fire service shall be charged at the regular rates for domestic 12 service, except that there shall be no charge for water used in a fire call emergency. 13 (d) When a flow test is requested by a customer, a fee shall first be paid to the city 14 according to the size of the service as follows: 15 5/8" through 1" ........................................................................... $50 16 1'1/2" and 2" ............................................................................... $80 17 Over 2" .................................................................... $100 minimum 18 In the event that the meter was recording higher than actual flow, the city shall refund the 19 testing fee and make adjustments in the billing for water consumed during the two (2) calendar 20 months preceding the date of the request for a test. 21 In the event the meter was recording accurately, the fee shall be retained. On services 22 over two inches (2"), an additional fee shall be billed if the cost of testing plus fifteen percent 23 (15%) for overhead should exceed the $100 fee. 24 (e) Temporary water service will be provided at a city fire hydrant, after the approval of 25 the location by the city engineer or the engineer's authorized representative, upon deposit of 26 $750. The fixed service charges for the temporary meter shall be $43.00 per month for one-inch 27 meters, and $85.00 per month for three-inch meters. Charges for the water consumed shall be as 28 stated in Subsections 2(b), 3(b), or 4(b) above, as applicable to period of consumption. 3/15/2006 4 I (f) Deposits for turn-on of water service. 2 (1) Deposits will be required for the turn-on of water service for any customer whose 3 account with the city has had a delinquency on a city water account during the previous twelve 4 (12) months in an amount equal to two (2) months estimated consumption, or $50.00, whichever 5 is greater. If no further delinquencies occur on the account over the succeeding twelve-month 6 period, the deposit shall be applied as a credit to the account. 7 (2) If a delinquency occurs on an account to which a deposit has been made, the 8 delinquency shall be satisfied first from the amount on deposit. 9 (g) Any work done on the water system of the city shall have prior approval and permit 10 from the city engineer. A fee of$60 shall be charged for the permit. A bond or deposit of 11 $1,500 shall accompany the request for a permit. The deposit is refundable in full upon 12 completion of the work to the satisfaction of the city engineer or water department 13 superintendent. 14 (h) All domestic water service installations of sizes 3/4" to 2", inclusive, consisting of 15 corporation and curb cocks, service line, meter boxes and meters, may be furnished and installed 16 by the city from the water main to a point approximately one foot inside the curb line, or to a 17 point within 4' of the property being served from a water main in an easement, alley or other 18 right-of-way other than dedicated street, but not exceeding a total distance from water main 19 connection to the meter box of sixty fee (60') for the following fixed fees: 20 5/8" bypass meter ................................................................... $ 350 21 3/4" service with meter ......................................................... $3,800 22 1" service with meter ........................................................... $3,840 23 1-1/2" service with meter ...................................................... $4,580 24 2" service with meter ............................................................ $4,710 25 All domestic water service installations of a size larger than two inches (2") or longer than sixty 26 feet (60') or not covered by the circumstances described above may be furnished and installed by 27 the city for the cost of labor and material, plus a sum equal to fifteen percent (15%) of the 28 combined cost of labor and material, less a credit for any existing water meter. The sum to be 3/15/2006 5 I paid for any such installations shall be estimated by the public works department, and such sum 2 shall be deposited with the department before the work of installation commences. In the event 3 that the estimated cost of making the installation proves to be insufficient to pay for said 4 installation as hereinabove provided, an additional sum sufficient to pay such costs shall be 5 charged. If the amount deposited exceeds the cost of installation as hereinabove provided, the 6 excess shall be refunded. 7 8 Section 6. Ordinance No. 1715 as amended by Ordinance No. 1754 is hereby superseded. 9 10 Section 7. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 11 12 13 Mayor 14 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, Deputy City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15 of , 2006, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2006, by the following vote: 16 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 17 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 18 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 19 20 C:\FILES\Water\2006ratesfees.pwd.wpd City Clerk 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3/15/2006 6 CITY OF BURLINGAME NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CHANGES TO WATER AND SEWER RATES The Burlingame City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7 PM, Monday, May 15, 2006 in the City Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road to consider changes in water and sewer rates and charges to be effective July 1, 2006, July 1, 2007, and July 1, 2008. The proposal will be for a three-year program to increase revenue to fund capital improvement costs, anticipated increases in the cost of water supplied by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and to insure revenue stability in the long term. Water Rates: Effective for all meter readings and billings on or after July 1, 2006, the water rate per 1,000 gallons of water used will increase for City residents and businesses from $4.19 to $4.69 (12%) and for Burlingame Hills, from $4.66 to $5.22 (12%). In addition, the base monthly service charge for a residential 5/8"or 3/4" meter will increase from $19.23 to $21.54 (12%). Your bill may increase more or less depending on your water consumption. The rate increase covers an anticipated increase of up to 21% in charges from the San Francisco Water Department, increases in water operating costs, and an increased requirement for debt service in connection with water system infrastructure improvements. A number of ongoing major capital improvements are required for both the water distribution and storage systems. City of Burlingame Three Year Water Rate Schedule-Consumption Charge and Base Service Charge 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Rates per 11000 gallons Actual Proposed Proposed Proposed City Rate 4.19 4.69 5.25 5.88 Burlingame Hills 4.66 5.22 5.85 6.55 Base Charge(Monthly) 5/8-3/4"Meter 19.23 21.54 24.12 27.01 1"Meter 32.70 36.62 41.01 45.93 V/i'Meter 63.47 71.09 79.62 89.17 2"Meter 101.93 114.16 127.86 143.20 3"Meter 192.33 215.41 241.26 270.21 4"Meter 321.19 359.73 402.90 451.25 6"Meter 640.45 717.30 803.38 899.78 8"Meter 1,025.11 1148.12 1285.89 1440.20 (Over for sewer rate information) Sewer Rates: Effective July 1, 2006,the residential sewer rate will increase from $6.30 to $6.90 (9.5%) per 1,000 gallons of average winter water consumption. The sewer bill is based on the average winter water usage billings between January and April over the last three years. The rates for all other user categories will increase by 9.5% based on total water consumption, as well as the types of discharge put into the system. The sewer rate increase is necessary to provide financing for ongoing infrastructure improvements. The minimum bimonthly residential sewer charge will be increased from $12.60 to$13.80(9.5%). City of Burlingame Three Year Sewer Rate Schedule 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Rates per 1,000 gallons Actual Proposed Proposed Proposed Single Family/Duplex 6.30 6.90 7.55 8.27 Multi-Family Residential 5.89 6.45 7.06 7.73 Restaurant, Markets, Food 16.76 18.35 20.09 22.00 Processing Moderate Strength Commercial, 11.30 12.37 13.54 14.83 Hotels With Restaurants, Hospital Light Strength Commercial 6.96 7.62 8.34 9.13 Schools and Churches 2.47 2.70 2.96 3.24 Minimum Charge(@ 1,000 12.60 13.80 15.11 16.54 Gallons Per Month) A public meeting will be held to discuss rate changes on April 26,2006 at 6:00 PM in the Lane Room, Burlingame Library at 480 Primrose, Burlingame, CA 94010. More detailed information about the meeting will be posted on the City's website at www.burlingame.org,and will be noticed in the newspapers in early April. In addition, a staff report for the public hearing covering these changes will be available after May 1, 2006. To obtain a copy, call the City Hall receptionist at 558- 7200, or stop by City Hall, 501 Primrose, Monday through Friday, 8 AM to 5 PM. The report will also be posted on the City's website. Agenda 8d Item Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: Ma 1 2006 11 , SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO : HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE : APRIL 21 , 2006 FROM : PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING SEWER RATES FOR FISCAL YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08, AND 2008-09 RECOMMENDATION : It is recommended that Council introduce an ordinance to adjust sewer rates by: 1 . Requesting the City Clerk to read title of proposed ordinance. 2 . Waiving further reading of the ordinance. 3 . Introducing the proposed ordinance . 4 . Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before the proposed adoption . BACKGROUND : Burlingame maintains and operates a 100 mile sewer pipe collection system and a waste water treatment plant. A majority of the system was installed over 70 years ago and has served its intended life. The old sewer pipes are partially blocked with tree roots and are cracked , which allows storm water infiltration into the system causing sewage backups and spills. In addition , the old pipes are undersized and cannot accommodate flows from Burlingame's larger, new and remodeled homes. In 2003 , Council approved rate increases to fund an aggressive capital improvement program . As a result, seven miles of deteriorated pipeline was replaced with newer and larger pipelines and 500 new sewer services were installed over the last three years. Further, improvements were constructed at the wastewater treatment plant to increase its efficiency and to bring it into compliance with State requirements. To protect public health , the State has recently passed new laws which require public agencies to develop and implement a comprehensive sewer system plan to prevent sewage spills on both public and private properties. The State requires that all sewage spills be monitored and reported regardless of size. The State also imposes hefty fines on public agencies for sewage spills and for non-compliance with their requirements. Staff has developed an aggressive capital improvements program and a pro-active preventative maintenance program to meet the State requirements. S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\sewer rates for 2006 through 2008.doc DISCUSSION: With the assistance of Hilton and Farnkopf Consultants, a firm specialized in analyzing water and sewer rates, staff developed a long term financing model to identify the minimum rate increase necessary to fund the much needed capital improvement program for replacing the aging infrastructure as well as for meeting the new State requirements. Based on Council's direction at the February 22, 2006 study session, staff is proposing a 9.5% rate increase for each of the next three years. This increase will fund the operation and maintenance costs required to meet State regulations and an average annual$3,700,000 capital improvement program to replace aging infrastructure. Following are the three-year rate recommendations: Three Year Sewer Rate Schedule 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Rates per 1,000 gallons Actual Proposed Proposed Proposed Single Family/Duplex 6.30 6.90 7.55 8.27 Multi-Family Residential 5.89 6.45 7.06 7.73 Restaurant,Markets, Food 16.76 18.35 20.09 22.00 Processing Moderate Strength Commercial, 11.30 12.37 13.54 14.83 Hotels With Restaurants, Hospital Light Strength Commercial 6.96 7.62 8.34 9.13 Schools and Churches 2.47 2.70 2.96 3.24 Minimum Charge(@ 1,000 12.60 13.80 15.11 16.54 Gallons Per Month) By approving a three year rate schedule, the City will also be able to demonstrate to bond rating agencies that adequate financing is available, producing the lowest possible interest rate for the City. If approved, the average monthly sewer bill for single family residents will increase approximately by $4 from $40 to $44 for FY Year 2006-07. A customer's actual increase may vary from this amount depending on their four month winter water consumption averaged over three years. PUBLIC OUTREACH: On March 24, 2006 staff scheduled a press conference to educate the local media about the proposed rate changes. Although media representatives did not attend the conference, staff sent the information packets to the local newspapers which resulted in several articles. Staff also sent notices of the public hearing and educational brochures to customers as well as advertised in the local newspapers. In addition, staff held a public meeting on April 26, 2006 to educate the customers of the need for the proposed rate changes. BUDGET IMPACT: It is estimated that the proposed rate changes will generate approximately$818,000 in Sewer Enterprise Funds of which 64%would go towards the operations and maintenance of the system and 36%would go towards the debt service for the capital improvements program. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\sewer rates for 2006 through 2008.doc EXHIBITS: Ordinance, Public Notification and education brochure. yed Mu u a, P.E. Assistant Public Works Director CC: City Manager, Finance Director, Public Works Director and City Attorney S:AA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\sewer rates for 2006 through 2008.doc 1. ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING CHAPTER 15.08 3 ESTABLISHING WASTEWATER COLLECTION RATES AND CHARGES 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 7 Section 1. Notice of proposed revisions to the sewer rates and of the public hearing on 8 the proposed rates was mailed to each ratepayer in the City and duly published in a newspaper of 9 general circulation in the City. The City Council, after public hearing and due study and 10 deliberation, has determined that the price of sewer service to customers must be increased to 11 balance increased costs and improvements and to fund necessary reconstruction. In the 12 construction and maintenance of the City sewer system, the City general fund has contributed 13 significant amounts of money to build,maintain, and operate the system. 14 15 Section 2. Section 15.08.070 of the Burlingame Municipal Code is hereby amended to 16 read as follows: 17 15.08.070 Sewer rental—Service charges. 18 (a) Every person whose premises in the city are served by a connection with the system 19 of sewerage of the city, whereby the sewerage or industrial wastes, or either or both, are disposed 20 by the city, shall pay a bimonthly sewer charge based upon the quantity of metered water per 21 bimonthly billing period as set forth in the following rate schedules, whether such water is 22 derived from a source other than city water supply or all or part of such water is furnished to the 23 premises without charge. The director of public works shall determine the classification of uses 24 not specifically listed. The finance director shall have the discretion and authority to establish a 25 different sewer charge when circumstances such as water leaks or unseasonable or atypical water 26 usage cause established rates to result in inequitably low or high sewer charges; any such 27 determination shall be reviewed by the city manager upon request from the customer. The 28 finance director may request documentation evidencing the existence of a leak or any other 3/15/2006 I problem that may have resulted in an inequitable charge. 2 3 Classification Amount 4 (1) Single-family/duplex Effective for all billings on or after July 1, 2006: $6.90 per thousand gallons of average water consumption for the billing periods January 6 through April of the years 2004, 2005, and 2006. Any user with an average water 7 consumption of less than a thousand gallons per month shall pay $13.80 as the bimonthly 8 sewer charge. 9 Effective for all billings on or after July 1, 2007: 10 $7.55 per thousand gallons of average water consumption for the billing periods January 11 through April of the years 2005, 2006, and 2007. Any user with an average water consumption of less than a thousand gallons 1' per month shall pay$15.11 as the bimonthly sewer charge. 13 14 Effective for all billings on or after July 1, 2008: 15 $8.27 per thousand gallons of average water consumption for the billing periods January through April of the years 2006, 2007, and 16 2008. Any user with an average water consumption of less than a thousand gallons 17 per month shall pay $16.54 as the bimonthly sewer charge. 18 19 (2) Multi-family residential Effective for all billings on or after July 1, 2006: 20 $6.45 per thousand gallons of water consumption for the current billing period. 21 22 Effective for all billings on or after July 1, 2007: 23) $7.06 per thousand gallons of water 24 consumption for the current billing period. 25 Effective for all billings on or after July 1, 2008: 26 $7.73 per thousand gallons of water 27 consumption for the current billing period. 28 3/1512006 -2 - 1 (3) Restaurant, caterers, supermarkets, Effective for all billings on or after July 1, 2006: 2 bakeries and other commercial food processing and food-related commercial $18.35 per thousand gallons of water 3 consumption for the current billing period. 4 Effective for all billings on or after July 1, 2007: 5 $20.09 per thousand gallons of water 6 consumption for the current billing period. 7 Effective for all billings on or after July 1, 2008: 8 $22.00 per thousand gallons of water consumption for the current billing period. 9 (4)Moderate strength commercial,including Effective for all billings on or after July 1, 2006: 10 manufacturing, commercial or industrial laundries, hotels with restaurants and $12.37 per thousand gallons of water 11 hospitals consumption for the current billing period. 12 Effective for all billings on or after July 1, 2007: 13 $13.54 per thousand gallons of water 14 consumption for the current billing period. 15 Effective for all billings on or after July 1, 2008: 16 ccons$14.83 per thousand umpt on for the current lbilling perilons of od. 17 18 (5) Light strength commercial including Effective for all billings on or after July 1, 2006: off-fice-warehouse, office buildings, cocktail lounges,auto-related,carwash,laundromats, $7.62 per thousand gallons of water 19 convalescent homes and hotels without consumption for the current billing period. restaurants 20 Effective for all billings on or after July 1, 2007: 21 $8.34 per thousand gallons of water 22 consumption for the current billing period. 23 Effective for all billings on or after July 1, 2008: 24 $9.13 per thousand gallons of water consumption for the current billing period. 25 26 (6) Institutional (schools and churches) Effective for all billings on or after July 1, 2006: 27 $2.70 per thousand gallons of water consumption for the current billing period. 28 311512006 - 3 - 1 Effective for all billings on or after July 1, 2007: 2 $2.96 per thousand gallons of water consumption for the current billing period. 3 4 Effective for all billings on or after July 1, 2008: 5 $3.24 per thousand gallons of water consumption for the current billing period 6 7 Section 3. Section 15.08.072 is amended to read as follows: 8 15.08.072 New customers in single-family or duplex classification.. 9 (a) When new customer service is provided to premises classified as single-family or 10 duplex under section 15.08.070, the customer will be charged at a bimonthly rate based on the 11 number of residents reported to occupy the premises as follows: 12 Number of Rate effective for billing Rate effective for billing Rate effective for billing 13 residents on or after July 1, 2006 on or after July 1, 2007 on or after July 1, 2008 1 $26.82 $29.36 $32.15 14 2 $33.35 $36.52 $40.00 15 3 $40.82 $44.70 $48.95 16 4 $48.29 $52.88 $57.90 17 5 $55.13 $60.37 $66.11 18 6 $57.10 $62.53 $68.47 19 7 $62.10 $68.00 $74.45 20 8 $72.31 $79.18 $86.71 9 or more $84.77 $92.83 $101.65 21 22 (b) This per capita rate will be used until the customer has had service through a 23 consecutive January, February, March, and April, and on July 1 following that consecutive 24 period, the sewer rate for the customer will be adjusted to the applicable rate specified in section 25 15.08.070(a)(1) above according to the water usage for those months. Following a second 26 consecutive January, February, March, and April, the rate will be further adjusted according to 27 the demonstrated water usage for the total eight months on July 1 following the second 28 consecutive period. 3/15/2006 - 4 - I Section 4. The City Council finds that the rates adopted by this ordinance are not 2 discriminatory or excessive and are intended to provide sufficient revenue to operate the sewer 3 enterprise pursuant to the Government Code. 4 5 Section 5. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 6 7 8 Mayor 9 I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 10 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the I day of , 2006, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on t 12 the day of , 2006, by the following vote: 13 14 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 15 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 16 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 17 18 City Clerk 19 C:\FILES\Sewer\2006rates.ord.wpd 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3/15/2006 - 5 - CITY OF BURLINGAME NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING CHANGES TO WATER AND SEWER RATES The Burlingame City Council will conduct a public hearing at 7 PM, Monday, May 15, 2006 in the City Council Chambers, 501 Primrose Road to consider changes in water and sewer rates and charges to be effective July 1, 2006, July 1, 2007, and July 1, 2008. The proposal will be for a three-year program to increase revenue to fund capital improvement costs, anticipated increases in the cost of water supplied by the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission and to insure revenue stability in the long term. Water Rates: Effective for all meter readings and billings on or after July 1, 2006, the water rate per 1,000 gallons of water used will increase for City residents and businesses from $4.19 to $4.69 (12%) and for Burlingame Hills, from $4.66 to $5.22 (12%). In addition, the base monthly service charge for a residential 5/8"or 3/4" meter will increase from $19.23 to $21.54 (12%). Your bill may increase more or less depending on your water consumption. The rate increase covers an anticipated increase of up to 21% in charges from the San Francisco Water Department, increases in water operating costs, and an increased requirement for debt service in connection with water system infrastructure improvements. A number of ongoing major capital improvements are required for both the water distribution and storage systems. City of Burlingame Three Year Water Rate Schedule-Consumption Charge and Base Service Charge 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Rates per 1,000 gallons Actual Proposed Proposed Proposed City Rate 4.19 4.69 5.25 5.88 Burlingame Hills 4.66 5.22 5.85 6.55 Base Charge(Monthly) 5/8-3/4"Meter 19.23 21.54 24.12 27.01 1"Meter 32.70 36.62 41.01 45.93 1'/�"Meter 63.47 71.09 79.62 89.17 2"Meter 101.93 114.16 127.86 143.20 3"Meter 192.33 215.41 241.26 270.21 4"Meter 321.19 359.73 402.90 451.25 6"Meter 640.45 717.30 803.38 899.78 8"Meter 1,025.11 1148.12 1285.89 1440.20 (Over for sewer rate information) Sewer Rates: Effective July 1, 2006, the residential sewer rate will increase from$6.30 to $6.90 (9.5%) per 1,000 gallons of average winter water consumption. The sewer bill is based on the average winter water usage billings between January and April over the last three years. The rates for all other user categories will increase by 9.5% based on total water consumption, as well as the types of discharge put into the system. The sewer rate increase is necessary to provide financing for ongoing infrastructure improvements. The minimum bimonthly residential sewer charge will be increased from $12.60 to$13.80(9.5%). City of Burlingame Three Year Sewer Rate Schedule 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 Rates per 1,000 gallons Actual Proposed Proposed Proposed Single Family/Duplex 6.30 6.90 7.55 8.27 Multi-Family Residential 5.89 6.45 7.06 7.73 Restaurant, Markets, Food 16.76 18.35 20.09 22.00 Processing Moderate Strength Commercial, 11.30 12.37 13.54 14.83 Hotels With Restaurants, Hospital Light Strength Commercial 6.96 7.62 8.34 9.13 Schools and Churches 2.47 2.70 2.96 3.24 Minimum Charge(@ 1,000 12.60 13.80 15.11 16.54 Gallons Per Month) A public meeting will be held to discuss rate changes on April 26, 2006 at 6:00 PM in the Lane Room, Burlingame Library at 480 Primrose, Burlingame, CA 94010. More detailed information about the meeting will be posted on the City's website at www.burlingame.org,and will be noticed in the newspapers in early April. In addition, a staff report for the public hearing covering these changes will be available after May 1, 2006. To obtain a copy, call the City Hall receptionist at 558- 7200, or stop by City Hall, 501 Primrose, Monday through Friday, 8 AM to 5 PM. The report will also be posted on the City's website. Agenda Item # 8e Meeting BURLI 0 R STAFF REPORT Date: Ma 1 2006 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY TO : HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE : APRIL 19 , 2006 FROM : PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: STOP SIGN ORDINANCE FOR CORTEZ AVENUE AND SHERMAN AVENUE RECOMMENDATION : It is recommended that Council introduce an ordinance to install stop signs on Cortez Avenue at Sherman Avenue by: 1 . Requesting City Clerk to read the title of the proposed ordinance . 2 . Waiving further reading of the ordinance. 3 . Introducing the proposed ordinance. 4. Directing the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance at least five days before proposed adoption . BACKGROUND: A request for stop signs on Cortez Avenue at Sherman Avenue was discussed at the Traffic Safety and Parking Commission in February and November of 2004 . On both occasions the request was denied because minimum warrant conditions were not met. The residents appealed the request to the City Council and at the September 19, 2005 meeting , Council approved the temporary installation of stop signs for a six month trial period . DISCUSSION : At their April 17 , 2006 meeting , staff made a presentation of the traffic volume and speed impacts resulting from the temporary stop signs. Council directed staff to proceed with making the stop signs permanent. BUDGET IMPACT: There are sufficient funds in the Public Works Department operating budget to maintain the stop signs. EXHIBITS : Ordinance - Stops signs at Cortez Avenue and Sherman Avenue c: Doris Mortensen , City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\Adopting Ordinance_Cortez-Sherman Stop Signs.doc 1 ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 13.20.010 FOR 3 INSTALLATION OF STOP SIGNS AT THE INTERSECTION OF CORTEZ AVENUE AND SHERMAN AVENUE 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 Section 1. The neighborhood near the intersection of Cortez and Sherman Avenues has 7 requested the City to install stop signs at this intersection, although under traffic warrants, stop 8 signs are not indicated. The City has conducted traffic studies and put in place temporary stop 9 signs,and the neighborhood reports that the temporary stops signs have seemed to make the traffic 10 situation in the neighborhood better. In order to provide the desired amenity, this ordinance is 11 adopted. 12 13 Section 2. Subsection 13.20.010(c) is amended to read as follows: 14 (c) Carmelita Avenue approaching Cortez Avenue; 15 Carmelita Avenue approaching Vancouver Avenue; 16 Canyon Road approaching Easton Drive; 17 Carolan Avenue approaching North Lane; 18 Castenada Drive approaching Trousdale Drive and Martinez Drive; 19 Chula Vista Avenue approaching Majilla Avenue; 20 Clarice Lane approaching Quesada Way; 21 Columbus Avenue approaching Easton Drive. 22 Coronado Drive approaching Davis Drive; 23 Cortez Avenue approaching Carmelita Avenue; 24 Cortez Avenue approaching Sherman Avenue; 25 Cypress Avenue approaching Barriolhet Avenue. 26 27 Section 3. Section 13.20.010(s) is amended to read as follows: 28 (s) Sanchez Avenue approaching Cortez Avenue; I Sebastian Drive approaching Arguello Drive; 2 Sebastian Drive approaching Frontera Way; 3 Sebastian Drive approaching Mariposa Drive; 4 Sebastian Drive approaching Trousdale Drive; 5 Sequoia Avenue approaching Murchison Drive; 6 Sequoia Avenue approaching Trousdale Drive; 7 Sherman Avenue approaching Cortez Avenue, 8 Skyline Boulevard approaching Trousdale Drive; 9 Skyview Drive approaching Skyline Boulevard; 10 Stanton Road approaching Gilbreth Road; 11 Summit Drive approaching El Prado Road; 12 Summit Drive approaching Hillside Circle. 13 14 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 15 16 Mayor 17 18 I,DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the 19 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2006, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on 20 the day of , 2005, by the following vote: 21 22 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 23 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 24 25 City Clerk 26 U:\FILES\ORDINANC\stopsign20061.pwd.wpd 27 28 AGENDA 8f CITY o� ITEM# t BURLiNGAME STAFF REPORT MAG. c� DATE May 1 2006 _ e TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTED BY,lack Van Eiten, Police Chie 20 DATE: April 10,.2006 APPROVED FROM: Jack Van Etten. P __ _ BY -JimNantell, City Manaaer PW SUBJECT: Introduce an amendment to the existing Burlingame City Ordinance (13.32.080) to change and increase the cost for the annual overnight public street parking permits. RECOMMENDATION: Introduce an amendment to existing Burlingame City Ordinance (section 13.32.080) to change and increase the annual cost for overnight public street parking permits. A. Request that the City Clerk read the title of the proposed ordinance B. Waive further reading of the proposed ordinance C. Introduce the proposed ordinance D. Direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the proposed ordinance at least 5 days prior to the proposed adoption BACKGROUND: Existing City Ordinance section 13.32.080 requires that the public obtain a permit to park a vehicle on a public street overnight from the hours of 2:00 am to 6:00 am. The police department has been enforcing this ordinance by citizen complaint for a number of years. Citizens who receive a citation in violation of this section can come to the police department and apply for an overnight parking permit that is valid for the entire calendar year. Once the application is accepted, reviewed (with a site/area visit) and approved, the $10.00 citation is voided. The current overnight parking permit cost of$4.00 for the calendar year has not increased since the 1970's. With increased operating costs over several decades, staff recommends that council change the existing ordinance to increase the cost for an annual overnight parking permit to $10.00. This increase will help off-set some of the increased costs for personnel and operation of this program. FISCAL IMPACT: Since the city approves approximately 100 to 150 annual overnight parking permits per year, this change will result in a small increase in city revenue (approximately $600.00 to $900.00 per year). ATTACHMENTS: Proposed change to Burlingame City Ordinance 13.32.080. 1 ORDINANCE No. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING SECTION 13.32.080 TO INCREASE THE ANNUAL FEE 3 FOR OVERNIGHT PARKING PERMITS 4 5 The CITY COUNCIL of the CITY OF BURLINGAME does hereby ordain as follows: 6 Section 1. Chapter 13.32 requires persons to obtain a parking permit from the Burlingame 7 Police Department in order to leave a vehicle on a public street between the hours of 2:00 a.m.and 8 6:00 p.m. The current fee was adopted in Ordinance No. 1136 in 1978. Costs of issuance have 9 risen and an adjustment at this time is appropriate. 10 11 Section 2. Section 13.32.080 is amended to read as follows: 12 13.32.080 Overnight parking. 13 (a) Permit Required. It is unlawful for the owner or driver of any vehicle to park such 14 vehicle upon any street or alley in the city between the hours of two a.m. and six a.m. without a 15 permit therefor. 16 (b) Issuance of Permit. In cases of hardship where the owners of vehicles cannot obtain 17 suitable storage or parking facilities, permits for parking between two a.m. (2 a.m.) and six a.m. 18 (6 a.m.) may be issued by the chief of police. The application for a permit shall be signed by the 19 applicant, shall state the make, model and license number of the vehicle and shall contain a 20 statement of the necessity and reasons for the permit. If, upon investigation, it is found that the 21 necessity exists therefor and that the applicant has no reasonable means for night storage of the 22 vehicle during the above-stated hours, the chief of police shall issue the permit for an annual or 23 semiannual period, as the applicant may request, based upon a calendar year. The fee for such 24 permit shall be ten four-dollars ($10) payable annually in advance, %J1 tVV" 1-1011ars Payable 25 , to the chief of police. 26 The permit shall not be transferable and shall be displayed on the left side window to the 27 rear of the driver of the vehicle for which it is issued at all times during which the vehicle is parked 28 upon the street between the hours of two a.m. (2 a.m.) and six a.m. (6 a.m.). The chief of police 4117/2006 1 1 shall revoke the permit when the necessity under which it was issued and the reasons therefor cease 2 to exist, or may renew such permit if the hardship still exists. (c)Exemptions. The provisions of this section shall not apply to a commercial vehicle of 4 any regularly licensed business in a commercial or industrial zone or to public utility vehicles while 5 on service or emergency calls, or to vehicles of any regularly licensed physician when actually 6 engaged in making professional calls. 7 8 Section 3. This ordinance shall be published as required by law. 9 10 Mayor 11 I,DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the 12 foregoing ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of ,2006,and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on 13 the day of , 2006, by the following vote: 14 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 15 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 16 17 City Clerk 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 411712006 rr AGENDA REM# ._... STAFF REPORT MAG y DATE MH 1,2006 X4....0 TO: _Honorable Mexor and CO-Council SUBMITTED BY look Van Ftten,p _..__ DATE: April 12,2006 APPROVED FROM: Jack Van Ftlene police Chief l T BY Jim Nantell, !N� SUBJECT: Approve a resolution to change the existing fees associated with the annual alarm permit and false alarms. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the resolution implementing the change the annual alarm permit fee and the current false alarm fees.This recommendation appears to meet the majority of the interests of council regarding the lowering of the annual alarm permit fee,alarm permit benefits,assessing higher false alarm fees at those locations with repetitive false alarms,and insuring that any changes in fees approximates the current revenue of the existing false alarm fee program. BACKGROUND: At the regularly scheduled city council meeting on April 3,2006,council members entertained a discussion involving several options related to eliminating or altering the current annual alarm permit fee.Council members also discussed various options to increase current false alarm fees,while at the same time wanted to maintain the existing revenue generated from both the alarm permit and false alarm charges.As a result of their discussion,the council members directed the police department to bring back a proposal that incorporate the following key elements: 1)Reduce the current annual alarm permit fee from$49.50. 2)Insure that the first false alarm at a permitted location is free. 3)Re-structure the current false alarm fee schedule to compensate for the revenue lost from the reduction in the annual alarm permit fee. 4)Insure that residences and businesses with alarm permits are afforded a benefit on a false alarm response,compared to those alarmed locations without a permit. Based on these key elements from council on this matter,the police department recommends the following changes to the existing ordinance involving false alarms and alarm permit fees: *Reduction of the current annual alarm permit fee from$49.50 to$35.00(this is a compromise amount from the original alarm permit fee of$25.00 charged about 15 years ago and the current alarm permit fee which was changed about 3 years ago). *Change the existing false alarm fee structure(with an alarm permit)to the following rates: I"false alarm-free 2n°false alarm-$150.00 3"'false alarm(or more)-$200.00 *Police response to false alarm with no permit-$150.00 Mayor and Council Re: Alarm Fees April 12, 2006 Page 2 As mentioned in earlier correspondence with council, there are 1516 known/permitted residential and commercial alarm systems in Burlingame. This produces an annual revenue of approximately $53,060. Based on the previous 3 year (2003 - 2005) average for false alarms with the 1" false alarm being free, the maximum revenue that could be billed and collected (based on the recommended false alarm fee increases) is $51 ,350. Therefore, the new reduced annual alarm permit fee and the new false alarm billing fees would generate revenue comparable to the current revenue that is generated from the current alarm permit fee and the current false alarm fee program. Staff believes that the reality of collecting 100% of the anticipated false alarm fees is somewhat unrealistic. This is based on citizens requesting a waiver (or reduction) of the false alarm fees due to mechanical or other related problems, contesting the fees, non-payments that are referred to collections, etc. Staff believes that the false alarm fee revenue will be less than the amount indicated, especially since the vast majority of false alarms are first alarms. Staff also believes that the anticipated repetitive false alarms will be reduced over time. If only '/ of the false alarm collections are made, and if you add the cost of non-permitted alarm violation fees, the total revenue for this program would approximate the revenue of our present existing program. This will continue to provide a portion of the economic relief to our city. Staff strongly feels that the implementation of any newly proposed alarm permit fee and false alarm fee schedule will result in added work for existing finance and police department staff, both of which (due to the economic downturn), have eliminated a number of positions over the past several years. It can be anticipated that the increase in the false alarm costs and the reduction of a second existing free alarm, will also increase the number of citizen complaints in both the finance and police departments when false alarm bills are generated and not reduced. This will create additional staff time from both departments to address these complaints. Staff would respectfully recommend that any alarm fee changes become effective on January 1 , 2007. This time would be needed to accommodate finance department computer billing changes and the continuation of permit fees and billing on the present calendar year basis. FISCAL IMPACT: This change would attempt to replicate the current revenue generated by our existing false alarm fees, our annual alarm permit fee, and for payment for no alarm permits. The newly proposed fee schedule would generate approximately $53,060 in alarm permit fees and a maximum of $51 ,350 for false alarm fees. One time costs for a computer programmer the change the existing billing and accounting system, estimated at approximately $1 ,500.00 to $3,500. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Resolution RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AMENDING FEES TO BE CHARGED FOR ANNUAL ALARM PERMITS AND FALSE ALARMS RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City has charged an annual alarm permit fee of$50 for approximately three years; and WHEREAS, the Council wishes to reduce the annual fee, while at the same time increasing the charge for multiple false alarms; and WHEREAS, the alarm fees create a strong incentive to register the alarm system with the Police Department and to keep the system in good working order; and WHEREAS, in balancing the various fees involved, the Council wishes to keep the Police Department as whole as possible to support effective response times, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1 . The Master Fee Schedule for Police is amended to establish the following alarm permit fees: Alarm Permits $35.00 per Section 10.10.110 year False Alarm Charge First false alarm No charge Section 10.10.090 Second false alarm $150.00 Third or more false alarms $200.00 Any false alarm for which no alarm $150.00 plus permit has been obtained false alarm fee Mayor I, DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk CADocuments and Settings\vanetten\Local SettingsUemporary Internet Fi1es\0LK5\a1armfee2006.fin.wpd BURLINGAME POLICE DEPARTMENT ALARM PERMITS OPTIONS WITH PERMIT FEE CURRENT PLAN OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 NUMBER OF EVENT OCCURRENCESr $0.00 OST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT ANNUALLY' ANNUAL ALARM PERMIT 1516 $49.50 $75,042.0 $25.00 $37,900.0 $35.00 $53,060. $37.00 $56,092.0 1 ST FALSE ALARM 1153 $0.0(- $0.00 $0. $0.00 $0. $0.00 $O. 2ND FALSE ALARM 133 $0.00 $0.0 $150.00 $19,950.0 $150.00 $19,950. $150.00 $19,950. 3RD+FALSE ALARMS 157 $77.50 $12,167.5 $200.00 $31,400. $200.00 $31,400. $200.00 $31,400. AVERAGE COST NO PERMIT 60 $49.50 $2,970.0 $150.00 $9,000. $150.00 $9,000. $150.00 $9,000. $90,179.5 $98,250.0 113,410.0 $116,442.0 ALARM PERMIT FEE+ 50%COLLECTION RATE ON FALSE ALARMS $82,610.7 $68,075.0 $63,235.0 $86,267.0 OPTIONS WITHOUT PERMIT FEE OPTION 1 OPTION 2 OPTION 3 EVENT NUMBER OF OCCURRENCES' COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT COST AMOUNT 1 ST FALSE ALARM 1153+60 $50.00 $60,650.0 $75.00 $90,975.0 $100.00 $121,300.0 2ND FALSE ALARM 133 $150.00 $19,950.0 $150.00 $19,950.0 $150.00 $19,950. 3"+FALSE ALARMS 157 $200.00 $31,400.0 $200.00 $31,400.0 $200.00 $31,400. EONFALSEA'LARMS OTA $112,000.0 142,325.0 $172,650. ECTIONRATE $56,000.0 $71,162.5 $86,325. 'BASED ON AN AVERAGE OFTHE YEARS 2003-2005 CITY k STAFF REPORT BUMJNGAMEAGENDA . . ITEM # a e,0 MTG. DATE 5/1/06 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTEDBY DATE: Mav 1, 2006 ( �C_ APPROVED FROM: Deirdre Dolan, Human Resources Director BY SUBJECT: Adopt Ordinance to Amend the Contract for Police Employees with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) and the City of Burlingame RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Council adopt the proposed ordinance and direct the City Clerk to publish a summary of the ordinance within 15 days of adoption. BACKGROUND: At the April 3, 2006 regular Council meeting, staff introduced the attached ordinance to amend the City of Burlingame's contract with the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS). This ordinance would amend the CalPERS contract to provide Police employees with the following benefit enhancement: • Section 21362.2 — 3% @ 50 Formula This enhancement was negotiated with the Police Officers Association (POA) as part of the January 1, 2002 to December 31, 2005 Memorandum of Understanding. The labor agreement securing this benefit enhancement for the Police Officers was approved by the City Council at the regular council meeting of March 18, 2002. When the City agreed to amend its contract with this provision, it was based on the fact that the majority of the agencies in San Mateo County already offered the 3% at 50 enhanced retirement formula. To achieve parity between the safety groups (Fire employees had already negotiated the 3% at 55 benefit), as well as remain competitive in the labor market, the 3% at 55 formula enhancement was granted to Police employees in the approved 2002 contract, with an agreement to move to the 3% at 50 formula effective July 1, 2004. However, in November 2003, the POA agreed to a two-year delay in implementation of this benefit as a cost-saving measure for the City, thereby deferring the implementation date to July 1, 2006. The actual implementation date will be June 26, 2006, since CalPERS requires that the effective date coincide with the first day of the nearest payroll period. The 3% @ 50 benefit is a change in the calculation used to determine employees' retirement plan benefits. The monthly retirement allowance is determined by age at retirement, years of service credit and final average compensation. The basic benefit is 3% of final average compensation for each year of credited service upon retirement at age 50. The allowance is limited to 90% of final compensation. BUDGET IMPACT: The change in present value of benefits the 3% @ 50 enhancement represents is $1,921,911. (The present value of benefits represents the total dollars needed today to fund all future benefits for current members of the plan, without regard to future contributions.) The change in the unfunded accrued liability is $1,770,105. (The accrued liability represents the funding level needed if there is to be future employer and employee contributions.) The change in the total employer contribution rate is an increase of 6.518%. The cost of this benefit is included in the 2006-2007 fiscal year budget. ATTACHMENTS: Ordinance Exhibit—Amendment to Contract I ORDINANCE NO. 2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AUTHORIZING AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND 3 THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM (CALPERS) TO PROVIDE SECTION 21362.2 BENEFITS (3%AT 50 FULL FORMULA) TO 4 LOCAL POLICE MEMBERS 5 6 The City Council of the City of Burlingame ordains as follows: 7 Section 1. Pursuant to the California Government Code and the Contract between the City 8 of Burlingame and the California Public Employees Retirement System(CALPERS),the City has 9 agreed in its collective bargaining with the safety employees in its police department to amend its 10 contract with CALPERS to provide them with a retirement benefit of 3%@ 50. On April 3,2006, 11 the City Council adopted a Resolution of Intention to consider this amendment at a duly noticed 12 public hearing, and notice of that public hearing has been properly provided. Written comments 13 and oral testimony of all interested persons have been considered. 14 Section 2. The Amendment to the Contract between the City of Burlingame and the Board 15 of Administration, California Public Employees Retirement System is hereby authorized, a copy 16 of this amendment is attached to this ordinance,marked Exhibit A,and by such reference is made 17 a part hereof as though herein set out in full. The amendment shall be effective on June 26, 2006. 18 Section 3. The Mayor of the City of Burlingame is hereby authorized, empowered, and 19 directed to execute this amendment for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 20 Section 4. This ordinance shall be published as required by law and shall take effect thirty 21 days after its adoption. 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 3`d day of 27 April, 2006, and adopted thereafter at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day 28 of , 2006, by the following vote: 1 I AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 2 NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 3 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 4 5 City Clerk 6 C:\FILES\ORDINANC\calpersemn6.per.wpd 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 CAPERS EXHIBIT California Public Employees' Retirement System AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT Between the Board of Administration California Public Employees ' Retirement System and the City Council City of Burlingame The Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as Board, and the governing body of the above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency, having entered into a contract effective July 1, 1942, and witnessed July 6, 1942, and as amended effective February 1, 1954, July 1, 1956, April 1, 1963, March 1, 1964, April 1, 1965, March 16, 1967, November 1, 1968, September 1, 1970, April 1, 1973, May 1, 1974, November 1, 1974, February 20, 1975, March 16, 1975, July 1, 1976, August 16, 1976, May 1, 1979, December 1, 1985, December 1 1987, December 6, 1989, November 15, 1990, May 26, 1997, December 12, 2000, November 1, 2001, December 30, 2001, July 15, 2002, June 5, 2003 and July 12, 2004 which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency hereby agree as follows: A. Paragraphs 1 through 12 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective July 12, 2004, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1 through 13 inclusive: 1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees' Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 55 for local miscellaneous members, age 55 for local fire members and age 50 for local police members. PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT ONLY" 2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from and after July 1, 1942 making its employees as hereinafter provided, members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees' Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted except those, which by express provisions thereof,apply only on the election of a contracting agency. 3. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or this agreement: a. Local Fire Fighters(herein referred to as local safety members); b. Local Police Officers(herein referred to as local safety members); C. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local miscellaneous members). 4. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said Retirement Law,the following classes of employees shall not become members of said Retirement System: a. PLAYGROUND LEADERS WHO ARE PAID ON AN HOURLY BASIS; POLICE CADETS,AND LIBRARY PAGES HIRED ON OR AFTER MARCH 16,1967;AND b. FIRE CADETS AND CROSSING GUARDS HIRED ON OR AFTER MAY 1,1974. 5. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21354 of said Retirement Law (2%at age 55 Full). 6. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local police member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21362.2 of said Retirement Law (3%at age 50 Full). 7. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited prior and current service as a local fire member shall be determined in accordance with Section 21363.1 of said Retirement Law (3%at age 55 Full). PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT ONLY" 9. Public Agency, in accordance with Government Code Section 20790, ceased to be an "employer" for purposes of Section 20834 effective on August 16, 1976. Accumulated contributions of Public Agency shall be fixed and determined as provided in Government Code Section 20834, and accumulated contributions thereafter shall be held by the Board as provided in Government Code Section 20834. 10. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect to local miscellaneous members and local safety members of said Retirement System. 11. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows: a. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21573 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local miscellaneous members. b. Contributions required per covered member on account of the 1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21574 of said Retirement Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account, based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local safety members. C. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. d. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and valuations required by law. 12. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees' Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said Retirement Law. 13. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be paid by Public Agency to the Retirement System within fifteen days after the end of the period to which said contributions refer or as may be prescribed by Board regulation. If more or less than the correct amount of contributions is paid for any period, proper adjustment shall be made in connection with subsequent remittances. Adjustments on account of errors in contributions required of any employee may be made by direct payments between the emp`Loyee and the Board. B. This amendment shall be effefcI e on the day of BOARD OF ADMINISTRq CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC EMPLOYEE.�>"E IREMENT SYSTEM CITY OF BURLINGAME BWLICEMPLOYEES' 100S BY LTLAND, CHIEF PRESIDING OFFICER EERVICES DIVISION P RETIREMENT SYSTEM " Witness Date N" Ato�:NO cj\G Clerk AMENDMENT ER# 18 PERS-CON-702A(Rev. 10\05) Agenda Item # 9b BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: Mav 1 006 �i SUBMITTED BY Z4045e�e APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: APRIL 19, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING THE PURCHASE OF A PORTION OF THE FRANKLIN SCHOOL PROPERTY FOR THE TROUSDALE PUMP STATION AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO SIGN A SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT, TO EXECUTE ESCROW INSTRUCTIONS AND TO ACCEPT THE DEED FROM THE BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT; AND APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. ND-540- P, CITY PROJECT NO. 80910 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the Purchase and Sale Agreement between the Burlingame Elementary School District and the City of Burlingame for $60,000 and approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Trousdale Pump Station and Transmission Main Project. BACKGROUND: As part of the City's master plan for water service, a new pump station is needed in the Trousdale Drive area to deliver enough water to provide both peak demand for consumers and fire protection flow at the same time. Presently, the City does not have this capacity. The proposed pump station would be located adjacent to the City's existing station in the southwest corner of the school property. Logistically, the City will have to keep the existing pump station operating until the new pump station is completed; therefore an additional 1 ,500 square feet of property is required to build the new pump station. DISCUSSION OF PROJECT: The purchase of the property for expansion of the pump station is a part of a larger project to improve water service to the northwest portions of the community. This larger project, referred to as the Trousdale Pump Station and Transmission Main project, is subject to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The proposed project involves replacement of the existing Trousdale Pump Station with a new, larger pump station, and installation of a water transmission main which connects from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission (SFPUC) pipelines at Trousdale and Magnolia to the new pump station, and westward in Trousdale to the Mills Tank, located within the Crystal Springs Watershed lands near Trousdale and Interstate 280. The new transmission main will transmit water supply from the SFPUC connection to the Mills Tank, which serves the western hills portions of Burlingame. The new pump station will have the capability to pump the maximum daily flow combined with the required fire flow, which will provide improved water distribution to the western hills portions of Burlingame. DISCUSSION OF PURCHASE AGREEMENT: The City obtained an independent appraisal of the pump station property and negotiated the terms of the sale with the Burlingame Elementary School District.The purchase price of$60,000 is in accordance with the appraisal and was accepted by the School District at their board meeting of March 14, 2006. On April 10, 2006 the Planning Commission approved a determination that the pump station purchase is consistent with the City's General Plan. DISCUSSION OF MITIGATED NEGATIVE DELCLARATION: In accordance with CEQA requirements, an Initial Study was prepared for the project. Based on the Initial Study, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was sent to the County Clerk's Office and circulated to other responsible agencies for comment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration provides a review of the project's impact on the environment,with emphasis on the biological resources within the Crystal Springs Watershed lands. Based on changes made to the project to avoid or reduce potential environmental impacts, it has been determined that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Purchase and Sale Agreement,Location Map, Mitigated Negative Declaration BUDGET IMPACT: There are sufficient budgeted funds available through the 2005-06 water bond proceeds. c: Doris Mortensen,City Clerk, Larry Anderson,City Attorney, Burlingame School District, Erler&Kalinowski, Inc. SAA Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\80910PURCHASEOFTROUSDALEPUMP STATION.WPD.doc RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BURLINGAME APPROVING NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THE PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT ON BEHALF OF THE CITY, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT GRANT DEED FOR PROPERTY TO CONSTRUCT NEW POTABLE WATER PUMP STATION PROPERTY: A PORTION OF 2385 TROUSDALE DRIVE, BURLINGAME, CALIFORNIA RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Burlingame: WHEREAS, the City is undertaking a city-wide improvement program for the City's potable water system, including improved and more reliable water delivery to the hillside areas of the northern portion of the City; and WHEREAS, in order to provide such a system, the City must construct a new pump station in the Trousdale Drive area; and the property is currently unoccupied; and WHEREAS, the City currently owns a portion of the property at 2385 Trousdale Drive and has a pump station on that site; and WHEREAS, with some additional land, the new pump station can be located adjacent to the old pump station, saving expenses involved in locating the pump station at a new site, and the old pump station can continue to operate while the construction is underway; and WHEREAS, the City has obtained an independent appraisal delineating the value range for the property; and WHEREAS, the Burlingame Elementary School District is willing to sell this portion of the property to the City at a fair price as outlined by the appraisal; and WHEREAS, the City has also prepared a negative declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act that describes the acquisition, possible alternatives for improvements, and possible adverse environmental impacts; and WHEREAS, the negative declaration concludes that no significant environmental impacts will occur from either acquisition or improvement of the property as a pump station; and WHEREAS, on April 10, 2006, at a public meeting, the Burlingame Planning Commission determined that the proposed acquisition and pump station were consistent with the Burlingame General Plan; and WHEREAS, it appears that the purchase price is reasonable in light of the appraisal; and 1 WHEREAS, the negative declaration has been prepared, noticed, and reviewed in conformance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act and the CEQA Guidelines, and the Council has considered the negative declaration before adopting this resolution; and WHEREAS, the proposed acquisition of the property and use as a pump station would be consistent with the Burlingame General Plan, and there is no reasonable possibility that the acquisition or the construction will create any significant adverse environmental effects; WHEREAS, this acquisition by the City is in the public interest, NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS RESOLVED AND ORDERED: 1. The negative declaration is approved. 2. The Purchase and Sale Agreement attached hereto as Exhibit A is approved. 3. The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute the Purchase and Sale Agreement by and on behalf of the City of Burlingame, and the Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the City Manager. 4. The City Manager is further authorized and directed to execute an acceptance by the City of a standard form Grant Deed and such other documents necessary in connection with the Purchase and Sale Agreement, and the Clerk is directed to attest to the signature of the City Manager. MAYOR I,DORIS MORTENSEN,City Clerk of the City of Burlingame,do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2006,and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: CITY CLERK 2 PURCHASE AND SALE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF BURLINGAME THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 2006, by and between the Burlingame Elementary School District("District") and the City of Burlingame ("City"). RECITALS A. District owns the real property commonly known as Franklin Elementary School, 2835 Trousdale Drive, Burlingame, California("Franklin School"). B. City would like to purchase a portion of Franklin School in order to construct a pump station for the City's potable water system service, and the portion that the City wishes to purchase is described in Exhibit A to this Agreement("Property"). C. City has shared its appraisal of the Property with the District, and the District and the City have considered the appraisal and the public needs of each party. D. The parties have approved execution of this Agreement in accordance with State law. NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Purchase and Sale District shall sell the Property to City and City shall purchase the Property from District on the terms and conditions stated in this Agreement. 2. Purchase Price The purchase price for the Property is Sixty Thousand and no/00 dollars ($60,000.00) ("Purchase Price"). The Purchase Price shall be paid by City by deposit in escrow of sufficient funds to cover the Purchase Price, plus all escrow costs,prior to the close of escrow. 3. Escrow and Closing This transaction shall be completed through an escrow established with First American Title Insurance Company located at 555 Marshall Street, Redwood City, CA 94063. Each party shall promptly deposit all funds and documents as required by the escrow holder to complete this transaction. 4. Close of Escrow - 1 - The escrow shall close on or before , 2006 ("Close of Escrow"), and City may take possession of the Property immediately following Close of Escrow. 5. Closing Costs and Prorations City shall pay any transfer taxes on recordation of the deed. City shall pay all recording fees and the premium for the title insurance policy described in Paragraph 6 below. City shall pay all escrow fees. Prorations of any real property taxes and assessments, rents, interest, and other expenses of the Property, if any, shall be prorated as of the date of recordation of the deed. 6. Title District shall convey title to the Property subject only to real estate taxes not yet due, and covenants, conditions, restrictions, rights of way and easements of record, if any, which do not materially affect the value or intended use of the Property. (a) City's Approval of Title. City will obtain or update a preliminary report of title for the Property ("Preliminary Report") within five (5) days after the execution of this Agreement. City shall notify District in writing within ten (10) days after receipt of the Preliminary Report of City's disapproval of any exception therein. All other exceptions in the Report shall be referred to as Approved Exceptions. District shall have ten(10) days after such notice to advise City of any disapproved exceptions which will not be removed by District prior to the Close of Escrow. If District indicates that it will not correct any of the disapproved exceptions, City may elect to: (i) Terminate this Agreement without liability on the part of either party; or (ii) Continue with the purchase of the Property subject to such exceptions without reduction in the Purchase Price and without any liability on District's part relative to the title to the Property. (b) Evidence of Title. Title in the form of a California Land Title Association or American Land Title Association policy of title insurance shall be issued by the title company and paid by City. 7. Review of Property, Test, and Surveys District has not made any representations or warranties of any kind regarding the fitness of the Property for the use to which the City may intend to put the Property nor any other particular use. City has been given an opportunity to inspect the Property and before the Close of Escrow, City may conduct reasonable tests thereon. District makes no oral or written representation regarding the size and square footage of the Property, or the location of property lines. Apparent boundary line indicators such as driveways, fences, hedges, walls, or other barriers may not represent the true boundary lines. Only a surveyor can determine the actual - 2 - boundary lines. If any of these issues are important to City's decision to purchase, then City should investigate the Property independently. City acknowledges that it has not relied upon any representations by District with respect to the condition of the Property,the status of permits, zoning, or code compliance. City is to satisfy itself concerning these issues. 10. Changes During Transaction During the pendency of this transaction, District agrees that no changes in the occupancy of the Property shall be made, nor shall any substantial alterations or repairs be made or undertaken to the Property without the written consent of the City. 11. Destruction or Alteration of the Property If the condition of the Property is materially altered, whether by human hand or by act of God, or found to be materially defective as a result of such alteration prior to Close of Escrow, City may terminate the transaction by written notice delivered to District. 12. Commissions Each party represents and warrants to the other party that no broker or finder or other real estate agent is entitled to any commission, finder's fee or other compensation resulting from any action on its part. City and District each agree to indemnify the other and defend and hold harmless the other party from and against any loss, cost, or expense, including attorney's fees, incurred by such party, and against any claims, causes of action or the like brought by any broker, finder or similar agent for a commission or fee on account of this Agreement. 13. Entire Agreement This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter contained in it and supersedes all prior and contemporaneous agreements, representations and understandings of the parties. No supplement, modification or amendment of this Agreement shall be binding unless executed in writing by both parties. 14. Binding on Successors and Assigns This Agreement shall be binding on, and shall inure to the benefit of, the parties to it and their respective legal representatives, successors, and assigns. 15.Agreement to Perform Necessary Acts Each party agrees to perform any further acts and execute and deliver any documents that may be reasonably necessary to carry out the provisions in this Agreement. 16. Notices - 3 - All notices, requests, demands, and other communications under this Agreement shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given on the date of service if served personally on the person to whom notice is to be given or, on the second (2nd) day after mailing if mailed to the party to whom notice is to be given, by First Class Mail, registered or certified, return receipt requested, postage prepaid and properly addressed as follows: To District: Superintendent Burlingame Elementary School District 1825 Trousdale Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 To City: Director of Public Works City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Any party may change its address for purposes of this paragraph by giving the other party written notice of the new address to the other party at the address contained herein. 17. Governing Law This Agreement has been negotiated and entered into in the State of California and shall be governed by, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California and according to its fair meaning, and not in favor of or against any party. Venue for any action arising under this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of San Mateo County. 18. Severability If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable by any court of final jurisdiction, it is the intent of the parties that all the other provisions of this Agreement be construed to remain fully valid, enforceable and binding on the parties. 19. Survival of Representations and Warranties All covenants, representations, warranties, and other agreements under this Agreement shall survive the Close of Escrow. 20. Time is of the Essence Time is of the essence and performance of this Agreement in respect to all provisions of this Agreement that specify a time for performance, and failure to comply with this provision shall be a material breach of this Agreement. - 4 - 21. Waiver No breach of any provision of this Agreement can be waived unless in writing. Waiver of any one breach of a provision hereof shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any other breach of the same or any other provision, including the time for performance of any such provision. The exercise by a party of any remedy provided in this Agreement or at law shall not prevent the exercise by that party of any other remedy provided in this Agreement or at law. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. BURLINGAME ELEMENTARY CITY OF BURLINGAME SCHOOL DISTRICT By By - 5 - Attest: Approved as to form: - 6 - 1,x e 4 lErj4s �' i = FE i F 7 l� 4111 1 , IgI{ i moot MEN CRY HO0 238gwn 1,11, . COP 73 0 jl�l�ll��!�iil w d li 'lllr b- IIS '; i• � J c. Y � f it #e 1 ala II � t g= ase 6 � MARTINEZ p r in h*' ' aim .Q 4 ku r s . , , �«•� .�# r W �ea a (io- � =tea'"i " `�+ r '- ,� - qf N � n , e V w a O Agenda 9c Item # BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date:Meeting May IA006 SUBMITTED BY Zi4ft APPROVED BY TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: APRIL 19, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH OLIVIA CHEN CONSULTANTS FOR THE DESIGN OF THE TROUSDALE PUMP STATION AND TROUSDALE TRANSMISSION MAIN, CITY PROJECT NO. 80910 RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution for a professional services agreement with Olivia Chen Consultants in the amount of $894,739. BACKGROUND: A water system master plan was completed in April 2004, which identified that the existing Trousdale pump station has reached the end of its useful life and is incapable of delivering peak consumer flow and fire protection flow at the same time. Olivia Chen Consultants was among six qualified consulting firms interviewed by the City to provide consulting services involving an evaluation of this pump station. They completed a conceptual engineering report in December 2004 which recommended a new pump station and transmission main which would provide sufficient pressure and flows to deliver both peak demand and fire protection. As a result of the increased pressure from the new pump station, the City will be able to take the Donnelly pump station out of service. DISCUSSION: Staff has negotiated a fee of $894,739 for a scope of work including the design of the new Trousdale pump station, design of the Trousdale transmission main and design of five pressure reducing valve stations in the distribution system. The $894,739 fee represents approximately 17% of the estimated $5,100,000 construction cost. This design fee is within the normal industry range of 15% to 20% and is reasonable given the scope and complexity of the project. Construction of the transmission main is scheduled for Spring 2007 and construction of the pump station is scheduled for 2008. EXHIBITS: Resolution, Professional Services Agreement, Map BUDGET IMPACT: There are sufficient budgeted funds available through the 2005-06 water bond proceeds. c: City Clerk, City Attorney, Olivia Chen Consultants, Erler & Kalinowski, Inc. A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\80910TROUSDALEPUMP STATION.WPD.doc RESOLUTION NO. AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH OLIVIA CHEN CONSULTANTS FOR THE DESIGN OF TROUSDALE PUMP STATION AND TROUSDALE TRANSMISSION MAIN CITY PROJECT NO. 80910 RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in the title above. 2. The City Manager be, and he is hereby, authorized to sign said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and instructed to attest such signature. Mayor 1,DORIS MORTENSEN, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of , 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote. AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: City Clerk SAA Public Works Directory\PROJECTS\PROJECTS\RESAGRMT.GEN AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES WITH OLIVIA CHEN CONSULTANTS FOR THE DESIGN OF THE TROUSDALE PUMP STATION AND TROUSDALE TRANSMISSION MAIN CITY PROJECT NO. 80910 THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 2006, by and between the City of Burlingame, State of California, herein called the "City", and OLIVIA CHEN CONSULTANTS engaged in providing ENGINEERING & DESIGN consulting services herein called the "Consultant". RECITALS A. The City is considering construction of a new Trousdale Pump Station and Trousdale Transmission Main as part of its Water System Master Plan. B. The City desires to engage a professional consultant to provide design engineering, because of Consultant's experience and qualifications to perform the desired work, described in Exhibit A. C. The Consultant represents and affirms that it is qualified and willing to perform the desired work pursuant to this Agreement. AGREEMENTS NOW, THEREFORE, THE PARTIES HERETO AGREE AS FOLLOWS: 1. Scope of Services. The Consultant shall provide all services as set forth in Exhibit A of this agreement. 2. Time of Performance. The services of the Consultant are to commence upon the execution of this Agreement with completion of the design by July 2007. 3. Compliance with Laws. The Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations of governing federal, state and local laws. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally required for Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of Burlingame business license. Page 1 of 7 4. Sole Responsibility. Consultant shall be responsible for employing or engaging all persons necessary to perform the services under this Agreement. 5. Information/Report Handling. All documents furnished to Consultant by the City and all reports and supportive data prepared by the Consultant under this Agreement are the City's property and shall be delivered to the City upon the completion of Consultant's services or at the City's written request. All reports, information, data, and exhibits prepared or assembled by Consultant in connection with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement are confidential until released by the City to the public, and the Consultant shall not make any of the these documents or information available to any individual or organization not employed by the Consultant or the City without the written consent of the City before such release. The City acknowledges that the reports to be prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this Agreement are for the purpose of evaluating a defined project, and City's use of the information contained in the reports prepared by the Consultant in connection with other projects shall be solely at City's risk, unless Consultant expressly consents to such use in writing. City further agrees that it will not appropriate any methodology or technique of Consultant which is and has been confirmed in writing by Consultant to be a trade secret of Consultant. 6. Compensation. Compensation for Consultant's professional services shall not exceed $894,739.00; and payment shall be based upon City approval of each task. Billing shall be accompanied by a detailed explanation of the work performed by whom at what rate and on what date. Also, plans, specifications, documents or other pertinent materials shall be submitted for City review, even if only in partial or draft form. 7. Availability of Records. Consultant shall maintain the records supporting this billing for not less than three (3)years following completion of the work under this Agreement. Consultant shall make these records available to authorized personnel of the City at the Consultant's offices during business hours upon written request of the City. 8. Project Manager. The Project Manager for the Consultant for the work under this Agreement shall be Gustavo Arboleda. 9. Assignability and Subcontracting. The services to be performed under this Agreement are unique and personal to the Consultant. No portion of these services shall be assigned or subcontracted without the written consent of the City. 10. Notices. Any notice required to be given shall be deemed to be duly and properly given if mailed postage prepaid, and addressed to: Page 2 of 7 To City: George Bagdon, P.E., Director of P.W. City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 To Consultant: Olivia Chen Consultants 1390 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94102 or personally delivered to Consultant to such address or such other address as Consultant designates in writing to City. 11. Independent Contractor. It is understood that the Consultant, in the performance of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of the City. As an independent contractor he/she shall not obtain any rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City employee(s). With prior written consent, the Consultant may perform some obligations under this Agreement by subcontracting, but may not delegate ultimate responsibility for performance or assign or transfer interests under this Agreement. Consultant agrees to testify in any litigation brought regarding the subject of the work to be performed under this Agreement. Consultant shall be compensated for its costs and expenses in preparing for, traveling to, and testifying in such matters at its then current hourly rates of compensation, unless such litigation is brought by Consultant or is based on allegations of Consultant's negligent performance or wrongdoing. 12. Conflict of Interest. Consultant understands that its professional responsibilities is solely to the City. The Consultant has and shall not obtain any holding or interest within the City of Burlingame. Consultant has no business holdings or agreements with any individual member of the Staff or management of the City or its representatives nor shall it enter into any such holdings or agreements. In addition, Consultant warrants that it does not presently and shall not acquire any direct or indirect interest adverse to those of the City in the subject of this Agreement, and it shall immediately disassociate itself from such an interest should it discover it has done so and shall, at the City's sole discretion, divest itself of such interest. Consultant shall not knowingly and shall take reasonable steps to ensure that it does not employ a person having such an interest in this performance of this Agreement. If after employment of a person, Consultant discovers it has employed a person with a direct or indirect interest that would conflict with its performance of this Agreement, Consultant shall promptly notify City of this employment relationship, and shall, at the City's sole discretion, sever any such employment relationship. Page 3 of 7 13. Equal Employment Opportunity. Consultant warrants that it is an equal opportunity employer and shall comply with applicable regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Neither Consultant nor its subcontractors do and neither shall discriminate against persons employed or seeking employment with them on the basis of age, sex, color, race, marital status, sexual orientation, ancestry, physical or mental disability, national origin, religion, or medical condition, unless based upon a bona fide occupational qualification pursuant to the California Fair Employment& Housing Act. 14. Insurance. A. Minimum Scope of Insurance: i. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, General Liability insurance policies insuring him/her and his/her firm to an amount not less than: one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage in a forme at least as broad as ISO "Occurrence"Form CG 0001. ii. Consultant agrees to have and maintain for the duration of the contract, an Automobile Liability insurance policy ensuring him/her and his/her staff to an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit per accident for bodily injury and property damage. iii. Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the contract, professional liability insurance in amounts not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) sufficient to insure Consultant for professional errors or omissions in the performance of the particular scope of work under this agreement. iv. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either: the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers; or the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. B. General and Automobile Liability Policies: i. The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insured as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Consultant; products and completed operations of Page 4 of 7 Consultant, premises owned or used by the Consultant. The endorsement providing this additional insured coverage shall be equal to or broader than ISO Form CG 20 10 1185 and must cover joint negligence, completed operations, and the acts of subcontractors. This requirement does not apply to the professional liability insurance required for professional errors and omissions. ii. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be endorsed to be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurances maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. iii. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. iv. The Consultant's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom a claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. C. In addition to these policies, Consultant shall have and maintain Workers' Compensation insurance as required by California law. Further, Consultant shall ensure that all subcontractors employed by Consultant provide the required Workers' Compensation insurance for their respective employees. D. All Coverages: Each insurance policy required in this item shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days'prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. Current certification of such insurance shall be kept on file at all times during the term of this agreement with the City Clerk. E. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Best's rating of no less than A-:VII and authorized to do business in the State of California. F. Verification of Coverage. Upon execution of this Agreement, Contractor shall furnish the City with certificates of insurance and with original endorsements effecting coverage required by this clause. The certificates and endorsements for each insurance policy are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. The certificates and endorsements are to be on forms Page 5 of 7 approved by the City. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before any work commences. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, at any time. 15. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, he Consultant shall save, keep and hold harmless indemnify and defend the City, its officers, agent, employees and volunteers from all damages, liabilities, penalties, costs, or expenses in law or equity, including but not limited to attorneys' fees, that may at any time arise, result from, relate to, or be set up because of damages to property or personal injury received by reason of, or in the course of performing work which may be occasioned by a willful or negligent act or omissions of the Consultant, or any of the Consultant's officers, employees, or agents or any subconsultant. This provision shall not apply if the damage or injury is caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City, its officers, agents, employees, or volunteers. 16. Waiver. No failure on the part of either party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 17. Governing Law. This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be governed by and construed to the laws of the State of California. Venue for any action regarding this Agreement shall be in the Superior Court of the County of San Mateo or Santa Clara. 18. Termination of Agreement. The City and the Consultant shall have the right to terminate this agreement with or without cause by giving not less than fifteen (15) days written notice of termination. In the event of termination, the Consultant shall deliver to the City all plans, files, documents, reports, performed to date by the Consultant. In the event of such termination, City shall pay Consultant an amount that bears the same ratio to the maximum contract price as the work delivered to the City bears to completed services contemplated under this Agreement, unless such termination is made for cause, in which event, compensation, if any, shall be adjusted in light of the particular facts and circumstances involved in such termination. 19. Amendment. No modification, waiver, mutual termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by the City and the Consultant. 20. Disputes. In any dispute over any aspect of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reasonable attorney's fees, as well as costs not to exceed $7,500 in total. 21. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the Agreement between the City and Consultant. No terms, conditions, understandings or Page 6 of 7 agreements purporting to modify or vary this Agreement, unless hereafter made in writing and signed by the party to be bound, shall be binding on either parry. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and Consultant have executed this Agreement as of the date indicated on page one (1). City of Burlingame By City Manager Jim Nantell Print Name: Olivia Chen Consultants Title ATTEST: Approved as to form: City Clerk - Doris J. Mortensen City Attorney-Larry Anderson S:W Public Works Directory\Author,By Name\Peggy Adam Letters\consultantagreement809lO.wpd Page 7 of 7 'rI \�� ♦ `p , 1 ♦1.� ♦ Vii.'w � - ����� ♦ i♦ �.�► 1� IN�►�� ��;►i� �,�i ♦ v h. ♦• � ice. � ,..,:,1,r�..,._ LWA SII ♦♦��'���E ����♦♦♦�����°�,� �� ��i��1',��� iii40 Ll ��� ♦ �- (�� ! .a • . ♦i ♦moi\�' ,- ��♦�,,�i♦ , �'i���� 1.11141C .c I�Vii♦ , �� ♦♦�;� , -1 � MIC. Agenda 9d Item Meeting BURLINGAME STAFF REPORT Date: Ma 1 2006 SUBMITTED BY APPROVED BY �v TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL DATE: APRIL 20, 2006 FROM: PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO AGREEMENT WITH PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA FOR SHUTTLE SERVICES RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council approve the attached resolution for Amendment No. 3 to the shuttle service agreement with Parking Company of America (PCA) for three years. BACKGROUND: In May 2000, the Council approved a three year hotel shuttle agreement with Parking Company of America for services between the hotels and the Broadway and Burlingame Avenue commercial district. In May 2003, Amendment No. 1 moved the Colma/BART shuttle to the North Burlingame route, and extended the service for another three years until July 2006. In June 2004, Amendment No. 2 revised the hourly rate based on the addition of a new trolley vehicle and expanded hours as requested by the hotel's General Managers. Burlingame Trolley: The current Burlingame Trolley runs from 11:30 AM to 9:30 PM, Sunday through Thursday, and to 11:00 PM on Friday and Saturday, with an hour break in the afternoon for the driver. In the last two years, the route has been altered within the downtown commercial streets to add stops at Capuchino Avenue and Broadway, California Drive, and Burlingame Avenue. The following six hotels provide financial contributions toward the trolley shuttle: Marriott, Hyatt Regency, Crowne Plaza, Double Tree, Embassy Suites, and the Sheraton. The average daily-rider ship has grown to approximately 78. Council has requested an additional stop for pedestrians as an alternate to walking across the Broadway bridge over Highway 101. This request will be evaluated at a future meeting. North Burlingame Shuttle: The North Burlingame shuttle connects the Mills Peninsula Medical Center and the Sisters of Mercy with the Millbrae Intermodal Station. The shuttle operates during the peak commute times of 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM to 7:00 PM. Fifty percent of the financial funding is provided by a C/CAG grant. In addition, Mills Peninsula Medical Center and Sisters of Mercy contribute a total of $12,000 towards the City's cost of $45,000 for the shuttle. The average daily rider-ship has grown to approximately 36. Staff will continue to evaluate ridership on this shuttle based on construction at the Mills Peninsula Medical Center. S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\736-64571 shuttle PCA Amend 3.doc BUDGET IMPACT: The City's current shuttle operator, Parking Company of America, has provided a quote for the next three years. Their quote includes a 3% per year cost of living increase, which is less than the standard Caltrain bus shuttle costs. Both shuttles are included in the proposed 2006-2007 City budget. EXHIBITS: Resolution, March 27, 2006 PCA letter proposal; Amendment No. 3 Agreement for Shuttle Services Between the City of Burlingame and Parking Company of America Management; Burlingame Trolley and North Burlingame Schedule and Route. Jane Gomer/1 Project Man er c: Mike Stevenson, Peninsula Congestion Relief Traffic Alliance Bob Watson,Parking Company of America Anne LeClair,San Mateo County Convention Bureau Jim Nantell,City Manager Larry Anderson,City Attorney Jesus Nava,Finance Director Mary Asturias, Financial Services Manager S:\A Public Works Directory\Staff Reports\736-64571 shuttle PCA Amend 3.doc RESOLUTION NO. AGREEMENT AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO AGREEMENT WITH PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA RESOLVED, by the CITY COUNCIL of the City of Burlingame, California and this Council does hereby FIND, ORDER and DETERMINE AS FOLLOWS: 1. The public interest and convenience require execution of the agreement cited in the title above. 2. The City Manager be, and he is hereby, authorized to sign said agreement for and on behalf of the City of Burlingame. 3. The City Clerk is hereby ordered and instructed to attest such signature. Cathy Baylock, Mayor I, Doris Mortensen, City Clerk of the City of Burlingame, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 15` day of May 2006, and was adopted thereafter by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Doris Mortensen, City Clerk E X H I B I T " A (Five Pages) PARKING . -�w . . March 27,2006 Jane Gomery City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame,CA 94010 RE: PROPOSAL FOR THE CITY OF BURLINGAME TROLLEY Dear Jane; Thank you for allowing Parking Company of America Management, LLC, the opportunity to submit a proposal to extend the existing Trolley service agreement,with the City of Burlingame. PCAM has recently purchased a Trolley in the red and green paint scheme with yellow trim; this vehicle is very low mileage and will provide us with much better service and reliability. We are also retaining the existing trolley as a back up vehicle,to be used whenever the new trolley is in need of maintenance of service We would like to provide the following rates for the next 3 years. TROLLEY Current rate $50.85 per hour Year one 3%increase $52.38 per hour Year two 3%increase $53.95 per hour Year three 3%increase $55.57 per hour NORTH BURLINGAME SHUTTLE Current rate $49.88 per hour Year one 3%increase $5 t 38 per hour Year two 3%increase $52.92 per hour Year three 3%increase $54.51 per hour Should you have any questions,please feel free to contact me at(415) 367-0996 or email: bwatson@oarkpca.com. Si Bob Watson Transportation Director PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA MANAGEMENT, LLC RECEIVED APR 4 7 2006 OBPT' OF PUBLIC TY OF BURLINGAME S C AMENDMENT NO.3 TO AGREEMENT FOR SHUTTLE SERVICES BETWEEN THE CITY OF BURLINGAME AND PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA MANAGEMENT, LLC City Project No. 736-64571 THIS AMENDMENT NO. 3, made and entered into this day of , 2006, by and between the CITY OF BURLINGAME, a municipal corporation [hereinafter "City"], and PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA MANAGEMENT LLC [hereinafter "Contractor"],amends the Agreement between the parties dated July 10, 2000 with Amendment No. 1 of May 22, 2003 and Amendment No. 2 of June 22, 2004 [hereinafter "Agreement"]. RECITALS WHEREAS, Contractor has provided shuttle services to the City for the past 6 years; and WHEREAS,the parties wish to continue that relationship for the next three(3)years of the existing Agreement and to continue the North Burlingame shuttle service and expanded Burlingame Shopper shuttle service, including a trolley vehicle. NOW,THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS: 1. Existing Renewal and Compensation Adjustments. The Agreement with the provisions below continues for three years until June 30, 2009. However, if the Mills Peninsula Medical Center and Sisters of Mercy do not provide a portion of the financing for the North Burlingame shuttle, or if and the hotel operators do not provide a portion of the financing for the trolley and expanded hours,this extension is subject to reduction or termination by the City. 2. Compensation. City shall compensate Contractor for the services provided at the following rates. A. Burlingame Trolley Shuttle Monday through Sunday: $52.38 per hour Fiscal year 2006-2007 $53.95 per hour Fiscal year 2007-2008 $55.57 per hour Fiscal year 2008-2009 A. North Burlingame Shuttle Monday through Friday: $51.38 per hour Fiscal year 2006-2007 $52.92 per hour Fiscal year 2007-2008 $54.51 per hour Fiscal year 2008-2009 1 4. Routes Provided. The Contractor will continue to provide the Burlingame Trolley Shopper and North Burlingame shuttles pursuant to the Agreement with routes to the locations shown in Exhibit A f i ve pages)to this Amendment No. 3. 5. Contractor understands that the service under this Amendment No. 3 and the Agreement continues to be subject to being discontinued, reduced, or increased by the City at any time on 30 days' written notice because of availability of funding, amount of ridership, and other factors. 6. Except as expressly amended in this Amendment No. 3, all other terms and conditions contained in the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment No. 3 on the day and year first above written. CITY OF BURLINGAME PARKING COMPANY OF AMERICA MANAGEMENT LLC By By City Manager Attest: Approved as to form: City Clerk City Attorney CADocuments and Settings\jgomery\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Fi1es\0LK8\PCA agree amendment no 3 5-15-06.wpd 2 E X H I B I T ' A BURLINGAME TROLLEY Sth�.�1��1e ��visecl Ef 1 5` 100 Ot't"tjer t'tu,'rs. E�►>' �'d� d ted eclote ]0ca 0,11 the FREE! Service Downtown Connects the hotels east of Hwy 101 With the downtown .--* TROLLIE of Burlingame. Dining • Shopping • Entertainment Burlingame Trolley sponsored by: • City of Burlingame Hrtel` • Burlingame Avenue Business � .� Hyatt. Association St`�1vta Regency Crowne Plaza • Broadway Merchants Association *Embassy Doubletree ern' Suites • Burlingame Chamber of Commerce Hotel • Participating listed hotels ,4 Sheraton 3 lOt. Trolley managed by: A Fc db PENINSULA TRAFFIC WWW.COMMUTE.ORG �`�: ` Scheduled Stops ��o / CO RELIEF 650.588-8170 '� / Flag Stop ALLIANCE BURLINGAME TROLLEY BURLINGAME TROLLEY Sunday thru Thursday Schedule Friday, Saturday, Holiday Schedule Broadway Avenue Broadway Shopping Burlingame Avenue Burlingame Doubletree Embassy (Capuchino Avenue Doubletree Embassy Shopping Avenue Airport Hyatt Crowne Hotel Sheraton Suites & Shopping Airport Hyatt Crowne Hotel Sheraton Suites (Capuchino Shopping Run Marriott Regency Plaza Golf Center Hotel Hotel Broadway- (Caltrain Run Marriott Regency Plaza Golf Center Hotel Hotel & (Caltrain No. Door Door Door Door Door Door S Station No. Door Door Door Door Door Door Broadway- Station 1 11:30 AM 11:35 AM 11:38 AM 11:43 AM 11:47 AM 11:50 AM 11:54 AM 12:06 PM 1 11:30 AM 11:35 AM 11:38 AM 11:43 AM 11:47 AM 11:50 AM 11:54 AM 12:06 PM 2 12:15 PM 12:20 PM 12:23 PM 12:28 PM 12:32 PM 12:35 PM 12:39 PM 12:51 PM 2 12:15 PM 12:20 PM 12:23 PM 12:28 PM 12:32 PM 12:35 PM 12:39 PM 12:51 PM 3 1:00 PM 1:05 PM 1:08 PM 1:13 PM 1:17 PM 1:20 PM 1:24 PM 1:36 PM 3 1:00 PM 1:05 PM 1:08 PM 1:13 PM 1:17 PM 1:20 PM 1:24 PM 1:36 PM 4 1:45 PM 1:50 PM 1:53 PM 1:58 PM 2:02 PM 2:05 PM 2:09 PM 2:21 PM 4 1:45 PM 1:50 PM 1:53 PM 1:58 PM 2:02 PM 2:05 PM 2:09 PM 2:21 PM 5 Drop-Off Riders As Necessary - 5 Drop-Off Riders As Necessary - - Driver Break Driver Break 6 - - - - - - 3:24 PM 3:36 PM 6 - - - - - - 3:24 PM 3:36 PM 7 3:45 PM 3:50 PM 3:53 PM 3:58 PM 4:02 PM 4:05 PM 4:09 PM 4:21 PM 7 3:45 PM 3:50 PM 3:53 PM 3:58 PM 4:02 PM 4:05 PM 4:09 PM 4:21 PM 8 4:30 PM 4:35 PM 4:38 PM 4:43 PM 4:47 PM 4:50 PM 4:54 PM 5:06 PM 8 4:30 PM 4:35 PM 4:38 PM 4:43 PM 4:47 PM 4:50 PM 4:54 PM 5:06 PM 9 5:15 PM 5:20 PM 5:23 PM 5:28 PM 5:32 PM 5:35 PM 5:39 PM 5:51 PM 9 5:15 PM 5:20 PM 5:23 PM 5:28 PM 5:32 PM 5:35 PM 5:39 PM 5:51 PM 10 6:00 PM 6:05 PM 6:08 PM 6:13 PM 6:17 PM 6:20 PM 6:24 PM 6:36 PM 10 6:00 PM 6:05 PM 6:08 PM 6:13 PM 6:17 PM 6:20 PM 6:24 PM 6:36 PM 11 6:45 PM 6:50 PM 6:53 PM 6:58 PM 7:02 PM 7:05 PM 7:09 PM 7:21 PM 11 6:45 PM 6:50 PM 6:53 PM 6:58 PM 7:02 PM 7:05 PM 7:09 PM 7:21 PM 12 Drop-Off Riders As Necessary - - 12 Drop-Off Riders As Necessary - - Driver Break I Driver Break 13 - - - 7:54 PM 8:06 PM 13 - - - - - - 7:54 PM 8:06 PM - - - 14 8:15 PM 8:20 PM 8:23 PM 8:28 PM 8:32 PM 8:35 PM 8:39 PM 8:51 PM 14 8:15 PM 8:20 PM 8:23 PM 8:28 PM 8:32 PM 8:35 PM 8:39 PM 8:51 PM 15 9:00 PM 9:05 PM 9:08 PM 9:13 PM 9:17 PM 9:20 PM 9:24 PM 9:36 PM 15 9:00 PM 9:05 PM 9:08 PM 9:13 PM 9:17 PM 9:20 PM 9:24 PM 9:36 PM 16 Drop-Off Riders As Necessary 16 9:45 PM 9:50 PM 9:53 PM 9:58 PM 10:02 PM 10:05 PM 10:09 PM 10:21 PM - - 17 10:30 PM 10:35 PM 10:38 PM 10:43 PM 10:47 PM 10:50 PM 10:54 PM 11:06 PM Drop Off Only 18 Drop-Off Riders As Necessary - - Schedule Effective 10/15/05 Drop Off Only Millbrae North Station � i� Buirlirt ime ca Ei Camino/ 'rousda-te North Burlingame Mills Adoltle1:, c in Peninsula �,� � BART & Caltrain Health Adelinef Services Bernal Shuttle Sisters of Mercy Monday — Friday Service Managed by: City Sponsor EFFECTIVE: October 10, 2005 We would like to thank the following entities for their financial contributions to the service. Bu RLI NGAME PENINSULA TRAFFIC CONGESTION CONGESTION RELIEF City of Burlingame ALLTANCE Mills-Peninsula Health Services ,x Sisters of Mercy of the Americas 1150 Ba hill Drive Commute Information Hotline: 5-1-1 • Cit /Count Association of Governments Suite 107, Or Online: www.511.org of San Mateo County San Bruno,CA 94066 Shuttle Vendor: PCA P:650-588-8170 Phone Number: (415) 378-0974 F-650-588-8171 Revised:October 4,2005 North •ame - AM Schedule NorthBurlingame PM Schedule Run Numbers AM 1 AM 2 AM 3 AM 4 AM 5 AM 6 AM 7 Run Numbers PM 1 PM 2 PM 3 PM 4 PM 5 PM 6 PM 7 PM 8 BART ARRIVES MILLBRAE STATION BART ARRIVES MILLBRAE STATION Dublin/Pleasanton 5:37 6:07 6:22 6:52 7:22 7:52 8:22 Dublin/Pleasanton 3:07 3:37 4:07 4:37 5:07 5:37 6:07 6:22 Fremont Transfer to a Dublin/Pleasanton Train by Balboa Park Station Fremont Transfer to a Dublin/Pleasanton Train by Balboa Park Station Pittsburg/Bay Point Transfer to a Dublin/Pleasanton Train by Balboa Park Station Pittsburg/Bay Point Transfer to a Dublin/Pleasanton Train by Balboa Park Station Richmond Transfer to a Dublin/Pleasanton Train by Balboa Park Station Richmond Transfer to a Dublin/Pleasanton Train by Balboa Park Station CALTRAIN ARRIVES MILLBRAE STATION CALTRAIN ARRIVES MILLBRAE STATION Train Numbers 101 103 305 207 313 217 323 Train Numbers 253 - 159 261 365 369 373 277 Northbound(from SJ) 5:33 6:08 6:24 6:59 7:24 7:59 8:24 Northbound(from SJ) 2:41 4:10 4:43 5:05 5:25 6:05 6:25 Train Numbers 102 104 206 210 314 218 322 Train Numbers 256 158 260 362 368 372 276 382 Southbound(from SF) 5:19 5:49 6:29 7:01 7:29 7:49 8:17 Southbound(from SF) 2:55 3:31 3:55 4:25 4:49 5:30 5:56 6:30 SHUTTLE DEPARTS MILLBRAE STATION SHUTTLE DEPARTS MILLBRAE STATION SHUTTLE STOP 1 5:43 6:13 6:37 7:06 7:35 8:05 8:30 SHUTTLE STOP 1 3:12 3:42 4:15 4:48 5:12 5:42 6:12 6:37 SHUTTLE ARRIVES AT EMPLOYERS SHUTTLE ARRIVES AT EMPLOYERS Mills-Peninsula Health 5:48 6:18 6:42 7:11 7:40 8:10 8:35 EI Camino&Troudale- Services(near Lobby) SamTrans Bus Stop 3:15 3:45 4:18 4:51 5:15 5:45 6:15 6:40 EI Camino&Trousdale 5:50 6:20 6:44 7:13 7:42 8:12 8:37 -SamTrans Bus Stop Adeline&Balboa 3:17 3:47 4:20 4:53 5:17 5:47 6:17 6:42 Adeline&Balboa 5:52 6:22 6:46 7:15 7:44 8:14 8:39 Adeline&Bernal 3:18 3:48 4:21 4:54 5:18 5:48 6:18 6:43 Adeline&Bernal 5:53 6:23 6:47 7:16 7:45 8:15 8:40 Sisters of Mercy off 3:21 3:51 4:24 4:57 5:24 5:55 6:23 6:46 Adeline&Hoover Sisters of Mercy off 5:56 6:26 6:50 7:19 7:50 8:18 8:43 Adeline&Hoover Adeline&Bernal 3:22 3:52 4:25 4:58 5:25 5:56 6:24 6:47 Adeline&Bernal 5:57 6:27 6:51 7:20 7:51 8:19 8:44 Adeline&Balboa 3:23 3:53 4:26 4:59 5:26 5:57 6:25 6:48 Adeline&Balboa 5:58 6:28 6:52 7:21 7:52 8:20 8:45 Mills-Peninsula Health 3:27 3:57 4:30 5:03 5:30 6:01 6:29 6:52 Services EI Camino&Trousdale 6:01 6:31 6:55 7:24 7:55 8:23 8:48 EI Camino&Trousdale -SamTrans Bus Stop -SamTrans Bus Stop 3:29 3:59 4:32 5:05 5:32 6:03 6:31 6:54 SHUTTLE ARRIVES MILLBRAE STATION SHUTTLE ARRIVES MILLBRAE STATION Shuttle Arrives Station 6:07 6:37 7:01 7:30 8:01 8:29 8:54 Shuttle Arrives Station 3:35 4:05 4:38 5:11 5:38 6:09 6:37 7:00 BART DEPARTS MILLBRAE STATION BART DEPARTS MILLBRAE STATION Dublin/Pleasanton 6:16 6:46 7:16 7:46 8:16 8:46 9:01 Dublin/Pleasanton 3:47 4:17 4:47 5:17 5:46 6:16 6:46 7:10 Fremont Transfer from a Dublin/Pleasanton Train at/after Daly City Station Fremont Transfer from a Dublin/Pleasanton Train at/after Daly Ctiy Station Pittsburg/Bay Point Transfer from a Dublin/Pleasanton Train at/after Daly City Station Pittsburg/Bay Point Transfer from a Dublin/Pleasanton Train at/after Daly Ctiy Station Richmond Transfer from a Dublin/Pleasanton Train at/after Daly City Station CALTRAIN DEPARTS MILLBRAE STATION Richmond Transfer from aDublin/Pleasanton Train at/after Daly Ctiy Station Train Numbers 305 309 211 319 221 329 227 CALTRAIN DEPARTS MILLBRAE STATION Northbound(from SJ) 6:24 6:45 7:17 7:45 8:17 8:45 8:59 Train Numbers 257 159 261 369 267 379 277 383 Train Numbers 206 208 312 218 322 228 230 Northbound(from SJ) 3:41 4:10 4:43 5:25 5:43 6:25 6:43 7:05 Southbound(from SF) 6:29 6:49 7:17 7:49 8:17 8:29 9:01 Train Numbers 260 362 368 372 378 280 386 288 Southbound(from SF) 1 3:55 4:25 4:49 5:30 5:49 6:14 6:49 7:14 F,wised:October 4,2005 Revised:October 4,2005 1 f CITY 0 STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM# 9e BURLINGAME Burlingame Public Library MEETING DATE: 5/1/06 Woo 9pe 4 April 26, 2006 f TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council SUBMITTED BY: l FROM: Alfred Escoffier, City Librarian APPROVED BY: SUBJECT: Request to Attend Out of State Conference Recommendation: To approve conference travel for Technical Support Manager, Barry Mills, and Circulation Manager, Amy Gettle, to attend an out of state conference of the Innovative Users Group from May 19, 2006 to May 22, 2006. Background: The annual conference of the Innovative User's Group (IUG) will be held in Denver, Colorado this spring. The Innovative System is the online catalog and database backbone for all of the libraries in the Peninsula Library System. Burlingame Public Library is an institutional, and therefore a voting member in the user's group. User's group meetings consist of sessions on upcoming changes to the database which will affect users. (We expect to implement a new release to the system in the fall of 2006). In addition, the IUG conference offers an opportunity for members to make recommendations for changes or upgrades in the system for future releases. It also offers specific training on various aspects of the functionality of the system. While our staff may not attend the IUG conferences every year, I do feel this year is particularly important since we have had so many implementation issues with our current system. In addition, we have not yet implemented the acquisitions and the serials components of the system. This will take place later this calendar year. Budget Impact: The Library Board of Trustees has approved payment for the training costs from the Trustees Special Fund at their April 18, 2006 meeting. There will be no impact on the city's general fund budget. The total cost (hotel and airline costs) is budgeted at $ 1,600.00. BURLINGAME BEAUTIFICATION COMMISSION APRIL 6.2006 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,Camey,Ellis,Lahey,Lauder,and O'Connor Absent: Commissioner Grandcolas Staff: Parks&Recreation Director Schwartz,Superintendent Richmond,and Secretary Harvey Guests: Mrs.Bilsey(112 Howard) MINUTES—The minutes of the March 2, 2006 Beautification Commission meeting were corrected (typographical error)and approved. CORRESPONDENCE Letter from Director Schwartz,to Michael Stallings, 1512 Alturas Drive, (copied to William Dugoni, 1511 La Mesa Drive)informing him that his request for removal of the City-owned Red Oak tree at 1511 La Mesa Drive meets the criteria of the City's Bay View Policy and that,the process would begin to grant permission for removal of the tree; but if the other property owner appeals the decision, mediation between the two property owners would be arranged. Following any removal agreements between the property owners,adjacent property owners would then be notified and have an opportunity to appeal the decision in writing to the Beautification Commission and if no appeals are filed, a permit would be issued. Copy of letter to Council from the Beautification Commission requesting that the Council assign the Beautification Commission the task of investigating and recommending a solution to the current P.G.&E. tree pruning practices on the City's trees. Agenda: Long Ranee Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive Community Meeting/Our Lady of Angels Church/Thursday,Anril 6,2006 including neighborhood questionnaire and Some Benefits of Urban Forests handouts. Letter from Thomas Hornblower requesting removal of 6 City-owned Pittospomm trees around his property stating he is"acutely allergic to them and my reaction to them has only grown worse over the years as they continue to grow....';adding he requests the 6 trees be replaced with Gingko biloba trees. FROM THE FLOOR- There were no comments from the floor. OLD BUSINESS P.G.&E.Pruning Practices in the City of Burlingame—Superintendent Richmond reported that the P.G.&E. representative, Erin Parks, was present at the last Council meeting on an unrelated topic. Commissioner Grandcolas was also in attendance and spoke to the issue of P.G.&E.'s priming practices. Following a brief discussion,the Council asked that the P.G.&E.representative and Commission meet to discuss different pruning practices,develop a list where flat topping had occurred,and schedule on site meetings to begin to resolve the issue. 1 OLD BUSINESS—P.G.&E.Pruning Practices in the City of Burlingame—(Contd.) Eleanor Bilsey, 112 Howard Avenue, was recognized by Chairperson McQuaide. Mrs. Bilsey stated that she was satisfied with the tree trimming P.G.&E. had conducted on her City tree. She stated that her tree is beautifully umbrella'd over the street; people park their cars under it for shade, and birds nest in it; on one occasion the tree was not trimmed by P.G.&E. crews because the tree had a bird's nest. She added that the P.G.&E.trimmers have been careful to just cut the middle out of the tree. She stated that she was most recently dissatisfied with the work of the City's tree crew and indicated that the day after P.G.&E. crews had trimmed the City tree, City crews also trimmed and removed the beautiful umbrella shape that it had had for many years; and that now, it is just a trunk with 5 limbs. She stated that she called the Parks Division and reported her dissatisfaction but to her knowledge, no one has come out to look at the tree nor has anyone responded to her complaint. Chairperson McQuaide apologized to Mrs. Bilsey for the lack of response; that staff would check into her original complaint and someone from the Parks Division staff would respond to her. Mrs. Bilsey thanked the Commission and said she really likes the trees in Burlingame and just wanted to report this incident. Following the comments from the audience, the Commission discussed different options of resolving the P.G.&E.s pruning practices and different forms of engaging P.G.&E. into the discussion. The Commission agreed that the Committee first meet with Erin Parks (P.G.&E. Arborist)on site at locations where trees have been "flat topped". Suggested locations for the Commissioners to inspect are Palm and California Drive, Willow and Newhall, and Howard Avenue. Director Schwartz directed Commissioners to email locations to KHarveyna,Buringame.org. Director Schwartz stated he would then arrange for a May meeting for the P.G.&E. representative and the Committee to meet on the selected sites. Long Range Reforestation Plan for Easton Drive Community Meeting - Chairperson McQuaide explained the process for the Community Meeting. She stated that a slide presentation will show different types of trees, planter strips, etc. The public will receive handouts explaining the Benefits of Urban Forests and a questionnaire to assist in determining the overall desired look the neighborhood is interested in seeing on Easton Drive. She stated that the Commission is very interested in hearing from the neighborhood and receiving their input as to what types of trees might be used over the years to replace the Eucalyptus trees as they are removed. REPORTS— Director 1. The process has begun for the resident on Alturas Drive requesting that a City-owned tree on La Mesa Drive be removed to gain back a once existing Bay View from his home. If no appeals are received over the process of notification and time, a permit will be issued for the Bay View owner to remove and replace the City owned tree (or replacement monies into the City's tree fund for tree planting elsewhere in the City)at his expense. 2. Council has requested the Commission begin considering a tree planting program on City planter strips where no trees exist and to develop strategies in which to approach property owners adjacent to those sites. Superintendent 1. Tree Removals: 3 Locusts on Highland west of Sam's Deli. Owner had requested inspection for possible removal since more people were in the target zone of the trees. Supervisor and City Arborist agreed that given the internal decay of the trees and their overall decline, removal was warranted. Pictures of stumps showing the extent of the internal decay are available for inspection. The trees will be replaced by Accolade Elms, as soon as the plants arrive. 2 Monterey Pines on Pepper: removals requested by property owner and several neighbors; trees were under observation by City Arborist and Parks Supervisor for several years. Dead Eucalyptus tree at Hillside/Adeline will be removed. 2 REPORTS — Superintendent — (Contd.) 2. Tree Planting in City planter strips will begin mid April. Director Schwartz noted that over the last 5 years, department records indicate that 320 more trees have been planted in the City of Burlingame than have been removed. 3. Property Owner at 1812 Easton has requested the removal of a Monterey Cypress fronting the property. Tree was ranked a 55 in the Kielty report in fall '04. Kielty will prepare another report on the tree. All of the material will be presented to the Commission before any action is taken. Removal would not occur until the next Fiscal Year if approved. 4. Releaf Grants are available for tree planting, but groups applying cannot be part of the City organization, so the Burlingame Historical Society may consider making application. 5. A new volunteer has most recently started working in the Parks Division. Karl Rothe, a longtime resident and maintenance gardener, will work on some ongoing projects and will currently be focusing on weed control in sidewalk crack on Burlingame Avenue, and around the bases of the Pear trees planted along the West side of California Drive. Lauder — Commissioner Lauder reported that Arbor Day was very nice and that the memorial trees that were planted were beautiful. Lahey — Commissioner Lahey reported that she was pleased to see that the weeds had been removed on the Rollins Road and Broadwav island. There being no further business, Chairperson McQuaide adjourned the meeting at 6:40 pm. qq Respectfully submitted, 1• S P Karlene Harvey Recording Secretary 3 BURLNOAME MAIVIN11MR101:19A arm Board of Trustees Minutes March 28, 2006 I. Call to Order President McCormack called the meeting to order at 5:35pm II. Roll Call Trustees Present: Nancy Brock, Bruce Carlton, Deborah Griffith, Katie McCormack, Pat Toft Staff Present: Al Escoffier, City Librarian Sidney Poland, Recorder III. Warrants and Special Funds The Trustees approved the warrants for March 14, 2006. M/S/C (Griffith/Toft) IV. Minutes The Trustees approved as written the minutes of the February 21, and March 1, 2006 meetings. M/S/C (Griffith/Carlton) V. Correspondence and Attachments Correspondence and Attachments were reviewed. The City Librarian specifically noted the Library Use Statistics for the months of August 2005 through February 2006 emphasizing that with the new system statistics are compiled differently and that the method of obtaining this information has changed 3 times. Although the statistics presently show a decrease in circulation, he feels this could be somewhat incorrect as the library is consistently busy and on weekends all 200 seats are full. VI. From the Floor No one from the public attended the meeting. VII. Reports A. City Librarian's Report - Highlights of Report 1. Library Budget - The proposed budget was submitted on March 17th. The Council directed the City to include the following budget increases for the library: a. $25,000 for hourly employee costs to cover two additional hours of public service from 5:O0pm to 7:OOpm on Friday night. b. $33K for the Collection budget 480 Primrose Road•Burlingame•California 94010-4083 Phone(650)558-7474'Fax(650)342-6295-www.burlingame.org/library 2. Some Budget Impacts a. Increase of outsourcing in cataloging and processing thereby decreasing employee costs and permitting staff more time to staff public service desks. b. Implementation of the serials module of Millennium to replace our manual system. c. Creation of new Library and Foundation Web pages. d. Reinstatement of adult programs 3. Personnel Issues Staff remains down 50 hours per week of librarian time. One librarian should return to full time in April. B. Foundation Report The Foundation is working on the following projects: a. Creation of Foundation website b. Introduction of Foundation to the business community c. Continue efforts to establish a Planned Giving Program d. Possible publication of two newsletters a year to raise public awareness of the Foundation's goals. e. Book Club Exchange Sunday April 2nd 2:00pm Lane Room f. Book Sale April 21-23rd Lane Room VIII. Unfinished Business A. Library Budget - Budget issues were previously discussed during the City Librarian's report. IX. New Business A. Unattended Children Policy The Trustees unanimously approved the Unattended Children Policy. M/S/C (Griffith/McCormack) This policy was written by Sue Reiterman, Children's Librarian, and her staff in a sincere effort to encourage parents and guardians to ensure their children's safety and well being by remaining with them at all times. X. Announcements A. Staff Loss - Al Escoffier told the Trustees that staff member Tracy Hammond passed away March 25th from cancer. The date of the memorial service has not been determined at this time. B. April Meeting - President Katie McCormack will not be able to attend the April 18th Trustees meeting. C. Public Library Conference - Al Escoffier and Pat Harding returned from the conference with some new ideas for our library. Al was especially impressed with the genealogy database presentation and the Reader's Advisory (what to read next) database. Library Board of Trustee Minutes 2 March 28,2006 D. PLS Group Community Information Handbook - Trustee McCormack noted that this handbook is a valuable source of available community services. Handbooks will be given to Trustees at the next meeting. XI. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 6:30pm. The next meeting will be held April 18, 2006 in the Conference Room. Respectfully Submitted, Alfred H. Escoffier City Librarian Library Board of Trustee Minutes 3 March 28, 2006 CITY OF BURLINGAME PLANNING COMMISSION UNAPPROVED MINUTES 501 Primrose Road, Burlingame, CA April 24, 2006 Council Chambers I. CALL TO ORDER Chair Auran called the April 24, 2006, regular meeting of the Planning Commission to order at 7:05 p.m. Il. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Auran, Brownrigg, Deal, Osterling, Terrones and Vistica Absent: Commissioners: Cauchi Staff Present: City Planner, Margaret Monroe; Planner, Catherine Barber, City Attorney,Larry Anderson; Senior Engineer,Doug Bell;Chief Building Official, Joe Cyr. III. MINUTES The minutes of the April 10, 2006 regular meeting of the Planning Commission were approved as mailed. IV. APPROVAL OF AGENDA Chair Auran noted that since there may be a number of people in the audience for item 5 a and b, 1427 Chapin Avenue,that action item would be moved to the first item on the agenda,to be followed by the study items. He also noted that because of the City Attorney's need to recuse himself from item 6,2209 Hillside Drive, the Commission would be represented by a second attorney who cannot arrive until 8:00 p.m., so that item will be heard at 8:00 p.m. There were no other changes to the agenda proposed. The Commission gave their consent to the proposed changes. V. FROM THE FLOOR There were no comments from the floor. C. Brownrigg noted that he had reviewed the tapes from the last meeting, and thought that the Commission should pursue Randy Grange's suggestion that the submittal requirements for many projects could allow submittal of half sized rather than full sized plans. It would be as effective for the Commissioners and a savings in materials and cost for the applicant. CA suggested that the commission might want to bring this item back as a Planner Report in the future. C. Brownrigg also noted that he has been reading about the Grand Boulevard scheme for El Camino and would like staff to put together some information for the Commission on the proposal. CP noted that there are a number of initiatives regarding the El Camino Corridor in San Mateo County and staff could collect them all,in summary,for the Commissioner's information.There were no further comments; and from the floor was closed. VII. ACTION ITEM 5. 1427 CHAPIN AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B — PROPOSED TWO-STORY OFFICE BUILDING ADDITION(FRED BERTETTA,OLYMPIAN JV,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER; S-ft-1 FARRO ESSALAT, ARCHITECT) (66 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: MAUREEN BROOKS A. APPLICATION FOR MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND COMMERCIAL DESIGN City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 24, 2006 REVIEW TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY OFFICE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING TWO- STORY BUILDING; AND B. APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE AND FINAL PARCEL MAP FOR LOT COMBINATION OF PORTIONS OF LOTS D & E, BLOCK 10, BURLINGAME PARK NO. 2 SUBDIVISION, 1427 CHAPIN AVENUE, PM 06-04 Reference staff report April 24,2006,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Twenty three conditions including the mitigations for the mitigation monitoring plan were suggested for consideration. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, 216 Park Road, represented the project along with Frank and Bonnie Bertetta, property owners, Ferro Essalat, architect, and Greg Terry, real estate agent. Applicant noted that they felt that the development team had done the right thing,engaged an award winning architect,worked with the city's subcommittee and the historical architect,feel that they and the city will be proud of the outcome, the project includes useful parking,hope that the commission will be satisfied with the landscape plan. Public Comments: Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue;Patricia Urbane, 1210 Bellevue Avenue. Only regret is that the city did not purchase this landmark and make it a teen center; think the proposed design is good, sorry to see the existing brick wall along the street removed, liked it. Agree that this should be a public project, have a disadvantage son who is an artist, this building would be great for an art studio for such people, the parents of participants could do most of the up keep of the building, need places for the more unfortunate people in our community. The Commission asked the applicant for clarification about the -� location of the equipment on the roof, could it be moved more to the middle of the structure. Architect responded that the stacks are incorporated into the design of the fire escape stairwell on the side of the building and should be screened from view. Is there a way to landscape the replacement brick wall on the adjacent property. The architect responded that if the adjacent property owner will allow them to build a new wall they will also landscape it. Landscape plan is lacking, there are no details included on how the redwood tree and Chinese elm will be protected during construction and no details provided about the type of shrubs,size at planting or even clear notation of what are shrubs and what are seating blocks,would like to see a more detailed landscape plan which is what was requested,can come back as an FYI but needs to be reviewed. Staff noted that it could come back as an FYI before a building permit is issued. Concerned about the absence of identified tree protection measures, also revision should include species and size of all plantings around the water features and in open spaces. Applicant responded that they would be happy to revise the landscape plan and add tree protection measures and submit for FYI review. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C.Vistica noted that this is a great way to save the most significant building in the city,have talked about the way to preserve the brick building and this solution meets the California Building Code seismic and access requirements, opens the site to view from the street, would move to approve the mitigated negative declaration and commercial design review by resolution with the following conditions in the staff report: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 22, 2006, Sheets T0, T1, D1.0, A1.0, A2.0, A2.3, A2.5, A3.0, A3.1, A3.2, A4.0, A5.4, and date stamped April 12, 2006, Sheet L1.0, preliminary landscape plan, and that any changes to the building materials,exterior finishes,footprint or floor area of the building shall require an amendment to this permit; 2)that any changes to the size or envelope of the building,which would include changing or adding exterior walls or parapet walls,moving or changing windows and architectural features or changing the roofheight or 2 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 24, 2006 pitch, shall be subject to design review; 3)that demolition of existing structures proposed for removal and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 4) that prior to scheduling the framing inspection, the project architect, engineer or other licensed professional shall provide architectural certification that the architectural details such as window locations and bays are built as shown on the approved plans; if there is no licensed professional involved in the project, the property owner or contractor shall provide the certification under penalty of perjury. Certifications shall be submitted to the Building Department; 5) that prior to scheduling the roof deck inspection,a licensed surveyor shall shoot the height of the roof ridge and provide certification of that height to the Building Department;6)that prior to final inspection,Planning Department 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; 7) that during demolition of the existing structures to be removed, site preparation and construction of the new structure, 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; 8)that the applicant shall comply with Ordinance 1503, the City of Burlingame Storm Water Management and Discharge Control Ordinance; 9) that all construction shall abide by the construction hours established in the municipal code; 10) that this project shall comply with Ordinance No. 1477, Exterior Illumination Ordinance for all site lighting; 11) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's May 27,2005 memo,the City Engineer's June 15,2005 memo, the City Arborist's June 22, 2005 memo, the Recycling Specialist's May 27, 2005 memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's June 2, 2006 memo shall be met; 12) 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; 13) that the proposed structures and the renovation of the existing brick building shall be constructed to California Building Code (CBC) standards, as adopted by the City of Burlingame. The CBC requires the determination of expected seismic shaking at the specific location of the project site. The design engineers for the on-site structures shall design the structure and foundations based on the results of the site-specific geotechnical study and the determination of the expected seismic shaking.The geotechnical report shall be prepared by a licensed professional and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Reinforcement of the historic structure shall be interior to the building and shall place a priority on retaining the exterior historic qualities of the building; 14)that prior to issuance of a building permit, a site-specific geotechnical report shall be prepared by a licensed professional for review and approval by the City. The report shall evaluate the potential for liquefaction hazards at the site and provide recommendations for hazard reduction in accordance with accepted industry standards. The report shall also evaluate the potential presence of expansive soils underlying the project site and provide recommendations for treatment in accordance with standard industry practices. Priority shall be given to treatments that do not affect the exterior of the historic brick structure; 15)that the project shall incorporate the following measures established by BAAQMD to minimize and control dust emissions generated during construction activities:All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily;All trucks hauling soil,sand,and other loose materials shall be covered with tarpaulins or other approved effective covers;All unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be paved; otherwise, water or non-toxic soil stabilizers shall be applied to all unpaved access roads. In addition, paved access roads,parking areas, and staging areas shall be swept daily with a water sweeper;Hydro seed or apply non- toxic soil stabilizers to inactive construction areas (previously graded area inactive for ten days or more); Enclose, cover, water twice daily or apply non-toxic soil binders to exposed stockpiles (dirt, sand, etc.); Limit traffic speeds on unpaved roads or on-site to 15 miles per hour; Install sandbags or other erosion control measures to prevent silt runoff to public roadways, and replant vegetation in disturbed areas as quickly as possible; 16) that the applicant shall contribute to the cost of striping at the Chapin Avenue/Primrose intersection on the Chapin Avenue approach to create two lane;twenty percent of the cost 3 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 24, 2006 of the work should be funded by the applicant; 17) that prior to obtaining a building permit,a report shall be prepared by an independent arborist and submitted to the City Arborist for review and approval. The report shall identify the construction period protection measures to ensure that the redwood and elm trees will not be adversely affected; measures may include fencing around the trees and prohibition of trenching and intrusive fencing near the root system;and include a plan with the palette of proposed landscaping trees (no fruit and nut trees)and other landscaping as well as an irrigation system plan; 18)that all trees on the site should be retained on-site to the extent feasible considering the proposed footprint of the addition; 19)that prior to demolition or remodeling of buildings at the project site,a lead-based paint and asbestos-containing material survey shall be conducted by a certified professional and submitted to the City Planning Department.Identified loose and peeling lead-based paint and asbestos-containing materials shall be abated in accordance with applicable regulations.Federal and state construction worker safety regulations shall be followed during construction activities where lead and/or asbestos are known or suspected to be present. Other common hazardous materials that may be encountered during demolition, such as mercury switches and air conditioning refrigerants, shall be handled and disposed of in accordance with DTSC hazardous waste regulations;20)that prior to construction at the site,a Contingency Plan(Plan)shall be prepared by a licensed professional and submitted to the City Planning Department. The Plan shall delineate monitoring activities to be implemented during excavation to detect volatile organic compounds.The Plan shall provide recommendations for construction worker training and personal protection in the event volatile organic compounds are encountered above specified action levels.If volatile organic com pounds are identified,the Plan shall also specify notification requirements to San Mateo County Health Department,Environmental Health Division; 21)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;22)that the following changes to the project shall be incorporated into the final design: (a)Move the proposed addition closer to the street so the setback is less than about 20 feet; or Maintain the proposed setback,but include a low seat wall or other design feature along the front property line with brick elements to respect the previous land uses where the courtyard was used to display plants for the garden center,previously occupying the site.The treatment at the street edge should reference the existing brick wall along the front of the property; (b) The transition of the proposed addition to the George Farrell House should be revised to make the roof treatment more compatible with the existing roofline; this could include reducing the height of the proposed addition; (c) The circular tube proposed ten feet up on the front fagade should be either eliminated or be made of concrete; (d)Using the courtyard for active use (e.g., retail or a cafe) should be considered; (e) A pervious pathway off the right front of the proposed addition and to the rear of the property is encouraged to allow pedestrians to access retail on Burlingame Avenue(through an opening in the wall). The two elm trees should be retained at this time,and reconsidered for removal at a time when this area is needed for a driveway;(f)The reflecting pond at the entrance shall be included in the design only if it will not affect the foundation of the George Farrell House; (g)For the rear and side elevation,details should be added to break up the mass of the second floor windows and to make the entry more prominent from the rear; and (h) For the side elevation, concrete elements should be considered to break up the fagade,similar to what is proposed on the rear elevation;and 23)that should any cultural resources or human remains be discovered during construction,all work shall be halted until they are fully investigated by a professional accepted as qualified by the City Planner and the recommendations of the expert have been executed to the satisfaction of the City. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration and -� commercial design review for this project with the conditions in the staff report including those from the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Mitigation Monitoring Plan. The motion passed on a 6-0-1(C. 4 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 24, 2006 Cauchi absent). The Chair noted that the Commission directed and the applicant agreed that the landscape plan shall be revised with tree protection measures added and a more detailed planting plan with species and container size, and that the plan shall be returned to the Planning Commission for FYI and accepted before �- the building permit is issued for this project. C. Osterling moved to recommend the Tentative and Final Parcel Map for the merger of the two parcels to the City Council for approval. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the Tentative and Final Parcel Map to the City Council for approval.The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent)voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7:30 p.m. VI. STUDY ITEMS 1. 1529 ALBEMARLE WAY,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS FOR AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TO BE USED FOR RECREATION PURPOSES/SLEEPING QUARTERS WITH A FULL BATHROOM (ALLEN MENICUCCI, APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr.Barber presented a summary of the staff report and applicants request to now use this accessory structure for recreation and living purposes. Commissioners asked: • Have there been complaints about this property over the years? • Has been approved several times,the Planning Commission always includes a five year sunset,but not final approval, concerned about this pattern; • Would like to see staff craft a condition of approval that has no five year expiration but says that if there is an addition to the house or a building permit issued for$100,000 or more then the accessory structure must be demolished; • Has been there for 17 years now, part of the house; • Condition should be added that says if the house is altered the Planning Commission shall require the removal of the accessory structure; • Condition should be added that accessory structure shall not be used as a second dwelling unit; • The previous Planning Commission approved in 1994 because the property owner had an ailing wife and needed an exercise area, it was not for guests or others,was trying to help out the owner at that time, should be removed now; • Owner needs a better explanation of why the Planning Commission should allow use of structure to continue. 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 7:39 p.m. 2. 1400 BROADWAY,ZONED C-1,BROADWAY COMMERCIAL AREA—APPLICATION FOR SIGN VARIANCES FOR A NEW BLADE SIGN (CONNIE MORRIS BOVIS, APPLICANT; MARTIN DREILING/ERIC HOLM, CSS ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECTS; THOMAS KOROS, PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN 5 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 24, 2006 Plr. Barber presented a summary of the staff report. Commission asked if light bulbs at the bottom will blink, staff noted that the code does not allow blinking or flashing lights. Commission asked if the size of--� the sign is measured outside to outside, staff noted that, yes, it is measured from exterior edge to exterior edge, as long as there are no more than 6 sides. Commissioners asked: • Would like to see how this proposal compares to what would be allowed in the new sign code we are working on, could staff provide information on what the new sign code would allow in this area; • Will there be a sign over the door? Looks like there should be a sign located over the door,want to make sure one won't be added later; • Should lower 2-4 feet so that it doesn't destroy the existing scroll work on the cornice; • Try to preserve the scroll work, maybe lower the sign, but need to retain the 8' vertical clearance; • Could staff provide summary of all the of the existing blade signs on Broadway and their approximate sign size; • Bottom of the sign is 1 OW', so can't lower too much;consider shrinking the proportion of the sign; to preserve the scroll work on the cornice and maintain the required clearance over the sidewalk. 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 7:50 p.m. 3. 1111 HOWARD AVENUE, ZONED C-1, SUBAREA B—APPLICATION FOR HEALTH SERVICE USE (SKIN TREATMENT) (KEITH RALEY, DERMALOUNGE, APPLICANT; VIVIAN DWYER, DWYER DESIGN,DESIGNER;SAEED ESMAILTALAI,PROPERTY OWNER)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN CP Monroe presented a summary of the staff report. Commission noted that the Commission is not reviewing signage as a part of this application. Staff confirmed that signage is not included as part of this application, the applicant is to make separate application for signage. Commissioners asked: • Application use numbers seem low, only 14 people between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. and only 4 people between 5 p.m. and 9 p.m.; • Confirm number of employees, 4 full time employees between 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. and then 4 part time employees after 5 p.m.,this number doesn't change in 5 years,is that correct?Seems like a high ratio of employees to customers. 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 7:55 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. 4. 1625 LASSEN WAY,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,SPECIAL PERMIT FOR -� DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE, AND SECOND FLOOR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR A FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR ADDITION TO A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (JERRY DEAL, JD & 6 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 24, 2006 ASSOCIATES,APPLICANT AND DESIGNER;TOM BRUNO,PROPERTY OWNER)(71 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Chair Auran asked if anyone in the audience or on the Commission wished to call any item off the consent calendar. There were no requests. C.Deal noted that he would recuse himself from the vote on the consent calendar because he has a business relationship with the applicant. Commissioner comment on the consent calendar: note that the applicant submitted a revised design for the garage door as suggested by the Planning Commission at study,have reviewed both and would recommend that the original door design with the curved member above the windows is preferable. CA noted that the project could be amended with that direction if the Commission wished. C. Brownrigg moved approval of the consent calendar based on the facts in the staff report,commissioners comments and the findings in the staff report amending condition one to provide that the garage door as shown on the March 17, 2006 plans shall be the door design installed with this project and with the recommended conditions in the staff report and by resolution. The motion was seconded by C. Auran. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion and it passed 6-0-1-1(C.Deal recused,C.Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 7.57 p.m. VIII. REGULAR ACTION ITEM 7. 1124 ROSEDALE AVENUE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES FOR SIDE AND REAR SETBACK,LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING FOR A FIRST FLOOR ADDITION.(JEFF AND EMILY SCHLEINING,APPLICANTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS;RAY BRAYER,DESIGNER)(77 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN Reference staff report April 24,2006 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Seven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Ray Brayer, project designer and applicant, Jeff and Emily Schleining,property owners,and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa,had the following comments: family needs more space,not going for maximum FAR,other houses in the area have large lot coverage,neighbors would rather see a single story addition than a two story addition; the headlights are a problem at the front of the house because of the location on the block, so do not want to add a second story;have rented in Burlingame for 6 years, have owned this house for 3 years, and also work in Burlingame, want to make this family home; modest neighborhood,keeping smaller house when they could make it bigger,Commission should work out design issues and keep it a single story addition. Commission asked the size and height of the shed at the rear. The property owners replied that it is between 10'-12' tall and 10' by 15',they will be removing it as part of this proposal, the rear neighbors are happy about that. Commission asked if there is a minor modification for 25% of the rear setback at 12 feet, noting that would be a more palatable proposal. Staff confirmed that the minor modification allows a 20% decrease in the rear setback. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. �. The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns about the proposed project: 7 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 24, 2006 • options to take the mass out of the rear and redistribute it, need to look at change to layout and design; • concerned with family room layout, no blank walls to put the furniture and entertainment center; • better solutions without all of the variances; could set precedent for single story additions; • parking variance because of chimney encroachment is a standard request Planning Commission sees, but need to re-design without rear setback; • concern with lot coverage variance as well, it is way over 40%, 500 SF,look at re-design,consider second story; • revised site plan should correctly show alignment with Meadow Lane; • rear setback needs to go away,reduce square footage if project is to remain a single story house; • based on design proposing a box at the back, violates setbacks. C. Auran moved to deny the project without prejudice. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to deny the project without prejudice. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 8:23 p.m. 6. 2209 HILLSIDE DRIVE, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL PERMITS FOR HEIGHT AND DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE FOR A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; MILLER DEVELOPMENT,PROPERTY OWNER)(64 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER(CONTINUED AND RENOTICED) --� C. Osterling recused himself because he lives within 500 feet of the project site. City Attorney Anderson recused himself because he is involved in a different aspect of this property. Both stepped down from the dais and left the chambers. Attorney Dan Siegel took the Attorney's chair with staff and represented the City Attorney for this item. Reference staff report April 24,2006,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments noting that this item had been continued from the last meeting so that the staff could better understand the implications on the project of the demolition of the existing structures on the site without a demolition permit. She noted that the item was brought back on the action calendar because conditions were added to address follow up to the demolition action (conditions 2 through 5). She also noted the addition of Condition 14,the new standard condition regarding the fact that demolition permits are not issued until Air Quality and building permits are issued. Fifteen conditions were suggested for consideration. CP noted that Joe Cyr, the Chief Building Official, would share presentation of this staff report to explain the situation regarding the demolition of the structures and the implications for the site. Commissioners asked questions about demolition permits and what is required before they are issued and the status of the recycling and air quality actions at the time of demolition. Is demolition of this kind without a permit a common occurrence?CBO noted in his experience it has happened"once in a blue moon". CP and CBO suggested that they meet with the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee of the Planning Commission to review the process for issuance of a demolition permit and, based on that, appropriate administrative penalties. Staff noted that the issue before the commission this evening is the application for —� design review for the proposed single family residential structure. There were no further questions of staff. 8 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 24, 2006 Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Mark Hudak, attorney, 216 Park Road, and Randy Grange, architect, represented the project. Pat Gironi, 1445 Balboa Avenue noted sequence of events and that the demolition was a mistake. Architect noted that he was ignorant of the demolition. At previous meeting was pleased with the design. There were no further comments. The public hearing was closed. Commission comments: concerned that correcting the process of issuing a demolition permit will lead to another layer of bureaucracy, proposed house is beautiful; current administrative penalties for failure to obtain a demolition permit do not seem to cover costs of staff and Commission time, should be addressed; CA Siegel noted that there were also enforcement penalties from the Air Board and other agencies available; concerned with how the city gets the attention of developers in the future. C.Deal noted that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee should address the demolition permit issue in the future and that the house met all the design review criteria based on the findings made by the commission when it was placed previously on the consent calendar,so 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 March 1, 2006, sheets A-1 through A-5, and L-1, 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 property owner shall pay to the city within in 5 working days of the Planning Commission's action on this application $7,500.00 for the New Construction Waste Plan and a$5,408.25 deposit to remove the existing structures, failure to meet this deadline shall cause the Planning action on this project to be voided; 3) that before the issuance of a building permit, but after approval of the construction plans by the Building Division, the property owner shall pay$388.00 to the Building Division, this fee includes the penalty for doing demolition without a permit, failure to pay the demolition permit fee and penalty shall cause the planning action on this project to be voided; 4) that before the issuance of the building permit, the Chief Building Official shall determine that all materials, but particularly potentially hazardous materials, were appropriately removed from this site and appropriately deposited, and if they were not appropriately removed or deposited the Chief Building Official shall require appropriate remediation and notification of all state and local agencies responsible for regulation; notification shall include notice of both the violation and the correction, failure to comply with any required remediation shall cause the planning action on this project to be voided and it shall be disclosed to all future owners of the property that remediation did not occur and must be corrected before any future development or use can occur on the site; 5)that until building plans have been approved and a building permit issued , all NPDES remediations present on this site shall be shall be maintained as required by the City's inspector, and should construction on this site not occur within five (5)months of the Planning Commission's action on this project, the property owner shall create a grassy swale with domestic grass on the site to control runoff and provide appropriate irrigation and regular maintenance to establish the grass cover, this swale shall be retained until the site is developed, failure to install and maintain the grassy swale shall result in voiding the planning action on this project and the property owner shall pay a penalty equal to the cost of installation and maintenance until the property is sold and developed, the amount of the penalty shall be determined by the Public Works Department and shall be posted as a bond; 6) 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; 7)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 9 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 24, 2006 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; 8) 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; 9)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; 10)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; 11) that the conditions of the Chief Building Official, Fire Marshal, City Engineer, and NPDES Coordinator's March 3, 2006 memo shall be met; 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 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; 15) 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. Terrones. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the design review. The motion passed on a 5- 0-1-1 (C. Osterling recused, C. Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:00 P.M. C. Osterling and City Attorney Anderson returned to the Chambers and took their seats on the dais. 8. 132 BLOOMFIELD ROAD,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (GEHL DESIGN/BUILD, APPLICANT AND DESIGNER; ELOISE MADSEN, PROPERTY OWNER) (62 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report April 24,2006,with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eleven conditions were suggested for consideration. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Eloise Madsen,property owner,reported she has had trouble with the contractor on this project. Commission asked why there is not a door to the study off of the hallway. Property owner said that she hasn't seen the plans and is not going forward with this project. Commission asked the City Attorney if the project should be acted on at this point. CA Anderson replied that it would be best to continue the project to a date certain. Victor Gray, 617 Howard Avenue, stated that he submitted a letter to the Planning Commission with his concerns;main concern is privacy and impact of the project on his property;if there are modifications to the project he wants to see them,the rear of his property is located to the side of this property. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. -� Commission discussion: second floor attic space seems to be adding a lot of mass and wall space; have questions on this proposal for the architect/designer;some components of the project are wrong;needs some 10 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 24, 2006 work, front fagade with large vent is odd; need to clarify on plans what is new verses existing, needs consistency. `- C. Vistica moved to continue this item to a date uncertain to allow the property owner to review the plan. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. CA Anderson invited the property owner to come to the Planning Department to look at the plans and discuss the project with the project planner. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to continue this item. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:10 p.m. 9. 2112 EASTON DRIVE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW AMENDMENT FOR A NEW, TWO-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND DETACHED GARAGE (ORLANDO BUENA,APPLICANT AND PROPERTY OWNER;DALE MEYER ASSOCIATES,ARCHITECT)(51 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Chair Auran recused himself from this item because he lives within 500 feet,and left the Council Chambers. He passed the gavel to Vice Chair Brownrigg. Reference staff report April 24,2006 with attachments. Plr. Barber presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Eighteen conditions were suggested for consideration. Acting Chair Brownrigg opened the public hearing. Orlando Buena, property owner, was available to answer questions. He explained that the plate height of the second floor was reduced at the request of the Planning Commission,therefore there is not enough room left to add the dentil molding in some areas,to add the dentils on the first floor only would look really bad. Commissioner noted that he met with the applicant at the site and went over the drawings to see what happened. There were no further comments and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns: approved elevation plans were not adjusted to show lowered plate height on second floor, the way it is built with the roof slope and the soffit there is no room for the dentils; the engineered drawings of the roof are not the same as the architectural drawings,the roof line is different;would not approve this design now;revised drawings don't really show what is happening,only show the dentils removed,doesn't show the soffit hitting the dentils,think there is a solution to this;house needs something added;not happy with the way this house turned out,have also heard this from neighbors;approved plans looked like two dormers in the front but was built with one continuous roof, there are ways to incorporate the dentils, windows on the upper floor can be made shorter; need to consult architect for solutions;may consider doing a mock up on the site;need to mitigate the boxy look of the house; roof framing is different, roof not at all what is portrayed on approved plans. C. Osterling made a motion based on the comments made to refer this amendment to a design review consultant. The motion was seconded by C. Vistica. Comment on the motion: have given good direction on this change, design review is the way to go. `,. Acting Chair Brownrigg called for a voice vote on the motion to refer this project to a design review consultant. The motion passed on a 5-0-1-1 (Chair Auran recused C. Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures 11 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 24, 2006 were advised. This item concluded at 9:23 p.m. Chair Auran returned to the dais, and took over as chair. 10. 821 COWAN ROAD, ZONED IB—APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING (ONE STOP DESIGN, INC., APPLICANT; KONSTANTINOS DOKOS, PROPERTY OWNER; DOMINGUEZ ASSOCIATES, ENGINEER) (14 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: RUBEN HURIN A. APPLICATION FOR CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION PERMIT FOR AN EXISTING FIVE- UNIT OFFICE/WAREHOUSE BUILDING; AND B. APPLICATION FOR TENTATIVE CONDOMINIUM MAP Reference staff report April 24,2006 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifty-five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked what the actual address is because the site signage says 819 and the staff report says 821. Staff noted that they will verify the address with the Public Works Department. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Greg Ward, One Stop Design, project applicant was present to answer questions. He noted that they negotiated with the City to have a 7 foot sidewalk. They are trying to save the Sycamore tree in the front,and will try to move it. If it can't be saved then they will be adding two, new 24 inch box Sycamore trees. Commission asked if the Sycamore tree can be moved easily? Commissioner Osterling clarified that it can be relocated easily. But it might be better to have two new 36 inch box trees.Having two on each side will establish symmetry. Commission asked if it might be better to have 48 inch box size trees. Commissioner Osterling responded that the largest tree that he would recommend would be 36 inch box because it will catch up in size faster and become better established over time. Would like to add a condition that the existing Sycamore tree be relocated and a new 36 inch box Sycamore tree be added. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. C. Vistica moved to approve the application for the condominium conversion and amendment to the conditional use permit for floor area by resolution, with the following amended conditions: 1) that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped March 6, 2006, sheets L.2, A.3, A.3A, A.4 through A.7, D.1, E.1, E.2, C.1, AS.l through AS.3, C-1 through C-5, Lighting Details(8%2" x 11" sheet) and date stamped April 13,2006, sheets T.I and L.1,Vesting Tentative Tract Map,and the Physical Elements Report,Physical Standards Report and Acoustical Assemblies Report date stamped December 27,2005; 2)that the reports required by this code, in a form approved by the city, shall be provided to each person executing any purchase,rental or other agreement to purchase or occupy a unit in the project. Copies of the full reports shall be made available at all times at the sales office and shall be posted at various locations, as may be required by the city, at the project site; 3)that a new T-0" wide sidewalk shall be installed along the front of this property as shown on the plans date stamped April 13, 2006, sheets T.I and L.1; the new T-0" wide sidewalk, curb and gutter and driveway apron shall comply with the Public Works' construction standards and shall be installed prior to the final inspection; the applicant shall obtain the necessary special encroachment permit to install the curb,gutter and sidewalk and driveway apron; 4) that the applicant shall attempt to relocate the existing 12" Sycamore tree that will be within the new 7' sidewalk; and if that is not possible then it shall be replaced with a new 36-inch box Sycamore tree; and the applicant shall plant one new 36-inch box Sycamore tree adjacent to the relocated or replacement Sycamore, for a total of 4 Sycamore trees(two on each side of the main walk way)at the front of the property; 5) that the conditions of the City Attorney's February 3, 2006 memo, the City Engineer's 12 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 24, 2006 January 30,2006 memo,the Fire Marshal's January 4,2006 memo,the Chief Building Official's January 3, 2006 memo, the Recycling Specialist's January 4, 2006, memo, and the NPDES Coordinator's January 6, 2006 memo shall be met;6)that the final inspection shall be completed and a certificate of occupancy issued before the close of escrow on the sale of each unit;7)that the developer shall provide to the initial purchaser of each unit and to the board of directors of the condominium association,an owner purchaser manual which shall contain the name and address of all contractors who performed work on the project, copies of all warranties or guarantees of appliances and fixtures and the estimated life expectancy of all depreciable component parts of the property,including but not limited to the roof,painting,common area carpets,drapes and furniture; 8)that if a security gate system across the driveway is installed in the future,the gate shall be installed a minimum 20'-0' back from the front property line; the security gate system shall include an intercom system connected to each unit which allows occupants to communicate with guests and to provide guest access to the parking area by pushing a button inside their units; 9)that demolition for removal of the existing structures or walls within the condominium units and any grading or earth moving on the site shall not occur until a building permit has been issued and such site work shall be required to comply with all the regulations of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 10) that the project shall comply with the Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Ordinance which requires affected demolition, new construction and alteration projects to submit a Waste Reduction plan and meet recycling requirements;any partial or full demolition of a structure, interior or exterior, shall require a demolition permit; 11)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department date stamped February 4, 2005, sheets T.1, L.1, T.2, A.1 through A.7 and Plat of Survey; 12)that a seating area, to be architectural compatible with the building, shall be designed at the front entrance to the building; 13)that vines,to grow along the front wall of the building, shall be planted and maintained by the property owner; 14) that the windows and window trim shall be installed as shown on the detail,date stamped February 4,2005; 15)that the parking variance shall only apply to this building and shall become void if the building is ever expanded, demolished or destroyed by catastrophe or natural disaster or for intentional replacement; 16) that the conditions of the City Engineer's and Fire Marshal's June 1, 2004, memos, the Chief Building Official's February 9,2005,and June 4,2004,memos,the Recycling Specialist's June 2,2004,memo and the NPDES Coordinator's January 31,2005,memo shall be met; 17)that payment of a Bayfront Development fee to the City of Burlingame for traffic impacts in the Inner Bayshore and Shoreline areas shall be required to mitigate cumulative impacts of this and other projects on area circulation, one-half of the fee is due at the time of planning application and one-half due before the final framing inspection; 18) that one-way directional signage shall be installed and painted throughout the parking area to clearly define the vehicular direction for employees and visitors to the site;prior to issuance of a building permit,the applicant/property owner shall work with the City's traffic engineer to determine the required signage and markings on the pavement to clearly identify the on-site vehicular direction; 19)that the driveway aisles in front of the roll-up doors at the rear of the building and in the parking area shall be maintained clear and trucks shall not be stored or parked in the driveway aisles;20)that the paved area adjacent to parking space#15 shall be painted"No Parking"to provide a clear,unobstructed back-up area for the disabled-accessible parking spaces;21)that the 53 on-site parking spaces shall be used only for the customers and employees of the businesses at this site and shall not be leased or rented for storage of automobiles either by businesses on this site or by other businesses for off- site parking; 22) that the landscaping noted on sheet L.1 shall be installed according to plan and shall be irrigated with an automatic irrigation system; landscaping that does not survive on the site shall be immediately replaced with an equivalent species; 23) that the property owner shall provide a complete Irrigation Water Management Conservation Plan together with landscape and irrigation plans at time of permit application;24)that the office/warehouse building shall be built so that the interior noise level in all areas used as office does not exceed 45 dBA;25)that all construction shall abide by the construction hours �..- established in the City of Burlingame Municipal Code,and shall occur only between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.on weekdays,9:00 p.m.and 6:00 p.m.on Saturdays,and 10:00 a.m.and 6:00 p.m.on Sundays 13 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 24, 2006 and holidays; 26) that on-site illumination shall be shielded and directed only on to the site in compliance with the City's exterior illumination ordinance; 27) that all parking areas should be lit for safety at night, -� such lighting should comply with the requirements of the City's exterior illumination ordinance;28)that the remodel/addition shall not be built with a reflective exterior finish;29)that the project shall obtain necessary permits to meet the standards of the required permitting agencies including: Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 30) that the project design shall conform to all seismic related requirements of the latest edition of the California Building Code as amended by the City of Burlingame in effect at the time a building permit is issued and any additional seismic requirements established by the State Architect's office; 31) that all construction shall be required to be done in accordance with the California Building Code requirements, 2001 edition, as amended by the City of Burlingame, and in addition to the limitations of hours of construction imposed by the City of Burlingame Municipal Code(CS 18.08.035); 32)that all new utility connections to serve the site and which are affected by the development shall be installed to meet current code standards and diameter;existing sewer laterals shall be checked and replaced if necessary;33) that water and sewer lines shall be constructed from flexible material with flexible connections with the degree of flexibility established by the City Engineer and with his approval and inspection; 34)that in the event that there is subsidence as the result of an earthquake,the site shall be repaired as approved by the City Engineer; 35) that all site and roof drainage shall be directed to the street frontage; 36) that low flow plumbing fixtures shall be installed and City water conservation requirements shall be met at all times, including special additional emergency requirements; 37) that the grading plan shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer and approved by the City Engineer. All applicable requirements of the NPDES permit for the site shall be adhered to in the design and during construction;38)that if construction is done during the wet season(October 15 through April 15),that prior to October 15 the developer shall implement a winterization program to minimize the potential for erosion and polluted runoff by inspecting,maintaining and cleaning all soil erosion and sediment control prior to,during,and immediately after each storm even; stabilizing disturbed soils throughout temporary or permanent seeding,mulching matting,or tarping;rocking unpaved vehicle access to limit dispersion of mud onto public right-of-way; covering/tarping stored construction materials, fuels and other chemicals; 39) that all applicable San Mateo County Storm water Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices shall be adhered to in the design and during construction,including stabilizing areas denuded due to construction prior to the wet season;erosion shall be controlled during and after construction to protect San Francisco Bay waters; 40) that the applicant shall submit an erosion and sedimentation control plan describing BMPs(Best Management Practices)to be used to prevent soil, dirt and debris from entering the storm drain system; the plan shall include a site plan showing the property lines,existing and proposed topography and slope;areas to be disturbed,locations of cut/fill and soil storage/disposal areas;areas with existing vegetation to be protected;existing and proposed drainage patterns and structures; watercourse or sensitive areas on-site or immediately downstream of a project; and designated construction access routes,staging areas and washout areas;41)that the erosion and sedimentation control plans should include notes, specifications, and/or attachments describing the construction operation and maintenance of erosion and sediment control measures, including inspection frequency; methods and schedule for grading, excavation, filling clearing of vegetative cover and mulch, including methods and schedules for planting and fertilization;and provisions for temporary and permanent irrigation;42)that all runoff created during construction and future discharge from the site shall be required to meet the applicable San Mateo County Storm water Pollution Prevention Program Best Management Practices for surface water runoff and Storm Drain maintenance; 43) that all runoff in the parking lot, including runoff from the landscaped areas,shall be filtered to remove oil and grease prior to discharge by a method approved by the City Engineer and such facilities shall be installed and maintained by the property -� owner, failure to maintain such filters and facilities in working conditions shall cause this conditional use permit to be called up for review,all costs for the annual or more frequent inspection and enforcement of this condition shall be paid for by this project's property owner; 44) that the phrase "No Dumping-Drains To 14 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 24, 2006 Bay"shall be labeled on new storm drain inlets by stenciling,branding,plaguing or casting;45)that grading shall be done so that impacts from erosion and runoff into the storm drain will be minimal; 46)that each storm water inlet on the site shall be equipped with a sand/oil separator; all sand/oil separators shall be inspected and serviced on a regular basis,and immediately following periods of heavy rainfall,to ascertain the conditions of the chambers; maintenance records shall be kept on-site and maintenance shall be as directed by the City;47)that drainage from paved surfaces,including parking lots,driveways and roofs shall be routed to storm water inlets equipped with sand/oil-separators and/or fossil filters,then the water shall be discharged into the storm drain system;the property owners shall be responsible for inspecting and cleaning (vacuuming out) sand/oil separators and changing fossil filters on a regular basis as well as immediately prior to,and once during,the rainy season(October 15—April 1)and as directed by the City;48)that off-site runoff shall be diverted around the construction site and all on-site runoff shall be diverted around exposed construction areas;49)that trash enclosures and dumpster areas shall be covered and protected from roof and surface drainage and that if water cannot be diverted from these areas,a self-contained drainage system shall be provided that discharges to an interceptor; 50)that no vehicles or equipment shall be washed, cleaned, fueled or maintained on-site;51)that methods and procedures such as sediment basins or traps,earthen dikes or berms, silt fences, straw bale dikes, check dams storm drain inlet protection soil blanket or mats, and covers for soil stock piles to stabilize denuded areas shall be installed during construction to maintain temporary erosion controls and sediment control continuously until permanent erosion controls have been established; 52) that the site shall be sprayed with water to control dust during grading and construction. Construction equipment emissions shall be in compliance with the standards of the Bay Area Air Quality Management District; 53) that a construction fence, including a impermeable fabric/material, shall be required around the site during construction to keep all construction debris on site; 54)that if any trenching is proposed on the site, the applicant shall contact the San Mateo County Health Department; if any contaminated soil is encountered,the applicant shall follow County protocol for its disposal;and 55)that if any prehistoric or historic archeological relics are discovered during grading and construction,all work shall be halted until the finding can be fully investigated and proper protection measures, as determined by qualified experts, can be implemented. The motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve the condominium permit and amendment to the conditional use permit for floor area. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). C. Vistica moved to recommended approval of the Tentative Condominium Map to the City Council. The motion was seconded by C. Deal. C. Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to recommend the Tentative Condominium Map to the City Council for actions, including the conditions of approval. The motion passed in a 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent) voice vote. Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 9:35 p.m. 11. 1299 BAYSHORE HWY, ZONED IB — APPLICATION FOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, PARKING VARIANCE, REAR SETBACK VARIANCE FOR GARBAGE CONTAINER AND LANDSCAPE VARIANCES TO CONVERT EXISTING OFFICE SPACE TO A TABLE TENNIS CLUB (PHILIP ZHOU,APPLICANT;PETER LAM,ARCHITECT;CINDY TSAI,UNITED ASSOCIATES INV., INC., PROPERTY OWNER) (9 NOTICED)PROJECT PLANNER: ERICA STROHMEIER Reference staff report April 24,2006 with attachments. CP Monroe presented the report,reviewed criteria and staff comments. Fifty-five conditions were suggested for consideration. Commission asked if CalTrans �-- took away the parking would the applicant need a variance for more parking spaces. Staff replied that yes, 15 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 24, 2006 the parking variance would increase. Commission asked if there is a prior lease agreement for the parking between CalTrans and the building owner. CA Anderson stated that we do not know for sure,but probably �— with the building owner,not tenants. Commission noted that there could be a fence at the southern property line if there is no lease with CalTrans. There were no further questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public hearing. Peter Lam, project architect, 848 Folsom Street, San Francisco, Julie Ou,project applicant,and Pat Giorni, 1445 Balboa Avenue,Burlingame,had the following comments: noted that most of the variances are caused by the zoning change in this area. This is a family business proposed for table tennis. They tried to contact CalTrans regarding the parking.They were told that there are no CalTrans plans for that location for the next 10 to 20 years. They are not proposing to change the parking spaces, they will be operating during off hours, and will have less of a parking impact than the previous tenant;grew up in China and started playing table tennis at 8 years old,then went to a professional school at 15 years old and trained intensively. Came to the US at 20 years old and played for the United States national team. Have dreamed of opening up own sports club for years. Have been looking for the right location for a year, and then found this site. Not enough parking on the site, so need a variance but the busiest time for the club will be after work when the offices are closed. The club will be for members only and there will be no tournaments. The lease is only for three years. Want this opportunity to share table tennis with the community; if this is at the Broadway interchange then it will all disappear when CalTrans does the new overpass, it is only a 3-year lease,why do the tenants need to do the landscaping. There were no further comments from the floor. The public hearing was closed. Commission discussion: project is short on landscaping,but seems like there are a lot of opportunities to add some;use is less intense than office use,have used the CalTrans lot for a long time,can add conditions that if CalTrans puts up a fence then the Planning Commission needs to review again;no problem with use, it is an existing building just a change in use; would like to see the five proposed 24 inch box Monterey Cypress replaced with five 24 inch Hollywood Juniper; frustrated that land owner is not here,tenant has to apply for parking variance then it is a benefit to the building owner. C.Deal moved to approve the application,by resolution,with the following amended conditions: l)that the project shall be built as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Department and date stamped April 12,2006, sheets PA-1 and PA-3,date stamped March 27,2006,sheet LA-1 and date stamped February 28, 2006, sheet PA-2; and that there shall be no organized table tennis tournaments on the site; 2) that demolition or removal of any existing walls 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; 3) that the existing and proposed landscaping shall be installed as shown on the Landscape Plan,date stamped April 12,2006,except that instead of the proposed five 24 inch box Monterey Cypress there shall be five 24 inch box Hollywood Juniper installed and that all areas of landscaping shall be irrigated by an automatic sprinkler system on a timer and shall be maintained by the property owner in good operating condition at all times;4)that the table tennis club shall only be open seven days a week from 10:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., with a maximum of 3 full-time employees and a maximum of 33 people on-site at any one time, including the owner, employees and customers; that any changes to the floor area,use,hours of operation,or number of employees or people on-site which exceeds the maximums as stated in these conditions shall require an amendment to this conditional use permit; 5) that the operator of the table tennis club shall include directions about how to access the site in all advertising and in all communications to members; 6)that there shall be no gambling or wagering on this -� business premise and no alcoholic beverages shall be served,stored in lockers for private use,or sold on the site;7)that the table tennis club shall be limited to a lobby and office area(762 SF),and table tennis activity area (2,596 SF); that outdoor areas shall not be used for any activities associated with the table tennis 16 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 24, 2006 business; 8) that the variances for on-site parking spaces, setback to garbage container, total on-site landscaping, front setback landscaping,parking area landscaping and parking areas within 15' of Bayshore Highway shall expire with the termination of the conditional use permit for the table tennis club; shall be reviewed with any amendment to the conditional use permit granted to the table tennis club;and shall expire should the building on the site be deliberately demolished or destroyed by a natural catastrophe or disaster or should a major remodel of the building be proposed; 9)that the conditions of the Chief Building Official's March 30,2006 and November 29,2005,memos,the Recycling Specialist's November 28,2005 memo,and the Fire Marshal's November 29, 2005 memo shall be met; 10) 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; 11)that if the CalTrans parking to the south of the subject property shall become unavailable in any way including restrictive fencing between 1299 Bayshore and the CalTrans area the parking variance and this use shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission; and 12)that the approval for the parking variance for this location shall be for the proposed table tennis club use as defined in the application dated November 23, 2005. The motion was seconded by C. Brownrigg. Chair Auran called for a voice vote on the motion to approve with the amended conditions. The motion passed on a 6-0-1 (C.Cauchi absent). Appeal procedures were advised. This item concluded at 10:02 p.m. IX. DESIGN REVIEW STUDY ITEMS 12. 1625 HOWARD AVENUE,ZONED R-1—APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW,SPECIAL PERMIT FOR DECLINING HEIGHT ENVELOPE AND PARKING VARIANCE FOR A SECOND STORY ADDITION (MATT MEFFORD, TRG ARCHITECTS, APPLICANT AND ARCHITECT; DAN AND EILEEN CONWAY, PROPERTY OWNERS (60 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Randy Grange,project architect,205 Park Road,Burlingame,Pat Giomi, 1445 Balboa, Burlingame, and Dan Conway, property owner, 1625 Howard Avenue, had the following comments: complicated roof structure,qualify for the declining height envelope exception, the garage is existing,built to side property line,and too short,if extend length then would trigger side setback variance;hard to get away from parking variance;five bedroom house-could open up wall to den so the den doesn't count as a bedroom; driveway is 35' long and they park two cars in driveway now; beautiful remodel, Howard Avenue is wide and can accommodate a lot of cars and two cars can be parked in the driveway,so parking variance should not have a big impact on the street;use the existing garage for parking a Saab 93,only store car cleaning supplies and bucket in the garage,the garage is not used for bulky storage. There were no other comments from the floor and the public hearing was closed. The Planning Commission had the following comments: looks great, a lot of little components that are tricky, need a good roof framer; concerned that there is no parking now, and then there will still be no parking when it is finished,can garage be demolished and a new garage constructed;project architect replied that it cannot be done without a variance; can't really make garage conforming without tearing down, because of the historic nature of the house, it would be a loss; if owner can get a car in the garage now, would like to see project go through without changes to the existing garage.There were no further comments from the public. 17 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 24, 2006 Chair Auran made a motion to place this item on the consent calendar. This motion was seconded by C. Osterling. Comment on motion: CA Anderson told the Planning Commission that a condition can be added to the approval that states that if the house is demolished the parking variance goes away. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the consent calendar. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:20 p.m. 13. 37 STANLEY ROAD, ZONED R-1 — APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW FOR A FIRST AND SECOND STORY ADDITION (FRED STRATHDEE, F.R. STRATHDEE ARCHITECTURE, ARCHITECT; DON AND LORRI MCCARTHY, PROPERTY OWNERS (70 NOTICED) PROJECT PLANNER: CATHERINE BARBER Plr. Barber briefly presented the project description. There were no questions of staff. Chair Auran opened the public comment. Fred Strathdee,project architect, 147 Leslie Drive, San Carlos, was available to answer questions. There were no other comments from the floor and the public comment was closed. • The Planning Commission had the following comments and concerns with the project: • Is house designed to be a Tudor? Looks like the evolution is not complete; • consider adding skylight in shower area;architect notes that he is trying to match the existing design of the house, yet the roof pitch is much taller on the new design; • existing character of the house is nice, new is not the same style; • inconsistencies on drawings: 1)on floor plans wall near the laundry and stairs wall is shown as existing but appears to be new 2)on the front elevation the open porch is not shown in proportion to what is out there,so if it is new need to clarify that; 3)balustrade is shown one way on the existing plans, but is different when viewed at the site; 4)left elevation shows an opening in the porch,is that new? need to label;plans need to clarify what is existing and what is new; 5)on the right elevation there is a projection on the first floor,but the roof goes straight across, very little eave or maybe it is drawn incorrectly; • looks like a whole new house,but any house any where,need to add more character through out the design, can follow the character of the existing house and it would be a nice addition, better off keeping with the existing design; • back doesn't work,need to work on massing and detailing; • need to bring character to the side elevations; • would like to see the driveway and patio material changed from the concrete proposed to a permeable pavers to allow recharge of groundwater;o.k.with the style,appreciate that the project is not at the maximum FAR; • no problem with the direction of the design,plans should call out window type, either true divided lite windows, or simulated true divided lite windows; • drawing glitch,bedroom#2 on the left elevation has sloping roof to meet the wall,need to add roof to meet, call out area where downspouts are located; 18 City of Burlingame Planning Commission Unapproved Minutes April 24, 2006, • are the leader heads, downspouts and chimney cap copper? Label accordingly; • need larger scale trees and shrubs,plants noted on sheet L.1 are anchor plans with a good variety,but need larger plants to visually screen the house; • consider pushing garage back from property line,if only one foot from property line it is difficult to get to for maintenance,recommend setting two feet off of rear property line for easier access; as an alternative, can also place garage on property line if you have a survey; • consider reducing to only a one car garage(that is all that is required by code for this house)would create more yard space; • materials need to be called out on all the elevations. C. Osterling made a motion to place this item on the regular action calendar at a time when the requested changes have been made and plan checked. This motion was seconded by C. Terrones. Chair Auran called for a vote on the motion to place this item on the regular action calendar when plans had been revised as directed. The motion passed on a voice vote 6-0-1 (C. Cauchi absent). The Planning Commission's action is advisory and not appealable. This item concluded at 10:40 p.m. X. PLANNER REPORTS - CP Monroe reviewed the actions of the Council meeting of April 17, 2006. CP Monroe noted that the City Council approved the Anza Point North zoning regulations and they will become effective May 17,2006. C. Osterling suggested that the commission consider allowing applicants to use one-half sized plans and that the Neighborhood Consistency Subcommittee considers the issue of required setbacks from property line for detached garages.Have seen three substantial problems which arose because of neighbors being unable to access the portions of their garages within one foot of property line. �.. Need to have a direction. -FYI: Temporary change in hours of construction for Peninsula Hospital Replacement Project. CP Monroe noted that this letter outlines the applicant's reasons for wanting the construction hours extended for a temporary time, to catch up because of the unexpected rains in March and April. She noted the procedure was that the City Council would have to amend the Municipal Code first,and then the Planning Commission could consider an amendment to the conditions of approval to allow a temporary extension of construction hours within stated limits. If the Council does not adopt the amendment to the Municipal Code section, the applicant may still ask the Commission for an amendment to the conditions of approval for a temporary extension of construction hours within current code limitations. The reason for this is that the construction hours allowed in the current condition of approval are less than the construction hours presently allowed in the Municipal Code. This item will be on the Planning Commission's agenda for public hearing on May 8, 2006. -FYI: 1316 Paloma Avenue—change to approved design review project. Commission had no issues with the requested change to the design of the project at 1316 Paloma Avenue. X1. ADJOURNMENT Chair Auran adjourned the meeting at 10:50 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jerry Deal, Secretary 19 BURLINGAME CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AF April 20, 2006 Mayor Cathy Baylock Vice Mayor Terry Nagel Council Members: Russ Cohen, Ann Keighran and Rosalie O'Mahony City of Burlingame 501 Primrose Road Burlingame, CA 94010 Dear Mayor Baylock and Council Members: The Burlingame Chamber of Commerce has reviewed the North end zoning changes which allow for high density mixed use and 40 to 50 units per acre. It is our understanding that the actual code to implement the direction articulated by the North End Specific Area Plan is being addressed in two phases. The first is addressing the Rollins Road area and the second one will be focusing on the north end area near Peninsula Hospital. The zoning changes called for in the specific area plans for both sub area as beneficial for Burlingame businesses in the following ways: • A larger consumer base for Burlingame Plaza and east side north end El Camino businesses, as well as the Broadway retail area. • Much needed high density new housing. • New housing near a transportation corridor. • Encourages eventual mixed use redevelopment of the Burlingame Plaza Shopping Center bringing retail faces to the front of the property. • Continues a blend of office warehouse and light manufacturing uses that is key to supporting the adjacent regional airport, as well as providing for uses that are best separated from residential properties. Thank you for the opportunity to reinforce the benefits of these zoning changes. Sincerely Davi Lewin George aylor Chair CEO 290 California Drive Burlingame, CA 94010 • 650.344.1735 Fax 650.344.1763 e-mail: info@burlingamechamber.org • www.burlingamechamber.org